Month: May 2020

On Tuesday, Texas may have created the anti-lockdown movement’s first martyr when a Dallas judge sentenced hairstylist Shelley Luther to a week in prison for the crime of trying to provide for her own and her employee’s families.

Texas is home to 28,995,881 people. It’s had 32,879 diagnosed Wuhan virus cases (that is, 0.11% of the population got diagnosed) and 890 virus deaths (0.003% of the population). Most of the cases are linked to nursing homes or people with co-morbidities. Even in nursing homes, though, things needn’t be so dire. One doctor’s experiment shows that early intervention with the hydroxychloroquine cocktail can result in a 92% successful treatment rate.

Both the state of Texas and the county of Dallas declared hair stylists non-essential. The government – which is dependent on people’s taxes — ignored that for most people bringing a paycheck home is essential. Meanwhile, by April 15, Dallas had released 1,000 prisoners from the county jail. Because there were Wuhan virus cases among the prison population, some of the released prisoners probably brought the virus to the general population.

After more than a month of being closed down, Shelley Luther, a Dallas hairstylist, reopened her salon. Dallas county sent her a cease and desist letter, which she publicly destroyed. Luther was then hauled into court to answer for her crimes. The judge, after demanding an apology from Luther, which she refused to give, sentenced  her to a week in jail, plus a large fine:

A Dallas salon owner who has continued offering services despite a citation, a cease-and-desist letter and a restraining order was sentenced Tuesday to seven days in jail.

In Tuesday afternoon’s hearing, Dallas Civil District Judge Eric Moyé also ordered her to pay thousands in fines for refusing to shut down her salon in violation of shelter-in-place orders.

The judge, it should be noted, continues to work and draw a paycheck — as does every government employee in America.

Luther’s refusal to bow down may be the speech Americans need right now. In its way, it’s as powerful as “Give me liberty or give me death!”

The judge told Shelley Luther she
could avoid jail time if she apologized, admitted she was wrong, and agreed to close her hair salon until it was allowed to open.

This is her response…@CBSDFW pic.twitter.com/1phdNUsLme

— Andrea Lucia (@CBS11Andrea) May 5, 2020

Shortly after Luther’s sentencing, Governor Abbott lifted the shutdown rule imposed against several businesses, including hairstylists:

Abbott also clarified his executive order from last week, indicating the following must be treated with limited seating:
+ funerals
+ burials
+ weddings
+ memorials

— The Daily Texan (@thedailytexan) May 5, 2020

For Luther, Abbott’s order was a case of too little, too late.

As of this writing, a GoFundMe for Shelley Luther has raised $99,641 of a $100,000 goal. The money was going to legal fees, her mortgage, and rent. Now it will help with her fine, too.

There’s good reason to believe that Luther did not commit a crime. According to American Jurisprudence, a legal encyclopedia, unconstitutional official acts are void:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Luther’s martyrdom upset a lot of people. These tweets are representative:

Dallas Judge Eric Moye accused Shelly Luther of breaking the law. She did not break the law!!! She violated an Executive Order. That is, by definition, not a law. Laws are voted on by the Legislature. Executive Orders are not.

— Steve Bluhm (@SteveBluhm) May 5, 2020

Dallas Judge Eric Moye accused Shelly Luther of breaking the law. She did not break the law!!! She violated an Executive Order. That is, by definition, not a law. Laws are voted on by the Legislature. Executive Orders are not.

— Steve Bluhm (@SteveBluhm) May 5, 2020

This hits home. My wife is a salon owner. She’s been out of work for almost 2 months. I live in Communist WA state. A nearby town salon owner just lost her license for 2 years and received a hefty fine for defying stay closed orders. This is something I’d expect to see in China.

— johnsons4#2A (@bradywilliamj) May 5, 2020

America’s various governing entities might want to remember that our last revolution began when the British pushed the middle class too far.

On Tuesday, Texas may have created the anti-lockdown movement’s first martyr when a Dallas judge sentenced hairstylist Shelley Luther to a week in prison for the crime of trying to provide for her own and her employee’s families.

Texas is home to 28,995,881 people. It’s had 32,879 diagnosed Wuhan virus cases (that is, 0.11% of the population got diagnosed) and 890 virus deaths (0.003% of the population). Most of the cases are linked to nursing homes or people with co-morbidities. Even in nursing homes, though, things needn’t be so dire. One doctor’s experiment shows that early intervention with the hydroxychloroquine cocktail can result in a 92% successful treatment rate.

Both the state of Texas and the county of Dallas declared hair stylists non-essential. The government – which is dependent on people’s taxes — ignored that for most people bringing a paycheck home is essential. Meanwhile, by April 15, Dallas had released 1,000 prisoners from the county jail. Because there were Wuhan virus cases among the prison population, some of the released prisoners probably brought the virus to the general population.

After more than a month of being closed down, Shelley Luther, a Dallas hairstylist, reopened her salon. Dallas county sent her a cease and desist letter, which she publicly destroyed. Luther was then hauled into court to answer for her crimes. The judge, after demanding an apology from Luther, which she refused to give, sentenced  her to a week in jail, plus a large fine:

A Dallas salon owner who has continued offering services despite a citation, a cease-and-desist letter and a restraining order was sentenced Tuesday to seven days in jail.

In Tuesday afternoon’s hearing, Dallas Civil District Judge Eric Moyé also ordered her to pay thousands in fines for refusing to shut down her salon in violation of shelter-in-place orders.

The judge, it should be noted, continues to work and draw a paycheck — as does every government employee in America.

Luther’s refusal to bow down may be the speech Americans need right now. In its way, it’s as powerful as “Give me liberty or give me death!”

The judge told Shelley Luther she
could avoid jail time if she apologized, admitted she was wrong, and agreed to close her hair salon until it was allowed to open.

This is her response…@CBSDFW pic.twitter.com/1phdNUsLme

— Andrea Lucia (@CBS11Andrea) May 5, 2020

Shortly after Luther’s sentencing, Governor Abbott lifted the shutdown rule imposed against several businesses, including hairstylists:

Abbott also clarified his executive order from last week, indicating the following must be treated with limited seating:
+ funerals
+ burials
+ weddings
+ memorials

— The Daily Texan (@thedailytexan) May 5, 2020

For Luther, Abbott’s order was a case of too little, too late.

As of this writing, a GoFundMe for Shelley Luther has raised $99,641 of a $100,000 goal. The money was going to legal fees, her mortgage, and rent. Now it will help with her fine, too.

There’s good reason to believe that Luther did not commit a crime. According to American Jurisprudence, a legal encyclopedia, unconstitutional official acts are void:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Luther’s martyrdom upset a lot of people. These tweets are representative:

Dallas Judge Eric Moye accused Shelly Luther of breaking the law. She did not break the law!!! She violated an Executive Order. That is, by definition, not a law. Laws are voted on by the Legislature. Executive Orders are not.

— Steve Bluhm (@SteveBluhm) May 5, 2020

Dallas Judge Eric Moye accused Shelly Luther of breaking the law. She did not break the law!!! She violated an Executive Order. That is, by definition, not a law. Laws are voted on by the Legislature. Executive Orders are not.

— Steve Bluhm (@SteveBluhm) May 5, 2020

This hits home. My wife is a salon owner. She’s been out of work for almost 2 months. I live in Communist WA state. A nearby town salon owner just lost her license for 2 years and received a hefty fine for defying stay closed orders. This is something I’d expect to see in China.

— johnsons4#2A (@bradywilliamj) May 5, 2020

America’s various governing entities might want to remember that our last revolution began when the British pushed the middle class too far.

An unrepentant Texas salon owner was locked up Tuesday for refusing to apologize for opening her business in defiance of a lockdown order and continuing to operate in violation of a judge’s temporary restraining order.

In a bitter dose of irony, Shelley Luther’s sentencing and a fine of $7,000 came just minutes after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced salons like Luther’s could reopen on May 11, according to the Dallas Morning News.

Luther reopened Salon à la Mode on April 24, and ripped up a letter from Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins ordering her to close her business or face the consequences.

“If I have to go to jail to prove a point that what they’re doing is totally unconstitutional, then that’s what happens,” she said in a Facebook live video posted April 28. “I’m not scared to.”

TRENDING: Dem Rep: Reopening Economy Must Be Racist Because ‘They’re Just Opening Up the Things Black People Go To’

According to Luther, she hadn’t earned income since March, when stay-at-home orders were first put in place in Texas, and only received assistance from a federal small business loan as of Sunday.

On Tuesday, Judge Eric Moyé gave Luther the option of avoiding her sentence if she would apologize and remain closed until the Friday date set by Abbott.

Moyé’s condition for Luther to avoid spending seven days in jail was that Luther “acknowledge that your own actions were selfish, putting your own interest ahead of those in the community in which you live,” according to CBSDFW.

“I couldn’t feed my family, and my stylists couldn’t feed their families,” Luther said to the judge.

In a video excerpt of his comments posted on Twitter by Luther, Moyé told her that “society cannot function where one’s own belief in a concept of liberty permits you to flaunt your disdain for the rulings of duly elected officials.”

He said she did “owe an apology to the elected officials whom you disrespected” by “flagrantly ignoring and in one case defiling their orders which you now know obviously apply to you.”

Moyé said it was important that Luther “understand that the proper way in which in an ordered society to engage concerns which you may have had was to hire a lawyer and advocate for change, an exception or an amendment to laws that you find offensive.”

He told Luther that she had “clearly earned” her sentence of jail time.

Judge Eric Moyé asked Luther if she would make a statement admitting she was wrong and selfish. Listen here… pic.twitter.com/6JMukC3v76

— Andrea Lucia (@CBS11Andrea) May 5, 2020

RELATED: Dem Congressman Spotted on Private Beach After Calling Keeping Public Beaches Open ‘Reckless’

Luther responded in remarks posted on Twitter by saying she had “much respect for this court and laws.”

But she was not cowed.

“I have to say that I disagree with you, sir, when you say that I’m selfish, because feeding my kids is not selfish. I have hairstylists that are going hungry because they would rather feed their kids. So, sir, if you think the law is more important than kids getting fed, then please go ahead with your decision. But I am not going to shut the salon.”

The judge told Shelley Luther she
could avoid jail time if she apologized, admitted she was wrong, and agreed to close her hair salon until it was allowed to open.

This is her response…@CBSDFW pic.twitter.com/1phdNUsLme

— Andrea Lucia (@CBS11Andrea) May 5, 2020

The sentence irked Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw, who tweeted, “These punishments are NOT just. They are not reasonable. Small-minded ‘leaders’ across the country have become drunk with power. This must end.”

These punishments are NOT just. They are not reasonable. Small-minded “leaders” across the country have become drunk with power. This must end. https://t.co/d31aEZg8b4

— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) May 6, 2020

Luther’s attorney, Warren Norred, said the salon will remain open, which ups the fine against it by $500 for each day it is open until Abbott’s order to reopen business goes into effect Friday.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

A salon owner is planning to reopen her business Tuesday in Salem, Oregon, despite Gov. Kate Brown’s stay-at-home orders.

When Glamour Salon owner Lindsey Graham closed her business weeks ago due to the coronavirus lockdown, she began to miss her clients and fellow stylists, according to KGW 8.

“We have incredibly deep relationships where we share everything with each other and we laugh with each other,” she said.

However, Graham also misses having an income and explained that not being able to provide for her husband and three kids has been difficult.

“We’re not entirely sure where next month’s funds are gonna come from,” she explained.

To provide for her family, the salon owner decided to open her business again even though Brown recently extended Oregon’s state of emergency until July 6.

“The new executive order gives the governor the legal authority to maintain the orders she’s issued thus far — including the stay-home order, a moratorium on residential and commercial evictions and other financial stimulus measures — and issue new ones as she sees fit,” according to the Oregonian.

Despite the extension, Graham said she wanted to lead by example.

“People are now looking up to me to be kind of the leader in this. You know, how’s this going to go for you? Are you going to be able to open your doors and provide for your family, and if that goes well maybe I can open my doors and provide for my family,” she said.

Monday, a representative from the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health agency paid her a visit and warned that she could face fines if she reopened her business.

“That’s an ending for us,” Graham said, adding, “That can’t happen.”

Still, the salon owner resolved to open her doors regardless of the potential backlash.

“The government has backed us into a corner and driven fear into us so that we can’t even take a stand and earn our living. It’s completely unconstitutional and it’s devastating and it’s immoral,” she stated.

Three of her four stylists were scheduled to work on Tuesday. They will wear masks and gloves and only one client will be allowed inside the salon at a time, according to Graham.

Monday, Facebook users expressed their opinions about the owner’s decision to reopen.

“Your [sic] not special, and you are not essential, OHA needs to step in and start fining all and shutting down, pure disrespect for your fellow humans,” one person commented.

“Wishing you all the best today!!!!” another wrote.

As local and state governments across the country have restricted the liberties of their citizens since the coronavirus began its spread, many Americans have found themselves quietly exercising their rights by buying guns in record numbers.

Purchases of firearms continued to break records last month during the nation’s health and economic crises.

Gun sales, which reached all-time highs in March, continued their surge in April amid uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus and the government’s response to it.

Americans bought almost 1.8 million guns in April, according to estimates from Small Arms Analytics, which tracks the sales of firearms.

While fewer people bought guns in April than they did in March, when 2.5 million firearms were purchased, the number of arms purchased in April was an increase of 71 percent compared to sales estimates for the same timeframe in 2019.

TRENDING: Remember the ‘Racist’ Land O’Lakes Logo Leftists Got Removed? Turns Out It Was Drawn by a Native American

Small Arms Analytics noted that more handguns have been sold than rifles or shotguns.

Additionally, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System reported it conducted more than 2.9 million firearm background checks in April.

NICS ran more than 3.7 million checks in the month of March.

The news is certainly welcome for the gun industry, but it should be celebrated that so many Americans are exercising their Constitutional rights during such an unprecedented time in the country’s history.

Governments across the country have released potentially dangerous criminals back onto the streets as a way to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus in jails and prisons.

With the influx of so many possibly dangerous people now among us, people are reminded that they are the first responders to emergent situations, and are taking steps to ensure they can protect themselves and their families.

Far-left politicians, such as former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, have also promised to go after Americans’ firearms if elected in November, which could be contributing to the spike in sales and background checks.

But whether the increase in sales is due to fears of government overreach, talk of gun control or a reaction to other factors, the country’s current predicament is evidence of just how essential the Second Amendment is, and Americans are recognizing that.

Last month, the proprietor of a gun store and shooting range in deep blue Southern California described the unprecedented demand for firearms in Orange County.

RELATED: Sick Leftists: WA Labels Gun Stores ‘Non-Essential,’ But Considers Letting Serial Killer Out of Jail

Gregg Bouslog, the proprietor of On-Target Indoor Shooting Range in Laguna Niguel, explained his shock at the influx in gun sales.

“As the owner of an indoor shooting range and gun store here in California these past 14 years we have never experienced such a huge demand for firearms and ammunition — even higher than the famous Obama rush of 2012/2013,” Bouslog told Red State.

Bouslog added he believed a great number of his new customers were first-time gun buyers.

While toilet paper shortages grabbed headlines in the early weeks of the crisis, and others warn of potential meat shortages coming, the one industry having the most difficulty staying ahead of demand is the gun industry.

In the last month, I have personally visited multiple gun retailers, multiple times, seeking to purchase ammunition and to browse for firearms.

In what is both inspiring and frustrating, I have found the shelves and walls of gun stores in Oklahoma to be mostly barren, as sellers attempt to keep up with demand.

As the firearms industry is considered essential by the Trump administration and the Department of Homeland Security, according to the NRA, gun sellers are mostly open for business, and some are having a difficult time keeping their inventory replenished — and there is something significant to be taken from that.

Americans are sending a clear message: Constitutional liberties will not be suspended or surrendered in the face of a national emergency or by government decree, and people are taking measures to protect themselves from all potential threats to their rights.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule suggests using the Chinese virus pandemic as an excuse to establish a new interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, implementing Marxist policies that do away with concepts such as “free speech ideology” and “property rights.”

Adrian Vermeule, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, recently wrote a piece for the Atlantic in which he argues that traditional interpretations of the U.S. constitution have “now outlived its utility,” and that it is now time for the government to take a more centralized role in people’s lives.

Vermeule argues that “circumstances have now changed” due to the Chinese virus pandemic, and that it is now possible to imagine “moral” constitutionalism, which he says is not “enslaved to the original meaning of the Constitution,” and is also “liberated” from the narrative of “relentless expansion of individualistic autonomy.”

The professor is advocating for a new interpretation of the U.S. constitution, which he refers to as “common-good constitutionalism.”

“Such an approach,” wrote Vermeule, “should be based on the principles that government helps direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good, and that strong rule in the interest of attaining the common good is entirely legitimate.”

Vermeule also scrutinizes “the libertarian assumptions central to free-speech law and free-speech ideology,” which he says is “forbidden to judge the quality and moral worth of public speech,” and therefore, should “fall under the ax.”

The law professor even goes as far as stating that “property rights and economic rights will also have to go,” because they “bar the state from enforcing duties of community and solidarity in the use and distribution of resources.”

Vermeule claims that this “global pandemic” makes for the perfect opportunity to implement such strategies that grow government, insisting that “it has become clear that a just governing order must have ample power to cope with large-scale crises of public health and well-being.”

The professor also noted that when he says the government should get involved in “health,” he is referring to that “in many senses, not only literal and physical but also metaphorical and social.”

Vermeule even acknowledges that “the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to ‘protect liberty’ as an end in itself,” and that one common-good principle will be “that no constitutional right to refuse vaccination exists.”

“Constitutional law will define in broad terms the authority of the state to protect the public’s health and well-being, protecting the weak from pandemics and scourges of many kinds,” wrote Vermeule.

The professor even goes on to admit that implementing such principles would require overriding “selfish” claims of individuals to private rights, and that his interpretation of constitutional law means that “rulers” should be afforded a “broad scope.”

Vermeule insists that “these principles include respect for the authority of rule and of rulers,” the “respect for the legitimate roles of public bodies and associations at all levels of government and society,” and “a candid willingness to ‘legislate morality,’” among other concepts.

 

In January, Vermeule’s colleague, chemistry chairman Charles Lieber, was charged with fraud over his private financial relationship with the Chinese government. Lieber was paid millions of dollars by the Chinese government to work on “collaborative projects” between Harvard and the Chinese government.

This week, Republicans in the House of Representatives announced that they have launched an investigation into China’s influence on American universities and colleges.

You can follow Alana Mastrangelo on Twitter at @ARmastrangelo, and on Instagram.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday welcomed the owners of Sammy’s Mexican Grill to the stage in Arizona after they were attacked online for supporting Trump.

The president visited a Honeywell manufacturing plant and spoke about the ongoing fight against the coronavirus.

Owner Jorge Rivas thanked the president and said he was very proud of what he was doing to help the country.

“I think we represent a lot of the Latino community that is very proud of the job that you are doing,” Rivas said. “And I think most of us, all of us Latinos are going to vote for you.”

Rivas said that he and his wife Betty appreciated his support.

His wife wore a denim Keep America Great vest and showed it off to the crowd before addressing them in Spanish and concluded by saying “Latinos Love Trump!”

President Trump thanked the owners and said that he had personally paid for the meals for 150 health care workers in an area health care center.

“They’re sending Donald Trump the bill,” Trump said. “I can’t write it off to the government, cause they wouldn’t like that, but we’re paying it.”

The owners of the Mexican restaurant were attacked online after they were spotted at a Trump rally in February, but they defended their right to support the president.

After hearing their story, President Trump sent out a message on Twitter to support their restaurant.

The food is GREAT at Sammy’s Mexican Grill in Phoenix, Arizona. Congratulations to Betty & Jorge Rivas on doing such a wonderful job. I will try hard to stop by the next time I am in Phoenix. Support Sammy’s! @foxandfriends

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 1, 2020

The president’s endorsement sent enormous crowds to their restaurant in March.

 

Bloomberg News reported on Tuesday that India is “developing a land pool nearly double the size of Luxembourg to lure businesses moving out of China.”

The land pool is not one contiguous area, but a total of 461,589 hectares of industrial property that will be offered for speedy lease at good prices to businesses that wish to relocate out of China after the coronavirus pandemic.

According to Bloomberg, India’s plans for poaching foreign firms from China are still being fleshed out, but one of the most urgent priorities was signaling to corporate buyers that India’s normally slow and confusing process for acquiring land and construction permits would be greatly streamlined. No less of a global business behemoth than Saudi Arabia’s national oil company Aramco has been thwarted from building a $44 billion refinery in India because it could not cut through a web of red tape to buy the land it needed.

Bloomberg’s anonymous source – officials from the relevant ministries declined to comment on the record – said India is looking at offering more land from its special economic zones (SEZ) to foreign buyers or renters because those areas already have “robust infrastructure in place.” The SEZs were always intended to lure foreign business so, presumably, this would mean making them larger and acting quickly to extend their infrastructure into adjacent areas.

American, Japanese, and South Korean companies were reportedly among those most interested in hearing India’s offers. The Bloomberg piece did not delve into exactly how India is marketing its locations to companies currently located in China, or what incentives will be developed specifically to persuade firms to move from China to India.

Like most other countries battling the Wuhan virus epidemic, India took a huge hit to its economic growth and employment. Contrary to the emphasis placed on bringing in foreign business clients by Bloomberg’s source, the Economic Times of India on Monday reported that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “fiscally constrained” administration is thinking about “reverting to a greater inward orientation,” stressing national self-reliance over global interdependence.

The Economic Times noted the contradiction between this ethos and the big push to woo foreign business away from China and suggested the Indian government should focus on ceding back the extraordinary powers it claimed during the pandemic, leave the private sector “free to rejuvenate production,” and perhaps use foreign investment captured from China to improve India’s national infrastructure for the benefit of both overseas tenants and local businesses.

The question of how likely foreign firms are to decamp from China, seeking new locations in India or elsewhere, is hotly debated. In March, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) suggested Beijing was up against a ticking clock to restore the confidence of foreign investors, lest they become a “hollow economy” after a post-pandemic exodus. 

A bitter note in the SCMP’s report was that China’s most attractive feature for foreign industries, in addition to cheap labor, is the haven it provides from environmentalist hassles. China has very lax pollution rules, and Western activist groups have absolutely zero interest in pestering Beijing or its clients about them. India might not be able to offer quite the same level of indulgence.

Forbes reviewed data in April that showed American firms were already pulling out of China after the trade war, and the process accelerated during the pandemic.

“The main beneficiaries of this are the smaller southeast Asian nations, led by Vietnam. And thanks to the passing of the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement, Mexico, for all its problems with drug cartels, has become a favorite spot for sourcing,” Forbes noted. The same data might have inspired India to make a stronger play for industries pulling out of China.

At roughly the same time, Reuters argued that most American firms did not have short-term plans to leave China, because the logistics of moving were so uncertain and the worldwide economic depression left international corporations with less money to pay for heavy relocation costs. Also, China moved very aggressively in April to send the message that its workforce and infrastructure would return to normal performance much faster than its competitors.

“Our survey results show that companies are considering adjustments to their business strategy, but there is no mass exodus as a result of COVID-19,” declared American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai president Ker Gibbs, adding that over the longer term, the coronavirus crisis added “a new and unwelcome dimension to the conversation about decoupling.”

The Little Sisters of the Poor will return to the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday for historic telephonic oral arguments to ask that Pennsylvania be blocked from removing their religious exemption from Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate.

The case of the order of Catholic nuns who care for the elderly sick and poor is among the handful the Supreme Court has decided to hear telephonically during the coronavirus outbreak.

The Little Sisters are hoping the high Court will finally end their seven-year legal battle against the Obama-era mandate that requires them to provide free contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees through health insurance plans.

The Sisters aren’t just fighting for their residents during this pandemic. They are fighting for everybody. #ReligiousFreedom for all! #LetThemServe#Maythe4th be with you!
Join the Facebook Virtual Rally on Wednesday, May 6th: https://t.co/y0OmrO7GNs pic.twitter.com/F4U5HEvvc8

— BECKET (@BECKETlaw) May 4, 2020

Who are the Little Sisters of the Poor? They are @WomenReligious who have been called by Jesus to serve the elderly poor. #letthemserve

Pray for them as they prepare the meet with #SCOTUS tomorrow in their fight for religious liberty. https://t.co/1qEKAFVX71

— Women Religious – CMSWR (@WomenReligious) May 5, 2020

Former Obama-era Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius – an abortion activist – and bureaucrats in her department inserted the mandate into Obamacare. Following objections by many religious employers to the requirements of the mandate, the Obama administration devised “accommodations” that only gave the appearance the religious groups would not be footing the bill for the federal government’s mandate of the offensive contraceptive drugs and sterilization procedures. In reality, the faith groups were being asked to passively approve of the contraceptives.

Left-wing groups such as Planned Parenthood claim women should obtain free birth control and that the Trump administration is forcing women to pay for their own birth control when they choose to have sex. The Obama administration itself, however, actually exempted from its own rule at least 25 million Americans – including large corporations such as Chevron, Exxon, Visa, and Pepsi Bottling, as well as the U.S. military and large cities like New York City – through various exemption allowances, with little pushback from the left.

Join us in prayerful support of the Little Sisters of the Poor on May 6 as they head to the #SCOTUS @BECKETlaw pic.twitter.com/dXJY9EnrLa

— Women Religious – CMSWR (@WomenReligious) May 4, 2020

In May 2016, in the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court unanimously decided to send back to the lower courts the case of the Little Sisters, in effect ordering the government not to fine the Sisters for noncompliance with the HHS mandate and for not informing the government that the mandate is in conflict with their beliefs.

One year later, President Donald Trump issued the first executive order ever to defend religious liberty. In the order, Trump directed HHS to develop rules for rights of conscience regarding abortion that would protect faith groups such as the Little Sisters.

The Trump administration announced its new rule the following October that would protect the nuns and other religious non-profits from being coerced by the federal government to provide services in their healthcare plans that violate their faith beliefs.

The rule provided full protection for Americans with religious beliefs and moral convictions and acknowledged that the contraceptive mandate concerns serious issues of moral concern, including those involving human life.

However, the following December, a federal judge in Pennsylvania blocked the Trump administration’s rule that exempted employers with religious or moral objections to the Obamacare mandate.

U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone, an Obama appointee, said the state was “likely to suffer serious and irreparable harm” if she did not order a preliminary injunction.

Beetlestone’s order followed a lawsuit filed by Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who posted on Twitter the ruling was a “critical victory for millions of women and families and for the rule of law”:

BREAKING: A critical victory for millions of women and families and for the rule of law. https://t.co/JLkvP5Fhmr

— Josh Shapiro (@JoshShapiroPA) December 15, 2017

In January 2019, a federal court in California also blocked the Trump administration’s conscience protections with regard to Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate.

Even after the Little Sisters were provided the religious exemption, Pennsylvania—later joined by New Jersey—sued the federal government to take away the rights the Sisters had just won.

Remember to join the Facebook virtual rally on Wednesday! #LetThemServe #ProtectOurCare pic.twitter.com/2hhK9Jmdkt

— BECKET (@BECKETlaw) May 3, 2020

Becket Law, a nonprofit law firm that specializes in religious freedom cases, represents the Little Sisters. The firm has announced a virtual rally for the nuns on Wednesday on Facebook:

Announcing the Little Sisters Virtual Rally! As the sisters care for the elderly poor amid the pandemic, we are gathering virtually from all over the country to support #ReligiousFreedom. Join them in one week; Wednesday, May 6th on Facebook. #LetThemServe #ProtectOurCare pic.twitter.com/WCDgGyt1xs

— BECKET (@BECKETlaw) April 29, 2020

The Federalist Society will also host a Courthouse Steps Teleforum Wednesday at 3:30 pm ET on the Supreme Court case Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania.

Becket states at issue in the Little Sisters’ case are:

1. Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal a decision invalidating the rule if the litigant is also protected by an injunction from a different court; and
2. Whether the federal government lawfully exempted religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage.

In a statement sent to Breitbart News, Ashley McGuire, senior fellow with The Catholic Association, noted the Little Sisters are currently fighting two battles:

They not only must fight to keep the elderly poor they care for safe and alive during the coronavirus pandemic, they also have to fight extremist ideologues who think nuns should provide abortion pills in their healthcare plans too. The Supreme Court already told the government to accommodate the nuns’ conscience rights and the president issued an executive order ensuring that employers cannot be forced to violate their religious beliefs.

“Nevertheless, attorneys general like Xavier Becerra and Josh Shapiro just won’t stop harassing these women and keeping them from their life-saving work on behalf our nation’s most vulnerable,” McGuire added.