MASK WARS: What Does the Science Say?
July 18, 2020 5:22pm
Many cities and states require people to wear masks while in public. Why? With a virus that spreads via airborne particles and exhaled droplets, it seems reasonable that a mask would prevent both ingress and egress of the virus and thus would prevent infections. But paradoxically, that is not necessarily the case.
The Centers for Disease Control released a new report titled "Effectiveness of Cloth Masks for Protection Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2" (Volume 26, Number 10 - October 2020). It is an early release article that is subject to change before its official release in October. But it does provide some insight into the effectiveness and risks of cloth masks worn by the public in community settings. I wrote about some of these points on May 17th at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/blog/200517-1316
The CDC report, which can be read at https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article, repeats the CDC's current recommendation that masks should be worn in public. But it doesn't state that doing so will actually reduce exposure to the Coronavirus or prevent infection for the mask wearer or those around him. Like every study and medical article - and I have read literally hundreds of pages of such information - the CDC report is filled with so many weasel words and warnings of incomplete data, that no conclusion can be drawn from them. But they are presented to the public as if they are the peer-reviewed, infallible, Nectar of the Gods.
In fact, the report makes numerous statements about how masks "may" work and about how masks have significant deficiencies that actually increase risk of infection.
If you are interested in the actual science and not just what the news media spoon-feeds you, I encourage you to read the entire report. But here are a few excerpts (words in ALL CAPS have been capitalized from lower case by me for emphasis):
"THE GENERAL PUBLIC SHOULD BE EDUCATED ABOUT MASK USE BECAUSE CLOTH MASKS MAY GIVE USERS A FALSE SENSE OF PROTECTION because of their limited protection against acquiring infection."
"The filtration effectiveness of cloth masks is generally lower than that of medical masks and respirators; however, cloth masks MAY provide SOME protection IF WELL DESIGNED AND USED CORRECTLY."
"Multilayer cloth masks, designed to fit around the face and made of water-resistant fabric with a high number of threads and finer weave, MAY provide reasonable protection."
"In community settings, however, cloth masks may be used to prevent community spread of infections by sick or asymptomatically infected persons, and the public should be EDUCATED ABOUT THEIR CORRECT USE."
"To our knowledge, only 1 randomized controlled trial has been conducted to examine the efficacy of cloth masks in healthcare settings, and THE RESULTS DO NOT FAVOR USE OF CLOTH MASKS."
"Rates of infection were consistently higher among those in the cloth mask group than in the medical mask and control groups. This finding suggests that risk for infection was higher for those wearing cloth masks. The mask tested was a locally manufactured, double-layered cotton mask. Participants were given 5 cloth masks for a 4-week study period and were asked to wash the masks daily with soap and water. THE POOR PERFORMANCE MAY HAVE BEEN BECAUSE THE MASKS WERE NOT WASHED FREQUENTLY ENOUGH OR BECAUSE THEY BECAME MOIST AND CONTAMINATED." Cloth masks get moist very quickly.
"Filtration effectiveness of wet masks is reportedly lower than that of dry masks."
"Filtration effectiveness of cloth masks varies widely; some materials filter better than others. Filtration effectiveness of cloth masks depends on many factors, such as thread count, number of layers, type of fabric, and water resistance."
"Protection is affected by proper mask use as well as by selection of fabric and design of the masks for water resistance, filtration, and fit. Current evidence suggests that multilayered masks with water-resistant fabric, high number of threads, and finer weave may be more protective. Several studies have examined filtration, but fewer have examined fit or water resistance."
"The degree of fit affects effectiveness because air flows in the direction of least resistance; IF GAPS ARE PRESENT ON THE SIDES OF THE MASK, AIR WILL FLOW THROUGH THOSE GAPS INSTEAD OF THROUGH THE MASK."
If people fail to properly decontaminate cloth masks frequently enough, they "MAY RISK SELF-CONTAMINATION."
"Some randomized controlled trials have shown masks to be efficacious in closed community settings, with and without the practice of hand hygiene. Moreover, in a widespread pandemic, differentiating asymptomatic from healthy persons in the community is very difficult, so at least in high-transmission areas, universal face mask use MAY be beneficial."
"Correctly putting on and taking off cloth masks improves protection. Taking a mask off is a HIGH-RISK PROCESS because pathogens may be present on the outer surface of the mask and MAY RESULT IN SELF CONTAMINATION during removal."
"The filtration, effectiveness, fit, and performance of cloth masks are inferior to those of medical masks and respirators."
"Protection provided by cloth masks may be improved by selecting appropriate material, increasing the number of mask layers, and using those with a design that provides filtration and fit. Cloth masks should be washed daily and after high-exposure use by using soap and water or other appropriate methods."
So that's what the Centers for Disease Control says. What does the World Health Organization say?
In April, the World Health Organization acknowledged that "there is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19." SOURCE: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331693/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.3-eng.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0q0zgix1O5krfLG1_sMD6XQ-oWgbWSnYsbsnqud_rZu-8-kArncOZtExw (bottom right corner on page 1).
Updated guidance on the use of masks by the general public is at https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1279750/retrieve. Its information on the efficacy of mask usage by the public begins on page 6 of the report.
If you read it, pay particular attention to the paragraph that says, "Many countries have recommended the use of fabric masks/face coverings for the general public. At the present time, THE WIDESPREAD USE OF MASKS BY HEALTHY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY SETTING IS NOT YET SUPPORTED BY HIGH QUALITY OR DIRECT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND THERE ARE POTENTIAL benefits and HARMS to consider."
That same WHO document lists among the potential benefits to wearing a mask is that they help in "making people FEEL they can play a role in contributing to stopping spread of the virus" and that "fabric masks can also be a form of cultural expression, encouraging public acceptance of protection measures in general."
Depending on the material, homemade masks have a filtration rate of 1.1% - 26%. And that assumes proper fit and usage, which almost nobody does. In addition to the very low filtration rate of air moving THROUGH cloth, the air leaking AROUND the cloth has a filtration rate of zero. Next time you're wearing a mask, check the gaps at the chin, cheeks, and below the eyes. You'll find there is a lot of air going around the cloth not through it. Mask wearers with glasses often complain that their glasses get fogged up. Why is that? Because the warm, moist, exhaled breath is escaping through the massive gap at the top of the mask and causing condensation on the lenses. That gap is not filtering any air at all.
But let's assume proper fit and usage in these examples: 1) If a non-medical mask is worn by an infected person, 74% - 98.9% of virus-laden particles escape to the air; 2) If a mask is worn by a healthy person in an infected area, 74% - 98.9% of virus-laden particles would be inhaled. But what about the 1.1% - 26% of the virus-laden particles that do get filtered? They remain on the mask, and every time a mask wearer touches his mask, his fingers become contaminated! So, unless hands are cleaned after EVERY touch of the mask, the risk of infection increases!
If you wear a mask in public, do you decontaminate your hands after every touch of your mask? When you put it on? When you pull it down to your chin to eat? When you raise it back over your nose and mouth after eating? When you adjust its fit? When you scratch an itch through it? When you take it off? If you answered "yes" to all those, I'm calling you a liar - because I know you don't wash your hands that often. And you know also, so quit lying. Dishonesty benefits no one.
Risk of infection is affected by both the intensity and the duration of exposure. So do masks allow you to be in an infected environment longer than if you didn't wear a mask. Yes, but it's marginal. If a mask has a filtration rate of 26% (which is the highest rate among cloth masks), a masked person would inhale/exhale the same amount of viruses in 60 minutes that a maskless person would in 44.4 minutes. With a mask filtering 1.1%, that masked hour equals 59.3 minutes unmasked. This comparison also applies to the time it would take for an infected person to contaminate his surroundings.
How often do you see masks pulled down beneath the nose? Or on the chin covering neither the mouth or nose? They don't do much good there.
Masks provide zero eye protection, of course. But the eyes are a conduit for infection from contaminated hands or contaminated air. So what's the next government mandate? Goggles or space helmets?
The World Health Organization has cautioned that masks provide a false sense of security and may actually increase risk of infection. The WHO lists among the possible harms of mask use by healthy people in the general public "potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the manipulation of a face mask and subsequently touching eyes with contaminated hands," "potential self-contamination that can occur if non-medical masks are not changed when wet or soiled. This can create favourable conditions for microorganism to amplify," "potential headache and/or breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask used," "a false sense of security, leading to potentially lower adherence to other critical preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene." And it cites numerous mask problems for "those living in hot and humid environments" Summer in America, anyone?
To minimize the dangers of mask usage, single use masks must be discarded after being worn for a few hours. Most people don't toss them daily; even fewer dispose of their masks more frequently. And what about cleaning reusable cloth masks? Cloth masks should be washed DAILY in soapy 140°F water, boiled for one minute, or soaked in a chlorine solution for one minute then thoroughly rinsed with clean water. How many people do that? If it is not zero, it's almost zero.
That same WHO report cautions that "a non-medical mask is neither a medical device nor personal protective equipment" and that because of lower filtration and breathability, "the use of non-medical masks, made of woven fabrics such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for source control (used by infected persons) in community settings and not for prevention," and "their use should always be accompanied by frequent hand hygiene and physical distancing." Why? Because frequent hand cleaning and physical distancing are far more effective in preventing the spread of the Coronavirus than masks are.
So if masks aren't really as effective as people believe, why are so many cities and states mandating masks? It's theater. And it's being directed by politicians who want to look like they're doing something even though they're not. Well, I refuse to be cast as a lemming in their stage plays.
I obviously haven't read every mask law in the country. But I have read Pensacola's (which uses the exact same verbiage as some other jurisdictions). Section 1(b) of that order defines a face covering as "a material that covers the nose and mouth and that fits snugly against the sides of the face so there are no gaps. It can be secured to the head with ties or straps or simply wrapped around the lower face. It can be made of a variety of materials, such as cotton, silk, or linen. Coverings with materials made of multiple layers is highly encouraged. A cloth face covering may be factory-made or sewn by hand, or the cloth face covering can be improvised from household items. The CDC has posted additional information regarding how to make, wear, and wash a cloth face covering at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/about-face-coverings.html"
Under this definition, wearing underwear on the head would be in compliance. And since there's no minimum thread count requirement, a mask made from sheer lace lingerie would also be legal. Or for that matter, a mask made from a fishing net. But don't take my word for it, read it yourself. The full order is at https://www.cityofpensacola.com/DocumentCenter/View/19673/Declaration-of-State-of-Emergency-20-03_062620
An oft-cited article in the British Medical Journal recommends universal masking but acknowledges it does so based upon the Precautionary Principle, which they define as "a strategy for approaching issues of potential harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking.” The BMJ has taken the position that policy makers should apply the precautionary principle now and encourage people to wear face masks on the grounds that we have little to lose and potentially something to gain from doing so. I respect their opinion and commend them for their honesty.
Why do most American publications hide their lack of evidence in small print in the appendix (or entirely omit it) but amplify their recommendations as indisputable fact? I find such unjustified, holier-than-thou, authoritarianism to be dishonest, disgusting, and detrimental. Anytime scientists hide facts, their motives should be suspect.
There is still a lot we don't know about the COVID-19 Coronavirus. And we are similarly ignorant about the efficacy of masks to prevent its spread. The bottom line is that the scientific evidence neither supports universal masking nor says universal masking is pointless.
So if someone wants to wear a mask, they should be able to wear one without ridicule.
And if someone doesn't want to wear a mask, they should be able to go maskless without condemnation.
Why Hillary Clinton Did NOT Win the Popular Vote in 2016
July 11, 2020 8:36am
Contrary to the false claims made by Democrats, Hillary Clinton did NOT win the popular vote in 2016. That’s not a theory. That’s a fact. And it has nothing to do with voter fraud.
If you'd like to hear the irrefutable truth about Hillary's 2016 loss, listen to the first two segments of this morning's radio program which are archived at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/200711
In segment 3, I discussed the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Chiafalo v. Washington that dealt a severe blow to the Democrats who are scheming to unconstitutionally circumvent our process for electing the President. It is also archived at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/200711
The Declaration of Independence Was NOT Signed on July 4th
July 4, 2020 8:34am
The Declaration of Independence Was NOT Signed on July 4th!
Why do we celebrate America's birthday on July 4th? We were taught in elementary school that was the day the Declaration of Independence was signed, and we got our independence from Britain. But that is an inaccurate oversimplification of what actually happened. The REAL story is much more detailed and far more interesting.
That real story was the topic of this morning's radio program. I think it's worth your time to listen to it as a podcast, and perhaps even to share. The full episode is now online at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/200704
The Declaration of Independence is just one page and 1338 words, not including the signatures. Yet its effect on world history was immense. I share some details about each of its 56 signers who, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, mutually pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor.
Despite all the problems in our country today, the fact is that the United States of America is the greatest country the world has ever known. We have done more good in the world than any nation in the history of civilization. Be proud to be an American. Appreciate what this nation means. Respect the men and women who have made it possible. Commit to passing to future generations this great country we inherited. And be knowledgeable about how it all happened.
American history is interesting. But when you know the details, it's spectacularly fascinating. You'll love the details I shared at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/200704
Happy Birthday, America!
The Real Truth About Trump's "White Power" Tweet
June 28, 2020 2:40pm
The so-called "news" media has been enthusiastically reporting all day that President Trump retweeted a "White Power" video, which he later deleted.
The media's narrative of this story has been that Trump tweeted it because he's a white supremacist who supports the message of the "White Power" chant. But do you know what has been missing from nearly every story? The offensive video itself!
Have you seen it? Probably not. Instead, the propaganda press has been describing six seconds of the video and reporting negative comments made by Trump's critics, in which Trump is portrayed as being a racist. A few media outlets played the six second portion of the video that contained the "White Power" chant. But the entire video was 128 seconds.
Because I have been in the media for forty years and know how the news business works, I suspected the video was not nearly as racist as the activists posing as journalists claimed it to be. So I searched for the full video myself and found it was extremely difficult to locate. Neither Google nor YouTube searches yielded any results. Only after discovering that Trump retweeted the video from an account named "Fifty Shades of Whey" and searching for that account on Twitter, did I find the full video he tweeted.
So what did the video say?
WARNING: The following contains language some may find offensive, so don't read any further if you are an overly sensitive wuss.
The news story could just as easily been, "Trump Tweets Video Saying FUCK TRUMP!"
Approximately six seconds of the video taken on June 14th at The Villages in Florida during a pro-Trump golf cart parade (seriously) consists of a man in a "Veterans for Trump" t-shirt driving a golf cart yelling "White Power!" twice in response to a protester shouting to him, "Where's your white hood? Where's your white hood? Racist! Racist!" The protester responded with, "There you go. White Power. Did you hear that?"
But the other two minutes of the video contains the following from the protesters (in order of appearance):
"Fuck Trump! Fuck Trump!"
"Get back in your cart, asshole! Get back in your cart, asshole!"
"We don't need fucking Nazi pigs!"
"You're a Nazi!"
"You little turd. You fucking turd!"
"You know you're a fucking Nazi. Nazi, racist, pig! That's what you are. Nazi, racist, pig!"
"Where's your white hood? Where's your white hood? Where's your white hood?"
"Grab 'em by the pussy! Grab 'em by the pussy!"
"White trash! White trash!"
"Nazi! Nazi lovers! Nazi lovers!"
"Where's your white hood?"
"Trump sucks!"
Numerous signs held by protesters read, "MAKE AMERICA SANE AGAIN," "TRUMP BIGOT AND RACIST," "BIGOTS/RACIEST FLY TRUMP FLAGS" [that is the exact spelling on the sign at the 1:22 point in the video], "DONALD J TRUMP DUMB AS A ROCK,""Trump PATHOLOGICAL LIAR," "WHITE TRASH," and "HITLER AND TRUMP EXACTLY SAME."
Now that you've read this, your understanding of what happened is quite different than it previously was, right?
There is good reason a witness at trial swears to tell the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth." A partial truth can be deceptive. In this instance, the whole truth is quite different than the partial truth the so-called "news" media spoon-fed the dumb masses [read those two words together quickly]. Sure, Trump was an idiot for retweeting it. My guess is that he didn't hear or notice the "White Power" chant when he retweeted it at 4:39am. If he was still in the residence quarters, his sound may have been muted. But if he didn't know what the video said and retweeted it anyway, that's even worse.
Trump is his own worst enemy. His unforced errors are too numerous to count. The man needs someone to censor his social media account - but I don't mean the Stalinist censors at Twitter and Facebook (who should not censor any content). As has been the procedure until Trump's presidency, The White House has a communications team that clears messages before releasing them. Trump would be wise to resume that.
But the media is guilty also. Their dishonest coverage of this non-issue has been disgraceful - or so it seems to me. But unlike most in the media, I have given you the full story, so you can make up your own mind. I posted the full video above. Decide for yourself what it means. Don’t ever accept what Big Media wants to spoon-feed you.
Black Lives Matter Founder Admits it was Created by Marxists!
June 27, 2020 8:47am
The entirety of the Black Lives Matter movement is about destroying our Constitutional Republic and ushering in a Marxist state!
That is not my conspiratorial opinion. That is fact.
It was stated by Patrisse Cullors, one of the three co-founders of Black Lives Matter. In fact, she said in a 2015 interview with Jared Ball, a radical Leftist professor at Morgan State University, that she and Alicia Garza (another BLM co-founder) were "trained organizers" and "trained Marxists" who are "super-versed on sort of ideological theories" seeking to "build a movement" that will bring about their Marxist society. You can listen to those words come out of her mouth in segment 2 of today’s radio program that is now archived at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/200627. You won’t hear the mainstream media report this information because they censor the truth if the truth hurts their agenda. But I assure you, the recording is genuine.
The recent protests, riots, and looting are all part & parcel of pursuing that objective. The Democrats and the media - but I repeat myself - amplify BLM's lies as part of their "divide & conquer," "us versus them" strategy to defame and delegitimize America's founders, history, Constitution, laws, and institutions; and thus demonize the current state of our nation, which then should obviously be destroyed and replaced.
They are dangerous enemies of our Republic. That the Democrats have allied themselves with BLM in this civil war speaks volumes of the destructive goals of the Democratic Party.
I am also certain - but I can't yet prove - that Russian money is helping to fund these protests just as it was proven they funded the anti-war movements of the 60s, 70s, and 80s. And it wouldn't surprise me if Chinese and Iranian money was also involved.
That doesn't mean every protester is getting paid, of course. Not every protester during the Vietnam War was getting paid either. Most were not. But enough were on Russia’s payroll that the anti-war protests were a bought-and-paid-for tool of our nation's enemies. And so are today’s protests.
These foreign adversaries know they cannot militarily defeat the United States. So they seek our destruction from within by fomenting hatred, promoting chaos, sowing confusion, and instigating violence. The useful idiots of the Democratic Party then go along with it - partly because they are ignorant and partly because they also hate the United States of America.
My use of the term "useful idiots" to describe the current protesters and rioters is deliberate. Vladimir Lenin described his ignorant Bolshevik followers during the Russian Revolution that brought about Communism as "useful idiots" - although the actual translation from Russian is closer to "useful fools" than "useful idiots," the term "useful idiots" is better known.
And that's exactly what most of the people protesting and rioting are. In fact, I'd actually expand that beyond just the protesters and rioters to include ANYONE who supports their cause. The goal of Black Lives Matter is to destroy the free capitalist foundation of the United States and create from the ashes an authoritarian Marxist state.
Do I believe most supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement want that too? No, I don't. But I do believe most supporters of the movement are ignorant of the movement’s real goals, and they're being used as useful idiots. Education is the key. That's why I do my radio program; to educate. Unlike the Left, which wants to restrict speech and silence the opposition, I welcome the free and open expression of ideas from all sides, because I believe that my side is correct. And if people heard my side, they would reject the lies they're spoon-fed by the activist media.
The destructive philosophy of the Democratic Party and their various advocacy groups must be stopped by informing people of the truth. The Left simply cannot win any debate in which facts matter.
Well, facts do matter. And the fact is, the Black Lives Matter movement was founded by Marxist revolutionaries. And their violent tactics are typical of Marxist revolutions. The criminal destruction of property must be stopped by any means necessary. That Democrat officials refuse to do so is proof that they support the rioters, the vandals, the destroyers. It’s disgraceful. And dangerous.
Do not misinterpret this post. Just because I oppose the Black Lives Matter movement does not mean I oppose black lives. Black people should be treated as all people should be treated; as human beings who should be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Operation Neptune Spear: Killing Osama bin Laden
June 20, 2020 8:50am
How did the United States kill Osama bin Laden? Read this book!
"No Ordinary Dog" is an outstanding book written by Will Chesney, a retired U.S. Navy SEAL who served with SEAL Team Six. He was the dog handler during the 2011 mission in Abbottabad, Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden.
Will was my guest for the entire hour on this morning's radio program. We discussed the book, his career, "Cairo" his combat assault dog, and the bin Laden raid. It was a fantastic interview.
The book is a love story (with man's best friend). It's a drama. It's an action tale. It's simultaneously both a biography and an autobiography. And it's history - all rolled into one.
To get a preview of the book's content and to hear Will's incredible life story, you can listen to our radio interview which is now archived as a podcast at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/200620
Trump’s Campaign Ad Censored by Facebook
June 18, 2020 3:35pm
The above image is a screenshot of the Trump Campaign ad Facebook removed and banned claiming it violated their community standards on hate speech.
If what Trump said is so hateful and offensive, then let the people see it and judge him harshly for it! But for Facebook to censor the President of the United States is disgraceful. And dangerous.
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." - Benjamin Franklin
An upside-down triangle was one of many symbols used to identify prisoners in Nazi concentration camps. It is allegedly a current symbol for Antifa, which is what the Trump Campaign says they used it as. But that is beside the point. The point is it should not be censored.
If Trump's ad used actual Nazi swastikas and slogans, and advocated Nazism, should Facebook censor it or allow it to be seen for what it is?
NO CENSORSHIP OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING SHOULD BE DONE. Candidates should sink or swim on their merits (or lack thereof). It is not the job of Facebook or anyone else to protect us from a candidate or to protect a candidate from himself.
No political candidate's speech should be censored by anyone at any time for any reason. If the speech is that horrible and offensive, the candidate will lose votes and thus the election. Censorship would deny voters critical information about candidates, which could result in favorable votes based upon ignorance - ignorance forced by the censors. I'd rather know the candidates, warts and all.
Amateur Hour in The White House
June 18, 2020 11:51am
Today's DACA ruling by the Supreme Courts was the result of amateur hour in The White House. It was Trump's own fault.
Obama unconstitutionally created DACA via executive action. Trump could have ended it via executive action. But instead, he simply allowed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to order its termination based upon his view that it was unconstitutionally created (which it was, but without the Court affirming that, Sessions could not unilaterally end it).
This decision was based on process not merits. Had Trump openly directed its termination via executive action, the Supreme Court would have certainly upheld it.
Obama's creation of the DACA program was blatantly unconstitutional. Says me? Says President Obama! At a Univision TV town hall meeting in March 2011, President Obama said, "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed... we've got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.
"There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."
But don't take my word for it. See Obama say it for yourself at www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfZ3kaKZoIw
Obama originally sought to implement DACA via the DREAM Act. But when Congress rejected it, he unilaterally imposed it, even though he previously acknowledged that doing so would be unconstitutional.
For the record, I want the DACA DREAMers to stay in the United States. But it must be done legally via an Act of Congress.
The decision is at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
The full story is at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-against-trump-administration-attempt-to-end-daca-a-win-for-undocumented-immigrants-brought-to-us-as-children/2020/06/18/4f0b6c74-b163-11ea-8758-bfd1d045525a_story.html?fbclid=IwAR0bpVPobeArBhPbSZamKTbUi1JUKBvdqqndMIsITBvZGJSWI8ASXWRnNME
Why George Floyd's Death Was NOT a Murder
June 6, 2020 8:41am
PREFACE: I believe Officer Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd. And I want him to be prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to the maximum allowable time in prison. With that said, let's set emotion aside and focus on the facts.
On Wednesday, charges against Chauvin were upgraded to second degree murder, third degree murder, and manslaughter. Also on Wednesday, the other three officers (Tou Thao, Thomas Lane, and Alexander Kueng) were charged with aiding and abetting second degree murder and aiding and abetting second degree manslaughter.
As I discussed on my radio program this morning, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is engaged in a dangerous, politically motivated, disservice to the community as he pursues murder charges against Officer Derek Chauvin for the death of George Floyd. To be clear, Mr. Floyd is dead as a result of Chauvin's actions, so the death is a homicide.
But what is a homicide? A homicide is a death caused by the intentional actions of another person. However, that doesn't mean the action was illegal. Just because a homicide was committed doesn't mean a crime was committed. For instance, if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night and assaults you, and then you shoot him dead, that's a homicide. But it's not a crime. Well, there are some jurisdictions in the Peoples Republics of California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maryland who would prosecute. But in decent jurisdictions, that would be a perfectly reasonable act of self-defense and not a crime. It would be a homicide, but it wouldn't be a crime, even though you intentionally pulled the trigger.
But a death that occurs through an unintentional act - such as most traffic deaths - are not homicides; although they could be if the driver was drunk or speeding 100 mph through a school zone as the buses were offloading.
So in the case of Officer Chauvin, he intentionally put his knee on George Floyd's neck. And that action caused - or at the very least contributed to - Mr. Floyd's death. That makes it a homicide - a death caused by the intentional actions of another person. But just because the act was intended, doesn't mean the death was intended. And that's a big part of the reason why murder charges are excessive. Under some circumstances, an unintentional death can still constitute a murder, but those circumstances aren't applicable to this situation.
The dishonest media has been lying about what happened to George Floyd since day one.
Clearly, Officer Chauvin acted inappropriately; probably unlawfully. But it wasn't murder. In law, there are more than 50 shades of grey. The jury will be instructed that they cannot convict Officer Chauvin based on the definition of the word “murder” as used in the common vernacular. The very specific verbiage of Minnesota's statutes will matter.
Unlike most so-called "journalists" and nearly everyone else who is 100% certain this was murder, I have actually read Minnesota's statutes. So what does Minnesota law say? Minnesota has three types of murder and two types of manslaughter.
Murder in the First Degree (Minnesota Statute 609.185) is when a person "causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another." Chauvin did not premeditate the death. NOTE: I am not addressing language in the statutes that is not even remotely applicable to Mr. Floyd's death. If you want to read the full statutes, click on the links I have included.
Murder in the Second Degree (Minnesota Statute 609.19) has two classes; intentional and unintentional. Intentional second degree murder is when a person "causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation." No legitimate argument can be made that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd. Unintentional second degree murder is when a person "causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense." Not only was Chauvin's knee-to-the-neck not a felony, it is a restraint maneuver that is authorized and taught by the Minneapolis Police Department. See my fuller explanation and accompanying proof at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/blog/200530-1803.
Murder in the Third Degree (Minnesota Statute 609.195) is when a person "without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life." While an argument can certainly be made that placing a knee on someone's neck is "eminently dangerous," trained Minneapolis police officers are specifically authorized to perform it. Also, a "depraved mind" is a necessary component of the crime. The statute requires both an eminently dangerous act AND a depraved mind. The act alone is not enough. And a depraved mind is not enough. They must BOTH be present simultaneously. Based upon the number of citizen complaints against Chauvin over the years, it appears that he's an asshole. But that's not the same as depraved.
Manslaughter in the First Degree (Minnesota Statute 609.20) is when a person "intentionally causes the death of another person in the heat of passion provoked by such words or acts of another as would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances." As previously stated, Chauvin did not intend to kill Floyd. Manslaughter in the First Degree can also occur when a person "violates section 609.224 and causes the death of another or causes the death of another in committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense with such force and violence that death of or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable, and murder in the first or second degree was not committed." Chauvin's actions do not meet this criteria, and prosecutors have not charged him with this higher level of manslaughter.
Manslaughter in the Second Degree (Minnesota Statute 609.205) is when "by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another." That does describe what Chauvin did. While his knee-to-the-neck maneuver was authorized, its duration of 8 minutes and 46 seconds, including 2 minutes and 53 seconds after Floyd became non-responsive was not authorized. Chauvin was quite clearly negligent, created unreasonable risk, and consciously took the chance of causing death or great bodily harm to Mr. Floyd. That's the exact definition of second degree manslaughter in Minnesota. So THAT is the crime prosecutors should pursue; not murder charges.
Most people don't understand the significant legal differences between murder and manslaughter. They think all homicides are murder and that manslaughter is a lightweight, petty offense. But it isn't. Under Minnesota law, second degree manslaughter is a serious felony which can result in ten years imprisonment.
The harsh truth is that what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd does not meet the legal definition of murder in Minnesota law. Is it possible that prosecutors have unreleased evidence to justify pursuing murder charges? Sure it is. It is "possible" that Derek Chauvin said to George Floyd, "I'm going to kill you" before he put his knee on the neck. And if that's the case, then fine; it's murder. But based upon the evidence that has been made public, this is a case of second degree manslaughter. Consequently, that is what prosecutors should pursue.
With only one death, how can there be three death crimes? The multiple charges will allow the jury to find Chauvin guilty of manslaughter when they determine he didn't commit murder. Without the manslaughter charge included, a full acquittal would be the result. But it is irresponsible to overcharge him in an effort to placate the protesters.
By overcharging, prosecutors are setting up Chauvin's acquittal on the murder charges. And that will set the stage for another round of riots in 2021 or 2022 when the verdicts are rendered.
Similar violence will likely ensue when officers Thao, Lane, and Kueng are each acquitted on their charges of aiding and abetting.
Prosecutors should charge people with the crimes they actually commit; not with the crimes the public erroneously thinks they committed.
This written post is an abridged explanation. I gave the full explanation on today's radio program, which is now archived as a podcast at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/200606
George Floyd Was NOT Murdered, and the Neck Hold was NOT Illegal
May 30, 2020 6:03pm
It seems everyone is saying that the neck hold Officer Chauvin used against George Floyd was illegal, against police policy, and is not practiced or taught by any police department in the country. Upon what do they base that?
Just like almost every other belief people hold about current events that isn't true, it's because they've blindly accepted whatever nonsense the dishonest activists posing as journalists in the so-called "news" media have spoon-fed them. They haven't done anything to verify the information. Instead, they just regurgitate the false, agenda-driven propaganda of Big Media.
Well, I don't. Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify." He was referring to the Soviets. But I have less faith in the truthfulness of today's media than I did of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. I don't trust the media at all. I do, however, verify their claims.
And what did I find in the course of confirming the veracity of their claims? It's no surprise. The information from Big Media was wrong!
The Minneapolis Police Department's Policy & Procedure Manual DOES authorize the use of knee-on-the-neck holds against a subject who is actively resisting. This restraint technique is authorized only for sworn employees who have received training from the MPD Training Unit. I could not discover whether Derek Chauvin received such training, but as a 19 year veteran, he probably has.
Trust but verify, right? So don't take my word for it, see for yourself in Section 5-311 of the Minneapolis Police Department's Policy & Procedure Manual. It is online at http://www.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_5-300_5-300
Am I excusing Officer Chauvin's actions? Not at all. I am appalled that he held Floyd in a neck hold for almost eight minutes, including nearly two minutes after he stopped breathing. By any reasonable definition, that is excessive force. And Chauvin must be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.
But the facts of the case don't support a murder charge of ANY degree. Manslaughter? Maybe. Murder? No way. In law, there are more than 50 shades of grey. Not all actions that result in the death of a human constitute murder. I think Officer Chauvin acted inappropriately; and probably unlawfully. But it wasn't murder.
If prosecutors overcharge to appease the mob, it will only guarantee future violence when the officer gets acquitted. Chauvin needs to be charged and convicted for the crime he committed NOT the crime the mob demands.
But even a manslaughter conviction might be difficult to obtain. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner's preliminary autopsy report found no physical evidence to indicate the cause of death was asphyxiation, strangulation, or anything else directly related to the type of restraint used by Chauvin against Floyd. Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease.
One of the policemen on the scene, Thomas Lane, expressed concern while Floyd was in the neck hold that Floyd may have been experiencing Excited Delirium. I was not familiar with Excited Delerium, so I looked it up at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine. It is a condition in which a person's behavior is characterized by agitation, aggression, acute distress and sudden death. "It is typically associated with the use of drugs that alter dopamine processing, hyperthermia, and, most notably, sometimes with death of the affected person in the custody of law enforcement. Subjects typically die from cardiopulmonary arrest, although the cause is debated." You can learn more about the condition through the same source I did at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3088378
The irresponsible media has failed to adequately describe the circumstances that lead to Mr. Floyd being put into the neck hold. So I have looked into it myself. The Statement of Probable Cause for the arrest of Officer Chauvin gives far more detail of what happened that day than the media is reporting. And that detail paints quite a different picture than the cell phone video does. Floyd actively resisted arrest and aggressively refused to be placed into the police car. It should be noted that this description of events is based upon footage from the police body cameras not the testimony of law enforcement officers.
Again, trust but verify. Read what the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's preliminary autopsy report said, and read the Statement of Probable Cause. It's online at https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6933246/Derek-Chauvin-Complaint.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2NRvIZVMKoYdp2313PUcIbOh4nFpU7iv2nLSyUhe-vO_weagfAWneDufA
I'm not saying George Floyd's death was justified. It wasn't. But the narrative surrounding it was created to inflame not to inform.
And that brings me to the protests.
The problem with the protests over the death of George Floyd, beyond their unlawful violence, is that they are based on a false premise. George Floyd was killed because of “police violence.” That is NOT the same as "racist violence." I am angry that a police officer "killed a man" not that he "killed a black man." Skin color is irrelevant. We are all humans.
The protests should focus on the militarization of police and their frequent use of excessive force - which is common against people of every color. There is no reason to believe George Floyd was killed because of his skin color. He was killed because the cop was an asshole.
But Democrats never miss an opportunity to foment racial discord. When will Democrats start judging people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character? Never. Because playing the race card buys them votes. And with this being an election year, the Democrats and the media - but I repeat myself - are blaming Donald Trump. I don't see how a Republican President of the United States is responsible for the actions of a police officer in a heavily Democrat city (which by the way, is in Congresswoman Ilhan Omar's district), in a heavily Democrat state, where the mayor, police chief - and perhaps even Officer Chauvin himself - plus 12 of the 13 members of the city council are Democrats (the only non-Democrat on the city council is Green Party). The politicization of this terrible incident is disgraceful.
And it is also disgraceful that what should be peaceful protests have become violent with looting, arson, and murder. We have the right to PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE. When protesters get violent and commit arson, they must be stopped by any means necessary.
Contrary to the popular narrative, the tragic death of George Floyd is NOT proof that America is a racist nation. It is proof that we need to demand that the police “Protect & Serve” not “Dominate & Kill.” And we need to also demand that the media quit lying in their deliberate effort to divide us.
UPDATE at 8:08pm on 6/1/2020:
Today, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner officially concluded that the cause of Mr. Floyd's death was "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression."
This finding should make it easier to convict Officer Chauvin of a crime. But I still don't think it will be a murder conviction. We'll know in 2022.
Because I prefer to go by facts that have not been filtered by the dishonest press, I read the actual report that was released by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner.
If you wish to read it, it's online at https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf
UPDATE at 4:28pm on 6/3/2020:
Today, charges against Officer Derek Chauvin were upgraded to second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and manslaughter. The other three officers (Tou Thao, Thomas Lane, and Alexander Kueng) were charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder and aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter.
Big Tech's Censorship Will Destroy Our Republic
May 29, 2020 12:08pm
Although it isn't a violation of the First Amendment, Big Tech's censorship of third-party content is disgraceful and dangerous.
What people tweet on Twitter or post on Facebook is not Twitter's or Facebook's "content." If it was, they would be liable for what third-parties put on their platforms. But under federal law, these social media platforms are treated as "computer services" not as "publishers." The difference is legally significant.
Social media companies want to have it both ways. They want the right to censor third-party content (which would make them publishers that are responsible for all content on their platforms), and they want to be computer services that enjoy the protections provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which gives them immunity from lawsuits for what third-parties post).
The position they choose to take varies depending upon whether they're censoring people or defending themselves against lawsuits. But they cannot be both. Eventually, they will be forced by courts or legislation to be one or the other. The courts are the more likely avenue, as legislation is unlikely because Democrats benefit greatly when Big Tech censors their opposition. It's quite easy to win an argument when the other side doesn't get to argue.
President Trump thinks he can prevent censorship by social media companies via an executive order. But other than directing the Federal Communications Commission to treat social media companies as common carriers or public utilities - which I doubt he could unilaterally do - I don't see how he can force social media companies to treat all users equally vis a vis posted content and have such an order survive constitutional scrutiny.
That being said, Congress can and should define social media as common carriers and public utilities. But they won't. Democrats love Big Tech's censorship because Big Tech is on their side. Well, my side is equal freedom for all. I don't fear discussion, dissent, and debate. I fear those who are afraid to engage in it and use their power to oppress opposing views. Anyone with any decency should fear that also.
Getting away from the legal argument and focusing on the societal benefits, why do you suppose it is that conservatives want free speech for all, but Leftists want free speech only for themselves? It is because Leftist viewpoints cannot survive rational scrutiny or factual rebuttal. Instead, they prefer hit-and-run attacks that are aided and abetted by their allies in Big Media and Big Tech - both of whom are dangerous enemies of our Republic.
As Democrats praise Twitter for censoring President Trump's account, remember that Twitter allows Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, to regularly tweet death threats to Jews, support for terrorists, desire for genocide, and its aspiration for the destruction of Israel. To be clear, I do not advocate that Twitter censor Ali Khamenei's account or anyone else's.
I advocate freedom of speech for all. Without it, our Republic will not survive.
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." - Benjamin Franklin
Democrat Governors Killed 75.85% of America's 100,304 COVID-19 Victims
May 28, 2020 11:40pm
Yesterday, the United States surpassed 100,000 COVID-19 deaths. The Democrats and the media - but I repeat myself - are blaming all those deaths on President Trump. But whose fault is it really?
As I wrote on May 3rd when there were 64,178 COVID-19 deaths in America, the overwhelming majority of cases and deaths were in states run by Democrat governors.
This updated graph is 100% accurate based upon data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention as of May 27, 2020, the day the 100,000th person died. 76,077 deaths occurred in Democrat states. 24,227 deaths occurred in Republican states (for a total nationwide death count of 100,304).
My headline of "Democrat Governors Killed 75.85% of America's 100,304 COVID-19 Victims" was deliberate mockery of how the partisan propagandists in the so-called "news" media are blaming President Trump for every death. More about that is posted at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/blog/200503-1041
Why have Democrat states experienced far more deaths than Republican states? My initial theory was that far more people live in Democrat states, meaning that more deaths are just proportional to the population. But actual analysis of the data did not support that theory.
The population of Democrat states, including Washington, DC, totals 178,725,465 (54.45% of the country). The population of Republican states totals 149,514,058 (45.55% of the country). So when the infection and fatality RATES are calculated, Democrat states have an infection rate that is 84.87% higher than Republican states and a fatality rate that is 42.10% higher than Republican states.
One theory for the disparity in infection rates and death rates is that Democrat states are more densely populated than Republican states. Well, it is true that blue New York is more densely populated than red Wyoming. But red Florida (whose shutdown orders were far less draconian than those in Democrat states) is more densely populated than blue Michigan (which imposed the most severe shutdown orders in the country). Yet Florida's infection rate is 55.98% lower than Michigan's, and Florida's death rate is 54.11% lower.
It should be noted that California, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin all have lower population densities than Florida but have higher infection rates. So population density does not explain the difference. Maybe it really does have something to do with political ideologies and how governors responded to the pandemic.
Andrew Cuomo, the Democrat Governor of New York, forced nursing homes in his state to take in Coronavirus patients. More than 5500 people then died of COVID-19 in New York nursing homes. Well, what the hell did he think would happen??? And how is that President Trump's fault?
On March 1st, the day of New York's first diagnosed case, Governor Cuomo tweeted, "There is no reason for undue anxiety - the general risk remains low in NY." More than a month earlier, President Trump announced a suspension of flights from China in an effort to limit the spread of the Coronavirus. Democrats condemned that policy as "racist." The President banned travel from 26 European countries on March 11th. But they now attack him for not imposing those travel bans sooner.
Bill DeBlasio, the Democrat Mayor of New York City, encouraged people to go out to bars and restaurants as late as March 15th. How is that President Trump's fault?
On February 4th, President Trump spoke of the Coronavirus during his State of the Union Address. Nancy Pelosi literally ripped her printed copy into small pieces.
So if Democrats are responsible for their states' poor performance compared to states with Republican governors, can we at least blame President Trump for America's poor performance compared to the rest of the world? No. We cannot. Detailed analysis of how the United States is performing compared to other nations was the subject of my May 9th radio show. It is archived online at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/200509
If you have read this far and think I am blaming Democrats for the pandemic or its deaths, then you have missed the point. I don't blame Democrats or Republicans for it. I do fault Democrats for their unconstitutional stay-at-home orders, but that's not the subject of this post. You can scroll through my podcasts page at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts to find episodes where I addressed that issue.
This post is about the dishonest "reporting" by activists posing as journalists in the so-called "news" media that is really just thinly-veiled, one-sided, agenda-driven propaganda for the Democratic Party.
The political agenda of today's press is disgraceful. It's disgusting. And it's dangerous.
DATA SOURCES:
https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/index.html
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2019/national-state-estimates.html
https://state.1keydata.com/state-population-density.php
Donald Trump DOES Stand to Profit from Hydroxychloroquine!
May 25, 2020 11:32am
Contrary to many claims made by dishonest Democrats, Donald Trump does not own the company making hydroxychloroquine.
Hydroxychloroquine is the generic name for a drug that was patented in 1955. It can be - and is - manufactured by many pharmaceutical companies around the world. And because it no longer enjoys patent protection that would give it a monopoly, it is not very profitable.
But that hasn't stopped many Democrats from claiming that Trump "bought stock" in the company that makes it. As is so typical of the Trump-haters, they have done no independent verification of what they've been spoon-fed. They just regurgitate the talking points they hear in their Leftist Echo Chamber.
I had heard that Donald Trump owned shares in a mutual fund that held stock of one of the pharmaceutical companies that manufactures hydroxychloroquine. But I wanted to know how significant that investment was, so I looked into it myself. Here is what I discovered:
Three of Donald Trump's trusts own shares in the Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund. It is a mutual fund that holds shares in Sanofi, a French company that produces hydroxychloroquine. The maximum value of his mutual fund shares is $45,000. No, that wasn't a typo. $45,000. The reason we don't have a better estimate is because the financial disclosures of elected officials report assets in ranges.
His holdings in that Dodge & Cox fund are somewhere between $3003 and $45,000. But since the fund's holdings of Sanofi represent just 3.3% of its assets, Trump's investment in Sanofi is somewhere between $99.10 and $1485.00. Those weren't typos either. His stake in hydroxychloroquine is further diluted by the fact that Sanofi makes 173 prescription drugs plus many over-the-counter drugs, which means that Trump's actual "ownership" of hydroxychloroquine is probably valued between 20 cents and $2.97 - also not typos.
So, yeah, Donald Trump stands to profit if hydroxychloroquine turns out to be effective against a COVID-19 infection. By about one penny; perhaps not even that much.
I own shares in a mutual fund that holds stock in Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, Chevron, and other oil companies. But that doesn't mean I want gas prices to go up so I can make a profit.
The claim that Trump is hyping hydroxychloroquine so he can profit from it is equally absurd.
Music Store Closing Due to Government-Mandated Coronavirus Lockdown Orders
May 24, 2020 12:02pm
This man's story made the news. There are tens of thousands of business owners just like him whose stories will not be told. And almost 40 million people who had jobs ten weeks ago are now unemployed.
If you can watch this video and not conclude that the government-mandated closures were the worst possible course of action we could have taken, then you are a disgusting human being who doesn't deserve to be an American. No, that is not hyperbole. I mean it literally.
This is supposed to be a free country. The government should neither force us to be closed nor force us to be open. People must be free to decide for themselves whether or not to hide at home.
Government should not be designating businesses as "essential" or "non-essential." The free market should do that. Just as one man's trash is another man's treasure, one man's non-essential is another man's essential. Isn't it absurd that the government made it legal for me to buy a shirt at Walmart but illegal to buy one at Kohl's? Isn't it crazy that I could buy a wristwatch at Target but not at my local jewelry store?
I am shocked at how eagerly elected officials infringed upon our freedoms. I am aghast at how readily so many people accepted it.
As Samuel Adams said about the cowardly weaklings who preferred bondage over liberty, "Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
VIDEO SOURCE: https://www.fox17online.com/news/coronavirus/beloved-music-store-closing-in-hastings-heartbroken-owner-says-this-is-my-dream
President Trump DOES Have the Power to Reopen Churches Nationwide
May 22, 2020 5:10pm
President Trump announced today that all churches, synagogues, and mosques in America should reopen if they so choose in order to allow people to exercise their First Amendment Rights of religious freedom. He also said that if the governors (all Democrat governors, by the way) didn't allow it, he would override them and open the churches himself.
His claim of having that authority was universally denounced by Democrats and the media.
But President Trump actually DOES have the authority to force open churches even if governors oppose it. All he would need to do is federalize the National Guard and deploy them to various houses of worship with orders to prevent state and local police from arresting worshipers and clergy.
Of course, he would be attacked for such action by Democrats and the media - but I repeat myself. However, those attacks would give him an opportunity to defend his actions and educate the dumb masses (read those two words quickly) who don't know history.
He could remind people that it was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent them to Little Rock with orders to prevent local police from enforcing the Democrats' unconstitutional edicts that black people could not attend the "white" public schools. The Democrat governors' orders to close churches, synagogues, and mosques are also unconstitutional.
It would be a win-win for the President because he could both appeal to his religious base and remind people that it has always been the Democratic Party that has discriminated against black people; and it has always been the Republican Party that has treated black people as equals.
Do it, Mr. President!
Why I Won't Wear a Mask: Science
May 17, 2020 1:16pm
Many businesses are requiring customers to wear masks while on their premises. Some governments have mandated full-time mask use everywhere outside a private home. Social shaming of the maskless by fearful mask wearers with a severe case of moral superiority is rampant. Acts of violence, including deaths, have resulted from disagreements over the use of masks. But I won’t wear one. Why?
My reason for going maskless is not due to a sense of medical invincibility, indifference to public health, or defiance of authority. It is because I refuse to participate in unnecessary and unscientific feel-good theater. Non-medical cloth masks are one step above useless in preventing the spread of the COVID-19 Coronavirus.
Even a properly fitted N95 mask only blocks 95% of particles larger than 0.3 microns in size. For perspective, the COVID-19 Coronavirus is approximately three times smaller than that at 0.12 microns. So N95s prevent passage of a little less than 95% of the Coronavirus particles. Cloth masks block less than 4%.
In addition to the very low filtration rate of air moving THROUGH cloth, the air leaking AROUND the cloth has a filtration rate of zero. Next time you're wearing a mask, check the gaps at the chin, cheeks, and below the eyes. You'll find there is a lot of air going around the cloth not through it. Mask wearers with glasses often complain that their glasses get fogged up. Why is that? Because the warm, moist, exhaled breath is escaping through the massive gap at the top of the mask and causing condensation on the lenses. That gap is not filtering any air at all.
The efficacy of non-medical, cloth masks has been studied in a randomized control test that concluded almost 97% of influenza-like particles penetrated the cloth masks. Influenza viruses and the COVID-19 Coronavirus are of similar size. That study further cautioned against the use of cloth masks because moisture retention, poor filtration, and reuse may result in an increased risk of infection.
While masks are nearly useless in protecting its wearer from the Coronavirus, they might be somewhat - albeit marginally - helpful in containing virus-laden droplets that are expelled by an infected person's coughs and sneezes. Well, I'm not currently coughing or sneezing; and I have made it a point to always cover my coughs and sneezes long before this pandemic began. There is no reason for me to wear a mask today.
Most transmissions of respiratory viruses occur via indirect physical contact between infected surfaces and the mucous membranes of our mouths, noses, and eyes; not through inhalation. So, just like with the seasonal flu, we should avoid touching our faces - or at least have very clean hands if we do touch our faces. Frequent hand sanitizing significantly reduces the risk of infection.
Paradoxically, evidence suggests that people actually touch their faces more often when wearing a mask than when not wearing one. Masks can also create a false sense of security which causes reduced attention to other safety protocols.
The single most beneficial step we can take to prevent catching or spreading the Coronavirus is to clean our hands frequently. I now carry a small spray bottle of 70% isopropyl alcohol, which I use to sanitize my hands repeatedly whenever I am outside my home. And I am certain that does far more to prevent an infection than what most of the arrogant, holier-than-thou mask wearers who denounce me are doing.
I'm obviously aware that the CDC has recommended we wear masks in public. But they have said nothing about the effectiveness of doing so. Why not? Because it isn't effective! The wearing of masks in public is just feel-good theater to give people a sense that they're doing something meaningful even though they're not. If the mesh of a cloth mask has openings that are 1000 times bigger than the virus, how will it filter the virus? It's the equivalent of thinking you can keep mosquitoes out of your yard by installing a chain link fence.
Since there is a lot of false information circulating on the internet that gets posted without attribution plus a lot of opinions based on nothing but feelings, I provide my data sources below. You can read them yourself to easily verify the information I used to form my opinion that wearing a mask is medically pointless. Note that they are all legitimate medical institutions. You can disagree with my opinion all you want. But you can't dispute my facts.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY)
SOURCES:
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/n95-respirators-and-surgical-masks-face-masks#s3
National Center for Biotechnology Information, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903751/?from_term=cloth+masks+infection+control&from_sort=date&from_page=2&from_pos=7&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1dNME1tWmxNVEV6WTJabCIsInQiOiJxSHhBZUhrQUR5TW41STdaOHZcL0J1MDZoTjVrd1hkN1NjWHNrbHNNeVp2dmRETFFkcnV4QjFyNVZ1NkNVb3JoMXBSOW4wMGxtZjNKc2UwdXlTOHJsbkRqaldhNXN3QXRwdWJoOVV0Z0hyWFI5SVVlZEJkXC9FUFJMSkU2NDk2enVmIn0%3D
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, https://www.nap.edu/read/13006/chapter/3#9
Annals of Internal Medicine, https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342
Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation, https://www.apsf.org/news-updates/perioperative-considerations-for-the-2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19/
EBSCO Health, https://health.ebsco.com/blog/article/covid-19-ten-things-you-need-to-know
Mayo Clinic, https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/covid-19-mayo-clinic-expert-answers-questions-about-masks-after-cdc-updates-its-recommendation/
MedPage Today, https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/85814
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/viruses/index.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/disease/respiratoryic.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html
World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/infection-prevention/en/
World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, https://epi.dph.ncdhhs.gov/cd/diseases/respiratory.html
Southern Nevada Health District, https://www.southernnevadahealthdistrict.org/wp-content/uploads/snhd_covid19_mask.pdf
Arkansas Foundation for Medical Care, https://afmc.org/afmc-healthspot/9-best-ways-prevent-infections/
Johns Hopkins Medicine, https://www.hopkinsguides.com/hopkins/view/Johns_Hopkins_ABX_Guide/540747/all/Coronavirus_COVID_19__SARS_CoV_2_
Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data
Infection Control Today, https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/personal-protective-equipment/studies-stir-new-debate-about-influenza-virus-size-transmission-risk
Was the Death of Ahmaud Arbery a Callous Murder by Racist Rednecks?
May 16, 2020 8:48am
The media is telling us that the video of the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery shows the callous murder of an unarmed black man by racist redneck vigilantes, who the mayor of Atlanta said were motivated by President Trump’s racism.
But it also raises dozens of questions for which we do not yet know the answers. I'm withholding judgement until the investigation is complete. If the evidence supports murder charges and convictions, I'd be willing to inject the needles into the killers myself.
But in the meantime, I will not perpetuate the lie that white people can kill black people and face no consequences.
On this morning's program, I interviewed Kenny Shugars, a retired Deputy U.S. Marshal who is now a Professor of Criminal Justice at Augusta University in Georgia. He is a rare voice of reason who explained why it's too soon to reach a conclusion as to what happened in Brunswick, Georgia on February 23rd.
Whether the video is all the evidence you think you need, or if you are withholding judgement until you have more facts, it is worth your time to listen to the interview. It is archived online at www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/200516
Democrat Governors Are Killing Far More People Than Republican Governors
May 3, 2020 10:41am
The Democrats and the media - but I repeat myself - have politicized the COVID-19 Coronavirus as weapon. At every opportunity, they blame President Trump and Republicans for each case and each death. They have made a deliberate decision to use statistics to portray the situation as far worse than it really is.
This graph is 100% accurate based upon May 3, 2020 data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. Is your immediate reaction to analyze WHY the numbers are as they are? If so, do you do that with the numbers the so-called "news" media spoon-feeds you? You should. Because the statistics provided by activists posing as journalists are intended to deceive not to inform.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Even accurate statistics can paint a misleading picture.
My headline of "Democrat Governors Are Killing Far More People Than Republican Governors" was deliberate mockery of how the partisan propagandists present the data. Raw facts can, and often do, mislead.
It should be obvious to anyone with a 6th grade education that the reason states with Democratic governors have far higher numbers is because they collectively have larger and denser populations. The United States is the world's third most populous country, which makes comparing America's raw numbers to those of other nations meaningless.
The infection RATE and the fatality RATE are what matter. So why are you told only the raw numbers? Because the RATES show the situation in the United States is actually quite good compared to the rest of the world. And we can't have that, now can we? This is an election year, so the media has a Republican President to destroy. The political agenda of today's press is disgraceful. It's disgusting. And it's dangerous.
ADDITION posted on May 3, 2020 at 1:02pm
I made another objectively factual observation about these statistics:
The population of Democrat states, including Washington, DC, totals 178,725,465 (54.45% of the country). The population of Republican states totals 149,514,058 (45.55% of the country).
So when the infection and fatality RATES are calculated, Democrat states have an infection rate that is 119.72% higher than Republican states and a fatality rate that is 50.44% higher than red states. Analyzing the reasons for THAT would make an interesting conversation.
Should Congress Allow Voting by Proxy?
May 2, 2020 8:33am
Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats are proposing a rule change that would allow members of Congress to vote by proxy.
Is it a good idea? Is it even legal? Our Constitution (Article 1, Section 5) requires a majority to be present before any business may be conducted. Sure, Article 1, Section 5 also allows the House to determine the rules of its proceedings, but those rules can't run afoul of the Constitution.
Mark Strand, the President of Congressional Institute analyzed the proposed rule change in an opinion piece published by The Hill titled "Remote Voting Would Further Undermine Civility." This morning, I interviewed Mark Strand to discuss both the constitutionality of proxy voting and whether it would be beneficial to Congress and our Republic.
I believe it is worth your time to read his piece and to listen to our interview.
LINKS:
Mark Strand's Opinion Piece in The Hill
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/493280-remote-voting-would-further-undermine-civility
Mark Strand's interview on The Mike Bates Show
www.TheMikeBatesShow.com/podcasts/200502
The Congressional Institute's website
www.congressionalinstitute.org
Will Drinking Clorox Kill the Coronavirus?
April 25, 2020 11:36pm
Contrary to what the so-called "news" media has said, President Trump did NOT recommend the internal use of ultraviolet light or disinfectant to kill the COVID-19 Coronavirus. His words were a hypothesis in the form of a question. They were NOT recommendations or instructions. And he asked the professionals to test his hypothesis.
But Nancy Pelosi said "the President is asking people to inject Lysol into their lungs." THAT IS A BLATANT LIE. The "news" media then eagerly amplified her lie without addressing its veracity. They treated her lie as if was the Nectar of the Gods, which demonstrates that today's "journalists" are nothing but propagandists for the Democratic Party.
We have a serious problem when dishonest activists posing as journalists focus on and misrepresent a 55 second question posed by Trump during an hour-long press conference, but then that same media reports Nancy Pelosi's false statement without pointing out that she completely fabricated it.
The problem is the biased media itself; they spoon-feed us propaganda instead of reporting the truth. Last year, President Trump tweeted that the press is the enemy of the people. He was right. Because the press is the enemy of the truth, that makes them the enemy of the people.
Democrats and the media – but I repeat myself – are both dangerous enemies of our Republic. Don’t believe their lies!