dailysignal--2020-10-08--6 Highlights From the Pence-Harris Debate

During the vice presidential debate Wednesday night , Sen. Kamala Harris , D-Calif. , and Vice President Mike Pence sparred over a variety of policies , revealing significant differences on several issues .
The debate , which was moderated by USA Today Washington bureau chief Susan Page , featured the two contenders discussing issues ranging from climate change and COVID-19 to abortion and the Supreme Court .
Here are six highlights from the debate : Harris aggressively attacked the Trump administration ’ s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic .
After the opening question , she laid out what could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country , ” the California senator said .
“ And here are the facts : 210,000 dead people in our country in just the last several months , over 7 million people who have contracted this disease , 1 in 5 businesses closed .
We are looking at frontline workers treated like sacrificial workers .
We are looking at 30 million people who in the last several months had to file for unemployment.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ question from Page about what the Biden administration would have done differently than Trump to address the COVID-19 pandemic .
Harris then went on to summarize the Biden-Harris plan .
“ Our plan is about what we need to do around a national strategy , for contact tracing , for testing , for administration of a vaccine , and make sure it ’ s free , ” Harris said .
Pence , who headed the White House coronavirus task force , defended the administration ’ s record .
“ I want the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first day , President Donald Trump has put the health of America first , ” the vice president said .
“ Before there were more than five cases in the United States—all people who had returned from China—President Donald Trump did what no other American had ever done .
That was , he suspended all travel from China , the second-largest economy in the world.
” “ He said it was xenophobic and hysterical .
I can tell you , having led the White House coronavirus task force that decision alone by President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up the greatest mobilization since World War II , ” Pence said .
“ I believe it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.
” As for the Biden plan , Pence said , the Trump administration was already doing much of what it recommends .
He also took a shot at a Biden scandal that effectively ended his 1988 presidential bid .
“ The reality is , when you look at the Biden plan , it looks an awful lot like what President Trump and I and our task force have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
“ … It looks a little bit like plagiarism , something Joe Biden knows a little bit about.
” In September 1987 , Biden came in for withering criticism for borrowing lines from a speech by then-British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock without attribution , knocking him out of the race when it was subsequently revealed to be part of a larger pattern of borrowing lines from other politicians without credit .
Asked about the race to develop a vaccine , Harris said she wouldn ’ t trust a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approved by Dr. Anthony Fauci , the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases .
“ If the public health professionals , if Dr. Fauci , if the doctors tell us that we should take it , I ’ ll be the first in line to take it .
Absolutely , ” Harris said .
“ But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it , I ’ m not taking it.
” Pence fired back that the California senator was politicizing the vaccine .
“ The fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a vaccine , if a vaccine emerges during the Trump administration , I think , is unconscionable , ” the vice president said .
“ Senator , I just ask you , stop playing politics with people ’ s lives .
The reality is , we will have a vaccine by the end of this year , and it will continue to save countless American lives.
” Harris and Pence sparred over the tax cuts passed by Congress in 2017 and debated Biden ’ s tax plan .
Harris said that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cuts “ on Day One , ” and that they were passed to benefit the “ rich.
” “ Joe Biden believes you measure the health and strength of America ’ s economy based on the health and strength of the American worker and the American family , ” Harris said .
“ On the other hand , you have Donald Trump , who measures the strength of the economy based on how rich people are doing.
” Pence defended the tax cuts and said : “ Joe Biden said twice in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to repeal the Trump tax cuts , ” Pence said .
“ That was tax cuts that gave the average working family $ 2,000 with a tax break.
” In 2017 , Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act , which reduced federal income taxes and made various other changes to the U.S. tax code .
Following the tax cut , the American economy experienced record low unemployment , wage growth , and an overall increase in business investment , according to Adam Michel , a specialist on tax policy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation .
Harris said that Biden ’ s tax plan would end tax breaks for the wealthy but wouldn ’ t raise taxes on American making under $ 400,000 .
“ He has been very clear about that , ” Harris said , adding , “ Joe Biden is the one who , during the Great Recession , was responsible for the Recovery Act that brought America back , and now the Trump and Pence administration wants to take credit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy that they had at the beginning of their term.
” According to The Washington Post , “ most Americans received a tax ” cut in 2017 , not just the rich .
Biden ’ s tax proposal would raise taxes about $ 3 trillion over the next decade , according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation .
“ … The Biden tax plan would reduce [ gross domestic product ] by 1.47 percent over the long term , ” according to the Tax Foundation ’ s General Equilibrium Model .
“ On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan by 2030 would lead to about 6.5 percent less after-tax income for the top 1 percent of taxpayers and about a 1.7 percent decline in after-tax income for all taxpayers on average.
” According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center , Biden ’ s proposal “ would increase taxes on average on all income groups , but the highest-income households would see substantially larger increases , both in dollar amounts and as a share of their incomes.
” Harris said a Biden administration would grow the economy through green energy , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fracking .
“ Joe Biden will not ban fracking .
That is a fact .
I will repeat that Joe Biden has been very clear that he thinks about growing jobs , ” Harris said , adding , “ Part of those jobs that will be created by Joe Biden are going to be about clean energy and renewable energy , because Joe understands that the West Coast of our country is burning , including my home state of California.
” Harris also spoke about climate-related problems in the Southeast and in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happening in the Gulf states , which are being battered by storms .
Joe has seen and talked with the farmers in Iowa , whose entire crops have been destroyed because of floods , ” she said .
“ So , Joe believes again in science .
… We have seen a pattern with this administration , which is , they don ’ t believe in science .
Joe ’ s plan is about saying we are going to deal with it , but we are going to create jobs.
” Pence addressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also attacked the Biden campaign ’ s promises for the environment .
“ As I said , Susan , the climate is changing .
We ’ ll follow the science , ” he said .
“ With regard to banning fracking , I just recommend people look at the record .
You yourself said repeatedly you would ban fracking , ” Pence said of Harris .
“ You were the first Senate co-sponsor of the Green New Deal .
“ While Joe Biden denied support for the Green New Deal , Susan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Deal is on [ the Biden-Harris ] website .
As USA Today said , it ’ s essentially the same plan as you co-sponsored with AOC.
” That was a reference to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , D-N.Y. , the main sponsor of the Green New Deal in the House .
“ You just heard the senator say she was going to resubmit America to the Paris Climate Accord .
The American people have always cherished our environment , and we ’ ll continue to cherish it , ” Pence said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ carbon dioxide ] emissions through American innovation and the development of natural gas through fracking .
“ We don ’ t need a massive $ 2 trillion Green New Deal that would impose all new mandates on American businesses and American families .
… It makes no sense .
It will cost jobs.
” Pence and Harris sparred over U.S. relations with China , including its role in the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic .
“ China and the World Health Organization did not play straight with the American people , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let our personnel into China … until the middle of February.
” The vice president defended the administration ’ s aggressive trade policy with Beijing .
“ But China has been taking advantage of the United States for decades , in the wake of Biden cheerleading for China , ” he said .
Harris said that the Trump administration had “ lost ” the trade war with China .
“ What ended up happening because of a so-called “ trade war ” with China ?
America lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration would go soft on the communist country .
“ Joe Biden has been a cheerleader for communist China over the last several decades , ” he said .
The vice president criticized the record of the administration of Biden ’ s boss , President Barack Obama , saying that it had dismissed the idea that manufacturing jobs could ever come back to America .
“ In our first three years , this administration saw 500,000 manufacturing jobs created , and that ’ s the type of growth we ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nomination of federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court , Page asked both candidates what they would want their respective states of Indiana and California to do if the high court were to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide and sent the matter back to the states to decide for themselves .
Neither candidate directly addressed the question , but both spoke of the abortion issue in the context of the Supreme Court .
“ The issues before us couldn ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ There is the issue of choice , and I will always fight for a woman ’ s right to make a decision about her own body .
It should be her decision and not that of Donald Trump and the vice president , Michael Pence.
” Pence reiterated his pro-life stance , and called out the Biden-Harris ticket .
“ I couldn ’ t be more proud to serve as vice president to a president who stands unapologetically for the sanctity of human life .
I will not apologize for it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another one of those cases where there is such a dramatic contrast .
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support taxpayer funding of abortion all the way up to the moment of birth , late-term abortion.
” Pence asked Harris at one point if she would support packing the courts , meaning increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to 10 or more , and then he accused her of not answering the question .
“ Once again you gave a non-answer , Joe Biden gave a non-answer , ” Pence said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” In his remarks , Pence noted the Supreme Court has had nine justices for the past 150 years .
The vice presidential candidates also had a heated exchange on race relations amid social unrest in major American cities .
Harris called out Trump for what she claimed was his reluctance to condemn white supremacists , referring to last week ’ s presidential debate between Trump and Biden .
“ Last week , the president of the United States took a debate stage in front of 70 million Americans and refused to condemn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It wasn ’ t like he wasn ’ t given a chance .
He didn ’ t do it , and then he doubled down .
Then he said , when pressed , ‘ Stand back , stand by.
’ This is part of a pattern with Donald Trump.
” She also cited the deadly 2017 Charlottesville , Va. , Unite the Right rally .
Pence countered by citing Trump ’ s comments regarding the Charlottesville violence .
“ This is one of the things that makes people dislike the media so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selectively edit so much , ” Pence said , arguing that the media had distorted what Trump had said about there being “ very fine people ” on both sides in Charlottesville .
“ After President Trump made comments about people on either side of the debate over monuments , he condemned the KKK , neo-Nazis and white supremacists , ” the vice president said .
“ He has done so repeatedly .
Your concern that he doesn ’ t condemn neo-Nazis , President Trump has Jewish grandchildren .
His daughter and son-in-law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who respects and cherishes all of the American people.
” Pence then went on offense about Harris ’ prosecution record as a district attorney in San Francisco .
“ When you were D.A .
in San Francisco , African Americans were 19 times more likely to be prosecuted for minor drug offenses than whites and Hispanics , ” Pence said to Harris .
“ You increased the disproportionate incarceration .
You did nothing on criminal justice reform in California .
You didn ’ t lift a finger to pass the First Step Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act is a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill signed into law by Trump in December 2018 .
Harris didn ’ t directly defend her record as district attorney of San Francisco , but pivoted to her record as California attorney general .
“ Having served as the attorney general of California , the work I did is a model of what our nation needs to do and what we will be able to do , ” she said , adding , “ I was the first statewide officer to institute a requirement that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep them on full time .
We were the first to initiate that there would be training for law enforcement on implicit bias .
”

During the vice presidential debate Wednesday night, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Vice President Mike Pence sparred over a variety of policies, revealing significant differences on several issues.
The debate, which was moderated by USA Today Washington bureau chief Susan Page, featured the two contenders discussing issues ranging from climate change and COVID-19 to abortion and the Supreme Court.
Here are six highlights from the debate:
1) COVID-19
Harris aggressively attacked the Trump administration’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. After the opening question, she laid out what could be called a prosecutor’s case.
“The American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country,” the California senator said. “And here are the facts: 210,000 dead people in our country in just the last several months, over 7 million people who have contracted this disease, 1 in 5 businesses closed. We are looking at frontline workers treated like sacrificial workers. We are looking at 30 million people who in the last several months had to file for unemployment.”
That was in response to a question from Page about what the Biden administration would have done differently than Trump to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Harris then went on to summarize the Biden-Harris plan.
“Our plan is about what we need to do around a national strategy, for contact tracing, for testing, for administration of a vaccine, and make sure it’s free,” Harris said.
Pence, who headed the White House coronavirus task force, defended the administration’s record.
“I want the American people to know that from the very first day, President Donald Trump has put the health of America first,” the vice president said. “Before there were more than five cases in the United States—all people who had returned from China—President Donald Trump did what no other American had ever done. That was, he suspended all travel from China, the second-largest economy in the world.”
Pence added: “Joe Biden opposed that decision.”
“He said it was xenophobic and hysterical. I can tell you, having led the White House coronavirus task force that decision alone by President Trump gave us invaluable time to set up the greatest mobilization since World War II,” Pence said. “I believe it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.”
As for the Biden plan, Pence said, the Trump administration was already doing much of what it recommends. He also took a shot at a Biden scandal that effectively ended his 1988 presidential bid.
“The reality is, when you look at the Biden plan, it looks an awful lot like what President Trump and I and our task force have been doing every step of the way,” he said. “ … It looks a little bit like plagiarism, something Joe Biden knows a little bit about.”
In September 1987, Biden came in for withering criticism for borrowing lines from a speech by then-British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock without attribution, knocking him out of the race when it was subsequently revealed to be part of a larger pattern of borrowing lines from other politicians without credit.
Asked about the race to develop a vaccine, Harris said she wouldn’t trust a Trump-endorsed vaccine, but would take one approved by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
“If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely,” Harris said. “But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.”
Pence fired back that the California senator was politicizing the vaccine.
“The fact that you continue to undermine public confidence in a vaccine, if a vaccine emerges during the Trump administration, I think, is unconscionable,” the vice president said. “Senator, I just ask you, stop playing politics with people’s lives. The reality is, we will have a vaccine by the end of this year, and it will continue to save countless American lives.”
2) Taxes and the Economy
Harris and Pence sparred over the tax cuts passed by Congress in 2017 and debated Biden’s tax plan.
Harris said that the Biden administration would repeal the 2017 tax cuts “on Day One,” and that they were passed to benefit the “rich.”
“Joe Biden believes you measure the health and strength of America’s economy based on the health and strength of the American worker and the American family,” Harris said. “On the other hand, you have Donald Trump, who measures the strength of the economy based on how rich people are doing.”
Pence defended the tax cuts and said: “Joe Biden said twice in the debate last week that he’s going to repeal the Trump tax cuts,” Pence said. “That was tax cuts that gave the average working family $2,000 with a tax break.”
In 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which reduced federal income taxes and made various other changes to the U.S. tax code.
Following the tax cut, the American economy experienced record low unemployment, wage growth, and an overall increase in business investment, according to Adam Michel, a specialist on tax policy and the federal budget as a policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Harris said that Biden’s tax plan would end tax breaks for the wealthy but wouldn’t raise taxes on American making under $400,000.
“He has been very clear about that,” Harris said, adding, “Joe Biden is the one who, during the Great Recession, was responsible for the Recovery Act that brought America back, and now the Trump and Pence administration wants to take credit for Joe Biden’s success for the economy that they had at the beginning of their term.”
According to The Washington Post, “most Americans received a tax” cut in 2017, not just the rich.
Biden’s tax proposal would raise taxes about $3 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.
“… The Biden tax plan would reduce [gross domestic product] by 1.47 percent over the long term,” according to the Tax Foundation’s General Equilibrium Model. “On a conventional basis, the Biden tax plan by 2030 would lead to about 6.5 percent less after-tax income for the top 1 percent of taxpayers and about a 1.7 percent decline in after-tax income for all taxpayers on average.”
According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Biden’s proposal “would increase taxes on average on all income groups, but the highest-income households would see substantially larger increases, both in dollar amounts and as a share of their incomes.”
3) Climate Change and Fracking
Harris said a Biden administration would grow the economy through green energy, but she also denied past support for banning fracking.
“Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact. I will repeat that Joe Biden has been very clear that he thinks about growing jobs,” Harris said, adding, “Part of those jobs that will be created by Joe Biden are going to be about clean energy and renewable energy, because Joe understands that the West Coast of our country is burning, including my home state of California.”
Harris also spoke about climate-related problems in the Southeast and in the Midwest.
“Joe sees what is happening in the Gulf states, which are being battered by storms. Joe has seen and talked with the farmers in Iowa, whose entire crops have been destroyed because of floods,” she said. “So, Joe believes again in science. … We have seen a pattern with this administration, which is, they don’t believe in science. Joe’s plan is about saying we are going to deal with it, but we are going to create jobs.”
Pence addressed the issue of climate change, but also attacked the Biden campaign’s promises for the environment.
“As I said, Susan, the climate is changing. We’ll follow the science,” he said.
“With regard to banning fracking, I just recommend people look at the record. You yourself said repeatedly you would ban fracking,” Pence said of Harris. “You were the first Senate co-sponsor of the Green New Deal.
“While Joe Biden denied support for the Green New Deal, Susan, thank you for pointing out the Green New Deal is on [the Biden-Harris] website. As USA Today said, it’s essentially the same plan as you co-sponsored with AOC.”
That was a reference to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the main sponsor of the Green New Deal in the House.
“You just heard the senator say she was going to resubmit America to the Paris Climate Accord. The American people have always cherished our environment, and we’ll continue to cherish it,” Pence said. “We’ve made great progress reducing [carbon dioxide] emissions through American innovation and the development of natural gas through fracking.
“We don’t need a massive $2 trillion Green New Deal that would impose all new mandates on American businesses and American families. … It makes no sense. It will cost jobs.”
4) China
Pence and Harris sparred over U.S. relations with China, including its role in the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“China and the World Health Organization did not play straight with the American people,” Pence said. “They did not let our personnel into China … until the middle of February.”
The vice president defended the administration’s aggressive trade policy with Beijing. “But China has been taking advantage of the United States for decades, in the wake of Biden cheerleading for China,” he said.
Harris said that the Trump administration had “lost” the trade war with China. “What ended up happening because of a so-called “trade war” with China? America lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs,” she said.
Pence countered that a Biden administration would go soft on the communist country.
“Joe Biden has been a cheerleader for communist China over the last several decades,” he said.
The vice president criticized the record of the administration of Biden’s boss, President Barack Obama, saying that it had dismissed the idea that manufacturing jobs could ever come back to America.
“In our first three years, this administration saw 500,000 manufacturing jobs created, and that’s the type of growth we’re going to see,” Pence said.
5) Supreme Court and Abortion
With the nomination of federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Page asked both candidates what they would want their respective states of Indiana and California to do if the high court were to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide and sent the matter back to the states to decide for themselves.
Neither candidate directly addressed the question, but both spoke of the abortion issue in the context of the Supreme Court.
“The issues before us couldn’t be more serious,” Harris said. “There is the issue of choice, and I will always fight for a woman’s right to make a decision about her own body. It should be her decision and not that of Donald Trump and the vice president, Michael Pence.”
Pence reiterated his pro-life stance, and called out the Biden-Harris ticket.
“I couldn’t be more proud to serve as vice president to a president who stands unapologetically for the sanctity of human life. I will not apologize for it,” he said. “This is another one of those cases where there is such a dramatic contrast. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support taxpayer funding of abortion all the way up to the moment of birth, late-term abortion.”
Pence asked Harris at one point if she would support packing the courts, meaning increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to 10 or more, and then he accused her of not answering the question.
“Once again you gave a non-answer, Joe Biden gave a non-answer,” Pence said. “The American people deserve a straight answer.”
In his remarks, Pence noted the Supreme Court has had nine justices for the past 150 years.
6) Race Relations
The vice presidential candidates also had a heated exchange on race relations amid social unrest in major American cities.
Harris called out Trump for what she claimed was his reluctance to condemn white supremacists, referring to last week’s presidential debate between Trump and Biden.
“Last week, the president of the United States took a debate stage in front of 70 million Americans and refused to condemn white supremacists,” Harris said. “It wasn’t like he wasn’t given a chance. He didn’t do it, and then he doubled down. Then he said, when pressed, ‘Stand back, stand by.’ This is part of a pattern with Donald Trump.”
She also cited the deadly 2017 Charlottesville, Va., Unite the Right rally.
Pence countered by citing Trump’s comments regarding the Charlottesville violence.
“This is one of the things that makes people dislike the media so much in this country, that you selectively edit so much,” Pence said, arguing that the media had distorted what Trump had said about there being “very fine people” on both sides in Charlottesville.
“After President Trump made comments about people on either side of the debate over monuments, he condemned the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists,” the vice president said.
“He has done so repeatedly. Your concern that he doesn’t condemn neo-Nazis, President Trump has Jewish grandchildren. His daughter and son-in-law are Jewish. This is a president who respects and cherishes all of the American people.”
Pence then went on offense about Harris’ prosecution record as a district attorney in San Francisco.
“When you were D.A. in San Francisco, African Americans were 19 times more likely to be prosecuted for minor drug offenses than whites and Hispanics,” Pence said to Harris. “You increased the disproportionate incarceration. You did nothing on criminal justice reform in California. You didn’t lift a finger to pass the First Step Act on Capitol Hill.”
The First Step Act is a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill signed into law by Trump in December 2018.
Harris didn’t directly defend her record as district attorney of San Francisco, but pivoted to her record as California attorney general.
“Having served as the attorney general of California, the work I did is a model of what our nation needs to do and what we will be able to do,” she said, adding, “I was the first statewide officer to institute a requirement that my agents would wear body cameras and keep them on full time. We were the first to initiate that there would be training for law enforcement on implicit bias.”


dailysignal--2020-10-08--Trump Must Direct His Administration to Generate Better Guidance on COVID-19 Testing

COVID-19 can be a deadly disease , especially for higher-risk populations like the elderly .
Making matters worse , it ’ s hard to tell when someone has COVID-19 and is infectious .
When infection is suspected , being able to quickly and accurately determine whether or not someone is infected is crucial to making informed decisions about whether to self-quarantine or go about your life using other risk-mitigation measures .
Unfortunately , confusion remains over basic questions like who to test , when to test , and what to do when you get a result .
Indeed , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued conflicting guidance on testing , and have not kept up with evolving test technologies that allow for better , faster screenings of sick individuals .
Last week , the Trump administration embraced rapid tests , which provide results in 15 minutes for $ 5 .
That ’ s a major improvement over prior tests , which take a while to produce results .
It ’ s also a major advancement because it allows us to use tests as screening tools to help people know when to stay home .
Screening tests serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests , because screening tests are intended to identify who is potentially contagious as opposed to establishing a diagnosis .
To date , we ’ ve essentially been using diagnostic tests for screening purposes—a very inefficient use of these tests .
But these new rapid tests are suited perfectly for a large variety of situations and scenarios .
These developments make it all the more critical for public health officials to provide concrete guidance on testing .
Without concrete guidance , every institution , every organization , every place of business and congregation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their best interpretation of often contradictory information using expertise they lack .
Here ’ s what we need to know : Who should get tested , and when ?
Here , the CDC ’ s guidance falls short .
They advise people to seek a test if they have symptoms of COVID-19 , or have spent 15 minutes or more within 6 feet of someone who is confirmed to have COVID-19 .
The problem with this guidance is it doesn ’ t take into consideration the environment this contact took place in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nine difficult months , we know that not everyone faces the same risks from COVID-19 , and some need greater care and protection .
To provide more clarity , former CDC director , Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald , recently suggested the following guidelines : • “ Americans in long-term care or nursing homes must get regular , frequent testing .
• “ Before a high-contact situation ( e.g.
, on an airplane or in a theater ) , Americans should get a rapid screening test first to increase safety and reduce fear.
” • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( at grocery stores , for example ) , Americans don ’ t need a screening test if they feel well , but they should wear a mask or face covering , and wash hands or use hand sanitizer.
” What do we do with when we get a negative or positive result ?
There ’ s little question as to what to do with a positive COVID-19 test result—immediately isolate and seek medical advice .
But what about a negative test result ?
Here , too , the CDC ’ s current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The CDC ’ s website gives at least two different answers .
On one CDC webpage , testing negative for COVID-19 means that “ you probably were not infected at the time your sample was collected .
This does not mean you will not get sick , ” and “ if you have symptoms later , you may need another test.
” However , a different CDC webpage takes a much more cautious approach , stating “ even if you test negative for COVID-19 or feel healthy , you should stay home ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 14 days after exposure to the virus.
” It ’ s not incorrect to be extra cautious with self-quarantining after a known exposure to the virus , but the reason given by the CDC does not make sense .
The purpose of testing for COVID-19 is to inform personal health decisions .
If an otherwise healthy person should quarantine for two weeks regardless of test result , why obtain the test ?
It would make more sense to allow persons with suspected exposures , but with negative test results , to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the months since the pandemic hit America , we have built an enormous testing infrastructure that can run over a million per day .
We should not ignore those results but let them inform our decision making , who should test and when , and what to do with the results afterward .
Ultimately , we need clarity from the nation ’ s top public health officials .
President Donald Trump rightly focused his administration recently on leveraging rapid testing .
He needs to take the next step—now—and immediately directly his team to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the full power of our testing capabilities can be leveraged .

COVID-19 can be a deadly disease, especially for higher-risk populations like the elderly. Making matters worse, it’s hard to tell when someone has COVID-19 and is infectious. When infection is suspected, being able to quickly and accurately determine whether or not someone is infected is crucial to making informed decisions about whether to self-quarantine or go about your life using other risk-mitigation measures.
Unfortunately, confusion remains over basic questions like who to test, when to test, and what to do when you get a result.
Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have issued conflicting guidance on testing, and have not kept up with evolving test technologies that allow for better, faster screenings of sick individuals.
Last week, the Trump administration embraced rapid tests, which provide results in 15 minutes for $5. That’s a major improvement over prior tests, which take a while to produce results.
It’s also a major advancement because it allows us to use tests as screening tools to help people know when to stay home. Screening tests serve a different public health purpose than diagnostic tests, because screening tests are intended to identify who is potentially contagious as opposed to establishing a diagnosis.
To date, we’ve essentially been using diagnostic tests for screening purposes—a very inefficient use of these tests. But these new rapid tests are suited perfectly for a large variety of situations and scenarios.
These developments make it all the more critical for public health officials to provide concrete guidance on testing.
Without concrete guidance, every institution, every organization, every place of business and congregation will be left to develop protocols based on their best interpretation of often contradictory information using expertise they lack.
Here’s what we need to know:
Who should get tested, and when?
Here, the CDC’s guidance falls short. They advise people to seek a test if they have symptoms of COVID-19, or have spent 15 minutes or more within 6 feet of someone who is confirmed to have COVID-19. The problem with this guidance is it doesn’t take into consideration the environment this contact took place in, nor the people involved.
After nine difficult months, we know that not everyone faces the same risks from COVID-19, and some need greater care and protection. To provide more clarity, former CDC director, Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, recently suggested the following guidelines:
“Americans in long-term care or nursing homes must get regular, frequent testing.
“Before a high-contact situation (e.g., on an airplane or in a theater), Americans should get a rapid screening test first to increase safety and reduce fear.”
“For routine situations of possible contact (at grocery stores, for example), Americans don’t need a screening test if they feel well, but they should wear a mask or face covering, and wash hands or use hand sanitizer.”
What do we do with when we get a negative or positive result?
There’s little question as to what to do with a positive COVID-19 test result—immediately isolate and seek medical advice. But what about a negative test result?
Here, too, the CDC’s current guidance leaves much to be desired. The CDC’s website gives at least two different answers. On one CDC webpage, testing negative for COVID-19 means that “you probably were not infected at the time your sample was collected. This does not mean you will not get sick,” and “if you have symptoms later, you may need another test.”
However, a different CDC webpage takes a much more cautious approach, stating “even if you test negative for COVID-19 or feel healthy, you should stay home (quarantine) since symptoms may appear 2 to 14 days after exposure to the virus.”
It’s not incorrect to be extra cautious with self-quarantining after a known exposure to the virus, but the reason given by the CDC does not make sense. The purpose of testing for COVID-19 is to inform personal health decisions. If an otherwise healthy person should quarantine for two weeks regardless of test result, why obtain the test?
It would make more sense to allow persons with suspected exposures, but with negative test results, to “test out” of quarantine. In the months since the pandemic hit America, we have built an enormous testing infrastructure that can run over a million per day. We should not ignore those results but let them inform our decision making, who should test and when, and what to do with the results afterward.
Ultimately, we need clarity from the nation’s top public health officials. President Donald Trump rightly focused his administration recently on leveraging rapid testing. He needs to take the next step—now—and immediately directly his team to come up with better answers, so the full power of our testing capabilities can be leveraged.


dailysignal--2020-10-09--White House Hits Back on Threat of Court-Packing: ‘A Disaster for Our Country’

Today on the podcast , The Daily Signal ’ s executive editor , Rob Bluey , interviews Brian Morgenstern , the White House ’ s deputy communications director .
They discuss President Donald Trump ’ s health ; the COVID-19 pandemic ; liberals ’ threat to pack the Supreme Court ; and next week ’ s Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett , the president ’ s third nominee to the high court .
A lightly edited transcript is below .
Rob Bluey : We are all worried about the president ’ s health , particularly after we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results , but he seems to be making a strong recovery .
Can you tell us how the president is doing ?
Brian Morgenstern : Yes , and thank you for the question .
The president is doing great .
And in fact , that ’ s the word he used himself , feeling great .
And it ’ s really thanks to Operation Warp Speed and getting treatments and a vaccine to market in record time that he ’ s now living proof of .
And a number of the treatments that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorization or through emergency use authorizations because this is a novel virus .
We didn ’ t know about it until this year , but they ’ ve gotten treatments available to many patients around the country .
That includes now Regeneron , which the president took .
It ’ s an antibody .
It includes dexamethasone , a steroid , and remdesivir , an antiviral .
And all of these things have helped him recover so quickly that he ’ s really back on his feet .
He ’ s feeling well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of getting those negative tests on the scoreboard , and then he ’ ll be back and speaking to the American people directly .
He can ’ t wait to do that .
He has been working throughout , because he ’ s not too sick to work .
He ’ s a strong guy .
He ’ s resilient .
And so he ’ s continued to work , but he can ’ t wait to get out and interact with the American people .
Bluey : Thanks , Brian .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are so delighted that he is feeling better .
Throughout his battle with coronavirus , as you said , he ’ s made clear he wouldn ’ t stop working , perhaps to the consternation of some of his critics .
I sense from his tweet about negotiating with the Democrats that he realizes the American people just don ’ t want another bailout , and that ’ s what they appear to be offering .
So what does President Trump think is needed most right now to help those who have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s a great topic .
I mean , there are a number of things that would provide targeted relief to people who were harmed , through no fault of their own , because we had to take public health measures to protect people .
A few of those things that the president would endorse is , for example , a standalone bill for stimulus checks for Americans who—maybe they ’ re on the lower-income scale , maybe they are people who are suffering the most , they ’ re not able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service industry has been hit especially hard because restaurants can ’ t operate at full capacity .
That would be one step .
Unemployment insurance , again , for people who have been displaced through no fault of their own .
An airline bill , because that is a strategically critical industry for our country , so keeping those employees connected to their jobs .
And funding for schools to reopen , because so many parents around the country are doing double duty as both parents and teacher right now .
To get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people back to normal life , we need parents to be able to go back to work .
These are some of the targeted measures that the president would support , because they would address the problems that are directly facing people as a result of the coronavirus .
That is the goal .
Unfortunately , the Democrats , Speaker [ Nancy ] Pelosi , has really been pretending to negotiate , if I ’ m being honest , for quite a while .
And in their wish list that they still want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing to do with the coronavirus , they want to put cash-less bail .
They want mass prison releases .
They want nationwide ballot harvesting .
They want a ban on voter ID laws .
They want stimulus checks going to illegal immigrants , and the list goes on and on from there .
They ’ re trying to exploit the situation that our country is facing to put forth a Christmas tree of Democrat wishes .
But what the president is doing and what the Republicans are doing is saying , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a problem facing our country .
Let ’ s do targeted solutions to the actual problems caused by the virus.
” Bluey : It ’ s encouraging to hear that the president is fighting for a deal that is targeted and that helps the American people .
Are there any steps that you are thinking about taking on your own at the White House that wouldn ’ t necessarily involve negotiating with congressional Democrats ?
Morgenstern : The president has been very creative in using his executive authority so far .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make it cheaper for employers to keep their employees at work , and to give the working class at pay raise .
He ’ s done a student loan relief .
He ’ s done an eviction moratorium .
He extended unemployment insurance using FEMA disaster funds .
He has really done a tremendous amount with creative uses of his executive authority within the law .
But it ’ s at the point now where we need a little bit of help from Congress to continue providing targeted relief .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways to do things , but really it would be better if we can have a bipartisan solution through the Congress to address these things .
And he ’ s going to continue to speak out .
How can the Democrats be against another round of economic impact payments for lower-income Americans ?
How can they be against helping the airline industry , the strategically important industry , continue to function ?
How can they be against providing funds for schools so that schools can reopen , and parents can get back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on .
So , I mean , to stand in the way of those things is really just playing politics with people ’ s livelihoods , and it ’ s just not fair .
Bluey : One of the things we know Congress will be doing next week , at least on the Senate side , is the confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett , which begin on Monday .
I want to ask about your expectations , and if you ’ re concerned at all about any last minute attacks as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Morgenstern : Judge Barrett is an outstanding nominee .
She is poised , she is ready to defend all of her prior opinions and writings and speeches , of course .
The Democrats should tread lightly before attacking her on things like her faith .
We ’ ve seen people do that , and it ’ s very unbecoming .
And there is no religious test for people to serve in public office .
As the president said , I thought we put that behind us with the election of John F. Kennedy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ridiculous .
They may attack her on a number of other lines .
We know the Democrats are very focused on Roe v. Wade , and they ’ re very focused on Obamacare , and they ’ re going to try to paint Judge Barrett as sort of a villain in their eyes on these issues .
I just don ’ t think that ’ s going to be possible , because Judge Barrett has proven through her career in academia , through her years on the bench hearing hundreds of cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice who puts the Constitution first .
And that is what every American should want , is you want the Supreme Court justices to stand up for their God-given rights enshrined in the Constitution , and not put their personal opinions at issue when they ’ re deciding cases .
That ’ s what Judge Barrett has pledged to do .
It ’ s what she ’ s shown throughout her career that she will do .
Bluey : Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris have repeatedly refused to answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Can you explain why court packing is a concern to the president ?
And it ’ s something that the American people should be worried about ?
Morgenstern : Yes , it ’ s outrageous .
I mean , in the vice presidential debate , Sen. Harris wouldn ’ t answer the question .
She started it down some weird history lesson that wasn ’ t even accurate , and wouldn ’ t answer whether they would pack the court .
That should tell the American people what they need to know .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to change the rules because they ’ re sour grapes .
I think the American people should not count on a position of if you lose an election and therefore an issue doesn ’ t go your way , pack the Supreme Court and turn it into a mini-lifetime Congress to execute liberal policy priorities .
That is not how it ’ s set up .
The Supreme Court is supposed to be the steward of the Constitution and ensure that our political branches are acting within their authorities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court into just another legislative body packed with Democrats .
That would be a disaster for our country .
It would completely upend really the integrity of the institution , which they claim to be so worried about .
I just don ’ t understand this notion that you could be all for protecting the institutions that make our country stable and great , and you ’ re going to protect them by destroying them .
It just doesn ’ t make any sense .
So it is a radical idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that .
Bluey : I know that there ’ s been a lot of media scrutiny on the White House following the Sept. 26 event with Judge Barrett .
What I haven ’ t seen as widely reported is that local leaders in Washington , D.C. , say that there ’ s no evidence that it led to a widespread caseload rise .
And that ’ s according to a story in the Metro section of the Washington Post .
But what steps have you taken at the White House to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ?
Morgenstern : Thank you .
And the coverage on that I think has been a little misleading , as you say , and now we ’ re seeing sort of the adjusted coverage come out .
It was outdoors .
People were tested .
They were certainly welcome to wear masks .
There ’ s hand sanitizer stations in numerous locations around the White House .
So , we took precautions .
But what we were doing is we ’ re showing the country that we have to reopen , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominate a Supreme Court justice .
We still have to have these historic events .
The president honored Gold Star families because we still have to show these families who sacrificed so much for our country that we appreciate them .
These are essential functions .
Now at the White House , we are continuing to carry on the people ’ s business , and we have masks we ’ ll wear when we have to be in meetings .
We ’ ll put chairs between people .
We ’ ll socially distance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People have maximum telework flexibility so they can work remotely , if they would be safer doing that .
The president is working at full capacity .
Anybody who interacts with him—there ’ s a limited universe of people who are interacting with him in person at this point , but they could do it at a distance—then they have PPE .
And so we ’ re continuing to do the work of the American people .
We ’ re just doing it in a safe , common-sense way .
Bluey : Final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made law and order a defining aspect of his leadership .
What is your message to those police and other law enforcement officers who continue to work to protect the American people and defend our country against those who want to riot and loot in our cities ?
Morgenstern : The message is that we have their back .
These are people who signed up for a job where they could have to take a bullet for a stranger .
In fact , those strangers could be the very people protesting against them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they ’ re brave , and because they want to help their community , and they want to protect people .
The president will absolutely have law enforcement ’ s back—100 % .
To the extent that any of them are out of line , they behave badly , we want them to be held to account .
But generally speaking , we need to respect our law enforcement , and we have to have peace in our streets .
That ’ s why in the event that violence breaks out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Guard or federal law enforcement support so that we can restore peace as quickly as possible .
And these rioters , these left-wing violent people , are trying to tear down our country , our Constitution , the foundations of our nation .
And we can ’ t stand for it .
And frankly , the other side has been awfully quiet about this .
I don ’ t see them denouncing Antifa or Black Lives Matter , the organization that frequently foments violence .
We need to all be on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a partisan issue .
It should be bipartisan that we back our law enforcement and we support peace in the streets .
That should not be controversial .
Somehow it ’ s become controversial , but it shouldn ’ t be .
The president will always stand with law enforcement .

Today on the podcast, The Daily Signal’s executive editor, Rob Bluey, interviews Brian Morgenstern, the White House’s deputy communications director. They discuss President Donald Trump’s health; the COVID-19 pandemic; liberals’ threat to pack the Supreme Court; and next week’s Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the president’s third nominee to the high court. A lightly edited transcript is below.
Rob Bluey: We are all worried about the president’s health, particularly after we heard the news of his positive test results, but he seems to be making a strong recovery. Can you tell us how the president is doing?
Brian Morgenstern: Yes, and thank you for the question. The president is doing great. And in fact, that’s the word he used himself, feeling great.
And it’s really thanks to Operation Warp Speed and getting treatments and a vaccine to market in record time that he’s now living proof of. And a number of the treatments that are either being used through compassionate use authorization or through emergency use authorizations because this is a novel virus. We didn’t know about it until this year, but they’ve gotten treatments available to many patients around the country. That includes now Regeneron, which the president took. It’s an antibody. It includes dexamethasone, a steroid, and remdesivir, an antiviral.
And all of these things have helped him recover so quickly that he’s really back on his feet. He’s feeling well. It’s just a matter of getting those negative tests on the scoreboard, and then he’ll be back and speaking to the American people directly. He can’t wait to do that. He has been working throughout, because he’s not too sick to work. He’s a strong guy. He’s resilient. And so he’s continued to work, but he can’t wait to get out and interact with the American people.
Bluey: Thanks, Brian. That’s great to hear. We are so delighted that he is feeling better. Throughout his battle with coronavirus, as you said, he’s made clear he wouldn’t stop working, perhaps to the consternation of some of his critics. I sense from his tweet about negotiating with the Democrats that he realizes the American people just don’t want another bailout, and that’s what they appear to be offering. So what does President Trump think is needed most right now to help those who have been adversely impacted by COVID-19?
Morgenstern: It’s a great topic. I mean, there are a number of things that would provide targeted relief to people who were harmed, through no fault of their own, because we had to take public health measures to protect people.
A few of those things that the president would endorse is, for example, a standalone bill for stimulus checks for Americans who—maybe they’re on the lower-income scale, maybe they are people who are suffering the most, they’re not able to work. For example, the service industry has been hit especially hard because restaurants can’t operate at full capacity. That would be one step.
Unemployment insurance, again, for people who have been displaced through no fault of their own. An airline bill, because that is a strategically critical industry for our country, so keeping those employees connected to their jobs. And funding for schools to reopen, because so many parents around the country are doing double duty as both parents and teacher right now. To get our economy back functioning, to get people back to normal life, we need parents to be able to go back to work.
These are some of the targeted measures that the president would support, because they would address the problems that are directly facing people as a result of the coronavirus. That is the goal.
Unfortunately, the Democrats, Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi, has really been pretending to negotiate, if I’m being honest, for quite a while. And in their wish list that they still want to include in any legislation that has nothing to do with the coronavirus, they want to put cash-less bail. They want mass prison releases. They want nationwide ballot harvesting. They want a ban on voter ID laws. They want stimulus checks going to illegal immigrants, and the list goes on and on from there.
They’re trying to exploit the situation that our country is facing to put forth a Christmas tree of Democrat wishes. But what the president is doing and what the Republicans are doing is saying, “No, no, no. This is a problem facing our country. Let’s do targeted solutions to the actual problems caused by the virus.”
Bluey: It’s encouraging to hear that the president is fighting for a deal that is targeted and that helps the American people. Are there any steps that you are thinking about taking on your own at the White House that wouldn’t necessarily involve negotiating with congressional Democrats?
Morgenstern: The president has been very creative in using his executive authority so far. He’s done a payroll tax holiday to make it cheaper for employers to keep their employees at work, and to give the working class at pay raise. He’s done a student loan relief. He’s done an eviction moratorium. He extended unemployment insurance using FEMA disaster funds.
He has really done a tremendous amount with creative uses of his executive authority within the law. But it’s at the point now where we need a little bit of help from Congress to continue providing targeted relief. We’ll always be looking for more creative ways to do things, but really it would be better if we can have a bipartisan solution through the Congress to address these things.
And he’s going to continue to speak out. How can the Democrats be against another round of economic impact payments for lower-income Americans? How can they be against helping the airline industry, the strategically important industry, continue to function? How can they be against providing funds for schools so that schools can reopen, and parents can get back to work?
These are things everyone agrees on. So, I mean, to stand in the way of those things is really just playing politics with people’s livelihoods, and it’s just not fair.
Bluey: One of the things we know Congress will be doing next week, at least on the Senate side, is the confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, which begin on Monday. I want to ask about your expectations, and if you’re concerned at all about any last minute attacks as we saw with Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Morgenstern: Judge Barrett is an outstanding nominee. She is poised, she is ready to defend all of her prior opinions and writings and speeches, of course.
The Democrats should tread lightly before attacking her on things like her faith. We’ve seen people do that, and it’s very unbecoming. And there is no religious test for people to serve in public office. As the president said, I thought we put that behind us with the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960. It’s sort of ridiculous. They may attack her on a number of other lines. We know the Democrats are very focused on Roe v. Wade, and they’re very focused on Obamacare, and they’re going to try to paint Judge Barrett as sort of a villain in their eyes on these issues.
I just don’t think that’s going to be possible, because Judge Barrett has proven through her career in academia, through her years on the bench hearing hundreds of cases, that she’s a fair-minded justice who puts the Constitution first. And that is what every American should want, is you want the Supreme Court justices to stand up for their God-given rights enshrined in the Constitution, and not put their personal opinions at issue when they’re deciding cases. That’s what Judge Barrett has pledged to do. It’s what she’s shown throughout her career that she will do.
Bluey: Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris have repeatedly refused to answer if they would support court packing. Can you explain why court packing is a concern to the president? And it’s something that the American people should be worried about?
Morgenstern: Yes, it’s outrageous. I mean, in the vice presidential debate, Sen. Harris wouldn’t answer the question. She started it down some weird history lesson that wasn’t even accurate, and wouldn’t answer whether they would pack the court.
That should tell the American people what they need to know. If they lose a fight, they’re going to change the rules because they’re sour grapes.
I think the American people should not count on a position of if you lose an election and therefore an issue doesn’t go your way, pack the Supreme Court and turn it into a mini-lifetime Congress to execute liberal policy priorities. That is not how it’s set up.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be the steward of the Constitution and ensure that our political branches are acting within their authorities. We’re not supposed to turn the Supreme Court into just another legislative body packed with Democrats. That would be a disaster for our country. It would completely upend really the integrity of the institution, which they claim to be so worried about.
I just don’t understand this notion that you could be all for protecting the institutions that make our country stable and great, and you’re going to protect them by destroying them. It just doesn’t make any sense. So it is a radical idea, and people should be very wary of that.
Bluey: I know that there’s been a lot of media scrutiny on the White House following the Sept. 26 event with Judge Barrett. What I haven’t seen as widely reported is that local leaders in Washington, D.C., say that there’s no evidence that it led to a widespread caseload rise. And that’s according to a story in the Metro section of the Washington Post. But what steps have you taken at the White House to ensure the safety of the people who work there?
Morgenstern: Thank you. And the coverage on that I think has been a little misleading, as you say, and now we’re seeing sort of the adjusted coverage come out.
It was outdoors. People were tested. They were certainly welcome to wear masks. There’s hand sanitizer stations in numerous locations around the White House. So, we took precautions. But what we were doing is we’re showing the country that we have to reopen, and we have to do critical things like nominate a Supreme Court justice.
We still have to have these historic events. The president honored Gold Star families because we still have to show these families who sacrificed so much for our country that we appreciate them. These are essential functions.
Now at the White House, we are continuing to carry on the people’s business, and we have masks we’ll wear when we have to be in meetings. We’ll put chairs between people. We’ll socially distance. We have hand sanitizer everywhere. People have maximum telework flexibility so they can work remotely, if they would be safer doing that.
The president is working at full capacity. Anybody who interacts with him—there’s a limited universe of people who are interacting with him in person at this point, but they could do it at a distance—then they have PPE. And so we’re continuing to do the work of the American people. We’re just doing it in a safe, common-sense way.
Bluey: Final topic for you. President Trump has made law and order a defining aspect of his leadership. What is your message to those police and other law enforcement officers who continue to work to protect the American people and defend our country against those who want to riot and loot in our cities?
Morgenstern: The message is that we have their back. These are people who signed up for a job where they could have to take a bullet for a stranger. In fact, those strangers could be the very people protesting against them. And they still do it, because they’re brave, and because they want to help their community, and they want to protect people.
The president will absolutely have law enforcement’s back—100%. To the extent that any of them are out of line, they behave badly, we want them to be held to account. But generally speaking, we need to respect our law enforcement, and we have to have peace in our streets.
That’s why in the event that violence breaks out, the president is always quick to offer National Guard or federal law enforcement support so that we can restore peace as quickly as possible.
And these rioters, these left-wing violent people, are trying to tear down our country, our Constitution, the foundations of our nation. And we can’t stand for it. And frankly, the other side has been awfully quiet about this. I don’t see them denouncing Antifa or Black Lives Matter, the organization that frequently foments violence.
We need to all be on the same page here. This should not be a partisan issue. It should be bipartisan that we back our law enforcement and we support peace in the streets. That should not be controversial. Somehow it’s become controversial, but it shouldn’t be. The president will always stand with law enforcement.


dailysignal--2020-10-08--Trump Should Direct His Administration to Generate Better Guidance on COVID-19 Testing


dailysignal--2020-10-09--How California Is Turning Into a State Governed by Identity Politics

If you thought racial identity politics were just a fleeting flirtation of the radical left , California ’ s new laws suggest otherwise .
On Sept. 30 , the California Gov .
Gavin Newsom signed into state law a bill setting up a nine-member board to study the amount of reparations that should be owed to black people for slavery and Jim Crow .
The bill signing was followed by this tweet : But that ’ s hardly the only racially divisive law California has passed this year , since the legislature convened in a coronavirus-racked session in June .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill to establish diversity quotas on corporate boards for racial minorities .
Corporations with between four and nine board members will now be required to have at least two racial minorities , while corporations with more than nine board members will be required to have at least three represented .
This is identity politics at its most extreme level , setting racial quotas for prominent positions of influence .
Newsom also signed a bill that would mandate that the California State University system establish a social justice course requirement for all students .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , schools in the California State University system will be required to have students take a course in either black , Hispanic , Native American , or Asian studies , with professors in the departments uniformly dominated by the academic left .
But no measure may be more insulting that the one the legislature passed earlier in the year , a California constitutional amendment ballot measure that would—unless rejected by voters on Election Day— repeal California ’ s anti-discrimination ordinance known as Proposition 209 .
Proposition 209 , enacted by voters in referendum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to one poll , the repeal measure , Proposition 16 , is trailing badly in the polls .
But the California Legislature does not govern according to the will of the voters .
It has shown throughout 2020 that it governs through the narrow prism of identity politics .
And in that prism , several radical progressive leaders have taken the lead .
Chief among them is Shirley Weber , a San Diego-area assemblywoman who sponsored the Proposition 209 repeal , the ethnic studies requirement , and the reparations task force bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for 400 years , African American men and women in this country have been disrespected , ” she said .
“ This country has taught itself to hate African Americans and to deny the history that has brought us here.
” Not every law enacted this session in the name of social justice specifically invokes race .
One of those is a law signed by Newsom that will eliminate some fees that are typically collected from and billed to people who are arrested and jailed , and put through the trial system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the aforementioned “ social justice ” laws is that the debt-elimination law applies to all ex-convicts , while the other laws explicitly call for dividing—even discriminating—against people based on their race , ethnicity , or other demographic characteristics .
Those in political power in California seem intent on passing laws that would have the effect of dividing and racializing the government .
Perhaps they sympathize with the neo-Marxist theory that assumes that there are two competing groups that must perpetually be in conflict with one another .
That kind of thinking does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prefers that people remain divided and that group lines harden .
Or it could be that they see themselves as leaders of their so-called identity group to gain more power and influence , on the assumption that people in their identity group tend to think a certain way—that is to say , their way .
As such , it ’ s not a surprise that Weber is also the chairwoman of the California Legislative Black Caucus , which claims to “ advocate for the interests of black Californians.
” But one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of different ethnic origins is to make it difficult for them to think they can participate fully in the American experiment .
In his new book , “ The Plot to Change America : How Identity Politics Is Dividing the Land of the Free , ” Michael Gonzalez of The Heritage Foundation writes that it is to neo-Marxist schools of thought that “ we owe the view … that certain groups—workers , minorities , women , and others—are ‘ marginalized ’ and that these groups participate in their own oppression when they perpetuate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That means that , according to the neo-Marxists , minorities who buy into the idea that America is in fact a land of opportunity are actually participating in the ideology of their oppressor .
Neo-Marxists would rather fashion minorities into perpetual victims , subject to the helping hand of the government .
That ’ s not the path of opportunity for minorities who really need opportunity .
That ’ s the path of perpetual grievance politics , locking in a mindset that will hurt , not help , their aspirations .
Making matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what happens there is highly influential across the rest of the country .
California ’ s descent into identity politics wokeness likely will have similar adverse consequences for other liberal states .

If you thought racial identity politics were just a fleeting flirtation of the radical left, California’s new laws suggest otherwise.
On Sept. 30, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into state law a bill setting up a nine-member board to study the amount of reparations that should be owed to black people for slavery and Jim Crow.
The bill signing was followed by this tweet:
CA just became the first state in the nation to mandate the study and development of proposals for reparations.
Our past is one of slavery, racism, and injustice. Our systems were built to oppress people of color.
It’s past time we acknowledge that. https://t.co/sY8UWffqzt — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) September 30, 2020
But that’s hardly the only racially divisive law California has passed this year, since the Legislature convened in a coronavirus-racked session in June.
The same day, Newsom signed a bill to establish diversity quotas on corporate boards for racial minorities. Corporations with between four and nine board members will now be required to have at least two racial minorities, while corporations with more than nine board members will be required to have at least three represented.
This is identity politics at its most extreme level, setting racial quotas for prominent positions of influence.
Newsom also signed a bill that would mandate that the California State University system establish a social justice course requirement for all students. According to the bill’s text, schools in the California State University system will be required to have students take a course in either black, Hispanic, Native American, or Asian studies, with professors in the departments uniformly dominated by the academic left.
But no measure may be more insulting that the one the Legislature passed earlier in the year, a California constitutional amendment ballot measure that would—unless rejected by voters on Election Day—repeal California’s anti-discrimination ordinance known as Proposition 209.
Proposition 209, enacted by voters in referendum in 1996, reads:
The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
Fortunately, according to one poll, the repeal measure, Proposition 16, is trailing badly in the polls.
But the California Legislature does not govern according to the will of the voters. It has shown throughout 2020 that it governs through the narrow prism of identity politics.
And in that prism, several radical progressive leaders have taken the lead. Chief among them is Shirley Weber, a San Diego-area assemblywoman who sponsored the Proposition 209 repeal, the ethnic studies requirement, and the reparations task force bill.
“We’re here because, for 400 years, African American men and women in this country have been disrespected,” she said. “This country has taught itself to hate African Americans and to deny the history that has brought us here.”
Not every law enacted this session in the name of social justice specifically invokes race. One of those is a law signed by Newsom that will eliminate some fees that are typically collected from and billed to people who are arrested and jailed, and put through the trial system.
The difference between that law and the aforementioned “social justice” laws is that the debt-elimination law applies to all ex-convicts, while the other laws explicitly call for dividing—even discriminating—against people based on their race, ethnicity, or other demographic characteristics.
Those in political power in California seem intent on passing laws that would have the effect of dividing and racializing the government. Perhaps they sympathize with the neo-Marxist theory that assumes that there are two competing groups that must perpetually be in conflict with one another. That kind of thinking does not incentivize reconciliation and mutual trust. It prefers that people remain divided and that group lines harden.
Or it could be that they see themselves as leaders of their so-called identity group to gain more power and influence, on the assumption that people in their identity group tend to think a certain way—that is to say, their way.
As such, it’s not a surprise that Weber is also the chairwoman of the California Legislative Black Caucus, which claims to “advocate for the interests of black Californians.”
But one of the consequences of identity politics ideology on people of different ethnic origins is to make it difficult for them to think they can participate fully in the American experiment.
In his new book “The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics Is Dividing the Land of the Free,” Michael Gonzalez of The Heritage Foundation writes that it is to neo-Marxist schools of thought that “we owe the view … that certain groups—workers, minorities, women, and others—are ‘marginalized’ and that these groups participate in their own oppression when they perpetuate the hegemonic metanarrative of the privileged.”
That means that, according to the neo-Marxists, minorities who buy into the idea that America is in fact a land of opportunity are actually participating in the ideology of their oppressor. Neo-Marxists would rather fashion minorities into perpetual victims, subject to the helping hand of the government.
That’s not the path of opportunity for minorities who really need opportunity. That’s the path of perpetual grievance politics, locking in a mindset that will hurt, not help, their aspirations.
Making matters worse, California is a liberal bellwether and what happens there is highly influential across the rest of the country. California’s descent into identity politics wokeness likely will have similar adverse consequences for other liberal states.


dailysignal--2020-10-09--Push for 25th Amendment Commission Isn’t About Trump, Pelosi Claims

Congressional Democrats ’ renewed embrace of the 25th Amendment is not aimed at removing President Donald Trump from office , at least not in the near-term , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday .
“ This is not about President Trump .
He will face the judgment of the voters , ” Pelosi said .
“ But he shows the need for us to create a process for future presidents.
” The House ’ s top Democrat is backing a proposal to establish a government commission to evaluate the physical and mental fitness of the president for continuity of government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recovering from COVID-19 and has been on several medications for it .
“ There are those , medical professionals who say that certain medications can impair judgment .
I don ’ t know , ” Pelosi told reporters .
“ This is really important .
It ’ s not about any of us making a judgment about the president ’ s well-being .
It ’ s about this respected , bipartisan—both aspects of it , the medical side of it and the dignitary , statesman side of it are selected by , equally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] leader … in a bipartisan way , and the vice president is crucial to that.
” Rep. Jamie Raskin , D-Md.
, initially proposed similar legislation to establish such a commission in 2017 .
The new bill has 38 Democratic co-sponsors , including the House Judiciary Committee chairman , Rep. Jerry Nadler , D-N.Y. Nadler ’ s panel likely would be the committee to consider the proposal .
The 25th Amendment allows for the vice president and a majority of Cabinet secretaries to determine whether a president is physically or mentally unfit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
The vice president would become the acting president on a temporary basis .
Congress could remove the president from office permanently with a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate .
That would be an even higher bar to reach than impeachment , because the latter requires only a simple majority in the House .
The 25th Amendment was adopted in 1967 after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy four years earlier .
It was based on the concern about what to do while the president was still alive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s proposal points to Section 4 of the 25th Amendment , which empowers Congress to establish a permanent “ body ” with the concurrence of the vice president that can declare that the incumbent president is “ unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.
” “ The 25th Amendment was adopted 50 years ago , but Congress has never set up the body it calls for to determine presidential fitness in the event of physical or psychological incapacity .
Now is the time to do it , ” Raskin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McEnany tweeted that Pelosi had seemed to be open to impeaching Trump again and then seemed to lose her train of thought in an interview .
“ The only one who needs the 25th Amendment is Nancy Pelosi herself .
‘ Good Morning , Sunday Morning , ’ she bizarrely blurts out after suggesting impeaching President , ” the press secretary said in the tweet .
Regardless of whether the proposal is about Trump now , Democrats and activists on the left have pushed the 25th Amendment as a means for removing Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office in January 2017 , some on the left started the “ Duty to Warn ” movement that pushed for Trump ’ s ouster via the 25th Amendment , asserting his tweets and behavior indicated he was not mentally fit to be president .
Yale psychiatry professor Dr. Bandy X. Lee , who edited the book “ The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump , ” even gave a 2017 Capitol Hill briefing for members of Congress seeking to oust Trump with the 25th Amendment .
At Friday ’ s press conference , Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump at a later time .
“ If the president wins this election , yes , it will apply to him , ” Pelosi said .
“ If he doesn ’ t , it will apply to the next president of the United States .
It ’ s not about the election at all.
” Rep. Jim Jordan , R-Ohio , the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee , tweeted that the 25th Amendment talk is just another bizarre attempt by Democrats to oust Trump .
“ First , Democrats tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Then , they tried the fake # Impeachment .
Now , they ’ re trying to use the 25th Amendment to remove the President from office .
Like the President said , they ’ re coming after him because he ’ s fighting for us .
”

Congressional Democrats’ renewed embrace of the 25th Amendment is not aimed at removing President Donald Trump from office, at least not in the near-term, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday.
“This is not about President Trump. He will face the judgment of the voters,” Pelosi said. “But he shows the need for us to create a process for future presidents.”
The House’s top Democrat is backing a proposal to establish a government commission to evaluate the physical and mental fitness of the president for continuity of government at a time when Trump is still recovering from COVID-19 and has been on several medications for it.
“There are those, medical professionals who say that certain medications can impair judgment. I don’t know,” Pelosi told reporters. “This is really important. It’s not about any of us making a judgment about the president’s well-being. It’s about this respected, bipartisan—both aspects of it, the medical side of it and the dignitary, statesman side of it are selected by, equally by the speaker and the [Senate] leader … in a bipartisan way, and the vice president is crucial to that.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., initially proposed similar legislation to establish such a commission in 2017. The new bill has 38 Democratic co-sponsors, including the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. Nadler’s panel likely would be the committee to consider the proposal.
The 25th Amendment allows for the vice president and a majority of Cabinet secretaries to determine whether a president is physically or mentally unfit to carry out the duties of the office. The vice president would become the acting president on a temporary basis. Congress could remove the president from office permanently with a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate. That would be an even higher bar to reach than impeachment, because the latter requires only a simple majority in the House.
The 25th Amendment was adopted in 1967 after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy four years earlier. It was based on the concern about what to do while the president was still alive but experiencing a health crisis.
Raskin’s proposal points to Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which empowers Congress to establish a permanent “body” with the concurrence of the vice president that can declare that the incumbent president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”
“The 25th Amendment was adopted 50 years ago, but Congress has never set up the body it calls for to determine presidential fitness in the event of physical or psychological incapacity. Now is the time to do it,” Raskin said.
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany tweeted that Pelosi had seemed to be open to impeaching Trump again and then seemed to lose her train of thought in an interview.
The only one who needs the 25th Amendment is Nancy Pelosi herself.
“Good Morning, Sunday Morning,” she bizarrely blurts out after suggesting impeaching President @realDonaldTrump for exercising his Art. II, Sec. II power!
Stop projecting, Nancy! ??https://t.co/QXBVhKqwLd — Kayleigh McEnany (@PressSec) October 9, 2020
“The only one who needs the 25th Amendment is Nancy Pelosi herself. ‘Good Morning, Sunday Morning,’ she bizarrely blurts out after suggesting impeaching President,” the press secretary said in the tweet.
Regardless of whether the proposal is about Trump now, Democrats and activists on the left have pushed the 25th Amendment as a means for removing Trump for years.
Months after Trump took office in January 2017, some on the left started the “Duty to Warn” movement that pushed for Trump’s ouster via the 25th Amendment, asserting his tweets and behavior indicated he was not mentally fit to be president.
Yale psychiatry professor Dr. Bandy X. Lee, who edited the book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” even gave a 2017 Capitol Hill briefing for members of Congress seeking to oust Trump with the 25th Amendment.
At Friday’s press conference, Pelosi was open to applying the 25th Amendment to Trump at a later time.
“If the president wins this election, yes, it will apply to him,” Pelosi said. “If he doesn’t, it will apply to the next president of the United States. It’s not about the election at all.”
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, tweeted that the 25th Amendment talk is just another bizarre attempt by Democrats to oust Trump.
First, Democrats tried the Russia hoax.
Then, they tried the fake #impeachment.
Now, they’re trying to use the 25th Amendment to remove the President from office.
Like the President said, they’re coming after him because he’s fighting for us. — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) October 9, 2020
“First, Democrats tried the Russia hoax,” Jordan tweeted. “Then, they tried the fake #Impeachment. Now, they’re trying to use the 25th Amendment to remove the President from office. Like the President said, they’re coming after him because he’s fighting for us.”


dailysignal--2020-10-09--Trump Contracts COVID-19; What Happened to Compassion?

Comedian Chris Rock , hosting “ Saturday Night Live , ” summarized the feelings shared by much of President Donald Trump-hating America when he quipped , “ President Trump is in the hospital from COVID and I just wan na say my heart goes out to COVID.
” The audience then erupted in laughter .
During the Barack Obama administration , the country faced the H1N1 virus , or swine flu .
Did the Obama administration , unlike the Trump administration , respond to that crisis with scientific-based action that saved the lives of untold Americans ?
Joe Biden aide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House during the Obama administration , candidly admitted no .
At a 2019 forum at the National Press Club , Klain said : I was in the White House in 2009 and 2010 .
I was working for Vice President Biden .
I wasn ’ t involved directly in the H1N1 response , but I lived through it as a White House staffer , and what I would say about it is : A bunch of really talented , really great people were working on it , and we did every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans got H1N1 in that period of time , and it ’ s just purely a fortuity that this isn ’ t one of the great mass casualty events in American history .
It had nothing to do with us doing anything right .
It just had to do with luck .
Trump ’ s enemies are accusing him of purposefully mismanaging the coronavirus pandemic .
But this is par for the course in the Trump era .
After all , about 29 % of the Democratic congressional delegation boycotted Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s State of the Union speeches ; Democrats attempted to invoke the 25th Amendment by arguing that the new president was mentally unfit for the job ; Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , D-N.Y. , accused him of violating the Emoluments Clause ; there was a two and a half-year Russia-Trump collusion investigation ; Trump was impeached ; and somehow , The New York Times acquired several years of his income tax returns , apparently revealing that Trump paid little or nothing in federal income taxes for many years .
And Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Adolf Hitler , a dictator , a tyrant , a grifter , and other things unsuitable for family consumption .
As to Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus , Democrats , like Democratic presidential rival Joe Biden , literally accuse Trump of all but personally murdering more than 200,000 people .
> > > 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
Trump , to the consternation of medical experts and Democratic politicians , frequently appeared maskless and continued to hold rallies and gatherings where social distancing and mask-wearing were not observed .
Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein calls Trump ’ s coronavirus response “ homicidal negligence.
” Goodness , does this make Dr. Anthony Fauci a co-conspirator ?
In a “ 60 Minutes ” episode that aired on March 8 , Fauci expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of wearing masks : Is Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticizing Trump , who , at the end of January , announced travel restrictions on aliens who had been in China in the preceding 14 days , preventing their entry into the U.S. ?
The next day Biden tweeted : Let us not forget that China lied to the world about when it first learned of the coronavirus and lied when it denied that there was human-to-human transmission of the deadly virus .
As a result of those lies , the rest of the world played catch-up from the very beginning .
Furthermore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the University of California , Los Angeles , the virus may have been in America months sooner than initially thought .
Therefore , we may be underestimating the number of Americans who have already contracted the virus .
UCLA Health writes : “ UCLA researchers and colleagues who analyzed electronic health records found that there was a significant increase in patients with coughs and acute respiratory failure at UCLA Health hospitals and clinics beginning in late December 2019 , suggesting that COVID-19 may have been circulating in the area months before the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Expert medical advice continues to evolve during the course of this pandemic .
Trump , as he told The Washington Post ’ s Bob Woodward , wanted to project an image of calm .
Trump also recognized that dealing with this crisis , like most things in life , requires trade-offs .
Shutting down the economy has unintended costs , including but not limited to divorce , alcoholism , drug addiction , and domestic violence .
Not an easy call for Trump to make .
In the meantime , can even Trump-haters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at least , pretend to ?

Comedian Chris Rock, hosting “Saturday Night Live,” summarized the feelings shared by much of President Donald Trump-hating America when he quipped, “President Trump is in the hospital from COVID and I just wanna say my heart goes out to COVID.” The audience then erupted in laughter.
During the Barack Obama administration, the country faced the H1N1 virus, or swine flu. Did the Obama administration, unlike the Trump administration, respond to that crisis with scientific-based action that saved the lives of untold Americans?
Joe Biden aide Ron Klain, who served Biden in the White House during the Obama administration, candidly admitted no. At a 2019 forum at the National Press Club, Klain said:
I was in the White House in 2009 and 2010. I was working for Vice President Biden. I wasn’t involved directly in the H1N1 response, but I lived through it as a White House staffer, and what I would say about it is: A bunch of really talented, really great people were working on it, and we did every possible thing wrong. And 60 million Americans got H1N1 in that period of time, and it’s just purely a fortuity that this isn’t one of the great mass casualty events in American history. It had nothing to do with us doing anything right. It just had to do with luck.
Trump’s enemies are accusing him of purposefully mismanaging the coronavirus pandemic. But this is par for the course in the Trump era.
After all, about 29% of the Democratic congressional delegation boycotted Trump’s inauguration; several never attended any of the president’s State of the Union speeches; Democrats attempted to invoke the 25th Amendment by arguing that the new president was mentally unfit for the job; Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., accused him of violating the Emoluments Clause; there was a two and a half-year Russia-Trump collusion investigation; Trump was impeached; and somehow, The New York Times acquired several years of his income tax returns, apparently revealing that Trump paid little or nothing in federal income taxes for many years.
And Trump has routinely been compared to Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, a dictator, a tyrant, a grifter, and other things unsuitable for family consumption. As to Trump’s handling of the coronavirus, Democrats, like Democratic presidential rival Joe Biden, literally accuse Trump of all but personally murdering more than 200,000 people.
>>> 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.
Trump, to the consternation of medical experts and Democratic politicians, frequently appeared maskless and continued to hold rallies and gatherings where social distancing and mask-wearing were not observed. Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein calls Trump’s coronavirus response “homicidal negligence.”
Goodness, does this make Dr. Anthony Fauci a co-conspirator? In a “60 Minutes” episode that aired on March 8, Fauci expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of wearing masks:
There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences: People keep fiddling with the mask, and they keep touching their face.
Is Biden a co-conspirator in this mass homicide for criticizing Trump, who, at the end of January, announced travel restrictions on aliens who had been in China in the preceding 14 days, preventing their entry into the U.S.? The next day Biden tweeted:
We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science—not Donald Trump’s record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency.
Let us not forget that China lied to the world about when it first learned of the coronavirus and lied when it denied that there was human-to-human transmission of the deadly virus. As a result of those lies, the rest of the world played catch-up from the very beginning.
Furthermore, according to a recent study by the University of California, Los Angeles, the virus may have been in America months sooner than initially thought. Therefore, we may be underestimating the number of Americans who have already contracted the virus.
UCLA Health writes: “UCLA researchers and colleagues who analyzed electronic health records found that there was a significant increase in patients with coughs and acute respiratory failure at UCLA Health hospitals and clinics beginning in late December 2019, suggesting that COVID-19 may have been circulating in the area months before the first definitive cases in the U.S. were identified.”
Expert medical advice continues to evolve during the course of this pandemic. Trump, as he told The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, wanted to project an image of calm.
Trump also recognized that dealing with this crisis, like most things in life, requires trade-offs. Shutting down the economy has unintended costs, including but not limited to divorce, alcoholism, drug addiction, and domestic violence. Not an easy call for Trump to make.
In the meantime, can even Trump-haters pray for his full recovery? Or, at least, pretend to?
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM