Good morning! — and welcome to the end of CoronaCareᵀᴹ week seven. The number seven is considered lucky in some parts of the world, but no luck being done with the WuFlu crackdown. And I do mean, “crackdown.”
It seems like the longer this goes on, the tougher the tone and enforcement is becoming. In Gotham, a plainclothes NYPD officer beats a man during a “social distancing stop.” [LANGUAGE, VIOLENCE]
In Dallas, TX, salon owner Shelley Luther was arrested and sentenced to seven days in jail for opening her business in defiance of a court order. When given a chance by the judge to admit she was wrong, she refused, saying, “I have to disagree with you sir, when you say that I’m selfish. I have hairstylists that are going hungry because they’d rather feed their kids. So sir, if you think the law is more important than kids being fed then please go ahead with your decision but I’m not going to shut the salon.” She was released after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott intervened.
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot laid down the law in no uncertain terms for people caught partying. She sounds like an angry parent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-PatHrNtfo
Then there’s these guys busting up a peaceful protest at a local bar in West Odessa, TX, to arrest the bar owner for violating lockdown orders. They drive up in a MRAP with a guy in the turret to arrest people in short sleeves and shorts. It’s almost comedic.
It all seems a little over the top to me, and I think people are getting fed up with the strong arm tactics and ongoing extensions of the lock downs. We’ve all been cooperating and were happy to do so at first, thinking this would be a temporary situation. But junior commies across the country are taking this as an opportunity to flex their authority.
Many of us are concerned about our civil liberties being infringed; the constitution and authorities are there to protect them. Enough is enough.
It’s the third month of being under CoronaCareᵀᴹ — March, April and May. The American economy is in a nosedive, shrinking by 4.8 percent in the first quarter—mostly based on just the month of March. Some economists predict that the second quarter will be monumentally worse — Goldman Sachs forecasts a decline of 34 percent.
If there’s anything to look forward to, “Arizona State University economists are predicting a recession of three to nine months, followed by a swift recovery” early in 2021 if consumer spending kicks in as they expect. That could be a big “if.”
Consumer spending was down 7.6 percent in the first quarter. In order for consumers to spend, they need to be employed. Just over 30 million people have filed first-time claims for jobless benefits since mid-March — about 18.6 percent of the labor force.
Watch the unemployment numbers against spending over the next few months for a clue on consumer confidence. If I was just coming off of unemployment, I’d be reserved in my spending, especially with a predicted “second wave” of the Asian Contagion once stay-at-home orders are lifted.
CAN WE HAVE A SERIOUS MOMENT ABOUT JOE BIDEN? As you’ll learn if you follow me for any length of time, I don’t have much use for the Democrats in Washington, D.C. or for their compatriots in the states. I oppose almost everything they stand for. I don’t like their ideology, I don’t like their policies, I don’t like their political tactics and I don’t like their senior leaders. The only reason I care about who they nominate for president is because that person will be the competition.
Joe Biden is a terrible candidate and the Democrats are welcome to him. But there is so much wrong with him as the presumptive nominee that I find his front-runner status mysterious.
By any objective measure, Joe Biden shouldn’t even be in this race. His degraded mental acuity, verbal word salads, strange anecdotes, immature displays of bravado, witless gaffes, patronizing accents, bald nepotism, handsy personal space invasions and now—now!—being credibly accused of sexually assaulting a junior staffer in 1993 while he was a U.S. Senator—all of it should disqualify him from seeking office.
It’s embarrassing. Yet there he is.
I am genuinely puzzled by his presence and I wonder if rank and file Democrats are, too. The DNC arranged for Biden to come out on top because as poor a candidate as he is, Biden is their best shot to win the White House.
Of the other Democrat primary leaders, Bernie Sanders had an enthusiastic base but was a few Bolsheviks short of a revolution; Elizabeth Warren was tacking so sharply to port that Independents fell overboard; and Mayor Pete was too young and inexperienced for most voters.
Yet the Democrats have to know that Biden is probably not mentally or physically fit for the demands of the presidency, and now he’s dogged by the allegations of sexual assault. So why stand by him?
This is what troubles me. I think the Democrats are aware that their “best shot” isn’t all that good. That leaves them with two choices: either replace him, or find a running mate for him who will generate voter enthusiasm and effectively become the Democratic nominee.
It doesn’t take much to imagine that their strategy is to install as Biden’s running mate their true pick for the top job and, once he’s in office, use the twenty-fifth amendment to force him out over his deteriorating mental and physical fitness. Once he vacates the office, his vice-president then assumes the presidency.
In other words, a Trojan Horse. It’s technically legal but morally repugnant, and that possibility is what bothers me most about Joe Biden’s candidacy.
Happy Monday and welcome to another week of Coronacare.TM It’s sort of like Obamacare, but instead of nationalizing healthcare, we’ve nationalized house arrest so there’s no need for healthcare. Impressive!
Look, I know there are legitimate concerns about opening up the country too quickly, but I’m becoming more concerned that we’re setting precedent for future government interference under the pretext of national safety and security.
Today’s Broadside is a little longer than intended, but that’s true with almost everything that needs correcting.
Trip the Scripture Elastic As a conservative Christian living in a largely secular society, I naturally view any politician quoting scripture in support of their agenda with suspicion. More often than not, scripture serves their political purpose rather than the other way around. If politicians consistently let scripture inform their legislative agenda, they wouldn’t need to make unseemly appeals to the divine to legitimize their policy decisions.
Take, for instance, Nancy Pelosi’s comments to Joy Reid on MSNBC last Sunday.
Reid: “[…] the concern that this could be a fresh source of outbreak. And that there could actually be a disaster for incarcerated people because of this virus. Is anything being considered for the next bill to deal with that?”
Pelosi: “Well, in our caucus, we are very devoted to the Gospel of Matthew: ‘When I was hungry you fed me, when I was homeless, you sheltered me — when I was in prison, you visited me.’
“So, this, for us, is a part of our value system.”
I note that Reid did not ask the Speaker of the House to justify whatever plans she and her caucus might have since she (Reid) had already given it to Pelosi: “there could actually be a disaster for incarcerated people because of this virus.” Appealing to scripture was Pelosi’s choice. By leading with a scriptural reference, Pelosi is calculating that what she says next needs the weight of a higher moral authority in addition to her (already considerable) civic authority.
And indeed it does. But before she gets there, Pelosi further bolsters her still unspoken solution by mentioning a “real focus on this” issue by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Without saying so directly, she manages to imply that the concern here is for black prisoners who are at risk.
We need to briefly explain why she mentions the CBC. If you were to burrow further under the surface of the concern about imprisoned blacks, you’d find that the CBC believes blacks are the victims of systemic discriminatory practices in the American justice system. So not only are blacks unjustly imprisoned, but the system is compounding the injustice by leaving these men and women exposed to a potentially fatal disease.
There are legitimate concerns over prisons being perfectly suited to spread a contagion. But Pelosi’s reference to the Black Caucus is a trap. If you oppose her solution, no matter how objectively, you will be labeled a racist. This, too, is calculated.
Having appealed to biblical authority and the cause of an immoral justice system, Pelosi believes she has effectively prepared the ground for her solution: “We will have language [in the next relief bill] to have some order and clarity so that some people can leave who really don’t need to be there.”
Translation: we’re going to release some prisoners.
Leaving aside the fact that a judge thought “some people” really did “need to be there;” and also ignoring studies that show black incarceration rates are falling, thus shrinking the disparity between blacks and whites; and further, setting aside the question of whether there are less extreme tactics to mitigate the risk of infection among incarcerated blacks—let’s look at Pelosi’s use of scripture.
She and her caucus, she says, “are very devoted to the Gospel of Matthew.” This is strange phrasing. I am not Roman Catholic like Nancy but even so, I’ve never heard someone say they were devoted to a single book of the bible unless they were a scholar who specialized in a specific book of scripture.
Stranger still is her claim that “her caucus” is devoted to the Gospel of Matthew. Her caucus is the House Democratic Caucus, which is composed of all Democratic Representatives in the United States House of Representatives.
I’m glad she told us. Maybe it’s just me, but the Democrats have never struck me as a party that is “devoted to the Gospel of Matthew.” I’ve never looked at the Democrats and said to myself, “Now that is a political party that is devoted to the Gospel of Matthew.” I’ve never said to my wife, “Honey, have you ever noticed how closely the Democrat Party’s priorities reflect the Gospel of Matthew? Maybe we should volunteer for the Bernie Sanders campaign.” I’ve never gone to my pastor and said, “If you’re looking for a group of people who embody the Gospel of Matthew, look no further than the Democrats in Congress.”
To be sure, I’ve never said that about the Republicans, either. But they aren’t making the claim.
I think that Pelosi’s use of the word “devoted” is her way of establishing credibility in citing the specific chapter and verse from Matthew she then paraphrases: “When I was hungry you fed me, when I was homeless, you sheltered me”—and here she raises a bony finger to underscore what she says next—”when I was in prison, you visited me.”
Unfortunately, her use of the scripture doesn’t enhance, but rather undermines her credibility. The passage she cites is found in Matthew 25, which includes what is known as the parable of the sheep and the goats.
The parable tells the story of how Jesus—the Son of Man—will in the future return and separate “the righteous” (the sheep) from those “who are cursed” (the goats), sending each to their eternal destination. The specific verses Pelosi refers to are 35-36 as Jesus explains why the righteous go on to eternal life:
“‘For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'”
These are acts of mercy and compassion that exemplify a heart transformed by the love of God. They address basic needs that human beings have for food and drink, for clothing and shelter, for health and for encouragement, perhaps especially so for those in prison, which Pelosi emphasizes.
In the ancient world, prisons were miserable underground dungeons that were overcrowded, devoid of sunlight, and full of disease. They served as holding cells for those awaiting trial (or execution) where prisoners suffered festering wounds, lack of sleep, lack of a healthy diet, and often died in custody from disease or starvation.
People who went to prison relied on friends from the outside to care for their needs. If you had no friends, you were without hope and full of despair. A visit meant someone was caring for you. That’s what Jesus is saying.
What these verses do not do is advocate for the release of modern-day criminals. The most she can draw from them is that we should visit the prisoners, which is impossible to do right now since visiting them is not allowed due to the epidemic.
The other problem here is that the parable refers to individuals. It is not a government that is on trial. It is individuals who are separated. It is individuals who are judged. It is individuals who are sent away to eternal life or damnation.
We must not kick matters of individual responsibility to the government to carry out. You will not be held accountable for what a government did or didn’t do. Always, always be suspicious of anyone who advocates for a government policy or program using scripture.
There may well be problems with the racial disparity in our American prisons, and there certainly is a risk to our prisoner population from the coronavirus. But rather than make a case based on the merits of the solution—cutting short the sentences of duly detained prisoners—Pelosi and the social justice advocates populating the CBC aren’t above stretching scripture with a groundless interpretation to fit their agenda.
It’s May 1, 2020 and we’ve been under house arrest stay-at-home orders here in Illinois since March 21. Gov. Pritzker has extended a modified order until May 30 to avoid a projected “second wave” of coronavirus deaths if the statewide stay-at-home order is lifted.
We’ll now be required to wear face masks in most public settings, but some businesses and state parks will be allowed to reopen, and hospitals will be permitted to offer elective surgeries again. That’s progress, although it’s strange that face masks are required now. Wouldn’t they have been better used as part of the original effort to flatten the curve? And if the curve is flattened, doesn’t that mean that significantly less people are getting the virus?
I don’t make the rules, but I do question them. Speaking of which —
I pointed out in yesterday’s Morning Links that it seems like some government mandates are exceeding their constitutional authority under these stay-at-home orders. The example I gave was from Wisconsin, where two officers were filmed confronting a mother over her daughter going to her friend’s house to play.
I had a visceral reaction to that, but not nearly as strong as the one I had to this from Paula Bolyard over on PJ Media:
It’s even worse in Knox County, Tenn., where the health department just announced that while churches may reopen on May 1, the Lord’s Supper is forbidden.
The order was announced by Knox County Health Department Regional Hospital Coordinator Charity Menefee, who announced that Communion is not part of “core worship.”
The immediate question is, “Who is Charity Menefee and who gave her permission to determine what is or isn’t part of ‘core worship’ in the church?!” It gets worse:
In addition, “The physical taking of communion/sacrament should not be performed due to the serial breaking of physical distancing across a congregation.” Churches are urged to “consider guiding parishioners in how to connect with the spiritual aspects of these practices during this phase.” Never mind that for Christians, Communion is a requirement, not an optional activity that can be transmitted over the internet.
Not only that, but church attendees are also banned from physically embracing or shaking hands with one another. And singing, while not banned, “is discouraged as it is thought to be an activity that expels significantly more virus than talking.”
Also banned by the Knox County order: “communal items (for example, tithe plates, hymnals, bibles, etc.).” Churches are told they should use a donation box in lieu of an offering plate. “Only core worship services are permitted in Phase One,” the order reads. “Activities such as groups and classes, youth services, social events, potlucks, communal snacks or food, and nursery, are not permitted in Phase One.”
The civil authorities in Knox County are clearly operating outside their jurisdiction. Local bureaucrats have no right to make such decisions.
Back in March, Douglas Wilson wrote about the nature and extension of civil government when it comes to the things of God:
In historic Presbyterian polity (all rise!), the civil magistrate had no authority in sacred things (in sacris), but he had definite authority surrounding sacred things (circa sacra). Put simply, the magistrate has no right to tell the church what to preach, how to pray, how to administer the sacraments, who to discipline, etc. That is not their assigned task. They need to stay in their lane.
But when it comes to questions of public safety (which is exactly what this is), preachers need to stay in their lane. It would be different if we were talking about a monastery with a bunch of recluse hermit monks, and the magistrate told them they couldn’t gather in their own chapel for prayers. That would be none of the magistrate’s business. But if great herds of Baptists head out to the Golden Corral after services, and they do this during the time of an epidemic, the magistrate has full authority and obligation to tell all of them “not so fast.” This is circa sacra.
There are so many areas where the church should be resisting statism, it would be shame to waste our powder on any issue where the state is acting well within its rights.
In Knox County, the state is most assuredly not “acting well within its rights.” While Charity Menefee rightly permits churches to reopen based on her authority “surrounding sacred things (circa sacra),” she violates the boundary separating church and state by assuming authority “in sacred things (in sacris).”
Miss Menefee may not have done so with malice; in fact, she may have considered her directive magnanimous. But such a violation is still a violation—and a dangerous one at that because it is done in the name of “safety.”
The concept of safety acts like a sedative on us—”you want others to be safe, don’t you?”—in which we lower our defenses as the natural impulse to care for others takes over. It’s subtle, seductive and smooth. Of course we want others to be safe.
But that’s not the right question. The question is, “whose domain?” The practice of communion is not based on whether it is considered “safe” to do so by civil authorities. Follow the progression of that thinking and in ten years communion will be declared “unsafe” because it reinforces religious dogma that increases the risk of perceived threats to some minority group.
No, communion is first and foremost based on the authority of Jesus Himself.
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. — 1 Cor. 11:23-26
More importantly for this discussion, the freedom to practice communion without government interference is grounded in the First Amendment, which protects religious belief and expression. With emphasis added, it reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” — The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
In 1940, the Supreme Court ruled that the Free Exercise Clause is enforceable against state and local governments. Miss Menefee, then, is abusing her authority and violating her citizens’ constitutional and God-ordained rights.
When it comes to the act of taking communion, the authority of the Constitution supersedes the authority of the Knox County Health Department Regional Hospital Coordinator. And the authority of Jesus Christ supersedes the authority of the Constitution, which protects our God-given right to worship as we see fit.
It would be unwise to allow this interference by the state to go unanswered, because it will set precedent. The churches of Knox County must unite and issue a kind but firm rebuke to the local “magistrate,” making it clear that the encroachment on their civil and religious liberties will not go unchallenged.
My guess is that their example will be needed in the not-too-distant future.
Good morning and Happy Coronahog Day! Feels like déjà vu all over again, doesn’t it? Seven weeks of waking up to the same shelter-in-place orders every morning. The only thing that changes are fresh examples of irrational and (most likely) unconstitutional government overreach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK5StUnjAtE
Mom: “OK, so why are you here?” Officer: “Because your daughter is going to play at other people’s home and you’re allowing it to happen.”
[…]
Officer: “Stop having your kid go by other people’s home.”
That is a disturbing exchange for many reasons, not least of which is the patronizing attitude of the male officer, haranguing the mom about whether she understands that “we’re in a stay-at-home order right now.”
No “Officer Friendly” smiles, no laughs about how ridiculous the times are we find ourselves in, no modest chagrin over having to politely ask the mom to keep the child home. Nope. She gets scolded by a power-happy hall monitor for not having a signed pass.
More disturbing is the disequilibrium it causes in us. We’re watching a police action over an event so universal—a child playing at a friend’s house—that we feel like we’re having an out-of-body experience. It just feels so wrong.
Most unsettling is the implied question lurking under the surface: who snitched on the families?
To be fair to the officers, they’re just carrying out orders. But that’s what’s causing my cognitive vertigo.
Back on March 12, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers issued Executive Order #72 that declared that a “public health emergency” existed in Wisconsin. On March 25, his office issued a ‘safer-at-home’ order that specifically said, “all public and private gatherings of any number of people that are not part of a single household or living unit are prohibited.” That meant, as Evers tweeted, “no sleepovers, no play dates, and no dinner parties with friends and neighbors.”
His executive order and both ‘safer at home’ orders (they’ve extended the lock down until May 26 through a second order) appealed to specific provisions of Wisconsin law. I read them all and, while I’m no legal expert, it isn’t apparent to me on which statute Evers bases his authority to ban “private” gatherings among neighbors.
Under Section 252.02(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes, cited in the safer at home orders, the Department of Health Services “may close schools and forbid public gatherings in schools, churches, and other places to control outbreaks and epidemics” (emphasis mine). Note that it says nothing about private gatherings.
The only other provision that might plausibly be interpreted as authority to impose restrictions on private gatherings is in Section 323.12(4)(b), which says that the governor may “Issue such orders as he or she deems necessary for the security of persons and property.” Does that include forbidding private citizens from visiting their neighbors?
While there is a place for emergency rule, this series of orders in Wisconsin—and similar orders in many other states—seem to violate our essential constitutional rights to associate, assemble, worship and travel. At what point do state restrictions on individual liberty become unconstitutional?
I’m all for cooperating with federal, state and local authorities when asked to do my part in a crisis, but even efforts to keep the public safe during a declared crisis have to be constitutional.
