Category Archives: Ron Paul

Jordan is not one of the many members of Congress who have either contracted the coronavirus or had to self-quarantine because they were exposed to someone who did. Hes been shuttling back and forth between Ohio and Washington, D.C., for the past several weeks, frequently the only paying customer on an otherwise empty flight. (No, he does not wear a mask, he said.)

Jordan sees the essential side of the economyhealth-care workers, first responders, grocery stores, trucking companiesfiguring out how to work through the pandemic and wonders why other businesses cant do the same. If that can all happen, we need to get the rest of the economy up and moving, putting in place the same kind of safeguards, the congressman told me. What I know is its time to get back to work, Jordan said. Lets do it now.

If Jordan, along with Trump, occupies one extreme of the debate over shutdowns, Representative Bill Huizenga finds himself somewhere in the middle.

Im ready to go get a haircut, he told me on Tuesday.

It was a political statement as much as it was an acknowledgment of the basic necessity of modern grooming: Like other politicians who must be ready to go on TV at a moments notice, Huizenga gets his gray locks snipped more frequently than most, and he hasnt gotten a haircut since he left Washington last month.

The 51-year-old Michigan Republican is not calling for a full-on immediate return to normal, but he wants his governor, Democrat Gretchen Whitmer, to relax some of the restrictions shes ordered and begin at least a phased, regional reopening of the states economy. Thats in line with what Trump has advocated, and some conservative governors have heeded his call. In Georgia, Governor Brian Kemp announced that beginning tomorrow, businesses including bowling alleys, tattoo parlors, nail salons, and, yes, barber shops can reopen as long as they practice social distancing and screen employees for signs of illness.

Whitmer hasnt done the same in Michigan, a state with one of the largest per capita outbreaks in the country. Last week she expanded restrictions on businesses and personal travel, a decision that prompted protests and drew criticism from Republicans, including Huizenga. Whitmer denounced the demonstrators, saying they endangered peoples lives.

Read: Gretchen Whitmer: Theres going to be a horrible cost

Huizenga represents a district that starts outside Grand Rapids in the western part of the state and runs north along the coast of Lake Michigan. Hes a mainstream conservative in the modern Republican Party. A friend of former Speaker Paul Ryan, hes neither an aisle-crossing moderate nor a staunch ally of Trumps. And while he wasnt about to join the demonstrators in Lansing, he wasnt wholly condemning them either. I wasnt surprised that it happened, he told me, adding that he did wish that the protesters had listened to pleas that they adhere to social distancing while exercising their First Amendment rights.

Read more:
What the Liberate Protests Really Mean for Republicans - The Atlantic

It was only a matter of time, but Mick Jagger has offered his two cents on Paul McCartneys recent comments about The Beatles being better than The Rolling Stones.

Jagger was speaking with Zane Lowe when the topic was brought up. Thats so funny. Hes a sweetheart. Theres obviously no competition, said Jagger, not saying outright which band was better. He continued, The big difference, though, is and sort of slightly seriously, is that the Rolling Stones is a big concert band in other decades and other areas when the Beatles never even did an arena tour, Madison Square Garden with a decent sound system. They broke up before that business started, the touring business for real.That business started in 1969, and the Beatles never experienced that, he noted. They did a great gig, and I was there, at Shea stadium. They did that stadium gig. But the Stones went on, we started doing stadium gigs in the 70s and [are] still doing them now. Thats the real big difference between these two bands. One band is unbelievably luckily still playing in stadiums and then the other band doesnt exist.

The Stones, like every other act in the world, has been forced to put their touring schedule on hold while the world deals with the coronavirus pandemic. Yesterday, the band surprised fans and released a new song, Living in a Ghost Town.

Erica Banas is rock/classic rock news blogger who's well versed in etiquette and extraordinarily nice.

Read the original here:
Mick Jagger Reacts to Paul McCartney Saying The Beatles Were Better Than The Stones - wmmr.com

To get on the ballot in the remaining states, they need to collect and submit petition signatures. And in a normal year, they would be on track to do just that. But because of the deadly coronavirusand the social-distancing and stay-at-home orders to minimize its spreadafter March 6, petitioning was over in the United States, as Libertarian Party executive director Daniel Fishman told me.

For Americas third parties, this is nothing less than an existential crisis. Without ballot access, national pollsters wont feel obligated to include Green and Libertarian candidates in their surveys; voters will be less aware of their nominees and platforms; journalists will be less likely to pay any attention to them; and the probability diminishes that either the Libertarians or Greens can reach the holy grail of five percent of the popular votethe point at which they would finally qualify for federal campaign matching funds.

But for the Democratic and Republican Parties, the absence of third parties from the ballot in key states makes 2020 genuinely unlike any presidential election in recent memoryminimizing the chances for spoiler candidates, while giving both major parties something they did not have in 2016: a two-person presidential race, and a simpler path to victory.

Now, dont count the Libertarians and Greens out just yet. There are multiple fronts to the fight ahead, as they see it, and theyre prepared for battle on each one.

What the Libertarians and Greens want most is for states to waive all remaining petition signature requirements. On March 30, Vermont did just that, via emergency legislation signed by the governor. (The Libertarian Party was already on the ballot in Vermont beforehand, but it added a state to the Green Party list.) Ballot Access News reports that [i]t is believed that Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont will soon issue an order that says political parties that are ballot-qualified for at least one statewide office will be deemed to be ballot-qualified for all partisan federal and state office, for 2020, (though both the Libertarians and Greens have already qualified for the presidential election there). A few states have taken smaller steps, such as allowing for electronic signature gathering and delaying deadlines, and more states may follow.

The Green Party is in the process of asking its members to press their governors to issue executive orders that follow Vermonts lead. But Brendan Phillips, the Green Partys ballot access coordinator, is not optimistic that the governors will be accommodating. I dont expect the majority of governors to provide us with any sort of relief, Phillips told me, because in the past, theyve actively fought to keep us off of the ballot. Asked if Republican governors might be eager to help the Greens out, he responded, I suppose that is possible they might want to open that door for us, but that might also open the door to other parties to do the same that they might not want on the ballot.

One party that Republicans might want to keep off the ballot is the socially conservative, anti-internationalist Constitution Party. Richard Winger, the editor of Ballot Access News and a highly regarded expert on third parties, told me the Constitution Party is likely to nominate a presidential candidate, Don Blankenship, who has wealth. That will make it easier for the party to fund the sort of operation necessary in order to get petition signatures and scoop up votes.

You may remember Blankenship from the 2018 campaign, when he ran for the Senate in West Virginia, first in the Republican primary, then in the general election on behalf of the Constitution Party. A coal baron who vehemently maintains his innocence after serving prison time on charges related to the fatal Upper Big Branch Mine disaster, Blankenship made waves for his low-budget ads that referred to Cocaine Mitch McConnell and trafficked in racism by referring to McConnells Asian-American in-laws as his China family.

Such offensive behavior didnt make Blankenship a senator, but in a presidential campaign, it could have more appeal to disaffected Trump voters than any nominee from the socially liberal, pro-immigration Libertarian Party. (In fact, Blankenship once called himself Trumpier than Trump.) By May 2, the final day of the Constitution Partys telephone-based national convention, well know if Blankenship officially receives the groups nomination. (Blankenships campaign did not respond to an email query from me.)

As of now, the Constitution Party isnt on the ballot in those swing states with Republican governors that the Greens want to access: Arizona, Georgia, Iowa and New Hampshire. So if those states GOP governors ease the Green Partys path to appearing on the ballot, it may also help out the Constitution Partypotentially to Trumps detriment.

Since the third parties are not expecting uniform assistance from state executive and legislative branches, they are gearing up for more court battles. Were prepared to sue everywhere that we have to, said Fishman, adding that he feels very confident that were going to win all of those court cases since theres never been a stronger case that the petition requirement is unreasonable.

Experts in election law who were consulted for this story were more skeptical.

Those kind of cases are not slam dunks because courts are generally wary of changing election rules, said Rick Hasen of UC-Irvine School of Law, citing litigation over this months primary election in Wisconsin, which culminated in the U.S. Supreme Court deciding that the state could not extend the deadline for mail-in ballots because preexisting state law implied they needed to be postmarked by Election Day. The Court majority was not very moved by arguments about Covid-19 being a compelling enough reason to change from the ordinary requirements of an election, said Hasen.

I would be shocked if the minor parties do as well in terms of ballot access this year as they did [in 2016], said Michael S. Kang of Northwestern Universitys Pritzker School of Law. He argues because of a lack of binding precedents, judges have a lot of discretion. In turn, he expects a mixed response with some states providing relief and others refusing to change the rules.

I think theyre going to win lawsuits, said Winger of Ballot Access News. He pointed to a Supreme Court precedent from the 1980 presidential election which augurs well for third party relief. In April of that year, Congressman John D. Anderson abandoned his Republican presidential primary bid for an independent campaign. But Ohios filing deadline for the general election was in March. Anderson got on the Ohio ballot thanks to a district court ruling (he also got on the ballot in every other state), and in Anderson v. Celebrezze, the Supreme Court concluded that excessively early filing deadlines violate the First Amendment.

Even so, Greg Magarian a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, notes there is a competing precedent1994s Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Partywhich, in his words, says that states can impose constraints on minor parties in order to promote political stability. That isnt quite a blank check, but its a strong declaration that states have a lot of latitude to restrict minor parties.

Meanwhile, the first court battle to waive all signature requirements is now being waged by the Libertarians and Greens in Illinois, with a hearing scheduled for April 17. The two parties have also teamed up for a Georgia lawsuit, asking the state to pro-rate the number of signatures required, accounting for the days during which canvassing is no longer possible. (Unlike the Greens, the Libertarian Party already met the Georgia requirements for its presidential nominee, but are hoping to aid a Libertarian U.S. House candidate.)

Another possible legal obstacle looms for Libertarians in states with relatively early filing deadlines that require the name of the presidential candidate to be specified. The Libertarian convention is scheduled for May 21 in Austin, Texas, but a delay is expected and alternative plans are not set. This poses a particular problem for the party in New Hampshire, which requires candidates from parties that have not prequalified for the November ballot to issue a statement of intent by June 12.

Other states allow third parties to submit names to serve as stand-ins until an official nominee is selected. But Washington State, Wisconsin and Alabama could present deadline problems similar to New Hampshires, though their deadlines are in late July or August.

So even if the Libertarians pitch a perfect game in the courts regarding the waiving of signature requirements, a delay in naming a nominee could still leave them short in a few states. And ballot access in all 50 states, plus DC, again is important to them.

That is the big issue, said Fishman, the executive director of the Libertarian Party. Lacking 50-state ballot access, you become the Green Party. The Green Party has never had 50-state ballot access, and thats why they still havent been taken seriously. It is not a trivial thing. It requires coordination at the party level that speaks to your competency, and in turn, the media tends to pick up on that. The Libertarian Party plans to sue to push back such deadlines if necessary.

The legal consequences of the pandemic are not the only potential obstacles facing the third and fourth biggest political parties. Neither party can be confident it will nominate candidates who can command as much attention as did their 2016 candidates.

Both parties ran the same candidates in the last two elections: former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson for the Libertarians, Massachusetts physician-activist Jill Stein for the Greens. Broader ballot access, stronger resume, respectable running mate (fellow former governor William Weld) and a uniquely whimsical persona (described by comedian Samantha Bee as freaky-deaky) made Johnson the stronger vote-getter. But as Hillary Clinton ruefully recalled in her post-campaign memoir What Happened, in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, Stein won more votes than Trumps narrow margin of victory.

Johnson and Stein were helped in 2016 by having built-up name recognition in 2012, as well as by facing two major-party nominees with high unfavorability ratings. But since neither candidate wants to find out if the third times a charm, we will see new faces this year.

When the Green Party convenes in early July, most likely virtually, Howie Hawkins is expected to receive the nomination. Like Stein, Hawkins is a longtime party activist and past gubernatorial candidate, taking 1.7 percent of vote in 2018 against New Yorks Andrew Cuomo. But he has a long way to go before he is a household name.

The Libertarians have had a field of candidates largely unknown outside of party circles. Jacob Hornberger, an ally of Ron Paul, has won six of the nine nonbinding party primaries. (Perennial satirical candidate Vermin Supreme, who has taken on a slightly more serious tone this time around, has won two.) This past week, Jim Gray, a former California judge and Johnsons 2012 running mate, jumped in the race, defining himself to the libertarian Reason magazine as an incrementalist and a pragmatist. Gray had been supporting the Republican-turned-independent-turned-Democrat-turned-Libertarian Lincoln Chafee, but stepped in after Chafee suspended his campaign in early April.

Michigan Congressman Justin Amash, who attracted national attention for quitting the Republican Party and supporting Trumps impeachment, is attracting the most buzz. This past week, he teased a Libertarian presidential run and said he will make an announcement soon. Still, while he would be the highest office holder in the field, his nomination at the convention would not be assured. Johnson needed two ballots at the 2016 convention to win the nod, over opposition from the partys more radical faction that can be suspicious of former Republicans as insufficiently libertarian. (Johnson in 2016 described a Libertarian Party convention as composed of really wonderful, well-meaning, well-spoken people and then people that are just batshit crazy.)

And while his poll numbers could change if an announcement generated a lot of press coverage, Amash is not starting from a strong position; a Morning Consult poll this week pegs his support in a three-way race with Trump and Biden at a scant one percent. Such anemic numbers wouldnt help him convince party delegates that he possesses any special ability to help the party clear the 5 percent popular-vote threshold.

The popularity and notoriety of the actual nominees is not irrelevant to parties judicial strategy. Beyond the constitutional principles and legalities, judges may not feel much public pressure to bend over backwards for third-party candidates the public isnt clamoring to support.

Judges arent truly insulated from public sentiment about anything, said Magarian. If the public broadly wanted for minor parties to be able to compete more robustly in elections, I think courts would feel at least some background pressure to take minor parties complaints about ballot access seriously. Instead, my sense is that the public and most opinion leaders tend to view minor parties as troublemakers, spoilers and refuges for unserious political obstructionists.

Will the lack of ballot access for third parties impact the 2020 elections outcome?

Democrats have long blamed Green Party candidates for undermining their presidential candidates: in Florida and New Hampshire in 2000, and in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin in 2016. In each of those state contests, the Green Party candidate won more votes than the Republican margin of victory. So for Democrats, the fewer swing states with third-party candidates on the ballot, the fewer heart palpitations.

But whether or not the third-party vote tipped the 2016 to Donald Trump is still hotly debated. Stein campaigned on the argument that Hillary Clinton was not progressive enough, but Johnson sought to attract votes from both disaffected Democrats and Republicans. Still, based on 2016 exit poll data, which asked respondents how they would vote in two-person race, Voxs Tara Golshan found that without Stein in the running, Clinton would have won Michigan, still lost Florida, and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would have been a 48 to 48 percent toss-up. So, maybe it mattered, maybe it didnt.

At minimum, a robust minor-party presence complicates major-party strategizing. Instead of focusing on appeals to swing voters in the middle, confident that ones base is in place, major party candidates would have to worry about whether they need simultaneous appeals to swing voters on the fringes.

The battle for third-party legitimacy by the Libertarians and Greens in 2020 is not over. But if the nations state election officials, governors and judges dont swoop in to save them, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will able to face each other, one against one.

Read the original:
Will the Pandemic Keep Third Parties Off the 2020 Ballot? - Jimmys Post

Ted Cruz recently told Fox News that the mainstream media was trying to root for disaster. Both senators have just been named to a White House task force to open the economy, which makes me feel not one iota safer.

My particular favorite, though, is Ron Paul, the former congressman from Texas who published a very long column on March 16 on the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity website headlined The Coronavirus Hoax. There just werent enough people with the disease to warrant the incursion into our civil liberties, he warned. That was just about a week before his son, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, came down with the faux virus himself.

I will say in defense of my state that none of these people are stupid; they arent the stereotypical yahoos that so many non-Texans like to imagine live among us in droves. No. They represent the stubborn if expediently applied strain of anti-government independence that is inherent in the Texas character, which conveniently dovetails with being a Trump toady.

Mr. Abbotts fealty to the president, along with that of our senators, could mean that Texans could become the public health guinea pigs who will suffer mightily if the state opens too soon.

What all this behavior will mean in a state that is slowly turning purple is anyones guess. We are lucky that, thanks to local stay-in-place orders and a comparative lack of density in our cities, the number of Texas cases is only over 16,000, with deaths at over 390. But we are not at peak, experts tell us, and meanwhile over one million Texans have filed for unemployment. Thats a number that will cause a lot of restiveness here, and maybe some reflection on just how much actual leadership Republican leaders have displayed during this awful time.

Not that leadership hasnt been on display in other quarters. Some of the slack has been taken up by the private sector, with restaurant and small-business owners banding together to help their colleagues and trying their best to fill in for a government that is M.I.A.

The big businesses have gotten into the act, too, in particular HEB, a San Antonio-based grocery store chain that has become a lifesaver during the kinds of climate emergencies that have become the new normal here (see: Hurricane Harvey, 2017). As my colleagues Dan Solomon and Paula Forbes reported recently in Texas Monthly, HEB has had a pandemic and influenza plan since 2005, when it first took note of the H5N1 threat. The chain put that plan in effect in 2009 when the H1N1 swine flu hit.

Go here to see the original:
Texas Republicans Have Spectacularly Failed the Coronavirus Test - The New York Times

U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul ONeill sits in his office September 19, 2001 in Washington, DC. Sworn in to his position January 20, 2001, he was fired in December 2002.

David Hume Kennerly

Paul ONeill, the blunt-spoken former head of Alcoa Corp who was fired after two rocky years as U.S. President George W. Bushs Treasury secretary, died on Saturday at the age of 84 at his home in Pittsburgh, The Wall Street Journal reported.

His family said he had been treated for lung cancer and his death was unrelated to the novel coronavirus, the WSJ reported.

ONeill served as the Republican Bushs first Treasury secretary, from January 2001 to December 2002, during a period of in-fighting within the administration and tough economic times worsened by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

The multimillionaire former corporate chieftain he led aluminum company Alcoa from 1987 to 2000 was not a big fan of Bushs first round of tax cuts. He then argued in vain with others in the administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, against more cuts that he felt could fuel budget deficits and hurt the economy.

He also earned a reputation as a loose cannon as Treasury secretary with comments that at various times infuriated members of Bushs inner circle, fellow Republicans in Congress, Wall Street, Latin American governments and others.

It was Cheney, his friend dating to the 1970s in President Gerald Fords administration and had recruited ONeill into the Treasury job, who told him that he was fired. ONeill said Cheney had asked him to say his departure was his own decision, but ONeill refused.

Im too old to begin telling lies now, he said.

History bore out his concerns over the Bush tax cuts, which along with the costs of Bushs wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to soaring U.S. budget deficits in subsequent years.

Regarding Iraq, ONeill said Bushs team had decided on a course of war which it then tried to justify by touting the threat posed by Iraqi leader Saddam Husseins weapons of mass destruction. After the invasion, no such weapons were found.

From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country, ONeill said in the 2004 book The Price of Loyalty by journalist Ron Suskind. And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it.

Asked in 2008 whether he felt bitter about his time in the Bush administration, ONeill told the New York Times: No. Im thankful I got fired when I did so that I didnt have to be associated with what they subsequently did.

During his stint as Treasury secretary ONeill outraged congressional Republicans by calling one of their tax cut measures show business. He annoyed others in the administration by telling lawmakers that Bushs signature tax cut drive was not likely to boost the economy in the short term.

He dismissed stock, bond and currency traders as people who sit in front of flickering green screens whose jobs he could master in a couple of weeks. Brazils government protested after ONeill worried publicly that money lent to Latin American countries would vanish into Swiss bank accounts.

He also irked Wall Street with overly optimistic assessments of the economy including an errant forecast after the 2001 attacks that the stock market would swiftly bounce back. His comment that the administration was not interested in pursuing a strong-dollar policy rattled global currency markets.

ONeill was born on Dec. 4, 1935, in St. Louis to a family of modest means. After college, he began his career in government in 1961, working for the Veterans Administration. He was named as the No. 2 official in the White House budget office in 1974 and became friends with fellow Ford administration officials Cheney and Alan Greenspan, the future Fed chairman.

After Ford lost his 1976 re-election bid, ONeill joined International Paper Co, eventually becoming its president.

Greenspan served on Alcoas board when the aluminum company was searching for a new leader, and recruited ONeill.

ONeill served as both chairman and CEO of Alcoa from 1987 to 1999 increasing its profit, stock price and market share and retired as chairman in 2000. His Alcoa stock and options exceeded $100 million by the time he left.

ONeill and his wife, Nancy, had four children.

See more here:
Former Treasury Secretary and Iraq war critic Paul O'Neill dies at 84 - India Gone Viral

Boris Johnson, the prime minister of Britain, on Friday announced that he had tested positive for the coronavirus. In a brief video released on Twitter, he shared the basics: Having developed mild symptoms thats to say, a temperature and a persistent cough he underwent testing and received the bad news. He will now be self-isolating until the illness has run its course.

Looking mostly healthy, if typically disheveled, Mr. Johnson stressed that he would continue to lead the national fightback from his home via teleconferencing. He urged the British public to abide by the three-week lockdown put into place on Monday. The more effectively people stick with social distancing, the faster the nation and its National Health Service will bounce back, he said, before closing with the plea, Stay at home, protect the N.H.S. and save lives.

It was a responsible, no-drama message. If only the prime minister had displayed such leadership sooner, he and who knows how many others might have been spared this illness.

Instead, Mr. Johnsons handling of the crisis has borne an unsettling resemblance to that of President Trump. He was slow to recognize the risks, taking a mid-February holiday with his pregnant fiance at his country home. Even after the virus became impossible to ignore, he remained glib and dismissive, as his government dithered and failed to put together a coherent response.

In early March, Mr. Johnson suggested that one course of action would be for Britain to take it on the chin, take it all in one go and allow the disease, as it were, to move through the population, without taking as many draconian measures. This, he explained later, would create a sort of herd immunity that would protect the population as a whole.

Um, maybe. But not without killing untold numbers of people first. The approach was quickly recognized as bonkers and scrapped, and Mr. Johnson moved to embrace a more conventional path of containment and social distancing.

Policy planning aside, Mr. Johnsons use of the bully pulpit has been an abject disaster. The best thing you can do is to wash your hands with soap and hot water while singing Happy Birthday twice, he said at a March 3 news conference. We should all basically just go about our normal daily lives, he urged, before chuckling about how he had been running around shaking hands willy-nilly. This prompted a cheeky scribe for The Guardian to call the prime minister the U.K.s own super-spreader.

Such macho swagger would be hilarious if the repercussions werent so lethal. Who knows how many people Mr. Johnson infected with his blithe ignorance, including potentially his fiance.

Mr. Johnson is far from the only bad role model of the moment. Mr. Trump, of course, has been trumpeting, and indulging in, even more reckless behavior. Until the past couple of days, his news briefings were a case study in poor social distancing, with officials crammed together for the cameras. Not so long ago, he was boasting of how he wasnt bothering to protect himself from germs and was, like Mr. Johnson, still out there slapping palms with the people.

As the death toll has skyrocketed and the economy has crashed, Mr. Trump, a well-known germaphobe, appears to have started taking his own safety more seriously. He even agreed to get tested after aggressively dismissing the idea. But he has grown, if anything, more cavalier about the lives of the American public. His suggestion that the country can get back to business by mid-April is delusional, and his call for people to pack the churches on Easter Sunday, April 12, is demented.

So far, Mr. Trump has avoided paying a personal price for his recklessness. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, has not been as lucky. Last weekend, Mr. Paul became the first senator to test positive for the coronavirus. He is unlikely to be the last in part because in the six days between when he was tested, on March 16, and when his results came back positive, Mr. Paul strutted around Capitol Hill, shedding pathogens left and right. He lunched with his colleagues. He held forth on the Senate floor. He breathed all over unsuspecting aides, worked out in the Senate gym and swam in the Senate pool. The United States own super-spreader.

And this is before you factor in the fact that Mr. Paul was the lone no vote on the first coronavirus relief bill, and he was the guy who delayed passage of the second relief bill to push his pet concerns.

It also bears mentioning that Mr. Pauls father, the former congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul, has been among those pushing the notion that the coronavirus pandemic is a hoax.

As has often been noted, the Senate is a high-risk population for Covid-19, with nearly half of its members age 65 or over. Mr. Pauls selfish negligence has already compelled two of his Republican colleagues to self-quarantine, Senators Mike Lee and Mitt Romney of Utah. The potential exposure of Mr. Romney who tested negative was particularly disturbing, since his wife suffers from multiple sclerosis.

But Mr. Paul put the entire chamber at risk, and by extension the entire nation, which is relying on lawmakers to help guide it through this nightmare. Rather than express regret, however, Mr. Paul has belligerently defended himself against all the finger wagging. In an op-ed for USA Today he whined that he never met the criteria for testing or quarantine, so he doesnt see why everybody is so angry. But he did get tested. He just couldnt be bothered with the quarantine part until after he got smacked in the face with the results.

Then theres Jair Bolsanaro, the president of Brazil, who continues to out-Trump even Mr. Trump with his poor example. Nearly two dozen people who traveled with Mr. Bolsanaro to meet with Mr. Trump in Florida this month have tested positive for the virus. There were initially reports that Mr. Bolsanaro has tested positive as well, which he and his family later disputed. Mr. Bolsanaro seems to have taken his near miss as license to dismiss the pandemic as a little flu.

Even as Brazil leads Latin America in both confirmed cases of and deaths from the virus, Mr. Bolsanaro has railed against social distancing as mass confinement and called on people to go back to their regular routines. He has blamed the media for fueling hysteria. He has continued to shake hands with people and says he has no concerns for his own heath, despite being, at age 65, at increased risk of complications. In my particular case, with my history as an athlete, if I were infected by the virus, I wouldnt need to worry, he said. I wouldnt feel anything or, if very affected, it would be like a little flu or little cold.

Brazils minister of health has warned that the nations health system could collapse by the end of next month, and the nations governors are struggling mightily to manage the situation on the ground, even as their president makes that job significantly harder.

Its a depressing echo of what many American state and local leaders are facing. As governors of hard-hit states such as Gavin Newsom of California, Jay Inslee of Washington and Andrew Cuomo of New York labor to provide guidance and keep their residents safe, they are battling not only the virus but also the muddled messaging and stutter-step relief efforts coming from the White House.

Weak leadership, it turns out, is its own form of devastating pandemic.

See the rest here:
Boris Johnson Has Coronavirus. He Handled It Badly. - The New York Times

There are also civil liberties concerns as to whether widespread closures in American society to counter coronavirus dissemination are allowed under the Constitution. That said, there has been a grudging consensus that it has to be done, at least to the point that there has been no significant legal opposition to the numerous lockout measures across the United States.

However, I dont really know what to do with the danger by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio to permanently close down every place of worship that seeks to serve in the face of a citywide moratorium on gatherings.

Yeah, if the congregation wants to work, says the mayor, you will do well.

If you go to your synagogue, if you go to your church and continue to hold services, despite being advised too much not to do so, our law enforcement officers will have no choice but to close down those services, de Blasio said Friday, according to a transcript from the news conference.

Im not doing that with much happiness. This is the last thing I would like to do, because I understand how important peoples religions are to them, and in this moment of turmoil, we need our religion. But we dont need meetings that would place people at risk.

There is no tradition of religion that endorses something that endangers the leaders of the community. So, NYPD, Fire Department, Buildings Department, everybody has been told that if they see religious services going on, they will go to the authorities of the church, they will tell them that they need to interrupt the service and leave. And if they continue to serve until fines are given, well, poof. De Blasio said the penalties should be the first line of action. Lets hope that will allow the congregations to stop meeting.

If that doesnt work, theyll take punitive measures to the point of fines and eventually close down the building indefinitely, he said.

De Blasio: churches and synagogues conducting religious services could be permanently closing pic.twitter.com/kdUsdp2YOMatthew Schmitz (@matthewschmitz) March 29, 2020 Most of the places of worship in New York City are performing their services online, if at all, and locking down their doors, according to Politico. Still not any of them.

Unfortunately, a limited number of religious groups, specific churches and specific synagogues do not pay heed to this guideline even if it is so universal, de Blasio said.

You were alerted. Youre going to need to interrupt services. Support people express their religion in many ways, but not in crowds, not in meetings that can place others at risk. Yeah, there is no safer way for recalcitrant religion organizations now conducting services in the wake of a moratorium on mass events to stop than to say, You have been warned. There is no doubt that the First Amendments protection of religious freedom is powerful too much so.

There is little in the legislation or precedent to create a general and unilateral declaration of state of emergency as an undisputed authority, Hall wrote in Op-Ed for The Western Newspaper. There is still nothing in the statute or tradition to justify a limit on the number of persons who can meet in a church, for health purposes or otherwise, as a justification for violating the constitutional right to freedom of worship. Yet another First Amendment expert, Eugene Volokh, told The Associated Press that the facts surrounding the coronavirus explosion are murky in the seas.

If religious groups argued that they were being called out for special treatment, it would be one thing, Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, told the AP.

Do you think the government should have the authority to ban the churches from meeting to discourage the coronavirus from spreading?

But if, for reasons entirely unrelated to the religiosity of conduct, you are only putting the same pressure on everybody, it is likely to be acceptable, he said.

Of example, its not clear if de Blasios comment was fully thought out. I would strongly doubt any church who has managed to meet in person in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

However, despite the questionable legal existence of any regulation restricting the right of speech, how can any official excuse indefinitely closing down a place of worship or a congregation, no matter how ill-informed their decision to start meeting in person was.

And in terms of things being counter-productive, if youre going to face a court battle over a series of orders given by state and municipal officials in the last few weeks, the legal challenge of ending the right of a religious group to worship in perpetuity is the nearest you can get to a slam-dunk litigation argument.

What part of U.S. case law makes de Blasio believe this is going to come before the courts? We may be in terra nova because of the coronavirus epidemic, but the first amendment also holds here and closing down a school, synagogue or mosque indefinitely does not appear to align with it. Moreover, if anything comes before the court and the injunctive relief is issued, what is to guarantee that other organizations and people do not use it to reverse other state and municipal coronavirus orders? If this occurs, de Blasio could do a disservice of cataclysmic proportions to the cause of public safety.

So even though theyre not toppled is that actually what de Blasios incompetent government needs to waste its time in court talking about? Whether or not the municipal council has the power to effectively extinguish a religious community?

It wont sound as good in court as it does at a press conference especially as the coronavirus issue comes to an end, but the ban on the congregation meeting wont come under de Blasios attack. That will be petty dictatorship, pure and simple, in the middle of the coronavirus crisis.

I dont believe thats what de Blasio said at all, however, as he could be seen to say something of considerable severity.

This was another politician in front of a camera, trying to look tough. Here we have another public official who imagines himself in the chaos of Aaron Sorkin, who fixes yet another question by doing or doing something dramatic (if not legally sound).

My guess is that we dont have to think about de Blasio really going through what he said on Friday. The Mayor can have his moment of President Bartlets cosplay as soon as anyone with the law chops took him aside after the press conference and said, Ah, yeah, but about the closure of the church, Mr. Mayor There is, of course, the awful chance that de Blasio is crazy enough to follow ahead with this, however. After all, he personally launched a failed presidential nominating bid, operating under the misapprehension that what Americans were really calling for in a president was a bland mayor of the nations largest city. (Thanks to de Blasio, his misapprehension was significantly less costly than that of the other man in the sector who made the same mistake.) Had de Blasio wanted to do that, it might not only end up in litigation, it would be the beginning of a legal avalanche that hinders the ability of the state and local governments to handle coronavirus.

Any way, it is a heavy-handed challenge that is almost definitely illegal and does nothing but damage credibility and confidence in Gothams ability to deal with COVID-19.

Follow this link:
Dr. Ron Paul hits the nail on the head in an interview with No-Nonsense Coronavirus - RecentlyHeard.com

Medical staff treat patients suffering from the COVID-19 coronavirus in an intensive care unit at the Oglio Po Hospital in Cremona, Italy, March 19, 2020. (Flavio Lo Scalzo/Reuters)The absence of American leadership in the current crisis is not an aberration, and it is not temporary.

Faced with the great challenge of his time the thermonuclear menace of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Jack Kennedy famously laid out the American position: We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge and more.

That was heady stuff but exhausting, too, and expensive. Americans tire of heroism pretty quickly. We are the weary kind, and the weariness is thoroughly bipartisan: Kennedys determination to fight the Cold War was met with opposition not only from the Left, which was sympathetic to the Soviet Union, but also from the Right, with some conservatives of the old school taking to heart Randolph Bournes dictum that war is the health of the state and believing that what they saw as imperialism abroad was inexorably linked to imperialism at home. And both sides coveted the money that was being spent, calculating that we could fill a lot of potholes in Poughkeepsie for the cost of an aircraft carrier or three. The Walter Mondale Democrats and the Ron Paul Republicans saw eye to eye on that, at least.

That dynamic has not changed much: Barack Obama complained about the money the George W. Bush administration spent chasing jihadists around the world and declared, America, it is time to focus on nation-building at home. Donald Trumps embarrassing nickel-and-dime attitude toward U.S. commitments abroad, from NATO to USAID, is the barstool version of Obamas schoolboy posturing. But, of course, we are Americans, we are restless, we like a fight, and we cannot actually mind our own business for very long. Our method is to get ourselves into a fight, grow bored with it, become agitated by the expense of keeping it up, and then retreat in a huff.

That makes for a peculiar politics on the Right, especially, as conservatives make like a guy trying to pat his head and rub his belly at the same time, simultaneously beating their chests and pinching pennies. On 24 June 2019, Sean Hannity lamented that President Trump had failed to follow through on his insane proposal to hijack Iraqi oil output, which Hannity proposed using to compensate the families of American soldiers who died in the American invasion and occupation of Iraq at a rate of millions of dollars per family. Warming to his theme but never quite managing to call his proposal tribute, the AM-radio moral philosopher concluded We have every right to force you to pay for your own liberation.

Us pay any price, bear any burden? No, you will pay any price, and you will bear any burden we damned well tell you to, buddy.

Kennedy laid out an invitation to ancient friends and new cooperators alike:

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can dofor we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. . . . To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right.

That is . . . not exactly how we talk about those things today.

It is easy to criticize President Trump for his pettiness in rhetoric and in fact but he is not the cause of American surrender, only its symptom. It is impossible to blame the American people for their weariness. For one thing, the critics of JFK-style imperialism and those Poughkeepsie pothole-watchers are not without a point: There is an economic and a moral price to be paid for that kind of leadership, and government should, in most ordinary times, be mainly preoccupied with those potholes and not with dreaming up new crusades through which to aggrandize itself and its officers. And didnt Hercules himself, sometime between killing the Nemean lion and that unpleasant Augean housekeeping business, look over his shoulder and mutter about the unfairness of it all, and wonder aloud why the . . . Belgians . . . werent shouldering more of the burden? They have been very unfair to us, I am sure he said.

The coronavirus epidemic is a global problem, one that points to the current deficit in global leadership. Americans are paralyzed by resentment. The European Union, having just been gutted by the departure of the United Kingdom, does not know quite what to do, and those European universal health-care systems so admired by U.S. progressives are failing. China has just reminded the world that it is a socially backward gulag state that is stalled right there between Mexico and Bulgaria in real economic performance. Putin is the czar of Twitter trolls. The U.S. president has two pornographic films, six bankruptcies, and a game show on his curriculum vitae, and the country is so short of emergency supplies that Ralph Lauren is making medical garments and Titos is producing hand sanitizer instead of vodka not exactly in a position to exercise global leadership.

With the prominent exception of the European Union and a few relatively minor exceptions (ASEAN, OIC, etc.), the success of the prominent multilateral institutions of the post-war era depended to an extraordinary degree upon the willingness of the United States to carry them, applying its vast wealth, military power, and credibility to their missions. The United States is, at least for the moment, no longer as willing to do that as it once was our relationship with NATO in the Trump era is indicative of a deeper and broader change in our national orientation. This is the age of the Little American, who turns up his nose at the world and asks, Whats in it for me?

The absence of American leadership in the current crisis is not an aberration, and it is not temporary. This is the new world order, light on the order.

Read more:
Pandemic: The First Great Crisis of the Post-American Era - National Review

If you want to understand everything that is wrong with American politics and society, but are tired of the Trump show, Rand Paul might be a good place to start. Paul is the junior senator from Kentucky so, believe it or not, is actually the more decent and compassionate member of that unfortunate states senate delegation, but given that the other senator from Kentucky is Mitch McConnell, that is not saying much about Paul.

For much of his life, both inside and outside of politics, Paul has been a devout Libertarian. He is the son of former Libertarian presidential candidate, and current quack, Ron Paul, so Rand Paul, who was named after the high priestess of Libertarianism-and deeply mediocre novelist-Ayn Rand, came to his Libertarian from a very young age. In recent years, like many in his party, Paul has moved away from whatever odd principles he once had in favor of fealty to Donald Trump.

Senator Paul recently became the first member of the senate to announce that he has tested positive for the Covid-19 virus. According to a statement his office released on Sunday, Paul, is feeling fine and is in quarantine. He is asymptomatic and was tested out of an abundance of caution due to his extensive travel and events. If you are reading this and are able to take a test out of an abundance of caution because of extensive travel and events raise your hand. I dont think many American hands went up. The US has been so slow getting tests out that many people who have symptoms are not able to get tested, but Paul a powerful, well-connected and wealthy man was able to get the front of the line. At no point has Paul expressed any recognition that the president he so faithfully follows has worked hard to deny other Americans the ability to assuage concerns similar to Pauls.

Paul, like virtually every other member of his party made no effort to restrain, or even contradict, a Republican president who has spreading disinformation about the virus

In the days leading up to deciding to be tested for the Coronavirus, Paul continued to go about his life more or less as usual. Even after being tested, but before getting the results, Paul conducted his business as a senator, worked with staff and other members and did minimal social distancing. In doing that he exposed countless others to the virus, putting their health and lives at risk. Additionally, Paul, like virtually every other member of his party made no effort to restrain, or even contradict, a Republican president who has spreading disinformation about the virus.

Pauls reckless behavior may have directly affected dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people, but for every high profile senator like Rand Paul who ignored the warnings right up until he became concerned for his own health, there are thousands of Americans who continue to be misinformed by Donald Trump and his enablers in politics and media. These people are unable to get a test when they are concerned, and, in many cases, like Paul have spent weeks ignoring the reality of the Coronavirus crisis and therefore accelerated the spread of the disease.

Rand Paul is an angry, unpleasant, hostile man who has been educated and indoctrinated far beyond his intelligence and who has sacrificed whatever limited integrity he once had at the feet of an unstable and dangerous president. He is now suffering from a deadly illness in no small part because of his own ignorance. However, I wish that he, like all sick people, have a speedy and quick recovery. If he recovers, the test of Pauls meager intellect, and indeed humanity, will be if he recognizes that parroting scientifically bankrupt ideas for fear of upsetting a deeply troubled president is condemning others, who do not have access to early testing or good medical care, to death.

Lifting social distancing policies will lead to an extremely significant increase in deaths. However, a growing number of Republicans think that is okay if it helps the economy and therefore Trumps reelection chances

Unfortunately, that reality still escapes most Republicans whether in government or media. The proof of that is the extent to which conservatives sought to downplay the Covid-19 crisis and their subsequent failure to defer to those who understood pandemics and how to fight them. Moreover, those previous failures are in danger of being compounded exponentially as Republicans including Donald Trump and numerous others are advocating lifting social distancing policies and recommendations because of the effect it is having on the stock market.

This is an extraordinarily short-sighted, murderous, immoral, and for lack of a better word, idiotic idea. Lifting social distancing policies will lead to an extremely significant increase in deaths. However, a growing number of Republicans think that is okay if it helps the economy and therefore Trumps reelection chances. This is simply evil, but it also reveals a level of stupidity that is exceptional even in the Trump era. Do they not realize that two million deaths will lead to economic disruption and fear that would make the current economic downturn look like a Sunday school picnic?

Trump and Paul share a core inability to accept scientific reality when it gets in the way of either ideology or partisan interest, as well as an astonishing inability to recognize how this pandemic is already affecting millions of Americans. These two powerful politicians are completely buffeted from the economic uncertainty and lack of access to healthcare that frame the crisis for the rest of us. Thus, it is no surprise that they can blithely issue statements about getting tested because they are concerned or say things like we cannot let the cure be worse than the problem. Like most Republicans Paul and Trump know and clearly dont care that the lives and livelihoods that are lost because of their decisions are unlikely to be their own.

http://www.lincolnmitchell.com

Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LincolnMitchell

Continued here:
Rand Paul and the Stench of Entitlement - European Interest

There are also civil liberties concerns as to whether widespread closures in American society to counter coronavirus dissemination are allowed under the Constitution. That said, there has been a grudging consensus that it has to be done, at least to the point that there has been no significant legal opposition to the numerous lockout measures across the United States.

However, I dont really know what to do with the danger by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio to permanently close down every place of worship that seeks to serve in the face of a citywide moratorium on gatherings.

Yeah, if the congregation wants to work, says the mayor, you will do well.

If you go to your synagogue, if you go to your church and continue to hold services, despite being advised too much not to do so, our law enforcement officers will have no choice but to close down those services, de Blasio said Friday, according to a transcript from the news conference.

Im not doing that with much happiness. This is the last thing I would like to do, because I understand how important peoples religions are to them, and in this moment of turmoil, we need our religion. But we dont need meetings that would place people at risk.

There is no tradition of religion that endorses something that endangers the leaders of the community. So, NYPD, Fire Department, Buildings Department, everybody has been told that if they see religious services going on, they will go to the authorities of the church, they will tell them that they need to interrupt the service and leave. And if they continue to serve until fines are given, well, poof. De Blasio said the penalties should be the first line of action. Lets hope that will allow the congregations to stop meeting.

If that doesnt work, theyll take punitive measures to the point of fines and eventually close down the building indefinitely, he said.

De Blasio: churches and synagogues conducting religious services could be permanently closing pic.twitter.com/kdUsdp2YOMatthew Schmitz (@matthewschmitz) March 29, 2020 Most of the places of worship in New York City are performing their services online, if at all, and locking down their doors, according to Politico. Still not any of them.

Unfortunately, a limited number of religious groups, specific churches and specific synagogues do not pay heed to this guideline even if it is so universal, de Blasio said.

You were alerted. Youre going to need to interrupt services. Support people express their religion in many ways, but not in crowds, not in meetings that can place others at risk. Yeah, there is no safer way for recalcitrant religion organizations now conducting services in the wake of a moratorium on mass events to stop than to say, You have been warned. There is no doubt that the First Amendments protection of religious freedom is powerful too much so.

There is little in the legislation or precedent to create a general and unilateral declaration of state of emergency as an undisputed authority, Hall wrote in Op-Ed for The Western Newspaper. There is still nothing in the statute or tradition to justify a limit on the number of persons who can meet in a church, for health purposes or otherwise, as a justification for violating the constitutional right to freedom of worship. Yet another First Amendment expert, Eugene Volokh, told The Associated Press that the facts surrounding the coronavirus explosion are murky in the seas.

If religious groups argued that they were being called out for special treatment, it would be one thing, Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, told the AP.

Do you think the government should have the authority to ban the churches from meeting to discourage the coronavirus from spreading?

But if, for reasons entirely unrelated to the religiosity of conduct, you are only putting the same pressure on everybody, it is likely to be acceptable, he said.

Of example, its not clear if de Blasios comment was fully thought out. I would strongly doubt any church who has managed to meet in person in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

However, despite the questionable legal existence of any regulation restricting the right of speech, how can any official excuse indefinitely closing down a place of worship or a congregation, no matter how ill-informed their decision to start meeting in person was.

And in terms of things being counter-productive, if youre going to face a court battle over a series of orders given by state and municipal officials in the last few weeks, the legal challenge of ending the right of a religious group to worship in perpetuity is the nearest you can get to a slam-dunk litigation argument.

What part of U.S. case law makes de Blasio believe this is going to come before the courts? We may be in terra nova because of the coronavirus epidemic, but the first amendment also holds here and closing down a school, synagogue or mosque indefinitely does not appear to align with it. Moreover, if anything comes before the court and the injunctive relief is issued, what is to guarantee that other organizations and people do not use it to reverse other state and municipal coronavirus orders? If this occurs, de Blasio could do a disservice of cataclysmic proportions to the cause of public safety.

So even though theyre not toppled is that actually what de Blasios incompetent government needs to waste its time in court talking about? Whether or not the municipal council has the power to effectively extinguish a religious community?

It wont sound as good in court as it does at a press conference especially as the coronavirus issue comes to an end, but the ban on the congregation meeting wont come under de Blasios attack. That will be petty dictatorship, pure and simple, in the middle of the coronavirus crisis.

I dont believe thats what de Blasio said at all, however, as he could be seen to say something of considerable severity.

This was another politician in front of a camera, trying to look tough. Here we have another public official who imagines himself in the chaos of Aaron Sorkin, who fixes yet another question by doing or doing something dramatic (if not legally sound).

My guess is that we dont have to think about de Blasio really going through what he said on Friday. The Mayor can have his moment of President Bartlets cosplay as soon as anyone with the law chops took him aside after the press conference and said, Ah, yeah, but about the closure of the church, Mr. Mayor There is, of course, the awful chance that de Blasio is crazy enough to follow ahead with this, however. After all, he personally launched a failed presidential nominating bid, operating under the misapprehension that what Americans were really calling for in a president was a bland mayor of the nations largest city. (Thanks to de Blasio, his misapprehension was significantly less costly than that of the other man in the sector who made the same mistake.) Had de Blasio wanted to do that, it might not only end up in litigation, it would be the beginning of a legal avalanche that hinders the ability of the state and local governments to handle coronavirus.

Any way, it is a heavy-handed challenge that is almost definitely illegal and does nothing but damage credibility and confidence in Gothams ability to deal with COVID-19.

View original post here:
Kathy Griffin was trying to jump the queue for a COVID test, turning out she had diarrhea after a trip to Mexico. - RecentlyHeard.com