wnd--2020-09-28--Want to commit national suicide? Ignore immigration

Conservative intellectuals do n't particularly like discussing immigration .
It 's uncomfortable , after all , to say `` no '' to millions of poor Mexicans and Salvadorans pining to live the American dream so many of our ancestors enjoyed .
Yet , the fact is that unless Republicans stanch the flow of immigrants to this country – both illegal and legal – the America bequeathed to us by our forebears will disintegrate before our eyes .
Consider : When I came of age – a mere 20 years ago – Virginia , Nevada and Colorado were all red states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won each of these states by a whopping 25 points .
Today , they all lean blue .
No Republican presidential candidate has carried any of them since 2004 .
Other reliably conservative states like Arizona and North Carolina barely go Republican today .
Even Texas – once the `` capital of cowboy territory '' – can no longer be taken for granted .
Beto O'Rourke lost his senatorial race against Ted Cruz there by a mere 2 percentage points in 2018 .
Two !
TRENDING : Alleged attacker behind carnage at pro-Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group So what happened over the last few decades ?
Have Democrats convinced voters that their ideas are superior to Republican ideas ?
Has the liberal educational establishment finally succeeded in turning Americans against the Judeo-Christian tradition ?
No .
What happened is immigration .
Starting approximately 30 years ago , immigrants began crossing our border in ever-increasing numbers and brought their left-leaning voting habits with them .
The result ?
Red states turned purple – and then blue .
California is a perfect example .
No Republican presidential candidate other than Barry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1988 .
Today , however , thanks to a massive influx of Hispanics to California , a Republican presidential candidate is lucky if he breaks 35 percent there .
And Arizona and Texas will soon go the way of California if current trends hold .
That 's not alarmism .
That 's simply what the statistics show .
Why do so many immigrants vote Democrat ?
To some extent , they do so because dishonest politicians and media outlets tell them Democrats support the `` little guy '' while Republicans favor the heartless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the story .
The other part is that most immigrants hail from countries that champion big government or – at the very least – have no history of favoring small government .
A decade ago , the Pew Research Center asked Americans if they prefer a bigger government offering more services or a smaller one offering fewer services .
Although 41 % of Americans overall wanted a smaller government , 75 % of Hispanic Americans – and Hispanics comprise America 's most electorally significant immigrant population – favored a bigger government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a smaller government , while 81 % wanted a bigger government .
In short – to put the matter bluntly – three-quarters of Hispanics essentially do not subscribe to our Founding Fathers ' vision of individuals pursuing their own destiny with minimal interference from a central government .
( Western European immigrants presumably reject this vision , too , considering the popularity of `` social democracy '' on the Continent . )
If American public schools taught children the founding ideals of this republic , the situation would n't be so dire .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spirit of freedom and rugged individualism .
They could be taught , as Thomas Paine said , that `` government is at best a necessary evil '' – and that it therefore should be kept as small as possible .
They could be taught that America was founded on the radical premise that man is born free and that the individual – not government – is sovereign .
They could be taught that the founders took pride in America not resembling Europe .
But they are taught none of this .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thomas Jefferson were benighted bigots .
They are taught that racism and sexism undergird all of American history and that nothing that came before the legal recognition of gay marriage in 2015 is worth preserving .
With the school system we have – and the mainstream media , academia and Hollywood disseminating liberal ideology 24/7 – it 's a miracle half the country still votes Republican .
But that wo n't last long .
If we continue letting a million immigrants ( and numerous more illegal immigrants ) into this country every year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigrants are bad people , but because the overwhelming majority of them simply do n't share our founders ' values .
So while it may be more exciting for conservatives to debate the welfare state , abortion , school choice and Supreme Court jurisprudence , immigration is more important than all of them .
As conservative firebrand Ann Coulter has written , `` There 's no sense in arguing about any other political issue .
If we lose immigration , we lose everything . ''
It 's that simple .
Unless we stanch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party will die .
And with it , the Great American Experiment .
Elliot Resnick is the chief editor of The Jewish Press and the author , most recently , of `` Movers & Shakers , Vol .
2 : Sixty More Interviews on Everything From Judaism and Terrorism to Politics and Science . ''

By Elliot Resnick
Conservative intellectuals don't particularly like discussing immigration. It's uncomfortable, after all, to say "no" to millions of poor Mexicans and Salvadorans pining to live the American dream so many of our ancestors enjoyed.
Yet, the fact is that unless Republicans stanch the flow of immigrants to this country – both illegal and legal – the America bequeathed to us by our forebears will disintegrate before our eyes.
Consider: When I came of age – a mere 20 years ago – Virginia, Nevada and Colorado were all red states. In 1984, Ronald Reagan actually won each of these states by a whopping 25 points. Today, they all lean blue. No Republican presidential candidate has carried any of them since 2004.
Other reliably conservative states like Arizona and North Carolina barely go Republican today. Even Texas – once the "capital of cowboy territory" – can no longer be taken for granted. Beto O'Rourke lost his senatorial race against Ted Cruz there by a mere 2 percentage points in 2018. Two!
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
So what happened over the last few decades? Have Democrats convinced voters that their ideas are superior to Republican ideas? Has the liberal educational establishment finally succeeded in turning Americans against the Judeo-Christian tradition?
No. What happened is immigration. Starting approximately 30 years ago, immigrants began crossing our border in ever-increasing numbers and brought their left-leaning voting habits with them. The result? Red states turned purple – and then blue.
California is a perfect example. No Republican presidential candidate other than Barry Goldwater lost this state between 1952 and 1988. Today, however, thanks to a massive influx of Hispanics to California, a Republican presidential candidate is lucky if he breaks 35 percent there. And Arizona and Texas will soon go the way of California if current trends hold. That's not alarmism. That's simply what the statistics show.
Why do so many immigrants vote Democrat? To some extent, they do so because dishonest politicians and media outlets tell them Democrats support the "little guy" while Republicans favor the heartless rich. But that's only part of the story. The other part is that most immigrants hail from countries that champion big government or – at the very least – have no history of favoring small government.
A decade ago, the Pew Research Center asked Americans if they prefer a bigger government offering more services or a smaller one offering fewer services. Although 41% of Americans overall wanted a smaller government, 75% of Hispanic Americans – and Hispanics comprise America's most electorally significant immigrant population – favored a bigger government. Just 12% of first-generation Hispanics wanted a smaller government, while 81% wanted a bigger government.
In short – to put the matter bluntly – three-quarters of Hispanics essentially do not subscribe to our Founding Fathers' vision of individuals pursuing their own destiny with minimal interference from a central government. (Western European immigrants presumably reject this vision, too, considering the popularity of "social democracy" on the Continent.)
If American public schools taught children the founding ideals of this republic, the situation wouldn't be so dire. Impressionable young minds could be imbued with the spirit of freedom and rugged individualism. They could be taught, as Thomas Paine said, that "government is at best a necessary evil" – and that it therefore should be kept as small as possible. They could be taught that America was founded on the radical premise that man is born free and that the individual – not government – is sovereign. They could be taught that the founders took pride in America not resembling Europe.
But they are taught none of this. They are taught instead that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were benighted bigots. They are taught that racism and sexism undergird all of American history and that nothing that came before the legal recognition of gay marriage in 2015 is worth preserving.
With the school system we have – and the mainstream media, academia and Hollywood disseminating liberal ideology 24/7 – it's a miracle half the country still votes Republican. But that won't last long. If we continue letting a million immigrants (and numerous more illegal immigrants) into this country every year, Republicans are doomed. Not because immigrants are bad people, but because the overwhelming majority of them simply don't share our founders' values.
So while it may be more exciting for conservatives to debate the welfare state, abortion, school choice and Supreme Court jurisprudence, immigration is more important than all of them. As conservative firebrand Ann Coulter has written, "There's no sense in arguing about any other political issue. If we lose immigration, we lose everything."
It's that simple. Unless we stanch the immigrant flow soon, the Republican Party will die. And with it, the Great American Experiment.
Elliot Resnick is the chief editor of The Jewish Press and the author, most recently, of "Movers & Shakers, Vol. 2: Sixty More Interviews on Everything From Judaism and Terrorism to Politics and Science."


wnd--2020-09-30--Joe Biden's Texas director accused of filling in ballots for dead people

A lawsuit has been filed against the Joe Biden campaign 's Texas political director accusing him of running an illegal ballot harvesting operation , according to two separate affidavits filed Monday at the Texas Supreme Court .
Dallas Jones and his cohorts are hoarding mail-in and absentee ballots and ordering operatives to fill the ballots out for people illegally , including for dead people , homeless people and nursing home residents , two private investigators have testified under oath , according to National File .
The investigators , a former FBI agent and a former police officer , have testified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses to make their case .
National File 's Patrick Howley said the affidavits were filed as part of the class-action lawsuit by citizens against Harris County and the state of Texas .
TRENDING : With only days to go until debate , Pelosi gives Biden an out : 'Why bother ? '
Jones was named the Biden campaign 's Texas political director in early September .
Allegations of ballot harvesting in Minnesota have been in the news this week .
WND reported Tuesday an undercover video investigation by James O'Keefe 's Project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Omar , D-Minn. , as the mastermind behind a cash-for-ballots , voter-fraud scheme .
In an affidavit , retired Houston police officer Mark A. Aguirre said he is `` currently involved in an investigation related to a wide-ranging and fraudulent ballot harvesting scheme in Harris County intended to rig the elections in the Houston/Harris County area . ''
`` This scheme involves voter fraud on a massive scale , '' he wrote .
Aguirre said that based on interviews , a review of documents and other information he has identified Jones as part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , attest to Jones and others `` completing thousands of absentee and mail-in ballots , including completing ballots for deceased individuals ; illegally going into nursing homes , with the complicity of the nursing home staff , and filling out and forging the signatures of nursing home residents ; signing up homeless individuals to vote using the ballot harvester 's address then completing the ballot and forging the homeless individual 's signature . ''
Aguirre said the `` entire operation is being run by the elite politicians of the Democrat Party '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI agent Charles F. Marler said in an affidavit he formerly was an investigative specialist conducting undercover operations on espionage and terrorist targets .
He testified that in December 2019 , he was approached by two individuals who witnessed activity from an illegal ballot harvesting operation in Harris County and has been investigating since then .
He said `` a core group of names continued to surface regarding the organization and operation of the voter fraud scheme . ''
Witnesses have stated to him that Precinct 1 Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are leading the illegal ballot harvesting operation in Harris County .
`` Their chief lieutenants are Houston businessman Gerald Womack and political consultant Dallas Jones , who work directly under them in executing the ballot harvesting operation in Harris County , Texas , '' he wrote .
Two witnesses , Marler said , have stated to him that two employees of the Harris County Clerk 's Office `` are aware of the illegal ballots and help facilitate and mask the processing of the ballots into the legal stream of ballots . ''
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted became public , Harris County Clerk Diane Troutman resigned , alleging health concerns due to COVID-19 .
`` However , witnesses have told me that Ms. Troutman was arguing with Commission Rodney Ellis about the legality of the mass purchasing and mailing of mail-in ballots and that Troutman was concerned she would be included in the eventual arrest pertaining to illegal ballot harvesting , '' Marler said .
`` Instead of coming forward and exposing the scheme , Ms. Troutman abruptly resigned . ''
Witnesses , he said , have stated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to move forward with the plan to mass mail ballots and expand the illegal ballot harvesting scam . ''
Another witness said an employee of Ellis , Tyler James , has bragged that he could guarantee that the illegal ballot harvesting operation , with the help of mass mail-in ballots , could harvest 700,000 illegal ballots .
`` It appears that law enforcement agencies are currently investigating these alleged crimes and I will provide them with the evidence that I have already collected and am continuing to collect , '' he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , the law enforcement agencies will be working to prosecute te crimes well after the Nov. 3 election .
National File 's Howley said a GoFundMe page has been set up for the ongoing private investigation , which is working with law enforcement .
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton , Howley noted , recently announced 134 felony charges against four defendants stemming from an alleged 2018 Democratic primary scheme to use fake disabilities provide mail-in ballots to people who were not disabled .

A lawsuit has been filed against the Joe Biden campaign's Texas political director accusing him of running an illegal ballot harvesting operation, according to two separate affidavits filed Monday at the Texas Supreme Court.
Dallas Jones and his cohorts are hoarding mail-in and absentee ballots and ordering operatives to fill the ballots out for people illegally, including for dead people, homeless people and nursing home residents, two private investigators have testified under oath, according to National File.
The investigators, a former FBI agent and a former police officer, have testified they have video evidence, documentation and witnesses to make their case.
National File's Patrick Howley said the affidavits were filed as part of the class-action lawsuit by citizens against Harris County and the state of Texas.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Jones was named the Biden campaign's Texas political director in early September.
Allegations of ballot harvesting in Minnesota have been in the news this week. WND reported Tuesday an undercover video investigation by James O'Keefe's Project Veritas featured a source describing Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., as the mastermind behind a cash-for-ballots, voter-fraud scheme.
'Voter fraud on a massive scale'
In an affidavit, retired Houston police officer Mark A. Aguirre said he is "currently involved in an investigation related to a wide-ranging and fraudulent ballot harvesting scheme in Harris County intended to rig the elections in the Houston/Harris County area."
Is Biden's campaign actively engaging in voter fraud? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 99% (332 Votes) 1% (2 Votes)
"This scheme involves voter fraud on a massive scale," he wrote.
Aguirre said that based on interviews, a review of documents and other information he has identified Jones as part of the scheme.
Witnesses, he said, attest to Jones and others "completing thousands of absentee and mail-in ballots, including completing ballots for deceased individuals; illegally going into nursing homes, with the complicity of the nursing home staff, and filling out and forging the signatures of nursing home residents; signing up homeless individuals to vote using the ballot harvester's address then completing the ballot and forging the homeless individual's signature."
Aguirre said the "entire operation is being run by the elite politicians of the Democrat Party" in Houston and Harris County.
Former FBI agent Charles F. Marler said in an affidavit he formerly was an investigative specialist conducting undercover operations on espionage and terrorist targets.
He testified that in December 2019, he was approached by two individuals who witnessed activity from an illegal ballot harvesting operation in Harris County and has been investigating since then.
He said "a core group of names continued to surface regarding the organization and operation of the voter fraud scheme."
Witnesses have stated to him that Precinct 1 Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis and District 13 Texas State Senator Borris Miles are leading the illegal ballot harvesting operation in Harris County.
"Their chief lieutenants are Houston businessman Gerald Womack and political consultant Dallas Jones, who work directly under them in executing the ballot harvesting operation in Harris County, Texas," he wrote.
Two witnesses, Marler said, have stated to him that two employees of the Harris County Clerk's Office "are aware of the illegal ballots and help facilitate and mask the processing of the ballots into the legal stream of ballots."
In the spring, when several interviews he conducted became public, Harris County Clerk Diane Troutman resigned, alleging health concerns due to COVID-19.
"However, witnesses have told me that Ms. Troutman was arguing with Commission Rodney Ellis about the legality of the mass purchasing and mailing of mail-in ballots and that Troutman was concerned she would be included in the eventual arrest pertaining to illegal ballot harvesting," Marler said.
"Instead of coming forward and exposing the scheme, Ms. Troutman abruptly resigned."
Witnesses, he said, have stated that Ellis "was not deterred and continued to move forward with the plan to mass mail ballots and expand the illegal ballot harvesting scam."
Another witness said an employee of Ellis, Tyler James, has bragged that he could guarantee that the illegal ballot harvesting operation, with the help of mass mail-in ballots, could harvest 700,000 illegal ballots.
"It appears that law enforcement agencies are currently investigating these alleged crimes and I will provide them with the evidence that I have already collected and am continuing to collect," he said.
But, "sadly," he said, the law enforcement agencies will be working to prosecute te crimes well after the Nov. 3 election.
National File's Howley said a GoFundMe page has been set up for the ongoing private investigation, which is working with law enforcement.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Howley noted, recently announced 134 felony charges against four defendants stemming from an alleged 2018 Democratic primary scheme to use fake disabilities provide mail-in ballots to people who were not disabled.


wnd--2020-09-29--Dr. Scott Atlas scorches Fauci, CDC director after their attacks

The new White House coronavirus adviser , Dr. Scott Atlas , responded to reports Monday of criticism from CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield and Dr. Anthony Fauci .
An NBC News employee reported overhearing Redfield say on a flight , `` Everthing [ Atlas ] says is false . ''
Fauci , meanwhile , charged in a CNN interview on Monday that Atlas is peddling `` incorrect '' information about masks , COVID 's effect on young people and herd immunity .
Atlas had a chance to respond in an interview Monday night with Fox News ' Laura Ingraham .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegitimizing the president and feeding into a false narrative that the president does n't listen to the science or the scientists . ''
TRENDING : With only days to go until debate , Pelosi gives Biden an out : 'Why bother ? '
`` I was called in because I can translate the medical science into public policy , '' Atlas said .
`` I advise the president to do everything he can to protect the vulnerable , to open schools and open society and to make sure hospitals are not overcrowded .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ right policy , '' he said .
`` It may not be the policy that everyone agrees with , but it happens to be the exactly the policy in concert with many of the world 's leading epidemiologists and infectious disease people . ''
Atlas is a senior fellow at Stanford University 's Hoover Institution and a former professor and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center .
The president listens to a lot of people , Atlas told Ingraham , and `` he understands in a very common-sense way what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save American lives . ''
Atlas said he did n't take the job `` to make friends . ''
`` I mean there are people who say what I 've said , which is vulnerable people protection and save lives by also opening up society safely , '' he said .
`` There are other experts that say things like , 'No you shouldn ’ t wear masks , ' to 'Yes you should wear masks , ' to , 'Hey , a mask is better than a vaccine ! '
'' he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or , some other expert might say , 'No you shouldn ’ t wear masks , ' and then change it to , 'Yes , you should wear masks , ' and then change it to , 'Oh , everyone should wear goggles , ' '' said Atlas , referring to Fauci .
`` You 're not going to hear me say that , '' said Atlas , `` but the president has a choice of experts to listen to . ''

The new White House coronavirus adviser, Dr. Scott Atlas, responded to reports Monday of criticism from CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield and Dr. Anthony Fauci.
An NBC News employee reported overhearing Redfield say on a flight, "Everthing [Atlas] says is false." Fauci, meanwhile, charged in a CNN interview on Monday that Atlas is peddling "incorrect" information about masks, COVID's effect on young people and herd immunity.
Atlas had a chance to respond in an interview Monday night with Fox News' Laura Ingraham.
He said "it's all about delegitimizing the president and feeding into a false narrative that the president doesn't listen to the science or the scientists."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"I was called in because I can translate the medical science into public policy," Atlas said. "I advise the president to do everything he can to protect the vulnerable, to open schools and open society and to make sure hospitals are not overcrowded.
"Of course, this is the right policy," he said. "It may not be the policy that everyone agrees with, but it happens to be the exactly the policy in concert with many of the world's leading epidemiologists and infectious disease people."
Atlas is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former professor and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.
Do you trust Dr. Scott Atlas more than Dr. Anthony Fauci? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 98% (764 Votes) 2% (15 Votes)
The president listens to a lot of people, Atlas told Ingraham, and "he understands in a very common-sense way what the science shows and what should be done save American lives."
Atlas said he didn't take the job "to make friends."
"I mean there are people who say what I've said, which is vulnerable people protection and save lives by also opening up society safely," he said.
"There are other experts that say things like, 'No you shouldn’t wear masks,' to 'Yes you should wear masks,' to, 'Hey, a mask is better than a vaccine!'" he said, referring to Redfield.
"Or, some other expert might say, 'No you shouldn’t wear masks,' and then change it to, 'Yes, you should wear masks,' and then change it to, 'Oh, everyone should wear goggles,'" said Atlas, referring to Fauci.
"You're not going to hear me say that," said Atlas, "but the president has a choice of experts to listen to."
See the interview:


wnd--2020-09-29--Whose dogma 'lives loudly'? That of the anti-Christian bigots

Should being an active Christian bar you from public service ?
Yes , say many pundits today .
It would seem that the left wants to impose a religious test to bar anyone who truly believes in Jesus from serving in government .
The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg left a vacancy on the Supreme Court .
In the days following her death , all of the candidates on President Trump 's shortlist to replace her were dedicated Christians , and the left once again bared their anti-Christian bigotry .
The Constitution says there can be no religious test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal level ( Article VI , clause 3 ) .
A famous incident in 2017 involved California Sen. Dianne Feinstein scorning Catholic Amy Coney Barrett ( who is now Trump 's nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy ) , at a Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing , for being too religious .
The senator said , `` I think whatever a religion is , it has its own dogma .
The law is totally different .
And I think in your case , professor , when you read your speeches , the conclusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loudly within you , and that 's of concern . ''
Washington Post writer Ron Charles recently criticized Judge Barrett because of her belief that a `` legal career is but a means to an end … and that end is building the Kingdom of God . ''
TRENDING : With only days to go until debate , Pelosi gives Biden an out : 'Why bother ? '
When George W. Bush , an outspoken Christian , was president , one of his biggest antagonists ( at least behind the scenes ) was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committed to a secular vision for America .
Soros has paid out billions of dollars to try and impose his godless vision on America .
With Bush 43 in mind , Soros said , `` The separation of church and state , the bedrock of our democracy , is clearly undermined by having a born-again president . ''
These are amazing statements .
Why not just hang out a sign on Constitution Avenue : `` Government Service Openings : Christians Need Not Apply '' ?
One man had the impertinence to hold a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , `` Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers , and it is the duty , as well as the privilege of interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers . ''
Oh my goodness .
Who was this backwoods rube ?
Did n't he know anything about the Constitution and about our nation 's sacred institutions – er , make that `` secular institutions '' ?
That quote was from Founding Father John Jay , one of the three authors of the Federalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writings in American history .
John Jay was appointed by President Washington to serve as the first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court .
I spoke recently with my friend Dr. Peter Lillback of the Providence Forum on the radio , and I mentioned the Dianne Feinstein quote to him .
He noted that we could turn it around and observe that Sen. Feinstein is also dogmatic .
But her dogma is one rooted in secularism .
Gary DeMar of American Vision puts it this way : `` The left hates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . '
'' Meanwhile , an honest reading of American history shows that faith – the Christian faith – was very important to most of the settlers and the founders of America : • This year we celebrate the 400th anniversary of the voyage of the Mayflower .
The Pilgrims said they were establishing their colony `` for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith . ''
• Rev .
John Winthrop , the leader of the Puritans who founded Boston and Harvard , said of their colony , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city upon a hill , '' providing a metaphor for the future nation that ultimately came from Jesus Himself .
• George Washington said , `` [ T ] rue religion affords to government its surest support . ''
• In his Inaugural Address , John Adams said , `` I feel it to be my duty to add , if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians , and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] Rather than prevent one from serving , being a devout Christian is an asset to one 's service in government , said our second president .
• Alexander Hamilton expressed his desire to create `` the Christian Constitutional Society , '' but his premature death scuttled his plans .
• Thomas Jefferson , certainly not as orthodox as most of the other founders , nonetheless said , `` Of all the systems of morality ancient or modern , which have come under my observation , none appear to me so pure as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to William Canby , Sept. 18 , 1813 ) .
The dogmatic anti-Christian bigots in our society are wrong in their notion that being a devout Christian should somehow disqualify you from public service .
The idea that there 's some sort of anti-Christian magnet over the threshold of government buildings does not comport with our history nor with our Constitution .

Should being an active Christian bar you from public service? Yes, say many pundits today. It would seem that the left wants to impose a religious test to bar anyone who truly believes in Jesus from serving in government.
The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg left a vacancy on the Supreme Court. In the days following her death, all of the candidates on President Trump's shortlist to replace her were dedicated Christians, and the left once again bared their anti-Christian bigotry.
The Constitution says there can be no religious test applied to those seeking office at the federal level (Article VI, clause 3).
A famous incident in 2017 involved California Sen. Dianne Feinstein scorning Catholic Amy Coney Barrett (who is now Trump's nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy), at a Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, for being too religious. The senator said, "I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern."
Washington Post writer Ron Charles recently criticized Judge Barrett because of her belief that a "legal career is but a means to an end … and that end is building the Kingdom of God."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
When George W. Bush, an outspoken Christian, was president, one of his biggest antagonists (at least behind the scenes) was George Soros. The billionaire venture-capitalist is committed to a secular vision for America. Soros has paid out billions of dollars to try and impose his godless vision on America. With Bush 43 in mind, Soros said, "The separation of church and state, the bedrock of our democracy, is clearly undermined by having a born-again president."
These are amazing statements. Why not just hang out a sign on Constitution Avenue: "Government Service Openings: Christians Need Not Apply"?
One man had the impertinence to hold a different opinion than these. He said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege of interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Oh my goodness. Who was this backwoods rube? Didn't he know anything about the Constitution and about our nation's sacred institutions – er, make that "secular institutions"? That quote was from Founding Father John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, perhaps the finest political science writings in American history. John Jay was appointed by President Washington to serve as the first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court.
I spoke recently with my friend Dr. Peter Lillback of the Providence Forum on the radio, and I mentioned the Dianne Feinstein quote to him. He noted that we could turn it around and observe that Sen. Feinstein is also dogmatic. But her dogma is one rooted in secularism.
Gary DeMar of American Vision puts it this way: "The left hates any 'dogma' that questions their 'dogma.'"
Meanwhile, an honest reading of American history shows that faith – the Christian faith – was very important to most of the settlers and the founders of America:
This year we celebrate the 400th anniversary of the voyage of the Mayflower. The Pilgrims said they were establishing their colony "for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith."
Rev. John Winthrop, the leader of the Puritans who founded Boston and Harvard, said of their colony, "For we shall be as a city upon a hill," providing a metaphor for the future nation that ultimately came from Jesus Himself.
George Washington said, "[T]rue religion affords to government its surest support."
In his Inaugural Address, John Adams said, "I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service …" [emphasis added] Rather than prevent one from serving, being a devout Christian is an asset to one's service in government, said our second president.
…" [emphasis added] Rather than prevent one from serving, being a devout Christian is an to one's service in government, said our second president. Alexander Hamilton expressed his desire to create "the Christian Constitutional Society," but his premature death scuttled his plans.
Thomas Jefferson, certainly not as orthodox as most of the other founders, nonetheless said, "Of all the systems of morality ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus." (Letter to William Canby, Sept. 18, 1813).
The dogmatic anti-Christian bigots in our society are wrong in their notion that being a devout Christian should somehow disqualify you from public service. The idea that there's some sort of anti-Christian magnet over the threshold of government buildings does not comport with our history nor with our Constitution.


wnd--2020-09-29--2 ways the GOP could prevent another Kavanaugh debacle

Now that Amy Coney Barrett has been nominated to the Supreme Court , the Republican Senate should declare and enforce a zero-tolerance policy concerning character assassination of the nominee .
It 's the least the Senate owes the American public after the spectacular debacle that was Brett Kavanaugh 's confirmation .
We the People all remember the Democrats ' baseless accusations , the parade of faux witnesses , the Democrats ' faux indignation , insults and lies .
We remember their witness protection schemes , their guilty until proven innocent approach , and all the rest .
We the People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing and we will not look kindly upon the Republican Senate if there is even the slightest hint that a similar spectacle is about to unfold .
But judging from the Twitterverse and mainstream propaganda networks , a repeat of the Kavanaugh debacle is exactly what is about to unfold in the Senate , because the repeat performance is already underway outside of the Senate .
And this is exactly why Senate Republicans must immediately implement a zero-tolerance policy toward these sorts of things .
We the People gave Republicans the votes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kavanaugh hearings we expect Republicans to use their votes accordingly .
They owe us .
If Republicans want to be shrewd about all of this , they could craft a Senate rule of zero-tolerance and force a vote .
They 'd put Democrats on record either supporting the tactics they used in the Kavanaugh hearings , or they would secure the public disavowal of the use of those tactics by each Democrat that votes in favor of the rule .
TRENDING : With only days to go until debate , Pelosi gives Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Regardless of the outcome of such a vote , Senate Republicans should publicly declare that a single violation ( zero tolerance ) will result in an immediate vote for confirmation .
No more debate , no more smears , no more character assassination , just a vote for confirmation that will in turn put an end to the proceedings .
It 's not like these hearings are going to change anyone 's vote in the Senate anyway .
Barrett is a well-known quantity from her 2017 confirmation hearings , and everyone knows that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that time that are going to magically be uncovered in hearings today and cause anyone in the Senate to change his or her vote .
In fact , she is such a known quantity , both We the People and the Senate would be best served by simply calling for a vote immediately .
Because not doing so will just result in Democrats trashing Barrett just like they trashed Kavanaugh .
So why even allow Democrats to speak ?
Why not just cut all of that off before it happens , and just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sadly , I expect Republicans will reject both an immediate vote and reject enforcing decorum and order .
And they will trot out variants of the same three capitulative arguments they 've always used .
First , Republicans will balk at forcing an immediate vote when Democrats claim such a vote is unfair .
It does n't matter to them that not a single Democrat will vote for Barrett , nor will they change their mind about their vote if hearings lasted an entire century .
Democrats want a public platform so they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are likely to go along so they wo n't be seen as being `` unfair . ''
Second , Republicans will buckle when Democrats argue that a zero-tolerance policy is unenforceable , since there is no way to concisely define what constitutes character assassination .
My reply to that utter nonsense is that everyone knows exactly what character assassination looks like , because We the People and the Senate saw it ad nauseam during the Kavanaugh hearings .
This means Republicans are in the enviable position of telling their Democratic colleagues , `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is at the time we deem that you did it '' and having full support of We the People , sans the Bolsheviks in the streets .
But Republicans will likely capitulate and agree that character assassination is too difficult to define and that calling Democrats out for doing it would be too `` mean-spirited . ''
But the ultimate Republican objection against such a stringent rule will come in the form of their age-old `` but what about when the tables are turned and they are in power ? ''
capitulation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats have already declared a scorched earth policy .
They 've threatened to impeach the president in an attempt to halt the confirmation .
They 're threatening to shut down the government by refusing to pass the upcoming funding bill .
They 're threatening to end the Senate filibuster .
They 've vowed to expand and pack the Supreme Court with radical judicial activists .
And now they 're threatening to impeach Attorney General William Barr .
And then there 's deploying rioters .
For Democrats , there is literally no damage too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pursuit of getting their way .
So , for Republicans to show any sort of restraint today under the guise of looking forward to some imaginary reciprocity is completely beyond irrational and insane .
In fact , one can make a very compelling argument that past episodes of such foolishness on the part of Republicans is precisely what has led to the postures we see in Democrats today .
So , Senate Republicans should either call for an immediate vote , arguing correctly that Barrett is a well-known quantity not requiring further scrutiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule of zero-tolerance concerning character assassination of the nominee and force Democrats to be on record with their votes – and then vow to immediately call for a vote upon even the slightest hint of a smear of the nominee 's character .
But Senate Republicans are signaling that total capitulation is their game plan .
Add in a little voluntary one-on-one inquisition from hostile mainstream propaganda outlets , and Republicans are close to being perfectly positioned to fold before the hearings even begin .
We the People gave Senate Republicans the votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it 's high time for them to put their big-boy and big-girl pants on and do their jobs .
It 's a debt they owe to the American people after the Kavanaugh debacle .
But history shows us that history usually repeats itself .
And my guess is that Senate Republicans will let this spin out of control at least as bad as they did the Kavanaugh hearings .
Hopefully , I 'm wrong , but I 'm going with history on this one .

Now that Amy Coney Barrett has been nominated to the Supreme Court, the Republican Senate should declare and enforce a zero-tolerance policy concerning character assassination of the nominee. It's the least the Senate owes the American public after the spectacular debacle that was Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation.
We the People all remember the Democrats' baseless accusations, the parade of faux witnesses, the Democrats' faux indignation, insults and lies. We remember their witness protection schemes, their guilty until proven innocent approach, and all the rest. We the People have had enough of that sort of thing and we will not look kindly upon the Republican Senate if there is even the slightest hint that a similar spectacle is about to unfold.
But judging from the Twitterverse and mainstream propaganda networks, a repeat of the Kavanaugh debacle is exactly what is about to unfold in the Senate, because the repeat performance is already underway outside of the Senate.
And this is exactly why Senate Republicans must immediately implement a zero-tolerance policy toward these sorts of things. We the People gave Republicans the votes to deal with this, and after the Kavanaugh hearings we expect Republicans to use their votes accordingly. They owe us.
If Republicans want to be shrewd about all of this, they could craft a Senate rule of zero-tolerance and force a vote. They'd put Democrats on record either supporting the tactics they used in the Kavanaugh hearings, or they would secure the public disavowal of the use of those tactics by each Democrat that votes in favor of the rule.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Regardless of the outcome of such a vote, Senate Republicans should publicly declare that a single violation (zero tolerance) will result in an immediate vote for confirmation. No more debate, no more smears, no more character assassination, just a vote for confirmation that will in turn put an end to the proceedings.
It's not like these hearings are going to change anyone's vote in the Senate anyway. Barrett is a well-known quantity from her 2017 confirmation hearings, and everyone knows that she hasn't made any rulings since that time that are going to magically be uncovered in hearings today and cause anyone in the Senate to change his or her vote.
In fact, she is such a known quantity, both We the People and the Senate would be best served by simply calling for a vote immediately. Because not doing so will just result in Democrats trashing Barrett just like they trashed Kavanaugh. So why even allow Democrats to speak? Why not just cut all of that off before it happens, and just vote and be done with it?
Sadly, I expect Republicans will reject both an immediate vote and reject enforcing decorum and order. And they will trot out variants of the same three capitulative arguments they've always used.
First, Republicans will balk at forcing an immediate vote when Democrats claim such a vote is unfair. It doesn't matter to them that not a single Democrat will vote for Barrett, nor will they change their mind about their vote if hearings lasted an entire century. Democrats want a public platform so they can trash this lady, and Republicans are likely to go along so they won't be seen as being "unfair."
Second, Republicans will buckle when Democrats argue that a zero-tolerance policy is unenforceable, since there is no way to concisely define what constitutes character assassination. My reply to that utter nonsense is that everyone knows exactly what character assassination looks like, because We the People and the Senate saw it ad nauseam during the Kavanaugh hearings.
This means Republicans are in the enviable position of telling their Democratic colleagues, "character assassination is whatever we say it is at the time we deem that you did it" and having full support of We the People, sans the Bolsheviks in the streets. But Republicans will likely capitulate and agree that character assassination is too difficult to define and that calling Democrats out for doing it would be too "mean-spirited."
But the ultimate Republican objection against such a stringent rule will come in the form of their age-old "but what about when the tables are turned and they are in power?" capitulation, er, argument.
Never mind that Democrats have already declared a scorched earth policy. They've threatened to impeach the president in an attempt to halt the confirmation. They're threatening to shut down the government by refusing to pass the upcoming funding bill. They're threatening to end the Senate filibuster. They've vowed to expand and pack the Supreme Court with radical judicial activists. And now they're threatening to impeach Attorney General William Barr. And then there's deploying rioters. For Democrats, there is literally no damage too great to inflict upon the nation in pursuit of getting their way.
So, for Republicans to show any sort of restraint today under the guise of looking forward to some imaginary reciprocity is completely beyond irrational and insane. In fact, one can make a very compelling argument that past episodes of such foolishness on the part of Republicans is precisely what has led to the postures we see in Democrats today.
So, Senate Republicans should either call for an immediate vote, arguing correctly that Barrett is a well-known quantity not requiring further scrutiny, or Republicans should craft a Senate rule of zero-tolerance concerning character assassination of the nominee and force Democrats to be on record with their votes – and then vow to immediately call for a vote upon even the slightest hint of a smear of the nominee's character.
But Senate Republicans are signaling that total capitulation is their game plan. Add in a little voluntary one-on-one inquisition from hostile mainstream propaganda outlets, and Republicans are close to being perfectly positioned to fold before the hearings even begin.
We the People gave Senate Republicans the votes to deal with this situation, so it's high time for them to put their big-boy and big-girl pants on and do their jobs. It's a debt they owe to the American people after the Kavanaugh debacle.
But history shows us that history usually repeats itself. And my guess is that Senate Republicans will let this spin out of control at least as bad as they did the Kavanaugh hearings. Hopefully, I'm wrong, but I'm going with history on this one.


wnd--2020-09-29--What has caused Trump to lose black support?

President Donald Trump just rolled out his new `` Black Economic Empowerment Platinum Plan . ''
The plan focuses on building on his achievements since 2016 to improve the lives of black Americans by creating more opportunity to participate in a growing economy and to achieve greater security in life and property .
A poll by The Hill and HarrisX released almost a month ago , after the Republican convention , showed approval for Trump surging among blacks , to 24 % – triple the 8 % he got in the 2016 election .
A recent Washington Post/ABC poll and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show the president at 9 % and 5 % black support , respectively .
If indeed the post-convention surge in support from blacks is eroding , it 's important to think about why it is happening .
TRENDING : With only days to go until debate , Pelosi gives Biden an out : 'Why bother ? '
The Census Bureau just published an annual report called `` Income and Poverty in the United States : 2019 . ''
The data show substantial economic gains among black Americans that would very much justify strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Among the data reported is annual gains in real median income for all U.S. households , and for black households in particular , from 1967 to 2019 .
The average U.S. household median income increased 6.8 % from 2018 to 2019 , the largest increase in history .
However , the median black household income increased even more – 8 % , also the largest in history .
Furthermore , as American Enterprise Institute economist Mark Perry notes , the 8 % increase was `` almost nine times the average annual increase of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' The report also breaks out black households by defining them as low-income , middle-income or high-income .
Low-income is defined as $ 25,000 annual income or less , middle-income as $ 25,000 to $ 75,000 and high-income as above $ 75,000 .
In 2019 , per the Census Bureau , 29.4 % of black households were high-income , compared with 9.1 % in 1967 .
Forty-one percent of black households were categorized as middle-income in 2019 , compared with 46.4 % in 1967 , and 28.7 % were low-income in 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The defining landmark moment in 2019 was that , for the first time ever , the percentage of black households categorized as high-income , 29.4 % , exceeded the percentage of black households categorized as low-income , 28.7 % .
The percentage of high-income black households in 2019 was over three times that of 1967 .
If black support is not strengthening with news like this , and is possibly even weakening , what is a possible explanation ?
One possibility is the aggressive and very well-funded disinformation campaigns the left disseminates into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and manufacturing bad news .
I wrote a few weeks ago about a campaign initiated by my organization , the Center for Urban Renewal and Education , to disseminate into black inner cities via billboards the message that the way out of poverty is finishing school , taking any job and getting married .
As I reported , Black Lives Matter in Milwaukee immediately protested and got the billboard company , Clear Channel Outdoor , to take down the billboards .
Economist Perry examined the new Census Bureau data and checked the characteristics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summary : `` ( I ) ndividuals in high-income households are far more likely than individuals in low-income households to be well-educated , married , working full-time , and in their prime earning years .
In contrast , individuals in lower-income households are far more likely … to be less-educated , working part-time … and living in single-parent or single households . ''
The Census Bureau data bears out to the letter the truth about escaping poverty that my organization had posted in black neighborhoods and Black Lives Matter had dismantled .
Similarly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities by the current administration are suppressed and drowned out by systematic left-wing propaganda .
Unfortunately , real progress and real answers are not enough .
The good news must be aggressively communicated inside black communities .
Prodigiously funded left-wing propaganda into black communities must be addressed .

President Donald Trump just rolled out his new "Black Economic Empowerment Platinum Plan."
The plan focuses on building on his achievements since 2016 to improve the lives of black Americans by creating more opportunity to participate in a growing economy and to achieve greater security in life and property.
A poll by The Hill and HarrisX released almost a month ago, after the Republican convention, showed approval for Trump surging among blacks, to 24% – triple the 8% he got in the 2016 election.
A recent Washington Post/ABC poll and a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll show the president at 9% and 5% black support, respectively.
If indeed the post-convention surge in support from blacks is eroding, it's important to think about why that might be happening.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The Census Bureau just published its annual report called "Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019." The data show substantial economic gains among black Americans that would very much justify strong new black support for the president.
Among the data reported is annual gains in real median income for all U.S. households, and for black households in particular, from 1967 to 2019.
The average U.S. household median income increased 6.8% from 2018 to 2019, the largest increase in history. However, the median black household income increased even more – 8%, also the largest in history.
Furthermore, as American Enterprise Institute economist Mark Perry notes, the 8% increase was "almost nine times the average annual increase of 0.90% over the last half-century."
The report also breaks out black households by defining them as low-income, middle-income or high-income. Low-income is defined as $25,000 annual income or less, middle-income as $25,000 to $75,000 and high-income as above $75,000.
In 2019, per the Census Bureau, 29.4% of black households were high-income, compared with 9.1% in 1967. Forty-one percent of black households were categorized as middle-income in 2019, compared with 46.4% in 1967, and 28.7% were low-income in 2019, compared with 44.5% in 1967.
The defining landmark moment in 2019 was that, for the first time ever, the percentage of black households categorized as high-income, 29.4%, exceeded the percentage of black households categorized as low-income, 28.7%. The percentage of high-income black households in 2019 was over three times that of 1967.
If black support is not strengthening with news like this, and is possibly even weakening, what is a possible explanation?
One possibility is the aggressive and very well-funded disinformation campaigns the left disseminates into black communities, shutting down good news and manufacturing bad news.
I wrote a few weeks ago about a campaign initiated by my organization, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, to disseminate into black inner cities via billboards the message that the way out of poverty is finishing school, taking any job and getting married.
As I reported, Black Lives Matter in Milwaukee immediately protested and got the billboard company, Clear Channel Outdoor, to take down the billboards.
Economist Perry examined the new Census Bureau data and checked the characteristics of high-income versus low-income families. His summary: "(I)ndividuals in high-income households are far more likely than individuals in low-income households to be well-educated, married, working full-time, and in their prime earning years. In contrast, individuals in lower-income households are far more likely … to be less-educated, working part-time … and living in single-parent or single households."
The Census Bureau data bears out to the letter the truth about escaping poverty that my organization had posted in black neighborhoods and Black Lives Matter had dismantled.
Similarly, the economic successes achieved in black communities by the current administration are suppressed and drowned out by systematic left-wing propaganda.
Unfortunately, real progress and real answers are not enough. The good news must be aggressively communicated inside black communities. Prodigiously funded left-wing propaganda into black communities must be addressed.


wnd--2020-09-29--The indictment of Anthony Fauci for his Big Lie

With a grand jury approach , the revealing of evidence herein shows that Dr. Anthony Fauci has deliberately ignored massive amounts of data showing that hydroxychloroquine is a safe , cheap and effective remedy for COVID-19 .
By ignoring his ethical responsibility as a physician to first do no harm , his behavior continues to cause preventable pain , suffering and death .
Evidence also vindicates what President Trump said and did early on to inform Americans about the benefits of hydroxychloroquine .
Mounting COVID-19 cases and deaths result from limitations on physicians using a safe , effective and low-cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies and data from other countries showing that HCQ really works to lower death rates and keep affected people from needing hospitalizations and expensive care .
Missing from discussions of hydroxychloroquine use is explicit acknowledgment that Anthony Fauci has used his considerable power and influence to block use of the drug and prevent physicians from using their best judgment .
The media have failed to connect two death-causing actions : 1 .
Some state governors forcing nursing homes to accept virus-infected elderly people ; and 2 .
Government preventing wide and early use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days to go until debate , Pelosi gives Biden an out : 'Why bother ? '
Nearly everyone seems afraid to openly condemn Fauci 's behavior and demand a reversal of his position on HCQ , which would also impact CDC and FDA .
He has made himself the king of virus medicine through constant media appearances far beyond what is normal for a medical researcher .
He is part of is a research organization , not a public health or drug approval agency .
As much a tyrant as a virus expert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his mistake .
We need public outrage against a leftist , media collusion that allows one man to block a lifesaving medicine .
In this vein , an Australian government official has recently condemned the ban on using HCQ : `` Health bureaucrats have 'violated the very first principle of the Hippocratic oath ' which is to 'do no harm . '
… and they must lift their bans .
Otherwise they are engaged in crimes against humanity , and they should be taken to the criminal court in The Hague . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ high levels of cases , hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19 .
But they have more reason to blame Fauci and his pandemic of lies about HCQ .
At the end of this article is a `` political '' solution .
It could make stockpiled HCQ broadly available .
As in a grand jury , this article cites many publications and detailed information demonstrating the proper and effective use of HCQ that has already saved millions of lives worldwide in this pandemic and could save millions more .
In sum , evidence shows that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either at home in the first few days after a positive test or after symptoms deemed signficant by a physician , or in the first days of hospitalization .
Also , evidence shows that HCQ should be taken along with zinc and an antibiotic , such as doxycycline .
Such a `` cocktail '' can stop the virus at its earliest stage before the very severe second stage .
The Economic Standard 's new white paper argues that `` HCQ has met the appropriate burden of proof and urges members of the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and regulatory agencies to stop politicizing the use of this medicine .
… opponents have deprived many tens of thousands of Americans of a potentially life-saving treatment . ''
But like other reports , the critical role of Fauci in blocking broad use of HCQ is missing .
A just released Italian study of 3,451 hospitalized patients found 30 % less mortality , better than that reported for the very costly remdesivir in hospitals , touted by Fauci .
An earlier , smaller Italian study found a 66 % reduction in death in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 8,075 hospitalized patients found a 65 % reduction .
Likewise , a recent study from Saudi Arabia found 43 % fewer hospitalizations and 45 % fewer ICU admissions .
For high-risk nursing home patients in Spain HCQ cut the risk of a bad outcome in half .
A large Henry Ford Hospital System study found a mortality rate for 2,541 patients of 13.5 % for HCQ alone , 20.1 % for HCQ plus azithromycin , and 26.4 % for neither .
A new analysis by R. Clinton Ohlers is title , `` Effectiveness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
An early widely publicized study concluded that HCQ was not effective in New York patients .
In truth : `` Survival rates for hospitalized patients who received the drug approached 85 % '' and `` with azithromycin the survival rate rose as high as 90 % . ''
Without either drug , `` survival fell to levels as low as 53 % . ''
Conclusion : `` a highly effective , inexpensive , and widely available treatment for COVID-19 is already in hand . ''
Similarly , Dr. Watanabe from Brazil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative conclusion .
For very early HCQ use , he found that `` reduction in symptomatic outcomes is 72 % after 0 days ( first day of infection ) , 48.9 % after 1 day and 29.3 % after 2 days '' – all compared to a placebo group .
Conclusion : `` Infected patients may have a large benefit if treated as early as possible . ''
Clearly , many media-hyped studies saying HCQ has no benefits are not credible .
Some medical journal papers were retracted .
An article by physician @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Morality Tale – A startling investigation into how a cheap , well-known drug became a political football in the midst of a pandemic . ''
Conclusion : `` Worldwide [ HCQ ] might save a million or more people before COVID is tamed . ''
Some studies were poorly designed .
In one case `` the patients were given the medication late – on average 16.6 days after the first symptoms . ''
Another important study is : `` Early treatment with hydroxychloroquine : a country-based analysis . ''
Critical conclusion : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of nations where HCQ has been made widely available ( the treatment group ) is about 74 % less than in those nations , including the U.S. , where it has not been made available ( the control group ) .
Many physicians and experts on viruses have published strong pro-HCQ articles , notably Dr. Harvey Risch from Yale University .
He has repeatedly argued for using HCQ as the standard outpatient therapy .
This article is for a general audience .
In a medical journal article , he warned against `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ die because we did not have the courage to act according to our rational calculations . ''
Experienced pro-HCQ front-line doctors have appeared on Fox News shows , including Dr. Stephen Smith , Dr , Marc Siegel ( whose 96-year-old father was saved with HCQ ) , Dr. Janette Nesheiwat , Dr. Mehmet Oz and Dr. Risch who noted , `` We 're basically fighting a propaganda war against the medical facts '' and that `` 75,000 to 100,000 lives will be saved '' if the national HCQ stockpile were used .
Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an early user of HCQ , on a recent radio show .
A new CDC publication reveals prescriptions for HCQ at retail stores ( not mail order ) .
In March through June this year there likely were 680,000 prescriptions for treating the virus .
After the government clamp down , prescriptions in May and June averaged 80,000 a month .
This limited use may help explain many reduced death rates .
And despite negative actions by some governments and the World Health Organization , the Sermo survey of physicians in 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being used for 22 % of patients outside hospitals , 21 % inside them and even 14 % in ICUs .
Dr. Fauci is only satisfied with randomized control trials ( RCTs ) .
This position has been sharply debunked , as has the assertion of negative health effects and that HCQ risks outweigh its benefits .
Thomas R. Frieden , former head of the CDC , concluded in 2017 : `` Despite their strengths , RCTs have substantial limitations . ''
He supported using many other kinds of data that now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Similarly , Norman Doidge observed : `` RCT is best understood as standing not for Randomized Control Trials , but rather 'Rigidly Constrained Thinking . '
in the current COVID-19 situation … we can not simply , as so many are insisting [ namely Fauci ] , rely only on the long-awaited RCTs to decide how to treat COVID-19 . ''
Importantly , hundreds of drugs have been approved without RCTs , including hydrocortisone , Lasix , tetanus vaccine , insulin , tetracycline , warfarin , heparin , prednisone , half of chemotherapy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HCQ for many diseases , such as malaria and lupus .
Another false criticism has recently been debunked : `` HCQ decreases cardiac events .
HCQ should not be restricted in COVID-19 patients out of fear of cardiac mortality . ''
Another study concluded : `` HCQ administration is safe for a short-term treatment for patients with COVID-19 … causing … no directly attributable arrhythmic deaths . ''
Dr. James Todaro concluded : `` It is highly unlikely that fatal cardiac cases are from hydroxychloroquine use .
It is far more likely that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrhythmias and cardiac injury during the hyperinflammation phase of severe cases of COVID-19 . ''
An article by Steven Hatfill , `` Why Is The Media Suppressing Information About Hydroxychloroquine 's Effectiveness Against COVID ? ''
noted , `` There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 infections . ''
It also highlights the early Fauci and FDA strategy that promoted use of HCQ for hospitalized patients ( when it was mostly too late ) rather than early outpatient use .
The Doidge article noted that for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduction in hospital deaths from use of HCQ , Fauci `` did n't seem excited . ''
The key question : `` Why should anyone facing a pandemic wish to discredit potentially lifesaving medications ? ''
The answer : The billions of dollars to be made from selling medications and vaccines .
Fauci has had a very close relationship with pharmaceutical companies and has patents for one of the leading vaccines being tested by Moderna .
In August three-front line physicians wrote a detailed open letter to Fauci making the medical case for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You are largely unchallenged in terms of your medical opinions .
You are the de facto COVID-19 Czar .
… Americans must not continue to die unnecessarily .
Adults must resume employment and our youth return to school .
Locking down America while awaiting an imperfect vaccine has done far more damage to Americans than the coronavirus . ''
An important article by an epidemiologist rebutted the explanation by Fauci of why he rejects the incredible amount of evidence supporting use of HCQ .
Conclusion : `` I earnestly hope that Dr. Fauci @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his hitherto considerable reputation . ''
Schachtel noted , `` Mad scientist : Fauci demands total U.S. shutdown until COVID vaccine arrives : There is no basis for Fauci 's claim that he can manipulate society into stopping the virus .
He is either a victim of the illusion of control , or he has embraced total deception as part of his power drunk campaign to stay in the spotlight . ''
Dr. Lee D. Merritt unraveled the question of why Fauci has been so negative about HCQ : `` Why is he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and almost totally ignoring the $ 20 HCQ regimen , other than to say the latter is of 'unproven benefit ' ? ''
Are there conflicts of interest ?
She noted that Fauci is an integral part of a vaccine coalition , specifically the Global Vaccine Action Plan ( GVAP ) , a collaboration of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Fauci 's group .
Fauci is also in the Leadership Council of the 'Decade of Vaccines ' Council .
Large sums of money flow from the Gates Foundation to and around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of crippling lockdowns advocated by Fauci is sheer lunacy when , in fact , we have an effective therapeutic .
Early use of HCQ coupled with understanding the low impact of the virus on younger and healthy people would have blocked local and state lockdowns .
Waiting for large-scale use of a proven vaccine to justify restoring our society and economy is just plain stupid .
If Fauci were a genuine public health official and not just a medical researcher , then he would have recognized the great many negative health impacts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine .
He has not .
In sum : Every single day people are suffering and dying unnecessarily because Fauci refuses to accept HCQ facts .
Instead , in endless media statements and appearances he pushes masks , lockdowns and vaccines .
Anthony Fauci benefits from incorrect views of HCQ in the mostly leftist press .
From The Washington Post : `` There is no solid scientific evidence hydroxychloroquine should be used to treat COVID-19 . ''
Similarly , Twitter recently issued a warning `` about the potential risks '' of HCQ use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown [ HCQ ] does not have a clinical benefit for COVID-19 patients and even has increased risks . ''
For this grand jury proceeding , substantial evidence supports the indictment of Fauci on these counts : A .
Violating his physician oath to first do no harm .
B .
Using his substantial influence to block widespread use of the proven safe , cheap and effective HCQ and , consequently , causing preventable pain , suffering and death for many thousands of Americans directly and through crippling lockdowns with their own negative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom and preventing physicians from using their best judgment in selecting for their patients the best treatment for COVID-19 .
As a form of trial for the indicted Fauci , here is a practical way to defeat anti-HCQ efforts and the leftist , anti-Trump media and , more importantly , help Americans .
Immediately create a special work group under the White House Pandemic Task Force .
Have it co-chaired by Dr. Scott Atlas , now a member of the Task Force , and the eminent Dr. Harvey Risch of Yale University .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mandate them to deliver to the Task Force and President Trump within 30 days a recommendation to remove government restrictions on the use of HCQ or maintain the status quo .
Let truth prevail .
Dr. Joel Hirschhorn has a long history of working on health issues , including being a full professor at the University of Wisconsin , Madison , a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association .
He has authored a number of books and hundreds of articles and has served as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 10 years .

By Joel S. Hirschhorn
With a grand jury approach, the revealing of evidence herein shows that Dr. Anthony Fauci has deliberately ignored massive amounts of data showing that hydroxychloroquine is a safe, cheap and effective remedy for COVID-19. By ignoring his ethical responsibility as a physician to first do no harm, his behavior continues to cause preventable pain, suffering and death. Evidence also vindicates what President Trump said and did early on to inform Americans about the benefits of hydroxychloroquine.
1. The Case
Mounting COVID-19 cases and deaths result from limitations on physicians using a safe, effective and low-cost treatment medicine. This, despite many studies and data from other countries showing that HCQ really works to lower death rates and keep affected people from needing hospitalizations and expensive care.
Missing from discussions of hydroxychloroquine use is explicit acknowledgment that Anthony Fauci has used his considerable power and influence to block use of the drug and prevent physicians from using their best judgment. The media have failed to connect two death-causing actions: 1. Some state governors forcing nursing homes to accept virus-infected elderly people; and 2. Government preventing wide and early use of HCQ.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
2. Reluctance to condemn Fauci
Nearly everyone seems afraid to openly condemn Fauci's behavior and demand a reversal of his position on HCQ, which would also impact CDC and FDA.
He has made himself the king of virus medicine through constant media appearances far beyond what is normal for a medical researcher. He is part of is a research organization, not a public health or drug approval agency. As much a tyrant as a virus expert, Fauci has stubbornly refused to admit his mistake. We need public outrage against a leftist, media collusion that allows one man to block a lifesaving medicine.
In this vein, an Australian government official has recently condemned the ban on using HCQ: "Health bureaucrats have 'violated the very first principle of the Hippocratic oath' which is to 'do no harm.' … and they must lift their bans. Otherwise they are engaged in crimes against humanity, and they should be taken to the criminal court in The Hague."
Is Dr. Anthony Fauci culpable for COVID deaths? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 98% (548 Votes) 2% (12 Votes)
Some Americans blame President Trump for the high levels of cases, hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19. But they have more reason to blame Fauci and his pandemic of lies about HCQ. At the end of this article is a "political" solution. It could make stockpiled HCQ broadly available.
3. The Evidence
As in a grand jury, this article cites many publications and detailed information demonstrating the proper and effective use of HCQ that has already saved millions of lives worldwide in this pandemic and could save millions more.
In sum, evidence shows that HCQ should be taken very early, either at home in the first few days after a positive test or after symptoms deemed signficant by a physician, or in the first days of hospitalization. Also, evidence shows that HCQ should be taken along with zinc and an antibiotic, such as doxycycline. Such a "cocktail" can stop the virus at its earliest stage before the very severe second stage.
The Economic Standard's new white paper argues that "HCQ has met the appropriate burden of proof and urges members of the U.S. news media, public health community, and regulatory agencies to stop politicizing the use of this medicine. … opponents have deprived many tens of thousands of Americans of a potentially life-saving treatment." But like other reports, the critical role of Fauci in blocking broad use of HCQ is missing.
A just released Italian study of 3,451 hospitalized patients found 30% less mortality, better than that reported for the very costly remdesivir in hospitals, touted by Fauci. An earlier, smaller Italian study found a 66% reduction in death in hospital patients. A Belgium study of 8,075 hospitalized patients found a 65% reduction. Likewise, a recent study from Saudi Arabia found 43% fewer hospitalizations and 45% fewer ICU admissions. For high-risk nursing home patients in Spain HCQ cut the risk of a bad outcome in half.
A large Henry Ford Hospital System study found a mortality rate for 2,541 patients of 13.5% for HCQ alone, 20.1% for HCQ plus azithromycin, and 26.4% for neither.
A new analysis by R. Clinton Ohlers is title, "Effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine was hiding in plain sight." An early widely publicized study concluded that HCQ was not effective in New York patients. In truth: "Survival rates for hospitalized patients who received the drug approached 85%" and "with azithromycin the survival rate rose as high as 90%." Without either drug, "survival fell to levels as low as 53%." Conclusion: "a highly effective, inexpensive, and widely available treatment for COVID-19 is already in hand."
Similarly, Dr. Watanabe from Brazil reanalyzed a Minnesota study that had a negative conclusion. For very early HCQ use, he found that "reduction in symptomatic outcomes is 72% after 0 days (first day of infection), 48.9% after 1 day and 29.3% after 2 days" – all compared to a placebo group. Conclusion: "Infected patients may have a large benefit if treated as early as possible."
Clearly, many media-hyped studies saying HCQ has no benefits are not credible. Some medical journal papers were retracted.
An article by physician Norman Doidge is "Hydroxychloroquine: A Morality Tale – A startling investigation into how a cheap, well-known drug became a political football in the midst of a pandemic." Conclusion: "Worldwide [HCQ] might save a million or more people before COVID is tamed." Some studies were poorly designed. In one case "the patients were given the medication late – on average 16.6 days after the first symptoms."
Another important study is: "Early treatment with hydroxychloroquine: a country-based analysis." Critical conclusion: The death rate from the virus in a number of nations where HCQ has been made widely available (the treatment group) is about 74% less than in those nations, including the U.S., where it has not been made available (the control group).
Many physicians and experts on viruses have published strong pro-HCQ articles, notably Dr. Harvey Risch from Yale University. He has repeatedly argued for using HCQ as the standard outpatient therapy. This article is for a general audience. In a medical journal article, he warned against "sitting by and letting hundreds of thousands die because we did not have the courage to act according to our rational calculations."
Experienced pro-HCQ front-line doctors have appeared on Fox News shows, including Dr. Stephen Smith, Dr, Marc Siegel (whose 96-year-old father was saved with HCQ), Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, Dr. Mehmet Oz and Dr. Risch who noted, "We're basically fighting a propaganda war against the medical facts" and that "75,000 to 100,000 lives will be saved" if the national HCQ stockpile were used. Fox's Sean Hannity had Dr. George Fareed, an early user of HCQ, on a recent radio show.
A new CDC publication reveals prescriptions for HCQ at retail stores (not mail order). In March through June this year there likely were 680,000 prescriptions for treating the virus. After the government clamp down, prescriptions in May and June averaged 80,000 a month. This limited use may help explain many reduced death rates.
And despite negative actions by some governments and the World Health Organization, the Sermo survey of physicians in 30 countries found for this September that HCQ is being used for 22% of patients outside hospitals, 21% inside them and even 14% in ICUs.
4. Problems with Fauci's Positions
Dr. Fauci is only satisfied with randomized control trials (RCTs). This position has been sharply debunked, as has the assertion of negative health effects and that HCQ risks outweigh its benefits.
Thomas R. Frieden, former head of the CDC, concluded in 2017: "Despite their strengths, RCTs have substantial limitations." He supported using many other kinds of data that now constitute the evidence for using HCQ.
Similarly, Norman Doidge observed: "RCT is best understood as standing not for Randomized Control Trials, but rather 'Rigidly Constrained Thinking.' in the current COVID-19 situation … we cannot simply, as so many are insisting [namely Fauci], rely only on the long-awaited RCTs to decide how to treat COVID-19."
Importantly, hundreds of drugs have been approved without RCTs, including hydrocortisone, Lasix, tetanus vaccine, insulin, tetracycline, warfarin, heparin, prednisone, half of chemotherapy drugs used in cancer and uses of HCQ for many diseases, such as malaria and lupus.
Another false criticism has recently been debunked: "HCQ decreases cardiac events. HCQ should not be restricted in COVID-19 patients out of fear of cardiac mortality." Another study concluded: "HCQ administration is safe for a short-term treatment for patients with COVID-19 … causing … no directly attributable arrhythmic deaths." Dr. James Todaro concluded: "It is highly unlikely that fatal cardiac cases are from hydroxychloroquine use. It is far more likely that the disease itself is the cause of arrhythmias and cardiac injury during the hyperinflammation phase of severe cases of COVID-19."
An article by Steven Hatfill, "Why Is The Media Suppressing Information About Hydroxychloroquine's Effectiveness Against COVID?" noted, "There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 infections." It also highlights the early Fauci and FDA strategy that promoted use of HCQ for hospitalized patients (when it was mostly too late) rather than early outpatient use.
The Doidge article noted that for a major study that found a 66% reduction in hospital deaths from use of HCQ, Fauci "didn't seem excited." The key question: "Why should anyone facing a pandemic wish to discredit potentially lifesaving medications?" The answer: The billions of dollars to be made from selling medications and vaccines. Fauci has had a very close relationship with pharmaceutical companies and has patents for one of the leading vaccines being tested by Moderna.
In August three-front line physicians wrote a detailed open letter to Fauci making the medical case for unblocking widespread use of HCQ. "You are largely unchallenged in terms of your medical opinions. You are the de facto COVID-19 Czar. … Americans must not continue to die unnecessarily. Adults must resume employment and our youth return to school. Locking down America while awaiting an imperfect vaccine has done far more damage to Americans than the coronavirus."
An important article by an epidemiologist rebutted the explanation by Fauci of why he rejects the incredible amount of evidence supporting use of HCQ. Conclusion: "I earnestly hope that Dr. Fauci reconsiders his opposition to HCQ and restores his hitherto considerable reputation."
Schachtel noted, "Mad scientist: Fauci demands total U.S. shutdown until COVID vaccine arrives: There is no basis for Fauci's claim that he can manipulate society into stopping the virus. He is either a victim of the illusion of control, or he has embraced total deception as part of his power drunk campaign to stay in the spotlight."
Dr. Lee D. Merritt unraveled the question of why Fauci has been so negative about HCQ: "Why is he so strongly promoting the $3,600 remdesiver and almost totally ignoring the $20 HCQ regimen, other than to say the latter is of 'unproven benefit'?" Are there conflicts of interest? She noted that Fauci is an integral part of a vaccine coalition, specifically the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), a collaboration of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Fauci's group. Fauci is also in the Leadership Council of the 'Decade of Vaccines' Council. Large sums of money flow from the Gates Foundation to and around Fauci's projects.
5. Indictment justified
The continued use of crippling lockdowns advocated by Fauci is sheer lunacy when, in fact, we have an effective therapeutic. Early use of HCQ coupled with understanding the low impact of the virus on younger and healthy people would have blocked local and state lockdowns.
Waiting for large-scale use of a proven vaccine to justify restoring our society and economy is just plain stupid. If Fauci were a genuine public health official and not just a medical researcher, then he would have recognized the great many negative health impacts of lockdowns and waiting for a broadly used vaccine. He has not.
In sum: Every single day people are suffering and dying unnecessarily because Fauci refuses to accept HCQ facts. Instead, in endless media statements and appearances he pushes masks, lockdowns and vaccines.
Anthony Fauci benefits from incorrect views of HCQ in the mostly leftist press. From The Washington Post: "There is no solid scientific evidence hydroxychloroquine should be used to treat COVID-19." Similarly, Twitter recently issued a warning "about the potential risks" of HCQ use. USA Today claimed science "has shown [HCQ] does not have a clinical benefit for COVID-19 patients and even has increased risks."
6. Indictment specifics
For this grand jury proceeding, substantial evidence supports the indictment of Fauci on these counts:
A. Violating his physician oath to first do no harm.
B. Using his substantial influence to block widespread use of the proven safe, cheap and effective HCQ and, consequently, causing preventable pain, suffering and death for many thousands of Americans directly and through crippling lockdowns with their own negative health impacts.
C. Blocking traditional medical freedom and preventing physicians from using their best judgment in selecting for their patients the best treatment for COVID-19.
7. Solution
As a form of trial for the indicted Fauci, here is a practical way to defeat anti-HCQ efforts and the leftist, anti-Trump media and, more importantly, help Americans.
Immediately create a special work group under the White House Pandemic Task Force. Have it co-chaired by Dr. Scott Atlas, now a member of the Task Force, and the eminent Dr. Harvey Risch of Yale University. Have them select 10 additional members. Mandate them to deliver to the Task Force and President Trump within 30 days a recommendation to remove government restrictions on the use of HCQ or maintain the status quo. Let truth prevail.
Dr. Joel Hirschhorn has a long history of working on health issues, including being a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association. He has authored a number of books and hundreds of articles and has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years.