Positions on the COVID restrictions... how everything becomes political.

It's become readily apparent there are about three positions available on the COVID restrictions; Total disbelief of everything we're told on one hand, total acceptance of everything we're told on the other and those in the middle... unsure of what we're told, knowing there's a disease out there we don't know enough about, knowing you have about a 1 in 20 chance of getting very dead if you catch it, knowing there's no vaccines as yet and knowing that no sure, absolute cures have been found; but also heartened by the progress that's been made... or that we hope has been made.

But that's not really the point of this post.  The point is to ponder how these things seem to break down along political lines.

For the most part, in my experience, the labels go as follows:

Leftists are true believers.  They want things to continue to be shut down.  They want to destroy the economy because that guarantees Trump's defeat this November. They see what's going on, they understand some intuitive truth (The less you're out, the less you're likely to contract this virus.) and they want as much shut down as possible to reduce contact. And they hate Trump with a passion that, for its breadth and depth, even has a doggedly admirable trait to it.  To the right, they hate Trump so much and want him defeated so badly, they would destroy this country to achieve that goal.

They understand the nature of this Stay Home order is not a civil rights grab; it's only temporary; and yes, closing businesses can be tough on those who own them and have worked so hard to succeed and who will, in some cases, lose everything.  But that's collateral damage and businesses can be rebuilt while lives can't be.

Rightists are true deniers.  They want life to instantly return to the way it was this time last year.  They want everything opened up because our economy is permanently destroyed otherwise.  They see what's going on, but act like antivaxer types, disbelieving what they see and everything government tells them, no matter what it is.  And they simply don't care how many die in the process... though rest assured, they CLAIM otherwise.

They rely on absolute lies to push their positions; i.e., you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than you do of dying from COVID 19, and they attempt to verbally crush anyone who disagrees with them.  They (falsely) claim all of this is unconstitutional.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court, for example, recently overturned their Governor's lock-down order, reopening Wisconsin like there was no epidemic of this stuff at all; therefore, they (wrongly) believe that ALL efforts to control this outbreak are unconstitutional, everywhere.

Wisconsin, of course, has its own set of laws and its own state constitution.  I'm no expert on their laws and don't claim to be... and neither is anyone else I've read... but the deniers don't care.  They take Wisconsin as a small blanket and turn what happened there into a football-field sized quilt.  But the problem we here in Washington have is that our laws are not Wisconsin's.  And, of course, the deniers conveniently forget all about where the people of this state who just voted many of these powers to the Governor via SJR 2800 just last November.

Now, I marked "no" on that ballot, but it passed overwhelmingly, by a 2:1 tally.  I opposed it.  I lost.  I got over it.

Then, there is the middle.  The middle has formulated few actual conclusions.  Some inescapable facts are clear: SOMETHING is going on.  There is an unknown disease going on out there, and it can kill you.  They have concerns about the impacts on the economy, to be sure.  They miss certain aspects of life in the immediate past, but they don't see this as a permanent power grab where our rights are shredded like so much confetti.

They pay attention to the extent they can.  They watch business news and see/hear frequently conflicting stories.  Many, rightfully, have a built-in distrust of the media, which has long since forgotten their actual mission of reporting news and letting the people decide to one they acknowledge is merely an effort to formulate the news in such a way that the people will do what the media wants.

They remember a government of lies under Obama, and frequently wonder how much they're being lied to now... while they wonder what the point of all of this is, if it's some sort of set up for something else.... something less readily apparent.

These are, as I see, the broad strokes of the three main categories.  Both the left and the right are following the dictates of former Representative, former White House Chief of Staff and former mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel, who famously is quoted as saying to "never allow a crisis to go to waste."

And oddly, I find myself in a situation where the card seems to have flipped.

I question the deniers. I point out the US Supreme Court had approved many of these same measures 115 years ago in Jacobson V. Massachusetts 197 U.S. 11 (1905):

“The Constitution,” Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote for a 7-2 majority, “does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.” Instead, “a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic.” Its members “may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”

The Court then went on to say:

We come, then, to inquire whether any right given, or secured by the Constitution, is invaded by the statute as interpreted 26*26 by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that "persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be made, so far as natural persons are concerned." Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U.S. 465, 471; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U.S. 613, 628, 629; Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington R.R., 27 Vermont, 140, 148. In Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86, 89, we said: "The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community. Even liberty 27*27 itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is then liberty regulated by law." In the constitution of Massachusetts adopted in 1780 it was laid down as a fundamental principle of the social compact that the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for "the common good," and that government is instituted "for the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor or private interests of any one man, family or class of men." The good and welfare of the Commonwealth, of which the legislature is primarily the judge, is the basis on which the police power rests in Massachusetts. Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53, 84.

As a brief aside, there are three branches of government:

The Executive, which enforces the law;

The Legislative, which makes the law, and

The Judicial, which interprets the law.

The deniers would immediately suggest that the laws in this matter are anything BUT "reasonable."

The Court responds:

The liberty secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, this court has said, consists, in part, in the right of a person "to live and work where he will," Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578; and yet he may be compelled, by force if need be, against his will and without regard to his personal wishes or his pecuniary interests, or even his religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense. It is not, therefore, true that the power of the public to guard itself against imminent danger depends in every case involving the control of one's body upon his willingness to submit to reasonable regulations established by the constituted authorities, under the 30*30 sanction of the State, for the purpose of protecting the public collectively against such danger.

I point these things out.  I refer to the recent vote that overwhelmingly gave the Governor of this state, who I have frequently stated is a blithering idiot consumed by partisan politics, the power to make these decisions with the acquiescence of the 4 legislative caucus leaders.

And found myself at the receiving end of vitriol unlike any I've ever seen... from former political allies.

And I've seen some.  See, when I express my concerns, I don't find it necessary to engage in playground bullshit like name calling.  I've "gone to the dark side," or I've morphed into some sort of "troll." In some instances, some coalflakes even claim that my disagreement equates to harassment.

In other words, they want to engage in the previously leftist practice of silencing, hurling invective, labeling, ridiculing.... you name it... those who don't agree with them.

Because if you do disagree with them, the deniers become a version of antifa.

Those who disagree with them know nothing.  Those who hold the denier's position know everything.

Well, guess what?

They don't.

With a BA in Government and 6 years on legislative staff, I'm willing to match my knowledge to pretty much anyone.

And in my experience, those resorting to name calling and casting aspersions are those possessed of the weaker argument.

Instead of defending their positions, such as they are, they attack the messenger on a personal level.

I'm reminded of the old lawyer saw:

"When the law is on your side, argue the law.  When the evidence is on your side, argue the evidence.  When you have neither, attack the other guy's lawyer."

I read a great deal from many people who WANT the Constitution to mean certain things in a certain way, but their positions are out of fear and ignorance of both that document and the Law.  And when you point out the law, their response is almost inevitably to trot out the 1857 Supreme Court decision that declared human beings actually CAN be property (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), and therefore, when the Supreme Court disagrees with them, what do THEY know?

My response is encompassing:

I find it kinda odd that we demand that Inslee respect the will of the people and implement I-976 ($30 car tabs) and then we demand that he IGNORE the will of the people by ignoring the vote on SJR 8200 (Emergency Powers) that the PEOPLE of this state passed by a 2 to 1 margin just last November.

If you don't like the law, change the law.  If you don't like The Constitution because it doesn't say what you think it says, then change the Constitution.  And if you don't like Supreme Court decisions, then get the Supreme Court to overturn their past decisions.  They have, on occasion, done just that.

Simple really.

But in the mean time?

Live with it.

Getting to understand why so many think the far-right wing is as insane as the left.

As I write this, our nation is still in the grip of the impacts of the COVID virus, both the medical and the economic.

But it's also in the grip of politics.

At the outset, I do not believe the steps taken to date approach anything unconstitutional.  Many on the far right disagree with that, but many on the far right know as much about the Constitution as they know about brain surgery.

Constitutionality is not left up to the beholder.  Were that to be the case, for some, anything of any type would be considered "unconstitutional."

We have a system in this country.  There are 3 branches: legislative, executive and judicial.

The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws.

But many internet experts claim THEY know what is and is not constitutional, and THEY know that regardless of what the Supreme Court determines.

For my part, I've sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Having taken that oath, I've done my best to study the Constitution and the Supreme Court decisions that go with it.

And while, like everyone else remotely interested in the Constitution, I have found occasion to disagree with the Court's decisions and have cringed at their determination to allow politics to decide the outcomes, I am still bound by those decisions because, like it or hate it, those decisions have the force of law.

Currently, certain governmental orders are in effect in the various states.  (For purposes of this post, I'll be referring to events and situations here in Washington State, which is my home and my focus.)  Let me say at the outset that I believe in most things, the Governor of this state is a mental midget with the common sense of a box of rocks.

But far too many people in this state share that peculiar affliction.

THE first sunny weekend in March, people lost their minds in this state and our neighbor to the south and we saw videos of crowded beaches and miles-long convoys of bumper to bumper cars.

When I saw those videos that Saturday and Sunday, I looked at my wife and told her: the governors of this state and Oregon are going to lock us down because these idiots lacked the common sense to distance themselves.

And by the following Tuesday, it was done.

In the minds of the deniers, we lack the ability to form coherent thoughts on our own.  Deniers feel they have the right to tell us what and how to think, what and how to talk, and what and how to believe.

And if you don't toe their line, you're "brainwashed," or a "leftist," or "controlled"

Again, the Governor of this state has taken steps that are passed the line of stupidity:  He shut down PRIVATE construction, but allowed PUBLIC construction to continue... which makes zero sense.

He shut down recreational fishing, typically one of the MOST social distanced activities one can engage in.  He released convicts from the prison system to avoid the costs of treating them, because if the Navy can continue to operate with the close quarters of ship, then prisons can continue to operate within THEIR confines.

As a result, many of these released prisoners have decided to show their gratitude by committing additional crimes.  Surely, Governor Inslee will make their new victims whole, won’t he?

But for the MOST part, I have agreed with what he has done.  I would remind the reader that WE, THE PEOPLE, gave the Governor these powers just this past November when Senate Joint Resolution 8200 was passed by the voters of this state by a 2:1 margin.

The PEOPLE gave him the right to take these steps, which the deniers have either forgotten… or ignored.  See, for many, the voice of the people is a sacred trust… as long as those people are singing the right song.

I take a different view: for example, I voted against SJR8200.  But in a Republic, we have to accept the view of the majority at the ballot box unless the Supreme Court declares the law passed to be unconstitutional... which it seems they refuse to do to date.

Those are the rules of the game.  If anyone reading this doesn’t like the rules, then feel free to change them.  But until they ARE changed, live with it.

Those on the far right, of course, typically claim it's all unconstitutional, pointing to the Bill of Rights and pouting.  “Rebellion” is in the air. Business to many of them is far more important than lives.  Private concerns such as Costco now require the wearing of masks to shop in their stores, resulting in the completely absurd, bogus claim that such a requirement violates the RIGHTS of those who would shop there. 

It’s not, of course.  The US Supreme Court addressed this issue 115 years ago. (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)):

 “The Constitution,” Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote for a 7-2 majority, “does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.” Instead, “a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic.” Its members “may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”

Of course, the Supreme Court’s decision here, which still stands, is meaningless to the deniers. These internet experts are now talking open rebellion.  Of course, when I inquire as to the method of “rebellion,” these keyboard warriors vaporize.

Back in the bad old days, the saying in the Army was: “Everybody wants to be Infantry, until it’s time to do Infantry stuff.”

Meanwhile, both the death toll and the positive case toll are climbing.  As I write this, the "official" toll is listed at 83,500 plus with 1.4 million confirmed cases. This appears to be an “epidemic.”

Many opposed to any of this, of course, attack any number that puts their meme at risk. And, perhaps, with good reason.

There’s a great deal of confusion over what is and what isn’t a death resulting from COVID 19, the Wuhan Virus. Much has been made over the Fed paying more for confirmed cases, or suspected COVID cases.

The deniers claim that because the Fed is paying more (Maybe because they COST more?) for COVID cases, the death toll numbers are completely fake.

The best explanation I’ve seen putting that to rest comes from an EMS supervisor:

The numbers: this one sticks in my craw like no other. “I heard they didn’t die from COVID-19, they died from a heart attack but they were positive so they called it COVID-19 to boost the numbers and scare people.” Stop. It. You know how many people died specifically from AIDS? Zero. AIDS patients die from pneumonia or some other illness normal, healthy people fight off because the AIDS virus destroyed their immune system and they couldn’t fight off the infection. But at the heart of it, they died because of AIDS. The corona virus attacks the respiratory system. The respiratory system is, in case you didn’t know, pretty important to sustaining life. It also has a huge impact on how other organ systems, like the heart, work. Guess what, when your lungs don’t work because they’ve basically filled with brick mortar because the virus is attacking them, that puts a bit of a strain on your ticker and very well can cause it to fail. So unless you have a basic understanding of or want to understand how interconnected organ systems are and how the body fundamentally functions: stop.

Early on in this pandemic, those whining about these steps kept making absurd comparisons between past COMPLETED epidemics and THIS episode, which had barely started.  The statistical relevance of such comparisons is nonexistent as the only valid comparisons between epidemics are between COMPLETED epidemics.  Pointing out the absurdity of such comparisons merely served to anger them.  Lately, however, I see fewer and fewer comparisons of this type, as the numbers continue to climb and the absurdity of that scam becomes more readily apparent.

The upshot of that variety of idiocy is that in the past flu epidemics, we lost billions of people (rhetorically) and took none of these steps.... why are we doing it now?  Why aren’t we doing what the Swedish Utopia is doing which, they claim, is nothing at all? 

So, because we handled past epidemics incorrectly, we should now handle THIS epidemic incorrectly?

How come Winco groceries, Fred Meyers, Walgreens, etc are open and other stores aren't? How come churches are closed if those stores are opened?

Well, eating is a little more than a hobby.  So are medical needs.  And the Lord says "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." (Church, then, is a WANT to have, not a MUST have during an epidemic.)

But those making such bogus claims are among those who are ignorant about the Constitution, and THAT is a byproduct of an education plant that does not want us to know what it TRULY is and how it REALLY works and what are... and aren’t... actual rights.

For these people, "rights" are what THEY say they are.

They're not, of course.  Two instances immediately come to mind where rights are frequently non-existent… without complaint from any of the deniers...  Not ALL rights, you understand, but many of them.

1.  The military.

You have essentially zero freedom of speech in the military.  You're told where to be and when to be there.  You're told where and how to live.  You're told when and where to move to or from.  And, of course, all or most all of the restrictions we here in this state are confronted with as a result of executive orders are also in effect in the military.

2.  Prison

I don't even have to get into prison life.

These restrictions are in effect EVERY day.  But that's different, the far right will claim.

How is it "different?"

Rights, to hear them tell it, are rights.  Under all circumstances, all the time... Supreme Court decision to the contrary notwithstanding.

For example, Freedom of Speech.

One non-serving individual in a local community group once accused me a few weeks ago of not "being a defender of liberty."

This same hypocrite posted this beauty today in that group, where, apparently, the First Amendment that is such a precious part of the Bill of Rights no longer applies:

As for me, I really don’t care what you think. Relying on the latest snake oil salesman, be it for a “cure” or a political position you happen to like?  Believing that we should trade lives that cannot be rebuilt for businesses that can?

Why, that’s up to you.

But no one is in a position to tell anyone else what or how to think; what or how to write or talk what or how to believe.

Because only your garden variety hypocritical jack-booted thug does that.

Meanwhile, previously respected individuals show their true colors.  An absolute failure to consider anything not aligning with their biases.  Name calling.  Condemnation.  Mindless attacks.  Childish, playground-style crap.  Even attorneys have attacked me with childish crap merely because I don't agree with their philosophy, though none of them have yet to attack my legal conclusions.

As for me, I'm not telling anyone what to think.  I'm suggesting they SHOULD think.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.  If they're wrong, people will die unnecessarily.

It's easy to claim I don't see the "big picture."  But how big is the picture if you're dying from this?  How big is it if you're this guy, who lost his mother and two sisters in Seattle in 2 weeks?  Think he's a "big picture" guy?

Is that picture big enough for you?

Why do so many believe the Constitution to be a death warrant?

Let me get this out of the way from the getgo:

I was a soldier for 14 years.  I took the oath of enlistment and commissioning several times.  It states:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

I support this Constitution.  I studied it for years in college.  And I've worn this country's uniform to protect it.

And at no point was that document ever meant to be a death warrant.

We're told by many that the restrictions in place art "unconstitutional."   We're told that Inslee, who has the sense of a board fence and who really could screw up buttering toast, as no authority to do the things he's done under these circumstances.

It appears the question was addressed by the US Supreme Court awhile back:

Regarding personal liberties VS state-issued stay-at-home and other pandemic orders, the US Supreme Court addressed this issue over 100 years ago, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts 197 U.S. 11(1905) 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-constitutional-guide-to-emergency-powers-11584659429

“The Constitution,” Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote for a 7-2 majority, “does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.” Instead, “a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic.” Its members “may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.” 

States also have the power, beyond criminal law enforcement, to make quarantine and isolation effective. If presented with widespread noncompliance, governors may call National Guard units to put their orders into force, to safeguard state property and infrastructure, and to maintain the peace. In some states, individuals who violate emergency orders can be detained without charge and held in isolation." 

The authority of the State to enact this statute is to be referred to what is commonly called the police power -- a power which the State did not surrender when becoming a member of the Union under the Constitution. Although this court has refrained from any attempt to define the limits of that power, yet it has distinctly recognized the authority of a State to enact quarantine laws and "health laws of every description;" indeed, all laws that relate to matters completely within its territory and which do not, by their necessary operation, affect the people of other States. According to settled principles, the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 22 U. S. 203; Railroad Company v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 95 U. S. 470; Beer Company v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25; New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S. 650, 115 U. S. 661; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133.

It is equally true that the State may invest local bodies called into existence for purposes of local administration with authority in some appropriate way to safeguard the public health and the public safety. The mode or manner in which those results are to be accomplished is within the discretion of the State, subject, of course, so far as Federal power is concerned, only to the condition that no rule prescribed by a State, nor any regulation adopted by a local governmental agency acting under the sanction of state legislation, shall contravene the Constitution of the United States or infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument. A local enactment or regulation, even if based on the acknowledged police powers of a State, must always yield in case of conflict with the exercise by the General Government of any power it possesses under the Constitution, or with any right which that instrument gives or secures. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 22 U. S. 210; Sinnot v. Davenport 22 How. 227, 63 U. S. 243; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 169 U. S. 626.

Is it right, fair or just?  Maybe.  Maybe not.

Is it Constitutional?

Sure looks like it to me.

When I see people... people who know absolutely nothing about this issue... attempt to apply a Constitutional excuse for their positions, I frequently think how ignorant of the Constitution they really are.

That this is an indictment of the education plant is difficult to avoid as a conclusion.  But that is a subject for another post.

On the tombstones of the dead who share the view that this is unconstitutional, I suggest that the phrase "Yes, he/she is dead.  And his ignorance of the Constitution is what killed him/her, not the virus."

Some in the political realm are attempting to climb the political ladder on a pile of dead.

I will never vote for such a person, regardless of party.

Meanwhile, remember this: the Constitution was never meant to be a death warrant.  And while business will suffer, business can be rebuilt.

People?

Not so much.

As I write this, 41,649 have died in this country from the Chinese Virus.  Fewer and fewer people are engaging in the insanity of numerical comparisons between "flu" and this, as the numbers continue to grow as this pandemic goes on and the comparisons with already completed flu episodes begins to shrink.

Freedom isn't free.  And freedom also has consequences. 

Do whatever you like.  But you... as so many others have proven... could be quite dead if you guess wrong.

OK, geniuses, come up with a better idea(s).

Up to this point, I have been supporting Congressional efforts to provide financial relief as a result of the impacts of the Chinese virus, AKA Kung Flu, AKA COVID-19, AKA Wuhan Virus, etc.

As a result of that support, right wingers have accused me of everything up to and including becoming a socialist.

What NONE of them have been able to do is come up with ANY viable alternative.

I spent 6 years on Legislative staff in Olympia. I was frequently met with complaints about what was going on in Sodom-on-Sound.

What I was rarely met with were viable alternatives.

Over the years, I'm learned that anyone can complain. It's easy. I've certainly done it myself.

But when *I* do it, I have alternatives to what's being done. I have the same thing I demand from others: Viable alternatives.

What those on the far right are doing is complaining incessantly. All of this, you see, makes them feel both better and superior.

"Our rights are disappearing. We shouldn't be spending a dime on bail-outs. We're becoming slaves. This is all fake. It's an excuse for government over reach. You're a statist boot-licker."

Etcetera.

OK, says I.... come up with better ideas.

Many of these coalflakes have no idea what else to do. Cryptic responses to this challenge will typically go like this:

Consider not begging government. Go home, pray, read the bible. That sort of thing.

Oh, yeah, and by the way, another anti-vaxxer steps up and claims "high doses of vitamin C will fix all of this."

Apparently, the now-dead doctors who've been treating this have been completely unaware that the internet generally and facebook particularly contained such high levels of medical genius from people who have no more of any idea about what they cut and paste than they do how to perform an abdominal resection.

So, here's the thing. Thousands have died around the world from this disease. Tens of thousands more are likely to, 738 died in Italy along just yesterday.

I make the following request from the naysayers:

When you get any kind of aid from any government source related to this situation, reject it.

If you or your family get a check of any kind, tear it up.

If they develop a vaccine effective against this virus, refuse it and refuse any medical treatment that you would otherwise need as a result.

Document your efforts to walk the walk. Take pictures of the shredded check(s). Take pictures/video of you refusing any medical treatment.

And if you're going to whine, bitch, moan and complain.... without coming up with realistic, viable, working alternatives?

Then spare us. You're just becoming background noise anyway.

More idiocy from Gas Tax Rivers: corporate boards and "self-identifying as a woman."

For the past 5 years, Sen. Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers has tilted steadily left while "representing" the 18th District.

Among her other accomplishments has been to lie about her opposition to the largest gas tax and tab fee increases in the history of this state, increases that cost the people of Clark County $700 million; her bungling of the sellout on the McCleary budget scam that cost us... and will cost us, 10's of billions of dollars among others.

To that list, we can add this particular idiocy, SB6037, Corporate Board Gender Diversity.

Rivers has come up with the perfect excuse for supporting the same bill that Nancy Pelosi wanted to ram down America's throats as part of her stimulus package extortion yesterday:  Go to the 17:20 mark.

When asked to remove her cosponsorship of this insanity, she responded thusly:

thank you for sharing your concerns with me regarding SB 6037. I supported this bill because of the changes made to it. Previously, it imposed financial fines on companies that did not have female representation and it applied to all companies in our state. From the minority side, in order to make changes to the bill, we needed to support it. In the final version, we got the fines replaced by a simple statement explaining why women weren't on the board. We also got it applied to just publicly traded companies, which greatly reduced the number of businesses this applies to. The businesses still covered are fairly large corporations that either already meet these requirements or can easily explain why, if they do not. While I don't agree with the premise of the bill, these important changes were necessary and in order to get them I had to vote for the bill. While[sic] might not agree on this issue, I am sure there are many others that we stand shoulder to shoulder on. Thanks again for reaching out!

Besides the obvious: there never was a reason to support this bill, period, fines or no, Rivers co-sponsorship of this bill made zero difference except to cement her leftist cred.

The reality is this is government forcing their view down the throats of company's ownership and direction based not on gender alone, but by those who IDENTIFY as women.

9 must have a gender-diverse board of directors or that public company

10 must comply with the requirements in subsection (2) of this section.

11 For purposes of this section, a public company is deemed to have a

12 gender-diverse board of directors if, for at least two hundred

13 seventy days of the fiscal year preceding the applicable annual14 meeting of shareholders, individuals who self-identify as women

15 comprised at least twenty-five percent of the directors serving on

16 the board of directors.

So, you don't actually have to BE a woman... you just have to SAY you're a woman.

Seriously.

No Republican should EVER support increasing government authority, particularly of this leftist affirmative action ilk.

And, of course, the idiocy of claiming "While I don't agree with the premise of the bill, these important changes were necessary and in order to get them I had to vote for the bill."

Think about this for a minute.  It's a cute response in an effort to try and justify her leftist bent.  Kinda like Herrera's justification for voting to continue Obamacare.

Using this reasoning, Rivers can effectively ALWAYS vote like a democrat.

Using this reasoning, she can cosponsor ANY democrat bill.

Even though I don't agree with the premise of the bill, these important changes were necessary and in order to get them I had to vote for the bill.Why, I had to do X, because my mere presence as a cosponsor made this bad bill better, and I had to vote for it or ALL of the changes (which wouldn't have happened if *I* hadn't cosponsored and voted for this bill) or else...…"

Or else what?

Rivers pulled this same scam to justify our betrayal on the gas tax she had pledged to oppose:

See the pattern?

Now she has formulized her incessant betrayals on the bills that matter.  Slowly but surely, she gnaws away at our paychecks, while blowing up property taxes and attacking our rights.

She never makes a mistake that she admits to.  She always finds excuses as she did above... when she blamed her "political naivete'" for making a pledge to get elected that she had no intention of keeping... a "political naivete'" after having served on legislative staff in the Alaska for years and having been a political consultant, state representative and state senator for at least 12 years.

It will never change as long as she's in office.  And it's long past time for her to go.