American Said He Felt safer in China Amid C****av***s Outbreak
ChinaWire

A 36-year-old US citizen from Cupertino, California, visited Kunming, China, almost 1,000 miles southwest of W***n, where the c****av***s outbreak originated, on January 25.

When the Bay Area resident and user-experience designer — who requested to stay anonymous visited China, there were at least 217 confirmed cases of C****-**, the illness caused by the v***s.

And following his trip, he observed just how differently the governments of both countries dealt with the growing outbreak of the v***s that has now infected more than 94,000 people and k**led more than 3,200 other people.

He said that he saw locals and Chinese officials understanding the severity of the outbreak and taking safety precautions. That contrasted heavily with his colleagues' blasé attitudes back in the US and a disorderly experience at San Francisco International Airport upon his return on February 2.

In China, he noticed precautions being taken.


Cathay Pacific Airways flight attendants wore masks aboard, as did many Chinese residents, he said. The man said locals likely remembered what it was like experiencing the 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, and knew how to prepare.

(While masks can help prevent people who are already sick from spreading the illness, they're not very effective for healthy people trying to avoid getting it. Health experts recommend washing your hands thoroughly and avoiding close contact with people who are sick.)

Passengers also went through full-body screenings with infrared thermometers at the airport in Kunming, he said.

When a relative with late-stage cancer died while the man was visiting, the body was taken away by people in protective suits as a precaution.

The Chinese government had issued an order to cremate the body of a loved one within 12 hours of their death in case they had the v***s, something the man said he and his family followed.

A family in W***n was described as having to do the same in a New York Times report on February 10.

But returning to the US was a different story.

He said "the alarm bells" sounded when he saw how the outbreak was being addressed at San Francisco International Airport.

"They literally had no idea what they were doing," he said, adding that one airport official even admitted that since things had escalated so quickly they were in disarray.

As passengers got off the plane, no one was at the gate to recording their temperatures, he said. (One of the symptoms of the disease is a fever, though a few cases are asymptomatic.)

He also said no one was wearing masks.

It took him hours to go through customs, get his temperature taken at customs, and fill out paperwork. The man said the paperwork that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave him was handwritten and then photocopied.

People returning from China were taken from the immigration gate to a designated area to have their temperature taken. But since neither he nor his family members exhibited any symptoms or felt sick, they weren't tested for C****-**.

Passengers coming from China had to wait in "the little black room" in the airport, typically used for passengers with visa problems, he said.

The Bay Area resident said immigration officials didn't wear any sort of protection and were impatient with people, telling them to stop asking questions when they inquired about the wait time.

"It was really not a good experience at that point," he said.

If he had returned from China's Hubei province, he would have been given a government-mandated quarantine.

But what he was given instead was a verbal recommendation to stay home and avoid going in public for 14 days. CDC officials also gave passengers cards with guidelines about how to self-quarantine and told him to give it to a primary-care doctor, should he visit one.

Thousands of people in California and beyond are self-quarantining in response to the outbreak, regardless of whether they are experiencing symptoms.

He said that the CDC never contacted him during his quarantine to check in on his and his family's health and that there was no form or other documentation to submit at the end of the quarantine.

"I'm seeing reports now that the CDC is monitoring, but what are they monitoring?" he said.

He worked from home. He said his son went to school the day after the family returned to the US, despite the man's request to allow his son to stay home and for his absences to be excused. It was only after concerned parents learned of the family's trip to China that the school allowed the boy to stay home, he said.

He said that if his son had had the v***s, the boy could have passed it along to others at school in just that one day.

He completed his quarantine on February 17, but concerns about the v***s loom as cases are reported throughout the US.

He said that based on his experience in both China and the US as the c****av***s has spread, his family was actually considering going back to China since they felt safer there.

"As someone who was in China during the initial outbreak/lockdowns and restrictions and seeing the situation develop here in the US I am 100x more concerned for my own safety during this crisis than I ever was in China," he said.

As of Thursday, there were 130 confirmed cases in the US across 16 states, including New York and Washington. There have been cases of "community spread" in the US, meaning people who contracted the v***s despite not traveling outside the US. And CDC test kits for the v***s are limited.

"We're the richest country in the world," he said. "We should be the most prepared."

President Trump came into office vowing to stop out-of-control i*****l i*********n. Democrats called him a r****t who would deny desperate asylum seekers, and fought him tooth-and-nail, using everything from activist judges to denying wall construction funds they once supported. Then, they mocked him for failing to keep the promises that they moved Heaven and Earth to prevent him keeping. Well, guess what: despite all their best efforts, he’s still managed to keep his promise to greatly reduce i*****l i*********n, and it’s helping American workers, particularly African-Americans who had lost low-sk**l jobs to easily exploitable i*****l i*******ts.

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/01/06/trump-is-quietly-winning-bigly-at-the-border/

That link provides some startling numbers and information you’re not likely to hear from the mainstream media: “The number of apprehensions at the southwest border plummeted from 144,000 in May 2019 to just 42,649 in November – the last month for which the government has data. The number of families caught crossing illegally went from 84,486 in May to a mere 9,000 in November.”

And what’s to credit for that turnaround, when a border wall has yet to be built? It was a change in policy that the El Paso Times says has proved to be “a virtual wall.”

Trump did away with the Obama “Catch and Release” policy. Under that, when someone was caught sneaking in illegally, they just had to say, “Asylum!” Then, our officials were required to take down their information and release them (on the US side of the border!) with a court date in the far future that few ever showed up for. It was a combination Golden Ticket and "Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free” card for illegal border crossers. Anyone who suspected they were gaming the system was called a r****t who didn’t care that these poor people’s lives would be in danger if they were sent home because we had to believe that they were legitimate “asylum seekers.”

Trump replaced that with a new policy called “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP), nicknamed “Remain in Mexico.” I*****l i*******ts who try claiming asylum are sent back across the border to wait until a judge evaluates their claim of needing asylum. And here’s a detail that should be headline news: so far, judges have resolved over 100,000 MPP claims and found that fewer than 1% of them qualified for asylum! That's a 99%+ rate of gaming the system.

The story notes that as word spread that the jig was up, and any “Asylum!” claims would be evaluated by a judge for legitimacy while the applicant waited in Mexico, illegal border crossings plummeted. Which suggests that Trump’s denying them wasn’t hard-hearted, r****t inhumanity but just refusing to continue being a willing sucker.

By the way, Trump’s threat of tariffs convinced Mexico to take over holding the detainees on their side of the border (i.e., Mexico really is paying for the “virtual wall.”)

https://www.mikehuckabee.com/latest-news?id=5679E71D-F34F-4A21-8C89-BA904DAD01D5&s=99BA

Notes: I have been saying this over and over, that the process of impeachment was not done right and unconstitutional. The president's constitutional rights have been violated by Adam Schiff and Pelosi.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-impeachment-subverts-the-constitution-115
72040762

WSJ By
David B. Rivkin Jr. and
Elizabeth Price Foley
Oct. 25, 2019 5:59 pm ET
Rep. Adam Schiff speaks beside Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Capitol Hill, Oct. 15, 2019.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed committees investigating President Trump to “proceed under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry,” but the House has never authorized such an inquiry. Democrats have been seeking to impeach Mr. Trump since the party took control of the House, though it isn’t clear for what offense.

Lawmakers and commentators have suggested various possibilities, but none amount to an impeachable offense. The effort is akin to a constitutionally proscribed bill of attainder—a legislative effort to punish a disfavored person. The Senate should treat it accordingly.

The impeachment power is quasi-judicial and differs fundamentally from Congress’s legislative authority. The Constitution assigns “the sole power of impeachment” to the House—the full chamber, which acts by majority v**e, not by a press conference called by the Speaker.

Once the House begins an impeachment inquiry, it may refer the matter to a committee to gather evidence with the aid of subpoenas. Such a process ensures the House’s political accountability, which is the key check on the use of impeachment power.

*** Note the GOP party was not made to participate on this process., which was illegally conducted by Adam Schitt and Pelosi.

John Durham's Review of Russia and The FBI is Now a Criminal Probe
00:00 / 27:32

The House has followed this process every time it has tried to impeach a president. Andrew Johnson’s 1868 impeachment was predicated on formal House authorization, which passed 126-47. In 1974 the Judiciary Committee determined it needed authorization from the full House to begin an inquiry into Richard Nixon’s impeachment, which came by a 410-4 v**e. The House followed the same procedure with Bill Clinton in 1998, approving a resolution 258-176, after receiving independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s report.
Mrs. Pelosi discarded this process in favor of a Trump-specific procedure without precedent in Anglo-American law. Rep. Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee and several other panels are questioning witnesses in secret.

Mr. Schiff has defended this process by likening it to a grand jury considering whether to hand up an indictment. But while grand-jury secrecy is mandatory, House Democrats are selectively leaking information to the media, and House Republicans, who are part of the jury, are being denied subpoena authority and full access to transcripts of testimony and even impeachment-related committee documents. No grand jury has a second class of jurors excluded from full participation.

Unlike other impeachable officials, such as federal judges and executive-branch officers, the president and vice president are elected by, and accountable to, the people. The executive is also a coequal branch of government. Thus any attempt to remove the president by impeachment creates unique risks to democracy not present in any other impeachment context.

Adhering to constitutional text, tradition and basic procedural guarantees of fairness is critical. These processes are indispensable bulwarks against abuse of the impeachment power, designed to preserve the separation of powers by preventing Congress from improperly removing an elected president.

House Democrats have discarded the Constitution, tradition and basic fairness merely because they h**e Mr. Trump. Because the House has not properly begun impeachment proceedings, the president has no obligation to cooperate. The courts also should not enforce any purportedly impeachment-related document requests from the House. (A federal district judge held Friday that the Judiciary Committee is engaged in an impeachment inquiry and therefore must see grand-jury materials from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, but that ruling will likely be overturned on appeal.) And the House cannot cure this problem simply by v****g on articles of impeachment at the end of a flawed process.

The Senate’s power—and obligation—to “try all impeachments” presupposes that the House has followed a proper impeachment process and that it has assembled a reliable evidentiary basis to support its accusations. The House has conspicuously failed to do so. Fifty Republican senators have endorsed a resolution sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham urging the House to “v**e to open a formal impeachment inquiry and provide President Trump with fundamental constitutional protections” before proceeding further.

If the House fails to heed this call immediately, the Senate would be fully justified in summarily rejecting articles produced by the Pelosi-Schiff inquiry on grounds that without a lawful impeachment in the House, it has no jurisdiction to proceed.

The effort has another problem: There is no evidence on the public record that Mr. Trump has committed an impeachable offense. The Constitution permits impeachment only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Founders considered allowing impeachment on the broader grounds of “maladministration,” “neglect of duty” and “mal-practice,” but they rejected these reasons for fear of giving too much power to Congress.

The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” includes abuses of power that do not constitute violations of criminal statutes. But its scope is limited.
Abuse of power encompasses two distinct types of behavior. First, the president can abuse his power by purporting to exercise authority not given to him by the Constitution or properly delegated by Congress—say, by imposing a new tax without congressional approval or establishing a p**********l “court” to punish his opponents. Second, the president can abuse power by failing to carry out a constitutional duty—such as systematically refusing to enforce laws he disfavors. The president cannot legitimately be impeached for lawfully exercising his constitutional power.

Applying these standards to the behavior triggering current calls for impeachment, it is apparent that Mr. Trump has neither committed a crime nor abused his power.

One theory is that by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Kyiv’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. p**********l e******n and potential corruption by Joe Biden and his son H****r was unlawful “interference with an e******n.” There is no such crime in the federal criminal code (the same is true of “collusion”). E******n-related offenses involve specific actions such as v****g by aliens, fraudulent v****g, buying v**es and interfering with access to the polls. None of these apply here.

Nor would asking Ukraine to investigate a political rival violate campaign-finance laws, because receiving information from Ukraine did not constitute a prohibited foreign contribution. The Mueller report noted that no court has ever concluded that information is a “thing of value,” and the Justice Department has concluded that it is not. Such an interpretation would raise serious First Amendment concerns.

Equally untenable is the argument that Mr. Trump committed bribery. Federal bribery statutes require proof of a corrupt intent in the form of a quid pro quo—defined by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Sun-Diamond Growers (1999), as a “specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.” There was no quid pro quo in the call. Mr. Zelensky has said he felt no pressure, and the purported quid (military aid to Ukraine) was not contingent on the alleged quo (opening an investigation), because the former materialized within weeks, while the latter—not “something of value” in any case—never did.

More fundamentally, the Constitution gives the president plenary authority to conduct foreign affairs and diplomacy, including broad discretion over the timing and release of appropriated funds. Many presidents have refused to spend appropriated money for military or other purposes, on grounds that it was unnecessary, unwise or incompatible with their priorities.

Why is it that conservatives think that every action taken by the Democrats is due to bias? You bashed Mueller because of bias and you bashed the impeachment because of bias. Well if bias is the driving force behind all political actions doesn't this apply equally to you conservatives? You can't go after Biden because you are biased. And of course, you can't go after Hillary because you are biased. You can't go after Horowitz because you are biased. You can't attack Comey, McCabe, or the FBI because you are biased.

Now my question to you conservatives is why can't you be biased and be objective at the same time? Why is it, the instant you see bias in someone you assume that their action is tainted and therefore unfair? Is it because you are biased and can't separate your political and ideological beliefs from each other? Shame, shame...