Tuesday, March 31, 2020

Can Trump Solve America's Wild Horses Crisis?

By Bill Croke

The West has been home to wild horses since the days of the conquistadores.  For instance, the 1680 Pueblo rebellion that expelled the Spaniards from New Mexico for twelve years scattered large herds into the hands of the tribes of the Southern Plains.  Today, there are Spanish bloodlines present in wild stock found as far north as Montana.
Rounding up mustangs destined for the leather tannery or the dog food factory used to be the formula for keeping the public lands' herd numbers at manageable levels.  But gone are the days of The Misfits, John Huston's 1961 film about wild horse wranglers in Nevada.  In 1971, the federal "Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act" outlawed rounding up horses for slaughter.  Afterward, an annual quota of mustangs was collected by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) personnel from herds in ten Western states and offered locally for public adoption.  But the 1971 legislation has never been popular with environmentalists and the West's green media.  Writing in "High Country News" in 2018, Ellie Phipps Price stated that the legislation was "a pest-control statute that is designed to benefit ranchers who graze livestock on the public lands where wild horses live."  But adoptions have shrunk in recent years.  With feeding, shelter, vet bills, etc., it costs thousands of dollars a year to keep a horse.  And breaking a mustang to the saddle is hard work that might require a paid, professional cowboy to perform.  The adoption process was one of the Department of the Interior's bureaucratic nightmares.  (More on that later.)
Americans are not tolerant of animal cruelty.  Even the morality of legal hunting is more and more questioned by an increasingly politically correct populace.  Some think burgeoning whitetail deer numbers in the East should rate birth control for suburban Bambis.  In the West, it's the wild horses.
Approximately 88,000 mustangs roam 27 million acres of BLM rangelands (where they compete with two million head of domestic cattle for grass on leased grazing allotments) in ten Western states.  Roughly 18,000 foals are produced yearly.  In 2018 11,500 horses were rounded up and corralled in BLM "holding facilities," where they were adopted.  All this (the roundups, the holding facilities, feeding, the BLM adoption process bureaucracy, etc.) costs taxpayers $81 million annually.  The Trump administration seeks a target number of 27,000 horses, or about a thousand horses per million acres of rangeland.  Acting BLM director William Perry Pendley has stated that the status quo "wreaks havoc" on the public rangelands.
A mature wild horse weighs on average of 850 pounds and will consume 25 pounds of grass per day.  Cattle weigh up to 400 pounds more and eat about the same amount of grass daily.  Unlike horses, cattle are not selective in their grazing and thus do more damage to the range.  Two million cows are currently grazing on 155 million acres of BLM leases, feral horses on 27 million acres.  To look at two states in particular: Nevada ranchers have access to 65% of BLM rangeland statewide; in Wyoming, it's 75%.
Wild horses inhabit the range in small groups of a dozen to twenty animals.  Small herd size will increase on average 20% per year, thus doubling every five years.  They have no natural predators.
One possible solution to control those numbers is "porcine zona pellucid" (PZP), an equine birth control drug administered by firearm dart that prevents pregnancy in mares.  The downside is that it has to be administered once per year.  The results are mixed.  In 2018, the BLM managed to sterilize a mere 702 mares.
Another remedy is the regularly held adoption events at those large holding facility BLM corral complexes scattered throughout the West and home to 50,000 rounded up mustangs.  The complex located at Palomino Valley north of Reno, Nevada is a prime example.  Here one can adopt a horse to take home for domestic use.  These adoption events had declined by 70% over the last decade for the simple reason that the bureaucratic paperwork and fees charged had become too much for the average rancher or horse enthusiast.  The $4,500 final fee was too steep for many folks interested in adoption.  Add that to the fact that domesticating a wild mustang requires professional horse training skills to break the animal to the saddle, and you have a program losing its popularity.  The Trump administration is streamlining the process and dispensing with all fees except a $25 initial application charge.  In fact, the federal government is so desperate to lower wild horse numbers on the range that it will actually pay the adopters.
In March 2019, the BLM instituted a new adoption program designed to remove horses from the corral complexes more efficiently by reducing red tape.  The federal government will  pay you $1,000 to adopt a horse.  According to the BLM, website interested parties will be paid "$500 within 60 days of adoption of an untrained wild horse or burro" and another "$500 within 60 days of titling the animal."  The initial $25 fee starts the process.  Not a bad deal.
This program is being denigrated by the anti-Trump environmental resistance and "wild horse advocates" in the West.  Their contention is that horses will be adopted by people with a profit motive in mind and no interest in pursuing the training regimen required to domesticate a mustang.  For instance, the "American Wild Horse Campaign" (AWHC)'s mission statement on its website states: "AWHC works to protect America's wild horses and burros by stopping the federal government's systematic elimination of these national icons from our public lands."  This is pursued through litigation and support for green legislation at the federal and state levels.  The BLM program doesn't bar people from keeping horses in a continued wild state on private land.
All this because polls indicate that the American people can't stomach the idea of regularly culling the herds to produce commercially marketable horsemeat and horsehide for leather products.
It's telling that people who, when it comes to the right to life, have no compunction being "pro-choice" yet are horrified by the idea of Fido feasting on Old Paint.  The Trump administration has rightly determined that paying people to adopt wild horses is less of a burden on taxpayers than keeping thousands incarcerated in the corral complexes.

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

Ex parte Milligan :: 71 U.S. 2 (1866) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

Primary Holding

It is unconstitutional to try civilians by military tribunals unless there is no civilian court available.

U.S. Supreme Court

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 4 Wall. 2 2 (1866)Ex parte Milligan
71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2

Syllabus
1. Circuit Courts, as well as the judges thereof, are authorized, by the fourteenth section of the Judiciary Act, to issue the writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of commitment, and they have
Page 71 U. S. 3
jurisdiction, except in cases where the privilege of the writ is suspended, to hear and determine the question whether the party is entitled to be discharged.
2. The usual course of proceeding is for the court, on the application of the prisoner for a writ of habeas corpus, to issue the writ, and, on its return, to hear and dispose of the case; but where the cause of imprisonment is fully shown by the petition, the court may, without issuing the writ, consider and determine whether, upon the facts presented in the petition, the prisoner, if brought before the court, would be discharged.
3. When the Circuit Court renders a final judgment refusing to discharge the prisoner, he may bring the case here by writ of error, and, if the judges of the Circuit Court, being opposed in opinion, can render no judgment, he may have the point upon which the disagreement happens certified to this tribunal.
4. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus, duly presented, is the institution of a cause on behalf of the petitioner, and the allowance or refusal of the process, as well as the subsequent disposition of the prisoner is matter of law, and not of discretion.
5. A person arrested after the passage of the act of March 3d, 1863, "relating to habeas corpus and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases," and under the authority of said act, was entitled to his discharge if not indicted or presented by the grand jury convened at the first subsequent term of the Circuit or District Court of the United States for the District.
6. The omission to furnish a list of the persons arrested to the judges of the Circuit or District Court as provided in the said act did not impair the right of said person, if not indicted or presented, to his discharge.
7. Military commissions organized during the late civil war, in a State not invaded and not engaged in rebellion, in which the Federal courts were open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their judicial functions, had no jurisdiction to try, convict, or sentence for any criminal offence, a citizen who was neither a resident of a rebellious State nor a prisoner of war, nor a person in the military or naval service. And Congress could not invest them with any such power.
8. The guaranty of trial by jury contained in the Constitution was intended for a state of war, as well as a state of peace, and is equally binding upon rulers and people at all times and under all circumstances.
9. The Federal authority having been unopposed in the State of Indiana, and the Federal courts open for the trial of offences and the redress of grievances, the usages of war could not, under the Constitution, afford any sanction for the trial there of a citizen in civil life not connected with the military or naval service, by a military tribunal, for any offence whatever.
10. Cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia in time of war or public danger, are excepted from the necessity of presentment or indictment by a grand jury, and the right of trial by jury in such cases is subject to the same exception.
Page 71 U. S. 4
11. Neither the President nor Congress nor the Judiciary can disturb any one of the safeguards of civil liberty incorporated into the Constitution except so far as the right is given to suspend in certain cases the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
12. A citizen not connected with the military service and a resident in a State where the courts are open and in the proper exercise or their jurisdiction cannot, even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, be tried, convicted, or sentenced otherwise than by the ordinary courts of law.
13. Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the writ itself. The writ issues as a matter of course, and, on its return, the court decides whether the applicant is denied the right of proceeding any further.
14. A person who is a resident of a loyal State, where he was arrested, who was never resident in any State engaged in rebellion, nor connected with the military or naval service, cannot be regarded as a prisoner of war.
This case came before the court upon a certificate of division from the judges of the Circuit Court for Indiana, on a petition for discharge from unlawful imprisonment.
The case was thus:
An act of Congress -- the Judiciary Act of 1789, [Footnote 1] section 14 -- enacts that the Circuit Courts of the United States
"Shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus. And that either of the justices of the Supreme Court, as well as judges of the District Court, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment. Provided,"
&c.
Another act -- that of March 3d, 1863, [Footnote 2] "relating to habeas corpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases" -- an act passed in the midst of the Rebellion -- makes various provisions in regard to the subject of it.
The first section authorizes the suspension, during the Rebellion, of the writ of habeas corpus, throughout the United States, by the President.
Two following sections limited the authority in certain respects.
Page 71 U. S. 5
The second section required that lists of all persons, being citizens of States in which the administration of the laws had continued unimpaired in the Federal courts, who were then held, or might thereafter be held, as prisoners of the United States, under the authority of the President, otherwise than as prisoners of war, should be furnished by the Secretary of State and Secretary of War to the judges of the Circuit and District Courts. These lists were to contain the names of all persons, residing within their respective jurisdictions, charged with violation of national law. And it was required, in cases where the grand jury in attendance upon any of these courts should terminate its session without proceeding by indictment or otherwise against any prisoner named in the list, that the judge of the court should forthwith make an order that such prisoner, desiring a discharge, should be brought before him or the court to be discharged, on entering into recognizance, if required, to keep the peace and for good behavior, or to appear, as the court might direct, to be further dealt with according to law. Every officer of the United States having custody of such prisoners was required to obey and execute the judge's order, under penalty, for refusal or delay, of fine and imprisonment.
The third section enacts, in case lists of persons other than prisoners of war then held in confinement or thereafter arrested, should not be furnished within twenty days after the passage of the act, or, in cases of subsequent arrest, within twenty days after the time of arrest, that any citizen, after the termination of a session of the grand jury without indictment or presentment, might, by petition alleging the facts and verified by oath, obtain the judge's order of discharge in favor of any person so imprisoned, on the terms and conditions prescribed in the second section.
This act made it the duty of the District Attorney of the United States to attend examinations on petitions for discharge.
By proclamation, [Footnote 3] dated the 15th September following,
Page 71 U. S. 6
the President, reciting this statute, suspended the privilege of the writ in the cases where, by his authority, military, naval, and civil officers of the United States
"hold persons in their custody either as prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy, . . . or belonging to the land or naval force of the United States, or otherwise amenable to military law, or the rules and articles of war, or the rules or regulations prescribed for the military or naval services, by authority of the President, or for resisting a draft, or for any other offence against the military or naval service."
With both these statutes and this proclamation in force, Lamdin P. Milligan, a citizen of the United States, and a resident and citizen of the State of Indiana, was arrested on the 5th day of October, 1864, at his home in the said State, by the order of Brevet Major-General Hovey, military commandant of the District of Indiana, and by the same authority confined in a military prison at or near Indianapolis, the capital of the State. On the 21st day of the same month, he was placed on trial before a "military commission," convened at Indianapolis, by order of the said General, upon the following charges, preferred by Major Burnett, Judge Advocate of the Northwestern Military Department, namely:
1. "Conspiracy against the Government of the United States;"
2. "Affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States;"
3. "Inciting insurrection;"
4. "Disloyal practices;" and
5. "Violation of the laws of war."
Under each of these charges, there were various specifications. The substance of them was joining and aiding, at different times between October, 1863, and August, 1864, a secret society known as the Order of American Knights or Sons of Liberty, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government and duly constituted authorities of the United States; holding communication with the enemy; conspiring to seize munitions of war stored in the arsenals; to liberate
Page 71 U. S. 7
prisoners of war, &c.; resisting the draft, &c.; . . .
"at a period of war and armed rebellion against the authority of the United States, at or near Indianapolis [and various other places specified] in Indiana, a State within the military lines of the army of the United States and the theatre of military operations, and which had been and was constantly threatened to be invaded by the enemy."
These were amplified and stated with various circumstances.
An objection by him to the authority of the commission to try him being overruled, Milligan was found guilty on all the charges, and sentenced to suffer death by hanging, and this sentence, having been approved, he was ordered to be executed on Friday, the 19th of May, 1865.
On the 10th of that same May, 1865, Milligan filed his petition in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana, by which, or by the documents appended to which as exhibits, the above facts appeared. These exhibits consisted of the order for the commission; the charges and specifications; the findings and sentence of the court, with a statement of the fact that the sentence was approved by the President of the United States, who directed that it should "be carried into execution without delay;" all "by order of the Secretary of War."
The petition set forth the additional fact that, while the petitioner was held and detained, as already mentioned, in military custody (and more than twenty days after his arrest), a grand jury of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana was convened at Indianapolis, his said place of confinement, and duly empaneled, charged, and sworn for said district, held its sittings, and finally adjourned without having found any bill of indictment, or made any presentment whatever against him. That at no time had he been in the military service of the United States, or in any way connected with the land or naval force, or the militia in actual service; nor within the limits of any State whose citizens were engaged in rebellion against the United States, at any time during the war, but, during all the time aforesaid, and for twenty years last past, he had been an
Page 71 U. S. 8
inhabitant, resident, and citizen of Indiana. And so that it had been
"wholly out of his power to have acquired belligerent rights or to have placed himself in such relation to the government as to have enabled him to violate the laws of war."
The record, in stating who appeared in the Circuit Court, ran thus:
"Be it remembered, that on the 10th day of May, A.D. 1865, in the court aforesaid, before the judges aforesaid, comes Jonathan W. Gorden, Esq., of counsel for said Milligan, and files here, in open court, the petition of said Milligan, to be discharged.. . . . At the same time comes John Hanna, Esquire, the attorney prosecuting the pleas of the United States in this behalf. And thereupon, by agreement, this application is submitted to the court, and day is given, &c."
The prayer of the petition was that, under the already mentioned act of Congress of March 3d, 1863, the petitioner might be brought before the court and either turned over to the proper civil tribunal to be proceeded with according to the law of the land or discharged from custody altogether.
At the hearing of the petition in the Circuit Court, the opinions of the judges were opposed upon the following questions:
I. On the facts stated in the petition and exhibits, ought a writ of habeas corpus to be issued according to the prayer of said petitioner?
II. On the facts stated in the petition and exhibits, ought the said Milligan to be discharged from custody as in said petition prayed?
III. Whether, upon the facts stated in the petition and exhibits, the military commission had jurisdiction legally to try and sentence said Milligan in manner and form, as in said petition and exhibit is stated?
And these questions were certified to this court under the provisions of the act of Congress of April 29th, 1802, [Footnote 4] an act
Page 71 U. S. 9
which provides
"that whenever any question shall occur before a Circuit Court upon which the opinions of the judges shall be opposed, the point upon which the disagreement shall happen shall, during the same term, upon the request of either party or their counsel, be stated under the direction of the judges and certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court, at their next session to be held thereafter, and shall by the said court be finally decided, and the decision of the Supreme Court and their order in the premises shall be remitted to the Circuit Court and be there entered of record, and shall have effect according to the nature of the said judgment and order; Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent the cause from proceeding if, in the opinion of the court, further proceedings can be had without prejudice to the merits."
The three several questions above mentioned were argued at the last term. And along with them, an additional question raised in this court, namely:
IV. A question of jurisdiction, as -- 1. Whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to hear the case there presented? -- 2. Whether the case sent up here by certificate of division was so sent up in conformity with the intention of the act of 1802? in other words, whether this court had jurisdiction of the questions raised by the certificate?
Page 71 U. S. 107

This was the ruling of the United States Supreme Court shortly after the "Civil War" in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

This is NOT an opinion. This was the ruling of the United States Supreme Court shortly after the "Civil War" in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) which yet stands to this day:
"The Constitution for the United States is a law for rulers and people equally in war and in peace…at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine…was ever invented… than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the exigencies [emergencies/urgencies] of government." pp. 120-121
“...there is no law for the government of the citizens, the armies or the navy of the United States, within American jurisdiction, which is not contained in or derived from the Constitution.” p. 141
In 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, a legal encyclopedia of United States law, suspension of the Constitution is prohibited, as follows:
“It is sometimes argued that the existence of an emergency allows the existence and operation of powers, national or state, which violate the inhibitions of the Federal Constitution. The rule is quite otherwise. NO emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution." Section 71
"...Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the Constitution in case of an emergency…" Section 98
Therefore, ANYONE who declares the suspension of constitutionally guaranteed rights (to freely travel, peaceably assemble, earn a living, freely worship, etc.) and/or attempts to enforce such suspension within the 50 independent, sovereign, continental United states of America is making war against our constitution(s) and, therefore, we, the people. They violate their constitutional oath and, thus, immediately forfeit their office and authority and their proclamations may be disregarded with impunity and that means ANYONE; even the Governor and President!
“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” – Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (SCOTUS—1803)
“An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but is illegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment.” – Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (SCOTUS—1879)
“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (SCOTUS—1886)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (SCOTUS—1966)
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it...A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." – 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 177
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.” – 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 256
Executive Orders and other Presidential Directives have no general applicability and lawful effect on anyone other than those in the Executive branch of government and even they must be Constitutional. In Confederate Bands of Ute Indians vs. United States, 330 U.S. 169 (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court noted that presidential authority may not be created by arbitrary action of the President of the United States even if an Executive Order was issued.

Why Dems are so bent on passing wind amid corona crisis

By Robert Bryce

March 27, 2020 | 8:34pm

Why Dems are so bent on passing wind amid corona crisis

Shutterstock

Stop me if you’ve heard this before: Renewable energy is getting so cheap that it doesn’t need subsidies anymore.
Yes, well. Renewables live or die by subsidies, in fact. That was proved yet again this week, when Democrats tried (unsuccessfully) to stuff a panoply of Green New Deal measures into the corona-crisis relief bill — including extensions of the tax credits that have been driving the growth of solar and wind energy.
That Congressional Democrats would push so hard for solar and wind subsidies at such a critical time for the US economy is particularly galling for two reasons. First, the wind industry already stands to collect some $33.75 billion in subsidies between now and 2029. Second, wind-energy development in some of the most-heavily Democratic states in the country — Hawaii, California, New York and Vermont — has been effectively stopped due to local opposition.
To be sure, the Washington favor factory never sleeps. But the American Wind Energy Association and its lobbyists deserve an Olympic gold medal for their utter lack of shame.
For years, the wind industry has been saying that it doesn’t need subsidies to compete against traditional forms of energy. On its Web site, AWEA says that wind-energy growth is “expected to remain strong” when the production tax credit goes away. In 2015, the wind industry agreed to a multiyear phase-out of the subsidy.
But at the end of last year, it garnered a one-year extension of the subsidy. And on March 20, AWEA sent a notice to its members urging them to participate in a “grasstops outreach campaign” targeting key senators for yet another extension, because COVID-19 is “creating schedule problems.”
Sen. Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican, has said: “As the father of the first wind-energy tax credit in 1992, I can say that the tax credit was never meant to be permanent.” Permanent or not, wind subsidies now dwarf every other energy-related tax treatment, and by 2029, according to Lisa Linowes, the executive director of the WindAction Group, cumulative subsidies given to the wind industry will total a staggering $60 billion.
The Democrats’ willingness to give yet more tax money to the wind industry is even more remarkable when considering what is happening on the ground. From Vermont to Hawaii, rural residents are rejecting wind projects due to concerns about property values, noise and viewsheds.
Bernie Sanders claims the United States must convert its entire economy to renewable energy. But his own constituents, Vermonters, loathe wind energy. On March 24, the Vermont Public Utilities Commission rejected the last active application for a major wind project in the state.
In New York, resistance to wind energy is so widespread that Gov. Cuomo included a measure in the state budget proposal that, if passed, will strip local communities of their ability to stop wind and solar-energy projects from being built in their jurisdictions.
California has mandated that 60 percent of its electricity be derived from renewables by 2030. But it’s nearly impossible to build new wind capacity in Nancy Pelosi’s home state. Since 2013, the state has added fewer than 200 megawatts of new wind capacity. The latest rejection occurred in December, when Humboldt County declined a proposed wind project that would have put 47 giant turbines in the county.
In Hawaii, 200 people were arrested last fall on the island of Oahu while protesting the construction of eight wind turbines near the village of Kahuku. The fight over that project is now headed to the Hawaii Supreme Court.
In short, top Democrats are pushing for big increases in wind-energy subsidies just when rural residents in their home states are ardently opposing Big Wind. Giving the wind industry billions more in subsidies will only fuel those land-use conflicts.
This economic-rescue bill will likely not include Big Wind pork. But given the wind industry’s shamelessness, the nonsense is certain to return. Indeed, Politico is reporting that subsidies for solar and wind “could be pushed to a later corporate rescue package.”

Data Suggests Spread of the Coronavirus Is Slowing

By Rick Moran March 31, 2020

President Donald Trump speaks about the coronavirus in the James Brady Briefing Room, Monday, March 23, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

A ray of hope today that the spread of the coronavirus across American appears to be slowing down. Data compiled by the New York Times suggests that while the overall number of infections is still rising, even in states hardest hit by COVID-19, the rate of infections is easing.

Daily Caller:

Washington State was the first state in America to have a confirmed case of the novel coronavirus. The virus quickly spread, infecting an average of 2.7 additional people earlier in March, according to the NYT. After social distancing measures and other guidelines, this number has dropped to 1.4 additional people, according to one projection.
“We made a huge impact. We slowed the transmission,” Democratic Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan said according to the NYT.

New York state is seeing a doubling of hospital patients every six days. But it was worse last week.

New York’s hospitalization rate is doubling every six days this week, compared to last week when it reportedly doubled every two to three days. New York City is on a mandatory shutdown in an attempt to get people to stay home and stay healthy.
“So, while the overall number is going up, the rate of doubling is actually down,” Cuomo said according to CNN.

It's not just the NY Times reporting that is showing a decline in infections.

Data from Kinsa Health, a company that makes thermometers that connect to the internet, backs up these state’s reports. Kinsa Health has been getting up to 162,000 temperature readings every day since the virus began to spread in America and created a nation-wide map showing fever levels on March 22.
This map shows that fevers are remaining at the same levels or dropping in almost every area across America as of noon Wednesday, the NYT reported. Friday’s readings showed that fevers were dropping in every single county in America.

Kinsa’s Health map has continued to show this positive trend regarding the novel coronavirus. Monday saw that over 3/4 of America were in the furthest stage of “decreasing” fevers.

It should be noted that this in no way suggests a bending of the curve when it comes to infections. Slowing the rate of doubling is hardly a victory. But the frightening trajectory of the pandemic may be showing signs of leveling off -- not to where it would flatten out but where it could be managed by our healthcare system.

That's the key metric: how many beds, how many patients, how many in ICU. People sick at home are not a burden to the healthcare system, although their being sick certainly affects the economy. But putting a massive strain on our hospitals and critical care units means that other patients who are not sick from the virus and could be saved from accidents, heart attacks, strokes, and other killers don't get the life-saving treatment they would ordinarily get.

Their deaths aren't counted as virus deaths, but they will die of the coronavirus just as surely.

So the immediate goal of taking the strain off of our hospitals appears within reach. And that's an excellent first step.

Why Dems are so bent on passing wind amid corona crisis

By Robert Bryce

March 27, 2020 | 8:34pm

The Top 10 Lies About President Trump’s Response to the Coronavirus

By Matt Margolis March 22, 2020

President Donald Trump speaks during a press briefing with the coronavirus task force, at the White House, Tuesday, March 17, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

It’s troubling to see how quickly disinformation about the government’s response to the coronavirus has spread. Democrats and the mainstream media have willingly spread false information in the hopes of damaging Trump politically before the election in November. Many of these lies were quickly debunked, but that hasn’t stopped the false information from being repeated over and over. The left hopes these lies will continue to spread, but so far it doesn’t seem to be working since Trump’s approval numbers for his handling of the pandemic have gone up. But that doesn’t mean the left will give up their disinformation campaign. To help set the record straight, I’ve compiled the top ten lies that have been spread about Trump’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. There are certainly plenty more, and you are welcome to mention them in the comments.

10. Trump downplayed the mortality rate of the coronavirus

In early March, the World Health Organization said that 3.4 percent of coronavirus patients had died from the disease. “Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 (the disease spread by the virus) cases have died,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at a briefing. “By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.”

Trump said this number was false, as the mortality rate was actually much less because their number didn’t take into account unreported cases. In an interview with Sean Hannity on March 4, Trump challenged WHO’s number. “Well, I think the 3.4% is really a false number,” Trump said, asserting that the actual mortality rate is “way under 1 percent.”

And Trump was right. He wasn’t downplaying the mortality rate, as has been suggested. As testing in the United States has increased, the mortality rate has decreased. The same is true worldwide.

Yet, there were so-called experts who greatly overestimated the mortality rate in order to spark fear and panic. MSNBC contributor Dr. Joseph Fair told a panel that up to 20 percent of the U.S. population might die from the coronavirus.

9. Trump lied when he said Google was developing a national coronavirus website

When President Trump declared the coronavirus a national emergency, he announced that Google was developing a website to direct people to coronavirus testing locations nationwide.

"I want to thank Google. Google is helping to develop a website, it’s going to be very quickly done, unlike websites of the past, to determine whether a test is warranted and to facilitate testing at a nearby convenient location," Trump said during a press conference.

Google confirmed this in a tweet after Trump’s remarks, but the media seemed intent on calling Trump’s claim false. HuffPost literally called Trump’s claim a lie because the site was actually being developed by a subsidiary of Google’s parent company, Alphabet. This ultimately forced Google to confirm, again, that they were partnering with the federal government to develop a national coronavirus website. “Google is partnering with the US Government in developing a nationwide website that includes information about COVID-19 symptoms, risk and testing information,” Google said on Twitter.

After Google backed up Trump, he thanked them and ripped the media for spreading fake news. "I want to thank the people at Google and Google communications because as you know they substantiated what I said on Friday," Trump said. "The head of Google, who is a great gentleman, called us and he apologized. I don't know where the press got their fake news, but they got it someplace. As you know, this is from Google. They put out a release and you guys can figure it out yourselves and how that got out. And I'm sure you guys will apologize, but it would be great if we could get really give the news correctly. It'd be so, so wonderful."

8. Trump "dissolved" the WH pandemic response office

Two days after Trump declared the coronavirus a national emergency, the Washington Post ran an opinion piece by Elizabeth Cameron, who ran the White House pandemic office under Obama, alleging that Trump had dissolved the office in 2018. She claimed because of this, “the federal government’s slow response to the coronavirus isn’t a surprise.”

This claim spread like wildfire, even though it was completely false. Days after WaPo ran the piece, they published another article by Tim Morrison, former senior director for counterproliferation and biodefense on the National Security Council, who debunked the allegation made by Cameron and other former Obama administration officials.

What good is there in spreading false information, as Elizabeth Cameron did? “This is Washington. It’s an election year,” Morrison laments. “Officials out of power want back into power after November. But the middle of a worldwide health emergency is not the time to be making tendentious accusations.”

7. Trump ignored early intel briefings on possible pandemic

The Washington Post again was the source of another bogus claim when they reported that intelligence agencies warned about a possible pandemic back in January and February and that Trump “failed to take action that might have slowed the spread of the pathogen.”

It was fake news. The Trump administration had begun aggressively addressing the coronavirus threat immediately after China reported the discovery of the coronavirus to the World Health Organization. In addition to implementing various precautionary travel restrictions, the administration fast-tracked the use of testing kits, set up a Coronavirus Task Force, and implemented a travel ban with China, several weeks before WHO declared the coronavirus a pandemic.

In actuality, it was Trump’s critics who weren’t taking the coronavirus situation seriously. Joe Biden even accused Trump of “fearmongering” and “xenophobia” for his travel ban. Even now, the Washington Post is suggesting the travel ban wasn’t enough.

6. Trump cut funding to the CDC & NIH

Back in February both Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg (who hadn’t dropped out of the Democratic primary yet) accused President Trump of cutting funding to critical health agencies during a primary debate. “There’s nobody here to figure out what the hell we should be doing. And he’s defunded — he’s defunded Centers for Disease Control, CDC, so we don’t have the organization we need. This is a very serious thing," Bloomberg claimed.

The Obama-Biden administration "increased the budget of the CDC. We increased the NIH budget. ... He’s wiped all that out. ... He cut the funding for the entire effort," Biden claimed.

They were both wrong.

According to an Associated Press fact-check, proposed budget cuts never happened, and funding increased. They acknowledged that some public health experts believe that a bigger concern than White House budgets “is the steady erosion of a CDC grant program for state and local public health emergency preparedness,” but, they note, “that decline was set in motion by a congressional budget measure that predates Trump.”

The AP also noted that “The public health system has a playbook to follow for pandemic preparation — regardless of who’s president or whether specific instructions are coming from the White House. Those plans were put into place in anticipation of another flu pandemic, but are designed to work for any respiratory-borne disease.”

5. Trump "muzzled" Dr. Fauci

In late February, the New York Times claimed that the Trump administration had “muzzled” Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), by preventing him from speaking publicly about the coronavirus without approval from the administration.

It wasn’t true. But, the claim was echoed throughout the mainstream media, and ultimately was brought up in a press briefing, and Trump was asked directly about it, and he let Dr. Fauci clear it up.

“I’ve never been muzzled, ever, and I’ve been doing this since Reagan,” he said. “I’m not being muzzled by this administration.”

Despite the fact this claim was debunked, Joe Biden kept repeating it as if it were true. “And, look, right now you have this president, hasn’t allowed his scientists to speak, number one,” Biden said on ABC's This Week a couple days after Fauci said unequivocally he wasn’t being muzzled. “He has the vice president speaking, not the scientists who know what they're talking about, like Fauci."

4. Trump didn’t act quickly and isn’t doing enough

If you listen to Democrats, Trump didn’t act quickly enough and is botching the government response. Joe Biden has tried to perpetuate this falsehood by giving press briefings telling Trump what he should be doing.

The big problem with that is that when Biden has offered his own plan, he simply took things that Trump had already done, said he should do those things, and pretended they were his own ideas.

In addition to this, one of the most significant actions taken by Trump, the travel ban with China, was actually opposed by Joe Biden, and Trump’s critics on the left. Unfortunately for them, WHO experts admitted Trump’s actions saved lives in the United States.

Fox News contributor Liz Peek noted back in February, “Even before a single case of the virus erupted organically in our country [...] and even as the administration had acted preemptively and effectively to keep virus carriers out of our country, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg and others were eager to stoke fear and blame Donald Trump.”

Dr. Ronny Jackson, who served as White House physician from 2013 to 2018, also credited Trump for his decisive response to the coronavirus epidemic. "The president has done everything he needed to do in this case," he said. "He’s acted quickly and decisively. He did what he always has done ... he went with his instincts."

Jackson added, "What’s going on in Italy and Iran is not going to happen here I think, because of the president's quick and decisive actions. I think we are going to be more in line with what’s going on in South Korea and things of that nature.”

3. Trump told governors they were “on their own”

In a tweet sent last week, New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay claimed that during a conference call with governors about the coronavirus pandemic, President Trump told them they were “on their own” in getting the equipment they need. “‘Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves,’ Mr. Trump told the governors during the conference call, a recording of which was shared with The New York Times.”

She lied. Ms. Gay deliberately misrepresented Trump’s words. Trump actually told governors on the call: “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves. We will be backing you, but try getting it yourselves. Point of sales, much better, much more direct if you can get it yourself.”

The false narrative that Trump had told governors they were on their own, essentially to expect no help from the federal government, spread like wildfire.

2. Trump turned down testing kits from WHO

A Politico hit piece from early March claimed that the World Health Organization offered the United States coronavirus testing kits, but Trump refused to accept them. This claim spread quickly, and Joe Biden even alluded to it during his March 15 debate with Bernie Sanders, claiming, “The World Health Organization offered the testing kits that they have available and to give it to us now. We refused them. We did not want to buy them.”

It wasn’t true. "No discussions occurred between WHO and CDC about WHO providing COVID-19 tests to the United States," WHO spokeswoman Margaret Harris explained. "This is consistent with experience since the United States does not ordinarily rely on WHO for reagents or diagnostic tests because of sufficient domestic capacity." According to WHO, its priority was to send testing kits to "countries with the weakest health systems."

So, why did testing get off to a slow start in the United States? Ellie Bufkin at our sister site Townhall noted that “Testing in the United States was fraught with difficulty in large part due to the slow approval by the Food and Drug Administration to allow testing kits developed by private companies outside of the government-controlled CDC to be used at a local or national level. Those FDA policies are consistent with the Obama Administration's response to H1N1 and Ebola in 2009 and 2014 respectively.”

1. Trump called the coronavirus “a hoax”

To this day the left (and the media) claim Trump called the coronavirus a hoax. He said no such thing. While the country was distracted by impeachment, the Trump administration was busy addressing the coronavirus outbreak, taking various measures to limit the spread of the virus in the United States. Impeachment quickly faded, so they decided to aggressively politicize his response to the coronavirus outbreak. Joe Biden even called Trump’s travel ban with China an overreaction, and accused him of trying to scare the public. “This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia ± hysterical xenophobia — and fearmongering to lead the way instead of science.”

President Trump responded to these allegations during a rally in South Carolina, calling the Democrats’ politicization of the coronavirus "the new hoax." The media jumped on this line, claiming that Trump called the virus, not the Democrats' reactions to it, a hoax. The lie spread like wildfire and Joe Biden even used the lie as a talking point on the stump. There was quite a stir when Politico’s story repeating the false claim that Trump called the virus a hoax was flagged by Facebook fact-checkers as fake news, but other fact-checkers couldn’t deny that the claim was false either.

Monday, March 30, 2020

Even during coronavirus crisis, liberal media can’t resist spreading lies

By Mark Hemingway

March 16, 2020 | 5:32pm

Even during coronavirus crisis, liberal media can’t resist spreading lies

President Donald Trump speaks during a press briefing with the coronavirus task force. AP

With much of the country now under quarantine, the nation desperately needs reliable information about the coronavirus. Unfortunately, politics has infected much of the mainstream media’s coverage of the threat. Rather than taking their obligation to inform the public seriously, prestige outlets use each new development as a cudgel with which to beat President Trump.
On the heels of the president’s announcement of a sweeping travel ban from other countries and declaration of emergency, a Sunday CNN chyron read: “Trump on Coronavirus: From ‘Hoax’ to National Emergency.”
The trouble is that Trump never called the coronavirus a “hoax” — this is an inaccurate and misleading distortion of what he has said, created and propagated by major media. And CNN won’t stop repeating it.
On Feb. 28, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank tweeted out, “Remember this moment: Trump, in South Carolina, just called the coronavirus a ‘hoax.’ ” The tweet has since been “liked” more than 162,000 times. Milbank subsequently wrote a column repeating the claim.
But anyone watching Trump’s rally in the Palmetto State that day knows this wasn’t what Trump said. “Trump said that when he used the word ‘hoax,’ he was referring to Democrats finding fault with his administration’s response to coronavirus, not the virus itself,” noted FactCheck.org, which generally leans left. Milbank was forced to update his column, noting “Trump said Saturday the ‘hoax’ referred to [was] Democrats’ pinning blame for the virus” on him.
Milbank’s misleading tweet is still up, however, shamelessly uncorrected.
Do a quick scan of social media, and the talking point that Trump called the coronavirus a hoax is still being spread far and wide, more than two weeks later. In fact, Joe Biden cut an ad this week repeating the false claim, prompting The Washington Post’s factchecker to slap the ex-veep with four Pinocchios for the ad. And Biden is the third Democratic candidate to make this “hoax” claim after dropouts Mike Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg.
There’s simply no excuse for CNN to still be repeating a false claim that happens to be a Democratic talking point. And this is just one example from a mountain of similar distortions; politically loaded errors have been a prominent feature of coronavirus coverage.
The Washington Post, for example, accused GOP Sen. Tom Cotton of fanning “the embers of a coronavirus conspiracy theory that has been repeatedly debunked by experts,” namely that the Chinese may have engineered the virus in a lab. But as Cotton noted on Twitter, he was merely laying out one among several hypotheses about the virus’ origin, including that the virus may have originated from a well-known biological testing facility in the Wuhan region — a possibility that can’t be ruled out, even though Cotton admitted it was unlikely. The Washington Post appeared more determined to slap down GOP lawmakers for airing hypotheses than, you know, investigate the Beijing regime.
And The New York Times quoted anonymous sources to say the White House was “muzzling” Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. This prompted Fauci to cry fake news. “I have never been muzzled, ever, and I have been doing this since the administration of Ronald Reagan. I am not being muzzled by this administration.”
The Trump administration isn’t above criticism for how they’ve handled the coronavirus threat, and it’s the media’s job to hold them accountable when the president and his team fall short. But the media don’t seem interested in real accountability at this critical moment — too often, major outlets have failed to report the truth, because they seem more concerned with influencing November’s election than making sure your family survives the next few months.

Soros and the Coronavirus pandemic

By Rachel Ehrenfeld

Billionaire George Soros uses his political-philanthropic private foundations' global network to induce chaos to change the capitalistic democratic systems that prevailed since the end of WWII. Soros aims to reshape the world according to his purported wily Open Society philosophy, which evolved after the collapse of the Soviet Communist system. He tested his ideas in Eastern Europe before moving to the rest of the world, and on to his major target, the United States of America.
Soros’s open-borders agenda and his efforts to create a global ‘open society’ have suffered a setback due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, but his ambition of changing America from within, and meddling in the domestic affairs of nation-states where his OSF operates did not ebb. Rest assured that Soros, who thrives on chaos, takes advantage of the distraction caused by the pandemic to advance his political goals in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Over the last three decades, Soros used the massive spending of his private International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO), to spur political activism in progressive Left-leaning/radical organizations, academic institutions, and media outlets, along with large campaign contributions. He combined this formula with his market manipulations to produce fundamental disruptions and changes in the political landscape of many countries, including the U.S., affecting domestic and international markets, policies, and even the presidency.
When Steve Kroft interviewed Soros on “60 Minutes” in December 1998, he asked the famous speculator whether he felt any complicity in the financial collapses in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, or Russia. Smiling, Soros responded: “I don’t feel guilty because I am engaged in an amoral activity which is not meant to have anything to do with guilt.” His amoral behavior is not limited to finance. “I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do,” he replied arrogantly.
Professing to be an “amoral” financial speculator has earned Soros the image of a maverick. His generous handouts did wonders to blind the political, media, academic and social elites, and afforded him the respectability and credibility he needed to advance his sociopolitical disruptive agenda, remodeling countries, especially the U.S., to whatever he deems as an “open society.”
To increase the spread of and maximize the influence of his disruptive ideas, Soros has been using his charities to fund progressive socialist/globalist groups. He endowed his flagship charity, the Open Society Foundations (OSF), which operates as an INGO, with more than $19.5 billion and an operating budget of $1.2 billion for 2020. It is the "world's largest private grant-making" political entity, which according to its website operates in more "than 120 countries,” distributing "thousands of grants every year” to local NGOs and individuals who claim to be independent and sometimes even non-partisan, to “promote” the OSF’s “values.”
As of this writing, there are 197 countries in the world and 10 million NGOs worldwide (!) Many of them operate in collaboration with tens of thousands of INGOs. (Last available data from 2013 stated there were more than 40,000 INGOs.)
It is important to note that “INGOs are not elected bodies, are not founded on the principle of representation, and are not accountable to the public,” as pointed out by Dr. Raphael Ben-Ari, an expert on NGOs and international law. INGOs have no legal recognition and guidelines and their often biased “fact-finding” reports are rarely questioned by the media or even “national courts and international tribunals and institutions.”
The short and long-term aggregate influence of Soros’s private INGO, and its network of thousands of local NGO’s is multidimensional and grows exponentially.
Soros’s global network is exceptionally complex and notoriously opaque. Transparify, which rates global think-tank transparency, classified the OSF as "highly opaque," with the rating of "0."
He already spent at least “$32 billion of a personal fortune” in propagating his progressive “open society” creed through an intricate and disruptive web that would put the 'black widow' spider to shame.
In January 2020, Soros chose the World Economic Forum in Davos to announce his most ambitious initiative, the "most important and enduring project" of his life, the Open Society University Network (OSUN). He pledged $1 billion to create what "the world really needs," an international platform for teaching and research that existing universities all over the world would be able to join, among other things, "to fight dictators and would-be dictators."
How would the scholars at the OSUN identify "would-be dictators"? Easily. According to Soros, "A perfect way to tell a dictator or a would-be dictator if he identifies me as an enemy."
S

oros's latest self-styled global academic venture comes on top of his OSF's contribution of $407,790,344 in gifts and commitments to higher education since the year 2000, as reported by the Media Research Center in January 2020.
Soros created the OSUN, a “new kind of global educational network," to serve as a global indoctrination organ to fight against "climate change" (the Left's new religion) and to "educate against nationalism” and other topics close to his heart, so his "Open Society" doctrine of radical socialist political activism endures and spreads after he's gone.
Soros' new OSUN is set to function as a “thought” feeder to and enforcer of his Open Society doctrine, which functions as a clarion call for resistance and revolutions, evoking some of Karl Marx’s and Leon Trotsky’s ideas on permanent revolution.
The OSF’s press release announced that the OSUN would join forces with other Soros-funded universities: his Vienna based Central European University (CEU), and Bard College in upstate New York, with campuses in New York City, Boston, California, Germany, and Russia, Al-Quds University in the West Bank, Arizona State University, the American University of Central Asia in Kyrgyzstan, BRAC University in Bangladesh, and others.
Soros’s OSF calls for and funds NGOs and individuals for training to organize protests and large-scale demonstrations and teaching resistance techniques. They also call for and support activities against nationalism, Judeo-Christian values and traditions, and of course, capitalism.
Soros’ foundations also support fighting against global warming, and for ‘global social justice,’ transgenderism, population control, and free abortion, to mention but a few.
The billions Soros had spent already made deep inroads into pre-disposed academic institutions and led to significant modifications in our social discourse and political conventions. If the past is of any indication, with billions more left to the OSF and his other foundations, Soros’s radical socialist legacy will continue fueling political, economic and social turmoil long after he is gone.
The 89 -year-old Soros, whose goal, as the British daily Guardian described it, is to "push the world in a cosmopolitan direction in which racism, income inequality, American empire, and the alienations of contemporary capitalism would be things of the past," is now in a hurry to leave an even grander legacy.
Soros, who vehemently opposes Donald Trump, failed to foresee the latter’s successful run to the White House, thus shorted the equity market, losing nearly $1 billion. Since then, he pledged to use all available means to overthrow Trump, whom he calls an “imposter,” and his administration a “Danger to the World,” out of office.
Soros and his family and their foundations are pouring money into election campaigns of Democrat candidates to all offices, especially district attorneys. They also fund advocacy groups that function as “echo-chambers” for candidates for the 2020 elections. The candidates’ main qualification is adherence to Soros' progressive- socialist, anti-law enforcement, open borders, illegal migration, sanctuary cities, gender and racial rights, social justice, climate change, etc.
Soros's bottomless funding of such candidates led U.S. Attorney General William Barr to warn that the liberal billionaire has been bankrolling radical prosecutor candidates in cities across the country. "There's this recent development [where] George Soros has been coming in, in largely Democratic primaries where there has not been much voter turnout and putting in a lot of money to elect people who are not very supportive of law enforcement and don't view the office as bringing to trial and prosecuting criminals but pursuing other social agendas," he told Martha MacCallum, on "The Story" on Fox News, in December 2019.
The chaos following the breakout of the coronavirus pandemic that tanked the financial markets and shut down the U.S. economy is a crisis Soros will not waste to attack Trump. According to the Washington Free Beacon, Soros has already given “$3 million in contributions” to Priorities USA Action -- the Democratic Party's largest super PAC. The money is used to flood Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin with ads attacking Trump’s handling of the pandemic. How much did Soros contribute to help fight the pandemic?

Confessions of a Colorado Conservative

Tuesday, March 31, 2020

Can Trump Solve America's Wild Horses Crisis?

Can Trump Solve America's Wild Horses Crisis?

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

U.S. Supreme Court

This was the ruling of the United States Supreme Court shortly after the "Civil War" in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

Why Dems are so bent on passing wind amid corona crisis

Why Dems are so bent on passing wind amid corona crisis

Data Suggests Spread of the Coronavirus Is Slowing

Data Suggests Spread of the Coronavirus Is Slowing

Why Dems are so bent on passing wind amid corona crisis

Why Dems are so bent on passing wind amid corona crisis

The Top 10 Lies About President Trump’s Response to the Coronavirus