wnd--2020-05-27--Use of anti-anxiety meds, sleep aids spikes amid pandemic

Doctors are warning of long-term addiction and abuse amid a steep rise in the use of anti-anxiety medications and sleep aids in the United States during the coronavirus pandemic .
Prescriptions for anti-anxiety medications such as Klonopin and Ativan rose 10.2 % to 9.7 million in March 2020 compared to the previous March , according to the latest data from health-research firm IQVIA , the Wall Street Journal reports .
The firm said prescriptions for antidepressants , including Prozac and Lexapro , rose 9.2 % to 29.7 million in the same period .
`` Many physicians have a low threshold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problematic , ” said Bruce J. Schwartz , deputy chair and professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Montefiore Medical Center in New York .
`` Many people do develop a dependency on these medications . ''
TRENDING : Trump : ' I have a chance to break the Deep State' The Journal said some companies have seen more dramatic increases .
Prescriptions for anti-anxiety medications rose 34.1 % between mid-February and mid-March , according to Express Scripts , a pharmacy benefit manager owned by Cigna .
And , the company says , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18.6 % and 14.8 % , respectively .
The Journal reported Ginger , which supplies online-based mental health services to companies , says its psychiatrists wrote 86 % more prescriptions for psychotropic drugs in March and April 2020 compared with the previous two months .
A survey released March 25 by the American Psychiatric Association found more than one-third of Americans say the coronavirus pandemic is having a `` serious impact '' on their mental health .
`` This kind of chronic stress brings about , for all those people who have never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelms them , '' said Charles B. Nemeroff , professor and chair of the department of psychiatry at Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin .
`` If you ’ ve lost your job , if you ’ re worried if you ’ ll have enough food for your kids , that will keep you up at night , '' said Nemeroff , who is president-elect of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America .

Doctors are warning of long-term addiction and abuse amid a steep rise in the use of anti-anxiety medications and sleep aids in the United States during the coronavirus pandemic.
Prescriptions for anti-anxiety medications such as Klonopin and Ativan rose 10.2% to 9.7 million in March 2020 compared to the previous March, according to the latest data from health-research firm IQVIA, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The firm said prescriptions for antidepressants, including Prozac and Lexapro, rose 9.2% to 29.7 million in the same period.
"Many physicians have a low threshold for prescribing them. It's very problematic,” said Bruce J. Schwartz, deputy chair and professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Montefiore Medical Center in New York. "Many people do develop a dependency on these medications."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The Journal said some companies have seen more dramatic increases.
Prescriptions for anti-anxiety medications rose 34.1% between mid-February and mid-March, according to Express Scripts, a pharmacy benefit manager owned by Cigna.
And, the company says, prescriptions for antidepressants and sleep medications increased 18.6% and 14.8%, respectively.
The Journal reported Ginger, which supplies online-based mental health services to companies, says its psychiatrists wrote 86% more prescriptions for psychotropic drugs in March and April 2020 compared with the previous two months.
A survey released March 25 by the American Psychiatric Association found more than one-third of Americans say the coronavirus pandemic is having a "serious impact" on their mental health.
"This kind of chronic stress brings about, for all those people who have never had anxiety before, it sort of overwhelms them," said Charles B. Nemeroff, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry at Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin.
"If you’ve lost your job, if you’re worried if you’ll have enough food for your kids, that will keep you up at night," said Nemeroff, who is president-elect of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America.


wnd--2020-05-27--Ex-CBS boss: Media won't give up bias because they'll lose money

A former president of CBS News believes it 's too late to correct the left-leaning bias of establishment media , contending it has passed its tipping point .
Van Gordon Sauter writes in a Wall Street Journal column that a correction would be commercially unviable , and the best solution may be an honest embrace of bias .
Sauter recalls hearing President Reagan 's foreign policy adviser Jeane Kirkpatrick , a onetime Democrat , telling him 35 years ago that it was `` too late '' for the liberal media to turn to the center .
Calling her `` prophetic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , three broadcast networks and two of the three leading cable news sources `` are unrelentingly liberal in their fear and loathing of President Trump . ''
TRENDING : Trump : ' I have a chance to break the Deep State' '' The news media is catching up with the liberalism of the professoriate , the entertainment industry , upscale magazines and the literary world , '' he writes .
`` Recent arrivals are the late-night TV hosts who have broken the boundaries of what was considered acceptable political humor for networks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 1982-83 and in 1986 .
He observers `` that much of journalism has become the clarion voice of the 'resistance , ' dedicated to ousting the president , even though he was legally elected and , according to the polls , enjoys the support of about 44 % of likely 2020 voters . ''
If Trump wins in November , they will likely find him `` more dangerous and offensive in a second term than in the first . ''
More important , how will a large segment of the public ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the country ’ s best interests ? ''
he asks .
`` Unfortunately , dominant media organizations have bonded with another large segment of the public — one that embraces its new approach .
Pulling back from anti-Trump activism could prove commercially harmful . ''
He says media seem uninterested in issues of bias .
`` But wouldn ’ t a softening of its editorial orientation bring new readers or viewers ? ''
he asks .
`` Probably not .
The growth of new customers would be more than offset by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ audience , '' he believes .
`` The news media seems very comfortable with its product and ability to sell it . ''
Sauter suggests publishers , editors and reporters just admit : `` Yes , I am left of center !
I ’ m proud of it .
I think our reporting is accurate .
It best serves the public .
And the credibility of the media .
So there ! ''
`` Publications open about their bias might feel freer to focus on the specifics : story selection , presentation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devoid of subtlety for sure , but manageable , '' he argues .
Ultimately , Sauter concludes , America `` wo n't reunite until far more people can look at a news story in print or on the screen and , of all things , believe it . ''

A former president of CBS News believes it's too late to correct the left-leaning bias of establishment media, contending it has passed its tipping point.
Van Gordon Sauter writes in a Wall Street Journal column that a correction would be commercially unviable, and the best solution may be an honest embrace of bias.
Sauter recalls hearing President Reagan's foreign policy adviser Jeane Kirkpatrick, a onetime Democrat, telling him 35 years ago that it was "too late" for the liberal media to turn to the center.
Calling her "prophetic," he noted the top newspapers, three broadcast networks and two of the three leading cable news sources "are unrelentingly liberal in their fear and loathing of President Trump."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"The news media is catching up with the liberalism of the professoriate, the entertainment industry, upscale magazines and the literary world," he writes. "Recent arrivals are the late-night TV hosts who have broken the boundaries of what was considered acceptable political humor for networks."
Sauter was president of CBS News from 1982-83 and in 1986.
He observers "that much of journalism has become the clarion voice of the 'resistance,' dedicated to ousting the president, even though he was legally elected and, according to the polls, enjoys the support of about 44% of likely 2020 voters."
If Trump wins in November, they will likely find him "more dangerous and offensive in a second term than in the first."
More important, how will a large segment of the public ever put stock in journalism it considers hostile to the country’s best interests?" he asks. "Unfortunately, dominant media organizations have bonded with another large segment of the public — one that embraces its new approach. Pulling back from anti-Trump activism could prove commercially harmful."
He says media seem uninterested in issues of bias.
"But wouldn’t a softening of its editorial orientation bring new readers or viewers?" he asks.
"Probably not. The growth of new customers would be more than offset by the defection of outraged members of the current audience," he believes. "The news media seems very comfortable with its product and ability to sell it."
Sauter suggests publishers, editors and reporters just admit: "Yes, I am left of center! I’m proud of it. I think our reporting is accurate. It best serves the public. And the credibility of the media. So there!"
"Publications open about their bias might feel freer to focus on the specifics: story selection, presentation, facts, fairness, balance. Not devoid of subtlety for sure, but manageable," he argues.
Ultimately, Sauter concludes, America "won't reunite until far more people can look at a news story in print or on the screen and, of all things, believe it."


wnd--2020-05-26--Witness: I saw Bill Clinton on Epstein's 'Orgy Island'

Bill Clinton 's friendship with the late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein has been documented by logs of his many flights aboard the notorious `` Lolita Express '' private jet and photographs .
But the former president has denied he ever visited Epstein 's `` Orgy Osland '' in the Caribbean , alleged to be the scene of sexual assaults of underage women .
Now , a former worker on Epstein 's island of Little Saint James claims he saw Clinton there , according to a Netflix documentary called `` Jeffrey Epstein : Filthy Rich . ''
Summit News reports Steve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was on the island periodically , claims he saw Clinton sitting with Epstein on the porch of the island 's villa .
TRENDING : Trump : ' I have a chance to break the Deep State' Scully did not witness Clinton taking part in any illegal activity , however , and says no other guests were present at the time .
He also claims other VIPs , such as Prince Andrew , were an the island , sometimes `` naked and flanked by topless girls . ''
`` You tell yourself that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and you never really saw anything , but that ’ s all just rationalization , '' Scully said in the documentary . ''
An Epstien `` sex slave , '' Virginia Roberts Giuffre , has declared in legal papers that Clinton was on the island .
She alleges she had dinner with Clinton , Epstein and others there .
Clinton is seen in photos with some of Epstein 's retinue .
One shows him with his arms around Chauntae Davies , who has claimed to be Epstein 's `` personal masseuse . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ steps of Epstein 's private jet .
The plan was allegedly the site of sexual relations with underage women .
Flights logs indicate Clinton made 26 flights on the `` Lolita Express . ''
New photos of Clinton with Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell aboard the jet had been found , reported the London Sun .
Epstein was facing numerous charges of sex trafficking involving underage girls when he was found hanging dead in his jail cell in August .
The Justice Department has called it an `` apparent suicide . ''

Bill Clinton's friendship with the late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein has been documented by logs of his many flights aboard the notorious "Lolita Express" private jet and photographs.
But the former president has denied he ever visited Epstein's "Orgy Island" in the Caribbean, alleged to be the scene of sexual assaults of underage women.
Now, a former worker on Epstein's island of Little Saint James claims he saw Clinton there, according to a Netflix documentary called "Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich."
Summit News reports Steve Scully, 70, a communications worker who was on the island periodically, claims he saw Clinton sitting with Epstein on the porch of the island's villa.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Scully did not witness Clinton taking part in any illegal activity, however, and says no other guests were present at the time.
He also claims other VIPs, such as Prince Andrew, were at the island, sometimes "naked and flanked by topless girls."
"You tell yourself that you didn’t know for sure and you never really saw anything, but that’s all just rationalization," Scully said in the documentary."
An Epstien "sex slave," Virginia Roberts Giuffre, has declared in legal papers that Clinton was on the island. She alleges she had dinner with Clinton, Epstein and others there.
Was Bill Clinton involved in the sordid activities on Jeffrey Epstein's 'Orgey Island'? 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. 100% (587 Votes) 0% (1 Votes)
Clinton is seen in photos with some of Epstein's retinue. One shows him with his arms around Chauntae Davies, who has claimed to be Epstein's "personal masseuse."
Another shows the former president on the steps of Epstein's private jet. The plane was allegedly the site of sexual relations with underage women. Flights logs indicate Clinton made 26 flights on the "Lolita Express."
New photos of Clinton with Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell aboard the jet had been found, reported the London Sun.
Epstein was facing numerous charges of sex trafficking involving underage girls when he was found hanging dead in his jail cell in August. The Justice Department has called it an "apparent suicide."


wnd--2020-05-26--Democrat governor: My critics want to send elderly to 'desert island'

When a local TV reporter asked Washington state Democratic Gov .
Jay Inslee how his lockdown policy squares with the evidence that people under age 60 have little chance of dying from COVID-19 , she expected an answer to her question .
But Inslee , who contends his four-phase policy is rooted in `` science and data , '' insisted on responding to a point no one was making , causing many frustrated residents of the evergreen state to conclude he has no defense .
In the interview Saturday with Brandi Kruse of Fox affiliate KCPQ-TV in Seattle , Inslee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior citizens do n't matter .
`` We have some politicians saying , 'Oh these are ... most of the people are over the age of 60 who lose their lives , so we just really should n't worry about that too much , ' '' said Inslee , who still has his state in phase one of his plan , meaning `` non-essential '' businesses are still closed .
TRENDING : Trump : ' I have a chance to break the Deep State' '' I take extreme exception to that position , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it is not consistent with any version of humanity and as a 69-year-old I believe that 69-year-olds can actually be productive . ''
But no one has claimed senior lives do n't matter , and Kruse noted that a lawsuit against the governor by Republicans is based on data showing 90 % of the COVID-19 deaths in the state are among people over age 60 .
And most of those deaths are among people over age 80 .
`` Is it possible , '' Kruse asked the governor , `` to maintain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable individuals and people who work with them while relaxing it for everyone else ?
That 's the context in which I hear people talking about the elderly .
Not as if they are to be lives thrown away . ''
Inslee replied : `` Well , in any real assessment , if people are being realistic with themselves , to realize that 's impossible .
We 're not going to take people , once they reach age 65 , and put them on a desert island alone , segregated forever from our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , no one is talking about a desert island . ''
`` That is not ... what I 'm telling you is , no , we 're not going to permanently tell people over the age of 60 or 65 that they ’ re no longer part of our community , '' the governor said .
Kruse shot back , `` I do n't know that anybody is saying permanently . ''
`` Brandi , '' Inslee scolded , clearly displaying irritation , `` if you would like to have a discussion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point . ''
Kruse said she wanted to `` just make sure we 're not using hyperbole . ''
`` We 're talking about , '' she said , `` is it possible to take reasonable measures to try to help that population ? ''
Inslee , increasingly testy , said : `` My answer , please .
Is that OK with you ?
Thank you , I have something to say here .
You may not agree with it , that may be possible ... '' Kruse interjected again : `` Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagreeing .
It 's just about making sure that we press you on every step and every decision you make .
It 's our job . ''
`` Here 's the situation , Brandi , '' Inslee said .
`` I don ’ t know if you have older people in your life or not , but the alternative of trying to tell those people that they can not socialize with you for the rest of their life is just not tenable . ''
Inslee said Friday some counties in the state wo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 on June 1 as scheduled under the four-phase plan .
`` Counties that continue to have large numbers of infections are not in a position to open up stores , restaurants and services safely , '' Inslee wrote in a statement .
Reacting to the interview , Jason Rantz , a KTTH Seattle talk-radio host , said Inslee is `` arguing with himself . ''
`` Who is making those claims ?
No one .
He ’ s the only one making that point because he believes it ’ s the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s right about that . ''
Rantz said Inslee regularly refers to “ data ” and “ science ” without citing actual statistics .
`` There was no data or science to justify keeping open publicly funding construction projects , but banning privately funded projects .
There was no basis in science to argue fishing alone in a boat is dangerous . ''
The KTTH host noted state Democratic Rep. Emily Wicks came to Inslee 's defense after the interview , inferring on Twitter that Kruse 's tweet of a video clip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ context .
Wicks wrote , `` Whatever gets the clicks , right ?
! ''
But Kruse pointed out that Twitter `` allows 2:20 videos . ''
`` We posted 2:20 and linked to the rest , '' the TV reporter argued .
`` If you 're suggesting it was edited out of context , that 's false .
And frankly , had the Governor been able to make his point without hyperbole , we could have fit his entire answer in one clip . ''
'Based on an understanding of science' In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about his comment that the coronavirus pandemic is an opportunity `` to peddle a solution to climate change . ''
As WND reported , Inslee , who ran for his party 's presidential nomination on a climate-change agenda , said at a recent virtual townhall hosted by Sen. Bernie Sanders that the coronavirus crisis `` has always been an economic opportunity . ''
`` We should not be intimidated when people , Oh who say you should not use this COVID crisis to peddle a solution to climate change , '' Inslee said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an excuse for inaction on climate change ... they 're both so similar ... .
based on an understanding of science . ''
In her interview Saturday , Kruse asked the governor if he wanted to clarify the remarks he made at the Sanders event .
She cited a Washington state mayor saying the climate-change remarks made him question the motivation behind some of the governor 's decisions .
Kruse asked Inslee if he regretted using the term `` opportunity '' regarding the present crisis .
`` No , I stand by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tremoundous opportunity , with a capital O , for the United States and the state of Washington , '' he replied .
Kruse 's weekly show , `` The Divide , '' is described as a `` commentary that aims to find common ground on an issue dividing Americans . ''
Topics include gun control , free speech and policing .
Inslee drew national attention for a requirement in his new statewide orders that Washington restaurants offering sit-down service create a daily log of all customers .
Fierce opposition to the measure prompted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were to include telephone and email contact information and the time the customers were in the restaurant .
The governor also was the target of a lawsuit that forced him to amend his March order banning religious gatherings of any size , including one-on-one Bible studies in homes .
Inslee 's four-phased approach to reopening requires at least three weeks between each phase .
If numbers show the coronavirus is spreading , the next phase will be delayed .
`` The phased approach to re-opening our economy will allow us to move forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our state 's health and economic needs , '' Inslee said May 4 .
`` However , if infection rates and hospitalizations for COVID-related issues go up , I would not hesitate to scale their efforts back down to protect public health and save lives . ''
WND reported the controversy in Washington state over whether or not the `` isolation '' camps established for people infected with COVID-19 are voluntary .
The governor 's office and media have called claims that people can be placed their involuntarily a `` conspiracy theory .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But a detention order shows police have authority to ensure compliance .
And a Washingon State Department of Health statement `` on misinformation circulating about quarantine orders and facilities in Washington state '' says `` local health officers '' have the authority to `` involuntary ( sic ) isolate or quarantine an individual . ''
`` Each local health jurisdiction in Washington has plans and processes in place should involuntary isolation or quarantine be needed , '' the statement says .

When a local TV reporter asked Washington state Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee how his lockdown policy squares with the evidence that people under age 60 have little chance of dying from COVID-19, she expected an answer to her question.
But Inslee, who contends his four-phase policy is rooted in "science and data," insisted on responding to a point no one was making, causing many frustrated residents of the evergreen state to conclude he has no defense.
In the interview Saturday with Brandi Kruse of Fox affiliate KCPQ-TV in Seattle, Inslee claimed his critics believe the lives of senior citizens don't matter.
"We have some politicians saying, 'Oh these are ... most of the people are over the age of 60 who lose their lives, so we just really shouldn't worry about that too much,'" said Inslee, who still has his state in phase one of his plan, meaning "non-essential" businesses are still closed.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"I take extreme exception to that position," he continued. "I believe that it is not consistent with any version of humanity and as a 69-year-old I believe that 69-year-olds can actually be productive."
But no one has claimed senior lives don't matter, and Kruse noted that a lawsuit against the governor by Republicans is based on data showing 90% of the COVID-19 deaths in the state are among people over age 60. And most of those deaths are among people over age 80.
"Is it possible," Kruse asked the governor, "to maintain strict social distancing for those elderly or vulnerable individuals and people who work with them while relaxing it for everyone else? That's the context in which I hear people talking about the elderly. Not as if they are to be lives thrown away."
Inslee replied: "Well, in any real assessment, if people are being realistic with themselves, to realize that's impossible. We're not going to take people, once they reach age 65, and put them on a desert island alone, segregated forever from our society."
Kruse interjected: "Well, no one is talking about a desert island."
Inslee jump back in.
"That is not ... what I'm telling you is, no, we're not going to permanently tell people over the age of 60 or 65 that they’re no longer part of our community," the governor said.
Kruse shot back, "I don't know that anybody is saying permanently."
"Brandi," Inslee scolded, clearly displaying irritation, "if you would like to have a discussion, I would like to finish my point."
Kruse said she wanted to "just make sure we're not using hyperbole."
"We're talking about," she said, "is it possible to take reasonable measures to try to help that population?"
Inslee, increasingly testy, said: "My answer, please. Is that OK with you? Thank you, I have something to say here. You may not agree with it, that may be possible ..."
Kruse interjected again: "Well, it's not about agreeing or disagreeing. It's just about making sure that we press you on every step and every decision you make. It's our job."
"Here's the situation, Brandi," Inslee said. "I don’t know if you have older people in your life or not, but the alternative of trying to tell those people that they cannot socialize with you for the rest of their life is just not tenable."
Inslee said Friday some counties in the state won't be allowed to move to phase 2 on June 1 as scheduled under the four-phase plan.
"Counties that continue to have large numbers of infections are not in a position to open up stores, restaurants and services safely," Inslee wrote in a statement.
See the full interview.
Should Washington state focus social distancing mandates on the elderly and vulnerable? Governor Jay Inslee joined #TheDivide to discuss that and the state's continued #COVID19 response. FULL SHOW: https://t.co/kXxAUQYoyH #Q13FOX pic.twitter.com/jznz7SIiEc — Brandi Kruse (@BrandiKruse) May 24, 2020
Reacting to the interview, Jason Rantz, a KTTH Seattle talk-radio host, said Inslee is "arguing with himself."
"Who is making those claims? No one. He’s the only one making that point because he believes it’s the only argument that he can win. He’s right about that."
Rantz said Inslee regularly refers to “data” and “science” without citing actual statistics.
"There was no data or science to justify keeping open publicly funding construction projects, but banning privately funded projects. There was no basis in science to argue fishing alone in a boat is dangerous."
The KTTH host noted state Democratic Rep. Emily Wicks came to Inslee's defense after the interview, inferring on Twitter that Kruse's tweet of a video clip presented the governor's remarks out of context.
Wicks wrote, "Whatever gets the clicks, right?!"
But Kruse pointed out that Twitter "allows 2:20 videos."
"We posted 2:20 and linked to the rest," the TV reporter argued. "If you're suggesting it was edited out of context, that's false. And frankly, had the Governor been able to make his point without hyperbole, we could have fit his entire answer in one clip."
'Based on an understanding of science'
In the interview, Kruse also asked Inslee about his comment that the coronavirus pandemic is an opportunity "to peddle a solution to climate change."
As WND reported, Inslee, who ran for his party's presidential nomination on a climate-change agenda, said at a recent virtual townhall hosted by Sen. Bernie Sanders that the coronavirus crisis "has always been an economic opportunity."
"We should not be intimidated when people, Oh who say you should not use this COVID crisis to peddle a solution to climate change," Inslee said.
"We can't use COVID as an excuse for inaction on climate change ... they're both so similar .... based on an understanding of science."
In her interview Saturday, Kruse asked the governor if he wanted to clarify the remarks he made at the Sanders event. She cited a Washington state mayor saying the climate-change remarks made him question the motivation behind some of the governor's decisions.
Kruse asked Inslee if he regretted using the term "opportunity" regarding the present crisis.
"No, I stand by everything I said. This is a tremoundous opportunity, with a capital O, for the United States and the state of Washington," he replied.
Kruse's weekly show, "The Divide," is described as a "commentary that aims to find common ground on an issue dividing Americans." Topics include gun control, free speech and policing.
Bon appétit: Your papers, please
Inslee drew national attention for a requirement in his new statewide orders that Washington restaurants offering sit-down service create a daily log of all customers.
Fierce opposition to the measure prompted Inslee to withdraw it. The logs were to include telephone and email contact information and the time the customers were in the restaurant.
The governor also was the target of a lawsuit that forced him to amend his March order banning religious gatherings of any size, including one-on-one Bible studies in homes.
Inslee's four-phased approach to reopening requires at least three weeks between each phase. If numbers show the coronavirus is spreading, the next phase will be delayed.
"The phased approach to re-opening our economy will allow us to move forward with a careful and thoughtful balance of our state's health and economic needs," Inslee said May 4.
"However, if infection rates and hospitalizations for COVID-related issues go up, I would not hesitate to scale their efforts back down to protect public health and save lives."
WND reported the controversy in Washington state over whether or not the "isolation" camps established for people infected with COVID-19 are voluntary. The governor's office and media have called claims that people can be placed their involuntarily a "conspiracy theory." And Facebook has been censoring posts. But a detention order shows police have authority to ensure compliance. And a Washingon State Department of Health statement "on misinformation circulating about quarantine orders and facilities in Washington state" says "local health officers" have the authority to "involuntary (sic) isolate or quarantine an individual."
"Each local health jurisdiction in Washington has plans and processes in place should involuntary isolation or quarantine be needed," the statement says.


wnd--2020-05-26--Leftist leaders take off their masks – revealing tyranny

Some say crisis produces character in leaders .
Others say character formation is far more complex and that crisis merely reveals character .
Whichever is more likely true , the present pandemic crisis has been a revelation in this regard .
In a season where it looks like protective masks may be our close companions for some time , leftists at all levels of government are taking off the masks of their political disguise .
And it 's not a pretty sight .
Government overreach never is .
And significantly , in this broad overreach we see a bona fide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one especially consequential for the young : What does a socialist government look like ?
Well , just take a gander at the pandemic-related actions of far-left leaders in the so-called politically blue states .
You and I are witnessing what is , without doubt , the most invasive display of domestic tyranny in our lifetime .
But first , let 's engage in some Monday-morning quarterbacking .
While admittedly dealing with a highly contagious virus and false or inaccurate data from China 's cover-up , our health officials have been astonishingly wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prescriptions they have made .
Even the highly touted epidemic model these officials relied upon has failed miserably and has been branded by experts as computer-code junk .
We were told masks are not needed ( no , wait : yes , they are ) .
Now we find they seem to work only for those already sick .
We were told lockdowns are essential ( no , wait : they are mostly ineffective ) .
We were told optimal social distancing is 6 feet , no 5 feet , no 3 feet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a chance to break the Deep State' All this failed science notwithstanding , we should be thankful for our government 's efforts during the pandemic .
Most have done admirable work with insufficient information and resources .
But we should never forget the lessons of the lockdowns .
Like Jekyll and Hyde , it was in the lockdowns that the true repressive nature of the leftwing autocrats emerged for all to see .
Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War , when the nation was under martial law .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders unilaterally ( and wrongly ) redefined freedom according to their left-wing proclivities .
They did this mostly in the designation of essential and non-essential services .
Who would have guessed that these lefty-leaders would rule religion non-essential – in some cases calling it third-tier non-essential .
Witness North Carolina , a state not hit particularly hard by the coronavirus , where the governor has restricted indoor worship to 10 or fewer people .
Funerals held in those same spaces may include up to 50 people .
Hmm .
Or Louisville , Kentucky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` SWAT team '' to get after people worshiping alone in their cars , as part of a drive-in worship service .
What good luck that Louisville 's finest could later go through the drive-through at McDonalds – without need of a mask – after a long morning of ticketing the transgressors of the mayor 's unilateral edict .
Or New York City , where the mayor personally participated in a raid on a Jewish funeral to disperse mourners , while remaining strangely silent about the thousands gathered in close quarters to watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These authoritarian types assure us they are all about religious freedom .
Just pay close attention , and they will tell you what your freedoms are .
One hopeful spot amidst the power grab is the work of the `` lesser magistrates . ''
During the Reformation , John Calvin , John Knox and others argued the right and responsibility of governing authorities beneath the king to resist unjust laws and tyrannical actions .
Writing to Scottish nobles , Knox emphasized the duty of lesser magistrates in resisting the tyranny of chief magistrates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or makes declarations which are in rebellion to the law of God .
In the current pandemic , some governors have usurped authority not accorded to them under the U.S. Constitution or their state constitutions .
They have ignored or circumvented their own state legislatures to rule by diktat .
In these states , some law enforcement officials , prosecutors and district attorneys ( examples of lesser magistrates ) have refused to enforce the governor 's decrees as though they were law .
As for the budding totalitarians in various state capitals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spanked by various state and federal courts .
They all deserve another paddling – in November .
What is going on ?
Every day more and more politicians across America – especially blue-state governors and mayors – are suddenly acting like full-blown dictators .
It 's all exposed as never before in the latest issue of Whistleblower magazine , titled `` DRUNK ON POWER : Pandemic crisis reveals many politicians ' love affair with totalitarianism . ''

Some say crisis produces character in leaders. Others say character formation is far more complex and that crisis merely reveals character. Whichever is more likely true, the present pandemic crisis has been a revelation in this regard.
In a season where it looks like protective masks may be our close companions for some time, leftists at all levels of government are taking off the masks of their political disguise. And it's not a pretty sight. Government overreach never is.
And significantly, in this broad overreach we see a bona fide answer to a great cultural question – one especially consequential for the young: What does a socialist government look like? Well, just take a gander at the pandemic-related actions of far-left leaders in the so-called politically blue states. You and I are witnessing what is, without doubt, the most invasive display of domestic tyranny in our lifetime.
But first, let's engage in some Monday-morning quarterbacking. While admittedly dealing with a highly contagious virus and false or inaccurate data from China's cover-up, our health officials have been astonishingly wrong with most of the important predictions and prescriptions they have made. Even the highly touted epidemic model these officials relied upon has failed miserably and has been branded by experts as computer-code junk.
We were told masks are not needed (no, wait: yes, they are). Now we find they seem to work only for those already sick. We were told lockdowns are essential (no, wait: they are mostly ineffective). We were told optimal social distancing is 6 feet, no 5 feet, no 3 feet.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
All this failed science notwithstanding, we should be thankful for our government's efforts during the pandemic. Most have done admirable work with insufficient information and resources. But we should never forget the lessons of the lockdowns. Like Jekyll and Hyde, it was in the lockdowns that the true repressive nature of the leftwing autocrats emerged for all to see.
Redefining freedom
Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, when the nation was under martial law. With no such mandate today, many state leaders unilaterally (and wrongly) redefined freedom according to their left-wing proclivities. They did this mostly in the designation of essential and non-essential services. Who would have guessed that these lefty-leaders would rule religion non-essential – in some cases calling it third-tier non-essential.
Witness North Carolina, a state not hit particularly hard by the coronavirus, where the governor has restricted indoor worship to 10 or fewer people. Funerals held in those same spaces may include up to 50 people. Hmm.
Or Louisville, Kentucky, where the mayor sent his citation "SWAT team" to get after people worshiping alone in their cars, as part of a drive-in worship service. What good luck that Louisville's finest could later go through the drive-through at McDonalds – without need of a mask – after a long morning of ticketing the transgressors of the mayor's unilateral edict.
Or New York City, where the mayor personally participated in a raid on a Jewish funeral to disperse mourners, while remaining strangely silent about the thousands gathered in close quarters to watch the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds flyover.
These authoritarian types assure us they are all about religious freedom. Just pay close attention, and they will tell you what your freedoms are.
God bless the lesser magistrates
One hopeful spot amidst the power grab is the work of the "lesser magistrates." During the Reformation, John Calvin, John Knox and others argued the right and responsibility of governing authorities beneath the king to resist unjust laws and tyrannical actions. Writing to Scottish nobles, Knox emphasized the duty of lesser magistrates in resisting the tyranny of chief magistrates, when they exceed their God-given authority, or makes declarations which are in rebellion to the law of God.
In the current pandemic, some governors have usurped authority not accorded to them under the U.S. Constitution or their state constitutions. They have ignored or circumvented their own state legislatures to rule by diktat. In these states, some law enforcement officials, prosecutors and district attorneys (examples of lesser magistrates) have refused to enforce the governor's decrees as though they were law.
As for the budding totalitarians in various state capitals, we are thankful many have been spanked by various state and federal courts. They all deserve another paddling – in November.
What is going on? Every day more and more politicians across America – especially blue-state governors and mayors – are suddenly acting like full-blown dictators. It's all exposed as never before in the latest issue of Whistleblower magazine, titled "DRUNK ON POWER: Pandemic crisis reveals many politicians' love affair with totalitarianism."


wnd--2020-05-28--Document: Peter Strzok drafted – then approved – Trump-Russia probe

An FBI document released last week did n't receive the attention it deserves , according to a former bureau agent who says it should be Exhibit A in a federal courtroom as evidence that the Obama administration 's Trump-Russia probe was illegitimate .
`` The prosecutor , U.S. Attorney John Durham , will rightly point out that the document that spawned three years of political misery fails to articulate a single justifiable reason for starting the 'Crossfire Hurricane ' investigation , writes Kevin R. Brock , former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI , in a column in The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agent for 24 years , also was principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center .
He explains how a document unable to present any justification for a probe could pass muster .
`` Essentially , it is a document created by Peter Strzok , approved by Peter Strzok , and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok , '' he writes .
The reference is to the now infamous lead FBI investigator whose text messages with his paramour revealed his determination to ensure Trump did not win in 2016 and his `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` Those of us who have speculated there was insufficient cause for beginning the investigation could not have imagined the actual opening document was this feeble .
It is as if it were written by someone who had no experience as an FBI agent , '' Brock writes .
He points out that the bureau can not begin an investigation without a document presenting a justifiable cause .
Calling the document a `` train wreck , '' he argues it 's `` invalid on its face , because an agent can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' That , he says , would `` make a mockery of the oversight designed to protect Americans . ''
`` Yet , for this document , Peter Strzok was pitcher , catcher , batter and umpire . ''
Another problem was that the Crossfire Hurricane case was opened as a Foreign Agent Registration Act , or FARA , investigation , which involves a criminal violation of law .
Such cases centering on a negligent or intentional failure to register with the U.S. government after being engaged by a foreign country for assistance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found `` no attempt by Strzok to articulate any factors that address the elements of FARA . ''
`` He could n't , because there are none .
Instead , there was a weak attempt to allege some kind of cooperation with Russians by unknown individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign , again , with no supporting facts listed . ''
The document , he says , `` clearly establishes is that Crossfire Hurricane was an illicit , made-up investigation lacking a shred of justifying predication , sprung from the mind of someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blessed by inexperienced leadership at the highest levels who harbored their own now well-established biases . ''
`` Instead , the nation was left with an investigation of a presidential campaign that had no legitimate predication ; that spawned a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intercept of a U.S. citizen that had no legitimate predication ; that resulted in a confrontation with a new administration ’ s national security adviser that had no legitimate predication ; and , finally , that led to an expensive special counsel investigation that had no legitimate predication , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Exhibit A '' will be displayed in a federal courtroom soon .
`` The rule of law , upon which the FBI rests its very purpose and being , was callously discarded by weak leaders who sought higher loyalty to their personal agendas , egos , biases and politics , '' he writes .
`` Accountability is demanded by the American people .
Let ’ s pray we see some . ''

An FBI document released last week didn't receive the attention it deserves, according to a former bureau agent who says it should be Exhibit A in a federal courtroom as evidence that the Obama administration's Trump-Russia probe was illegitimate.
"The prosecutor, U.S. Attorney John Durham, will rightly point out that the document that spawned three years of political misery fails to articulate a single justifiable reason for starting the 'Crossfire Hurricane' investigation, writes Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, in a column in The Hill.
Brock, an FBI special agent for 24 years, also was principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
He explains how a document unable to present any justification for a probe could pass muster.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"Essentially, it is a document created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok," he writes.
The reference is to the now infamous lead FBI investigator whose text messages with his paramour revealed his determination to ensure Trump did not win in 2016 and his "backup plan" should Plan A fail.
"Those of us who have speculated there was insufficient cause for beginning the investigation could not have imagined the actual opening document was this feeble. It is as if it were written by someone who had no experience as an FBI agent," Brock writes.
He points out that the bureau cannot begin an investigation without a document presenting a justifiable cause.
Should Peter Strzok be prosecuted for his role in the effort to oust President Trump? 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. 100% (495 Votes) 0% (1 Votes)
Calling the document a "train wreck," he argues it's "invalid on its face, because an agent cannot approve his or her own case."
That, he says, would "make a mockery of the oversight designed to protect Americans."
"Yet, for this document, Peter Strzok was pitcher, catcher, batter and umpire."
Another problem was that the Crossfire Hurricane case was opened as a Foreign Agent Registration Act, or FARA, investigation, which involves a criminal violation of law.
Such cases centering on a negligent or intentional failure to register with the U.S. government after being engaged by a foreign country for assistance are rarely investigated.
Further, Brock found "no attempt by Strzok to articulate any factors that address the elements of FARA."
"He couldn't, because there are none. Instead, there was a weak attempt to allege some kind of cooperation with Russians by unknown individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign, again, with no supporting facts listed."
The document, he says, "clearly establishes is that Crossfire Hurricane was an illicit, made-up investigation lacking a shred of justifying predication, sprung from the mind of someone who despised Donald Trump, and then blessed by inexperienced leadership at the highest levels who harbored their own now well-established biases."
"Instead, the nation was left with an investigation of a presidential campaign that had no legitimate predication; that spawned a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intercept of a U.S. citizen that had no legitimate predication; that resulted in a confrontation with a new administration’s national security adviser that had no legitimate predication; and, finally, that led to an expensive special counsel investigation that had no legitimate predication," he writes.
Brock hopes "Exhibit A" will be displayed in a federal courtroom soon.
"The rule of law, upon which the FBI rests its very purpose and being, was callously discarded by weak leaders who sought higher loyalty to their personal agendas, egos, biases and politics," he writes.
"Accountability is demanded by the American people. Let’s pray we see some."


wnd--2020-05-28--Undoing ban on race/sex-based preferences

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation . ]
California ’ s deep-blue legislature has been itching to repeal Proposition 209 for years .
Now , in the midst of a global pandemic , legislators are giving that effort priority over the state ’ s plainly more urgent concerns .
Shame on them .
Adopted by voters in 1996 , Proposition 209 amended California ’ s constitution to prohibit the state from engaging in preferential treatment based on race or sex .
It was a rebuke to the identity politics obsessions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebuke was especially sharp toward public universities , where preoccupations with race and sex had grown to astonishing proportions .
Golden State voters understood what the diversity industry hoped they wouldn ’ t : Preferential treatment for some groups necessarily means discrimination against others .
By approving Proposition 209 by a wide margin , they aimed to end the race and sex spoils system .
One argument against the initiative — originally made by President Bill Clinton — was that under Proposition 209 , some California universities might have “ nothing but Asian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment drew criticism at the time .
Not only was it false , it was an all too obvious attempt to stoke racial resentment .
Despite Clinton ’ s demagoguery , many Asian Americans stayed on the controversy ’ s sidelines in 1996 .
Since then , however , two things have changed .
First , eye-opening facts about admissions policies at prestigious universities have been leaking out from various sources , including from the lawsuit Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University .
Asian American voters now know just how much the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ universities not subject to Proposition 209 .
Second , the number of Asian American voters in California has increased substantially .
Consequently , Asian Americans ’ days of staying on the sidelines are over .
Asian American grassroots organizations took the lead in 2014 in nipping in the bud the California legislature ’ s first serious attempt to repeal Proposition 209 .
Last year , similar groups in Washington state spearheaded the defeat of a repeal effort of that state ’ s version of Proposition 209 .
Not surprisingly , many of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight the repeal bill -- ACA-5 .
An online petition has already fetched over 26,000 signatures .
Organizing during the lockdown will be tough .
Mass meetings , gathering petition signatures at the ballpark , and visits to legislators are out .
Maybe that is why ACA-5 ’ s supporters in the Assembly are currently doing all they can to ram the bill through quickly .
But they have a tough row to hoe too .
The measure needs a two-thirds majority in both houses .
Even then , the battle will only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t by itself repeal Proposition 209 .
The matter must then go to the people for a vote , at taxpayer expense , in November .
The best reason for retaining Proposition 209 isn ’ t that repealing it will encounter opposition .
It ’ s that the initiative has been good for Californians — of all races — and would have been even better if followed more faithfully .
Opponents argued in 1996 that if the University of California system were required to apply the same admissions standards to all students regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffer .
The reality was the opposite : It enhanced their academic success .
Decades of well-meaning but misguided admissions policies had made it difficult for affirmative action ’ s so-called beneficiaries to excel .
Placed on campuses where their level of academic preparation put them at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis other students , they tended to cluster toward the bottom of the class , a demoralizing position .
When Proposition 209 went into effect , it is true , the number of under-represented minority students at UC-Berkeley decreased significantly .
But those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most were accepted at other campuses of the prestigious UC system — based on their own academic records rather than their skin color .
On several UC campuses , their numbers increased .
More important , their performance improved dramatically .
Data from UC-San Diego ( one of the more elite UC campuses ) illustrate what happened .
In the year immediately prior to Proposition 209 ’ s implementation , only one African American student in the entire freshman class was an honor student .
Following implementation , a full 20 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher than the rate for Asian Americans ( 16 % ) and extremely close to the rate for whites in the same year ( 22 % ) .
Even more impressive , the number of under-represented minority students in academic jeopardy collapsed .
As Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr. show in their 2012 book , “ Mismatch : How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It ’ s Intended to Help , and Why Universities Won ’ t Admit It , ” in the years immediately following Proposition 209 , it had three effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It increased ( 1 ) graduation rates , ( 2 ) GPAs , and ( 3 ) the number of science or engineering majors .
Call it a Triple Crown .
Ordinarily these three goals would be difficult to achieve simultaneously , since they tend to work against each other .
Grading curves are traditionally lower in science and engineering than in other departments , so the more science and engineering majors , often the lower the average GPA .
Similarly , graduation rates tend to increase when weaker students ( with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the end .
Happily , “ matching ” students to the right institution made improvement possible on all three fronts .
It ’ s as if Ford had invented a car that was more powerful , got better gas mileage , and cost less -- all at the same time .
California legislators want to throw all that away and bring back an ugly spoils system .
Californians shouldn ’ t let them .
Gail Heriot is a law professor at the University of San Diego and a member of the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Yes on Proposition 209 Campaign in 1996 .
[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.]
By Gail Heriot
Real Clear Politics
California’s deep-blue legislature has been itching to repeal Proposition 209 for years. Now, in the midst of a global pandemic, legislators are giving that effort priority over the state’s plainly more urgent concerns. Shame on them.
Adopted by voters in 1996, Proposition 209 amended California’s constitution to prohibit the state from engaging in preferential treatment based on race or sex. It was a rebuke to the identity politics obsessions of state and local governments. The rebuke was especially sharp toward public universities, where preoccupations with race and sex had grown to astonishing proportions.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Golden State voters understood what the diversity industry hoped they wouldn’t: Preferential treatment for some groups necessarily means discrimination against others. By approving Proposition 209 by a wide margin, they aimed to end the race and sex spoils system.
One argument against the initiative — originally made by President Bill Clinton — was that under Proposition 209, some California universities might have “nothing but Asian Americans” as students. The hyperbolic comment drew criticism at the time. Not only was it false, it was an all too obvious attempt to stoke racial resentment.
Despite Clinton’s demagoguery, many Asian Americans stayed on the controversy’s sidelines in 1996. Since then, however, two things have changed. First, eye-opening facts about admissions policies at prestigious universities have been leaking out from various sources, including from the lawsuit Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University. Asian American voters now know just how much the deck is stacked against their children at universities not subject to Proposition 209. Second, the number of Asian American voters in California has increased substantially.
Consequently, Asian Americans’ days of staying on the sidelines are over. Asian American grassroots organizations took the lead in 2014 in nipping in the bud the California legislature’s first serious attempt to repeal Proposition 209. Last year, similar groups in Washington state spearheaded the defeat of a repeal effort of that state’s version of Proposition 209.
Not surprisingly, many of these same organizations are now gearing up to fight the repeal bill -- ACA-5. An online petition has already fetched over 26,000 signatures.
Organizing during the lockdown will be tough. Mass meetings, gathering petition signatures at the ballpark, and visits to legislators are out. Maybe that is why ACA-5’s supporters in the Assembly are currently doing all they can to ram the bill through quickly. But they have a tough row to hoe too. The measure needs a two-thirds majority in both houses. Even then, the battle will only have shifted. The legislature can’t by itself repeal Proposition 209. The matter must then go to the people for a vote, at taxpayer expense, in November.
The best reason for retaining Proposition 209 isn’t that repealing it will encounter opposition. It’s that the initiative has been good for Californians — of all races — and would have been even better if followed more faithfully. Opponents argued in 1996 that if the University of California system were required to apply the same admissions standards to all students regardless of race, under-represented minority students would suffer. The reality was the opposite: It enhanced their academic success.
Decades of well-meaning but misguided admissions policies had made it difficult for affirmative action’s so-called beneficiaries to excel. Placed on campuses where their level of academic preparation put them at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis other students, they tended to cluster toward the bottom of the class, a demoralizing position.
When Proposition 209 went into effect, it is true, the number of under-represented minority students at UC-Berkeley decreased significantly. But those students didn’t just disappear. Most were accepted at other campuses of the prestigious UC system — based on their own academic records rather than their skin color. On several UC campuses, their numbers increased. More important, their performance improved dramatically.
Data from UC-San Diego (one of the more elite UC campuses) illustrate what happened. In the year immediately prior to Proposition 209’s implementation, only one African American student in the entire freshman class was an honor student. Following implementation, a full 20% of African American freshmen were. That was higher than the rate for Asian Americans (16%) and extremely close to the rate for whites in the same year (22%). Even more impressive, the number of under-represented minority students in academic jeopardy collapsed.
As Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor Jr. show in their 2012 book, “Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It,” in the years immediately following Proposition 209, it had three effects on under-represented minorities in the UC system. It increased (1) graduation rates, (2) GPAs, and (3) the number of science or engineering majors.
Call it a Triple Crown. Ordinarily these three goals would be difficult to achieve simultaneously, since they tend to work against each other. Grading curves are traditionally lower in science and engineering than in other departments, so the more science and engineering majors, often the lower the average GPA. Similarly, graduation rates tend to increase when weaker students (with lower GPAs) manage to make it to the end. Happily, “matching” students to the right institution made improvement possible on all three fronts. It’s as if Ford had invented a car that was more powerful, got better gas mileage, and cost less -- all at the same time.
California legislators want to throw all that away and bring back an ugly spoils system. Californians shouldn’t let them.
Gail Heriot is a law professor at the University of San Diego and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. She co-chaired the Yes on Proposition 209 Campaign in 1996.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.]


wnd--2020-05-27--Losing myths in the war against the 'regulatory state'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
The COVID-19 crisis has exposed some of the underlying problems created by the outdated , overlapping , and often-contradictory regulations that make it nearly impossible for public and private entrepreneurs to respond to rapidly changing circumstances .
Regulators have had to suspend hundreds of regulations in order to advance the war against COVID-19 , and a new executive order requires federal agencies to think twice before reinstating them when the pandemic subsides .
Because the pandemic presents not only a health crisis but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also tells regulators to decide if more regulations can be temporarily modified or suspended in order to help the economy recover .
And for any regulation that has been suspended — either in the name of public health or for the sake of economic recovery —President Trump asks agencies to determine if those changes can become permanent .
Hoping that you believe a common myth about federal regulation , the president ’ s critics will proclaim that “ Trump is trying to kill you ” with deregulation by dirtying the air and water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of all economically significant federal rules issued by executive agencies between 2000 and 2017 came from the two environmental agencies ( the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior ) .
Non-environmental rules have also been dominant in the deregulatory activity over the past three years .
Critics will also say that federal agencies should not have to reconsider their regulations , because regulations originate with nonpartisan “ technocrats ” who capably balanced costs and benefits .
This is a second myth .
Despite executive orders and Office of Management and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulations , the typical justifications and cost assessments of non-environmental regulations border on the absurd , if any quantitative assessment was provided in the first place .
The fact that agencies were able to temporarily suspend or modify many regulations during the crisis raises the question of whether those regulations were ever needed .
Take the 2016 prohibition of short-term health insurance plans ( lasting between six and 12 months ) .
No cost was assessed for that rule because the rule was designated as not economically significant , but this designation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no material adverse effect on any sector of the economy .
How could the regulators deny any material adverse effect from a prohibition of a product that 2 million people would be purchasing ( as estimated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office ) ?
The White House Council of Economic Advisers later estimated that the annual cost of this regulation was $ 13 billion , which is 130 times the monetary threshold for economic significance .
A third myth , reinforced by the other two , is that the main burden of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obvious today from the state ’ s stay-at-home orders , which take little paper or time to read but have ruined businesses , interrupted student learning , and have cost the average household thousands of dollars ( yes , we know that there would still be an economic depression even without stay-at-home orders , which is why we did not write “ tens of thousands ” ) .
These are lost opportunities , not clerical costs .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren has argued that deregulation is “ code for ‘ let the rich guys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also a myth as to deregulations over the past three years : One of the best-kept secrets in the economics of regulation is how regulations ’ costs fall disproportionately on the poor .
Dividing American households into five income groups from lowest to highest , one of us has estimated what a revival of the regulatory state would add to each group ’ s regulatory costs and expressed them as a percentage of its average income .
The costs to the bottom quintile amount to 15.3 % of their total income — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the taxes they currently pay .
Did these rolled-back regulations have any benefits ?
Certainly — to large banks , trial lawyers , major health-insurance companies , big tech companies , and foreign drug manufacturers that profit when consumers must buy their expensive products because affordable alternatives are not available .
The surprise has been that any deregulation could occur with special interests so close at hand .
President Trump ’ s strategy has been to bulk-process deregulation , in effect multilateral disarmament in the battle for special-interest favors .
He did this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act during the short regulatory time window that came at the beginning of his term .
Then he implemented the regulatory budget that required agencies to reduce regulatory costs faster than they created them .
Now he is poised to use the war against COVID-19 to launch a third offensive against the regulatory state .
Patrick A. McLaughlin is director of policy analytics and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University .
He previously served as a senior economist at the U.S. Department of Transportation .
Casey B.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ University of Chicago , served as chief economist of the White House Council of Economic Advisers from 2018 to 2019 .
His latest book is “ You 're Hired !
Untold Successes and Failures of a Populist President.
” [ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Patrick A. McLaughlin & Casey B. Mulligan
Real Clear Politics
The COVID-19 crisis has exposed some of the underlying problems created by the outdated, overlapping, and often-contradictory regulations that make it nearly impossible for public and private entrepreneurs to respond to rapidly changing circumstances. Regulators have had to suspend hundreds of regulations in order to advance the war against COVID-19, and a new executive order requires federal agencies to think twice before reinstating them when the pandemic subsides. Because the pandemic presents not only a health crisis but also an economic one, the executive order also tells regulators to decide if more regulations can be temporarily modified or suspended in order to help the economy recover. And for any regulation that has been suspended — either in the name of public health or for the sake of economic recovery —President Trump asks agencies to determine if those changes can become permanent.
Hoping that you believe a common myth about federal regulation, the president’s critics will proclaim that “Trump is trying to kill you” with deregulation by dirtying the air and water. But in fact, only 14% of all economically significant federal rules issued by executive agencies between 2000 and 2017 came from the two environmental agencies (the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior). Non-environmental rules have also been dominant in the deregulatory activity over the past three years.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Critics will also say that federal agencies should not have to reconsider their regulations, because regulations originate with nonpartisan “technocrats” who capably balanced costs and benefits. This is a second myth. Despite executive orders and Office of Management and Budget guidance requiring cost-benefit analysis of new regulations, the typical justifications and cost assessments of non-environmental regulations border on the absurd, if any quantitative assessment was provided in the first place. The fact that agencies were able to temporarily suspend or modify many regulations during the crisis raises the question of whether those regulations were ever needed.
Take the 2016 prohibition of short-term health insurance plans (lasting between six and 12 months). No cost was assessed for that rule because the rule was designated as not economically significant, but this designation is not supposed to be used unless there is no material adverse effect on any sector of the economy. How could the regulators deny any material adverse effect from a prohibition of a product that 2 million people would be purchasing (as estimated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office)? The White House Council of Economic Advisers later estimated that the annual cost of this regulation was $13 billion, which is 130 times the monetary threshold for economic significance.
A third myth, reinforced by the other two, is that the main burden of regulation is paperwork. This should be obvious today from the state’s stay-at-home orders, which take little paper or time to read but have ruined businesses, interrupted student learning, and have cost the average household thousands of dollars (yes, we know that there would still be an economic depression even without stay-at-home orders, which is why we did not write “tens of thousands”). These are lost opportunities, not clerical costs.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren has argued that deregulation is “code for ‘let the rich guys do whatever they want.’ ” That is also a myth as to deregulations over the past three years: One of the best-kept secrets in the economics of regulation is how regulations’ costs fall disproportionately on the poor. Dividing American households into five income groups from lowest to highest, one of us has estimated what a revival of the regulatory state would add to each group’s regulatory costs and expressed them as a percentage of its average income. The costs to the bottom quintile amount to 15.3% of their total income — representing as high a burden as all the taxes they currently pay.
Did these rolled-back regulations have any benefits? Certainly — to large banks, trial lawyers, major health-insurance companies, big tech companies, and foreign drug manufacturers that profit when consumers must buy their expensive products because affordable alternatives are not available.
The surprise has been that any deregulation could occur with special interests so close at hand. President Trump’s strategy has been to bulk-process deregulation, in effect multilateral disarmament in the battle for special-interest favors. He did this with historic use of the Congressional Review Act during the short regulatory time window that came at the beginning of his term. Then he implemented the regulatory budget that required agencies to reduce regulatory costs faster than they created them. Now he is poised to use the war against COVID-19 to launch a third offensive against the regulatory state.
Patrick A. McLaughlin is director of policy analytics and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He previously served as a senior economist at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Casey B. Mulligan, professor of economics at the University of Chicago, served as chief economist of the White House Council of Economic Advisers from 2018 to 2019. His latest book is “You're Hired! Untold Successes and Failures of a Populist President.”
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]


wnd--2020-05-27--Twitter raises questions by adding comment to Trump Tweets

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
On Tuesday , Twitter demonstrated the breadth of the censorship powers now wielded by social media platforms .
In the space of a single day , the company both apologized for a series of tweets by the president of the United States and formally labeled two more of his tweets as false .
What does Twitter ’ s newfound willingness to edit the president tell us about the future of free speech ?
This week ’ s remarkable show of Silicon Valley ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter for Donald Trump ’ s use of its platform to question the circumstances surrounding the long-ago death of a staffer in then-Rep. Joe Scarborough ’ s congressional office .
In response to requests by family members of Lori Klausutis to remove Trump ’ s tweets , the company said they would remain , but issued an apology : “ We are deeply sorry about the pain these statements , and the attention they are drawing , are causing the family.
” Asked why the company decided to issue the apology , why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ myriad other harmful tweets posted on its platform each day , and whether it might issue further apologies in the future for presidential tweets , the company said it would not comment .
Twitter ’ s new response in publicly and directly criticizing its most prominent user suggests it may finally rein in the “ Twitter president.
” Hours after the apology , Twitter took the further step of formally labeling two other presidential tweets as “ fals [ e ] claim [ s ] ” and applied large visible warnings to both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about mail-in ballots ” and linking to a Twitter fact-check page .
On its official fact check , Twitter states that Trump ’ s “ claims are unsubstantiated , according to CNN , Washington Post and others.
” It goes on to say he “ falsely claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to ‘ a Rigged Election.
’ However , fact-checkers say there is no evidence ” to support such a claim .
Yet , despite citing “ fact-checkers ” as having reviewed Trump ’ s assertions , Twitter does not actually link @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it cites three sources : a news article in The Hill ( excerpting its finding that his statements were “ unsubstantiated claims ” ) , an “ analysis ” column in The Washington Post ( which defines “ analysis ” pieces as “ interpretation of the news based on evidence , including data ” ) and Chris Cillizza ’ s “ analysis ” column for CNN .
Twitter ’ s “ fact check ” also asserts flatly that “ [ e ] xperts point out that mail-in voting is very rarely linked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election experts CBS News ’ political reporter Grace Segers and Fortune magazine ’ s deputy digital editor Rachel Schallom .
Twitter goes on to list others who have adjudged Trump ’ s tweets as false , including Vox ’ s Aaron Rupar , HuffPost ’ s Jennifer Bendery , the ACLU of Nebraska , CNN ’ s Abby Phillip , The Guardian ’ s Sam Levine , and CNN ’ s Daniel Dale .
Alone among that group , Dale is a fact-checker .
Thus , Twitter ’ s presidential fact check appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalists .
Just one expert cited occupies a formal fact-checking role and Twitter cites no major fact-checking organizations .
Asked why it decided to fact-check these specific tweets , whether it planned to fact-check the rest of the president ’ s statements going forward , how it selected its experts and evidence and what burden of proof it used to determine that Trump ’ s claims were false , the company also declined to comment beyond stating that his two tweets “ contain potentially misleading information about voting processes and have been labeled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This decision is in line with the approach we shared earlier this month.
” By not further explaining itself , Twitter ’ s newfound activism raises questions in the midst of an election year .
Its position appears to be that it now has the right to decide whether U.S. government statements are `` true '' or `` false . ''
That ’ s a lot of power Silicon Valley has allotted to itself .
RealClear Media Fellow Kalev Leetaru is a senior fellow at the George Washington University Center for Cyber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include fellow in residence at Georgetown University ’ s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and member of the World Economic Forum ’ s Global Agenda Council on the Future of Government .
[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Kalev Leetaru
Real Clear Politics
On Tuesday, Twitter demonstrated the breadth of the censorship powers now wielded by social media platforms. In the space of a single day, the company both apologized for a series of tweets by the president of the United States and formally labeled two more of his tweets as false. What does Twitter’s newfound willingness to edit the president tell us about the future of free speech?
This week’s remarkable show of Silicon Valley’s power began with an official apology by Twitter for Donald Trump’s use of its platform to question the circumstances surrounding the long-ago death of a staffer in then-Rep. Joe Scarborough’s congressional office. In response to requests by family members of Lori Klausutis to remove Trump’s tweets, the company said they would remain, but issued an apology: “We are deeply sorry about the pain these statements, and the attention they are drawing, are causing the family.”
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
(Klausutis was an intern in the Fort Walton Beach, Fla., office of Scarborough, who is now the host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and a vociferous critic of the president. Klausutis was found dead in the office on July 19, 2001. An autopsy concluded her death was accidental, the result of a fall caused by an undiagnosed heart issue. Trump's tweet referred to the police investigation of the death as a "cold case" and implied potential wrongdoing by Scarborough.)
Asked why the company decided to issue the apology, why it has not done so for the myriad other harmful tweets posted on its platform each day, and whether it might issue further apologies in the future for presidential tweets, the company said it would not comment.
Twitter’s new response in publicly and directly criticizing its most prominent user suggests it may finally rein in the “Twitter president.” Hours after the apology, Twitter took the further step of formally labeling two other presidential tweets as “fals[e] claim[s]” and applied large visible warnings to both, saying, “Get the facts about mail-in ballots” and linking to a Twitter fact-check page.
On its official fact check, Twitter states that Trump’s “claims are unsubstantiated, according to CNN, Washington Post and others.” It goes on to say he “falsely claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to ‘a Rigged Election.’ However, fact-checkers say there is no evidence” to support such a claim.
Yet, despite citing “fact-checkers” as having reviewed Trump’s assertions, Twitter does not actually link to any major fact-checking sites. Instead, it cites three sources: a news article in The Hill (excerpting its finding that his statements were “unsubstantiated claims”), an “analysis” column in The Washington Post (which defines “analysis” pieces as “interpretation of the news based on evidence, including data”) and Chris Cillizza’s “analysis” column for CNN.
Twitter’s “fact check” also asserts flatly that “[e]xperts point out that mail-in voting is very rarely linked to fraud” and cites as its election experts CBS News’ political reporter Grace Segers and Fortune magazine’s deputy digital editor Rachel Schallom. Twitter goes on to list others who have adjudged Trump’s tweets as false, including Vox’s Aaron Rupar, HuffPost’s Jennifer Bendery, the ACLU of Nebraska, CNN’s Abby Phillip, The Guardian’s Sam Levine, and CNN’s Daniel Dale. Alone among that group, Dale is a fact-checker.
Thus, Twitter’s presidential fact check appears to be largely based on commentary from journalists. Just one expert cited occupies a formal fact-checking role and Twitter cites no major fact-checking organizations. Asked why it decided to fact-check these specific tweets, whether it planned to fact-check the rest of the president’s statements going forward, how it selected its experts and evidence and what burden of proof it used to determine that Trump’s claims were false, the company also declined to comment beyond stating that his two tweets “contain potentially misleading information about voting processes and have been labeled to provide additional context around mail-in ballots. This decision is in line with the approach we shared earlier this month.”
By not further explaining itself, Twitter’s newfound activism raises questions in the midst of an election year. Its position appears to be that it now has the right to decide whether U.S. government statements are "true" or "false." That’s a lot of power Silicon Valley has allotted to itself.
RealClear Media Fellow Kalev Leetaru is a senior fellow at the George Washington University Center for Cyber & Homeland Security. His past roles include fellow in residence at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on the Future of Government.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]


wnd--2020-05-27--Election disaster in mail-in voting state confirms Trump's fears

Attention to President Trump 's tweets Tuesday regarding mail-in voting was focused mostly on Twitter slapping a `` fact-checking '' alert on the messages , warning readers they should n't trust the claims .
But the Gateway Pundit points out , amid studies showing mail-in voting is more likely than in-person voting to be exploited by fraud , that Trump is raising the concerns amid a ballot scandal in Oregon , where everyone votes by mail already .
Oregon 's `` ballotgate '' was documented by a Facebook group joined by 2,400 people called My Party Was Changed .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stories .
Some , despite declaring their party membership , received ballots only for the non-partisan races .
And it was too late to fix the problem .
Others say they were sent a ballot for the Democratic candidates even though they are registered Republican and vice versa , Gateway Pundit reported .
Still others claim they received multiple ballots .
And , perhaps most disturbing of all , noncitizens are automatically being registered to vote because of the state ' new motor voter law .
Last week , Oregon ’ s secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Facebook `` fact checkers '' to blame voters for the problems and dismiss their claims as `` fake news . ''
But the Gateway Pundit noted reporters did n't check the claims .
And the blog has documents confirming , for example , a noncitizen 's admission that she started receiving ballots after changing her address with the DMV and post office .
In another example , an Oregon resident told Portland , Oregon , talk-radio host Lars Larson his noncitizen stepson began receiving ballots due to a DMV error .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of illegally voting in Oregon in 2016 and many more were investigated .
After the 2016 election , 128 cases were opened in Oregon and Washington .
State officials , the blog said , `` are ignoring the problem and silencing those who speak out . ''
Attorney General William Barr `` would have a field day investigating and auditing Oregon 's vote-by-mail system . ''

Attention to President Trump's tweets Tuesday regarding mail-in voting was focused mostly on Twitter slapping a "fact-checking" alert on the messages, warning readers they shouldn't trust the claims.
But the Gateway Pundit points out, amid studies showing mail-in voting is more likely than in-person voting to be exploited by fraud, that Trump is raising the concerns amid a ballot scandal in Oregon, where everyone votes by mail already.
Oregon's "ballotgate" was documented by a Facebook group joined by 2,400 people called My Party Was Changed.
The page allowed voters to tell their disturbing stories.
Some, despite declaring their party membership, received ballots only for the non-partisan races. And it was too late to fix the problem.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Others say they were sent a ballot for the Democratic candidates even though they are registered Republican and vice versa, Gateway Pundit reported.
Still others claim they received multiple ballots.
And, perhaps most disturbing of all, noncitizens are automatically being registered to vote because of the state' new motor voter law.
Last week, Oregon’s secretary of state, Bev Clarno, teamed with Facebook "fact checkers" to blame voters for the problems and dismiss their claims as "fake news."
But the Gateway Pundit noted reporters didn't check the claims. And the blog has documents confirming, for example, a noncitizen's admission that she started receiving ballots after changing her address with the DMV and post office.
In another example, an Oregon resident told Portland, Oregon, talk-radio host Lars Larson his noncitizen stepson began receiving ballots due to a DMV error.
The Gateway Pundit noted 10 people were convicted of illegally voting in Oregon in 2016 and many more were investigated. After the 2016 election, 128 cases were opened in Oregon and Washington.
State officials, the blog said, "are ignoring the problem and silencing those who speak out."
Attorney General William Barr "would have a field day investigating and auditing Oregon's vote-by-mail system."


wnd--2020-05-27--Totalitarianism has crossed over from theoretical to daily life

Something has changed in America since the Great Coronavirus Panic of 2020 began .
Something is different .
Worse than previous political disagreements , but hard to define .
The tyranny of the left has transitioned from theoretical or intangible into the physical world .
Life in the 21st century has devolved into a series of outrages in Western nations .
Perhaps aided by 24/7 connectivity , even the most local matter in a small community can turn into a viral video or international incident provoking outraged political debates on cable news and social media platforms .
One would think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which everyone can agree to put aside differences and work together .
Instead , it has become the most divisive issue in generations .
How can a medical matter be so sharply partisan ?
The same way watching a football game has become political .
The same way women 's bathrooms have become political .
The same way a fast-food chicken sandwich is political .
Movies , education , music , marriage , the nightly news – liberals inject politics into everything , forcing everyone to either agree with them or be guilty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus , the demand is to shut down our economy and allow government to control or prohibit activities .
The excuse is medical safety , and they claim their demands are based in science – but they are unable to explain the scientific basis for many of their restrictions , like how COVID-19 will infect someone at a small business , but not at big-box store , or why exceptions are granted for their political interests .
Abortion clinics and marijuana shops are mostly open , for instance , while churches and Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparent by the day that the real interest of liberals is to expand their control and provoke the same partisan divisions Americans are already exhausted from in every other area of life .
While the hyper-partisanship of the past few years has forced Americans to lurch from one political outrage to the next , the debates have largely been confined to social media or an occasional terse exchange with family members running afoul of the `` no politics '' rule at holidays .
The never-ending string of angry debates has been limited to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Should football players kneel during the national anthem ?
Were Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown victims of racism ?
Should a county clerk be forced to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples ?
These questions divided Americans largely on political lines , but were not likely to come up in most people 's lives .
The opinions of the left crossed over from intangible words and judgment into reality as people began facing censorship on social media and speech codes at school or work .
With COVID-19 , leftist politics expanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confine innocent Americans in our homes , order businesses closed and restrict our movement .
The debate is now personal and real for most .
The Constitution effectively is suspended .
Something else has changed , too .
The left has enlisted their base as enforcers with authority to compel coronavirus restrictions .
Several recent viral videos show people confronting others for not wearing masks over their faces or otherwise violating orders or recommendations .
Some liberal authorities have called on their supporters to act as informers on their fellow citizens .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Atilis Gym and harassed , cited and arrested their customers without any explanation for the scientific basis requiring gyms to be closed while other businesses are permitted to remain open .
In California , the governor is permitting beachgoers to swim in the ocean but not hang out on the beach .
New York 's mayor , on the other hand , is allowing people to use the beaches but threatened that authorities would physically pull swimmers out of the water .
In Chicago , police raided a church holding worship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommendation '' is so unevenly applied from place to place and by type , it is apparent the mask is now more a symbol of acquiescence to liberal authorities .
Actress Alyssa Milano drew laughter recently for posting a selfie wearing a crocheted mask .
Her defenders on social media insisted that all that mattered is showing that she cares .
In other words , virtue signaling .
Rush Limbaugh recently said masks are a symbol of fear .
He is correct .
It is how you can show others you will comply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it also serves another purpose .
It is a visible outward way of marking those who agree with the left and those who do not .
The liberal hate mobs do the rest .
If you are a member of a neighborhood or local social media page , you may have noticed a familiar party line split , with liberals making their usual wild accusations against conservatives such as they are uncaring , cruel , unintelligent or selfish for wanting to return to work .
These pages have been turned into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neighbors .
The left has stayed true to the words of Rahm Emanuel and not let the COVID-19 panic go to waste .
Liberals seized the initiative while conservatives dithered , going along with the insanity at first and then only gradually restoring freedom in tiny increments , leaders terrified to appear they are not taking the illness seriously .
Where are federal authorities to intervene in the madness of patchwork coronavirus orders to protect Americans ' freedoms ?
Leftist bullying gradually moved from smug judgment to imposing speech codes to liberal hate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , police closing businesses , arresting customers and raiding churches … for no reason other than liberal government officials order it .
The totalitarianism of the left has crossed over from words and intangible judging into the physical world .
Without strong federal leadership to restore order , continuing down this path may lead to violence .

Something has changed in America since the Great Coronavirus Panic of 2020 began. Something is different. Worse than previous political disagreements, but hard to define. The tyranny of the left has transitioned from theoretical or intangible into the physical world.
Life in the 21st century has devolved into a series of outrages in Western nations. Perhaps aided by 24/7 connectivity, even the most local matter in a small community can turn into a viral video or international incident provoking outraged political debates on cable news and social media platforms.
One would think a global pandemic should be something about which everyone can agree to put aside differences and work together. Instead, it has become the most divisive issue in generations.
How can a medical matter be so sharply partisan? The same way watching a football game has become political. The same way women's bathrooms have become political. The same way a fast-food chicken sandwich is political. Movies, education, music, marriage, the nightly news – liberals inject politics into everything, forcing everyone to either agree with them or be guilty of some alleged evil motive.
With coronavirus, the demand is to shut down our economy and allow government to control or prohibit activities. The excuse is medical safety, and they claim their demands are based in science – but they are unable to explain the scientific basis for many of their restrictions, like how COVID-19 will infect someone at a small business, but not at big-box store, or why exceptions are granted for their political interests. Abortion clinics and marijuana shops are mostly open, for instance, while churches and Trump rallies are closed. It is more apparent by the day that the real interest of liberals is to expand their control and provoke the same partisan divisions Americans are already exhausted from in every other area of life.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
While the hyper-partisanship of the past few years has forced Americans to lurch from one political outrage to the next, the debates have largely been confined to social media or an occasional terse exchange with family members running afoul of the "no politics" rule at holidays. The never-ending string of angry debates has been limited to opinions about some philosophical or theoretical question. Should football players kneel during the national anthem? Were Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown victims of racism? Should a county clerk be forced to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples? These questions divided Americans largely on political lines, but were not likely to come up in most people's lives.
Coronavirus changed all that.
The opinions of the left crossed over from intangible words and judgment into reality as people began facing censorship on social media and speech codes at school or work. With COVID-19, leftist politics expanded into the physical world as governments physically confine innocent Americans in our homes, order businesses closed and restrict our movement. The debate is now personal and real for most. The Constitution effectively is suspended.
Something else has changed, too. The left has enlisted their base as enforcers with authority to compel coronavirus restrictions. Several recent viral videos show people confronting others for not wearing masks over their faces or otherwise violating orders or recommendations. Some liberal authorities have called on their supporters to act as informers on their fellow citizens.
In New Jersey, authorities shut off utilities to the Atilis Gym and harassed, cited and arrested their customers without any explanation for the scientific basis requiring gyms to be closed while other businesses are permitted to remain open. In California, the governor is permitting beachgoers to swim in the ocean but not hang out on the beach. New York's mayor, on the other hand, is allowing people to use the beaches but threatened that authorities would physically pull swimmers out of the water. In Chicago, police raided a church holding worship service without permission.
The face-mask "recommendation" is so unevenly applied from place to place and by type, it is apparent the mask is now more a symbol of acquiescence to liberal authorities. Actress Alyssa Milano drew laughter recently for posting a selfie wearing a crocheted mask. Her defenders on social media insisted that all that mattered is showing that she cares. In other words, virtue signaling. Rush Limbaugh recently said masks are a symbol of fear. He is correct. It is how you can show others you will comply, no matter how absurd the demand. But it also serves another purpose. It is a visible outward way of marking those who agree with the left and those who do not. The liberal hate mobs do the rest.
If you are a member of a neighborhood or local social media page, you may have noticed a familiar party line split, with liberals making their usual wild accusations against conservatives such as they are uncaring, cruel, unintelligent or selfish for wanting to return to work. These pages have been turned into leftist tools for snitching and shaming noncompliant neighbors.
The left has stayed true to the words of Rahm Emanuel and not let the COVID-19 panic go to waste. Liberals seized the initiative while conservatives dithered, going along with the insanity at first and then only gradually restoring freedom in tiny increments, leaders terrified to appear they are not taking the illness seriously. Where are federal authorities to intervene in the madness of patchwork coronavirus orders to protect Americans' freedoms?
Leftist bullying gradually moved from smug judgment to imposing speech codes to liberal hate mobs antagonizing Americans refusing to be controlled, police closing businesses, arresting customers and raiding churches … for no reason other than liberal government officials order it.
The totalitarianism of the left has crossed over from words and intangible judging into the physical world. Without strong federal leadership to restore order, continuing down this path may lead to violence.