westernjournal--2020-02-14--Rita Joseph: Supreme Court Should Treat Abortion as the Worst Kind of Discrimination

Come March , the Supreme Court will examine June Medical Services v. Gee , bringing fresh scrutiny to the “ undue burden ” concept applied to women wanting to abort their children .
A reformed Supreme Court should examine the far more serious undue burden test of being “ wanted ” inflicted by Roe v. Wade itself on each unborn child ’ s right to stay alive when threatened with abortion .
Question : What makes a human being lawfully abortable ?
Answer : Being “ unwanted ” by her/his mother .
That was the answer proffered by the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1973 .
They levied an undue burden test on the unborn at risk of abortion with the novel requirement that the child must be “ wanted ” in order to deserve any right to go on living .
They introduced the concept of lawful killing of “ the unwanted child.
” The undue burden concept emerged in the Supreme Court ’ s 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey .
In 2016 Whole Woman ’ s Health v. Hellerstedt , the Court ruled that requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges was “ a substantial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : While Dems Rally in Churches and High Schools , Trump Books New Hampshire 's Largest Arena In focusing exclusively on this splinter of undue burden , progressive justices ignored the log in their own eyes .
The undue burden test when applied to the inconvenience suffered by a pregnant mother wanting easier abortion access pales into insignificance when compared to the injustice of killing an unborn child because she or he has failed Roe ’ s undue burden test of “ being wanted.
” Effectively , Roe dictated that “ the unwanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not entitled to legal protection to go on living .
The Supreme Court has failed these smallest members of “ our Posterity ” dubbed unwanted .
Denied due process , an innocent unborn child is saddled with the undue burden that she or he must be “ wanted ” to avoid being aborted .
No legal defense whatsoever against her/his unwantedness is presented on the child ’ s behalf .
Contrary to Roe ’ s finding , it is not “ a woman ’ s right ” to demand an abortion on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ unwanted.
” Rather , it is the exercise of a lethal form of discrimination against her child .
Abortion “ rights ” can not be justified by Justice Harry Blackmun ’ s sympathy in Roe for “ the distress , for all concerned , associated with the unwanted child.
” He failed to understand that the quality of unwantedness is not inherent in the child .
The child is not to be blamed or held accountable and punished by death for this quality .
Rather , the unwantedness is per se @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s mother ( and/or influential parties such as the father , family members , friends or even employers . )
It is this prejudice that needs reform .
The child is not to be placed at risk of abortion because others reject her or him as curtailing pursuit of their own personal “ wants.
” RELATED : Hartzler and Dannenfelser : Congress About To Vote on Serious Threat to Women and Unborn At the time Roe was decided , it was assumed “ unwantedness ” must remain a permanent attribute like skin color @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by pro-abortion attorneys such as Catherine Roraback to argue for abortion of these children : “ Children who are unwanted suffer from emotional starvation , often exhibit delayed physical and mental development ; they can not do as well in school , have greater need for psychiatric care , have a higher incidence of juvenile delinquency and child welfare referrals , and later in life need greater public assistance.
” ( Connecticut Legislature Hearing on Abortion , May 19 , 1972 ) There was no understanding that abortion — the prenatal killing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a humane solution to the problem of a child ’ s initial unwantedness .
Roe ’ s errant reading of the Constitution disdains any reference to the Court ’ s duty to protect everyone ’ s right to life — even “ the unwanted.
” For mothers too , there is no room in the Constitution for unchecked egocentrism that insists our own rights are superior to the rights of other human beings ( “ our Posterity ” ) who through no fault of their own depend initially on us ( “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Republic ’ s founding principles of the inalienability of inherent natural rights and of equality and of solidarity — “ ourselves and our Posterity ” — have the authority of reason .
They guard against , inter alia , selfish individualism that would award the blessings of liberty exclusively to ourselves at the expense of our posterity .
Why then this autocratic power conferred on the child ’ s mother to apply the undue burden test of unwantedness enabling lawful abortability ?
Jekyll and Hyde Approaches To Legal Protection for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smallest human beings targeted for abortion pivots on a Jekyll and Hyde dexterity embedded now in U.S. law .
On the one hand , U.S. law as the benevolent Dr. Jekyll recognizes and treats the unborn child as a legitimate subject protected under the rule of law .
The longstanding common law doctrine of the maternal reprieve — codified in 18 U.S.C .
§ 3596 ( 2000 ) — prohibits the execution of any woman who carries an unborn child so that her child ’ s own and separate right to go on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal criminal law recognizes the validity of the right to life entitlement of a condemned woman ’ s unborn child .
There is no quibbling here that the unborn child is not “ a person in the whole sense.
” Indeed , the unborn child is recognized as a full legal “ person ” with separate rights i.e.
, rights independent of her/his convicted mother on death row .
On the other hand , in 18 U.S. Code § 1841 ( c ) — Protection of unborn children , U.S. law as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child is not a legitimate subject of protective law when “ any woman ” ( the child ’ s mother to be exact ) gives permission to her abortionist to conduct the intentional killing of her child .
Here the Mr. Hyde side of U.S. law followed the misdirection in Roe that the unborn child is not a whole “ person ” with independent rights , but rather a part-person/part-something else with no rights of her/his own .
U.S. law in its Mr. Hyde persona arranged immunity from prosecution for “ any woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or for “ a person authorized by law to act on her behalf ” regarding any “ conduct relating to an abortion.
” Protection of Unborn Children Law Says “ Whoever ” But Doesn ’ t Mean “ Whoever ” Yet it makes no sense to provide this immunity from prosecution for a mother and her abortionist in 18 U.S. Code §1841 where it is stated first that a person whose conduct intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child is to be punished .
The “ Protection of unborn children ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in conduct that … thereby causes the death of , or bodily injury … of a child who is in utero … is guilty of a separate offense.
” Subsequently in the same section two , exceptions are introduced to the “ whoever ” language — “ the pregnant woman ” and her abortionist are to be permitted the prohibited conduct .
They are exonerated of obligation to protect the child .
The only stipulation is that the killing is done with the consent of the pregnant woman , or a person authorized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To kill an Unborn Child Requires Only “ The Consent of the Pregnant Woman ” And so since Roe , the question of who is a human being whose life is protected is no longer decided objectively .
Now who decides ?
Apparently , it is the one who is , in today ’ s crude parlance , “ the owner of the uterus ” wherein the child is nurtured .
It is the consent of the pregnant woman that legalizes the intentional killing by abortion of her unborn child .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principle of justice enunciated by James Madison : “ No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause , because his interest would certainly bias his judgment , and , not improbably , corrupt his integrity.
” Since Roe , this founding legal principle has been revoked for women wanting to abort their children .
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause , but every woman is allowed now to be her own judge when it comes to commissioning the killing of her unborn child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aside .
Established legal precedents and interpretations of the Constitution are suspended .
The rule of law has given way to individualistic , “ private ” decisions in which a mother decides that the child in her womb is unwanted and therefore is not a person entitled to be protected from intentional killing .
Each mother is awarded the ultimate legal authority to decide for herself ( subjectively ) what the Constitution means by person .
Thumbs up — her unborn child is a person to be protected under the Constitution .
Thumbs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ person ” whom she or her abortionist has any obligation under the Constitution to protect .
Her consent to have her “ unwanted ” child intentionally killed is all that is required to make the killing “ lawful.
” The fundamental right of a new little daughter or son to go on living , to go on being nurtured and protected in her/his mother ’ s womb , should never have been predicated on “ wantedness.
” The prerequisite that the unborn child be “ wanted ” in order to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undue burden test which should never have been imposed on a defenseless unborn child .
It is time for the Supreme Court to remove this undue burden .
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Come March, the Supreme Court will examine June Medical Services v. Gee, bringing fresh scrutiny to the “undue burden” concept applied to women wanting to abort their children.
A reformed Supreme Court should examine the far more serious undue burden test of being “wanted” inflicted by Roe v. Wade itself on each unborn child’s right to stay alive when threatened with abortion.
Question: What makes a human being lawfully abortable?
Answer: Being “unwanted” by her/his mother.
That was the answer proffered by the Supreme Court majority in Roe v. Wade in 1973. They levied an undue burden test on the unborn at risk of abortion with the novel requirement that the child must be “wanted” in order to deserve any right to go on living. They introduced the concept of lawful killing of “the unwanted child.”
The undue burden concept emerged in the Supreme Court’s 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In 2016 Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court ruled that requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges was “a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions.”
In focusing exclusively on this splinter of undue burden, progressive justices ignored the log in their own eyes.
The undue burden test when applied to the inconvenience suffered by a pregnant mother wanting easier abortion access pales into insignificance when compared to the injustice of killing an unborn child because she or he has failed Roe’s undue burden test of “being wanted.”
Effectively, Roe dictated that “the unwanted child” at risk of abortion is not entitled to legal protection to go on living.
No Due Process for “The Unwanted”
Do you expect the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 74% (32 Votes) No: 26% (11 Votes)
The Supreme Court has failed these smallest members of “our Posterity” dubbed unwanted. Denied due process, an innocent unborn child is saddled with the undue burden that she or he must be “wanted” to avoid being aborted. No legal defense whatsoever against her/his unwantedness is presented on the child’s behalf.
Contrary to Roe’s finding, it is not “a woman’s right” to demand an abortion on the totally invalid grounds that her unborn child is “unwanted.” Rather, it is the exercise of a lethal form of discrimination against her child.
Abortion “rights” cannot be justified by Justice Harry Blackmun’s sympathy in Roe for “the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child.” He failed to understand that the quality of unwantedness is not inherent in the child.
The child is not to be blamed or held accountable and punished by death for this quality. Rather, the unwantedness is per se an attitudinal attribute of the child’s mother (and/or influential parties such as the father, family members, friends or even employers.) It is this prejudice that needs reform.
The child is not to be placed at risk of abortion because others reject her or him as curtailing pursuit of their own personal “wants.”
At the time Roe was decided, it was assumed “unwantedness” must remain a permanent attribute like skin color or race. This negativity was exploited by pro-abortion attorneys such as Catherine Roraback to argue for abortion of these children:
“Children who are unwanted suffer from emotional starvation, often exhibit delayed physical and mental development; they cannot do as well in school, have greater need for psychiatric care, have a higher incidence of juvenile delinquency and child welfare referrals, and later in life need greater public assistance.” (Connecticut Legislature Hearing on Abortion, May 19, 1972)
There was no understanding that abortion — the prenatal killing of “the unwanted child” — is not a humane solution to the problem of a child’s initial unwantedness.
Roe’s errant reading of the Constitution disdains any reference to the Court’s duty to protect everyone’s right to life — even “the unwanted.” For mothers too, there is no room in the Constitution for unchecked egocentrism that insists our own rights are superior to the rights of other human beings (“our Posterity”) who through no fault of their own depend initially on us (“ourselves”) for care and protection.
The Republic’s founding principles of the inalienability of inherent natural rights and of equality and of solidarity — “ourselves and our Posterity” — have the authority of reason. They guard against, inter alia, selfish individualism that would award the blessings of liberty exclusively to ourselves at the expense of our posterity.
Why then this autocratic power conferred on the child’s mother to apply the undue burden test of unwantedness enabling lawful abortability?
Jekyll and Hyde Approaches To Legal Protection for the Unborn
Continuation of this injustice against these smallest human beings targeted for abortion pivots on a Jekyll and Hyde dexterity embedded now in U.S. law.
On the one hand, U.S. law as the benevolent Dr. Jekyll recognizes and treats the unborn child as a legitimate subject protected under the rule of law. The longstanding common law doctrine of the maternal reprieve — codified in 18 U.S.C. § 3596 (2000) — prohibits the execution of any woman who carries an unborn child so that her child’s own and separate right to go on living may be protected.
Accordingly, federal criminal law recognizes the validity of the right to life entitlement of a condemned woman’s unborn child. There is no quibbling here that the unborn child is not “a person in the whole sense.” Indeed, the unborn child is recognized as a full legal “person” with separate rights i.e., rights independent of her/his convicted mother on death row.
On the other hand, in 18 U.S. Code § 1841 (c) — Protection of unborn children, U.S. law as the malevolent Mr. Hyde declares that an unborn child is not a legitimate subject of protective law when “any woman” (the child’s mother to be exact) gives permission to her abortionist to conduct the intentional killing of her child. Here the Mr. Hyde side of U.S. law followed the misdirection in Roe that the unborn child is not a whole “person” with independent rights, but rather a part-person/part-something else with no rights of her/his own.
U.S. law in its Mr. Hyde persona arranged immunity from prosecution for “any woman with respect to her unborn child” or for “a person authorized by law to act on her behalf” regarding any “conduct relating to an abortion.”
Protection of Unborn Children Law Says “Whoever” But Doesn’t Mean “Whoever”
Yet it makes no sense to provide this immunity from prosecution for a mother and her abortionist in 18 U.S. Code §1841 where it is stated first that a person whose conduct intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child is to be punished.
The “Protection of unborn children” law begins with:
“Whoever engages in conduct that … thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury … of a child who is in utero … is guilty of a separate offense.”
Subsequently in the same section two, exceptions are introduced to the “whoever” language — “the pregnant woman” and her abortionist are to be permitted the prohibited conduct. They are exonerated of obligation to protect the child.
The only stipulation is that the killing is done with the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf.
To kill an Unborn Child Requires Only “The Consent of the Pregnant Woman”
And so since Roe, the question of who is a human being whose life is protected is no longer decided objectively. Now who decides? Apparently, it is the one who is, in today’s crude parlance, “the owner of the uterus” wherein the child is nurtured. It is the consent of the pregnant woman that legalizes the intentional killing by abortion of her unborn child.
This flies in the face of that firm principle of justice enunciated by James Madison:
“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”
Since Roe, this founding legal principle has been revoked for women wanting to abort their children. No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, but every woman is allowed now to be her own judge when it comes to commissioning the killing of her unborn child.
The rule of law is brushed aside. Established legal precedents and interpretations of the Constitution are suspended. The rule of law has given way to individualistic, “private” decisions in which a mother decides that the child in her womb is unwanted and therefore is not a person entitled to be protected from intentional killing.
Each mother is awarded the ultimate legal authority to decide for herself (subjectively) what the Constitution means by person. Thumbs up — her unborn child is a person to be protected under the Constitution. Thumbs down — her unborn child is not a “person” whom she or her abortionist has any obligation under the Constitution to protect.
Her consent to have her “unwanted” child intentionally killed is all that is required to make the killing “lawful.”
The fundamental right of a new little daughter or son to go on living, to go on being nurtured and protected in her/his mother’s womb, should never have been predicated on “wantedness.” The prerequisite that the unborn child be “wanted” in order to be protected from abortion constitutes in itself an undue burden test which should never have been imposed on a defenseless unborn child.
It is time for the Supreme Court to remove this undue burden.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-14--UVA Student Chastises White People for the ‘Space You’re Taking Up’ in Open Call for Segregation

Progressives preach to everyone that will listen that racism and discrimination of any kind are unacceptable .
It is one of the few things they are correct about .
But , sadly , they only mean that discrimination and racism are only unacceptable against those they deem deserving .
That does not include white people .
A University of Virginia student showed in a video shared this week that discriminating against white people is just fine , as long as it is done in the name of “ multiculturalism.
” TRENDING : While Dems Rally in Churches and High Schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arena That is the interesting thing about these words the left uses , like “ diversity ” and “ multicultural.
” If you check their definitions , they sound all-inclusive , welcoming of everyone .
But the more you hear leftists say them , the more it seems that those words really just refer to everyone who isn ’ t white .
In the recently captured viral video , a black female student makes an announcement in the school ’ s Multicultural Student Center .
She tells white people that she and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around — and that they should be cognizant of it .
“ If y ’ all didn ’ t know , this is the MSC and frankly there are just too many white people in here and this is a space for people of color , ” the student said .
“ So just be really cognizant of the space that you ’ re taking up because it does make some of us POC ’ s uncomfortable when we see too many white people in here.
” The video stops shortly after those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if anyone got up and left after that , they would have been even more ridiculous than she was .
Bullies like to be loud and intimidating but they are generally powerless when you do not cave to their bullying .
And in a rare case of a school not folding before such a bully , the University of Virginia stood its ground .
RELATED : Radical Left-Wing Prof Urges Humans To Go Extinct In Order To Fight Climate Change “ In order to foster the diversity of experience and ideas that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to study and work , these centers are open to all members of the University community , ” it said in a statement , according to The Cavalier Daily , the school paper .
Imagine that .
A center labeled “ multicultural ” is open to all people .
What a novel idea that is .
The video has received both backlash and praise , but consider what the response would have been had a white student said , “ There are too many people of color in this room and it makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be calls for sensitivity training , the school would have to close as that training took place and staff might have to resign .
This is the legacy left by the divisiveness , the them-versus-us attitude of former President Barack Obama and his administration and what Democrats like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders want to bring back .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Progressives preach to everyone that will listen that racism and discrimination of any kind are unacceptable. It is one of the few things they are correct about.
But, sadly, they only mean that discrimination and racism are only unacceptable against those they deem deserving. That does not include white people.
A University of Virginia student showed in a video shared this week that discriminating against white people is just fine, as long as it is done in the name of “multiculturalism.”
Leftists at the University of Virginia are dictating who is and who isn’t allowed in the new Multicultural Student Center. “Frankly there is just too many white people in here, and this is a space for people of color.” This kind of racist intolerance is NOT multicultural. pic.twitter.com/XkefKqfqLA — YAF (@yaf) February 12, 2020
That is the interesting thing about these words the left uses, like “diversity” and “multicultural.” If you check their definitions, they sound all-inclusive, welcoming of everyone.
But the more you hear leftists say them, the more it seems that those words really just refer to everyone who isn’t white.
In the recently captured viral video, a black female student makes an announcement in the school’s Multicultural Student Center.
She tells white people that she and other people of color feel unsafe with them around — and that they should be cognizant of it.
Do you think that leftists like this student really practice the tolerance they preach? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 6% (52 Votes) No: 94% (886 Votes)
“If y’all didn’t know, this is the MSC and frankly there are just too many white people in here and this is a space for people of color,” the student said.
“So just be really cognizant of the space that you’re taking up because it does make some of us POC’s uncomfortable when we see too many white people in here.”
The video stops shortly after those remarks, but in my humble opinion, if anyone got up and left after that, they would have been even more ridiculous than she was.
Bullies like to be loud and intimidating but they are generally powerless when you do not cave to their bullying.
And in a rare case of a school not folding before such a bully, the University of Virginia stood its ground.
“In order to foster the diversity of experience and ideas that make UVA a great and good place to study and work, these centers are open to all members of the University community,” it said in a statement, according to The Cavalier Daily, the school paper.
Imagine that. A center labeled “multicultural” is open to all people. What a novel idea that is.
The video has received both backlash and praise, but consider what the response would have been had a white student said, “There are too many people of color in this room and it makes us white people feel uncomfortable.”
There would be calls for sensitivity training, the school would have to close as that training took place and staff might have to resign.
This is the legacy left by the divisiveness, the them-versus-us attitude of former President Barack Obama and his administration and what Democrats like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders want to bring back.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-14--As Coronavirus Cases Jump to 60K Overnight, Marines Release ‘Pandemic’ Plan

A major shift in the reported trajectory of the COVID-19 novel coronavirus has rocked China and comes as the U.S. military begins preparations for a pandemic-type scenario on American soil .
A jump in confirmed cases came Thursday morning as Chinese officials gave an updated count of over 59,900 infected on the mainland .
Coupled with international cases , the infected now number over 60,000 .
The increase of 14,840 new cases is the result of the central government ’ s changing criteria used to make a confirmed diagnosis , The New York Times ’ Sui-Lee Wee reported .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much different trajectory than previously thought thanks to more accurate numbers , and hints that not even the Chinese government knows the scale of this outbreak .
While China was blindsided by the contagion , which can spread before symptoms even appear , other countries were able to exploit the small amount of warning they were given .
TRENDING : While Dems Rally in Churches and High Schools , Trump Books New Hampshire 's Largest Arena Many countries surrounding China have shuttered their borders , and entire airlines have canceled flights to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed on American soil , but civil authorities and President Donald Trump have acted to make sure the virus stays contained .
Due to the continuing threat of a potential outbreak , the U.S. military is similarly preparing to fight COVID-19 head-on .
“ The current threat of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus has raised concern that this virus could result in a pandemic disease , ” a Marine administrative message from Wednesday reads .
“ In such a scenario , nCoV could spread , infecting U.S. personnel , and threaten the operational readiness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marines ’ plan focuses on several aspects , all chosen to maintain operational integrity for the force and secure the safety of the American people .
To ensure a healthy fighting force , the message describes an intervention and quarantine plan for personnel that may have been exposed to the virus , as well as plans to contain the virus should outbreaks occur .
The Marines ’ message also lays out support for civilian authorities and the U.S. government during any future efforts to combat a pandemic .
While the United States and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disease , China ’ s communist regime is struggling to keep a lid on the pandemic in the mainland .
Social media postings critical of the ruling communist party and its response to the COVID-19 outbreak have been quickly suppressed , a classic tactic used by the country ’ s leaders .
RELATED : Trump Delivers Powerful Address While Becoming First President To Attend NYC Veterans Day Parade The quarantine isn ’ t only digital , but physical as well .
Tens of millions have been corralled and kept in cities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which hasn ’ t been very effective .
The coronavirus can now be found all across China .
Although our knowledge of this virus is still limited , America ’ s cautious preparations may keep our fate separate from that of China .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

A major shift in the reported trajectory of the COVID-19 novel coronavirus has rocked China and comes as the U.S. military begins preparations for a pandemic-type scenario on American soil.
A jump in confirmed cases came Thursday morning as Chinese officials gave an updated count of over 59,900 infected on the mainland. Coupled with international cases, the infected now number over 60,000.
The increase of 14,840 new cases is the result of the central government’s changing criteria used to make a confirmed diagnosis, The New York Times’ Sui-Lee Wee reported.
This means that the virus now has a much different trajectory than previously thought thanks to more accurate numbers, and hints that not even the Chinese government knows the scale of this outbreak.
While China was blindsided by the contagion, which can spread before symptoms even appear, other countries were able to exploit the small amount of warning they were given.
Many countries surrounding China have shuttered their borders, and entire airlines have canceled flights to the impacted region.
Several cases have been confirmed on American soil, but civil authorities and President Donald Trump have acted to make sure the virus stays contained.
Due to the continuing threat of a potential outbreak, the U.S. military is similarly preparing to fight COVID-19 head-on.
“The current threat of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus has raised concern that this virus could result in a pandemic disease,” a Marine administrative message from Wednesday reads. “In such a scenario, nCoV could spread, infecting U.S. personnel, and threaten the operational readiness of the U.S. Marine Corps.”
Do you think there will be a COVID-19 outbreak on American soil? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 61% (763 Votes) No: 39% (497 Votes)
The Marines’ plan focuses on several aspects, all chosen to maintain operational integrity for the force and secure the safety of the American people.
To ensure a healthy fighting force, the message describes an intervention and quarantine plan for personnel that may have been exposed to the virus, as well as plans to contain the virus should outbreaks occur.
The Marines’ message also lays out support for civilian authorities and the U.S. government during any future efforts to combat a pandemic.
While the United States and its armed forces stand ready to face the disease, China’s communist regime is struggling to keep a lid on the pandemic in the mainland.
Social media postings critical of the ruling communist party and its response to the COVID-19 outbreak have been quickly suppressed, a classic tactic used by the country’s leaders.
The quarantine isn’t only digital, but physical as well.
Tens of millions have been corralled and kept in cities in a bid to contain the virus, which hasn’t been very effective. The coronavirus can now be found all across China.
Although our knowledge of this virus is still limited, America’s cautious preparations may keep our fate separate from that of China.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-13--Dem Senator Criticizes Congress for ‘Not Doing Its Job of Redistributing Income’

Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio accused Congress this week of failing to do “ its job to redistribute income ” in the United States .
Speaking up during a Senate Banking Committee hearing Wednesday , according to the Washington Free Beacon , the prominent left-wing populist railed against his Republican colleagues , arguing the passage of Trump administration tax and budget cuts over the last three years had been a betrayal of the American people .
“ [ Senate Majority Leader Mitch ] McConnell and [ President Donald Trump ] have refused to raise the minimum wage ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at under eight dollars , ” Brown said .
“ They took away overtime for about two or three million Americans because of truncating the overtime rule , tax cuts for the rich and now tax cuts for Medicare.
” “ We know Congress isn ’ t doing its job to redistribute income in any way that ’ s fair to hundreds of millions of Americans , ” he added .
“ We know that.
” Where Brown conceived this apparently manifest piece of knowledge , however , is incredibly unclear .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three-term U.S. senator conceived the idea that is the “ job ” of the Congress to redistribute wealth in this country , either in a fair manner or at all .
Perhaps my reading of the U.S. Constitution is wanting , but no matter how hard I squint , I can not seem to find anywhere in the Article I establishment of the legislature a prescription for a federal body tasked with the termination or reduction of American wealth inequality .
TRENDING : While Dems Rally in Churches and High Schools , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can find is a bicameral legislature , elected to two- and six-year terms and responsible for everything from the declaration of war and the raising of armies to the coining of money and the levying of taxes , with each detail laid out explicitly and exclusively by the Founding Fathers as a power of the federal legislature .
Yet absolutely nowhere within that 2,266-word segment laying the foundation for the legislative branch can I find the authority or obligation to redistribute wealth .
Of course , such power may be read implicitly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which grants the whole of the three-pronged federal government the authority to “ establish Justice , insure domestic Tranquility , provide for the common defence , promote the general Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty.
” RELATED : Children in All 50 States Being Taught Revolutionary War Was Fought To Promote Slavery But frankly , only a fool would wager that a delegation of merchants and militiamen willing to risk public execution in pursuit of freedom from tyranny would give to its ruling elite the obligation to compel or coerce great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to create equality of outcome .
Unfortunately , in many cases , that is exactly what we are dealing with : fools .
A seemingly ever-growing segment of the American population , blissfully unaware of the moral and philosophical grounds upon which the Revolutionary War was fought , has come to believe the role of government is that of a parent or a miracle worker .
Want to change the world ?
Become an educator , politician or activist .
At least that ’ s what America ’ s sons and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools .
And though I have no great hatred for the concept — in fact , I would rather like to see our politicians and educators care that they leave the world a better place than they found it — it is no small thing that the belief has grown so strong as to be used as justification for the removal of limitations on the government ’ s place and power in our society .
The fact that politicians like Brown would egg on such a shift in Americans ’ understanding of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those in the seats of power are the only ones who truly stand to gain anything from a government with such a tyrannically large role .
They ’ re just hoping you ’ ll buy their pie-in-the-sky claims of economic equality and hand over the reins .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio accused Congress this week of failing to do “its job to redistribute income” in the United States.
Speaking up during a Senate Banking Committee hearing Wednesday, according to the Washington Free Beacon, the prominent left-wing populist railed against his Republican colleagues, arguing the passage of Trump administration tax and budget cuts over the last three years had been a betrayal of the American people.
“[Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell and [President Donald Trump] have refused to raise the minimum wage; it’s been stuck for 11 years at under eight dollars,” Brown said. “They took away overtime for about two or three million Americans because of truncating the overtime rule, tax cuts for the rich and now tax cuts for Medicare.”
“We know Congress isn’t doing its job to redistribute income in any way that’s fair to hundreds of millions of Americans,” he added. “We know that.”
Where Brown conceived this apparently manifest piece of knowledge, however, is incredibly unclear.
And all the more unclear is where this three-term U.S. senator conceived the idea that is the “job” of the Congress to redistribute wealth in this country, either in a fair manner or at all.
Perhaps my reading of the U.S. Constitution is wanting, but no matter how hard I squint, I cannot seem to find anywhere in the Article I establishment of the legislature a prescription for a federal body tasked with the termination or reduction of American wealth inequality.
What I can find is a bicameral legislature, elected to two- and six-year terms and responsible for everything from the declaration of war and the raising of armies to the coining of money and the levying of taxes, with each detail laid out explicitly and exclusively by the Founding Fathers as a power of the federal legislature.
Yet absolutely nowhere within that 2,266-word segment laying the foundation for the legislative branch can I find the authority or obligation to redistribute wealth.
Of course, such power may be read implicitly into the document’s preamble, which grants the whole of the three-pronged federal government the authority to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.”
President Trump’s budget is his blueprint for how he wants to pay for his #GOPTaxScam – cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. pic.twitter.com/l5KKVHvjrp — Sherrod Brown (@SenSherrodBrown) February 11, 2020
The top 1% owns about 40% of total household wealth. That’s absurd. There is a massive opportunity gap in this country. We need to address it.https://t.co/E1khlPpard — Sherrod Brown (@SherrodBrown) February 20, 2019
But frankly, only a fool would wager that a delegation of merchants and militiamen willing to risk public execution in pursuit of freedom from tyranny would give to its ruling elite the obligation to compel or coerce great wealth from members of the general public in order to create equality of outcome.
Unfortunately, in many cases, that is exactly what we are dealing with: fools.
A seemingly ever-growing segment of the American population, blissfully unaware of the moral and philosophical grounds upon which the Revolutionary War was fought, has come to believe the role of government is that of a parent or a miracle worker.
Do you believe redistribution of wealth is a constitutional function of government? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 1% (9 Votes) No: 99% (850 Votes)
Want to change the world? Become an educator, politician or activist.
At least that’s what America’s sons and daughters are being taught in our public schools.
And though I have no great hatred for the concept — in fact, I would rather like to see our politicians and educators care that they leave the world a better place than they found it — it is no small thing that the belief has grown so strong as to be used as justification for the removal of limitations on the government’s place and power in our society.
The fact that politicians like Brown would egg on such a shift in Americans’ understanding of the role of government is unsurprising, however.
Those in the seats of power are the only ones who truly stand to gain anything from a government with such a tyrannically large role.
They’re just hoping you’ll buy their pie-in-the-sky claims of economic equality and hand over the reins.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-13--Barr Criticizes Trump’s Tweeting About DOJ Matters: ‘Impossible for Me To Do My Job’

Attorney General William Barr spoke out against President Donald Trump ’ s tweets Thursday , declaring those about Justice Department prosecutors and open cases “ make it impossible for me to do my job.
” Barr made the comment during an interview with ABC News just days after his Justice Department overruled its own prosecutors — who had recommended in a court filing that Trump ’ s longtime ally and confidant Roger Stone be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison — and reduced the amount of prison time it would seek .
The department didn ’ t offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under fire for the reversal , and Thursday ’ s comment served as a defense of his own integrity .
However , he didn ’ t suggest any wrongdoing was involved .
There was no immediate response from the White House about his remarks .
Barr said that Trump ’ s tweets created perception problems for the department that called into question its independence , but he said there was no order from the president and Trump ’ s tweets did not factor into the decision .
TRENDING : While Dems Rally in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Hampshire 's Largest Arena On Wednesday , the president applauded Barr on Twitter for the decision to reverse the sentencing recommendation , writing : “ Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought.
” The department said the decision to undo the sentencing recommendation was made Monday night — before Trump blasted the recommendation on Twitter as “ very horrible and unfair ” — and prosecutors had not spoken to the White House about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorneys who prosecuted Stone to quit the case .
One left the Justice Department altogether .
“ I ’ m happy to say that , in fact , the president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case , ” Barr said in the ABC interview .
“ However , to have public statements and tweets made about the department , about our people in the department , our men and women here , about cases pending in the department , and about judges before whom we have cases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we ’ re doing our work with integrity.
” Stone was convicted in November of tampering with a witness and obstructing the House investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to tip the 2016 election .
He ’ s scheduled to be sentenced next week .
Barr said he was “ of course ” prepared to deal with any ramifications from the president for his comments .
RELATED : Trump Says He Did n't Influence Roger Stone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Things' Administration officials said senior White House aides were not informed of the contents of Barr ’ s interview before it aired .
“ As I said during my confirmation , I came in to serve as attorney general .
I am responsible for everything that happens in the department , but the thing I have most responsibility for are the issues that are brought to me for decision , ” Barr said in the interview .
It is rare for Justice Department leaders to reverse the decision of prosecutors on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been submitted to the court .
The actual sentencing is up to the judge .
“ What they did to Roger Stone was a disgrace , ” Trump said Thursday during an interview with Geraldo Rivera on WTAM-AM .
He said of the prosecutors who resigned in protest , “ I don ’ t think they quit the case .
… I don ’ t think they quit for moral reasons .
I think they got caught in the act by me.
” “ Now what am I going to do , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to jail maybe for nine years when murderers aren ’ t going to jail .
You have some of the most serious horrible rapists and everything else .
They don ’ t go to jail for nine years , ” Trump said .
One person who spoke out against Barr ’ s decision was the forewoman of the jury that convicted Stone last year .
“ I want to stand up for Aaron Zelinsky , Adam Jed , Michael Marando , and Jonathan Kravis — the prosecutors on the Roger Stone Trial , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in a Facebook post .
This week , it was revealed that Hart has made social media posts expressing her distaste for the Trump presidency and his followers as well as revealing her feelings about the Stone trial before he was convicted .
She has called Trump a member of the Ku Klux Klan .
Legal experts told Fox News that Hart provided misleading answers on her jury form about her political and social media activity and her opinion of Trump and the Russia probe .
Barr ’ s decision was applauded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sentence was excessive for a nonviolent offense by a 67-year-old man with no criminal history .
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsay Graham tweeted his support for Barr , saying the president had done a “ great service ” for the people by selecting him and released a statement saying Barr “ has my complete confidence ” and “ is the right man at the right time to reform the department and stand up for the Rule of Law.
” Democrats decried the Justice Department ’ s reversal and called for immediate investigations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Justice Department ’ s inspector general to step in .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Barr had “ stooped to such levels ” and that “ the American people deserve better.
” Barr has been a steady ally of the president ’ s since he returned to the top post at the Justice Department last year .
He cleared the president of obstruction of justice even when special counsel Robert Mueller had pointedly declined to do so , and has declared that the FBI ’ s Russia investigation , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been based on a “ bogus narrative.
” Barr also appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham to lead a criminal inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation , including examining what led the U.S. to open a counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign and the roles that various countries played .
The Associated Press contributed to this report .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Attorney General William Barr spoke out against President Donald Trump’s tweets Thursday, declaring those about Justice Department prosecutors and open cases “make it impossible for me to do my job.”
Barr made the comment during an interview with ABC News just days after his Justice Department overruled its own prosecutors — who had recommended in a court filing that Trump’s longtime ally and confidant Roger Stone be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison — and reduced the amount of prison time it would seek. The department didn’t offer an amended number.
Barr has been under fire for the reversal, and Thursday’s comment served as a defense of his own integrity. However, he didn’t suggest any wrongdoing was involved.
There was no immediate response from the White House about his remarks.
Barr said that Trump’s tweets created perception problems for the department that called into question its independence, but he said there was no order from the president and Trump’s tweets did not factor into the decision.
On Wednesday, the president applauded Barr on Twitter for the decision to reverse the sentencing recommendation, writing: “Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought.”
Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought. Evidence now clearly shows that the Mueller Scam was improperly brought & tainted. Even Bob Mueller lied to Congress! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 12, 2020
The department said the decision to undo the sentencing recommendation was made Monday night — before Trump blasted the recommendation on Twitter as “very horrible and unfair” — and prosecutors had not spoken to the White House about it.
Do you agree with Barr that Trump should stop tweeting about cases in which the DOJ is involved? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 84% (104 Votes) No: 16% (20 Votes)
The about-face prompted the four attorneys who prosecuted Stone to quit the case. One left the Justice Department altogether.
“I’m happy to say that, in fact, the president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case,” Barr said in the ABC interview. “However, to have public statements and tweets made about the department, about our people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department, and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we’re doing our work with integrity.”
Stone was convicted in November of tampering with a witness and obstructing the House investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to tip the 2016 election. He’s scheduled to be sentenced next week.
Barr said he was “of course” prepared to deal with any ramifications from the president for his comments.
Administration officials said senior White House aides were not informed of the contents of Barr’s interview before it aired.
“As I said during my confirmation, I came in to serve as attorney general. I am responsible for everything that happens in the department, but the thing I have most responsibility for are the issues that are brought to me for decision,” Barr said in the interview.
It is rare for Justice Department leaders to reverse the decision of prosecutors on a sentencing recommendation, particularly after that recommendation has been submitted to the court. The actual sentencing is up to the judge.
“What they did to Roger Stone was a disgrace,” Trump said Thursday during an interview with Geraldo Rivera on WTAM-AM.
He said of the prosecutors who resigned in protest, “I don’t think they quit the case. … I don’t think they quit for moral reasons. I think they got caught in the act by me.”
“Now what am I going to do, sit back and let a man go to jail maybe for nine years when murderers aren’t going to jail. You have some of the most serious horrible rapists and everything else. They don’t go to jail for nine years,” Trump said.
One person who spoke out against Barr’s decision was the forewoman of the jury that convicted Stone last year.
“I want to stand up for Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed, Michael Marando, and Jonathan Kravis — the prosecutors on the Roger Stone Trial,” the forewoman, Tomeka Hart, said in a Facebook post.
This week, it was revealed that Hart has made social media posts expressing her distaste for the Trump presidency and his followers as well as revealing her feelings about the Stone trial before he was convicted. She has called Trump a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
Legal experts told Fox News that Hart provided misleading answers on her jury form about her political and social media activity and her opinion of Trump and the Russia probe.
Barr’s decision was applauded by many who said a possible nine-year sentence was excessive for a nonviolent offense by a 67-year-old man with no criminal history.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsay Graham tweeted his support for Barr, saying the president had done a “great service” for the people by selecting him and released a statement saying Barr “has my complete confidence” and “is the right man at the right time to reform the department and stand up for the Rule of Law.”
Democrats decried the Justice Department’s reversal and called for immediate investigations. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for the Justice Department’s inspector general to step in. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Barr had “stooped to such levels” and that “the American people deserve better.”
Barr has been a steady ally of the president’s since he returned to the top post at the Justice Department last year. He cleared the president of obstruction of justice even when special counsel Robert Mueller had pointedly declined to do so, and has declared that the FBI’s Russia investigation, which resulted in charges against Stone, had been based on a “bogus narrative.”
Barr also appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham to lead a criminal inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation, including examining what led the U.S. to open a counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign and the roles that various countries played.
The Western Journal has reviewed this Associated Press story and may have altered it prior to publication to ensure that it meets our editorial standards.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-13--Trump’s America: Biggest Cut in Carbon in the Entire World

Stats just released by the International Energy Agency show that the Trump administration has produced the biggest drop in carbon emissions in the world between 2018 and 2019 !
Despite his rhetorical attacks on the climate change movement , President Donald Trump has led the world in cutting carbon emissions .
“ The US experienced the largest single decline in emissions of any country , unleashed by the cheap natural gas prices offered by the domestic shale boom .
This led to a rapid switch away from coal in the power sector , helping lower emissions by 140m tonnes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Financial Times reported .
“ The shift has come despite the Trump administration ’ s withdrawal from the Paris deal and its strong support for the coal industry , though analysts say the extent of the fall partly reflects that the US power sector was starting from a higher base in terms of coal use.
” Under Trump ( and Obama ) , renewables as sources for the electricity generation have soared to 17 percent of the total .
TRENDING : While Dems Rally in Churches and High Schools , Trump Books @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the renewable energy boom has come , in the U.S. , from traditional sources like hydropower , 7 percent of U.S. electricity is now generated by wind .
Trump ’ s success in cutting carbon emissions in the U.S. is a great example of a central tenet of the triangulation doctrine : “ Use your tools to fix their car.
” Rather than go along with the stultifying , job-killing regulation on industrial activity under the Paris Agreement , Trump has encouraged fracking .
A much better way to cut emissions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraged economic growth while dramatically cutting carbon emissions ( not through regulation but via market forces ) .
It ’ s a shame Trump left this out of his State of the Union speech .
It would have been fun to see if Nancy stood or sat during that part of his address .
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism @ @ @ @ @ @

Stats just released by the International Energy Agency show that the Trump administration has produced the biggest drop in carbon emissions in the world between 2018 and 2019!
Despite his rhetorical attacks on the climate change movement, President Donald Trump has led the world in cutting carbon emissions.
“The US experienced the largest single decline in emissions of any country, unleashed by the cheap natural gas prices offered by the domestic shale boom. This led to a rapid switch away from coal in the power sector, helping lower emissions by 140m tonnes, or almost 3 per cent,” the Financial Times reported.
“The shift has come despite the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Paris deal and its strong support for the coal industry, though analysts say the extent of the fall partly reflects that the US power sector was starting from a higher base in terms of coal use.”
Under Trump (and Obama), renewables as sources for the electricity generation have soared to 17 percent of the total.
While much of the renewable energy boom has come, in the U.S., from traditional sources like hydropower, 7 percent of U.S. electricity is now generated by wind.
Trump’s success in cutting carbon emissions in the U.S. is a great example of a central tenet of the triangulation doctrine: “Use your tools to fix their car.”
Rather than go along with the stultifying, job-killing regulation on industrial activity under the Paris Agreement, Trump has encouraged fracking.
A much better way to cut emissions, the switch to fracking-produced natural gas has encouraged economic growth while dramatically cutting carbon emissions (not through regulation but via market forces).
It’s a shame Trump left this out of his State of the Union speech.
It would have been fun to see if Nancy stood or sat during that part of his address.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-14--Watch: 3 Techniques To Get Out of a Traffic Ticket Guaranteed Not To Work

At one point or another , most drivers will experience being pulled over by a police officer .
It ’ s not a fun experience , no matter what the reason for the stop , but many people make the interaction even more stressful with their behavior .
There are a few standard recommendations that most drivers are aware of : pull to the side of the road when it ’ s safe ( and use your blinker ! )
, get your papers and driver ’ s license ready , keep your hands visible and don ’ t dart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t make a scene .
Some people want to challenge the police officer who comes up to their vehicle .
Asking questions such as why you were pulled over isn ’ t really an issue — it ’ s how the questions are framed that can escalate a situation .
A video recently shared by The Daily Caller highlighted three embarrassing incidents where people used unsuccessful “ tactics ” during a traffic stop .
TRENDING : Veterans Set Ilhan Omar Straight After She Pushes for Major GI Bill Change The first long clip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she only had one drink , but either she was fibbing or she naturally oozes lazy sass .
“ I have had one drink , ” she said .
“ It was a vodka drink.
” As the cop continued to question her , she addressed someone off-screen , casually saying , “ Watch out , they may shoot you , even though you ’ re not black.
” “ OK , that was a very racist comment , ” the officer commented , to which she agreed .
Not quite done with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she has a master ’ s degree , and then asked him , “ What do you have ?
” Though he tried to proceed with the script , she was adamant on the point , so he responded , “ Bachelor ’ s in science , thank you very much.
” “ There we go !
Hey , high-five .
We ’ re on the same page , ” she said , not receiving a high-five in response , which led to another verbal jab .
“ It ’ s OK , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose the ability to high-five.
” Moments later she could be heard sobbing and insisting that she ’ s a “ model citizen.
” The next failure started out reasonably enough but quickly spiraled into what many viewed as a fake breakdown .
“ I work for the county government , ” the woman who had been pulled over explained .
“ Um , I ’ m a county legislator .
You ’ re not going to give me a ticket , are you ?
” “ Uh , I haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the cop replied .
At that , she launched into her sad story , saying she was a “ broke public servant ” as she handed over her paperwork .
When the cop came back to her car , she was hyperventilating and shouting , so the officer asked if she needed medical attention .
In a quick one-two punch , she proclaimed that she has PTSD and also that she was going to protest the ticket in court , followed by several feverish yells .
“ Are you going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked .
It ’ s not clear whether he was giving her a ticket , but she seemed to think he was .
“ Yes , I will listen to you and you ’ re not going to let me go even though I ’ m a county legislator !
And I always do everything right and I follow the law !
” While true PTSD is no joke and there ’ s certainly a chance that someone could have a nervous breakdown in a stressful encounter , this didn ’ t appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third scene shows what appears to be a helicopter mom attempting to get her son out of trouble .
The young man stood to the side , coffee cup in hand , smirking as his mom confronted the two police officers .
“ You ’ re just here as the ride , right ?
” one cop asked her .
But oh no , she was not just there as the ride — she was there to set things right .
“ No , I ’ m not , ” she said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerned citizen and friend of the mayor .
… I take full responsibility for them .
And what is the reason they were pulled over ?
” The officers sidestepped the question , explaining that the driver was over 18 and had been giving all the necessary information , and if she would like it she could ask her son .
She protested , trying to bully the officers into telling her too , but they had had enough .
Toward the end , she shooed away the other people , including her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more information out of the two cops .
She explained that she is a commissioner , and when the cop addressed her as “ miss , ” she corrected him and asked him to address her as “ commissioner.
” But it didn ’ t work .
The last thing she could hurl their way was to tell them , “ I ’ m very disappointed in the way the two of you are acting.
” Take a note from these “ model citizens ” and don ’ t follow in their footsteps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more trouble with the law .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

At one point or another, most drivers will experience being pulled over by a police officer. It’s not a fun experience, no matter what the reason for the stop, but many people make the interaction even more stressful with their behavior.
There are a few standard recommendations that most drivers are aware of: pull to the side of the road when it’s safe (and use your blinker!), get your papers and driver’s license ready, keep your hands visible and don’t dart around, communicate respectfully and don’t make a scene.
Some people want to challenge the police officer who comes up to their vehicle. Asking questions such as why you were pulled over isn’t really an issue — it’s how the questions are framed that can escalate a situation.
A video recently shared by The Daily Caller highlighted three embarrassing incidents where people used unsuccessful “tactics” during a traffic stop.
The first long clip features an unnamed news anchor who claimed she only had one drink, but either she was fibbing or she naturally oozes lazy sass.
“I have had one drink,” she said. “It was a vodka drink.”
As the cop continued to question her, she addressed someone off-screen, casually saying, “Watch out, they may shoot you, even though you’re not black.”
“OK, that was a very racist comment,” the officer commented, to which she agreed.
Not quite done with the jabs yet, she proclaimed that she has a master’s degree, and then asked him, “What do you have?”
Though he tried to proceed with the script, she was adamant on the point, so he responded, “Bachelor’s in science, thank you very much.”
“There we go! Hey, high-five. We’re on the same page,” she said, not receiving a high-five in response, which led to another verbal jab. “It’s OK, maybe when we lose our hair we lose the ability to high-five.”
Moments later she could be heard sobbing and insisting that she’s a “model citizen.”
The next failure started out reasonably enough but quickly spiraled into what many viewed as a fake breakdown.
“I work for the county government,” the woman who had been pulled over explained. “Um, I’m a county legislator. You’re not going to give me a ticket, are you?”
“Uh, I haven’t, I haven’t decided yet,” the cop replied. At that, she launched into her sad story, saying she was a “broke public servant” as she handed over her paperwork.
When the cop came back to her car, she was hyperventilating and shouting, so the officer asked if she needed medical attention. In a quick one-two punch, she proclaimed that she has PTSD and also that she was going to protest the ticket in court, followed by several feverish yells.
“Are you going to listen to me?” the officer asked. It’s not clear whether he was giving her a ticket, but she seemed to think he was.
“Yes, I will listen to you and you’re not going to let me go even though I’m a county legislator! And I always do everything right and I follow the law!”
While true PTSD is no joke and there’s certainly a chance that someone could have a nervous breakdown in a stressful encounter, this didn’t appear to be such a case.
The third scene shows what appears to be a helicopter mom attempting to get her son out of trouble. The young man stood to the side, coffee cup in hand, smirking as his mom confronted the two police officers.
“You’re just here as the ride, right?” one cop asked her. But oh no, she was not just there as the ride — she was there to set things right.
“No, I’m not,” she said. “I’m here as a concerned citizen and friend of the mayor. … I take full responsibility for them. And what is the reason they were pulled over?”
The officers sidestepped the question, explaining that the driver was over 18 and had been giving all the necessary information, and if she would like it she could ask her son. She protested, trying to bully the officers into telling her too, but they had had enough.
Toward the end, she shooed away the other people, including her son, and tried again to get more information out of the two cops. She explained that she is a commissioner, and when the cop addressed her as “miss,” she corrected him and asked him to address her as “commissioner.”
But it didn’t work. The last thing she could hurl their way was to tell them, “I’m very disappointed in the way the two of you are acting.”
Take a note from these “model citizens” and don’t follow in their footsteps if you want to avoid causing even more trouble with the law.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-14--Even Without Green New Deal, Trump’s America #1 in Reducing CO2 Emissions for 2019

Stunning climate data released Tuesday indicates that the international emission of environmentally harmful carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere began to plateau last year after two years of substantial increases .
“ Despite widespread expectations global energy-related CO2 emissions would post another annual increase in 2019 , new @ IEA data shows they were unchanged at 33 gigatonnes even as the world economy expanded by 2.9 [ percent ] , ” International Energy Agency executive director Fatih Birol tweeted .
When the IEA ’ s annual Global CO2 Emissions report for 2019 was published , it was not any one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United Nations ’ progressive Paris climate accords that spearheaded this cessation of emissions .
Instead , it was the United States .
TRENDING : Veterans Set Ilhan Omar Straight After She Pushes for Major GI Bill Change “ The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis , ” the IEA said .
According to the organization , energy-related carbon emissions in the U.S. fell by 140 million tonnes in 2019 to 4.8 gigatonnes — a decrease of 2.9 percent over the previous year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the year 2000 — a decrease of roughly 17 percent — the 20-year low represents “ the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.
” Keeping with international trends , the cuts to U.S. emissions were largely powered by the energy sector ’ s transition to cleaner fossil fuels like natural gas — a transition widely backed by the Trump administration .
“ A 15 % reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019 , ” the IEA reported .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ competition from natural gas-fired generation , with benchmark gas prices an average of 45 % lower than 2018 levels .
As a result , ” the organization added , “ gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37 % .
” RELATED : Radical Left-Wing Prof Urges Humans To Go Extinct In Order To Fight Climate Change Now these are , admittedly , not earth-shattering numbers .
According to estimates made earlier this year by independent American research organization the Rhodium Group , the U.S. is not on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a 17 percent emissions reduction from 2005 levels by 2020 .
And the nation is still nowhere near on track to hit the 2015 Paris Agreement ’ s unreasonable target of 26 to 28 percent reduction from 2005 numbers by 2025 .
But considering this emissions reduction leadership was attained while the international climate sensationalists in Europe sat on their hands , failing to meet any of the requirements of recently signed climate accords , it certainly isn ’ t something one should bat an eye at .
Better yet , these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation strove toward stronger energy independence and lower unemployment rates than it has seen in decades .
Sure , it ’ s no Green New Deal .
Hundreds of thousands of Americans weren ’ t put out of work , the entire U.S. economy wasn ’ t dramatically restructured and we didn ’ t have to rebuild every major structure nationwide ( all good things if you ask a reasonable person ) , but it certainly is a start .
Especially with the rest of the world seemingly stalled at the starting line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Stunning climate data released Tuesday indicates that the international emission of environmentally harmful carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere began to plateau last year after two years of substantial increases.
“Despite widespread expectations global energy-related CO2 emissions would post another annual increase in 2019, new @IEA data shows they were unchanged at 33 gigatonnes even as the world economy expanded by 2.9 [percent],” International Energy Agency executive director Fatih Birol tweeted.
When the IEA’s annual Global CO2 Emissions report for 2019 was published, it was not any one of the nearly 200 signatories of the United Nations’ progressive Paris climate accords that spearheaded this cessation of emissions.
Instead, it was the United States.
BIG NEWS. Despite widespread expectations global energy-related CO2 emissions would post another annual increase in 2019, new @IEA data shows they were unchanged at 33 gigatonnes even as the world economy expanded by 2.9% ➡ https://t.co/MUidUOIIqv pic.twitter.com/B5QZ5S1DEP — Fatih Birol (@IEABirol) February 11, 2020
“The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis,” the IEA said.
According to the organization, energy-related carbon emissions in the U.S. fell by 140 million tonnes in 2019 to 4.8 gigatonnes — a decrease of 2.9 percent over the previous year.
Down nearly one gigatonne from its peak in the year 2000 — a decrease of roughly 17 percent — the 20-year low represents “the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.”
Keeping with international trends, the cuts to U.S. emissions were largely powered by the energy sector’s transition to cleaner fossil fuels like natural gas — a transition widely backed by the Trump administration.
“A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019,” the IEA reported.
“Coal-fired power plants faced even stronger competition from natural gas-fired generation, with benchmark gas prices an average of 45% lower than 2018 levels. As a result,” the organization added, “gas increased its share in electricity generation to a record high of 37%.”
International Energy Agency: “The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis…US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country” https://t.co/LpfXYfGCf2 — Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) February 12, 2020
Facts: The United States led the world last year in global CO2 emissions US emissions decreased by 2.9%—140 MILLION tons That’s more than any country still in the Paris Climate Accord I thought Democrats said when Trump pulled out of that it would be the end of the world? ? — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) February 13, 2020
Now these are, admittedly, not earth-shattering numbers.
According to estimates made earlier this year by independent American research organization the Rhodium Group, the U.S. is not on pace to meet its Copenhagen Accord target of a 17 percent emissions reduction from 2005 levels by 2020.
And the nation is still nowhere near on track to hit the 2015 Paris Agreement’s unreasonable target of 26 to 28 percent reduction from 2005 numbers by 2025.
Do you think free enterprise is the best answer to the world's environmental problems? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 99% (326 Votes) No: 1% (3 Votes)
But considering this emissions reduction leadership was attained while the international climate sensationalists in Europe sat on their hands, failing to meet any of the requirements of recently signed climate accords, it certainly isn’t something one should bat an eye at.
Better yet, these emissions reductions were all attained while the nation strove toward stronger energy independence and lower unemployment rates than it has seen in decades.
Sure, it’s no Green New Deal.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans weren’t put out of work, the entire U.S. economy wasn’t dramatically restructured and we didn’t have to rebuild every major structure nationwide (all good things if you ask a reasonable person), but it certainly is a start.
Especially with the rest of the world seemingly stalled at the starting line.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-14--Virginia Dems Pass Bill To Give All Electoral Votes to Whoever Wins the Popular Vote

The Democrat-controlled Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill Tuesday that would automatically give Virginia ’ s electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote .
House Bill 177 , passed in a 51-46 vote after an amended version of the bill recommended by the body ’ s Privileges and Elections Committee was approved last week .
Should the bill be passed by the Democrat-led state Senate and signed into law by Democratic Gov .
Ralph Northam , Virginia would be entered into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact .
“ Under the compact , Virginia agrees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential ticket that receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia , ” the bill summary says .
Under the U.S. Constitution , presidents are not chosen by a simple majority of the nationwide popular vote .
TRENDING : Veterans Set Ilhan Omar Straight After She Pushes for Major GI Bill Change Instead , under the 12th Amendment , the winning candidate must receive a majority of the votes cast by the states ’ representatives in the Electoral College .
Ever four years , each state holds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the U.S. House of Representatives website , most states have laws on the books requiring that their “ electoral votes go to the candidate who receives the plurality in that state.
” But the Virginia bill seeks to ensure that all of the state ’ s electoral votes would automatically be awarded to whoever wins the national popular vote .
Thus , the votes of Virginia citizens would not directly affect which candidate their state ’ s electoral votes are allocated to .
The Electoral College would subsequently have little purpose in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar laws .
According to PragerU , a nonprofit organization that publishes videos commentating on a variety of topics , America ’ s Founding Father ’ s envisioned the Electoral College as a way to protect against the tyranny of the majority , encourage coalition building and discourage voter fraud .
The Virginia bill argues that since Article II of the Constitution allows for states to award electoral votes as they choose , the state can change the manner in which it participates in presidential elections .
However , Virginia can not make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own .
RELATED : 'The View ' Co-Host Navarro Says US Is Ready for a Woman President Because One 's 'Already Been Elected' Once a group of states possessing a total of 270 electoral votes — a majority of the 538 total — each pass popular vote bills , the compact could change the course of the next election .
According to National Popular Vote , a nonprofit that tracks the status of popular vote bills in each state , 15 states ( and Washington , D.C. ) have passed bills similar to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states possesses a total of 196 electoral votes .
In order for the compact to alter the 2020 election , an additional 74 electoral votes would need to be pledged to automatically go to the popular vote winner .
“ The compact goes into effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have joined the compact , ” the Virginia bill ’ s summary reads .
“ A state may withdraw from the compact ; however , a withdrawal occurring within six months of the end of a President ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a President or Vice President has qualified to serve the next term.
” Popular vote bills have seen a resurgence in state legislatures since President Donald Trump was elected in 2016 , even though former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by roughly 3 million votes .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The Democrat-controlled Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill Tuesday that would automatically give Virginia’s electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote.
House Bill 177, passed in a 51-46 vote after an amended version of the bill recommended by the body’s Privileges and Elections Committee was approved last week.
Should the bill be passed by the Democrat-led state Senate and signed into law by Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, Virginia would be entered into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
“Under the compact, Virginia agrees to award its electoral votes to the presidential ticket that receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia,” the bill summary says.
Under the U.S. Constitution, presidents are not chosen by a simple majority of the nationwide popular vote.
Instead, under the 12th Amendment, the winning candidate must receive a majority of the votes cast by the states’ representatives in the Electoral College.
Ever four years, each state holds an election for president, and according to the U.S. House of Representatives website, most states have laws on the books requiring that their “electoral votes go to the candidate who receives the plurality in that state.”
But the Virginia bill seeks to ensure that all of the state’s electoral votes would automatically be awarded to whoever wins the national popular vote.
Thus, the votes of Virginia citizens would not directly affect which candidate their state’s electoral votes are allocated to. The Electoral College would subsequently have little purpose in Virginia and in states that have passed similar laws.
Do you think abolishing the Electoral College would be a good idea? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 1% (10 Votes) No: 99% (702 Votes)
According to PragerU, a nonprofit organization that publishes videos commentating on a variety of topics, America’s Founding Father’s envisioned the Electoral College as a way to protect against the tyranny of the majority, encourage coalition building and discourage voter fraud.
The Virginia bill argues that since Article II of the Constitution allows for states to award electoral votes as they choose, the state can change the manner in which it participates in presidential elections.
However, Virginia cannot make the national election purely popular on its own.
Virgina has a total of 13 electoral votes.
Once a group of states possessing a total of 270 electoral votes — a majority of the 538 total — each pass popular vote bills, the compact could change the course of the next election.
According to National Popular Vote, a nonprofit that tracks the status of popular vote bills in each state, 15 states (and Washington, D.C.) have passed bills similar to the Virginia bill.
This group of states possesses a total of 196 electoral votes.
In order for the compact to alter the 2020 election, an additional 74 electoral votes would need to be pledged to automatically go to the popular vote winner.
“The compact goes into effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have joined the compact,” the Virginia bill’s summary reads.
“A state may withdraw from the compact; however, a withdrawal occurring within six months of the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President has qualified to serve the next term.”
Popular vote bills have seen a resurgence in state legislatures since President Donald Trump was elected in 2016, even though former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by roughly 3 million votes.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-14--Coronavirus Cripples Communist China, But US Lab Needed Only 3 Hours To Find Vaccine: Report

A team of San Diego laboratory scientists has reportedly created a vaccine for the coronavirus , or COVID-19 , and in potentially record-breaking time .
According to Fox Business , the scientists , operating at a satellite location of Pennsylvania-based American biotech company Inovio Pharmaceuticals , discovered and tested the successful vaccine within three hours of receiving a full overview of the virus ’ genetic composition .
“ We were able to rapidly construct our vaccine in a matter of about three hours once we had the DNA sequence from the virus available because of the power of our DNA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CEO Dr. J. Joseph Kim told the outlet .
“ Our goal is to start phase one human testing in the U.S. early this summer.
” Now , the race is on for the innovators at Inovio to move into the human testing phase and begin working with partners to mass produce its vaccine for international markets .
TRENDING : Veterans Set Ilhan Omar Straight After She Pushes for Major GI Bill Change Kim ’ s company , which has been responsible this past decade for speedy turnarounds on vaccines for both the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referred to as being “ in the same family as COVID-19 ” — and the more recent Zika virus outbreak , is looking to dramatically reduce its typical research , development and production time in response to the world ’ s latest emerging public health threat .
“ We ’ ve done this many , many times before , ” Kim said .
“ We ’ re planning to beat our own record.
” That record reportedly came in 2016 , when Inovio managed to move from vaccine discovery to the human testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Reuters .
But Kim told Fox Business that at the rate Inovio is currently moving , it may be able to do the same thing this year “ in close to half that time.
” Meanwhile , in Wuhan , China , where international health officials believe the virus originated , no such progress is being made .
In fact , all warning signs seem to indicate disaster , as revised totals released by Chinese officials Friday show a spike in virus-related deaths , pushing the death toll to nearly 1,400 — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar 2002 SARS outbreak .
All but a few of those deaths have occurred on mainland China , according to CNN .
Experts at the World Health Organization have been working , however , to stop the spread of stigma or panic surrounding the virus , reminding the international community that a recent broadening of the definition of a confirmed coronavirus case is in part to blame for the rapid increase in reported diagnoses this week .
Regardless , there is no question the societal shock waves of this viral outbreak are reverberating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of cases have been reported .
In Wuhan and other cities in the Chinese province of Hubei , home to nearly 60 million people , public transportation has been shuttered and mass quarantines are being enforced .
Hundreds of miles away from Wuhan , 30 million more Chinese citizens have been put in government-mandated lockdowns , The Washington Post reported .
And caught in the grips of mass panic , the rest of the nation , from rural and suburban communities to the bustling commercial centers in Beijing and Shanghai , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The New York Times , as efforts to stop the virus ’ spread take a turn for the industrial — if not the tyrannical .
The worst of those efforts has even been caught on video , with the U.K. Daily Mail and social media users on the ground reporting hazmat-clad officials have begun clubbing stray animals to death in broad daylight and forcibly arresting suspected patients in their homes .
Unfortunately , it seems such is life in the People ’ s Republic of China .
While struggling to introduce free market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an entirely communist system in 1984 , China still covered roughly 95 percent of its citizens under a basic public health plan in 2017 , according to The BMJ , a peer-reviewed medical journal .
And from several dangerous strains of the Avian influenza to SARS to COVID-19 , the sprawling communist nation has a very real and very recent history when it comes to zoonotic infectious diseases — outbreaks that the Chinese Communist Party has proven time and again to be either unfit or unprepared to deal with .
Yet , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adoption of similar socialized health care systems here in the U.S. is statistically increasing .
Apparently , phenomenal health care outcomes and free markets that drive the creation of vaccines for deadly diseases in three hours or less just isn ’ t cutting it .
The guy in the corner booth with 103-degree fever and the hazmat-clad government official breathing down his neck ?
Yeah , we ’ ll have what he ’ s having .
The ignorance and insanity is truly astounding .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standards .

A team of San Diego laboratory scientists has reportedly created a vaccine for the coronavirus, or COVID-19, and in potentially record-breaking time.
According to Fox Business, the scientists, operating at a satellite location of Pennsylvania-based American biotech company Inovio Pharmaceuticals, discovered and tested the successful vaccine within three hours of receiving a full overview of the virus’ genetic composition.
“We were able to rapidly construct our vaccine in a matter of about three hours once we had the DNA sequence from the virus available because of the power of our DNA medicine platform,” Inovio president and CEO Dr. J. Joseph Kim told the outlet.
“Our goal is to start phase one human testing in the U.S. early this summer.”
Now, the race is on for the innovators at Inovio to move into the human testing phase and begin working with partners to mass produce its vaccine for international markets.
Kim’s company, which has been responsible this past decade for speedy turnarounds on vaccines for both the MERS virus — a coronavirus strain he referred to as being “in the same family as COVID-19” — and the more recent Zika virus outbreak, is looking to dramatically reduce its typical research, development and production time in response to the world’s latest emerging public health threat.
“We’ve done this many, many times before,” Kim said. “We’re planning to beat our own record.”
San Diego lab claims to have discovered a coronavirus vaccine in 3 hours – but testing it will take months https://t.co/viZMlvgnVh pic.twitter.com/YZYWHwN2qd — CBS News (@CBSNews) February 14, 2020
That record reportedly came in 2016, when Inovio managed to move from vaccine discovery to the human testing phase in under seven months, according to Reuters.
But Kim told Fox Business that at the rate Inovio is currently moving, it may be able to do the same thing this year “in close to half that time.”
Meanwhile, in Wuhan, China, where international health officials believe the virus originated, no such progress is being made.
In fact, all warning signs seem to indicate disaster, as revised totals released by Chinese officials Friday show a spike in virus-related deaths, pushing the death toll to nearly 1,400 — well number of people killed by the similar 2002 SARS outbreak.
All but a few of those deaths have occurred on mainland China, according to CNN.
AFP graphic on the global spread of the #coronavirus COVID-19. China virus death toll nears 1,400 with 64,000 infected. pic.twitter.com/wacJ9ZgVhR — AFP news agency (@AFP) February 14, 2020
Chinese state media releases footage of dozens of trucks spray disinfectants in the city of Luoyang amid the coronavirus outbreak. The death toll of 1,017 has surpassed that of the SARS epidemic, with all but one of the deaths occurring in China. https://t.co/hyKdXyKg21 pic.twitter.com/b0FEIXrVrr — ABC News (@ABC) February 11, 2020
Experts at the World Health Organization have been working, however, to stop the spread of stigma or panic surrounding the virus, reminding the international community that a recent broadening of the definition of a confirmed coronavirus case is in part to blame for the rapid increase in reported diagnoses this week.
Regardless, there is no question the societal shock waves of this viral outbreak are reverberating violently in China, where the vast majority of cases have been reported.
In Wuhan and other cities in the Chinese province of Hubei, home to nearly 60 million people, public transportation has been shuttered and mass quarantines are being enforced.
Hundreds of miles away from Wuhan, 30 million more Chinese citizens have been put in government-mandated lockdowns, The Washington Post reported.
And caught in the grips of mass panic, the rest of the nation, from rural and suburban communities to the bustling commercial centers in Beijing and Shanghai, have all but shut down, according to The New York Times, as efforts to stop the virus’ spread take a turn for the industrial — if not the tyrannical.
The worst of those efforts has even been caught on video, with the U.K. Daily Mail and social media users on the ground reporting hazmat-clad officials have begun clubbing stray animals to death in broad daylight and forcibly arresting suspected patients in their homes.
Would you prefer a socialized health care system in the U.S.? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 1% (21 Votes) No: 99% (1442 Votes)
Unfortunately, it seems such is life in the People’s Republic of China.
While struggling to introduce free market health care alternatives since moving away from an entirely communist system in 1984, China still covered roughly 95 percent of its citizens under a basic public health plan in 2017, according to The BMJ, a peer-reviewed medical journal.
And from several dangerous strains of the Avian influenza to SARS to COVID-19, the sprawling communist nation has a very real and very recent history when it comes to zoonotic infectious diseases — outbreaks that the Chinese Communist Party has proven time and again to be either unfit or unprepared to deal with.
Yet, the allure of candidates who advocate for the adoption of similar socialized health care systems here in the U.S. is statistically increasing.
Apparently, phenomenal health care outcomes and free markets that drive the creation of vaccines for deadly diseases in three hours or less just isn’t cutting it.
The guy in the corner booth with 103-degree fever and the hazmat-clad government official breathing down his neck?
Yeah, we’ll have what he’s having.
The ignorance and insanity is truly astounding.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.