Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 27, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:47:08

20200427_Mon_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The British are coming!
	The British are coming!
	You are about to be part of the one's race debate.
	And one small press plan.
	America first.
	Happy class.
	What's your country?
	Resolved tonight on American Countdown on this Monday, April 27th.
	Day 27 for some people of the shutdown, for some people day 14, for some people day 49, depending on where you are in America and the world.
	Luckily, good news from some parts of America, as Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Colorado, other states announced intentions to reopen.
	Bad news for parts of the country, as governors in Illinois and Michigan and California and out west talk about continuous shutdowns, unmitigated and unchanged, despite the fact that the basis of that shutdown, the avoiding hospital collapse, has long since passed.
	Tonight resolved that we should not be looking to Nazi-era tactics and strategies for our current public health policies.
	There is a certain sort of background to this.
	The utility of the institutional narrative in academia, in the media, in large parts of the institutional intellectual world was to recast the rise of Nazi Germany in a different light.
	To attribute to the rise of Nazi Germany, not its actual historical factual origins, But instead to claim that the thing to fear from a Nazi Germany society arising anywhere in the world was to worry about the ordinary person, the common Volk, to worry about the common people,
	that somehow the ideas of national pride and the economic prosperity and that somehow the ideas of national pride and the economic prosperity and the soldier and the small businessman and the small farmer and the police officer, these were the people These were the great threats.
	These were the great dangers.
	So they recast the rise of the Nazi Party as being a rise of nationalism.
	As being a rise of Protestant small-town religion.
	Of being a rise of the Catholic worker.
	Of being the rise of the industrial middle class.
	Of being the rise of the small businessmen.
	And that it was the ideology of ordinary religion and ordinary politics, and even of populism, that was ascribed to how and why Nazi Germany became Nazi Germany.
	There was simply a core problem with that.
	It was a lie.
	It was never true.
	The Nazis were not nationalists.
	Nationalists, by definition, respect national sovereignty.
	The Nazis never respected any form of national sovereignty.
	Indeed, they found the idea of national identity largely ludicrous.
	They believed in a prehistorical Nordic identity based on race and genetics and eugenics in particular as their ideology.
	So they were not nationalist in any meaningful manner.
	In the same vein, they were not really rooted in terms of who voted for Hitler, who voted for the Nazi Party.
	Well, first of all, they didn't arise after the collapse of the Kaiser and after World War I.
	Indeed, the Nazi parties got about two, two and a half percent of the vote throughout the late 19-teens, 1920s, going up until 1929.
	They only rose to power in the depression that was induced by the various wayward politics of central banks around the Western world.
	In part and due to other policies such as the inflation that hit Weimar Germany and other components including the legal policy, the legal precedent, the way in which Hitler was able to seize power so easily in Germany was by declaring effectively emergency powers and relying upon an emergency power exception clause in the Weimar Constitution.
	So legally the way they rose to power was through the emergency power.
	Politically, the way they rose to power was detailed in a book by Richard Hamilton called, Who Voted for Hitler?
	And it detailed how many of the professional class and those within the prosperous parts of the scientific and academic and industrial and military classes backed him.
	The success of the Nazi Party was not due to the small farmer or the ordinary worker.
	The success of the Nazi farmer from a voting perspective was due to the doctor, was due to the medical professional, was due to the academic, was due to the scientist, was due to the intellectual world, was due to the military hierarchs.
	Indeed!
	Later political scholars who escaped Nazi Germany tried to understand it, and they ultimately ascribed it, at least in substantial part, to what they called a dual state.
	The idea of a dual state originated from the late 1900s, in the late early part of the 19th century, late 1800s, by an editor of The Economist, which we now know is still around with us today.
	And he was trying to ascribe how it was that in the United Kingdom, during its rise of empire, that somehow it could be the case that the people could want one thing, and yet the government just continued to operate as if that did not matter.
	How could that be?
	Well, he ascribed it to an administrative state, to a dual state, to a state within a state.
	The German political scientist described the same phenomenon as being key to the rise of Nazi Germany and the Nazis being able to seize power so effortlessly, even though a majority of Germans never voted for Nazi to have power.
	That never happened.
	In fact, almost two-thirds of Germans consistently and continuously rejected the Nazi Party's message and the Nazi Party's electoral candidacies.
	That's why Hitler disbanded elections, ended elections.
	seized power through the emergency powers clause of the Weimar Constitution in its stead and in its place, because he knew he did not have popular support of the broad public.
	But he did have the institutional support of what they called then the dual state, which was later ascribed to being called the deep state, the part of the dual state where you have this administrative state immune from electoral powers, immune from the public that holds key positions of influence in the law enforcement, immune from the public that holds key positions of influence in the law enforcement, intelligence and military infrastructure in
	Indeed, Hitler was placed into the Nazi Party on behalf of a German military general before he was ever even a significant political figure.
	He was put there deliberately and originally, initially, to spy on them.
	Later, becoming part of them and their advocate for them.
	So that was the true risk, the true fear, the true threat from the accurate historical narrative was that Nazi Germany relied upon a deep state operation and emergency powers to be able to seize power politically and legally.
	And that part has been suppressed from our history and our intellectuals and media class.
	In fact, they would probably fail it if they were given a history test.
	Precisely because it tells a very different message than the anti-populist, anti-nationalist message that they would like to spin out of the rise of Nazi Germany.
	The other part, which is critical to understanding Nazi ideology and how they sold and propagated it to their populace, was their obsession with eugenics.
	Their obsession with eugenics was in part based on their belief in a sort of peculiar form of Nordic mythology.
	The Nazis were not rooted in the Catholic tradition.
	They were not rooted in the Protestant tradition.
	Indeed, they were anti-church.
	They wanted to create their own cultish form of religion and replace it often with the instruments of religion itself and the dogma and doctrines of religion, but of their own ideological stripe with their own origin story, their own explanation for purpose, their own method of marriage and other means of physical living.
	And it was deeply integral, not only the sort of backdrop of this occultist belief structure in Nordic mythology, but also critically eugenics.
	Without eugenics, you don't get Nazi Party, you don't get Nazism, you don't get Nazi policies.
	Now, there's a reason why the institutional West has suppressed the rule of eugenics in Nazi ideology, and in Nazi politics, and in Nazi provisions, and in Nazi propaganda, because it shows where the real risk is to us on a go-forward basis, and it exposes how dangerously racist, how dangerous in general, the eugenics ideology and idolatry was.
	Eugenics arose out of social Darwinism.
	And here there's sort of a little side story, a little ancillary component of all of this, is William Jennings Bryan and the famous Scopes trial near my hometown in Cleveland, Tennessee, near my hometown in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
	What people don't know about William Jennings Bryan, the great American populist, ...was that initially he had no problem whatsoever with the theory of medical evolution, as pronounced by Darwin.
	Indeed, he believed it could complement and could be easily integrated within the biblical tradition that he was a deep believer in.
	Evangelical Protestantism did not need to go to war with evolution, at least not at its inception, according to Bryan.
	What changed Bryan was social Darwinism.
	As intellectual elites, as academics, as economically privileged groups of people decided to embrace Darwinism as an explanation for their superiority of resources, their superiority of power, their superiority of privilege in the modern world at that time.
	And they said that the reason why they were successful and the poor and the working class were not was because that was simply the evolution of the survival of the fittest.
	And it was this extraordinarily dangerous notion of social Darwinism that led Brian to want to oppose its teaching of medical biological evolution in the schools because he believed it would inevitably and inescapably leak itself into a political and philosophical doctrine that justified some of the worst ideas in the world.
	William Jennings Bryan was right.
	Clarence Darrow, a lawyer I otherwise have great respect for, was wrong.
	Evolution is being taught, did in fact, and they lead to social Darwinism, which did in fact lead to the ideas of eugenics.
	It was in fact a cousin of the original founder of Darwin, of evolution, a cousin of Darwin that in fact came up with eugenics and started it up.
	And the ideas of eugenics was that some people are superior by genetics to other people.
	And that in fact, for public health reasons, certain people present a risk to our survival.
	Notice the language used, the rhetoric used.
	They had discovered that a way to get a lot of people behind morally horrific ideas was to say it was necessary for your health.
	And if it was necessary for your health, then it was okay to not only force vaccinations on people, but also to force sterilizations on people.
	That ideology naturally led to, in terms of legal precedent, in a sort of trilogy of infamy of Supreme Court cases, starting out with Jacobson that authorized forced vaccinations, that then led to the forced sterilization cases, that then, that the Supreme Court approved, that ultimately led to the Korematsu case, where they just approved targeting people because of their ancestry and depriving them of all of their constitutional rights and liberties.
	Indeed, the only historical analog to what we are experiencing today is what happened to the Japanese American citizens in the 1940s, as featured in the case Korematsu, where the U.S.
	Supreme Court again approved it.
	And why did this happen?
	Well, because from the late 19th century through to the 1940s, the United States Supreme Court, like many of the other intellectual class people around the Western world, were gripped with the ideology, the idolatry of eugenics.
	Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood was sitting centerpiece in this eugenics ideology.
	Indeed, when Nazi Germany was looking for countries they could emulate for forced sterilization laws, they looked to the United States of America.
	When they attributed almost all of their ideas about eugenics, they attributed it to the United States of America.
	That's where they got it from.
	They got it from our intellectual classes, from our academic classes, from our so-called scientific classes, from our so-called medical classes.
	It was the folks, it was the tyranny of the white lab coats.
	That led to this ideology and idolatry of eugenics, and that eugenics sat at the centerpiece, the foundation of what Nazi Germany justified as their policies.
	And people should recognize that what happened in sort of the popular parlance, if you talk to your conventional 30-year-old media journalist, what they think happened in Nazi Germany often is that the populace just hated certain groups of people, They were the ones who put the Nazis in power and as soon as they were in power, they went and found the people they didn't like and put them in camps and killed them.
	That's in fact not what happened.
	The Nazis had to lie to their public and populace to ever get power.
	Then they had to crush and end democracy to keep their power.
	And then they had to push out propaganda, deception.
	This is well documented at the Holocaust Museum.
	The Holocaust Museum goes into all the different means of deception and propaganda that the Nazis had to resort to in order to be able to do what they did.
	It wasn't like one day.
	How did they manage to round up so many people that were either Jewish or gypsies or, in some cases, gay?
	How were they able to do that?
	Well, in terms of the Jewish ancestry component, they had to first know who was of Jewish ancestry.
	That required a massive genetic and ancestry project.
	A relocation project, they would later call it.
	A resettlement project, they would later call it.
	But initially, the pretext was to protect the people's health.
	You could almost call it testing and tracing of its own kind.
	And that's how it started.
	So first they figured out who was who.
	Then they took the second step and they said, you know, we really kind of need to quarantine people who might be dangerous, who might disproportionately carry germs, who might present a health threat to the community.
	We need to do a quarantine.
	And what did they call what became the quarantine?
	The quarantine started out as as ghettos where they isolated people that they wish to ultimately kill.
	And then it led to concentration camps.
	And it was presented as all necessary for the public health.
	They never presented this as would the German public agree to mass murder.
	Because they knew, in fact, the German public, like most people around the world, would not.
	There was no mass approval of the Holocaust.
	The Nazis had to lie about what they were doing to get away with it.
	But how they lied is critical for us to understand what kind of lies we have to look out for in our own lives to avoid any repetition of Nazi Germany policies and politics.
	And what are those lies?
	Those are the lies that, hey, in the name of your public health, we're going to need to isolate some people.
	We're going to need to put some people under house arrest.
	We're going to need to detain them in certain neighborhoods.
	We're going to need to test and trace them and monitor them moving forward.
	We're going to have to suspend our constitutional liberties in this emergency to protect public health.
	Those were the tools and the tactics that Nazi Germany used to get away with seizing power and to get away with the serial murder of six million Jewish people throughout Europe and millions more people of a wide range of ethnicities, ancestries, and either sexual preference or physical condition that was the pretext for what the Nazis did.
	But they got away with it because public health said it was necessary.
	They got away with it because the folks in the white lab coats said it was necessary.
	They got away with it because the media propagandists excused it.
	They got away with it because they allowed things like emergency exceptions to constitutions to even exist.
	They got away with it because people thought quarantines were solely for the purposes of public health, not for a malevolent, malicious political purpose.
	That is why we have to watch out for when the governments start using the same language, trying the same tactics, trying to use the comparable techniques in the same manner, by the same means.
	Those means have a historical evidence of being dangerous.
	It's also why the institutional history, the gatekeeper institutional narrative, to borrow the phrase coined by Eric Weinstein, is of relevant and pertinent significance.
	The reason why they lied in the history books about how the Nazis seized power, how the Nazis got away with the Holocaust, how the Nazis were able to do what they did is because they did not want people on alert for things like, hey, let's use public health emergencies as the basis to suspend the Constitution.
	Let's use a health quarantine law as the basis for mass house arrest.
	Let's use public health as the pretext for the suppression and crushing of our economy that will have impacts around the world.
	They don't want people to be hyper alert to those as red flags, to those as warning signs that something bad is coming down the pipeline from the politicians looking for a pretense and pretext for grabbing power and seizing it for their own political or personal purposes, not for the public health.
	In that same context, we are witnessing today the same employment of comparable tactics, even as the evidence continues to build that science simply does not support the various shutdown tactics and techniques being applied around the world.
	So let's give an example.
	And by the way, I actually got into a discussion and debate on social media today because there was a Vox journalist and some others who are so completely in the dark about the history of the world and the history of Nazi Germany, the role of eugenics, how the public health was used as a pretext under quarantine power and emergency exceptions to get away with both to seize power and to inflict such massive harm on millions and millions of people throughout Europe.
	They're completely unaware of it.
	So there are people telling me they thought it was some sort of a Holocaust denier conspiracy to believe that quarantines had anything to do with the targeting or public health had anything to do with what was happening to the Holocaust and how it came about in the first place.
	That doesn't come from a Holocaust denier world.
	That comes from the Holocaust Museum itself.
	Which I highly recommend.
	It's a fantastic museum.
	It recognizes the horrors of what happened and helps explain how it came about, why it came about, what are some of the means to resist it moving forward.
	But let me just give you one of the pictures from the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia that you can find online.
	And it's a picture to the Warsaw Ghetto.
	And the entrance to the Warsaw Ghetto and it's in Polish and it's in the language there.
	And here's what the sign states.
	This was in order to keep people from knowing what was happening or why what was happening was happening in terms of the mass isolation of the Jewish population in Warsaw after they seized power, the Germans, the Nazis did in Poland.
	And what is the sign state?
	Epidemic quarantine area.
	Only through traffic is permitted.
	Warsaw, Poland, February 1941.
	So this is not some sort of illusion.
	It's not some sort of myth.
	This is the historical reality, maybe suppressed by people who don't want to talk about the dangers of statism, who don't want to talk about the dangers of the white lab coats in a Milgram experiment for the whole world, what would happen, what that would look like.
	But that is the historical reality of what took place.
	It's why we must be constantly cognizant of it.
	And of course, who has a connection to the current pandemic policies and politics?
	And who has a similar historical ideological origin in eugenics?
	Well, that would be the one and only Mr. Bill Gates.
	His father was deeply involved in Planned Parenthood.
	Bill Gates himself, a strong supporter of it.
	Obsessed with overpopulation, much the same way the eugenicists were and Margaret Sanger was.
	Well, right now Bill Gates has been busy praising China.
	He attacked the United States.
	China did a lot of things right in terms of dealing with the pandemic.
	He defended China on CNN, said blaming China was somehow a distraction.
	And in the same vein, he wrote his own little note, his own little pandemic publication at the Gates Foundation that you can find, where basically he's calling for continuous shutdowns until his vaccine is available for you.
	Go back and just look at what happened in 1976 with the swine flu to see whether that's a good idea.
	Meanwhile, the actual underlying data, as discussed in a Medium article that was originally censored and now is back up, shows that indeed, if you look at all of the relevant pertinent information, not only were the models completely wrong and in error and had no basis for it, if you look at a death per million after 21 days from one death per milestone, as they look into the data, there is quote, and here's a key fact,
	There is very little correlation between the speed of shutdown and total death after 21 days.
	Indeed, in fact, there is a slight negative correlation.
	Now, what does that mean?
	Why is that significant?
	Well, in order for someone to die of the COVID-19 infection, on average, they need to have had it for at least 21 days before they die.
	So you need to know the date of death, and you need to know the date of a shutdown to know whether the shutdown could have had any effect on that person getting infected in the first place.
	In other words, a mitigation tactic taken 10 days before someone died could have had no impact on that person getting infected in the first place.
	So the only thing that could have impacted it is if it was more than 21 days prior to them being infected.
	That's that critical time period in assessing the evidence.
	It's critical context that of course the media and the press are completely ignoring.
	The media and the press are only reporting total numbers.
	They've been reporting, as soon as the total numbers had any decent amount, that's all they talk about.
	When there were no big numbers, they talked about exponential growth rate.
	Once, in fact, it turns out that there were actual numbers to look at, then they only talked about the actual numbers once those numbers were big, ignoring the entire context for it.
	So every day, the Boston, almost every publication, I'm on the email list of a whole bunch of them across the nation, the first email note I get or message I get is, breaking news, more people died, and they give you the whole total number that died.
	They don't tell you what age they were.
	They don't tell you whether they died with other comorbid conditions.
	They don't tell you whether it was a nursing home related death.
	They don't tell you whether it was an indoors or outdoors death.
	They don't tell you how the death compares to deaths in the community in general during the same time frame and past years on average.
	They don't tell you any of the relevant pertinent information.
	And most significantly, they don't tell you death that could have been impacted by the shutdown policies the politicians are pursued.
	The very information you need to be able to assess the efficacy of the policy solution, at least in terms of measurement as to the virus.
	There are other key metrics to measure the shutdown policies.
	That includes what's happening in the economy.
	That includes what's happening with civil liberties.
	That includes the global hunger epidemic that we're going to really start to experience if we don't fix things fast.
	And it also includes the medical impact on people unable to get access to medical care, either due to the corollary of the economic collapse or due to the suppression of elective procedures and medical care over the past month and a month and a half.
	Even putting that aside, just looking at whether it works for what it claims to work for, being able to radically reduce the amount and number of death.
	In order to do that, you need to look at the speed of the shutdown.
	So, for example, if Florida didn't shut down until April, then you would start to measure its shutdown effectiveness more than 21 days later.
	How much did it end the same with compared to say Nordic countries that shut down in early March versus Sweden that never shut down versus New York that shut down in mid-March versus other states that shut down in late March versus states that haven't shut down at all?
	So what this individual did is he went and compared the mortality rate data as related to what happens 21 days after the mitigation tactic went in.
	How much does the rate of growth, because that's the relevant measurement because you're going to have different population sizes in different places, you're going to have different population centers for the epidemic.
	So for example, comparing what would happen in New York City more than 21 days after they shut down.
	To say what was happening in South Dakota more than 21 days after they shut down without regard to population size, without regard to the fact that New York City had a much bigger initial epidemic than did South Dakota, would be unfair to New York City.
	But that's precisely what the media is doing in the opposite direction.
	So for example, they're constantly comparing and today both the Washington Post and Financial Times put out very misleading data that, by the way, they completely misinterpreted.
	It turns out based on one of the people who's been on this show that you're introduced to, Justin Hart, they basically got the data wrong.
	They misdid the numbers.
	They didn't know how to correctly calculate the numbers.
	And then they fed a huge lie to the world using the big platforms of the Financial Times, the Washington Post, and a lot of big media members, social media presence to mislead the world about what's happening.
	But aside from that, a critical component that's mistaken in it is what they do is they like to compare Sweden to the other Nordic countries, not compare Sweden, say, to the United Kingdom, Sweden to Michigan, other more analogous contexts in terms of size of population and epicenter of epidemic and urban density, but they want to compare Sweden to the other Nordic countries.
	The second thing they do is they deliberately not talk about the fact that there was simply a bigger epidemic Per population size in Sweden from the get-go, because of Stockholm being a major international tourist location in ways that frankly no place in Denmark or Finland or Estonia is, Sweden had a bigger outbreak from the beginning.
	So this meant that Sweden was going to have constant problems or bigger problems no matter what.
	And then of course Sweden is much bigger than Finland and Denmark and Estonia as well in Norway.
	Once you adjust for their population size, and you adjust for when countries shut down and when that could actually impact the mortality rate, what the data actually shows is that Sweden's rate of growth is no different, even though they've refused to shut down, than Norway and Finland and Denmark and Estonia.
	That's what this person found for all the countries across the country and for all the different states within the United States.
	That's why he said, quote, there is very little correlation between speed of shutdown, and it was when the country shut down, or when a state shut down, or when a city shut down, should have a correlation to know how well it worked.
	You want to look at, okay, when did it shut down?
	Let's look at 21 days afterwards.
	Let's look at the rate of growth in that community compared to other places that had not yet shut down or compared to even that community in terms of rate of growth.
	And what he found is there is very little correlation.
	In fact, it's a negative correlation.
	In other words, places that shut down experienced worse rates of growth of death than did places that never shut down at all.
	That was simply not supposed to happen.
	In other words, ignoring the fact of all the collateral harm that this shutdown imposes economically.
	All the collateral harm it shuts down on our quality of life and our civil liberties.
	All of the harm it causes on our psychological well-being.
	All the harm it causes and increase certain kinds of crime, domestic violence, child abuse, locking up victims with their abusers, maybe not a good idea, while unlocking the jail cells to criminals who then go out and commit crime.
	Putting all of that aside, putting aside the number of people who are going to have excess deaths and die because they did not have access to cancer treatment or hospital or health care for things like their heart or appendicitis or serious things like that.
	Putting all that aside.
	Ignoring the negatives that are from these policies.
	These policies failed to achieve their own objective on their face.
	They achieved no positive benefit period.
	They didn't save anybody.
	So when you come back, we're going to talk with Daniel Horowitz and discuss this in greater detail, editor of Conservative Review and a major podcast.
	So come back and join us as we talk with him.
	And also go to our sponsor while you still can at InfoWarsStore.com, where you can stay prepared and be prepared and were prepared by buying either things like storable food or supplements that are good for your health.
	So come back and join us after the break on American Countdown.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	Uh, In this half hour, in the bottom half of the hour, we're going to be talking with Daniel Horowitz.
	You can find him at conservativereview.com.
	He has a great podcast that I was on earlier this year.
	You can find him on Twitter at rmconservative about the policies and politics concerning these shutdown issues.
	He was one of the true conservatives on the issue initially, right at the outset.
	That we shouldn't be shutting down and suppressing our civil liberties and our constitutional rights for the purposes of dubious data that did not have evidentiary or empirical backing, least of all something that should be worth forfeiting two centuries of well-earned constitutional liberty.
	So, Daniel, glad you could be with us.
	Hey, it's great to be with you now that there's more than enough of us to fit in a phone booth.
	Exactly.
	It's been a little bit shocking to me.
	There are two aspects that are shocking.
	One is that this is this even happened.
	Every time I wake up, I find it surreal.
	It's a dystopian novel.
	It's a as a federal judge actually described it in Kentucky a few weeks back.
	It's something it's a nightmare scenario that no one imagined or envisioned even possible.
	But what was co-equally unsettling, not entirely shocking given the world we live in these days politically, and from my experience at Yale and other places, there's a part of me that's not surprised, but there's still a part of me that is, that particularly people that claim constitutional conservative as their label, We're so late to recognize the issue and half of them still are completely oblivious to what is taking place and transpiring.
	It's a reminder that the so-called true constitutional conservatives are neither very constitutional nor conservative in their approach when real crisis hits.
	Robert, to me, the most shocking thing is that, you know, imagine having a football season where everyone's talking trash, talking big before the game, and then you get to the Super Bowl and there's nobody on the field.
	I mean, these are the times that try men's souls.
	I mean, this is what we are made of.
	This is why anyone who yaps their mouth like you and I for a living.
	Well, I mean, this is when your mouth better be wide open.
	Here's the thing.
	On the spectrum of conservatism, I was always called the fascist.
	In other words, I always felt that there was a strong public interest in law and order being tough on crime, tough on borders, sovereignty, regulated immigration.
	Oh no, Daniel, liberty, liberty, liberty.
	Everything's a lawsuit.
	You look at an illegal alien the wrong way.
	I mean, the burritos aren't cooked well enough in the ICE facilities.
	There's a lawsuit.
	They get standing and they actually win.
	Yet, when it came to this, when it was like, dude, now, hey, you and the Cato Institute and I could all be friends.
	Suddenly, they were out to lunch.
	I couldn't believe it.
	Some of them were even making fun out of me when it came to real liberty.
	I mean, you know this in the legal business.
	Everything's a 14th Amendment violation, except it's not.
	Like, everything's in there.
	A horse and a donkey marriage.
	I mean, 10 weeks of early voting.
	Whatever you want is in that 14th Amendment.
	Well, now we come to the bare-bones life, liberty, and property.
	As you well know, Blackstone explained personal liberty, the power of locomotion, of changing situation, removing one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.
	This was codified in all the state declarations of rights.
	First recognized, by the way, my home state of Maryland, 1638, really the first state to recognize unalienable natural rights.
	It was always understood a state could never do that.
	The founders, like Madison, didn't even want a Bill of Rights, you know, because it was just so obvious.
	Nonetheless, it was there, Article 4, Section 2, the privileges and immunities.
	Albeit there was no mechanism for the federal government to really enforce it against them.
	In comes the 14th Amendment.
	Doesn't create anything new, as James F. Wilson, a congressman from Iowa, not to be mixed up with the founder, but this is in the 1860s, one of the primary drafters of the Equal Protection Due Process Clause, he said, there is no new principle, we're establishing no new rights, this is merely codifying, you know, the bare bones, life, liberty, and property that was always there, and through the Privileges and Immunities Clause, enforcing it against
	The states.
	Now suddenly everyone's gun shy.
	I mean, where are the lawsuits?
	This is what shocks me.
	I have to pinch myself.
	Like, is this real?
	I mean, this is the thing.
	Where are the troops?
	Where are the lawsuits?
	Where's this whole cottage industry?
	I don't know.
	Do you have an answer?
	It's extraordinary.
	It strikes me as there's two different things going on.
	One is that it shows the degree to which the intellectual and ideological origin of a lot of current legal thought, including on the right, including on the purported libertarian right, Like, for me, the issue of immigration was always one of law and little d democracy.
	So it's like, okay, someone believes that we should have more people here, that there's humanitarian reasons to bring more people here.
	I get that.
	That's a political argument.
	That's a policy argument.
	But we either have a law or we don't.
	And we either have a democratic means of deciding our laws or we don't.
	And it can't be well- And you either have an affirmative right to immigrate or you don't, which clearly you don't.
	Yeah, I mean, that's the thing.
	What's in the Constitution, they take out.
	What's out, they put in.
	Exactly.
	And they sort of down deep what it exposed to me is how much of the conservative scholastic class, particularly in the legal arena, down deep are deferential to power more than they are respectful of law.
	And it often, to a certain degree, it explains what I thought of as deviant thought at times.
	And it was those conservative, constitutional conservatives, who had no problem with limitless immigration, even when the law said otherwise.
	Now, it turns around, they have no problem whatsoever with limitless governors.
	Even when the law says otherwise.
	Limitless mayors, even when the law says otherwise.
	And what has been revelatory is what unites those threads is deference to certain forms of authority.
	Whether it's corporate authority, political authority, economic authority, cultural authority.
	It explains also why there's such wusses when it comes to the culture wars.
	Why they get so neo-nervous whenever Trump said something that wasn't polite.
	It's that routine.
	They have no backbone.
	They have no spine.
	They're not going to be on the front of the wall.
	They're going to be running out of the back of the gate as soon as they can when the pressure comes.
	And it shows how unreliable and untrustworthy they are.
	To borrow from, to steal from Taleb, who I think has got a lot wrong in this particular issue, but in a broader context, these people are fragile rather than anti-fragile.
	They're not well equipped to handle any meaningful crisis of constitutional law or public policy in the country.
	And they've exposed themselves at broad scale in the ways they have handled this.
	It's not a surprise to me that the left that has embraced statism like the 1930s, we don't have a 1960s left.
	I'll occasionally run into them as old judges that are still on the bench, that still care about old school civil liberties and civil rights.
	But outside of those judges, the new judges that are under 65, the new legal professionals on the left, the ACLU is sitting in the middle of the greatest constitutional crisis civil liberties lost in the history of the country, and they have not filed one suit on behalf of ordinary people.
	They filed suit on behalf of ICE detainees.
	They filed suit on behalf of inmates.
	They filed suit on behalf of abortion doctors.
	But they have not filed a suit on behalf of an ordinary everyday person anywhere in the country with the most precedent-setting destruction of civil liberties we've ever witnessed.
	You got it.
	The Triple Crown.
	It's abortion clinics, criminals, and illegal aliens are the only people with access to the courts from the puppet masters, the masters of the universe.
	A broken clock is right twice, but they're never right.
	It used to be right twice, the ACLU, but that's the thing.
	It's become, and I really think that social media has done this to people.
	It's worn down a lot of people on our side, so to speak.
	Where the lynch mob comes in and defines morality.
	I am a good person.
	I want to be a good person.
	Well, I don't want to not be a good person.
	So they define being a good person as being for the criminal.
	So that's when all these pseudo-conservative libertarians get to show off their 4th Amendment bona fides.
	Yeah, see, this is where we have to be intellectually honest, even if we don't like the result.
	I mean, for years I've heard, you can't do anything to a criminal or a terrorist.
	It's spying.
	Everything violates their 4th Amendment.
	A lot of libertarians have done to the 4th Amendment what the left has done to the 14th.
	And yet now when it's the Super Bowl, like, I mean, you know, you have the right to be secure in their house and now they're flipping on its head, we have the right to secure you in your house.
	San Mateo County, you can't travel outside five miles.
	I mean, this is the Blackstone definition of liberty locomotion where, you know, I don't have a right to affirmative positive privileges.
	I don't have the right to Medicaid.
	I don't have the right to even voting.
	Jacob Howard, the key crafter of the 14th Amendment, said it's still the result of positive law.
	It's close to an unalienable right, but it's not something that, you know, you can't live without.
	But the right to earn a living in some way and the right to have free, unrestricted movement within your state, between the states, I mean, that is as bare minimum as it gets.
	And I'll tell you, Robert, You know, not to knock our founders, but King George was nothing.
	I mean, intolerable acts weren't very intolerable.
	The Stamp Act was nothing.
	They never did anything like this.
	They were really a lot freer than we are even before this whole crisis.
	And I'm still really shocked at how slow it is, because it's not like the courts have shut down completely.
	As we are talking and going through this, we have unprecedented lawsuits Letting out 25% of some prisons.
	We had a case that dealt with this woman from Washington State.
	Her mother was killed by this guy who also killed five other people, including a state trooper.
	And they were going to let him out and 12,000 others.
	The Supreme Court, at the end of the day, sided against that Colombian legal group, whatever it is, five to four.
	I mean, it was one vote off.
	And we're certainly seeing it with the ICE facilities.
	It is literally shocking how the courts are God.
	I mean, literally, estates are nothing.
	A state wants to have photo ID?
	Nothing.
	The federal courts could come in and no one's like, hey, get off my lawn, 10th Amendment.
	I never hear that.
	Never hear it.
	Then suddenly, when it comes to the one thing that they can do, and that the federal government was unambiguously empowered in 1867 to enforce, and by the way, it's not the federal courts, it's really Congress, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
	Hey, get off my lawn!
	You have no right!
	Oh, and give me 500 billion dollars, too.
	I mean, this is what bothers me.
	People don't know their rights.
	They don't know that this is illegitimate.
	And what bothers me, Robert, is that I think we're getting momentum and I think once you have Texas, Florida, a lot of the southern states, people taste freedom because of everything going on in the supply chain.
	They're going to have to open it up even in the blue states, whether it's in a week or three or four.
	But my concern is in the long run.
	We really need to find a way to stuff this back in the bottle.
	I don't know how we do it.
	But I mean, I think that's something we need to work on.
	I mean, no doubt about it.
	I mean, who would imagine a couple of months ago, if you were a conservative in America, you would say, thank God for Sweden.
	But the truth of the matter is, but for Sweden.
	I mean, it's like the, someone was asking me the other day, it was actually the editor of RT, of all places, was saying, what is it in the United States that it's sort of the people on the populist right that are resisting all of these deprivations of civil liberties?
	Because he perceived from Russia that that would, shouldn't that come from your American left?
	Why is your American left completely actually celebrating this?
	In fact, instead you have the left mad when, the left is now mad when people go out and protest about the loss of their rights.
	I mean, this is something I could have never witnessed.
	And you're right, but for Sweden taking an exception, which allowed the rest of the world to see, oh, the world isn't going to fall apart if we stay open.
	That in turn allowed Texas and Alabama and Georgia and Tennessee to take action.
	And that, you're right, I think is going to set aside, is going to put into motion cascading dominoes that will bring massive political pressure on the rest of the states.
	The other factor is the media was not able to completely control the narrative.
	I mean, I'm still shocked when I talk to people who don't recognize, like, there's still people who believe that a lot of hospitals went over capacity or are, which is stunning to me.
	There's still people who believe the mortality risk to this for people under 60 that are healthy is 10 times the flu.
	There are still people who believe that children are at risk.
	The Washington Post did a bogus article today that made it look like children were at risk.
	You had to dig into the data to find out, oh no, the children still weren't at risk.
	But for a few dissident independent voices, a few iconoclastic voices in the American social media sphere, and a few independent lawyers taking legal action, What's fascinating is as soon as some lawsuits started happening, so Harmeet Dhillon and some friends of mine started filing suit in California, I filed suit in Tennessee and Michigan, other lawyers filed suits using our legal theories in Pennsylvania and other locations, and right away we started to see some politicians start to fold.
	Mayor Mytown just suddenly reversed his position on drive-in church services.
	The Californian, and Newsom of all people, who has no problems declaring himself the new Prince and King of California.
	These monarchial edicts, which is, and what you're saying is exactly right.
	The ideas behind this are monarchial kind of ideas.
	The idea is that the executive, just because they're the executive, can declare whatever they want and suspend whatever liberty they want.
	And disband any legal remedy they want.
	And can reinterpret the Constitution for their own to mean, it means whatever I say it means, kind of logic.
	It means whatever is useful for me.
	If tomorrow I need $500 million to bail out my underfunded pension fund over the past 10 years, then somehow that's what the Constitution compels.
	On the other hand, if it means I want to keep a shutdown going and a power grab going and don't want Trump interfering, then all of a sudden the Tenth Amendment is back in play.
	Uh, the, you know, the government's supposed to stay out of it if I want to declare local government a sanctuary city and allow criminals to run free in the streets without federal law enforcement.
	Uh, but on the other hand, if I, if I need more ventilators, you're supposed to make sure you get them and send the ship up tomorrow, even when it turns out I had a hundred times more ventilators than I actually needed.
	These contradictions are extraordinary.
	And it goes to what you're saying.
	It's the second level danger here.
	The first dangerous is just setting this precedent at all.
	That this could ever happen.
	But the second one is allowing this almost Humpty Dumpty definition of the Constitution.
	That it is whatever I say it is.
	It is whatever suits me.
	It is whatever serves me.
	That in the end our government just becomes a lot of great constitutions in the world.
	Great constitution in Mexico.
	Great constitution in parts of Russia.
	Great constitution in China even.
	It just doesn't mean anything, because they say in Latin America, Constitution made of paper, blade made of steel.
	We can't allow that to happen in America, and we will if we don't fight this on a go-forward basis, regardless of what happens with the shutdown itself.
	I mean, look, my home state, Maryland, is called the free state.
	And you wouldn't know it.
	You wouldn't know it that it has probably the best declaration of rights in America, I think.
	I mean, 47 articles, everyone should read it.
	It's just what I think is the most beautiful expression of natural rights.
	And I am just, I am still floored And that's why it's so important, even if you feel powerless, to at least rhetorically delegitimize it.
	No, no, no.
	You cannot do that.
	No, that is not the law.
	That is your usurpation of law.
	We'll deal with it when we're empowered to deal with it.
	But what we cannot do is legitimize it because the thing is they're going to keep suspending the Constitution to deal with the fallout of what they did.
	And then also, you basically alluded to what I've been talking about a lot, which is a term I've dubbed anarcho-tyranny.
	The worst, kind of lowest common denominator of anarchy and tyranny.
	See, at least if we're going to become like China, at least let's be like China with borders and criminals.
	No!
	So we're like, Norway with criminals, but then we're like China with the American people now.
	So we're literally at a situation where people saw that just chilling video of that concealed carry permit holder in Colorado, manhandled by the police for protesting, but all these localities have massive lists of gun felons they're releasing from prison.
	It's shocking.
	So you could be a, you know, same thing, you know, You want to be a doctor and prescribe pain medication?
	You're a criminal.
	But then, you're a drug trafficker?
	You're let go.
	That's what we're seeing.
	A sanctuary.
	I've dealt with this a lot.
	We have illegal aliens, the worst gang members.
	SINARUS13, MS13, they go and take sanctuary in a church.
	Well, you can't touch them.
	But you and I can't get sanctuary in a church now.
	Sanctuary cities!
	You know, Governor Jay Inslee of Washington State is one of the biggest sanctuaries around.
	I mean, Washington is like a cesspool for gangs and sex offenders.
	I've never seen more illegal alien sex offenders than in Washington State.
	Just totally a sanctuary for that.
	Yeah, now he's ticked off at sheriffs who want to be a sanctuary for Americans.
	And again, we're not inconsistent.
	Oh, like you like sanctuaries?
	No, no, no.
	There's three relationships in the Constitution.
	There's the individual, there's the state, and there's the feds.
	Each one has its proper role.
	Madison talks about in Federalist 42 why the feds had control over immigration because they didn't want some states Juicing up their representation by bringing in, quote, obnoxious aliens.
	They talked about that as one of the primary defects with the Articles of Confederation, along with the, you know, the commerce, the interstate commerce problem.
	And suddenly, then, we're back to the Articles of Confederation.
	Suddenly, when it comes to, you know, infringing upon American liberties, we're back to the Articles of Confederation.
	But if you're a state and wants to say, hey, I'm having two Sundays of early voting instead of five Sundays of early voting, a federal judge could just shut you down.
	I mean, It is.
	You could not have conjured up more of an unjust system.
	And I just think the punchline is it's important for your viewers to understand what we have today from the federal level and in most states is an unjust and illegitimate government.
	It does not, its power does not reside from the consent of the government.
	Exactly, because what we have, what we're supposed to have, is ordered liberty, rooted in a constitutional republic, governed under sort of a kind of contractual theory between the public and the populace, between the governed and those governing.
	And if that is not abided by, then there is no authority for the action taking place.
	And what we have is we have enforcement of constitutional rights for illegal immigrants.
	Enforcement and including, in some cases, rights that were not intended for non-citizens at all.
	Including, I mean, if we go back to like Trump v. Hawaii, the argument was that an imam has a right to invite his grandmother over, a constitutional right.
	And one non-citizen has a right to invite another non-citizen on foreign soil, constitutionally into the United States.
	But right now, if you're in Michigan, you can't go visit your grandmother.
	If you're an actual citizen.
	These same state attorneys general filed suit in Michigan and a lot of these states.
	You're exactly right.
	So we're told that the president is denuded from his power to govern foreign commerce as well as foreign affairs.
	I mean, we're practically at war with Iran and have been For a number of years and yet you're telling me an Iranian national has an affirmative right to come here or someone to get standing to sue on his behalf or a third party organization could say, hey, I need more revenue to resettle people.
	So, you know, I have a zone of interest in bringing people in and they get standing.
	And yet now, I mean, there is literally nothing they can do.
	There is nothing they can do.
	And what I am really terrified about is the surveillance state.
	I mean, the stuff they put in that Cures Act with the medical surveillance, it was already very severe after the whole opioid stuff.
	But it is really bad now.
	The phones, the drones we're now seeing, Chinese-made drones that are compromised according to our own DHS.
	I'm gonna flip it back on you, Robert.
	I mean, Where are the troops?
	Or are they coming?
	It's been extraordinary.
	I've witnessed it over the years because I've described to people that the way in which, even though my politics has sort of been populist politics all the way back, has had certain conservative inclinations all the way back in the sort of old definition of conservatism.
	I did not originally seek To do politically active litigation and representation because as an economic matter, generally speaking, civil rights suits, I lose money doing those suits.
	So I had no political interest in pursuing them, no personal interest in pursuing them necessarily.
	I started pursuing them out of necessity.
	Because nobody was protecting these core rights and liberties because our legal professional class has become captured and monopolized.
	It's what Eric Weinstein I think describes, except he's describing it in Science and Academia with Peter Thiel, I think it's much broader and it goes throughout the entire legal academy too.
	Which is that there's been this corrosive culture of conformism.
	That has effectively gutted the real intellectual meaning of our constitutional liberties and protections.
	The whole way we're supposed to govern.
	Not only in terms of the outcomes and the results, but the methods.
	The methods that are supposed to be utilized.
	Methods of legal analysis by a court.
	Methods of analysis by a governor or mayor before they do something extraordinary or extreme.
	Like deprive anyone of any core constitutional liberty or protection.
	Particularly their own citizen.
	Things like, if they simply see in almost like a Foucault-like way, they see the Constitution as just a means of power.
	How can I reinterpret it so that I can do what I want to do?
	The old Humpty Dumpty, a word is what I say it is.
	So it no longer has objective meaning.
	It's purely subjective.
	And they do have a system.
	It is pretty consistent.
	And, you know, it started with, Thurgood Marshall talked about it all the time.
	This is what they did to the 14th Amendment, and I think there's a lot of profundity in the technicality of them using the due process and equal protection clauses to do their stuff while as Clarence Thomas always complains about ignoring the privileges and immunities clause one because to them it's no longer about baseline universal you know long-standing natural god-given rights for everyone it's about class Precisely.
	It's about power instead of law.
	So as long as as long as everyone is equally suffering under, you know, under tyranny, that's OK, because we didn't hurt any particular class's feelings.
	Precisely.
	It's about power instead of law, power instead of principle.
	When we get back, we'll have one last question for David about what the president should do, what he thinks the president will do and what we almost do to preserve liberty moving forward.
	The British are coming, the British are coming.
	You are about to be part-time on the great debate.
	And one moral prayer.
	America first.
	And not what the country is.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	We're talking with Daniel Horowitz.
	We'll have one last question for him on what the president should do, what he thinks the president will do, and what all of us can do in terms of making sure this does not happen again or gets any worse moving forward.
	You can follow Daniel Horowitz, you can go to conservativereview.com, find a lot of his commentary, often has legal commentary, political commentary, policy commentary, and was one of the very few people that was on top of the risks these shutdowns pose to our legal rights now and our legal precedents moving forward in the country.
	He has a podcast, CR Podcast, you can find him on Twitter at rmconservative.
	And excellent follow, good intel, good information, good insight, good understanding of the law.
	And what used to be, you know, the old legal academy of believers in that, you know, so if you went to an old school library, law library, you got those old legal books and treatises.
	That's the school of thought that Daniel comes from, that unfortunately is being dangerously and perilously abandoned, both in our legal academy and political corridors of power.
	And we need to restore it.
	Because often the method is as good, the mode is as often as good as dictating and determining the results.
	That when we have people who no longer care about the way in which we're supposed to approach the law, to approach it with respect, to approach it with a certain degree of reverence in terms of our history and past, because that respects our history, it also respects our little d democracy in the way governing is supposed to happen.
	Unlike here, where we have the dear governor of Michigan, the legislature even tells her she can't be doing what she's doing, and she decides to do it anyway.
	And you might be dangerous out there in Michigan.
	You might want to buy some seeds for your garden, or even more dangerous, you might want to buy an American flag.
	And that, of course, is banned in the beloved state of Michigan.
	One of the people that I'm suing, and I'm looking at suing people all across the country.
	I think you're right, Daniel, there needs to be major legal There needs to be a call to arms of a legal militia to take to the courts to enforce our rights on a mass scale.
	I'm trying to organize that across the country, and a lot of people have lawyers that have answered the call.
	They don't have the particular skill set to do this area of law, so I'm going to need to be this sort of laboring oar on it, but that's fine.
	But we're going to bring suits almost everywhere we can, and in places like New Jersey, places like Maryland, places like Michigan, where we've already brought suits, places like Wisconsin, where the governor's decided to go nuts, places like California, all over California.
	I mean, the mayor of LA is The question was how often to sue him and how frequently to sue him.
	But one of my clients is the guy who just got arrested.
	He was on CBS for simply went out surfing, came back, was just exercising his rights to be on the beach and they arrested him for it.
	We saw with a video and you referenced the person in Denver, Colorado just walking down the street.
	He wasn't doing anything.
	He had a concealed carry permit.
	And they freaked out because he's on the street and has a gun.
	I mean, this is the logic that's being pursued.
	You know, he could have been more dangerous.
	He could have been playing t-ball with his daughter.
	It could have been the mother in Idaho wanting to take her kid to the park and just so they could swing.
	And what's fascinating is how completely empirically unrooted this is, unmoored this is.
	Because in the legal analysis we're supposed to have for all of these politicians, and I don't think a single one of them went through it, Uh, was, okay, what's our compelling public interest to justify this?
	Okay, we want to limit the number of deaths.
	Okay, well, we have to apply that across the board.
	There's every policy we look at.
	It can't be just how many lives do we think we'll save from reducing the infection spread.
	It's also got to be how many lives might we cost by the way in which we're imposing this particular remedy.
	Uh, and then, and it was supposed to be narrowly tailored to meet that interest.
	And what's shocking to me is, even the, you know, the White House, from our federal public health authorities, this last week, recognized that being, recognized what all of us were talking about the data saying for forever, history saying for forever, which is that being outside in the sunshine, heat and humidity is a low likely transmission point for this virus.
	They come out and say, basically, there's no risk.
	In fact, one epidemiologist put it this way, said, look, if I was to tell you to be a certain place to avoid getting this virus, I would tell you go to the beach.
	Due to the wind, due to the sunlight, due to the natural disinfectant of sunlight, due to the natural disinfectant of heat, due to the natural disinfectant of humidity.
	Um, that almost every flu-like virus has always struggled to spread.
	All of the data kept saying that.
	Medical literature and study of this virus, one report after report after report.
	Indoor transmission was the risk.
	We see that when it involves prisoners.
	Involves prisoners, they're like, oh geez, we can't leave prisoners in a shelter-in-place order.
	They'll get the infection.
	There might be some risk.
	But everybody else, we can force you to be in a shelter-in-place order if you actually have made the mistake of not committing a serious crime in your life.
	You can be locked into your home.
	So, given the absurdities of all this, what do you think the president should do?
	What do you think the president can do?
	And what do you think people out there, you know, other than civil disobedience, which I think increasingly is often the only remedy some people have, who knew that in modern day America, civil disobedience is, by golly, I'm going to go to the beach today.
	Or I'm just going to open my restaurant and serve people food.
	This is now radical civil disobedience in America.
	But what do you think the president can, should do?
	And what do you think ordinary people can and should do moving forward?
	The president, number one, is stay consistent.
	And I know that might sound a little bit trite, but I mean, this has been a problem.
	I mean, he's one day on, one day off.
	I'm not sure if that's a reflection of whoever is in his year or less.
	But, you know, he needs to be as ferocious In terms of defending liberty and defending the proper science here and defending the proper strategy of demonstrating that we are killing people, killing the medical profession, killing jobs and lives, obviously the mental health costs, transplant patients, cancer patients, heart and stroke patients.
	And yes, we're going to kill more coronavirus patients and the elderly because we are forestalling herd immunity.
	The other side is agreeing to this.
	I mean, again, everyone agrees you need herd immunity.
	It was just, look, we got to make sure we don't have an initial surge.
	Fine.
	It didn't happen.
	Well, it's because of what we did.
	Not true, but fine.
	We're eight weeks past that.
	I mean, and that's the point.
	I want to make kind of the bridge.
	We talked about the legal side.
	Let's bridge it to the scientific side, the data side on the virus.
	Part of why they are so wrong Legally, is because they're so wrong scientifically.
	You and I were talking about this a couple weeks ago.
	You try to look at the case law.
	Well, is there any precedent for, you know, such powers for a governor, a county garbage collector, to suddenly become king and suspend indefinitely, this severely, this full of array of fundamental rights, life, liberty, and property, earning a living for, you know, the entire state.
	And the reason why the answer is no is because it's screwy.
	Because scientifically, it doesn't exist.
	Because it's insane.
	It's counterintuitive to a strategy of quarantine.
	The definition of quarantine is isolating an infected or vulnerable population from quote, the general population.
	But if you lock down the general population, there's no quarantine.
	So if you look at all the case law, You know, aside from the fact that, you know, uh, what is it, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1904, you know, it can't be arbitrary, unreasonable, it can't, um...
	You know, result in absurd outcomes.
	That's obvious.
	But what even the it is in individual quarantine, it almost always uses an individual verbiage.
	Very interesting.
	They're talking about one person often or sometimes once in a while as a group of people, sometimes particularly immigrants landing on a ship or as an area.
	And it's still that way, even in the disaster statutes.
	Now, obviously, a disaster statute could be crap and it could violate the Constitution.
	But even if it doesn't, in my state of Maryland, the operating statutes are mainly dealing with floods.
	Floods, natural disasters.
	We've got to evacuate this area.
	You know, we might have to set up a command center here.
	Hey, you've got to take your house.
	Fifth Amendment, obviously, at a federal level.
	Bill of Rights, taking clause.
	We're going to put you up in a hotel, compensate you.
	But the notion that you could just suspend.
	This is closed.
	This is closed.
	This, until further notice, there is no such power.
	And the reason is, Because no genius ever existed until two months ago to think of the notion that you're going to destroy everyone's immune system, like in the Bubble Baby movie, and just lock everyone up.
	No one ever thought that was a good idea.
	Nobody.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	I mean, you might do that if you're screwed with Something that is this contagious and it's like the fatality rate of Ebola, but thank God, God hasn't created anything like that.
	But if you have something that is a 0.1% fatality for most people, and really under 18 when you're talking about K-12 school children, it's well under that.
	It's a decimal point under that because the New York antibody test didn't even test anyone under that.
	Nobody ever thought of this, Robert.
	That's the issue.
	So that's why you'll never find a precedent.
	The best I was able to find, where is this?
	It was in the 1850s, it was this New York State Court, the people versus Peter W. Roth, where they talk about a quarantine law can't be a sentence put on all persons, well or sick, whether exposed to infection or not, to an unlimited imprisonment.
	And I think You know, getting back to the President, he has three tools.
	Executive action, the bully pulpit, and the veto pen.
	And the three mix very well.
	And, you know, look, I haven't been a Trump bootlegger.
	You know, I appreciate his instincts.
	We prod him to do what's right.
	We cheer him on when he does what's right.
	But he gets lost sometimes, and he has problematic staff.
	And one of my biggest criticisms of him for three and a half years is that You know, for all this talk that Trump's a dictator, this guy wouldn't know how to be a dictator if he tried.
	He can't even find his veto pen.
	The president needs to prospectively call his shot on the next piece of legislation.
	He should have done this five times over.
	Here are my red lines.
	Not in the 11th hour, but three weeks before, I will veto a bill that has more funding for the states unless there is a commensurate Reduction in the powers, the illegitimately gotten powers of governors to implement this.
	You put time restrictions, you put situational restrictions on them.
	This is literally Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, the way the crafters envisioned it.
	That's what you need.
	He needs to say never again, you're not doing this.
	Otherwise, you break it, you own it.
	That's the lynchpin.
	Here's the deal.
	The states are worthless.
	They don't have any money.
	They don't have the federal printing press.
	My governor, Lockdown Larry, he's a big shot.
	Yeah!
	You know, I'm really, I'm smart and the media loves him.
	Look, I don't blame him.
	There's no incentive for him to do anything different.
	Because he could destroy everything and then, you know, there's so much federal funding now, they have in my county middle-income people giving free three meals a day at different locations.
	That's how much money they have.
	So that spigot needs to be cut off.
	He cuts off the funding.
	The game is over.
	Obviously, executive actions.
	DOJ, Attorney General Barr needs to be serious, not just in rhetoric about going after the Michigan governor, the California governor, the ones that are particularly bad.
	They need to take some scalps.
	And he needs to threaten federal action.
	I mean, I'm sick of hearing that the federal government doesn't have a role to play.
	I mean, look, segregation was abhorrent, but the degree of a right to attend school in a mixed setting.
	Is not quite the same thing as not being under home arrest.
	I mean, it's terrible.
	Plessy v. Ferguson was terrible, but it's not quite as bad as what the governors are doing today.
	And Eisenhower brought in the National Guard.
	Now, again, I'm not saying it has to come to that, but we need to remember that the same way we believe states need to stand up when the feds overstep their boundaries, the feds need to stand up.
	And that's the thing.
	And then again, the president needs to get something for it.
	I know we're going to bankrupt ourselves.
	When this started out, the first article I wrote on this whole thing, seven weeks ago, eight weeks ago, 15 things Republicans should get in return.
	I knew they would spend whatever, they said, that was a given.
	I said, at least get stuff on deregulation, on the supply chain, on China policy, on immigration policy.
	Think about this.
	We don't even have in statute, in place, a valve in the future to mandate a shutoff From source countries of an outbreak!
	I mean, all these virtue signals!
	Oh, we gotta save a life!
	Hey, you can go back to my archives.
	January 18th.
	Don't focus on impeachment.
	Focus on coronavirus.
	And I was yelping.
	I was working with Senator Hawley, Senator Cotton, and they drafted a letter to the president to do a shut off.
	He was way too late.
	And even when he did it, it wasn't complete.
	We had 750,000 come in from China when we know that they had the virus.
	God knows how many from Europe.
	That's what the very same people that opposed the shutoff are now saying we need to save lives.
	Well, dude, once you let a respiratory virus that contagious in, 50 million people are going to get it.
	0.1, 0.2 percent fatality.
	You're going to have 50 to 100,000 deaths.
	That's what we had with the other Asian flus.
	You're going to have that.
	That cake is baked.
	You want to stop that.
	To go this far and five pieces of legislation and to not have a provision The president can always do this, but it's very tough when he's not forced to because then he's scared they'll blame him.
	So it's got to be a mandatory trigger.
	To not have that, Robert, is the equivalent of having 9-11 legislation and not banning box cutters.
	Exactly.
	I think all of those are fantastic points.
	The president using his power of the pen to make sure that no more funds go in to local, city, county or state governments unless they are conforming to the constitutional obligations of those governments, consistent with the 14th Amendment powers of the federal government from the inception and its point and purpose was to protect and preserve those liberties.
	In the same vein, to have the Department of Justice and Attorney General Barr, who says he's going to do things.
	He wrote a nice little letter today to all the U.S. attorneys, hopefully act upon it because he's big at talking big, not so big at walking big.
	So let's see how that works.
	But that is a good idea.
	And no doubt we should restore the supply chains to the United States, no longer be dependent for critical necessary goods, either for national security or medical purposes on a government like China.
	I mean, just go back to the Boxer Rebellion.
	There's a history of anti-Western bias that can literally result in sort of a racially based attacks.
	I mean, in the history of China, there's a history of simply that we cannot trust China as our source of so much critical essential infrastructure as we have done over the past two decades, and done without getting any of the benefit.
	Both the Clintons and the Bushes promised that all this economic engagement with China was going to lead to this magical flowering of democracy through China, this magical flowering of human rights through China, there's going to be better labor rights, there's going to be better democracy.
	And it's also ironic, the same people who preach climate change apocalypse here in the United States, I've always told them if you care at all about that and you really believe that's going to happen, you should be obsessed with China and suppressing Chinese development because that's the greatest threat to the environment that exists.
	They get economically rewarded.
	I mean, companies here, people who wanted to stay here, people can see it in documentaries like Death by China.
	Companies that wanted to stay here could not.
	They had no economic choice.
	You had medium-sized lumber manufacturers for furnishings that had to shift all the way over there.
	So you're absolutely right.
	The president needs to exercise the power of the presidency to make sure the governors and the mayors play ball, to make sure they actually comply with empirical science-based decision-making, to make sure that they comply with constitutional rights and liberties, and to restore our national domestic supply chain that would be good for U.S. Americans, manufacturing and make us less dependent, less reliable, less at risk to future pandemics.
	So I think that's all fantastic.
	People can find Daniel at conservativereview.com and it's the CR podcast and also at Twitter at RM Conservative.
	I recommend it.
	He's fantastic.
	So thanks for being on.
	All righty, it's your turn next.
	Exactly.
	No question.
	That's what's happening in the country today.
	If you go in and go to some of the items that are along those same lines, let's just look at some of the headlines and articles across the country.
	So here, for example, another study about the presence of COVID reactive cells in healthy donors that goes into certain information in detail that shows that certain treatments might be successful that are currently being suppressed by the institutional press.
	In the same regard, State reporting of cases and deaths due to COVID.
	Increasingly, we're finding they're due almost entirely to nursing homes and long-term care facilities.
	As I was talking about, others were talking about six weeks ago.
	There should have been a focus on nursing homes, a focus on long-term care centers.
	The mayors and the governors didn't.
	They ignored it.
	Governor of New York basically sent people back, forced people into those places, increased the risk of death and harm.
	I'm receiving inquiries from prospective clients across the country who aren't able to get access either to autistic children in group homes or elderly people in nursing homes.
	And so instead of protecting people's rights, instead of protecting people's health, what they did is do mass house arrests that was actually counterproductive because almost a majority of the deaths in most places across the Western world are from nursing homes.
	Additionally, in terms of talking about where the COVID is a risk and where it's not, here was a study about the outbreak in a call center in South Korea, another study about air conditioning in a restaurant in China, and it all comes back to another study, which involves the same conclusions as those original studies, which is how COVID is indoor transmission.
	That in fact, almost all of the cases of COVID transmission are indoors.
	All identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment which confirms that sharing indoor space with recycled air in close continuous contact and confined quarters is where the risk is.
	There is no risk frankly in going out to the beach.
	If you're under 60 And you're healthy, and you going to the beach has far less risk to you than the flu does.
	That's just the reality.
	So if you're under 16 healthy, you have almost no risk from being outdoors, you have almost no risk from going to the beach, almost no risk of public park activity, almost no risk if you take your kid to the park.
	So for arresting those people makes no sense.
	Not only is that a deprivation of their constitutional liberties, it doesn't meet, it isn't narrowly tailored, it doesn't even meet a compelling public interest.
	Because there is no risk when people are outdoors.
	The risk is negligible to non-existent.
	You're more at risk, as one article in one study put it, from crossing the street of some harm coming to you than of risk of getting COVID from being outdoors if you're healthy and under 60 with your kids.
	So there's just, it's absurd that we're still imposing any shelter-in-place orders at this point.
	It'd be one thing to say they're concerned with recycled air in confined quarters like bars and restaurants, that would be a, or certain office space, there could be a separate independent assessment as to how best to manage that.
	But there is no risk from simply being outdoors.
	It's absurd to, you should be able to be allowed to run on the beach, jog outside, go to the park, take your, play t-ball with your kids, do all of that.
	And yet it has all been a basis of arrest or threat of arrest in the last two weeks.
	And as expected, as some of us have been saying for quite a while, a fact check.
	The USA Today confirmed hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as COVID-19.
	They went into a detailed study on how the amount can be $13,000 more, in some cases up to $39,000 more, as long as they say someone had COVID, even if COVID had nothing to do with the actual cause of death, or was not the primary cause of death.
	Meanwhile, other people are pushing and pitching the idea of waiting for a vaccine, like the official Democratic sort of narrative from many places, definitely the institutional Bill Gates narrative that has been promoted.
	But as this article from Australia reminds everyone, no vaccine ever for a coronavirus is a possibility.
	Professor Ian Fraser, the immunologist who co-invented the HPV vaccine, which prevents cervical cancer, said a coronavirus vaccine was in fact quite, quote, tricky.
	He told that although 100 different teams around the world were testing for vaccines, none of them had a model of how to really attack the virus.
	Also went into going to further details about how vaccines for upper respiratory tract diseases often never work, period, and can have all kinds of counterproductive impacts on the immune system.
	It can compromise the immune system.
	As he puts it most simply, the common cold is most commonly a coronavirus, and there is no vaccine against the common cold.
	So if we haven't developed a vaccine in 60 years for the common cold, why exactly are we going to develop one for coronavirus that's safe and secure for people?
	There's no real reason to believe that at all!
	That's just another pretext to, in order to get the political power grab to continue unabated, to make sure Trump doesn't get re-elected by sinking the economy, by allowing them to restructure the political, economic, and social power of our country the way they want to, rather than the way the ordinary people have elected to do so.
	In the same context, a majority in a new poll, in survey opinion polls, Say it's time to reopen the economy for all who are not sick or vulnerable.
	Now here's a key factor.
	Many of the public opinion polls you're seeing frame the question in a dubious way.
	As you may have heard when we had Richard Beres from People's Pundit Daily on a few weeks ago.
	The art of polling is all about how you question.
	And whom you question.
	And the whom you question determines the scientific validity of the poll.
	In order for asking a question of a thousand people to be reflective and representative of the opinions of more than 300 million, you need to have certain techniques available to you in whom you ask, and how you weight their answers.
	But in the same vein, what you ask them of, and how you frame the question, the timing of the question, the location of the question, the context of the question, Often it's critical and essential for assessing what the public sentiment actually is.
	So many of the questions are, well, do you favor going back out and everybody dying?
	Or do you think we should keep the shelter-in-place orders in place?
	This is your typical media poll.
	And so then it will show, oh, two-thirds of the country still supports everybody staying indoors.
	Well, if you ask people their choices, do you want everyone to die, or do you want the orders to stay in place, then yeah, they'll choose the staying in place.
	That's the nature of it, particularly early on as the political propaganda still has some weight with the American populace and public.
	But when you ask people a fair question, an accurate question, like, do you favor reopening the economy for everyone except the sick or the vulnerable?
	In other words, do you only favor quarantining the sick and not the healthy?
	Overwhelming majority says, oh, absolutely, that makes the most sense.
	So in fact, the public policy that has the most support right now, despite all the propaganda, is the message that this station and others have been voicing.
	Time to reopen the economy.
	Protect the sick and the vulnerable, but get everyone else back to work and open in civil society and protect our constitutional rights and liberties at all costs.
	That's in fact what the American people want, if they're given that question in a straightforward and clean manner.
	In the same vein, anyone who counters the institutional narrative on the question of the healthcare experts continues to be attacked.
	And this is particularly true even though, consider for example, Dr. Ioannidis.
	Dr. Ioannidis is at Stanford.
	He wrote an early article for Stat News, which is sort of a statistical publication.
	Then he wrote an article for Formal Publication.
	Then did multiple interviews with a wide range of public sources.
	But interestingly enough, the institutional press has mostly tried to stay away to avoid him.
	Why?
	Because he keeps saying that this isn't a data-less, evidence-less base standard of a shutdown.
	The shutdown was based on exaggerations of evidence and information, not based on the actual information that comes from reliable, trustworthy sources.
	He explains why his methodology is important to how he came to his conclusions and why he was willing to continue to voice his independent iconoclastic opinion against the overwhelming weight of the conformist culture that has consumed and corroded American academia.
	And he has stuck with his beliefs and increasingly has been proven true, while he is the one guy who is consistently and continuously ignored by the institutional press and the gatekeepers of the institutional narrative, even though he's a well-recognized, well-regarded, well-respected professor at Stanford.
	Much as other professors, such as the former public health official from Canada, the existing microbacterial doctor from Germany, others from around the world that have voiced second opinions and second thoughts and second guesses from the first.
	about the nature of this shutdown response to the epidemic.
	They have been mostly shut out of the public dialogue and public discussion by those who want to have maintained the gatekeepers of the institutional narrative that favored this shutdown.
	But they have, at each stage and as each part of the process move forward, been proven correct and correct and correct, just like the leading Swedish public health officials have been proven repeatedly and routinely correct, and that includes some of the best virologists in the world.
	Indeed.
	As written in the New York Post this past weekend, science says it's time to start easing the lockdowns.
	As in fact, while the consequences have been consequential and enormous, the benefits have been little to nonexistent.
	And they point out that that will only get worse as times move forward.
	In fact, studies show, the serology studies, that they also tried to suppress knowledge of, or tried to second guess when they first came out.
	Well, now we have serology studies that show how many people may have already built up an immunity from this, from past coronaviruses, or may have already got it and thus become immune from it, in all likelihood, from this COVID-19.
	The serology test gives some knowledge of how many people already are in the community that are either not at risk because they've already got it, Or it also tells us what the real hospitalization, intensive care, and mortality risk is by demographics as well, once we know who has it or recently had it.
	And there's now been serology studies, originally that came out of small towns in Germany and Iceland, but now that has spread to Santa Clara, then to LA, then to Boston, then to New York, and more and more and more places, and they're coming back with the same information.
	That the rate of the virus, the mortality rate, is far less than people thought.
	A whole bunch of people already got it and had no problems with it.
	A whole bunch of people are not at risk that they thought were at risk.
	In fact, increasingly, if you are 60 and healthy, then the flu poses more of a lethal risk to you than COVID-19 does.
	In fact, just the flu bros might end up a lot more accurate than the corona bros did.
	So when we come back in the bottom half of the hour, we're going to take your calls and listen to you, the jury, and you have your commentary, your import, your input.
	We also continue to recommend you go to InfoWarsStore.com, our sponsor, and support there and get the products you want.
	want so come back and join us where you the jury get to have a voice in this process here at this show welcome back to american countdown For this bottom half of the hour, we're going to take your calls as members of the jury, if you will.
	You can call in at 877-789-2539.
	at 877-789-2539.
	That's 877-789-2539.
	If you're calling internationally, remember your area code, your country code.
	That's 1-512-646-1776.
	512-646-1776.
	That's 1-512-646-1776.
	We'll try to get to your calls, try to have it about a minute or so for your question so that we can get to your answer and try to give you the best answer that we can.
	In additional data and information showing the degree to which there was such a overreach by the politicians, where there was such more panic than plague in this pandemic, We see more evidence of that every day, including, for example, remember all the hospitals that were being built up, makeshift emergency hospitals in Central Park in New York City, at the Javits Center, the Convention Center in New York.
	At the football fields in different cities across the country.
	Convention centers in different cities across the country.
	Local big public parks.
	It was sort of dramatic-looking, war-like tents being set up for the influx of people that were going to be dying from this virus, as was being predicted and forecast by the Bill Gates paid, Bill Gates funded, Bill Gates promoted so-called experts.
	Well, it turned out, of course, they were notoriously wrong, not only in terms of the death count, not only in terms of the number of ventilators.
	Remember all the ventilators?
	There was a massive ventilator shortage.
	We needed GM and a bunch of people to stop everything they were doing.
	We needed Elon Musk to stop everything he was doing and just produce massive numbers of ventilators.
	Well, what has in fact happened?
	What has in fact happened, of course, is that they have too many ventilators.
	They never even were able to use the ventilators they did have and of course it turns out ventilators may actually have been bad for people.
	It may have actually been counterproductive in this context.
	So the rush of protective physical equipment, the rush for ventilators, the rush for hospital space, all built on the same lie that fed the power grab by the power mad politicians.
	Just one article from the UK in this context.
	Birmingham's Nightingale Hospital has not taken a single patient since it opened up 10 days ago as one of these emergency facilities.
	By contrast, as is being reported in Sweden, Stockholm expected to reach herd immunity in May, Swedish ambassador says.
	Indeed, it looks like about 30% of the people in Sweden have reached a level of immunity that is sufficient to prevent a further outbreak that could collapse the hospital system.
	So it turns out Sweden was right and our system was completely and utterly unnecessary and counterproductive.
	Meanwhile, Bill Gates has his list of advice, his list of guideposts as the would-be president of this pandemic.
	And he wrote at his GatesNotes.com and his foundation, the first modern pandemic about all of the ways in which the public needs to respond.
	All of the hit points that were exponential growth, all the sort of little propaganda cues that were used by his backers and by scientists and doctors that he helped promote.
	He helped put into place.
	He's helped pay.
	He's helped put in positions of power.
	These are the ones who propagated him, and he still is pushing his agenda to this day and not backing down one iota, basically saying you got to wait until one of his vaccines is ready before you can come out from your house anytime soon.
	Meanwhile, people all across the nation found that beaches were packed this weekend as people ignored the social distancing orders that tried to preclude them from getting to the beach.
	People have a way of exercising their core civil liberties even when politicians try to tell them otherwise from the nanny state.
	Meanwhile, in the same capacity of all those overblown hospitals, unnecessary, Houston is looking at dismantling the $17 million temporary hospital that did not even see a single patient.
	That was what we shut down for.
	That's what was for this hospital surge that never came.
	In fact, another article in the Wall Street Journal that's based on the same information that we talked about at the top of the show, do the lockdowns save many lives?
	In most places, according to the Wall Street Journal piece, the data says no, they don't save lives.
	They found that there is no correlation between the shutdowns and any reduction in mortality when you compare by both when somebody shut down and whether they shut down within the United States and between nations around the Western world.
	There's no evidence at all that in fact the shutdown saved a single life.
	There is plenty of evidence that it cost lives.
	Another good piece in Spiked, which is a good publication out of the United Kingdom, sort of independent, sort of a populist-minded publication that doesn't necessarily fit any ideological label or left of right, talking about how the media made this crisis much worse than it otherwise would have been.
	Indeed, arguably a large part of the panic from the political class was induced by the panic from the media class when this pandemic was always more panic.
	The news media in the UK and worldwide rarely seemed more important or influential than during this crisis, based on web search reviews and public policy responses.
	Indeed, the media got themselves listed as essential workers who were protected from the economic, social, cultural collapse that we have seen for most of the rest of the world.
	Noting that it is, in fact, they who are predominantly dictate and determine the narrative in this world, in this environment, and have had extraordinary control over that narrative because it's something ordinary, familiar, unfamiliar, or unaccustomed to and not used to dealing with.
	And that lack of personal lived experience, lack of historical knowledge and reference point, lack of framework for understanding power and politicians is what allowed the fear-driven, fear-porn-oriented, panic-porn-oriented approach of the media class to have such success both with the politicians and at least panic-porn-oriented approach of the media class to have such success both with the politicians
	It is the lack of historical knowledge, the lack of an appropriate window through which to see and filter and frame this information that allowed the media to get away with what they got away with.
	The press can't lie as easily when they're talking about someone you know or you feel you know.
	The press cannot lie as easily when they're talking about political parties that you feel you have some core understanding of.
	The press doesn't achieve its success at lying and propaganda when it is unable to counter or present information that you have personal lived experience with.
	But pandemics are something that people don't have personal lived experience with.
	Most of the history of public policy governing pandemics and its legal history is also mostly unknown to the ordinary members of the public.
	Indeed, to the degree they've been exposed to it at all, it's been those scary anti-vax people that are out there.
	That's the only degree that they've ever even heard about it.
	That information has been cordoned off, has been siloed away.
	From the narrative that the ordinary everyday person has had, which has inflated and exaggerated the power of the press to shape and dictate the agenda in the narrative, much as someone like Goebbels would have been proud of back in Nazi Germany.
	Meanwhile, others that look at it continue to emphasize how the media continues to either misrepresent information or data, or our public health authorities do.
	So, for example, Ventura County reported certain sudden new deaths related to COVID-19.
	An investigation revealed that, in fact, they were deaths much further back, and they were just relabeling them COVID deaths after the fact, weeks or, in some cases, months after that has happened by various public health officials around the world.
	Further aspect of this...
	Leads people to note that experts worry that quarantine fatigue is starting.
	Now they're starting to realizing as that people get locked into their homes with victims locked into homes with their abusers, hence the rise in domestic violence and child abuse cases.
	The rise in alcoholism, the rise in depression, the rise in mental health from issues stemming from social isolation of this extreme kind and category.
	As people see their constitutional liberties forfeited overnight for this fear-driven madness for these power-mad politicians.
	More and more people are starting to resist.
	More and more people are starting to push back.
	And the experts recognize it.
	They just call it quarantine fatigue.
	What they should call it is expert fatigue.
	The doctors say that the coronavirus is, in fact, when they look at the detailed data, these Bakersfield doctors that have a wide range of access to emergency facilities across California, note that the virus is, for people under 60, without any pre-existing comorbid health condition, without any other serious debilitating disease, this virus is no more dangerous than the flu.
	So we shouldn't treat it any differently than the flu in terms of the political, economic, social, and cultural freedom they should enjoy.
	Meanwhile, the Atlantic is asking people, would you sacrifice your privacy to get out of quarantine?
	They're already prefacing the information, talking about Stuart Baker as the General Counsel of the National Security Agency, who realized that they could get massive numbers of people in the 1990s to forfeit their privacy in the name of defeating terrorism, precipitating the Patriot Act of 2001.
	Now they're saying maybe we can even get you to forfeit even more of your privacy, even more of your freedoms, in the name of quarantine, in the name of virus, in the name of public health.
	They're already pushing it and propagating it in the same manner and same method and same means.
	Thus you're hearing about testing and tracing, you're hearing about apps that will follow you, tell other people around you whether you have ever had a particular medical condition.
	And they will disclose it to governments and employers alike, denying and depriving you of the same core medical privacy that most Americans expect and that they are entitled to under the Fourth Amendment or under the HIPAA laws from their private employers.
	And yet employees are sending me emails and messages today telling me about how their employers are not only conducting COVID-19 tests, but disclosing the results to their fellow employees in ways that could be potentially embarrassing or damaging to their economic or social cultural prospects.
	With these employers telling them that they've been advised by government officials that there's now an exception to HIPAA, an exception to the Fourth Amendment, if it's a COVID-19 related issue.
	This begins the undermining, the loophole they want to drive a Mack truck through to completely wipe out the Fourth Amendment protections and privacy rights we have had for centuries.
	In the same context, Tens of thousands flocked to the Orange County beaches as the heat wave lingers over Southern California.
	They flocked particularly to Orange County beaches because those managed to open while L.A.
	County remained closed under the crazy mayor of L.A.
	In addition, people are back in the pews in churches as COVID-19 restrictions begin loosening throughout Tennessee as churches are finally getting to restore their rights, becoming sanctuaries for their expression of religious freedom in America.
	But there are many cities, many counties, and many states where that is still not true.
	Hobby Lobby gets the last laugh over a Dallas judge who forcibly shut them down and insulted them on social media.
	I'm personally familiar with this judge, the Democratic Dallas County Commissioner Court Judge.
	So he's not like a state court.
	He's not like a judge as part of the judicial branch.
	It's a judge who's part of the executive branch.
	You have some of these from the old day traditions that still exist in some cities and counties in states across the country.
	I got into a debate with him because he continued to threaten people's First Amendment rights and Second Amendment rights and Fourth Amendment rights and Fifth Amendment rights throughout his county using his social media account.
	And so I asked him whether he could just give me his address if I could just serve the lawsuit on Twitter, which he sarcastically responded.
	So now I'm going to sue him, of course.
	But in fact, he's already lost one of the suits for abusing his unilateral emergency power.
	As in fact, the county commissioners are now trying to restrict that power because he's so routinely and regularly went power mad with it.
	Hobby Lobby brought legal action against him and has already succeeded at the earliest stages of the case.
	So legal, so some people are seeking meaningful legal remedies and some people are obtaining and achieving those legal remedies.
	And that's why there's such a critical, essential and fundamental part of moving forward and protecting these freedoms from perilous precedents moving forward.
	Particularly with articles like this one from the Daily Caller, authoritarianism is on the rise in America in the age of coronavirus, detailing all the different ways politicians have gone mad and power mad with grabbing power all across the nation, continue to do so unabated, even when the fear porn that drove the pretext for their power grabs is no longer even present with any empirical or evidentiary basis.
	As the Washington Times reports from Cheryl Chumley, civil disobedience is what can end the coronavirus stupidity.
	She calls for and suggests that in fact what needs to happen is more and more people simply asserting their constitutional rights and liberties regardless of the rogue and repressive actions of their local city, county, or state governments.
	Whether it's opening up a business, as people have done in the state of Texas here, Dallas and Houston last week, and people are starting to do across the country, regardless of what their local politicians are trying to do.
	Or it's something simple, like going for a swim, going for a little early surf morning ride, taking the little boat out to go fishing on the lake, or fishing off the dock, or taking your kid to play in the park, or taking your kid to play t-ball in the front yard.
	More and more Americans are pushing back against this repression and restriction on their rights by taking direct, deliberate action.
	And enough direct, deliberate action happens, as this author points out, these states have to begin to fold and capitulate.
	Because the state's power is based on the perception of power.
	The four pillars of power rely on a fifth pillar of power underneath those four that holds all of them up, and that's the perception of power.
	What happens if the man in front of the tank doesn't move away or move aside?
	And what if there's more of them than one?
	When that happens, the tanks can no longer roll because their means of achieving coerced power are self-defeating when the public resists them and refuses to capitulate.
	In fact, there's a good article in the Commentary Magazine about this general response called Elite Panic vs. the Resilient Populace and goes into detail about how ordinary everyday people tend to have a better, more reasoned, more tempered reaction to natural disaster events than the power-mad politicians worried about
	We should trust the public's response much more than we trust the politicians in matters of this.
	We should let the public have informed consent and take voluntary action as to what is necessary for their public health, not have it dictated, controlled, or coerced or forced by those in the white lab coats or the politicians from City Hall or the state governor's office.
	So let's go to some of your questions as you're calling in, and you can continue to.
	Let's first go to Arlene in Chicago.
	Of your knowledge.
	I was just wondering, our governor is now mandating all the stores to require us to wear face masks.
	Now my husband went to a Menards, it's kind of like a Home Depot.
	They made him buy one just to come in.
	And friends of ours went to Costco and they turned away and they paid to go in there.
	And some of them are saying that they're not going to check us out if we don't have our masks on.
	So what are my rights with that?
	That is something that we're looking into.
	There is early consensus that if they do not provide the masks, they cannot compel the masks.
	So that's the original sort of reaction response by some constitutional legal scholars' analysis.
	There's also a difference between private enterprise putting those limits and public state mandates imposing those limits.
	So for the most part, like in Houston, the sheriffs refused to enforce The local political order to have mandatory masks and their view it presented constitutional issues.
	So from a certain perspective, there's an issue about not be having a sort of what I call medical Sharia law being forced to wear certain kinds of clothing simply to engage in constitutionally preserved and protected activity.
	As to the state, that is definitely a robust right, but this particular context is relatively novel.
	The only example of this ever occurring was during the Spanish Flu.
	Some of the West Coast cities went nuts with requiring this.
	There was even a police officer that shot somebody.
	Because they weren't wearing a mask.
	I believe it was in Seattle back in the early 1918-1919 time frame.
	So there is some historical example of this, but there's not any clear legal precedence on it.
	But here's the risk.
	One, they're requiring you to wear a particular thing without providing that thing to you.
	So that's problem number one.
	Problem number two is whether or not it's in fact healthy or safe depends on where that came from.
	Not all masks are clearly not created equal.
	There are many masks that may be more problematic than beneficial, depending on which survey or study.
	In fact, you could just listen to the Surgeon General a month ago and he would have told you not to be wearing a mask.
	But there's clearly some masks that even under everyone's definition, such as for example, there are contaminated masks.
	As has been reported to have happened from China, that China has sent and shipped, in some cases, contaminated masks, like a bad Simpsons episode from decades ago, where the Simpsons predicted somebody from Asia would do precisely that to spread a virus, no less.
	But that is sort of the mindset.
	So your health, your choice of clothing in terms of your face, because it goes to, could they, for example, suddenly tomorrow require everyone, let's say a Muslim mayor got elected in Detroit.
	Could that mayor thereby dictate that everybody start wearing certain Sharia-required clothing in terms of covering their face?
	I assume we would say no, but not just because of the religious imposition that it would require.
	That would be true even if it was described as a health description rather than a religious description in terms of its motivation.
	So I think that there are a lot of issues but they're mostly unexplored, mostly undeveloped.
	This is an area of law that does not have clarity and does not have as much clarity as other areas like 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th Amendment protections that go to core rights that have been commonly exercised.
	The degree to which they can control what you wear in public in the case when health is the explanation for it is a very open question.
	Now, as just an evidentiary basis, there's simply no evidence that you need to wear a mask at all when you're outdoors.
	So it's one thing to require it indoors, but to require it outdoors really doesn't have any empirical basis at all.
	Requiring it indoors is an open question, because if you have COVID-19 and don't realize it but are pre-symptomatic, then you might in fact be able to spread it, that in fact the mask may be a very modest level deterrence.
	But there again, shouldn't that be an individual's choice?
	Shouldn't that be up to individual consent, informed consent, not coerced control?
	That's what a lot of these big debates are about.
	Individual consent versus coerced control.
	My view is the Constitution sides with individual consent over coerced control.
	Unfortunately, there's a less than clear convincing precedent that the courts will go along with my interpretation.
	So it's an issue to be challenged.
	I'm looking at the right case, right place to bring.
	We're going to try to take those cases up to the U.S.
	Supreme Court.
	All of these contexts to try to preserve and protect people's rights as best we can.
	There's not enough lawyers taking that action and taking that advocacy.
	And I'm in a position where I can afford the economic downside to pursuing it.
	So we're going to try to do so wherever, whenever, however we can and continue to do so.
	So I appreciate your call and you'll be hearing more from me on that topic and on that subject in the near future.
	So thanks for calling in.
	Today I was actually asked to speak in Tennessee and due to a cancelled flight was unable to make it all the way up there.
	But I sent up some commentary and I'll read from the speech that I provided for them.
	To read aloud, even though I was unable to make it up to my home state, to the Free Tennessee Movement, which has succeeded in getting the governor to reopen the state and getting the governor to rule against the mayors, against the county politicians who are still trying to keep large parts of the state closed.
	Made it clear from the governor's office that he would not tolerate that for a second.
	So it looks like Tennessee is soon to be free again thanks to the actions of the Free Tennessee Movement.
	They were able to form protests, organize political activities, encourage and incentivize, where appropriate, civil disobedience, look at pursuing legal action of a wide kind, across a wide area of law, and across a wide geographical space within the state of Tennessee.
	And that collective, aggregate action led to the governor reversing course, accelerating the reopening of the city, the county, and the state across Tennessee, and preserving and protecting those rights and liberties.
	So in their honor and in their respect, I'll read now the speech that I provided for them to give today.
	In a state that brought the world Andrew Jackson and Davy Crockett, and in a nation that birthed the very definition of democratic freedom, we witness our governments declare us, our freedoms, and our means of supporting, sheltering, and providing for one another, unilaterally declared by politicians who edict we are no longer, and what we do, no longer essential.
	Indeed, while the makeup, hairdresser, driver, and assistant of the politician is declared essential, the work and pride of millions of Americans is called non-essential.
	That is not America.
	Indeed, this is not the America of Davy Crockett, who wrestled with actual bears and made Tennessee proud.
	This is not the America of Andrew Jackson, who preserved the Republic at the Battle of New Orleans and against the Bank of the United States, and also did Tennessee proud.
	This is not the America of Paul Revere's midnight ride, nor the America of George Washington's crossing of the Delaware to freedom.
	This is not America.
	As a fellow Tennessean, David Crockett warned us, we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.
	Liberty and independence forever must be our goal.
	As a famed Tennessee Andrew Jackson, President Andrew Jackson reminded us, from the earliest ages of history to the present day, there have never been millions of people associated in one political body who enjoyed so much freedom and happiness as the people of these United States.
	You have no longer any cause to fear danger so much from abroad.
	It is from within, among yourselves, from cupidity, from corruption, from disappointed ambition and inordinate thirst for power.
	Indeed, it is that un-American inordinate thirst for power amongst our power-mad politicians that threatened to rob us in just two months when it took our founders and forefathers two centuries to build.
	The politicians believe that they can tell us who is essential and who is not, what is essential and what is not, and that it is their privilege and their prerogative to declare it so, like a monarchical edict.
	Indeed, but that is not America.
	That is the Middle Ages, and we are not the Middle Ages.
	We are not China.
	We will not let the old plague of king-like politicians seize away our rights, nor be infected by the virus of Chinese authoritarianism.
	We will not forfeit in fear what our forefathers and founders risked life and liberty to give us as a birthright.
	A shining city on a hill, bravely in the open flame of liberty, a light for the world to see.
	We will not hide that light of liberty under a bushel, cratering in fear, cloistered in a closet, afraid of ourselves, our neighbors, and our freedoms.
	That is not America.
	You know what's essential in America?
	Every job, every dream, every family.
	What is essential in America?
	The core liberties that define us as who we are as Americans.
	Who and what is essential is to be an American, and what makes us being an American is the ordered liberty of the constitutional freedom that our forefathers founded.
	That is what Paul Revere's midnight ride was about.

▲