Throughout history, personal liberty, free markets, and peaceable, voluntary exchanges have been roundly denounced by tyrants and often greeted with suspicion by the general public. Unfortunately, argues Dr. Walter E. Williams, Americans have increasingly accepted the tyrannical ideas of reduced private property rights and reduced rights to profits, and have become enamored with restrictions on personal liberty and control by government.
Author: Papa Giorgio
“Redlining” | Thomas Sowell
BANK LOANS
Group Disparities
In the course of a long and heated campaign in politics and in the media during the early twenty-first century, claiming that there was rampant discrimination against black home mortgage loan applicants, data from various sources were cited repeatedly, showing that black applicants for the most desirable kind of mortgage were turned down substantially more often than white applicants for those same mortgages.
In the year 2000, for example, data from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights showed that 44.6 percent of black applicants were turned down for those mortgages, while only 22.3 percent of white applicants were turned down.1 These and similar statistics from other sources set off widespread denunciations of mortgage lenders, and demands that the government “do something” to stop rampant racial discrimination in mortgage lending institutions.
The very same report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which showed that blacks were turned down for conventional mortgages at twice the rate for whites, contained other statistics showing that whites were turned down for those same mortgages at a rate nearly twice that for “Asian Americans and Native Hawaiians.”
While the rejection rate for white applicants was 22.3 percent, the rejection rate for Asian Americans and Native Hawaiians was 12.4 percent.2 But such data seldom, if ever, saw the light of day in most newspapers or on most television news programs, for which the black-white difference was enough to convince journalists that racial bias was the reason.
That conclusion fit existing preconceptions, apparently eliminating a need to check whether it also fit the facts. This one crucial omission enabled the prevailing preconception to dominate discussions in politics, in the media and in much of academia.
One of the very few media outlets to even consider alternative explanations for the black-white statistical differences was the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which showed that 52 percent of blacks had credit scores so low that they would qualify only for the less desirable subprime mortgages, as did 16 percent of whites. Accordingly, 49 percent of blacks in the data cited by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ended up with subprime mortgages, as did 13 percent of whites and 10 percent of Asians.3 In short, the three groups’ respective rankings in terms of the kinds of mortgage loans they could get was similar to their respective rankings in average credit ratings.
But such statistics, so damaging to the prevailing preconception that intergroup differences in outcomes showed racial bias, were almost never mentioned in most of the mass media. With credit ratings being what they were, the statistics were consistent with Discrimination IA (judging each applicant as an individual), but were reported in the media, in politics and in academia as proof of Discrimination II, arbitrary bias against whole groups.
While the omitted statistics would have undermined the prevailing preconception that white lenders were biased against black applicants, that preconception at least seemed plausible, even if it failed to stand up under closer scrutiny. But the idea that white lenders would also be discriminating against white applicants, and in favor of Asian applicants, lacked even plausibility. What was equally implausible was that black-owned banks were discriminating against black applicants. But in fact black-owned banks turned down black applicants for home mortgage loans at a higher rate than did white-owned banks.4
[1] United States Commission on Civil Rights, Civil Rights and the Mortgage Crisis (Washington: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2009), p. 53.
[2] Ibid. See also page 61; Robert B. Avery and Glenn B. Canner, “New Information Reported under HMDA and Its Application in Fair Lending Enforcement,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Summer 2005, p. 379; Wilhelmina A. Leigh and Danielle Huff, “African Americans and Homeownership: The Subprime Lending Experience, 1995 to 2007,” Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, November 2007, p. 5.
[3] Jim Wooten, “Answers to Credit Woes are Not in Black and White,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, November 6,2007, p. 12A.
[4] Harold A. Black, M. Cary Collins and Ken B. Cyree, “Do Black-Owned Banks Discriminate Against Black Borrowers?” Journal of Financial Services Research, Vol. 11, Issue 1-2 (February 1997), pp. 189-204. Here, as elsewhere, it should not be assumed that two unexamined samples are equal in the relevant variable& In this case, there is no reason to assume that those blacks who applied to black banks were the same as those blacks who applied to white banks.
Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities, Revised and Enlarged Edition (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2019), 88-89 (added references).
With Michelle Obama recently railing on White Americans for “white flight” from her Chicago neighborhood as a kid, Larry explains his experience with the same phenomenon growing up in Los Angeles. However, he describes a very different experience with the issue of race relations, and it’s not as black and white as one would think.
BACKGROUND CHECKS
To take an extreme example of Discrimination 1b, for the sake of illustration, if 40 percent of the people in Group X are alcoholics and 1 percent of the people in Group Y are alcoholics, an employer may well prefer to hire only people from Group Y for work where an alcoholic would be not only ineffective but dangerous. This would mean that a majority of the people in Group X — 60 percent in this case — would be denied employment, even though they are not alcoholics.
What matters, crucially, to the employer is the cost of determining which individual is or is not an alcoholic, when job applicants all show up sober on the day when they are seeking employment.
This also matters to the customers who buy the employer’s products and to society as a whole. If alcoholics produce a higher proportion of products that turn out to be defective, that is a cost to customers, and that cost may take different forms. For example, the customer could buy the product and then discover that it is defective. Alternatively, defects in the product might be discovered at the factory and discarded. In this case, the customers will be charged higher prices for the products that are sold, since the costs of defective products that are discovered and discarded at the factory must be covered by the prices charged for the reliable products that pass the screening test and are sold.
To the extent that alcoholics are not only less competent but dangerous, the costs of those dangers are paid by either fellow employees who face those dangers on the job or by customers who buy dangerously defective products, or both. In short, there are serious costs inherent in the situation, so that either 60 percent of the people in Group X or employers or customers— or all three groups— end up paying the costs of the alcoholism of 40 percent of the people in Group X
This is certainly not judging each job applicant as an individual, so it is not Discrimination I in the purest sense of Discrimination Ia. On the other hand, it is also not Discrimination II, in the sense of decisions based on a personal bias or antipathy toward that group. The employer might well have personal friends from Group X, based on far more knowledge of those particular individuals than it is possible to get about job applicants, without prohibitive costs.
The point here is neither to justify nor condemn the employer but to classify different decision-making processes, so that their implications and consequences can be analyzed separately. If judging each person as an individual is Discrimination 1a, we can classify as Discrimination 1b basing decisions about groups on information that is correct for that group, though not necessarily correct for every individual in that group, nor necessarily even correct for a majority of the individuals in that group.
A real-life example of the effect of the cost of knowledge in this context is a study which showed that, despite the reluctance of many employers to hire young black males, because a significant proportion of them have criminal records (Discrimination 1b), those particular employers who automatically did criminal background checks on all their employees (Discrimination 1a) tended to hire more young black males than did other employers.1
In other words, where the nature of the work made criminal background checks worth the cost for all employees, it was no longer necessary to use group information to assess whether individual young black job applicants had a criminal background. This made young black job applicants without a criminal background more employable than before.
More is involved here than simply a question of nomenclature. It has implications for practical policies in the real world. Many observers, hoping to help young black males have more employment opportunities, have advocated prohibiting employers from asking job applicants questions about a criminal record. Moreover, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued employers who do criminal background checks on job applicants, on grounds that this was racial discrimination, even when it was applied to all job applicants, regardless of race.2 Empirically, however, criminal background checks provided more employment opportunities for young black males.
[1] Harry J. Holzer, Steven Raphael, and Michael A. Stoll, “Perceived Criminality, Criminal Background Checks, and the Racial Hiring Practices of Employers,” Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 49, No. 2 (October 2006), pp. 452, 473.
[2] Jason L. Riley, “Jobless Blacks Should Cheer Background Checks,” Wall Street Journal, August 23, 2013, p. All; Paul Sperry, “Background Checks Are Racist?” Investor’s Business Daily, March 28, 2014, p. Al.
Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2018), 23-25 (added references).
Rich or poor, most people agree that wealth disparities exist. Thomas Sowell discusses the origins and impacts of those wealth disparities in his new book, Discrimination and Disparities in this episode of Uncommon Knowledge.
Sowell explains his issues with the relatively new legal standard of “disparate impact” and how it disregards the American legal principle of “burden of proof.” Sowell and Robinson discuss how economic outcomes vary greatly across individuals and groups and that concepts like “disparate impact” fail to take into account these variations.
They chat about the impact of nuclear families on the IQs of individuals, as studies have not only shown that children raised by two parents tend to have higher levels of intelligence but also that first-born and single children have even higher intelligence levels than those of younger siblings, indicating that the time and attention given by parents to their children greatly impacts the child’s future more than factors like race, environment, or genetics. Sowell talks about his book in which he wrote extensively about National Merit Scholarship finalists who more often than not were the first-born or only child in a family.
Sowell and Robinson go on to discuss historical instances of discrimination and how those instances affected economic and social issues within families, including discrimination created by housing laws in the Bay Area. They discuss unemployment rates, violence, the welfare state in regards to African American communities, and more.
The Housing Crisis of 2008 Revisited
THOMAS SOWELL UPDATE
Thomas Sowell discusses how we got into the current economic disaster that developed out of the economics and politics of the housing boom and bust.
This is an older topic that was freshly visited by the Sage of South Central (Larry Elder) because of a caller calling him disingenuous. I edit his segment on it — directly below — and add links to many resources for further study. Enjoy, and please, pass along to Democrat friends and family that have a skewed view of this ~ blaming corporations, banks, or Wall Street.
The line-up of video used in the above Larry Elder audio is as follows:
- Bill Clinton vs. Barney Frank on Freddie/Fannie
- Flashback » Maxine Waters And Dems Defend Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac
- How Housing Policy Caused the Financial Crisis
- Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown
Here is some of the resources I have previously posted on my site — bringing them to one place for the furtherance of putting liberals in their place.
- AEI Scholar Peter J. Wallison Talks Housing Crisis ~ Larry Elder interviews Peter J. Wallison, a lawyer and the Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He specializes in financial markets deregulation.
This is a good montage proving what is being attributed to the Democrats:
Larry Elder on his FACEBOOK notes some of these articles, so I will as well:
- This is Not George Bush’s Financial Crisis: Democrats Cannot Evade Responsibility For Much Longer
- “Hidden in Plain Sight” ~ Q&A with Peter Wallison on the 2008 financial crisis and why it might happen again
The following are very similar in substance (much of the video used at least). However, it is commented on and reordered a bit to make varying points that differ substantially:
- The Financial Crisis: Lets Go to the Video Tape…
- Democrats block regulation contributing to the 2008 housing financial crisis
This is merely a caller into the Michael Medved explaining succinctly the issue: Best Call of the Week. Likewise, here is a 30-second rebuttal by Larry Elder of the issue on his radio show: A Quick Rebuff to Freddie Fannie Charge. And finally here is Judge Andrew Napolitano’s speaking to the issue:
I hope this helps people settle old conversations.
Thomas Sowell asks three questions of the left with a claim that it is rare that the answers are readily available. This video frames the housing market crash from 2008 and challenges those on both the Right and Left. When a social policy is adopted and becomes a top priority – asking honest questions is the only way of ensuring you remain objective. The radical left today appears to run into difficulty when those same questions are asked. I certainly don’t agree with all of Sowell’s positions on every topic, but the questions are worthy of being asked.
How the democrats caused the financial crisis: starring Bill Clinton’s HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo. From Carter through Obama… banks didn’t want to be seen as racist, and ACORN w/ Obama pushing for more “affirmative action loans,” caused the Housing crisis.
Here is more from Moonbattery:
Old news, Democrats will scoff. But if you’re like me and lost the equivalent of years of work in the 2008 meltdown, you might still be interested in who was responsible. The truth is coming to light:
In a just-released book, former FCIC [Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission] member Peter Wallison says that a Democratic Congress worked with the commission’s Democratic chairman to whitewash the government’s central role in the mortgage debacle. The conspiracy helped protect some of the Democrats’ biggest stars from scrutiny and accountability while helping justify the biggest government takeover of the financial sector since the New Deal.
Wallison’s sobering, trenchantly written “Hidden in Plain Sight: What Really Caused the World’s Worst Financial Crisis and Why It Could Happen Again” reveals that the Democrat-led panel buried key data proving that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and other federal agencies pushed the housing market over the subprime cliff. The final FCIC report put the blame squarely on Wall Street.
In 2009, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed her California pal Phil Angelides, a long-time Democrat operative, to lead the commission. The fix seemed to be in, and Wallison’s account of the inner workings of the 10-member body confirms it.
See IBD for details on how the phony $10 million probe came up with the predetermined verdict that free enterprise caused the collapse, which in reality was the result of the federal government inflicting Affirmative Action on the mortgage industry.
Here is a response from a friend on FaceBook:
- Happened almost 8 years into George W”s watch after controlling both Houses from 95-07. Hogwash and you know it!
My Response (edited):
…He (Bush and the Republicans) tried multiple times to change the now apparent issue…. 17-times to be exact:
2007 August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President’s warnings and calls on him to “immediately reconsider his ill-advised” position. (Eric Dash, “Fannie Mae’s Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism,” The New York Times, 8/11/07)
[….]
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions “why weren’t we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years.” (Dawn Kopecki, “Fannie Mae, Freddie ‘House Of Cards’ Prompts Takeover,” Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
Conservative-Republican ideals ~ [if] allowed to be implemented into law would have stopped this. And as Clinton clearly stated:
And as other video from committee meetings show, the first being Republicans bringing to light the issue:
As well as Democrats BLOCKING legislation that Republicans were trying to impose to stop the failure:
Some “Rona” Antibody Updates
CHICAGO CITY WIRE has this story (with thanks to FREE REPUBLIC):
A phlebotomist working at Roseland Community Hospital said Thursday that 30% to 50% of patients tested for the coronavirus have antibodies while only around 10% to 20% of those tested have the active virus.
Sumaya Owaynat, a phlebotomy technician, said she tests between 400 and 600 patients on an average day in the parking lot at Roseland Community Hospital. Drive-thru testing is from 9 a.m. to noon and 1 to 4 p.m. each day. However, the hospital has a limited number of tests they can give per day.
Owaynat said the number of patients coming through the testing center who appear to have already had coronavirus and gotten over it is far greater than those who currently have the disease.
“A lot of people have high antibodies, which means they had the coronavirus but they don’t have it anymore and their bodies built the antibodies,” Owaynat told Chicago City Wire.
Antibodies in the bloodstream reveal that a person has already had the coronavirus and may be immune to contracting the virus again.
If accurate, this means the spread of the virus may have been underway in the Roseland community – and the state and country as a whole – prior to the issuance of stay at home orders and widespread business closures in mid-March which have crippled the national economy….
A hat-tip to an unnamed friend from Facebook who didn’t want to post a DAILY WIRE article on her Facebook for fear of retaliation…
…At a hospital in Chicago, a non-randomized sample found that 30-50% of patients tested for COVID-19 have antibodies in their system, suggesting they already had the virus and have potential immunity.
“A phlebotomist working at Roseland Community Hospital said Thursday that 30% to 50% of patients tested for the coronavirus have antibodies while only around 10% to 20% of those tested have the active virus,” Chicago City Wire reported Thursday.
“Sumaya Owaynat, a phlebotomy technician, said she tests between 400 and 600 patients on an average day in the parking lot at Roseland Community Hospital. Drive-thru testing is from 9 a.m. to noon and 1 to 4 p.m. each day. However, the hospital has a limited number of tests they can give per day,” the report detailed. “Owaynat said the number of patients coming through the testing center who appear to have already had coronavirus and gotten over it is far greater than those who currently have the disease.”
“A lot of people have high antibodies, which means they had the coronavirus but they don’t have it anymore, and their bodies built the antibodies,” Owaynat told Chicago City Wire.
[….]
An antibody test study is reportedly underway in California by researchers at Stanford University.
“Researchers at Stanford Medicine are working to find out what proportion of Californians have already had COVID-19. The new study could help policymakers make more informed decisions during the coronavirus pandemic,” KSBW 8 News reported. “The team tested 3,200 people at three Bay Area locations on Saturday using an antibody test for COVID-19 and expect to release results in the coming weeks.”
This study mentioned at Stanford was brought up in conversation last week by my oldest son, and we are all (as a family) curious if the most vulnerable already had it as my father-in-law was pretty sick a few months back. Here is Victor Davis Hanson speaking to this issue with reference to the Stanford study as well (VDH is part of the Hoover Institution).
This article from PATCH is a bit critical of Hanson, but all-in-all, the common sense factor is there for me. Let me just say I am not convinced by the rejection of something stated without a refutation of the evidences mentioned. Chicago is already disproving Patch’s “expert input,” plus, I do not have to be an evolutionary biologist to critique neo-Darwinian theory, nor a woman to discuss the factual ending of a human life in the womb.
I am a fan, however, of this CLASSIC statement by William F. Buckley:
- “I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2000 people on the faculty of Harvard University.”
(See also this MERCURY NEWS article on what Stanford has and is doing):
….“When you add it all up it would be naïve to think that California did not have some exposure,” Hanson told KSBW 8.
Stanford Medicine is conducting a study that may back up his assertion.
Stanford researchers took blood samples from approximately 3,200 volunteers in Santa Clara County on Friday and Saturday according to The Stanford Daily.
The test will show whether someone has been infected with the virus, including those who experienced mild or no symptoms, Stanford Associate Professor of Medicine Eran Bendavid told The Stanford Daily.
“It’s hard to stand up in this epidemic and say, ‘Look, we really don’t know if this epidemic is impending Armageddon,'” Bendavid said. “In order to know and reduce that uncertainty, you need numbers.”
Hanson believes the numbers could show that more Californians have been exposed to the virus than was previously known.
“One less-mentioned hypothesis is that California, as a front-line state, may have rather rapidly developed a greater level of herd immunity than other states, given that hints, anecdotes, and some official indications from both China and Italy that, again, the virus may well have been spreading abroad far earlier than the first recorded case in the U.S. —and likely from the coasts inward,” he wrote in a March 31 National Review column.
“So given the state’s unprecedented direct air access to China, and given its large expatriate and tourist Chinese communities, especially in its huge denser metropolitan corridors in Los Angeles and the Bay Area, it could be that what thousands of Californians experienced as an unusually “early” and “bad” flu season might have also reflected an early coronavirus epidemic, suggesting that many more Californians per capita than in other states may have acquired immunity to the virus.”…
AMERICAN THINKER joins the fray as well:
…In my home state of Colorado, “Health officials now believe the new coronavirus was circulating in Colorado as early as mid-January, about six weeks before the state even had the ability to test people for the disease.” These individuals, if extremely sick, might test negative for influenza and other known viruses, yet might still have a rough course just as the current COVID-19 patients are experiencing.
Again, if cases were circulating in the U.S. in mid-January, first cases were a month or two earlier, some symptomatic, some asymptomatic, but all below the radar.
Where were these first patients coming from? U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports, “Some 14,000 people flew into the U.S. from China each day — almost 5 million for that year.” Let me repeat, 14,000 people each day.
This was likely higher during the Christmas holidays with American students studying in China, and vice versa, returning home in December, then back to school in January. How many of these young people were asymptomatic carriers, bringing the Wuhan virus to parents, grandparents, and their professors?…
Best Gun For Any Type Of Shooting
Via MINUTE MAN:
Who Stands To Benefit from “The Rona” (China? Democrats? Socialism?)
(Why I now call it THE RONA)
FIRST and FOREMOST, I wish to set up the two audios well, as, I think the articles linked are MUST READS, and they describe the possibility of the post by OLD SCHOOL PATRIOT (Col Allen West, BTW) So, here is the description portion used for both Rush Limbaugh audios:
First, let’s lay up the main story with some earlier observations via the WASHINGTON TIMES:
- Coronavirus May Have Originated In Lab Linked To China’s Biowarfare Program (WASHINGTON TIMES, January 26th — follow the two links that say “HERE” — also LINKED BELOW):
- Coronavirus Lab Escape Theory Advances (WASHINGTON TIMES, April 8th)
CNN has an interesting story as well regarding some arrests of Harvard University faculty that may be involved in bolstering the lab in Wuhan’s research:
- Harvard Professor Among Three Charged With Lying About Chinese Government Ties (CNN, January 28th)
And finally — NATIONAL REVIEW notes an arrest by Border Patrol and detailing of suspicious activity in transporting SARS and MERS in and out of our country:
- Border Patrol Stopped a Chinese Biologist Carrying Viable SARS, MERS Viruses at Detroit Airport in 2018 (NATIONAL REVIEW, March 30th)
THIS ALL leads to this post by COL. ALLEN WEST titled, “SOMETHING SMELLS“.
EXCERPT:
…It cannot be debated, we have been hit with a massive biological agent. The question is not whether there was intent, but rather the level of intent. Sure, there are such things as coincidences, but in this specific case, nah. The indicators, trends, and warnings all lead to a simple, and reasonable, deduction.
Wuhan to Shanghai = 839 km
Wuhan to Beijing = 1,152 km
Wuhan to Milan = 8,684 km
Wuhan to NY = 12,033 km
The coronavirus started in Wuhan, yet there has been no major effect of Chinese coronavirus in nearby Beijing or Shanghai. Yet, there have been many deaths in Italy, Iran, European countries, and America. All business areas of China are now safe, so declared by the Communist Chinese government.
America is not just blaming China without a reason. The virology lab that does research on bats that carry the coronavirus is in Wuhan. The Chinese Army’s biological research lab is in Wuhan. The university that is connected to the Harvard University biology and chemistry professor who was arrested in January is the Wuhan University of Technology. As for the two doctors who treated the first cases of the Wuhan coronavirus, one is dead, the other is missing.
Even today, India is locked down, yet all the cities of China are open. China has also announced the opening of Wuhan beginning April 8th. Not a single leader in China has tested positive for the deadly coronavirus.
The virus has ruined many economies around the world. Many have had to close their borders in an attempt to contain and control the spread of the coronavirus. Thousands have lost their lives, millions have been exposed to this pestilence, countless people have been locked in their homes, and many countries have placed their citizens on lockdown.
The coronavirus originated in the city of Wuhan in China. We are told its origin is out of a wet market. Yet, these same wet markets remain open. Did someone release one of the lab bats into the local wet market? The Wuhan coronavirus has now reached every corner of the world, but the virus did not have deadly consequences in China’s capital of Beijing nor China’s economic capital of Shanghai, located in close proximity to Wuhan itself.
Or maybe it has and we just do not know about it?…
I found this post compelling due to the odd — to say the least — activity surrounding these viruses and this lab in Wuhan. Fact Checks of the story from January are rushed to a judgement based on incomplete evidence and a theory that it is a bio-weapon, strictly speaking. Here are two article refuting such nonsense (via the January Washington Times article):
- Experts Know The New Coronavirus Is Not A Bioweapon. They Disagree On Whether It Could Have Leaked From A Research Lab (BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENCES, March 30th)
- The Proximal Origin Of SARS-CoV-2 (JOURNAL NATURE, March 17th)
All this is VERY interesting indeed!
This whole adventure is a key time for Democrats to try and defeat Trump by various means. One being vote by mail and early voting (all harvested of course). Here are some articles about this:
- Voting by Mail Is a Terrible Democrat Idea that Invites Fraud (BREITBART)
- California Compromised (RPT)
- Voter Fraud Is A Huge Problem In The Democratic Party (LIFESITE NEWS)
- Voter Fraud – Guess Who? (RPT) — older post regarding Democrats voting fraudulently – in general
- Coronavirus: Arizona Democrats Push for All-Mail Voting in 2020 Election (BREITBART)
- Democrats Want To Use The Coronavirus Relief Bill To Seize Control Of Elections (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)
- Citing Coronavirus Threat, Texas Democrats Sue To Expand Mail-In Voting (TEXAS TRIBUNE)
- Democrats Introduce Bill To Expand Early And By-Mail Voting (HUFFPOST)
ALL THAT BEING SAID, here are the two audios I think are relevant considering the above:
China Back To Normal (Limbaugh Part 1)
Rush Limbaugh notes that the media, some “scientific acolytes,” and political figures seem to want to hurt Trump bad enough that they would root and actively work against our economy. But the reason I am using this audio is also to bolster the idea that it almost seems to be a purposeful manipulation against Europe and the Americas. Not saying this was virus was released purposefully (see PART 2 below), but that if an accident, it seems to be used to benefit China. Not a conspiracy as much as an observation. This description will essentially be the same for Parts 1 and 2…
Rush Refutes MSM’s Conspiracy Charges (Part 2)
A caller floats a plausible theory that segues into a response to the Media (and Democrats and #NeverTrumpers) saying he [the MahaRushdi] said the virus was a Chinese chemical bio-weapon unleashed on the U.S. purposefully. This is a good example of how the media and the “fact checkers” distort reality.
Drive Thru Churches (The “RONA” 2020 Update)
(First posted in 2011)
Good example of most Christians these days.
I am updating this post with recent events — the above is “orthodox humor,” the below is of a more serious [secular] matter. (The above is technically MORE serious, as the watering down of the Gospel Message would be more “life-threatening through all eternity.”)
Many churches are offering drive-thru prayer — and one church is even planning a drive-in service with a jumbotron — as congregations are no longer able to meet in person for large gatherings to limit the spread of the coronavirus outbreak.
Troy Brewer, senior pastor of 5,000-member OpenDoor Church in Burleson, Texas, in Fort Worth area, told Fox News the circumstances may hinder their outreach globally but now is the time to focus on the local community.
“We want to love people, bless people, and we want to pray,” Brewer said. “We want to be available to people and serve them.”…
(FOX NEWS)
I think a wonderful — related — article to read is THE FEDERALISTS’S article titled: Why It’s Unconstitutional To Keep Grocery Stores Open While Closing Churches.
RIGHT SCOOP has an article detailing how a county in Los Angeles is stopping drive through churches:
…Notice San Bernardino county is banning actions where people actually stay in their cars. The first is a “drive-up” church service, where people stay in their cars as they attend an outdoor church service. The other is “driving parades”, where people just drive by someone’s home in a line and wave in order to celebrate a birthday party or some other kind of event.
Basically, if you go out for any non-essential service, you risk being fined or put in jail! And if you do go out for essential services, you must wear a face covering or, again, risk a fine or jail time.
I’m all about trying to get people to stay at home to halt the spread of the coronavirus. But threatening people with jail time or a huge fine when they are protected in their vehicles or for not wearing a mask is just ridiculous and fascistic. Welcome to the People’s Republic of San Bernardino.
Why “Rona”?
Believing In God Is Natural ~ Atheism is Not (Updated)
(ORIGINALLY POSTED APRIL OF 2016 | UPDATE ADDED)
We ARE programmed to believe one way and through the creative power (and infinite genius) of God, get to choose this natural tendency or to cover it up with our sinful, selfish nature that Romans 1 alludes to by numbing our faculties with an whole array of options.
What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words, by God himself.
Blaise Pascal (Pensees 10.148)
Deborah Keleman studies cognitive development in children and Josh Rottman is a PhD student working with her. In a chapter in “Science and the World’s Religions.” they write (p. 206-207):
- …religion primarily stems from within the person rather than from external, socially organised sources …. evolved components of the human mind tend to lead people towards religiosity early in life.
Before continuing I just want to make a point, none of them by myself but brought here to review by myself. It has to do with merely assuming the evolutionist position, if true, makes theism true and atheism anathema to the survival of the species. For instance, Patricia Churchland notes what the brains primary chore is:
- The principle chore of brains is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing [the world] is advantageous so long as it… enhances the organism’s chances for survival. Truth, whatever that is, takes the hindmost.
And this is the main point… okay… if I assume evolution is true, then, out of the choices of “religion” and “non-religion” — which of the two provide a better survival rate of the species? To wit:
Even Darwin had some misgivings about the reliability of human beliefs. He wrote, “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
Given unguided evolution, “Darwin’s Doubt” is a reasonable one. Even given unguided or blind evolution, it’s difficult to say how probable it is that creatures—even creatures like us—would ever develop true beliefs. In other words, given the blindness of evolution, and that its ultimate “goal” is merely the survival of the organism (or simply the propagation of its genetic code), a good case can be made that atheists find themselves in a situation very similar to Hume’s.
The Nobel Laureate and physicist Eugene Wigner echoed this sentiment: “Certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.” That is, atheists have a reason to doubt whether evolution would result in cognitive faculties that produce mostly true beliefs. And if so, then they have reason to withhold judgment on the reliability of their cognitive faculties. Like before, as in the case of Humean agnostics, this ignorance would, if atheists are consistent, spread to all of their other beliefs, including atheism and evolution. That is, because there’s no telling whether unguided evolution would fashion our cognitive faculties to produce mostly true beliefs, atheists who believe the standard evolutionary story must reserve judgment about whether any of their beliefs produced by these faculties are true. This includes the belief in the evolutionary story. Believing in unguided evolution comes built in with its very own reason not to believe it.
This will be an unwelcome surprise for atheists. To make things worse, this news comes after the heady intellectual satisfaction that Dawkins claims evolution provided for thoughtful unbelievers. The very story that promised to save atheists from Hume’s agnostic predicament has the same depressing ending.
It’s obviously difficult for us to imagine what the world would be like in such a case where we have the beliefs that we do and yet very few of them are true. This is, in part, because we strongly believe that our beliefs are true (presumably not all of them are, since to err is human—if we knew which of our beliefs were false, they would no longer be our beliefs).
Suppose you’re not convinced that we could survive without reliable belief-forming capabilities, without mostly true beliefs. Then, according to Plantinga, you have all the fixins for a nice argument in favor of God’s existence For perhaps you also think that—given evolution plus atheism—the probability is pretty low that we’d have faculties that produced mostly true beliefs. In other words, your view isn’t “who knows?” On the contrary, you think it’s unlikely that blind evolution has the skill set for manufacturing reliable cognitive mechanisms. And perhaps, like most of us, you think that we actually have reliable cognitive faculties and so actually have mostly true beliefs. If so, then you would be reasonable to conclude that atheism is pretty unlikely. Your argument, then, would go something like this: if atheism is true, then it’s unlikely that most of our beliefs are true; but most of our beliefs are true, therefore atheism is probably false.
Notice something else. The atheist naturally thinks that our belief in God is false. That’s just what atheists do. Nevertheless, most human beings have believed in a god of some sort, or at least in a supernatural realm. But suppose, for argument’s sake, that this widespread belief really is false, and that it merely provides survival benefits for humans, a coping mechanism of sorts. If so, then we would have additional evidence—on the atheist’s own terms—that evolution is more interested in useful beliefs than in true ones. Or, alternatively, if evolution really is concerned with true beliefs, then maybe the widespread belief in God would be a kind of “evolutionary” evidence for his existence.
You’ve got to wonder.
Mitch Stokes, A Shot of Faith: To the Head (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2012), 44-45.
While I am not a fan of Charisma… as of late they have posted a few good articles. This being one of them:
➤ Science Proves Your Brain Recognizes the Reality of God, Researchers Say
Remember, there was much discussion about destroying or harming parts of the brain that decrease belief in God:
This has to be embarrassing… if you’re an atheist. A new study performed at the University of York used targeted magnetism to shut down part of the brain. The result: belief in God disappeared among more than 30 percent of participants.
That in itself may not seem so embarrassing, but consider that the specific part of the brain they frazzled was the posterior medial frontal cortex—the part associated with detecting and solving problems, i.e., reasoning and logic.
In other words, when you shut down the part of the brain most associated with logic and reasoning, greater levels of atheism result.
You’ve heard the phrase, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist”? Apparently we can now also say, “I have too many brains to be an atheist.”…
(Via my previous post on targeted magnetism)
I also posit that person’s who use illicit drugs, such as marijuana, are less likely to believe in the Judeo-Christian God due to deterioration/destruction of sections of the brain. Parts of the brain most affected are memory and cognitive or parts of the brain that use logic and reason). Whereas, it seems, we see that a healthy brain is ready to receive faith:
…In a piece for the Washington Post, atheist Elizabeth King writes that she cannot shake the idea of God’s existence.
★ “The idea of God pesters me and makes me think that maybe I’m not as devoted to my beliefs as I’d like to think I am and would like to be. Maybe I’m still subconsciously afraid of hell and want to go to heaven when I die. It’s confusing and frustrating to feel the presence of something you don’t believe in. This is compounded by the fact that the God character most often shows up when I’m already frustrated,” King writes.
Neurotheologian Newberg says this is because science does back the reality of religious experiences.
(CHARISMA)
HOWEVER, the key quote in my mind’s eye is this, from Shaheen E Lakhan, MD, PhD, MEd, MS, FAAN — the BRAIN BLOGGER:
- The question of whether religion has been “hardwired” into our brains or an evolutionary adaptation has been debated for decades, however, more recently we have uncovered scientific underpinning for both possibilities.
In other words, evolution (if one believes in that exclusively) has hard wired our brains for faith. Not for non-faith.
See also:
National Geographic contacted Neuroscience News and invited us to take part in a virtual roundtable discussion to help promote an upcoming episode of Brain Games called The God Brain. (Brain Games: The God Brain premieres Sunday, February 21, at 9 pm ET on National Geographic Channel).
This supports another study of Japanese kids raised with no thoughts of a monotheistic God
For example, researchers at Oxford University (at which Dawkins himself was until recently the holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science) have earlier reported finding children who, when questioned, express their understanding that there is a Creator, without having had any such instruction from parents or teachers. As Dr Olivera Petrovich, who lectures in Experimental Psychology at Oxford, explained in an interview with Science and Spirit:
My Japanese research assistants kept telling me, ‘We Japanese don’t think about God as creator—it’s just not part of Japanese philosophy.’ So it was wonderful when these children said, ‘Kamisama! God! God made it!’—Dr Olivera Petrovich, Oxford University.
“I tested both the Japanese and British children on the same tasks, showing them very accurate, detailed photographs of selected natural and man-made objects and then asking them questions about the causal origins of the various natural objects at both the scientific level (e.g. how did this particular dog become a dog?) and at the metaphysical level (e.g. how did the first ever dog come into being?). With the Japanese children, it was important to establish whether they even distinguished the two levels of explanation because, as a culture, Japan discourages speculation into the metaphysical, simply because it’s something we can never know, so we shouldn’t attempt it. But the Japanese children did speculate, quite willingly, and in the same way as British children. On forced choice questions, consisting of three possible explanations of primary origin, they would predominantly go for the word ‘God’, instead of either an agnostic response (e.g., ‘nobody knows’) or an incorrect response (e.g., ‘by people’). This is absolutely extraordinary when you think that Japanese religion — Shinto — doesn’t include creation as an aspect of God’s activity at all. So where do these children get the idea that creation is in God’s hands? It’s an example of a natural inference that they form on the basis of their own experience. My Japanese research assistants kept telling me, ‘We Japanese don’t think about God as creator — it’s just not part of Japanese philosophy.’ So it was wonderful when these children said, ‘Kamisama! God! God made it!’ That was probably the most significant finding.”
Today, nearly a decade since Petrovich’s study, there is now a “preponderance of scientific evidence” affirming that “children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them”.
I often hear atheists exude confidence in natural selection and evolution and all that it entails. However, when natural belief in God emerges… they reject this as fantasy rather than a superior survival mechanism. It is important to understand that I am not arguing for evolution but showing that it is self-referentially false:
- NOTE: if you believe in evolution and are an atheist, you would root for and support neo-Darwinian evolutionary “natural selection” in choosing religious belief as superior to that of non-belief!
In a debate during the Q&A session between a theist and atheist/evolutionist, a student asked this great question… and while he did not have the answer to Dr. Pigliucci’s challenge, I do:
Assuming the validity of the “underlying instinct to survive and reproduce” then, out of the two positions (belief and non-belief) available for us to choose from which would better apply to being the most fit if the fittest is “an individual… [that] reproduces more successfully…”?[1] The woman that believes in God is less likely to have abortions and more likely to have larger families than their secular counterparts.[2] Does that mean that natural selection will result in a greater number of believers than non-believers?[3]
Footnotes
[1] From my son’s 9th grade biology textbook: Susan Feldkamp, ex. ed., Modern Biology (Austin, TX: Holt, Rineheart, and Winston, 2002), 288; “…organisms that are better suited to their environment than others produce more offspring” American Heritage Science Dictionary, 1st ed. (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2005), cf. natural selection, 422; “fitness (in evolution) The condition of an organism that is well adapted to its environment, as measured by its ability to reproduce itself” Oxford Dictionary of Biology, New Edition (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996), cf. fitness, 202; “fitness In an evolutionary context, the ability of an organism to produce a large number of offspring that survive to reproduce themselves” Norah Rudin, Dictionary of Modern Biology (Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Educational Series, 1997), cf. fitness, 146.
[2] Dinesh D’Souza points to this in his recent book, What’s So Great About Christianity:
- Russia is one of the most atheist countries in the world, and abortions there outnumber live births by a ratio of two to one. Russia’s birth rate has fallen so low that the nation is now losing 700,000 people a year. Japan, perhaps the most secular country in Asia, is also on a kind of population diet: its 130 million people are expected to drop to around 100 million in the next few decades. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand find themselves in a similar predicament. Then there is Europe. The most secular continent on the globe is decadent in the quite literal sense that its population is rapidly shrinking. Birth rates are abysmally low in France, Italy, Spain, the Czech Republic, and Sweden. The nations of Western Europe today show some of the lowest birth rates ever recorded, and Eastern European birth rates are comparably low. Historians have noted that Europe is suffering the most sustained reduction in its population since the Black Death in the fourteenth century, when one in three Europeans succumbed to the plague. Lacking the strong religious identity that once characterized Christendom, atheist Europe seems to be a civilization on its way out. Nietzsche predicted that European decadence would produce a miserable “last man’ devoid of any purpose beyond making life comfortable and making provision for regular fornication. Well, Nietzsche’s “last man” is finally here, and his name is Sven. Eric Kaufmann has noted that in America, where high levels of immigration have helped to compensate for falling native birth rates, birth rates among religious people are almost twice as high as those among secular people. This trend has also been noticed in Europe.” What this means is that, by a kind of natural selection, the West is likely to evolve in a more religious direction. This tendency will likely accelerate if Western societies continue to import immigrants from more religious societies, whether they are Christian or Muslim. Thus we can expect even the most secular regions of the world, through the sheer logic of demography, to become less secular over time…. My conclusion is that it is not religion but atheism that requires a Darwinian explanation. Atheism is a bit like homosexuality: one is not sure where it fits into a doctrine of natural selection. Why would nature select people who mate with others of the same sex, a process with no reproductive advantage at all? (17, 19)
Some other studies and articles of note: Mohit Joshi, “Religious women less likely to get abortions than secular women” (last accessed 9-6-2016), Top Health News, Health News United States (1-31-08); Anthony Gottlieb, “Faith Equals Fertility,” Intelligent Life, a publication of the Economist magazine (winter 2008) [THIS LINK IS DEAD] most of the original Economist article can be found at the WASHINGTON TIMES as well as The Immanent Frame (both accessed 9-6-2016); W. Bradford Wilcox, “Fertility, Faith, & the Future of the West: A conversation with Phillip Longman” (last accessed 9-6-2016), Christianity Today, Books & Culture: A Christian Review (5-01-2007); Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 3-32, esp. 24-29 — I recommend this book for deep thinking on the issue.
- And churchgoing women have more children than their nonreligious peers, according to the Center for Disease Control’s National Survey of Family Growth, an ongoing survey spanning 2011-2015. The survey involves about 5,000 interviews per year, conducted by the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. Women between the ages of 15 and 44 who attend religious services at least weekly have 1.42 children on average, compared with the 1.11 children of similar-age women who rarely or never attend services. More religious women said they also intend to have more kids (2.62 per woman) than nonreligious women (2.10 per woman), the survey found. (Baby Boom: Religious Women Having More Kids — LIVESCIENCE)
- In fact, Blume’s research also shows quite vividly that secular, nonreligious people are being dramatically out-reproduced by religious people of any faith. Across a broad swath of demographic data relating to religiosity, the godly are gaining traction in offspring produced. For example, there’s a global-level positive correlation between frequency of parental worship attendance and number of offspring. Those who “never” attend religious services bear, on a worldwide average, 1.67 children per lifetime; “once per month,” and the average goes up to 2.01 children; “more than once a week,” 2.5 children. Those numbers add up—and quickly. Some of the strongest data from Blume’s analyses, however, come from a Swiss Statistic Office poll conducted in the year 2000. These data are especially valuable because nearly the entire Swiss population answered this questionnaire—6,972,244 individuals, amounting to 95.67% of the population—which included a question about religious denomination. “The results are highly significant,” writes Blume: “…women among all denominational categories give birth to far more children than the non-affiliated. And this remains true even among those (Jewish and Christian) communities who combine nearly double as much births with higher percentages of academics and higher income classes as their non-affiliated Swiss contemporaries.” (God’s little rabbits: Religious people out-reproduce secular ones by a landslide — SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN)
- Another value that is both measurable and germane to fertility is the importance of religion. People who are actively religious tend to marry more and stay together longer. To the extent that time spent married during reproductive years increases fertility, then religion would be a positive factor in fertility rates. For example, in Canada women who had weekly religious attendance were 46 percent more likely to have a third child than women who did not. (The Northern America Fertility Divide — HOOVER INSTITUTE)
[3] Adapted from a question by a student at a formal debate between Dr. Massimo Pigliucci and Dr. William Lane Craig. The debate is entitled “Craig vs. Pigliucci: Does the Christian God Exist?” (DVD, Christian Apologetics, Biola University, apologetics@biola.edu ~ Category Number: 103000-400310-56107-Code: WLC-RFM014V).
UPDATE
The AMERICAN SPECTATOR published a wonderful article. And it in large part supports the above contention that belief in God is a natural (in born) position… and that atheism is the REAL product of environment. Read on to see:
University of Oxford developmental psychologist Dr. Olivera Petrovich has spent years researching a single question: Are children predisposed to belief in a transcendent being?
This research, much deserving of greater exposure, intrigued me, since I have engaged atheism’s most prominent modern proponents. I chaired three of atheist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins’s debates with his Oxford University colleague, the mathematician and Christian John Lennox. I debated Christopher Hitchens on stage, chaired a number of his debates, and wrote a book about those encounters. And I debated Tufts University cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett on Al Jazeera television with a Muslim tossed into the mix. I even had a lively exchange with agnostic John Stossel on the “God question” on Fox News.
In each of these discussions, much was made out of the evidence — or, as some would have it, the lack of evidence — for God’s existence. Belief in God (or a god, if you prefer), they say, is a product of environment, wishful thinking (like belief in fairies or Santa Claus), or a “mental virus.”
“Part of what I want to say,” writes Richard Dawkins in his bestseller The God Delusion, “is that it doesn’t matter what particular style of nonsense infects the child brain. Once infected, the child will grow up and infect the next generation with the same nonsense, whatever it happens to be.”
But as Dawkins’s archrival, the aforementioned mathematician John Lennox, has said, “Not every statement made by a scientist is a scientific statement.” This appears to be just such an instance. According to Dr. Petrovich, Dawkins’ statement lacks scientific evidence. On the contrary, her research strongly suggests that children are “hardwired” to believe in God.
In a cross-cultural study of British and Japanese children who were shown photographs of manmade and natural objects and then asked to explain how those objects came into existence, children predominantly chose the theological explanation. Dr. Petrovich told me,
The pattern of responding among Japanese children is highly significant in this context seeing that those children live in a culture that does not in any way encourage a belief in God as creator. Yet, the most common reply given by Japanese preschoolers about natural objects’ origins was “Kamisama [God]! God made it.” Whilst there is growing research evidence that children from across different religious and cultural backgrounds consistently attribute to god the existence of natural objects, what is so interesting about the Japanese participants is that this particular causal inference is not a product of their education but a natural development in their understanding of the world.
Another aspect that shows the increased natural selective nature of belief and longevity (the opportunity to leave more offspring) is the POSITIVE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION:
Social Sciences Agree
~ Religious More “Fit” ~
Via my post on family values: A Family Values [Atheist] Mantra Dissected: Nominal vs. Committed
SOCIAL SCIENTISTS AGREE
- Religious Belief Reduces Crime Summary of the First Panel Discussion Panelists for this important discussion included social scientists Dr. John DiIulio, professor of politics and urban affairs at Princeton University; David Larson, M.D., President of the National Institute for Healthcare Research; Dr. Byron Johnson, Director of the Center for Crime and Justice Policy at Vanderbilt University; and Gary Walker, President of Public/Private Ventures. The panel focused on new research, confirming the positive effects that religiosity has on turning around the lives of youth at risk.
- Dr. Larson laid the foundation for the discussion by summarizing the findings of 400 studies on juvenile delinquency, conducted during the past two decades. He believes that although more research is needed, we can say without a doubt that religion makes a positive contribution.
- His conclusion: “The better we study religion, the more we find it makes a difference.” Previewing his own impressive research, Dr. Johnson agreed. He has concluded that church attendance reduces delinquency among boys even when controlling for a number of other factors including age, family structure, family size, and welfare status. His findings held equally valid for young men of all races and ethnicities.
- Gary Walker has spent 25 years designing, developing and evaluating many of the nation’s largest public and philanthropic initiatives for at-risk youth. His experience tells him that faith-based programs are vitally important for two reasons. First, government programs seldom have any lasting positive effect. While the government might be able to design [secular/non-God] programs that occupy time, these programs, in the long-term, rarely succeed in bringing about the behavioral changes needed to turn kids away from crime. Second, faith-based programs are rooted in building strong adult-youth relationships; and less concerned with training, schooling, and providing services, which don’t have the same direct impact on individual behavior. Successful mentoring, Walker added, requires a real commitment from the adults involved – and a willingness to be blunt. The message of effective mentors is simple. “You need to change your life, I’m here to help you do it, or you need to be put away, away from the community.” Government, and even secular philanthropic programs, can’t impart this kind of straight talk.
- Sixth through twelfth graders who attend religious services once a month or more are half as likely to engage in at-risk behaviors such as substance abuse, sexual excess, truancy, vandalism, drunk driving and other trouble with police. Search Institute, “The Faith Factor,” Source, Vol. 3, Feb. 1992, p.1.
- Churchgoers are more likely to aid their neighbors in need than are non-attendees. George Barna, What Americans Believe, Regal Books, 1991, p. 226.
- Three out of four Americans say that religious practice has strengthened family relationships. George Gallup, Jr. “Religion in America: Will the Vitality of Churches Be the Surprise of the Next Century,” The Public Perspective, The Roper Center, Oct./Nov. 1995.
- Church attendance lessens the probabilities of homicide and incarceration. Nadia M. Parson and James K. Mikawa: “Incarceration of African-American Men Raised in Black Christian Churches.” The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 125, 1990, pp.163-173.
- Religious practice lowers the rate of suicide. Joubert, Charles E., “Religious Nonaffiliation in Relation to Suicide, Murder, Rape and Illegitimacy,” Psychological Reports 75:1 part 1 (1994): 10 Jon W. Hoelter: “Religiosity, Fear of Death and Suicide Acceptibility.” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, Vol. 9, 1979, pp.163-172.
- The presence of active churches, synagogues… reduces violent crime in neighborhoods. John J. Dilulio, Jr., “Building Spiritual Capital: How Religious Congregations Cut Crime and Enhance Community Well-Being,” RIAL Update, Spring 1996.
- People with religious faith are less likely to be school drop-outs, single parents, divorced, drug or alcohol abusers. Ronald J. Sider and Heidi Roland, “Correcting the Welfare Tragedy,” The Center for Public Justice, 1994.
- Church involvement is the single most important factor in enabling inner-city black males to escape the destructive cycle of the ghetto. Richard B. Freeman and Harry J. Holzer, eds., The Black Youth Employment Crisis, University of Chicago Press, 1986, p.354.
- Attending services at a church or other house of worship once a month or more makes a person more than twice as likely to stay married than a person who attends once a year or less. David B. Larson and Susan S. Larson, “Is Divorce Hazardous to Your Health?” Physician, June 1990. Improving Personal Well-Being
- Regular church attendance lessens the possibility of cardiovascular diseases, cirrhosis of the liver, emphysema and arteriosclerosis. George W. Comstock amd Kay B. Patridge:* “Church attendance and health.”* Journal of Chronic Disease, Vol. 25, 1972, pp. 665-672.
- Regular church attendance significantly reduces the probablility of high blood pressure.* David B. Larson, H. G. Koenig, B. H. Kaplan, R. S. Greenberg, E. Logue and H. A. Tyroler:* ” The Impact of religion on men’s blood pressure.”* Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 28, 1989, pp.265-278.* W.T. Maramot:* “Diet, Hypertension and Stroke.” in* M. R. Turner (ed.) Nutrition and Health, Alan R. Liss, New York, 1982, p. 243.
- People who attend services at least once a week are much less likely to have high blood levels of interlukin-6, an immune system protein associated with many age-related diseases.* Harold Koenig and Harvey Cohen, The International Journal of Psychiatry and Medicine, October 1997.
- Regular practice of religion lessens depression and enhances self esteem. *Peter L. Bensen and Barnard P. Spilka:* “God-Image as a function of self-esteem and locus of control” in H. N. Maloney (ed.) Current Perspectives in the Psychology of Religion, Eedermans, Grand Rapids, 1977, pp. 209-224.* Carl Jung: “Psychotherapies on the Clergy” in Collected Works Vol. 2, 1969, pp.327-347.
- Church attendance is a primary factor in preventing substance abuse and repairing damage caused by substance abuse.* Edward M. Adalf and Reginald G. Smart:* “Drug Use and Religious Affiliation, Feelings and Behavior.” * British Journal of Addiction, Vol. 80, 1985, pp.163-171.* Jerald G. Bachman, Lloyd D. Johnson, and Patrick M. O’Malley:* “Explaining* the Recent Decline in Cocaine Use Among Young Adults:* Further Evidence That Perceived Risks and Disapproval Lead to Reduced Drug Use.”* Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 31,* 1990, pp. 173-184.* Deborah Hasin, Jean Endicott, * and Collins Lewis:* “Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Patients With Affective Syndromes.”* Comprehensive Psychiatry, Vol. 26, 1985, pp. 283-295. * The findings of this NIMH-supported study were replicated in the Bachmen et. al. study above.
(From a post entitled “Love“)
(Also see 52 REASONS TO GO TO CHURCH) These indicators are also mentions in a HERITAGE FOUNDATION article, “Why Religion Matters: The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability“
More Stats
…A survey of 1,600 Canadians asked them what were their beliefs about God and what moral values they considered to be “very important.” The results of the survey are shown below:
Although the differences between theists and atheists in the importance of values such as honesty, politeness, and friendliness are generally small, moral values emphasized by religious beliefs, such as Christianity, including patience, forgiveness, and generosity exhibit major differences in attitudes (30%+ differences between theists and atheists). (Source)
- The strength of the family unit is intertwined with the practice of religion. Churchgoers are more likely to be married, less likely to be divorced or single, and more likely to manifest high levels of satisfaction in marriage.
- Church attendance is the most important predictor of marital stability and happiness.
- The regular practice of religion helps poor persons move out of poverty. Regular church attendance, for example, is particularly instrumental in helping young people to escape the poverty of inner-city life.
- Religious belief and practice contribute substantially to the formation of personal moral criteria and sound moral judgment.
- Regular religious practice generally inoculates individuals against a host of social problems, including suicide, drug abuse, out-of-wedlock births, crime, and divorce.
- The regular practice of religion also encourages such beneficial effects on mental health as less depression (a modern epidemic), more self-esteem, and greater family and marital happiness.
- In repairing damage caused by alcoholism, drug addiction, and marital breakdown, religious belief and practice are a major source of strength and recovery.
- Regular practice of religion is good for personal physical health: It increases longevity, improves one’s chances of recovery from illness, and lessens the incidence of many killer diseases.
So we can see that the above are important factors in a healthy, stable, family which would have the highest percentage or chance in a family situation to create “family values.” What about divorce rates and the 2009 data. This is dealt with well at CHRISTIAN ACTION LEAGUE, and shows how Barna and the Government can miss-categorize whole swaths of people and their affiliations:
…Wright did his own research using the General Social Survey; a huge study conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, and found that folks who identify as Christians but rarely attend church have a divorce rate of 60 percent compared to 38 percent among people who attend church regularly. More generally, he found that Christians, similar to adherents of other traditional faiths, have a divorce rate of 42 percent compared with 50 percent among those without a religious affiliation.
And his is not the only research that is showing a link between strong faith and increased marriage stability.
University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project, concluded that “active conservative Protestants” who regularly attend church are 35 percent less likely to divorce than are those with no faith affiliation. He used the National Survey of Families and Households to make his analysis.
[….]
Glenn Stanton, the director for family formation studies at Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, Colo., has been writing articles to spread the truth about the lower divorce rate among practicing Christians.
“Couples who regularly practice any combination of serious religious behaviors and attitudes — attend church nearly every week, read their Bibles and spiritual materials regularly; pray privately and together; generally take their faith seriously, living not as perfect disciples, but serious disciples — enjoy significantly lower divorce rates that mere church members, the general public and unbelievers,” Stanton wrote in the Baptist Press early this year.
At issue in Barna’s studies is how he defined “Christian” and to what other groups he compared the “Christian” divorce rate. Apparently, his study compared what he termed “born-again” Christians — those who described their faith in terms of “personal commitment,” “accept as savior” and other evangelical, born-again language to three other groups, which included self-identified Christians who do not describe their faith with those terms, members of other, non-Christian religions and people of no religious beliefs.
Because his second group would have included many Catholics and mainline Protestants, Wright points out that Barna was, in many ways, “comparing Christians against Christians.” No wonder the rates were similar….
In USA TODAY, David Kinnaman, Barna’s president, said that “the statistical differences reflect varied approaches, with Wright looking more at attendance and his research firm dwelling on theological commitments.” Duh! The bottom line seems to be that the more seriously couples take their faith, the less likely they are to get a divorce. That seems like a self-evident truth, but it appears there is also evidence for it. In other words, this is a nominal, vs. committed Christian vs. secular person battle.
I can go on-and-on, but lets shorten what we have learned, and it all revolves around this:
- “There’s something about being a nominal ‘Christian’ that is linked to a lot of negative outcomes when it comes to family life.”
I realize that much of this can be classified broadly as “The Ecological Fallacy” — but it is an amassing of stats to show that in fact the committed Christian understands the totality of “family values” and commits to them more than the secular person.
1a) Those who attend church more are to be found in the Republican Party;
1b) Those who do not, the Democratic Party;
2a) Those in the Republican Party donate much more to charitable causes;
2b) Those in the Democratic Party, are much more stingy;
3a) Republicans earn less and give more;
3b) Democrats earn more and give less;
4a) Conservative Christians and Jews (people who believe in Heaven and Hell) commit less crimes;
4b) Liberal religious persons (universalists) have a higher rate of crime;
5a) Regular church attendees have a lower drug use rate;
5b) Irreligious persons have a higher rate;
6a) Moral “oughts” are answered in Christian theism (one “ought” not rape because it is absolutely, morally wrong);
6b) Moral “oughts” are merely current consensus of the most individuals, there is no absolute moral statement that can be made about rape;
7a) Republicans are happier than Democrats;
7b) Democrats are more depressed;
8a) The sex lives of married, religious persons is better/more fulfilling — sex is being shown to be a “religious” experience after-all;
8b) The sex lives of the irreligious person is less fulfilling;
9a) The conservative is more likely to reach orgasm [conservative woman I assume];
9b) The liberal woman is not;
10a) They are less likely to sleep around, which would also indicate lower STDs;
10b Democrats are more likely to have STDs through having more sex partners;
11a) Republicans are less likely (slightly, but this is so because of the committed Christians in the larger demographic) to have extra-marital affairs;
11b) Democrats more likely;
12a) Republicans over the last three decades have been reproducing more…
12b) Democrats abort more often and have less children through educational/career decisions
13a) Christians are more likely to have children and impact the world;
13b) Skeptics replace family with pleasure and travel.
Forty-three percent of people who attend religious services weekly or more say they’re very happy, compared to 26 percent of those who go seldom or never. The Pew analysis does not answer the question of how religion, Republicanism and happiness might be related, however.
[….]
Most young people start out as naive, idealistic liberals. But as they get older, that changes. They get more conservative, usually because they grow up. But just imagine that you never get out of that liberal mindset. You go through your whole life trying to check people into a victim box, always feeling offended, always trying to right all of the wrongs in the world, and always blaming government for it. It’s no wonder you’d end up miserable when you get older! Going through your entire life feeling like that would make you a very angry, bitter, jealous, selfish person — and often, that describes aging liberals to a T.
All in all, being a Republican gives you a 7% edge in the happiness department, which doesn’t sound like much, but it’s a greater factor than race, ethnicity, or gender. And just a reminder — Republicans have the advantage across all class lines as well, from upper class to middle class to lower class. Lower class Republicans are happier than lower class Democrats. Middle class Republicans are happier than middle class Democrats. And upper class Republicans are happier than upper class Democrats.
And I’ll say it again. It’s because of the difference in world view.
THE BLAZE helps set up some of the following media presentations:
…The organization also released the results of a survey that it conducted among its members. That poll, commissioned online between June and December 2015, garnered 8,000 responses, finding that 96 percent respondents are registered to vote. It should be noted that the results are restricted to member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and may not be representative of atheists more broadly.
Secular members were asked to identify their political persuasion, with 29 percent selecting “Democratic” and 36 percent selecting “progressive/liberal.” While that totals 65 percent, 21 percent selected Independent. On the flip side, only 1 percent identified as Republicans, with 3 percent selecting “Socialist/Marxist” and 3 percent selecting “Green.”
MORE MEDIA…
Democrats often think of themselves as kind and caring, and of Republicans as callous and mean-spirited. But why? Are Progressive policies more likely to raise people out of poverty than conservative ones? And what really counts as “kind”: supporting policies that feel good? Or supporting policies that do good? William Voegeli, Senior Editor of the Claremont Review of Books, explains.
AEI President Arthur C. Brooks explains how we can win the fight for free enterprise by articulating what’s written on our hearts. “We have to see that we’re not in an economic battle for the future of America,” Arthur says. “We’re in a moral battle.”
Dennis talks Arthur Brooks, professor of public administration at Syracuse University, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism. (Originally broadcast December 28, 2006)
[…..]
. . . Survival of the Fittest!
“Since women that believe in God are less likely to have abortions, does that mean that natural selection will result in a greater number of believers than non-believers.” Assuming the validity of the “underlying instinct to survive and reproduce” then, out of the two positions (belief and non-belief) available for us to choose from which would better apply to being the most fit if the fittest is “an individual… [that] reproduces more successfully…”? The woman that believes in God is less likely to have abortions and more likely to have larger families than their secular counterparts. Does that mean that natural selection will result in a greater number of believers than non-believers?
Also,
- Divorce. Marriages in which both spouses frequently attend religious services are less likely to end in divorce. Marriages in which both husband and wife attend church frequently are 2.4 times less likely to end in divorce than marriages in which neither spouse attends religious services.1
- Mother-Child Relationship. Mothers who consider religion to be important in their lives report better quality relationships with their children. According to mothers’ reports, regardless of the frequency of their church attendance, those who considered religion to be very important in their lives tended to report, on average, a higher quality of relationship with their children than those who did not consider religion to be important.2
- Father-Child Relationship. Fathers’ religiosity is associated with the quality of their relationships with their children. A greater degree of religiousness among fathers was associated with better relationships with their children, greater expectations for positive relationships in the future, investment of thought and effort into their relationships with their children, greater sense of obligation to stay in regular contact with their children, and greater likelihood of providing emotional support and unpaid assistance to their children and grandchildren. Fathers’ religiousness was measured on six dimensions, including the importance of faith, guidance provided by faith, religious attendance, religious identity, denominational affiliation, and belief in the importance of religion for their children.3
- Well-Being of High School Seniors. Among high school seniors, religious attendance and a positive attitude toward religion are correlated with predictors of success and well-being. Positive attitudes towards religion and frequent attendance at religious activities were related to numerous predictors of success and wellbeing for high-school seniors, including: positive parental involvement, positive perceptions of the future, positive attitudes toward academics, less frequent drug use, less delinquent behavior, fewer school attendance problems, more time spent on homework, more frequent volunteer work, recognition for good grades, and more time spent on extracurricular activities.4
- Life Expectancy. Religious attendance is associated with higher life expectancy at age 20. Life expectancy at age 20 was significantly related to church attendance. Life expectancy was 61.9 years for those attending church once a week and 59.7 for those attending less than once a week.5
- Drinking, Smoking and Mortality. Frequent religious attendance is correlated with lower rates of heavy drinking, smoking, and mortality. Compared with peers who did not attend religious services frequently, those who did had lower mortality rates and this relationship was stronger among women than among men. In addition, frequent attendees were less likely to smoke or drink heavily at the time of the first interview. Frequent attendees who did smoke or drink heavily at the time of the first interview were more likely than nonattendees to cease these behaviors by the time of the second interview.6
- Volunteering. Individuals who engage in private prayer are more likely to join voluntary associations aimed at helping the disadvantaged. Individuals who engaged in private prayer were more likely to report being members of voluntary associations aimed at helping the elderly, poor and disabled when compared to those who did not engage in private prayer. Prayer increased the likelihood of volunteering for an organization that assisted the elderly, poor and disabled, on average, by 20 percent.7
- Charity and Volunteering. Individuals who attend religious services weekly are more likely to give to charities and to volunteer. In 2000, compared with those who rarely or never attended a house of worship, individuals who attended a house of worship nearly once a week or more were 25 percentage points more likely to donate to charity (91 percent vs. 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer (67 percent vs. 44 percent).8
- Voting. Individuals who participated in religious activities during adolescence tend to have higher rates of electoral participation as young adults. On average, individuals who reported participating in religious groups and organizations as adolescents were more likely to register to vote and to vote in a presidential election as young adults when compared to those who reported not participating in religious groups and organizations.9
- Ethics in Business. Business professionals who assign greater importance to religious interests are more likely to reject ethically questionable business decisions. Business leaders who assigned greater importance to religious interests were more likely to reject ethically questionable business decisions than their peers who attached less importance to religious interests. Respondents were asked to rate the ethical quality of 16 business decisions. For eight of the 16 decisions, respondents who attached greater importance to religious interests had lower average ratings, which indicated a stronger disapproval of ethically questionable decisions, compared to respondents who attached less importance to religious interests.10
Footnotes
- Vaughn R. A. Call and Tim B. Heaton, “Religious Influence on Marital Stability,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36, No. 3 (September 1997): 382-392.
- Lisa D. Pearce and William G. Axinn, “The Impact of Family Religious Life on the Quality of Mother-Child Relations,” American Sociological Review 63, No. 6 (December 1998): 810-828.
- Valerie King, “The Influence of Religion on Fathers’ Relationships with Their Children,” Journal of Marriage and Family 65, No. 2 (May 2003): 382-395.
- Jerry Trusty and Richard E. Watts, “Relationship of High School Seniors’ Religious Perceptions and Behavior to Educational, Career, and Leisure Variables,” Counseling and Values 44, No. 1 (October 1999): 30-39.
- Robert A. Hummer, Richard G. Rogers, Charles B. Nam, and Christopher G. Ellison, “Religious Involvement and U.S. Adult Mortality,” Demography 36, No. 2 (May 1999): 273-285.
- William J. Strawbridge, Richard D. Cohen, Sarah J. Shema, and George A. Kaplan, “Frequent Attendance at Religious Services and Mortality over 28 Years,” American Journal of Public Health 87, No. 6 (June 1997): 957-961.
- Matthew T. Loveland, David Sikkink, Daniel J. Myers, and Benjamin Radcliff, “Private Prayer and Civic Involvement,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44, No. 1 (March 2005): 1-14.
- Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares: America’s Charity Divide, (New York: Basic Books 2006), 31-52.
- Michelle Frisco, Chandra Muller and Kyle Dodson, “Participation in Voluntary Youth-Serving Associations and Early Adult Voting Behavior,” Social Science Quarterly 85, No. 3 (September 2004): 660-676.
- Justin Longenecker, Joseph McKinney, and Carlos Moore, “Religious Intensity, Evangelical Christianity, and Business Ethics: An Empirical Study,” Journal of Business Ethics 55, No. 4 (December 2004): 371- 384.
3-Questions Liberals Never Ask
(Originally posted Oct 2013)
1) compared to what?
2) at what cost?
3) what hard-evidence do you have?
As a bonus: If you run these three questions by every one of Democratic Representative-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s arguments, her platform immediately crumbles. (CONSERVATIVE TRIBUNE)
A blogger on far-left website thought he ‘could go along’ with Obamacare – now he can’t believe what’s happening to his health insurance. this comes by way of CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE:
As the realities of Obamacare continue to sink in, more and more people are getting letters from their health insurance providers telling them that their plans no longer comply with federal requirements under Obamacare. We just brought you the story of “Trick Shot Titus” and his family facing significant increases in the cost of their health care plans.
Now, a community blogger on the far-left Daily Kos website has penned a blog post complaining that both he and his wife are facing a nearly 100 percent increase in their monthly premiums. He claims he is canceling his insurance and refuses to pay any “f***ing penalty.”
Blogger “Tirge Caps” explains:
My wife and I just got our updates from Kaiser telling us what our 2014 rates will be. Her monthly has been $168 this year, mine $150. We have a high deductible. We are generally healthy people who don’t go to the doctor often. I barely ever go. The insurance is in case of a major catastrophe.
Well, now, because of Obamacare, my wife’s rate is gong to $302 per month and mine is jumping to $284.
I am canceling insurance for us and I am not paying any f***ing penalty. What the hell kind of reform is this?
The blogger also notes he and his wife may qualify for some “government assistance,” but that it’s just “another hoop” to jump through to get assistance that he may or may not be eligible for…
CONSERVATIVE TRIBUNE brings it home for us:
…Conversely, the right believes that, “Man is flawed from Day One, and that there are no solutions, there are only trade-offs. And whatever you do to deal with man’s flaws, it creates another problem.”
“But you try to get the best trade-off you can get. And that’s all you can hope for.”
So when presented with leftist idealism as to how to fix the world, here is the first question to ask: “Compared to what?” The leftist idea is the solution, compared to what?
Look at the argument for government healthcare. ‘Government healthcare serves the poor.’ Compared to what? Strong arguments can be made that the poor are better off in terms of care and options under a free market system.
The second question Sowell presented is: “At what price?” What price will be paid for the leftist ideal to be implemented? This leads to the discussion of if it is worth it or not … or even realistic.
For this example, consider the argument for open borders. Strong arguments based on “at what price” can be made against having open borders. There are financial costs, national security costs, personal safety costs, national identity costs, functional government costs, national economy costs, job costs, and many more.
The “feel good” concept of no borders is nothing more than a “feel good” concept. It cannot withstand close scrutiny in terms of cost and practical implementation.
The final question is: “What hard evidence do you have?” This one is a doozy, since so much virtue signaling and “feel good” ideology is part and parcel of leftist ideology.
Oftentimes, even when “evidence” is presented, it is not authoritative, hard evidence. It is opinion or cherry-picked, out-of-context, questionable or even debunked in its “facts” and sourcing.
This presents a prime opportunity to then show hard evidence for the right’s argument. It may require time and patience, but if you have a willing audience, it can be well worth the investment to lead the way to why conservatives believe their answers are better.
Sowell noted that conservative arguments tend to be able to pass all three questions because “they don’t assume there is a solution out there.”…
Read My Lips, No New Cases | Dr. Fauci (Bonus Commentary)
Dennis Prager open up his 3rd hour on Friday by quickly going over Tucker Carlson’s noting Dr. Fauci’s understanding of when we can relax these quarantining and social distancing regulations (see more at DAILY CALLER)… and getting people back to work. Obviously, this cannot happen… we live in a world of trade-offs, as the Thomas Sowell video I added to this video points out (see more at RPT: “3-QUESTIONS LIBERALS NEVER ASK“). One comment I came across humorously noting the impossibility of Dr. Fauci’s statement is this: “Read my lips, no new cases!” ???????, get ready for the backlash from Leftists and #NeverTrumpers when Trump opens society before there are no new cases or deaths.
FYI — After the opening monologue, I truncated calls to almost exclusively include Dennis’ response… so while this sounds like almost an un-edited audio clip, stitch together portions of his third hour as well as add media.
Here are a few articles or blogposts I think are important to understand the irresponsibility of basing public policy on these faulty models:
- WOW! Dr. Fauci Now Says, “You Can’t Really Rely Upon Models” …WTH? (GATEWAY PUNDIT)
- Birx Warns of Inaccurate Models Predicting Large Spread Of Coronaviruses (FR24 NEWS)
- Numerators and Denominators in the Coronavirus Saga (AMERICAN THINKER)
- Are Covid-19 Models A Sound Basis For Public Policy? [With Comment By Paul] (POWERLINE)
- Complicated Mathematical Models Are Not Substitutes for Common Sense (NATIONAL REVIEW)
- Inaccurate Virus Models Are Panicking Officials Into Ill-Advised Lockdowns (THE FEDERALIST)
- We Cannot Destroy The Country For The Sake Of New York City (THE FEDERALIST)
- Coronavirus Modeling Had Faulty Assumptions, the Real Data Gives Us Hope (PJ-MEDIA)
- The Scientist Whose Doomsday Pandemic Model Predicted Armageddon Just Walked Back The Apocalyptic Predictions (THE FEDERALIST)
- Epidemiologist Behind Highly-Cited Coronavirus Model Drastically Downgrades Projection (DAILY WIRE)
BONUS COMMENTARY
TUCKER: WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION PRAISES CHINA, DENIES TAIWAN’S EXISTENCE: World Health Organization would rather deny Taiwan’s existence than offend the Chinese government; reaction from Gordon Chang, author of ‘The Coming Collapse of China.’
TUCKER: THE NEW YORK TIMES’ CORONAVIRUS COVERAGE CAN BE EXPLAINED IN 4 STEPS: The establishment press has botched coronavirus from the beginning.
INGRAHAM: WHAT IS THE NEW NORMAL? If it means abandoning the life we loved before coronavirus or using this the crisis as a vehicle for advancing a left-wing, freedom-killing agenda, count us out.
Trump Acted Quickley On Coronavirus (TIMELINES)
(Part 2 is here) I have seen multiple people I know (friends, family, acquaintances) pass along the very misguided idea that Trump dragged his feet on the response to the Wuhan Virus. This was in response to someone basically saying Trump got in the way of experts, and that he should just keep his mouth shut (adapted):
Dr. Fauci was interviewed at 3am the other morning [March 24th] (10 minutes of you time:DR. FAUCI INTERVIEWED BY WMAL) and the MSM hasn’t referenced his statements once. Also… the quote you are probably referring to is this one: when he was asked if he was worried about this becoming a pandemic:
- “No, not at all. We have it totally under control,” Trump said. “It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.” (Jan. 22)
This was essentially three weeks after the first Chinese case was announced, and only 10-days after China shared the genetic information of the virus. (The first American known to have it was January 21st.) So I think you may be wanting something from the President that you wouldn’t expect from another. (In contrast to the below excerpted timeline) Trump ordered all flights from China halted January 31st.
By the time he declared a state of emergency (March 13), we had had 49 deaths by that time. It took the previous administration till there were a thousand Americans dead to declare an emergency. I think this is an “orange man bad” scenario. You should listen to Dr. Fauci’s wise words.
This move by Trump SHOWED how quick he acted and to what measures. A must read article excerpted below is a MUST read to show where everyone’s mind was (except Trump’s):
The lethal price tag for the months of the Impeach Trump obsession by Democrats is now in — and rising.
Over there at Breitbart, Joel Pollak, one of the serious journalists of the day, has put together this telling timeline that shows exactly what Democrats were doing as the coronavirus loomed. Here’s the link to Joel’s story — and here’s his very revealing timeline:
- January 11: Chinese state media report the first known death from an illness originating in the Wuhan market.
- January 15: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) holds a vote to send articles of impeachment to the Senate. Pelosi and House Democrats celebrate the “solemn” occasion with a signing ceremony, using commemorative pens.
- January 21: The first person with coronavirus arrives in the United States from China, where he had been in Wuhan.
- January 23: The House impeachment managers make their opening arguments for removing President Trump.
- January 23: China closes off the city of Wuhan completely to slow the spread of coronavirus to the rest of China.
- January 30: Senators begin asking two days of questions of both sides in the president’s impeachment trial.
- January 30: The World Health Organization declares a global health emergency as coronavirus continues to spread.
- January 31: The Senate holds a vote on whether to allow further witnesses and documents in the impeachment trial.
- January 31: President Trump declares a national health emergency and imposes a ban on travel to and from China. Former Vice President Joe Biden calls Trump’s decision “hysterical xenophobia … and fear-mongering.”
- February 2: The first death from coronavirus outside China is reported in the Philippines.
- February 3: House impeachment managers begin closing arguments, calling Trump a threat to national security.
- February 4: President Trump talks about coronavirus in his State of the Union address; Pelosi rips up every page.
- February 5: The Senate votes to acquit President Trump on both articles of impeachment, 52-48 and 53-47.
- February 5: House Democrats finally take up coronavirus in the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia.
And there, in black and white, is exactly the problem. Republicans at the time warned that Democrats were so mindlessly obsessed with impeachment that other issues were being routinely ignored. Immigration, trade, health care, and on and on went the list of concerns that were being ignored in favor of the impeachment obsession.
But there was another issue Democrats were ignoring while they spent their time impeaching the president. A very, very big issue that involved life or death.
The American Spectator’s Dov Fischer took it head on right here. His title:
The Real Threat to Our Democracy During Coronavirus
Pelosi, Schiff & Co. were too busy dragging the country through impeachment to pay attention to ominous developments in Asia.
Dov Fischer nailed it exactly.
Yes, indeed, while all that impeachment obsession was happening, the coronavirus was making its debut. Note well in the Pollak timeline this date — January 11, the day that “Chinese state media report the first known death from an illness originating in the Wuhan market.” And with that virus news out there, a mere four days later, Speaker Pelosi focuses not on that — but on holding the House vote that impeaches the president, followed by an elaborately staged spectacle in which she signs her name to the documents with a stash of 30 gold pens resting on a silver tray. Then, in another elaborately staged spectacle, she formally parades the articles through the halls of the Capitol to deliver them to the Senate.
Then there is January 21, a full 10 days after news of the virus has gone public — and the first known person who had been in Wuhan arrives in America. Carrying the virus. Two days later Pollak notes this:
- January 23: The House impeachment managers make their opening arguments for removing President Trump.
- January 23: China closes off the city of Wuhan completely to slow the spread of coronavirus to the rest of China.
And not to be forgotten: on January 31, President Trump announced this, per the Washington Post:
Trump administration announces mandatory quarantines in response to coronavirus
Announcement comes as U.S. airlines cancel flights to China amid growing fears
Mere days later, on February 4, President Trump delivered his State of the Union address, in which he said this:
Protecting Americans’ health also means fighting infectious diseases. We are coordinating with the Chinese government and working closely together on the coronavirus outbreak in China. My administration will take all necessary steps to safeguard our citizens from this threat.
And the reaction to that speech from the Pelosi Democrats?
Famously, when the president reached the end of his speech, Speaker Nancy Pelosi ostentatiously stood and ripped the speech in half. That doesn’t count the Democrat members who made a point of walking out on the speech or labeling it, as Pelosi did, a “pack of lies.”….
I also wish to note the silliness of the media (in this case Joe Scarborough) saying that everyone knew this was coming. No. No they did not. Retired Admiral James G. Stavridis and Senator Tom Cotton were the lone voices on Hugh Hewitt’s Show, here Hugh talks about a special in the works:
I listen to Hugh first thing in the morning… and out of everything I heard from the MSM to talk radio… his voice was alone. Senator Tom Cotton and Admiral James G. Stavridis were the other lone voices…. on the Hugh Hewitt Show. I am looking forward to the special next week. (I inserted the videos BTW.) All Hugh had was audio — of course, radio — of Joe Scarborough saying “everyone knew.”
PJ-MEDIA has an excellent article noting easily some of the lies leveled at Trump and his administration. Here is their list:
10. Trump downplayed the mortality rate of the coronavirus
9. Trump lied when he said Google was developing a national coronavirus website
8. Trump “dissolved” the WH pandemic response office
7. Trump ignored early intel briefings on possible pandemic
6. Trump cut funding to the CDC & NIH
5. Trump “muzzled” Dr. Fauci
4. Trump didn’t act quickly and isn’t doing enough
3. Trump told governors they were “on their own”
2. Trump turned down testing kits from WHO
1. Trump called the coronavirus “a hoax”
I deal with both #1, #4, and #5 here: “CORONAVIRUS LIES VIA DEMOCRATS/MEDIA (UPDATED W/CONVO)” | And #8 and #6 are dealt with here: “WASHINGTON POST SWINGS AND MISSES” | #2 (and #1) is dealt with here “LARRY ELDER DEBUNKS MEDIA’S LATEST LIES“
And no-one ever show this video of Trump and why it is so easy to take him out of context when one hates him, which is what FACTCHECK did:
….March 4: “Well, I think the 3.4% is really a false number.” — Trump in an interview on Fox News, referring to the percentage of diagnosed COVID-19 patients worldwide who had died, as reported by the World Health Organization. (See our item “Trump and the Coronavirus Death Rate.”)
March 7: “No, I’m not concerned at all. No, we’ve done a great job with it.” — Trump, when asked by reporters if he was concerned about the arrival of the coronavirus in the Washington, D.C., area.
March 9: “So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!” — Trump in a tweet.
March 10: “And we’re prepared, and we’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.” — Trump after meeting with Republican senators…..
Yet, this is why Trump has said these things…
[fbvideo link=”https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=246481773156957″ width=”690″ height=”388″ onlyvideo=”0″]
Articles Regarding the Wuhan Virus (UPDATED 4-2-2020)
I will add to these periodically, “NEW” – or the date – does not relate to when it was written, but to when I added it to my reading regimen:
ARTICLES
- NEW: BLUE COLLAR LOGIC: Mixed Messages From The Experts (YOUTUBE)
- NEW: BLUE COLLAR LOGIC: Trump’s Guilty Of Having Hope! (YOUTUBE)
- NEW: Is the World Health Organization Putting the World’s Health First? (NATIONAL REVIEW)
- NEW: Kansas Dept of Health Using Cell Phone GPS Tracking to Monitor Coronavirus Compliance… (CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE)
- NEW: How Government Is Standing in the Way of Lifesaving American Innovation (AMERICAN GREATNESS)
- NEW: Boston Globe Editorial Board Claims Trump Has ‘Blood on His Hands’ (PJ-MEDIA)
- NEW: Are People Catching On? (POWERLINE)
- NEW: The Wuhan Virus: Where We Are Now (POWERLINE)
- NEW: The Wuhan Virus: Six Notes & Queries (POWERLINE)
- NEW: Wuhan Virus Watch: Nevada and Michigan Governors Reverse Decision Banning Chloroquine Treatments (LEGAL INSURRECTION)
- NEW: Prosecutors: Engineer deliberately ran train off tracks in attempt to smash the USNS Mercy (WEASEL ZIPPERS)
- NEW: FLASHBACK: Nancy Pelosi Zones Out During State Of Union While President Trump Addresses Coronavirus (YOUTUBE)
- NEW: Chinese Journalists Keep Disappearing, This Congressman Wants Answers (WEASEL ZIPPERS)
- NEW: TUCKER CARLSON Covers Chinese Scientific Report Claiming Coronavirus Pandemic ‘Originated From A Laboratory In Wuhan’ (YOUTUBE VIDEO | LEGAL INSURRECTION)
- NEW: TUCKER CARLSON: A Chinese Research Paper Suggests The Coronavirus May Have Been Released Accidentally From A Lab (YOUTUBE VIDEO | HOTAIR)
- NEW: REMINDER: Bernie Sanders Was Asked If He Would Close The Borders If He “Had To” To Stop The Spread Of Coronavirus (TWITTER VIDEO)
- NEW: Right On Cue! Gov. Newsom Explains Why Pandemic Presents Opportunity To Usher In New ‘Progressive Era’ — And People Have Thoughts (TWITCHY)
- NEW: CA Gov. Gavin Newsom: We Will Use Coronavirus to ‘Reimagine a Progressive Era’ (WEASEL ZIPPERS)
- NEW: Laurence Tribe, Who Has Repeatedly Called Trump A ‘Dictator-Wannabe,’ Slams The President For Not Seizing Control Of Supply And Distribution Chain (TWITCHY) [Editor’s note: this is a good example of the degradation of language by Leftists. Words and ideas have certain meaning… except if you are a Democrat. rape, tolerance, aggression, racism, bigotry, etc… all have wild meanings to Democrats.]
- NEW: Cooper Fails to Correct Carl Bernstein’s Error on Trump Denouncing Virus as a ‘Hoax’ (NEWSBUSTERS)
- NEW: Infectious Disease Specialist Tells Fox News: ‘This is the Beginning of the End of the Pandemic’ (YOUTUBE VIDEO | RED STATE)
- NEW: Welcome to the PC (Post Coronavirus) Era (FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE)
- NEW: DAMN SON: Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Blasts China And WHO For Lying About COVID-19 And Endangering Millions (TWITCHY)
- NEW: Watch: Irate Japanese Official Suggests a New Name for WHO (TOWNHALL)
- NEW: Here’s An Irony For You: Tobacco May Save The World (AMERICAN THINKER)
- NEW: Inside The Dark Money Dem Group Using An Umbrella Network To Flay Trump Over His Virus Response (DAILY CALLER)
- NEW: Mitch McConnell Heads Off Talk Of Fourth Coronavirus Stimulus, Infrastructure Spending (DAILY WIRE)
- NEW: Trump Spoke Of Coronavirus In SOTU. Pelosi Tore It Up, Called It ‘Manifesto Of Mistruths’ (DAILY WIRE)
- NEW: Another Study Points to Lower COVID-19 Death Rate Than Previous Estimates; Trump Predicted as Much (CNS NEWS)
- NEW: Dr. Oz Tells Cuomo To Lift Ban On Anti-Malaria Drug Used To Combat Coronavirus (HANNITY VIDEO | DAILY CALLER)
- NEW: ‘Battlefield Medicine’: NY, NJ Doctors and Patients See Anecdotal Evidence of Hydroxychloroquine Benefits in Fighting Coronavirus (BREITBART)
- NEW: NYC Health Department: Overwhelming Majority of Coronavirus Deaths Involve Underlying Conditions (BREITBART)
- NEW: Report: Israel Team Days Away From Creating Active Component Of Coronavirus Vaccine (DAILY WIRE)
- NEW: Shocking List of What’s Killed the Most People in 2020 (RUSH LIMBAUGH)
- NEW: Preparing for the Wrong Emergency: Focused on climate change, Mayor Bill de Blasio failed to equip New York for the coronavirus crisis (CITY JOURNAL)
- NEW: Identity Politics Lied. New Yorkers Died: How identity politics pseudoscience left New York exposed to the Coronavirus (FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE)
- JOE ROGAN: It’s ‘Exhausting’ When Reporters Use Every Story As A ‘Chance To Shit On Trump’ (WASHINGTON TIMES | YOUTUBE VIDEO)
- God and Coronavirus (AMERICAN SPECTATOR)
- While Dems Lie About Trump’s CDC Budget, Turns Out Obama Requested Millions in Cuts (WESTERN JOURNAL)
- The Truth about the National Security Council’s Pandemic Team (NATIONAL REVIEW)
- Armchair Quarterbacks Try to Rewrite History on Coronavirus (NATIONAL REVIEW)
- How Will Coronavirus Change the Health-Care Industry? (NATIONAL REVIEW)
- Coronavirus Tally In Israel: 21 Fatalities, 5,591 Confirmed, 97 Serious (DEBKA FILE)
- NY Times Finally Admits Issues With China’s COVID-19 Statistics (ACCURACY IN MEDIA)
- If It Bleeds, It Leads: Media Omits Us Fatality Rates In Reports (ACCURACY IN MEDIA)
- President Trump: “I want to give people hope”… This Is The Side Of President Trump That The Media Doesn’t Want Anyone To See (YOUTUBE)
- North Korea Privately Asking for COVID-19 Aid While Reporting Zero Cases (AMERICAN GREATNESS)
- Time to Cancel the World Health Organization (AMERICAN GREATNESS)
- Hockey Sticks, Changing Goal Posts, and Hysteria (AMERICAN GREATNESS)
- ‘Medicare For All’ Wouldn’t Have Better Prepared Us For The Coronavirus (WASHINGTON EXAMINER)
- Ending Covid: It Will Take Some Time, But Rest Assured: A Coronavirus Vaccine Is Coming, And It Will Work (CITY JOURNAL)
- Mike Lindell, Not Yamiche Alcindor, Is the Hero (NATIONAL REVIEW)
- COVID Confirms It: Dems Don’t Understand Economics (ISSUES & INSIGHTS)
- Trump Versus Biden? Maybe. Trump Versus The Media? Absolutely (THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE)
- Beware China’s Masked Diplomacy (SPECTATOR USA)
- The Coronavirus Is Washing Over The U.S. These Factors Will Determine How Bad It Gets In Each Community (STAT)
- Axios-Ipsos Coronavirus Index: Rich Sheltered, Poor Shafted Amid Virus (AXIOS)
- Hero-Worshipped Andrew Cuomo Is The Reason The Coronavirus Is So Widespread In New York (NOQ REPORT)
- US Provides Nearly 15% Of Who’S Budget, China Just .2%. Now, A Gop Senator Is Calling For An Investigation (THE BLAZE)
- Dr. Fauci Shuts Down CNN’s Acosta For Suggesting Trump Didn’t Act Early To Stop Coronavirus (DAILY WIRE)
- Pence Task Force Freezes Coronavirus Aid Amid Backlash (POLITICO)
- The Senator Who Saw the Coronavirus Coming (NATIONAL REVIEW)
- Baltimore Pastor Vows To Continue Services Despite Police Threat, Another Pastor’s Arrest (DAILY WIRE)
- TEXAS: Dozens Of Spring Breakers Infected With COVID-19 After Mexico Trip (DAILY WIRE)
- Are Covid-19 Models A Sound Basis For Public Policy? [With Comment By Paul] (POWERLINE)
- Barack Obama Falsely Accuses Trump of ‘Ignoring Warnings of a Pandemic’ (PJ-MEDIA)
- Trump Destroys Connecticut Governor’s Claim the Strategic National Stockpile Has Been Emptied (PJ-MEDIA)
- Did COVID-19 Originate in a Chinese Lab? And Why Is It Crazy to Ask? (PJ-MEDIA)
- SUICIDE vs. CORONAVIRUS DEATHS: Study Finds Coming Economic Crisis Could Lead to 831,600 Suicides! — That is Four Times the Number of Estimated Coronavirus Deaths (GATEWAY PUNDIT)
- As Long As Communist China Controls The World Health Organization, It’s Completely Unreliable (THE FEDERALIST)
- The Coronavirus Is Making (State) Borders Great Again (THE FEDERALIST)
- Coronavirus Has Driven A Stake Through Globalism’s Heart (THE FEDERALIST)
- We’re Following A One-Size-Fits-All Coronavirus Strategy Right Into A Great Depression (THE FEDERALIST)
- LGBT Bigots Denounce Christians Helping Coronavirus Patients (MOONBATTERY)
- Joe Scarborough Says Everyone But Trump ‘Saw This Coming In Early January’ — Forgets His Show Didn’t Mention It Until The 24th (WEASEL ZIPPERS)
- EXCLUSIVE: Spain Is One Of The Countries Hit Hardest By Coronavirus — Spanish Reporter Explains What’s Different About US Response (DAILY CALLER)
- THE FIVE: Gutfeld On The Media And The Virus (YOUTUBE)
- New O’Keefe Video: N.Y. National Guardsmen Say “It’s Just The Flu” (HOTAIR)
- It Took 27 Days For CNN To Say What They Previously Accused Trump Of Lying About (HOTAIR)
- China Concealed Extent of Virus Outbreak, U.S. Intelligence Says (BLOOMBERG)
- ‘Impeachment 2: Resistance Boogaloo’! Dems Reportedly Exploring Commission To Scrutinize Trump Admin’s COVID19 Response (TWITCHY)
- SUPERCUT! Dems Give Really Terrible Coronavirus Advice (TWITTER video)
- Gov. Gretchen Whitmer Asks Trump Administration for Chloroquine After Reversing Ban (BREITBART)
- HUD Secretary Carson: Quickly Evolving Coronavirus Treatments Could Change Landscape ‘In the Next Week or Two’ (BREITBART)
- House Democrats Already Planning 9/11-Style Commission To Investigate Trump’s Coronavirus Response… (RIGHT SCOOP)
- Michigan Governor Who Banned Anti-Coronavirus Drug Touted by Trump Now Asking for Shipments of It (RED STATE)
- Report: Intelligence Officials Confirm China Hid the Extent of the Viral Outbreak (RED STATE)
- Don Lemon Lies: Blame Trump Because He Called the Virus, a ‘Hoax’ (NEWSBUSTERS – See my post as well: “Larry Elder Debunks Media’s Latest Lies“)
- GOP Reminds Pelosi Her Impeachment Obsession Distracted From Wuhan Coronavirus Efforts (LEGAL INSURRECTION)
- Wuhan Virus Watch: Drs. Fauci and Birx Dispute Claim U.S. Didn’t Act Quickly (LEGAL INSURRECTION)
- LAURA INGRAHAM: Americans Want To Stay Safe And Free (YOUTUBE)
- TUCKER CARLSON: ‘Wet markets’ reopening across China: Report (YOUTUBE)
- If You Claim That Calling It ‘Wuhan Coronavirus’ Is Racist, You Are Part Of The Cover-Up (LEGAL INSURRECTION)
- Christian Round-Ups Continue: 7 Arrested for Praying Near Greensboro Abortion Clinic During Stay-at Home Order (PJ-MEDIA)
- Coronavirus Reveals the Recklessness of Drug Pricing Reform (TOWNHALL)
- Even on COVID-19, Left and Right Are Divided (TOWNHALL – Dennis Prager)
- Will Coronavirus Kill the European Union? (CITY JOURNAL)
- Why COVID-19 Rates Are Difficult To Compute (UNCOMMON DESCENT)
- Trump Was Right: Cuomo Admits New York Has ‘Stockpile’ of Ventilators (WESTERN JOURNAL)
- CBS Used Fake COVID Video: ‘NY Hospital’ Footage Was From Italy’s Hardest-Hit City (WESTERN JOURNAL)
- A Disaster Foretold: Shortages Of Ventilators And Other Medical Supplies Have Long Been Warned About (NEW YORK TIMES)
- US Gov’t Partners with Johnson & Johnson To Prep for 1 Billion Coronavirus Vaccine Doses (WESTERN JOURNAL)
- Distillers’ Attempt To Fill Sanitizer Void Threatened By FDA Red Tape (WASHINGTON TIMES)
- Chinese Markets Again Selling Bats — Likely Source Of Deadly Pandemic — Reporters Say (WASHINGTON TIMES)
- Chinese Researchers Isolated Deadly Bat Coronaviruses Near Wuhan Animal Market (WASHINGTON TIMES)
- China Caught Smuggling SARS/MERS Into US (FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE)
- Shut Down Churches for Coronavirus, “Yes”, Shut Down Abortion Clinics, “No” (FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE)
- Trump Cites Report Cuomo Passed On Chance To Buy 16,000 Ventilators In 2015 (FOX NEWS)
- The Game Changer: President Trump Was Right: Regarding CHLOROQUINE, The Science Is On His Side, Not The New York Times’ (AMERICAN SPECTATOR)
- The $20 Solution to Coronavirus: ‘Anecdotal Evidence’ Is a Life-Saver [HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE] (AMERICAN SPECTATOR)
- Border Patrol Stopped a Chinese Biologist Carrying Viable SARS, MERS Viruses at Detroit Airport in 2018 (NATIONAL REVIEW)
- Wet Markets That Produced Chinese Virus Back Up and Running (MOONBATTERY)
- Complicated Mathematical Models Are Not Substitutes for Common Sense (NATIONAL REVIEW)
- No, America’s Response to Coronavirus Isn’t the Worst in the World (NATIONAL REVIEW)
- WashPost ‘Fact Checker’ Throws Misdirected ‘Four Pinocchios’ at Dr. Fauci (NEWSBUSTERS)
- Twitter Removes Tweet Reporting ‘HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE’ As Treatment For Wuhan Virus (THE FEDERALIST)
- Soros and the Coronavirus Pandemic (AMERICAN THINKER)
- BLUE COLLAR LOGIC: Some Things You Might Not Know… We Are Not China Or Italy (YOUTUBE)
- France Officially Sanctions Drug [CHLOROQUINE] After 78 Of 80 Patients Recover From COVID-19 Within Five Days (DAILY WIRE)
- FDA Issues Emergency Authorization Of 2 Anti-Malaria Drugs For Coronavirus Treatment (CHANNEL 4 SAN FRANCISCO)
- (RPT Recomends) Numerators and Denominators in the Coronavirus Saga (AMERICAN THINKER)
- Once Again, Trump Was Right And The Media Were Wrong (AMERICAN THINKER)
- Michigan’s Governor Is Fighting A Losing Battle With President Trump (AMERICAN THINKER)
- BLUE COLLAR LOGIC: Sunset on New York. Is The City ITSELF A Casualty? (YOUTUBE)
- LOUDER WITH CROWDER: Why Trump is Right on CHLOROQUINE! (YOUTUBE)
- FDA Gives Emergency Authorization of HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE Use (BREITBART)
- New York Orders Huge Amount Of CHLOROQUINE, Begins Trials; Trump Calls Out Media’s Double Standard (DAILY WIRE)
- Coronavirus Patients Taken Off Ventilators After Getting Experimental HIV DRUG (NEW YORK POST)
- More Evidence Of The Efficacy Of HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE And Azithromycin (POWERLINE)
- Inaccurate Virus Models Are Panicking Officials Into Ill-Advised Lockdowns (THE FEDERALIST)
- The Top 10 Lies About President Trump’s Response to the Coronavirus (PJ-MEDIA)
- Cuomo Admits Trump’s Right: Coronavirus Shortages Are Fake News (PJ-MEDIA)
- Coronavirus Modeling Had Faulty Assumptions, the Real Data Gives Us Hope (PJ-MEDIA)
- French Expert Says Second Study Shows Malaria Drug Helps Fight Coronavirus [HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE] (YAHOO NEWS)
- Governor Hit For HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE Crackdown As Political Debate Escalates (WASHINGTON TIMES)
- TUCKER CARLSON: It’s Not Clear Why People Are Lying About The Effectivity Of HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE (YOUTUBE)
- How Government Regulations Are Exacerbating The Corona Crisis (CHHAY LIN LIM)
- WSJ Op-Ed: Two Physicians Weigh in on HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE, ‘We Don’t Have the Luxury of Time’ (RED STATE)
- New controlled clinical study conducted by doctors in France shows that a combo of HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE and Azithromycin (Z-Pak) cures 100% of coronavirus patients within 6 days of treatment (TECH STARTUPS)
- GOOD NEWS: Actor Daniel Dae Kim Credits ‘Drug Cocktail’ Which Included HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE And Z-Pak For His Recovery (TWITCHY)
- These Drugs Are Helping Our Coronavirus Patients [HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE] (WALL STREET JOURNAL [paywall] | DISCUSSIONIST [non-paywall])
- “There Is Hope”: Two Drugs That Could Help Coronavirus Patients Fight Back [HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE] (CBS)
- California Once Had Mobile Hospitals And A Ventilator Stockpile. But It Dismantled Them (MSN)
- Dr. Vladimir Zelenko has now treated 699 coronavirus patients with 100% success using HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE Sulfate, Zinc and Z-Pak [UPDATES] (TECH STARTUPS)
- Media Peddle Bogus Wuhan Virus Stats To Bash America (THE FEDERALIST)
- SEIU Healthcare Union Suddenly Finds 39 Million N95 Masks (BREITBART)
- Michigan Attorney General Urges Residents to Call Cops on Neighbors Violating Stay-at-Home Order (BREITBART)
- Cuomo Deserves No Plaudits for His Handling of Crisis (AMERICAN GREATNESS)
- 5 Major Paradigm Shifts The Wuhan Flu Crisis Has Revealed Americans Need (THE FEDERALIST)
- Cuomo Wonders If Coronavirus Quarantine May Have Backfired In Some Cases (NEW YORK POST)
- Cuomo: Two Pieces Of Good News Out Of NY: Hospitalization Rate Drops, PPE (personal protective equipment) Need Filled (DAILY WIRE)
- Israeli Firm Donates to U.S. Ten Million Pills (HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE sulfate) Touted by Trump for Coronavirus Treatment (BREITBART)
- Trial Drug For Pneumonia In Cancer Patients Seeks FDA Approval For COVID-19 Clinical Trials (LEGAL INSURRECTION)
- Dr. Anthony Fauci Says Coronavirus Is Likely Seasonal. What Does That Mean? (DAILY CALLER)
- Horowitz: Man who spooked the world with coronavirus model walks back his prediction (CONSERVATIVE REVIEW)
- LAURA INGRAHAM: Is first Reporter to Out False WHO COVID-19 Mortality Rate that Led to Global Panic (YOUTUBE)
- Stanford Medical Professors: Covid-19 Death Toll Estimates May Be ‘Orders Of Magnitude’ Too High (THE BLAZE)
- Covid-19 Fatality Rate May Be Too High By Orders Of Magnitude (WALL STREET JOURNAL via RPT)
- Wondered Why It’s Been So Hard To Ramp Up Production Of Surgical Masks And Respirators? Why Haven’t Private Companies Flooded Into The Market To Meet Peak Demand? (TWITTER account of Paul Matzco)
- While Most Of Europe Is In Lockdown, Sweden Is Going Its Own Way (THE LOCAL)
- The Scientist Whose Doomsday Pandemic Model Predicted Armageddon Just Walked Back The Apocalyptic Predictions (THE FEDERALIST)
- Epidemiologist Behind Highly-Cited Coronavirus Model Drastically Downgrades Projection (DAILY WIRE)
- Good News: Scientists Say Coronavirus Does Not Undergo Significant Number Of Mutations (DAILY WIRE)
- Masks, Masks, Where Are the Masks? (FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE)
- Coronavirus Cases Have Dropped Sharply In South Korea. What’S The Secret To Its Success? (SCIENCE MAGAZINE)
- Horowitz: The Key Bad Assumption in The Bipartisan Panic Pander Bill (CONSERVATIVE REVIEW)
- Prevention Expert: Data Shows Our Fight Against Coronavirus May Be Worse Than The Disease (DAILY WIRE)
- A Fiasco in The Making? As the Coronavirus Pandemic Takes Hold, We Are Making Decisions Without Reliable Data (STAT NEWS)
- Truckers Appeal To US To Keep Rest Stops, Gas Stations Open (MERCURY NEWS)
- Taiwan Says It Warned WHO About Coronavirus In December, But Its Warnings Were Ignored (DAILY CALLER)
- Why the Remedy May Be Worse Than the Disease (DENNIS PRAGER)
- Some Coronavirus Humility (VICTOR DAVIS HANSON)
- The Great Coronavirus War Is Upon Us (VICTOR DAVIS HANSON)
- Compared to What? (HEATHER MAC)
- We Go From Hysteria to Hysteria (DENNIS PRAGER)
- What We Don’t Know About the Coronavirus Is What Scares Us (VICTOR DAVIS HANSON)
- Coronavirus Comes for Europe (GATESTONE)
- China’s Real Disease: Not Coronavirus (GATESTONE)
- Israeli Virologist Urges World Leaders To Calm Public, Slams ‘Unnecessary Panic’ (ISRAEL TIMES)
- 99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness, Italy Says (BLOOMBERG)
- Obama’s Bad Stimulus Example (WALL STREET JOURNAL via RPT)
- MIRACLE DRUG? Dr William Grace Says CHLOROQUINE Is Already Being Used In US, Explains CDC Coronavirus Test Delay (YOUTUBE)
- DR. FAUCI Interviewed by WMAL (YOUTUBE)
MY YOUTBE
- Ventilators: 20-years of Warning (LARRY ELDER)
- Levin Discusses The Covid-19 Panic (MARK LEVIN)
- Test Kits Myth | Dr. Fauci Debunks (LARRY ELDER)
- MSM Caught the “Lying Virus” (LARRY ELDER)
- Italy/Wuhan China Driving Stats (VICTOR DAVID HANSON)
- Victor Davis Hanson on the Wuhan Virus (DENNIS PRAGER interviews VICTOR DAVIS HANSON)
- Shutting Down America (DENNIS PRAGER)
- Michael Fumento On Covid-19 (DENNIS PRAGER)
- Michael Fumento On Covid-19 (MICHAEL MEDVED)
- Is Coronavirus a Imminent Threat | Dem vs. Repub (DENNIS PRAGER)
- Quarantine the Media and Democrats (LARRY ELDER)
- Spanish Flu vs. Wuhan Flu (LARRY ELDER)
- Iran’s Coronavirus Conspiracy (MARK STEYN)