wnd--2020-04-23--The ethics of social distancing: A libertarian perspective

I was running up the mountain the other day .
A couple was walking down it .
I quickly crossed over , so as not to expirate all over them .
To my surprise , they thanked me profusely .
I 'm healthy ; they looked fit .
Distancing may not have been necessary in this case .
Yet , in this simple act of conscious distancing , in the epochal age of a terrifying , communicable disease – my neighbors and I had come closer than ever before .
Fear gave way to fellow feeling .
Having lived in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have always associated social distancing with civility and civilization .
Cultures that honor personal boundaries have always seemed better than cultures that do n't – more genteel , refined and respectful .
Ditto people who keep a respectful distance : They have more merit than those who get in your face .
Which is why the wish expressed by so many freedom-loving protesters to violate the personal space of others is vexing .
Which is why comments such as the following are anathema : '' Your 'health ' does not supersede my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give me COVID-19 . ''
`` I am not required to descend into poverty for you . ''
In the absence of clinical therapies or a vaccine for coronavirus , the successful return to work rests , very plainly , on the willingness of the citizenry to cover up , keep clean and keep a distance .
Why would anyone wish to infringe on another 's personal space , when the stakes are clearly so high ?
Insisting on unfettered freedom to come and go as one pleases , sans protection , comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it could constitute aggression against innocent others .
By the same token , the shuttering of private property by the State is an incontrovertible violation of private property rights .
`` Without property rights , '' wrote Ayn Rand , `` no other rights are possible .
Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort , the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life . ''
Even more fundamental , however , is that without dominion over one 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no property rights .
Rights to the avails of your labor originate in the right of self-ownership .
If you do n't own yourself , you can not own anything else , or produce anything , the avails of your labor and the products of your mind included .
And if you are DEAD , DYING or INCAPACITATED – you own nothing ( at least metaphysically ; legally , you still own what you own ) .
In libertarian theory , private property rights originate in that most important of all titles : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That body , that fount of life whence all rights originate , is the legitimate object of government protection in a pandemic .
For , as I noted years ago , `` whether they are armed with bombs or bacteria , stopping weaponized individuals from harming others – intentionally or unintentionally – falls perfectly within the purview of the night-watchman state of classical-liberal theory . ''
The volcanic anger is understandable .
The heartbreaking calls from restive protesters to reopen the American economy come from across the country : California , Colorado @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michigan , Minnesota , Missouri , New Hampshire , North Carolina , Oklahoma , Texas , Utah , Virginia and Wisconsin North Carolina , Ohio , Michigan , Washington state .
Against this background , the natural rights of economically stricken individuals to reopen their businesses are righteous ; they stem not from a state-created right or regulation .
Rather , the right of ownership is the very extension of the right to life .
In order to survive , man must – and it is in his nature to – transform the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with them and making them his own .
Man 's labor and property are extensions of himself .
So , my countrymen are correct to protest the shuttering of their privately owned property , also their sole means of sustaining their lives .
All the same , there is another , equally compelling side to the ethics of this emergency situation .
It is this : Each and every individual is or could be , inadvertently , harboring a weapon of mass destruction .
Yes , a WMD – for how many men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ die because of the inadvertent actions of the coronavirus-carrying Index Patients , during the `` seeding events '' ?
Each one of us could be firing off deadly virus into a defenseless population , bereft of immunity .
Each one of us could become armed and dangerous , or be felled by someone who is .
In this case , individuals who willfully violate social distancing strictures can be viewed as willful aggressors against innocent others .
At once succinct and to-the-point , a reader whose online handle is `` Mister Bigglesworth '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a constitutional scholar , but you know what 's unconstitutional to me ?
Dying from some Oriental virus . ''
If I appear to be struggling with the ethics of this emergency – it is because I am .
I must .
This is vexing stuff .
One thing I know , and it is that the sin of abstraction here is unforgivable – it is the propensity to settle for nothing less than an ideal version of liberty .
Refusing to grapple with the political reality in which we ordinary mortals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arid arena of pure thought .
In conversation with a colleague about the ethics of this situation , she remarked : `` We live under a given political system , and we ca n't just wish it away .
Hence , there will be actions taken within that system that are relatively good or relatively bad .
The thing we must always guard against is this : '' Governments use crises to expand their power .
Even when the crises are over , the expanded powers are often left in place , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a part of the institutions .
`` This we must guard against . ''

I was running up the mountain the other day. A couple was walking down it. I quickly crossed over, so as not to expirate all over them. To my surprise, they thanked me profusely.
I'm healthy; they looked fit. Distancing may not have been necessary in this case. Yet, in this simple act of conscious distancing, in the epochal age of a terrifying, communicable disease – my neighbors and I had come closer than ever before. Fear gave way to fellow feeling.
Having lived in both the developed and underdeveloped world, I have always associated social distancing with civility and civilization.
Cultures that honor personal boundaries have always seemed better than cultures that don't – more genteel, refined and respectful.
Ditto people who keep a respectful distance: They have more merit than those who get in your face.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Which is why the wish expressed by so many freedom-loving protesters to violate the personal space of others is vexing.
Which is why comments such as the following are anathema:
"Your 'health' does not supersede my right"
"Give me liberty or give me COVID-19."
"I am not required to descend into poverty for you."
In the absence of clinical therapies or a vaccine for coronavirus, the successful return to work rests, very plainly, on the willingness of the citizenry to cover up, keep clean and keep a distance. Why would anyone wish to infringe on another's personal space, when the stakes are clearly so high?
Insisting on unfettered freedom to come and go as one pleases, sans protection, comes at a grave cost to others – it could constitute aggression against innocent others.
By the same token, the shuttering of private property by the State is an incontrovertible violation of private property rights.
"Without property rights," wrote Ayn Rand, "no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life."
Even more fundamental, however, is that without dominion over one's self – self-ownership – there can be no property rights. Rights to the avails of your labor originate in the right of self-ownership. If you don't own yourself, you cannot own anything else, or produce anything, the avails of your labor and the products of your mind included.
And if you are DEAD, DYING or INCAPACITATED – you own nothing (at least metaphysically; legally, you still own what you own).
In libertarian theory, private property rights originate in that most important of all titles: The title in one's own body. That body, that fount of life whence all rights originate, is the legitimate object of government protection in a pandemic.
For, as I noted years ago, "whether they are armed with bombs or bacteria, stopping weaponized individuals from harming others – intentionally or unintentionally – falls perfectly within the purview of the night-watchman state of classical-liberal theory."
The volcanic anger is understandable. The heartbreaking calls from restive protesters to reopen the American economy come from across the country: California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Washington state.
Against this background, the natural rights of economically stricken individuals to reopen their businesses are righteous; they stem not from a state-created right or regulation. Rather, the right of ownership is the very extension of the right to life. In order to survive, man must – and it is in his nature to – transform the resources around him by mixing his labor with them and making them his own. Man's labor and property are extensions of himself.
So, my countrymen are correct to protest the shuttering of their privately owned property, also their sole means of sustaining their lives.
All the same, there is another, equally compelling side to the ethics of this emergency situation. It is this:
Each and every individual is or could be, inadvertently, harboring a weapon of mass destruction. Yes, a WMD – for how many men and women have died and will still die because of the inadvertent actions of the coronavirus-carrying Index Patients, during the "seeding events"?
Each one of us could be firing off deadly virus into a defenseless population, bereft of immunity. Each one of us could become armed and dangerous, or be felled by someone who is.
In this case, individuals who willfully violate social distancing strictures can be viewed as willful aggressors against innocent others.
At once succinct and to-the-point, a reader whose online handle is "Mister Bigglesworth" summed it up: "I'm not a constitutional scholar, but you know what's unconstitutional to me? Dying from some Oriental virus."
If I appear to be struggling with the ethics of this emergency – it is because I am. I must. This is vexing stuff.
One thing I know, and it is that the sin of abstraction here is unforgivable – it is the propensity to settle for nothing less than an ideal version of liberty. Refusing to grapple with the political reality in which we ordinary mortals are mired is to dwell in the arid arena of pure thought.
In conversation with a colleague about the ethics of this situation, she remarked: "We live under a given political system, and we can't just wish it away. Hence, there will be actions taken within that system that are relatively good or relatively bad. The thing we must always guard against is this:
"Governments use crises to expand their power. Even when the crises are over, the expanded powers are often left in place, or certain key vestiges of these powers become a part of the institutions.
"This we must guard against."


wnd--2020-04-23--10 years of 'President Cuomo'? Here's the scenario

Joe Biden is now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president , endorsed by former President Barack Obama , chief rival and socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and second runner-up candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts .
Trouble is , many Democrats look on a Biden candidacy with trepidation or disgust .
He was too `` centrist '' and compromised to satisfy leftists , so he adopted extreme positions to win support from his party 's loony left wing .
Moderate Democrats therefore recognize Biden as unprincipled and untrustworthy .
Biden put the `` vice '' in his vice presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a $ 1.5 billion deal from China .
This could make a President Biden subject to secret blackmail by Communist China .
The biggest Democratic disappointment is that Biden seems semi-senile and thus obviously lacks the competence to be president .
Debating President Donald Trump would expose this , dooming Biden 's candidacy ( and the Democratic Party ) to defeat .
Democrats , however , have a way to win : the `` Cuomo Gambit . ''
This will be tricky , because former Vice President Biden pledged to pick a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gov .
Andrew Cuomo , age 62 , made a Sherman-like pledge not to run for president in 2020 .
Both are relatively old white men in a party with a majority of female plus minority and young voters eager to see people like themselves elected .
If Democrats replace Joe Biden with Andrew Cuomo as their standard-bearer , they risk angering both progressives and centrists as behind-the-scenes party bosses again ignore voters and `` broker '' the process as in 2016 .
Gov .
Cuomo , son of former Gov .
Mario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experienced partisan leader .
Although a radical who backs gun confiscation and post-natal abortion , Cuomo in today 's increasingly socialist Democratic Party is a `` moderate '' pragmatist , not an anti-capitalist .
While some leftists urge Biden to create a British-style `` shadow government , '' the leftist media have already anointed Cuomo its `` shadow president , '' giving nationwide coverage to his daily coronavirus briefings , parallel to Trump 's briefings .
Cuomo has astutely used these briefings as free political advertising to display heartwarming talks with his COVID-19-infected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and revealing his longing to spend more time with his elderly mother .
Democrats would be fools to try replacing candidate Biden with Cuomo , who did not even run in their primaries .
Instead , Biden would violate his vague promise to pick a female running mate by selecting Cuomo as his V.P .
This bait-and-switch gambit violates a fundamental rule : Choose someone from a state you need to win .
One early Democratic V.P .
favorite was Wisconsin 's Tammy Baldwin , in 2012 the first open lesbian elected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was a congresswoman since 1999 .
Michigan 's Gretchen Whitmer , only a state legislator before becoming governor in 2019 , has zero national political experience .
Whitmer is now widely hated in her state for behaving as an arrogant , Caligula-like dictator who describes the abortion clinics she keeps open as `` life sustaining . ''
She frantically is seeking national celebrity in hopes of being Biden 's running mate .
If Biden picks Cuomo , the former vice president should immediately declare himself unwell , perhaps from coronavirus or an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given tremendous media sympathy .
Cuomo would `` reluctantly '' replace Biden in presidential debates , calling Trump a `` coward '' if the president refuses to debate his fellow feisty New Yorker .
Democrats would continue to run their Biden-Cuomo ticket , while hinting strongly that Biden would resign at the first sign of worsening health problems ; that Cuomo as de facto co-president would essentially run the government and eventually would choose a woman and/or minority as his vice president .
After all , Cuomo never promised not to run as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparent successor , wrote Lance Morrow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in the Wall Street Journal , might deny a woman top spot on the Democratic ticket until as late as 2032 , which progressive women might find `` intolerable . ''
Joe Biden would enjoy the ego satisfaction of being `` president , '' but would do whatever de facto President Cuomo wants .
Cuomo would rule both America and the U.S. Senate ; Biden would `` reign , '' like a modern monarch doing ceremonial supermarket ribbon cuttings .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ If he were to attempt to assert power , Biden would be the ultimate `` lame duck . ''
He could swiftly be removed for mental incapacity under the 25th Amendment .
If Biden delays stepping down for two years while Cuomo is our behind-the-scenes president , then under the Constitution Cuomo could serve the remaining two years as president and then be elected to two more full terms – 10 years of Democratic President Andrew Cuomo .
Lowell Ponte is a former Reader 's Digest Roving Editor .
His articles have appeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times and other major publications .
His latest paper co-authored with Craig R. Smith , `` The Secret War , '' shows how to rethink several areas of investment to protect and grow your savings against little-known economic threats .
For a free , postpaid copy , call toll-free 800-630-1492 .

Joe Biden is now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, endorsed by former President Barack Obama, chief rival and socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and second runner-up candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
Trouble is, many Democrats look on a Biden candidacy with trepidation or disgust. He was too "centrist" and compromised to satisfy leftists, so he adopted extreme positions to win support from his party's loony left wing. Moderate Democrats therefore recognize Biden as unprincipled and untrustworthy.
Biden put the "vice" in his vice presidency by enabling his disreputable son Hunter to get a $1.5 billion deal from China. This could make a President Biden subject to secret blackmail by Communist China.
The biggest Democratic disappointment is that Biden seems semi-senile and thus obviously lacks the competence to be president. Debating President Donald Trump would expose this, dooming Biden's candidacy (and the Democratic Party) to defeat.
Democrats, however, have a way to win: the "Cuomo Gambit."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
This will be tricky, because former Vice President Biden pledged to pick a female running mate, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, age 62, made a Sherman-like pledge not to run for president in 2020. Both are relatively old white men in a party with a majority of female plus minority and young voters eager to see people like themselves elected.
If Democrats replace Joe Biden with Andrew Cuomo as their standard-bearer, they risk angering both progressives and centrists as behind-the-scenes party bosses again ignore voters and "broker" the process as in 2016.
Gov. Cuomo, son of former Gov. Mario Cuomo, is widely perceived as an experienced partisan leader. Although a radical who backs gun confiscation and post-natal abortion, Cuomo in today's increasingly socialist Democratic Party is a "moderate" pragmatist, not an anti-capitalist.
While some leftists urge Biden to create a British-style "shadow government," the leftist media have already anointed Cuomo its "shadow president," giving nationwide coverage to his daily coronavirus briefings, parallel to Trump's briefings. Cuomo has astutely used these briefings as free political advertising to display heartwarming talks with his COVID-19-infected brother, CNN's Chris Cuomo, and revealing his longing to spend more time with his elderly mother.
Democrats would be fools to try replacing candidate Biden with Cuomo, who did not even run in their primaries. Instead, Biden would violate his vague promise to pick a female running mate by selecting Cuomo as his V.P.
This bait-and-switch gambit violates a fundamental rule: Choose someone from a state you need to win. One early Democratic V.P. favorite was Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin, in 2012 the first open lesbian elected to the U.S. Senate. Before that, she was a congresswoman since 1999.
Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, only a state legislator before becoming governor in 2019, has zero national political experience. Whitmer is now widely hated in her state for behaving as an arrogant, Caligula-like dictator who describes the abortion clinics she keeps open as "life sustaining." She frantically is seeking national celebrity in hopes of being Biden's running mate.
If Biden picks Cuomo, the former vice president should immediately declare himself unwell, perhaps from coronavirus or an unconfirmed small stroke. He would be given tremendous media sympathy. Cuomo would "reluctantly" replace Biden in presidential debates, calling Trump a "coward" if the president refuses to debate his fellow feisty New Yorker.
Democrats would continue to run their Biden-Cuomo ticket, while hinting strongly that Biden would resign at the first sign of worsening health problems; that Cuomo as de facto co-president would essentially run the government and eventually would choose a woman and/or minority as his vice president. After all, Cuomo never promised not to run as VICE-president.
Cuomo as Biden's heir apparent successor, wrote Lance Morrow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in the Wall Street Journal, might deny a woman top spot on the Democratic ticket until as late as 2032, which progressive women might find "intolerable."
Joe Biden would enjoy the ego satisfaction of being "president," but would do whatever de facto President Cuomo wants.
Cuomo would rule both America and the U.S. Senate; Biden would "reign," like a modern monarch doing ceremonial supermarket ribbon cuttings.
At some point Biden would resign. If he were to attempt to assert power, Biden would be the ultimate "lame duck." He could swiftly be removed for mental incapacity under the 25th Amendment.
If Biden delays stepping down for two years while Cuomo is our behind-the-scenes president, then under the Constitution Cuomo could serve the remaining two years as president and then be elected to two more full terms – 10 years of Democratic President Andrew Cuomo.
Lowell Ponte is a former Reader's Digest Roving Editor. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and other major publications. His latest paper co-authored with Craig R. Smith, "The Secret War," shows how to rethink several areas of investment to protect and grow your savings against little-known economic threats. For a free, postpaid copy, call toll-free 800-630-1492.


wnd--2020-04-23--It's not too early to prepare for the underground church

In my prophecy studies , I have come to believe the generation of the second coming will face circumstances very much like the generation of the first coming did .
Whether or not the COVID-19 pestilence is a part of the Matthew 24 `` beginning of birth pangs , '' the political climate is already starting to look a bit like the Roman military dictatorship of the time of the early church .
Here in America , the church is a leading target of government suppression of large gatherings , and I expect this to continue , even after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ever do ) .
Even in the absence of official policy , a population almost fully cowed by fear-mongering about this disease will never fully trust large gatherings again .
How many unreasoning sheeple will now operate by the unspoken maxim `` Fellowship equals death '' ?
More than a few , I suspect – at least until they can trade in their obsolete and inadequate `` Full Armor of God '' for the Bill Gates `` Salvation of Mankind '' vaccine in about 18 months .
Until then , the high-density @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gathering will be shaky at best , and that 's not necessarily a bad thing – though I love a good mass-gathering from time to time , especially for fellowship and worship in music .
The religious corporations will try to retain their members with high-tech distance-worshiping , but this shaking of the church will get many people thinking about smaller and more intimate family-style gatherings like the way the first century church operated , and that 's a good thing .
Instead of high-tech wizardry , they 'll have a printed copy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and in the place of celebrity pastors telling them what to think , they 'll have interactive Christian discussion among themselves , facilitated by the pastors and teachers in their groups .
At least , that 's how First Century Bible Church will function .
I launched it after the lockdown started , and we 've yet to have a public gathering , but I believe it is a model for the future , and I welcome interaction with like-minded remnant believers .
What I 'm talking about is not just expanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but anticipating the need for an `` underground church . ''
Probably sooner rather than later the Bride of Christ will have need of an `` off the grid '' communication and fellowship network that ca n't easily be identified and tracked .
On my second missionary tour of Russia , I got to experience an `` underground '' church network in action .
This was 2007 , long after glasnost and the purge of Soviet Communism from Russian society , but the ( pre-Soviet ) Orthodox Church had roared back to fill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While I respect the Russian Orthodox Church , it does have one glaring negative , which is the pursuit of `` religious monopoly , '' and only a few powerful denominations were `` grandfathered in '' to ROC tolerance policies after Putin transitioned Russia from a wild-west gangster-land in the 1990s to a stable , law-based society in the '00s .
The denomination I was working with was operating relatively freely per official government policy , but suffered some discrimination in some places .
Plus , there was the phenomenon of holdover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some holdover policies on things like in-country travel .
Long story short , Anne and I were secretly shuttled all over the country for a couple of months from congregation to congregation , being handed off from car to car along the freeway in the middle of nowhere , from one group into the care of the next .
And once , in a big Siberian city , the holdover Communist mayor forced the closure of my speaking venue at a big hotel the night before the event .
These Christians were so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ severe Soviet oppression they did n't even blink .
In just 24 hours they had another venue lined up , and the crowd of over 1,500 people showed up at the new venue as if nothing had happened .
I was told that the mayor 's astonished staff members he sent in to monitor the event got saved .
We also met with an underground church couple in Cairo , Egypt , in 2003 .
Even though Christian groups are allowed to function there , evangelism is strictly forbidden , so the evangelical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their activities from the government and said the hardest part of their job was convincing new believers not to change their official religion on their state ID cards from Muslim to Christian , because they could face severe persecution by the government and even murder by their relatives .
Even in the worst areas of lockdown abuses , America is still a far cry from Soviet Russia or Christian life under Islamic governments , but prophecy says worse is coming , sooner or later .
The current lockdowns are a stark reminder that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that the Marxist usurpers waging total war to take down Trump and kill the anti-globalist revolution are totalitarian by nature .
Is n't it just common sense to at least have contingency plans in place and a system for networking among believers who have decided they will NEVER take the mark of the beast , whenever that is implemented , and who will not be able to buy or sell without it ?
At minimum we 'll need an underground railroad for fleeing persecution and a `` black market '' bartering system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need a means of both recognizing each other and ferreting out spies .
I suggest the underground church begin greeting each other with `` Jesus is Lord , '' because `` no man can say that Jesus is the Lord , but by the Holy Ghost '' ( 1 Corinthians 12:3 ) .
None of that can happen unless the remnant prepares for it in advance , and I invite you to join me in getting started now .
If you 'd like to be a part of this network , or if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book `` The Prodigal Son Prophecy '' ( which outlines some of my theological conclusions on prophetic issues ) , send me an email including the personal confession `` Jesus is Lord . ''
Let me know specifically if you have or want to start a first century-style house church .
As we used to say in the Boy Scouts ( which did not heed its own motto and got destroyed by the same people now targeting the church ) , Be Prepared .

In my prophecy studies, I have come to believe the generation of the second coming will face circumstances very much like the generation of the first coming did. Whether or not the COVID-19 pestilence is a part of the Matthew 24 "beginning of birth pangs," the political climate is already starting to look a bit like the Roman military dictatorship of the time of the early church.
Here in America, the church is a leading target of government suppression of large gatherings, and I expect this to continue, even after the "lockdowns" have ended (if they ever do).
Even in the absence of official policy, a population almost fully cowed by fear-mongering about this disease will never fully trust large gatherings again. How many unreasoning sheeple will now operate by the unspoken maxim "Fellowship equals death"? More than a few, I suspect – at least until they can trade in their obsolete and inadequate "Full Armor of God" for the Bill Gates "Salvation of Mankind" vaccine in about 18 months.
Until then, the high-density, entertainment-oriented religious corporation model of Christian gathering will be shaky at best, and that's not necessarily a bad thing – though I love a good mass-gathering from time to time, especially for fellowship and worship in music.
The religious corporations will try to retain their members with high-tech distance-worshiping, but this shaking of the church will get many people thinking about smaller and more intimate family-style gatherings like the way the first century church operated, and that's a good thing. Instead of high-tech wizardry, they'll have a printed copy of the Bible in their hands again, and in the place of celebrity pastors telling them what to think, they'll have interactive Christian discussion among themselves, facilitated by the pastors and teachers in their groups.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
At least, that's how First Century Bible Church will function. I launched it after the lockdown started, and we've yet to have a public gathering, but I believe it is a model for the future, and I welcome interaction with like-minded remnant believers. What I'm talking about is not just expanding the "house church" movement, but anticipating the need for an "underground church."
Probably sooner rather than later the Bride of Christ will have need of an "off the grid" communication and fellowship network that can't easily be identified and tracked.
On my second missionary tour of Russia, I got to experience an "underground" church network in action. This was 2007, long after glasnost and the purge of Soviet Communism from Russian society, but the (pre-Soviet) Orthodox Church had roared back to fill the vacuum as the primary cultural influence. While I respect the Russian Orthodox Church, it does have one glaring negative, which is the pursuit of "religious monopoly," and only a few powerful denominations were "grandfathered in" to ROC tolerance policies after Putin transitioned Russia from a wild-west gangster-land in the 1990s to a stable, law-based society in the '00s. The denomination I was working with was operating relatively freely per official government policy, but suffered some discrimination in some places. Plus, there was the phenomenon of holdover Soviet-types in some positions of power and some holdover policies on things like in-country travel.
Long story short, Anne and I were secretly shuttled all over the country for a couple of months from congregation to congregation, being handed off from car to car along the freeway in the middle of nowhere, from one group into the care of the next. And once, in a big Siberian city, the holdover Communist mayor forced the closure of my speaking venue at a big hotel the night before the event. These Christians were so well prepared by years of living under severe Soviet oppression they didn't even blink. In just 24 hours they had another venue lined up, and the crowd of over 1,500 people showed up at the new venue as if nothing had happened. I was told that the mayor's astonished staff members he sent in to monitor the event got saved.
We also met with an underground church couple in Cairo, Egypt, in 2003. Even though Christian groups are allowed to function there, evangelism is strictly forbidden, so the evangelical church is underground. These missionaries hid their activities from the government and said the hardest part of their job was convincing new believers not to change their official religion on their state ID cards from Muslim to Christian, because they could face severe persecution by the government and even murder by their relatives.
Even in the worst areas of lockdown abuses, America is still a far cry from Soviet Russia or Christian life under Islamic governments, but prophecy says worse is coming, sooner or later. The current lockdowns are a stark reminder that we are not immune to totalitarianism – and that the Marxist usurpers waging total war to take down Trump and kill the anti-globalist revolution are totalitarian by nature.
Isn't it just common sense to at least have contingency plans in place and a system for networking among believers who have decided they will NEVER take the mark of the beast, whenever that is implemented, and who will not be able to buy or sell without it?
At minimum we'll need an underground railroad for fleeing persecution and a "black market" bartering system to stay alive. And we'll need a means of both recognizing each other and ferreting out spies. I suggest the underground church begin greeting each other with "Jesus is Lord," because "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost" (1 Corinthians 12:3).
None of that can happen unless the remnant prepares for it in advance, and I invite you to join me in getting started now. If you'd like to be a part of this network, or if you'd like a sample of my book "The Prodigal Son Prophecy" (which outlines some of my theological conclusions on prophetic issues), send me an email including the personal confession "Jesus is Lord." Let me know specifically if you have or want to start a first century-style house church.
As we used to say in the Boy Scouts (which did not heed its own motto and got destroyed by the same people now targeting the church), Be Prepared.


wnd--2020-04-24--Keeping score: Coronavirus heroes and villains

John Jacob Astor , the richest man on board the Titanic , famously gave up a seat in the final lifeboat when he saw two young children still on the ship 's deck .
`` Women and children first '' was the order from the ship 's captain , and the final numbers show just how much the men on board – even the rich and powerful – adhered to that call .
Women on the Titanic had a 75 % survival rate , compared with just 17 % for men .
Besides some crazed radical feminists , most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sinking ship with a sense of awe and admiration .
Hard to imagine many California tech billionaires behaving today the way Astor did the night he died .
When the history of our era is written , we will know a lot more about the behavior during the emergency we are now facing – a pandemic that has already killed thousands and caused more than 26 million Americans to lose their jobs .
In the wake of this tragedy , we are seeing some amazing behavior and some truly disgusting behavior .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we saw billionaire New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft send his private Boeing 767 to China on a special mission to pick up protective equipment for his home state of Massachusetts .
Twitter founder Jack Dorsey tops the list ; he has pledged $ 1 billion ( almost one-quarter of his net worth ) for coronavirus relief .
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson shuttered his casinos but kept paying all his workers while donating millions of pieces of protective gear to both Nevada and New York .
Facebook is giving $ 100 million in small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mark Zuckerberg himself is giving another $ 25 million .
The list of truly generous acts by the rich and powerful in our society is inspiring .
It 's also worth noting who 's on the other side of the ledger .
Besides those actually dying , the biggest harm , by far , has been to those who have lost their jobs or their businesses .
To deal with this harm , the government has now spent trillions of dollars in coronavirus relief aid .
The possibility of fraud and abuse when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fast pace on a mass scale is huge .
The most powerful in our society – the ones who donate to the politicians and offer the allure of future employment to the political staffers – are the ones we have to worry about .
In a country already on a path to a future budget crisis , if we are going to spend trillions on relief , it better go to those who need it most .
Yet the staffers sitting across the table from the huge companies , hammering out the relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be aggressively representing the U.S. taxpayers – usually want more than anything else in life to work for the huge company on the other side of the table .
The terms of any bailouts for specific industries need to be studied with a microscope given the dynamic at hand here .
The biggest known villains so far during this pandemic are the publicly traded or private equity-owned companies that jumped in front of legitimate small businesses in the small business bailout , and the universities with multibillion-dollar endowments who are taking taxpayer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
The government set up a special fund specifically for small businesses , which are taking the biggest hit because their owners typically lack access to credit and other emergency financing often available to larger enterprises .
The way it was set up , there was initially just under $ 350 billion designated for these small businesses to get payroll protection loans to keep their people at work .
The Payroll Protection Program had to get funds out fast , so it was administered through banks that were already approved to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There was logic to this structure because speed was essential , but as a result , clients with strong relations with approved banks had the upper hand .
Within just days , 1.6 million loans were issued , and the funds were gone .
Many legitimate small businesses were left out .
The problem was that a few publicly traded companies , and likely even more companies owned by venture capital and private equity firms , had jumped the line because they had superior banking relations and connections .
To be sure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of the overall borrower pool , but we should remember them nonetheless .
JPMorgan Chase bank , for example , pushed through large loans for the publicly traded Ruth 's Chris steakhouse chain , Potbelly sandwich chain and Shake Shack ( the last gave the money back after the negative publicity ) .
These companies , and the others who joined them , are no doubt facing a tough time financially , but they have options that the mom and pop shop on your street corner does not .
Ivy League colleges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in taxpayer money from another government relief program , despite the fact that they have , collectively , $ 140 billion in their endowments and had huge operating surpluses just last year .
Outrage over their behavior is ratcheting up , and many have recently pledged to give the funds back .
The tally of the good guys and the bad guys of our era wo n't be finalized until the virus clears .
The politically and financially powerful in our country will likely have many opportunities for further shady behavior until that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Wall Street 's bad actors during the financial crisis helped give rise to the tea party on the right and Occupy Wall Street on the left , nobody should doubt that the political repercussions emanating from today 's actions will be felt for years to come .

John Jacob Astor, the richest man on board the Titanic, famously gave up a seat in the final lifeboat when he saw two young children still on the ship's deck. "Women and children first" was the order from the ship's captain, and the final numbers show just how much the men on board – even the rich and powerful – adhered to that call. Women on the Titanic had a 75% survival rate, compared with just 17% for men. Besides some crazed radical feminists, most of us view the chivalry displayed on that sinking ship with a sense of awe and admiration. Hard to imagine many California tech billionaires behaving today the way Astor did the night he died.
When the history of our era is written, we will know a lot more about the behavior during the emergency we are now facing – a pandemic that has already killed thousands and caused more than 26 million Americans to lose their jobs. In the wake of this tragedy, we are seeing some amazing behavior and some truly disgusting behavior.
On the amazing side, early on, we saw billionaire New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft send his private Boeing 767 to China on a special mission to pick up protective equipment for his home state of Massachusetts. Twitter founder Jack Dorsey tops the list; he has pledged $1 billion (almost one-quarter of his net worth) for coronavirus relief. Billionaire Sheldon Adelson shuttered his casinos but kept paying all his workers while donating millions of pieces of protective gear to both Nevada and New York. Facebook is giving $100 million in small business grants for coronavirus relief, while Mark Zuckerberg himself is giving another $25 million. The list of truly generous acts by the rich and powerful in our society is inspiring.
It's also worth noting who's on the other side of the ledger. Besides those actually dying, the biggest harm, by far, has been to those who have lost their jobs or their businesses. To deal with this harm, the government has now spent trillions of dollars in coronavirus relief aid. The possibility of fraud and abuse when the government doles out funding at a fast pace on a mass scale is huge. The most powerful in our society – the ones who donate to the politicians and offer the allure of future employment to the political staffers – are the ones we have to worry about. In a country already on a path to a future budget crisis, if we are going to spend trillions on relief, it better go to those who need it most. Yet the staffers sitting across the table from the huge companies, hammering out the relief terms – the ones who are supposed to be aggressively representing the U.S. taxpayers – usually want more than anything else in life to work for the huge company on the other side of the table. The terms of any bailouts for specific industries need to be studied with a microscope given the dynamic at hand here.
The biggest known villains so far during this pandemic are the publicly traded or private equity-owned companies that jumped in front of legitimate small businesses in the small business bailout, and the universities with multibillion-dollar endowments who are taking taxpayer dollars when they have zero need for it.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The government set up a special fund specifically for small businesses, which are taking the biggest hit because their owners typically lack access to credit and other emergency financing often available to larger enterprises. The way it was set up, there was initially just under $350 billion designated for these small businesses to get payroll protection loans to keep their people at work.
The Payroll Protection Program had to get funds out fast, so it was administered through banks that were already approved to make loans for the Small Business Administration. There was logic to this structure because speed was essential, but as a result, clients with strong relations with approved banks had the upper hand. Within just days, 1.6 million loans were issued, and the funds were gone. Many legitimate small businesses were left out.
The problem was that a few publicly traded companies, and likely even more companies owned by venture capital and private equity firms, had jumped the line because they had superior banking relations and connections. To be sure, these bad actors made up a small percent of the overall borrower pool, but we should remember them nonetheless. JPMorgan Chase bank, for example, pushed through large loans for the publicly traded Ruth's Chris steakhouse chain, Potbelly sandwich chain and Shake Shack (the last gave the money back after the negative publicity). These companies, and the others who joined them, are no doubt facing a tough time financially, but they have options that the mom and pop shop on your street corner does not.
Ivy League colleges collectively took in over $60 million in taxpayer money from another government relief program, despite the fact that they have, collectively, $140 billion in their endowments and had huge operating surpluses just last year. Outrage over their behavior is ratcheting up, and many have recently pledged to give the funds back.
The tally of the good guys and the bad guys of our era won't be finalized until the virus clears. The politically and financially powerful in our country will likely have many opportunities for further shady behavior until that happens. But just as the coddling of Wall Street's bad actors during the financial crisis helped give rise to the tea party on the right and Occupy Wall Street on the left, nobody should doubt that the political repercussions emanating from today's actions will be felt for years to come.


wnd--2020-04-25--Trump signs $484 billion 'Phase 3.5' of coronavirus relief into law

President Donald Trump signed the $ 484 billion `` Phase 3.5 '' emergency interim coronavirus relief package into law Friday , replenishing the small business Paycheck Protection Program fund and sending billions of dollars in aid to hospitals fighting the pandemic .
In a ceremony in the Oval Office , the president said the bill was `` great for small businesses '' and `` great for the workers , '' Fox News reported .
The new law includes $ 320 billion in new funds for the Paycheck Protection Program , $ 60 billion for Small Business Administration 's Disaster Loan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grants and $ 25 billion for coronavirus testing , according to a White House fact sheet .
The Paycheck Protection Program was created as part of the $ 2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security Act and converts small business loans to grants to keep employees on the payroll .
The initial $ 349 billion pool for the emergency loans ran out of money on April 16 , CNBC reported , pushing Congress to pass `` Phase 3.5 '' to replenish the funds .
A Trump administration official told Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administration could start taking loan applications again as early as Monday .
In a speech in support of the bill , H.R .
266 , California Rep. Tom McClintock said he would support it `` with a grave warning . ''
`` Unprecedented and unconstitutional government edicts have deliberately destroyed the livelihoods of millions of Americans and have set in motion an economic depression and government insolvencies that threaten the very survival of our nation , '' McClintock said .
`` They must end now . ''
The bill passed in the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president 's desk .
During the signing ceremony , the president praised the White House Coronavirus Task Force and the doctors and nurses who are fighting the virus .
`` I 'm not looking for credit for myself , but I am looking for credit for people in the federal government that have done such a great job and for the doctors and nurses and everybody else , '' Trump said .
The total amount of money spent on the government 's emergency response to the coronavirus pandemic has now reached over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to CNBC .
Democrats are also pushing for additional money to be sent to states and municipalities to help with things such as budget crunches created by the pandemic .
The coronavirus pandemic has wreaked havoc on the American economy .
Over 26 million people have filed for unemployment benefits over the last five weeks , according to numbers released by the Department of Labor this week .
As of Friday morning , there are over 884,000 cases of COVID-19 in the United States , according to Johns Hopkins .
Some states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others have extended their stay-at-home orders for a few more weeks .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

President Donald Trump signed the $484 billion "Phase 3.5" emergency interim coronavirus relief package into law Friday, replenishing the small business Paycheck Protection Program fund and sending billions of dollars in aid to hospitals fighting the pandemic.
In a ceremony in the Oval Office, the president said the bill was "great for small businesses" and "great for the workers," Fox News reported.
The new law includes $320 billion in new funds for the Paycheck Protection Program, $60 billion for Small Business Administration's Disaster Loan Program, $75 billion in hospital grants and $25 billion for coronavirus testing, according to a White House fact sheet.
The Paycheck Protection Program was created as part of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and converts small business loans to grants to keep employees on the payroll.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The initial $349 billion pool for the emergency loans ran out of money on April 16, CNBC reported, pushing Congress to pass "Phase 3.5" to replenish the funds.
A Trump administration official told Fox News on Friday that the Small Business Administration could start taking loan applications again as early as Monday.
In a speech in support of the bill, H.R. 266, California Rep. Tom McClintock said he would support it "with a grave warning."
"Unprecedented and unconstitutional government edicts have deliberately destroyed the livelihoods of millions of Americans and have set in motion an economic depression and government insolvencies that threaten the very survival of our nation," McClintock said. "They must end now."
The bill passed in the House on Thursday and was sent directly to the president's desk.
During the signing ceremony, the president praised the White House Coronavirus Task Force and the doctors and nurses who are fighting the virus.
"I'm not looking for credit for myself, but I am looking for credit for people in the federal government that have done such a great job and for the doctors and nurses and everybody else," Trump said.
The total amount of money spent on the government's emergency response to the coronavirus pandemic has now reached over $2.5 trillion across four bills, according to CNBC.
Democrats are also pushing for additional money to be sent to states and municipalities to help with things such as budget crunches created by the pandemic.
The coronavirus pandemic has wreaked havoc on the American economy.
Over 26 million people have filed for unemployment benefits over the last five weeks, according to numbers released by the Department of Labor this week.
As of Friday morning, there are over 884,000 cases of COVID-19 in the United States, according to Johns Hopkins.
Some states have started to reopen their economies while others have extended their stay-at-home orders for a few more weeks.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-04-25--Stanford doctor: 5 reasons to stop panic, end total isolation

Government authorities , advisers and analysts who are calling for a continuation of the near-total lockdown of the economy are ignoring five key facts , contends a former top health official at the Stanford Medical Center .
Dr. David Atlas , now a senior fellow at Stanford 's Hoover Institution , argued in an column for The Hill that Americans `` are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts . ''
`` Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened , rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principles of biology established for decades ; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function , '' wrote Atlas , the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center .
The first fact , Atlas said is that the `` overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19 . ''
He pointed to a recent Stanford University antibody study that estimates the fatality rate if infected with the coronavirus is likely 0.1 % to 0.2 % .
The World Health Organization estimate of 3.4 % that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 30 times higher .
The rate for people 18 to 45 years old in New York City , which accounts for one-third of all U.S. deaths , is 0.01 % , or 11 per 100,000 in the population .
For people under 18 years old , the rate of death is zero per 100,000 .
In New York City , which has more than 34,600 hospitalizations , the rate of hospitializations from the virus for those under 18 years of age is 0.01 % .
Even for people ages 65 to 74 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Atlas argued .
Fact 3 : `` Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies , prolonging the problem . ''
Atlas noted that decades of medical science shows that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response , controlling the spread in the population by `` herd immunity . ''
`` Indeed , that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases — to assist with population immunity , '' he said .
`` In this virus , we know that medical care is not even necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are infected , '' he said .
`` It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic , shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship , and then in Iceland and Italy . ''
The asymptomatic population has been `` falsely portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation , '' he said .
`` In fact , infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity , '' Atlas wrote .
`` By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pathways toward the most vulnerable people , ultimately ending the threat .
`` Extending whole-population isolation would directly prevent that widespread immunity from developing , '' he argued .
Fact 4 : `` People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections . ''
Atlas noted that states and many hospitals abruptly stopped `` nonessential '' procedures and surgery .
`` That prevented diagnoses of life-threatening diseases , like cancer screening , biopsies of tumors now undiscovered and potentially deadly brain aneurysms , '' he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures . ''
`` The overwhelming evidence all over the world consistently shows that a clearly defined group — older people and others with underlying conditions — is more likely to have a serious illness requiring hospitalization and more likely to die from COVID-19 , '' he wrote .
Therefore , the appropriate policy , `` based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand , '' is `` a more focused strategy . ''
That would be to `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions . ''
`` This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence , while saving lives , preventing overcrowding of hospitals and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation , '' he said .
`` Let ’ s stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models .
Facts matter . ''

Government authorities, advisers and analysts who are calling for a continuation of the near-total lockdown of the economy are ignoring five key facts, contends a former top health official at the Stanford Medical Center.
Dr. Scott W. Atlas, now a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, argued in a column for The Hill that Americans "are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts."
"Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened, rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections; combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function," wrote Atlas, the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.
The first fact, Atlas said is that the "overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
He pointed to a recent Stanford University antibody study that estimates the fatality rate if infected with the coronavirus is likely 0.1% to 0.2%.
The World Health Organization estimate of 3.4% that prompted the isolation policies worldwide was 20 to 30 times higher.
The rate for people 18 to 45 years old in New York City, which accounts for one-third of all U.S. deaths, is 0.01%, or 11 per 100,000 in the population. For people under 18 years old, the rate of death is zero per 100,000.
Fact No. 2: "Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding."
In New York City, which has more than 34,600 hospitalizations, the rate of hospitializations from the virus for those under 18 years of age is 0.01%. Even for people ages 65 to 74, only 1.7% were hospitalized, Atlas argued.
Fact 3: "Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem."
Atlas noted that decades of medical science shows that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response, controlling the spread in the population by "herd immunity."
"Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases — to assist with population immunity," he said.
"In this virus, we know that medical care is not even necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected," he said. "It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship, and then in Iceland and Italy."
The asymptomatic population has been "falsely portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation," he said.
"In fact, infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity," Atlas wrote. "By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then generate antibodies, they block the network of pathways toward the most vulnerable people, ultimately ending the threat.
"Extending whole-population isolation would directly prevent that widespread immunity from developing," he argued.
Fact 4: "People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections."
Atlas noted that states and many hospitals abruptly stopped "nonessential" procedures and surgery.
"That prevented diagnoses of life-threatening diseases, like cancer screening, biopsies of tumors now undiscovered and potentially deadly brain aneurysms," he said.
Fact 5: "We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures."
"The overwhelming evidence all over the world consistently shows that a clearly defined group — older people and others with underlying conditions — is more likely to have a serious illness requiring hospitalization and more likely to die from COVID-19," he wrote.
Therefore, the appropriate policy, "based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand," is "a more focused strategy."
That would be to "protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions."
"This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation," he said.
"Let’s stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models. Facts matter."


wnd--2020-04-25--Woman warned not to return to store wearing her incredible pro-life shirt

Conservative pundit Elisha Krauss caused quite a stir when she walked into a store on Thursday donning a pro-life T-shirt emblazoned with the message , “ Women ’ s Rights Begin in the Womb.
” This slogan is a simple , common-sense statement affirming the right to life for female babies in the womb , cleverly challenging the narrative that abortion is only about the pregnant woman 's rights .
But a security guard at Gelson ’ s Market in Van Nuys , California , apparently considered the slogan to be fighting words , and told Krauss not to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it could possibly incite violence .
The Daily Wire contributor and podcaster shared her ordeal on Twitter .
`` Was just asked by the security guy at the @ gelsonsmarkets on Van Nuys to 'next time don ’ t enter the market wearing a shirt that ’ s controversial ' and I asked why .
He said he didn ’ t want to be responsible for a fight and I said , 'you ’ re not responsible for what happens to me ...
I am . '
'' `` He said 'just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shirt next time . '
I said no one seemed bothered and no one commented .
He waved me off .
No one commented .
I socially distanced .
I wore a mask .
I had Lysol wipe in my hand . ''
Krauss then shared a photo of the offending garment : By her own account , Krauss followed every safety procedure for social distancing and only raised the ire of the security guard , no one else , with her T-shirt .
The shirt contained neither profanity nor anything graphic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ female babies in the womb have , or at least should have , the right to life in utero .
Nevertheless , in an instance of what leftists would normally describe as mansplaining , this security guard took it upon himself to assess Krauss ' wardrobe selection and decide that he had to protect her from her own choice .
Oddly enough , he felt justified to order Krauss to censor herself if she ever returned to the store .
He was essentially expressing his opinion on abortion , despite the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no right to an opinion on the matter since they ca n't get pregnant .
It is hardly a stretch to imagine that a woman wearing a shirt with the pro-abortion slogan `` My Body , My Choice '' would not have been similarly stopped and schooled on her apparel .
The worst part of his assumption is the illogical idea that when conservatives oppose something so awful and barbaric as the maiming and killing of children in the womb , their opposition to the bloodbath is the real scandal .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Action reached out for comment , the company issued a statement apologizing for the security guard 's behavior and promising that he would never be assigned to that store again .
“ We would like to sincerely apologize to Ms. Krauss for the completely inappropriate comment made to her by the third-party security guard at the Sherman Oaks location , ” the statement said .
“ The guard in question was immediately replaced and the guard company was contacted to ensure that the guard in question is never assigned to work at any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gelson ’ s hires guards to guarantee the safety of its customers and to ensure that COVID19 rules and restrictions such as the wearing of masks and social distancing are adhered to.
” The sad fact is that while Krauss and her pro-life T-shirt presumably went through the rest of the day without inciting violence , babies continued to die a violent death in abortion mills around the country .
That , of course , is the real violence the security guard should have been worried about .
This article appeared originally on @ @ @ @

Conservative pundit Elisha Krauss caused quite a stir when she walked into a store on Thursday donning a pro-life T-shirt emblazoned with the message, “Women’s Rights Begin in the Womb.”
This slogan is a simple, common-sense statement affirming the right to life for female babies in the womb, cleverly challenging the narrative that abortion is only about the pregnant woman's rights.
But a security guard at Gelson’s Market in Van Nuys, California, apparently considered the slogan to be fighting words, and told Krauss not to come back into the store wearing the T-shirt because it could possibly incite violence.
The Daily Wire contributor and podcaster shared her ordeal on Twitter.
"Was just asked by the security guy at the @gelsonsmarkets on Van Nuys to 'next time don’t enter the market wearing a shirt that’s controversial' and I asked why. He said he didn’t want to be responsible for a fight and I said, 'you’re not responsible for what happens to me ... I am.'"
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The security guard apparently disagreed.
"He said 'just don’t wear such a controversial shirt next time.' I said no one seemed bothered and no one commented. He waved me off. No one commented. I socially distanced. I wore a mask. I had Lysol wipe in my hand."
Krauss then shared a photo of the offending garment:
Was just asked by the security guy at the @gelsonsmarkets on Van Nuys to “next time don’t enter the market wearing a shirt that’s controversial” and I asked why. He said he didn’t want to be responsible for a fight and I said, “you’re not responsible for what happens to me... — Elisha (@ElishaKrauss) April 23, 2020
By her own account, Krauss followed every safety procedure for social distancing and only raised the ire of the security guard, no one else, with her T-shirt.
The shirt contained neither profanity nor anything graphic, and simply made the true statement that female babies in the womb have, or at least should have, the right to life in utero.
Nevertheless, in an instance of what leftists would normally describe as mansplaining, this security guard took it upon himself to assess Krauss' wardrobe selection and decide that he had to protect her from her own choice.
Oddly enough, he felt justified to order Krauss to censor herself if she ever returned to the store. He was essentially expressing his opinion on abortion, despite the fact that pro-abortion advocates are always telling men they have no right to an opinion on the matter since they can't get pregnant.
It is hardly a stretch to imagine that a woman wearing a shirt with the pro-abortion slogan "My Body, My Choice" would not have been similarly stopped and schooled on her apparel.
The worst part of his assumption is the illogical idea that when conservatives oppose something so awful and barbaric as the maiming and killing of children in the womb, their opposition to the bloodbath is the real scandal.
To the supermarket's credit, when Live Action reached out for comment, the company issued a statement apologizing for the security guard's behavior and promising that he would never be assigned to that store again.
“We would like to sincerely apologize to Ms. Krauss for the completely inappropriate comment made to her by the third-party security guard at the Sherman Oaks location,” the statement said.
“The guard in question was immediately replaced and the guard company was contacted to ensure that the guard in question is never assigned to work at any Gelson’s locations ever again. Gelson’s hires guards to guarantee the safety of its customers and to ensure that COVID19 rules and restrictions such as the wearing of masks and social distancing are adhered to.”
The sad fact is that while Krauss and her pro-life T-shirt presumably went through the rest of the day without inciting violence, babies continued to die a violent death in abortion mills around the country.
That, of course, is the real violence the security guard should have been worried about.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-04-25--Exclusive: Harvard elite's anti-homeschooling 'propaganda' rebuked by school-choice expert

Homeschooling is a potentially `` dangerous '' practice that gives parents `` authoritarian control '' over their children , if you choose to believe a particular Harvard Law School professor .
But there are almost always two sides to a story , and a school choice expert has issued a powerful refutation of the professor 's claims .
“ The issue is , do we think that parents should have 24/7 , essentially authoritarian control over their children from ages zero to 18 ?
I think that ’ s dangerous , ” the professor , Elizabeth Bartholet , told Harvard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Risks of Homeschooling . ''
“ I think it ’ s always dangerous to put powerful people in charge of the powerless , and to give the powerful ones total authority , '' she said in an interview for the magazine 's May-June issue .
But Corey DeAngelis , director of school choice at the libertarian Reason Foundation and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute , finds Bartholet 's anti-homeschooling comments to be rife with hypocrisy .
`` This statement is beyond parody , '' he told The Western Journal in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's claim that homeschooling gives parents `` authoritarian control '' over their children .
`` Constitutional rights protect us from government abuse of power .
It 's unbelievable that she does n't realize that using government force to take away parents ' rights to educate their own children at home is the definition of authoritarianism , '' DeAngelis said .
Bartholet also drew the ire of school choice advocates when she suggested in an Arizona Law Review paper last year that some Christian parents who want to focus more on faith-based values are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even went so far as to imply that some homeschooled children could be at risk for abuse .
`` They are also at serious risk for ongoing abuse and neglect in the isolated families that constitute a significant part of the homeschooling world .
Mandated reporters are key to child protection , and compulsory education has served to protect many children against maltreatment , '' Bartholet wrote .
`` Or maybe [ parents who homeschool ] just want to protect their children from the abuse and violence that too often occurs in government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He pointed out two federal government reports showing that abuse is all too common in public schools .
`` The latest report from the U.S. Department of Education on the subject estimated that 1 in 10 children in government schools will experience sexual misconduct from school employees by the time they graduate high school , '' he said .
`` A 2018 report from the U.S. Department of Education found that 1 in 5 students between the ages of 12 and 18 were bullied and that 79 percent of government schools recorded that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theft , or other crimes had taken place in the most recent school year . ''
DeAngelis also took issue with the Harvard Magazine article 's `` propaganda '' cover image , which was meant to be a metaphorical representation of the dangers of homeschooling .
`` Along with Harvard Magazine 's bizarre anti-homeschooling propaganda image of the homeschooled child stuck in a house made from a Bible , this is fear-mongering and an appeal to anti-religious bigotry , '' DeAngelis said .
`` Although I am not a religious person myself , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the 1st Amendment right to exercise their religious beliefs even if some Ivy League elites do n't like it . ''
Moreover , the school choice advocate pointed out how Bartholet `` does n't provide any data on the prevalence of 'extreme religious ideologues . '
'' DeAngelis agrees that `` of course there might be some '' religious extremists who homeschool their children , but said that to punish all homeschooling families for the actions of a `` few bad actors '' would be wholly unjustified .
Lastly , DeAngelis responded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most important aspects of education is `` exposing children to a variety of views and values and preparing them for civic engagement , '' and that homeschooled kids are sheltered from being exposed to a diverse range of perspectives to help them function in American society .
His evidence-based rebuttal sharply contradicted the professor 's stance .
`` She conveniently forgot to mention that the preponderance of the evidence shows that homeschooled children perform better academically and socially than their otherwise similar peers in conventional schools , and that around two-thirds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If anything , the evidence suggests it 's the government schools that are failing to prepare our youth to function in a proper democracy , '' DeAngelis told The Western Journal .
`` A 2019 study published in the Peabody Journal of Education examined data on a nationally representative sample of students and found that homeschoolers were more likely to engage in cultural and family activities than otherwise similar students attending government schools .
Maybe being stuck in a government school building for several hours a day for 13 years is what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? ''
DeAngelis ' closing comments highlighted what he sees as the gaps in logic that fill Bartholet 's arguments .
If such a small percentage of the nation 's children are being homeschooled at the moment , DeAngelis wants to know if Bartholet really believes they are actually responsible for America 's problems .
`` We are living in an era of extreme political polarization right now , yet about 82 % of children attend government-run schools today , '' he said .
`` Does Bartholet really believe that the 3 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ causing all of our problems , or could it be that the government schools are contributing to the intolerance and polarization we see today ? ''
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

Homeschooling is a potentially "dangerous" practice that gives parents "authoritarian control" over their children, if you choose to believe a particular Harvard Law School professor.
But there are almost always two sides to a story, and a school choice expert has issued a powerful refutation of the professor's claims.
“The issue is, do we think that parents should have 24/7, essentially authoritarian control over their children from ages zero to 18? I think that’s dangerous,” the professor, Elizabeth Bartholet, told Harvard Magazine for a piece titled, "The Risks of Homeschooling."
“I think it’s always dangerous to put powerful people in charge of the powerless, and to give the powerful ones total authority," she said in an interview for the magazine's May-June issue.
But Corey DeAngelis, director of school choice at the libertarian Reason Foundation and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, finds Bartholet's anti-homeschooling comments to be rife with hypocrisy.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"This statement is beyond parody," he told The Western Journal in an email Thursday, referring to Bartholet's claim that homeschooling gives parents "authoritarian control" over their children.
"Constitutional rights protect us from government abuse of power. It's unbelievable that she doesn't realize that using government force to take away parents' rights to educate their own children at home is the definition of authoritarianism," DeAngelis said.
Bartholet also drew the ire of school choice advocates when she suggested in an Arizona Law Review paper last year that some Christian parents who want to focus more on faith-based values are "extreme religious ideologues," and even went so far as to imply that some homeschooled children could be at risk for abuse.
"They are also at serious risk for ongoing abuse and neglect in the isolated families that constitute a significant part of the homeschooling world. Mandated reporters are key to child protection, and compulsory education has served to protect many children against maltreatment," Bartholet wrote.
"Or maybe [parents who homeschool] just want to protect their children from the abuse and violence that too often occurs in government schools?" DeAngelis fired back.
He pointed out two federal government reports showing that abuse is all too common in public schools.
"The latest report from the U.S. Department of Education on the subject estimated that 1 in 10 children in government schools will experience sexual misconduct from school employees by the time they graduate high school," he said.
"A 2018 report from the U.S. Department of Education found that 1 in 5 students between the ages of 12 and 18 were bullied and that 79 percent of government schools recorded that one or more incidents of violence, theft, or other crimes had taken place in the most recent school year."
DeAngelis also took issue with the Harvard Magazine article's "propaganda" cover image, which was meant to be a metaphorical representation of the dangers of homeschooling.
Woah. I just noticed the bizarre cover image used for the Harvard Magazine article. It shows a sad homeschool child imprisoned in a house while the other kids are outside playing. Notice the house is made of books, one of them being the Bible 😱👻 pic.twitter.com/IZfaVuIA0G — Corey A. DeAngelis (@DeAngelisCorey) April 18, 2020
"Along with Harvard Magazine's bizarre anti-homeschooling propaganda image of the homeschooled child stuck in a house made from a Bible, this is fear-mongering and an appeal to anti-religious bigotry," DeAngelis said.
"Although I am not a religious person myself, I understand and respect that all Americans have the 1st Amendment right to exercise their religious beliefs even if some Ivy League elites don't like it."
Moreover, the school choice advocate pointed out how Bartholet "doesn't provide any data on the prevalence of 'extreme religious ideologues.'"
DeAngelis agrees that "of course there might be some" religious extremists who homeschool their children, but said that to punish all homeschooling families for the actions of a "few bad actors" would be wholly unjustified.
Lastly, DeAngelis responded to Bartholet's assertions that one of the most important aspects of education is "exposing children to a variety of views and values and preparing them for civic engagement," and that homeschooled kids are sheltered from being exposed to a diverse range of perspectives to help them function in American society.
His evidence-based rebuttal sharply contradicted the professor's stance.
"She conveniently forgot to mention that the preponderance of the evidence shows that homeschooled children perform better academically and socially than their otherwise similar peers in conventional schools, and that around two-thirds of U.S. children are not proficient in reading. If anything, the evidence suggests it's the government schools that are failing to prepare our youth to function in a proper democracy," DeAngelis told The Western Journal.
"A 2019 study published in the Peabody Journal of Education examined data on a nationally representative sample of students and found that homeschoolers were more likely to engage in cultural and family activities than otherwise similar students attending government schools. Maybe being stuck in a government school building for several hours a day for 13 years is what really shelters kids from experiencing diverse perspectives?"
DeAngelis' closing comments highlighted what he sees as the gaps in logic that fill Bartholet's arguments. If such a small percentage of the nation's children are being homeschooled at the moment, DeAngelis wants to know if Bartholet really believes they are actually responsible for America's problems.
"We are living in an era of extreme political polarization right now, yet about 82% of children attend government-run schools today," he said. "Does Bartholet really believe that the 3 percent of the population identified as homeschoolers is causing all of our problems, or could it be that the government schools are contributing to the intolerance and polarization we see today?"
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-04-24--Report debunks, again, secret Trump-Putin channel

A cybersecurity team has confirming special counsel Robert Mueller 's conclusion that the 2016 Trump campaign was not communicating secretly with Vladimir Putin through bank servers .
Just the News reports consultants at the firm Ankura found `` communication from Alfa Bank to servers on the U.S. East Coast were going to a company that runs marketing activities for several global hotel chains , including , for a number of years , the Trump Hotels – not servers owned or operated by the Trump campaign . ''
The claim was made in the Democratic Party-funded `` dossier '' created by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was based on unnamed Russian sources .
U.S. Attorney John Durham now is conducting a criminal investigation into the origins of the Obama administration 's investigation of the Trump campaign .
The Alfa Bank claim came from Steele , who provided the information to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec in 2016 , Just the News said .
Kavalec then forward the claims to the FBI .
Investigators were trying to trace communications between computer servers , including one at the bank and another used by a Trump organization marketing agency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an assessment by Ankura ’ s Cyber Threat Analysis and Pursuit Team ( CTAPT ) of possible DNS activity between the Trump organization , the marketing agency servers , and the Alfa Bank servers , the cyber experts found 'no evidence that mail1.trump-email.com and trump1.contact-client.com were used by Alfa-Bank and the Trump organization for covert communications . '
'' The report said there might have been illegal activity , if `` threat actors '' `` conjured the appearance of a connection between the Trump servers and Alfa Bank servers by creating false Domain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' If there were such bad actors , Solomon asked , who were they ?

A cybersecurity team has confirming special counsel Robert Mueller's conclusion that the 2016 Trump campaign was not communicating secretly with Vladimir Putin through bank servers.
Just the News reports consultants at the firm Ankura found "communication from Alfa Bank to servers on the U.S. East Coast were going to a company that runs marketing activities for several global hotel chains, including, for a number of years, the Trump Hotels – not servers owned or operated by the Trump campaign."
The claim was made in the Democratic Party-funded "dossier" created by former British spy Christopher Steele, which was based on unnamed Russian sources.
Michael Horowitz's Justice Department inspector general report found Russian "disinformation" appeared in the report.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
U.S. Attorney John Durham now is conducting a criminal investigation into the origins of the Obama administration's investigation of the Trump campaign.
The Alfa Bank claim came from Steele, who provided the information to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec in 2016, Just the News said.
Kavalec then forward the claims to the FBI.
Investigators were trying to trace communications between computer servers, including one at the bank and another used by a Trump organization marketing agency.
Just the News reported: "After an assessment by Ankura’s Cyber Threat Analysis and Pursuit Team (CTAPT) of possible DNS activity between the Trump organization, the marketing agency servers, and the Alfa Bank servers, the cyber experts found 'no evidence that mail1.trump-email.com and trump1.contact-client.com were used by Alfa-Bank and the Trump organization for covert communications.'"
The report said there might have been illegal activity, if "threat actors" "conjured the appearance of a connection between the Trump servers and Alfa Bank servers by creating false Domain Name System activity (DNS)."
If there were such bad actors, Solomon asked, who were they?


wnd--2020-04-24--Democrats looking for love won't date Republicans, Trump supporters

If you voted for President Trump in 2016 , 71 % of singles who are Democrats or lean Democrat say they probably or definitely would not consider being in a committed relationship with you .
And 43 % say they would avoid you merely for being a Republican .
Pew Research said in an analysis that the survey reflects a time `` when political polarization and antipathy ... remains at modern historic highs . ''
Republicans or those who lean Republican were much more accepting .
Only 47 % say they probably or definitely would not enter into such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reject a Democrat outright .
In fact , 51 % of Republicans say they probably would , definitely would , or already have involved themselves in that kind of relationship .
Only 28 % of Democrats have .
`` The aversion to dating people of different political orientations reflects the partisan antipathy seen in the overall public , '' Pew explained .
`` Other recent Pew Research Center surveys have found that sizable shares of partisans are likely to associate negative traits such as 'closed-minded ' and 'immoral ' with members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it stressful and frustrating to talk about politics with people who don ’ t share their political views .
`` For the most part , partisans are very likely to say they would consider being in a relationship with someone of their own party or who voted for their party ’ s 2016 candidate .
Even so , 13 % of Democrats say they would not consider being in a relationship with someone who voted for Hillary Clinton .
This compares with only 5 % of Republicans who say the same about someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the report said .
• Among Democratic daters , willingness to date someone on the other side of the partisan divide differs by race and education .
( The sample size of Republican daters is too small to analyze differences between demographic subgroups . )
Single-and-looking Democrats who identify as some race or ethnicity other than white are more likely than their white counterparts to say they would not consider getting into a relationship with a Trump voter ( 78 % of nonwhites say this , compared with 63 % of whites ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 34 % ) .
However , nonwhite Democratic daters are also significantly more likely to say they wouldn ’ t consider being in a relationship with a Clinton voter ( 21 % vs. 4 % ) .
• And Democratic daters with at least a bachelor ’ s degree are more likely than those with some college experience or less education to say they would not be in a relationship with someone who voted for Trump in 2016 ( 84 % vs. 67 % ) .
In turn , Democratic daters without a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a bachelor ’ s degree or more education to say they wouldn ’ t be in a relationship with a Clinton voter ( 16 % vs. 6 % ) .
There are no significant differences by education when it comes to those who would consider seriously dating a Republican or Democrat .
• Single-and-looking Democrats who consider themselves liberal or very liberal are more likely than those who consider themselves moderate , conservative or very conservative to say they would not consider being in a relationship with a Trump voter ( 78 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among moderate and conservative Democrats ) or a Republican ( 53 % vs. 31 % ) .
Interestingly , Pew said , `` It ’ s worth noting that Democratic daters far outnumber Republican daters : Among singles looking for a relationship in this survey , 62 % are Democrats or lean Democratic and 36 % are Republicans or Republican leaners . ''

If you voted for President Trump in 2016, 71% of singles who are Democrats or lean Democrat say they probably or definitely would not consider being in a committed relationship with you.
And 43% say they would avoid you merely for being a Republican.
Pew Research said in an analysis that the survey reflects a time "when political polarization and antipathy ... remains at modern historic highs."
Republicans or those who lean Republican were much more accepting.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Only 47% say they probably or definitely would not enter into such a relationship, while only 24% would reject a Democrat outright.
In fact, 51% of Republicans say they probably would, definitely would, or already have involved themselves in that kind of relationship. Only 28% of Democrats have.
"The aversion to dating people of different political orientations reflects the partisan antipathy seen in the overall public," Pew explained. "Other recent Pew Research Center surveys have found that sizable shares of partisans are likely to associate negative traits such as 'closed-minded' and 'immoral' with members of the opposite political party, and many find it stressful and frustrating to talk about politics with people who don’t share their political views.
"For the most part, partisans are very likely to say they would consider being in a relationship with someone of their own party or who voted for their party’s 2016 candidate. Even so, 13% of Democrats say they would not consider being in a relationship with someone who voted for Hillary Clinton. This compares with only 5% of Republicans who say the same about someone who voted for Donald Trump," the report said.
The survey also found:
Among Democratic daters, willingness to date someone on the other side of the partisan divide differs by race and education. (The sample size of Republican daters is too small to analyze differences between demographic subgroups.) Single-and-looking Democrats who identify as some race or ethnicity other than white are more likely than their white counterparts to say they would not consider getting into a relationship with a Trump voter (78% of nonwhites say this, compared with 63% of whites) or a Republican (51% vs. 34%). However, nonwhite Democratic daters are also significantly more likely to say they wouldn’t consider being in a relationship with a Clinton voter (21% vs. 4%).
And Democratic daters with at least a bachelor’s degree are more likely than those with some college experience or less education to say they would not be in a relationship with someone who voted for Trump in 2016 (84% vs. 67%). In turn, Democratic daters without a college degree are more likely than those with a bachelor’s degree or more education to say they wouldn’t be in a relationship with a Clinton voter (16% vs. 6%). There are no significant differences by education when it comes to those who would consider seriously dating a Republican or Democrat.
Single-and-looking Democrats who consider themselves liberal or very liberal are more likely than those who consider themselves moderate, conservative or very conservative to say they would not consider being in a relationship with a Trump voter (78% of liberal Democrats vs. 63% among moderate and conservative Democrats) or a Republican (53% vs. 31%).
Interestingly, Pew said, "It’s worth noting that Democratic daters far outnumber Republican daters: Among singles looking for a relationship in this survey, 62% are Democrats or lean Democratic and 36% are Republicans or Republican leaners."