Why Is the Trump Administration Allowing Judges to Illegally Release Criminal Aliens?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Attorney General Barr threatened to file lawsuits against governors overstepping their power to infringe upon civil liberties, yet the only lawsuits that are succeeding are the ones from illegal aliens. Suddenly, when it comes to those with no right to be in our communities, the courts are all-powerful and the executives are weak. In fact, the president really has the power to deport illegal aliens and prevent them from being released into our communities.

Late on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Marcia G. Cooke in Miami became the latest federal judge to illegally mandate that ICE release “vulnerable” populations in detention facilities. She charged that ICE acted with “deliberate indifference” and engaged in what amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment” against illegal aliens by not releasing them during the coronavirus epidemic.

Therefore, Cooke ordered ICE to submit twice-weekly reports on the status of the detainees and who is being released. She also ordered that ICE shall immediately provide masks to all detainees and replace them once a week.

Well, I don’t have masks – maybe I can get a judge to order them for me too?

There’s one ingredient missing here, and it sheds light both on the morality of detaining illegal aliens during this epidemic and the legality of a judge ordering them released into our communities rather than released to their home countries. These people are in detention of their own volition. They broke into our country and can always voluntarily depart. The only reason they are being held is because they are the ones resisting repatriation and are trying to litigate their way into the country. That is their choice. If they want to do so during an epidemic they must wait in detention. If they are truly concerned about dying of the virus – enough to file a lawsuit – then they should ask for voluntary departure.

This is an illegal ruling. 8 U.S.C. §1226(e) states plainly that these decisions are not subject to judicial review: “The [AG’s] discretionary judgment regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review. No court may set aside any action or decision by the [AG] under this section regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole.”

Indeed, ICE lawyers as well as the magistrate judge originally hearing the case under Judge Marcia Cooke agreed there is no authority to adjudicate this case.

Now, an illegal ruling can potentially lead to the release of another 1,200 into our communities, but only if the administration lets it happen.

It’s truly disgusting how during a time of unprecedented executive power, when courts are so passive in the face of the onslaught against citizens’ rights, the federal government is so passive and submissive to an illegal court ruling purporting to govern people who have no right to be here.

If this is truly against statute, the executive branch has an obligation to uphold statute. Yes, all things equal, the law provides these illegal aliens with an immigration court process. But that requires detention, and if a judge is going to subvert detention, then Trump has every right to remove them from the country.

The Supreme Court has said for 130 years, in what is considered one of the most uninterrupted chains of case law, that illegal aliens who have not been affirmatively and consensually admitted to this country are as if they are standing physically outside our country. Clarence Thomas has suggested that perhaps the president has inherent authority to deport even a legal immigrant who is here under statute. But Trump certainly can apply that to an illegal alien who is considered as if he’s standing outside our country.

Already as far back as the 1950s, the Supreme Court had already said, “For over a half century this Court has held that the detention of an alien in custody pending determination of his admissibility does not legally constitute an entry though the alien is physically within the United States.” Leng May Ma v. Barber, 1958.

Even an alien under questionable status, and certainly someone who snuck into the country “was to be regarded as stopped at the boundary line and kept there unless and until her right to enter should be declared.” Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228, 230 (1925). Even after she was no longer detained, “[s]he was still in theory of law at the boundary line and had gained no foothold in the United States.”

Once they are regarded as if they are outside the country, not only does the president have inherent constitutional authority (governing foreign affairs and foreign commerce) to repatriate them, but even delegated authority under his emergency health crisis powers.

In fact, what the courts are doing – mandating the release of illegal aliens rather than returning them – is not only harming our security and breaking our laws, but is going to spread the virus even more.

Here’s the reality: the ACLU is right – coronavirus spreads like wildfire in prisons and ICE facilities. But that ship has sailed a long time ago. The good news is it demonstrates that the fatality rate, especially for this predominantly young population, is remarkably low. Out of over 50,000 foreign nationals detained in ICE detention facilities, not a single one has died (although two guards have died). We don’t know how many have contracted COVID-19, but over 60% of the over 1,000 who were tested for it were confirmed positive. Which means it’s likely that thousands have been exposed. This is yet one more data point showing the virus has an even lower fatality rate than people think.

But on the other hand, by releasing them, you will be taking predominantly younger people who have already developed herd immunity in a confined setting and releasing them into a population that has not been exposed quite as much. Moreover, as I noted with regard to domestic criminals being released under COVID-19 jailbreak, they are being thrust suddenly into communities without much of a home and will get even less treatment than they would in the facilities. This is certainly true for illegal aliens who often have no connection to a community but receive better health care at ICE facilities than American inmates in prison. Why release them and not remove them?

What sense does that make? Who knows, but one thing is clear: Like every policy decision revolving around this virus, it is not determined by either science or law. (For more from the author of “Why Is the Trump Administration Allowing Judges to Illegally Release Criminal Aliens?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Young and the Healthy Are Not Dying From COVID-19. Here’s Why That’s Vitally Important

/0 Comments/in , /by

Why is our approach to the virus the same for all people, when the virus itself is so overwhelmingly biased toward a defined group of people?

Understanding that this virus only kills the elderly and sick in statistically significant numbers does not diminish their lives or even the seriousness of the virus. This understanding magnifies the need for a strategy that lets out healthier and younger people keeping the country running while shielding the vulnerable population until the virus burns out.

According to Minnesota’s health department, 99.24% of all statewide COVID-19 deaths have occurred either in long-term care facilities, such as nursing homes, or among people with significant underlying health conditions, with the overwhelming majority (78%) of decedents in the former category. That would mean just three individuals who died of COVID-19 in Minnesota were outside a nursing home and had no underlying condition. That is a 0.05% fatality rate just out of the known cases, and we’ve seen from serology tests that the true number of cases is exponentially greater than the number who tested positive. This fact should change our entire approach to the virus.

While the numbers are not quite that stark in more densely populated states with more widespread outbreaks, we are witnessing the same pattern to varying degrees in most other states and most other countries. Over half the SARS-CoV-2 deaths in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Maine were in long-term care facilities, and the median age of death in most states was 82. That number is 75% in Rhode Island, 61% in Pennsylvania, 58% in Delaware, 57% in Oregon, and 56% in Colorado. Even in a more widespread outbreak state like Connecticut, nursing homes account for nearly half the deaths, and those over 70 account for 80 percent of the deaths.

Understanding the importance of this data point will give us a better sense of why locking down an entire society is unnecessary (and even counterproductive) and why a balanced strategy of “stratify and shield” would be much better, on all fronts, than lockdown.

The data is in and the facts are clear: We were lied to

We were lied to. At the onset of the global panic in early March, the World Health Organization said the virus had a 3.4% fatality rate. Then, the same powers that be scared the world by saying a new version of the virus was killing 10% in parts of Italy. Eventually, they did the same thing with New York City and warned us that the rest of the country would be like NYC.

In reality, they ignored the fact that this virus had already spread for several months and infected exponentially more people than the official testing showed, that most people were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, and that therefore, for most people, the fatality rate is a tiny fraction of the panic porn numbers – more in line with 0.1-0.3% or perhaps, as we will see, much less for some.

A fatality rate of 0.1%-0.3% is still very serious when factoring in the rate of contagion, the fact that it goes on well past the winter and early spring, and that, unlike the flu, there is no vaccine. However, it is nowhere near the numbers they are suggesting, and even in the New York City metro, which has for some reason been hit worse than any other region (more than half of deaths are from the tri-state region), the fatality rate is still well under 1% because at least 25% of NYC residents got the virus.

Breaking down the age and health status brackets — and why it matters

So now that we know SARS-CoV-2 is much less fatal than it has been advertised in order to justify lockdown policies, and all its human and financial tolls, there is no reason for a universal lockdown. The critical question, then, is what are the fatality rates by age, geography, demographics, and gender so that everyone is aware of their likely risk and can take precautions accordingly.

The truth is that the macro fatality rates we are seeing are very lopsided. Every virus has its quirks and particularities, and this one seems to have almost a linear increase with age. Kids have almost no risk whatsoever, which is why it makes no sense to close the schools. Younger adults have a very low risk. We also know that men seem to have a higher death rate than women and that black people seem to have a higher death rate than white people, while Asians have the lowest death rate. Genetics, unfortunately, plays a role, as well as some lifestyle and environmental/geographical factors.

But by far, the single biggest factors are age and health status. While the virus seems to be less deadly than the flu among small kids, slightly more deadly among younger, healthier adults, and significantly more deadly (but again, a fraction of what they claimed) among seniors, nursing homes and sick people are really in danger. Shouldn’t all our resources, regulations, and attention be directed toward shielding them while having as many others as possible achieve herd immunity, so this doesn’t keep coming back to threaten the vulnerable population?

Most serology studies in America (outside New York City) show a fatality rate of between 0.1% and 0.3% among all adults. That number is corroborated by hard data we are seeing in defined and confined populations, such as ships and prisons. Again, that is very low compared to what the media is telling us, but it might be much lower for other populations. First, all of the domestic serology tests excluded kids under 18. Their fatality rate is likely a fraction of that fraction. Second, what would happen if you removed those over 70 from the sample or even those over 60, and what if you removed those with chronic conditions from all age groups, but especially among seniors?

We don’t have a domestic sample yet that excludes seniors, but one study from Denmark could perhaps give us a partial answer. A large group of Danish epidemiologists published the results of a serology test from 9,496 blood donors who were tested for the antibodies in order to donate plasma to those sick with the virus, as we have begun to do in America. The sample was taken between April 6 and April 17 and only included donors aged 17-69. Thus, most kids were excluded but also anyone 70 or over. They used this random sample to discover the infection rate and extrapolate the number of total COVID-19 cases in Denmark, then compared it against the number of deaths for that age group. The result? An infection fatality rate of 82 per 100,000, or 0.082. That is less than 0.1%, and it even includes people in their 60s.

Obviously, this is just one survey, and genetics and demographics in America (which include more higher-risk black and Latino people) could result in a higher fatality rate, but this is very revealing. It also easily harmonizes with hard data we are seeing from states like Minnesota, where close to 80% of all deaths are in nursing homes, and that number rises to 99.24% when factoring in those with underlying health conditions as well. Putting these numbers together, it would make sense to suggest that kids have near zero risk and that adults 18-70 (especially under 55 or 60) might have a fatality rate significantly lower than 0.082% across many demographics and localities.

But it could be even lower.

As the Danish researchers wrote, “The death toll among all citizens below 70 years was used even though only 16 of 53 deaths appeared among individuals with no comorbidity. This was chosen because the denominator included all citizens in the age strata, thus, also individuals with comorbidity. The IFR including only individuals with not comorbidity is thus likely several fold lower than the current estimate.” (Emphasis added.)

Thus, for those who are of prime working age and also have no serious health conditions, the fatality rate is “several fold” below 0.082%. As such, it’s simply indefensible not to put them back to work and certainly send kids with an even lower risk back to school.

This point is punctuated even more by a similar study of blood donors from researchers in the Netherlands, whose serology testing data results a Dutch blogger actually broke down and extrapolated for fatality rates by age group.

As you can see, the 0.1% rate, which is often the benchmark given for the flu fatality rate, is not even attained until you get to the 50-59 age group. It’s significantly less for younger cohorts and still under a half a percent for those in their 60s. Of course, it’s nonexistent for kids. And again, all these age groups factor in those with underlying conditions as well as those who are healthy. We do not have a study of the fatality rate for people under 60 with no underlying health concerns.

Yes, this is one sample and from another country (with a much lower obesity rate than the U.S.), but it sheds light on the age breakdown of some of our top-line numbers from domestic studies and harmonizes with data in most states where the overwhelming majority, if not nearly all individuals, who died outside nursing homes had underlying health issues.

One doctor used the serology studies in L.A. and Santa Clara counties, which showed an overall fatality rate of 0.2%, and broke them down by age group based on confirmed tests and found similarly infinitesimal IFRs among younger strata as the numbers from the Netherlands.

Obviously, for reasons still being debated, the New York City area numbers are higher across the board, but nearly all of our country is seeing an experience closer to that of California and Minnesota, not New York. And even in New York, one comprehensive study found that 94% of fatalities in the area had at least one chronic illness and 88% percent had at least two.

Why are our governments not following the science and publishing the data?

This is undoubtedly a bad plague. But unlike in 1918, it attacks younger and healthier people in remarkably low numbers. There are certainly a lot of people at high risk, but the difference between shutting down everyone and shielding the vulnerable is the difference between a recession and an economic Hiroshima, a functioning health care system and a furloughed health system, a food crisis and a “mere” cut in jobs, wages, and 401Ks.

The Spanish flu was the most devastating pandemic of the 20th century because not only was it highly contagious, but it primarily attacked younger, healthier people between the ages of 20 and 40 with a fatality rate at least 20 times higher than the flu. Fast-forward to SARS-CoV-2, and our government and media are acting and governing as if this is the Spanish flu when, in fact, the effects of it, while very dangerous and for the most part more so than the typical flu, are nowhere near what they were in 1918. This is where understanding demographic fatality rates and a more targeted strategy of quarantine, as well as balancing rate of spread against achieving herd immunity with the lowest-risk population, is so much more achievable than it was in 1918.

It is simply indefensible that our government, which is sitting on more data than any other country, has not put out any information showing the fatality rates by demographics. While there is a lot about this coronavirus we still do not know, it is incontrovertibly clear that there is a lopsided danger for 15%-20% of the most vulnerable population and most pronounced in nursing homes. It makes no sense to use meaningless top-line numbers lumping in the whole population, including those least at risk, to shut down our society and kill more people with the lockdown itself.

The best way to balance all lives and the economy and mental health while protecting the vulnerable is to have the low-risk groups go out with proper precautions and allocate almost all of our resources on nursing homes. That is the scientific approach. That is the only compassionate strategy for the country at large.

On Wednesday, when Minnesota Department of Health Infectious Disease Director Kristen Ehresmann revealed that 99.24% of those who died were either in long-term care facilities or had serious underlying illness, KSTP reporter Tom Hauser followed up with the trillion-dollar question (59:36 of the audio). “So when Minnesotans look at that and they try to assess their own risk of having the worst possible outcome from COVID-19, which of course would be death, they will look at that and say, if I’m not in one of those two categories, why is this state shut down economically the way it is? How would you respond to them?”

The question remains unanswered. (For more from the author of “The Young and the Healthy Are Not Dying From COVID-19. Here’s Why That’s Vitally Important” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Woman Fights to Be Listed as ‘Father’ on Baby’s Birth Certificate

/0 Comments/in , /by

A transgender [woman] who gave birth to a child has lost [her] latest legal bid to be registered on the birth certificate as the father rather than the mother.

Freddy McConnell appealed against a decision made by a High Court judge that a person who carries and gives birth to a baby is legally a mother.

Mr McConnell, from Kent, wanted to be named father or parent on the document.

[She] said [she] was disappointed by the Court of Appeal ruling, adding that [her] fight was “just not over”. . .

Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett said the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) required Mr McConnell to be registered as the mother, and the requirement did not violate [her] rights to private and family life, as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. (Read more from “Woman Fights to Be Listed as ‘Father’ on Baby’s Birth Certificate” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Government Proposes Ban on Transgender Procedures for Children

/0 Comments/in , /by

The British government is proposing a complete ban on transgender medical procedures for children, and American lawmakers would be “wise” to follow that example, contends a leading family advocate.

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies for the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., wrote that British officials don’t want to put young people “on a torturous and unnecessary path that is permanent and life-changing.”

“When state legislators in the U.S. are able to convene again,” he wrote, “they would be wise to follow the British example and prohibit ‘torturous and unnecessary’ gender transition medical procedures for minors.”

Liz Truss, the U.K.’s minister for women and equalities, recently told a parliamentary committee that the Conservative party government would propose amendments to the nation’s Gender Recognition Act.

Truss said a priority would be to make certain “the under 18s are protected from decisions that they could make, that are irreversible in the future.” (Read more from “Government Proposes Ban on Transgender Procedures for Children” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Army Chaplain Under Fire for Sharing Book ‘Coronavirus and Christ’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Twenty-two military chaplains are calling on a senior army chaplain to be disciplined and possibly court-martialed for sending nearly three-dozen other chaplains an email containing a copy of John Piper’s new e-book, Coronavirus and Christ.

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper is being urged by a national legal organization to punish Senior Chaplain Col. Moon H. Kim, the command chaplain of U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys in South Korea, the largest U.S. military installation outside of the United States.

In a letter sent this week, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation said Kim sent out an email using his official military email address to 35 other chaplains on Wednesday containing an “unsolicited” PDF copy of Piper’s new e-book Coronavirus and Christ.

MRFF, which advocates for a strict separation of church and state within the U.S. military, is representing 22 clients all of whom are Christians from mostly mainline and progressive traditions and felt if they came forward publicly in opposition to Kim’s email they would face repercussions. (Read more from “Army Chaplain Under Fire for Sharing Book ‘Coronavirus and Christ'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Another Woman Comes Forward With Disturbing Allegation Against Joe Biden; Reade Says Complaint Would Prove Biden Aides Lied

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By PJ Media. On the heels of Biden publicly responding to Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations comes a new allegation from 26-year-old Eva Murry, who claims that in 2008, then-Senator Joe Biden complimented her on the size of her breasts at the First State Gridiron Dinner & Show. Murry was just 14 years old at the time.

“One friend and her sister said that Murry told her details of the alleged incident more or less immediately after it happened,” reports Law&Crime. “Four other friends of Murry’s said they were told about the incident, with the same details, between two and three years after it originally occurred.”

Law&Crime interviewed the friends and family Murry says she told. Murry is the niece of Christine O’Donnell, who ran for the U.S. Senate in Delaware 2010 in a longshot bid for Biden’s vacated U.S. Senate seat. Murry says she occasionally got school credit for attending political events.

“I remember walking into the lobby and being in awe of all the people in such fancy clothes,” Murry said in an interview. “Our two parties of people gravitated towards each other and everyone started saying their hellos. When it was Biden and my aunt’s turn to say hello he quickly turned to me and asked how old I was. I replied with my age and he replied with the comment ‘Fourteen? You’re very well endowed for 14!’ I was confused but it was definitely weird, he looked me up and down and hovered his eyes on my chest so I had some clue [about] the notion of his comment but didn’t fully understand at the time. We quickly separated from his area after the encounter.”

(Read more from “Another Woman Comes Forward With Disturbing Allegation Against Joe Biden” HERE)

________________________________________________

Reade Says Complaint Would Prove Biden Aides Dennis Toner and Ted Kaufman Lied About Not Knowing Her

By Daily Caller. 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden’s accuser Tara Reade says a complaint she filed with the Senate personnel office would prove that former Biden aides Dennis Toner and Ted Kaufman have lied in their denials of her story. . .

After the alleged assault, Reade told the Daily Caller News Foundation, she complained about sexual harassment to three Biden staffers: Marianne Baker, Biden’s executive assistant, and Dennis Toner and Ted Kaufman, who were both top Biden aides at the time.

Kaufman served as Biden’s chief of staff from 1976 until 1994 and as a Delaware senator from 2009 to 2010. He worked on former President Barack Obama’s transition team in 2008 and has begun work with Biden preparing for Biden’s potential transition to the White House in the case he wins the presidential election, according to the New York Times. . .

But Kaufman, Baker and Toner would not take action when Reade complained to them about sexual harassment, Reade said, so she filed a written complaint with an office she called the “Senate Personnel Office.” . . .

The Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices received 28 formal complaints between June 1992 and September 1994, according to a Senate report on the office published in the 1990s. However, OCWR would not say whether it maintains records relating to the complaints received by its progenitor. (Read more from “Reade Says Complaint Would Prove Biden Aides Dennis Toner and Ted Kaufman Lied About Not Knowing Her” HERE)

Take a look at Trump’s new devastating campaign ad against Biden HERE.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WHO Says China Blocking It From Investigation Into Coronavirus Origin

/0 Comments/in , /by

A top World Health Organization official said Thursday that China is blocking the WHO from participating in China’s investigation into the origin of coronavirus.

Dr. Gauden Galea, the WHO’s representative to China, told Sky News that the WHO has made repeated requests to join the investigation to no avail.

“We know that some national investigation is happening but at this stage we have not been invited to join,” Galea said. “We are expecting to get in the near future a briefing on where that is and to discuss possible collaboration.”

He added: “WHO is making requests of the health commission and of the authorities. The origins of [the] virus are very important, the animal-human interface is extremely important and needs to be studied.”

When asked whether China had a good reason for excluding the WHO, Galea answered: “From our point of view, no.” (Read more from “WHO Says China Blocking It From Investigation Into Coronavirus Origin” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Alaska Airlines Makes Masks Mandatory

/0 Comments/in , /by

Citing a desire to align with CDC recommendations, Alaska Airlines announced it will make masks mandatory for all passengers starting May 11.

Guests will be expected to bring their own masks, Alaska said in a blog post Friday. . .

“In light of COVID-19, we’re in a new era and are continually updating our safety standards to better protect our guests and employees,” aid Max Tidwell, Alaska Airlines’ vice president of safety.

Alaska says they’ve also stepped up cleaning efforts on their airplanes to combat COVID-19. They’re also encouraging more social distancing at the airport and on the planes.

The Seattle-based airline says they will reevaluate the mask rule periodically, and change it as the situation evolves. (Read more from “Alaska Airlines Makes Masks Mandatory” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WATCH: Protesters Storm California Beach Town Over Stay-At-Home Orders

/0 Comments/in , /by

A large crowd of people showed up at a protest in Huntington Beach, California, on Friday to complain against Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and to demand the state’s stay-at-home rules be lifted.

The crowd of more than 500 gathered at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street in downtown Huntington Beach, with people carrying signs saying “All jobs are essential,” “Freedom: We the people,” and “Recall Gavin Newsom,’” according to the Los Angeles Times.

Few people in the crowd were wearing face coverings, and almost no one followed the social distancing guidelines implemented by the government. Police officers on horseback oversaw the protest while other officers did their best to keep traffic moving along the coastal highway. . .

Newsom ordered beaches to close following large crowds congregating along the coast the previous weekend, most notably in neighboring Newport Beach, California.

“We can’t see images like we saw, particularly on Saturday, in Newport Beach and elsewhere,” Newsom said, adding that so many people on the beach was “disturbing.”

(Read more from “WATCH: Protesters Storm California Beach Town Over Stay-At-Home Orders” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

‘Don’t Defend Trump’ Memo Uncovered, Written by Top Republican Strategist

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By Western Journalism. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has sent out a 57-page memo advising GOP candidates how to address the coronavirus crisis during the 2020 campaign, Politico reported Friday.

The linchpin of the ludicrous strategy put forth in the document is to avoid mentioning President Donald Trump’s role during the national emergency. . .

In essence, the document advises Republican Senate candidates to distance themselves from Trump.

“Don’t defend Trump, other than the China Travel Ban — attack China,” the April 17 memo says. (Read more from “‘Don’t Defend Trump’ Memo Uncovered, Written by Top Republican Strategist” HERE)

______________________________________________

GOP Memo Urges ‘Anti-China’ Assault Over Coronavirus

By Politico. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has sent campaigns a detailed, 57-page memo authored by a top Republican strategist advising GOP candidates to address the coronavirus crisis by aggressively attacking China. . .

The document urges candidates to stay relentlessly on message against the country when responding to any questions about the virus. When asked whether the spread of the coronavirus is Trump’s fault, candidates are advised to respond by pivoting to China. . .

The NRSC memo shows that Republicans are also eager to make China an issue in down-ballot races. It was distributed by the Senate GOP campaign arm, though it was not explicitly drafted by or for the committee. It was authored by the political consulting firm of Brett O’Donnell, a veteran Republican strategist who has advised Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton. . .

The memo includes guidance on what Republican candidates can say when asked whether blaming China for the pandemic incites racism. Candidates are urged to respond by saying that, “No one is blaming Chinese Americans. This is the fault of the Chinese Communist Party for covering up the virus and lying about its danger. This caused the pandemic and they should be held accountable.” (Read more from “Gop Memo Urges ‘Anti-China’ Assault Over Coronavirus” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE