Minnesota Covid Questions that Need Answering

Dear Senators:
Please ask the questions (bold) to Gov. Walz during your next “Emergency” session:
Minnesota has reported numerous deaths from COVID.
MN Covid Deaths (10/9/20): Total deaths: 2,121 Deaths in long-term care or assisted living facilities: 1,513


What treatment protocol has Minnesota used to treat those sick in an attempt to prevent deaths?
Minnesota state officials first banned hydroxychloroquine, then removed the ban.  Why?

Hydroxychloroquine is an inexpensive medication that has been widely used to treat malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis for 50+ years. Its successful track record proves it can be taken safely by most people.

On March 27 it was reported that a trial by French epidemiologist, Dr. Didier Raoult administered hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to 80 patients and observed improvement in EVERY CASE except for a very sick 86-year-old with an advanced form of coronavirus infection. This was his second successful trial with the drug.

On April 6th, Democratic Michigan State Rep. Karen Whitsett credited of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine with saving her life after her health “plummeted” when she contracted coronavirus. This was widely reported.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/karen-whitsett-trump-hydroxychloroquine-saved-my-life

On March 23, MN Sen Amy Klobuchar, announced her husband was admitted to the hospital with coronavirus. Much later she admitted in an interview his recovery was due in part to taking hydroxychloroquine.

https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/breaking-video-amy-klobuchar-finally-and-reluctantly-admits-that-hcq-saved-her-husbands-life/

https://www.lifezette.com/2020/05/senator-amy-klobuchar-reluctantly-admits-hydroxychloroquine-saved-her-husbands-life/

Why did Klobuchar’s husband take a drug that was banned for other Minnesotans?

Did high ranking Minnesotans receive different advice than the average Minnesotan?

Her husband seems to have used the drug before the results of the French study were reported. What data did they use to justify the drug’s use?

On April 27th, A Texas City Nursing home had 56 residents and 33 staff members test COVID-19 positive. They began administering Hydroxychloroquine, Zpac and Zinc as soon as a resident first started showing symptoms. Only one of the nursing homes COVID-19 patients has died.

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/fox-26-gets-unprecedented-access-to-texas-1st-nursing-home-to-treat-covid-19-with-hydroxychloroquine

Have Minnesota Nursing homes been using hydroxychloroquine to protect and treat residents since the state ban was lifted? If not, Why? What treatments were used? What was the effectiveness compared to hydroxychloroquine? What treatment did State health officials recommend?

To: Minneota Senators
“sen.andrew.lang@senate.mn” <sen.andrew.lang@senate.mn>,
“sen.scott.jensen@senate.mn” <sen.scott.jensen@senate.mn>,
“sen.Mark.Koran@senate.mn” <sen.Mark.Koran@senate.mn>,
“sen.Mark.Johnson@senate.mn” <sen.Mark.Johnson@senate.mn>,
“sen.karin.housley@senate.mn” <sen.karin.housley@senate.mn>,
“sen.Justin.Eichorn@senate.mn” <sen.Justin.Eichorn@senate.mn>,
“sen.julie.rosen@senate.mn” <sen.julie.rosen@senate.mn>,
“sen.John.Jasinski@senate.mn” <sen.John.Jasinski@senate.mn>,
“sen.jim.abeler@senate.mn” <sen.jim.abeler@senate.mn>,
“sen.jerry.relph@senate.mn” <sen.jerry.relph@senate.mn>,
“sen.jeremy.miller@senate.mn” <sen.jeremy.miller@senate.mn>,
“sen.jeff.howe@senate.mn” <sen.jeff.howe@senate.mn>,
“sen.jason.rarick@senate.mn” <sen.jason.rarick@senate.mn>,
“sen.gary.dahms@senate.mn” <sen.gary.dahms@senate.mn>,
“sen.eric.pratt@senate.mn” <sen.eric.pratt@senate.mn>,
“sen.david.senjem@senate.mn” <sen.david.senjem@senate.mn>,
“sen.david.osmek@senate.mn” <sen.david.osmek@senate.mn>,
“sen.carrie.ruud@senate.mn” <sen.carrie.ruud@senate.mn>,
“sen.carla.nelson@senate.mn” <sen.carla.nelson@senate.mn>,
“sen.bruce.anderson@senate.mn” <sen.bruce.anderson@senate.mn>,
“sen.bill.weber@senate.mn” <sen.bill.weber@senate.mn>,
“sen.bill.ingebrigtsen@senate.mn” <sen.bill.ingebrigtsen@senate.mn>,
“sen.Andrew.Mathews@senate.mn” <sen.Andrew.Mathews@senate.mn>,
<sen.Dan.Hall@senate.mn>

Request to End Minnesota’s COVID Mandates

 

Open Letter to MN Senate Republicans:

August 24, 2020

Dear Senators:

I am writing to request, that you as a body, take action to stop Governor Walz from using government force to arbitrarily shutdown certain activities (but not others), and forcing healthy citizens to wear masks.

For example: Can Governor Walz explain why people must wear a mask while walking to their restaurant table, but then can be mask-free while eating? Does the virus leave people alone while they eat?

On a more serious note, during hot summer days my wife and I often walk at Mall of America for exercise. This is no longer a good option with a mask mandate. Masks are sweaty and cause glasses to steam up. The mandate has become a burden hindering our health. I have heard a few doctors say masks were never recommended to protect a healthy person from respiratory viruses before this year.

Attached is a letter from other doctors who are questioning the government approach to Covid. I find the direct questions devastating to the heavy-handed government approach used in Minnesota. I would like to hear answers to the posed questions from the Minnesota healthcare “experts”.

While it may have been prudent to have a 15-day lockdown, continued restrictions on freedoms seem to serve no purpose. COVID now seems treatable and no more serious than pneumonia. Both must be treated early BEFORE the body is severely damaged. Minnesotans do NOT shutdown for pneumonia every winter.

Will the Senate conduct hearings to question the Governor and his appointees?

Many Minnesotans now believe the Governors’ mandates are more about political power than public safety.

A special thanks to Senator – Dr. Scott Jensen for appearing on Laura Ingraham and working to educate people on the true science of COVID.

All the Best,
Scot Wolf

 

 

Letter from concerned physicians to Dr. Fauci

August 12, 2020

Anthony Fauci, MD
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Fauci:

You were placed into the most high-profile role regarding America’s response to the Coronavirus pandemic. Americans have relied on your medical expertise concerning the wearing of masks, resuming employment, returning to school, and of course medical treatment.

You are largely unchallenged in terms of your medical opinions. You are the de facto “COVID-19 Czar”. This is unusual in the medical profession in which doctors’ opinions are challenged by other physicians in the form of exchanges between doctors at hospitals, medical conferences, as well as debate in medical journals. You render your opinions unchallenged, without formal public opposition from physicians who passionately disagree with you. It is incontestable that the public is best served when opinions and policy are based on the prevailing evidence and science, and able to withstand the scrutiny of medical professionals.

As experience accrued in treating COVID-19 infections, physicians worldwide discovered that high-risk patients can be treated successfully as an outpatient, within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms, with a “cocktail” consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the literature detail the efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine-based combination treatment.

Dr. Harvey Risch, the renowned Yale epidemiologist, published an article in May 2020 in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to Pandemic Crisis”. He further published an article in Newsweek in July 2020 for the general public expressing the same conclusions and opinions. Dr. Risch is an expert at evaluating research data and study designs, publishing over 300 articles. Dr Risch’s assessment is that there is unequivocal evidence for the early and safe use of the “HCQ cocktail.” If there are Q-T interval concerns, doxycycline can be substituted for azithromycin as it has activity against RNA viruses without any cardiac effects.

Yet, you continue to reject the use of hydroxychloroquine, except in a hospital setting in the form of clinical trials, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting its use. Hydroxychloroquine, despite 65 years of use for malaria, and over 40 years for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, with a well-established safety profile, has been deemed by you and the FDA as unsafe for use in the treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infections. Your opinions have influenced the thinking of physicians and their patients, medical boards, state and federal agencies, pharmacists, hospitals, and just about everyone involved in medical decision making.

Indeed, your opinions impacted the health of Americans, and many aspects of our day-to-day lives including employment and school. Those of us who prescribe hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin/doxycycline believe fervently that early outpatient use would save tens of thousands of lives and enable our country to dramatically alter the response to COVID-19. We advocate for an approach that will reduce fear and allow Americans to get their lives back.

We hope that our questions compel you to reconsider your current approach to COVID-19 infection.

Questions regarding early outpatient treatment

1. There are generally two stages of COVID-19 symptomatic infection; initial flu like symptoms with progression to cytokine storm and respiratory failure, correct?

2. When people are admitted to a hospital, they generally are in worse condition, correct?

3. There are no specific medications currently recommended for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infection, correct?

4. Remdesivir and Dexamethasone are used for hospitalized patients, correct?

5. There is currently no recommended pharmacologic early outpatient treatment for individuals in the flu stage of the illness, correct?

6. It is true that COVID-19 is much more lethal than the flu for high-risk individuals such as older patients and those with significant comorbidities, correct?

7. Individuals with signs of early COVID-19 infection typically have a runny nose, fever, cough, shortness of breath, loss of smell, etc., and physicians send them home to rest, eat chicken soup etc., but offer no specific, targeted medications, correct?

8. These high-risk individuals are at high risk of death, on the order of 15% or higher, correct?

9. So just so we are clear—the current standard of care now is to send clinically stable symptomatic patients home, “with a wait and see” approach?

10. Are you aware that physicians are successfully using Hydroxychloroquine combined with Zinc and Azithromycin as a “cocktail” for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic, high-risk, individuals?

11. Have you heard of the “Zelenko Protocol,” for treating high-risk patients with COVID 19 as an outpatient?

12. Have you read Dr. Risch’s article in the American Journal of Epidemiology of the early outpatient treatment of COVID-19?

13. Are you aware that physicians using the medication combination or “cocktail” recommend use within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms, before the illness impacts the lungs, or cytokine storm evolves?

14. Again, to be clear, your recommendation is no pharmacologic treatment as an outpatient for the flu—like symptoms in patients that are stable, regardless of their risk factors, correct?

15. Would you advocate for early pharmacologic outpatient treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 patients if you were confident that it was beneficial?

16. Are you aware that there are hundreds of physicians in the United States and thousands across the globe who have had dramatic success treating high-risk individuals as outpatients with this “cocktail?”

17. Are you aware that there are at least 10 studies demonstrating the efficacy of early outpatient treatment with the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail for high-risk patients — so this is beyond anecdotal, correct?

18. If one of your loved ones had diabetes or asthma, or any potentially complicating comorbidity, and tested positive for COVID-19, would you recommend “wait and see how they do” and go to the hospital if symptoms progress?

19. Even with multiple studies documenting remarkable outpatient efficacy and safety of the Hydroxychloroquine “cocktail,” you believe the risks of the medication combination outweigh the benefits?

20. Is it true that with regard to Hydroxychloroquine and treatment of COVID-19 infection, you have said repeatedly that “The Overwhelming Evidence of Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate No Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)?”

21. But NONE of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done in the first 5 to 7 days after the onset of symptoms- correct?

22. All of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done on hospitalized patients, correct?

23. Hospitalized patients are typically sicker that outpatients, correct?

24. None of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer used the full cocktail consisting of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin, correct?

25. While the University of Minnesota study is referred to as disproving the cocktail, the meds were not given within the first 5 to 7 days of illness, the test group was not high risk (death rates were 3%), and no zinc was given, correct?

26. Again, for clarity, the trials upon which you base your opinion regarding the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine, assessed neither the full cocktail (to include Zinc + Azithromycin or doxycycline) nor administered treatment within the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms, nor focused on the high-risk group, correct?

27. Therefore, you have no basis to conclude that the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail when used early in the outpatient setting, within the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms, in high risk patients, is not effective, correct?

28. It is thus false and misleading to say that the effective and safe use of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin has been “debunked,” correct? How could it be “debunked” if there is not a single study that contradicts its use?

29. Should it not be an absolute priority for the NIH and CDC to look at ways to treat Americans with symptomatic COVID-19 infections early to prevent disease progression?

30. The SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 virus is an RNA virus. It is well-established that Zinc interferes with RNA viral replication, correct?

31. Moreover, is it not true that hydroxychloroquine facilitates the entry of zinc into the cell, is a “ionophore,” correct?

32. Isn’t also it true that Azithromycin has established anti-viral properties?

33. Are you aware of the paper from Baylor by Dr. McCullough et. al. describing established mechanisms by which the components of the “HCQ cocktail” exert anti-viral effects?

34. So- the use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin (or doxycycline) and zinc, the “HCQ cocktail,” is based on science, correct?

Questions regarding safety

1. The FDA writes the following: “in light of on-going serious cardiac adverse events and their serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for authorized use.”So not only is the FDA saying that Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work, they are also saying that it is a very dangerous drug. Yet, is it not true the drug has been used as an anti-malarial drug for over 65 years?

2. Isn’t true that the drug has been used for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis for many years at similar doses?

3. Do you know of even a single study prior to COVID -19 that has provided definitive evidence against the use of the drug based on safety concerns?

4. Are you aware that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine has many approved uses for hydroxychloroquine including steroid-dependent asthma (1988 study), Advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis (1988 study), sensitizing breast cancer cells for chemotherapy (2012 study), the attenuation of renal ischemia (2018 study), lupus nephritis (2006 study), epithelial ovarian cancer (2020 study, just to name a few)? Where are the cardiotoxicity concerns ever mentioned?

5. Risch estimates the risk of cardiac death from hydroxychloroquine to be 9/100,000 using the data provided by the FDA. That does not seem to be a high risk, considering the risk of death in an older patient with co-morbidities can be 15% or more. Do you consider 9/100,000 to be a high risk when weighed against the risk of death in older patient with co-morbidities?

6. To put this in perspective, the drug is used for 65 years, without warnings (aside for the need for periodic retinal checks), but the FDA somehow feels the need to send out an alert on June 15, 2020 that the drug is dangerous. Does that make any logical sense to you Dr. Fauci based on “science”?

7. Moreover, consider that the protocols for usage in early treatment are for 5 to 7 days at relatively low doses of hydroxychloroquine similar to what is being given in other diseases (RA, SLE) over many years- does it make any sense to you logically that a 5 to 7 day dose of hydroxychloroquine when not given in high doses could be considered dangerous?

8. You are also aware that articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet, one out of Harvard University, regarding the dangers of hydroxychloroquine had to be retracted based on the fact that the data was fabricated. Are you aware of that?

9. If there was such good data on the risks of hydroxychloroquine, one would not have to use fake data, correct?

10. After all, 65 years is a long-time to determine whether or not a drug is safe, do you agree?

11. In the clinical trials that you have referenced (e.g., the Minnesota and the Brazil studies), there was not a single death attributed directly to hydroxychloroquine, correct?

12. According to Dr. Risch, there is no evidence based on the data to conclude that hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous drug. Are you aware of any published report that rebuts Dr. Risch’s findings?

13. Are you aware that the FDA ruling along with your statements have led to Governors in a number of states to restrict the use of hydroxychloroquine?

14. Are you aware that pharmacies are not filling prescriptions for this medication based on your and the FDA’s restrictions?

15. Are you aware that doctors are being punished by state medical boards for prescribing the medication based on your comments as well as the FDA’s?

16. Are you aware that people who want the medication sometimes need to call physicians in other states pleading for it?

17. And yet you opined in March that while people were dying at the rate of 10,000 patient a week, hydroxychloroquine could only be used in an inpatient setting as part of a clinical trial- correct?

18. So, people who want to be treated in that critical 5-to-7-day period and avoid being hospitalized are basically out of luck in your view, correct?

19. So, again, for clarity, without a shred of evidence that the Hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail is dangerous in the doses currently recommend for early outpatient treatment, you and the FDA have made it very difficult if not impossible in some cases to get this treatment, correct?

Questions regarding methodology

1. In regards to the use of hydroxychloroquine, you have repeatedly made the same statement: “The Overwhelming Evidence from Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate no Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine.” Is that correct?

2. In Dr. Risch’s article regarding the early use of hydroxychloroquine, he disputes your opinion. He scientifically evaluated the data from the studies to support his opinions. Have you published any articles to support your opinions?

3. You repeatedly state that randomized clinical trials are needed to make conclusions regarding treatments, correct?

4. The FDA has approved many medications (especially in the area of cancer treatment) without randomized clinical trials, correct?

5. Are you aware that Dr. Thomas Frieden, the previous head of the CDC wrote an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017 called “Evidence for Health Decision Making – Beyond Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT)”? Have you read that article?

6. In it Dr. Frieden states that “many data sources can provide valid evidence for clinical and public health action, including “analysis of aggregate clinical or epidemiological data”-do you disagree with that?

7. Frieden discusses “practiced-based evidence” as being essential in many discoveries, such SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome)-do you disagree with that?

8. Frieden writes the following: “Current evidence-grading systems are biased toward randomized clinical trials, which may lead to inadequate consideration of non-RCT data.” Dr. Fauci, have you considered all the non-RCT data in coming to your opinions?

9. Risch, who is a leading world authority in the analysis of aggregate clinical data, has done a rigorous analysis that he published regarding the early treatment of COVID 19 with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. He cites 5 or 6 studies, and in an updated article there are 5 or 6 more-a total of 10 to 12 clinical studies with formally collected data specifically regarding the early treatment of COVID. Have you analyzed the aggregate data regarding early treatment of high-risk patients with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin?

10. Is there any document that you can produce for the American people of your analysis of the aggregate data that would rebut Dr. Risch’s analysis?

11. Yet, despite what Dr. Risch believes is overwhelming evidence in support of the early use of hydroxychloroquine, you dismiss the treatment insisting on randomized controlled trials even in the midst of a pandemic?

12. Would you want a loved one with high-risk comorbidities placed in the control group of a randomized clinical trial when a number of studies demonstrate safety and dramatic efficacy of the early use of the Hydroxychloroquine “cocktail?”

13. Are you aware that the FDA approved a number of cancer chemotherapy drugs without randomized control trials based solely on epidemiological evidence. The trials came later as confirmation. Are you aware of that?

14. You are well aware that there were no randomized clinical trials in the case of penicillin that saved thousands of lives in World War II? Was not this in the best interest of our soldiers?

15. You would agree that many lives were saved with the use of cancer drugs and penicillin that were used before any randomized clinical trials–correct?

16. You have referred to evidence for hydroxychloroquine as “anecdotal”- which is defined as “evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony”- correct?

17. But there are many studies supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine in which evidence was collected formally and not on personal testimony, has there not been?

18. So it would be false to conclude that the evidence supporting the early use of hydroxychloroquine is anecdotal, correct?

Comparison between the US and other countries regarding case fatality rate
(It would be very helpful to have the graphs comparing our case fatality rates to other countries)

1. Are you aware that countries like Senegal and Nigeria that use Hydroxychloroquine have much lower case-fatality rates than the United States?

2. Have you pondered the relationship between the use of Hydroxychloroquine by a given country and their case mortality rate and why there is a strong correlation between the use of HCQ and the reduction of the case mortality rate.?

3. Have you considered consulting with a country such as India that has had great success treating COVID-19 prophylactically?

4. Why shouldn’t our first responders and front-line workers who are at high risk at least have an option of HCQ/zinc prophylaxis?

5. We should all agree that countries with far inferior healthcare delivery systems should not have lower case fatality rates. Reducing our case fatality rate from near 5% to 2.5%, in line with many countries who use HCQ early would have cut our total number of deaths in half, correct?

6. Why not consult with countries who have lower case-fatality rates, even without expensive medicines such as remdesivir and far less advanced intensive care capabilities?

Giving Americans the option to use HCQ for COVID-19

1. Harvey Risch, the pre-eminent Epidemiologist from Yale, wrote a Newsweek Article titled: “The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it.” Did you read the article?

2. Are you aware that the cost of the Hydroxychloroquine “cocktail” including the Z-pack and zinc is about $50?

3. You are aware the cost of Remdesivir is about $3,200?

4. So that’s about 60 doses of HCQ “cocktail,” correct?

5. In fact, President Trump had the foresight to amass 60 million doses of hydroxychloroquine, and yet you continue to stand in the way of doctors who want to use that medication for their infected patients, correct?

6. Those are a lot of doses of medication that potentially could be used to treat our poor, especially our minority populations and people of color that have a difficult time accessing healthcare. They die more frequently of COVID-19, do they not?

7. But because of your obstinance blocking the use of HCQ, this stockpile has remained largely unused, correct?

8. Would you acknowledge that your strategy of telling Americans to restrict their behavior, wear masks, and distance, and put their lives on hold indefinitely until there is a vaccine is not working?

9. So, 160,000 deaths later, an economy in shambles, kids out of school, suicides and drug overdoses at a record high, people neglecting and dying from other medical conditions, and America reacting to every outbreak with another lockdown- is it not time to re-think your strategy that is fully dependent on an effective vaccine?

10. Why not consider a strategy that protects the most vulnerable and allows Americans back to living their lives and not wait for a vaccine panacea that may never come?

11. Why not consider the approach that thousands of doctors around the world are using, supported by a number of studies in the literature, with early outpatient treatment of high-risk patients for typically one week with HCQ + Zinc + Azithromycin?

12. You don’t see a problem with the fact that the government, due to your position, in some cases interferes with the choice of using HCQ. Should not that be a choice between the doctor and the patient?

13. While some doctors may not want to use the drug, should not doctors who believe that it is indicated be able to offer it to their patients?

14. Are you aware that doctors who are publicly advocating for such a strategy with the early use of the HCQ cocktail are being silenced with removal of content on the internet and even censorship in the medical community?

15. You are aware of the 20 or so physicians who came to the Supreme Court steps advocating for the early use of the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail. In fact, you said these were “a bunch of people spouting out something that isn’t true.”Dr. Fauci, these are not just “people”- these are doctors who actually treat patients, unlike you, correct?

16. Do you know that the video they made went viral with 17 million views in just a few hours, and was then removed from the internet?

17. Are you aware that their website, American Frontline Doctors, was taken down the next day?

18. Did you see the way that Nigerian immigrant physician, Dr. Stella Immanuel, was mocked in the media for her religious views and called a “witch doctor”?

19. Are you aware that Dr. Simone Gold, the leader of the group, was fired from her job as an Emergency Room physician the following day?

20. Are you aware that physicians advocating for this treatment that has by now probably saved millions of lives around the globe are harassed by local health departments, state agencies and medical boards, and even at their own hospitals? Are you aware of that?

21. Don’t you think doctors should have the right to speak out on behalf of their patients without the threat of retribution?

22. Are you aware that videos and other educational information are removed off the internet and labeled, in the words of Mark Zuckerberg, as “misinformation.”?

23. Is it not misinformation to characterize Hydroxychloroquine, in the doses used for early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 infections, as a dangerous drug?

24. Is it not misleading for you to repeatedly state to the American public that randomized clinical trials are the sole source of information to confirm the efficacy of a treatment?

25. Was it not misinformation when on CNN you cited the Lancet study based on false data from Surgisphere as evidence of the lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine?

26. Is it not misinformation as is repeated in the MSM as a result of your comments that a randomized clinical trial is required by the FDA for a drug approval?

27. Don’t you realize how much damage this falsehood perpetuates?

28. How is it not misinformation for you and the FDA to keep telling the American public that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous when you know that there is nothing more than anecdotal evidence of that?

29. Fauci, if you or a loved one were infected with COVID-19, and had flu-like symptoms, and you knew as you do now that there is a safe and effective cocktail that you could take to prevent worsening and the possibility of hospitalization, can you honestly tell us that you would refuse the medication?

30. Why not give our healthcare workers and first responders, who even with the necessary PPE are contracting the virus at a 3 to 4 times greater rate than the general public, the right to choose along with their doctor if they want use the medicine prophylactically?

31. Why is the government inserting itself in a way that is unprecedented in regard to a historically safe medication and not allowing patients the right to choose along with their doctor?

32. Why not give the American people the right to decide along with their physician whether or not they want outpatient treatment in the first 5 to 7 days of the disease with a cocktail that is safe and costs around $50?

Final questions

1. Dr. Fauci, please explain how a randomized clinical trial, to which you repeatedly make reference, for testing the HCQ cocktail (hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc) administered within 5-7 days of the onset of symptoms is even possible now given the declining case numbers in so many states?

2. For example, if the NIH were now to direct a study to begin September 15, where would such a study be done?

3. Please explain how a randomized study on the early treatment (within the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms) of high-risk, symptomatic COVID-19 infections could be done during the influenza season and be valid?

4. Please explain how multiple observational studies arrive at the same outcomes using the same formulation of hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin + Zinc given in the same time frame for the same study population (high risk patients) is not evidence that the cocktail works?

5. In fact, how is it not significant evidence, during a pandemic, for hundreds of non-academic private practice physicians to achieve the same outcomes with the early use of the HCQ cocktail?

6. What is your recommendation for the medical management of a 75-year-old diabetic with fever, cough, and loss of smell, but not yet hypoxic, who Emergency Room providers do not feel warrants admission? We know that hundreds of U.S. physicians (and thousands more around the world) would manage this case with the HCQ cocktail with predictable success.

7. If you were in charge in 1940, would you have advised the mass production of penicillin based primarily on lab evidence and one case series on 5 patients in England or would you have stated that a randomized clinical trial was needed?

8. Why would any physician put their medical license, professional reputation, and job on the line to recommend the HCQ cocktail (that does not make them any money) unless they knew the treatment could significantly help their patient?

9. Why would a physician take the medication themselves and prescribe it to family members (for treatment or prophylaxis) unless they felt strongly that the medication was beneficial?

10. How is it informed and ethical medical practice to allow a COVID-19 patient to deteriorate in the early stages of the infection when there is inexpensive, safe, and dramatically effective treatment with the HCQ cocktail, which the science indicates interferes with coronavirus replication?

11. How is your approach to “wait and see” in the early stages of COVID-19 infection, especially in high-risk patients, following the science?

While previous questions are related to hydroxychloroquine-based treatment, we have two questions addressing masks.

1. As you recall, you stated on March 8th, just a few weeks before the devastation in the Northeast, that masks weren’t needed. You later said that you made this statement to prevent a hoarding of masks that would disrupt availability to healthcare workers. Why did you not make a recommendation for people to wear any face covering to protect themselves, as we are doing now?

2. Rather, you issued no such warning and people were riding in subways and visiting their relatives in nursing homes without any face covering. Currently, your position is that face coverings are essential. Please explain whether or not you made a mistake in early March, and how would you go about it differently now.

Conclusion
Since the start of the pandemic, physicians have used hydroxychloroquine to treat symptomatic COVID-19 infections, as well as for prophylaxis. Initial results were mixed as indications and doses were explored to maximize outcomes and minimize risks. What emerged was that hydroxychloroquine appeared to work best when coupled with azithromycin. In fact, it was the President of the United States who recommended to you publicly at the beginning of the pandemic, in early March, that you should consider early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and a “Z-Pack.” Additional studies showed that patients did not seem to benefit when COVID-19 infections were treated with hydroxychloroquine late in the course of the illness, typically in a hospital setting, but treatment was consistently effective, even in high-risk patients, when hydroxychloroquine was given in a “cocktail” with azithromycin and, critically, zinc in the first 5 to 7 days after the onset of symptoms. The outcomes are, in fact, dramatic.

As clearly presented in the McCullough article from Baylor, and described by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, the efficacy of the HCQ cocktail is based on the pharmacology of the hydroxychloroquine ionophore acting as the “gun” and zinc as the “bullet,” while azithromycin potentiates the anti-viral effect. Undeniably, the hydroxychloroquine combination treatment is supported by science. Yet, you continue to ignore the “science” behind the disease. Viral replication occurs rapidly in the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms and can be treated at that point with the HCQ cocktail. Rather, your actions have denied patients treatment in that early stage. Without such treatment, some patients, especially those at high risk with co-morbidities, deteriorate and require hospitalization for evolving cytokine storm resulting in pneumonia, respiratory failure, and intubation with 50% mortality. Dismissal of the science results in bad medicine, and the outcome is over 160,000 dead Americans. Countries that have followed the science and treated the disease in the early stages have far better results, a fact that has been concealed from the American Public.

Despite mounting evidence and impassioned pleas from hundreds of frontline physicians, your position was and continues to be that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not shown there to be benefit. However, not a single randomized control trial has tested what is being recommended: use of the full cocktail (especially zinc), in high-risk patients, initiated within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms. Using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin late in the disease process, with or without zinc, does not produce the same, unequivocally positive results.

Dr. Thomas Frieden, in a 2017 New England Journal of Medicine article regarding randomized clinical trials, emphasized there are situations in which it is entirely appropriate to use other forms of evidence to scientifically validate a treatment. Such is the case during a pandemic that moves like a brushfire jumping to different parts of the country. Insisting on randomized clinical trials in the midst of a pandemic is simply foolish. Dr. Harvey Risch, a world-renowned Yale epidemiologist, analyzed all the data regarding the use of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail and concluded that the evidence of its efficacy when used early in COVID-19 infection is unequivocal.

Curiously, despite a 65+ years safety record, the FDA suddenly deemed hydroxychloroquine a dangerous drug, especially with regard to cardiotoxicity. Dr. Risch analyzed data provided by the FDA and concluded that the risk of a significant cardiac event from hydroxychloroquine is extremely low, especially when compared to the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients with high-risk co-morbidities. How do you reconcile that for forty years rheumatoid arthritis and lupus patients have been treated over long periods, often for years, with hydroxychloroquine and now there are suddenly concerns about a 5 to 7-day course of hydroxychloroquine at similar or slightly increased doses? The FDA statement regarding hydroxychloroquine and cardiac risk is patently false and alarmingly misleading to physicians, pharmacists, patients, and other health professionals. The benefits of the early use of hydroxychloroquine to prevent hospitalization in high-risk patients with COVID-19 infection far outweigh the risks. Physicians are not able to obtain the medication for their patients, and in some cases are restricted by their state from prescribing hydroxychloroquine. The government’s obstruction of the early treatment of symptomatic high-risk COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine, a medication used extensively and safely for so long, is unprecedented.

It is essential that you tell the truth to the American public regarding the safety and efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail. The government must protect and facilitate the sacred and revered physician-patient relationship by permitting physicians to treat their patients. Governmental obfuscation and obstruction are as lethal as cytokine storm.

Americans must not continue to die unnecessarily. Adults must resume employment and our youth return to school. Locking down America while awaiting an imperfect vaccine has done far more damage to Americans than the coronavirus. We are confident that thousands of lives would be saved with early treatment of high-risk individuals with a cocktail of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. Americans must not live in fear. As Dr. Harvey Risch’s Newsweek article declares, “The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it.”

Very Respectfully,

George C. Fareed, MD, Brawley, California

Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH, Pensacola, Florida

Donald C. Pompan, MD, Salinas, California

Is the Wuhan Coronavirus Dangerous Enough to Destroy our Economy?

C19 Deaths 4-4 wkApril 9: Added above data from CDC comparing Flu, Pneumonia and Coronavirus Deaths.

 

Are we facing a life ending pandemic, or a severe strain of pneumonia / flu? Many governors and those in the media are acting as if we are facing a new Black Death plague. The data does not support this.

Kevin Roche gives facts from the real-world experiment conducted on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Its a worst case example, of the consequences of widespread prolonged exposure to the virus.

  • There were 3711 people on board. They all had constant, heavy exposure to the virus. The population skewed far older than the general population.
    • (But likely had few really sick people at the start of the cruise.)
  • ONLY 20% OF PEOPLE GOT INFECTED.
  • Out of the 20% who got infected, only 1/2 had any symptoms
  • A very small percent were seriously ill.
  • 10 people died. (Only .27% of the population of the ship)

Wuhan Coronavirus seems similar to pneumonia. Pneumonia affects weaker, sicker people more seriously and can cause death even in healthier people without the use of antibiotics. Without antibiotics, there would be many more pneumonia deaths. Advanced cases of pneumonia would require ventilators to keep people alive, just like with Wuhan Coronavirus.

Antibiotics used to cure pneumonia do not seem to work on the Wuhan Coronavirus. But the malaria drug Chloroquine phosphate, seems able to take the place of antibiotics. It has shown success in treating Wuhan Cornovirus infections. Like any drug, the earlier it is applied the more effective it will be.

When the media reports deaths due to Wuhan Coronavirus and predicts high ventilator usage, are they factoring in any Chloroquine phosphate treatment? How many doctors are even prescribing it? In what seems to be a politically motivated move, Nevada’s Democrat governor has even banned the use of anti-malaria drugs for Wuhan Coronavirus patients.

Wouldn’t it be more prudent to isolate those people most vulnerable to Wuhan Coronavirus or pneumonia to protect them? While the rest of us practice good hygiene – washing hands often when out, and not touching our eyes, mouths and nose. Pretend the surfaces you touch with your hands are contaminated and react accordingly.

If a year from now, Wuhan Coronavirus infection rates and death rates are proven similar to pneumonia, and Chloroquine phosphate ends up being an effective early treatment drug, there will be a lot of politicians with a lot of explaining to do about why they shutdown the economy and destroyed so many jobs and businesses when better options were available.

 

Added  3/28 – More date on Chloroquine.  Study finds Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin Effective.  80 patients  – All showed improvement  except for a very sick 86-year-old with an advanced form of coronavirus infection.

 

Added 3/30 –  FDA Issues Emergency Authorization for the Use of Hydroxychloroquine to Combat Coronavirus 

Minnesota Persecutes Christian Couple

Larsens

Carl and Angel Larsen live in St. Cloud, Minnesota. They are an openly Christian couple who operate Telescope Media Group, a video production company.

Their website proclaims: “Telescope Media Group exists to glorify God through top-quality media production. As much as it depends on us, we aim to make God look more like He really is through our lives, business, and actions. We want to magnify Christ like a telescope.”

They want to expand into making wedding videos and movies. In keeping with their mission statement, they want to glorify God by focusing only on God pleasing marriages. Since God defines homosexual acts as sinful in the Bible, these relationships cannot be God pleasing. The Larsens should have the freedom to choose their clients in a way that fulfills their business plan. (Note: The Larsens are making no attempts to get homosexual relationships banned, or force their religious views on others.)

Minnesota disagrees and is using the power of the state to persecute the Larsens and other Christians.

Minnesota’s Democrat Attorney General, Kieth Ellison, has interpreted the state’s Human Rights Act to mandate that the the Larsens must also make films celebrating homosexual same-sex marriages. Penalties include payment of a civil penalty to the state; triple compensatory damages; punitive damages of up to $25,000; a criminal penalty of up to $1,000; and even up to 90 days in jail. No exemptions for religious freedom.

The Larsen’s sued Minnesota in federal court for this violation of their constitutional rights. Minnesota eagerly accepted the legal challenge.

Court records reveal the zeal Minnesota has used to force homosexual weddings on the citizenry. Even setting up sting operations against Christians. “It has even employed “testers” to target noncompliant businesses, and it has already pursued a successful enforcement action against a wedding vendor who refused to rent a venue for a same-sex wedding.” (The large Somali Muslim community has not been targeted by Ellison to date. Ellison is a Muslim.)

Minnesota won the first round. Minneapolis U.S. District Judge John Tunheim (appointed by Clinton) ruled against the Larsens.

The Larsens won round two. On appeal a three judge panel on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Larsens. Judges David Stras (Trump appointee) and Bobby E. Shepherd (W. Bush appointee) ruled for the Larsens; Judge Jane Kelly (Obama appointee) ruled against the Larsens

Rather than accept this loss, or appealing to the Supreme Court, AG Kieth Ellison has filed a new case in federal court against the Larsens. This begins to look like lawfare, with Ellison using the massive resources of a state government to force a small business to either surrender or be bankrupted with legal costs. Alliance Defending Freedom is representing the Larsens to help reduce the massive legal costs.

Current Minnesota government is hostile to religious freedom for Christians and freedom in general.

The Larsen’s case offers insight with respect to the positions taken by the national political parties:

– Notice how every Democrat appointed judge ruled to create a constitutional right for homosexuality (The Constitution is silent on sexual orientation), while every Republican appointed judge ruled in favor of religious freedom in the 1st Amendment.

– Numerous Republican led states filed court briefs in support of the Larsens. Numerous states with Democrat governments filed court briefs supporting Minnesota.

In closing:

Did Minnesotans realize they were electing an Attorney General who would spend tax dollars seeking out and targeting Christian businesses who did not want to participate in homosexual weddings?

If Minnesota’s government can force a Christian couple to participate in homosexual ceremonies against their will, can they force pastors to perform the homosexual weddings? This is a grave danger to religious freedom.

Scot Wolf is the author of The Bible and Constitution Made America Great By Providing Freedom and Liberty to Citizens, available in hardcover at Amazon.com, or at www.RestoretheFoundation.com, or as a Nook or Kindle eBook.

Return Congress to their Home Districts

America’s elected leaders in Congress have become a ruling class in many ways. Congress was originally intended to be the branch of government most closely tied to the people. That tie has been greatly weakened as citizen legislators have given way to permanent legislators that hold their seats for many terms. These members of Congress spend decades living in DC and can easily loose touch with their constituents. Sometimes members of Congress do not even maintain a home with the people they are supposed to represent. It can be argued that a representative living and working in Washington DC, represents Washington DC rather that their former areas.

Let’s take a look at a representative (Maxine Waters) and two senators (Pat Roberts and Mary Landrieu) as examples.

Waters District

California representative Maxine Waters (CA-43) lives outside of her district in a 6,000-square foot, $4 million mansion in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Her neighborhood is just 6% black.

She has little in common with the people in her district. CA-43 is 24% black, full of gangs and poverty. Maybe the district would get a few of its problems addressed if their congressperson lived there!

If Waters wants to remain in Congress, she should move into CA-43 or run in the wealthy district where she resides.

Like Waters, around 20 members of The House did not reside in their districts in the last election. Usually they lived nearby, and in some cases their district had been redrawn after the member was first elected. Shouldn’t representatives be required to live in their districts? Being elected to Congress is a privilege, not a right.

In 2014, it was exposed that Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) no longer had a “home” in Kansas. Roberts owns a house, but has rented it out for years despite using it as his “voting address”. He stays at a donor’s house when he comes to visit Kansas. Seriously? How many days was Roberts in Kansas during his 6-year term? More than one or two days a year? His favorite donor does not run a bed-and-breakfast after all. Shouldn’t Roberts have to be a resident of Kansas to represent it?

It also came to light that Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) did not have a home in her state of Louisiana. Landrieu listed her parents house in New Orleans as her Louisiana domicile. The Senator, her eight siblings and mother own the New Orleans house together. Landrieu lived in her home in Washington D.C with her husband. (I’m sure Mary and her husband spent many days in Louisiana visiting with her mom and siblings together in their crowded house.)

Working at Home

In addition to living in their states and districts, wouldn’t it be better for representatives to work in their districts too? Instead of constituents being limited to the occasional town hall with a visiting representative, how about having their rep frequently working at their district office?

Senators should be working from the capitol of their states – near the state legislatures. Senators were originally intended to represent the states. After multiple terms in office, many senators like Robert and Landrieu, become enamored with the DC lifestyle. They don’t want to work in places like Topeka, KS, or Baton Rouge, LA. They need to spend more time working among the country class rather than the ruling class.

It is possible for Congress to productively work from many home offices spread throughout the nation. In this day of internet and mass connectivity, members of Congress should be able to vote from their home offices in a secure manner. Likewise congressional committee meetings can be held via video conference from the home offices. Watch cable TV news shows, and you will see many interviews or panels conducted with the parties in different locations/states. It works just fine.

To return Congress to their homes, here is a proposed constitutional amendment. The objective is to make sure elected representatives and their staffs spend more time among their constituents than Washington DC elites. Representatives and staff will better understand constituent needs and concerns by living and working among them.

Congressional Residence Amendment to Constitution

    • Members of Congress must have primary residence in their state or district
    • Each senator must establish a home office in the state capitol of their state. Each senator must work from this office 180 days per year.
    • Each representative must establish a home office in their congressional district. Each representative must work from this office a minimum of 180 days per year.
    • Each member must make public the days spent in their home office. Failure to spend 180 days in their home office will make them ineligible to run for the office in the next election.
    • All congressional staff must have primary residence in the home state or district of their congressman.
    • All congressional staff must work primarily from the home office of their congressman.

Congress could do this without an amendment, but they won’t. Many of them have no desire to spend time in their districts outside of campaigning before election time. They prefer the wining and dining lifestyle of lobbyist-rich DC. Likewise Congress will not pass this amendment on its own. Passage will need a constitutional Convention of States, where 34 state delegations agree to the amendment, followed by ratification of 38 state legislatures.

The DC Congress has spawned scores of lobbyists living in DC (many on K Street). Lobbyists will strongly oppose this amendment. They love being able to influence Congress from their DC offices. Lobbyists have no desire to be forced travel the nation trying to meet with congressmen!

Can Congress function away from DC?

Recent Congresses in DC have set the bar for functionality very low. The Senate has allowed itself to be tied up in knots with a 60 vote rule to pass any legislation. Since the two parties are usually diametrically opposed, and neither has 60 votes, nothing passes. So why are the Senators sitting in DC when they are not voting. Placing members and staff away from the DC culture might actually introduce more common sense into legislation.

Congressional Time in Session

The congressional legislative bodies spend a very limited time actually in session. The House of Representatives has averaged 138 legislative days a year; The Senate was in session an average of 162 days a year. (From 2001-2016 according to the Library of Congress) This averages about one day of work every three days, or fewer than three days a week.

If there are 260 working days per year, 180 days at the home office still leaves about 80 days for members to be in Washington DC at their capitol offices. (More if weekends are worked) Congress could be in session many more days if its members could be “in session” from their home offices.

Congressional Oversight

Congress has the responsibility to oversee the entire federal government and approve spending to fund it. Honestly, both Republican and Democrat controlled Congresses have failed spectacularly in their oversight. Can anyone recall one event in either the Obama or Trump presidencies where a congressional oversight committee accomplished anything? But there will still be 80 working days in DC for oversight committees to do their work. Weekends can be worked in more time is needed.

Congressional Budgeting

For the last decade-plus Congress hasn’t even bothered with budgets or specific spending bills. They just wait till a week before the new fiscal year begins, then create a “must-pass” omnibus bill to fund the entire government. It doesn’t take many days in DC to do this! The budget process clearly seems to be broken, and moving the process into districts will not make it any worse.

When representatives and staff go to Washington DC to work, it should be like a business trip for them. Reversing the current mindset of working from DC and “visiting” their voters. This amendment will go along way toward making Congress more in tune with the citizens than the governing class.

 

Scot Wolf is the author of The Bible and Constitution Made America Great By Providing Freedom and Liberty to Citizens, available at Amazon.com, or at www.RestoretheFoundation.com, or as a Nook or Kindle eBook.

The GOP Congress has Lost its Way

LeadershipRemember the 80’s and 90’s when the Republican Party under the Leadership of Reagan and Gingrich stood for limited government, less spending, and was Pro-Life? No longer. The McConnell – Ryan led GOP Congress seems to stand for more spending and abortion.

The latest example is an Amendment by Senator Rand Paul to stop sending taxpayer dollars to abortion provider Planned Parenthood. It failed as several GOP Senators want to fund the killing of babies in the womb.

Sadly this is consistent with GOP Establishment Leadership. Every year the GOP has held the House and Senate this decade, they have FUNDED PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

With this act current GOP Congressional Leaders have abandoned two major planks that made the GOP Great:

  1. They support abortion on demand with each annual budget vote.
  2. They cannot even stop funding an activity that their core voters find immoral and repugnant.

If the GOP does lose Congress in the midterms, it will be because they spit in the face of their base.

Will Northern California Counties Join Nevada?

While it is unlikely that California will pass all the legal barriers to split into multiple states, it could be much easier for counties to leave California and join Nevada.

New Nevada

The Bible and Constitution Made America Great: Appendix 4

Over the last several decades there has been an interesting division in America. It can best be seen by looking at a color-coded map showing the results of a presidential vote by county. There are dots of blue (Democrat) that represent large cities and metropolitan areas which are more liberal. Then there is a surrounding sea of red (Republican) representing rural counties which are more conservative.

Often cities and urban areas, with their higher populations, dominate state governments by electing a majority of the state legislators. There is nothing wrong with this, except there can be conflict when a majority imposes its view on the minority. In this case it is liberal cities imposing their political beliefs and agendas on conservative counties.

What are the issues? A few are:

  • Gun control laws that restrict ownership of guns or ammunition.
  • Green energy laws that mandate certain percentages of energy be produced from wind power or solar power.
  • Restrictions on oil or natural gas exploration and production.
  • Laws requiring homosexuality be taught in schools.
  • High income tax rates (that may be used to pay for programs primarily benefiting residents of cities).
  • Restrictions on agricultural activities on farm land.

In America today, there are major cultural and economic differences between liberals and conservatives. A number of conservative counties are growing tired of having liberal city politicians dictate and mandate their government policy. They feel they are being denied their right to self-government.

America has had settled state boundaries for well over a century. But as the power of state government has grown and become more invasive in the lives of citizens, there are some who resent it. Sometimes those resenting the state government intrusion form a majority vote of a county. What options do residents of the county have if their concerns are being ignored by their state government? They cannot easily secede to form a new state; the Constitution makes that difficult.

There may be another alternative for these counties. The key wording is: “no new State shall be formed… without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” That language imposes a significant barrier, requiring both states and Congress to agree. This is most likely impossible, as the politicians of states like power and their power is greater with more constituents living under their jurisdiction.

In essence, since a new state will not be formed, groups of counties switching states have a much lower hurdle to clear. If a group of counties leaves state A to join state B, all that is required is an affirmative secession vote by the counties and acceptance by state B to let them join the state.

There is no question state A will sue to prevent the counties from leaving its jurisdiction, and the case will go to the Supreme Court, as it should. New law is being made. The author’s guess is that if the Court has a majority of originalist justices (Chapter 14), who interpret the Constitution as it was written, the ruling will confirm “a new state is not being formed” and the counties will be allowed to leave.

Shouldn’t counties have the right to choose the type of government that they desire? Isn’t this consistent with freedom?

 

Scot Wolf  has authored: The Bible and Constitution Made America Great available at Amazon.com, or by contacting SGWBookPartners@gmail.com. Follow on Twitter: ScotWolf@RestorFoundaton or Facebook: Restore the Foundation @Constitution1788

 

#NeverRyan

 

 

Ryan-For-Real-2

What Catholic votes to spend taxpayer dollars to kill babies and sell their body parts?

Paul Ryan.

Every year Paul Ryan has been Speaker, he creates a single massive spending bill that Democrats love and support, then forces it through the House at the last second to “prevent a government shutdown.”

This latest bill was again Ryan’s doing. He chose to bypass his fellow GOP House members and write the bill with McConnell plus Democrats Pelosi & Schumer.

Conservative House Freedom Caucus member Mark Meadows summed up Ryan’s latest omnibus spending bill:

– Record spending levels

– No wall/border security

– ObamaCare intact

– Funds Planned Parenthood

– Sanctuary Cities funded

– Barely 24 hours to read a 2,300 page bill

This Omnibus is so far from what the forgotten men and women of America voted for. I will oppose it. — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) March 22, 2018

Despite repeated promises from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, that Planned Parenthood would be defunded of taxpayer money once Republicans were in charge, the funding remains. Planned Parenthood has received over $500,000,000 every year Paul Ryan has been Speaker. During the last six years, Planned Parenthood performed more than 1,000,000 abortions of unborn babies, on average around 325,000 per year.

No conservative Republican should ever vote for a bill that funds abortion. A conservative Speaker would never let a bill containing abortion funding to even reach the House floor. It should be a given that a GOP House will never fund abortion. If Democrats wish to shutdown the government to fund abortion, let them.

Beyond the critical abortion issue, there is limited government – a Reagan-conservative staple. Has the Ryan/McConnell controlled Congress, eliminated a single federal government agency or department? No. (Solutions – Chapter 20 has numerous proposals for eliminating non-constitutional federal agencies.)

Where is the border wall funding in the bill? This was arguably the biggest promise candidate Trump made. Yet the Ryan/McConnell GOP Establishment continue to try their best to block Trump’s Wall. I do not recall ever seeing a party in power fighting against its own president!

Conservatives gave the GOP control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. Yet, Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell give Democrats most of what the Dems want. Maybe because they all want big government. The GOP leaders have shown themselves to be swamp creatures that need to be left high and dry.

“The American people didn’t elect Democrats to control the United States Congress. They elected Republicans.”@Jim_Jordan (Freedom Caucus).

As tempting as it would be to throw out all 145 House Republicans who voted for this disgusting omnibus spending bill, this would just put Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House as Speaker.

Yes the Democrats would be even worse! That is why the Establishment doesn’t fear or respect conservatives. They think we have no other options but to keep voting for them. But we do have a way to hold party leaders accountable.

If party leaders, fail to deliver on their promises, make them pay the price at the next election. Make Paul Ryan lose his election. Losing one seat will have no effect on GOP control and will not hurt the conservative cause. (It will likely help it!) But, defeating Ryan will send shock waves through DC and make the GOP establishment pay attention! #NEVERRYAN.

#NEVERRYAN in 2018

Paul Nehlen is challenging Paul Ryan in the GOP Primary. Conservatives and Christians should flock to his campaign to send Ryan packing. But the Establishment is strong. They often spend millions of dollars lying about their primary opponents. Often accusing them of not being “true conservatives”. What hypocrisy and chutzpah!

If RYAN wins the primary using all the benefits of an establishment incumbent, a solid conservative strategy is to continue to vote #NEVERRYAN. Christians and Conservatives need to vote for the Democrat in Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District to defeat Ryan.

The GOP Establishment never shows any loyalty to conservative non-establishment candidates.

I am not going to defend Donald Trump—not now, not in the future,” Ryan says in a Oct. 10, 2016 conference call with House Republican members. House Speaker Paul Ryan abandoned GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump right before the 2016 election.

Time for conservatives to return the favor! If Ryan can be a NEVERTRUMP’er why can’t conservatives be #NEVERRYAN‘ers ?

Only 40,000 Conservatives Needed!

In 2014, the last non presidential election year, Ryan won over his challenger (Democrat Rob Zerban) 182,316 to 105,552. That’s ONLY a 76,764 vote margin. Half of those voters switching will defeat Ryan.

It takes 40,000 GOP conservative voters to vote for the Democrat and against Paul Ryan for the upset to occur. NO MORE SPEAKER RYAN working against conservative policies. End Ryan’s RINO reign as Speaker.

Calling for 40,000 #NEVERRYAN Conservatives in Wisconsin Congressional District 1

Ryan WI CD1

Mitch McConnell’s reckoning will come in 2020 when he is next up for reelection in the Senate.

Caveat: Ryan has one more chance – another government funding bill will be needed in October 2018 – right before the election. If Ryan finally produces a conservative bill (Fully funding Trump’s border wall, defunding Planned Parenthood and Sanctuary Cities, ….), then we should stop #NEVERRYAN. The choice is up to him, and us.

Scot Wolf is the author of: The Bible and Constitution Made America Great available at Amazon.com, or by contacting SGWBookPartners@gmail.com . Follow on Twitter: ScotWolf@RestorFoundaton

Health Care Cost Crisis and Solution

Health Care Cost Crisis and Solution

Let the States Show it Works

America became an economic superpower because of freedom – specifically free markets. American citizens are able to provide and purchase products and services that they and their fellow citizens desire at very low prices thanks free markets. Free markets work throughout America, and will for health insurance if allowed to.

ObamaCare is the exact opposite of free markets. Government bureaucrats mandated the types of health insurance policies that could be sold, then mandated that citizens buy the policies under threats of jail time courtesy of the IRS. With no freedom on either the buy or sell side, ObamaCare forced government control onto our insurance system. The old Soviet Union aparatchiks would be proud.

As long as there is heavy handed government control, the health care insurance system is likely to remain largely dysfunctional and very expensive. That is the reason ObamaCare should be repealed.

The State Healthcare Challenge

Many Americans have been duped into believing that government control makes our healthcare system work better. So I have a challenge for you: Transfer all government involvement in healthcare to the state governments (Except Medicare, a specific national promise made to senior citizens). All healthcare regulations, mandates, taxes, and subsidies move to the state level of government. States want expanded Medicaid programs? No problem. Just raise the state payroll tax to pay for the increased Medicaid costs in the state.

If government makes it better, a state government can show us how. State governments should have the freedom to design their health systems ranging from full government control (single payer) to little government involvement, or anywhere in between. Let Texas, California, and the other states show us what really works.

ObamaCare is a one size fits all force-fit federal government program. It is constitutionally dubious given the Tenth Amendment limits on federal power. However the Tenth Amendment does not limit state governments. There is nothing stopping a state from instituting its own state-care system. As divided as America is today, states need flexibility to draft the best health care system for themselves.

Why is food cheap, but health care expensive? For an excellent summary of government interference in the health care system, and free market solutions, read or download the Free Chapter: Health Care Cost Crisis and Solution in The Bible and Constitution Made America Great by Providing Freedom and Liberty to Citizens.

 Book Cover 4 1000sq Links to receive:

PDF Chapter

Nook Book

Nook Chapter

Kindle Book

Kindle Chapter

Email: SGWBook@gmail.com

State control also rebuts the typical Democrat talking points: Health Care is a right, and politicians are heartless for not providing it. For Example: Take Democrat leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California. When they begin ranting about heartless Republicans, ask them: Why won’t NY Gov. Coumo provide healthcare to New Yorkers? Why won’t CA Gov. Brown mandate single payer for Californians? Why are they letting their citizens and your constituents go without healthcare? Do they not care enough about their people? Are they heartless?

Maybe the only way to fully repeal Obamacare, while blocking the liberal attacks that GOP Representatives fear, is to transfer ObamaCare’s taxes, regulation and mandates to the states. Then let each state adapt it to its needs.

Scot Wolf

Scot Wolf has B.S. in Chemical Engineering, graduating Magna Cum Laude with Honors, and an MBA. He is a lifelong Christian who believes science and faith should be integrated in forming a worldview. He has authored: The Bible and Constitution Made America Great available at Amazon.com, or by contacting SGWBookPartners@gmail.com. Follow on Twitter: ScotWolf@RestorFoundaton or Facebook: Restore the Foundation @Constitution1788

Stalling a Rogue Court

2016-scotus-3

With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court has become a critical issue in the 2016 presidential election. The next president will replace Scalia. It is documented and discussed in Chapter 14 of The Bible and Constitution Made America Great, how the philosophy of the judicial nominees has differed greatly, depending on the nominating party. There are currently four liberal-activist justices on the Supreme Court (one short of a majority). These judges usually vote as a block on issues favored by the political left. Issues such as ObamaCare, abortion “rights”, the “right” for homosexual marriage and removing religious acts/symbols from the public square.

The activist justices are rogue. Rogue justices ignore constitutional clauses that they dislike and create law to support their rulings. Courts are to enforce law, not create it. Their rulings are in fact illegal, violating the Constitution, the ultimate law of the nation. The next president will nominate at least one justice. Hillary has promised a liberal-activist. Trump has promised a constitutionalist.

The judicial philosophy of the current Supreme Court is dominated by liberal-activism. The justices by their philosophy:

4 Liberal-Activist: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. These justices (all appointed by Democrat presidents) consistently rule in the liberal politically preferred way regardless of the constitutional text.

2 Swing: John G. Roberts, Anthony Kennedy. These justices move back and forth between constitutional and activist rulings. My opinion is that Roberts rules in a constitutional manner about 75% of the time, while Kennedy does so about 50% of the time.

2 Constitutional: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito. These justices consistently rule according to the Constitution. The deceased Antonin Scalia was also a constitutionalist.

These latter four justices were all appointed by Republican presidents.

Three Supreme Court rulings illustrate the judicial activist philosophy in action. In each case the liberal-activists vote as a block for a political objective that a straightforward reading of the Constitution would not allow.

ObamaCare: In 2012, the four liberal-activist justices ruled to give Congress the power to control healthcare. They were joined by swing-justice Roberts to get the needed 5th vote. The ruling ignored the 10th Amendment.

Amendment X:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, limits what Congress can do. A constitutionalist would rule that managing a national healthcare program is not a federal power/responsibility according to this amendment, therefore is illegal. It can be made constitutional by passing an amendment, as was done with Prohibition, where the 18th Amendment granted the federal government the power to ban alcohol.

Homosexual Marriage: In 2015 the Court decided in Obergefell v. Hodges, that the right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples. The four liberal-activist justices were this time joined by swing-justice Kennedy as the 5th deciding vote. The activist justices misused the 14th Amendment in their ruling. This amendment granted rights to newly freed black citizens after the Civil War. It did not mention sex or gender. The ruling also violated the 10th Amendment which leaves marriage law at the state level (where it resided for the first 225 years of America).

Liberal logic has already forced Christian bakers, photographers, restaurants, and florists to either participate in homosexual weddings, or close their businesses. It is very likely that a block of five liberal-activist Supreme Court justices will one day mandate churches either perform homosexual weddings or cease performing weddings. No one should be shocked if justices who make a practice of ignoring constitutional amendments they disagree with, will also ignore the 1st Amendment’s religious protections.

Mojave War Memorial Cross Case: In 2010 four liberal-activist justices ruled that a cross must be removed from a memorial on federal land. The cross had stood for 75 years, being erected after World War I by The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). In this case the two swing justices both went with the constitutionalists, foiling the liberal-activist block. The federal courts have no right to ban any cross or any religious symbol according to the 1st Amendment (free exercise of religion cannot be prohibited). The owners of the land can decide whether a cross can be displayed (discussed in the book). In this case the landowner was the federal government, so decisions should have fallen to the President and/or Congress as the managers of the federal land. Both approved of the cross memorial. Our elected representatives decide what can be displayed or constructed on the land.

It is disturbing that Democrat presidents have been committed to placing liberal-activist justices on the Supreme Court. Our Constitution was designed to be changed by amendment (requiring a super-majority of the nation), not through the vote of five unelected justices. In essence, the Supreme Court has been acting as an illegal ongoing constitutional convention that requires 5 votes for ratification. constitutionalist justices remove this power from the court.

The practical implications of presidential voting are easily deduced. Had Obama lost the election in 2008 (McCain won), two of the liberal activist Obama appointees would almost assuredly be constitutional or swing justices. If Hillary becomes President this year, there will most assuredly be a liberal-activist justice replacing Scalia.

The Supreme Court philosophy and power is indeed a major factor in the 2016 presidential election.

 

http://constitution.com/stalling-dangerously-rogue-court/