Saturday AM ~ TheFrontPageCover

~ Featuring ~
What's Not Happening
by Tom McLaughlin
What Conservatives Think of 
Senate’s Coronavirus Aid Package
by Rachel del Guidice
{ } ~ The Senate’s new coronavirus aid package is a mixed bag, according to a new report from The Heritage Foundation... “Any action that Congress takes should be targeted, temporary, and linked directly to the coronavirus epidemic in order to address the source of the economic shock while limiting any political abuse that can develop in a moment of crisis,” states the report’s summary. “Unfortunately, the Senate’s coronavirus bill, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, misses this mark by including special benefits to specific industries that will exceed $200 billion.” The Heritage Foundation’s report is titled “The Senate’s Coronavirus Bill: Bailouts, Missed Opportunities, and Positive Reforms. ”The Senate’s aid package, which was released by Republicans Thursday and could be voted on as soon as this weekend, would cost up to $1 trillion. It would give monetary relief to airlines and other industries impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as send checks to many Americans. Among other provisions, couples who make up to $150,000 a year would get checks for $2,400 in the mail and individuals earning up to $75,000 would get checks for $1,200, The Daily Signal’s Fred Lucas reported. Individuals who make over $99,000 a year and couples making over $198,000 would not receive any federal assistance under the current legislation. The Heritage report, authored by eight researchers focusing on health care and economics, states: Broad-based relief is not a well-targeted prescription for this crisis. … Government supports should be targeted toward keeping people employed and supporting those who do lose their jobs due to the coronavirus crisis. “Liquidity is the key to rescuing the nation from the worst potential economic impact of the coronavirus,” Schatz said. “If the airlines can’t fly, they can’t pay bills. If individuals can’t pay rent or buy food, they need help from the government. This does not mean that fiscal responsibility should be completely abandoned. The funds must be used as intended for only as long as necessary.”... 
Studies Claim Malaria Drug Chloroquine 
Effective Against Coronavirus
{ } ~ Sure this Coronavirus pandemic is a misery but I’m much more optimistic than most at the moment. Here’s one of the reasons: there’s an effective treatment already and it’s available and cheap, according to studies... Chloroquine phosphate, an old-fashioned anti-malarial drug, has shown strong results against COVID-19 infections in South Korea and China. As Anthony Watts notes here there have been at least three studies demonstrating its efficacy against the Coronavirus. Here is one, by James M Todaro and Gregory J Rigano, in association with Stanford University School of Medicine and National Academy of Sciences Researchers. According to the summary: Recent guidelines from South Korea and China report that chloroquine is an effective antiviral therapeutic treatment against Coronavirus Disease 2019. Use of chloroquine tablets is showing favorable outcomes in humans infected with Coronavirus including faster time to recovery and shorter hospital stay. US CDC research shows that chloroquine also has strong potential as a prophylactic preventative measure against coronavirus in the lab, while we wait for a vaccine to be developed. Chloroquine is an inexpensive, globally available drug that has been in widespread human use since 1945 against malaria, autoimmune and various other conditions. It concludes: Chloroquine can both prevent and treat malaria. Chloroquine can both prevent and treat coronavirus in primate cells. According to South Korean and China human treatment guidelines, chloroquine is effective in treating COVID-19. Given chloroquine’s human safety profile and existence, it can be implemented today in the U.S., Europe and the rest of the world. Medical doctors may be reluctant to prescribe chloroquine to treat COVID-19 since it is not FDA approved for this use. The United States of America and other countries should immediately authorize and indemnify medical doctors for prescribing chloroquine to treat COVID-19. We must explore whether chloroquine can safely serve as a preventative measure prior to infection of COVID-19 to stop further spread of this highly contagious virus...
Israeli Pharma Giant Teva Donates Millions 
of Doses of Potential Coronavirus 
Drug to US Hospitals
by ~ Israeli pharmaceutical giant Teva on Friday announced that it would donate millions of tablets containing a possible coronavirus cure to hospitals across the US... A statement from the company said that more than 6 million doses of hydroxychloroquine sulfate — touted as a potential remedy for coronavirus sufferers — would be distributed through its wholesalers. “We are committed to helping to supply as many tablets as possible as demand for this treatment accelerates at no cost,” Brendan O’Grady — Teva Executive Vice President, North America Commercial — stated. “Immediately upon learning of the potential benefit of hyroxychloroquine, Teva began to assess supply and to urgently acquire additional ingredients to make more product while arranging for all of what we had to be distributed immediately.” Hydroxychloroquine is an arthritis medicine that also can be used to prevent malaria. It is available in the US by prescription only. It is marketed under the brand name Plaquenil and it is also sold as a generic medicine. Teva’s statement emphasized that while hydroxychloroquine was “not currently approved for use in the treatment of COVID-19, it is currently under investigation for efficacy against the coronavirus and has been requested by US government officials to be made available for use immediately.” Teva added that it was “also reviewing supply of both hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine globally to determine whether there are additional supply and access opportunities for patients.” At his White House press conference on Thursday, President Donald Trump hailed hydroxychloroquine as a potential “game-changer” as the US battles the spread of the virus. Medical professionals were less sanguine, however. Asked about the president’s comments during an interview with CNN later on Thursday, Dr. Anthony Fauci — director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — responded, “There’s no magic drug out there right now.” Fauci added: “That doesn’t mean that we’re not going to do everything we can to make things that have even a hint of efficacy more readily available.”
Mutual Agreement – U.S. Closes Mexico and 
Canada Border Blocking Non-Essential Travel
by sundance
{ } ~ Earlier today President Trump announced the closing of the southern border (Mexico) and northern border (Canada) to non essential travel... Entry/Exit for trade and business travel will continue to operate with additional screening. President Trump is taking action at our northern and southern borders to prevent further spread of the coronavirus in the United States. ♦ The United States has reached mutual agreements with Canada and Mexico to restrict non-essential travel across our northern and southern borders. ♦ The United States will expeditiously return aliens who cross between ports of entry or are otherwise not allowed to enter the country, as the facilities in which these aliens would normally be held cannot support quarantine for the time needed to assess potential cases... 

An Important Message From 
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue
by sundance
{ } ~ Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue has an important message about the U.S. food sector. With shortages in the retail food deliver sector the last part is key…. “don’t take more than you would normally use in a week or two.”... The aspect that most models are missing, is the pressure on the supply-chain will not soon end. The restaurant sector ‘food away from home’ appears to be operating at far less than half capacity perhaps as low as 25% due to coronavirus restrictions. As long as those food consumers remain shifted into the retail supply chain food at home, there are going to be long-term shortages due to capacity constraints and distribution limits.To gain an idea of the scale of the challenge here’s some big picture analytics. There are approximately 50,000 retail outlets for grocery sales nationwide with about 250 large scale distribution centers warehouses regionally placed. If you take an average across all grocers, a conservative estimate for one product category, hot dogs, each retail store would need roughly 20 cases for a resupply all brands. That’s one million cases of hot dogs across all retail outlets. 50,000 stores at 20 cases each. However, the distribution centers would also need 1 million cases, for a replenishment average of 2.5 to 3 days later.  Additionally, within 7 days from the original delivery date another 1 million cases would have to arrive from the manufacturers to resupply the distribution centers...
Stores Set up Senior Shopping Hours
by ~ As senior citizens deal with anxiety about the coronavirus, grocery store chains and other retailers have come up with a way to ease their fears... shopping times reserved exclusively for them. Target, Whole Foods, Walmart and Dollar General, as well as supermarkets in Europe, began dedicating early morning shopping times for older customers this week. The theory is that allowing seniors to shop among smaller crowds could reduce their chances of acquiring the virus and give them first crack at buying hand sanitizer and other products that have been hard to find because of panic shopping. The idea seems to have worked well in smaller shops but backfired in some larger stores, where big crowds made “social distancing” difficult. Better yet, Petri said, would be for seniors to get groceries delivered to their homes.  
What's Not Happening
by Tom McLaughlin
{} ~It’s been a while, but I haven’t seen any gunfights in the streets of Maine or New Hampshire the past few years and I live very near the border between the two. That’s what progressives predicted would occur if gun laws loosened and people didn’t have to get permits to carry concealed guns. I haven’t seen any newspaper articles or television reports about increased gun violence either after each state passed legislation eliminating concealed carry permits. It’s been three years in New Hampshire and more than four years in Maine, so were the progressives wrong when they predicted both states would turn into the wild, wild west?
Police chiefs in both states were also against the new laws claiming their officers would at risk. What do they say now? Nothing. Vermont never required concealed carry permits and it’s always been one of the safest states in the country. That fact was ignored by progressive gun control advocates when they argued against New Hampshire and Maine revisions of concealed carry permits to copy Vermont.  
Many people in the three northern New England states still leave their doors unlocked and crime rates remain very low. Is that because guns here are as common as unlocked doors? That’s probably a factor but not the only one. Most people own guns here and know how to use them. That’s a deterrent, certainly, but they also know who their neighbors are. There’s a much stronger sense of community. People here tend to look out for each other and are wary of strangers and unfamiliar vehicles in their neighborhoods.  
Most rural towns in northern New England don’t have police departments either. They rely on county sheriff’s deputies and the state police. Because of logistics and geography, response times for those larger law enforcement agencies are slower than police departments are in New York City or Boston. Rural people know this so they’re not only more prepared to defend themselves, they’re more willing to do so as well. They’re much less likely to cower in the face of criminal aggression of any sort.  
There’s been no let-up in gun crimes for either state since gun laws were relaxed, but the perpetrators usually had prior felony convictions, so carrying a gun remained illegal for them. That didn’t stop them, of course, but then it never did. If you look around and see where most gun crimes are committed, you’ll quickly learn that they’re places with strict gun control laws like Chicago and New York. Gun laws on those places have only been obeyed by the law-abiding. Criminals have historically ignored them.  
Although commie-Bernie Sanders has always been a doctrinaire lefty on nearly every issue since he was elected Mayor of Burlington, Vermont almost forty years ago, his position on gun control didn’t fit the mold. Is that because he knew he would never have been elected to state-wide office there if he favored gun restrictions? His army of supporters would likely argue that commie-Bernie has always been guided by principle over political expediency, but is that changing?  
According to an article by Russell Berman in the February 27 issue of The Atlantic:

The senator from Vermont’s hallmark has been his consistency as an unbending progressive over four decades in elected office. Yet if commie-Sanders has embodied left-wing purity more than any of the other potential Democratic nominees, gun policy is one area where his record has been far from pristine in the eyes of progressives… But it’s telling that on gun control, he has gone further this time around to repudiate his past positions and align himself with the Democratic Party’s mainstream opinion. “The world has changed, and my views have changed,” he said at the February debate in New Hampshire.
Was commie-Bernie sincere about his gun control views forty years ago? Is he caving in to political expediency here in 2020? He really wants to be president, but what if he loses to Biden or Trump? Can he be reelected senator in Vermont now that he’s become a gun control advocate? We may never know because he’s not up again until 2024 and by then he’ll be eighty-two years old. Maybe he’ll retire. Maybe he’ll change his position again.

While Democrats consider abortion their most important issue, gun control seems to have become the next most important. Maine and New Hampshire have been voting Democrat the past few cycles, and Vermont has been solidly “blue” for even longer. Maine and New Hampshire, however, are moving the other way on gun control. While Vermont has become even more leftist, there’s no indication they’ll tighten up on guns.
E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center