dailysignal--2020-06-20--During Ebola Pandemic, Liberia Held Political Rallies

While President Donald Trump has endured criticism from some for planning to hold one of his first political campaign rallies Saturday evening in Tulsa , Oklahoma , when many parts of the country are reopening after being shut down due to the COVID-19 threat , political observers should remember that Liberia managed to hold political rallies in 2014 during the much deadlier Ebola epidemic that was sweeping West Africa .
One could legitimately ask : Why can ’ t the United States do the same with our political rallies and even conventions ?
We should not allow our constitutional rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assembly , political association , and the democratic process to be restricted because of paranoia and fear .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
The United States is vastly wealthier than Liberia and has exponentially more resources than that West African nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domestic product was more than $ 20 trillion .
Liberia ’ s GDP in 2018 was only a little more than $ 3 billion .
Do the critics really think we can ’ t safely engage in politics when Liberia was able to do it successfully , including holding national senatorial elections with in-person voting , in the face of an extraordinarily dangerous pathogen in terms of its infectiousness and fatality rates ?
Liberia was able to create polling places that protected voter health , and it did the same thing for political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a good job that the U.N. congratulated the country on organizing a successful election “ under challenging circumstances , particularly in the midst of difficulties posed by the Ebola crisis.
” So , how did Liberia do it ?
With the help and advice of health experts from international organizations , including the World Health Organization and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems ( which is based in Washington , D.C. ) , the Liberian National Election Commission implemented detailed health guidelines for the conduct of the election related both to voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise that those recommendations mirror many of the safety protocols we are following when we go grocery shopping , visit pharmacies , or head to local hardware stores to take care of household repairs we finally have time for while we are home .
According to the guidelines released on Nov. 25 , 2014 , by the Liberian National Election Commission , “ all political parties , alliances , coalitions , independent candidates , and their supporters ” were “ required ” to implement “ Ebola Preventive Measures ” at “ town hall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign activities.
” The “ Ebola Preventative Measures ” included “ hand-washing corners and temperature-monitoring equipment at ” political meetings .
Campaign officials were told that these safety measures were to be “ instituted at the point of entry/commencement of such campaign gatherings.
” Any person with a temperature higher than a certain minimum had to “ be excluded and the public health authority notified.
” Everyone who attended a campaign event , rally , or town meeting was also required to follow the Ebola protocols , “ such as washing of hands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and observing and maintaining a non-contact distance of at least three ( 3 ) feet between and amongst attendees.
” The commission required that “ all political rallies be held outdoors , utilizing indoor facilities when such is the only available option.
” It also prohibited the use of “ mass transportation ” to get people to the rallies .
The guidelines for the election even set out the safety rules for “ press conferences and media briefings , ” where there would be gatherings of “ media houses , political parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institutions.
” They were to follow the same preventative measures as at polling places , campaign rallies , and meetings .
Similarly , the Trump campaign has said that it will be checking the temperature of everyone going into the rally and providing hand sanitizer and masks to all attendees .
( Masks were not something Liberia required . )
These measures seem sound , and I hope other campaigns—of any political party—follow this lead and get back into active-campaigning mode .
If Liberia was able to hold an election with in-person voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meetings , press gaggles , and all of the customary , normal , and usual activities that are the hallmarks of a working democracy , there is no reason that we can not do the same .
In fact , we have much greater resources that we can apply to do it safely without adding to the health crisis we have been dealing with .
As my mother , who grew up in Nazi Germany , and my father , who escaped Soviet communism , often told their children , democracy is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do everything we can to carry on the political process in which we , the public , will decide this year who we want leading this nation , our states , and our local towns , cities , and counties .

While President Donald Trump has endured criticism from some for planning to hold one of his first political campaign rallies Saturday evening in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when many parts of the country are reopening after being shut down due to the COVID-19 threat, political observers should remember that Liberia managed to hold political rallies in 2014 during the much deadlier Ebola epidemic that was sweeping West Africa.
One could legitimately ask: Why can’t the United States do the same with our political rallies and even conventions?
We should not allow our constitutional rights to engage in free speech, peaceful assembly, political association, and the democratic process to be restricted because of paranoia and fear.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
The United States is vastly wealthier than Liberia and has exponentially more resources than that West African nation. In 2018, the U.S. gross domestic product was more than $20 trillion. Liberia’s GDP in 2018 was only a little more than $3 billion.
Do the critics really think we can’t safely engage in politics when Liberia was able to do it successfully, including holding national senatorial elections with in-person voting, in the face of an extraordinarily dangerous pathogen in terms of its infectiousness and fatality rates?
Liberia was able to create polling places that protected voter health, and it did the same thing for political rallies and campaign meetings. Liberia did such a good job that the U.N. congratulated the country on organizing a successful election “under challenging circumstances, particularly in the midst of difficulties posed by the Ebola crisis.”
So, how did Liberia do it? With the help and advice of health experts from international organizations, including the World Health Organization and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (which is based in Washington, D.C.), the Liberian National Election Commission implemented detailed health guidelines for the conduct of the election related both to voting and campaigning.
It is probably no surprise that those recommendations mirror many of the safety protocols we are following when we go grocery shopping, visit pharmacies, or head to local hardware stores to take care of household repairs we finally have time for while we are home.
According to the guidelines released on Nov. 25, 2014, by the Liberian National Election Commission, “all political parties, alliances, coalitions, independent candidates, and their supporters” were “required” to implement “Ebola Preventive Measures” at “town hall meetings, political rallies, and other campaign activities.”
The “Ebola Preventative Measures” included “hand-washing corners and temperature-monitoring equipment at” political meetings. Campaign officials were told that these safety measures were to be “instituted at the point of entry/commencement of such campaign gatherings.”
Any person with a temperature higher than a certain minimum had to “be excluded and the public health authority notified.”
Everyone who attended a campaign event, rally, or town meeting was also required to follow the Ebola protocols, “such as washing of hands, having his or her temperature tested, and observing and maintaining a non-contact distance of at least three (3) feet between and amongst attendees.”
The commission required that “all political rallies be held outdoors, utilizing indoor facilities when such is the only available option.” It also prohibited the use of “mass transportation” to get people to the rallies.
The guidelines for the election even set out the safety rules for “press conferences and media briefings,” where there would be gatherings of “media houses, political parties, civil society organizations, and other institutions.” They were to follow the same preventative measures as at polling places, campaign rallies, and meetings.
Similarly, the Trump campaign has said that it will be checking the temperature of everyone going into the rally and providing hand sanitizer and masks to all attendees. (Masks were not something Liberia required.)
These measures seem sound, and I hope other campaigns—of any political party—follow this lead and get back into active-campaigning mode.
If Liberia was able to hold an election with in-person voting and in-person campaign rallies, town hall meetings, press gaggles, and all of the customary, normal, and usual activities that are the hallmarks of a working democracy, there is no reason that we cannot do the same.
In fact, we have much greater resources that we can apply to do it safely without adding to the health crisis we have been dealing with.
As my mother, who grew up in Nazi Germany, and my father, who escaped Soviet communism, often told their children, democracy is a precious but fragile thing.
We should do everything we can to carry on the political process in which we, the public, will decide this year who we want leading this nation, our states, and our local towns, cities, and counties.


dailysignal--2020-06-21--4 Things to Know About the British Group Targeting The Federalist

The British organization that has targeted The Federalist , a U.S. online magazine , is a relatively new nonprofit that primarily has gone after websites in the United Kingdom .
NBC News cited Stop Funding Fake News , a project of the Center for Countering Digital Hate , in pushing Google to demonetize The Federalist , a mainstream conservative news and opinion site .
Demonetizing would be accomplished if Google didn ’ t allow The Federalist to carry Google Ads .
However , Google has denied this .
The British organization also has targeted ZeroHedge , a financial website .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Stop Funding Fake News and the Center for Countering Digital Hate .
In writing about content at The Federalist , NBC News cited both the Center for Countering Digital Hate and Stop Funding Fake News as sources .
According to its website , Stop Funding Fake News was established in May as a project of the Center for Countering Digital Hate .
It mostly names British outlets as “ fake ” and boasts : “ Since we launched , we ’ ve seen one of our target fake news sites completely shut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others reduced significantly as a result of us damaging their ability to raise revenue.
” Stop Funding Fake News identifies the site it helped shut down as Westmonster , a media outlet established by pro-Brexit businessman Aaron Banks and Michael Heaver , a former aide to Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage .
However , the website does appear to still exist , primarily as an aggregator .
The Center for Countering Digital Hate did not respond to email inquiries from The Daily Signal on Thursday or Friday .
Stop Funding Fake News did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online inquiry form .
Stop Funding Fake News also counts as “ wins ” its efforts to pressure advertisers to stop buying space on the sites Politicalite , TR News , Evolve Politics , and The Canary .
It lists numerous companies and organizations that it says stopped advertising on various websites because of its work .
These include the World Wildlife Foundation , the University of Oxford , eBay , Adobe , The Week , and The Royal British Legion .
News organizations should be skeptical of a nonprofit that arbitrarily labels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” without learning more , said Hayden Ludwig , an investigative researcher with the Capital Research Center , a Washington-based watchdog group for nonprofits .
Ludwig noted a similarity with media and businesses that unquestioningly accept the Southern Poverty Law Center ’ s arbitrary labeling of organizations they disagree with as “ hate groups.
” “ I can see a parallel between so-called fake news and hate groups .
No doubt that there are real hate groups and fake news , but what the SPLC does is run an ugly smear campaign against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Ludwig told The Daily Signal in an email .
“ It ’ s the same deal as the MSM [ mainstream media ] .
These groups don ’ t play fair and they aren ’ t interested in debate over issues ; this is a way for activists to shut down all public discourse so the left can ram through its agenda.
” Also raising concern is the aspect of foreign meddling in U.S. media , Ludwig said .
“ It should absolutely concern every American that shadowy foreign interests are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gain , ” Ludwig said .
“ They have no accountability in the U.S. , no transparency , no publicly available filings .
I think it ’ s perfectly reasonable for people to expect some basic information about these groups trying to influence our politics.
” 2 .
What Is the Center for Countering Digital Hate ?
Founded in December 2017 , the organization was incorporated as a nonprofit in October 2018 , according to the British government .
Originally founded as Brixton Endeavors Limited , its name was changed in August 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The London-based center says on its website that it seeks to “ disrupt the architecture of online hate and misinformation , ” adding : Beyond the project Stop Funding Fake News , the center ’ s other programs include Don ’ t Feed the Trolls and Don ’ t Spread the Virus .
The British government endorsed the center as the entity to correct disinformation about the coronavirus pandemic through its Don ’ t Spread the Virus campaign .
“ CCDH have also forced social media companies to establish precedent and remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly accountable for their tolerance of hateful content , ” the website says .
Americans have reason for concern when foreign entities attack U.S. media outlets , said Dan Gainor , vice president of Tech Watch at the Media Research Center , a media watchdog group .
“ We ’ ve spent four years and countless news stories with the left and the press whining about alleged foreign interference , ” Gainor told The Daily Signal .
“ They never really cared .
They were just upset it wasn ’ t advocating for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along and the press is thrilled to the point of doing their bidding–because it ’ s targeting a bunch of conservative sites.
” Using the “ hate ” label is just a way to silence others , Gainor said : Imran Ahmed , who has been active in Britain ’ s left-leaning Labour Party , founded the Center for Countering Digital Hate in December 2017 .
Ahmed often appears on British TV talking about what he considers hateful content on the internet and social media .
He has focused on misinformation , extremism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In April , Ahmed was appointed to the steering committee of the British government ’ s Commission on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force .
The steering committee has two roles : to decide which incidents to prioritize for discussion and to meet local stakeholders to help develop responses to incidents of hateful extremism .
Before starting the nonprofit , Ahmed was a senior political adviser to the Labour Party ’ s Hilary Benn , a member of the House of Lords , from 2012 through 2016 .
He was an aide during Benn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 referendum on Brexit .
In 2016 , Ahmed went to work for the Labour Party ’ s Angela Eagle , a member of the House of Commons , who vied for a leadership post .
Eagle and Ahmed co-authored the book , “ The New Serfdom : The Triumph of Conservative Ideas and How to Defeat Them.
” Through a liberal viewpoint , the book attacked the legacy of free market economist Friedrich Hayek , a conservative icon famous for the book “ The Road to Serfdom.
” Before working in politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strategy consultant .
The Center for Countering Digital Hate has a five-member board of directors that oversees its activities , one of whom has ties to the progressive movement in the United States .
The organization doesn ’ t list any staff other than Rachel Riley , who has the title of patron .
Riley , a mathematician and well-known British game show host , also clashed with the left , objecting to the anti-Semitism of far-left media outlets that supported former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn .
Board member Simon Clark has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center for American Progress since May 2018 .
At the liberal Washington-based think tank , Clark specializes in domestic right-wing terrorism and trans-Atlantic relations .
Clark has a background in investing and venture capital .
He joined the Center for Countering Digital Hate ’ s board only last month .
Board member Siobhan McAndrew is a sociology professor at the University of Bristol .
She specializes in “ culture , religion and value change , ” according to her webpage at the university .
She published a paper last year on violence by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McNeill is executive director of Save the Children UK .
She was an adviser to former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the Labour Party .
Jonny Oates , a member of the Liberal Democrats , serves in the House of Lords .
Another board member , Ayesha Saran , is migration program manager at Barrow Cadbury Trust , a London-based charitable foundation that advocates “ social justice.
” A sixth board member , Morgan McSweeney , resigned earlier this year to become chief of staff for Labour leader Keir Starmer .

The British organization that has targeted The Federalist, a U.S. online magazine, is a relatively new nonprofit that primarily has gone after websites in the United Kingdom.
NBC News cited Stop Funding Fake News, a project of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, in pushing Google to demonetize The Federalist, a mainstream conservative news and opinion site.
Demonetizing would be accomplished if Google didn’t allow The Federalist to carry Google Ads. However, Google has denied this. The British organization also has targeted Zero Hedge, a financial website.
2/ This article, which features ads from @Jeep_People, claims #BlackLivesMatter is a “Marxist scam” and a “wokeness cult” that uses “emotional blackmail”.
It calls the “mob mindset” a “form of mind rape”. pic.twitter.com/vbyUbYlVqS — Stop Funding Fake News (@SFFakeNews) June 17, 2020
Here are four key things to know about Stop Funding Fake News and the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
1. What Is Stop Funding Fake News?
In writing about content at The Federalist, NBC News cited both the Center for Countering Digital Hate and Stop Funding Fake News as sources.
According to its website, Stop Funding Fake News was established in May as a project of the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
It mostly names British outlets as “fake” and boasts: “Since we launched, we’ve seen one of our target fake news sites completely shut down, and the capacity of several others reduced significantly as a result of us damaging their ability to raise revenue.”
Stop Funding Fake News identifies the site it helped shut down as Westmonster, a media outlet established by pro-Brexit businessman Arron Banks and Michael Heaver, a former aide to Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage. However, the website does appear to still exist, primarily as an aggregator.
The Stop Funding Fake News website continues:
We invite brands and people to consider whether they want their adverts to appear next to hate and untruths. (Spoiler alert: turns out paying for hate and Fake News is not a great look.) By helping hate-filled clickbait and Fake News gain revenue from advertising, Google has put money ahead of morality, and advantaged outrage over facts.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate did not respond to email inquiries from The Daily Signal on Thursday or Friday. Stop Funding Fake News did not respond to the submission of an online inquiry form.
Stop Funding Fake News also counts as “wins” its efforts to pressure advertisers to stop buying space on the sites Politicalite, TR News, Evolve Politics, and The Canary.
It lists numerous companies and organizations that it says stopped advertising on various websites because of its work. These include the World Wildlife Foundation, the University of Oxford, eBay, Adobe, The Week, and The Royal British Legion.
News organizations should be skeptical of a nonprofit that arbitrarily labels another media outlet as “fake news” without learning more, said Hayden Ludwig, an investigative researcher with the Capital Research Center, a Washington-based watchdog group for nonprofits.
Ludwig noted a similarity with media and businesses that unquestioningly accept the Southern Poverty Law Center’s arbitrary labeling of organizations they disagree with as “hate groups.”
“I can see a parallel between so-called fake news and hate groups. No doubt that there are real hate groups and fake news, but what the SPLC does is run an ugly smear campaign against conservative organizations supporting legitimate, mainstream positions,” Ludwig told The Daily Signal in an email. “It’s the same deal as the MSM [mainstream media]. These groups don’t play fair and they aren’t interested in debate over issues; this is a way for activists to shut down all public discourse so the left can ram through its agenda.”
Also raising concern is the aspect of foreign meddling in U.S. media, Ludwig said.
“It should absolutely concern every American that shadowy foreign interests are trying to manipulate our media for political gain,” Ludwig said. “They have no accountability in the U.S., no transparency, no publicly available filings. I think it’s perfectly reasonable for people to expect some basic information about these groups trying to influence our politics.”
2. What Is the Center for Countering Digital Hate?
Founded in December 2017, the organization was incorporated as a nonprofit in October 2018, according to the British government.
Originally founded as Brixton Endeavors Limited, its name was changed in August 2019 to the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
The London-based center says on its website that it seeks to “disrupt the architecture of online hate and misinformation,” adding:
Over time these actors, advocating diverse causes—from anti-feminism to ethnic nationalism to denial of scientific consensus—have formed a Digital Counter Enlightenment. Their trolling, disinformation and skilled advocacy of their causes has resocialized the offline world for the worse. … CCDH’s solutions seek to increase the economic, political and social costs of all parts of the infrastructure—the actors, systems and culture—that support, and often profit from hate and misinformation.
Beyond the project Stop Funding Fake News, the center’s other programs include Don’t Feed the Trolls and Don’t Spread the Virus.
The British government endorsed the center as the entity to correct disinformation about the coronavirus pandemic through its Don’t Spread the Virus campaign.
“CCDH have also forced social media companies to establish precedent and remove hateful or dangerous speech by holding them directly accountable for their tolerance of hateful content,” the website says.
Americans have reason for concern when foreign entities attack U.S. media outlets, said Dan Gainor, vice president of Tech Watch at the Media Research Center, a media watchdog group.
“We’ve spent four years and countless news stories with the left and the press whining about alleged foreign interference,” Gainor told The Daily Signal. “They never really cared. They were just upset it wasn’t advocating for their leftist candidates. Now CCDH comes along and the press is thrilled to the point of doing their bidding—because it’s targeting a bunch of conservative sites.”
Using the “hate” label is just a way to silence others, Gainor said:
All of these fascist anti-hate groups are the biggest hate groups on the internet. They don’t believe in free speech, free press, or anything else in our First Amendment. In the case of CCDH, they want to silence any speech they disagree with—to help fix a presidential election. They should be made to register as foreign agents, just as RT and other foreign propaganda outlets were made to do.
3. Who Founded the Organization?
Imran Ahmed, who has been active in Britain’s left-leaning Labour Party, founded the Center for Countering Digital Hate in December 2017.
Ahmed often appears on British TV talking about what he considers hateful content on the internet and social media. He has focused on misinformation, extremism, fake news, and trolling.
In April, Ahmed was appointed to the steering committee of the British government’s Commission on Countering Extremism Pilot Task Force.
The steering committee has two roles: to decide which incidents to prioritize for discussion and to meet local stakeholders to help develop responses to incidents of hateful extremism.
Before starting the nonprofit, Ahmed was a senior political adviser to the Labour Party’s Hilary Benn, a member of the House of Lords, from 2012 through 2016. He was an aide during Benn’s 2015 reelection campaign and the 2016 referendum on Brexit.
In 2016, Ahmed went to work for the Labour Party’s Angela Eagle, a member of the House of Commons, who vied for a leadership post.
Eagle and Ahmed co-authored the book “The New Serfdom: The Triumph of Conservative Ideas and How to Defeat Them.” Through a liberal viewpoint, the book attacked the legacy of free market economist Friedrich Hayek, a conservative icon famous for the book “The Road to Serfdom.”
Before working in politics, Ahmed worked for Merrill Lynch as a strategy consultant.
4. What Are the Board’s Political Connections?
The Center for Countering Digital Hate has a five-member board of directors that oversees its activities, one of whom has ties to the progressive movement in the United States.
The organization doesn’t list any staff other than Rachel Riley, who has the title of patron.
If a bus driving round London had skinheads with megaphones shouting these things, no reputable brand would dream of putting their ads on the bus.@GoogleAds almost did the right thing, pulling ads from an internet version of this bus yday. Don’t bow to racists whining about it. https://t.co/04nRunR2Vx — Rachel Riley ? (@RachelRileyRR) June 17, 2020
Riley, a mathematician and well-known British game show host, also clashed with the left, objecting to the anti-Semitism of far-left media outlets that supported former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
Board member Simon Clark has been a nonresident senior fellow at the Center for American Progress since May 2018. At the liberal Washington-based think tank, Clark specializes in domestic right-wing terrorism and trans-Atlantic relations.
Clark has a background in investing and venture capital. He joined the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s board only last month.
Board member Siobhan McAndrew is a sociology professor at the University of Bristol. She specializes in “culture, religion and value change,” according to her webpage at the university. She published a paper last year on violence by left-wing extremist groups.
Board member Kirsty McNeill is executive director of Save the Children UK. She was an adviser to former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the Labour Party.
Jonny Oates, a member of the Liberal Democrats, serves in the House of Lords. Another board member, Ayesha Saran, is migration program manager at Barrow Cadbury Trust, a London-based charitable foundation that advocates “social justice.”
A sixth board member, Morgan McSweeney, resigned earlier this year to become chief of staff for Labour leader Keir Starmer.


dailysignal--2020-06-18--Prioritizing Federal Activity More Important in Wake of COVID-19

As America works toward bringing the COVID-19 pandemic under control , it is vital that the public and leaders make smart and informed decisions .
To that end , The Heritage Foundation ’ s National Coronavirus Recovery Commission has released its final report , which features recommendations for policymakers , civil society , families , and businesses .
Although most of the commission ’ s recommendations focus on reopening the economy and civil society , it also makes prescriptions for something we should not wait to address : preparing for the next pandemic .
> > > What ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
Among the commission ’ s preventative recommendations is a renewed federal focus on proper national priorities , including fighting the never-ending war on communicable diseases .
It ’ s worth taking a closer look at why the commission included this recommendation .
The federal government ’ s top priority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our way of life .
This principally means maintaining a strong military to protect the nation from armed threats .
Another threat to our way of life—one we are currently dealing with—is from deadly viruses and bacteria .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was created to protect Americans from these invisible menaces .
As things stand , matters truly federal in nature are forced to compete with countless other activities for attention , many of which are political pet projects that provide minimal value to the public .
Over the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in ways that are contrary to the nation ’ s founding principles of limited government .
It micromanages the economy through regulation , and taxes and spends trillions of dollars every year to fund thousands of programs .
Examples of distracted federal activity include far-fetched infrastructure projects , subsidizing rum production on U.S. territorial islands , and a special inspection regime for catfish .
Unfortunately , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention often is perceived as having fallen victim to the same lack of focus as the rest of the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the CDC has wandered into topics such as obesity and gun control .
It ’ s arguable that if the CDC had maintained a focus on its core mission , it would have had more resources available to respond to the current crisis .
This is especially relevant when considering that the agency ’ s budget has grown faster than inflation for decades .
While federal agencies have an obligation to perform their assigned duties as best as possible , Congress is responsible for monitoring the agencies that it authorizes and funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislators should streamline federal activity : The sprawling nature of the federal government has made congressional oversight more difficult .
If the federal government were smaller , Congress could better ensure that true national priorities are administered properly .
After all , there are limits to how many things to which 535 members of Congress and their staff can devote sufficient attention .
The result of unchecked federal agencies and limited congressional capacity is broad swathes of federal activity where legal authorizations have ended , resulting in “ zombie ” agencies and programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and unfocused government has been ongoing for generations , it is still possible to rein in the federal leviathan .
Congress has an opportunity to directly address the problem this summer through the appropriations process .
Twelve spending bills that fund federal agencies are due by the end of the fiscal year Sept. 30 .
Through drafting the text of bills and amendments , legislators have the ability to remove unnecessary agencies and bureaus , and can give directions on how agencies use allotted funds .
For the CDC , Congress should review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed for carrying out the core mission of communicable disease control .
Evaluating which accounts are still needed to achieve that goal—and then removing unnecessary accounts—would dramatically enhance the agency ’ s focus .
For other agencies , The Heritage Foundation ’ s “ Blueprint for Balance ” contains hundreds of policy ideas for streamlining the federal government .
This would increase transparency and accountability for government performance , and would make Congress give more attention to issues of real national importance .
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission is correct in calling for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ core mission .
In the case of the CDC , legislators should review , evaluate , and ensure that they ’ re focused on top priorities of protecting public health .
This would help the response and prevention of future outbreaks .
Ultimately , that is a goal all Americans should be able to agree on .

As America works toward bringing the COVID-19 pandemic under control, it is vital that the public and leaders make smart and informed decisions.
To that end, The Heritage Foundation’s National Coronavirus Recovery Commission has released its final report, which features recommendations for policymakers, civil society, families, and businesses.
Although most of the commission’s recommendations focus on reopening the economy and civil society, it also makes prescriptions for something we should not wait to address: preparing for the next pandemic.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Among the commission’s preventative recommendations is a renewed federal focus on proper national priorities, including fighting the never-ending war on communicable diseases. It’s worth taking a closer look at why the commission included this recommendation.
The federal government’s top priority should be defending the nation and preserving our way of life. This principally means maintaining a strong military to protect the nation from armed threats.
Another threat to our way of life—one we are currently dealing with—is from deadly viruses and bacteria. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was created to protect Americans from these invisible menaces.
As things stand, matters truly federal in nature are forced to compete with countless other activities for attention, many of which are political pet projects that provide minimal value to the public.
Over the past century, Washington has expanded its role in ways that are contrary to the nation’s founding principles of limited government. It micromanages the economy through regulation, and taxes and spends trillions of dollars every year to fund thousands of programs.
Examples of distracted federal activity include far-fetched infrastructure projects, subsidizing rum production on U.S. territorial islands, and a special inspection regime for catfish.
Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention often is perceived as having fallen victim to the same lack of focus as the rest of the federal government. Rather than fixating on communicable diseases, the CDC has wandered into topics such as obesity and gun control.
It’s arguable that if the CDC had maintained a focus on its core mission, it would have had more resources available to respond to the current crisis. This is especially relevant when considering that the agency’s budget has grown faster than inflation for decades.
While federal agencies have an obligation to perform their assigned duties as best as possible, Congress is responsible for monitoring the agencies that it authorizes and funds.
This leads to another reason why legislators should streamline federal activity: The sprawling nature of the federal government has made congressional oversight more difficult.
If the federal government were smaller, Congress could better ensure that true national priorities are administered properly. After all, there are limits to how many things to which 535 members of Congress and their staff can devote sufficient attention.
The result of unchecked federal agencies and limited congressional capacity is broad swathes of federal activity where legal authorizations have ended, resulting in “zombie” agencies and programs.
While the trend toward a bloated and unfocused government has been ongoing for generations, it is still possible to rein in the federal leviathan.
Congress has an opportunity to directly address the problem this summer through the appropriations process. Twelve spending bills that fund federal agencies are due by the end of the fiscal year Sept. 30.
Through drafting the text of bills and amendments, legislators have the ability to remove unnecessary agencies and bureaus, and can give directions on how agencies use allotted funds.
For the CDC, Congress should review its spending accounts and determine which are needed for carrying out the core mission of communicable disease control. Evaluating which accounts are still needed to achieve that goal—and then removing unnecessary accounts—would dramatically enhance the agency’s focus.
For other agencies, The Heritage Foundation’s “Blueprint for Balance” contains hundreds of policy ideas for streamlining the federal government. This would increase transparency and accountability for government performance, and would make Congress give more attention to issues of real national importance.
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission is correct in calling for the federal government to focus on its core mission. In the case of the CDC, legislators should review, evaluate, and ensure that they’re focused on top priorities of protecting public health. This would help the response and prevention of future outbreaks.
Ultimately, that is a goal all Americans should be able to agree on.


dailysignal--2020-06-18--Responding to the Coronavirus Crisis and Building a Stronger Health Sector for the Future

Editor ’ s note : This is an open letter to the American people from 74 participants in the Health Policy Consensus Group and other health care leaders .
Please see the full list of signatories at the end of this letter .
The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the need for flexibility in our health sector and for public officials to do more to empower medical professionals and health care innovators to provide the care and coverage people want and need .
Those goals must guide our continuing response to the pandemic and to making broader changes in our health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has exposed how government red tape gets in the way of a rapid response and interferes with patients being able to quickly and efficiently get the care they need from those they trust .
Much can be accomplished when governments enable medical innovators rather than constructing obstacles to their progress .
The Trump administration , state leaders , and Congress , on a bipartisan basis , have waived hundreds of rules in a race to fight the virus .
We should never go back .
Instead , both the administration and Congress should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build on them with additional reforms and flexibility that will free patients and doctors , and employees and employers to make it easier to access and develop creative options .
President Donald Trump ’ s latest executive order takes a step in this direction by directing the federal government to continue these deregulatory efforts “ with the same vigor and resourcefulness ” deployed in the initial phases of the COVID-19 response .
Changes should continue to empower private sector and state and local innovators .
The federalist approach in the pandemic response has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government in empowering states and localities with the flexibility to meet the unique challenges of communities as diverse as San Francisco and rural Montana , with the federal government playing a supportive role .
And , when liberated from counterproductive rules and regulations , providers and suppliers inside and outside the health sector are quickly creating new and better solutions .
Countless companies big and small have repurposed manufacturing facilities and accelerated the search for treatments and vaccines .
Medical providers , patients , and plans have quickly moved to adopt telemedicine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ better outcomes , lower costs , and more consumer choices to make health care and coverage more accessible .
To help Congress and the administration shape the continuing response , the Health Policy Consensus Group offers recommendations to address the immediate crisis and build a foundation for a better health sector moving forward .
Make it easier for people to access personal , “ portable ” health insurance ” that travels with them from job to job and in and out of the labor market .
Americans need more security and control over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can draw on in times of a medical or economic crisis .
Through executive actions , the Trump administration has expanded opportunities for more choices of health coverage—for small businesses to join larger insurance pools to get better rates and more flexibility and to give people access to better short-term plans if they are between jobs , self-employed , working in the gig economy , retiring early , or starting a new business .
Congress should codify these rules on short-term limited duration plans and association health plans to provide more affordable , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should encourage states that block access to those plans to lift the restrictions to provide their residents more affordable coverage so they can receive care from medical professionals and facilities they know and trust .
Congress also should codify health reimbursement arrangements that allow employers to reimburse employees with tax-free dollars for individual market coverage that employees purchase outside the workplace .
And , Congress also could help overwhelmed businesses by nullifying the employer mandate for 2019-21 with its burdensome reporting requirements and threatened penalties States should have new regulatory flexibility and budgeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Care Choices Proposal , to respond to the unique needs of their residents .
They would be able to improve insurance options for patients , including those with preexisting conditions , target federal subsidies to vulnerable patients in most need , and empower the private sector to deliver care and services by lifting regulatory constraints that delay and even block innovation .
Make it easier for people to communicate with their medical providers of choice—including by phone , email and video conference .
The federal government should permanently codify pandemic-related regulatory relief , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so patients can receive care without leaving their homes .
Some states have suspended the requirement that out-of-state doctors must get a new , state-specific license before they can practice in a different state .
That has allowed medical providers from across the country to help patients in New York City and other epicenters of the pandemic .
Congress should follow suit , permanently allowing patients who get care funded by federal programs to see a doctor of their choice , no matter in which state they are licensed .
Achieving this goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and medical providers see each other more easily .
Trump should use his bully pulpit to encourage states to do more to lift burdensome rules and regulations that interfere with easier access to care , including permanently lifting certificate-of-need restrictions and allowing more practice flexibility , such as letting pharmacists increase the number of tests they can perform .
Congress , too , should do more , starting by repealing limits on physician-owned hospitals , which have a track record of delivering high-quality , affordable care .
Make it easier for patients to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own care .
To achieve this goal , Congress should allow everyone to have a health savings account , regardless of how their health insurance is structured .
It should raise health savings account contribution limits and allow the accounts to be used to pay premiums , direct primary care fees , participate in sharing ministries , and help others finance their health care needs .
Additionally , patients should be protected from surprise medical bills by requiring transparent information and pricing , along with advance cost estimates so patients aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The debate today is between those who want to exert even more government control over our health sector and those , like us , who favor giving patients more choice and control and allowing the creativity we have seen in this crisis to flourish .
We have many more specific policy recommendations than are listed here and welcome the opportunity to work with policymakers to shape the better , brighter health care future we believe can be ahead .
The Honorable Newt Gingrich , former speaker , U.S. House of Representatives The Honorable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pennsylvania and Patriot Voices Richard E. Ralston , Americans for Free Choice in Medicine Daniel H. Johnson , Jr , M.D.
, radiologist and former visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation Leah Vukmir , RN , NP , former Wisconsin state senator ; former national chairman , American Legislative Exchange Council ; and National Taxpayers Union The list of signatories has been updated since initial publication .

Editor’s note: This is an open letter to the American people from 83 participants in the Health Policy Consensus Group and other health care leaders. Please see the full list of signatories at the end of this letter.
The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the need for flexibility in our health sector and for public officials to do more to empower medical professionals and health care innovators to provide the care and coverage people want and need.
Those goals must guide our continuing response to the pandemic and to making broader changes in our health sector going forward.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how government red tape gets in the way of a rapid response and interferes with patients being able to quickly and efficiently get the care they need from those they trust.
Much can be accomplished when governments enable medical innovators rather than constructing obstacles to their progress. The Trump administration, state leaders, and Congress, on a bipartisan basis, have waived hundreds of rules in a race to fight the virus.
We should never go back.
Instead, both the administration and Congress should make these sensible temporary changes permanent and build on them with additional reforms and flexibility that will free patients and doctors, and employees and employers to make it easier to access and develop creative options.
President Donald Trump’s latest executive order takes a step in this direction by directing the federal government to continue these deregulatory efforts “with the same vigor and resourcefulness” deployed in the initial phases of the COVID-19 response.
Changes should continue to empower private sector and state and local innovators. The federalist approach in the pandemic response has shown the strengths of our system of government in empowering states and localities with the flexibility to meet the unique challenges of communities as diverse as San Francisco and rural Montana, with the federal government playing a supportive role.
And, when liberated from counterproductive rules and regulations, providers and suppliers inside and outside the health sector are quickly creating new and better solutions.
Countless companies big and small have repurposed manufacturing facilities and accelerated the search for treatments and vaccines. Medical providers, patients, and plans have quickly moved to adopt telemedicine. They could do the same in producing better outcomes, lower costs, and more consumer choices to make health care and coverage more accessible.
To help Congress and the administration shape the continuing response, the Health Policy Consensus Group offers recommendations to address the immediate crisis and build a foundation for a better health sector moving forward.
We recommend that policymakers:
Make it easier for people to access personal, “portable” health insurance” that travels with them from job to job and in and out of the labor market. Americans need more security and control over their health spending decisions with resources they can draw on in times of a medical or economic crisis. Through executive actions, the Trump administration has expanded opportunities for more choices of health coverage—for small businesses to join larger insurance pools to get better rates and more flexibility and to give people access to better short-term plans if they are between jobs, self-employed, working in the gig economy, retiring early, or starting a new business.
Congress should codify these rules on short-term limited duration plans and association health plans to provide more affordable, flexible options for coverage. The president should encourage states that block access to those plans to lift the restrictions to provide their residents more affordable coverage so they can receive care from medical professionals and facilities they know and trust.
Congress also should codify health reimbursement arrangements that allow employers to reimburse employees with tax-free dollars for individual market coverage that employees purchase outside the workplace. And, Congress also could help overwhelmed businesses by nullifying the employer mandate for 2019-21 with its burdensome reporting requirements and threatened penalties
States should have new regulatory flexibility and budgeted resources, as described in the Health Care Choices Proposal, to respond to the unique needs of their residents. They would be able to improve insurance options for patients, including those with preexisting conditions, target federal subsidies to vulnerable patients in most need, and empower the private sector to deliver care and services by lifting regulatory constraints that delay and even block innovation.
Make it easier for people to communicate with their medical providers of choice—including by phone, email and video conference. The federal government should permanently codify pandemic-related regulatory relief, such as removing federal barriers to telemedicine so patients can receive care without leaving their homes. Some states have suspended the requirement that out-of-state doctors must get a new, state-specific license before they can practice in a different state. That has allowed medical providers from across the country to help patients in New York City and other epicenters of the pandemic. Congress should follow suit, permanently allowing patients who get care funded by federal programs to see a doctor of their choice, no matter in which state they are licensed.
Achieving this goal will also require policymakers to help patients and medical providers see each other more easily. Trump should use his bully pulpit to encourage states to do more to lift burdensome rules and regulations that interfere with easier access to care, including permanently lifting certificate-of-need restrictions and allowing more practice flexibility, such as letting pharmacists increase the number of tests they can perform. Congress, too, should do more, starting by repealing limits on physician-owned hospitals, which have a track record of delivering high-quality, affordable care.
Make it easier for patients to own and control accounts to pay for their own care. To achieve this goal, Congress should allow everyone to have a health savings account, regardless of how their health insurance is structured. It should raise health savings account contribution limits and allow the accounts to be used to pay premiums, direct primary care fees, participate in sharing ministries, and help others finance their health care needs.
Additionally, patients should be protected from surprise medical bills by requiring transparent information and pricing, along with advance cost estimates so patients aren’t sideswiped by unexpected out-of-network charges.
A Clear Choice
The debate today is between those who want to exert even more government control over our health sector and those, like us, who favor giving patients more choice and control and allowing the creativity we have seen in this crisis to flourish.
We have many more specific policy recommendations than are listed here and welcome the opportunity to work with policymakers to shape the better, brighter health care future we believe can be ahead.
Marie Fishpaw, The Heritage Foundation
Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute
John Goodman, The Goodman Institute
Doug Badger, Galen Institute and The Heritage Foundation
Rea Hederman, Buckeye Institute
Joel White, Council for Affordable Health Coverage
Joe Antos, American Enterprise Institute
The Honorable Newt Gingrich, former speaker, U.S. House of Representatives
Joe DeSantis, Gingrich 360
The Honorable Rick Santorum, former U.S. senator, Pennsylvania and Patriot Voices
Richard E. Ralston, Americans for Free Choice in Medicine
Beverly Gossage, HSA Benefits Consulting
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Brian Blase, Galen Institute
David Balat, Texas Public Policy Foundation
Eric M. Redman, former Idaho state representative
Ryan Ellis, Center for a Free Economy
Robert E. Moffit, The Heritage Foundation
Thomas Schatz, Citizens Against Government Waste
Jessica Anderson, Heritage Action for America
Roger Stark, M.D., Washington Policy Center
Nina Owcharenko Schaefer, The Heritage Foundation
Brandon Arnold, National Taxpayers Union
James Taylor, The Heartland Institute
Amy Anderson, DNP, RN, Texas Christian University and University of North Texas Health Science Center
Jenny Beth Martin, Tea Party Patriots Action
Elizabeth Wright, Citizens Against Government Waste
Alex Hendrie, Americans for Tax Reform
Steven White, M.D., Catholic Medical Association
Andrew Lautz, National Taxpayers Union
Jane M. Orient, M.D., Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D., Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
James L. Martin, 60 Plus Association
Saulius “Saul” Anuzis, 60 Plus Association
AnneMarie Schieber, Health Care News, The Heartland Institute
Ed Haislmaier, The Heritage Foundation
Mary Mahoney, 60 Plus Association
Lanhee J. Chen, Hoover Institution
Phil Kerpen, American Commitment
Dean Clancy, Americans for Prosperity
Karen Kerrigan, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
Wendy Damron, Palmetto Promise Institute
Christopher B. Summers, Maryland Public Policy Institute
Beth Haynes, M.D., Docs 4 Patient Care Foundation and Benjamin Rush Institute
Michael Parker, M.D., Catholic Medical Association
Timothy Millea, M.D., Catholic Medical Association
Jameson Taylor, Mississippi Center for Public Policy
Bob Carlstrom, AMAC
Garrett Ballengee, Cardinal Institute for WV Policy
Michelle Cretella, M.D.., American College of Pediatricians
Merrill Matthews, Institute for Policy Innovation
Andy Mangione, AMAC
Jennifer Schubert-Akin, Steamboat Institute
Kyle Wingfield, Georgia Public Policy Foundation
Chris Denson, Georgia Public Policy Foundation
Sally Pipes, Pacific Research Institute
Heather R. Higgins, Independent Women’s Voice
Carrie L. Lukas, Independent Women’s Forum
Hadley Heath Manning, Independent Women’s Forum
Kevin Pham, M.D., The Daily Signal
CL Gray, M.D., Physicians for Reform
Alfredo Ortiz, Job Creators Network
Robert Fellner, Nevada Policy Research Institute
Naomi Lopez, Goldwater Institute
Daniel H. Johnson, Jr, M.D., radiologist and former visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation
Keith Smith, M.D., Free Market Medical Association
Jay Kempton, Free Market Medical Association
Louis Brown Jr., J.D., Christ Medicus Foundation
Lee S. Gross, M.D., Docs 4 Patient Care Foundation
Chad D. Savage, M.D., Docs 4 Patient Care Action
Leah Vukmir, RN, NP, former Wisconsin state senator; former national chairman, American Legislative Exchange Council; and National Taxpayers Union
Jessica Ward, National Taxpayers Union
Gregory Conko, Competitive Enterprise Institute
John Chamberlain, Citizen Health
David Hilger, M.D., Catholic Medical Association
Sal Nuzzo, The James Madison Institute
Dan Perrin, HSA Coalition
Katarina Lindley, D.O., Eagle Medical Center Direct Primary Care
David Wilson, Wilson Partners
Michael Bond, University of Arizona; The Goodman Institute; The James Madison Institute
Mark Wilson, American Health Policy Institute
Michelle Stanford, M.D., Catholic Medical Association
Yuval Levin, American Enterprise Institute
Affiliations listed for identification purposes only.
The list of signatories has been updated since initial publication.


dailysignal--2020-06-16--Coronavirus Pandemic ‘Could Have Been Prevented’ If Not for China’s Cover-Up, House GOP Report Finds

The global COVID-19 pandemic “ could have been prevented ” if not for China ’ s cover-up of the viral disease in its early stages , a new report from Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee found .
The report , released Monday evening , also condemned the China-aligned World Health Organization , concluding that the WHO “ enabled ” China ’ s cover-up of the outbreak .
The report also called on WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to resign from his post .
The Chinese Communist Party ’ s cover-up of the outbreak may make it “ impossible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 originated at a laboratory in Wuhan , China , the document concluded .
“ Until the CCP agrees to cooperate with the WHO , other countries , and the international scientific community , it will be impossible to gather the concrete evidence needed to prove , or disprove , ” whether the virus leaked out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology , the report stated .
Under Tedros ’ leadership , the WHO has repeatedly echoed China ’ s propaganda about its handling of the coronavirus outbreak .
The WHO chief “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 pandemic , ” the report stated .
It also noted that Tedros was previously accused of covering up cholera epidemics in Africa .
Tedros “ should accept responsibility for his detrimental impact on the COVID-19 response and resign , ” the report stated in its recommendations .
“ The health of the world can not afford incompetence and poor management.
” “ After months of investigating , it ’ s become crystal clear the Chinese Communist Party ’ s cover-up of the coronavirus , especially in the early days of the outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what could have been a local epidemic into a global pandemic , ” Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas , the top Republican on the committee , said in a statement .
Under Tedros , the WHO “ only exacerbated the problem by repeatedly ignoring warnings about the severity of the virus , including from their own health experts , while at the same time parroting the CCP ’ s propaganda without independently confirming their claims , ” McCaul added .
The WHO did not immediately return a request for comment .
Content created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of this original content , email [ email protected ]

The global COVID-19 pandemic “could have been prevented” if not for China’s cover-up of the viral disease in its early stages, a new report from Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee found.
The report, released Monday evening, also condemned the China-aligned World Health Organization, concluding that the WHO “enabled” China’s cover-up of the outbreak. The report also called on WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to resign from his post.
The Chinese Communist Party’s cover-up of the outbreak may make it “impossible” to find hard evidence proving whether COVID-19 originated at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, the document concluded.
“Until the CCP agrees to cooperate with the WHO, other countries, and the international scientific community, it will be impossible to gather the concrete evidence needed to prove, or disprove,” whether the virus leaked out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the report stated.
Under Tedros’ leadership, the WHO has repeatedly echoed China’s propaganda about its handling of the coronavirus outbreak. The WHO chief “seriously erred in his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the report stated. It also noted that Tedros was previously accused of covering up cholera epidemics in Africa.
Tedros “should accept responsibility for his detrimental impact on the COVID-19 response and resign,” the report stated in its recommendations. “The health of the world cannot afford incompetence and poor management.”
“After months of investigating, it’s become crystal clear the Chinese Communist Party’s cover-up of the coronavirus, especially in the early days of the outbreak, played a significant role in turning what could have been a local epidemic into a global pandemic,” Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the committee, said in a statement.
Under Tedros, the WHO “only exacerbated the problem by repeatedly ignoring warnings about the severity of the virus, including from their own health experts, while at the same time parroting the CCP’s propaganda without independently confirming their claims,” McCaul added.
Must Read Report By @RepMcCaul @HouseForeignGOP Just Released!
“THE ORIGINS OF THE COVID-19 GLOBAL PANDEMIC, INCLUDING THE ROLES OF THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY AND THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION”
China lied and people died. The facts are all getting out.https://t.co/NYmZNtDAZr — Lee Zeldin (@RepLeeZeldin) June 16, 2020
The WHO did not immediately return a request for comment.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-06-16--Social Distancing Double Standards on Protests Betray Sound Health Policy

Sound public health policy is sound public health policy , regardless of the political moment .
The effectiveness of a public health measure is contingent on the cooperation of the public , and the cooperation of the public is contingent on the public ’ s trust .
As such , it ’ s catastrophically destructive to the goals of public health to support participation in the mass protests following the killing of George Floyd .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
Supporting the protests , or the message of the protests , is a personal decision , which every individual must make for himself or herself , but if the COVID-19 pandemic continues apace , the mitigation efforts remain as relevant now as they did before people took to the streets by the thousands .
Inconsistent responses based on the content of one protest versus another only shakes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pandemic .
To make a public stand on a matter , staked upon the expertise of medicine and public health , is to tie that expertise to ideological movements rather than professional knowledge .
That ’ s to say nothing of the rioting and the looting .
If social determinants of health are a factor in public health , it ’ s plainly obvious that burning down the community and smashing its windows will lift no one out of poverty and only make it harder for that community to prosper .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that suffers .
When rioting forces the suspension of public transportation and the closure of some pharmacies , who will be able to get their prescriptions filled ?
Certainly not the impoverished .
But never mind that .
Earlier this month , an open letter that was “ signed by 1,288 public health professionals , infectious-diseases professionals , and community stakeholders ” voiced support for “ demonstrations against systemic injustice occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic.
” On its face , it ’ s reasonable—laudable even—to protest injustice and racism , but the letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ long-standing systems of oppression and bias ” that are “ yet another lethal manifestation of white supremacy.
” That is the language of progressive sociology , not of medicine .
It seems less than certain that medicine necessarily manifests as white supremacy , considering that whites make up 76.5 % of the population but only 56.2 % of active physicians .
It is possible , likely even , that the remnants of America ’ s explicitly racist system in the past persist to this day , and our society should continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the solution for racism can not be measured in milligrams or formulated into tablets or pills .
While there ’ s no medical intervention for racism , there is clinical guidance on preventing disease transmission .
Washing hands , wearing masks , and physical distancing are—or were—important measures to limit the spread of COVID-19 .
It would be easier to take these guidelines seriously if health care workers treated all protests with the same sensitivity .
That is to say , we should be taking these measures seriously , and we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implementation and use .
Instead , numerous grim-faced nurses , doctors , and other health care providers stood cross-armed in opposition to Americans protesting the lockdowns that prevented them from going to work .
That was followed soon thereafter by health care workers applauding protesters marching shoulder-to-shoulder in New York City .
The open letter encourages marchers , “ to the extent possible , ” to follow “ public health best practices , ” further explaining that they “ do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission.
” Protests against stay-at-home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppose public health interventions , but are also rooted in white nationalism … .
” At no point in medical training are future doctors taught to identify which protest is an infection risk and which is not .
A protest , a march , a rally , or large gathering of any kind all present their own public health risks in times of pandemic , regardless of the speech therein .
By choosing which protest is “ right ” and “ just , ” and which protest is traitorous and infectious , these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their ideology , which will make it that much more difficult , if not impossible , to obtain a broad , nonpartisan consensus of the public to heed public health measures .
Americans were scolded , chastised , and even arrested for trying to earn a living .
Numerous other businesses complied with the rules and are now shuttered for good .
Strict social distancing rules prevented Americans from visiting their hospitalized loved ones and forced them apart as family members lay dying .
And when those family members died , their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mourners or fewer .
Those restrictions were generally accepted as harsh—in some cases , unbearably painful—measures that would help public health efforts and benefit society as a whole .
Those who didn ’ t comply were labeled traitors to the front-line health care workers and first responders in the COVID-19 response .
But when we see white coats applauding thousands of marchers in the streets and public funeral services attended by hundreds of public figures , all while we ’ re told to starve with our families or to die alone , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1,288 signatories to this letter , the governors and mayors , the public health experts , and doctors and nurses , ever mean a single word you said ?
Some of us have been sincere from the start .
Some of us asked Americans in earnest to make the most dreadful sacrifices to stem the pandemic spread .
Some of us wanted to place more trust in all Americans to assess their own risks , not only in our ideological compatriots .
Now , all of us , when asking the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not with understanding and acceptance but with mistrust .

Sound public health policy is sound public health policy, regardless of the political moment.
The effectiveness of a public health measure is contingent on the cooperation of the public, and the cooperation of the public is contingent on the public’s trust.
As such, it’s catastrophically destructive to the goals of public health to support participation in the mass protests following the killing of George Floyd.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Supporting the protests, or the message of the protests, is a personal decision, which every individual must make for himself or herself, but if the COVID-19 pandemic continues apace, the mitigation efforts remain as relevant now as they did before people took to the streets by the thousands.
Inconsistent responses based on the content of one protest versus another only shakes the public trust that is critical in time of pandemic.
To make a public stand on a matter, staked upon the expertise of medicine and public health, is to tie that expertise to ideological movements rather than professional knowledge.
That’s to say nothing of the rioting and the looting. If social determinants of health are a factor in public health, it’s plainly obvious that burning down the community and smashing its windows will lift no one out of poverty and only make it harder for that community to prosper.
And it’s not only the economy that suffers. When rioting forces the suspension of public transportation and the closure of some pharmacies, who will be able to get their prescriptions filled? Certainly not the impoverished.
But never mind that.
Earlier this month, an open letter that was “signed by 1,288 public health professionals, infectious-diseases professionals, and community stakeholders” voiced support for “demonstrations against systemic injustice occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
On its face, it’s reasonable—laudable even—to protest injustice and racism, but the letter quickly pivots to blaming health disparities on “long-standing systems of oppression and bias” that are “yet another lethal manifestation of white supremacy.”
That is the language of progressive sociology, not of medicine.
It seems less than certain that medicine necessarily manifests as white supremacy, considering that whites make up 76.5% of the population but only 56.2% of active physicians.
It is possible, likely even, that the remnants of America’s explicitly racist system in the past persist to this day, and our society should continue to fight racism wherever it is found, but the solution for racism cannot be measured in milligrams or formulated into tablets or pills.
While there’s no medical intervention for racism, there is clinical guidance on preventing disease transmission. Washing hands, wearing masks, and physical distancing are—or were—important measures to limit the spread of COVID-19.
It would be easier to take these guidelines seriously if health care workers treated all protests with the same sensitivity. That is to say, we should be taking these measures seriously, and we need to be clear and consistent about their implementation and use.
Instead, numerous grim-faced nurses, doctors, and other health care providers stood cross-armed in opposition to Americans protesting the lockdowns that prevented them from going to work. That was followed soon thereafter by health care workers applauding protesters marching shoulder-to-shoulder in New York City.
The open letter encourages marchers, “to the extent possible,” to follow “public health best practices,” further explaining that they “do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission.”
Protests against stay-at-home orders, however, “not only oppose public health interventions, but are also rooted in white nationalism … .”
At no point in medical training are future doctors taught to identify which protest is an infection risk and which is not. A protest, a march, a rally, or large gathering of any kind all present their own public health risks in times of pandemic, regardless of the speech therein.
By choosing which protest is “right” and “just,” and which protest is traitorous and infectious, these health personnel are tying public health interventions to their ideology, which will make it that much more difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a broad, nonpartisan consensus of the public to heed public health measures.
Americans were scolded, chastised, and even arrested for trying to earn a living. Numerous other businesses complied with the rules and are now shuttered for good.
Strict social distancing rules prevented Americans from visiting their hospitalized loved ones and forced them apart as family members lay dying. And when those family members died, their funerals were to be limited to 10 mourners or fewer.
Those restrictions were generally accepted as harsh—in some cases, unbearably painful—measures that would help public health efforts and benefit society as a whole. Those who didn’t comply were labeled traitors to the front-line health care workers and first responders in the COVID-19 response.
But when we see white coats applauding thousands of marchers in the streets and public funeral services attended by hundreds of public figures, all while we’re told to starve with our families or to die alone, who is betraying whom?
Did you, the 1,288 signatories to this letter, the governors and mayors, the public health experts, and doctors and nurses, ever mean a single word you said?
Some of us have been sincere from the start. Some of us asked Americans in earnest to make the most dreadful sacrifices to stem the pandemic spread. Some of us wanted to place more trust in all Americans to assess their own risks, not only in our ideological compatriots.
Now, all of us, when asking the public for their cooperation, will be met not with understanding and acceptance but with mistrust.


dailysignal--2020-06-15--With 265 Ideas, Coronavirus Panel Calls for US to Lead World in Recovering, Preparing for Next Pande

With 265 Ideas, Coronavirus Panel Calls for US to Lead World in Recovering, Preparing for Next Pandemic

In a final report released Monday , The Heritage Foundation ’ s National Coronavirus Recovery Commission makes 265 recommendations for getting America back to work , stopping the spread of COVID-19 , and being prepared for the next pandemic .
The recommendations are aimed at federal , state , and local government leaders as well as the business and nonprofit sector amid a pandemic that has killed 115,000 Americans and wiped out millions of jobs and thousands of businesses .
With release of the final report , the commission and Heritage policy experts will continue working with policymakers in Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said Heritage President Kay C. James , who chaired the commission .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
“ While other public and private task forces looked at either the economic or public health aspects of the pandemic , the commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two , ” James said , adding : The 17-member commission , which began its work in April , includes experts with experience in government , public health , disaster response and relief , academia and education , business , and religion .
James and other commission members had a teleconference Monday morning with Vice President Mike Pence , head of the White House ’ s coronavirus task force .
Pence said the White House will review the recommendations , which include : • Passing laws in Congress to make the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufacturing pharmaceuticals in the United States .
• Identifying clergy and the faith community ’ s activities as essential .
• Eliminating unnecessary government regulations at all levels , including eliminating many rules that were temporarily waived during the pandemic .
• Expanding telemedicine options through phone , email , and video conferences via applications such as Skype to replace in-person visits in some cases .
• Reviewing the executive powers of governors , to be done by state legislatures , in light of recent coronavirus-related overreaches .
In remarks from a video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s report , Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia noted the nation ’ s low unemployment rate and surging wages before the pandemic hit in February .
“ In a matter of days , life changed completely .
The coronavirus sent the nation into hibernation , ” Scalia said , noting 40 million unemployment claims filed over two months as well as the great loss of life .
“ The president was right to recognize that as a nation we had been plunged into an experience comparable to war , ” Scalia said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , combating the virus required a nationwide mobilization of government and of the ingenuity , know-how and productive capacity of American industry.
” In May , government statistics show , the economy added 2.5 million jobs .
“ While the May jobs report was unexpected , in a very important sense it was not a surprise , ” Scalia said .
“ We came into our current economic difficulty by a completely different path than prior downturns .
It was self-imposed and purposely short term .
It did not result from economic weakness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The comparisons to the Great Depression have always been misplaced.
” Scalia stressed that “ our job is not done ” and called for Americans to continue practicing good hygiene , social distancing , and wearing a mask .
Early on , the commission determined five phases : 1 .
“ Return to a more normal level of business activity at the regional level based on scientific data.
” 2 .
“ Slow the spread of the coronavirus while expanding testing , reporting , and contact tracing.
” 4 .
“ Establish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in economic recovery.
” The first phase noted in the report is partly in progress in many states , with a return to a more normal level of business activity at a region-by-region level once the health care system is stabilized with increased testing , reporting , and contact testing .
The second phase will require stronger and effective public health strategy .
Business leaders are key in determining “ how we can save both lives and livelihoods , ” the report says , but government leaders should take judicious actions : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phase to cover almost every sector of the economy and society , addressing coordination among local , state , and federal governments ; testing and contact tracing ; regulatory burdens on health care and economic activity ; federal financial aid and tax relief ; business capital formation ; liability protections ; emergency education reforms ; minority community support ; and empowering nongovernmental organizations , faith-based communities , and civil society .
“ Economic policy should focus on durable policy solutions and regulatory relief where government has become a barrier to solutions , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans need paychecks more than they need stimulus checks.
” In the third phase , the report makes 50 recommendations addressing hospital capacity ; regulatory streamlining of scientific research , manufacturing , and deployment of vaccines , therapeutics , and disinfectants ; access to nonessential medical care ; information communication ; mental health ; and the improvement of epidemiological understanding .
“ Increase the availability and rapidity of new diagnostic tests while supporting the acceleration and introduction of proven therapeutics and vaccines , ” the report says .
It later adds : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and international partnerships are needed to advance knowledge and drive solutions.
” For the fourth phase covering U.S. leadership during the economic recovery , the report makes 62 recommendations covering international travel ; immigration ; free trade agreements ; the World Health Organization ; supply chain diversification ; international education programs ; and regional approaches for North America , transatlantic partnerships , and China .
The report calls for the United States to partner with allies in promoting economic growth after the global downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic : The National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 77 recommendations for reducing the risks of pandemics in the future .
These include investing in national and state stockpiles ; reforming supply chains ; and developing strategies to meet the demands of crises ; developing the supply of antiviral agents ; seeking to develop vaccines for coronaviruses ; and investing in an international biosurveillance network to detect and contain emerging infectious diseases through coordination and cooperation .
Noting many past pandemics over the past century , the commission ’ s report says it ’ s not possible to prevent a future one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better prepare for how to respond and to reduce the risks and costs associated with the next pandemic , ” the report says .
“ In response to the current novel coronavirus , public institutions at every level have played a critical role , though not every government action was necessary or appropriate .
”

In a final report released Monday, The Heritage Foundation’s National Coronavirus Recovery Commission makes 265 recommendations for getting America back to work, stopping the spread of COVID-19, and being prepared for the next pandemic.
The recommendations are aimed at federal, state, and local government leaders as well as the business and nonprofit sector amid a pandemic that has killed 115,000 Americans and wiped out millions of jobs and thousands of businesses.
With release of the final report, the commission and Heritage policy experts will continue working with policymakers in Washington and state capitals to implement the recommendations, said Heritage President Kay C. James, who chaired the commission.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
“While other public and private task forces looked at either the economic or public health aspects of the pandemic, the commission focused on finding the right balance between the two,” James said, adding:
Our task hasn’t been an either-or between saving lives and saving the economy. If the economy fails, there will be severe, long-term health consequences. If we fail in stopping the disease, there will be severe, long-term economic consequences. The commission’s mission has been about protecting both lives and the livelihoods of the American people.
The 17-member commission, which began its work in April, includes experts with experience in government, public health, disaster response and relief, academia and education, business, and religion.
James and other commission members had a teleconference Monday morning with Vice President Mike Pence, head of the White House’s coronavirus task force.
Pence said the White House will review the recommendations, which include:
Passing laws in Congress to make the United States more internationally competitive by researching and manufacturing pharmaceuticals in the United States.
Identifying clergy and the faith community’s activities as essential.
Eliminating unnecessary government regulations at all levels, including eliminating many rules that were temporarily waived during the pandemic.
Expanding telemedicine options through phone, email, and video conferences via applications such as Skype to replace in-person visits in some cases.
Reviewing the executive powers of governors, to be done by state legislatures, in light of recent coronavirus-related overreaches.
In remarks from a video conference on release of the commission’s report, Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia noted the nation’s low unemployment rate and surging wages before the pandemic hit in February.
“In a matter of days, life changed completely. The coronavirus sent the nation into hibernation,” Scalia said, noting 40 million unemployment claims filed over two months as well as the great loss of life.
“The president was right to recognize that as a nation we had been plunged into an experience comparable to war,” Scalia said. “Like the First or Second World War, combating the virus required a nationwide mobilization of government and of the ingenuity, know-how and productive capacity of American industry.”
Scalia continued:
There has been a front line in our nursing homes and hospitals. And the front line has been men and women and children across the country staying home to protect fellow Americans. As during war, we have pulled together to achieve national objectives and we have had the chance to consider together what makes this nation great and distinct from others such as China.
In May, government statistics show, the economy added 2.5 million jobs.
“While the May jobs report was unexpected, in a very important sense it was not a surprise,” Scalia said. “We came into our current economic difficulty by a completely different path than prior downturns. It was self-imposed and purposely short term. It did not result from economic weakness. The economy had been very strong. The comparisons to the Great Depression have always been misplaced.”
Scalia stressed that “our job is not done” and called for Americans to continue practicing good hygiene, social distancing, and wearing a mask.
Early on, the commission determined five phases:
1. “Return to a more normal level of business activity at the regional level based on scientific data.”
2. “Slow the spread of the coronavirus while expanding testing, reporting, and contact tracing.”
3. “Continue to build the science.”
4. “Establish U.S. leadership in leading the free world in economic recovery.”
5. “Reduce future risks of pandemics.”
The first phase noted in the report is partly in progress in many states, with a return to a more normal level of business activity at a region-by-region level once the health care system is stabilized with increased testing, reporting, and contact testing.
The second phase will require stronger and effective public health strategy. Business leaders are key in determining “how we can save both lives and livelihoods,” the report says, but government leaders should take judicious actions:
Extreme shutdowns and social distancing measures are creating high unemployment and putting significant pressure on communities and on individuals. Health policy should focus on constraining the spread of the infection, treating and quarantining the sick, and protecting those who are most vulnerable—not on shutting down American life.
The report applies 76 recommendations from this second phase to cover almost every sector of the economy and society, addressing coordination among local, state, and federal governments; testing and contact tracing; regulatory burdens on health care and economic activity; federal financial aid and tax relief; business capital formation; liability protections; emergency education reforms; minority community support; and empowering nongovernmental organizations, faith-based communities, and civil society.
“Economic policy should focus on durable policy solutions and regulatory relief where government has become a barrier to solutions,” the report says, adding: “Americans need paychecks more than they need stimulus checks.”
In the third phase, the report makes 50 recommendations addressing hospital capacity; regulatory streamlining of scientific research, manufacturing, and deployment of vaccines, therapeutics, and disinfectants; access to nonessential medical care; information communication; mental health; and the improvement of epidemiological understanding.
“Increase the availability and rapidity of new diagnostic tests while supporting the acceleration and introduction of proven therapeutics and vaccines,” the report says. It later adds: “The public and private sectors, academia, and international partnerships are needed to advance knowledge and drive solutions.”
For the fourth phase covering U.S. leadership during the economic recovery, the report makes 62 recommendations covering international travel; immigration; free trade agreements; the World Health Organization; supply chain diversification; international education programs; and regional approaches for North America, transatlantic partnerships, and China.
The report calls for the United States to partner with allies in promoting economic growth after the global downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic:
In all of history, there has been no better model than that of free markets in lifting people out of poverty and into better, healthier standards of living. America must leverage its natural strengths of freedom and free enterprise to reinvigorate economic activity at home and abroad. …
The U.S. should intentionally be proactive in promoting ‘free trade’ internationally. Protectionist barriers should be reduced, with the caveats that trade should be economically fair over time, should protect intellectual property, and should be inherently safe. Reopening international supply lines and removing barriers to free trade will be critical to improving access to innovative life-saving technology and products to fight the virus, rebuild supply chains, and leverage collaboration that can help reinvigorate businesses from the ground up.
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission’s report makes 77 recommendations for reducing the risks of pandemics in the future.
These include investing in national and state stockpiles; reforming supply chains; and developing strategies to meet the demands of crises; developing the supply of antiviral agents; seeking to develop vaccines for coronaviruses; and investing in an international biosurveillance network to detect and contain emerging infectious diseases through coordination and cooperation.
Noting many past pandemics over the past century, the commission’s report says it’s not possible to prevent a future one.
“We can, however, better prepare for how to respond and to reduce the risks and costs associated with the next pandemic,” the report says. “In response to the current novel coronavirus, public institutions at every level have played a critical role, though not every government action was necessary or appropriate.”
It continues: