November 19, 2024 - "Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has voiced strong opposition to using the U.S. military to enforce deportation measures, emphasizing that immigration enforcement should remain the responsibility of domestic law enforcement agencies on Newsmax Tuesday. Paul, a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, criticized the idea of deploying the military to enforce immigration policies, calling it a 'terrible image' for the United States.
"In an interview on Rob Schmitt Tonight, Paul addressed reports that President-elect Donald Trump or his spokesman suggested declaring an emergency to involve the military in deportation efforts.... 'I'm not in favor of sending the Army in uniforms into our cities to collect people, Paul said. 'That's not what we use our military for; we never have. And it's actually been illegal for over 100 years to bring the Army into our cities.'
"Paul underscored that the military's purpose is distinct from domestic law enforcement. 'Our Army and our military are trained to shoot the enemy. They're not trained to get a warrant to do what they're doing,' he said, adding that 'the police have a difficult job, but the people removing people from our country need to be a police enforcement domestic agency, not the military'....
"The senator advocated for prioritizing the deportation of undocumented individuals who have committed violent crimes. Citing statistics, Paul noted that the U.S. is harboring approximately 15,000 individuals who have committed murder and 13,000 who have committed violent sexual crimes....
"Paul further criticized the broader use of presidential emergencies, describing them as undermining congressional authority and checks and balances. 'They smack of martial rule. They smack of no congressional approval,' he warned.
"While supporting strong immigration enforcement, Paul urged caution in implementing extreme measures. 'The American people will be behind him 100% if he goes immediately after the people that have committed crimes,' he said, advocating ... focusing first on individuals who pose clear risks to public safety.
He also expressed reservations about targeting long-term undocumented residents who have integrated into American society. 'The housekeeper who's been here 30 years — I don't see the military putting her in handcuffs and marching her down the street to an encampment,' Paul said. Instead, he proposed expanding work permits for certain individuals while denying them voting rights.
"Paul concluded by advising conservatives to temper their support for drastic actions involving the military. 'We, as conservatives who are supportive of Trump, need to caution him about sending the army into our cities,' he said. 'It's a terrible image to send the world, and it's a terrible image for us as citizens.'"
August 2, 2024 - "A bipartisan group of senators has introduced legislation to end the military draft, calling it an 'outdated' government program that no longer serves a purpose. The bill, introduced Thursday by Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), would repeal the Military Selective Service Act, commonly known as the draft.
"First passed in 1917 to fill the ranks during World War I, the law requires all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 to register for possible military service, but it has not been used since the Vietnam War.
“'It has been over 50 years since the draft was last used,' Paul said in a statement on the bill. 'I’ve long stated that if a war is worth fighting, Congress will vote to declare it and people will volunteer. This outdated government program no longer serves a purpose and should be eliminated permanently.'
"The legislation comes as Congress once again debates the expansion of the draft given the Defense Department opened all combat roles to women in 2015. Senate Democrats this year added language to the annual defense authorization bill to require women to register for the draft.... A measure to compel women to register for potential service has continuously been stripped out of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) year after year, most recently in 2021 and 2022.
"What’s more, the annual cost of the program has steadily inched upward, jumping from a $26 million budget in 2021 to a $33.4 million request for 2025. 'The Selective Service is a long-outdated program that eats up millions of taxpayer dollars and gives us nothing in return,' Wyden said in a statement."
A U.S. Senate committee has begun hearings on Rand Paul's Risky Research Act, meant to oversee dangerous scientific experiments like the gain-of-function research in Wuhan that allegedly led to the Covid pandemic..
July 11, 2024 - "Lawmakers and scientists debated the best ways to regulate high-risk government-funded virus research during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on Thursday. One prominent witness called for a moratorium on gain-of-function research, while another stressed the risks of not pursuing certain kinds of experiments. Meanwhile, some committee members leveraged their time at the dais to grill former public health leaders about the lab-leak theory of COVID-19's origins and to accuse them of complicity in a cover-up.
"'Today, thousands of skilled individuals can create infectious viruses using commercially available synthetic DNA that corresponds to publicly accessible viral genome sequences,' Kevin Esvelt, PhD, of the MIT Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston, told the committee. He argued that the U.S. needs a 'systemic reappraisal' to define which types of DNA, pathogens, and experiments are safe and which are dangerous. He urged Congress to establish and fund an independent board to determine which laboratories should be granted access to which agents and sequences, to determine when the benefits of 'dual use research' -- that is, research that can lead to either benefits or harms -- exceed the risks, and to assess and determine when disclosing a genome sequence or an experimental outcome 'would cause irreparable harm to national security'....
"Former CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, testified -- not for the first time -- that the most likely theory of COVID-19's origins was biomedical research followed by an accidental lab leak. 'Unfortunately, the potential national security consequences of conducting the research did not receive full consideration prior to the funding decisions to conduct such high-risk research,' Redfield said. He argued that while some scientists believe gain-of-function research is vital to 'get ahead of viruses' and to develop vaccines and countermeasures, he believes it had the 'exact opposite effect' and blames such research for unleashing a new virus in the world without any means of stopping it. 'In my opinion, we should call for a moratorium on gain-of-function research until we have a broader debate and come to consensus as a community [about] the value of such research,' Redfield said.
"Ranking Member Rand Paul, MD (R-Ky.), who has publicly stated for months that he believes that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was the result of a lab leak, levied the same allegations of a 'vast COVID cover-up' and of federal funding being used to support gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 'You don't need to be convinced that COVID-19 virus originated from a lab leak to recognize the imminent need for oversight mechanisms,' he said. 'The mere possibility that the virus could have emerged from such risky research should be more than enough to prompt decisive action.'
"On Wednesday, Paul introduced the "Risky Research Review Act, which calls for creating an independent oversight board to review high-risk life sciences research and issue 'binding determinations' related to federal funding. Redfield heartily supported the bill, as did Sen. Roger Marshall, MD (R-Kan.), who declared that it would 'save tens of millions of lives.' And Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he still needed to review the document but was likely to back it."
March 30, 2023 - "US Senator Rand Paul has blocked a bid to fast-track a ban of TikTok, citing concerns about free speech and uneven treatment of social media companies. The app, which was founded by Chinese entrepreneurs, has more than 150 million monthly users in the United States, mostly young people.... Republican Senator Josh Hawley had sought unanimous consent for a TikTok ban bill....
"TikTok says it has spent more than $1.5bn on rigorous data security efforts and rejects spying allegations. Last week, its chief executive officer, Shou Zi Chew, appeared before Congress and faced tough questions about national security concerns over the app. At the hearing, Chew attempted to dispel concerns over TikTok’s ties to the Chinese government and its alleged inability to stem 'harmful' content. He also sought to portray the app as 'a place where people can be creative and curious' and said the company was taking actions that go beyond industry standards in terms of data protection and transparency....
"A small but growing number of Democrats and Republicans have raised concerns, citing free speech and other issues, and have objected to legislation targeting TikTok as overly broad.... On Friday, Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a TikTok video had also opposed a ban, as do free-speech groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union."
March 29, 2023 - "As many members of both parties seem to be in favor of a potential ban on the Chinese-owned social media app TikTok in the United States, one prominent Republican senator is voicing his dissent. In an op-ed on Wednesday, Rand Paul said such a ban would not only be unconstitutional, but un-American and unpopular....
"The Republican senator noted the hypocrisy on the part of conservatives. 'The banning TikTok strategy also comes while the GOP simultaneously complains of liberal U.S. social media companies canceling and censoring conservatives,' Paul wrote in Louisville, Kentucky’s Courier-Journal. 'So, without a hint of irony, many of these same "conservatives" now agitate to ban a platform owned by an international group that includes several American investors.... So, on the one hand, Republicans complain about censorship, while with the other hand, these same Republicans advocate to censor social media apps that they worry are influenced by the Chinese.'
"Congressional members on both sides of the aisle have expressed worries about China’s government having access to U.S. data because TikTok is owned by a Chinese company. But Paul said implementing such a ban would actually make America more like authoritarian China. 'Before banning TikTok, these censors might want to discover that China’s government already bans TikTok. Hmmm ... do we really want to emulate China’s speech bans?' he asked.
"The libertarian-leaning senator questioned the constitutionality of such a ban. 'If you don’t like TikTok or Facebook or YouTube, don’t use them,' he wrote. 'But don’t think any interpretation of the Constitution gives you the right to ban them. The First Amendment isn’t really necessary to protect speech that everybody accepts. The First Amendment is precisely there to protect speech that might be unpopular or might be controversial. U.S. courts struck down the Trump Administration’s ban and, I believe, will strike down any Congressional ban'....
"Opposition to the TikTok ban has brought together staunch Right and Left who fear such legislation is merely a recipe for more government control on speech. Far-left ‘Squad’ members like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Jamaal Bowman have expressed their opposition as well.
Lockdown protester, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 2020. Source: Vox
February 2, 2022 - "Do you remember the 'libertarian moment'?... For a few years around the end of the Obama administration, ... it looked as if the right just might coalesce around restrained foreign policy, opposition to electronic surveillance and other threats to civil liberties, and enthusiasm for an innovative economy, very much including the tech industry. Beyond policy, the libertarian turn was associated with a hip affect that signaled comfort with pop culture.... The New York Times compared the movement's electoral figureheads, the father-and-son duo Ron and Rand Paul, to grunge bands Nirvana and Pearl Jam.
"In retrospect, those descriptions seem naive. Less than a year after the Times feature was published, the announcement of Donald Trump's presidential campaign sounded the death knell of the libertarian moment (along with Rand Paul's own bid for the presidency).... While in office, Trump had deployed an apocalyptic idiom that clashed dramatically with the libertarians' characteristic optimism. Although personally indifferent to ideas, Trump also inspired a cohort of intellectuals who denounced libertarians' ostensible indifference to the common good and proposed a more assertive role for government in directing economic and social life.
"But as the pandemic has continued, opposition to restrictions on personal conduct, suspicion of expert authority, and free speech for controversial opinions have become dominant themes in center-right argument and activism. The symbolic villain of the new libertarian moment is Anthony Fauci. Its heroes include Joe Rogan, whose podcast has been a platform for vaccine skeptics, advocates of ivermectin and other dubious treatments for COVID, and other challenges to the expert consensus.
"Appeals to personal freedom, limited government, and epistemological skepticism against pandemic authorities have some basis in the organized libertarian movement. Early in the pandemic, the American Institute for Economic Research issued the so-called Great Barrington Declaration, which rejected lockdowns and argued (before vaccines became available) that mitigation strategies should be limited to the most vulnerable portion of the population. In the Senate, Paul (Ky.) has been the leading critic of Fauci and the CDC. Long-standing libertarian positions have also been energized by the pandemic. The disruption of public education, for example, has revitalized the school choice movement. But ... [m]ore than any coherent political theory, the libertarian revival draws on inarticulate but powerful currents of anti-authoritarianism in American culture....
"Whatever its origins, the new quasi-libertarianism is an obstacle to the managerial tendencies that increasingly define the center-left. More than opposition to the government as such, it revolves around opposition to administrative restrictions imposed for one's own good. If the old libertarianism was obsessed with the risk of ideological totalitarianism, the new version concentrates on the influence of human resources bureaucrats, public health officials, and neighborhood busybodies.That reorientation from philosophical to mundane grievances is key to its demographic appeal.... Rather than a defense of natural rights, it's an instinctive dislike of being bossed around....
"The unimpressive performance of schools, the FDA, and other vehicles of public policy have undermined the ambitious goals Democrats hoped to pursue under the Biden Administration. It's hard to make the case for free college, increased educational spending, or single-payer healthcare with the institutions that would have to deliver these benefits seem unwilling or unable to do their current jobs. Progressives don't want to hear it, but the era of big government is probably over again.
"In the past, that conclusion might have been celebrated by conservatives. Today, it's more controversial. During Trump's presidency, some theorists entertained hopes that Republicans might become the 'party of the state.' In addition to conventional hopes for restricting pornography and halting or reversing the legalization of drugs, that includes proposals for sweeping industrial policies to promote domestic manufacturing and cash benefits for married parents to promote traditional family patterns. Rejecting libertarian confidence in spontaneous order, these intellectuals argued that both the economy and the culture need to be intentionally guided toward the common good.... But ... their hope that the dour and devout can achieve theoretically rational outcomes by capturing and redirecting some of the same institutions that have been discredited during the pandemic ... now seems utopian.
"Iconoclastic podcasters and the 'Freedom Convoy' of truckers protesting vaccine mandates may not have been what journalists and activists had in mind when they spoke of the libertarian moment five years ago. But they're the vanguard of its sequel today."
October 22, 2021 - "The National Institutes of Health is now admitting to funding gain-of-function research on bats infected with coronaviruses at a lab in Wuhan, China despite repeated denials from Dr. Anthony Fauci that U.S. tax dollars were used on the funding.
"In a letter to Rep. James Comer, ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, an NIH official admits that a 'limited experiment' was conducted in order to test if 'spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model.' The letter states that the laboratory mice infected with the modified bat virus 'became sicker' than mice that were given the unmodified bat virus. The official, Lawrence A. Tabak, accused the New York City-based nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, who funneled funds to the Wuhan lab, of not being transparent about the work that was taking place.
"Gain-of-function [GOF] research involves extracting viruses from animals to artificially engineer in a laboratory to make them more transmissible and deadly to humans. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has repeatedly denied any NIH money went to such research in Wuhan, but his organization has given millions of dollars in grant money to the EcoHealth Alliance which funneled at least $600,000 to Wuhan coronavirus research.
"Fauci has testified before Congress stating multiple times that NIH does not fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan, but Paul has insisted that Fauci is lying to Congress and even requested a criminal referral from the Department of Justice. In his questioning of Fauci at a Senate hearing this summer, Paul cited a paper on research about bat coronaviruses and said that U.S. money had essentially gone to the hazardous and controversial research – an assertion Fauci strongly objected to. 'I have never lied before the Congress, and I do not retract that statement,' Fauci said when pressed by Paul on previous testimony from the doctor that the U.S. did not fund gain of function research in Wuhan. 'You do not know what you are talking about quite frankly, and I want to say that officially.' Pau[l] responded to the [Tabak letter] news on Twitter saying that 'I told you so doesn’t even begin to cover it here.'
"A new book from an investigative Australian reporter says that Fauci reportedly misled the Trump administration on gain-of-function research in China. 'Fauci’s public persona as a cautious, careful medical professional is contradicted by his central role in kickstarting exceptionally fraught gain-of-function research in the United States after the ban introduced in the Obama era, along with his role in funding coronavirus research in China in unsafe laboratories. ... that intelligence agencies suspect may have sparked the pandemic,' Sharri Markson details in her new book, What Really Happened In Wuhan. In September, leaked documents obtained by private research group DRASTIC 'completely contradict' claims made by both China and Fauci about the reality of gain-of-function research being done inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology that may have caused the coronavirus pandemic, according to a former State Department COVID-19 investigator....
"Fauci's NIAID told Fox News in a statement that the doctor has been 'entirely truthful.' 'Gain of function is a broad term,' the statement said. "The research that requires increased oversight under the HHS P3CO Framework is that which is reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility and/or virulence in humans (ePPP). Drs. Collins and Fauci have made clear in numerous public appearances that the research in question did not fit this definition, and nothing in the last research progress report changes that fact....
The experiment described in the final progress report provided by EcoHealth Alliance was testing to see if spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model.... The research plan for the grant was reviewed in advance of funding and was determined ... not to meet the definition of enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (ePPP) research because the bat coronaviruses used in this research have not been shown to infect humans and the experiments were not reasonably expected to increase transmissibility or virulence in humans.... NIAID reviewed the progress report and has determined that the research described in the progress report would not have triggered a review under the HHS P3CO Framework because the bat coronaviruses used in this research have not been shown to infect humans and the experiments were not reasonably expected to increase transmissibility or virulence in humans."
After blogging and rereading this story, I remembered that up until December 2019 Sars-Cov-2 had "not been shown to infect humans" either; meaning that if GOF research had been done on the coronavirus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (either in its own labs or at the Wuhan-Hubei Center for Disease Control) it would not "have required increased oversight" under NIAID's interpretation of the HHS P3CO Framework either. - gd
April 5, 2021 - "A Democrat politician famously said, 'never let a crisis go to waste.' Boy, did this pandemic really see them put their shoulder into that old axiom. From mask mandates to business shutdowns, from church closings to schools shuttered, there was very little in American life that was not impacted by the decisions made by local petty tyrants and their accomplices in the federal government. You’ve all heard my opinions on government bureaucrat Anthony Fauci. But it goes wider and deeper than any one person. And now we are in danger of their creeping fascism staying in our lives forever if we don’t stand up and resist.
"The newest power grab comes in the form of an alleged “Vaccine Passport” which would determine your social suitability to engage in your everyday life. Want to go to the store? Show your vaccine card. Want to go to a restaurant or concert? Did you tell the government what vaccines you’ve had? "Want to travel? VACCINE PAPERS PLEASE....
"Let’s start with a few things the media will no doubt try to get wrong. I’m in favor of vaccines. I’m a Duke Medical School trained M.D. and I studied immunology before moving on to my career in eye surgery. Vaccines are a marvel of modern medicine, and the speed and effectiveness of the COVID vaccines have been great. I’m also in favor of people making their own medical and personal decisions.
"By early summer, everyone in America will have been eligible for a vaccine. Between those who took the vaccine or had COVID, there is little to no doubt we will have herd immunity by then, and danger from COVID will be low. Even the CDC now admits what I said months ago (and Dr. Fauci denied) — those who have been vaccinated are not getting sick and they are not passing along the disease to others. This makes the idea of a vaccine passport — which is a terrible idea for freedom — a simply poor idea overall, as it should have no impact on anyone. If you are vaccinated, you don’t have to worry if a small segment of the population is not.
"We can’t let government tyrants and media fearmongers push us into accepting this terrible idea that we need their permission to go back to our lives. I know for a fact, they want to keep this power. We should never have let them take it in the first place in the form of lockdowns, mandates and closings. Now that we know those didn’t work, and that they intend to keep pushing anti-science, anti-freedom ideas, we must resist.
The freedom part is easy. The science part gets ignored by the media and those who seek to keep power. For example, both the pediatricians and the CDC have said schools are safe for children since last JUNE, yet an entire school year has been lost and wasted in the futile search for perfect safety. Kids and families have been harmed, perhaps irreparably in some cases. Childhood learning is falling behind, and depression and suicide among kids is rising at an alarming rate. All for the sake of worshipping at the altar of government power.
"Lockdowns caused losses of jobs, businesses and homes. And they didn’t work, as any study of states that were locked down versus those who minimized them can show you. One year of government getting more and more out of control. One year of loss of freedom. One year of kids being harmed.
"I say enough. I urge everyone to get the vaccine if you think you need or want it. And then I urge everyone in America to throw away their masks, demand their schools be open, and live your lives free of more government mandates and interference. Burn your vaccine passport if they try to give it to you, and vote out any politician who won’t do the same."
September 25, 2020 - "Former Texas congressman Ron Paul was hospitalized earlier Friday after an apparent medical episode but is now 'doing fine,' according to a tweet posted to his Twitter account. Paul – a well-known libertarian, three-time presidential candidate and the father of Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul – was seen visually slurring his words during a livestream on his YouTube channel on Friday. The video has since been removed.
"'Message from Ron Paul: "I am doing fine. Thank you for your concern,"' a tweet posted on the former congressman's account stated, which also included an image of Paul, who is 85, sitting up and smiling from a hospital bed. Rand Paul also tweeted out a brief statement, saying, 'Thank God, Dad is doing well. Thank you for all your prayers today'....
"Ron Paul ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988 and a Republican in 2008 and 2012, helping to pave the way for Rand Paul's run in 2016 by building a nationwide network of devoted supporters drawn to his message of limited government and non-interventionist foreign policy.
"The elder Paul served as part of the Texas congressional delegation for more than two decades, representing the state's 22nd District from 1979 to 1985 and 14th District from 1997 until 2013 and becoming the first representative in US history to serve alongside his child serving in the Senate. Prior to serving in Congress, he practiced obstetrics and gynecology, delivering more than 4,000 babies."
A neighborhood in Queen's, New York – ironically named Corona – may have become the first place in North America to achieve herd immunity to the coronavirua. Serological testing in New York during the summer found that 68% of the population had antibodies to the disease. If the virus spreads at an initial reproduction number (Ro) of 3 (the most common estimate), it would require 66.67% of a population to have it in order to achieve herd immunity, the point at which community transmission stops. (At an Ro of 2.5, the herd immunity threshhold would be 60%.)
That makes Corona a very safe place to be in terms of COVID. Not completely safe, of course, as residents can still catch the disease elsewhere and bring it in; herd immunity will not prevent them from infecting anyone, only from restarting a local epidemic. The average of those with antibodies in New York is under 25%, far too low for that. And community transmission is ongoing, with the state experiencing an average 800-1,000 new cases, and 5-10 new deaths, every day. Still, the epidemic is over in New York: the virus is still spreading, and still killing, but now as a normal disease; the spread is endemic rather than an epidemic. For now the state, as its governor likes to brag, has somehow "tamed the beast." The only question is: How?
Some religious people might say: Because we prayed, and God heard our prayers. A believer in the Church of Lockdown would say: Because the government locked us down. Both claims are similar, but the latter purports to be a scientific claim, meaning that it must be falsifiable; believers in lockdown must do more than just state the claim, but give some evidence for it besides the two events (the lockdown, and the drop in cases months later). At minimum, they have to deal with alternate hypotheses that explain the events better.
In April, Israeli mathematician Isaac Ben-Israel analyzed the pandemic data, and noticed that outbreaks of the epidemic followed the same pattern: peaking in six weeks, then withering away after eight. Whether a atate locked down or not made virtually no difference. Therefore, he concluded, lockdown were ineffective. However, Ben-Israel, not being an epidemiologiat or virologist, had no explanation; he could only point to the numbers.
Nobel Prize winner Michael Levitt, who reached the same conclusion from the same data, noticed that the withering coincided with what he called 'saturation of infection' – a point when ~20% of the population (a figure he took from the Diamond Princess data) was no longer susceptible. Long before that point, while epidemics were still growing, their rates of growth had begun declining, an indication that the buildup of immunity was already slowing transmission.
Others who looked at real-world data began to find the same dramatic drop at a similar infection ratio occurring around the world, from New York to Stockholm to Manaus, Brazil, to Shenzen, China. Scientists have different theories why. One hypothesis, based on the theories of renowned epidemiologiat Sunetra Gupta, is that that there is pre-existing cross-immunity from other coronaviruas infections - enough, hypothetically, to achieve herd immunity at a lower level. Such cross-immunity may well exist, but not at that high an extent; for in none of the above communities (except possibly Shenzen) has the virus been eliminated, as herd immunity theory predicts. What has been eliminated is the epidemic, and with it most of the danger; but, as noted people are still dying of (or with) COVID in both New York and Stockholm.
Another theory, to which I am partial, starts from the notion that "the herd" is a false analogy. Unlike a herd, where interaction is relatively the same for all, human interaction takes many different forms, within specific, limited social networks. Some people play key roles in such networks; they are more likely to get the disease, and more likely to spread it when contagious, but also more likely to block network transmission once recovered and immune. On this theory, a much lower number (~40%) of recovered patients is needed to reach "herd immunity" (at which point the disease is eliminated), while a much lower number than that would be enough to reduce the reproduction number R to ~1 (at which point the disease still spreads, but does not grow). Even some coronaviruas modellers have taken both theories seriously enough to model their assumptions, and use them to predict the pandemic's course.
How do true believers in lockdown address the network theory, which also explains what happened in New York (and in Manauas and Stockholm, which the lockdown theory does not explain)? They don't. Rather, they first confuse the idea with the classical one of herd immunity – and, second, accuse the person who mentioned immunity of wanting more deaths simply to achieve herd immunity quicker. That was constantly done to Anders Tegnell in Sweden, and also to Patrick Vallance in Britain, back when Britain had a no-lockdown policy. A speaker has only to mention 'immunity,' and a lockdown zealot will start ranting about 'herd immunity' instead.
Another example occurs in this exchange between pandemic czar Antony Fauci and libertarian GOP Congressman Rand Paul. Fauci claims the epidemic ended in in New York because "they are looking at the guidelines that we have put together in the task force"; Paul points out that there is another possible explanation ("they've developed enough community immunity that they're no longer having the pandemic, because they have enough immunity"); and Fauci tries to shoot the idea down with this strawman: "If you believe that 22% is herd immunity, I believe you're alone in that."
Paul seems to be thinking of Gupta's theory of cross-immunity, not the network theory. Still, he was clearly talking about building up a high enough degree of immunity (he says 'enough' twice) to lower the disease to New York levels, not reaching the herd immunity threshhold needed to eliminate it. Fauci either did not understand Paul's objection, or chose to misrepresent it.
Why do they do that? Do they believe that the only possible level of immunity is herd immunity, or are they deliberately misrepresenting? Either may be possible – all that is known is that they consider the idea of 'immunity' evil, and are more concerned with eliminating it down than even considering it. It is also clear where they got that last idea; from the Bible of the Church of Lockdown, Tomas Pueyo's online writings, where the idea of immunity is discussed (not as a scientific theory, but as outright advocacy of more death:
The idea is that all the people who are infected and then recover are now immune to the virus. This is at the core of this strategy: 'Look, I know it’s going to be hard for some time, but once we’re done and a few million people die, the rest of us will be immune to it, so this virus will stop spreading and we’ll say goodbye to the coronavirus. Better do it at once and be done with it, because our alternative is to do social distancing for up to a year and risk having this peak happen later anyways.' (Tomas Pueyo, "The Hammer and the Dance")
To the best of my knowledge, no one else has ever said the sentences that Pueyo quotes.(I have searched). No one has to, as long as Pueyo's millions of readers are convinced it is what lockdown sceptics really believe down inside. The important thing then becomes not to logically answer sceptics, but to expose their evil intent. Fortunately, there are cracks in the monolith; despite everything lockdown advocates can do to suppress it, immunity theory seems here to stay.
July 21, 2020 - "President Trump’s deployment of federal officers to quell rioting in Portland, Oregon, and possibly elsewhere is seeing pushback not only from Democrats but also from conservatives and libertarians who say the federal government can’t indiscriminately throw its weight around and trample on constitutional rights. The White House insists the federal forces are necessary to stop the marauding mobs in Portland, but civil libertarians object to reports that unidentified officers are sweeping people up and detaining them.
"'It’s pretty straight-up unconstitutional,' said Nicholas Sarwark, a former chairman of the Libertarian National Committee. 'I wish I could nuance this one.... There’s nothing good there.'
"The White House said the law that created the Department of Homeland Security after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks gives the agency authority to protect federal property, which is the administration’s reason for the deployment in Portland to protect a federal courthouse. Mr. Trump has [also] said he might send federal agents into Chicago and other big cities wracked by violent crime in the wake of the racial justice upheaval and calls to defund police departments.
"The federal government does have 'disturbingly broad authorities' to send law enforcers anywhere in the country if it chooses, said Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian Washington think tank. 'That doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a political fight about it,' he said....
"Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, objected to the Trump administration’s sending 'unidentified' federal agents to Portland. 'We cannot give up liberty for security,' Mr. Paul said on Twitter. 'Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities, but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will.'
"Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, a Libertarian who quit the Republican Party last year, said on Twitter: 'Donald Trump is deploying unmarked federal police, decked out like a paramilitary force, to grab Americans off the streets. He’s not protecting liberty; he’s practicing tyranny'....
"U.S. Customs and Border Protection has jurisdiction of areas in the U.S. that are within 100 miles of an external boundary. 'That gives broader authority for Customs and Border [Protection] in particular to operate than folks may realize,' said Jonathan Adler, a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law. But there is no 'generic federal police authority,' he said. 'Nor should there be.... That’s the sort of power that was reserved to the states'....
"Sarwark said that people backing the president’s actions can’t seriously defend the situation from a constitutional perspective. 'This will separate the sheep from the goats,” he said. “If you don’t oppose secret police disappearing people off of American streets because they’re leftists, then you’re not really opposed to secret police — you’re just opposed to it being used against people you like.'"
February 13, 2020 - "With the support of eight Republicans, the Senate today passed a bill forbidding President Donald Trump (or really, any president) from taking further military action against Iran without the expressed permission of Congress.
"By a vote of 55-45, the Senate approved a resolution by Sen. Tim Kaine (D–Virginia) that states Congress did not authorize military actions against Iran when it passed Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) legislation in 2001 and 2002. That AUMF allowed the president to invade Iraq and also to hunt down al-Qaeda and those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. The resolution orders the president to 'remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military' within 30 days of the resolution passing.
"The bill was pushed forward after Trump authorized the drone-strike assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Though the administration claimed that the strike was necessary to prevent an 'imminent' attack against Americans in the Middle East, there was little to support this claim, and a couple of Republican senators, including Rand Paul (Ky.) and Mike Lee (Utah), were upset by the unapproved actions. They announced plans to cross the aisle and join Democrats to pass the resolution.
"In the end, the resolution got the support of not just Lee and Paul, but also Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Todd Young (Ind.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), and Bill Cassidy (La.).
"The bill heads now to the House, which passed a similar, but non-binding resolution. If the House signs on to the Senate version (which seems very likely), it will head to Trump's desk.
"Despite saying regularly he'd like to see less military intervention in the Middle East, Trump is signaling that he opposes this bill. Yesterday on Twitter, Trump called on Republicans to vote it down, claiming it would 'show weakness' to restrain his war powers. The bill is likely to face a veto, and if this vote is any indication, the Senate lacks enough Republican votes to overrule him."
October 17, 2019 - "As self-proclaimed 'democratic socialists' continue to rant and rave against capitalism, ... there still remain dedicated men and women willing to wade into the intellectual fog-of-war that is American politics and stand resolutely for ... our nation’s founding principles. Chief among these champions for liberty is Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
"In his latest book, The Case Against Socialism, Paul ... directly challenges proponents of new-wave socialism like Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). What’s more, he unabashedly demolishes the Oliver Stone-esque perception that socialism 'really isn’t that bad.'
"Before even concluding the introduction, Paul jumps straight to the heart of the matter, informing the reader that '[t]his is the story of an evil well documented and yet somehow still enticing … of socialism in all its drab and dreary machinelike destruction of individual thought, creativity, and ambition.... This is the story of socialism in all its violence, bloodshed, and tyranny. It is a cautionary tale of how America has so far eluded the siren call of something for nothing … but also of how close we still are to succumbing to socialism'....
"Paul wastes no time in attacking the misinformed “Hollywood socialists” who praise the likes of Hugo Chavez, Nicolás Maduro, and Fidel Castro. He reminds us that, not very long ago, important American figures like Noam Chomsky and then-Representative Bernie Sanders praised the election of Hugo Chavez, pointing to poverty statistics as evidence of socialism’s virtue....
"Yet, as history has consistently proven time and time again, the fruits of socialism quickly give way to oppressive violence, food shortages, and utter devastation.... [I]n the words of Venezuelan professor Daniel Lahoud: 'I have known the reality of the failure of socialism in my own flesh. And as I live in Venezuela, I want to show that this is an absolute failure always and everywhere.'
"Simply pointing out the failures of despotic socialist regimes is not sufficient for Paul to fully discredit socialism. For this, he addresses the common misconception of Scandinavian socialism. Countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are often used as props that American socialists can point to as evidence of socialism’s success.... So strong is this misconception that the Prime Minister of Denmark reprimanded Sanders 'and asked him to stop insulting his country as "socialist"'....
"Socialism is a scourge on the human condition. Time and time again, elites and intellectuals have sought to remold society only to fail miserably. What’s more, the centralized planning of men like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot resulted in some of the worst atrocities in human history. Yet, democratic socialists in Congress continue to believe that things will be different this time. This time socialism will work. Such a belief is not only foolhardy and ill-informed but downright dangerous....
"For this reason, it is important that ... we support those who are willing to stick up for the truth of history against the revisionism of political elites. Paul is ... and I am proud to consider him such a strong ally in the battle against socialism."
June 14, 2019 - "Kentucky U.S. Sen. Rand Paul said President Trump is acting too much like a king, and it is time for Congress to do its job of checking presidential power. Paul, a Republican who generally supports the president, pointed to Trump’s declaring a national emergency to fund a border wall.
“'You may remember me sometimes saying President Obama was abusing the separation of powers and acting too much like a king. Well, now there's a Republican doing some of the similar things,' Paul told WDRB News ... in Louisville. 'I'm for spending for some border security. I think we do have to have secure borders, but I think Congress has to appropriate the money. I don't think the president should be allowed to.'
"Paul said the separation of powers also applies to tariffs. 'I'm not a big fan of tariffs,' he said. 'I think they're hurting Kentucky. But I really am not a big fan of one person being able to decide there are tariffs.'
"Paul has co-sponsored a bill with Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon to limit the president's emergency powers. Paul said he is 'absolutely' concerned that a president’s power should be checked regardless of which party controls the White House....
"Paul was in Louisville to talk to a meeting of the Kentucky Bar Association about criminal justice reform. He was a big supporter of the First Step Act, which reduced mandatory life sentences for some non-violent drug offenses to 25 years and funded programs to help ex-felons return to society. He believes the federal and state governments should do even more. 'In Kentucky, believe it or not, you can kill somebody and be eligible for parole in 12 years,' he said. 'But you can sell drugs, and be in jail for life. I think we have to reassess.'
"But Paul said he does not want to be misunderstood as supporting drug use. 'I think drugs are a bad thing,' he said. 'I don’t want our kids on drugs. I don’t want our adults on drugs. But the thing is I also don’t want to put people in jail for it either.'
"Justice reform is an issue he pushed during his 2016 presidential campaign, and Paul is not exactly ruling out a second run in 2024. 'It’s just hard to imagine in the future, but I did it once, and it was an exciting time,' he said. 'Unless something would dramatically change, I don't see it happening again. But we'll see.'”
June 6, 2019 - "Former Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo., took to the op-ed pages to blast President Trump, early in his term, as 'the most divisive president in our history.' While that assessment is a matter of opinion, Trump has managed to drive an unfamiliar wedge between the two most libertarian members of Congress.
"Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., became the first member of his party to call for the president's impeachment, saying Attorney General William Barr 'deliberately misrepresented key aspects' of special counsel Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia report, a document he further alleged many of his GOP colleagues on Capitol Hill never read.
"Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., disagrees. 'I think they took this great power we entrusted with them to spy on foreigners, and they directed it against Americans for partisan reasons,' Paul said of the Russia investigation in an interview with Fox News.... 'I think it's wrong for any Republican to think, "Oh gosh, this is a legitimate investigation." I think it's a very partisan investigation." Paul described the whole affair as 'unlibertarian.'
"It may be the most significant disagreement ever between these two lawmakers who both arrived in Washington after the tea party-wave election of 2010, their candidacies made possible by the GOP presidential campaigns of then-Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the Kentucky senator's father, and have nearly identical voting records today. Aside from impeachment or the origins of the Russia investigation, it speaks also to differing strategies for Republicans in the age of Trump, whether libertarian, centrist, or conservative....
"Fundamentally, it is an argument over whether it's a more significant risk to be discredited by opposition to Trump or association with him. There are many obvious reasons why Paul and Amash would disagree on this question. Paul has access to Trump; Amash does not. Born in 1980, Amash is closer in age to the millennials who often find Trump offensive. Paul is on the younger end of the baby boomers, who see Trump more congenially.
"Paul represents Kentucky, a state Trump won easily and remains popular in. In fact, Trump ran ahead of Paul there in 2016, with 62.5% of the vote to the junior senator's 57%. Amash ran ahead of Trump in his district, winning 59% to the future president's 52%. The seat was once held by Gerald Ford, whom the Pauls would oppose as a sitting president at the Republican National Convention in 1976.
"Amash's libertarianism has probably allowed him to compile a more conservative voting record than his more moderate congressional district might otherwise be comfortable with. It is similarly possible that this will allow him to outlast his criticism of Trump. Paul already tried running as a Trump critic when they were both seeking the Republican presidential nomination, and it ended disastrously.
"The ultimate disagreement between the two might not be about Trump but partisanship. Amash has increasingly taken to describing partisanship as a counterproductive, even destructive force, the factionalism the Founding Fathers warned against. Paul sees partisan sentiment as baked into the cake of American politics and best used in service of his principles where possible.
"Which approach works best may have as much to do with how the Trump years end than who is right about this political dilemma."
May 30, 2019 - "Sen. Rand Paul does not agree with Rep. Justin Amash - a fellow libertarian Republican - that the House of Representatives should move forward with the impeachment of President Trump.
"Amash, R-Mich., made headlines in recent weeks for his lengthy Twitter threads laying out his argument for impeachment based on the Mueller report.... Paul, R-Ky., said on America's Newsroom Thursday that he takes the opposite view from Amash, seeing the origins of the Russia investigation as being 'un-libertarian.' He explained that the powers, specifically FISA surveillance, utilized in the FBI counterintelligence probe are the kind that libertarians have long warned could be abused by the government.
"'I see an abuse of power from Comey, Clapper, Brennan, from all these guys,' Paul said. 'I think they took this great power we entrusted with them to spy on foreigners and they directed it against Americans for partisan reasons.... I think it’s wrong for any Republican to think, 'Oh gosh, this is a legitimate investigation.' I think it’s a very partisan investigation."
November 9, 2018 - "What should we expect from Congress between January and the presidential election in 2020, now that Democrats have won back the House? Not much, according to one U.S. senator.
"'I think very little will happen,' said U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky who spoke Friday at the Sanford School. 'I think Democrats will bring forth initiatives in the House and they will die in the Senate.'
"Paul, who earned his medical degree from Duke in 1988 and has a son who’s a sophomore here, also talked about how his fellow Republicans can work more productively with Democrats.... Paul said he agrees with liberals on a number of issues, including: war ('I’m as anti-war as you can get'); relaxed criminalization for drug offenses ('There is a racial disparity in drug policy and we should do something about it'); less government eavesdropping on Americans in the name of fighting terrorism; and not allowing a U.S. citizen to be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant without a trial....
"Most of the compromising in Washington involves too much shared back-scratching: the left gets its welfare spending so the right can get its military spending, he said. He believes the main role of government is to protect liberty.... 'I think we should really self-examine what government is.'
"Asked how he reconciles smaller government with economic disparity, Paul said, “There is no world in which there is no inequality'.... He said there’s 'more mobility than you think,' and that while not perfect, the United States’ and other nations’ embrace of capitalism has helped reduce extreme poverty from around 85 percent worldwide in the 1800s to around 9 percent of the world today.... He disagrees with Trump on immigration, which he said is an asset, especially in today’s hot economy where workers can be hard to find.
"Asked about gun control in the wake of recent mass killings ... Paul said he doesn’t believe that’s the answer since '99 percent of gun owners aren’t killing people'.... Better law enforcement work would help, especially investigating potential threats to the fullest extent, he said....
"Asked how he can be against government intrusion into private lives yet oppose a woman’s right to an abortion, Paul said it’s a question that divides Libertarians, but noted their political philosophy typically opposes aggression. 'If you think the baby is not a person, do what you want,' he said. 'If you think it’s a person then Libertarians say the government has a role to stop it.'
"The event was hosted by the Young Americans for Liberty student organization and POLIS: Duke's Center for Political Leadership, Innovation, and Service."
March 7, 2019 - ""Huawei is suing the US over a government ban on its products.... In a statement on Thursday, the Chinese telecoms equipment and smartphone manufacturer said it had filed a lawsuit in the US district court in Plano, Texas, home to the company’s US headquarters, calling for the ban on US government agencies buying Huawei equipment or services to be overturned.
"'This ban not only is unlawful, but also restricts Huawei from engaging in fair competition, ultimately harming US consumers. We look forward to the court’s verdict, and trust that it will benefit both Huawei and the American people,' said Guo Ping, Huawei’s chairman.
"The ban, a provision of the National Defence Authorisation Act signed by Donald Trump in August, also prevents government agencies using third-party contractors who use Huawei products. Huawei alleges it amounts to a 'bill of attainder', a legislative act forbidden under the US constitution in which an individual or group is declared guilty of a crime without trial."
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/07/huawei-sues-us-over-government-ban-on-its-products
March 7, 2019 - "While it may be well over a year before the ... verdict ... Huawei has already won in the court of common sense. The US Constitution guarantees one’s basic freedom to engage in commerce without facing arbitrary governmental restrictions and burdensome regulations. These basic principles which are fundamental to the US Constitution, tend to be classed as economic libertarianism.
"Libertarianism can be defined as a political philosophy that stresses the necessity of little to no governmental interference in the lives of individuals and the businesses they operate. As such, there is a particular emphasis on free markets, free trade and freedom of choice for entrepreneurs, business owners and consumers, within the libertarian political philosophy....
"Although the US Constitution specifically enshrines these values into law, ... American politicians in both major parties ... often argue for less economic liberty, less freedom of choice and for more creativity stifling regulation.... Ron Paul and his son Senator Rand Paul continue to fly the flag of libertarian principles [but] for the rest of America’s political and media class, big government regulation is very much the rule ... both in respect of Donald Trump’s opposition to free trade and ... Democrats who argue for monstrously bloated (to the point of being ridiculous) initiatives such as the so-called 'green new deal'....
"[T]he Huawei lawsuit ought to open up the hearts and minds of average Americans who have allowed themselves to be bamboozled by fear.... Huawei is defending the liberty of ordinary Americans, more so than most American politicians."
February 12, 2019 - "Senator Rand Paul introduced two Kentucky-specific amendments to a bill that covers issues affecting federal lands.
"It’s the Natural Resources Management Act he’s proposing changes to and if passed, Kentuckians would see changes to two outdoor attractions. The senator says these changes would help increase tourism and support new economic growth in counties around Daniel Boone National Forest and the Lake Cumberland area.
"His amendments would give public access to waterways in the Daniel Boone National Forest in several counties. This would allow docks, boat slips, and marinas.
"The senator’s other proposed change would allow parts of the forest to be sold. He said it’s aiming at developing land in the national forest, which would allow the sale of land at some points along U.S. Highway 27.
"Opponents of the bill say there’s no limitations to how much land can be sold and there’s no public input.... Opponents also say there are endangered species in the area that may be harmed and they’re urging people to call legislators....
"Paul says the federal government should not stand in the way of Kentuckians accessing their own natural resources."
January 3, 2019 - [I]n a recent Twitter discussion on several different economics themes, documented by economist Brad DeLong, Marshall Steinbaum offered a theory.... The discussants were debating the merit of anti-monopolistic policies and to what extent it could be useful to frame the messaging around the topic in a way that would get libertarians on board.
“'You might have noticed that I don’t particularly care about "winning over" libertarians given their longstanding intellectual commitments,' Steinbaum, research director at the Roosevelt institute, said. 'If it is self-defeating to refuse to ally with white supremacy, then fine.'
“'Are you equating libertarianism with white supremacy?' asked E. Glenn Weyl, founder of RadicalxChange.
“'I am indeed, with much in the historical record to back me up. For example: "the United States, with trivial exceptions, has never been a colonial country." —Milton Friedman,' replied Steinbaum. 'There are flavors, but they all serve one another’s purposes and are part of the same political movement, yes.'
"Weyl, for one, outright rejected the view: 'Marshall is equating libertarianism with white supremacy. I think this is roughly equivalent to equating socialism with Stalinism, conservatism with Nazism or Islam with terrorism. This attitude of some of the left is unbelievably destructive and dangerous.'
"But DeLong, noting that he does not always agree with Steinbaum, argued persuasively for his point of view in a follow-up blog post. Libertarianism, he wrote, 'is a Frankenstein’s monster that got its lightning-bolt juice from massive resistance to the Civil Rights Movement'....
"DeLong pointed out that when Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) first entered national politics, he sparked a backlash by saying he opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it restricted private businesses’ right to engage in racist discrimination. Paul has since avoided discussion of this view, but it remains a revealing episode of his thinking....
"In principle, of course, anyone might discriminate against anyone else at public accommodations in Paul’s view. But we know how this plays out: White people use their property rights and 'freedom' from government regulation to further marginalize and oppress the black minority. Thinking that this is a world more in line with the ideal of 'freedom,' rather than a world in which fair treatment can be more readily enforced, is an unavoidably white supremacist idea.
"It’s also worth noting that Ron Paul, the senator’s father and predecessor in the Senate and at the forefront of national libertarianism, was caught having published wildly racist remarks in his own personal newsletter."
"December 20, 2018 - On 'America's Newsroom' Senator Rand Paul backed President Trump in the face of harsh criticism from Republicans over his decision to withdraw the 2,000-strong U.S. force from Syria.
"RAND PAUL: 'This is a very bold move for President Trump. It is exactly what he promised the American people -- in fact it is one of the reasons he won the election. Because he is different from so many Republicans who want us to be everywhere all the time around the world. They want us to be the world policeman, that every war on the planet we have to have our soldiers involved with. President Trump said he was going to treat America first....
"'I think there are a lot of independent voters, a lot of people in the middle of these states that President Trump won - Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin - these are states that no other Republican won, because they want to be at war everywhere all the time. President Trump said we're going to go to war when we have to, but when we win we're going to come home. It is an incredibly bold maneuver.
"All of the naysayers in Washington will be against him, but guess what, if you ask the American people, this is why President Trump won the election.'"
