Original Argument: The Lost Chapters. Translated by Joshua Charles

Number 22

Other Defects of the Present Confederation (continued)

Alexander Hamilton

New York Packet

Friday, December 14, 1787

In addition to the defects of the existing federal system that I discussed in my last paper, there are others which are just as important, and that also make this current system of ours incapable of administering the affairs of the Union.

All parties agree that the lack of a power to regulate commerce is one of these defects.[1] The usefulness of such a power has already been discussed in earlier papers (Nos. 11-13), and for this reason, as well as the universal agreement on this subject, not much else needs to be said.  Even the most casual observer will see that that whether it is trade or finance, nothing else clearly demands Federal oversight more than commerce.

The lack of this power has already kept us from signing treaties with foreign powers that would have been beneficial, and has also caused friction between the states.  No nation that is familiar with our current political system would be unwise enough to make any binding agreements with the United States because those agreements would concede important privileges to us, as any agreements on behalf of the Union could be broken at any time by one of the states.

Also, they have found that they are able to enjoy every advantage our markets provide them without granting us anything in return, except when it may be convenient for them.  It is therefore not surprising that when Mr. Jenkins introduced a bill to the House of Commons (Great Britain) that would regulate all the temporary interaction between our two countries. He introduced it by declaring that previous bills had been able to achieve all the goals of British commerce, and that it would be wise to continue this policy until it became clearer whether or not the American government would become more stable.

Several states have tried to influence the actions of Great Britain in this regard by enacting their own bans, restrictions, and exclusions.  But the lack of coordination, which itself comes from a lack of a general authority, not to mention the different views of the states, has thwarted every similar attempt, and will continue to do so as long as the obstacles which prevent us from implementing a uniform commercial policy remain the same.

Contrary to the spirit of the Union, the meddlesome and un-neighborly regulations of some states have sometimes given other nations good reason to be offended and complain about us.  I fear that if examples like this are not restrained by a national authority, they will not only happen more often but will become more widespread until they become very serious sources of animosity and conflict, which may even obstruct the commerce between different parts of the Confederacy itself.

“The commerce of the German empire is in continual trammels, from the multiplicity of the duties which the several princes and states exact upon the merchandises passing through their territories; by means of which the fine streams and navigable rivers with which Germany is so happily watered, are rendered almost useless.”[2]

Though the genius of the American people may never permit this to happen, we can reasonably expect that conflicts between the regulations of each state will gradually cause the citizens of each to be regarded and treated by the others as no better than foreigners or aliens.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the power of raising armies amounts to not much more than the congress being able to require from the states certain quotas of men.  As the Revolutionary war showed, this system has been found to be full of obstacles to a strong and effective system of defense.  The states began to compete with each other in a sort of auction for men.  In order to provide the quotas required of them, they outbid each other until their bounties became so large that they could no longer support them.  Those who were more willing to serve began to procrastinate and stopped sending their men into battles as often because they continued to hope that the bounties would become even larger.

What resulted was a slow stream of very few men during our most desperate emergencies, short enlistments (to our great loss), and continuous fluctuations in the number of troops, which proved disastrous for their discipline and also constantly put the public safety in danger of the crisis of a disbanded army.  This also forced us to occasionally use harsh methods to recruit and keep men in the army, which were only put up with because of the People’s enthusiasm for liberty.

This method of recruiting troops is just as unfriendly to the economy and our national vitality as it is to an equal sharing of the burdens of war.  The states near the front lines, in the interests of self-preservation, made the necessary effort to supply their quotas of men (which was often more than they could truly afford), while the states at a greater distance were just as negligent in their efforts as the others were diligent in theirs.  The immediate pressures that were felt from all of this was not eased by the hope that some of the negligent states would come clean (as was the case with financial contributions).  The states which did not pay their fair share of money could at least be charged with that, but it wasn’t possible to keep track of all the shortages of men.  There is really no reason to regret this however, since there is a very small chance that delinquent states will ever be able to provide compensation for their financial failures anyway.  The system of quotas and requisitions, whether it regards money or men, is in every way a stupid system for the Union, and one which results in inequality and injustice amongst the states.

Giving each state the exact same voting power is another horrible part of the Confederation.  Every idea of fair representation condemns this principle that gives Rhode Island the same voting power as Massachusetts, or Connecticut the same as New York, and gives Delaware just as much influence over national debates as Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina.  Its very nature contradicts the fundamental principle of republican government, which requires that the majority should prevail.

Arguments that sound good but that lack substance could be made in support of the idea that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the states will be a majority of Confederated America.  But this sort of logical game will never replace what fairness and common sense tell us is correct.  Under this principle, it would be possible for a majority of the states to only include a minority of the People (New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Georgia, South Carolina, and Maryland are a majority of the states, but they are not even a third of the total population of the United States).  Two thirds of the People of America will not be persuaded by fancy arguments or fancier speech to allow their interests to be governed at will by the other third.  The larger states would sooner or later revolt against the idea of having to live under the laws which came out of the smaller states.  If they were to give up their rightful political importance in this country, it would not only require giving up the love of power, but also even the love of equality.  It is neither rational to expect the first, or moral to require the second.  Considering how much the smaller states rely on the Union for their protection and welfare, they would be wise to drop this claim to equal voting power which, if not given up, would prove fatal to the existence of the Union.

It could be argued that since under the Articles of Confederation nine states (two thirds of the states), not seven, are required to agree on the most important decisions, then those nine states will always include a majority of the citizens of the Union.  But this doesn’t even address the unfairness of an equal vote between states that are completely different sizes and have very unequal populations.  Nor is it even accurate to say this: by simply adding New York and Connecticut to our previous list and bringing it to a total of nine states, we still don’t have a majority of the People.  Besides, there are very important matters which can be decided by a bare majority, while there are others about which doubts have been raised which, if we say that seven votes are enough to make a decision about them, would end up affecting some of our most important interests.  It should also be pointed out that while it is likely that the number of states will increase, there is currently nothing in the Articles of Confederation which will provide for a proportional rise in the ratio of votes required to pass resolutions.

But this is not all: what at first may seem like a cure is in fact a poison.  To give a minority the power to override a majority (which is always the case when more than a majority is required to make a decision) essentially subjects the views of the greater number to those of the lesser.  Because some states’ representatives have not even been present, congress, like the Polish Diet, has been frequently brought to a complete halt because of a single VETO.  Delaware and Rhode Island, which represent a full 1/60 of the population of the Union, have been able to bring congress to a complete standstill several times.  This is one of those things which sound good in theory, but whose actual result is quite the opposite.  The idea that the important decisions of any public body should be unanimous was originally coined because of a desire for greater security.  But what has actually happened has resulted in  the embarrassment of the administration, the destruction of the energy of government, and the replacement of the regular debates of a respectable majority with the capricious desires of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junta.[3] It is during national emergencies when the goodness or badness, weakness or strength of a government becomes extremely important because of the necessity for action.

The public business must, in some way or another, go forward.  If a stubborn minority can control the opinion of the majority, then the majority will be forced, in order to move public business forward, to conform to the views of the minority, and thus the views of the smaller will ultimately overrule the views of the larger.  This causes tedious delays, constant negotiation and intrigue, and as such will disgracefully compromise the public good.  And yet, in such a system, it is fortunate that a compromise can even be made in the first place, since coming to any sort of agreement will not even occur on other occasions, which would put the functions of government on hold, or even fatally stop them.  In this system, it is often impractical to obtain the necessary number of votes, and so the government is constantly very busy doing nothing.  Its situation will always be one of weakness, or even borderline anarchy.

It is not difficult to see how the rule of the minority would help facilitate foreign intrusions into our country, as well as a greater amount of domestic factions than the rule of the majority would, despite the fact that the opposite is the common assumption. The biggest source of the mistake behind this assumption would be, and has been, not enough attention being paid to those problems which would result from the work of government being obstructed during certain critical periods.  When the agreement of a large number is required by the constitution to do anything at the national level, then we can at least rest peacefully knowing that at least nothing inappropriate will likely be done.  But we forget how much good could be prevented, and how much bad could result from keeping the government in this straitjacket, and from doing what is necessary.

Suppose, for example, that we were in an alliance with one foreign nation in a war against another, and let’s say that our situation demanded peace, while the interests or ambition of our ally leaned towards continuing the war, a situation which would justify us in seeking a separate peace treaty.  In this situation, this ally of ours would find it much easier to tie up the hands of our government, which requires two thirds of the vote instead of a simple majority to negotiate peace, by their scheming and bribes.  In the first case, he would have to corrupt a smaller portion of our government, and in the second, a much larger portion.  Based on the same principle, it would be even easier for a foreign nation we were actually at war with to confuse our congress and make a mockery of our war effort.  Similar things would happen economically as well.  A nation with whom we had a treaty of commerce could very easily prevent us from negotiating a similar treaty with one of their competitors, even though such a treaty would be beneficial to us.

These evils that I have described are by no means simply imaginary.  Despite the many advantages, one of the weaknesses of a republic is that it is too easy for a foreign power to corrupt.  A hereditary monarch, though he may often sacrifice his subjects for the sake of his own ambition, has such a great personal interest in the government and the external glory of his nation that it would be very difficult for a foreign power to offer him anything which would make him willing to commit treason against his own state.  There have been very few examples of this type of royal prostitution, though there have been many examples of all sorts of other kinds.

In republics, people who are elevated above the rest of the community to prestigious and powerful positions by the votes of their fellow citizens, may find that it is worth it (unless they are exceptionally virtuous) to take a bribe which seems to outweigh their obligations and duty to the public.  Hence the reason why history provides us with so many mortifying examples of foreign corruption taking place in republics!  I have already discussed how this has led to the downfall of many of the ancient confederacies (Nos. 18).  It is a well-known fact that some of the representatives of the United Provinces (United Netherlands) have been bought off by the representatives of the neighboring kingdoms.  If my memory serves me correctly, the Earl of Chesterfield (Great Britain) wrote in a letter to his court that his success in some important negotiations with the United Netherlands was because he was able to obtain a Major’s commission (military rank) for one of their representatives.  And in Sweden, the rival parties were both alternately bought by France and England in such a shameless and notorious manner that it aroused universal disgust throughout that nation, and was also the main reason behind how the most limited monarch in Europe became in a single day, without any uproar, violence, or opposition, one of the most absolute and uncontrolled monarchs in Europe.

I have yet to mention the defect which tops off all of the defects of the Confederacy: the lack of a judiciary power.[4] Laws are worthless words on paper without courts to interpret and define their true meaning and function.  If the treaties of the United States are to have any force at all, they must be considered part of the law of the land.[5] Their true significance, as far as individuals are concerned, must, like all other laws, be determined by the judiciary.  To make sure that these determinations remain uniform, there ought to be a body which has the last word on all of them, a SUPREME COURT, which should be given the same degree of authority as that which negotiates the treaties in the first place.[6] Both of these ingredients are absolutely necessary.  If each state has its own supreme court, a court which would have the last word for that individual state, then there may be as many legal determinations as there are courts.  There is an infinite amount of diverse opinions among men, as we see when not only different courts, but judges on even the same courts disagree with each other.  To avoid the confusion that would come from multiple courts making contradictory decisions on multiple laws, all nations have found it necessary to establish one Supreme Court that is above all the others and which has the final say on all judicial determinations, so that the rules of civil justice remain uniform throughout the land.

This is even more important in a situation like ours, where the laws of the whole are in danger of being overridden by the laws of the parts.  If each state’s court is allowed to make its own final decisions, other than the contradictions which are sure to come up between the states, it is likely that each court’s decision will be strongly affected by local views, prejudices, and laws.  As far as such interference is concerned, it is more likely that the provisions of the local laws will be preferred more than the national laws, simply because of the greater respect that men in public office give to the authority to which they owe their existence.  The treaties of the United States can currently be broken by thirteen difference legislatures, as well as by all the different courts which act under the authority of those legislatures.  The good faith, reputation, and peace of the entire Union are thus always at the mercy of all the prejudices, passions, and interests of each of the states.  Is it possible for foreign nations to respect or trust such a government?  Is it even possible that the People of America will continue to trust their honor, happiness, and safety to such an unstable foundation?

In this overview of the Confederation, I have only focused on its most obvious defects, and temporarily ignored the many imperfections that can be found in the details, imperfections which render all the powers given to the Confederacy dead on arrival.  It must be obvious at this point to all wise and unbiased men that this system is so radically flawed and unsound that it must not merely be amended, but must have its main features and characteristics completely changed.

The very organization of congress is utterly incapable of exercising the powers which are necessary for the Union to have.  A single legislature may be the proper receptacle of those small, extremely restricted powers which the current federal government has, but it would be contrary to good government to entrust it with those additional powers which even the more moderate and rational opponents of the Constitution agree the United States should have.  If the proposed Plan is not accepted, but the Union is still able to survive the schemes of men who wish to profit from its dissolution, then we should probably give the congress, as it is currently structured, several supplementary powers.  Either the machine will completely fall apart because of how weak it is, or it will have its force and energy gradually increased in the future (as necessary) until it finally has gathered unto itself, and in a single body (congress) all the important rights and powers of sovereignty, leaving to our posterity one of the most hideous forms of government ever imagined by man.  Thus, we would actually create the very tyranny which the opponents of the Constitution wish to avoid!

The fact that the existing federal system was never ratified by the PEOPLE has contributed more than just a little bit to its infirmity.  Resting on no better foundation than the consent of the legislatures of the states, many frequent and detailed questions about the validity of its powers have been raised, and have even (in some cases) given birth to the dangerous idea of a right to legislative repeal.  Since the Confederacy owes its existence to the law of a state, it has been argued that the same power which established this central government (the individual states) could also repeal the law which it itself passed.[7] No matter how profane it is to say that a party which has made an agreement has a right to break that agreement, this doctrine has found some respectable supporters.  The mere fact that this has even come up should prove to us the necessity of providing our national government with a stronger foundation than the one which simply relies on authority delegated from some other authority.  The fabric of American empire should rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE.[8] The streams of National power should flow directly from this pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.

Publius


[1]United States Constitution: Article I, Section 8, clause 3

[2]“Encyclopedia, article ‘Empire’” [sic]

[3]Junto: “A self-appointed committee, especially one with political aims.”

[4]United States Constitution: Article III, Section 1

[5]United States Constitution: Article VI, clause 2

[6]The description of the Judicial Branch under the Constitution is contained in Article III, while the description of Congress and the President (“… [the] same authority as that which negotiates the treaties in the first place”) is mostly found in Article I and Article II, with several miscellaneous powers of Congress existing throughout the Constitution.

[7]Nullification Doctrine: This is the doctrine, or principle which said that the states were individually capable of declaring Federal laws unconstitutional, and therefore had the right to repeal them (for that state).  It was also very closely related to the idea of secession, which was the idea that the states had the right to leave the Union.  Historically, there seems to be at least a tacit acknowledgement of this doctrine’s legitimacy by both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.  Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions (1798):

“…that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it…”

Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolutions (1799), which are typically paired with the Kentucky Resolutions:

“The resolutions, having taken this view of the Federal compact, proceed to infer that, in cases of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose to arrest the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them. ...The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this solid foundation. The States, then, being parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, as parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

[8]United States Constitution: Preamble

On "GlennTV," host Glenn Beck argued that the World Health Organization has been knowingly helping the Communist Party of China spread disinformation about the coronavirus.

Why?

Well, it turns out that the current WHO director-general is a politician from Ethiopia (the very first director without a medical degree) — and apparently Ethiopia owes China a lot.

"This outbreak has revealed the WHO as nothing more than a Chinese Communist front," Glenn said. "China knew early on just how dangerous the coronavirus was, how it spread, how fast it spread, and the fatality rate, but were more concerned with getting the blame than protecting lives. So, they had their front man, the World Health Organization, tell the world there was nothing to worry about."

On Jan. 14, the WHO repeated the Chinese Communist Party's claim that the coronavirus does not travel human to human.

On Feb. 3, WHO Director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced there was no need for measures that "unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade" to combat the spread of COVID-19.

On the exact same date, a spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China released a statement criticizing President Trump for restricting travel to China.

"[S]ome countries, the US in particular, have inappropriately overreacted, which certainly runs counter to WHO advice. The US government hasn't provided any substantive assistance to us, but it was the first to evacuate personnel from its consulate in Wuhan, the first to suggest partial withdrawal of its embassy staff, and the first to impose a travel ban on Chinese travelers. What it has done could only create and spread fear, which is a very bad example. Even American media and experts doubted the government's decision, saying that the US government's restrictions on China are precisely what the WHO rejects, that the US is turning from overconfidence to fear and overreaction, and that banning the entry of visitors who traveled to China in the past 14 days is suspected to be violating civil rights instead of reducing risks of virus spreading," spokesperson Hua Chunying said.

Hua went on to say, "As the WHO Director-General noted, China is setting a new standard for outbreak response."

Indeed, Tedros has been very consistent in his praise for China's response to the coronavirus outbreak.

"The steps China has taken to contain the outbreak at its source appear to have bought to the world time," he told the Munich Security Conference in mid-February.

Watch the video below for more details:

In response to the COVID-19 crisis, BlazeTV is offering our BIGGEST discount ever! Get $30 off your subscription when you use promo code GLENN. Claim your special offer at https://get.blazetv.com/glenn/.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream

On Monday's radio program, Glenn discussed claims that the Obama administration depleted and never replenished the federal supply of emergency gear, including N95 respirator masks, during the H1N1 flu, or swine flu epidemic, in 2009.

Last month, Bloomberg News, and the Los Angeles Times, among others, reported that the Obama administration used, and failed to restock supplies of N95 respirator masks, and ignored recommendations that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should replenish the "Strategic National Stockpile." Read more on this here.

USA Today followed up with a fact-check article titled, "Fact check: Did the Obama administration deplete the federal stockpile of N95 masks?"

On Sunday, 2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden accused President Donald Trump of "failing to prepare our nation to respond."

President Trump fired back, "You and Obama depleted America's stockpile of N95 masks after the H1N1 swine flu pandemic. You were advised to replenish the national stockpile but FAILED. STOP LYING AND EXPLAIN!"

Watch the video below for more details:

In response to the COVID-19 crisis, BlazeTV is offering our BIGGEST discount ever! Get $30 off your subscription when you use promo code GLENN. Claim your special offer at https://get.blazetv.com/glenn/.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream

Glenn gives the latest coronavirus numbers, updating YOU on everything needed to know as Americans and officials monitor China's new COVID-19 virus:

Daily Stats as of 5:30 AM CT (from John's Hopkins)

  • Total Confirmed Cases Worldwide: 1,359,010 (up from 1,284,805 yesterday)
  • Total Confirmed Deaths Worldwide: 75,906 (up from 70,906 yesterday)
  • Total Confirmed Recovered Worldwide: 293,454 (up from 271,782 yesterday)
  • Still Just 5% of Active Cases are considered serious (requiring hospitalization) Steady from 5% yesterday, and down from the 19% high back in February
  • Note that about 11% of US Confirmed Cases require Hospitalization, roughly on par with Italy at 12% requiring hospitalization but lower than Spain, where 17% of patients require hospitalization.
  • US has 367,650 Confirmed Cases and 10,943 Deaths, up from 336,851 cases and 9,620 cases yesterday
  • The US currently has 336,897 Active Cases of COVID-19, with about 1.2% of the US Population tested
Motor City Nightmare: More Than 700 Employees in One Detroit Hospital System Test Positive https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/491484-more-than-700-employees-at-one-detroit-hospital-system-test-positive-for
  • Hundreds of staff at a Detroit-area hospital system have tested positive for coronavirus.
  • Dr. Adnan Munkarah of the Henry Ford Hospital Campus confirmed 731 cases of the coronavirus among employees at the hospital, accounting for 2 percent of the hospital system's 31,600 employees.
  • As many as 1,500 at another hospital in the state have reported symptoms similar to coronavirus, though those numbers are not confirmed cases.
  • "If we are to test the whole population, you are going to see large numbers of people who are testing positive...Testing positive is just a measure of how contagious this virus is." said the hospital director.
  • "Our team members are our greatest asset and their health and safety is a top priority as we continue to respond to this pandemic," Munkarah said in a separate statement Monday evening confirmed the total number of positive test results.
  • "We know we are not immune to potential exposure and we remain grateful for the courage and dedication of our entire team," he added.
  • Detroit, Michigan's largest city, has seen a surge of coronavirus cases in recent days while the state itself has seen just over 17,000 cases of the virus – the third-largest total of any state in the U.S. More than 5,000 of those cases were reported in Detroit, where hundreds have died.
The Invisible...Invisible Enemy: Can COVID-19 Hide In Cells? https://www.the-sun.com/news/645016/fears-coronavirus-hide-cells-reactivate-recovered-patients-test-positive/
  • COVID-19 may be able to remain in the body and "reactivate" later after 51 recovered patients tested positive again.
  • The patients, from the city of Daegu, South Korea, had all spent time in quarantine while recovering from the disease but were diagnosed again within days of being released.
  • The center said it did not believe the patients had been reinfected, but that the virus had remained at undetectable levels in their cells and later "reactivated".
  • The claim runs contrary to the bulk of current evidence about how the virus works.
  • Investigators said the most likely explanation was that the clearance samples for the patients were false negatives, a common issue with nasal swab tests.
  • "Still, we remain vigilant and open to the possibility that the virus can remain dormant for some time," Dr Leong Kwok, Director of Viral Epidemiology at the National Health Institute in Seoul said.
Maybe Don't Go To the Grocery Store After All https://www.foxnews.com/health/los-angeles-braces-itself-more-coronavirus-deaths-warns-residents-not-go-shopping-warns-residents-not-to-go-out-shopping
  • With coronavirus related deaths spiking in Los Angeles County and "a critical week" ahead, health officials advised residents on Monday to stay at home and avoid shopping to limit the spread of the virus.
  • "If you have enough supplies in your home, this would be the week to skip shopping altogether," said public health department Director Barbara Ferrer, according to the Los Angeles Times.
  • Officials confirmed 420 new coronavirus cases in the county and 15 deaths on Monday.
  • Over 6,360 cases and 147 deaths have been reported since the outbreak started, per data from Johns Hopkins.
Mexico's Slow Response May Cause Problems for Texas https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/mexico-slow-response-coronavirus-texas-us-15181201.php
  • As recently as March 15, some 40,000 concert goers crowded into the Foro Sor venue for the popular Vive Latino music festival.
  • Tourists from Europe and the United States were able to enter the country without any restrictions until late last week.
  • Restaurants, airports, subways and grocery stores remain open in Mexico City, though churches and large markets have closed.
  • The rapid spread of the COVID-19, however, has begun to increase the urgency of the government's response. Mexican health authorities reported on March 16 that the country had 82 cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. Two weeks later, the number swelled to nearly 2439, including 125 deaths.
  • Deputy Health Minister Hugo Lopez Gatell, who two weeks ago dismissed US social distancing restrictions as "an extreme tactic" and "irresponsible" is now urging citizens to "stay at home, stay at home, stay at home."
  • "If you have food at home, stay home. There is no reason good enough to go out, period," he said.
  • Mexico is just one of many nations that reacted slowly to the coronavirus pandemic, in large part because government leaders failed to understand how contagious the virus is.
  • President Lopez Obrador spent the first half of March dismissing the gravity of the virus, encouraging Mexicans to frequent restaurants and posting videos of himself in crowds, kissing babies.
  • He said Mexico's spirituality would protect the country against the virus and made a public display of pulling out two religious amulets that he said would be his shield.
  • Mexico shares over 1,200 miles of border with the United States.
Hong Kong Closed to All Foreign Travelers, Indefinitely https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3078633/coronavirus-five-hong-kong-residents-flown-back
  • The city extends its ban on arrivals after most cases over past two weeks have come from overseas.
  • Only six of 24 newly infected yesterday are local transmissions, but all are linked to entertainment venues already closed.
  • All entertainment venues are closed until further notice.
  • Hong Kong recently issued a new state of emergency order revoking travel into the country from any outside nation, including China.
  • The order will prevent Hong Kong from 'opening up' it's economy through at least early May
Drug You Can't Pronounce May Be Saving Lives https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/04/06/democrat-karen-whitsett-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-trump/2955430001/, https://abc7.com/coronavirus-drug-covid-19-malaria-hydroxychloroquine/6079864/
  • A Democratic state representative from Detroit is crediting hydroxychloroquine — and Republican President Donald Trump who touted the drug — for saving her in her battle with the coronavirus.
  • State Rep. Karen Whitsett, who learned Monday she has tested positive for COVID-19, said she started taking hydroxychloroquine on March 31, prescribed by her doctor, after both she and her husband sought treatment for a range of symptoms on March 18.
  • "It was less than two hours" before she started to feel relief, said Whitsett, who had experienced shortness of breath, swollen lymph nodes, and what felt like a sinus infection. She is still experiencing headaches, she said.
  • Elsewhere, a Los Angeles doctor said he is seeing significant success in prescribing hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc to treat patients with severe symptoms of COVID-19.
  • The drug has been touted as a possible treatment for COVID-19 by President Trump among others, but it remains controversial as some experts believe it is unproven and may not be effective.
  • The drug has long been used for treatment of malaria and conditions such as lupus and arthritis but is not technically approved by the FDA for COVID-19. The agency, however, is encouraging trials and has provided limited emergency authorization for its use to treat COVID-19 patients.
  • Dr. Anthony Cardillo said he has seen very promising results when prescribing hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc for the most severely-ill COVID-19 patients.
  • "Every patient I've prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free," Cardillo told Eyewitness News. "So clinically I am seeing a resolution very consistently."
Belt and Road, COVID-19 Style https://spectator.us/italy-china-ppe-sold-coronavirus/
  • After COVID-19 made its way to Italy, decimating the country's significant elderly population, China told the world it would donate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to help Italy stop its spread.
  • Reports later indicated that China had actually sold, not donated, the PPE to Italy. A senior Trump administration official tells The Spectator that it is much worse than that: China forced Italy to buy back the PPE supply that it gave to China during the initial coronavirus outbreak.
  • "Before the virus hit Europe, Italy sent tons of PPE to China to help China protect its own population,' the administration official explained. 'China then has sent Italian PPE back to Italy — some of it, not even all of it … and charged them for it."
  • China also recently donated PPE to Sweden and Spain, with many doctors reporting that masks and respirators included in the shipment were defective or already used.
  • "Someone got very sloppy," said a senior health official in Spain. "It must have been a mistake."

"This was a sneak attack, like a thief in the night."

"A wartime President."

"A great battle, against an invisible enemy."

"We will win and declare a great victory for our country."

All of these are direct quotes from President Donald Trump, all uttered since March 1st of this year.

And of course, all of them ring decidedly true and make perfect sense. Even Trump's most ardent opponents have referred to the current situation in which America finds itself as a once in a generation emergency, and that we should be on a wartime footing. They've called for more and more power to be handed to, no, more explicitly they've called for more power to be taken by the President to do battle against "The Invisible Enemy," everything from commandeering manufacturing plants to logistics and shipping companies to pharmaceutical manufacturing and research, to nationalizing the banking sector and all mortgages.

On the other hand, the President has preferred to form a partnership with private industries to wage the war. Turning to America's great companies to produce masks, respirators, ventilators, medicine and vaccines that will ensure our country can and will prevail.

The United States – and the entire world – is engaged in a great battle, against an unseen enemy. An enemy that threatens to kill our people and destroy our nation and our way of life. It's an enemy that we have seen and fought before, as a people. We have faced this enemy throughout human history, over and over we've had to battle it. All of us are descendants of survivors of the countless previous wars that humanity has had to fight against this hidden enemy of man.

The enemy is a disease. The enemy is a virus.

The enemy is not SARS-CoV-2, Coronavirus.

No, the virus we're battling against is Slavery.

Call it what you want. Socialism. Collectivism. Communism. Statism. Despotism. A one-world government. Those are all forms of the same thing: some people's individual liberty captured for the betterment and benefit of others. All of those are forms of enslaving some men to the will and needs of others.

A virus is a biological construct. It's a biological disease caused by a virus, an unliving, unthinking sliver of organic material and takes over cells to turn them into factories that produce more viral particles to take over more cells until, ultimately, the host is killed. Doing battle against a virus requires treating both the symptoms caused by infection as well as finding a vaccine that can destroy the virus itself.

But slavery is a political and moral construct. It's a social disease caused by an immoral idea, spread by unthinking, unfeeling human beings who transmit the disease to others turning them into factories that produce more unthinking, unfeeling human beings. They take over the lives of more and more people within a society or a country until that country is destroyed. Doing battle against slavery requires treating both the symptoms caused by the infection within a society as well as finding a cure that can destroy the idea itself.

President Donald Trump is absolutely correct. This is a war.

President Donald Trump is absolutely correct. This is a war. He's also correct, we have fought this type of war before.

But this is not a war against a coronavirus. That's child's play. Terrible though it may be and despite the thousands of lives we may lose to COVID-19, it's relatively straightforward how to defeat it. Prevent the spread, find a cure. And we will. America and the world will survive this pandemic as it has survived a million others in our past. Each of us is the descendent of survivors of a thousand biological plagues.

The President rightly stated, we cannot let the cure for COVID-19 be worse than the disease itself. And he has the right idea in terms of the outcome here: we can't let our response to coronavirus destroy the American economy.

But saving the American economy isn't really the objective. A healthy, productive American economy that enables people to generate wealth and accumulate things is a consequence, an outcome, it's not a cause in itself. What has enabled the American economy to be the most robust and powerful engine for human ingenuity, productivity and wealth generation in world history is individual liberty? Men free to think and build, to seek new achievements and to be rewarded for doing so, to collaborate with each other, to challenge and compete with each other, driving each other to be smarter, to work harder, to find the better way to solve problems.

That is America. That is the battle we're in, what we're fighting to save. Beating COVID-19 is easy, it's only a matter of time. This particular virus may be new to us, but we know the formula for its defeat, much like the long-march to destroy the NAZI war machine in World War II, the writing was on the wall long before Berlin fell. Germany's defeat was inevitable once America entered the war. So too, the defeat of SARS-CoV-2 is already a foregone conclusion, the application of human ingenuity and thousands of years of human inventiveness and knowledge ensures our ultimate victory over this latest scourge.

But that is not the great threat. If the cure for COVID-19 is the slavery of some men for the benefit and betterment of others, then perhaps it would be better for COVID-19 to take us all. If the cost of defeating the biological virus is that we succumb to the political and moral disease of collectivism, then Trump's fear will have been proved right and the cure will have been worse than the disease.

Look at what's being proposed here. In the US, the government should take over every major industry, from healthcare and pharmaceutical companies to grocery and food delivery to airlines to shipping and transportation. Construction, take it over! Banking system, take it over! Stock market, take it over!

And on the global stage, the United Nations is now calling for a permanent 10% global tax on the GDP of every country.

And on the global stage, the United Nations is now calling for a permanent 10% global tax on the GDP of every country.
Ostensibly designed to fight COVID-19, but made permanent to enable the UN to fight future pandemics, as well as the ongoing pandemic of Climate Change…oh, and Poverty and Income Inequality, and sexism and nationalism and a thousand other isms they believe are unfair.

The United States is less than 5% of the World's population, but we represent over 25% of the world's GDP. So, the UN is effectively proposing that about 4% of the population transfer 10% of our wealth each year to support the remaining 96% of the human race, including supporting countries who are our enemies and who seek our very destruction.

What is proposed here is nothing short of the permanent enslavement of the United States for the betterment and benefit of every other national on earth.

There is no doubt the human race will survive COVID-19. Human beings have survived a thousand similar pandemics with barely more than a blip in our progress as a species.

But the plague of collectivism, the idea that some men should be slaves to others, that some people have some sort of right to lay claim to the intellect and productive energy of others, that is the real battle. That is the true invisible enemy that we must yet again defeat.

Ask yourself, would you have some right to charge into Mike Lindell's My Pillow bedding factory and point a gun at him and his workers to force them to produce cotton face masks to avoid being shot? No, of course the idea sounds preposterous and all rational thinking human beings would clearly see that as an immoral, criminal act. And yet many people are proposing that we do exactly that, just the gunman wears a blue UN Helmet or carries a US Marshall's badge.

Alternatively, does Mike Lindell have the right to choose to convert his factory over to making cotton face masks, at his own expense and to pay his workers to make those masks instead of making pillows? Yes, that is moral, that is a human being engaged in activity that he believes to be virtuous and right and, yes, for the love of all that is holy — profitable.

Just as with COVID-19, the defeat of all forms of slavery should be an inevitability. And yet from every corner of our country, the call is for the forced enslavement of some people for the benefit of others.

President Trump has this right. We cannot let the cure for COVID-19 come at the cost of our economy. And if that is the objective, then it is our original principles: individual liberty, freedom of movement and speech, that is what must be defended. That is how we protect and restore our economy and our country. That is how we ensure that our children's children will also be descendants of survivors of plagues and pandemics, whether they are the biological - or the moral kind.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.


YouTube youtu.be