What did Dr. Fauci have to say in 2009 about the deadly H1N1 pandemic? By M. Catharine Evans

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/03/what_did_dr_fauci_have_to_say_in_2009_about_the_deadly_h1n1_pandemic.html

It seems some viral infection pandemics are more equal than others. At least when it comes to burning a vibrant Trump economy to the ground. 

In September 2009, after millions had become infected with the H1N1 influenza and thousands had died, some of whom were young people and children, a relaxed and unalarmed Dr. Anthony Fauci told an interviewer that people just need “to use good judgment.”

“Parents should not send their kids to school if they’re sick, if you’re sick don’t go to work … avoid places where there are people who are sick and coughing, now that’s a difficult thing to do,” he said. “…You can’t isolate yourself from the rest of the world for the whole flu season.” That’s quite a change from the esteemed expert’s views on the current virus from China sweeping the world.

From YouTube:

Coronavirus Vindicates Capitalism Drug companies will save lives, even as Bernie Sanders is denouncing them.Kimberley A. Strassel

https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-vindicates-capitalism-11584659306

The left is never apt to let a serious crisis go to waste, as we see with its daily use of the coronavirus pandemic to bash the Republican administration. The bigger danger is the efforts it is already making to exploit the panic for its longer-term goal of destroying U.S. capitalism.

Socialist Bernie Sanders led the charge last Sunday in his Democratic primary debate with Joe Biden. Bernie rolled out his usual themes, this time through the virus lens. The pandemic “exposes the incredible weakness and dysfunctionality” of the U.S. health system, he said; the cure is centralized, socialized care. Americans can’t get the drugs they need because “a bunch of crooks” run drug companies, “ripping us off every single day.” The virus exposes the “cruelty and unjustness” of an economy that allows “big-money interests” and “multimillionaires” to profiteer off “working families.”

He’s hardly alone. The coronavirus has “laid this bare: America was less prepared for a pandemic than countries with a universal health system,” declared Vox. The pandemic has “inflicted new stress on a system already too unequal to function,” wrote Sarah Jones in New York magazine, lecturing on the need to “devolve power from wealthy interests.” “The coronavirus crisis exposes the stupidity of Trump’s healthcare policies,” railed Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik. A Morning Consult poll suggests this opportunistic sloganeering is resonating, with 41% of the public more likely to support universal health-care proposals amid this pandemic.

Coronavirus Tests America’s Social Capacity By Matthew Continetti

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/coronavirus-pandemic-tests-american-society/#slide-1

Is American society ready for the coronavirus pandemic?

Afew months after September 11, 2001, David Brooks went back and looked at coverage of Pearl Harbor for an article in The Weekly Standard (“After Pearl Harbor,” December 10, 2001). What he saw intrigued him. A sense of unity and patriotism followed both surprise attacks. But media after Pearl Harbor had none of the sorrow, sensitivity, and angst that filled the news, with reason, after 9/11. Recognizing the inevitable costs of war, Americans on the home front at the outset of World War II were nonetheless eager to carry on as usual. They did not apologize or second-guess. They soldiered on. “When you step back and contemplate the range of post-Pearl Harbor media,” Brooks wrote, “you are struck by how extraordinarily proud of itself America then was.”

I revisited Brooks’s article this week while thinking about the differences between America during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918–1919 and America during the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic today. Some of the distinctions are self-evident. America is far more wealthy, free, and technologically advanced than it was then. We enjoy the benefits of incorporating half the population into our economy and society, of ending de jure anti-black racism, of attracting the best and most ambitious talent from across the globe. We are no longer a rising power but a reluctant hegemon. A raw deal awaits any American who trades places with a doppelgänger from midway through Woodrow Wilson’s second term.

What changed is the American ethos. Expressive individualism replaced self-restraint. Narcissism and the therapeutic sensibility triumphed over the reticence and sense of tragedy that comes from living in places and times where there is no safety net and death is a constant presence. The culture of debunking, revisionism, and repudiation informs education, entertainment, art, and occasionally sport.

Moulin Rouge on Broadway By Madeleine Kearns

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/movie-review-moulin-rouge-better-than-broadway-version/

B roadway has shut down until at least April 12. But for those hoping to see Moulin Rouge, worry not. The film version, which you can enjoy from the coronavirus-free comfort of your home, is far superior.

It’s been 20 years since Baz Luhrmann’s famously over-the-top movie musical came to screens. Based on La Bohème, the story (cowritten by Luhrmann) is about a young English poet, Christian (played by Ewan McGregor), who falls in love with a French courtesan, Satine (Nicole Kidman) — the “sparkling diamond” of the famous Parisian cabaret the Moulin Rouge. This leads to a gripping, passionate affair that sadly ends in tears.

The film opens to Nat King Cole’s hit “Nature Boy” (“There was a boy, / A very strange, enchanted boy”) and a 30-year-old McGregor sitting bearded and depressed at his typewriter. Christian then mournfully relays that the woman he loves “is dead.” The rest of the movie is a flashback. We soon learn that Christian is an idealist who moved from London to Paris in 1899 to be part of the Bohemian movement. Soon after moving, he discovered an eccentric band of performers living in the apartment above him. They spotted his writing talent and enlisted his help in selling their show Spectacular Spectacular to Harold Zidler, the owner of the Moulin Rouge.

COVID-19 and the Limits of Law By Andrew McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/coronavirus-response-executive-power-limits-of-law/

The extent to which law is a barrier against to future presidential muscle-flexing, for good or ill, depends not on what the statutes and opinions say, but on how scared we are.

Earlier this week, Jim Geraghty posted about the decision by Dare County, N.C., to close its borders to non-residents. Is it merely a reaction, or an overreaction, to the coronavirus pandemic creeping across the nation?

The county’s move raises all sorts of constitutional questions about federalism. At what level of government do we properly resolve such questions — federal, state, county, municipal? Do Americans have a settled right of travel — intrastate, interstate, international — that applies at all times, or is the law flexible in this regard (as it can be regarding the imposition of martial law in times of war, invasion, and insurrection)? If a county can ban the entry of non-residents from its territory, can it ban the exit of residents, or at least of their property?

We could bat these questions around for some time. The bottom line, however, is that there are probably no settled legal answers. We miss that in normal times of peace and prosperity, when the rule of law governs. But in crisis, we see the limits of law. In essence, these questions call for political determinations. They turn on the perception of peril at a given time, which is a function of fluid circumstances that cannot be forecast with precision.

Is This a PANDEMIC or a DEMPANIC? By Joan Swirsky 

https://canadafreepress.com/article/is-this-a-pandemic-or-a-dempanic

These are just a few of the forces who have been working overtime for the past four years to sabotage, undermine, and ultimately destroy both candidate and then President Trump

Now that we’re in a de facto Martial Law mode––a shutdown of entire industries and small businesses, nighttime curfews, social isolation, a run on goods, huge sports events cancelled, a “shelter-in-place” mandate in California, releasing prisoners in New York (God forbid these  miscreants get a flu!), Broadway gone dark, and a craven media inciting and delighting in the panic they’re causing, it is relevant to ask:

Are the powers-that-be withholding information about a deadly germ-warfare attack on the entire world, started by an aggrieved Chinese Communist nation that was perfectly happy with the Bush1 and Clinton1&2 and Bush1&2 and Obama1&2 regimes that kowtowed to their outrageous demands and unfair trade deals but is now existentially threatened because a Patriot President expects more equitable deals?
Isn’t it both alarmist and immoral, as reported in American Thinker by Andrea Widburg, that the fake-news media have never told the American people that the scary statistics from Italy are the result of Italy’s recent Silk Road Project agreement with China, which resulted in more than 300,000 Chinese workers entering Italy?
Is it just one of those strange coincidences that one of the four richest men in the world, the uber-leftist and population-control fetishist Bill Gates––just weeks after the corona virus hit in January––stepped down from the Microsoft giant he founded in 1975, and just weeks earlier, in December, sponsored a “fictional” simulation of such a corona virus catastrophic event which  spread wildly and caused 65 million deaths worldwide? Just asking.

European Union: The End? by Judith Bergman

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15774/european-union-the-end

When an entire continent is in the midst of a highly contagious virus epidemic, solidarity becomes a more complex issue. Every state inevitably considers whether it can afford to send facemasks and protective equipment that might be needed for its own citizens. In other words, every state considers its own national interest first. In the case of Italy’s appeal for help, EU member states made their own interests their highest priority. This is classic state behavior and would not have caused any outrage prior to the establishment of the European Union.

While such revelations may not spell the immediate end of the European Union, they certainly raise questions about the point of an organization that pledges solidarity as a founding principle, but abandons that principle the moment it is most called for.

The current crisis on the Greek-Turkish border has shown the EU not only as unhelpful, but an actual liability: The EU has left an already overwhelmed Greece to deal with the migrant crisis — manufactured by Turkish President Erdogan for political gain — on its own… On top of Europe’s attempts to deal with the coronavirus outbreak, the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson, ordered that Greece must allow the migrants that Erdogan transported to the border to apply for asylum.

If the EU were to approve visa-free travel for Turks – or anyone who had the means to buy a Turkish passport – millions of Turks would be able to enter the EU legally and potentially “disappear” there. Already at breaking point, the EU would arguably become a very different kind of “European” Union with Turkey, a country of 80 million people, literally invited to enter Europe.

All Erdogan needs to do now it sit back and wait for the EU, with Merkel at the helm, to meet his demands.

Since the outbreak of coronavirus in Italy, Italians have learned that other European Union member states do not always practice the beautiful words that they like to preach — especially solidarity.

Solidarity is supposedly a fundamental principle of the European Union. It is enshrined in the EU treaties and the EU refers to it as one of its goals. According to article 222 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, one of the two principal treaties of the European Union:

“The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is… the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal… to assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a natural or man-made disaster”.

What Happens When Everything Stops? By Chris Buskirk

https://amgreatness.com/2020/03/20/what-happens-when-everything-stops/

Our ordinary lives and routines have been upended, but let’s see that as an opportunity to do some good even as we grapple with the very real challenges we’re all facing. It only seems like everything stopped. Life goes on.

The days after 9/11 were eerily quiet. There were no airplanes in the skies; they had been grounded. People were still in shock and waiting to see if another deadly attack would come. It didn’t, thank God, but the nation slowed down dramatically that week. And then we adapted and went back to living, albeit aware of a newly aggressive enemy.

But now much of the nation is under official or semi-official lockdown. Schools have sent students home for the year in many places. Professional and college sports have stopped. Concerts are canceled. The stock market is down more than 30 percent from it’s recent high. Even churches—the very place where people seek solace in times of crisis—have temporarily closed their doors, too.

And now all nonessential businesses are closed by government order in California, Illinois, New York, and a growing list of other states. Rumors are rife that the federal government will invoke the Stafford Act and declare effective martial law. I have no idea if that’s true, but it’s a rumor that is making the rounds so widely that you’ve probably already heard it.

Strange rumors and semi-plausible scenarios are what you get in uncertain times when people fear for their lives and their futures.

But what happens when everything stops?

Of course, not everything has stopped. The electricity is on. Water still comes out of your faucet. You can buy groceries, though there are spot shortages of key items. But it’s all of those nonessentials that make life sweet, right? So what now?

Donors Should Contribute Less to Universities and More to Scholarship That Reflects Donors’ Values Rob Natelson

https://www.theepochtimes.com/donors-should-contribute-less-to-universities-and-more-to-scholarship-that-reflects-donors-values_3279173.html

The degeneration of American colleges and universities into socialist political action committees has been widely reported.

We have seen how once-fine institutions of higher education favor politically correct courses and projects while disfavoring Western Civilization and traditional scholarship. We have seen how colleges punish dissenting students and faculty and drive conservative and libertarian speakers off campus.

Over the past decade, the problem has become distinctly worse. One reason is that the small coterie of moderate and conservative professors has gotten smaller. Some promising young scholars are denied university jobs. Others obtain jobs only at lesser institutions that have neither the motivation nor the resources to support serious scholarship. Others are denied promotion or persecuted into leaving academia. Some retire. Still others depart to join policy centers called “think tanks.”

Think tanks are independent, non-profit research institutions scattered throughout the United States and Canada. The better ones maintain their integrity by refusing to accept government money.

Think tanks offer an attractive opportunity to donors who wish to contribute to the advancement of learning, but are opposed to the far-left agenda prevailing at most colleges and universities.

A Pandemic of Political Correctness By Peter Kirsanow

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coronavirus-political-correctness-concern-racism-misguided/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=first

During today’s meeting of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the liberal majority voted to issue a statement expressing “grave concern” regarding “growing anti-Asian racism and xenophobia” related to the coronavirus pandemic.

Of course, my conservative colleague Gail Heriot and I oppose expressions of racism, if any, related to the pandemic or otherwise. But we voted against the statement for several reasons. Our biggest objection related to the Commission’s suggestion that referring to COVID-19 with terms like “Chinese Coronavirus or Wuhan flu” is somehow fueling “[t]his latest wave of xenophobic animosity toward Asian-Americans.” This suggestion is consistent with those recently voiced by Democrats and mainstream media (but I repeat myself).

It’s common to refer to infectious diseases by their geographic origin. Examples include Asian flu, Bolivian hemorrhagic fever, Ebola, German measles, Japanese encephalitis, Lyme disease, Marburg virus, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), Pontiac fever, Rift Valley fever, Spanish flu, Venezuelan hemorrhagic fever, and West Nile virus. Spanish flu was probably a misnomer. It may have originated in Kansas. But calling it Spanish flu was never an indication that people hated Spaniards. Nor is there any evidence that the names of any of the other diseases inspired “racism or xenophobia” toward races or ethnicities commonly identified with such regions.