In a sadly predictable plot twist, The New York Times’ Editorial Board’s activists turned on their own to drive out a few voices who still dared, ever so carefully mind you, to follow their intellectual honesty away from the politically correct orthodoxy of the far left.

Neither James Bennet, now former editorial page editor of The New York Times, nor Bari Weiss, now former op-ed staff editor for The Times, were ousted for publishing honest opinion pieces about guns—can you even imagine that? What happened to them is, nevertheless, a telling example of how anything honest pertaining to Second Amendment rights, or about how to actually make America even safer, is increasingly being discouraged, shunned and outright banned from coverage by the mainstream media—and by many in Hollywood and by those running the major social-media companies. 

The “cancel culture” they are leading is a cancer within the left that has stymied rational conversation between people who happen to have different views. Unsurprisingly, this thought cancer is now attacking its host. The far left, in fact, now thinks that merely speaking to a person with a pro-freedom perspective is corrupting—an idea cultivated and spread by humanities departments in elite academic institutions.

As this was being written, Bret Stephens, an opinion columnist for The New York Times who came from The Wall Street Journal in 2017, is considered to be the last “moderate” writing for The Times’ opinion section. But this isn’t even so when it comes to the Second Amendment, as soon after joining The Times, Stephens wrote a column titled “Repeal the Second Amendment,” as if to let his new colleagues know he is willing to sell out even the fundamental basis of liberty to make it in the mainstream media. He began the column with the line: “I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.” 

Perhaps it could be said that Stephens should read a little more American history, and that he should get out into America just a little bit to see and feel the liberty he wants to extinguish, but that misses the point. Stephens may or may not know all of that; regardless, he is weakly selling out for a check and for false status in the hierarchy of a dishonest newspaper.

The Times, meanwhile, is still a flagship leading the left. It is read by politicians, by the media elite and by academics. What it publishes—and doesn’t publish—affects many of the narratives the mainstream media adheres to with blinding, fingers-in-their-ears banality.

This includes issues related to guns. 

John Lott’s experience with The Times is a clarifying example. Lott, the founder and CEO of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of More Guns, Less Crime and other books, is forever trying to get his research to every audience. This has made him a glutton for progressive punishment. In 2018, he pitched The Times an opinion piece on how background checks disproportionately deny gun purchases to law-abiding minorities. 

“The fact-checking and editing lasted three months, with dozens of emails back and forth. One Times employee wrote me: ‘Sorry they made you jump through fiery hoops…,’” says Lott.

Incredibly, Lott got his opinion piece into the pages of The Times; well, it was more a shadow of his article than the actual thing, as they “watered it down into meaninglessness,” says Lott. 

After it ran, one Times staffer emailed Lott: “Everytown [the anti-gun group launched by Mike Bloomberg] and others, have let us know how displeased they are that we ran your piece.” Another Times employee confided in Lott that they had received 75,000 “angry” emails the day after his article ran. Lott soon heard that gun-control groups had organized email and telephone campaigns to pressure The Times into firing the staff who were involved in running his opinion piece.

The next Sunday, The Times tried to quell the criticism by running an editorial calling Lott a “disreputable economist best known for misusing statistics to suit his own ideological ends.” 

“In my case, the orchestrated outrage by gun-control organizations probably had its desired effect. It will be a long time, if ever, before The New York Times publishes another of my opinion pieces,” says Lott. 

Lott explains that “unfortunately, this is a pattern I have seen over and over again at different news outlets; for example, after an organized backlash a couple years ago, The Hill will no longer run my pieces. After publishing 33 of my op-ed submissions without a single refusal, The Hill has since rejected the next 103 pieces, many of which were subsequently published in reputable publications.”

One member of The Hill’s staff privately told Lott that the owner just didn’t want to deal with all of the anger generated by activists regarding his columns. Lott says that editors at places from the Los Angeles Times to the Chicago Tribune have told him similar stories about them being pressured into not running pro-Second Amendment content. Cancel culture, especially when it comes to the truth about guns, is resulting in a lot of censorship.

Bari Weiss, the former staff editor and writer for The Times opinion section, published a public letter on why she had to leave what she loudly characterizes as a toxic work environment. She said she experienced “constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views” and an environment where she said “self-censorship has become the norm.”

“What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity,” she wrote in a lengthy resignation letter, which she posted to her personal website. “If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.”

Publications like The New York Times claim to defend classical liberal values, but today, free speech only applies in their pages to speech they like. Anything honest related to guns in America, according to them, just isn’t news that’s fit to print. 

It was February 21, 1871 that the 41st US Congress sold out the Republic. On this date, Congress passed an Act titled: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia.” Also known as the “Act of 1871.” Congress, illegally acting on it’s own behalf, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia. Congress realizing that our country was in severe financial difficulty, cut a deal with the international bankers, in the process incurring a debt to those bankers. The international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.

When President Kennedy was assassinated, the guy arrested for the crime didn’t live long.

That’s because Lee Harvey Oswald was almost immediately murdered by Jack Ruby, who walked up in front of press, police, and witnesses and just shot Oswald dead.

Ruby then ‘conveniently’ died of lung problems and cancer while in prison…

…and we’ll most likely NEVER know the truth of what really happened.

If that sounds eerily familiar to you, that’s because you’ve been watching, listening and reading the news… and I need to talk about this disturbing reality!

By now, you’ve seen the memes about Jeffrey Epstein.

This wealthy socialite is rumored to have been running an underage sex ring for the rich and powerful.

Politicians, entertainers, other rich people… there are COUNTLESS people who could be in trouble if it comes out who used Epstein’s services.

So of course, Epstein too, ‘conveniently’ committed ‘suicide’ in his cell after he was caught… and, just by coincidence, the guards were asleep and the cameras weren’t working.

Riiiight.

A judge who had just signed on to take an Epstein-related case, Esther Salas, had her family targeted by an assassin.

That guy, dressed as a FedEx driver, walked up to her door and shot her son and her husband.

THEN he as well ‘conveniently’ committed suicide!

Sound familiar?

The fact is, powerful people are right now pulling the strings of our government, and they’re the ones who make these ‘accidents’ and ‘coincidences’ happen.

PERIOD!

There are very powerful books that explain how these things work, like Behind The Shadow, and what these authors have written will just absolutely flat-out blow your mind, but because the public so incessantly blows off conspiracy conversation, the truths never will out.

If you want to know who’s pulling the strings, you’ll want to read these books and especially the one mentioned.

They’re deeply disturbing.

And it wouldn’t surprise me if ‘they’ found a way to ban them in order to keep people from reading what’s inside because there’s a LOT of stuff that those secretly in power do NOT want you to know.

Defend, Protect —> Survive!

Nashville’s mayor is avoiding this scandal like it’s the most underwhelming plague in history… but the people of Nashville? No way. Many Nashvillians smell an uprising in their Tennessean midst. But the scandal you’ll come to see isn’t limited to Nashville alone. It’s likely, in some fashion, happening in your state, city, and/or county. Buckle up, Nancy.

“Not For Public Consumption” According to an email chain from June, leaked to the media this week…The coronavirus cases in Nashville’s restaurants and bars were so low that the mayor’s office and the metro health department decided to keep it secret. The email discussion among Nashville’s finest snollygosters pertained to the ridiculously low number of “confirmed cases” emerging from Nashville’s bars and restaurants. Total as of June 30? Allegedly only 22. Contact tracers found that construction and nursing homes were responsible for more than a thousand cases…But from the Broadway strip? Of the thousands of “confirmed cases” in the area, less than 100 could be traced back to the bars and restaurants. You would think this would be good news to our public officials. Nay! Quite the opposite in fact. Upon discovery, Leslie Waller from the health department asked via email, “This isn’t going to be publicly released, right? Just info for Mayor’s Office? “Correct, not for public consumption,” senior advisor Benjamin Eagles shot back. Hmmm…One health official, whose name was redacted, said: “My two cents. We have certainly refused to give counts per bar because those numbers are too low per site. “Gist? For months, the mayor and his (comfortably employed) team have been sitting on this information while local business owners and their employees have struggled, worried themselves to sleep, cried, argued with their spouses over money, and watched as their livelihoods crumbled and withered away. Most bars and restaurants are still operating at 25% capacity while construction crews, strangely, are working at full capacity with a much higher case count. Meanwhile, instead of letting people go back to work, or finding a way to cut public costs in a smart way, Cooper instead raised property taxes by 34% to offset the lost revenue. But it gets worse. Stacy Case of WZTV Nashville released this little bombshell yesterday: “I’ve found some serious flaws with the hospital bed capacity metric though which is keeping many businesses closed six months now.” In short, the metric requires Nashville hospitals to collectively have 20% of beds open before the economy can fully reopen. Nashville resident Matt Malkus, a statistician, was so disturbed by this metric, he and other statisticians formed ‘Nashville for Rational Covid Policy.’ “I’m a life insurance actuary,” Malkus said, “so I crunch numbers all day.” Here’s the rub, a la Case…“If you click on this link and look at the dark blue line at the peak of the light blue section, you’ll notice that’s Covid hospitalizations. The light blue is all other hospitalizations. The yellow is available beds. To fully reopen, Metro government is requiring both blues to dip below the red dotted line.  As you see, that probably wouldn’t happen with or without Covid.” “You take all of the Covid patients away,” said Malkus, “you’re still not going to meet that metric. So, to us, it’s like that’s a bad metric.” “In other words,” says Case, “normal hospitalization rates are keeping huge sectors shut down and thousands out of work like bartender Crystal Eisermann: ‘I’ve dipped into my savings so far. I have probably another month under my belt.’” To recap…Instead of allowing the local economy to (safely and intelligently) open up…Cooper raised property taxes by 34%. He put thousands of people out of work, who are now on the brink — or already there — of being unable to meet rent or pay their mortgages. And NOW to pile on top of all that, he raised property taxes a whopping 34%. These people are evil. These people are satanistic. These people are unholy. And he did so with B.S. data. The BIG problem is this isn’t just isolated to Nashville. It’s all over America, and “we the people” are allowing it to happen. We know a lot about this virus now. We’ve been playing defense for far too long. It’s time to push back and push back freakin’ hard as hell dammit.

“The next one will get attention this time,” Bill Gates said with a sly smirk. Melinda just looked at the camera and grinned.

During an interview conducted with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, Gates was talking about the next inevitable pandemic.

It was a pretty cryptic statement which, strangely, the interviewer left unquestioned.

What did he mean? Hard to say.

He didn’t take the time to explain this strange… and harrowing… prediction.

He’s not the only one.

Dr. Fauci says we need to hunker down this fall and winter, and it’s not going to be easy. Things won’t go back to normal until at least mid-2021, when we get a vaccine.

Again, he doesn’t really explain why. Does he know something incredible about the virus that we don’t?

Don’t know.

He didn’t say.

Meanwhile, many American cities have been under siege by protests — some of which have turned violent.

Kamala Harris says of the protests, “They’re not going to stop. Everyone beware. They’re not going to stop before election day in November, and they’re not going to stop after election day.”

What is she basing this on?

She didn’t say.

One might think however it would be prudent then — at that point — to differentiate between the peaceful protests, which are entirely Constitutional, and those that have devolved into violence, riots, and wanton destruction.

(Which are not.)

Though underplayed in the media, the riots were no small deal and incredibly devastating for already-hurting local businesses. For a boots-on-the-ground perspective, someone just compiled all of the videos of the riots around the U.S. into one place.

In total, to date, there are 6,111 videos of the mayhem.

Click here to check out the full archive of riot videos.

There are other examples.

From all corners of the establishment — from Hillary Clinton and Mark Zuckerberg — we have been getting the same message.

“Election night” is a thing of the past. Welcome to election month.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media has been telling us that a Trump landslide will be a mirage. In the weeks after election night, we will come to find that it’s actually a Biden landslide.

There have been of course, other election predictions.

(Nothing’s changed on that front.)

But there’s a big difference between merely pushing a narrative and pressing repeat….

And predicting an event, then backing it up

Today, along that vein, I turn to another prophecy by futurist George Gilder.

Throughout this pandemic, Gilder’s been taking cues from statistician William Briggs.

Briggs, as you’ll see, is no empty propheteer.

But, alas, though he sees the pandemic has been overblown… even so… his predictions are not always rosy.

Keep calm and read on.

Prophecy: Coronadoom Will Always Be with Us

Today I offer a prophecy that shows an excerpt from Briggs, who answers the latest Fauci panic with knowledge and reason.

Wanna know what caused the wave of the past decade’s “unprecedented pandemic explosions,” of which the coronadoom is one?

Truckers and truck stop prostitution.

Yes. Or so says our very own Anthony “Never Shake Hands Again” Fauci, a fellow you might have seen on television striking various poses.

It’s his (and David Moren’s) scientific idea, stated scientifically in a new scientific paper, that the science says that truck stop prostitution, road-building, and disharmony with nature is causing “unprecedented pandemic explosions”.

Now this disharmony with Mother Earth.

What’s that? You haven’t heard of these “unprecedented pandemic explosions”? Well, they’re diseases like the coronadoom. But before we get to our sins against Mother Earth, we need to understand what Fauci means by “unprecedented.”

Fauci’s contention is that pandemics are on the upswing, which means that, given the intense insane hyper-overreaction to coronadoom, we could soon be in some deep kimchi.

Is it true that communicable diseases are increasing?

Fauci has a chart listing sixteen past pandemics throughout human history, half of which were since 1918. His implication is that these were the only ones worth noting, and that the frequency of mass deadly outbreaks is increasing.

This is not so. NOT FREAKIN’ SO AT ALL DAMMIT!

Wikipedia has a different list with over 250 outbreaks going all the way back to 1200 BC. The most notable of which was the Black Death, which between 1346 and 1353 slaughtered 75 to 200 million … that’s with-an-m people. 

Fauci lowballed his memory of this horror, saying it was only 50 million. Maybe because he wanted to claim an event closer to our time — 1918 ’s Spanish Flu — was “the deadliest event in recorded human history”.

My sons and I used to play “Slug Bug”. When you were the first to spot an old Volkswagen Beetle, you got to whack somebody saying the color. “Slug Bug green!” Chances are you can’t recall the last time you saw one of these cars on the road. But go out now and look for one — actively search. You’ll be surprised at how many “suddenly” appear.

Your surprise is caused by measurement bias. The same is true with disease bugs. If you never looked for them, you never saw them. It is only in the last few decades that active measurements have been taken on the various infectious agents we live with. These searches naively make it seem mass-casualty outbreaks are increasing.

Yet it just isn’t so. Scan that list. In 735, Japan saw an outbreak of smallpox that killed 2 million. The Antonine Plague of 165 sunk 5-10 million into early graves. On and on the bell has rung.

We come now to COVID-19, the coronadoom. It cannot be considered unusual. It will not even join the Disease Hall Of Fame. Asian flu in 1957, which beat coronadoom, killed 1 to 4 million, and the same with 1968’s Hong Kong flu. (Fauci includes neither of these.)

Flu and its complications (like pneumonia) regularly and routinely kills hundreds of thousands to millions worldwide. Each and every year. Even in the presence of vaccines. This has been so throughout history, and there is no reason to suppose it will change in the future.

One thing that has changed has been our perception of disease. We have grown exponentially more fearful, and we now must have somebody to blame.

Fauci thinks “disease emergences reflect our increasing inability to live in harmony with nature.” He says “we now live in a human-dominated world in which our increasingly extreme alterations of the environment induce increasingly extreme backlashes from nature.”

Build one too many truck stops and you “provoke” Mother Nature into an extreme backlash. Like the coronadoom — and the “deadly barrage” of other diseases they found but which didn’t turn out to be so deadly.

Only way out of this, says Fauci, is to placate our great goddess. We need to live “in more thoughtful and creative harmony with nature”. Funny he doesn’t say how we achieve this state of harmoniousness. Except that we need to “begin to think in earnest and collectively”.

My earnest thought, which I’ll add to the collective, is that we must NEVER, EVER AGAIN panic over not-at-all unusual wholly expected common disease outbreaks. 

Panic kills. Panic makes us stupid.

Panic has so benumbed governments that many have taken a zero-tolerance policy on coronadoom. Things will never be the same again, they promise us, until the virus is eradicated! Yet even according to fabulous Fauci himself, this is nuts and may never be.

“That viral genetic descendants of the 1918 influenza pandemic virus are still causing seasonal outbreaks throughout the world, and still killing cumulatively millions of people a century late.”

This is true!

Coronadoom will also, in one form or another, always be with us. If we are going to lockdown and restrict liberties until it “goes away,” we shall do so forever.

So good luck to us all as long as we have governments and stupid socialists to keep pushing this agenda along while those on the right sit wringing their hands, refuse to act and vote and keep refusing to assert themselves that enough is g’damned enough already.

We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take this anymore!

This year, American adults have been subjected to the word “allowed” at levels most haven’t experienced since elementary school. America’s gun owners have had this word thrown at them for decades and many have, unfortunately, gotten used to it. Some of us have always bristled at the cavalier way this word has been bandied about, especially in reference to our fundamental rights. Now more Americans are discovering that it’s unnerving and maybe a little ominous to hear politicians, bureaucrats, and “reporters” explaining what we are and are not “allowed” to do.

When a reporter talks about whether the Governor will “allow businesses to reopen,” that statement suggests as fact that the governor has the authority to decide whether businesses can be in business. When bureaucrats say that lawful carry of firearms has been “allowed” in the Michigan State Capitol for decades, the use of that word implies a privilege that was bestowed upon the people by a higher authority, and which can be revoked by that authority at any time.

The word “allow” rightly belongs almost exclusively to parents, teachers, and property owners. Parents might not allow certain words to be used by their children. Teachers might allow a designated amount of free time for students to work on personal projects, and property owners might not allow smoking on their premises. Those are all valid and acceptable uses of the word “allow.” What is not valid or acceptable, is the use of the word “allow” in relation to what a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, may decree regarding the rights of the people.

Whenever the media and government operatives use the word “allow,” they are reinforcing the idea that “the state” is the authority, and “the state” may mandate or proscribe virtually any action or behavior of we the people.

That’s not how it works. Not under our Constitution and the philosophy of liberty upon which our system of government is founded. Under our system, government doesn’t “allow” us to do anything.

We allow the government to establish laws and regulations, such as speed limits. But we wouldn’t —or shouldn’t — say that the government “allows” us to drive 65 MPH on the freeway. Instead, we should say that driving faster that 65 MPH is prohibited. It is semantics, but semantics are often important. The word “allow” assumes wide authority and implies that anything falling under that broad authority, is a privilege granted by the “allowing” entity.

I’ve raised this issue in the past, with only a few people, mostly within the gun rights community, grasping the significance of this argument. But since the seemingly endless Chi-Comm virus mess, more people are seeing the word “allow” used against them, and they’re beginning to resent it.

For many, it’s just a feeling. They’re not sure why, but when they see or hear a report that uses the word “allow,” they feel somehow insulted.

Well, they should feel insulted. We should all feel insulted when any reporter, politician, or bureaucrat suggests that our rights are actually privileges bestowed upon us by a benevolent state, and which the state can revoke for any reason, or no reason at all, at any time. The suggestion is an outrage, and we should all be livid every time we hear or see it.

Just a few months ago, it would have been outrageous for any reporter or politician to use the word “allow” in reference to churches meeting, but now it’s become common for governors, mayors, and the media to talk about “allowing” church services. A major metropolitan police force declared that “Protest is not essential,” and only essential activities are “allowed.” Gun shops and ranges had to sue politicians who declared they weren’t allowed to be open and operating.

Under the cloud of the Chi-Comm Virus, the word “allow” is being applied to virtually everything we say or do. That must not be allowed to continue. Every time you see the word “allow” in a news story, unless it is talking about what “we the people” allow government to properly do, you should be outraged and should leave a comment or write a letter to the editor calling out the writer’s use of that word. If the reporter is quoting a politician or bureaucrat, challenge the reporter to question the use of that word, and then send a letter or email to the politician or bureaucrat — and their boss — demanding that they stop using language that suggests subjugation of the American people.

Be outraged. Be angry. Be indignant, and let the reporters, bureaucrats, and politicians know that you’re outraged, and that you demand that they stop undermining rights and misinforming the public with their sloppy, lazy, or intentionally subversive choice of words. Demand better. Don’t allow them to get away with this reprogramming effort. Spread this message far and wide, and demand that our rights be respected – both in deeds and in words.

Liberal politicians, in concert with the liberal media, are trying to blackmail America to win the presidential election in November.

And they’re openly using the threat of continued violence to do it.

Just look at this…

Kamala Harris did a recent interview with Stephen Colbert and promised that the protests, riots and looting would not stop with the election…

“They’re not gonna stop before election day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after election day… They’re not gonna let up. And they should not. And we should not,” Harris said.

Translation: unless and until you fall in line with our agenda, the violence will continue.

And there’s more…

A September 3rd article by Rosa Brooks in the Washington Post stated it flatly:

“A landslide for Joe Biden resulted in a relatively orderly transfer of power. Every other scenario we looked at involved street-level violence and political crisis.”

And who were these “experts” who studied the scenarios?

Why, none other than the Transition Integrity Project.

The liberal funded Transition Integrity Project is stuffed to the gills with high ranking Democrats and Trump Haters…

Folks like former Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta… former interim Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile… former Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-Mich.)…

You know. A completely and totally impartial group.

And they just happen to be warning that only a Biden landslide victory will result in any kind of peaceful transition of power.

So let’s get this straight…

Kamala Harris is warning that the violence isn’t going to stop…

And The Washington Post is warning that only a Biden landslide has any chance of peace?

Considering this could be one of the most hotly contested elections we’ve seen, a landslide seems unlikely…

And if the “silent majority” is as big as some are estimating, it could be a landslide for Trump. (I would be shocked if Biden somehow won.)

Which means this could be a bloody November.

Because we’ve seen that it’s not just hyperbole.

Every day the violence on the streets is ratcheting up and places like Portland have over 100 days of continued violence.

And if things continue at the current pace, a Trump victory, or even a narrow race, could devolve into unimaginable chaos.

So here’s the deal…

It’s time to ensure you’ve got your self-defense and survival planning and prep shored up.

Both at your home, and for bugging out.

And even if you think you’re prepared, use this time to double-check every detail.

Make certain that things are as prepped as they’re supposed to be.

Live by Ronald Reagan’s advice: “Trust but verify.”

If you’re missing anything, now’s the time to get it.

Just don’t shrug this off…

Because if things go the way I think they will…

You could wake up November 4th to absolute horror in the streets.

And by that time it will be too late.

Of course, I truly hope this doesn’t happen.

I have zero desire to watch violence or have to engage in violence.

But, I also know not everyone is reasonable and not everyone is God-fearing, so be prepared.

A sacrificial lamb, to paraphrase Wikipedia, is a metaphorical reference to a person, animal or thing sacrificed for the betterment of all else. The term “sacrificial lamb” is derived from the traditions of Abrahamic religions where a lamb is a highly valued possession. In short, it’s the ancient idea that one must sacrifice something of high value for the greater good. And yet, as history has already outlined this paradigm many times, it always rears its ugly head again and again. The “sacrificial lamb,” the “scapegoat” and the “greater good” myth — though certainly all well-worn ancient impulses — almost always invoke a purely hypothetical world, most often perpetuated solely for political purposes. For thousands of years, our ancestors ritually sacrificed all manners of things to the gods — mostly livestock and enemies, but not always — in exchange for better weather, fatter crops, a fairer shake, and always (of course) for the greater good. Unfortunately, old superstitions die hard. The mainstream discussion surrounding COVID-19 is almost entirely based on this myth of the sacrificial lamb. We’ve basically been told all year we must either sacrifice the economy or we must sacrifice lives. We MUST choose one. (Adaptation, creativity, innovation, and ingenuity be damned!)In this way, we’ve been thrust into a Hollyweirdized hypothetical scenario where we’re chained to a dirty radiator in some dingy basement…and the clock is ticking and we’re forced to decide what lives and what dies… downtown or Granny?… but, wait, oh no, the plot thickens and there’s only 60 seconds left on the dynamite sticks and a helicopter crashes and knocks the button out of your hand and all you can hear is your own breath and everything gets blurry and you hear Gran call out but you don’t know what to do and your life flashes before your eyes and… and tick tock tick… boom. All of that is to say…The way the argument has been framed is a false dilemma. Worse, the framing of the argument fundamentally gets in the way of actually solving the problem. The economy can’t legitimately be sacrifice without sacrificing lives, and vice versa. And those who don’t understand this have a warped idea of what the economy actually is — which is a highly interdependent, incredibly complex system. Furthermore, a strong economy is far better at combating crises and infectious diseases than a weakened one. (Which is obviously something to seriously consider if we are, indeed, headed for a much-hyped “second wave.”)So why has it been “either/or”?That’s a great question. Today, there’s a new face in the digital leaves. Nate DePalm. “When we talk about ‘the economy’,” says DePalm, “we aren’t just talking about the rich. We are talking about you and your means of providing for yourself, your family, and your community.”

The Economy or Public Health? We Are Asking the Wrong Question says Mr. Nate DePalm It is not necessary or beneficial to sacrifice human lives to save the economy. Nor, is it necessary or beneficial to sacrifice the economy to save lives. The Misunderstanding Many in the media have painted any attempt to improve economic conditions during the pandemic as a deplorable act of making thousands of Americans the subject of human sacrifice to the almighty dollar. “Should Older Americans Die to Save The Economy? …” – The Washington Post “Letting People Die to “Save” The Economy Is A Losing Idea” – Forbes “If it’s public health versus the economy, the only choice is public health. You cannot put a value on human life. You do the right thing. That’s what Pop taught us.” – New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo With #NotDying4WallStreet trending on Twitter, it seems like these ideas have spread from the media to public opinion. The notion that America must choose between saving the economy or saving lives is a gross misinterpretation of the events at hand. And, acting on this misunderstanding has a high potential to make public health worse, not better. This faulty context reveals that many Americans may not understand what the economy is or its relationship to combating infectious disease. What The Economy Is Many Americans in the debate seem to view “the economy” as synonymous with Wall Street, CEO’s, and Corporate Profit. Maintaining economic activity is viewed as prioritizing purely economic ends rather than societal needs for public safety. This couldn’t be further from the truth. This notion confuses the means for the ends. Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Friedrich Hayek points out in his classic book “The Road To Serfdom” that there are no purely economic ends, only economic means of pursuing all other ends. For example, a person’s paycheck is often mistaken as the purely economic ends for his work. But his paycheck is not the end, it is the means of pursuing his values, such as providing shelter, food, PPE’s, and medical care for himself and his family. Therefore, if you reduce or eliminate his income, you reduce or eliminate his ability to pursue those elements of combating infectious disease for himself and his family. On the business side of the equation, revenue is also often mistaken as a purely economic end of business activity. But again, revenue is just the economic means of pursuing other ends, such as income for its workers, continuing production, and innovation. Just as with the individual, if you force a reduction or elimination of revenue, the company can no longer pursue those ends. When we talk about “the economy,” we aren’t talking about dollars or Wall Street executives. We are talking about the level of real opportunity available to every person to pursue quality of life. The Economy & Public Health Some level of losses for businesses occur naturally as a result of fear and uncertainty during the pandemic. These losses may be painful to a company, but they can be beneficial to society as they act as an incentive for companies to adapt to shifting societal needs to reduce further losses. For example, during the coronavirus pandemic, society’s need for new cars drastically declined. This resulted in painful losses for companies like General Motors. GM responds by shifting its focus from producing automobiles to producing what society needs more: namely respirators and face masks, in an effort to reduce losses. This is not just a theoretical possibility, it has already happened. Many companies have already shifted to producing respirators, face masks, hospital gowns, and hand sanitizer, including Apple, General Motors, Ventec Life Systems, Ford, Tesla, Dyson, 3M, Prudential, Unilever, Hanes, Gap, Jameson Irish Whiskey & Absolut Vodka, Louis Vuitton, Prada, Virgin Orbit, Brooks Brothers, American Giant, Snap Inc, and countless small companies and entrepreneurs. Many have even distributed them at production cost or at no cost at all. It makes no difference if these individual companies or entrepreneurs are producing these public health supplies in pursuit of revenue, public relations, or simply out of the kindness of their hearts to help reduce shortages of equipment in dire need for public safety. The end result is the same either way: massive increases in supplies and equipment that communities desperately need for public safety. After all, the only way for a company to make money in a free market economy is by producing what the people need. Apple alone has already produced and donated 20 million masks. Hanes has produced and distributed 60 million masks and General Motors is producing 50,000 face masks per day. As these companies produce more and more of these products, the increase in supply will inevitably drive prices down making them even more accessible to everyone. Remember a month ago, when America was experiencing dire shortages of lifesaving PPE’s like masks, respirators, and hand sanitizer? Have you noticed that we are hearing less about these shortages? That’s thanks to these companies and their employees. If these companies had been ordered to close or their employees ordered to stay home in the name of public safety, not only would the workers be without income, reducing their ability to provide safety and security for their families, but these shortages would have been exacerbated instead of eased, thus making the public and our medical workers less safe. Now imagine if all of the other companies and employees deemed unessential were allowed the option to participate in this process. The Health of a Nation When we talk about “the economy”, we aren’t just talking about the rich. We are talking about you and your means of providing for yourself, your family, and your community. The state of the economy reflects the level of opportunity for individuals like yourself to attain standard of living and quality of life as well as the level of opportunity for society to produce what it needs. Once this is understood, it doesn’t stretch the imagination to see how necessary economic health is to combating infectious disease. A country with more medical facilities, functioning medical equipment, and active medical staff is more prepared to fight COVID-19 than a country with less. Families are more capable of avoiding COVID-19 when they are more capable of keeping their homes than families in an economy where they are not. Individuals in an economy with less unemployment and higher average income are better off protecting their health than individuals in an economy with high unemployment and low incomes. All of these factors are determined by the economic health of a nation. It’s time to reshape the debate. It is not a question of sacrificing lives to save the economy or sacrificing the economy to save lives. We don’t need to choose one over the other. Economic health is the strongest asset for public health because economic activity is the only means of bringing all the necessary components of fighting infectious disease into abundance. Therefore, it is in the best interest of public health to keep our economic health strong to slow the spread of COVID-19 and prevent unnecessary loss of life. Regards

If you take a careful look at all the evils that we suffer right now, you’ll find a love of money at the very heart. Yes, there are other evils mixed in, but the very foundation of these events is greed. And, since power and money are essentially the same thing, to speak of one is to speak of the other.

The Democrats, the Republicans, the BLM movement, George Soros, China, the Catholics, (ew boy. I’m Roman Catholic) Corrupt Bible Translations, (especially corrupted translations) Neo-Nazis, Antifa, Pornography, Gay Rights, and even Baptists like Jerry Falwell… all have the love of money at the root of their evil.

It probably does not surprise you that my big mouth got me kicked out of high school on the day before graduation. I didn’t like being told what to do and what to believe, so I pushed back when they tried. I was allowed back to walk down the isle to receive my diploma, but it was a grim experience none-the-less.

Fortunately, when I went to university, I learned to keep my mouth shut in the classroom. (Yeah, I know. A miracle.) And, if I had a chance to talk to my teenage self all those years ago, I would have told myself to shut up and stop making mountains out of mole hills. (Which I am very good at doing.)

Unfortunately, none of that is why I was kicked out that last day. The reason why they threw me out was because I was a threat to the power and money of the administration. Worse, they used lies and dirty tricks to get me to shut up, before eventually getting rid of me, but only on the day before graduation of which I did return for ceremonies and for which I’m sure they wished they had done so much sooner and which would have also kept me from graduating.

Now, since the Catholic Church has since the Vatican II between the years 1962 – 1965 made itself null, void and having fallen into heresy, you may be able to more fully understand my angers.

All of that explains why I am not surprised by recent revelations of corrupt and horrifying behavior by Jerry Falwell Jr. And, I can tell you that there are so many like him in positions of leadership of Christian churches and organizations, that it would shock you to find out.

I have been a Roman Catholic for 69 years. I have attended a lot of churches around the world. All of those churches were corrupt. All of them, except two – and maybe a third. And yes, let me emphasize that.

ALL OF THOSE CHURCHES WERE CORRUPT.

Except two or three.

And, the only reason why those two or three churches were not corrupt – as far as I can tell – was due to their small size. Having said that, I found myself in a couple of churches that were both small AND corrupt, so size isn’t the only thing.

However, every church that I have ever attended that was about 100 members and above, were all – without exception – corrupt in some vital and important way. And, all of their corruption was directly connected to money and power.

Yeah, there were other sins involved. There was arrogance, pride, adultery, pornography, dishonesty, hypocrisy, false teaching, abortion, theft, coercion and everything else except outright murder in the sanctuaries. And, all of that was happening while the priests or pastors would stand up every Sunday and give what sounded like a great sermon.

I’ve seen it. I’ve experienced what these people are willing to do. And, I have heard horror stories from others who have had similar experiences. And, for every ‘Jerry Falwell’ who is caught, every priest that is caught, there are many, many more who are not – whose sins are covered up by loyal parishioners, ‘elders’ and ‘deacons’.

I have seen so much of it, it’s always a surprise when I don’t find it.

I am equally surprised when I find someone actively fighting it.

If you are a young Christian or have never been in a position of responsibility in a church, you probably do not know or understand what I am talking about. 

Unfortunately, it also means that you are probably being poisoned by your church if it is as corrupt as some of the ones that I have seen.

Remember that half of all pastors have admitted to regularly consuming pornography and I don’t even wanna’ go there with the priests. As far as my faith with Catholicism, the entire Roman Catholic church is no longer valid.

Since Vatican II, there are no longer any valid priests or clergy in the entire church world-wide and the few that are will only be found in nursing home care because they are the few remaining that have been ordained since before the Vatican II nullified and made further priests invalid.

And, those are just the ones who admit to it. That makes me wonder about the other half.

Is your priest or pastor a regular consumer of pornography?

And, that’s just one of many corruptions our priests and pastors are involved in. Then there are the elders and treasurers who are engaged in God-knows-what kinds of sin. 

And yeah, God surely does know. And, there will be a reckoning one day, and that price will be high for those who have betrayed their responsibilities.

The Bible speaks to this point in Paul’s letter to Timothy:

For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains.

 – 1 Timothy 6:10 (NET)

TRANSLATION NOTE: The New English Translation (NET) seems to have it most correct, (although I myself will only follow and study the original Haydock Douay Rheims Bible), but they corrupt that verse with their footnotes. Other translations say ‘root of all kinds of evil’, but that is not what the original Greek translation actually says. As I always tell people, we should NEVER insert our own interpretation of the Bible, into the Bible.

Just look at how this verse is being played out right in front of our eyes. Everywhere. In everything.

Did you know that pornography is the single, biggest reason why your Internet speed is so fast?

Did you know that porn was the first industry to make money on the Internet?

Have you wondered why no one in the Obama administration has gone to jail?

Why does China want to crush and destroy Taiwan?

Why do so few know that there was a third building that fell on 9/11, in New York City?

Why have the heroin distribution networks never been uncovered?

Why was JFK assassinated?

How did Hitler rise so fast? So quickly?

Why is there so much sex and violence coming from Hollywood?

Why is there so much erotic imagery in marketing?

Why are there so many Bible translations?

Why does the Roman Catholic Church continue to be so powerful?

Why did Jerry Falwell abuse his power and engage in such awful sin?

I could go on and on and on, but the one thing that ties every single one of those questions together is the love of money. Yes, there are other sins and abominations mixed into all of those questions, but the love of money weaves its way through all of them. Every. Single. One.

When the Antichrist rises and takes control of the world, he will succeed in doing so because of the Love of Money.

Earlier this year, there were two occasions when I wound up in discussions with gun prohibitionists trying to pass themselves off as ‘gun safety advocates.’

In one of those encounters, it seemed necessary to remind the listening audience there was one certified firearms user in the room and it wasn’t the other person who was representing the gun prohibition lobbying group.

Take this as a learning experience because the elections are on the horizon, you’re a voter with an opportunity to question candidates and you might wind up in a debate with some gun grabber ‘glubber’ who claims to be an authority on gun safety or a member of some so-called ‘gun safety’ organization. This is when you can put them on the spot and they will unintentionally help you do it.

NRA Certified firearms instructors and trained firearms users have a card identifying them as such. Mine has been protected with a laminated plastic cover. A friend who used to lobby for the industry was an instructor and he habitually pulled out his instructor’s card to ask opponents, “Do you have one of these? If you don’t, you probably shouldn’t be here talking about gun safety”

If you can’t say you’re a certified instructor or trained user, the next best thing is to challenge these anti-gunners to recite the four rules of gun safety as set down by the late Col. Jeff Cooper, the “Father of the Modern Technique.” The founder of the American Pistol Institute, now known as the Gunsite Academy, Cooper kept it simple and his rules have withstood the test of time:

• Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.
• Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
• Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
• Be sure of your target and what lies beyond it.

There more than likely will be a moment of silence; possibly a blank stare as your opponent’s try to figure out who Cooper was and and how to artfully address the question and then maybe offer a remark about ‘not being the point’ before they scramble to change the subject, but DON’T allow this to happen at that point! This is when you’ve got them. They can’t answer directly since they don’t know. Whatever else is said after this point, just keep reminding your opponent — and anyone else listening or even within listening range—that your question wasn’t yet answered.

These self-appointed arbiters of firearms etiquette don’t know anything about guns or safety, other than they don’t like them and don’t want anyone to have them. It’s up to you to set it in concrete so people remember it. You’re the expert. NOT them. PERIOD!

If or when one of these people claims to be a gun owner, it’s easy to make them begin stammering by asking, “how long have you handled firearms?” Or better still, if they’ve sold one or two to someone else that required them to go through the background check?

But never, EVER ask them how many firearms they have or have owned in their life because you very might be met with the rudimentary none-of-your-business response, which would lower your credentials right there and then. It’s like touching another biker’s ‘scoot’ at Sturgis. It’s just NOT done. PERIOD!

Firearms people do not ask that question and many, even within their own firearms communities, don’t or won’t divulge it.

Finally, there most always is a point where these idiots will trip over their own shadow. Some will get frustrated with your logical treatment to a logical conversation and eventually retort that the best ‘gun safety’ is NO firearms in society.

THAT my friends, is when you have FINALLY got them absolutely and unequivocally nailed down to their true intentions and agenda.

Was that an under-handed bait? Of course it was, but so what? Those sneaks are doing a LOT worse than using baiting questions, while they never use bait only because they don’t have the truth behind them with which any bait would work anyway.

Do NOT allow them to walk away without your having DECISIVELY BRINGING THAT TO THEIR ATTENTIONS!

It’s not unfair to ask when the last time was they went to the range to practice or ask if they’ve taken any gun safety course or courses? These same questions apply to anyone running for local public office as well.

And IF in response they should come back asking why you need a firearm, ANY firearm or why you feel required to carry or own high capacity weaponry, there are one of two SOLID answers to retort back with.

Depending on the question and even possibly how it was phrased, when asked WHY one owns ANYTHING, the TRUE RESPONSE is to state that this is the one question that is by its very nature, quintessentially socialistic and communistic just in and of itself as asked.

The second, and possibly the better response is to ask those in defense of gun control if they value protecting the lives of ones they love, family, friends, acquaintances or even other good people or strangers? And before they have the chance to take a breath, treat the question almost rhetorically and continue with your surprise if they felt otherwise.

This leaves their backs up against a brick wall with absolutely nothing logical they can counter with.

If you’re in a discussion with somebody who says he or she is a member of a “gun safety” group, stop them cold by asking them if offer classes on safety?

When they respond they don’t really hold classes, (and they will) this is the moment to remind them that they’ve then no business preaching gun safety if they’re not teaching gun safety because their actions can only set up their ‘students’ for failure and even possibly loss of their lives. AGAIN. PERIOD!

This same strategy applies to meeting candidates, because the next eight weeks should provide plenty of opportunities to attend at least one of these sessions. Any candidate who claims to support ‘gun safety’ legislation should be challenged -AND- INSISTED to recite Cooper’s Four Rules.

Cooper’s Laws have stood the challenge of time; the candidates of not.

Here’s another way to make these people look foolish:
(which they are)

Offer to go shooting with them. If they’ve claimed to be gun owners, invite them to bring their own firearms.

A couple of years ago, as a private citizen and constituent, I attended a public forum with three local legislators. A woman in the audience demanded to know if the Republican state representative had taken money from the National Rifle Association.

It’s a fair question, but the savvy activist should immediately counter by asking whether the politician or candidate has accepted contributions from Everytown for Gun Safety, a regional or local gun control group or ANY OTHER groups funded either by George Soros or Mike Bloomberg?

During the weekend of Sept. 18-20 the 35th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference will be held at the Mariott Orlando Airport Lakeside hotel in Orlando, Fla.

Rest assured there will be panel discussions on how best to prevail over the enemies of gun rights, not just between now and Election Day but in the months and even years ahead.

This annual conference is considered a “must” event for the most active of gun rights activists and many people travel great distances to be there. If you can’t attend, there’s an opportunity to watch it being live-streamed on the Second Amendment Foundation’s Facebook page.

As this is written, a complete roster of speakers is still being finalized, but it’s safe to expect a veritable roster of “Who’s Who?” in the Second Amendment community.

The conference is the brainchild of the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) Alan Gottlieb and he will be serving as the Master of Ceremonies. The event is co-sponsored by SAF and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and includes representatives from other rights groups such as Gun Owners of America, the NRA, Illinois State Rifle Association, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, and other state organizations from around the country.

This is a genuine learning opportunity, and much of this year’s agenda will be focused on national and local elections.

git’ off ‘ur arsess’ and make the change!

-or- why they’re so screwed-up, bat-shit crazy now

“Remember when Demonrats said, ‘The Republican Party’s the country-club party!’ And the Republican Party said, ‘That’s not true!’ It was totally true! Let’s be honest, it was totally true… We used to scoff at it poolside at the country club. ‘That’s not true! Bring me another bourbon! That’s ridiculous! Guffaw!’” – Tucker Carlson I hate politics. In fact (trigger warning!), I’ve never voted in a national election. Ever. (Cue the chant: “Then you have no right to complain!”) That said, there’s a dynamic playing out in politics right now that’s not getting enough (or any!) airtime. And it has nothing to do with coronavirus. It has everything to do with… 1] Why Cuomo is so out of touch, he thinks a book deal about his leadership during COVID was a brilliant idea (spoiler alert: It’s not) 2] It has everything to do with why Nancy “Let Them Eat Ice Cream” Pelosi is looking like a modern-day Antionette… 3] And it’s why the Democratic Party still seems to think they’re running against a 1960’s Republican Party. (Again, spoiler alert: They’re not.) All of this has to do with the weird word, enantiodromia. The phenomenon of “enantiodromia” is a very real psychological principle. It means the tendency for things to “run counter to” prevailing norms. Simply put, everything happens in cycles… especially culture. When society moves too far to one side… the “creative impulse” tends to quickly gravitate to the other side. And the “ossified” side begins to lose touch with reality. This “balancing mechanism” seems, strangely, built into the human psyche. If you were a real-estate developer any time during the past 100 years, you knew to follow the artists — the rebellious “creative impulse” — wherever it goes. What we’re seeing right now in politics, beneath the surface (if we make it through this coronavirus hoopla), is “The Bigger Shift.” 1] The Democratic Party has become frozen in time, incredibly rigid, out of touch, and ossified. Though it believes it is still the “counterculture,” it’s no longer the energetic, rebellious Democratic Party of the 1960’s. (And, as you’ll see, it definitely still believes we’re in the 1960’s.) And… 2] The Republican Party, on the other hand, is far from ossified. What the Left doesn’t realize is humpty-dumpty got pushed off of the wall in 2016, and there’s no putting him back. He’s gone. Dead. The Republican Party is now 1970’s SoHo… full of trash, blown out buildings, room for improvement, and, most importantly, room for creativity… and the artists are slowly moving in.   The Republican Party is no longer the “Old Boy’s Club,” or the “Country Club Party,” as the Left seems to think it is. It’s set to become the party of the new middle-class, which will look nothing like the old one. Both parties, to be sure, are radically splintered.But only one of them is being taken over by what’s remaining of the middle class and those sick of the status quo. The Bigger Switch In the 1960’s, the Left was all about free expression, anti-censorship, racial harmony, anti-authoritarianism, alternative lifestyles, experimentation, and broadening what it means to live the “American Dream.” To put it lightly and politely as possible… let’s just say today’s Democratic Party is not that. (The Republican Party has been no better… but we’ll get to that.) If you needed any proof that the Democratic Party is stuck in the 1960’s… Consider the music video played after the recent Democratic National Convention, with actor Billy Porter on the mic singing the Buffalo Springfield 1966 counter-culture classic “For What It’s Worth.” Vietnam-era song begs question: Who in the world were they trying to connect with here? The Republican Party is no better. They helped sell the Middle Class out decades ago. But what most on the Left don’t realize is the Old Boy’s Club — the “Country Club Republican Party” — is dead. They’re not running against a 1960’s Republican Party. And good riddance.Many years ago, as you know, the rules of the economy changed. Labor became basically irrelevant, and the “knowledge economy” flourished. When this happened, it was officially the nail in the coffin for the Republican Party in the “culture wars.” The vast majority of people in entertainment, the ‘knowledge economy,’ academia, and the service economy… had all long gone Left. The Old Boy’s Club refused to embrace the only people that didn’t run to the left — the middle class. No, the Republicans abandoned the middle class. But now we’re seeing a realignment. The Republican Party, whether they like it or not, is the middle class party. As Tucker Carlson, in vivid imagery, put it: “Trump’s singular contribution to this whole thing was forcing that. He’s a blunt instrument. He’s a viking. I’m serious! He showed up at the Republican Party, long hair, matted beard. He torched all their huts, he slayed their livestock. I’m not kidding! He carried their women over his shoulder back to his longboat and rode back to Norway! I mean he really pillaged the Republican Party and with him came hordes of middle class people. And by the way, that’s a good thing.” “Let them Eat Ice Cream”Long ago, the Left overthrew the (at-the-time) ossified, morally self-righteous, finger-wagging right wing. And good for them. Today, however, the Left has become as ossified and self-righteous as the Right was in the ‘60s. And, indeed, the Left still believes — despite controlling a vast majority of the media, Hollyrot, academia, and the indoctrinating public school system — that it’s the counterculture. Nancy Pelosi has become the new tone-deaf Marie Antionette: “Let them eat ice cream.” And the scripted jokes just, even if you hate Trump and Pence, aren’t landing. The Republican Party, on the other hand, is, like I said, 1970s SoHo. Behind Trump is an abandoned, trash-littered warehouse neighborhood, pregnant with potential. The “creative minority,” the creative impulse, is moving in to counter the prevailing status quo. In this way, the so-called “Red Wave” is real. This is all happening in the background, behind the smokescreens of the mainstream media. Nothing is set in stone… In the coming years, the Right has the clear opportunity to be what the Left was in the ‘60s… It doesn’t necessarily mean it will happen… But, it can become, like the Left was in the ‘60s, the champion of free expression, anti-censorship, social harmony, anti-authoritarianism, experimentation, and broadening what it means to live the “American Dream. ”In small ways, it’s already happening. Compare the energy of that “For What it’s Worth” music video above with the energy of Republican Kim Klacik’s viral Baltimore ad. Even if you fundamentally disagree with Kim, you have to admit… the energy behind her campaign is far more potent… and I would suggest, a sign of the times (clocking in at almost 10 million views). And for more “signs of the times,” here’s additional rap about Andrew Cuomo’s ridiculous book deal. When I first saw it, I thought it was a joke and that someone was poking fun at Cuomo. It’s still a joke. But it’s real, too. Read on.

Andrew Cuomo’s Book Deal and Why the Worst Rise to the Top in The coronavirus pandemic has hit the state of New York especially hard. Almost 33,000 New Yorkers have died from the virus, more total deaths than any other state in the country. And New York ranks as the second-worst state for deaths when adjusted for population. The Empire State alone accounts for one in five coronavirus deaths in the US despite having only around six percent of the nation’s population.Why did New York fare so poorly? Well, the coronavirus is far more lethal for older people. How well a state has mitigated the death count closely corresponds with how well they protected elderly, vulnerable populations. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo mandated that nursing homes accept patients who had tested positive for COVID-19 even if it means exposing their residents to the virus.Yes, you read that right.It shouldn’t come as a shock, then, that at least 6,600 of the state’s deaths happened in nursing homes. And this is almost certainly an undercount, as the Associated Press says it could be more like 11,000 when you adjust for the odd way in which New York defined its deaths. (The AP described New York’s death toll as “cloaked in secrecy” and even Democratic state legislators have accused the state of trying to cover up the number of nursing home deaths). Of course this is what would happen if you force institutions housing the elderly to accept carriers of a virus that is highly lethal for older people. Other states such as Florida did the opposite. By barring COVID-19 positive patients from nursing homes, they escaped thousands of deaths.Worse, Cuomo has refused to allow an independent investigation into his handling of the nursing home debacle despite bipartisan calls for oversight.From start to finish, Cuomo botched the COVID-19 response woefully. National Review’s Kyle Smith summarized the governor’s mistakes “breathtakingly bad moves” that “in retrospect amounted to catastrophe.” “Cuomo failed to call for, and even actively discouraged, informal social-distancing measures in early March,” Smith wrote. And don’t forget “his March 25 edict to long-term care facilities that they must accept infected patients, which caused a mass deadly outbreak among helpless, trapped, elderly New Yorkers.”Of course, at first glance, Cuomo deserves some grace. The COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented in modern American history, and the governor was hardly the only policymaker who fell flat on his face in response to the novel crisis. Yet Cuomo didn’t just woefully botch his handling of COVID-19, but UNder-handled it. He actively brags about his supposed “success” and has even attempted to capitalize on it personally. After all, the same governor who sent nursing homes into death spirals with his foolish government mandates promoted posters that celebrated New York’s COVID-19 response, and, of course, celebrated Cuomo himself. So, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that he is a political opportunist with few scruples reining him in.CNN anchor Jake Tapper blasted the governor’s “victory tour” and shameful poster in a powerful on-air takedown: “There are no illustrations of the more than 32,000 dead New Yorkers, the highest death toll by far of any state.” The level of arrogance required for a politician to engage in such a tone-deaf display is stunning.But it gets worse.Apparently, Cuomo had time to write an entire book while handling the COVID-19 crisis. Even if it was ghost-written, Cuomo still must have had an eye on capitalizing on the crisis for self-promotion all along. The governor’s new book is titled American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic and is set for an Oct. 13 release. Cuomo has so far refused to disclose the financial details of his book deal. He won’t reveal how much money he will make, beyond promising vaguely that some of the money will go to charity. Critics, understandably, blasted the governor’s book deal as selfish and obtuse. “[Governor Cuomo] should be writing condolence cards to families who’s loved ones died thanks to his deadly nursing home mandate instead of writing a book about his so called leadership,” Fox News meteorologist Janice Dean, who lost her in-laws to COVID-19 in a New York nursing home, wrote in a tweet. “People are mourning the loss of loved ones, yet [Cuomo is] putting out a book declaring himself a bold, great leader,” New York GOP Chairman Nick Langworthy said in response to the book’s roll-out. Faced with such blatant mismanagement and callous arrogance amid a national crisis, it would be fair for observers to conclude that Andrew Cuomo is among the worst politicians in America. Yet we must also note that this isn’t a coincidence. New York didn’t simply draw the short straw and happen to get stuck with a bad governor. It’s also no coincidence that one of the country’s worst politicians is “failing upward” in his career, from his skyrocketing public profile to his (likely lucrative) book deal. New York has one of the largest governments of any states in the country. From sky-high taxes to soda bans, it has overwhelmingly voted for statist policies. And, as economist Friedrich A. Hayek famously noted in a chapter of The Road to Serfdom titled “Why the Worst Get on Top,” positions of power in big-government systems inevitably attract a society’s worst and most immoral individuals. “[Hayek] argued with great insightfulness that ‘the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful’ in any society in which government is seen as the answer to most problems,” FEE President Emeritus Lawrence W. Reed explained. “They are precisely the kind of people who elevate power over persuasion, force over cooperation. Government, possessing by definition a legal and political monopoly of the use of force, attracts them just as surely as dung draws flies. ”Hayek himself wrote, “The probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tenderhearted person would get the job of whipping-master in a slave plantation. ”Cuomo’s rise and New York’s COVID-19 saga prove Hayek right and leaves us with a clear lesson: So long as we entrust massive amounts of power to the government, we will continue to unintentionally place our fate in the hands of the worst among us. However, by leaving more of our problems to be solved by the private sector and civil society, we can ensure that true innovators and moral leaders are the ones leading us forward.