'Constitutionalist sheriffs' won't enforce coronavirus restrictions

[jimnyc]

Gotta love it when they are directly responsible to report to the citizens who elected them. And add in the very many that run on and support the constitution above all else.

--

'Constitutionalist sheriffs' won't enforce coronavirus restrictions

In Snohomish County, Washington, Sheriff Adam Fortney is refusing to enforce the governor's stay-at-home order. He claims the order "intrudes on our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." On April 22, he told constituents via a Facebook post that "along with other elected Sheriffs around our state, the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office will not be enforcing an order preventing religious freedoms or constitutional rights."

These Washington sheriffs are far from alone. They're part of a nationwide group of sheriffs who feel beholden to no one but their voters. As they have on issues such as immigration and gun regulations, they will lead rebellions against higher levels of government - in this case, undermining public health efforts in the name of their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Here's how.

- Sheriffs are unlike other elected officials

Unlike police chiefs or commissioners who are generally appointed, sheriffs are law enforcement officials elected by residents of their counties. While research finds that police generally try to carry out their responsibilities in a nonpartisan manner, sheriffs are influenced by the desire to be reelected. Sheriffs run for office in the same way that members of Congress or the president do: they run on campaign platforms they believe will win a majority of votes. Sheriffs' campaign platforms consist of their political and law enforcement records, personal philosophies and policy priorities.

What sheriffs promise to do is quite likely to come true, because they have much more autonomy than do other elected officials. Legislators can't do much without first going through lengthy and involved policymaking efforts that involve collaborating with their fellow legislators. Governors and presidents have to work with the legislative branch of government. Because sheriffs don't have these constraints, their personal attitudes are quite likely to affect how they carry out their jobs.

For example, research finds that sheriffs choose whether and how they cooperate with federal immigration authorities. On one end of the spectrum is a group of sheriffs in North Carolina who campaigned on the promise to cut ties between their offices and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Since their elections, they have refused to honor immigration detainers, which are official ICE requests to take custody of someone who has been arrested; these sheriffs no longer allow ICE into county jails. On the other end of the spectrum was Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., well known for relentlessly policing immigration status, at the expense of civil rights and neglecting other aspects of his job.

Now combine that popular mandate from being directly elected with law enforcement power. What you get are sheriffs willing and able to lead local rebellions against the government - something that for decades has been happening from a group known as "constitutionalist sheriffs."

- Constitutionalist sheriffs in charge

Constitutionalist sheriffs believe that the Constitution appoints sheriffs as the ultimate law enforcement authority, even above the federal government. The Constitutionalist Sheriffs and Peace Office Association (CSPOA) claims to have over 400 members. Constitutionalist Sheriffs vow not to enforce federal laws that they consider a violation of individual rights granted by the Constitution.

Constitutionalist sheriffs have been attacking stay-at-home orders, which elevate the rights of the community over the rights of the individual. For example, Sheriff Daryl Wheeler, who identifies himself as a constitutionalist sheriff, posted a letter to Bonner County, Idaho, Facebook page asking the governor to "reinstate the Constitution" because "Covid-19 is nothing like the Plague." This sentiment is echoed by sheriffs across the country.

Sheriff Christopher Schmaling in Racine County, Wis., released a public statement on April 17 declaring he would not enforce the governor's Safer At Home order because it intrudes on the constitutional rights of his constituents. He reminds the county that he "took an oath to uphold the constitutional rights of our citizens."

Fortney reassured his constituents via a Facebook post, "As your elected Sheriff I will always put your constitutional rights above politics or popular opinion." In less than 24 hours, the post had been liked by 7,000 followers and shared over 12,000 times.

None of this is surprising. Constitutionalist sheriffs have refused to enforce orders from above before. For instance, as the Center for Public Integrity reported at length in 2016, these sheriffs have refused to enforce state gun regulations, federal land-use rules and Internal Revenue Service demands for payment of federal taxes.

Protecting Second Amendment rights is central to CSPOA's mission. In 2013, almost 100 sheriffs went on record opposing the Obama administration's gun regulation initiatives. The group sent dozens of letters to the White House stating they would defend their constituents' constitutional rights by refusing to enforce the new gun regulations. In 2018, Washington state voters passed stricter firearms restrictions via ballot initiative. Sheriffs have refused to enforce the new laws. Political scientist Mirya Holman, who has written here at TMC about her research into sheriffs, speculates that political polarization along the urban-rural divide contributes, as predominantly rural constitutionalist sheriffs refuse to enforce gun policies promoted predominantly by city dwellers, whether those are Seattle-area voters or President Barack Obama.

My research finds that constitutionalist sheriffs use their offices to undermine enforcement of federal public lands policies, making it easier for others to illegally use public lands for such purposes as grazing livestock or driving all-terrain vehicles. For instance, they threaten and try to arrest federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rangers who try to keep citizens off federal lands closed to the public. Counties that elect constitutionalist sheriffs have higher rates of violence against BLM employees than other Western counties, according to my analysis of government incident reports from 1995 to 2015.

Rest - https://www.greenwichtime.com/opinion/article/Constitutionalist-sheriffs-won-t-enforce-15220593.php

[Drummond]

Gotta love it when they are directly responsible to report to the citizens who elected them. And add in the very many that run on and support the constitution above all else.

--

'Constitutionalist sheriffs' won't enforce coronavirus restrictions

In Snohomish County, Washington, Sheriff Adam Fortney is refusing to enforce the governor's stay-at-home order. He claims the order "intrudes on our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." On April 22, he told constituents via a Facebook post that "along with other elected Sheriffs around our state, the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office will not be enforcing an order preventing religious freedoms or constitutional rights."

These Washington sheriffs are far from alone. They're part of a nationwide group of sheriffs who feel beholden to no one but their voters. As they have on issues such as immigration and gun regulations, they will lead rebellions against higher levels of government - in this case, undermining public health efforts in the name of their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Here's how.

- Sheriffs are unlike other elected officials

Unlike police chiefs or commissioners who are generally appointed, sheriffs are law enforcement officials elected by residents of their counties. While research finds that police generally try to carry out their responsibilities in a nonpartisan manner, sheriffs are influenced by the desire to be reelected. Sheriffs run for office in the same way that members of Congress or the president do: they run on campaign platforms they believe will win a majority of votes. Sheriffs' campaign platforms consist of their political and law enforcement records, personal philosophies and policy priorities.

What sheriffs promise to do is quite likely to come true, because they have much more autonomy than do other elected officials. Legislators can't do much without first going through lengthy and involved policymaking efforts that involve collaborating with their fellow legislators. Governors and presidents have to work with the legislative branch of government. Because sheriffs don't have these constraints, their personal attitudes are quite likely to affect how they carry out their jobs.

For example, research finds that sheriffs choose whether and how they cooperate with federal immigration authorities. On one end of the spectrum is a group of sheriffs in North Carolina who campaigned on the promise to cut ties between their offices and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Since their elections, they have refused to honor immigration detainers, which are official ICE requests to take custody of someone who has been arrested; these sheriffs no longer allow ICE into county jails. On the other end of the spectrum was Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., well known for relentlessly policing immigration status, at the expense of civil rights and neglecting other aspects of his job.

Now combine that popular mandate from being directly elected with law enforcement power. What you get are sheriffs willing and able to lead local rebellions against the government - something that for decades has been happening from a group known as "constitutionalist sheriffs."

- Constitutionalist sheriffs in charge

Constitutionalist sheriffs believe that the Constitution appoints sheriffs as the ultimate law enforcement authority, even above the federal government. The Constitutionalist Sheriffs and Peace Office Association (CSPOA) claims to have over 400 members. Constitutionalist Sheriffs vow not to enforce federal laws that they consider a violation of individual rights granted by the Constitution.

Constitutionalist sheriffs have been attacking stay-at-home orders, which elevate the rights of the community over the rights of the individual. For example, Sheriff Daryl Wheeler, who identifies himself as a constitutionalist sheriff, posted a letter to Bonner County, Idaho, Facebook page asking the governor to "reinstate the Constitution" because "Covid-19 is nothing like the Plague." This sentiment is echoed by sheriffs across the country.

Sheriff Christopher Schmaling in Racine County, Wis., released a public statement on April 17 declaring he would not enforce the governor's Safer At Home order because it intrudes on the constitutional rights of his constituents. He reminds the county that he "took an oath to uphold the constitutional rights of our citizens."

Fortney reassured his constituents via a Facebook post, "As your elected Sheriff I will always put your constitutional rights above politics or popular opinion." In less than 24 hours, the post had been liked by 7,000 followers and shared over 12,000 times.

None of this is surprising. Constitutionalist sheriffs have refused to enforce orders from above before. For instance, as the Center for Public Integrity reported at length in 2016, these sheriffs have refused to enforce state gun regulations, federal land-use rules and Internal Revenue Service demands for payment of federal taxes.

Protecting Second Amendment rights is central to CSPOA's mission. In 2013, almost 100 sheriffs went on record opposing the Obama administration's gun regulation initiatives. The group sent dozens of letters to the White House stating they would defend their constituents' constitutional rights by refusing to enforce the new gun regulations. In 2018, Washington state voters passed stricter firearms restrictions via ballot initiative. Sheriffs have refused to enforce the new laws. Political scientist Mirya Holman, who has written here at TMC about her research into sheriffs, speculates that political polarization along the urban-rural divide contributes, as predominantly rural constitutionalist sheriffs refuse to enforce gun policies promoted predominantly by city dwellers, whether those are Seattle-area voters or President Barack Obama.

My research finds that constitutionalist sheriffs use their offices to undermine enforcement of federal public lands policies, making it easier for others to illegally use public lands for such purposes as grazing livestock or driving all-terrain vehicles. For instance, they threaten and try to arrest federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rangers who try to keep citizens off federal lands closed to the public. Counties that elect constitutionalist sheriffs have higher rates of violence against BLM employees than other Western counties, according to my analysis of government incident reports from 1995 to 2015.

Rest - https://www.greenwichtime.com/opinion/article/Constitutionalist-sheriffs-won-t-enforce-15220593.php

If the US Constitution somehow, miraculously, conferred immunity from Covid-19 for all those observing its every letter ... I could understand all this.

But it doesn't.

Relaxation of lockdown rules on the grounds that they're 'unConstitutional', is pretty much certain to be a killer. Either that, or the whole science behind distancing rules is meaningless.

Did those who drafted the Constitution intend such a fate on ordinary Americans ?

Epidemics, pandemics, do not allow for societies to operate normally. To not adapt to that reality is to play Russian Roulette with your health, possibly your life.

But, still. If Americans insist upon doing this to themselves, who am I to speak out ?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

If the US Constitution somehow, miraculously, conferred immunity from Covid-19 for all those observing its every letter ... I could understand all this.

But it doesn't.

Relaxation of lockdown rules on the grounds that they're 'unConstitutional', is pretty much certain to be a killer. Either that, or the whole science behind distancing rules is meaningless.

Did those who drafted the Constitution intend such a fate on ordinary Americans ?

Epidemics, pandemics, do not allow for societies to operate normally. To not adapt to that reality is to play Russian Roulette with your health, possibly your life.

But, still. If Americans insist upon doing this to themselves, who am I to speak out ?
Well, here in America, we value our constitution. It what sets America apart from the rest of the world. It guarantees the citizens certain rights that can NOT be TAKEN AWAY, without an ACT OF CONGRESS. So when we see our elected officials acting out in a manner that is blatantly UNconstitutional, we view that as TYRANNY, and ABUSE OF POWER, and we don't take kindly to it.

This idea that some elected officials have been pushing since the start that the MOST IMPORTANT THING is to keep people from getting SICK, and for some unknown reason, now, with this virus, and NONE OTHER, that that USURPS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, is pure BULL SHIT. Why didn't they pull this crap with SARS, EBOLA, H1N1, AIDES, etc, etc, etc? Why now? Why must our entire NATION SHUT DOWN, especially now that new numbers are coming in showing that hundreds of thousands have already been infected and never even knew it and are now immune, and if those numbers were included in the daily fear mongering and panic numbers, it would show that far, FAR LESS, people are dying from this than thought before, like a tiny fraction of 1 percent.

But then the government couldn't finish their test of how easy it is push their TYRANNY. They couldn't break our economy and make MILLIONS of people DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT. If they put everyone back to work, everything might get back to normal and then these Jr. Hitler people in power would LOSE their NEW TYRANNICAL POWERS, and they might not like that, they might not be READY to just go back to having to FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.

There's a lot at play here, and it's far more than just KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE. RUINING our economy and nation surely isn't KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE EITHER. When people start getting EVICTED and they get HUNGRY, FAMILIES, OLD PEOPLE, etc, thrown out of their homes, apartments, left to fend for themselves on the street, penniless, no hope, the shit is going to hit the fan, I guarantee it. There's BIG TROUBLE coming if we don't get people back to work and end this ENDLESS SHUT DOWN, and remember, WE'RE ALL ARMED here in America, and for this very reason... TYRANNY.

[Drummond]

Human trials to find a Covid-19 vaccine began today, in England (in Oxford). I've posted on this in another thread.

I'm hoping that, if it turns out to be us Brits who finally come up with a lasting solution to this virus, nobody in America will find a Constitutional reason to refuse it !!!

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Human trials to find a Covid-19 vaccine began today, in England (in Oxford). I've posted on this in another thread.

I'm hoping that, if it turns out to be us Brits who finally come up with a lasting solution to this virus, nobody in America will find a Constitutional reason to refuse it !!!
Are we taking swipes at America and our constitution now? Is our constitution now the brunt of jokes for the UK?

[Drummond]

Well, here in America, we value our constitution. It what sets America apart from the rest of the world. It guarantees the citizens certain rights that can NOT be TAKEN AWAY, without an ACT OF CONGRESS. So when we see our elected officials acting out in a manner that is blatantly UNconstitutional, we view that as TYRANNY, and ABUSE OF POWER, and we don't take kindly to it.

This idea that some elected officials have been pushing since the start that the MOST IMPORTANT THING is to keep people from getting SICK, and for some unknown reason, now, with this virus, and NONE OTHER, that that USURPS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, is pure BULL SHIT. Why didn't they pull this crap with SARS, EBOLA, H1N1, AIDES, etc, etc, etc? Why now? Why must our entire NATION SHUT DOWN, especially now that new numbers are coming in showing that hundreds of thousands have already been infected and never even knew it, and are not immune, and if those numbers were included in the daily fear mongering and panic numbers, it would show that far, FAR LESS, people are dying from this than thought before, like a tiny fraction of 1 percent.

But then the government couldn't finish their test of how easy it is push their TYRANNY. They couldn't break our economy and make MILLIONS of people DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT. If they put everyone back to work, everything might get back to normal and then these Jr. Hitler people in power would LOSE their NEW TYRANNICAL POWERS, and they might not like that, they might not be READY to just go back to having to FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.

There's a lot at play here, and it's far more than just KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE. RUINING our economy and nation surely isn't KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE EITHER. We people start getting EVICTED and they get HUNGRY, FAMILIES, OLD PEOPLE, etc, the shit is going to hit the fan, I guarantee it. There's TROUBLE coming, people won't take an ENDLESS SHUT DOWN, and remember, WE'RE ALL ARMED here in America, and for this very reason... TYRANNY.

I respect your passion. I respect that you're arguing from a position, as you see it, of high principle.

But I must ask again: did your Founders ever intend that the Constitution be cited as a reason to die of a disease ?

Did they intend their Constitution to harm, and kill, and to replace scientific commonsense ?

I don't want ONE American to die, NEEDLESSLY, AVOIDABLY, from this disease !

Freedom from tyranny. Sounds noble. So, how about defending against the tyranny of fully avoidable death, and doing what it'll take to avoid dying ?

Is there any greater tyranny than needless death ?

I'm seriously wondering if the cure for this disease will turn out to be a British one (since we started human trials TODAY, it's entirely possible !). If it does, will Americans taking it be ruled unConstitutional, for some spurious association with ancient history ?

[Drummond]

Are we taking swipes at America and our constitution now? Is our constitution now the brunt of jokes for the UK?

I find nothing remotely funny in any of this, let me assure you.

But you must surely understand what the result of what you're advocating would be.

Here in the UK, TODAY, one of our scientists told us that unless or until a vaccine was found, some measure of restriction on movement, and most certainly maintaining distancing rules, MUST remain in place. You see, we KNOW that there are dangers in doing anything other than that. Our people think a second wave of Covid-19 is highly likely this coming winter, if we haven't found an effective counter-agent to it, by then.

If you trawl through British media outlets, you'll find no sign of 'public outrage' at that advice ... YET ... we, too, will have failing businesses, and we'll have increasing numbers of people running out of money and any way to support rhemselves.

BUT .... however bad, dire, personal circumstances may get ... they may still be survivable, IF only we follow commonsense scientific advice !!

Our people know that.

I fail to understand why yours - it seems - do not.

People who are dead cannot fight for their Constitution, so, to fight for Constitutional rights that may kill you, makes no sense to me.

I ask in all seriousness: is following the letter of the Constitution more important than facing present-day scientifically-based dangers, and doing what's necessary to safeguard life and limb ?

[jimnyc]

If the US Constitution somehow, miraculously, conferred immunity from Covid-19 for all those observing its every letter ... I could understand all this.

But it doesn't.

Relaxation of lockdown rules on the grounds that they're 'unConstitutional', is pretty much certain to be a killer. Either that, or the whole science behind distancing rules is meaningless.

Did those who drafted the Constitution intend such a fate on ordinary Americans ?

Epidemics, pandemics, do not allow for societies to operate normally. To not adapt to that reality is to play Russian Roulette with your health, possibly your life.

But, still. If Americans insist upon doing this to themselves, who am I to speak out ?


Relaxation or ensuring our constitutional rights, is not certain to be a killer. It simply ensures that our rights are paramount. While we have the freedom to speak up in America, it's used wisely by the citizens that the 1st amendment protects. And the 2nd gives us gun rights, but folks aren't out there in the wild, wild west shooting people simply because they have a right to guns. All kinds of rights are spelled out and more importantly it limits what our government can do to us.

Constitutional rights doesn't mean people are going to go out and be like Iran and start licking public objects. But that us citizens have the right to go to work, and use all protections properly and have companies working hard to get things back to normal, but also in a common sense manner. Many talks of limitations of all kinds of sorts.

Or that folks can hop in their private vehicle, drive a mile away and watch the sunset while in their cars. Rights as such should not be being stepped on, but are in some areas. So a lot of talk of the COTUS is to protect from the stupid portion of lockdowns and orders that truly make people feel like they are under "house arrest". Or someone wanting to spend 5 minutes to buy a handful of seeds to grow their own food during these times, and somehow being forbidden. This is a FREE country and many things are being denied that really won't have any effect on health either way.

I am more than confident that the original writers of our COTUS looked at the citizens and their freedoms first and foremost.

Ensuring our constitutional rights doesn't mean folks will run around touching one another or anything really outside of common sense. But just that they have the FREEDOM to be outside and/or working and our pursuit of happiness. No one is anticipating on guaranteeing their rights be preserved so that they can go out and infect others or get sick themselves.



Human trials to find a Covid-19 vaccine began today, in England (in Oxford). I've posted on this in another thread.

I'm hoping that, if it turns out to be us Brits who finally come up with a lasting solution to this virus, nobody in America will find a Constitutional reason to refuse it !!!

In fact, many vaccines, as we have discussed in the past, become necessary in order to be a functioning member of society. Of course anyone is also FREE to turn it down if they so choose to, and deal with any unfortunate fallout that may come with that decision. We also have endless scientists working here on vaccines and other countries all over it too. I would hope that the first to find one with success, would also share with the world instantly, and that folks will take it when known to be working 100%. Not only for themselves, but to help prevent others from getting sick.


I respect your passion. I respect that you're arguing from a position, as you see it, of high principle.

But I must ask again: did your Founders ever intend that the Constitution be cited as a reason to die of a disease ?

Did they intend their Constitution to harm, and kill, and to replace scientific commonsense ?

I don't want ONE American to die, NEEDLESSLY, AVOIDABLY, from this disease !

Freedom from tyranny. Sounds noble. So, how about defending against the tyranny of fully avoidable death, and doing what it'll take to avoid dying ?

Is there any greater tyranny than needless death ?

I'm seriously wondering if the cure for this disease will turn out to be a British one (since we started human trials TODAY, it's entirely possible !). If it does, will Americans taking it be ruled unConstitutional, for some spurious association with ancient history ?

Again, anyone fighting for their constitutional rights at this point, aren't doing so from a vantage point of wanting to be sick or dead. Their goal is to have their rights extended, and then take all necessary precautions, and then wait until things are "better" in their area - and get back to work with that common sense. Nobody wants to be sick and no one wants to do anything too early. But right now there are too many things being denied that are asinine. For starters, those things need fixing. Then forward from there.

Again, sounds like you are assuming that folks want to fight for rights, and then all run out and gather as one in the subway and cough on one another. :)

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I respect your passion. I respect that you're arguing from a position, as you see it, of high principle.

But I must ask again: did your Founders ever intend that the Constitution be cited as a reason to die of a disease ?

Did they intend their Constitution to harm, and kill, and to replace scientific commonsense ?

I don't want ONE American to die, NEEDLESSLY, AVOIDABLY, from this disease !

Freedom from tyranny. Sounds noble. So, how about defending against the tyranny of fully avoidable death, and doing what it'll take to avoid dying ?

Is there any greater tyranny than needless death ?

I'm seriously wondering if the cure for this disease will turn out to be a British one (since we started human trials TODAY, it's entirely possible !). If it does, will Americans taking it be ruled unConstitutional, for some spurious association with ancient history ?
I didn't mean to get "snippy," but I'm taking what's happening here very seriously. There is grave damage being done as we speak to America's economy, our industry and our rights, and I see nothing about it worthy of a joke.

And maybe you have to be born in America such as we were, to know we have more freedom and rights here than any other nation on earth. We fought, bled and died for those rights and we're not about to give them up, for ANY REASON, even a pandemic. We will follow RECOMMENDATIONS, or ADVICE, but that is our CHOICE. We haven't been the victims of an authoritarian dictatorship or monarchy where we've all been disarmed, what we say and do is policed, and we're basically at the very mercy of our government to do with us whatever it is they so please. We call that tyranny, and we don't want it, but they're giving it a TRIAL RUN right now. EVERY ONE of those IDIOT draconian ORDERS and the government officials they came from should be SUED.

And if I would be so bold as to mention what our founding fathers might say about this... I give you this from one of the signers of our constitution...

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

[Kathianne]

Expanding a bit, the same Constitution guarantees the right to hunker down until/if a vaccine is found. There are concerns that may not be possible, but I hope one is.

The people here, as I’ve said before, are not willing to let government get too heavy handed. There are serious concerns about opening stores and such, but some mayors, governors went way too far. 26k are now unemployed, they need to be able to care for their families. At the same time, the vast majority of folks get keeping a safe distance-though how that’s possible in NYC I’m unsure-but starving or dying from depression are not necessarily worse than by disease.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

26k are now unemployed,
26M, 26 million.

26K stands for 26 thousand.

[Kathianne]

26M, 26 million.

26K stands for 26 thousand.
Right you are.

[Drummond]

Relaxation or ensuring our constitutional rights, is not certain to be a killer. It simply ensures that our rights are paramount. While we have the freedom to speak up in America, it's used wisely by the citizens that the 1st amendment protects. And the 2nd gives us gun rights, but folks aren't out there in the wild, wild west shooting people simply because they have a right to guns. All kinds of rights are spelled out and more importantly it limits what our government can do to us.

Constitutional rights doesn't mean people are going to go out and be like Iran and start licking public objects. But that us citizens have the right to go to work, and use all protections properly and have companies working hard to get things back to normal, but also in a common sense manner. Many talks of limitations of all kinds of sorts.

Or that folks can hop in their private vehicle, drive a mile away and watch the sunset while in their cars. Rights as such should not be being stepped on, but are in some areas. So a lot of talk of the COTUS is to protect from the stupid portion of lockdowns and orders that truly make people feel like they are under "house arrest". Or someone wanting to spend 5 minutes to buy a handful of seeds to grow their own food during these times, and somehow being forbidden. This is a FREE country and many things are being denied that really won't have any effect on health either way.

I am more than confident that the original writers of our COTUS looked at the citizens and their freedoms first and foremost.

Ensuring our constitutional rights doesn't mean folks will run around touching one another or anything really outside of common sense. But just that they have the FREEDOM to be outside and/or working and our pursuit of happiness. No one is anticipating on guaranteeing their rights be preserved so that they can go out and infect others or get sick themselves.

In fact, many vaccines, as we have discussed in the past, become necessary in order to be a functioning member of society. Of course anyone is also FREE to turn it down if they so choose to, and deal with any unfortunate fallout that may come with that decision. We also have endless scientists working here on vaccines and other countries all over it too. I would hope that the first to find one with success, would also share with the world instantly, and that folks will take it when known to be working 100%. Not only for themselves, but to help prevent others from getting sick.

Again, anyone fighting for their constitutional rights at this point, aren't doing so from a vantage point of wanting to be sick or dead. Their goal is to have their rights extended, and then take all necessary precautions, and then wait until things are "better" in their area - and get back to work with that common sense. Nobody wants to be sick and no one wants to do anything too early. But right now there are too many things being denied that are asinine. For starters, those things need fixing. Then forward from there.

Again, sounds like you are assuming that folks want to fight for rights, and then all run out and gather as one in the subway and cough on one another. :)

I don't think you've grasped what's at stake here.

I wish I could remember the details. But, the BBC did a review of how many people a single carrier could infect after a month, if (a) minimal safeguards were implemented, and (b) if all basic protection steps were taken.

It turned out to be a difference between infecting 23 people, and infecting ONE THOUSAND.

The UK had a couple of weeks where it could trace every single case of Covid-19 on its shores. It took those weeks to reach 100 people. Then, around that point, the first provable case was discovered of transmission from person-to-person, from WITHIN our shores. We realised then that containment was highly unlikely to impossible. From February, when we were tracking our first 100 cases, to just six weeks later ... we have cases in the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.

So, tell me. If 98 percent of Americans fully follow scientifically sound prevention and containment measures, and just two percent decide that their Constitutional rights take precedence over sheer SCIENTIFIC REALITY ... how many will those two percent infect, two months on ?

Will any of those think they have a Constitutional right to travel where they please, see who they choose ?

Are there any Constitution-revering dentists out there ? How safe will THOSE individuals be ?

How about hairdressers ?

Doctors, nurses, police ... who feel it unConstitutional to feel compelled to take all necesaary medical precautions ?

Jim, any premature 'breakout' from lockdown rules WILL KILL. And NOT in small numbers, either. Those starting new infections endanger EVERYONE. Look at how easily the virus spreads. Just a handful of people 'exercising their Constitutional rights' will kill many thousands ... people who'd have otherwise have lived.

We in the UK understand, just as you do, that the lockdown can't continue indefinitely. But, HOW it CAN end, is something we are beginning to debate. There seems to be no easy answer. Questions have been put to our Health Secretary on the topic. He's failed to answer, because I think he sees no safe way of ending it.

What we're doing is to study those countries who do relax their lockdown rules, to see where it leads.

Let me say this.

If, for the sake of your precious Constitution, Americans trigger a SECOND wave of global infection ... I for one will not be 'impressed'.

I for one will hope for something more constructive. A vaccine that works. Until that time ... the fullest observance of prevention rules, which - as our Government insists must happen - IS OBSERVED BY EVERYBODY.

Whoever refuses to, endangers everyone, Jim. It's fact. Scientific fact. Nothing written in your Constitution will defy that fact.

THAT IS A SIMPLE FACT.

[jimnyc]

I don't want to go down the line and address each point. Suffice to say, I assure you that Americans know exactly what's at stake here. Being in New York, I'm immersed in the news, and it's non-stop, and of course addressing all the negatives to keep us up to date and aware. I know as much as one can possibly know, at least for my pea sized brain. :)

And suffice to say, Americans have a firm grasp and knowledge on what our rights are. You say things "will kill". And we of course were all aware of the same here, and then some. We're aware quite well of the numbers. We ain't no dummies here, contrary to what AOC and company may say. :)

But we're also quite smart enough to continue knowing our rights and continue fighting this disease.

Just a couple of questions:

Do you think I, and others, should be barred from taking a ride in a vehicle and/or watching the sunset from a vehicle?

We have the 2nd amendment here as you know. Do you agree with having gun rights of some form taken away during this pandemic?

Because those small things and our rights is what we are talking about to begin with, with the protests. All those small things that add up. And then of course leading up to all of our rights as clearly spelled out in our constitution.

I can't imagine you agreeing with gun rights taken away, or looking out the window of a vehicle, or buying seeds, or banning a motor boat on the lake but Aok of you go out with a paddle boat, kayak or anything without a motor? Many many other things, all IMO abuses of our rights and of no need during a pandemic.

And with all due respect, you again reply and make it sound as if we want to fight for our rights so that we can go out like dummies and not have a clue. Of course outside the menial things, ya darn well can't just open and start congregating in crowds. We CAN have all of our rights and then live in a planned manner, and in a manner where folks would be more or less doing what they are doing right now - which would be social distancing, many closures in harder hit areas, regionally slowly opening and keeping various new rules in mind to start.

Yes, perhaps there is a fine line between having ALL of our rights as spelled out in the COTUS and yet following authorities recommendations and guidelines. But we as a country and citizens have been doing this for a long time now, kinda used to it, and we ain't all dead. :) And it does NOT mean total chaos. Folks coughing on police or even just others, can be arrested and jailed. Companies are all free to stay closed. But if a break out happens there, just like before all of this ever happened, the health dept. can shut them down. Loads of ways to still keep things in control without taking away rights without due process.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I didn't mean to get brother Drummond all fired up either, but this topic has illustrated a very basic difference between us Americans and the rest of the world. We like our freedoms and rights and we're ready to fight to keep them. All our freedoms and rights are probably why the vast majority of people on earth all want to come here.

[jimnyc]

I didn't mean to get brother Drummond all fired up either, but this topic has illustrated a very basic difference between us Americans and the rest of the world. We like our freedoms and rights and we're ready to fight to keep them. All our freedoms and rights are probably why the vast majority of people on earth all want to come here.

While I fully grasp what we are facing, and still think some people are complete idiots for how they are approaching this if/when they venture out. I understand the shortages in a few things at some hospitals but a lot has been fear on projections. I know what NY is facing and surely my little neighborhood. I have been surely giving this thing the respect it deserves from day one. I was all over disinfectants and gloves and masks and learning all precautions. And of course, since then, staying up to date as much as humanly possible.

But my rights are first and foremost. I even said awhile back "I hope they never start messing with me being able to simply go for a ride" and other small things like that. I have been respecting this things and never leave home without my Amex, gloves and masks! And I choose what I can and should do and should not do, and take all necessary precautions, for myself and my family, and from those around me. I'll do that as I want and will fight for my rights, but I also respect rights along with the virus. From what it can do to me and to others and so on. But they can't stop me from watching the damn sun go down!! Or somehow tying this health pandemic into any reasoning whatsoever to do a damn thing with guns!

And like even Indians and probably damn cavemen too, learned how to grown their own food for "survival". And we have that right and should keep that right, especially right now if we want to do something to provide for ourselves.

All my rights. All my freedoms. Constitution isn't changed because the Chinese lied and a virus escaped somehow. We shouldn't have any right taken away, and the government surely shouldn't get any additional powers.

[Drummond]

You make a good case overall (even though I think I could counter it, purely on commonsense grounds). HOWEVER ... if a BBC report I've just viewed is accurate, in fact, the Constitution WILL be cited as a basis for thoroughly irresponsible behaviour.

You say:


Relaxation or ensuring our constitutional rights, is not certain to be a killer. It simply ensures that our rights are paramount. While we have the freedom to speak up in America, it's used wisely by the citizens that the 1st amendment protects. And the 2nd gives us gun rights, but folks aren't out there in the wild, wild west shooting people simply because they have a right to guns. All kinds of rights are spelled out and more importantly it limits what our government can do to us.

Constitutional rights doesn't mean people are going to go out and be like Iran and start licking public objects. But that us citizens have the right to go to work, and use all protections properly and have companies working hard to get things back to normal, but also in a common sense manner. Many talks of limitations of all kinds of sorts.

As to that BBC report, then: we in the UK are being told of the Governor of Georgia, who's reopening various businesss, and doing so in defiance of President Trump's wishes, and of the Government he heads. These businesses include hairdressers and tattoo parlours !!

He is doing this for the sake of peoples' rights to work. Yes -- AND, effectively, to infect people !!

See:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-52402883/trump-strongly-disagrees-with-georgia-governor


President Trump told a press conference on Wednesday that he thought Georgia's governor Brian Kemp was opening the spas, barber shops and tattoo parlours too early.
Mr Trump said the safety of the people of Georgia should "predominate" any decision and that the governor must do "what he thinks is right".

The governor said hair salons, gyms, bowling alleys and nail salons would be allowed to reopen on Friday, with restaurants following suit on Monday and the state's Shelter in Place Order expiring on April 30.

Businesses will be opened on a limited basis and subject to restrictions, following guidance from state public health officials and local data.

There are over 21,000 reported coronavirus cases in the state and 846 people have died there, according to figures from John Hopkins University

So, how would YOU feel about receiving a tattoo, at a tattoo parlour, during a Covid-19 epidemic, Jim, in downtown New York ? Would you say 'It's my Constitutional right to have that tattoo' ... or, would you instead say, 'I don't want to die, thanks very much' ... ???

You must surely understand that this overthrows your 'commonsense' argument. Your Constitution WILL be used to fight for the 'right' for businesses to - by their very nature !! - stand a very good chance of starting a new wave of infection.

That idiot Governor WILL end up being responsible for hundreds if not thousands of needless deaths. I can come close to promising you it'll happen. Watch infection rates in the State of Georgia, anything from around 2-3 weeks from now. Watch them skyrocket. In doing so, ask how you can be sure it won't spread outside of Georgia.

John Sopel, the BBC reporter giving his commentary, called those 'improbable' businesses to reopen .. his understated way of saying that commonsense was being completely defied.

And know what lies behind it ... adherence to your Constitution's 'inalienable rights'.

No Constitution existed in Wuhan, part of a repressive Communist regime in China. Yet, the virus escaped, to spread across the whole world. What do you think your idiot Governor in Georgia, with his reverence for commerce and individual rights, will do just to other parts of America ?

Face it, Jim. I am RIGHT.

Back to your argument:


Or that folks can hop in their private vehicle, drive a mile away and watch the sunset while in their cars. Rights as such should not be being stepped on, but are in some areas. So a lot of talk of the COTUS is to protect from the stupid portion of lockdowns and orders that truly make people feel like they are under "house arrest". Or someone wanting to spend 5 minutes to buy a handful of seeds to grow their own food during these times, and somehow being forbidden. This is a FREE country and many things are being denied that really won't have any effect on health either way.

I am more than confident that the original writers of our COTUS looked at the citizens and their freedoms first and foremost.

What is your Georgia Governor doing, in the service of COTUS ?

Your car example: if, on the return journey, the car was involved in an accident, what personal contact would come of events following ? What if the car broke down, and those 'folks' had to hitch a ride home ? What contact rules would need to be forgotten, during all of that - UNNECESSARY - journey ?

Your seeds example: what if that person who wanted to buy seeds, was infected but didn't know it .. and what if he sneezed in someone's face, in the shop ? Or, was sneezed AT ?

How many families might die, ultimately, out of that scenario ? Freedom to buy seeds = freedom to take a risk of spreading infection, with ONE SNEEZE.


Ensuring our constitutional rights doesn't mean folks will run around touching one another or anything really outside of common sense. But just that they have the FREEDOM to be outside and/or working and our pursuit of happiness. No one is anticipating on guaranteeing their rights be preserved so that they can go out and infect others or get sick themselves.

A combination of a certain idiot Governor's reverence for freedom, along with my showing you your examples just MIGHT cost lives if ever enacted (!!), should convince you that you just can't take chances, this 'in the name of inalienable rights'.

Conditions AREN'T NORMAL out there, and no matter how much you might argue that compromises are possible, they can VERY easily go wrong, with loss of life resulting.

Here in the UK, most of what you've described would involve police interest, and fines at minimum, were we to do the things you're arguing are 'OK' ... and this is done in the name of saving lives.

American lives, likewise, shouldn't be so cheap that certain of your citizens choose to recklessly endanger them.


In fact, many vaccines, as we have discussed in the past, become necessary in order to be a functioning member of society. Of course anyone is also FREE to turn it down if they so choose to, and deal with any unfortunate fallout that may come with that decision.

Covid-19 is far too new, far too deadly.

I argued against compulsory vaccination against measles ... partly because I didn't view it as a serious disease, partly because measles is an old disease, with highly effective vaccinations available. Covid-19 is VERY different, and I'd argue the exact opposite BECAUSE it is.


We also have endless scientists working here on vaccines and other countries all over it too. I would hope that the first to find one with success, would also share with the world instantly, and that folks will take it when known to be working 100%. Not only for themselves, but to help prevent others from getting sick.

I agree, of course.

But, what if shortages of vaccine occurred, because people needed to receive it, thanks to chasing their 'right to freedom', which led to their being needlessly infected ? What if those shortages killed others ?

There's only one lesson to be learned here. That is, freedoms have to be subordinate to reality, and the demands made by that reality. The infectious deadliness of Covid-19 IS today's reality, and any games played with it in the name of 'freedom' have great potential to be deadly.


Again, sounds like you are assuming that folks want to fight for rights, and then all run out and gather as one in the subway and cough on one another. :)

I lack proof that they'd do anything else. [It only takes ONE maniac to do such a thing.]

Care to put it to the test ?

OR, would any responsible citizen, never dream of doing so ??

[Drummond]

I didn't mean to get brother Drummond all fired up either, but this topic has illustrated a very basic difference between us Americans and the rest of the world. We like our freedoms and rights and we're ready to fight to keep them. All our freedoms and rights are probably why the vast majority of people on earth all want to come here.

Sheer practicality governs what I'm arguing, HPD. I've long since said that an integral part of what makes Conservatives superior to Lefties is that we are realists, not driven by dogma.

But, Covid-19 IS what it IS .... massively infectious, with great potential to kill. That is the reality true of the world today .. and, it needs to be faced, and dealt with, in its own terms.

Dogmatic belief in a centuries' old document, one which, so far as I know, doesn't say ONE WORD which guides Americans through a pandemic ... and which, therefore, doesn't addresss today's reality AT ALL ... cannot be a basis for letting it overrule all vitally necessary caution.

I really don't think your Founders helped draft that Constitution because they wanted it to form the basis for thousands of unnecessary American deaths. Why not respect those Founders' memory, by NOT LETTING THE CONSTITUTION HAVE THAT EFFECT ?

[Gunny]

Gotta love it when they are directly responsible to report to the citizens who elected them. And add in the very many that run on and support the constitution above all else.

--

'Constitutionalist sheriffs' won't enforce coronavirus restrictions

In Snohomish County, Washington, Sheriff Adam Fortney is refusing to enforce the governor's stay-at-home order. He claims the order "intrudes on our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." On April 22, he told constituents via a Facebook post that "along with other elected Sheriffs around our state, the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office will not be enforcing an order preventing religious freedoms or constitutional rights."

These Washington sheriffs are far from alone. They're part of a nationwide group of sheriffs who feel beholden to no one but their voters. As they have on issues such as immigration and gun regulations, they will lead rebellions against higher levels of government - in this case, undermining public health efforts in the name of their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Here's how.

- Sheriffs are unlike other elected officials

Unlike police chiefs or commissioners who are generally appointed, sheriffs are law enforcement officials elected by residents of their counties. While research finds that police generally try to carry out their responsibilities in a nonpartisan manner, sheriffs are influenced by the desire to be reelected. Sheriffs run for office in the same way that members of Congress or the president do: they run on campaign platforms they believe will win a majority of votes. Sheriffs' campaign platforms consist of their political and law enforcement records, personal philosophies and policy priorities.

What sheriffs promise to do is quite likely to come true, because they have much more autonomy than do other elected officials. Legislators can't do much without first going through lengthy and involved policymaking efforts that involve collaborating with their fellow legislators. Governors and presidents have to work with the legislative branch of government. Because sheriffs don't have these constraints, their personal attitudes are quite likely to affect how they carry out their jobs.

For example, research finds that sheriffs choose whether and how they cooperate with federal immigration authorities. On one end of the spectrum is a group of sheriffs in North Carolina who campaigned on the promise to cut ties between their offices and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Since their elections, they have refused to honor immigration detainers, which are official ICE requests to take custody of someone who has been arrested; these sheriffs no longer allow ICE into county jails. On the other end of the spectrum was Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., well known for relentlessly policing immigration status, at the expense of civil rights and neglecting other aspects of his job.

Now combine that popular mandate from being directly elected with law enforcement power. What you get are sheriffs willing and able to lead local rebellions against the government - something that for decades has been happening from a group known as "constitutionalist sheriffs."

- Constitutionalist sheriffs in charge

Constitutionalist sheriffs believe that the Constitution appoints sheriffs as the ultimate law enforcement authority, even above the federal government. The Constitutionalist Sheriffs and Peace Office Association (CSPOA) claims to have over 400 members. Constitutionalist Sheriffs vow not to enforce federal laws that they consider a violation of individual rights granted by the Constitution.

Constitutionalist sheriffs have been attacking stay-at-home orders, which elevate the rights of the community over the rights of the individual. For example, Sheriff Daryl Wheeler, who identifies himself as a constitutionalist sheriff, posted a letter to Bonner County, Idaho, Facebook page asking the governor to "reinstate the Constitution" because "Covid-19 is nothing like the Plague." This sentiment is echoed by sheriffs across the country.

Sheriff Christopher Schmaling in Racine County, Wis., released a public statement on April 17 declaring he would not enforce the governor's Safer At Home order because it intrudes on the constitutional rights of his constituents. He reminds the county that he "took an oath to uphold the constitutional rights of our citizens."

Fortney reassured his constituents via a Facebook post, "As your elected Sheriff I will always put your constitutional rights above politics or popular opinion." In less than 24 hours, the post had been liked by 7,000 followers and shared over 12,000 times.

None of this is surprising. Constitutionalist sheriffs have refused to enforce orders from above before. For instance, as the Center for Public Integrity reported at length in 2016, these sheriffs have refused to enforce state gun regulations, federal land-use rules and Internal Revenue Service demands for payment of federal taxes.

Protecting Second Amendment rights is central to CSPOA's mission. In 2013, almost 100 sheriffs went on record opposing the Obama administration's gun regulation initiatives. The group sent dozens of letters to the White House stating they would defend their constituents' constitutional rights by refusing to enforce the new gun regulations. In 2018, Washington state voters passed stricter firearms restrictions via ballot initiative. Sheriffs have refused to enforce the new laws. Political scientist Mirya Holman, who has written here at TMC about her research into sheriffs, speculates that political polarization along the urban-rural divide contributes, as predominantly rural constitutionalist sheriffs refuse to enforce gun policies promoted predominantly by city dwellers, whether those are Seattle-area voters or President Barack Obama.

My research finds that constitutionalist sheriffs use their offices to undermine enforcement of federal public lands policies, making it easier for others to illegally use public lands for such purposes as grazing livestock or driving all-terrain vehicles. For instance, they threaten and try to arrest federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rangers who try to keep citizens off federal lands closed to the public. Counties that elect constitutionalist sheriffs have higher rates of violence against BLM employees than other Western counties, according to my analysis of government incident reports from 1995 to 2015.

Rest - https://www.greenwichtime.com/opinion/article/Constitutionalist-sheriffs-won-t-enforce-15220593.phpI found this article to be one of the better ones I've seen in awhile. I have never seen "county sheriff" put in perspective with every other agency like this. I'm going to have to ponder this :)

[FakeNewsSux]

...That idiot Governor WILL end up being responsible for hundreds if not thousands of needless deaths. I can come close to promising you it'll happen. Watch infection rates in the State of Georgia, anything from around 2-3 weeks from now. Watch them skyrocket. In doing so, ask how you can be sure it won't spread outside of Georgia.

John Sopel, the BBC reporter giving his commentary, called those 'improbable' businesses to reopen .. his understated way of saying that commonsense was being completely defied.

And know what lies behind it ... adherence to your Constitution's 'inalienable rights'.

...What do you think your idiot Governor in Georgia, with his reverence for commerce and individual rights, will do just to other parts of America ?

Drummond, I believe the best prescription for you is to turn off the tele and put down the papers for a couple of days or weeks. The globalist propaganda machine seems to be working it's mojo on you. I can't say as I blame you since you rely on the NHS for your health care needs. That can even make a run of the mill epidemic nearly unbearable!

I live in metro Atlanta, across town from the busiest airport in the world, six miles from the CDC and 15 miles from Dobbins AFB which has hosted every COVID positive patient from every cruise ship that docked in the US. We have been marinated in this highly contagious virus from early on (likely since the end of 2019). 63,000 people work at the airport and live throughout the metro area. This doesn't even figure in the tens of thousands of arrivals from all over Asia and Europe due to the fact that this is Delta's global Hub.

Things have been pretty casual around here during the shut down. Most retail shops were closed but anyone who sells food, gas, liquor, hardware or drugs have been wide open. If a restaurant doesn't have a drive through window, you can go in for carry out. No problem walking around anywhere and all the parks are open. No one is stopped on suspicion of non essential travel. Traffic has reduced by about 50% and there are no "rush hours".

As for me, I am an essential employee due to my employment with a global package delivery company headquartered here in Atlanta. I have been rehabbing an injury since March 3 and expect to go back May 4. Twice a week physical therapy and weekly doctor visits, even an MRI have been no problem attending. I've heard from fellow employees that about 5% of the folks at work are wearing masks. In public, only about 5% were wearing masks until the White House suggested that they be worn and I would say about 50% of the people have been wearing them since. I had a broken crown removed and a temporary placed two weeks ago. The only time I have worn a mask is when I had an MRI because it was office policy. I'll be 63 in August.

I believe that Georgia has gone with the herd immunity approach which probably accounts for the higher than average levels of confirmed cases and deaths. But I also believe that this is why Governor Kemp feels comfortable with his reopening orders. The shelter in place orders were treated more as a suggestion than an order. Our hospital capacity was never really stressed with a possible exception in the rural southwestern portion of the State around Albany. As casual as the shelter in place orders have been in the Atlanta metro area, from what I hear, it has been even less adhered to in the rural parts of the State. From what I understand, restaurants will reopen on Monday with the balance of the businesses on May 1.

I believe that the Governor has made decision on what is best for his State and I don't believe that he is unduly threatening the health and welfare of his citizens. I'm sure, since he is a white male Republican, he will be portrayed as conducting an ethnic cleansing of black people but he has got a long way to go compared to the Democrat Governors of this State throughout history. Rather than damning him for things that may happen according to the folks that have been gloriously wrong at every turn, why don't we try wishing him and the citizens of Georgia good luck in leading the country back to normality. https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report

[Drummond]

Drummond, I believe the best prescription for you is to turn off the tele and put down the papers for a couple of days or weeks. The globalist propaganda machine seems to be working it's mojo on you. I can't say as I blame you since you rely on the NHS for your health care needs. That can even make a run of the mill epidemic nearly unbearable!

I live in metro Atlanta, across town from the busiest airport in the world, six miles from the CDC and 15 miles from Dobbins AFB which has hosted every COVID positive patient from every cruise ship that docked in the US. We have been marinated in this highly contagious virus from early on (likely since the end of 2019). 63,000 people work at the airport and live throughout the metro area. This doesn't even figure in the tens of thousands of arrivals from all over Asia and Europe due to the fact that this is Delta's global Hub.

Things have been pretty casual around here during the shut down. Most retail shops were closed but anyone who sells food, gas, liquor, hardware or drugs have been wide open. If a restaurant doesn't have a drive through window, you can go in for carry out. No problem walking around anywhere and all the parks are open. No one is stopped on suspicion of non essential travel. Traffic has reduced by about 50% and there are no "rush hours".

As for me, I am an essential employee due to my employment with a global package delivery company headquartered here in Atlanta. I have been rehabbing an injury since March 3 and expect to go back May 4. Twice a week physical therapy and weekly doctor visits, even an MRI have been no problem attending. I've heard from fellow employees that about 5% of the folks at work are wearing masks. In public, only about 5% were wearing masks until the White House suggested that they be worn and I would say about 50% of the people have been wearing them since. I had a broken crown removed and a temporary placed two weeks ago. The only time I have worn a mask is when I had an MRI because it was office policy. I'll be 63 in August.

I believe that Georgia has gone with the herd immunity approach which probably accounts for the higher than average levels of confirmed cases and deaths. But I also believe that this is why Governor Kemp feels comfortable with his reopening orders. The shelter in place orders were treated more as a suggestion than an order. Our hospital capacity was never really stressed with a possible exception in the rural southwestern portion of the State around Albany. As casual as the shelter in place orders have been in the Atlanta metro area, from what I hear, it has been even less adhered to in the rural parts of the State. From what I understand, restaurants will reopen on Monday with the balance of the businesses on May 1.

I believe that the Governor has made decision on what is best for his State and I don't believe that he is unduly threatening the health and welfare of his citizens. I'm sure, since he is a white male Republican, he will be portrayed as conducting an ethnic cleansing of black people but he has got a long way to go compared to the Democrat Governors of this State throughout history. Rather than damning him for things that may happen according to the folks that have been gloriously wrong at every turn, why don't we try wishing him and the citizens of Georgia good luck in leading the country back to normality. https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report

Hah. Cutting myself off from our media might, indeed, do me a power of good !! Thanks for the suggestion.

However ... your argument, if a good one, shouldn't also contain within it, the basis for confirmation of my own !!

Can I ask you to square this following circle ? These are two quotes from the post you've sent me:


I believe that Georgia has gone with the herd immunity approach which probably accounts for the higher than average levels of confirmed cases and deaths.


... the Governor has made decision on what is best for his State and I don't believe that he is unduly threatening the health and welfare of his citizens.

He's EITHER following a path that 'accounts for the higher than average levels of confirmed cases and deaths', OR, he's not 'unduly threatening the health and welfare of his citizens.'.

Can I suggest that you pick one, and discard the other ? Both of these statements cannot be true. The big problem with the herd immunity approach IS that its initial toll on human life is considerable. Avoidably so, if the herd immunity method is chosen !

All you describe of the freedoms you enjoy, to buy 'food, gas, liquor, hardware or drugs have been wide open' ... these are greater than ours. All restaurants are closed here. Alcohol outlets - as in retail, places you'd physically visit ... they are closed. Hardware stores are closed ... considered nonessential business. Basically, businesses essential to survival, can operate. Those which aren't, are deemed 'nonessential' and are banned from operating.

There's a thriving Internet-based business community out there, and providing people are happy to take deliveries to their homes, these can operate. Physically visiting any business deemed nonessential is a pointless exercise. They're all closed.

I think that our approach is the sensible one. WHY take NEEDLESS risks with life and limb ? Anyone tempted to do so, not only threatens themselves, but anyone they come in contact with afterwards ... family, household members, for example.

We have cases of elderly people dying, being buried, and almost nobody from their families is permitted to attend the funeral. Why ? Because 'mass' gatherings cannot be permitted.

With our far stringent controls, we STILL have horrendous infection and death tolls. THAT IS HOW INFECTIOUS COVID-19 IS !!!

So for your Georgian Governor to do what he's doing, makes no sense at all. It's highly tempting to conclude that he has a contempt for human life.

If he DOES have that contempt ... then, he might as well be a Leftie. What distinguishes Conservatives from the Left, SHOULD be that the individual MATTERS to us.



Yes. I'm very tempted to ignore the media here ... just switch it all off. I've just spent some minutes listening to James O'Brien on LBC Radio, claiming that President Trump has been recommending that people inject themselve with [I]bleach. O'Brien has been busily expressing his disgust, on his programme. Callers to his programme are suggesting that this might finally finish off President Trump's career.

As of this moment, I don't know if there's anything to that report ... if there is, our Lefties will be all over it, considering it a gift for their side (our BBC 1 o'clock news is just starting as I type ... I'm recording it on my equipment here). But the impression being left, both by that report and by the Georgian Governor, is that the Right have no regard for human life AT ALL.

That Governor, as I say, might as well be a Leftie. He's doing great damage to the Right wing cause.

He's also threatening peoples' lives. Needlessly, recklessly.

He needs to be brought to account for that.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Just heard on Fox news that since they've begun compiling immunity tests results, and in NYC they're projecting that as many as 2.7 MILLION have been infected and either didn't know it, or had such mild symptoms that it didn't warrant a trip to the doctor. I'm hearing more and more of this kind of news emerging, which is going to blow the lid off this virus as being even less deadly than the Flu, as in only a small fraction of 1% actually die from it.

I've also heard that UV light and heat greatly reduce it's time to survive outside a host on a surface, so actually going outside is a GOOD IDEA, and not sitting INSIDE. I even heard that they've noticed that far more non smokers have been infected than smokers, so they're experimenting with a nicotine patch on some of the infected to see if it kills the virus.

I think when this is all said and done, we're going to see that our initial reaction, and especially the continued reaction and lock downs, were all astronomically uncalled for. The damage that we've done to our economy, the fear and panic that was spread, the people that lost their jobs, all the money our government has spent, will all have been done when it really wasn't warranted.

As far as America and our constitutional rights, I guess you have to be born here and live it to understand it. When you're born into a more constrained nation and you don't have the same guaranteed, God given rights we do, if that's what you believe is all fine and dandy, then understanding an American ready to fight and die for their rights that are beyond your's when you believe what you have is enough, is something that might be hard to wrap your head around.

[Drummond]

Just heard on Fox news that since they've begun compiling immunity tests results, and in NYC they're projecting that as many as 2.7 MILLION have been infected and either didn't know it, or had such mild symptoms that it didn't warrant a trip to the doctor. I'm hearing more and more of this kind of news emerging, which is going to blow the lid off this virus as being even less deadly than the Flu, as in only a small fraction of 1% actually die from it.

I've also heard that UV light and heat greatly reduce it's time to survive outside a host on a surface, so actually going outside is a GOOD IDEA, and not sitting INSIDE. I even heard that they've noticed that far more non smokers have been infected than smokers, so they're experimenting with a nicotine patch on some of the infected to see if it kills the virus.

I think when this is all said and done, we're going to see that our initial reaction, and especially the continued reaction and lock downs, were all astronomically uncalled for. The damage that we've done to our economy, the fear and panic that was spread, the people that lost their jobs, all the money our government has spent, will all have been done when it really wasn't warranted.

As far as America and our constitutional rights, I guess you have to be born here and live it to understand it. When you're born into a more constrained nation and you don't have the same guaranteed, God given rights we do, if that's what you believe is all fine and dandy, then understanding an American ready to fight and die for their rights that are beyond your's when you believe what you have is enough, is something that might be hard to wrap your head around.

Our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, advised our people to be disciplined in washing our hands. He gave precise instructions on it.

Later, it emerged that he'd visited a hospital and shook the hands of every Covid-19 patient he could find.

Days later, he showed symptoms of the disease. He tried to shrug it off. He failed. He had to be hospitalised.

He almost died.

So, I'm sorry. You're not going to convince me that Covid-19 is anything but a serious threat to human life !! It's not going to happen.

Now ... does a responsible Government stand back, 'in the name of freedom', and watch people seize excuses to exercise their concept of liberty, and in the process, endanger themselves and others ?

You may have a 'yes' answer to offer me. If you do, I will never accept it.

Our death toll in the UK, small compared to parts of the US, hovers around the 20,000 mark. That's several '9/11's'. Will you suggest to grieving families, on your side of the Pond or mine, that their deceased loved ones died from something that, may I quote you, 'our initial reaction, and especially the continued reaction and lock downs, were all astronomically uncalled for.'

HPD. I am a Conservative. As such, I say that the individual MATTERS. Individual human life, MATTERS. We absolutely should NOT be writing off established death tolls as being caused by something we need to stop over-reacting to !!

Individual liberty only has meaning if the individual in question is alive to enjoy it ! Finding excuses to argue for a environment that would kill off peoples' ability to enjoy liberty and freedom, courtesy of being DEAD, makes not the slightest sense.

I recommend that the Governor of Georgia submits to a psychiatric examination. Urgently.

I'm still waiting, as of right now, to review a media report which suggests that President Trump recommended that people inject themselves with bleach, something that a Trump hating broadcaster, James O'Brien, made a lot of, in his broadcast of today.

I say this: American Conservatives need to care MORE about individual human life. I do. I totally fail to understand why I'm not seeing that mirrored in the views of American Conservatives.