Categories
Donald trump supreme court Intelwars Ruth bader ginsburg successor Supreme court nomination

Horowitz: 16 questions conservatives should ask ANY Supreme Court pick

This article is adapted from the original list of 15 questions I posed during the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court in February 2017.

Democrats never have any doubts about their court nominees. They know with certainty that once their picks are on the court, they will be willing to do anything in a real case to interpret the Constitution the way they see it. They will rule with the party’s preferred political outcomes regardless of past precedent or the plain meaning of the Constitution. There is no reason why conservatives cannot have that same confidence that GOP nominees will rule on the side of the original meaning of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.

There is a long list of so-called originalist jurists who lecture in the abstract on the legal speaking circuit about the original interpretation of the Constitution. Yet few of them appear to abide by it in practice when such rulings will stick a spoke into identity politics. There really is only one justice who is willing to render an opinion based on his understanding of the Constitution as originally constructed, regardless of the political consequences, and that is Clarence Thomas.

We must convert theoretical originalism into practical originalism. Trump and conservatives spearheading the search for a nominee must get commitments from the candidates about clear constitutional questions that are relevant to the time we live in. No, they don’t need to answer about specific cases, but if they can’t categorically reject the notion of a constitutional right to transgenderism, to abortion, or to immigrate – and be willing to rule accordingly, regardless of recent decisions or lower court rulings – then their originalism has no value beyond a Federalist Society conference.

Here is a list of 16 questions on very relevant and consequential issues that should be asked in any interview of these candidates – whether by White House officials or by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. These are not tough questions. Anyone with a semblance of originalism should be able to easily answer them. We certainly know what every Democrat-appointed judge would say about these issues. We should have the same confidence about any supposed originalist.

Constitutional interpretation

1. Does the Supreme Court create “settled law”? Is it the final arbiter?

What the Founders envisioned as the weakest branch of government has now become a place where political discourse goes to die. Scalia pointed out as much in the Obergefell decision months before his death.

Is Obergefell truly “settled law”? Is any watershed ruling? Or is the concept of judicial supremacy something contrived in the 20th century that has since been used to pull issues out of public debate and put them squarely under the control of the legal profession?

Do you think rulings at the Supreme Court are better thought of “law” as that term is contemplated by Article VI’s Supremacy Clause, or are they better thought of as ad hoc judgments that merely lend persuasive authority to broader constitutional/political principles? What is the meaning of “supreme,” in Art. III, where “Supreme Court” is defined? Does it merely refer to a power to reverse lower court judgments and nothing more?

2. Does the concept of stare decisis violate the judicial oath of office? Do you support the prevailing doctrine of treating erroneous landmark decisions as settled law when they manifestly violate the Constitution or its amendments as originally adopted?

The source of the contemporary belief that the federal courts are the law of the land is Marbury, wherein John Marshall said that for courts not to block implementation of unconstitutional laws would violate judges’ oath of office. If the oath to the Constitution forces a judge to strike down a law duly passed by Congress and signed by the president (or passed by a state legislature and signed by a governor), isn’t it obvious that such an oath requires judges to overturn decisions of prior courts that unconstitutionally create law that never passed any elected branch?

3. Does Congress have full power over the jurisdiction of lower courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

Do you agree with Justice Thomas (Patchak v. Zinke) that “when Congress strips federal courts of jurisdiction, it exercises a valid legislative power no less than when it lays taxes, coins money, declares war, or invokes any other power that the Constitution grants it”? Do you believe there are any limitations on that power? Would you respect any limitations Congress places on the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and be willing to overturn any lower court that violates Congress’ power?

4. Do you feel it is an obligation of the Supreme Court to grant certiorari or a stay for appellants when a lower court decision or injunction is built upon a prima facie “living and breathing Constitution” doctrine?

We are seeing a slew of lower courts blocking very consequential federal, state, or local laws and practices that are clearly built upon a desire to take sides in a controversial political question, yet the Supreme Court has been slow to react.

Religion in the public square

5. Do you believe that the Establishment Clause merely prevents the federal government from choosing an official state religious denomination and coercing individuals by force of official penalties “to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience,” as Madison said?

Do you believe that public display of religious symbols or public prayer that in no way coerces anyone to worship violates the Establishment Clause? The majority opinion in the Bladensburg cross case last year seemed to imply that only a symbol “first established long ago” that could have some degree of secular meaning passes muster, but not a newer symbol or public prayer by a county council that is religious in nature, yet voluntary. Do you agree with Justice Thomas in his concurrence that only an individual who is “actually coerced by government conduct that shares the characteristics of an establishment as understood at the founding” can sue for a violation of the First Amendment?

Immigration

6. Do you believe there are any exceptions to the plenary power doctrine?

Since our Founding until the modern era, the courts have upheld the plenary power doctrine, which states that Congress — acting on behalf of the citizenry and national sovereignty — has the power to exclude or deport any foreign national or groups of immigrants for any reason. The courts, in what has been considered one of the most settled areas of law, declared that there is no right to judicial review to keep a foreign national in the country against the national will. Further, they have ruled that the process established by Congress through statute to deport an alien is due process. In recent years, however, the modern legal profession has chipped away at national sovereignty.

7. Do you believe Plyler v. Doe, which forced states to provide education benefits to illegal aliens, was erroneously decided?

Do you agree with Scalia’s dissent in Arizona v. United States (2012) that states have full power to echo, complement, and even expand upon federal restrictions against illegal aliens so long as such action is not explicitly prohibited by Congress? Do you agree with Scalia’s assertion that “the naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it”?

8. Do you agree with the modern legal theory that illegal aliens have rights to citizenship for their children and other sundry rights to remain in the country?

Do you agree with contemporary activist legal theory that the 14th Amendment requires Congress to count illegal aliens in the census?

How should the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment be understood? Does it extend an automatic and unqualified birthright citizenship to those who come here or remain here against the national will, even though settled case law considers illegal aliens to be standing outside our border?

Does the government have the right to detain illegals or criminal aliens with the full intent to deport them when their home countries aren’t cooperating? Do you believe Zadvydas was wrongly decided?

Given that sanctuary cities, unlike states like Arizona that complement federal law, defy an enumerated power of Congress, does Congress have the authority to cut off funding to those states?

14th Amendment

9. What does the 14th Amendment really do?

The 14th Amendment was originally written with the intent of undoing the legal atrocities of chattel slavery and restoring inalienable rights to freed slaves. Since then, its provisions have been used as a blanket justification to codify a never-ending list of privileges into the body of constitutional case law. This modern understanding of the amendment has not only been used to create “rights” to abortion and same-sex marriage, but has also been used by leftist judges to manufacture “rights” to early voting, transgender bathrooms, and a host of other issues, as well as new rights for illegal aliens.

Do you believe, as the crafters of the 14th Amendment did, that the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses were “establishing no new right, declaring no new principle,” but rather were to reiterate and “to protect and enforce those which belong to every citizen”?

Do you believe that the authentic fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are enforceable through the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, as Justice Thomas does?

10. When Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 prohibit discrimination based on sex, does that include what is now referred to as “gender identity” and “sexual orientation”? Or does it mean “sex” as was understood when the law was passed?

In other words, does this candidate believe that Justice Gorsuch wrongly decided the Bostock case in creating a statutory bar on transgender discrimination in employment law or other areas of law?

11. Do you believe any form of disparate impact — looking solely at unequal outcomes between racial groups — has any place in our discrimination laws?

Was Griggs v. Duke Power Co. wrongly decided when the court allowed plaintiffs to bring disparate impact claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? If that is believed to be stare decisis, where do we draw the line? Does Section Two of the Voting Rights Act allow anyone to sue a state for a discrimination violation based on nothing more than a showing of disparate racial impact? Disparate impact reasoning has been a problem on a host of cases that should never have anything to do with race. Progressivists often rule that, because the impact of a law affects one racial group disproportionately, a law can be racist regardless of its intent or language.

12. What is your view of “substantive due process”?

Do you believe the 20th-century invention whereby judges manufacture rights under the 14th Amendment is “settled law?” Or is it “a legal fiction, an “oxymoron,” as Scalia has suggested? Are those words in the Constitution “only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice,” as Alexander Hamilton observed? Put simply, does the Supreme Court have the power to create rights, as it has done with privacy, abortion, contraception, and gay marriage, among others?

Voting rights and voter integrity

13. What rights do courts have to interfere in voter ID policies?

A pervasive trend in the federal courts — pending now in most circuits — is to overturn state voter integrity laws and mandate the methods, times, and procedures of state and federal elections. Evidently, according to some lower courts, there is a constitutional right to 20 days for early voting, to ballot harvesting, to an unlimited number of polling places in urban areas, to same-day registration, to an option for straight-ticket voting, to non-citizen voting, to voting without photo ID, to dead voters remaining on the voter rolls, and to the ability of one political party to maximize its electoral advantage through constant delaying of registration deadlines. Do you believe there is any basis for interventions from the federal courts absent a clear mandate from statute, given that states were supposed to control election law and all these cases can be heard in state court?

Eighth Amendment – Cruel and Unusual Punishment

14. Does the Eighth Amendment compel prisons to offer “sex change operations” to prisoners who request them?

This might sound like an obvious question to any Republican appointee, but given that the current Supreme Court allowed a Ninth Circuit ruling on this very premise to stand, it clearly is not that obvious.

Likewise, the Supreme Court has allowed a decision from the Ninth Circuit barring ordinances that prohibit homeless encampment on city streets to stand. Do you believe such laws violate the Eighth Amendment?

15. Could the Eighth Amendment bar the use of the death penalty for crimes that it was used for during the time of our Founding?

Over the past two decades, the high court has ruled that punishments in place since the Founding of the country violate the Eighth Amendment. In 2005 (Roper v. Simmons), the court ruled that capital punishment for juveniles is unconstitutional. In 2010 (Graham v. Florida), the court ruled that life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional except for murder and then in 2012 (Miller v. Alabama) ruled that it’s unconstitutional even for murder. In 2008 (Kennedy v. Louisiana), the court ruled the death penalty as a punishment for child rape is unconstitutional. Would you overturn these decisions? Do you agree with what Justice Thomas wrote in Graham v. Florida, that “The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was originally understood as prohibiting torturous methods of punishment—specifically methods akin to those that had been considered cruel and unusual at the time the Bill of Rights”?

16. What are the limitations on state powers to regulate individual behavior, mandate masks, and close businesses, under the guise of public health concerns? Did Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) properly decide the issue of mandatory vaccination, and if so, would that ruling extend even to a new, unproven vaccine? Also, can states use the police power of quarantine to issue shelter-in-place orders even to healthy people? Can they restrict travel from other states?

Share
Categories
Bail reform criminal justice reform Intelwars New york crime Subway derailment

Horowitz: Man charged with derailing NYC subway had been released without bail after arrest for similar incident

Criminals are creatures of habit. If they commit burglary and are released without punishment, they tend to return to break-ins. Well, likewise, if they have a penchant for sabotaging or damaging public transportation and they are released without bail, they tend to do it again. New York is now learning this basic lesson in criminology the hard way with Demetrius Harvard.

Early Sunday morning, a Manhattan subway car was derailed after hitting a metal pipe thrown on the tracks. It caused one of New York’s worst subway crashes in years, with hundreds of feet of electrified rail damaged or destroyed as well as the rail car. Fortunately, only three passengers sustained minor injuries. The good news is that there was no malfunction in the rail or on the tracks. The bad news is that it was caused by a saboteur who was caught by passengers while laughing about tossing the metal onto the tracks. He was held down until police arrived. So who is Demetrius Harvard?

Harvard, 30, is another career criminal who was allowed to remain on the streets despite his clear threat to public safety. According to the New York Post, Harvard had just been in court 15 days earlier for allegedly striking an MTA bus with a metal street barricade and shattering two windows. Despite this, prosecutors didn’t even ask that he be held on bail. He was released immediately.

Even worse, at the time of the initial incident, he had an open warrant for not showing up in court for another violent incident. Earlier this year, he was arrested for allegedly swinging a metal pipe at two Boost store employees and then throwing a metal trash can at the exterior of the store. According to court records, he also pleaded guilty to making terrorist threats in 2010 and had other arrests for assault and criminal mischief. Harvard, who is believed to be homeless and mentally ill, was clearly known as a public safety threat during the Sept. 5 hearing after the first public transit sabotage incident. How could such a man be released in a functioning criminal justice system?

The answer is that New York no longer has a functioning criminal justice system. Its “reforms” were never about first-time, nonviolent offenders. Even the most violent criminals seem to be released despite their past records.

Additionally, New York is clearly headed back to the 1970s era with violence on the subways. Several weeks ago, a woman was almost raped in broad daylight by a career criminal who was later released with relatively low bail.

According to new data from the NYPD, there were 110 major felonies reported on subways in August. While those numbers were lower than this time last year (crime was already rising then), those numbers are shocking because ridership is down 75% due to fears of the virus. Factoring in the reduced population traveling every day, that is a doubling of criminal incidents per capita. The culprit? According to the New York Daily News, “NYPD subway arrests fell by 80% and summonses dropped by 95% in August compared with the year before, data shows.”

And of course, even if they are arrested, they are released multiple times.

When deterrent goes down, crime goes up. Do we want to see the next scene in this horror movie?

Share
Categories
Florida anti-riot legislation Intelwars Ron DeSantis

Horowitz: Florida Gov. DeSantis proposes anti-rioting legislation

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) appears to have lost his patience with the rioters and is now seeking to read them his new version of the Riot Act. “Florida is off the table; you’re just not coming here,” declared the first-term governor at a press conference today.

On Monday, the conservative governor of the Sunshine State unveiled the “Combating Violence, Disorder, and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act” at a press event with state legislative leaders and sheriffs. The proposed legislation appears to be aimed at both deterring rioters and looters and protecting law enforcement against punitive action for defending themselves and public order, as well as non-police citizens acting in self-defense.

In terms of deterring the rioters, the legislation would target violent assemblies, destruction of monuments, blocking of public roadways, and harassing of citizens — all rampant behavior of Antifa and BLM mobs that have gone undeterred and unpunished until now.

Specifically, the bill, if adopted by the legislature, would make it a third-degree felony to be a part of an assembly of seven or more people causing damage or injuring people or to obstruct traffic and block motorists during an unpermitted demonstration. The bill would also protect motorists from any liability for death or injury to the mob members if the individual is clearly fleeing to safety. This addresses a growing problem we are seeing with BLM rioters blocking traffic and placing motorists in grave danger of being forced to risk either being severely beaten or running over those blocking the road.

The bill ups the ante against those who topple monuments by making such an offense a second-degree felony under state law. It also criminalizes participation in disorderly assemblies targeting citizens at restaurants or other public places.

Finally, in an effort to target those organizing the rioting, this bill would slap the funders and organizers of violent riots with state RICO charges.

In terms of punishment, the bill seeks to address the catch-and-release problem that is rampant throughout the country. As we’ve seen throughout the rioting, many individuals who engage in violence against civilians and police are released from jail the next day and charges are dropped. This proposed legislation creates a mandatory six-month sentence for attacking a police officer. It also offers sentence enhancements for those who assault officers, throw objects at civilians or officers, and for individuals present from out of state while participating in a disorderly assembly. Additionally, it bars the release of any of the aforementioned offenders on bail until the first court hearing.

As a way of deterring more liberal localities within Florida that might tacitly bless the violence and fail to protect citizens, the DeSantis proposal would defund those cities that defund the police. Also, rather than debating ending sovereign immunity for police, his bill would end sovereign immunity for government officials who fail to protect the people by allowing victims of the rioters to sue the government when it is grossly negligent in protecting lives and property.

And in case any government workers or teachers want to participate in the rioting, this bill would deny them government benefits and make them ineligible for state employment if they are convicted of any of the aforementioned crimes.

DeSantis is clearly breaking the mold of criminal justice “reform.” In recent years, both parties have focused on reducing sentencing and promoting a de-incarceration agenda. DeSantis’ proposal is a clear recognition that our deterrent against violent crime, particularly those who feel invincible because of the mass numbers of demonstrators around them, is waning fast.

“They do it because they think they can get away with it,” said DeSantis when defending the need to have guaranteed jail time.

“We’ve seen this go on long enough.”

DeSantis laid down the gauntlet and called on every state legislator to tell their constituents during this election season whether they will support the bill or not – whether they will stand with law and order “or stand with the mob.”

Incoming state Senate president Wilton Simpson and House speaker-designate Chris Sprawls were also at the press conference and promised to push this legislation through the state Senate as soon as they convene next year.

Grady Judd, the sheriff hosting the event, called on other states to follow in the footsteps of the Florida governor. “I ask the other states, where’s your governor? … This is a state where you want to come on vacation, this is a state where you want to grow your business, and this is a state where you’re safe.”

Judd warned the rioters, “If you loot, the next thing you can try to steal is something off your food tray at the county jail, because you’re going to jail. That’s a guarantee.

They were clearly sending the message that Florida is the anti-Portland. “You look around the country, and I think it’s pretty clear that morale is very low in many police forces,” said DeSantis. “If you look at what’s gone on in some parts of our country, we just can’t allow that to happen here.”

Share
Categories
Intelwars Judicial supremacy Supreme Court Supreme court nomination Supreme court vacancy

Horowitz: No more stealth nominees. Use the conservative litmus test on SCOTUS candidates

Not even our grandparents’ generation, much less the Founders of this country, could ever have envisioned a day when to a huge number of people, the purpose of voting in a presidential election would not be for the presidency per se, but for who will choose the next Supreme Court justice. They would have laughed at the notion that a Supreme Court justice is more powerful than a president, but alas, here we are again debating a Supreme Court vacancy more vociferously than the presidency itself — because we have all wrongly entrusted the future of our society to the hands of unelected lawyers.

Before we elect senators or presidents, we are supposed to have a good idea as to their stances on the critical issues that will likely confront them. Given that the Supreme Court is wrongly regarded as a super-legislature, we have an even greater right – even a responsibility – to know where the nominee stands on the critical issues. No more stealth nominees, where we wind up getting justices selected by so-called conservatives who redefine human sexuality. We need hard litmus tests, even more than we have for president and Senate.

Just consider the difference between the power of what was considered the weakest branch of government and the power of the political branches. A senator is just one of 100 people. To change policy in the country, you need a majority (supermajority in the Senate) in both houses and the president’s signature. If you oppose the law, you can always work to win future elections and change the law with a new vote from new members. The same applies to the president, whose subsequent policies can be changed by his successor. Then, of course, we are told that the judiciary itself can easily change the policies enacted by the political branches.

Contrast that to the Supreme Court, where we have nine life-tenured lawyers who can literally change the laws of God, or so we are told, and their decision is immutable. Regardless of the law, Constitution, rules of standing for a judicial case, past and recent Supreme Court precedent, political fallout, or national security consequences, justices can declare an opinion and have that policy unquestionably become “the law of the land.” According to the erroneous practice of judicial supremacism, the only way to change that back is to embark on the nearly impossible task of amending the Constitution. And unlike when the shoe is on the other foot, we are told that the other branches cannot check that decision in any way.

With that background in mind, this is why it’s time that we finally establish litmus tests for GOP SCOTUS nominees. If Democrats want to end the policy of judicial supremacism and make the Supreme Court boring again, then the nominee’s positions matter less. But if they continue to treat SCOTUS like a super-legislature and get 100% assurance from their nominees where they stand on life, social issues, immigration, election law, and just about everything that can affect our society and politics, you better believe we will do the same.

Republicans keep nominating people who side with the Left on monumental issues. We swore we wouldn’t do this again after Souter, but here we are today with Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch – to varying degrees – in play to side with the Left at any given time on some critical and transformational issue. Conservatives’ only one-hundred-percenter is Clarence Thomas, while the Left has four of them.

The mistake we make during every confirmation process is that we try to fool the Left with stealth nominees who have never said anything “controversial,” but instead we wind up fooling ourselves. During Gorsuch’s confirmation, I prepared a list of 15 relevant questions conservatives should get answers on, at least privately, before supporting him. One of them was whether he believes sex discrimination in law includes transgenderism. Well, the president and GOP senators didn’t get an assurance on a single one of those issues, and we are paying the price today.

Of the past 19 Supreme Court vacancies, 13 of them were filled by GOP presidents. Yet, at best, just four of them can be considered to have been reliable enough on our issues (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito).

The guessing game clearly has not worked for us. It’s time to grab the bull by the horns. It’s time to nominate someone who gives assurances to Trump and other conservative leaders as to where they are on the issues of the time. No, they need not prejudge specific cases. But if they believe illegal aliens have a right to remain in the country, that there is a right to transgenderism, and that past erroneous court decisions should be given deference, then we need to know about that up front. The other side always knows, and it never makes a mistake.

Rather than focusing on identity over everything else, we must focus on ideology, because, yes, this is a more ideological decision than congressional or presidential elections. The last time a president promised to appoint a woman above all other considerations, we got Sandra Day O’Connor. It’s not that Trump shouldn’t choose a woman, but whoever he chooses should check the constitutional boxes, not just in vague platitudes, first and foremost, instead of the identity politics boxes.

Sound too partisan? Well, then stop making the court the ultimate partisan body that is vested with the power to transform natural law.

On Saturday, David Axelrod, President Obama’s former campaign manager, complained about the “tyranny of the minority” – with two GOP presidents having been elected by a minority of the nationwide popular vote choosing the majority of Supreme Court justices. Well, there is no greater tyranny of a minority than nine unelected, life-tenured lawyers being able to decide with finality any and every life decision of an individual and society at large.

As President Lincoln warned in his first inaugural address, “If the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Trump should tell his opponents that he is content to return the court’s power to the early days when John Jay, the first chief justice, observed that it lacked “the energy, weight, and dignity which are essential to its affording due support to the national government.” But now that it contains all the weight of the national government, like an obese behemoth, you better believe we’re going to make sure our nominees know the lines and don’t cross them. If Democrats don’t like it, they ought to shake hands with us and agree to place the power of this body on a rigorous diet.

Share
Categories
border Crime Illegal alien crime Illegal Immigration Intelwars

Horowitz: Illegal alien crime wave continues as border heats up again

Just because they’re overshadowed by an unprecedented news cycle doesn’t mean the border and criminal alien problems in this country have disappeared. We still have huge numbers of criminal aliens who remain in this country undeterred and who continue to be incentivized to cross the border with the confidence that they can remain here undetected. Until we begin enforcing some of the original immigration laws on the books, we will continue importing more gangs, drug traffickers, and child molesters at a time when we are struggling with domestic violence and insurrection among the citizen population.

Three illegal alien brothers from Honduras are accused of raping a 10-year-old girl in Kenner, Louisiana. According to police, Raul Paz-Perez and Wilmer Paz-Perez, both 35, and 31-year-old Elder Paz-Perez all live together in the same apartment as Elder’s girlfriend and four of her children. The alleged victim is one of her children. Raul and Wilmer are in custody, and Elder is still on the run. Jail bookings of the two arrested brothers indicate there is a federal immigration hold.

The brothers are accused of first trying to pay the 10-year-old girl for sex, and when she refused and locked herself in a bathroom, all three allegedly broke in, held her down, and raped her.

The northern part of Kenner, a western suburb of New Orleans, has been called “Little Honduras.” As I noted when I covered these cases more prolifically last year, the child sex problem among some illegal aliens is more pervasive than you ever hear in the news. According to data from Girls Not Brides, a global nonprofit against child marriage, the child marriage rates for girls in Latin American countries from which we are seeing an increase in illegal immigration are particularly high, especially in rural areas. The organization estimate that 34 percent of all married Honduran women were with their male spouses as minors.

Some of this culture has also been brought in through the front door. According to a Senate Homeland Security Committee report published in January 2019, a loophole in our spousal visa policies has allowed roughly 8,700 child brides, including 14-year-old girls, to be brought into the country on fiancé or marriage visas for the purpose of marrying older men.

In fiscal year 2019, ICE reported that there were a total of 14,500 sex crime charges among those who were subject to ICE detainers. Louisiana has certainly had its share of cases. One previously deported illegal alien was arrested by state officials and charged with 100 counts of child porn. Thankfully, Louisiana cooperates with ICE, so these individuals are usually caught and deported after the first crime. But many illegal alien sex offenders in sanctuary states and cities, such as Montgomery County, Maryland, are recycled back in the system.

For example, in sanctuary Illinois, 26-year-old Eduardo Castillo-Vivaldo of St. Charles was arrested on Tuesday for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor. Local media refers to him as a “suburban man,” but the jail booking indicates that he has a federal hold on him. Unlike the Louisiana brothers, he is being offered $100,000 bail. Pursuant to the state’s “Trust Act,” local police are forbidden to honor ICE detainers when releasing those who post bail. This is just one example of an illegal alien child sex offender suspect who could easily escape ICE apprehension with the help of sanctuary laws.

In New York, local authorities released Ever Morales-Lopez, 26, who had been convicted on conspiracy charges in relation to an MS-13 gang murder in 2018. Though ICE lodged a detainer, he was released and is now charged with murder in aid of racketeering in another MS-13 murder. Thankfully, the FBI was able to track him down, but local officials had no compunction about releasing another country’s brutal gang member who is alleged to have participated as a lookout and scout for two murders.

According to ICE, in FY 2019, NYC officials ignored 7,526 detainers lodged against criminals who collectively accounted for 17,873 criminal convictions and 6,500 criminal charges. Among those crimes were 200 homicides, over 500 robberies, over 1,000 sexual offenses, over 1,000 weapons offenses, over 3,500 assaults, and over 1,500 DUIs.

With New York averaging about 300 murders a year (although that number is rising), clearly there are a ton of illegal alien murder suspects we never hear about.

In Frederick, Maryland, which has seen an increase in illegal immigration in recent years, an illegal alien female from Peru is accused of beating an elderly woman to death with a rolling pin inside her own home. Thankfully, Sheriff Chuck Jenkins participates in the 287(g) program, which ensures that the immigration status of anyone who passes through his jail is verified with federal agents.

In other jurisdictions, she might have fallen through the cracks. Just 45 minutes to the east in Baltimore County, ICE announced earlier this week that two illegal alien suspects in an MS-13 gang killing of a 16-year-old girl in Baltimore had prior criminal records but were released by authorities in New York and Maryland in defiance of ICE detainers.

The lesson is clear: If we continue to slack on interior enforcement and fail to shut off the magnets that encourage illegal immigration, we will continue to suffer from avoidable crimes committed by other countries’ criminals. If we continue to allow sanctuary cities to flourish unchecked, then we will suffer from repeat offenses of these individuals, even after they are already detected following prior crimes.

Because we have failed to defund sanctuary cities, cut off all welfare and jobs to criminal illegal aliens, or use existing tools to choke off identity theft, illegal aliens continue to come with the confidence that they are unlikely to be detected. Despite the initial slowing of illegal immigration at the border due to the pandemic, the numbers are now rising very quickly. After bottoming out at 17,000 apprehensions in April, that number has nearly tripled to roughly 50,000 in August. That is the highest level in 12 months. At this pace, in a month or two, we will be back at the levels of the 2018-2019 border crisis.

While the Trump administration has done a good job of finally deterring the family units from coming openly to surrender and declare asylum, the resurgence in the past few months has been driven largely by single adult males. From what I can gather from CBP statistics, the August numbers for single adults were the highest since at least as far back as 2010.

Our federal officials swear an oath to protect us against all enemies – foreign and domestic. While they are busy treating peaceful Americans like criminals under the guise of public health concerns, they are failing to protect us both from domestic and foreign actual violence.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus Coronavirus lockdown Coronavirus tyranny COVER UP Intelwars Nashville health department Nashville mayor

Horowitz: COVID numbers games from Nashville mayor’s office reveal true agenda and endgame of lockdown

In the past, public officials often obfuscated the extent of public danger on various issues in order to prevent the citizenry from panicking. After all, what they don’t know can’t hurt them. In the Nashville mayor’s office, however, they are apparently of the opinion that the good news the public doesn’t know can’t calm the panic. Which is why they appear to have stifled good news about low COVID-19 case numbers spread in local bars and restaurants, while obfuscating the level of hospitalizations.

On Wednesday, WZTV-TV released copies of emails it obtained that show an effort on the part of the mayor’s office to cover up the news that the number of cases in bars and restaurants in Lower Broadway were remarkably low.

Leslie Waller from the health department asks in an email to Mayor John Cooper’s senior adviser, Benjamin Eagles, “This isn’t going to be publicly released, right? Just info for Mayor’s Office?”

She was referring to the data they received for late June showing only 22 cases of the virus traced back to bars and restaurants, which have become one of the primary targets of the coronavirus restriction movement.

“Correct, not for public consumption,” replies senior adviser Benjamin Eagles.

Several weeks later, when a local reporter inquired about the seemingly low numbers among bars and why that would justify broader restrictions, health department official Brian Todd asked five health department officials to advise how he should respond.

“My two cents. We have certainly refused to give counts per bar because those numbers are low per site,” answered one official whose name was obscured in the email.

The mayor’s office declined to confirm or deny the authenticity of these emails to WZTV, but Councilmember Steve Glover verified with the news outlet that they were real.

The obvious question is why does it seem that both politicians and media figures are immune to good news — to the point that they seek to obscure or deny any good news about the virus? Why is there always an agenda to assume the worst of the virus at any given time in terms of deaths, hospitalizations, and modes of transmission and, if all else fails, downright lie about it?

And if public officials in Nashville are so eager to stifle good news in order to keep their control policies in place, what other metrics are they distorting? And why do they set certain metrics to begin with, which are almost impossible to meet, even without a raging epidemic?

WZTV’s Stacy Case has a coronavirus investigative companion piece looking into Nashville’s hospital metrics. The city government set a benchmark that 20 percent of the roughly 4,500 city hospital beds have to be free before the city can fully reopen. She notes that while 80 percent capacity sounds like a lot, it is essentially Nashville’s typical capacity level. The city never had a problem with a surge in hospitalizations, even in July during the Sun Belt coronavirus wave. As such, there is no way for hospitals to ever meet this benchmark, because even normal capacity levels equal or exceed the new benchmark for freedom of commerce.

Using the following graphic from Nashville for Rational COVID Policy, Case explains why this metric will never be met.

Source: Nashville for Rational COVID Policy

As you can see from the dark blue line at the bottom, COVID hospitalizations only consume about 107 of the 4,502 available beds. They never accounted for more than 210 beds. Given that 80% of hospital beds is about 3,600, and non-COVID hospitalizations represent anywhere from 3,500 to 3,750 or so at any given time, it’s almost impossible to ever meet this benchmark, even with zero COVID-19 hospitalizations! Even if they achieve this benchmark for a few weeks, there is no way even a mild flu season would not take them over that threshold shortly thereafter.

What is perhaps even more bizarre and revealing at the same time is Mayor Cooper’s response to WZTV’s inquiry about the outdated and misleading metric for reopening. “The hospital metric is very important because that’s really how we started all of this,” said Cooper. “What we know now with our hospital partners is they can create a lot of capacity if they have time. In the first month or two of the disease when we were really worried that the Music City Center was going to end up as one great big hospital, the capacity questions were all important.”

OK, sounds reasonable. They thought things would turn out really bad, but thankfully they never had people dying on sidewalks. So, they could revise this metric and move on with life, right?

Instead, Cooper uses the lack of hospitalization problems against his citizens. Now, they must look for new metrics, aka pretexts, to keep the city shut.

“Now, I think they do recede a little bit and that’s why it can’t be just on one metric. You’re navigating the course of the disease that, let’s be more realistic, it will be much more like a year we’ll be influenced by it.”

So now that it has become clear that the virus will not create a problem with hospitalizations, general hospitalizations are an excuse to be even more restrictive for even longer to achieve a new, undefined goal!

In other words, all good news must be used against the citizenry. Once you meet one benchmark, or in fact it turns out that the problem justifying that benchmark never existed, it is used as a ploy to move on to the next level of control. That next level is “the new normal.” It has nothing to do with hospitalizations or even coronavirus. It’s the flu or just plain old prevention of any cold or pathogen from now until the end of time. This will never end.

Are they simply grim reapers who just like spreading bad news? Well, if that is the case, perhaps they would like to raucously broadcast the drug overdose numbers in the region. Except those numbers are more the result of the reaction to the virus, not the virus itself. They don’t like discussing bad news about lockdowns and panicmongering.

For example, drug overdose deaths are up 47% this year in Davidson County, Tennessee, where there have been 354 fatal drug overdoses from March through July 25. That dwarfs the 186 coronavirus deaths over the same period of time in Nashville.

How about a public metric on the number of suicides and drug overdoses that will trigger a suspension of the shutdown and panic mongering?

In other words, if the American people were informed of the good news about the virus and a little more of the bad news and side effects of the response to the virus, they’d see a very different picture from what is broadcast on most news outlets.

National chemotherapy might be an appropriate treatment for a cancer diagnosis, but not for a flu or a cold. What is needed is an entirely new strategy and outlook on the virus and government policies. But such an approach would require transparency, hearings, legislative debates, and public votes in legislative bodies. And for an agenda that uses draconian restrictions and mandates as an end rather than a means, sunlight must be blocked at all costs.

Share
Categories
CDC Coronavirus Coronavirus conflicts Intelwars Mask mandates

Horowitz: CDC Director Redfield says masks are better than a vaccine. But the virus is still spreading in masked-up places.

Distribution of a vaccination was supposed to be the candy castle at the end of the Candyland coronavirus journey for all of us. We were told our lives must remain in shambles and our faces must be covered until there is a vaccine. Well, in one fell swoop, whether he meant to say this or not, CDC Director Robert Redfield told a Senate panel that the post-vaccine situation on the ground will be less stable than the current untenable situation in America.

In what is perhaps the most cloddish comment to be uttered by a public official since March, Redfield went out of his way to tell a Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Wednesday that masks are better than vaccines. “They are our best defense,” said Redfield in response to a question from Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.). He added, “I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because the immunogenicity may be 70 percent, and if I don’t get an immune response, the vaccine is not going to protect me. This face mask will.”

We have been living through months of universal mask-wearing in many parts of the country and the world, yet the virus is spreading prolifically. Japan, Hong Kong, Israel, France, Peru, Philippines, Hawaii, California, and Miami are just a few examples of places with prolific spread long after very strict mask mandates and high compliance were in place. Is that better than a vaccine? Is Redfield suggesting that a vaccine would net an even worse result?

On the one hand, government officials are panicking about continuing community spread throughout the country and the world long after the mask mandates were in place. On the other hand, Redfield is saying that masks are more effective than a vaccine. I guess that means that even if we immediately obtained the best vaccine imaginable, we would actually have even more cases than we do now? In other words, a vaccine is worthless. Unless it’s the masks that are actually worthless, as Redfield himself said clearly, regarding the idea of healthy people wearing them everywhere.

You see, masks are so effective that the CDC recommends that someone exposed to an infected individual indoors quarantine even if both the infected individual and the exposed person were wearing masks. But if both of them have something that offers more protection than even a vaccine does, then what is there to fear?

We literally have the CDC going from saying in May that there is “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks” to the idea that masks are better than a vaccine. Well, if we are all “vaccinated” by wearing masks, then why do we continue with all the other shutdowns and restrictions? Why aren’t there thousands of people at sports games?

The bureaucrats are willing to insult our intelligence to the point that they think there is no limit to our suspension of disbelief. It’s one thing to suggest that masks might be a little more effective than they originally thought. But how are we to believe that they went from 0 to 100 without any political considerations when the politicians are sounding the alarm about the spread of cases long after the mask mandates? In fact, during a February hearing, Redfield went so far as to encourage people not to buy medical-grade masks, saying there’s “no role for these masks in the community.” From “no role” to “the most important” tool – and we are to believe this is about science and not politics?

Until now, officials might have been able to explain away the spread in places like Hawaii with the speculative, unverifiable assertion that perhaps without mask-wearing, the spread in some of these places would have been even worse. But Redfield now contends that mask-wearing is more effective than a vaccine. How in the world could such a mass spread of the virus occur if that were true? And how could Sweden have achieved such a flat curve and reduced its cases to negligible numbers without a vaccine and without harnessing what Redfield said is “the most important, powerful public health tool we have”?

Then again, if you are in possession of the most powerful tool, wouldn’t you learn how to use it properly? While Redfield was extolling the magical, mythical powers of the mask, he took the mask he had been wearing from an unsterile table and touched the inside and outside without washing his hands. Presumably, that was the mask he put back on when he exited the hearing, in violation of every protocol of one-time mask use, hand-washing, and disposing of the mask. Perhaps that is why the virus is spreading more than ever despite the near-universal use of a “tool” that is supposedly better than a vaccine.

Finally, now that Redfield believes that “this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine,” why do I need to wear one? If I don’t get the flu vaccine this year, that doesn’t make Redfield more in danger of getting the flu. If he is wearing his coat of protection, shouldn’t that be even more effective, regardless of how others choose to exercise their rights over their own bodies?

Share
Categories
Crime criminal justice reform Criminals Intelwars Weak on crime

Horowitz: Plague of violence: Career criminals wreaking havoc on our country

Whether it’s a devastating arson in Oregon, a heinous physical attack caught on camera in New York City, or an ambush of cops throughout the country, you can bet the farm that it was committed by a career criminal who spent barely any time behind bars.

Henderson County Deputy Ryan Hendrix, a Marine veteran and father of two, was responding to a break-in complaint early in the morning last Thursday. According to Sheriff Lowell Griffin, the suspect, Robert Ray Doss Jr., was found in his car at the scene and initially appeared to comply with the order to show his hands. “But in one rapid movement, he retrieved the gun, firing one round, striking [Hendrix] in the face and critically wounding him,” the North Carolina sheriff at a press conference said.

The other two deputies returned fire and killed Doss, while Hendrix died of his wound.

This is how cops are confronted with deadly career criminals every day, and one second of hesitancy on their part can result in their deaths. As a nation, we count every cop shooting of a suspect when cops pull the trigger out of fear — justifiably or unjustifiably — but we have no tally of the number of cops who die every week from stifling the initial instinct to use force immediately.

Remember, for the most part, if cops are called down to the scene of a robbery or break-in, they are usually dealing with violent, repeat offenders, not choirboys. They have every reason to believe the suspect will react with deadly force when confronted by police. In this case, Doss had a record of offenses for drugs, multiple arson crimes, and felony thefts “with arrests in Georgia, South Carolina, Maryland and Virginia,” according to the sheriff. Arson is a very serious crime, as we saw with the devastation in Oregon this week, yet few arsonists serve time.

Liberals in both parties accuse our criminal justice system of being too punitive, but if that were true (if only), Hendrix would still be alive.

Then there is the case of the Oregon wildfires. We’ve all seen the devastation that looks eerily similar to the aftermath of the riots. Yet, sadly, they are actually both the result of career criminals going unincarcerated. While liberals were quick to blame the fires on global warming (because, you know, we never used to have wildfires), it turns out some were a man-made problem of jailbreak.

Michael Jarrod Bakkela was arrested on suspicion of setting the devastating fire in Phoenix, Oregon. According to KDRV, “Bakkela has an extensive criminal history in Jackson County alone — including a mix of misdemeanor drug charges and more serious felonies.” Court records show he has criminal arrests dating back to 1998 and has never served more than short periods of time behind bars.

Another man, Domingo Lopez, Jr., was arrested in Portland, Oregon, on Sunday for using a Molotov cocktail to start a fire, then was released, then arrested again and charged with starting six more fires!

Then of course there is Ricardo Miguel Munoz, 25, the Lancaster, Pennsylvania, man police were forced to shoot when he charged at them with a knife while he was suspected in a domestic violence case. He was charged with stabbing four people last year and had an extensive record. Why wasn’t he locked up?

Then, even if they wind up being locked up, these criminals always seem to receive parole. This week, New York prosecutors announced that Charles Hernandez was charged with a third homicide in relation to a July shooting spree for which he was already charged with two murders. The New York Post revealed that he was released on parole in 2018.

Chicago is perhaps the worst repeat offender of releasing repeat offenders. On Saturday, Timmy Jordan was arrested for killing two and wounding three others. Despite seven felonies, including a weapons charge from just last year, he was out of jail on electronic monitoring. These devices are a complete joke.

Yet both parties continue to push for more jailbreak, more parole, and more leniencies. Kamala Harris is promising to end cash bail. Houston’s government is already working on a “cite-and-release” policy, which would end arrests for certain crimes, thereby allowing career criminals to build up criminal records but stay free.

What is becoming abundantly clear is that we need to toughen mandatory minimums for repeat offenders, tighten — not loosen — bail laws, and create a much stronger three-strikes-and-you’re-out law than we did in the 1990s.

The reality is that most violent criminals don’t come out of nowhere. They are known wolves. One study in Sweden in 2014 found that 1% of the criminals were responsible for 63% of all violent crime convictions. Researchers found that if all violent criminals were locked up after a third conviction, “more than 50% of all convictions for violent crime in the total population would be prevented.”

Yesterday, President Trump hosted a historic peace accord between Israel and two Arab neighbors. Peace in the Middle East is great, but now he must work toward peace in Middle America amid the wave of crime and anarchy. According to a new poll, 65% of Americans are concerned about law and order here at home. That needs to be Trump’s primary concern headed into the election. And it begins by calling for measures that lock up the destructive force of career criminals.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus Epidemic Flu influenza Intelwars pandemic

Horowitz: Politicians plan to control our lives with masks and restrictions … for the flu

If the World Health Organization had been correct about a 3.4% infection fatality rate for COVID-19, there would have been one small, ancillary benefit: At the very least, a once-in-a-millennium virus with a kill rate 34 times greater than the flu would be unmistakable and could never be compared to other viruses. As such, it would be hard to convince the public to go along with draconian measures for common viruses such as influenza that have been with us for decades. Sadly, now that it turns out the true infection fatality rate is pretty similar to a bad flu season, politicians can now seamlessly bring their social conditioning mandates into flu season. In other words, forever.

When lockdown opponents compared the virus to a bad flu, they were suggesting that our societal disruption in response to SARS-CoV-2 should not be that much different from our efforts during a pandemic flu season. Insidious control freaks in elected and unelected high office, however, are now using this comparison they once rejected as the pretext for treating the flu the way they wrongly treated this virus.

Here is a sampling of politicians now comparing COVID-19 to the flu or conflating it with the flu, warning that the flu is indeed enough excuse to mandate these draconian measures. They are suddenly discovering the fact that hospitals do indeed get busy every year, but we go about our lives normally. They want that to change.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer boldly asserted and predicted that “when we all get our flu vaccine, we can help keep thousands of flu patients out of the hospitals and prevent overcrowding.”

But wait a minute: If the threat level from this virus is so much greater than the flu and the risk of hospitalization and death is unparalleled in human history, how can this be conflated with and compared to the flu in any way? It would be akin, at least according to their original assessment of the threat from coronavirus, to telling a cancer patient not to scrape their shin, so they don’t create the perfect “twin” medical crisis.

In reality, when they desire to continue the social control, then the truth about the similarity of the virus’ severity to that of a pandemic flu comes to the forefront. In order to suck us into the indefinite vortex of social control, they had to advertise this virus as exponentially more dangerous than the flu. Now that hospitalizations are way down, they need to lower the threshold required to trigger such control.

Even Republican governors are now trying to suggest that the flu is reason enough to continue the suspension of democracy and that these voodoo measures could somehow limit the spread of colds and flus. Already last month, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), who has become indistinguishable from his Democratic counterparts in his approach to this virus and constitutional rights, spoke of a need to “develop proactive strategies that will reduce the spread of the flu in the midst of the #COVID19 pandemic.”

What might those measures be?

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) warned last week that “flu can be deadly on its own” and that he is “concerned that Ohioans who get both the flu and #COVID19 at the same time could become severely, if not fatally, ill.”

Hence, the politicians are finally discovering what the media never cared about until now — that hospitals are indeed very busy during the height of flu seasons and are often forced into emergency surge capacity during particularly busy flu seasons. Yet we never destroyed our society, economy, and mental health over it. We never shut schools or abused children with masks and plexiglass boxes, even though they typically get sicker from the flu than from coronavirus and are more prolific vectors of the spread of flu.

For example, on Jan. 11, 2018, the Houston Chronicle reported about “strains” on local hospitals — with 13% of ER visits at 40 Houston-area hospitals being flu patients. Children 4 and under accounted for 42% of them! Can you imagine what sort of panic that would induce today? Contrast that to COVID-19 when, last week, just 1.8% of all ER visits were of patients with “covid19-like-illness,” according to the CDC. The highest level it hit nationwide was 6.8%, although some places were higher. Yet in 2018, most Americans didn’t even know the flu pandemic existed. Now, life as we know it no longer exists, for such a low threshold of risk.

Take Pamunkey Regional Jail in Tennessee, for example. Roughly 70% of the 178 inmates tested positive. Yet according to the Tennessee Star, “There have been no hospitalizations or deaths and the ‘vast majority’ of positive staff and inmates were asymptomatic or were showing mild symptoms.” This is a microcosm of what is going on throughout the country — with inordinate panic being directed toward discovery of cases that rarely lead to clinical illness. In most cases, this is actually more like a cold than a flu.

In other words, this is not only going to continue through 2021, as Dr. Fauci warns, but forever. As my friend Kyle Lamb of RationalGround.com notes, mathematically, the current risk level of COVID-19 is much lower than the severity of the flu. Thus, if this is the new trigger for children wearing masks and draconian restrictions on school or businesses functions and church services, we will continue this charade in perpetuity.

“The total current number of hospitalizations in the entire U.S. with a positive Covid-19 result (not necessarily from) is about ~9 per 100,000. At the peak of this 2019-20 flu season, a light one relatively, there would have been ~30-45 CONFIRMED people hospitalized per 100,000,” wrote the data guru on Twitter.

So, in other words, we are 3-4 times below the level of flu hospitalizations at the peak of a mild flu season, not to mention the more severe 2018 season that most Americans never heard of. But as Lamb observes, the numbers for COVID are really much lower. Nearly every pregnant woman or car crash victim who comes to the hospital is tested for COVID. Anyone who then tests positive, regardless of the symptoms and regardless of why he initially came to the hospital, is counted as a COVID hospitalization. With the flu, typically you are only tested if you are complaining of severe flu symptoms. Imagine if we counted the flu the way we count COVID-19.

Thus, every single year, hospitals are full of people who came for the purpose of flu treatment at an exponentially higher level than current levels for COVID-19. So if this is reason enough to mummify all our faces in public with cheap Chinese masks and treat our children like lepers in school, when and what is the exit strategy?

But alas, there is no exit strategy for the politicians. The social control is not a means to the end of controlling an epidemic. It is the end itself.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus Coronavirus death rates Coronavirus in sweden Coronavirus Lockdowns Intelwars

Horowitz: While Fauci tells US to ‘hunker down,’ Sweden’s no-lockdown coronavirus results speak for themselves

The more we observe and learn about SARS-CoV-2, the more it becomes clear that this virus is not really that novel. It’s only the governmental and societal response to it that is novel. Sweden, the only major country to treat this virus more as a typical viral pathogen, has been ridiculed as the country taking the dangerous and novel approach by shielding the vulnerable and letting the rest achieve herd immunity quickly. Who was right?

Well, the continued panic of all the governments that have been mandating lockdowns, masking, and fearmongering restrictions for six months speaks for itself. Dr. Fauci is now warning that Americans need to “hunker down” for the fall and winter and prepare for the doom of coronavirus alongside the flu, which will now become the new inflection point for panic. But it’s becoming increasingly clear every day that one country doesn’t even have to fear an intensification of the virus. Those who counted Sweden out in the first half of the game are going to watch them win it in the second half.

Here is Sweden’s epidemiological curve of cases and deaths, from COVID-19 Data Visualization:

Image source: University of Oklahoma screenshot

Remember the abandoned trope of “flatten the curve”? Well, it looks like the country that did the best job of that is the one that did the opposite of what we were told would achieve that goal. Sweden is now averaging about one death per day in the entire country, and that is based on a very liberal definition of a COVID-19 death. In fact, Sweden has been over this epidemic for a long time. The country hasn’t had a day of double-digit deaths since July 19.

Even as cases begin to increase in countries that previously thought they dodged the bullet with minimal cases, Sweden appears to have achieved de facto herd immunity.

While Sweden always had a better result than Europe’s larger countries, such as England, France, Spain, and Italy, the Swedes took heat for having a higher death rate earlier on than other Nordic countries. But Sweden’s death rate is now under that of the U.S., and cases are increasing in other Nordic countries while Sweden’s are flatlining. Norway is also seeing an increase in cases. Denmark, which was one of the earliest countries to close down, now has the most cases since April, rendering its “prudent” early lockdown meaningless. Clearly, there is no right way to do a lockdown, because human intervention like this can only harm but will never improve the net result.

While everyone focuses on the early death rate in Sweden, the point that is missed is that Sweden avoided all the lockdown deaths, economic destruction, and mental health crisis that are incalculable in other countries. We have some states where clinical depression has reached nearly half the population and where suicides and drug overdoses are skyrocketing. According to one study published in JAMA Network, just as of mid-April, just one month into the national panic, “prevalence of depression symptoms was more than 3-fold higher during COVID-19 compared with the most recent population-based estimates of mental health in the US.” That is a crushing cost to a society that will reverberate here and in similar countries for years to come, but not in Sweden.

Moreover, how many people in Sweden really died of the virus? When you look at the excess deaths, despite having no lockdown, Sweden’s all-cause deaths so far this year are actually unremarkable.

The country experienced a worse year of excess deaths just five years ago. It has not experienced a week with any excess deaths relative to the average from the past five years since late May.

As much as other countries’ leaders hate eating crow and admitting their mistakes, they will all eventually realize that Sweden took the right path. The mainstreaming of the Swedish approach is already occurring. Earlier this month, Johan Giesecke, one of the masterminds of Sweden’s “herd immunity” strategy, was promoted by the World Health Organization to vice chair of the Strategic and Technical Advisory Group on Infectious Hazards. In other words, he will be advising WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on pandemic response. If Sweden were really the pariah country our media makes it out to be, a guy like Giesecke would be banished from a dog-catcher position at the WHO, much less a position of authority, in response to this very pandemic.

According to Newsweek, Giesecke, who served as Sweden’s top epidemiologist between 1995 and 2005, mentored Anders Tegnell, the current epidemiologist, in the brave but lone approach to the pandemic. He wrote a paper in early May arguing that “everyone will be exposed” to the virus at some point and that “most people will become infected” — but that most of the people spreading it will have “no or weak symptoms.”

“There is very little we can do to prevent this spread: a lockdown might delay severe cases for a while, but once restrictions are eased, cases will reappear,” wrote Giesecke in his prophetic piece in the Lancet. “I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in one year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken.”

Was it prophecy or just plain prudence? Either way, he got it right.

In March, the Guardian posted a frantic quote from a Swedish immunology researcher warning, “They are leading us to catastrophe.” Well, if that is what catastrophe looks like, then how would you describe some of the other countries that now have shattered societies due to lockdown, plus increasing cases?

Share
Categories
Bad court rulings census Courts Executive Orders Illegal Immigration Intelwars

Horowitz: Courts finally clamp down on executive actions … that deal with illegal aliens

It’s almost as if the courts have been abolished. One governor after another has crushed our foundational liberties with impunity because of an unprecedented approach to confronting a respiratory virus. Every aspect of our lives and liberty has been stripped or thrown into chaos based on the capricious whims of executive fiat. Almost no court has intervened to protect the Bill of Rights. In comes a panel of judges for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals last Thursday and finally puts a stop to executive orders … but only as they relate to illegal aliens, not American citizens!

We now live in a country where American citizens have no right to open a business or to breathe free air without a mask, but illegal aliens have a right to be counted in the census and distort citizen representation! State governors can place interstate travel bans and restrictions on Americans in other states, but the president of the United States cannot prevent foreign nationals from breaking into the country and must even use their very presence in the country and their unilateral choice of state residency to add to the electoral totals of states like California. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

After the president was rebuffed by the courts in his attempt to count the number of U.S. citizens in the census, his backup plan was to at least discount those foreign nationals who are in the country illegally. On July 21, he released a memorandum instructing Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to supply the requisite information needed to ensure illegal aliens aren’t counted in the census. After all, isn’t one purpose of a census to know how many people can vote in a given area?

Yet, as we are being quarantined against our will and toddlers are being forced to mask up without any recourse in the court system, illegal aliens always get immediate representation in the courts. At the behest of New York’s government, the Second Circuit issued an injunction on the order, claiming that the president engaged in “an unlawful exercise of the authority granted to the President.” Suddenly, the courts are concerned with executive fiat that affects our lives!

Two of the three judges — Richard Wesley and Peter Hall — are Republican appointees. This is yet another case of Republican-appointed judges handing civilization-changing victories to the Left, a result that never occurs the other way around from Democrat-appointed judges.

The twisted irony about New York obtaining standing in this case and ultimately prevailing is that the reason why immigration policy was given over to the federal government was precisely to ensure that states don’t admit undesirable aliens as a means of juicing up their representation in the national government. But that is exactly what states like New York and California are doing. They get to thwart federal law, thanks to numerous court rulings, and criminalize the enforcement of immigration law, thereby ensuring that illegal aliens are incentivized to come to their states. Then they turn around and demand they be counted. Talk about benefiting from the fruits of the crime!

As I’ve noted before, even if the dictate of the 14th Amendment to count “whole persons” compelled us to count immigrants, it could not encompass those who entered without consent. Our courts have stated in an interrupted stream of case law that any alien not legally admitted to the country is as if he is literally standing outside our boundary. “The petitioner, although physically within our boundaries, is to be regarded as if he had been stopped at the limit of our jurisdiction, and kept there while his right to enter was under debate,” states the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Ju Toy, 1905.

The same way one doesn’t need a reinterpretation of the Constitution to recognize that illegal aliens cannot be counted, one doesn’t need an update of statute either. As John Noonan, former Ninth Circuit judge, said in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1985, “If there was an invading army on American soil, one does not suppose the Bureau of Census would count the enemy troops.”

How sad that a clause of the 14th Amendment designed to ensure that black Americans were not disenfranchised is now being used to disenfranchise all Americans in favor of foreign invaders.

This ruling comes just days after a California judge ruled that the president cannot end the counting of the census itself this month and must continue it into October. Now judges apparently control all executive functions, and there is no pushback from the executive branch or an effort to draw the line on separation of powers.

Meanwhile, a federal judge in Minnesota ruled that a Somali immigrant who had provided aid to al-Shabab must be released early because of the virus. At the same time, a Los Angeles judge ruled that a pastor couldn’t hold services indoors, again, because of that same virus.

Oh, and remember how almost no businesses owner won in court the right to keep their businesses from arbitrarily being deemed unessential by government? The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was supposedly made more conservative by Trump, ruled against Oklahoma City’s anti-panhandling law. Blocking traffic and harassing motorists at highway medians is deemed a First Amendment right and is evidently essential during the virus, but a gym owner who tries to keep his business open is arrested.

See a pattern here of which “rights” are upheld and which ones are repudiated?

One thing is clear: The courts are worse than ever, despite the promise for change. They have failed to protect a single legitimate constitutional right. As such, why should society and other branches of government feel compelled to abide by their concoction of novel “rights” that would have shocked the consciences of our Founders?

Share
Categories
Intelwars nyc Nyc attack Nyc crime Pro-criminal policies Soft on crime

Horowitz: Man arrested for randomly punching elderly woman in NYC had 18 prior arrests

Every day, another shocking video of a brazen violent crime committed in broad daylight in the once safe city of New York surfaces on the internet. Each time, we discover the attacker is a repeat violent offender who has cycled in and out of the jail cell without being held for any meaningful time.

We all watched in horror when the NYPD released a video of a man on a bicycle going out of his way to swerve over to an elderly woman and punch her in the face. Thankfully, four New York firefighters sprang into action and caught up with the suspect and held him down until police arrived. Yet another reminder on this anniversary of 9/11 that NYFD officers are some of the bravest people alive. The suspect was identified as 53-year-old Daniel Biggs.

So, who is Daniel Biggs and why did he feel that he could get away with such a brazen attack in broad daylight? According to police, he had 18 prior arrests for crimes that included robbery and assault. His most recent arrest was just last month, when he was charged with slashing another man’s face.

You might be wondering how a man with 18 arrests who is then charged with stabbing someone could be released on the streets yet again to attack a woman in broad daylight. But as the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you, fool me … 18 times?! … shame on me! At some point, you almost can’t blame the criminal for thinking he is free to attack people with impunity. The problem is the New York laws on bail and the politicians pushing pro-criminal policies on multiple fronts.

In Cuomo and de Blasio’s New York, the most violent repeat offenders now feel it’s open season to attack the elderly and vulnerable. Just two weeks ago, a man with 14 prior arrests, including for recent violent incidents, was caught on camera on top of a woman in a subway trying to rape her in broad daylight. Despite his record, he was offered $75,000 bail and appears to have been released several days later.

In June, we all watched the shocking video of a 92-year-old woman get hit in the face and knocked to the ground by a man with 103 arrests, including a sex offender conviction.

Given how infrequently these violent criminals are locked up – both pretrial and post-conviction – how many of these women do you think will be willing to testify against their assailants knowing that the suspects will be roaming around and that thanks to New York’s new discovery law, the suspects will immediately have the victims’ contact information?

What is going in in New York, according to Suffolk County Police Commissioner Geraldine Hart, is the perfect storm of the bail law, rioting sapping police resources and deterring better policing, and coronavirus jailbreak.

“Individuals that are being released on their own recognizance that had not been previously, whether it’s COVID, where we had to have officers step back slightly on search warrants, which is something that we always use to take guns off the street, and now, with the protests, we’re seeing a level of cooperation that is a little bit challenging,” said Hart in reference to recent gang-related shootings in what used to be a quiet suburb of NYC.

The hallmark of all these attacks is that they are violent, they target vulnerable people in public, and the perpetrators are career criminals who clearly fear no punishment. In other words, everything that former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani built in terms of criminal justice deterrent has been dismantled by Cuomo and de Blasio in a matter of a few years.

The transition from broken windows policing and tough sentencing to allowing open anarchy is harming the very people that de Blasio claimed to care for. Black lives, under a broken windows permissiveness policy, truly don’t matter because their blood is spilled like water. While white people will suffer from assaults and muggings, as was the case in this particular incident, most of the shooting victims are non-white. As the Manhattan Institute’s Rafael Mangual observes of New York City, this past June, 97 percent of the city’s shooting victims were non-white. As he notes, through August, there were 1,004 shooting incidents in the city, which represents an 87% year-to-date increase over last year. That’s an awful lot of black lives lost or harmed as a result of the Black Lives Matter agenda.

Fortunately for the less fortunate victims of crime, residents of the posh Upper West Side of Manhattan are now dealing with the “broken windows” with the homeless, public urination, and drug dealing right on their doorsteps – just like during the 1970s. Until wealthy people begin feeling the heat of the rising crime, the pressure on the police and local judges will continue to weigh on the side of the criminals.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus Intelwars Mask mandates Masks

Horowitz: E-MASK-ulation: How we have been lied to so dramatically about masks

If you are looking for the scientific rationale behind universal mask-wearing, you certainly won’t find it now that the issue has become as political as guns, abortion, and taxes. We are now at a point where Canada’s chief public health officer is calling on people to wear masks when engaging in sexual activities and 19-month-old babies are being forced to wear them on airplanes. There is no rational thought in a political cult. But what did the governmental and scientific literature say on the issue before it became political?

On April 3, already several weeks into the unprecedented lockdown over coronavirus, but before the big media push for universal masking, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued guidance for respiratory protection for workers exposed to people with the virus. It stated clearly what governments had said all along about other forms of airborne contamination, such as smoke inhalation — “Surgical masks and eye protection (e.g., face shields, goggles) were provided as an interim measure to protect against splashes and large droplets (note: surgical masks are not respirators and do not provide protection against aerosol-generating procedures).”

In other words, they knew that because the virions of coronavirus are roughly 100 nanometers, 1/1000 the width of a hair and 1/30 the size of surgical mask filtrations (about 3.0 microns or 3,000 nanometers), surgical masks (not to mention cloth ones) do not help. This would explain why experience has shown that all of the places with universal mask orders in place for months, such as Japan, Hong Kong, Israel, France, Peru, Philippines, Hawaii, California, and Miami, failed to stave off the spread of the infection. Surgical masks could possibly stop large droplets from those coughing with very evident symptoms, but would not stop the flow of aerosolized airborne particles, certainly not from asymptomatic individuals.

This is why the CDC, as late as May, was citing the 10 randomized controlled trials that showed “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.” The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford also summarized six international studies which “showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.”

When Dr. Fauci spoke so assertively against universal mask-wearing early on in the epidemic, it was clearly based on this knowledge. “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask,” infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci told “60 Minutes” on March 8. He went on to explain that masks can only block large droplets, they give a false sense of security, and they cause people to get more germs on their hands by fiddling with it. Those facts don’t change with time.

Several weeks later, Surgeon General Jerome Adams punctuated this point about the counterproductivity of wearing masks in public. Appearing on “Fox & Friends” on March 31, Adams said that based on a study that shows medical students who wear masks touch their faces 23 times more often, one has to assume that “wearing a mask improperly can actually increase your risk of getting disease.”

Ever since then, we have all seen how people leave masks in their pockets or cars for days and continuously put it on and off as needed without washing their hands. It’s inconceivable that this is not serving as a bacteria trap, if not downright helping spread the virus on our hands.

A 2015 randomized clinical trial from the University of South Wales testing the effectiveness of cloth masks among health care workers in Hanoi found that the poor filtration becomes a conduit for moisture retention. Researchers found a high rate of infection among those workers presumably because “their reuse and poor filtration may explain the increased risk of infection.” Can you imagine how much worse this is in a non-health-care setting where reuse and cross-contamination are rampant?

This is why before mask-wearing became a cult in Canada, Quebec’s public health director Horacio Arruda told the Montreal Gazette that masks are counterproductive. Arruda’s guidance as given in the article states that masks “get saturated with moisture from the mouth and nose after about 20 minutes. Once they’re wet, they no longer form a barrier against viruses trying to come through or exit.” This renders the daylong mask wearing in businesses, stores, and schools, as opposed to the short onetime use in clinical settings, a complete hazard to spread of bacteria and pathogens.

Nothing about the biology of the virus or our discovery of it has changed in the past few months that would lead us to believe that masks are somehow more effective against it than they are against the spread of other respiratory viruses. What has changed is the politics. Governments could no longer control our lives through wholesale lockdowns, because it was logistically untenable, so they created the mask mandate as a way of permanently controlling our movement. They wisely did this on the heels of the full-scale lockdown when people were grateful just to be back in business under any conditions and were desperately willing to do anything to stave off a shutdown.

Dr. Jeffery Klausner, an infectious disease doctor at UCLA, described mask-wearing in early February as all psychological, not physiological. He told the Los Angeles Times that “fear spreads a lot faster than the virus” and that a mask only “makes you feel better.” What is so dangerous about this is that, as Fauci and others originally warned when they were actually speaking from a modicum of scientific grounding, is that many immunocompromised people will go to dangerous places thinking the mask protects them. I’ve seen countless friends and neighbors who are concerned about their heart conditions and diabetes blissfully walk around indoors thinking the mask is their shield.

This is why Swedish epidemiologist Anders Tegnell warned that because scientific evidence for mask-wearing to prevent COVID-19 is “astonishingly weak,” it is “very dangerous” to believe that face masks on their own could control the spread of the disease rather than hand washing or, in the case of those who are seriously ill, staying away from indoor gatherings. He would know, because his country barely has any cases left, and almost nobody in Sweden wears a mask.

The Dutch government made the prudent decision of only requiring masks on public transit when people are really close to each other for a limited period of time. With such scant evidence of the effectiveness of mask-wearing, how can we disrupt lives of children in school, businessmen in offices, and even people walking outdoors in some countries and states? “From a medical point of view, there is no evidence of a medical effect of wearing face masks, so we decided not to impose a national obligation,” said Netherlands Medical Care Minister Tamara van Ark in August.

The Danish supposedly commissioned a randomized clinical trial to study mask effectiveness specifically as it relates to protecting against SARS-CoV-2, but despite promises of imminent release weeks ago, the study has not been published. Henning Bundgaard, chief physician at Denmark’s Rigshospitale, noted, “All these countries recommending face masks haven’t made their decisions based on new studies.” It doesn’t appear that anyone else is interested in finding out the truth.

Even in England, where there is more mask-wearing than in some of the other northern European countries, Public Health England concluded, “There is weak evidence from epidemiological and modelling studies that mask wearing in the community may contribute to reducing the spread of COVID-19 and that early intervention may result in a lower peak infection rate.”

Our own U.S. government has failed to produce new evidence that counters years’ worth of evidence that masks don’t work in stopping respiratory viruses and is still producing evidence to the contrary. In June, HHS’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded a systemic review of all relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of mask-wearing in stopping respiratory infections and published the findings in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The conclusion was as clear as it is jarring to the current cult-like devotion to mask-wearing. “Review of RCTs indicates that N95 respirators and surgical masks are probably associated with similar risk for influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed viral infections in high- and low-risk settings.” The study noted that only one trial did show “a small decrease in risk” for infection when doctors wore N95s in high-risk settings, but even that evidence was scant.

The study looked at eight trials with 6,510 participants that “evaluated use of surgical masks within households with an influenza or influenza-like illness index case (child or adult). Compared with no masks, surgical masks were not associated with decreased risk for clinical respiratory illness, influenza-like illness, or laboratory-confirmed viral illness in household contacts when masks were worn by household contacts, index cases, or both.” Remember, Dr. Deborah Birx, the Coronavirus Task Force coordinator, is now saying people should wear masks even at home?

How have we gone from public officials universally warning about the lack of effectiveness plus the potential to spread germs from masks to mandating that young children who are germ factories wear them all day in school – without even a legislative debate or public hearings?

The answer is that we have become emasculated as a society. We have become a people who are willing to surrender every morsel of our liberty at the ever-changing and capricious whims of “public health officials,” even when they are appallingly contradictory and without any evidence justifying the 180-degree U-turn.

During times of panic, opportunistic politicians in positions of power will always latch on to desperate and regressive ideas to infringe upon liberty, while packaging them as some sort of enlightened advancement in technology or understanding. In reality, these same desperate measures were tried in 1918, and even then, it was understood that they didn’t work. A November 16, 1918, headline of the Santa Barbara Daily News read, “Average Person Doesn’t Know How to Take Care of Mask and It Becomes Veritable Bacteria Incubator.”

Many principles in life are inviolable and do not change with time. We used to understand that mask-wearing was a novelty of Halloween. Now, our passivity has allowed our entire country to become a Halloween nightmare masquerade every day, with no end in sight.

Share
Categories
Donald Trump Election 2020 Election polls Hispanic voters Intelwars

Horowitz: New polls show Trump gaining with Hispanic voters despite perceived hawkish immigration views

It was gospel among the GOP consultant class for many years: Either conservatives pander to Hispanics by supporting more immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens, or their share of the Hispanic vote would continue to shrink. Then along came Trump, the man who made his political career and presidency from statements and promises that violated every piece of advice in the GOP pandering and sensitivity training handbook. Not only did he win in 2016, but as the 2020 election kicks off in earnest, Hispanics appear to be one of his most auspicious electoral groups.

Following the GOP loss in 2012, the RNC wrote a 100-page “autopsy” report attempting to reconstruct the cause of the party’s loss in that year’s election cycle. Among the many pearls of wisdom was an immortal warning that “we must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform,” which is swamp-speak for amnesty, otherwise “our Party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.”

Dick Armey, the former GOP House majority leader in the 1990s, was quoted in the autopsy as saying, “You can’t call someone ugly and expect them to go to the prom with you.”

By that standard — that talking tough on the border, interior enforcement, and limiting unskilled immigration are tantamount to calling Hispanics ugly — Trump’s numbers should be well below Romney’s performance with those voters. After all, Trump, despite conservative concerns about some of his administration’s shortcomings on the issue, will forever be known to the public as the man who wants to kick out illegal immigrants. Indeed, based on the conventional wisdom and GOP electoral calculous, Trump should never have been elected president. As one Washington Post columnist warned after Trump announced his candidacy in 2015, “Donald Trump’s ‘Mexican rapists’ rhetoric will keep the Republican Party out of the White House.”

Well, according to new polls, either Hispanics like being called ugly … or perhaps the GOP sages got it wrong all along and Hispanics care about security and prosperity like all Americans and don’t view sovereignty as ugly.

On Tuesday, the Miami Herald reported the results of a Bendixen & Amandi poll showing Joe Biden struggling with Hispanic voters in Miami-Dade County. The poll shows Biden leading Trump by just 17 points in the most Democratic area of Florida, 13 points less than Hillary Clinton’s margin of victory over Trump in that county in 2016. What is so important about this result is that Trump still won the state by 1.5% in 2016, so if the county poll is accurate, it may mean Trump will easily win the state this time around.

What is driving Trump’s surprisingly strong showing in this Democrat stronghold? He is polling 47% among Hispanic voters, compared to 46% for Biden. Such a result is simply impossible under the assumptions made by the GOP autopsy and its class of pandering pundits who warned for years that a party with Trump’s message would turn the Hispanic vote numbers into the typical GOP share of the black vote – single digits.

The numbers from Miami-Dade harmonize with the results of a new statewide poll from NBC/Marist, which shows Trump leading Biden statewide by four points among Hispanic voters. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost the Florida Hispanic vote by 60-39.

The trend also appears to be evident nationally as well, among a broader swath of Hispanic voters, not just the predominantly Cuban Hispanics of Florida. An NPR poll from June showed Biden ahead by 20 points among those voters, compared to Hillary Clinton’s 38-point blowout.

We have consistently seen how the party establishment’s electoral prognosis on the immigration issue has been proven wrong. As part of CNN’s exit polling during the 2018 midterms, when the GOP lost badly, it asked voters whether Trump’s position on immigration was “too tough” or “about right/not tough enough.” Here is a rundown of the results for selected states where Republicans lost ground in the suburbs in states with large numbers of Hispanic voters:

Arizona: 35% “too tough;” 58% “about right/not tough enough”

Texas: 43%-52%

Georgia: 35%-60%

Florida: 41%-54%

Similarly, a Harvard Harris poll in 2019 showed that 58% of Hispanics would be more likely to support a candidate who supports “strengthening our border to reduce illegal immigration” and that 56% of Hispanics opposed green cards for those likely to be a public charge; 57% oppose granting driver’s licenses to illegal aliens; and 65% think illegal aliens should not be able to collect welfare, disability and health care payments from the state and federal governments.

Thus, any honest autopsy of GOP failures would note that not only is the open-borders agenda a disaster for our country, the “Hispandering” of that agenda simply does not win love among Hispanic voters. Pandering never works. Voters of all backgrounds want strong leadership on the fundamental issues that affect their lives, not symbolic checkboxes that white liberals artificially draft for them.

Share
Categories
covid COVID-19 herd immunity Intelwars

Horowitz: More good news: Immunity rising, virulence waning

As the virus appears to be slowing down in most regions, with enough people having gotten the virus to slow down the transmission, the panicmongers who are immune to good news are constantly trying to warn of reinfection. They are already building fear for a mass outbreak during the colder months of the year. But why do they assume that this virus breaks every rule of immunity instead of looking at the body of evidence observed over the past six months?

Throughout this virus, Iceland has produced some of the best literature studying critical questions about transmission of the virus. The Iceland study published in the New England Journal of Medicine searched for antibodies in 30,576 individual Icelanders and found that out of 1,797 tested people who’d recovered from COVID-19, 91.1% had detectable levels of antibodies. More significantly, they found that the serum levels had not declined four months after infection. So the concern that most won’t produce antibodies or that they will wane quickly is unfounded.

But there is more to the story that portends even better news: People who were seriously infected produced even more antibodies. “Among recovered persons, antibody levels are higher in older persons and in those more severely affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection,” wrote the authors. “Women, who tend to become less sick than men, had lower antibody levels in two spike protein antibody assays.”

Also, the fact that a certain number of the presumed positive patients did not produce antibodies might be because they were false positives. “Since some diagnoses may have been made on the basis of false positive qPCR results, we determined that 91.1% represents the lower bound of sensitivity of the combined pan-Ig tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among recovered persons,” concluded the study (emphasis added).

The biggest challenge we face now is more psychological than physiological. There are signs that this virus might stay around for a long time, if not forever, but more in line with the other four coronavirus colds in terms of virulence. However, people still fear the virus as if it were at pandemic level.

A recent preprint study from biologists at Emory University and Penn State predicts that the virus will transition from an epidemic to an endemic pathogen that stays with us in a very mild form indefinitely. What are the consequences in terms of immunity? “Our analysis of immunological and epidemiological data on HCoVs shows that infection-blocking immunity wanes rapidly, but disease-reducing immunity is long-lived,” wrote the authors. Their model analyzes “both the current severity of CoV-2 and the relatively benign nature of HCoVs [coronavirus colds]; suggesting that once the endemic phase is reached, CoV-2 may be no more virulent than the common cold.”

We should therefore prepare ourselves for stories about people who already had the virus being “reinfected.” But upon seeing these stories, you should immediately try to ascertain information about the severity of symptoms. While it appears quite possible to be reinfected with the virus, especially if it turns into a cold, it’s extremely unlikely the same individual will face clinical-level disease resulting from that infection.

Last week, Dr. Deborah Birx, coordinator of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said, “I would not be here if the White House believed that herd immunity was an option for America.” Well, herd immunity is indeed not an option in terms of a man-made strategy. It’s a natural reality and is happening regardless of what we do or don’t do politically.

Share
Categories
Colleges lockdown Coronavirus Coronavirus colleges Coronavirus tyranny Intelwars

Horowitz: Thousands of cases but ZERO hospitalizations in colleges: This is GOOD news. But states and colleges force draconian lockdowns

Remember the goal of flattening the curve? Ensuring that hospitals weren’t overrun? Well, what do you call a scenario where thousands of cases result in zero hospitalizations? I’d call it the ultimate flat curve – or downright flat line. Yet rather than recognizing the detection of mild cases among college students as portents of good news, universities continue to sow panic for no good reason.

If we had in place the strict eligibility threshold for COVID-19 testing that we had in March when tests were scarce, we quite literally would not know the “epidemic” of mild and asymptomatic cases on college campus even exists. After being open for weeks, college campuses have no reported deaths or even hospitalizations that I can find. You might say that’s because they’ve done such an amazing job preventing cases. Nope: They have tons of reported cases. Dr. Andrew Bostom, a cardiovascular and epidemiology researcher, posted a spreadsheet on twitter of all the cases in 17 state university systems as of September 4:

There is not a single hospitalization among them. How is this an emergency situation? If anything, the fact that there are so many cases is a blessing, because, with such a young population, these cases are a de facto vaccine, creating herd immunity without danger.

Despite this blessing, the University of Arizona has hired a private security company to “patrol and ensure compliance of health and safety directives” on campus, essentially turning the campus into a prison and criminalizing the lives of young adults who have near-zero risk from the virus. They must be suffering the epidemic of the century there in order to warrant such heavy-handed policing, right?

Well, according to Dr. Richard Carmona at the College of Public Health at the University of Arizona, they found a few “cases” at a sorority house and “were able to identify, very early, before anybody was symptomatic, that there were sick people in their dorm.”

The horror! Some asymptomatic cases. What are they going to do during the flu season when even young people actually get sick for a week? The entire purpose of counting cases during an epidemic is because they might predict mass casualties. During this pseudo-epidemic on college campuses, they need to count cases to even know they exist. But if they don’t result in serious illness, then what is the purpose of counting them more than rhinovirus colds?

Then there is the issue of what exactly these PCR tests are detecting. Many of them could be false positives, insignificant viral loads, or the dead RNA of a virus that passed weeks ago still being carried around in the student’s nasal passages. There is no metric for any of this being monitored in the testing. The irony of the University of Arizona using positive testing of benign cases as the baseline for such draconian measures is that so many of those tests turn out to be false positives. Out of the 13 positive results among members of the university’s athletics department last week, 11 of them turned out to be false upon retesting.

But evidently, negative tests aren’t even enough to escape to clutches of tyranny. Last Monday, Ohio Health Director Lance D. Himes signed an order requiring even students who test negative to be isolated in a quarantine house on campus. It includes asymptomatic individuals or even those merely “exposed” to a COVID-positive individual. They’d be barred from exiting the quarantine house without written permission from a health official, and individual universities would decide whether parents are even allowed to visit them. This is a mandate for de facto prison – all for an “epidemic” built on false or notional positives with no health risks beyond the ordinary bugs that spread on campuses every year.

By sending your children to Ohio’s public colleges, you are essentially sending them off to jail, because it’s nearly impossible for them not to be quarantined. Ohio State University is conducting mandatory random testing of 8,000 students each week via their “surveillance testing program.” Based on everything we know about false positive or old dead viral RNA, it’s a near-certainty that the testing will net dozens of people every week. Now, this order will force numerous friends and dorm-mates to be confined as well.

It’s becoming self-evident every week that the virus that is really spreading is an incorrigible psychosis. Rather than confining our youth for a cold that might not even spread in its asymptomatic form, perhaps its time to start confining some of the public health officials … to a mental health facility.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus lockdown Coronavirus tyranny flu season Intelwars

Horowitz: Politicians indicating that flu season is the new threshold for emergency powers & panic

The notion that we would lock down our society until a vaccine is introduced to counter a virus with a 0.3% infection fatality rate and near-zero risk for non-immunocompromised individuals was shockingly insane. Then we were told that even after a vaccine is in place, the social control will not end because the vaccine will not fully work against COVID-19 for all people. Now, we are beginning to see that because indeed COVID-19 is not that much different from a pandemic flu, the flu itself will now constitute the new threshold for social control and panic in perpetuity. In other words, the totalitarianism that we blissfully accepted in March is here to stay forever, unless we reclaim our sovereignty.

“[Arizona] State officials Monday laid out a plan for ‘aggressively’ combating the upcoming influenza season as the COVID-19 pandemic lingers, with the first step being to urge people to get a flu shot as soon as possible,” wrote the Copper Courier on Tuesday. “The state plans to increase funding for Medicaid recipients to get flu shots, combine flu-shot sites with coronavirus testing facilities, and more, while also advocating many of the same measures meant to head off the spread of COVID-19” (emphasis added).

The Arizona paper was reporting on a press conference held by liberal Republican Governor Doug Ducey and Arizona health department director Dr. Cara Christ, when they warned about “a perfect storm” of lingering COVID-19 mixing with the flu season in the coming months. They warned about mask-wearing and shutting down businesses that don’t participate in their unproven social control rituals. They also revealed that indeed hospitals get overwhelmed to a degree during the flu season and now that fact, which we always lived with every year, will be used to control our lives.

Folks, we have come full-circle. When this all began in early March, we were warned by the World Health Organization that COVID-19 was the worst epidemic in generations, with an infection fatality rate of 3.4% and a hospitalization rate exponentially higher that was going to swamp all of our big-city hospitals. As such, there was no way to compare it to the flu. Anyone who did was treated almost like a Holocaust denier.

Now, those same control freaks are comparing COVID to the flu! See, if they were right about the threat level of this virus, the contrast between it and the flu would be black and white. Talking about the perfect storm between COVID-19 and the flu would be tantamount to tethering the health care concerns of cancer to those of a cold. But now the truth comes out that this virus really is not that much different from a pandemic flu and that hospitals are always crowded at the peak of even a seasonal flu, much less a pandemic flu.

In July, Justin Hart, founder of RationalGround.com, which promotes a rational approach to the virus, posted on Twitter a series of articles describing emergency measures in various ERs throughout the nation during the 2018 pandemic flu. Yet the media coverage at the time wasn’t incessant, it never became political, and the politicians never gave any thought to shutting down our lives. We lived with it, and few people ever heard of the 2018 pandemic flu.

That is all about to change. Now the flu is the new threshold for perpetual mask-wearing, draconian regulations on businesses and houses of worship, and government mandates of every facet of our lives.

Those who said the fatality rate of COVID-19 was much lower than the WHO claimed were right all along. This week, Icelandic researchers came out with a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine pegging the fatality rate at 0.3%. Lest you think that this might be the result of luck in Iceland, an analysis of COVID-19 in Indiana published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on Wednesday estimates the IFR in that state at 0.26%, right around what Stanford epidemiologist and leading lockdown skeptic John Ioannidis predicted long ago.

But even that number is extremely lopsided and almost exclusively weighted toward people with several known immunocompromising conditions. According to the CDC, 94% of those who have died from the virus had at least one serious underlying condition. For healthy people, especially those under 65, the fatality rate is really no greater than the flu.

Hence, the politicians have gone from “Don’t you dare compare this to the flu” to “We should be doing this for the flu as well.” In other words, there’s a reason why politicians and the media warn about a “new normal.” It’s not because COVID-19 will necessarily be with us forever; it’s because the tyranny of the government response had nothing to do with COVID-19. That was simply the perfect pretext because so much was unknown about it earlier this year. Now that everyone is conditioned to go along with the suspension of democracy for “public health,” it’s not even a political leap to use the flu as the next excuse.

Consider how low the threshold is to continue the current quasi-martial law policies and invasion of personal privacy and bodily integrity. One university after another is discovering hundreds of “cases” of COVID with zero hospitalizations. This happens every flu season, and the students usually get sicker with more disruptive symptoms than they have now, when most of them only know they are “sick” because of mandatory testing. Yet this is the new threshold to turn colleges into prisons.

As my friend Kyle Lamb observes, according to the Kessel-Cohen-Milgroom study that PCR tests have a median false positive rate of 2.3%, in places like New York where the entire positive rate is under 2.3%, that could mean the number of real cases may be close to zero – or at least low enough that nobody would notice without this testing regime and dashboard obsession.

As far back as October 2019, according to the CDC, at least 1% of emergency room visitors exhibited COVID-like symptoms (CLI), even before the virus was known in the U.S. A certain number of people always come in with fever, coughing, sore throats, and trouble breathing all year round every year, and most certainly during the late fall and winter. Those numbers existed before the discovery of this particular virus and will continue to persist forever.

At present, we are at the point in this COVID “epidemic” where the flu season, which is driven more by symptoms and not testing, more definitely disrupts people’s daily schedules with illness. As Lamb notes, “By this logic, the virus would never go away and emergency powers will be indefinite.”

And indeed, that is exactly the point. That is their plan … if we let them get away with it.

Share
Categories
CDC Eviction moratorium Illegal order Intelwars President Trump property rights

Horowitz: Venezuela in America: CDC to confiscate property rights with new anti-eviction order

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.” ~James Madison

Rational thought, constitutional rights, basic freedoms, and ability to breathe unmasked air have been axed at the altar of the coronavirus cult. Now, it appears that the CDC has the power to destroy the property rights of landlords and force them to house chosen classes of people on their property, contrary to contractual agreements. We fought a revolution over this issue.

On Tuesday, the Trump administration announced that the CDC will put a moratorium on all private lease evictions in the United States until December 31. Which, in this day and age, will likely mean that a government canceling of rent or evictions to some degree will be enshrined as a permanent policy of government.

After reading various headlines reporting the announcement, you might have thought this was referring to federally run housing units or at least rentals or mortgages backed by the federal government. Nope. The federal government is suspending all private rental evictions for individuals earning less than $99,000 or families earning less than $198,000. In other words, it is confiscating the private property rights of countless American businessmen who are struggling just as much as renters.

We have heard incessant accusations from this administration and other Republicans that Joe Biden and the Democrats will transform this country into a socialist hellhole. But if this order is not socialist, than the term has no meaning. At least the eviction cancellation provision of the CARES Act in March was passed by a legislative body and only applied to federally funded housing, such as mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is an unaccountable executive action governing strictly private contracts.

The order will formally be published in the Federal Register on Friday.

Extra shocking, this order comes at a time when government is handing out free funding to everyone. So if officials plan to keep the country afloat through servicing debt, why is there a need to harm landlords? With all the handouts going around, they should just give the tenants the money to pay the landlords. Now government is taking its redistribution scheme a step further by using citizens’ private property for handouts.

“President Trump is committed to helping hardworking Americans stay in their homes and combating the spread of the coronavirus,” White House deputy press secretary Brian Morgenstern said during a briefing announcing the order on Tuesday.

Again, how is this different from Joe Biden – both in the approach to the virus and to economics? How about cutting off funding in the budget bill later this month to all states that continue the lockdown so we don’t continue to suffer the economic collapse fueling the rent crisis in the first place? If more states were like South Dakota, we wouldn’t have to worry about evictions. Alternatively, how about at least conditioning the federal eviction cancellation only to states exempting landlords from property taxes this year? Why should property owners have to suffer for government malfeasance?

What will happen with private rental businesses is the same thing government bailouts, mandates, subsidies, and confiscations do to every other industry. It will chase small-scale landowners out of the rental business and suck these properties into the grasp of corporate real estate moguls who have the economies of scale to deal with the eviction problems, gobble up the government relief programs, and use cheap prices to purchase property from desperate small-scale sellers.

This latest grab of power to terminate private contracts exemplifies the broader violation of the national social compact, expressed in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution. The government now controls our lives, liberty, and property without any due process or even legislative process or public input. It can just declare any long-term progressive goal vital to stopping the spread of the virus without showing any evidence of necessity, effectiveness, or constitutionality.

Whether it’s mandating the covering of our humanity with masks, the shutting of businesses and churches, the confiscation of land, or the release of violent criminals from prison, it’s all for the public good – and can be done by any executive authority. The CDC’s acting chief of staff asserted in the unpublished order, without providing any evidence, that the CDC has such power because an eviction moratorium is “reasonably necessary measure under 42 CFR 70.2 to prevent the further spread of COVID-19 throughout the United States.”

How far has our government strayed from the principles of the national contract we all adopted in 1789? James Madison flatly asserted in Federalist 54 that “Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons of individuals.” Even toward the end of his life, long after the Constitution was adopted, Madison was still concerned with property rights. He went on to explain at a constitutional convention of Virginia lawmakers in 1829 that individual and property rights “cannot well be separated” because “the personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right.”

In other words, government was created for the express purpose of protecting property. Now it is being used to retroactively dissolve private contracts voluntarily forged between two citizens and engage in Venezuela-style state-sanctioned theft. If government can do this so easily, what can it not do to us? As John Adams warned in 1787:

“The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.”

Our politicians continue to forget that there is no emergency exception to fundamental rights in the Constitution, most certainly not property rights. A decade before the American revolution, Sir William Blackstone, the English jurist who so greatly influenced the legal thinking of our Founders, wrote in his “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” “So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community.” Which is why Jon Jay concluded, “No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.”

Sadly, the only rights that have not been infringed upon under the guise of emergency powers this year involve the one true constitutional exception to fundamental rights, which is habeas corpus during a rebellion (Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. II). Nobody is even asking for the rioters to be held without habeas rights or other due process, but they are not even being held or stopped with those rights. They have free rein to plunder, burn, and maim without being prosecuted. Meanwhile, coronavirus is being used to illegally strip peaceful business owners of their property rights.

Unless this tyranny changes, Joe Biden and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will have won this election regardless of the vote tally on November 3.

Share
Categories
Coronavirus Coronavirus lockdown Coronavirus tyranny COVID-19 hospitalizations Intelwars Mask mandates

Horowitz: Coronavirus cases, hospitalizations soar in Hawaii since indoor and outdoor mask mandates

At what point do results and outcomes begin to matter? On the current political trajectory, we will be stripped of our humanity and forced to wear face burkas indefinitely without any debate, votes, benchmarks, or transparency. Not only are there no randomized clinical trials showing evidence that mask-wearing in the general populace works to stop the spread of respiratory viruses, but the reality of these mandates in practice for the past few months shows they are worthless and that the virus spreads as it spreads, regardless of human input. The latest example is Hawaii.

Just like in the Philippines and Peru, Hawaii’s government has imposed a long, strict lockdown and has never emerged from it beyond a modified phase one reopening. Additionally, the state has had an indoor mask mandate in place since April 20 and an outdoor mandate (even while jogging!) since July 7. It is the model for what the political elites believe to be the key to stopping the spread. Yet the results are the same as they have been in every place that tried to put up a cloth in front of the inexorable spread of viral particles that can only be seen with an electron microscope.

As you can see, Hawaii’s daily case count grew more than tenfold in July and August. All along, state officials thought they were steering this ship cleanly throughout the spring and that their draconian efforts avoided the spread of the virus. Instead, it has become clear that the virus simply arrives at southern latitudes several months later and spreads for six to eight weeks, as it does everywhere else.

If mask-wearing were as effective as the cult-like devotion to it claims and the strict legal enforcement of it were justified, then this result would be impossible. Let’s not forget that Hawaii is the most isolated state and has essentially choked off tourism and commerce. In addition, Hawaiian Airlines has the strictest mask policies among all airlines.

Hospitalizations have also increased eightfold since mid-July. And as my friend Ian Miller shows, this occurred long after mask-wearing became a universal requirement.

“Face coverings are one of the easiest ways to prevent the spread of COVID-19,” said Oahu’s Mayor Kirk Caldwell in a July 3 order expanding the city’s mask mandate to outdoors. Well, Mr. Mayor, facts and data don’t care about your opinion.

And it’s not as if the edict is not being complied with. According to the New York Times, Hawaii has a high degree of compliance. The few people caught without masks have not only be cited, but arrested too. Then again, you can’t beat the mandate in the Philippines, where residents were threatened with getting shot for violating coronavirus orders, yet as in all southern latitudes, the country is experiencing a late spread. Ditto for Peru, which had a universal mask mandate for months but has the most COVID-19 deaths per capita in the world.

Now we know why Dr. Fauci said in July that there are no plans to conduct a randomized clinical trial to asses the effectiveness of universal mask-wearing in stopping the spread. We have a better litmus test than clinical studies: We have the reality of human experience in every corner of the world.

Just how confident is our government in the effectiveness of mask-wearing? The CDC recommends that someone who has come into contact with a person who has the virus for at least 15 minutes should quarantine, “irrespective of whether the person with COVID-19 or the contact was wearing a mask or whether the contact was wearing respiratory personal protective equipment (PPE).”

So, when it comes to actually making life decisions based on the mask cult, suddenly the science is as cheap and flimsy as the cloth itself. Yet in July, Dr. Robert Redfield, the CDC’s own director, said, “If we could get everyone to wear a mask right now, I think in four, six, eight weeks, we could bring this epidemic under control.”

Well, Dr. Redfield, I’ll do you one better. Hawaiians were wearing masks for nearly 20 weeks in an island state before the virus spread much at all. Yet it still appeared with a vengeance in July.

You can’t blame the CDC for not putting its money where its director’s political mouth now is, because as late as May, the CDC was citing the 10 randomized controlled trials that showed “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”

How much longer will we allow this flat-earth science to trump our liberty, human dignity, and right to breathe unrestricted air? Many states are mandating this even on small kids. Typically, in order to issue such a draconian and personal regulation of one’s person – to the extent that could ever be constitutional – the government must produce substantial evidence that the restriction is necessary and effective and propose its implementation through the least restrictive means for the minimal amount of time necessary. Sadly, the Constitution has been cast aside as callously as common sense and years’ worth of science on the spread of respiratory viruses.

Share
Categories
Insurrection Insurrection Act Intelwars President Trump riot Riot act

Horowitz: President Trump should read Black Lives Matter the Riot Act – and the Insurrection Act

The hallmark of a first-world country is not that violence never occurs within its borders, but that once it does, the damage is mitigated immediately and the perpetrators are punished and future criminals deterred. Yet here we are, over 80 days into this national insurrection by terrorist groups like Back Lives Matter and Antifa, and there is no end in sight. Trump is president today, not just after November 4. It’s time for him to use his inherent power to put down the insurrection.

The fact that crowds can celebrate about shooting a Trump supporter in cold blood, rampage through Oakland and chant “death to America,” and burn down Kenosha until it looks like Beirut demonstrates that we are no longer dealing with belligerent protests or even rioting, but with deadly terrorism. Our tactics – both at the state and federal levels – must comport with this reality.

On the state level, the notion that somehow police must stand back and allow “protests” to fester until they get out of hand and uncontrollable is absurd. When there is clear and present danger that gatherings lead to violence, they can be dispersed. As the Supreme Court said in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), “When clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order appears, the power of the State to prevent or punish is obvious.” Thus, any discussion of “right to protest” is out the window, especially after an 80-day track record and trail of devastation in its wake.

Then there is the federal role. The notion that the Constitution and statute somehow keep the federal government neutral or removed from an organized insurrection is misguided and dangerous. From the early days of the Whiskey Rebellion through the Civil War-era insurrections, the federal government has been at the forefront of restoring peace when states are either inherently incapable or unwilling to protect civil liberties and punish violent forces, especially when they cross state lines and are national in scope.

Many commentators continue to make the mistake of believing that the president needs permission of a governor or mayor to send in federal forces to quell a rebellion. But the updates to the Insurrection Act in 1871 were specifically designed to empower the president to put down insurrection precisely in a scenario where state governments are turning a blind eye (or encouraging) the uprisings.

The original Insurrection Act of 1807, first passed by Congress in the form of the Militia Act of 1792, gave the president permission to send in the military to a state “upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened.” However, during the post-Civil War era, when states in the South turned a blind eye to KKK violence toward black people, Congress saw a need to give the president unilateral authority, a power that is codified in law to this very day. And for good reason.

The Insurrection Act of 1871 reflects the spirit of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified just a few years earlier. The entire point of the 14th Amendment was to empower the federal government to enforce fundamental rights against states precisely when state governments where involved in those violations. In those days, Southern states allowed white terrorists to terrorize black people, punished black people for self-defense, and did not pursue justice against white perpetrators. The 1871 act pushed by President Ulysses Grant was, in a sense, the implementing legislation of the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause, which gave the federal government enforcement power over states that violate those natural rights.

According to the Washington Post, “[President] Grant’s target was the violent Ku Klux Klan, which was, according to the Coakley book, inciting ‘its members to commit crimes, including murder, against Republicans and blacks’ and rarely facing prosecution.”

Sound familiar? Reverse the races and that is what is happening today. Blue states and cities are openly greenlighting Antifa and BLM to destroy public and private property, randomly attack white people and/or Trump supporters, take over roads and stop, threaten, and attack motorists, and rarely face prosecution, while those who defend themselves are charged with murder.

The 1871 act was created for exactly this sort of uprising fueled by racial discrimination. Not only does the law, codified as amended in 10 U.S. Code §253, §332-333, not require state permission for the president to dispatch armed forces, it specifically charges him to do so when “the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws” [emphasis added].

Per §332, the threshold for unilaterally calling in the military, even against the wishes of the state government, is when “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State.”

That threshold is clearly evident, nearly three months into this uncontrolled mayhem in so many cities.

The president is also vested with the power to “take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” in the aforementioned scenario.

The time has come for the president to actually suppress the insurrection. What happened in Portland when DHS dispatched agents was a disgrace. They were dispatched in a very defensive posture to defend a federal building and wound up being blinded with lasers. This is a terrorist group they are dealing with, and it requires appropriate force that stops the violence. They must go on offense, seek out and confront the perpetrators, and shoot to kill when the rebels are using deadly force.

Concomitantly, the Department of Justice must harness every existing statute – from anti-terrorism laws (18 U.S. Code § 2383) to cross-state racketeering laws (28 U.S. Code §1952) – to prosecute all of the criminals being released or ignored by state and local prosecutors. They must also go after local DAs who are violating civil rights and charging victims of the mob with crimes for legitimately defending their lives. It’s now reached the point that in New Jersey, civilians will be charged with crimes for calling 911 when they feel threatened if the subject of the call is black and the call is deemed false by authorities. No such charge will be made if the races are reversed.

As the Washington Post observes regarding the implementation of the 1871 law: “After learning that the KKK was still thriving in several South Carolina counties, he [Grant] organized more than 1,000 soldiers to round up several hundred Klansmen. ‘Scores’ of suspects were arrested, many of them interrogated for several weeks without an indictment. By Jan. 1, 1872, the Army had detained more than 600 men, and most of them were tried and convicted in federal court.”

Trump has the facts, the law, and the American people on his side. Now is the time to read BLM the Riot Act. Now is the time to defend America, not after he wins a second term. As Reagan said, “If not us, who? And if not now, when?”

Share
Categories
Casedemic Coronavirus Coronavirus lockdown Coronavirus tyranny Intelwars Mass testing

Horowitz: Anatomy of a ‘CASEdemic’: Over 1,300 reported coronavirus cases at U of Alabama … zero hospitalizations

Several weeks into the new semester, I’m sure most of you have seen the panicked headlines that are bean-counting the number of COVID-19 cases found on college campuses. What you likely did not notice buried under the headlines is that nobody is dying from these cases and very few would even know they had any pathogen if not for the obsession over testing college students and the super-sensitivity of those tests. Yet a virus that is largely less disruptive than seasonal illnesses for young adults is now being used as a pretext to turn colleges campuses into prisons for students.

As of last Friday, the University of Alabama system reported 1,368 positive cases across its three campuses. But here’s the kicker: There has not been a single hospitalization among them. Thus, all the cases have been sub-clinical. What they fail to report is how many of the illnesses even rise to the level of the flu and how many are downright asymptomatic. A “casedemic” is an epidemic that can only be identified by mass testing, because cases are so mild that people don’t know they have a virus. It carries no surge in hospitalization or rampant illness.

The New York Times has already reported that up to 90 percent of positive cases in several states are only positive because of the hypersensitivity of the tests, which are picking up viruses that are either already dead or too low in quantity to transmit. That would help explain why we are not seeing any meaningful outbreak of serious illness across any school, camp, or college setting despite frantic headlines about the number of reported “cases.”

The lack of transmission capability in most reported positive cases would also help explain why Dr. Ricky Friend, the dean of the University of Alabama’s College of Community Health Sciences, noted that there was “no evidence of virus transmission due to in-person class instruction.” It’s very likely that these PCR tests are picking up viruses that these students contracted several weeks ago in their homes and communities from older adults before the semester began.

Unfortunately, the good news is lost on the leadership of America’s universities. In many ways, the fact that there are many cases, though with no hospitalizations, is more propitious news than finding no cases at all. In the latter scenario, one could always fret over the eventuality of a spread and its potential for destruction. Now that we are actually facing the virus head-on and discovering cases, we are seeing that there is nothing to worry about among young people. Moreover, the cases among college students ensure that they achieve herd immunity earlier and also contribute toward shielding the vulnerable by burning out the virus in this low-risk population.

According to the CDC, not a single college or school-age Alabamian has died from COVID-19. Contrast that to alcohol-related car crashes on college campuses, which often cause close to 2,000 fatalities a year nationwide. Imagine if every college had a dashboard for every drug or alcohol hospitalization or for every case of the flu or other seasonal illness and used those numbers as a pretext for shutting down classes or placing students under de facto house arrest. Imagine if we had mass testing with hypersensitive amplification to check for any pathogen in the body of a college student and then recorded it on a dashboard without any context provided about the severity of the illness.

If the infinitesimal risk of coronavirus is the new threshold for locking down college kids, then we have a generation of young people who will face a growing mental health crisis. The restrictions are so draconian that many colleges have essentially confined their students to dorm rooms and are suspending students for simply living their lives. Imagine the effects of social isolation on kids who left their homes only to be confined within the college campus.

Some of the pictures coming out of college dorms like those at the University of Alabama look like they are depicting a hospital psych ward, which in itself is enough to create a self-fulfilling mental health crisis.

According to a CDC survey, 62.9% of 18-24-year-olds were already experiencing some form of anxiety or depression, while 25.5 percent had considered suicide over the preceding 30 days in late June.

What is going on in this country is an epidemic of coronaphobia, which induces a vicious cycle of intensifying fear and panic inverse to the threat level of the virus itself. Unlike the virus, which appears to be attenuating over time, as well as building herd immunity in the population, the phobia from the virus only gets worse and never achieves immunity. It only perpetuates and exacerbates a mental health crisis that will ultimately cost more lives.

As the president’s new coronavirus adviser, Dr. Scott Atlas, said yesterday, “We are the only country of our peer nations in the Western world who are so hysterical about reopening schools. We seem to be the only country willing to sacrifice our children out of fear.”

Share
Categories
Coronavirus Intelwars lockdown Mask mandate Sturgis

Horowitz: Coronavirus casualties from Sturgis biker rally super-spreader event don’t make news because they didn’t happen

Over 460,000 motorcyclists descended upon the Black Hills of South Dakota for the annual Sturgis motorcycle rally, the largest event in the entire country this year – without masks or sacred social distancing protocols. Yet no epidemic of coronavirus was ignited by this mother of all mass gatherings, contrary to media predictions.

With nearly every state still partially shut down, South Dakota, like Sweden, never had a shutdown or a mask mandate. Then, in the second week of August, the state hosted the largest, most raucous event in the country. Initially, the media laid the groundwork to spread pandemic panic porn about the impending spread of the virus. Now you don’t hear much about it. Why not? Because there is no epidemic to speak of.

Meanwhile, countries with the strictest lockdowns and mask mandates, like Peru and the Philippines, have more deaths than any other country. The enduring lesson? Lockdowns and mask mandates play absolutely no role in mitigating a virus that seems to spread where it spreads, when it spreads, and to whom it spreads based on its own patterns.

South Dakota is our version of Sweden. Governor Kristi Noem refused to implement lockdowns or mask mandates. The state ranks #40 in coronavirus deaths per capita and has the best economy in the country to show for it.

The media and public health officials predicted the state would blow its streak by allowing a large national gathering to take place from August 7 to August 16. “Come mid-August to late August, early September, Sturgis will have one hell of an imprint on this country,” warned Michael Osterholm, head of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the neighboring University of Minnesota. The Sioux Nation tribal government even employed efforts to block bikers from their lands.

In fact, so strong was the fear of spread that halfway around the country, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu was so spooked by images of Sturgis that he mandated mask-wearing on gatherings of more than 100 people in the “Live Free or Die” state, which previously had no mask mandate of any sort.

So where is the monumental imprint on the country? There are zero deaths reported, and I have only seen one hospitalization alleged to be associated with Sturgis attendance. The epidemic generated by the rally was so powerful that they evidently had to conduct mass testing to discover a “CASEdemic” of over 100 casesand all those tested in one city were asymptomatic at the time of testing.

Let’s put that in perspective: According to the COVID Tracking Project, there were 464,000 positive cases confirmed nationwide from August 7 to August 17. That is roughly 1,400 cases per million people. Compare that to just over 200 cases per million among Sturgis attendees, at least thus far, and we can see that the massive nationwide imprint predicted is imperceptible, even if we focus on testing of asymptomatic individuals.

In other words, South Dakota likely achieved a meaningful degree of herd immunity, just like Sweden, and has done a good job shielding sicker people. It has been reported that attendance at Sturgis dropped among the senior population, which was smart, and likely explains the almost nonexistent rate of hospitalizations caused by attendance.

But more broadly, it demonstrates the reality that masks and lockdowns simply make no difference in the trajectory and timing of the epidemic. Had Gov. Kristi Noem taken the advice of the doomsayers, she would have tanked her state’s economy. Instead, her state is riding high. Two weeks ago, Governor Noem politely rejected federal assistance with unemployment, noting that her state had the lowest unemployment rate and had already recovered 80% of the lost jobs. “We’re the only state in the nation that didn’t have extended unemployment benefits kick in because our insured unemployment rate has been the lowest in the nation,” she said.

If Sturgis in South Dakota broke every rule of the COVID-19 cult with success, then Peru is the polar opposite. The country used heavy-handed law enforcement to force one of the longest and most draconian shutdowns. In mid-March, President Martín Vizcarra ordered all cars off the road and an 8 p.m. curfew, and residents were only allowed to leave their homes even during the day for food or medical care. Mask-wearing was 100% mandated everywhere. This was imposed for 15 weeks. In other words, everything the media and leftist politicians have asked for.

The result? Peru has now surpassed Belgium as the country with the most deaths per capita in the world. At 871 COVID-19 deaths per 1 million people, Peru has 4.6 times the number of deaths per capita of South Dakota, which had no lockdown or mask mandate.

The dichotomy between South Dakota, especially after the Sturgis event, and Peru is one of many data points demonstrating that human non-clinical intervention efforts simply do not stop a respiratory virus from spreading. We are seeing this in the Philippines, Hawaii, Japan, and many other places with strict lockdowns. The virus spreads where it spreads. The only difference is that the Pacific Rim countries appear to be largely immune to the serious symptoms, while countries like Peru appear to have little cross-immunity. But that has nothing to do with lockdown.

At this rate, it’s not just motorcyclists who will descend upon South Dakota. We might all want to move there to fulfill the dream of our Founding Fathers as the last beacon for freedom and prosperity.

Share
Categories
bail Crime criminal justice reform Intelwars Jailbreak New york crime

Horowitz: Man caught on camera attempting to rape woman on NYC subway platform held on just $75K bail, despite 14 prior arrests

Still think we have an over-incarceration problem in this country, as the elites in both parties believe? Let me introduce you to Jose Reyes.

Over the weekend, Americans watched in shock and horror as images of a man throwing a 25-year-old woman on the ground on a Manhattan subway platform went viral over the internet. In a city that had been safe for a generation thanks to tough-on-crime policies, a criminal was undeterred from attempting to rape her in broad daylight on Saturday morning in one of the most public places in the city. On Sunday, police used the video to identify Jose Reyes, 31, as the suspect and issued an arrest because they recognized him from just a few months ago when he was caught and released after being charged with criminal mischief.

Even with national discussion centered around the lack of deterrent to such heinous crimes in the once safe subway system, it was still completely unexpected that this man would be offered just $75,000 bail and released after having been caught on camera attempting to commit such a violent crime. Even in New York, someone this bad would remain in jail pending the trial, right?

Well, bright and early Monday morning, Reyes was offered the option of release on just $75,000 cash bail at his arraignment. According to police, he had 14 prior arrests, including for robbery and assault on a police officer, and was caught with drugs on him. He confessed to knocking the victim down and forcing himself on top of her. But if he comes up with this relatively low sum, he could be free again. I guess we should count our blessings that this man wasn’t automatically released without having to post any bond, like so many other criminals.

Liberal cities are trying to bar police from using the facial recognition technology that was so instrumental in catching this suspect. It’s one of the many spheres of the criminal justice jailbreak agenda that is increasingly being adopted by both parties.

This is the America in which we now live. Even at the Republican convention, one speaker after another, many of whom sit at the highest positions of power within the administration, kept extolling the virtues of “criminal justice reform,” aka jailbreak of criminals – as if there are too many people incarcerated. Yet we’ve reached a point in this country where it is almost impossible to lock up violent criminals, no matter the seriousness of their crime, no matter the body of evidence, and regardless of their prior record.

If Reyes ultimately posts bond, how likely is it that the victim will be willing to press forward on this case? Aside from creating a lack of deterrent, easy-release policies pretrial make it harder to land a conviction because so many witnesses and victims are too scared to testify. As one New York state prosecutor told me last year, with these leniencies, “You’re gonna have more cases not getting resolved … more plea bargaining, if you will, and more people out of custody to continue to commit crime.” Someone with the history of Reyes, especially given the sensitivity of this case, should be held on much higher bond.

In addition, New York’s new bail law forces the prosecution to immediately turn over the addresses of witnesses and victims to the defense. Earlier this year, one MS-13 murder suspect who was released from jail was accused of murdering a witness in the trial.

These stories are not the rare exceptions; they are the rule. On Sunday, NYPD announced that Kariym Jackson, 39, a career criminal who is homeless, was charged for kicking a man down a flight of steps right at Penn Station. The victim died of his injuries. How could this man think he could get away with this crime at such a public place? Because he was already on parole despite his criminal record. The trend of parole over prison and pretrial release over jail time is turning this country into a violent third-world country.

These daytime attacks in New York City have become rampant.

People who survived the great crime wave of the 1970s are now moving out. Moving trucks are becoming a common sight in Manhattan’s once-safe upper west side.

What is going on in New York is a microcosm of the rioting and rampant crime across the country, where, so long as you are committing a politically correct crime in the eyes of our system, there is simply no deterrent against the act. While the rioting has certainly roped in thousands of people, the ones who commit the most heinous acts are almost always repeat violent offenders. Andy Ngo, who has covered Antifa violence as an on-the-ground journalist for years, reports that the man being investigated in the shocking murder of Trump supporter Aaron “Jay” Danielson caught on camera in Portland, Oregon, Saturday night was arrested for illegally carrying a loaded gun at a riot in July. He was released and charges were never pursued.

In other words, if you are defending yourself against the mob, you will be prosecuted, or if you are caught carrying in a state that unconstitutionally bans the right to carry, you will be charged so long as you are of a certain identity. But if you are a career criminal or part of BLM, there is a universal right to carry.

Where are the Republican demands for locking up repeat offenders? Where are the criminal justice reform bills for victims of crime? Where is the effort to defund pro-criminal cities? When is it our turn to fight back?

Share
Categories
Crime Intelwars Joe biden 1994 crime bill Rnc 2020 trump trump campaign Trump re-election

Horowitz: Trump should embrace the 1994 anti-crime agenda, not repudiate it

One of the most bizarre aspects of an otherwise successful GOP convention was the constant reference to Joe Biden supporting the 1994 crime bill as if it were a bad thing. Given where Joe Biden’s allegiance lies today, it would have been better for Trump to propose an updated 1994 crime bill that fits today’s situation in order to take repeat offenders off the streets. It’s not too late to make the second term about making America safe again, just like it was when people like Joe Biden believed in law and order in the 1990s.

The message being sent to criminals with all the continued emphasis on “criminal justice reform” is that violence is the answer and crime pays. A new infographic posted by the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund shows the significant correlation between plummeting arrests and rising crime.

Fewer arrests equal more crime. It’s that simple. This chart shows the immediate spike in crime over a one-year period following anti-law-enforcement policies in given hot spots. Whether it’s anti-police rioting in Baltimore and New York or the court order in Chicago ordering more passive policing, the results have been more homicides and crime, overwhelmingly affecting black neighborhoods. It’s no wonder that, according to a recent Gallup poll, 81% of black respondents and 83% of Hispanic respondents want more or the same level of the policing in their neighborhoods.

So why do Republicans and even this administration continue to send mixed messages? The president spoke powerfully last night against the anarchy, but many other speakers – from Ivanka Trump to White House senior policy adviser Ja’Ron Smith – kept touting “criminal justice reform,” which is code language for the very jailbreak policies that have fueled this anarchy. They continuously talk about “second chances” for “low-level” criminals, but many of them have already been given numerous chances, and thanks to those chances, they go on to commit worse crimes.

One of the most powerful moments of the convention was when Ann Dorn, wife of retired St. Louis police officer David Dorn, described the murder of her husband during the rioting and looting following the death of George Floyd. It was one of many sadly incongruous moments of the GOP convention, because the alleged murderer benefited from one of the many “second chance” programs promoted by some of the other speakers.

As I noted in June, Stephan Cannon, 24, one of the suspects in the murder, was sentenced to seven years in prison for a robbery and assault in 2014, but he never served a day because he was granted suspended execution of sentence (SES). Even though he violated his parole, the judge did not reinstate the sentence. Had our system been working properly, had we continued the system in place under the 1994 crime bill, Dorn would be alive because Cannon would have been behind bars. But so many of the people within the orbit of Jared Kushner in the White House continue to push these policies and even criticize Joe Biden’s former position on crime rather than using it to point out the radicalism of his current position.

At the convention, Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) decried how the 1994 crime bill “put millions of black Americans behind bars.” What he doesn’t tell you is that black criminals are actually incarcerated at a lower rate relative to crime rates, or that incarceration policies saved thousands of potential black victims of homicide. The reversal of these policies in recent years, accelerating in recent months, has led to the loss of countless black lives. Those are the facts we needed to hear consistently at this week’s convention, but instead, we were treated to equivocation and diffidence on the issue of crime, which only further blurs the distinction between the two parties.

According to research of NYPD crime data by the Daily Caller New Foundation, there were 194 reported shootings in America’s largest city in June that involved members of the black community. That is a 177% increase over the same time period in June 2019. Since last year, the city has released many violent criminals because of coronavirus or because of “bail reform.” Sure, those policies have ensured that more black arrestees, among other racial and ethnic groups, are out of jail. But those are black criminals. What about the effect on black victims of crime? The numbers speak for themselves.

One of the worst aspects of the “reform” agenda is the release of violent suspects without bail. Last week, Frank Main, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist for the Chicago Sun-Times, reported that more than 1,000 people charged with murder, robbery, or illegal possession of guns were released by judges in Cook County this year on electric monitoring devices. Those devices are worthless, and local police believe these releases are responsible for soaring murders in the city, which mainly target black victims.

Where is the united GOP agenda on this issue?

The president himself had the right message during his acceptance speech. “Last year, over 1,000 African-Americans were murdered as a result of violent crime in just four Democrat-run cities,” said the president last night in a long and powerful speech in front of the White House. “The top 10 most dangerous cities in the country are run by Democrats and have been for decades. Thousands more African-Americans are victims of violent crime in these communities. Joe Biden and the Left ignore these American victims. I never will.”

One way to make that happen is by passing a new crime bill and using the budget bills to funnel federal funds only to localities that lock up criminals. Trump must recognize that, contrary to the premise of his advisers, we have an under-incarceration problem, not an over-incarceration problem. Remember that this entire collapse of deterrent against violence began when these same advisers pressured Trump to stand down from calling in the military after the first riots began in May.

It’s time for Trump to restore deterrent against crime in America. But such an effort begins with a revamping of critical White House personnel to actually match the long-standing views of the president on crime, not the views of Joe Biden – the 2020 version.

Share