thelibertydaily--2020-07-02--Hong Kong Media Tycoon Says City Now ‘Dead’ at the Hands of the Chi-Coms

HONG KONG—When Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai arrived in Hong Kong at age 12 , the city felt like heaven to him , brimming with hope and freedom .
He arrived poor , but over the years embarked on a rags-to-riches path from a garment factory worker to a wealthy businessman known for founding the popular Apple Daily newspaper and for being an outspoken pro-democracy activist .
“ The hope I had ( in Hong Kong ) lasted for a long time , it made me who I am today , ” Lai said in an interview with The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new Hong Kong national security law imposed by mainland China came into effect .
“ ( When I first arrived ) , I could feel it , it was so palpable , that I almost thought a great future was waiting for me.
” But that hope dimmed over the years , and with the enactment of the security law , Lai says the Hong Kong he once knew is dead .
“ It ’ s worse than the worst scenario imagined .
Hong Kong is totally subdued , totally under control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s sad that Hong Kong is dead.
” The security law is seen by many as Beijing ’ s boldest move yet to erase the legal firewall between the semi-autonomous territory and the mainland ’ s authoritarian Communist Party system .
Under the law , anyone suspected of taking part in subversive , secessionist or terrorist activities , as well as colluding with foreign forces to intervene in the city ’ s affairs , could face a maximum punishment of life imprisonment .
In some cases , mainland China will assume jurisdiction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial .
Lai said he will continue fighting for Hong Kong ’ s freedoms , but it will now have to be in a “ very different way.
” “ We will have to see how many of us are left in the fighting camp , ” he said , adding that many will be frightened away by the new law .
“ We will have to stand up and be the backbone of the movement ’ s integrity , and the integrity of Hong Kong ’ s justice , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pro-democracy and freedom movement will continue , saying that discussions are needed on how to move forward .
He remained hopeful that Hong Kong will one day have democracy .
“ Dictatorship of such extremes can not last in today ’ s world , it ’ s impossible , ” he said .
“ We have to persist , time is on our side .
We are on the right side of history.
” Lai also condemned the security legislation for violating the rule of law in Hong Kong , still based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ details ( of the law ) are … very draconian but also very vague , ” he said .
“ They ’ re saying the security law is going to be used for people who make trouble who are the tiny minority , and that common law will still be useful for commercial businesses and all that .
But the two hands can switch at any time.
” The city will lose its status as an international financial hub because trust can not be built when there is no rule of law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
In the future , Hong Kongers will be very cautious about what they say on the phone and on social media , and will be careful whom they speak to , afraid that someone might turn them in , he said .
“ This is going to be a very different society .
I don ’ t think Hong Kong people , who are used to freedom and rule of law , will be able to adjust , ” he said .
“ Many will leave.
” But he emphasized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one day his family has to leave .
“ I can not ( leave ) .
If I leave , not only do I disgrace myself , I ’ d discredit Apple Daily , I ’ d undermine the solidarity of the democratic movement , ” he said .
“ It ’ s something I have to take responsibility for.
” Lai became an outspoken advocate for democracy in Hong Kong after the bloody June 4 , 1989 , crackdown on pro-democracy protesters around Beijing ’ s Tiananmen Square .
“ The reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I will be able to deliver information , which equals delivering freedom , ” he said .
He founded the Apple Daily tabloid in 1995 , ahead of Britain ’ s handover of Hong Kong to China .
Like Lai , Apple Daily adopts a strong pro-democracy stance , often urging readers to take part in protests .
On Wednesday , its front page denounced the security legislation , stating that the “ evil law is the final nail in the coffin for the ‘ one country , two systems ’ framework @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to China .
Lai , together with 14 other pro-democracy figures , is currently facing charges of organizing and participating in several massive anti-government protests deemed unlawful last year .
He says neither the prospect of prison nor the consequences of the national security law fazes him .
“ If I have to go to prison , I don ’ t mind .
I don ’ t care , ” he said .
“ I can not worry , because you never know what kind of measures they will take against me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be something I can worry about , I ’ ll just relax and do what I have to do .
”

HONG KONG—When Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai arrived in Hong Kong at age 12, the city felt like heaven to him, brimming with hope and freedom. He arrived poor, but over the years embarked on a rags-to-riches path from a garment factory worker to a wealthy businessman known for founding the popular Apple Daily newspaper and for being an outspoken pro-democracy activist.
“The hope I had (in Hong Kong) lasted for a long time, it made me who I am today,” Lai said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, hours after a new Hong Kong national security law imposed by mainland China came into effect.
“(When I first arrived), I could feel it, it was so palpable, that I almost thought a great future was waiting for me.”
But that hope dimmed over the years, and with the enactment of the security law, Lai says the Hong Kong he once knew is dead.
“It’s worse than the worst scenario imagined. Hong Kong is totally subdued, totally under control,” he said. “It’s sad that Hong Kong is dead.”
The security law is seen by many as Beijing’s boldest move yet to erase the legal firewall between the semi-autonomous territory and the mainland’s authoritarian Communist Party system.
Under the law, anyone suspected of taking part in subversive, secessionist or terrorist activities, as well as colluding with foreign forces to intervene in the city’s affairs, could face a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. In some cases, mainland China will assume jurisdiction and suspects could be sent there for trial.
Lai said he will continue fighting for Hong Kong's freedoms, but it will now have to be in a “very different way.”
“We will have to see how many of us are left in the fighting camp,” he said, adding that many will be frightened away by the new law.
“We will have to stand up and be the backbone of the movement’s integrity, and the integrity of Hong Kong’s justice," he said.
Lai declined to elaborate on how the pro-democracy and freedom movement will continue, saying that discussions are needed on how to move forward. He remained hopeful that Hong Kong will one day have democracy.
“Dictatorship of such extremes cannot last in today’s world, it’s impossible,” he said. “We have to persist, time is on our side. We are on the right side of history.”
Lai also condemned the security legislation for violating the rule of law in Hong Kong, still based on British common law.
“The details (of the law) are … very draconian but also very vague,” he said. “They’re saying the security law is going to be used for people who make trouble who are the tiny minority, and that common law will still be useful for commercial businesses and all that. But the two hands can switch at any time.”
The city will lose its status as an international financial hub because trust cannot be built when there is no rule of law, and businesses will have no protection, he said.
In the future, Hong Kongers will be very cautious about what they say on the phone and on social media, and will be careful whom they speak to, afraid that someone might turn them in, he said.
“This is going to be a very different society. I don’t think Hong Kong people, who are used to freedom and rule of law, will be able to adjust,” he said. “Many will leave.”
But he emphasized that he would stay, even if one day his family has to leave.
“I cannot (leave). If I leave, not only do I disgrace myself, I’d discredit Apple Daily, I’d undermine the solidarity of the democratic movement,” he said. “It’s something I have to take responsibility for.”
Lai became an outspoken advocate for democracy in Hong Kong after the bloody June 4, 1989, crackdown on pro-democracy protesters around Beijing’s Tiananmen Square.
“The reason I went into media was the idea that I will be able to deliver information, which equals delivering freedom,” he said.
He founded the Apple Daily tabloid in 1995, ahead of Britain's handover of Hong Kong to China.
Like Lai, Apple Daily adopts a strong pro-democracy stance, often urging readers to take part in protests. On Wednesday, its front page denounced the security legislation, stating that the “evil law is the final nail in the coffin for the ‘one country, two systems’ framework” under which Hong Kong was returned to China.
Lai, together with 14 other pro-democracy figures, is currently facing charges of organizing and participating in several massive anti-government protests deemed unlawful last year. He says neither the prospect of prison nor the consequences of the national security law fazes him.
“If I have to go to prison, I don’t mind. I don’t care,” he said.
“I cannot worry, because you never know what kind of measures they will take against me,” Lai said. “It won’t be something I can worry about, I’ll just relax and do what I have to do.”
Watch Next:
China Insider: Jimmy Lai Takes Stance Against Chinese Communist Party
By Zen Soo


thelibertydaily--2020-07-03--ABC Fake News Beclowns Itself, Stupidly Claim National Parks are Somehow Racist

All of us here at Twitchy have pretty good memories , so when we saw ABC News reporting on the racial makeup of National Park visitors , we knew we ’ d heard it all before .
And we had , back in 2016 , when a new study found “ disparities in who has access to parks and natural areas.
” Of course that headline , from ThinkProgress , was totally bogus ; anyone from any race had equal access to parks and natural areas — but did all races feel “ welcome ” in those areas ?
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low-income communities in the West have disproportionately less open space and natural areas nearby ” ; there was also the park rangers themselves .
According to a coalition called the Centennial Initiative ( named for the 100-year anniversary of the National Park Service ) , “ The Park Service law-enforcement vehicles look like those used by U.S .
Citizenship and Immigration Services , and uniforms have law enforcement connotations , both of which present a significant impediment to engaging all Americans.
” That ’ s right : Park ranger uniforms looked kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away minorities .
So fast-forward past the Obamas ’ several trips as a family to national parks to drum up business to 2020 , when again we ’ re hearing that attendance at national parks is mostly white .
“ America ’ s national parks face existential crisis over race ” is an actual ABC News headline .
Existential crisis .
So what ’ s the excuse this time ?
Still , racial profiling and stereotyping remain a big concern for [ Indian-American Ambreen ] Tariq and many people of color in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child , I felt like an outsider trying to gain entrance , except now I am American and this is my country , ” she said .
However , when she camps or hikes as an adult , Tariq said she still faces assumptions that she doesn ’ t belong and a sense of “ imposter syndrome ” and fear — even facing questions from rangers about whether she has followed park rules when she doesn ’ t see white visitors asked the same questions .
Advocates like [ Danielle ] Williams and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George Floyd ’ s death in police custody brings attention to systemic racism in the outdoors as well as other parts of society and translates into a long-term change in attitudes and behavior .
If President Obama couldn ’ t entice minorities into national parks , who can ?
And he and his family really tried .
We thought it was that statue of Christopher Columbus in Columbus , Ohio that was responsible and thus taken down .
But it goes deeper than that .

All of us here at Twitchy have pretty good memories, so when we saw ABC News reporting on the racial makeup of National Park visitors, we knew we’d heard it all before. And we had, back in 2016, when a new study found “disparities in who has access to parks and natural areas.” Of course that headline, from ThinkProgress, was totally bogus; anyone from any race had equal access to parks and natural areas — but did all races feel “welcome” in those areas?
Not only did “communities of color and low-income communities in the West have disproportionately less open space and natural areas nearby”; there was also the park rangers themselves. According to a coalition called the Centennial Initiative (named for the 100-year anniversary of the National Park Service), “The Park Service law-enforcement vehicles look like those used by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and uniforms have law enforcement connotations, both of which present a significant impediment to engaging all Americans.”
That’s right: Park ranger uniforms looked kind of like law enforcement uniforms and were scaring away minorities.
So fast-forward past the Obamas’ several trips as a family to national parks to drum up business to 2020, when again we’re hearing that attendance at national parks is mostly white.
We've been through stay at home orders with everyone itching to get outside. But outdoors spaces and our national parks are not free from the systemic racism and inequity that exist in other parts of our society. 77% of national park visitors are white.https://t.co/ppiqcMJeBE — Stephanie Ebbs (@stephebbs) July 1, 2020
“America’s national parks face existential crisis over race” is an actual ABC News headline. Existential crisis.
New @NatlParkService data, seen first by @ABCNewsLive, shows parks have remained stubbornly white spaces over the last 10 years, despite efforts to raise awareness and improve access.@devindwyer spoke with Acting NPS Director David Vela about why. https://t.co/ppiqcMJeBE — Stephanie Ebbs (@stephebbs) July 1, 2020
So what’s the excuse this time?
Still, racial profiling and stereotyping remain a big concern for [Indian-American Ambreen] Tariq and many people of color in the outdoors. “When I was a child, I felt like an outsider trying to gain entrance, except now I am American and this is my country,” she said. However, when she camps or hikes as an adult, Tariq said she still faces assumptions that she doesn’t belong and a sense of “imposter syndrome” and fear — even facing questions from rangers about whether she has followed park rules when she doesn’t see white visitors asked the same questions. … Advocates like [Danielle] Williams and Tariq say they hope the moment since George Floyd’s death in police custody brings attention to systemic racism in the outdoors as well as other parts of society and translates into a long-term change in attitudes and behavior.
Seriously?
I'm only here for the ratio. pic.twitter.com/kGkejjzZ3k — Kirk Wald (@KirkWald) July 2, 2020
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a 62:0 ratio. — JT Rona (@jaildprutnik) July 2, 2020
Get a grip. — Ex-GOP Greg (@Flying59Vette) July 2, 2020
And yet 100% of people are allowed into the parks…maybe it's something else? — blue (@blue_prop) July 2, 2020
Are they keeping black folks out of the parks? If not, what's the point of this? — MetsMan7186 (@man7186) July 2, 2020
“Why can’t we make black people visit national parks!” — Deplorable Dave (@jeffersonianguy) July 2, 2020
My misanthropy grows Sometimes I wonder if these people actually take themselves seriously — Josh the Misanthrope (@CorneliusGegan) July 2, 2020
So the Associate Director of @SierraClub can assert systemic racism in our national parks as well as the rest of society without any further elaboration. A real reporter would ask for specific examples of park service exclusionary policies that could be considered “systemic.” — Buck Leahy (@BuckLeahy) July 2, 2020
White 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61%. US census info so what's the issue? — Svetlana Wolf (@TSvetlanab) July 2, 2020
This is ridiculous. — Boog Bear (@dandanorly) July 2, 2020
No man, it's an existential crisis. The news says so! — Kenarchist ಠ_ಠ (@kenb503) July 2, 2020
All it takes for this number to change is for minorities to… Go. To. The. Parks. That’s it. It’s literally that simple. Are you a minority? Would you like this number to change? Yes to both? Go to a park. — ?☠nOt A rEaL liBeRtAriAn? (@CampyJester) July 2, 2020
If President Obama couldn’t entice minorities into national parks, who can? And he and his family really tried.
Some non-white people are *freely choosing* to do something else in their spare time, and this is an "existential crisis"? — Joe (@DangerProbe) July 2, 2020
No seriously. — Zombie John Gotti, Warlord ? (@ZombieJohnGotti) July 2, 2020
Why do they even track the racial mix of park visitors? — Jarryd (@THEREALJARRYD) July 2, 2020
Jeez, I did not notice the "whites only" sign last time I went to the park. Weird.. — TSR (@thestoicreturns) July 2, 2020
I think they are open to the public-I am confused — Jill (@Jillyterese) July 2, 2020
Force non-whites to visit. — "Linsk Minyk” Sikorsky (@SikorskyFlights) July 2, 2020
This is so true, I wondered how come no one else is seeing this. Finally!!! We should limit the # or white people that can enter parks in order to balance proportions. — Stocks Daddy (@stocksdaddy) July 2, 2020
So to make sure visitation perfectly matches demographics, are you going to limit whites at the gate or bus blacks in against their will. — Armour Opossum (@ArmourOpossum) July 2, 2020
Time to imprison minorities that refuse to visit the national parks — David Austin (@DavidAu14952054) July 2, 2020
Good God. — Evets (@Evetsisnthappy) July 2, 2020
Congrats on doing a story on one of the dumbest damn things I’ve ever seen. National Parks are open to everyone. Up to each individual to decide whether he/she wants to go or not. — Karl Corleone ?? (@mickeysooner) July 2, 2020
Finally a piece that addresses the core issue behind George Floyd's death — MrTate (@MrTate) July 2, 2020
We thought it was that statue of Christopher Columbus in Columbus, Ohio that was responsible and thus taken down. But it goes deeper than that.
This has got to be the stupidest dribble I have ever seen. — Rude Boy (Redux) (@BoyRedux) July 2, 2020
OMG, shut the hell up.? — Carrie Legrin (@CLegrin) July 2, 2020
Related:


thelibertydaily--2020-07-03--Woke NFL Prostrates Itself to the Marxist Mob, to Start Week 1 Games With ‘Black National Anthem,’ s

Woke NFL Prostrates Itself to the Marxist Mob, to Start Week 1 Games With ‘Black National Anthem,’ says ESPN

The National Football League announced it will play what is known as the Black national anthem before every Week 1 game , ESPN reported exclusively .
The sports network also reports that the league is considering a plan to add the names of victims of police brutality to the uniforms of players “ through decals on helmets or patches on jerseys.
” CLICK HERE TO READ TODD ’ S NEW BOOK : “ CULTURE JIHAD : HOW TO STOP THE LEFT FROM KILLING A NATION.
” “ The NFL also may produce educational programs about victims , ” ESPN reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be expected to stand at attention during the singing of “ Lift Ev ’ ry Voice And Sing.
” The Star-Spangled Banner would follow , ESPN reported .
EDITOR ’ S NOTE : Social media is cracking down on Conservative content .
Many of you have complained that you never see our content in your news feeds .
There ’ s only one way to fight back — and that ’ s by subscribing to my FREE weekly newsletter .
Click here .
“ Black communities across the globe continue to be vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” UCLA professor Shana Redmond told NPR in 2018 .
“ To sing this song is to revive that past — but also to recognize , as the lyrics of the song reveal , that there is a hopeful future that might come of it.
” In June the NFL announced it was pledging $ 250 million over 10 years to “ combat systemic racism and support the battle against the ongoing and historic injustices faced by African-Americans , ” Bleacher Report noted .
What do you think is going to happen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that song ?

The National Football League announced it will play what is known as the Black national anthem before every Week 1 game, ESPN reported exclusively.
The sports network also reports that the league is considering a plan to add the names of victims of police brutality to the uniforms of players “through decals on helmets or patches on jerseys.”
CLICK HERE TO READ TODD’S NEW BOOK: “CULTURE JIHAD: HOW TO STOP THE LEFT FROM KILLING A NATION.”
“The NFL also may produce educational programs about victims,” ESPN reported.
It is unclear if fans would be expected to stand at attention during the singing of “Lift Ev’ry Voice And Sing.” The Star-Spangled Banner would follow, ESPN reported.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Social media is cracking down on Conservative content. Many of you have complained that you never see our content in your news feeds. There’s only one way to fight back — and that’s by subscribing to my FREE weekly newsletter. Click here.
“Black communities across the globe continue to be vulnerable in very unique and unsettling ways,” UCLA professor Shana Redmond told NPR in 2018. “To sing this song is to revive that past — but also to recognize, as the lyrics of the song reveal, that there is a hopeful future that might come of it.”
In June the NFL announced it was pledging $250 million over 10 years to “combat systemic racism and support the battle against the ongoing and historic injustices faced by African-Americans,” Bleacher Report noted.
What do you think is going to happen to a player who takes a knee during that song?


thelibertydaily--2020-07-03--Meghan McCain Loses It as ‘The View’ Derails: ‘I’m the Only Conservative on This Show!’

Meghan McCain had a full meltdown on “ The View ” on Wednesday as the ABC talk show went off the rails once again .
It all started during a segment in which the women of “ The View ” were discussing Dr. Anthony Fauci ’ s Tuesday testimony before Congress , where he claimed that positive COVID-19 cases could approach “ 100,000 a day if this does not turn around.
” “ It ’ s so interesting , ” Joy Behar said of Republicans ’ supporting wearing masks .
“ For months they ’ ve been protecting Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over science.
” She went on to claim that Republicans “ are petrified ” of losing their congressional seats because of Donald Trump ’ s declining poll numbers and the success of the anti-Trump Republican group The Lincoln Project .
“ I say vote them all out .
All of them .
Every Republican running , ” said Behar .
MORE NEWS : ‘ Trump 2020 ’ race car to run at Brickyard 400 Her cohost Sunny Hostin agreed with her , citing a Washington Post article that claimed coronavirus “ infection and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News ’ Sean Hannity reaches the largest audience.
” “ People are listening to these news personalities and reading and consuming this type of conservative media that ’ s still going to be downplaying wearing masks , still downplaying the numbers , I don ’ t think we ’ re going to see this huge cultural shift , ” she said .
Meghan McCain , however , was not having any of it .
“ I ’ m one hundred percent willing to say on television I do not have faith and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I did [ in March ] , ” McCain said .
“ The narrative continues to confuse me .
Republicans are the devil , but protestors for Pride , and protestors for Black Lives Matter , it ’ s fine and the pandemic doesn ’ t exist.
” “ Nobody said that !
” Behar barked in response .
“ That ’ s not what ‘ s saying , ” McCain replied .
“ You know , I ’ m the only conservative on this show and I leave this place and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is consume conservative media… As much as you want to trash Fox News , Tucker Carlson has the highest approval ratings and numbers in Fox News history right now , partly because he ’ s saying , in a much more eloquent way , what I ’ m saying right now .
And there ’ s a lot of anger and frustration about this hypocrisy.
” This caused Whoopi Goldberg to step in and try to shut McCain down .
“ Here ’ s the deal .
There is , at this point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face— in our country who can look at what ’ s happening and say , ‘ Your politics is wrong.
’ This is not about politics , ” Goldberg said .
“ Everybody has to get on board to stop the spread of this thing .
We said it to the marchers , we said it to everybody.
” MORE NEWS : WATCH : Harvard grad blames Trump supporters after she ’ s fired for posting video threatening to stab anyone who says ‘ all lives matter ’ Even still , McCain would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Dr .
Fauci did not in the way that I would have liked , ” replied McCain , going on to say that she wants to see Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx “ screaming bloody murder ” about protestors maintaining social distancing .
“ The idea that we ’ re just going to sit here and say it ’ s just Republicans not wearing masks is just intellectually dishonest !
” she concluded .
It ’ s good to see that at least one person on “ The View ” actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !

Meghan McCain had a full meltdown on “The View” on Wednesday as the ABC talk show went off the rails once again.
It all started during a segment in which the women of “The View” were discussing Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Tuesday testimony before Congress, where he claimed that positive COVID-19 cases could approach “100,000 a day if this does not turn around.”
“It’s so interesting,” Joy Behar said of Republicans’ supporting wearing masks. “For months they’ve been protecting Trump and they’ve been prioritizing the economy over science.” She went on to claim that Republicans “are petrified” of losing their congressional seats because of Donald Trump’s declining poll numbers and the success of the anti-Trump Republican group The Lincoln Project. “I say vote them all out. All of them. Every Republican running,” said Behar.
Her cohost Sunny Hostin agreed with her, citing a Washington Post article that claimed coronavirus “infection and mortality rates are higher in places where Fox News’ Sean Hannity reaches the largest audience.”
“People are listening to these news personalities and reading and consuming this type of conservative media that’s still going to be downplaying wearing masks, still downplaying the numbers, I don’t think we’re going to see this huge cultural shift,” she said.
Meghan McCain, however, was not having any of it. “I’m one hundred percent willing to say on television I do not have faith and trust in Dr. Fauci in the way that I did [in March],” McCain said. “The narrative continues to confuse me. Republicans are the devil, but protestors for Pride, and protestors for Black Lives Matter, it’s fine and the pandemic doesn’t exist.”
“Nobody said that!” Behar barked in response. “That’s not what The View‘s saying,” McCain replied. “You know, I’m the only conservative on this show and I leave this place and all I do, pretty much, is consume conservative media… As much as you want to trash Fox News, Tucker Carlson has the highest approval ratings and numbers in Fox News history right now, partly because he’s saying, in a much more eloquent way, what I’m saying right now. And there’s a lot of anger and frustration about this hypocrisy.”
This caused Whoopi Goldberg to step in and try to shut McCain down. “Here’s the deal. There is, at this point, there is no person on the face— in our country who can look at what’s happening and say, ‘Your politics is wrong.’ This is not about politics,” Goldberg said. “Everybody has to get on board to stop the spread of this thing. We said it to the marchers, we said it to everybody.”
Even still, McCain would not submit to her radically liberal cohosts. “Dr. Fauci did not in the way that I would have liked,” replied McCain, going on to say that she wants to see Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx “screaming bloody murder” about protestors maintaining social distancing. “The idea that we’re just going to sit here and say it’s just Republicans not wearing masks is just intellectually dishonest!” she concluded.
Who do you think would win the Presidency? Donald Trump Joe Biden Email Address (required) By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement Results Vote
It’s good to see that at least one person on “The View” actually has a good head on her shoulders!


thelibertydaily--2020-07-03--Yale: Technocracy Has Fallen And Can’t Get Up?

As the U.S. faces one of the most severe public health crises in its modern history , there are those who advocate for technocracy as a means to guide the country .
Iziah Thompson , Senior Policy Analyst for the Office of the New York City Comptroller , told The Politic that “ technocracy is a very charged term ” that can be defined in many ways , but that at its core it would entail “ a better run society…that installs a higher degree of power [ to ] experts in government : bureaucrats that often work irrespective of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added that he and others who support technocracy “ believe that there is a more scientific way to look at and implement public policy ; [ …and that… ] this power must be understood in the context of its balance with democratic control.
” Thomson affirmed that protecting democracy is essential , but that the current status quo in the U.S. is flawed and in need of reform—reform which could effectively occur by providing technocrats with greater authority .
Although the United States has never adopted a fully technocratic government , it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the development of scholars and experts .
In addition to domestic professionals , the country has nurtured many renowned groups of foreign technocrats such as the Berkeley Mafia and the Chicago Boys , who returned to Indonesia and Chile respectively to apply their technocratic education and successfully catalyze growth in their socioeconomically stagnant nations .
U.S. leaders have also often integrated technocratic elements into governance .
Members of President Franklin Roosevelt ’ s “ Brain Trust ” —an academic advisory team composed primarily of experts in law and economics—became key advisers to Roosevelt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in shaping policies such as the New Deal .
Thompson told The Politic that “ the reality is that [ the United States ] federal government did get somewhat more technocratic under the Carter , Clinton and Obama administrations.
” One of Thompson ’ s own professors from the New York University Wagner Graduate School of Public Service , Tatiana Homonoff , was a part of the Social and Behavioral Science Team in the Obama White House , which aimed to “ apply behavioral science insights to the work government agencies did.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existed in some form , but has never been truly widely-accepted .
As Berman informed The Politic , the two main problems of this system were that it could “ bring forth democratic legitimacy problems ” and exacerbate “ a disjuncture between the ideas of technocrats and the general populace.
” Yet in 2020 , American technocracy could meet its absolute extinction at the hands of the Trump administration .
Unlike some of his predecessors , Trump has shown great animosity towards expertise .
This has been reflected both in his words and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes to the federal budget .
In 2019 , President Trump proposed a $ 5 billion cut to the National Institutes of Health , a $ 1 billion cut to the National Science Foundation , and a $ 2.7 billion cut to the Environmental Protection Agency .
In 2020 , Trump again proposed deep reductions in government funds—this time to education and science agencies .
The coronavirus pandemic has further highlighted how Trump ’ s distrust of experts has proven to be a deterrent to the United States ’ development .
From overestimating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ praising antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine as an effective treatment for the coronavirus when this has been proven false by studies , Trump ’ s statements and decisions have had egregious consequences .
“ Lives [ have been ] lost , plain and simple , ” Emil Friedman ‘ 20 , a Political Science major , told The Politic .
“ Had the administration taken seriously the warnings about COVID-19 in January , tens of thousands of lives would have been saved through better testing , tracking , and strategic stay-at-home orders in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Yale in 2016 , a few months before Trump was elected president .
Possessing a passion for politics , he intended to major in the subject , and aspired to later work for the federal government .
Four years later , his plans and those of many of his peers in political science have changed .
“ Most of us have shied away from doing federal public policy , ” said Friedman .
“ I decided to go into the private sector , and a lot of my friends have too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a public sector environment where so much [ of the ] expertise and the content you learned at a place like Yale is totally rejected.
” The Trump administration ’ s hostile behavior towards expertise deprives the United States of potential contributions from professionals such as Friedman .
This , in turn , promotes dysfunction , as it hinders the development of national human capital , innovation and production .
The president ’ s disregard of scientific advice and factual information has recently intensified due to the current fragile economy and the pressures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to make decisions based on political bias and personal instinct as opposed to data-based choices that may be beneficial in the long-run but unpopular in the short-run .
Despite the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic , Trump has often worked to undermine the advice of experts around him .
From disbanding advisory boards to limiting speaking time for key scientists in briefings , the Trump administration has done much in an attempt to ensure that the influence of experts does not eclipse that of the president .
Highly-skilled health experts such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government coronavirus task force and current director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases—have constantly been silenced .
Despite Fauci ’ s important role in the government ’ s COVID-19 response , the White House recently blocked him from testifying in a House of Representatives committee on that same topic .
In a virtual town hall held in late March , Trump claimed—against the advice of health officials who warned him that the worst effects of the pandemic were yet to come—that the U.S. would be open by Easter , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close up the United States of America , the most successful country in the world by far.
” This grand promise , filled with characteristic bravado and overconfidence , appealed greatly to Trump ’ s Republican base , which had been displeased by the inconveniences caused by quarantine .
Yet Trump was unable to fulfill this promise .
Instead , the reopening process only began weeks later , a move which a public model predicted would lead to a 70 percent increase in the daily coronavirus death toll from May to June .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to even discuss technocracy , for he is sort of anti-technocracy , ” stated Thompson .
“ He seems to despise bureaucrats and often trafficks in conspiracy… Trump gives a perfect example of what a technocracy does not call for .
The idea of technocrat leadership calls for meritocratic well-paid professionals .
These leaders should not have even the slightest hint of the perception of a conflict of interest or corruption .
”

Please Share This Story!
Yale University is saying that Technocracy is being rejected by the current administration, but nothing could be further from the truth. Technocrats are firmly in control, as evidenced by people like Dr. Anthony Fauci setting policies for economic destruction of America. ⁃ TN Editor
As the U.S. faces one of the most severe public health crises in its modern history, there are those who advocate for technocracy as a means to guide the country.
Iziah Thompson, Senior Policy Analyst for the Office of the New York City Comptroller, told The Politic that “technocracy is a very charged term” that can be defined in many ways, but that at its core it would entail “a better run society…that installs a higher degree of power [to] experts in government: bureaucrats that often work irrespective of what political machinations are underway.”
Thompson added that he and others who support technocracy “believe that there is a more scientific way to look at and implement public policy; […and that…] this power must be understood in the context of its balance with democratic control.” Thomson affirmed that protecting democracy is essential, but that the current status quo in the U.S. is flawed and in need of reform—reform which could effectively occur by providing technocrats with greater authority.
Although the United States has never adopted a fully technocratic government, it has long flourished as a global center for the development of scholars and experts. In addition to domestic professionals, the country has nurtured many renowned groups of foreign technocrats such as the Berkeley Mafia and the Chicago Boys, who returned to Indonesia and Chile respectively to apply their technocratic education and successfully catalyze growth in their socioeconomically stagnant nations.
U.S. leaders have also often integrated technocratic elements into governance. Members of President Franklin Roosevelt’s “Brain Trust”—an academic advisory team composed primarily of experts in law and economics—became key advisers to Roosevelt during the Great Depression and were integral in shaping policies such as the New Deal.
Thompson told The Politic that “the reality is that [the United States] federal government did get somewhat more technocratic under the Carter, Clinton and Obama administrations.” One of Thompson’s own professors from the New York University Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, Tatiana Homonoff, was a part of the Social and Behavioral Science Team in the Obama White House, which aimed to “apply behavioral science insights to the work government agencies did.”
***
Technocracy in the United States has always existed in some form, but has never been truly widely-accepted. As Berman informed The Politic, the two main problems of this system were that it could “bring forth democratic legitimacy problems” and exacerbate “a disjuncture between the ideas of technocrats and the general populace.” Yet in 2020, American technocracy could meet its absolute extinction at the hands of the Trump administration.
Unlike some of his predecessors, Trump has shown great animosity towards expertise. This has been reflected both in his words and in his actions, especially in proposed changes to the federal budget. In 2019, President Trump proposed a $5 billion cut to the National Institutes of Health, a $1 billion cut to the National Science Foundation, and a $2.7 billion cut to the Environmental Protection Agency. In 2020, Trump again proposed deep reductions in government funds—this time to education and science agencies.
The coronavirus pandemic has further highlighted how Trump’s distrust of experts has proven to be a deterrent to the United States’ development. From overestimating the U.S. coronavirus testing capacity, to praising antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine as an effective treatment for the coronavirus when this has been proven false by studies, Trump’s statements and decisions have had egregious consequences.
“Lives [have been] lost, plain and simple,” Emil Friedman ‘20, a Political Science major, told The Politic. “Had the administration taken seriously the warnings about COVID-19 in January, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved through better testing, tracking, and strategic stay-at-home orders in order to slow the initial spread.”
Friedman came to Yale in 2016, a few months before Trump was elected president. Possessing a passion for politics, he intended to major in the subject, and aspired to later work for the federal government. Four years later, his plans and those of many of his peers in political science have changed.
“Most of us have shied away from doing federal public policy,” said Friedman. “I decided to go into the private sector, and a lot of my friends have too. It’s difficult to work in a public sector environment where so much [of the] expertise and the content you learned at a place like Yale is totally rejected.”
The Trump administration’s hostile behavior towards expertise deprives the United States of potential contributions from professionals such as Friedman. This, in turn, promotes dysfunction, as it hinders the development of national human capital, innovation and production.
The president’s disregard of scientific advice and factual information has recently intensified due to the current fragile economy and the pressures of an election year, which motivate him to make decisions based on political bias and personal instinct as opposed to data-based choices that may be beneficial in the long-run but unpopular in the short-run.
Despite the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump has often worked to undermine the advice of experts around him. From disbanding advisory boards to limiting speaking time for key scientists in briefings, the Trump administration has done much in an attempt to ensure that the influence of experts does not eclipse that of the president. Highly-skilled health experts such as Dr. Anthony Fauci—a member of the federal government coronavirus task force and current director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases—have constantly been silenced. Despite Fauci’s important role in the government’s COVID-19 response, the White House recently blocked him from testifying in a House of Representatives committee on that same topic.
In a virtual town hall held in late March, Trump claimed—against the advice of health officials who warned him that the worst effects of the pandemic were yet to come—that the U.S. would be open by Easter, and that one couldn’t just “close up the United States of America, the most successful country in the world by far.” This grand promise, filled with characteristic bravado and overconfidence, appealed greatly to Trump’s Republican base, which had been displeased by the inconveniences caused by quarantine.
Yet Trump was unable to fulfill this promise. Instead, the reopening process only began weeks later, a move which a public model predicted would lead to a 70 percent increase in the daily coronavirus death toll from May to June.
“With Trump it’s hard to even discuss technocracy, for he is sort of anti-technocracy,” stated Thompson. “He seems to despise bureaucrats and often trafficks in conspiracy… Trump gives a perfect example of what a technocracy does not call for. The idea of technocrat leadership calls for meritocratic well-paid professionals. These leaders should not have even the slightest hint of the perception of a conflict of interest or corruption.”
Read full story here…


thelibertydaily--2020-07-03--Fascist Fauci: The Consummate Unelected, Unaccountable, Technocrat

In recent months , as a vicious pandemic spread out of China , an emerging technocracy—rule by experts—threatened to seize control of much of our public life .
When National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci and other infectious disease specialists instructed us to self-isolate , President Donald Trump “ shut it [ the economy ] down.
” Governors issued executive orders shuttering restaurants and hair salons .
Mayors banned private gatherings .
Funerals—even at the graveside—became grieving ceremonies that most were forbidden to attend .
As for beaches and public parks , they became ghost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national quasi-home arrest was to “ flatten the curve ” of new COVID-19 cases to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed—as happened terrifyingly in Northern Italy .
Whether or not our insipidly termed “ alone together ” national isolation was effective—I think it probably was—we can all give thanks that hospitals did not collapse , and draconian triage measures such as Italy imposed were never required .
But that laudable success came at a terrible toll .
Tens of millions were thrown out of work .
Despite concerted government efforts to shore up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and restaurants never to reopen .
Uber and taxi drivers lost countless fares .
Parking lot attendants and airport shop workers became unemployed .
Major corporations faced bankruptcy .
One would have thought that the legal lockdowns were sufficiently restrictive .
But once power has been tasted , the human tendency is to grab for ever greater control .
Soon , media pundits and politicians began to refer ominously to a less vibrant , prosperous , and free “ new normal.
” Flattening the curve quickly metamorphosed from a temporary measure to save @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone from getting sick .
“ Experts , ” such as the bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel—a prime architect of the Affordable Care Act—told us with presumed authority , that we could not return to the way things were until a vaccine was developed , a time Emanuel estimated to be potentially as long as 18 months .
Justifying seizing greater control under the mantra , “ if it saves just one life , ” some of our most influential experts began pounding the drum to make a future COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for everyone .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Association urged the organization to support legislation toward that end .
Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz went so far as to tell an interviewer that “ the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor ’ s office and plunge a needle into your arm.
” Then , there was the less-intrusive question of masks .
Initially , Fauci opined that masks did little good and should mainly be worn by health care providers .
But soon , the CDC changed its guidelines urging that we all wear cloth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us went along .
Better safe than sorry , after all .
We wanted to do our part .
But voluntary submission wasn ’ t enough for our would-be overlords .
Many urged the passage of legal mandates .
In a co-authored New York Times op-ed , Emanuel—sniffing that “ face mask compliance this side of the Pacific has been uneven ” —urged that wearing masks be made mandatory .
To avoid a popular “ backlash , ” Emanuel implored our neo-patrician entertainment celebrities , sports stars , and politicians to model mask-wearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us plebeians .
Some governors promptly saluted and issued mandatory “ wear masks ” orders .
Are these mask mandates medically necessary ?
According to the latest “ science , ” for most of us , it would seem not , most of the time .
For example , a report recently published by the New England Journal of Medicine discussing masking in the health care facility context , also contained illuminating information about our general circumstances : “ We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health authorities define a significant exposure to COVID-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes ( and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes ) .
The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal.
” Oops .
Then , what might be the point of wearing masks when it is not an effective prophylactic ?
“ Expanded masking protocols ’ greatest contribution , ” the scientist wrote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anxiety.
” The World Health Organization appeared to strike another blow against the necessity of imposing technocratic mandates when a WHO scientist stated that transmission by asymptomatic patients “ is very rare.
” That would mean that the number of potential transmitters of the virus at any given time is far lower than originally thought , which has great public policy implications .
Apparently , the technocratic class understood that potential , too .
The next day , after much establishment screaming , the scientist took back her “ very rare ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of infected people are asymptomatic and “ able to transmit the virus.
” ( WHO ’ s confusion—another WHO “ expert ” said , “ There is much that is not known ” —doesn ’ t change the point of this essay , but it does raise the question of whether we can trust “ the experts , ” considering the part played by political pressure in such pronouncements .
But that is a question that will have to wait for another essay . )
These shifts in—and befuddled utterances about—our scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandates .
Our leaders don ’ t rule .
They govern .
Other than in circumstances of close personal contact over extended time in health care facilities and other risky places , legally requiring masks—when it provides scant prophylactic benefit—would be merely to harness the power of symbolism as an outward manifestation of obedience to the technocratic order .
That isn ’ t a proper purpose of public policy .

Please Share This Story!
Wesley Smith correctly points out that freedom at the hands of Technocrats is an oxymoron. Science should properly advise political leaders, but it has no ability to determine or create public policy and should not be allowed to dominate it. ⁃ TN Editor
In recent months, as a vicious pandemic spread out of China, an emerging technocracy—rule by experts—threatened to seize control of much of our public life.
When National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci and other infectious disease specialists instructed us to self-isolate, President Donald Trump “shut it [the economy] down.”
Governors issued executive orders shuttering restaurants and hair salons. Mayors banned private gatherings. Funerals—even at the graveside—became grieving ceremonies that most were forbidden to attend. As for beaches and public parks, they became ghost zones.
The policy purpose behind our national quasi-home arrest was to “flatten the curve” of new COVID-19 cases to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed—as happened terrifyingly in Northern Italy. Whether or not our insipidly termed “alone together” national isolation was effective—I think it probably was—we can all give thanks that hospitals did not collapse, and draconian triage measures such as Italy imposed were never required.
But that laudable success came at a terrible toll. Tens of millions were thrown out of work. Despite concerted government efforts to shore up the economy, the small-business sector imploded—some shops and restaurants never to reopen. Uber and taxi drivers lost countless fares. Parking lot attendants and airport shop workers became unemployed. Major corporations faced bankruptcy.
Greater Control
One would have thought that the legal lockdowns were sufficiently restrictive. But once power has been tasted, the human tendency is to grab for ever greater control.
Soon, media pundits and politicians began to refer ominously to a less vibrant, prosperous, and free “new normal.” Flattening the curve quickly metamorphosed from a temporary measure to save hospitals into a permanent effort to prevent anyone from getting sick.
“Experts,” such as the bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel—a prime architect of the Affordable Care Act—told us with presumed authority, that we could not return to the way things were until a vaccine was developed, a time Emanuel estimated to be potentially as long as 18 months.
Justifying seizing greater control under the mantra, “if it saves just one life,” some of our most influential experts began pounding the drum to make a future COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for everyone. A committee of the New York Bar Association urged the organization to support legislation toward that end.
Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz went so far as to tell an interviewer that “the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”
Mask Confusion
Then, there was the less-intrusive question of masks. Initially, Fauci opined that masks did little good and should mainly be worn by health care providers. But soon, the CDC changed its guidelines urging that we all wear cloth coverings in public places. Most of us went along. Better safe than sorry, after all. We wanted to do our part.
But voluntary submission wasn’t enough for our would-be overlords. Many urged the passage of legal mandates. In a co-authored New York Times op-ed, Emanuel—sniffing that “face mask compliance this side of the Pacific has been uneven”—urged that wearing masks be made mandatory.
To avoid a popular “backlash,” Emanuel implored our neo-patrician entertainment celebrities, sports stars, and politicians to model mask-wearing as a means of normalizing it among us plebeians. Some governors promptly saluted and issued mandatory “wear masks” orders.
Are these mask mandates medically necessary? According to the latest “science,” for most of us, it would seem not, most of the time. For example, a report recently published by the New England Journal of Medicine discussing masking in the health care facility context, also contained illuminating information about our general circumstances:
“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to COVID-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal.”
Oops. Then, what might be the point of wearing masks when it is not an effective prophylactic? “Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution,” the scientist wrote, “may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety.”
The World Health Organization appeared to strike another blow against the necessity of imposing technocratic mandates when a WHO scientist stated that transmission by asymptomatic patients “is very rare.” That would mean that the number of potential transmitters of the virus at any given time is far lower than originally thought, which has great public policy implications.
Apparently, the technocratic class understood that potential, too. The next day, after much establishment screaming, the scientist took back her “very rare” characterization, now saying that about 16 percent of infected people are asymptomatic and “able to transmit the virus.” (WHO’s confusion—another WHO “expert” said, “There is much that is not known”—doesn’t change the point of this essay, but it does raise the question of whether we can trust “the experts,” considering the part played by political pressure in such pronouncements. But that is a question that will have to wait for another essay.)
Technocracy Temptation
These shifts in—and befuddled utterances about—our scientific understanding should staunch the drive for technocratic mandates. Our leaders don’t rule. They govern. Other than in circumstances of close personal contact over extended time in health care facilities and other risky places, legally requiring masks—when it provides scant prophylactic benefit—would be merely to harness the power of symbolism as an outward manifestation of obedience to the technocratic order. That isn’t a proper purpose of public policy.
Read full story here…


thelibertydaily--2020-07-03--World Heath Organization Quietly Backtracks Original Claim That Communist Self-Reported Existence of

World Heath Organization Quietly Backtracks Original Claim That Communist Self-Reported Existence of the Chi-Com Virus — Now Admit This Never Happened

Contrary to claims from both Chinese officials and the World Health Organization , China did not report the existence of the coronavirus in late 2019 , according to a WHO timeline tracking the spread of the virus .
Rather , international health officials discovered the virus through information posted to a U.S. website .
The quiet admission from the international health organization , which posted an `` updated '' timeline to its website this week , flies in the face of claims from some of its top officials , including WHO director general Tedros Adhanom , who maintained for months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the emerging sickness .
China and its allies at the WHO insisted in multiple interviews and press conferences that China came to the health organization with information about the virus .
This is now known to be false .
The WHO ’ s backtracking lends credibility to a recent congressional investigation that determined China concealed information about the virus and did not initially inform the WHO , as it was required to do .
The WHO ’ s updated timeline , posted online this week , now states that officials first learned about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , through information posted on a U.S. website by doctors working in Wuhan , where the virus first emerged .
This contradicts the agency ’ s initial timeline , which said that China first presented this information at that date .
That initial timeline stated that the `` Wuhan Municipal Health Commission , China , reported a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan , Hubei Province '' on Dec. 31 .
These claims were carried in numerous American media outlets that relied on the WHO ’ s inaccurate timeline , including CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media also claimed for months that the communist regime informed the WHO on or around Dec. 31 .
In recent days , however , Chinese officials have dropped that talking point .
Rep. Michael McCaul ( Texas ) , lead Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a member of Congress ’ s China Task Force , was one of the first lawmakers to expose China ’ s lies about reporting the virus .
An interim congressional report on the virus ’ s origins published last month first disclosed the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from online postings , not China .
`` I ’ m glad to see the WHO and the Chinese Communist Party have both read my interim report on the origins of the pandemic and are finally admitting to the world the truth—the CCP never reported the virus outbreak to the WHO in violation of WHO regulation , '' McCaul told the Washington Free Beacon in a statement .
`` The question now is whether the CCP will continue their false propaganda campaign that continues to claim they warned the world , or whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work with the world health community to get to the bottom of this deadly pandemic . ''
McCaul ’ s report makes clear that WHO director general Adhanom parroted China ’ s claim about self-reporting the virus .
`` Director General Tedros actively engaged in an effort to defend the CCP ’ s leadership from criticism , negatively impacting the world ’ s understanding of the virus and hampering the global response effort , '' the report concluded .
The WHO ’ s initial timeline `` leaves out the fact that the WHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the WHO headquarters in Geneva—not PRC health authorities , '' according to McCaul ’ s findings , which are now verified by the WHO ’ s revised timeline .
While initial reports of the virus did in fact originate in Wuhan , WHO officials in its headquarters found the information on an American early-warning site .
`` Director General Tedros ’ s comments seem to suggest that Wuhan or the PRC informed the WHO of the outbreak , which is untrue , '' according to the congressional report .

Contrary to claims from both Chinese officials and the World Health Organization, China did not report the existence of the coronavirus in late 2019, according to a WHO timeline tracking the spread of the virus. Rather, international health officials discovered the virus through information posted to a U.S. website.
The quiet admission from the international health organization, which posted an "updated" timeline to its website this week, flies in the face of claims from some of its top officials, including WHO director general Tedros Adhanom, who maintained for months that China had informed his organization about the emerging sickness.
China and its allies at the WHO insisted in multiple interviews and press conferences that China came to the health organization with information about the virus. This is now known to be false. The WHO’s backtracking lends credibility to a recent congressional investigation that determined China concealed information about the virus and did not initially inform the WHO, as it was required to do.
The WHO’s updated timeline, posted online this week, now states that officials first learned about the virus on Dec. 31, 2019, through information posted on a U.S. website by doctors working in Wuhan, where the virus first emerged. This contradicts the agency’s initial timeline, which said that China first presented this information at that date.
That initial timeline stated that the "Wuhan Municipal Health Commission, China, reported a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, Hubei Province" on Dec. 31.
These claims were carried in numerous American media outlets that relied on the WHO’s inaccurate timeline, including CNN and Axios.
Chinese officials and state-controlled media also claimed for months that the communist regime informed the WHO on or around Dec. 31. In recent days, however, Chinese officials have dropped that talking point.
Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas), lead Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a member of Congress’s China Task Force, was one of the first lawmakers to expose China’s lies about reporting the virus. An interim congressional report on the virus’s origins published last month first disclosed the fact that the WHO found out about the virus from online postings, not China.
"I’m glad to see the WHO and the Chinese Communist Party have both read my interim report on the origins of the pandemic and are finally admitting to the world the truth—the CCP never reported the virus outbreak to the WHO in violation of WHO regulation," McCaul told the Washington Free Beacon in a statement. "The question now is whether the CCP will continue their false propaganda campaign that continues to claim they warned the world, or whether they will come clean and begin to work with the world health community to get to the bottom of this deadly pandemic."
McCaul’s report makes clear that WHO director general Adhanom parroted China’s claim about self-reporting the virus.
"Director General Tedros actively engaged in an effort to defend the CCP’s leadership from criticism, negatively impacting the world’s understanding of the virus and hampering the global response effort," the report concluded.
The WHO’s initial timeline "leaves out the fact that the WHO China Country Office was 'informed' by the WHO headquarters in Geneva—not PRC health authorities," according to McCaul’s findings, which are now verified by the WHO’s revised timeline.
While initial reports of the virus did in fact originate in Wuhan, WHO officials in its headquarters found the information on an American early-warning site.
"Director General Tedros’s comments seem to suggest that Wuhan or the PRC informed the WHO of the outbreak, which is untrue," according to the congressional report.


thelibertydaily--2020-07-03--Indiana Priest Suspended for Condemning the Black Lives Matter Communist Front Group as ‘Wolves in W

Indiana Priest Suspended for Condemning the Black Lives Matter Communist Front Group as ‘Wolves in Wolves Clothing, Masked Thieves and Bandits, Seeking Only to Devour’

A Catholic priest in Indiana has been suspended by his diocese for condemning the organization Black Lives Matter in his weekly message last Sunday .
Rev .
Theodore Rothrock of St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church in Carmel described organizers of the Marxist , gay activist , anti-nuclear family organization as `` maggots and parasites . ''
His bishop , Timothy Doherty of the Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana , ordered the move Wednesday .
`` The Bishop expresses pastoral concern for the affected communities , '' the diocese said in a statement Wednesday , reported the Indianapolis Star newspaper .
`` The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pastoral discernment for the good of the diocese and for the good of Father Rothrock . ''
TRENDING : 'You got something to say , little boy ? '
: See woman shame protester The suspension came after the newly formed Carmel Against Racial Injustice group demanded that the bishop remove Rothrock from leadership of the church .
Referring to BLM , Rothrock wrote in his weekly message last Sunday that the `` only lives that matter are their own and the only power they seek is their own . ''
`` They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thieves and bandits , seeking only to devour the life of the poor and profit from the fear of others , '' he said .
`` They are maggots and parasites at best , feeding off the isolation of addiction and broken families , and offering to replace any current frustration and anxiety with more misery and greater resentment . ''
The priest said the church must oppose Black Lives Matter and Antifa and carry the `` message of peace . ''
He doubted Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizers , who allege `` systematic racism . ''
`` Black Lives Matter , Antifa , and the other nefarious acolytes of their persuasion are not the friends or allies we have been led to believe , '' Rothrock wrote .
`` They are serpents in the garden , seeking only to uproot and replant a new species of human made in the likeness of man and not in the image of God . ''
'It was not my intention to offend' The diocese , the Indianapolis paper reported , has canceled its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another parish , Our Lady of Mount Carmel .
And a deacon will take over his current role as administrator of St. Elizabeth Seton .
The diocese said `` various possibilities for his public continuation in priestly ministry are being considered . ''
The paper noted that all of the priest 's weekly messages and the staff contact page have been removed from the parish 's website .
Rothrock apologized Tuesday night in a message sent to parishioner that later was posted on the church 's website .
`` It was not my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am sorry that my words have caused any hurt to anyone , '' he wrote .
Everyone is welcome in God 's kingdom , he said , and the church must condemn bigotry .
`` We must also be fully aware that there are those who would distort the Gospel for their own misguided purposes , '' Rothrock wrote .
`` People are afraid , as I pointed out , rather poorly I would admit , that there are those who feed on that fear to promote more fear and division . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bishop wrote a `` Pastoral response to racism '' in which he had not approved or previewed the priest 's offending article .
`` Pastors do not submit bulletin articles or homilies to my offices before they are delivered , '' he said .
`` I expect Father Rothrock to issue a clarification about his intended message .
I have not known him to depart from Church teaching in matters of doctrine and social justice . ''
Doherty noted a column Rothrock wrote in early June calling the killing of George Floyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Against Racial Injustice said in a statement it was `` disgusted and shocked by the recent letter written by Father Theodore Rothrock . ''
`` We are also deeply saddened by the fact that the church leadership did not condemn the statement and saw fit to allow its publication .
Silence is the action of being complicit in injustice , '' the group said .

A Catholic priest in Indiana has been suspended by his diocese for condemning the organization Black Lives Matter in his weekly message last Sunday.
Rev. Theodore Rothrock of St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church in Carmel described organizers of the Marxist, gay activist, anti-nuclear family organization as "maggots and parasites."
His bishop, Timothy Doherty of the Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana, ordered the move Wednesday.
"The Bishop expresses pastoral concern for the affected communities," the diocese said in a statement Wednesday, reported the Indianapolis Star newspaper. "The suspension offers the Bishop an opportunity for pastoral discernment for the good of the diocese and for the good of Father Rothrock."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The suspension came after the newly formed Carmel Against Racial Injustice group demanded that the bishop remove Rothrock from leadership of the church.
Referring to BLM, Rothrock wrote in his weekly message last Sunday that the "only lives that matter are their own and the only power they seek is their own."
"They are wolves in wolves clothing, masked thieves and bandits, seeking only to devour the life of the poor and profit from the fear of others," he said. "They are maggots and parasites at best, feeding off the isolation of addiction and broken families, and offering to replace any current frustration and anxiety with more misery and greater resentment."
The priest said the church must oppose Black Lives Matter and Antifa and carry the "message of peace."
He doubted Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. would have been marching with the Black Lives Matter organizers, who allege "systematic racism."
"Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and the other nefarious acolytes of their persuasion are not the friends or allies we have been led to believe," Rothrock wrote. "They are serpents in the garden, seeking only to uproot and replant a new species of human made in the likeness of man and not in the image of God."
'It was not my intention to offend'
The diocese, the Indianapolis paper reported, has canceled its plan to appoint Rothrock as pastor of another parish, Our Lady of Mount Carmel. And a deacon will take over his current role as administrator of St. Elizabeth Seton.
The diocese said "various possibilities for his public continuation in priestly ministry are being considered."
The paper noted that all of the priest's weekly messages and the staff contact page have been removed from the parish's website.
Rothrock apologized Tuesday night in a message sent to parishioner that later was posted on the church's website.
"It was not my intention to offend anyone, and I am sorry that my words have caused any hurt to anyone," he wrote.
Everyone is welcome in God's kingdom, he said, and the church must condemn bigotry.
"We must also be fully aware that there are those who would distort the Gospel for their own misguided purposes," Rothrock wrote. "People are afraid, as I pointed out, rather poorly I would admit, that there are those who feed on that fear to promote more fear and division."
Prior to the priest's statement, the bishop wrote a "Pastoral response to racism" in which he had not approved or previewed the priest's offending article.
"Pastors do not submit bulletin articles or homilies to my offices before they are delivered," he said. "I expect Father Rothrock to issue a clarification about his intended message. I have not known him to depart from Church teaching in matters of doctrine and social justice."
Doherty noted a column Rothrock wrote in early June calling the killing of George Floyd brutal and unjust.
The group Carmel Against Racial Injustice said in a statement it was "disgusted and shocked by the recent letter written by Father Theodore Rothrock."
"We are also deeply saddened by the fact that the church leadership did not condemn the statement and saw fit to allow its publication. Silence is the action of being complicit in injustice," the group said.


thelibertydaily--2020-07-03--Beijing Biden Trots Out Small Business Owner Who Got Thousands in Gov’t Assistance to Argue Trump Is

Beijing Biden Trots Out Small Business Owner Who Got Thousands in Gov’t Assistance to Argue Trump Isn’t Helping Small Business

A new campaign video from Joe Biden features a small business owner who says the Trump administration did nothing to help her during the coronavirus pandemic .
Unmentioned is that she received thousands through the administration 's Paycheck Protection Program .
Tiffany Easley , who owns NV My Eyewear in Philadelphia , received a forgivable $ 27,000 loan during the first phase of the program in April , she disclosed to local news outlet BillyPenn .
She disclosed the same to Biden during a June 11 roundtable he held in Philadelphia , telling him her major concern was creating safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back into the store .
But the disclosure is missing from the video testimonial Easley provided for the Biden campaign , in which she says the administration made `` everything worse . ''
`` I had to permanently close one location and furlough my employees , '' Easley says in the video .
`` But what 's worse , is that this president seemed to make everything else worse .
Donald Trump and his administration left the American people behind , the people he is supposed to protect and serve .
Small businesses—they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that 's why I ’ m with Joe . ''
Neither the Biden campaign nor Easley responded to a request for comment .
The new ad comes as the Biden campaign works to capitalize on the economic downturn brought by the coronavirus , which took away one of Trump 's biggest reelection talking points .
New economic data released Thursday showed a sharp decline in unemployment and the addition of 4.8 million new jobs—indicating that the economy is rebounding faster than experts predicted .
The Trump campaign called the new Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` undermine confidence '' in the ongoing economic recovery , which it says was fueled by the success of PPP .
`` The first round of President Trump 's incredibly successful Paycheck Protection Program processed more than 14 years ’ worth of loans in less than 14 days , '' said Ali Pardo , the campaign 's deputy communications director .
`` Thanks to this fast surge of support for small business owners like Tiffany , tens of millions of workers continued to receive paychecks .
The fact is , President Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before and there ’ s nothing Joe Biden can do to stop it . ''
Alfredo Ortiz , president of the Job Creators Network , told the Washington Free Beacon the video should be taken down by the Biden campaign for `` false advertising . ''
`` It ignores the success of the PPP , which has helped roughly five million small business owners , including the one featured in the ad itself , '' Ortiz said .
`` The fact that the Biden campaign could n't even find a small business owner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the incompetence of the Biden brand , and just how expansive President Trump 's relief efforts have been . ''
Administered through the federal government 's Small Business Administration , PPP gave small businesses loans that were forgivable if the money was used to pay staff .
When Easley received the PPP loan , in addition to smaller grants from local relief funds , she said she was optimistic about her business .
`` I was surprised , because if you listen to the news , they were so quick to say all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in April .
`` I have a good feeling , I think we 'll be ok .
I just think it 's gon na take some time to get there . ''
Adam Michel , a senior policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation , pushed back against the claim that the government left businesses behind during the pandemic .
`` The federal coronavirus response has been nothing short of extraordinary , '' Michel said in an email .
`` More than 70 percent of small businesses have received financial support from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other provisions , like delayed tax filing deadlines , two-year delay in employer payroll tax payments , and expansions of tax loss rules , '' Michel said , adding that support for such policies has been bipartisan .
Though there were disagreements over specifics of the PPP program , it was approved by Congress in nearly unanimous votes .
Biden has worked to downplay the impact of the program , claiming that funds didn ’ t end up in the hands of small business owners like Easley .
Fact checkers have rated his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the claim Biden would be a `` partner '' for small businesses if elected , pointing to his promise to repeal tax cuts passed during Trump 's first term .
`` Far from being a ‘ partner ' in the White House , Joe Biden would be a major opponent for small businesses , '' said Ortiz .
`` Biden has called for repealing President Trump 's tax cuts , which helped generate the strongest small business economy in recent history before the pandemic hit . ''
Grover Norquist , president of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Biden ’ s proposals would help small businesses .
`` There is nothing that Biden has proposed or endorsed that would give a small business more opportunities to succeed , keep more of their income , or more freedom to operate , '' Norquist said .
Michel explained that Biden 's proposed changes to the tax code would in fact hurt Easley 's own small business .
`` The 2017 tax cuts were a boon for all Americans , including small businesses .
Most small businesses pay their taxes as individuals and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates were lowered across the board , '' Michel said .
`` There was also a new 20 percent pass-through business deduction that benefits most small and medium-sized businesses . ''
`` To the extent Biden wants to repeal these features of the tax cuts , he will hurt small businesses like NV My Eyewear , '' Michel said .

A new campaign video from Joe Biden features a small business owner who says the Trump administration did nothing to help her during the coronavirus pandemic. Unmentioned is that she received thousands through the administration's Paycheck Protection Program.
Tiffany Easley, who owns NV My Eyewear in Philadelphia, received a forgivable $27,000 loan during the first phase of the program in April, she disclosed to local news outlet BillyPenn. She disclosed the same to Biden during a June 11 roundtable he held in Philadelphia, telling him her major concern was creating safe conditions for her furloughed staff to come back into the store.
But the disclosure is missing from the video testimonial Easley provided for the Biden campaign, in which she says the administration made "everything worse."
"I had to permanently close one location and furlough my employees," Easley says in the video. "But what's worse, is that this president seemed to make everything else worse. Donald Trump and his administration left the American people behind, the people he is supposed to protect and serve. Small businesses—they need a partner in the White House, and that's why I’m with Joe."
Small businesses are the backbone of communities across our nation, and we need to do so much more to help them. Donald Trump may have forgotten about them — but I never will. pic.twitter.com/RDYKzt1Qc1 — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) July 1, 2020
Neither the Biden campaign nor Easley responded to a request for comment.
The new ad comes as the Biden campaign works to capitalize on the economic downturn brought by the coronavirus, which took away one of Trump's biggest reelection talking points. New economic data released Thursday showed a sharp decline in unemployment and the addition of 4.8 million new jobs—indicating that the economy is rebounding faster than experts predicted.
The Trump campaign called the new Biden video a "dishonest" attempt to "undermine confidence" in the ongoing economic recovery, which it says was fueled by the success of PPP.
"The first round of President Trump's incredibly successful Paycheck Protection Program processed more than 14 years’ worth of loans in less than 14 days," said Ali Pardo, the campaign's deputy communications director. "Thanks to this fast surge of support for small business owners like Tiffany, tens of millions of workers continued to receive paychecks. The fact is, President Trump is restoring the historically strong economy he built before and there’s nothing Joe Biden can do to stop it."
Alfredo Ortiz, president of the Job Creators Network, told the Washington Free Beacon the video should be taken down by the Biden campaign for "false advertising."
"It ignores the success of the PPP, which has helped roughly five million small business owners, including the one featured in the ad itself," Ortiz said. "The fact that the Biden campaign couldn't even find a small business owner who hadn't received PPP funds demonstrates the incompetence of the Biden brand, and just how expansive President Trump's relief efforts have been."
Administered through the federal government's Small Business Administration, PPP gave small businesses loans that were forgivable if the money was used to pay staff. When Easley received the PPP loan, in addition to smaller grants from local relief funds, she said she was optimistic about her business.
"I was surprised, because if you listen to the news, they were so quick to say all the money was gone," Easley said in April. "I have a good feeling, I think we'll be ok. I just think it's gonna take some time to get there."
Adam Michel, a senior policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, pushed back against the claim that the government left businesses behind during the pandemic.
"The federal coronavirus response has been nothing short of extraordinary," Michel said in an email.
"More than 70 percent of small businesses have received financial support from the PPP loans and have benefited from various other provisions, like delayed tax filing deadlines, two-year delay in employer payroll tax payments, and expansions of tax loss rules," Michel said, adding that support for such policies has been bipartisan.
Though there were disagreements over specifics of the PPP program, it was approved by Congress in nearly unanimous votes. Biden has worked to downplay the impact of the program, claiming that funds didn’t end up in the hands of small business owners like Easley. Fact checkers have rated his claims false.
Ortiz took issue with the claim Biden would be a "partner" for small businesses if elected, pointing to his promise to repeal tax cuts passed during Trump's first term.
"Far from being a 'partner' in the White House, Joe Biden would be a major opponent for small businesses," said Ortiz. "Biden has called for repealing President Trump's tax cuts, which helped generate the strongest small business economy in recent history before the pandemic hit."
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, argued that none of Biden’s proposals would help small businesses.
"There is nothing that Biden has proposed or endorsed that would give a small business more opportunities to succeed, keep more of their income, or more freedom to operate," Norquist said.
Michel explained that Biden's proposed changes to the tax code would in fact hurt Easley's own small business.
"The 2017 tax cuts were a boon for all Americans, including small businesses. Most small businesses pay their taxes as individuals and thus received a tax cut because tax rates were lowered across the board," Michel said. "There was also a new 20 percent pass-through business deduction that benefits most small and medium-sized businesses."
"To the extent Biden wants to repeal these features of the tax cuts, he will hurt small businesses like NV My Eyewear," Michel said.


thelibertydaily--2020-07-03--Sen. Mike Lee: ‘The Mob Hates America on America’s Dime; It’s Time to Cut Off Their Allowance’

On the floor of the U.S. Senate Thursday , Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah delivered an impassioned speech condemning mob violence in the United States .
Lee offered a resolution , which his Democrat colleague , Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey , attempted to amend by inserting language attacking President Donald Trump .
Menendez then repeatedly tried to silence Lee .
Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , served as the presiding officer and overruled Menendez .
A lightly edited transcript and video are below .
Sen. Mike Lee : As I look at the language proposed by my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept the rest of it except for the words , “ especially , the president of the United States.
” The rest of it is unobjectionable .
The point here is that without pointing to any one specific individual , we should all be able to acknowledge as a sense of the Senate that we do hold these truths as self-evident .
That our country was founded on these very strong ideals .
Even if , as the resolution itself acknowledges , we have failed at times to live up to them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ d accept the modification , but only with the removal of the words , “ especially , the president of the United States.
” What ’ s happening here ?
This is the U.S. Senate .
Just so everyone is clear about the insanity that we just witnessed .
I just proposed a nonbinding resolution condemning mob violence and Senate Democrats objected .
I don ’ t know whether to be outraged or embarrassed for them .
This isn ’ t even a bill ; it ’ s just a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad.
” That Democrats can ’ t say “ Mob violence is bad ” without simultaneously taking a jab at the president of the United States ?
By the way , what about the mayor of Seattle ?
What about the City Council of Minneapolis ?
What about a countless other people who have perpetuated , or enabled , or facilitated or coddled mob violence across the country ?
It ’ s one of the reasons why we ’ re not going to engage in this task of making it a political tit-for-tat—it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being shot , businesses are being looted , innocent Americans are being attacked and threatened .
Lives are being ruined , communities are burning , literally burning .
So whose side are you on ?
This resolution was designed to be unifying it and avoided— Sen. Bob Menendez : May I ask the presiding officer to remind us of Rule 19 ?
Sen. Ted Cruz : The chair will remind senators of both parties that Rule 19 provides that no senator in debate shall directly or indirectly by any form of words , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any conduct or motive , unworthy , or unbecoming of a senator .
Lee : The resolution was designed to be unifying .
It avoided controversial subjects .
All it asked of us was basic dignity and respect .
As long as we ’ re on the topic of Rule 19 , it ’ s unbecoming to accuse a colleague of using language that is supremacy simply by reflecting on language and the Declaration of Independence , simply by reflecting on language that acknowledges the incivility and intolerability of mob violence .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask today .
I guess we should be thankful for clarity .
Now we know we don ’ t have to ask .
They told us how they feel about this resolution .
You can ’ t really oppose this , it seems to me without being on the side of the mobs , of mob violence , of mob mentality , of cruelty , and intolerance and terror .
Now we understand what this resolution is about .
I don ’ t think one can oppose this without being comfortable with those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These mobs are not enlightened .
These not mobs are not edgy , they ’ re not hip .
They ’ re fraud .
Menendez : Mr. President , parliamentary inquiry .
Is this line not in direct violation of Rule 19 ?
Cruz : The chair concludes that pointing out that mob violence is dangerous to our nation is not contrary to Rule 19 , or any other rule of this Senate .
Menendez : Further parliamentary inquiry .
There ’ s not a question of mob violence .
The question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not agree with the framework and language of this resolution , that they are supporting mob violence .
That must be in violation of Rule 19 .
If this is going to be a deliberative body .
Cruz : The senator is more than entitled to express his views in the course of debate , but other senators will likewise express their views in the course of debate .
Lee : Failed by an education system , and addled by a social media culture that taught them to be victims instead of citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with participation trophy graduate degrees , trying to find meaning in empty lives by destroying things that other Americans have spent honest , productive lives building .
Today we learned that there are those who were comfortable with this .
There are those who are at least not inclined to vote for this resolution , which simply condemns mob violence .
Now we know , Mr. President .
Now we know .
I want all my colleagues to know that when we returned from recess , we ’ re coming back to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just going to be debating nonbinding resolutions .
It ’ s long past time to expose the shiftless idiocy of the anti-American , anti-science , anti-establishment , anti-Constitution mob , and remove their snouts from the federal trough .
Colleges and universities that punish free speech and discriminate against conservative and religious students .
City councils who defund their police departments and refuse to protect public safety .
States that force doctors to mutilate confused children without their parents ’ consent .
School districts that embrace the ahistorical nonsense of the 1619 Project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the above and much more , the whole garbage fire that is the so-called “ woke ideology ” depends on federal money .
The mob hates America on America ’ s dime .
It ’ s time to cut off their allowance .
I think the American people would be very interested to know who stands for them and who stands for subsidizing the mob .
I intend to show them .
Mr. President , this debate is not ending today .
It ’ s only the beginning .
All I asked in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words , “ especially , the president of the United States.
” Why ?
Because that ’ s different than the entire approach taken by the resolution .
As long as we ’ re calling each other out on casting aspersions on each other ’ s intentions , no one ’ s intention here to shield anyone from anything .
As evidenced by the fact that as my proposed modification would have provided , it would have said , “ Our elected officials should not incite violence or legitimize those who engage in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the president of the United States was and is an elected official .
This would apply to him .
My counter in no way insulated , not him , not any elected officials , not any of us from this resolution , which simply condemns mob violence .

On the floor of the U.S. Senate Thursday, Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah delivered an impassioned speech condemning mob violence in the United States. Lee offered a resolution, which his Democrat colleague, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, attempted to amend by inserting language attacking President Donald Trump. Menendez then repeatedly tried to silence Lee. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, served as the presiding officer and overruled Menendez. A lightly edited transcript and video are below.
Sen. Mike Lee: As I look at the language proposed by my colleague from New Jersey, I could accept the rest of it except for the words, “especially, the president of the United States.” The rest of it is unobjectionable.
The point here is that without pointing to any one specific individual, we should all be able to acknowledge as a sense of the Senate that we do hold these truths as self-evident. That our country was founded on these very strong ideals.
Even if, as the resolution itself acknowledges, we have failed at times to live up to them, we’ve still done it. I’d accept the modification, but only with the removal of the words, “especially, the president of the United States.”
What’s happening here? This is the U.S. Senate. Just so everyone is clear about the insanity that we just witnessed.
I just proposed a nonbinding resolution condemning mob violence and Senate Democrats objected. I don’t know whether to be outraged or embarrassed for them.
This isn’t even a bill; it’s just a statement that says, “Mob violence is bad.” That Democrats can’t say “Mob violence is bad” without simultaneously taking a jab at the president of the United States?
By the way, what about the mayor of Seattle? What about the City Council of Minneapolis? What about a countless other people who have perpetuated, or enabled, or facilitated or coddled mob violence across the country?
It’s one of the reasons why we’re not going to engage in this task of making it a political tit-for-tat—it’s not that.
People are being shot, businesses are being looted, innocent Americans are being attacked and threatened.
Lives are being ruined, communities are burning, literally burning.
So whose side are you on?
This resolution was designed to be unifying it and avoided—
Sen. Bob Menendez: May I ask the presiding officer to remind us of Rule 19?
Sen. Ted Cruz: The chair will remind senators of both parties that Rule 19 provides that no senator in debate shall directly or indirectly by any form of words, impute another senator and other senators, any conduct or motive, unworthy, or unbecoming of a senator.
Lee: The resolution was designed to be unifying. It avoided controversial subjects. All it asked of us was basic dignity and respect.
As long as we’re on the topic of Rule 19, it’s unbecoming to accuse a colleague of using language that is supremacy simply by reflecting on language and the Declaration of Independence, simply by reflecting on language that acknowledges the incivility and intolerability of mob violence.
But apparently that’s too much to ask today. I guess we should be thankful for clarity. Now we know we don’t have to ask.
They told us how they feel about this resolution. You can’t really oppose this, it seems to me without being on the side of the mobs, of mob violence, of mob mentality, of cruelty, and intolerance and terror.
Now we understand what this resolution is about. I don’t think one can oppose this without being comfortable with those things. These mobs are not progressive. These mobs are not enlightened. These not mobs are not edgy, they’re not hip. They’re fraud.
They’re dimwitted, phony drama addicts.
Menendez: Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is this line not in direct violation of Rule 19?
Cruz: The chair concludes that pointing out that mob violence is dangerous to our nation is not contrary to Rule 19, or any other rule of this Senate.
Menendez: Further parliamentary inquiry. There’s not a question of mob violence. The question is that imputing to members who did not agree with the framework and language of this resolution, that they are supporting mob violence. That must be in violation of Rule 19. If this is going to be a deliberative body.
Cruz: The senator is more than entitled to express his views in the course of debate, but other senators will likewise express their views in the course of debate.
Lee: Failed by an education system, and addled by a social media culture that taught them to be victims instead of citizens. A privileged self-absorbed, crime syndicate with participation trophy graduate degrees, trying to find meaning in empty lives by destroying things that other Americans have spent honest, productive lives building.
Today we learned that there are those who were comfortable with this. There are those who are at least not inclined to vote for this resolution, which simply condemns mob violence. Now we know, Mr. President. Now we know.
I want all my colleagues to know that when we returned from recess, we’re coming back to the Senate floor and we’re not just going to be debating nonbinding resolutions.
It’s long past time to expose the shiftless idiocy of the anti-American, anti-science, anti-establishment, anti-Constitution mob, and remove their snouts from the federal trough.
Colleges and universities that punish free speech and discriminate against conservative and religious students.
City councils who defund their police departments and refuse to protect public safety.
States that force doctors to mutilate confused children without their parents’ consent.
School districts that embrace the ahistorical nonsense of the 1619 Project.
The smug sneering privilege of all the above and much more, the whole garbage fire that is the so-called “woke ideology” depends on federal money.
The mob hates America on America’s dime. It’s time to cut off their allowance.
I think the American people would be very interested to know who stands for them and who stands for subsidizing the mob. I intend to show them. Mr. President, this debate is not ending today. It’s only the beginning.
All I asked in my counter was that we removed the words, “especially, the president of the United States.” Why? Because that’s different than the entire approach taken by the resolution.
As long as we’re calling each other out on casting aspersions on each other’s intentions, no one’s intention here to shield anyone from anything.
As evidenced by the fact that as my proposed modification would have provided, it would have said, “Our elected officials should not incite violence or legitimize those who engage in hate fueled acts.”
Last I checked, the president of the United States was and is an elected official. This would apply to him. My counter in no way insulated, not him, not any elected officials, not any of us from this resolution, which simply condemns mob violence.