Coronavirus Spreads Through Globalism
The rapid spread of the coronavirus to the United States from an open-air meat market in China confirms again the deadliness of globalism. The international elite should acknowledge how difficult it is to contain and eradicate a virus in a world of open borders.
“Everyone is in a state of panic,” Scott Liu said from a self-imposed quarantine at his home in Queens, New York. “The coronavirus is the No. 1 threat to financial markets currently as global investors are becoming jittery on the uncertainty,” the New York Times quoted investor Nigel Green as observing.
But while this deadly virus was quickly infecting people at the speed of air travel, globalists were enjoying wine and caviar at their annual confab in Davos, Switzerland. Politico.com even featured a recent article headlined “Globalists Gone Wild,” citing the energetic participation of Mitt Romney and George W. Bush in globalist celebrations.
The globalists were clueless about how fast a fatal, highly contagious virus can sweep across a world of open borders, free trade, and unchecked migration. Far from the standards of Western Civilization, an outdoor market in Wuhan, China, allowed numerous animals considered unclean by the Bible to become part of human consumption.
The deadly coronavirus thereby jumped from animals which are not eaten here, such as cats, bats, and snakes. Without globalism, the virus could have been easily contained and eradicated by China, with its immense resources.
At the end of January China admitted that more than 100 people have already died from this virus, which has no known cure or treatment. The communist Chinese dictators are not known for their transparency, so the death toll there could be much higher.
Thanks to globalism, the virus is sweeping across the world like a wildfire. People who have been exposed to the virus may already be in 22 states here, while Japan and Germany have also been afflicted.
It is globalism which makes the unclean eating practices of distant Chinese a threat to the health and safety of Americans. This is not the first time that an outbreak of a disease far away from our shores has caused panic and death within our borders, as the Ebola virus from Africa did in October 2014.
This latest tragedy is ironic in its timing. It comes just as a new trade deal with China was reached amid much fanfare, without anyone pointing out that expanding global trade means bringing deadly viruses from other countries to the United States.
An article recently published in The Lancet, a prestigious British medical journal, describes a shocking 15% fatality rate among those who contract this coronavirus. Others estimate the infection rate to be as high as 83%, and people may be contagious before they show any symptoms.
These rates suggest that if one person has coronavirus on an airplane carrying 150 people, then 18 other passengers could contract the disease and die from it. This is hardly comforting information and could deliver a mortal blow not only to people, but to our economy too.
The potential for harm from biological agents has long been considered higher than all other types of threats to human safety. A strain of the flu killed more people at the end of World War I than armed warfare did.
Perhaps coincidentally, Wuhan is also the site of a top secret biological weapons development lab. One can only wonder if something so deadly might have come from the warfare lab itself.
Closing our borders and ending our permissive visa policy which brings so many foreigners into our country is the sole effective way to protect our citizens against this invasion of a deadly virus. Quarantines within the United States are only effective if the disease does not continue to enter from other countries.
“Despite the enormous and admirable efforts in China and around the world, we need to plan for the possibility containment of this epidemic isn’t possible,” declared infectious disease expert Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London. He estimated that as many as 100,000 people may already be infected in China.
Most of the initial cases in the United States were on the West Coast, and in Arizona. But once inside our borders, there is little to stop it from spreading immediately to others through airports, train stations, and commuter lines.
It is infeasible to provide a medical exam to every person who wants to travel to the United States. Instead, what should be done is to limit the vast amount of migration here, particularly from regions which do not share Western standards of cleanliness.
ERA R.I.P., Saving Girls’ Sports
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is officially dead, declares the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. Its announcement is just in time to save girls’ sports from ruination by testosterone-advantaged boys.
We are four decades past the moment when ERA went lifeless under its own deadline for ratification. That is long past any chance at resuscitation, the OLC explained in its detailed legal analysis.
“Congress may not revive a proposed amendment after a deadline for its ratification has expired,” the OLC concluded. “Should Congress wish to propose the amendment anew, it may do so through the same procedures required to propose an amendment in the first instance,” for which there is not the two-thirds supermajority in Congress to pass.
The Archivist of the United States immediately stated that he would comply with this legal ruling, as he should. He will not add to the Constitution any belated attempt by a state to ratify posthumously this amendment.
This good news comes not a moment too soon. According to liberals who have taken over the statehouse in Richmond, Virginia is the 38th state which, if the 5 rescissions are not counted, would ostensibly satisfy the three-fourths requirement to put ERA in the Constitution.
A reenactment of those who supported ERA in the 1970s can be seen in a trailer for a new miniseries about Phyllis Schlafly called “Mrs. America,” to be aired on the Hulu streaming service beginning April 15. Two-time Academy Award winner Cate Blanchett is portraying Phyllis, but the script is sympathetic to the ideology of radical feminists.
ERA supporters are generally not athletes, and either don’t know or don’t care about the havoc that ERA is causing for girls’ sports in states which have passed it. In Massachusetts its state ERA has required that boys be allowed to compete in girls’ sports, to break their records and potentially break their bones in contact sports like field hockey.
Without ERA in the U.S. Constitution, neighboring New Hampshire was able to hold a hearing on good legislation to protect girls against unfair competition by boys in girls’ sports. Boys have overpowering advantages of muscular size, thanks to testosterone, and there is nothing fair about allowing them to go into girls’ sports to win prizes and shatter records.
Sponsored by ten women, New Hampshire HB 1251 would prohibit allowing boys to invade girls’ sports, as is happening in other states under the guise of ERA or transgender rights. This legislation would limit competition in girls’ sports based on the athlete’s chromosomes, reproductive organs, and testosterone levels.
“Interscholastic or intramural athletic teams or sports that are sponsored by a primary or secondary school or institution of higher education and designated for ‘females,’ ‘women,’ or ‘girls’ shall only be open to students of the female sex,” states HB 1251. This fairness would not be possible if ERA were ratified.
“Biological males are already starting to dominate women’s competitive sports” and females “deserve a level playing field,” says Save Women’s Sports and Cornerstone, which supports the New Hampshire legislation. “They should not have to compete against biological males for a spot on the podium, even if those males claim a female gender identity.”
Hollywood could be presenting, in its heart-wrenching style, true stories about girls who trained hard for competitions which they won against other girls, but were then denied the awards grabbed by transgendered biological boys instead. This has happened in Connecticut, where there is no limit on transgenders crossing over to win races in girls’ sports.
ERA, indeed, would have mandated this unfairness by prohibiting sensible distinctions based on sex. If ERA had become part of the Constitution, there would have been nothing any state or Congress could do to protect girls against the unfair ruination of their sports by boys.
So while Hollywood has promoted ERA since the 1970s, top women athletes are speaking out on the conservative side of this issue. Transgender athletes could ruin women’s tennis and many other sports, and some women champions have spoken out against this trend.
Yet non-athlete Elizabeth Warren clings to the mindless-equality approach of ERA, and even wants to put male convicts into women’s prisons. Phyllis Schlafly warned that ERA would have required prisons to be co-ed, and that women would be ordered to guard dangerous male prisoners.
Warren and Hollywood supporters of ERA should pay more attention to girls who work hard to win scholarships in their high school sports. ERA has the effect of denying these girls the honors they earned, which boys took away from them.
Rather than endorsing ERA postmortem, the Virginia legislature should help girls by considering the New Hampshire bill to protect them against unfair competition. ERA died long ago, and should rest in peace.
Liberal Takeover of Methodists Despite Losing Vote
At their annual conference in February 2019, conservative Methodists won the vote to keep the 3rd largest Christian denomination in America traditional on the subjects of marriage and the clergy. They decided that, like the Catholic Church and many other denominations, the United Methodist Church would continue with a one- man, one-woman approach to matrimony, and not have openly LGBTQ clergy.
As the largest Christian denomination in the United States other than the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptists, both of which prohibit same-sex marriage, the United Methodist Church has roots going back to the fiery Anglican preacher John Wesley. The American Revolution made it no longer practical for colonists to remain members of the Anglican Church run by the King of England.
Methodist Presidents of the United States have included George W. Bush, William McKinley, Rutherford Hayes, General Ulysses S. Grant, and James Polk. Today there are nearly 7 million Americans who are members of the United Methodist Church, and more than 5 million mostly conservative foreign members, with an estimated 32,000 congregations worldwide.
A marriage by a Catholic in a Methodist Church is typically recognized by the Catholic Church if approval is sought beforehand. About a hundred American colleges and a small number of secondary schools have Methodist roots.
The university elites demanded that doctrine be changed to authorize same-sex marriage ceremonies in Methodist churches. But after a full debate of the issue, Methodists rejected changing their doctrine by a healthy 53-47% margin at their conference held in St. Louis last February.
The conservative voters even prevailed in strengthening the traditional doctrine on marriage. So why are they losing anyway, despite winning the vote?
Two days after New Year’s, a group of Methodists announced a brokered settlement by which the United Methodist Church would adopt same-sex marriage and ordain openly LGBTQ clergy. If approved at its upcoming international conference in May, conservatives would have to accept this doctrinal change or get out.
A supermajority vote would be required before a conservative congregation could split off and continue with the traditional doctrine. The settlement offers them $25 million in church funds to leave, which is a clever way for the liberal side to try to buy off just enough opponents to take control of the entire church for themselves.
By why aren’t the liberals who lost the election by 6 percentage points the ones who are leaving instead? Rather, in a deceptive takeover strategy, they are using church funds to buy themselves a majority.
History buffs might notice that in the Russian Revolution of 1917 the victorious minority called themselves Bolsheviks (which means majority) and unfairly labeled their opponents as Mensheviks (which means minority). When Leftists are in a minority, then they look for other ways to win.
The settlement includes a $39 million payment (from church funds) on the issue of race, which is irrelevant to the marriage dispute. Perhaps it is an attempt to win over African congregations which oppose same-sex marriage.
Another portion of the settlement allows the clergy of conservative congregations to hold onto their pensions which they have earned. But they have a legal right to their pensions without the settlement.
Christianity Today, the same liberal newspaper which called for President Trump to resign, quickly blessed the settlement. It declares that the deal to allow the liberal faction to take over the United Methodist Church is somehow “an answer to prayer,” even for conservatives.
The leadership of the single largest Methodist congregation, the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection in the Kansas City area, immediately announced its support for the settlement. But it had already been pushing to change the Methodist doctrine about marriage.
As with the impeachment of Trump, the relentless attempt to take control of the Methodist church is coming from university elites. They are akin to the wealthy financial and media supporters who have made Pete Buttigieg a contender in the Democratic presidential race for its nomination, despite being merely a former mayor who lost in a landslide in his attempt to be elected to statewide office.
A total of 93 college and university presidents demanded that the Methodist church change its centuries-old doctrine about marriage. But as in the crushing defeat of the British Labour Party in December 2019, working class Americans reject the ivory tower agenda.
The proposed settlement is not really a “split” or a “schism” as it is being promoted. Rather, it is an attempt to pay conservatives to abandon and leave their own church in which they have a majority, in order to allow the liberal minority to take it over.
Medicare for All Illegal Aliens?
The rush to the Left by Democratic presidential candidates in an attempt to win its nomination has resulted in a call for Medicare for All. Nearly every Democratic candidate has endorsed the inclusion of illegal aliens in this or similar government-run healthcare programs.
Medicare for All would be a fiscal disaster, whether it includes illegal aliens or not. Elizabeth Warren first drove this train past her rivals in the polls, but it has become a train wreck as her liberal rivals questioned it.
Warren rose to the status of the presumptive nominee in early October as she surged to a tie with Joe Biden nationwide, and surpassed him in early states like Iowa. Then came the presidential debate on October 15, where Biden and Pete Buttigieg criticized her on stage for the lack of details in her proposal.
Since then Warren’s national support has dropped in half, down to only 14% among Democratic voters. Her support in Iowa plummeted too, falling by 6% to only 16%.
Warren’s unexpected decline correlates with her full- throttled endorsement of Medicare for All, for which she has released details after being criticized. At a town hall on November 8, Warren confirmed that her proposal would include Medicare for all illegal aliens, too.
“Medicare for All, as I put this together, covers everyone, regardless of immigration status, and that’s it,” Warren declared there in response to a question. The local audience applauded her, but the reception nationwide to her plan has been chilly, even among likely Democrat primary voters.
Her plan would cost $52 trillion, not just billion, over ten years. She is competing with Bernie Sanders, who also supports free medical care for illegal aliens and even a moratorium on deportations.
The reality is that anyone, whether lawfully in the United States or not, can already show up at any emergency room in a hospital and receive free medical care. This has been true ever since Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA), which has contributed to the problem of hospital bankruptcies ever since.
Many illegal aliens have crossed our borders in order to show up at emergency rooms and give birth here in the United States, so that their child could claim American citizenship and thereby provide a basis for relatives to migrate here also. Known as “anchor babies,” they lack a constitutional right to citizenship but their relatives then demand entitlements.
The Democrats’ approach is the opposite of President Trump’s, who continues to work hard to reduce the enormous drag on the budget caused by people who are in the United States illegally. On August 12, Trump announced his new rule that green cards will not be issued to immigrants who are likely to become dependent on government aid.
Since 1882, federal law has prohibited the admission of anyone who is likely to become a “public charge,” or dependent on government programs at taxpayer expense. But, prior to Trump, many government programs were not even considered in evaluating whether someone crossing the border may become a public charge.
For example, government health care and housing have not been criteria for excluding an illegal alien because he is likely to become a public charge, and a drain on our budget. This omission meant that illegals and green card applicants could be milking Medicaid and free housing without scrutiny by an immigration official considering whether to allow them to stay.
New York, despite benefiting from a booming stock market on Wall Street, announced last year that it expects a massive operating deficit of $6.1 billion, its largest since the Great Recession more than a decade ago. The cause is the hemorrhaging of dollars in its Medicaid program, a state program intended to pay health care costs for the poor.
New York is a magnet for illegal immigration whom its Democratic leadership has welcomed. It sends to Congress politicians who endorse Bernie Sanders, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), better known as “AOC.”
Trump also properly attempted to suspend the entry into our country of immigrants who are likely to burden the healthcare system. Entitled Proclamation 9945, this would help preserve our scarce medical care dollars for Americans rather than foreigners.
But on November 26, an Obama-appointed judge overturned Trump Proclamation 9945. Judicial supremacy continues to block sensible orders by Trump which would protect our nation against the suffocating financial burdens caused by illegal immigration.
