Category Archives: Freedom

An Illinois infant with COVID-19 has died, Gov. J.B. Pritzker said Saturday.

The child, whose exact age and medical history was not released, is believed to be the youngest person in Illinois whose death has been linked to the coronavirus.

I know how difficult this news can be, especially about this very young child, the governor said at his daily news conference Saturday. Upon hearing it, I admit that I was immediately shaken. Its appropriate for any of us to grieve today. Its especially sorrowful for the family of this very small child for the years stolen from this infant. We should grieve. We should grieve for a sense of normalcy we left behind just a few short weeks ago.

More than 85% of corona-related deaths in Illinois occur in people 60 or older, according to the Illinois Department of Public Health. However, people of all ages are susceptible to the virus, officials said.

The IDPH would not release any additional details about the infant, including whether the child had any underlying medical conditions.

There has never before been a death associated with COVID-19 in an infant. A full investigation is underway to determine the cause of death, IDPH Director Dr. Ngozi Ezike said. We must do everything we can to prevent the spread of this deadly virus. If not to protect ourselves, but to protect those around us.

A state employee also was among 13 new deaths reported Saturday, as Illinois Department of Public Health Director Dr. Ngozi Ezike urged people to do all they can to prevent the spread of the virus.

If you havent been paying attention, maybe this is your wake-up call, Ezike said.

Chicago Tribune

Go here to read the rest:

Bloomington cruise ship passengers glad to have 'freedom back' - The Pantagraph

COVID-19 Outbreak Cases in Belarus, Red = Confirmed Cases ReportedImage by HueMan1

Belarus is one of the few countries in Europe that did not take any draconian measures in its fight against the coronavirus pandemic. The last European dictatorship which is the term coined by some Western mainstream media and politicians did not impose a state of emergency, does not practice social distancing, did not impose a curfew and did not forcibly quarantine its entire population.

Critics argue that President Alexander Lukashenko does not care about his people and that Belarusian authorities are dangerously downplaying the risks. The Belarusian leader on the other hand, refuses to follow the pattern. In this way he is showing that Belarus, unlike most European countries, is a relatively sovereign state. Almost the same trend can be seen all over the continent the economy being shut down, people sitting at home practicing quarantine that reminds one of a house arrest, governments implementing restrictive measures, the so call medical experts making contradicting statements on a daily bases, and media spreading panic and mass hysteria. In Belarus life goes on almost as if there is no pandemic. The country did not close its borders, sport events are regularly taking place, public transportation works, and the authorities refused to shut down schools and universities.

Despite some criticism on my part, I call this coronavirus nothing other than a psychosis, and I will never deny that, because Ive gone through many situations of psychosis together with you, and we know what the results were, the Belarusian state news agency BelTA quoted Lukashenko as saying after receiving a report on the epidemiological situation in the country.

He also recently said that its better to die standing on your feet than to live on your knee. In other words, he refuses to implement draconian measures that locked down the rest of the continent, at least to this point. Reportedly, Lukashenko recently met with the Chinese ambassador in Minsk and they discussed the coronavirus pandemic. Given the fact that countries around the world are gradually introducing a total lockdown, which was originally implemented in Chinas Hubei province, it is not improbable that at some point, Belarus will have to go with the flow. Still, so far Lukashenko has been sticking to the line that a general lockdown is not the solution.

Even though Belarus has good relations with China, Minsk is not showing a will to completely follow the Chinese model when it comes to fight against the COVID-19. Instead, Lukashenko recently praised the US President Donald Trump for his efforts to preserve the economy.

I really like his recent statements. He said that unemployment can claim more lives than coronavirus itself unless they reopen businesses and get Americans back to work. Now you have understood why I did not authorize closures of businesses. Although there were many people urging me to close borders, enterprises and begin a nationwide quarantine. Back then I made a principled decision: we will implement a quarantine only when it is really needed, the Belarusian leader said.

Reportedly, some measures have already been put in place including thermal cameras to check the temperature of fans as they enter stadiums which are disinfected twice a day. At this point, however, comparing to other European countries, Belarus looks like an oasis of freedom. Some critics claim that it looks like an island of inaction in the middle of a nervous European continent. In any case, Belarusian (in)actions are demonstrating the importance of sovereignty. Whether Belarusian policy regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is successful or not, it is clearly a sovereign one. It remains to be seen for how long the former Soviet republic will manage to stay resolutely open for business and if Lukashenko will face a serious pressure from global actors to lockdown the country and shut down its economy.

Finally, it is worth noting that the Belarusian president recently promised that after the coronavirus is tackled and the psychosis is over, he would reveal many interesting things about it. One of them, according to BelTA, is the origins of the virus did the virus emerge spontaneously or was it man-made, who could benefit from it, who tried to take advantage of this situation in order to further their interests.

Read the rest here:

Is Belarus The Last Oasis Of Freedom In Europe? - Tsarizm

Im writing to you today from what is almost a fascist state.

No, Im not visiting Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea. Instead Im writing from the United Kingdomwhich has all but embraced fascism.

The government dominates the economy, having placed huge numbers of workers on the government payroll. Public gatherings are banned. Weve been told that were not allowed out of our houses except on specific conditions. The entire country is under house arrest.

Even in Putins Russia and socialist Cuba people can visit the park if they want. But not in the UK.

The only thing missing is ultranationalism and the UK would be a textbook example of fascism.

Even supporters of this state of affairs acknowledge how extreme it is. Member of Parliament Steve Baker said in the House of Commons yesterday, We are implementing at least a dystopian society.

The events of the last few days have taught me a huge lesson about how fragile our fundamental rights are and how vulnerable we are to tyranny.

I never thought Britain would respond this way. Yes, European countries have imposed draconian lockdowns. But this is Britain; were different. Europes parliaments have a history measured in decades; ours can be measured in centuries. Frances towering historical political figures are Napoleon Bonaparte and Maximilien Robespierre. Ours are John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith.

The idea that we have sacred ancient liberties is tightly bound to our national identity. We fought wars and executed kings to defend these principles. We sing about how we will never, never, never give up these freedoms. We are a nation that values liberty more than life itself. At least, thats what we told ourselvesuntil this week.

We are now a nation under house arrestsaved from being a police state only by a shortage of police.

Our common law is meant to make this impossible. Were the nation of the Magna Carta, habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights.

Sir Edward Coke (15521634) is considered one of the foremost warriors to uphold these freedomsfighting against the Stewart kings as they tried to override these ancient liberties. The ancient and excellent laws of England are the birthright and the most ancient and best inheritance that the subjects of this realm have, he said. As part of this birthright, Englishmen inherited common lawwhich include common rights, explained Coke. He believed that no king, Parliament or government could take these rights away.

The common law will control acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them utterly void; for when an act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such act to be void, he said, in a legal ruling that has been echoed down through the centuries and even played a role in the American Revolution.

Coke went on to push for the Petition of Right, a constitutional document detailing four of an Englishmans basic rights, which were violated by King Charles i. Winston Churchill spoke highly of this petition. We reach here, wrote Churchill, amid much confusion, the main foundation of English freedom. The right of the executive government to imprison a man, high or low, for reasons of state was denied; and that denial, made good in painful struggles, constitutes the charter of every self-respecting man at any time in any land.

Yet now the government seeks to imprison the entire nation in their homes for reasons of state. On Monday, March 23, the government decided that it has unlimited power, that an Englishmans common right is now null and void.

From this evening, I must give the British people a very simple instruction: You must stay at home, declared Prime Minister Boris Johnson on March 23. Must? There is nothing in common law or precedent that says a British subject needs his governments permission to leave his own house. There are public footpaths in England older than Parliament. There is no basis in the English constitution for the government claiming this kind of power. I thought I lived in a country where a governments power was restricted by law.

And it gets worse. The government is pushing an Enabling Act, a new law that gives the government vast new powers.

Spiked Online wrote that this new bill gives the government and the authorities unprecedented new powers, unheard of in a democracy during peacetime. Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, said that it leaves us with the greatest loss of liberty that we have probably ever had in this country on the back of one piece of legislation in peacetime.

Authorities have massive powers of arbitrary arrest, an abuse of power weve been fighting since before the Magna Carta. Any potentially infectious person can be detained. Not a sick person. Not an actually infectious person. I think there is some justification for giving the state the power to enforce a quarantine and to stop sick people going out. But a potentially infectious person is such a loose term it could include anyone.

There is no explanation as to how the authorities will determine whether someone is potentially infected, wrote Carlo. For all intents and purposes, it allows for arbitrary and indefinite detention. Any member of the public, including children, could be forcibly detained, isolated, quarantined in an as yet unidentified location.

Laws on the books already exist that allow the authorities to declare an emergency and use emergency powers. The Civil Contingencies Act, for example, was written for exactly this kind of emergency. It allows the government to ban mass gatherings. It doesnt need a new law to do that. The Civil Contingencies Act has more restrictions to prevent abuse: Protests and political gatherings, for example, are exempt from its provisions, so that no government can use its powers as an excuse to clamp down on free speech and political protests. The new Enabling Act contains no such protections.

It also weakens safeguards on government surveillance. UK law allows for a shocking amount of surveillance on British citizens. The new law means theres little, if any, safeguards on how that is used.

The potential for abuse is extreme, wrote Carlo. In countries like China, Iran, Israel and Russia, authorities are already tracking individuals phones to make sure that they comply with quarantines. The extraordinary thing about this is, in the UK, we wouldnt even know about it if the government was doing this because our surveillance powers are so extremethey are completely covert and completely secret. If someone working at a telco like O2 or another network were to disclose that they were tracking us, that person could go to prison for a year.

One of the saddest parts of Britains current situation is how little people care about it. Seventy-six percent strongly support the new measures, with 17 percent somewhat supporting them. Only 4 percent stand with British liberty and oppose them.

But look at what we get excited about. Thousands will shut down London to protest climate change. But ending our freedom? They wont protest thatthey applaud it.

The authoritarianism is being rationalized the same way authoritarianism is always rationalized: The ends justify the means. Yes, were taking away your freedom, but were doing it to save lives!

Never mind that coronavirus has killed substantially fewer people than an ordinary flu. The latest forecast from the doom-mongering Imperial College is that coronavirus is unlikely to kill more than 20,000 in the UK and it could be substantially lower than that. The common flu kills 17,000 a year. We gave up our freedom for something no worse than the flu.

And even if it were to kill much more, what about our ancestors who believed freedom was worth life itself. We clearly dont believe that today.

Initially, the government advised people to stay home. But grabbing the power to enforce that is very different and very dangerous.

If we are honest with ourselves, these powers are going to be here to stay. Crisis follows crisis, wrote Carlo. The slippery slope might be an overused term, but it is very, very difficult to reverse the handing over of such extraordinary powers.

My fear isnt that well be under house arrest for the rest of our lives. I dont think the freedoms taken during this crisis will ever fully be restored, but some of them will. But it will be far easier for the government to take our freedom in the future.

Weve already shown that we dont really care. That we wont fight to defend our freedom. Instead, many journalists are openly calling for more authoritarianism, begging the government to be more draconian.

A taboo has been broken, and politicians everywhere will learn the lesson that freedom is easy to take.

Look at how so many in authority have relished using these powers. You see the same thing in United States governors, glorying in their new role with absolute power within their state.

So many in the media and in politics want to get rid of all these legal and constitutional restraints on power. So when coronavirus gave them an opportunity to throw off the restraints, they seized it eagerly.

Already some are calling for the government to grab similar powers in other areas (e.g. to fight climate change).

Before Monday, British freedom was sacred. After Monday, it wasnt. No matter how much of our freedom the government restores, that will not change.

Before Monday, the police protected liberty. After Monday, they threaten it.

Before Monday, freedom was an Englishmans birthright. After Monday, it is something the government gives him and could take away.

I didnt think we would ever willingly hand over our liberty like this. I thought the hundreds of years of tradition had force and weight. That any government would respect law and precedent enough that they would never do something like this. I was wrong, and I realize Im guilty of making a mistake we warn about in our own literature.

Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry has repeatedly warned that America is getting away from the rule of law and its Constitution. Too many leaders want to cast aside the foundational law of the land, he writes in America Under Attack. Theyre telling us, Look, that is just getting in the way. We dont need that old law. We know what justice is. You can trust us!

This is exactly what we saw in Britain on March 23. Mr. Flurry continues, That reasoning paves the way for tyrants!

Mr. Flurry warns that too many respond to warnings of tyranny by saying, Oh, please! You know that could never happen!

But government tyranny is routine in human history, he writes. Lets not be naive and think something like that could never happen here. Our forefathers werent stupid. They wanted to guarantee Americans freedom.

Ive read that. Ive agreed with it. But now I realize that I still took freedom for granted. The idea that tyranny could actually happen in Britain wasnt real to me.

We have been protected in America for a couple hundred years because we are recipients of the blessings God promised, writes Mr. Flurry. We have not experienced the turmoil that many other nations have. As a result, our people have kind of settled into an unreality about what is really happening around us. They dont understand how deadly dangerous it is!

I now realize I had settled into that same kind of unreality: that tyranny couldnt come to Britain because it hasnt come here for a long time. But theres nothing inherent in an Englishmans blood that keeps tyranny away. Its been absent because of blessings from God. Sometimes God has given those blessings through men who stood up against tyranny. But it all comes from Him.

And those blessings are now being removed.

This is not Gods world, writes Mr. Flurry. Theres a lot of evil in this world. It is full of tigers waiting to tear somebody apart. It has always been that way. As Winston Churchill said, the history of man is the history of war. Yet somehow we cant come to grips with that today.

Are you willing to face reality? Most people are not. A haze of deception enshrouds our world. Its absolutely stunning how easily the people in this land today are duped.

I have to admit that I wasnt facing reality. Again, I agreed with all of this intellectually. But there was still part of me that thought, It couldnt happen here. Now my most basic freedoms have been stripped away. The same thing is happening in many U.S. states. Tyranny is a very real threat.

Liberals in academia, the media and in government dont believe governing officials should be restricted by the limitations imposed by the Constitution, wrote Mr. Flurry in his article Saving America From the Radical LeftTemporarily. Americas founders imposed those restrictions to prevent tyranny! The protections afforded by the Constitution have allowed God to bless this nation tremendously. They prevent a dictator from seizing control of the nations unmatched resources.

Britains government threw off all restrictions against tyranny this week. Several states in America are going the same way. In Europe, leaders are setting themselves up as strongmen and putting the armies on the streets. In Hungary, the government is pushing through an emergency law that gives the government dictatorial powers for an unlimited amount of time. Left-wing academic Gaspar Miklos Tamas accused the government of using the epidemic as a pretext to introduce an open, structural dictatorship.

Freedom is fragile. And it is under attack.

Perhaps, like me, the idea of freedom being taken away wasnt real to you. But this is a real threat, and one you need to understand.

Our free booklet America Under Attack exposes the fight for your freedom. It was written while Barack Obama was Americas president, and it focuses on America. But the reality it talks about is still true today, and its true in Britain and just about anywhere else.

There is a war against freedom, and its one you must understand. There is not much time left. That freedom can be taken more quickly than you realize.

Understanding this war wont just help you understand whats going on in the world, it will also give you a true source of hope.

Its easy to get distressed, frustrated and angry about this attack on freedom. Ive certainly experienced my share of all those emotions this week. But understanding the reality behind this attack also contains a sure hopeindividually and for our nations. So if you want to remain sane while the world around you goes crazy, please read America Under Attack. Its the only thing stopping me from going mad.

Continue reading here:

Your Freedom Is More Fragile Than You Think - theTrumpet.com

Women chant slogans as they take part in Aurat March, Urdu for Women's March, in Sukkur, Pakistan March 8, 2020. REUTERS/Yasir Ali

International Womens Day on March 8 marked Pakistans third annual multi-city Aurat March or womens march. As the Aurat March grows in popularity each year, it has also faced increasing criticism from religious parties like the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (Party of Islamic Scholars, JUI-F), and well as ordinary citizens disapproving of the March participants demand: gender equality-based social change. In a stark display of the limits on free speech in the country, the marchs slogan mera jism, meri marzi, sparked national debate. A translation of the US pro-choice womens liberation mantra my body, my choice, the slogan was a voice of transnational solidarity with womens movements throughout the world, especially the heavily social media documented 2017 Womens March in the United Statesthe biggest single-day protest march in US history. This slogan, appearing on a placard in the 2019 Aurat March, also is intended to spark the necessary discussion on the place of women in Pakistani society. In the Pakistani context, however, critics see both the march and slogans like my body, my choice as vulgar imports of a liberal, foreign culture. This perceived liberalism, for conservative defenders of nationalism-infused morality, is seen as funded by appendages of the West and as a challenge to the fabric of Pakistans culture and societywhich is largely rooted in Islam and conservative South Asian values.

This said, the slogan was met with resounding backlash for other reasons. The appropriation of a reproductive rights slogan to signal support for womens bodily autonomy was deemed to be a profane sentiment by many critics. Orthodox clerics like Faiz Muhammad of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (Party of Islamic Scholars, JUI-F ) argued that Mera jism, or my body, violates the belief that ones body belongs to God alone, while meri marzi or my choice, suggests that one should institute freedom of choice in matters of their own bodies, potentially over social and religious norms. In Islam, devout Muslims are expected to act only in submission to God, following sacrosanct rules about corporeal actions in both public and private. Hence, orthodox followers find it sacrilegious and a threat to society when womensocially expected to be relegated to the private spherepublicly claim the right to do as they please with their own bodies.

This perceived obscenity was oneof the reasons a handful of conservatives brought petitions before the HighCourt in the major cities of Lahore and Islamabad, seekingto prohibit the 2020 Aurat March from taking place there. The petitions were rejectedby the courts days before the march, but a counterprotest formed in the capitalcity of Islamabad called Haya March or Modesty March, where certain protestors threw sticksand stones at Aurat March participants. Despite these attacks, the Aurat Marchwas well attended in the cities of Lahore, Islamabad, and Karachi, and itsparticipants far outnumbered those at the counter-movement.

However, Aurat Marchers are notthe only ones in the fight for gender justice, womens rights, and a place inthe public sphere. For the third year in a row, March organizers recognized Pakistanisocial media celebrity Qandeel Baloch, who passed away in 2016 at the hands ofher brother in a so-called honor-killing. Qandeel, a part-time model andactress, found fame in 2013 after her Pakistan Idol audition was mocked and sheresponded to the judges jabs about her performance on her Facebook account. Herunabashed and witty personality led her to be named one of the ten most Googled people in Pakistan,with hundreds of thousands of Facebook followers. Qandeel went viral in the spring of 2016, when she offered to perform a strip tease for Pakistanicricket player Shahid Afridi, on the condition that the Pakistani team beat theIndian team in the 2016 T20 World Cup. So outrageous was this proposed act ofbodily autonomy by a Pakistani woman that Qandeel was invited onto talk shows, includingone on news channel Neo TV, where themorality of this proposed act was questioned by cleric Mufti Qavi.

Just like the slogan mera jism, meri marzi,Qandeel was criticized for acting in a manner contrary to conservativePakistani culture. Not only does sensually revealing ones body to the public goagainst Islamic principles surrounding modesty, but immodest women threaten thevery nationalism that rests on such gendered internal hegemony.Pakistani nationalism, then, is a language through which gender hierarchies arejustified, and in turn, one privileging masculine prowess and politicalexpression. InJune 2016, Qavi was captured in one of Qandeels video-selfies, in whatappeared to be the closed quarters of a hotel with no one else in sight. Qandeel recorded herself sitting next to Qavi and even wore his hat in a mannersuggesting an intimacy that questioned Qavis religious authority, despite hisclaims that the interactions with Qandeel were innocent. By being physicallypresent with Qandeel alone, Qavi went against the very religious principlessurrounding gender segregation he preaches. Qandeels socially unacceptablebehavior threatened to damage Qavis reputation and, a few weeks later, led toher death at the hands of her own brother. Qandeels do-it-yourself activism notonly pushed the boundaries on the extent to which the average Pakistani womanmay participate in the public sphere, but it also redesigned the publicspheremelding the private sphere with the public sphere through social media.

Yet, as witnessed with thebacklash from the recent Aurat March, the struggle for womensvisibility in the public sphere is far from over. In October 2019, TikTokstar Hareem Shah, aprivileged young woman from the conservative city of Peshawar, went viral forrecording a video of herself in the Foreign Office of Pakistan. The video showed hersitting in a space reserved for political leadersprompting questionsabout how she had access to such an official space.Moreover, coming from a young woman who had typically posted herself singingand engaging in everyday activities like going to the gym, her presence in thisformal political setting elicited public discomfort about an ordinary womansbodily autonomy and presence in the Pakistani public sphere.

This discomfort surrounding Hareems Foreign Office video is an extension of the restrictive norms on womens visibility in the Pakistani public sphere. Hence, while protestors carry mera jism, meri marzi placards alluding to bodily autonomy, the crux of this contentious debate does not just hang on freedom of choice. It demands a broader conversation about societal acceptance of womens visibility in the public sphere and role in politics more broadly. Until Pakistani women are seen as full citizens of the state, and not just national subjects, such seemingly apolitical visual expression will continue to provoke much needed rights-based deliberation.

Zainab Alam (@_zainab_alam) is a Ph.D. candidate in Political Science at Rutgers University, where her research focuses on digital democracy in South Asia.

Tue, Nov 26, 2019

Libya experts frequently call for greater inclusion of civil society and local governance leaders in peace-building efforts in order for the peace process to be more representative of ordinary Libyans. And yet, Libyan womens powerful role in civil society and the fact that they make up half of the population of ordinary Libyans is often overlooked.

MENASourcebyEmily Burchfield

See the original post here:

Women's activism in Pakistan: Limits on freedom of choice, speech, and visibility in the public sphere - Atlantic Council

Credit: Photo courtesy ofGage Skidmore

Former Vice President Joe Biden is moving ever closer to the Democratic Partys presidential nomination, as he recently picked up wins in a handful of additional states to extend his lead over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Despite losing early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, the former vice president had strong showings elsewhere, all while taking a more focused aim at the Second Amendment.

Recently, he used expletives to insult Second Amendment supporters headed to the polls in Detroit, Mich. When asked about why he was trying to rescind Second Amendment rights, Biden told the man, Youre full off s---. A Biden spokesman doubled down on this rhetoric by tweeting, Remember that its not only Donald Trump whos terrified of a Biden presidency. Its the NRA, who Joe Biden has beaten twice - to ban assault weapons and pass the Brady Bill.

Just a week earlier, Joe Biden tapped failed presidential candidate and former Texas Rep. Beto ORourke to take care of the gun problem with him. It wasnt long ago that ORourke was making headlines for proclaiming, Hell yes, were going to take your AR-15. ORourkes numbers dipped following this debate and he exited the race just over a month later.

Biden decided he wasnt done there, though. He also recently hired ORourkes former campaign manager, Jen OMalley Dillon, to the same position. It should come as no surprise that, like ORourke, she is no friend of our right to keep and bear arms. Following a tragedy in Texas that took eight lives (including the murderer), she tweeted, GET EVERYONE OF THOSE GODD--- GUNS OFF OUR STREETS.

The former vice president also picked up endorsements from anti-gun politicians and special-interest groups alike. This includes support from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who made attacking the Second Amendment the cornerstone of his failed campaign. Biden also secured endorsements from the bulk of all other previous presidential hopefuls, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and, most recently, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii).

Biden also received the backing of the Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety, the Brady Campaign and former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.).

As this was being written, however, Sanders had still not conceded the race. That being said, Sanders has also made it clear throughout his decades in public office that he is an anti-gun opportunist who will cave to the demands of his partisan, anti-Second Amendment base.

Whoever the nominee ultimately is, both leading candidates have the Second Amendment in their sights; but whats most troubling is that the former vice president seems to be taking a more focused aim on the Second Amendment as his campaign progresses towards the nomination in July.

See original here:

Biden Nears Nomination, Focuses Sights on the Second Amendment - America's 1st Freedom

Just a few weeks ago, the term social distancing hadnt entered our lexicon. The Angus Barn was my new favorite restaurant. I enjoyed my investment statements, and my biggest concern for the baseball season was whether the Colorado Rockies would trade Nolan Arenado.

Now? Social distancing dominates our lives. The Angus Barn is closed, except for take-out. The stock market has tanked. Im imagining a summer without the Boys of Summer. And Im one of the lucky ones.

The coronavirus crisis has been jarring. Were all justifiably worried about our families, friends, and communities. We cant even take comfort in each other out of fear of transmission. Im a hugger, and I havent touched a person in more than a week.

In a matter of days, our state went from reveling in an economic renaissance to the fear of economic insecurity, with tens of thousands of North Carolinians wondering how theyll pay their rent and buy groceries.

Even with the economic uncertainty, a recent poll from sister organization the Civitas Institute reflects North Carolinas optimism. Likely voters are concerned about COVID-19, but not panicked.

But theres something more that my John Locke Foundation colleague Jon Sanders nailed in a recent blog post, This isnt a fight we expected, but know this: Its a war a free society is uniquely geared to win. He goes on to quote President Reagan in his first inaugural address, We as Americans have the capacity now, as weve had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.

In a free society, with great challenges comes great innovation.

At the John Locke Foundation, we didnt wait for some grandiose, centralized governmental plan to deal with this crisis. Within days, our policy innovators released a series of free-market solutions to help elected officials make sound decisions as we all navigate these uncharted waters.

Were seeing the results right now, as state leadership relaxes regulation and saves lives. Were witnessing the creativity and innovation of the private sector from bringing online classes to kids to telemedicine to doctors opening their own drive through clinics. Some companies already have changed their business model to survive.

When we put our faith in the brilliance of individual ingenuity vs. the command and control of a massive bureaucratic state, we solve problems and people thrive. We cant stop every crisis from happening, but we can create an atmosphere of freedom that encourages creativity and innovation to lessen the impact.

As we rebuild our economy, we have a once-in-a-lifetime moment to expand freedom.

Imagine a North Carolina with no certificate of need laws, where doctors decide what equipment they need to best treat their patients.

Imagine a North Carolina where parents have a slew of unrestricted options on how to best educate their children that arent dependent on a lottery or a limited Opportunity Scholarship.

Imagine a North Carolina where taxpayers have voice in the size and scope of government they want and are willing to fund.

Imagine a North Carolina where every resident pursues a profession of his or her choosing, free from burdensome licensing requirements and regulations.

Imagine a North Carolina where worker freedom is enshrined in our constitution. These are just a few examples. There will be more freedom-forward policy suggestions.

Naturally, well have detractors who desire a very different state that preys on collective fear, seeing this crisis as their opportunity to force us into a top-down, governmental command-and-control regime.

Theyve already published their goal to seize the initiative in building new, strong and lasting systems that are largely insulated from the political fray and designed to work automatically regardless of who is in power. These systems are to be global in scope, stripping us of our state and national identity and leaving us with no recourse to vote these systems out of power when the controlling body becomes tyrannical or unresponsive to our needs.

Of course, there is a role for government, as is clearly defined in the U.S. and our state constitutions. Thats the battle.

As coach Herb Brooks said to the 1980 USA hockey team that pulled off the Miracle on Ice, Great moments are born from great opportunity. Or, in our case, great challenge. We have a moment to usher in an era of expanded freedom. This is our time. Now we must go out there and take it.

Amy Cooke is CEO of the John Locke Foundation, and publisher of the Carolina Journal.

Follow this link:

Freedoms moment in time - The Robesonian

Tom Coburn, Oklahomas independent voice for conservative principles and fiscal responsibility, died Friday. He was 72.

Coburn rose from obscurity to national prominence on the strength of his intellectual abilities and his dedication to a strict reading of the U.S. Constitution.

That often made him out of fashion in Washington, but he was made to order for the people of Oklahoma, who were fed up with a national government that seemed unrestrained by economics or common sense.

A Republican in the 2nd Congressional District, which had been historically dominated by Democrats, Coburn was swept into the U.S. House in 1994. It was his first bid for public office.

Abiding by a promise to limit himself to three terms in the House, Coburn retired in 2000, but returned more popular than ever to the Senate in the 2004 election. He would serve 10 years there before retiring from elected office.

In Congress, Coburn was steadfastly dedicated to serving the nations long-term interests as he saw them, not necessarily his constituents short-term desires. He wouldnt work for pet projects and successfully led the Senate effort to ban legislative funding earmarks, one of his most lasting accomplishments.

His unique brand of leadership only added to his stature in his home state. When he retired from the Senate in 2014, he was clearly the most popular politician in the state.

Coburn cast a long shadow in Oklahoma and the nation. He campaigned for a national constitutional convention to force a balanced budget amendment. His opposition to Medicaid expansion helped solidify Republican opposition to the idea in the Mary Fallin administration.

Coburn was an unabashed advocate for freedom and duty. He was dedicated to the proposition that one leader could make a difference if he remained true to his course.

In his valedictory speech from the Senate floor, Coburn said the most important number in that chamber wasnt 60, the number needed to proceed with business, or 51, the number needed to pass bills.

The most important number in the Senate is one, Coburn said. One Senator. Thats how it was set up.

Our nation will miss his dedication to the causes of liberty and good government.

Read more here:

Tulsa World editorial: Tom Coburn an unabshed advocate for freedom and duty was loved in Oklahoma and will be missed in the United States - Tulsa...

The beach in Tel Aviv is seen empty, amid the coronavirus pandemic, March 17, 2020. Photo: Reuters / Corinna Kern.

Our current predicament, faced with a pandemic whose sudden appearance and terrible toll confuses and terrifies us, has occasioned much comment from the religiously-minded.

In these pages, for example, some have said that the phenomenon teaches us the limits of science and the necessity of the Divine. Others have held that it demands humility before Gods creation. Others recommend the willful embrace of optimism and gratitude despite everything.

All such admonitions seem inadequate, however. When we find ourselves face to face with a monster that itself has no face, that can be anywhere and everywhere, that destroys our bodies and takes lives without compunction or contemplation, because it is incapable of both, we must reckon with the terrible challenge this poses to our assumptions.

Far from the limits of science, the current crisis demonstrates to us the necessity of science, because in the end whether by vaccine, epidemiology, or the derived policies of isolation and quarantine it is unquestionably science that will save us.

Humility before Gods creation will gain us nothing, because it also implies humility before the monster that is, surrender. And surrender is precisely the thing we must reject. Optimism and gratitude are, one regrets to say, both acts of willful blindness. It is, in fact, pessimism that is most prudent in such a situation, and the thing most likely to spur us to action. As for gratitude, it simply ignores the horrendous injuries we are now suffering.

This pandemic, then, is not an occasion for a retreat into faith, but a direct challenge to it, and it demands an answer beyond surrender, humility, optimism, or gratitude.

Perhaps the most thorough exploration of this challenge is Albert Camus novel The Plague, and it is not a coincidence that, seven decades after it was published, the book is again climbing the bestseller lists.

The Plague tells the tale of an epidemic that decimates the small Algerian city of Oran. It strikes without warning, kills without discrimination or mercy, and forces those who witness it to reckon with the brutality of fate and their own impotence in the face of an enemy they can neither see nor control.

Some of the characters fall into despair, some disappear into themselves, some willingly die, and others expend their efforts in treating and comforting the afflicted. Dr. Rieux, the main character, understands that he has almost no resources, no viable treatment and no cure for the disease. He cannot even ameliorate the suffering of his patients. And he is always exposed to the possibility of infection by the disease itself. Nonetheless, he perseveres.

In a sense, all of the characters fail in their task. They cannot arrest or control the disease, which ruthlessly exterminates the young and the old, believers and non-believers, the righteous and the wicked. In the end, the plague recedes as suddenly as it began, without reason or explanation. And the beleaguered Dr. Rieux knows it could return just as inexplicably:

He knew what those jubilant crowds did not know but could have learned from books: that the plague bacillus never dies or disappears for good; that it can lie dormant for years and years in furniture and linen chests; that it bides its time in bedrooms, cellars, trunks, and bookshelves; and that perhaps the day would come when, for the bane and the enlightening of men, it would rouse up its rats again and send them forth to die in a happy city.

Despite appearances, however, The Plague is very much not a tract of despair. Indeed, Camus appears to be saying that those who battle the plague may have failed to defeat it, but in a sense they triumph, because they have, through an act of will, found meaning in the struggle itself. They have undergone the bane of men and emerged enlightened.

This is in keeping with Camus own philosophy of the absurd. The world, Camus believed, is fundamentally meaningless, and visits on us both pleasures and horrors that are equally random and inexplicable. As such, it is up to us to find our own meaning, and perhaps even our own joy in the struggle against this meaninglessness. As he put it in his classic image of Sisyphus condemned to roll a boulder to the top of a hill and then see it fall again, for all eternity, Camus said, We must imagine Sisyphus happy.

In effect, to Camus, meaning itself is an act of will and resistance. An uprising against fate: I rebel, therefore I am.

In a sense, Camus theory depends on a single thing: The choice of resistance can be made because, in the end, human beings have a kind of absolute freedom. However horrendous or constrained our conditions may be, we nonetheless have the freedom to reject them, to rebel against them, to resist them unto the end, even if it is only within ourselves. Or, as Camus put it, In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer. And that makes me happy. For it says that no matter how hard the world pushes against me, within me, theres something stronger, something better, pushing right back.

In a time of plague, then, we too must rebel against meaninglessness, against death, against the absurd, and perhaps because we have the freedom to do so. It is for this reason, more than anything else, because it is the only way, that the retreat into an emptiness of pure faith and shallow optimism must be rejected.

Whether or not there is a God is unknowable. Even if there is a God, it is certain as Maimonides, for example, asserted that we can know nothing about him. But if he exists, we must assume that our absolute freedom is his own act of will, and it has been given to everything that exists without qualification or condition. It is absolute. If one believes in a God, one must believe, by definition, in a God for whom freedom is above all, even for the smallest organism. Even for the virus that ravages other creatures, even for those who suffer from this freedom and even for those who, in the end, nevertheless choose to resist.

And perhaps the ultimate proof is one of the central divine admonitions of Judaism: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Therefore choose life.

To say choose life is, even the most devout will be forced to admit, impossible if man did not have the absolute freedom to choose. A freedom that is beyond God, though it is Gods own creation out of his own absolute freedom.

We must imagine that Judaism embraces this God of absolute freedom. That those of faith and those without faith should not reject that which may save us, bow before monsters or embrace a false optimism and undeserved gratitude. We should simply admit that it is incumbent on us all to choose because we are free to choose the invincible summer, and act accordingly.

Benjamin Kerstein is an Israeli-American writer.

Continue reading here:

The Plague and a God of Absolute Freedom - Algemeiner

I am humbled and inspired by the amazing work that is being done in these unprecedented times and I would like to thank everyone in the NHS. As the Covid-19 situation evolves, it is even more essential that we have the freedom to speak up. Speaking up, and listening up, is critical in times of challenge, when workers are stretched to their very limits.

Over 19,000 cases of speaking up by NHS workers in trusts have been handled by Freedom to Speak Up Guardians over the last two years. In the last year, cases have risen by 73 per cent, compared to 2017-18.

Sponsored by

Of the 12,000 cases raised between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019, guardians reported that nearly one in three included an element of patient safety/quality of care, and just over one in four included an element of bullying/harassment, according to a report published by the National Guardians Office which analyses the speaking up data submitted by guardians.

Freedom to Speak Up Guardians were established in every trust in England in the wake of the Francis Inquiry into the events at Mid-Staffordshire Foundation Trust, and guardians themselves believe that the perception of the speaking up culture in health is improving.

We must never lose sight of the fact that while Freedom to Speak Up is there for workers, it ultimately all comes back to patients and service users keeping them safe and providing the highest quality care

According to a survey conducted by the National Guardians Office of those in speaking up roles, 76 per cent think their work is making a difference, compared to 68 per cent last year. They also reported that awareness of the guardian role is improving. This is also mirrored in the views of the workforce in the NHS Staff Survey, as reflected in the Freedom to Speak Up Index, published last year. This will be available on the culture and engagement page of Model Hospital, which is currently under development.

The confidence that NHS workers have in the ability of guardians to address the issues they raise is growing and more learning is being brought to organisations to help them improve.

Our goal at the National Guardians Office is to make speaking up business as usual, and while there is distance to go to achieve that, these latest figures are encouraging. I also encourage organisations to use data to develop new insights into their own speaking up culture and to learn from those who have made substantial improvements.

The data report revealed that the percentage of cases reported as anonymous is falling, down to 12 per cent in 2018-19 compared to 18 per cent in 2017-18.

However, the report also shows that the percentage of cases reported as suffering detriment has remained disappointingly static at five per cent. There was also evidence that the number of speaking up cases varies significantly from trust to trust, with the highest number of cases in a single trust reported over the year being 270, while the lowest number was just one.

Measures like the level of reported anonymity dropping are good indicators to suggest workers feel more confident to speak up, particularly when considered in tandem with the encouraging increase in the overall number of cases.

However, it is important that each individual trust looks at their data in context and tries to draw learning from it. Organisations where very few workers are speaking up or where detriment is reported should look to understand and address the issues that may account for that. I am delighted that the Care Quality Commission will be looking at this when evaluating how well-led organisations are.

Fostering a culture in which workers are supported to speak up and removing barriers that may prevent them from doing so, is in the best interests of every organisation that wants to deliver the highest quality care possible.

We must never lose sight of the fact that while Freedom to Speak Up is there for workers, it ultimately all comes back to patients and service users keeping them safe and providing the highest quality care.

Freedom to Speak Up Guardians remain available to support the amazing NHS workforce to speak up safely.

See more here:

Understanding the impact of Freedom to Speak Up - Health Service Journal

Len Shackleton was a footballing genius. No question about that. He was known as the Clown Prince of Soccer long before Gazza, a player with twinkling feet and an equally roguish sense of fun.

He was the man who launched a thousand quips. When Shack penned his autobiography he cheekily headlined one chapter 'What Directors Know About Football' and left the page blank.

Shack, ever flamboyant, delivered the perfect introduction when he signed for Newcastle United. In his very first game he scored an unbelievable double hat-trick - yes, six goals - against Newport County who were slaughtered 13-0, still the Magpies biggest victory in their history. Nobody ever topped Shack.

I became a good, good friend of his. We knocked about on United's Fairs Cup excursions across Europe and flew out to Las Vegas together on a North Eastern Sporting Club trip just before the Mags continental success of 69.

Alderman William McKeag was with us, an aristocratic character who was chairman of United and regularly rowed in public with Stan Seymour, a down to earth working class bloke who called a spade a ruddy shovel.

McKeag spoke like Churchill, wore pin striped suits, and even occasionally pince-nez glasses (a sort of double monocle) on a chord.

Anyway for weeks before we left for Vegas McKeag's office were in touch with City Hall officials in the Nevada Desert pointing out that an influential figure was about to hit town... a former member of the British Parliament, one-time Lord Mayor of Newcastle, and chairman of a most influential football club.

Consequently shortly after we arrived a message winged its way to our hotel. McKeag was to be awarded the Freedom of the City of Las Vegas with a symbolic silver key the official gift of recognition. Obviously the propaganda had worked.

Of course it's no good being honoured if no one knows about it so, as the local hack back home, I was invited to join McKeag on his trip downtown along with Shack, a footballer he had doted upon.

Ten o'clock the following morning a big limousine drew up at the hotel complete with six police motorcycle outriders - all very grand - and we winged our way down The Strip to City Hall where we were met with due ceremony.

The Mayor, a guy who looked vaguely like Giant Haystacks, underwent a terrific spiel about what an honour it was to host Mr William McKeag and finished by producing the key to the city with a great flourish. Naturally our Newcastle ambassador replied with great Churchillian delivery and at some considerable length. I swear a couple of the gun-toting Vegas cops nodded off at one time.

When he had finished the Mayor turned to Shack and myself.

"Hi, guys," he boomed. "Here's a key each for you. Have a good day now!"

So Leonard Francis Shackleton and John Gibson were awarded the Freedom of the City of Las Vegas along with William McKeag. Not that I reported the fact in the Chron when we got back!

Shack was a class entertainment act throughout our stay in the gambling capital of the world.

A footballer renowned for his ball control, he nudged me one night as we walked into the hotel bar.

"Say nowt," whispered Len. "Just keep talking to me."

With that he put his hand in his trouser pocket, pulled out a coin, and flicked it into the air. Without looking he caught the falling coin on the instep of his foot, flicked it up again, leaned forward, and the coin dropped into the top pocket of his jacket. I could see one or two punters staring in disbelief before nudging their mates.

Shack did it twice more before the bar was in uproar. The Yanks nicknamed him Yorkshire because of where he came from and we never paid for another drink in the joint for the rest of our trip.

Shack famously signed for Sunderland after leaving Newcastle of course and he had undertaken a close season trip to America when, because he was an entertainer supreme, he was paid appearance money each game by Sunderland's hosts.

Shack had opened a bank account on the other side of the Atlantic and never touched the money...until now. He used to knock on my door at night dressed like the star he was in a monogrammed shirt bearing the initials LFS and off we would go to see the shows on The Strip bolstered by his considerable financial backing.

We saw Sammy Davis Jnr, the most professional of artists, and Judy Garland, the most befuddled. Judy, bless her, was no longer walking down the yellow brick road but was suffering greatly from the effects of bodily abuse. The Yanks, however, would forgive her everything and she received a standing ovation just for remembering to face the front when she sang.

See original here:

Len Shackleton - the genuine footballing legend with the freedom of Las Vegas - Chronicle Live