Month: May 2020

At a time when huge spending bills marked “coronavirus relief” are easily passing Congress with little scrutiny, poorly run states are asking unscrupulous members of Congress to slip in taxpayer bailouts to rescue them from years of their own fiscal mismanagement.

In response, the House of Representatives on Friday passed a coronavirus relief bill that includes a half trillion dollars (trillion with a “t”) in unrestricted funds to bail out state governments for years of reckless expenditures entirely unrelated to the pandemic.

I have the same reaction to these proposals that I had when I worked in government and people were proposing millions of dollars in monuments to little known people on what seemed like every street corner, while many Americans were out of work and struggling to make their next mortgage payment: “Have you lost your mind?”

People are suffering, and federal taxpayers have already sent states and localities hundreds of billions of dollars to help pay for expenses related to fighting the coronavirus. States have received more than $200 billion in grants and $500 billion in loans to municipal governments.

Add to that the fact that state and local governments are also benefiting from the more than $1 trillion in federal coronavirus relief that has flowed to their businesses and residents in the form of small business loans, relief checks, and increased unemployment benefits.

Some states haven’t even spent all of their coronavirus grant money because the pandemic didn’t hit them as hard as anticipated, yet many are asking for more. They just don’t want to have to spend the money on actual coronavirus relief this time.

Sen. Rick Scott, a Florida Republican, is one of the voices in Congress speaking out against state bailouts, calling the funding “a piggy bank for unrelated expenses that have nothing to do with responding to the coronavirus.”

He rightly warns that the money will be used to bail out pension plans, reward decades of mismanagement, and encourage states to become even more dependent on the federal government.

Many states want to use the money to rescue their woefully underfunded pension plans. For years, rather than putting money into these pension plans to ensure they could fund the retirements they promised to their state employees, politicians diverted money into other spending projects.

Bailing out states is, simply put, a bad idea. It shields politicians from the consequences of their actions and encourages the same reckless spending habits that got them into a financial mess in the first place.

That wouldn’t just harm the rest of us federal taxpayers; it would also do long-lasting harm to their citizens: When federal taxpayer funding runs out, the reckless spending and bigger budgets remain, and states will just raise taxes on their own citizens to make up the difference.

Federal bailouts of the states in the early 2000s and in the Great Recession of 2007-09 show us that these fiscally irresponsible leopards seldom change their spots.

In 2003, states received $20 billion in federal aid, but instead of balancing their books, many states just increased their spending and debt.

Again in 2009, much of the $300 billion slated for state governments to help them recover from the recession was used instead to permanently expand government programs. For instance, states were given about $50 billion to stabilize their education systems, but instead, many used the funds to add brand new staff positions.

There is an old adage that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The insanity of state bailouts must end. Sending mismanaged states hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts is basically like giving a drug addict money and telling him not to buy drugs with it.

While many in Congress oppose these bailouts, some say they might be a necessary component to any relief package. That’s because pro-bailout members of Congress are willing to hold hostage the rest of the package in order to get them included.

For the good of taxpayers everywhere, lawmakers must resist bailouts. Instead, Congress should provide targeted and temporary relief for taxpayers, families, and businesses to fight the devastating health and economic effects of the coronavirus pandemic, not pay the past-due bills that fiscally irresponsible politicians have racked up over the years.

Originally published by The Washington Times

The post A Bailout Won’t Help States With No Financial Backbone appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

In a recent “Fireside Chat,” my weekly talk show on the PragerU platform, I commented on society’s increasing fixation on being “safe.”

The following is a condensed version of what I said. We have a meme up at PragerU: “‘Until it’s safe’ means ‘never.’”

The pursuit of “safe” over virtually all other considerations is life-suppressing. This is true for your own individual life, and it is true for the life of a society.

I always give the following example: I’ve been taking visitors to Israel for decades, and for all those decades, people have called my radio show to say, “Dennis, I would so love to visit Israel, but I’m just going to wait until it’s safe.” And I’ve always told these people, “Then you’ll never go.”

And sure enough, I’ve gone there more than 20 times, and they never went.

I have never led my life on the basis of “until it’s safe.” I do not take ridiculous risks. I wear a seatbelt whenever I’m in a car because the chances are overwhelming that in a bad accident, a seatbelt can save my life. But I get into the car, which is not 100% safe.

You are not on Earth to be safe. You are on Earth to lead a full life. I don’t want my epitaph to be “He led a safe life.” It’s like another epitaph I don’t want: “He experienced as little pain as possible.”

The nature of this world is such that if you aim for 100% safety and no pain, you don’t live.

I have visited 130 countries, some of which were not particularly safe. Safe, as in “no risk,” doesn’t exist.

Accepting that there are degrees of safety and balancing risk with reward are part of the reason I’ve led a rich life.

I’ll give a personal example. I started teaching myself to conduct an orchestra when I was in my teens. I have conducted orchestras periodically for much of my adult life. As a guest conductor, I raise funds for orchestras, as I did two years ago at the Disney Concert Hall, where I conducted a Haydn symphony with the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra.

Now, I rarely get nervous. But the first time I conducted, I was so nervous I was actually dripping sweat onto the score—and it was only a rehearsal.

What I did was not play it safe. Playing it safe would have meant I wouldn’t have accepted the invitation to conduct.

All of life confronts you with this question: Are you going to take risks or play it safe? If you play it safe, you don’t get married. If you play it safe, you don’t have kids. There are real risks in getting married. There are real risks in having children.

Take the issue of the word “safe” on campuses. “Safe” is used to suppress freedom of thought, as in: “If we have a conservative speaker on campus, we need a ‘safe space’ where we can avoid feeling discomfort from exposure to ideas we don’t like.”

A conservative speaker comes to campus, and some students go to a “safe space” where they’re given Play-Doh, hot chocolate, and stuffed animals. I’m not joking. That’s what they do at some colleges—for people who are 18 and older.

That’s why Adam Carolla and I named our movie about free speech “No Safe Spaces” (which you can and should watch at NoSafeSpaces.com).

“Safe” has become a dirty word. I rarely use it in the context of living life. It’s one of the reasons I’m a happy person and have led a full life.

I’m thinking of a trivial example, but life is filled with trivial examples. Most of life is not major moments. If I am at a restaurant and my fork or knife falls, I pick it up and use it. They rush over to give me a new one, like I am flirting with death if I take the fork from the floor.

My view is that there’s no reason to come over. The fork fell on the floor. What did it pick up—diphtheria? Am I going to get pancreatic cancer from a fork that fell? I’m not troubled by these things.

“Safe” is going to suppress your joy of life.

When I was 21 years old, I was sent to the Soviet Union to smuggle in religious items for Soviet Jews and to smuggle out names of Jews who wanted to escape the Soviet Union.

It wasn’t safe. I was in a totalitarian state, smuggling things in and out. But it was one of the most important things I’ve done in my life. Not to mention a life-transforming experience.

Before I went, I told my father about my plans. We both knew it wasn’t safe. I’ll never forget what my father said: “Dennis, I spent two and a half years on a Navy ship in World War II, fighting in the Pacific. So you can take risks for a month.”

Yes, he was worried. But this was a man who, despite having a wife and child, enlisted in the U.S. Navy to fight in World War II. He was an officer on a troop transport ship, a prime target of the Japanese. He wasn’t safe.

The World War II generation has been dubbed “the greatest generation.” Part of what made them great was the last thing they would ever ask was “Is it safe?”

If you want to lead a good and full life, you cannot keep asking “Is it safe?” Those at college promoting “safe spaces” are afraid of life, and they want to make you afraid of life.

We’re going crazy on the “safe” issue. It’s making police states. That’s my worry: In the name of safety, many Americans are dropping all other considerations.

“Is it safe?” shouldn’t be the overarching element in your life. Pick the fork up. Wipe it off and use it.

Postscript: Some left-wing media cited the remarks about picking up a fork (transcribed above word-for-word) in order to smear me and the message.

The Daily Beast led with this mendacious headline: “Dennis Prager Licks Dirty Forks to Show COVID Who’s Boss.” And the Daily Mail offered its attack with this headline: “Right-Wing Radio Host Dennis Prager Boasts About Using Dirty Forks From Restaurant Floors in His Latest Rambling Message Downplaying Dangers of Coronavirus That Has Now Killed 88,000 Americans.”

As is obvious, my talk was about “being safe,” not the coronavirus. Please read my prior column about truth and the left.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

The post The Dangers of Pursuing Safety Above All Else appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

With more than 1 in 5 Americans filing for unemployment benefits over the past eight weeks, policymakers’ top priority is clear: restoring conditions that allow workers to resume their previous jobs or find new ones.

Federal assistance can help bridge a temporary gap in employment and incomes, but the only long-term solution is to let people get back to work. After all, deficit-financed unemployment checks are no replacement for the valuable goods and services Americans produce.

Two bills, both introduced in Congress on Tuesday, take a very different approach to helping American workers.

The first, the Getting Americans Back to Work Act introduced by Reps. Ted Budd, R-N.C., and Ken Buck, R-Colo., would fix a highly problematic component of the CARES Act that Congress passed in March.

In addition to vastly expanding eligibility for unemployment benefits, CARES added an additional $600 a week on top of usual unemployment benefits. The Budd-Buck legislation would cap total unemployment benefits at 100% of workers’ previous wages.

Full income replacement is still a big increase from the usual 40% to 50% of workers’ wages that typical state unemployment benefit programs replace.

The CARES Act’s additional $600 per week in federal pandemic unemployment benefits is certainly generous. Too generous, in fact: It’s caused an overwhelming majority of unemployed Americans to receive more from unemployment benefits as from their previous paychecks. In many cases, workers are receiving at least twice their usual paychecks.

These excessive benefits are no doubt welcome to the newly unemployed workers. But in an ironic twist, businesses have factored those benefits into their decisions to furlough or lay off workers instead of keeping them on the payrolls. And those benefits are making it harder for businesses to reopen or ramp back up after temporary shutdowns and slowdowns.

In essence, businesses—especially hard-hit ones such as restaurants, hotels, and retailers—are having to compete with the federal government’s generous unemployment benefits.

When you consider that someone who usually makes $600 per week is receiving $900 from unemployment insurance, it’s not surprising that they might not want to go back to work. After all, the additional benefits amount to an extra $10,000 between April and July 31, when the $600 per week is set to expire.

Another bill, the House Democrats’ HEROES Act (a partisan laundry list that spans more than 1,800 pages), would extend those benefits through the end of next January, including additional extensions through March 31.

It’s too soon to know how long unemployment will remain highly elevated, but one thing is for sure: extending already excessive unemployment benefits won’t help. It will increase unemployment and reduce economic output.

According to a study by researchers at the New York Federal Reserve, the extension in unemployment benefit duration during the Great Recession resulted in a prolonged increase in unemployment, with 4.6 million more people unemployed in 2010 and 3.3 million more unemployed in 2011. And those consequences came with unemployment benefits averaging less than $400 per week as opposed to nearly $1,000 a week today.

Moreover, my colleague and I at The Heritage Foundation estimated that Congress’ provision of the additional $600 unemployment benefit through the end of July could increase unemployment by up to 13.9 million and reduce output by $955 billion and $1.49 trillion between May and September. An additional six- to nine-month extension would significantly exacerbate lost jobs and economic output.

It’s one thing to provide short-term and targeted unemployment benefits during forced shutdowns, but providing a year’s worth of unprecedented additional unemployment benefits—up to an extra $31,200 more per worker—would cripple small businesses as they try to get back on their feet.

It’s also incredibly unfair, and wholly un-American, to pay unemployed workers more than the hardworking Americans who continue to work each day.

Tacking the cost of excessive unemployment benefits onto future taxpayers is not only unfair, but also perilous, considering America’s already-unsustainable fiscal outlook. If unemployment averages 10%, these additional benefits could cost every household in America an extra $3,300 to $4,000 in taxes.

Policymakers should be focused on helping Americans get safely back to work, including granting new flexibilities to allow workplaces to adjust to the conditions of COVID-19.

Humans are hard-wired to be productive. They will be far better off if policymakers focus on enabling work opportunities—such as removing barriers to working, trading, innovating, and investing—than on incentivizing unemployment.

Tribune Content Agency

Originally published in the Chicago Tribune

The post Americans Need Work Opportunities, Not Unemployment Incentives appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

In the United States, we don’t have kings or queens of any variety.

Still, some judges apparently think they are philosopher-kings, and an order released Tuesday by a federal district court judge in Texas shows he may be in that group.

Judge Fred Biery’s order that state officials allow mail-in voting for all eligible voters in upcoming elections seems totally disconnected from the law and reads like a manifesto from a wannabe philosopher-king, complete with rhetorical flourishes, endnotes, and appendices.  

>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.

There are many issues with the opinion.

First, issues of Texas state law are still working their way through Texas state courts—and federal courts often abstain from ruling in such situations.  

Second, Biery brushed aside the concerns of state officials over potential voter fraud, stating in colorful language, “The Court finds the Grim Reaper’s scepter of pandemic disease and death is far more serious than an unsupported fear of voter fraud in this sui generis experience.” He went on to say, “Indeed, if vote by mail fraud is real, logic dictates that all voting should be in person.”

Hold on. 

He acknowledges that between 2005 and 2018, there were 73 prosecutions in Texas for voter fraud, but he buries in the endnotes that “[a]lmost half of [these fraud] cases involved the improper use of absentee ballots, where voter fraud occurs most often.” That’s consistent with information compiled by The Heritage Foundation in its election fraud database.

So, if half of the recorded voter fraud incidents in Texas involved absentee ballots, and research shows that is where voter fraud most often occurs, why reject the state’s concerns that incidents of voter fraud will increase when the use of absentee ballots increases?

Also, as a matter of law, he granted relief to parties who didn’t ask for it and who weren’t even part of the lawsuit. The suit was brought by three individuals who wanted to vote by mail in the upcoming Texas Democratic runoff primary election, the Texas Democratic Party, and the chairman of the Texas Democratic Party.

Granting relief to these individuals wasn’t enough. “Though Republican voters are not parties to this case, the Court finds it would discriminate against Republicans not to afford them the same health safety precautions of voting by mail. Accordingly, the court sua sponte concludes this Order shall extend to allow Republican voters to vote by mail as well should they claim disability because of lack of immunity from or fear of contracting COVID-19.”

As this case illustrates, there appears to be a growing problem of federal district court judges disregarding the Supreme Court’s recent admonition against framing and ruling on the case as they see fit, rather than ruling on the case as presented by the parties.

The judge concludes his fanciful opinion by stating: “For want of a vote, our democracy and the Republic would be lost, and government of the people, by the people and for the people shall perish from the earth.” He opines that “[c]itizens should have the option to choose voting by letter carrier versus voting with disease carriers” 

Really? That’s up to the state legislature to decide, not a lone federal judge. In Texas, you already can vote by absentee ballot if there is a reason you can’t vote in person on Election Day, such as sickness or disability.

And those over 65 can vote absentee without an excuse.

It is not clear from his opinion where Biery thinks he gets the authority to decide how Texans will vote.

On top of that, his opinion makes a number of odd claims. For example, it says that those who oppose going to all-mail elections want to return us to the “not so thrilling days of yesteryear of the Divine Right of Kings.” We are going to return to a monarchy unless everyone in Texas can vote through the mail?

He also claims those opposing this are “trading our birthright as a sovereign people for a modern mess of governing pottage in the hands of a few.” Unfortunately, the only “mess of governing pottage” seems to be his opinion.

His statement that “[f]or those who have recently awakened from a Rip Van Winkle sleep, the entire world is mostly without immunity and fearfully disabled” ignores the fact that residents of Texas can resume many in-person activities following appropriate social distancing guidance.

Apparently, it’s safe enough for Texans to shop at Walmart in person, but not safe enough for them to vote in person. He does not even discuss the fact that Wisconsin recently successfully held its primary election with in-person voting, implementing all of the safety protocols recommended by experts

At one point, Biery claims that allowing only those over 65 to vote by absentee ballot without an excuse violates the 26^th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18.

He ignores the 1969 case, McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners, in which the U.S. Supreme Court said that although we have a fundamental right to vote, we don’t have a right to vote by absentee ballot through the mail. That is a privilege, not a right.

Sadly, the state’s only option at this point is to appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and hope for a quick ruling while also continuing to litigate the issue in Texas state courts. The 5th Circuit temporarily stopped Biery’s order from taking effect while it considers the case.

This lone federal judge wrote that “‘We the People’ get just about the government and political leaders we deserve, but deserve to have a safe and unfettered vote to say what we get.” He’s right. But it raises the question: Who voted for him?

Biery’s job was to call balls and strikes. Unfortunately, that’s not what happened here.

The post Judges Aren’t Kings. This One Didn’t Get the Memo. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

Luongo: Joe Rogan Just Blew Up The Death Star

Tyler Durden

Fri, 05/22/2020 – 09:30

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.zerohedge.com/fullrss2.xml

Researchers at Australian National University (ANU) have called for ‘climate change’ to be recorded as a cause of death on death certificates. They claim that in Australia, the rate of people dying as a result of global warming may be 50 times higher than is officially acknowledged.

In a letter to The Lancet Planetary Health, researchers Arnagretta Hunter and Simon Quilty claim the impact of climate change is currently understated.

National mortality records in Australia suggest substantial under-reporting of heat-related mortality. Less than 0·1% of 1·7 million deaths between 2006 and 2017 were attributed directly or indirectly to excessive natural heat. However, recent research indicates that official records underestimate the association at least 50-fold.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald:

Over the past 11 years in Australia, just 340 deaths have been recorded as being caused by excessive heat, but statistical analysis by two doctors with the Australian National University shows that 36,765 could have been attributed to heat.

“Climate change is a killer, but we don’t acknowledge it on death certificates,” co-author Arnagretta Hunter, from the ANU Medical School, said.

And:

“Climate change is the single greatest health threat that we face globally even after we recover from coronavirus.

“We are successfully tracking deaths from coronavirus, but we also need healthcare workers and systems to acknowledge the relationship between our health and our environment.”

Dr Hunter and her co-author Dr Simon Quilty, call for death certificates to include more information about factors contributing to deaths.

Climate activists around the world see the coronavirus pandemic as a crisis which they must not allow to go to waste. The timing of this letter suggests that they are learning their lessons well. They may have noted that in many countries, the medical authorities have adopted extraordinarily lax policies towards the inclusion of “Covid-19” on death certificates.

In the UK, for example, as Ronan Maher has reported here and here, the Coronavirus Act (2020) includes clauses which makes it possible for doctors to put Covid-19 as a cause of death on certificates without even having seen the patient before their death — and with little independent oversight. This makes it quite possible that significant numbers of Coronavirus victims either did not have the disease – or did have the disease but only as a minor adjunct to much more serious conditions which killed them.

As the authors of the letter to Lancet Planetary Health must surely be aware, including ‘climate change’ as a cause of death on death certificates is fraught with similar difficulties. As well as being easily abused by activists with an agenda, it is impossible to attribute with any certainty even extreme weather events to climate change.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

The post Socialist Tyrant in Venezuela and Iranian Regime Position for Confrontation with Trump Administration appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

The lazy left begs to differ,.

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

Is this the country for which our soldiers sacrificed their lives?

By now, most Americans are familiar with the shocking stories of everyday Americans getting arrested for simply opening businesses that don’t even attract large crowds. However, fewer are aware of the other side of this dystopian and tyrannical equation. As salt-of-the-earth small business owners are being marched into the jails, career dangerous criminals are being marched out of the jails and prisons in astounding numbers.

According to the ACLU, which is spearheading the movement to release as many criminals as possible, 67,000 criminals have been released throughout the 50 states.  The majority of the criminals, 43,000 of them, have been released from the nation’s jails, and 24,356 were released from prisons.

Consequently, given that we know the shocking degree of recidivism even among criminals more carefully selected for release, we can add victims of crime due to coronavirus jailbreak as the latest long-term death toll from COVID-19, or at least from the governmental reaction to it.

Remember, this has nothing to do with fear of prisoners dying of coronavirus. Just a few hundred deaths have been recorded out of a population of 2.2 million inmates, lower than that of the general population. In most prisons, the overwhelming majority of those who got the virus have been asymptomatic and are now already immune and have been for quite some time. Thus, there is no reason to release large numbers of convicted criminals, most of whom are young and healthy.

This has everything to do with accelerating an already dangerous de-incarceration movement, which is why you shouldn’t hold your breath and wait for them to be re-apprehended after the virus burns out.

According to a brand-new report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2018, the combined federal and state incarceration rate in prisons had already dropped to the lowest levels since 1996. Over the past year and half since that data collection, that decline has likely accelerated given the recent sweeping jailbreak policies enacted in so many states.

Despite the common complaint of over-incarceration among African-Americans, the incarceration rate fell 28 percent just in the 10 years from 2008-2018. That is for prisons. In the nation’s jails, the incarceration rate has plummeted so steeply that, for black residents, it was lower in 2018 than at any time since 1990. Again, that was before some of the recent law changes abolishing or limiting bail in many states and counties.

As such, those who had remained in prison as of early this year were the worst of the worst.

Consider the insanity of Hawaii. The state has released roughly 38% of the state’s entire jail population. This is a state where there are just 17 COVID-19 deaths overall and no confirmed cases in jails. Yet they emptied them of criminals. In early May, a 20-year-old Hawaiian was arrested for murder just two weeks after being released out of fear of the virus! At the same time, the state has the strictest lockdown in the nation. One man was arrested for posting photos of himself at the beach after the fact!

As I’ve noted throughout this crisis, so many of these criminals are extremely dangerous and have dozens of arrests on their rap sheets, yet they are deemed eligible for release if the last crime for which they are serving time is supposedly “low-level.” In the dystopian thinking of these politicians, that entitles them to a lower risk of dying of the coronavirus than the rest of the country. Yet, at the same time, they have zero problem placing the ultimate low-level “criminals,” aka you and me, in jail with no concern that we may catch the virus there.

The recidivism of these people is unbelievable. According to the New York Post, out of the 276 shooting incidents in New York City so far this year, 19 percent of suspected or arrested gunmen having been released this year. Also, 13% of the incidents’ more than 315 victims were also out on parole. Thus, we have created a shooting war among released criminals. Ironically, they are much more likely to die from homicide than from the virus.

Overall, this year, shootings are up 21% in the city and break-ins have jumped 38%. As of just the first few weeks of the epidemic, the city released more than 1,500 criminals.

It’s not just other criminals who are victims of those released from prison. In Washington State, a career felon who was just released was arrested after allegedly attacking a woman on a hiking trail and nearly choking her to death. A man convicted of armed robbery was released early in Denver and is now accused of murdering a young woman less than a month after his coronavirus jailbreak.

As of 2018, at 23.2 victimizations per 1,000 persons, anyone outside a nursing home is several hundred times more likely to be victimized by a violent crime than to die of coronavirus. With the release of so many more criminals since 2018, that risk has likely grown exponentially. Has anyone asked Dr. Fauci to simulate a model of these forgotten COVID-19 deaths?

Between releasing criminals while arresting small business owners and locking down the healthy while downright infecting nursing homes with 4,300 sick patients sent back from hospitals, this is no longer the country for which our soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice. For the sake of their memory, it’s time to take back our republic this Memorial Day.

The post Horowitz: 67K criminals released so far under coronavirus jailbreak. And crime keeps rising appeared first on Conservative Review.

via Conservative Review

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.conservativereview.com

Several hairdressers and barbers held a rally Wednesday in support of 77-year-old Michigan barber Karl Manke.
Menke opened his shop defying tyrannical Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s orders. A Michigan judge later refused to shut down this Michigan barber’s shop based on Whitmer’s unconstitutional order.

Following the court’s decision Whitmer revoked Karl Manke’s license.
She will not allow the common people to defy her rule.

A judge refused to shut down this Michigan barber’s shop based on her unconstitutional order.

Instead of accepting the decision, @GovWhitmer & her lackeys have now REVOKED his license.

This is a government harassing an innocent man & abusing its power.https://t.co/VN3RSs0BWF

— Cliff Maloney (@LibertyCliff) May 14, 2020

On Thursday a Michigan judge ruled that Karl Manke, who defied the state’s stay-at-home order and opened his business, does not have to close.

Following the ruling the wild-eyed Attorney General Dana Nessel announced she will appeal the judge’s decision.
This disobedience will not be allowed.

In response Karl told the AG, “You’re not my mother.”

Via Varney and Co.:

The post 77-Yr-Old Barber Wins Right to Open Business – Tells Unhinged Michigan AG “You’re Not My Mother” (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com