Andrew Cuomo investigates himself and finds his nursing home policy was not responsible for COVID-19 deaths
Andrew Cuomo has come under fire for his nursing home directive which forced nursing homes to take in patients regardless of their COVID-19 status. This policy led to 4,500 COVID patients being admitted into nursing homes and even Democrats in the state of New York were calling for an investigation into this policy which has led to 6,000 death so far, with the number still climbing.
Democrats did not get the independent investigation they were calling for but you will be happy to know that Andrew Cuomo has looked into the matter and has found that his policy is not responsible for the deaths. Here is more:
In a self-examination of one of the most controversial public health policy decisions during the Covid-19 pandemic in New York, the Cuomo administration says its policy requiring nursing homes to admit coronavirus positive patients was not a “significant factor” in the thousands of deaths seen at the facilities across the state.
The 33-page review released Monday by the state Health Department instead blamed Covid-19-positive staff and visitors who unknowingly infected the vulnerable population of nursing home patients, at least more than 6,000 of whom died in numbers that are not yet complete.
Critics dismissed the report as an exercise to distract and to deflect blame away from a decision in early spring by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo that bolstered the nursing home census statewide at an especially dangerous time during the pandemic in New York. Some renewed calls for an independent probe.
So he is actually blaming the nurses for infecting the patients, he is blaming the people who we have been calling the true heroes all these months?! As far as the visitors go, I thought visitors were not allowed in nursing homes during this pandemic? At least that is the way it was in Massachusetts and here in New Hampshire. So if Andrew Cuomo did not stop visitors from going into the nursing homes he is responsible if that is why the virus spread through the nursing homes.
It is just downright silly to think he let 4,500 people with COVID-19 into the nursing homes with the most vulnerable people and that it had absolutely nothing to do with the outbreak of the virus in the nursing homes, and in fact it was the nurses’ fault, but that is what he would have us believe.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Hunter Biden still has stake in Chinese company
I know it has been awhile but you may remember several months ago, when Joe Biden was being scrutinized for influence peddling and Hunter Biden was coming under fire for being the beneficiary of said peddling, that the former Vice President promised none of his family members would be involved in any foreign businesses if he became President.
Although claiming that he and his father had done nothing wrong, in the interest of there being no appearances of impropriety Hunter Biden promised to relinquish his position with BHR Partners.
According to this story it looks as if Hunter Biden finally relinquished his unpaid position on the Board of Directors:
The Chinese private equity firm BHR Partners updated its business records on April 20 to remove Hunter Biden as a member of its board of directors
Hunter Biden’s departure from BHR’s board was submitted to China’s National Credit Information Publicity System (NCIPS) more than six months after he pledged to relinquish his position with the firm “on or by October 31,” according to Qixinbao and Baidu, two independent services that provide registration information on Chinese corporations based on NCIPS filings.
That is good news, however there is this:
he continues to hold a 10% ownership stake in the company through his LLC, Chinese business records show.
The records also show that Hunter Biden continues to hold a 10% equity stake in BHR through his company, Skaneateles LLC, as of Friday, a position he maintains despite a pledge in December from his father, former Vice President Joe Biden, that none of his family members would “be engaged in any foreign business” if he is elected president in November.
So, what it amounts to is this: Hunter Biden, in an obvious effort to make it appear as if he was making good on his father’s promise, relinquished his UNPAID position on the Board of Directors while at the same time holding onto his 10% stake in the billion dollar company. And nobody is supposed to notice this and, above all, nobody is supposed to question this.
Politics is like a magic show, it is all sleight of hand, illusion, it is the art of diversion, of making people look at one hand while the other is hidden behind the veil, and after decades in politics the Biden’s are masterful magicians.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, July 5th open thread: ‘Refuse/Resist’
This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is this week’s open thread. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Here is Sepultura and “Refuse/Resist.” Enjoy:
Believe it or not the Democrats still have not given up on the Russia scandal. They have been trying to get their hands on the unredacted Mueller report but today the Supreme Court put the kibosh on that effort for the time being. Here is more:
Grand jury material from former special counsel Robert Mueller won’t be released to the Democratic-led House of Representatives at least for now, after the Supreme Court on Thursday granted the Trump administration’s request to take up the case next term.
The move means the documents won’t likely be released before the November election, even if the Democrats win the case.
The court’s move is a victory for the Justice Department, which is seeking to prevent the release of the information, which includes portions of Mueller’s report that were redacted to protect grand jury information and underlying grand jury testimony and exhibits that relate to certain individuals and events.
The Supreme Court is going to take up this case during the fall term so this is not over, however the Democrats were hoping they could get their hands on the unredacted report in time for the 2020 election and that is not going to happen.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
When the house arrest orders were in full effect we saw a few politicians have their Chris Christie the-beaches-are-shut-for-thee-but-not-for-me moments: New Mexico Governor Grisham decided jewelry was essential for her and devised a scheme to purchase some during her State’s shutdown, Governor Whitmer’s husband had a “do you know who I am” moment when wanted to get his boat in the water over Memorial Day weekend during a lock down, and in California Gavin Newsom was seen violating his own social conditioning rules because he needed to shake hands and kiss babies.
And speaking of Gavin Newsom, he liked the totalitarian measures and the thought of a government-dependent citizenry so much that he is in the process of doing it again. The Governor has ordered a new lock down which includes restaurants, wineries, and movie theaters.
You may be thinking to yourself, doesn’t Gavin Newsom own a winery? The answer to that question is yes, but have no fear about Gavin Newsom losing all of that holiday weekend revenue because he made an exemption which will allow his winery to remain open. Here is more:
Wineries, a popular destination on a summer holiday weekend, were forced to close in the affected counties. Californians who’d planned on visiting places like Temecula or Santa Barbara or the Santa Ynez Valley or Fairfield or the Santa Clara Valley to celebrate Independence Day with some local wines face a tough choice: either stay home or find an open winery somewhere like San Diego County or Napa County.
Napa County, where Gov. Gavin Newsom’s business, PlumpJack Wines, operates four wineries – wineries with tasting rooms that are open all weekend long and booked solid.
Well, isn’t that convenient.
Convenient indeed! Apparently the virus cannot cross county lines, how fortunate for Gavin Newsom…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Supreme Court rules in favor of school choice
The Supreme Court has been in the news quite a bit lately and earlier today the highest court in the land handed down another decision. The decision was on school choice and this time liberal Justice John Roberts sided with the four conservative justices on the court. Here is more:
In a huge win for backers of school choice including Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with three Montana families who asked the court to declare that excluding religious schools from student aid programs is unconstitutional.
The case, which has drawn intense interest from the Trump administration, could have major implications for the use of public dollars to pay for religious schools. At the White House, Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said that the ruling removes “one of the biggest obstacles” to better educational opportunities, preventing states from hiding behind rules “motivated by insidious bias against Catholics.”
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue looked at whether the Montana Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution when it struck down a tax-credit scholarship program that allowed students to attend private schools, including religious schools.
Justices held that the application of Montana’s “no-aid provision” discriminated against religious schools and families whose children attend or hope to attend them in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in the 5-4 decision.
Proponents of school choice said it was a major triumph in the courts. “The weight that this monumental decision carries is immense, as it’s an extraordinary victory for student achievement, parental control, equality in educational opportunities, and First Amendment rights,” said Jeanne Allen, the founder and chief executive of the Center for Education Reform.
Not all agreed with the last statement in the block quote above, notably the teacher unions, but it seems to me as if giving children the chance to attend a better school would be hard to consider a bad thing. However, I do have to admit I have never followed this issue closely so I do not know all the arguments opposed and in favor of school choice.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Louisiana passed legislation several years ago which stated in order for a doctor to perform an abortion he or she had to have admitting rights to a nearby hospital, this law had been challenged in the courts and today the Supreme Court ruled against the law. Here is more:
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law that critics said could have forced all but one of the state’s abortion providers to close, granting a major victory for abortion rights supporters and signaling that the more conservative court isn’t ready to overthrow precedent on the divisive issue.
In a 5-4 ruling, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the deciding vote, the court said the Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals created an unconstitutional undue burden for patients seeking an abortion.
John Roberts claimed he disagreed with the decision however was forced to vote in favor of it due to precedent:
Justice Stephen Breyer, in an opinion joined by rest of the court’s liberal wing, wrote that the Louisiana law would make it “impossible for many women to obtain a safe, legal abortion in the State and [impose] substantial obstacles on those who could.” Roberts, in a separate concurring opinion, disagreed with the liberal justices’ reasoning but said he was bound by the precedent the court set just four years ago when it rejected a similar law in Texas.
“The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons,” wrote Roberts, who had voted to uphold the Texas restrictions in 2016. “Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”
He seems to have forgotten it was his court which set the precedent in the first place. When can we stop saying John Roberts sided with the four liberal justices and just say the five liberal justices?
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, June 28th open thread: ‘Screaming for Anarchy’
This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is this week’s open thread. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Here are Street Bulldogs and “Screaming for Anarchy”
We have seen the not so subtle media bias when it comes to the coverage of the small groups of people who were protesting the house arrest orders compared to the coverage of the much larger Black Lives Matter and Antifa protests, which led to the takeover of a portion of Seattle, in regards to the potential spread of COVID-19.
There is no need to go into that here, it has been well-covered already, but it is interesting to note that politicians have also shown a bias in how they have reacted to the two scenarios. But the politicians’ hypocritical reactions to different issues during this pandemic is not limited solely to these protests, it also relates to how they have handled the crisis and gatherings in general.
Back in April Bill de Blasio threatened to arrest people if they attended the funeral of a beloved religious leader and in March he threatened to “permanently” close houses of worship. While restricting this first amendment protection, Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo came out in favor of the recent George Floyd protests even though there is a ban on large gatherings. This double standard did not go unnoticed and several religious leaders filed a lawsuit. Yesterday a judge ruled that Andrew Cuomo and Bill deBlasio exceeded their authority by limiting church services while letting the protests go on unchecked. Here is more:
A federal judge said New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General Letitia James, and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio “exceeded” their executive limits by limiting worship services and condoning mass protests as the state continues to reopen from coronavirus restrictions.
U.S. District Judge Gary L. Sharpe issued a preliminary injunction Friday on behalf of two Catholic priests — Steven Soos and Nicholas Stamos — and a trio of Orthodox Jewish congregants — Elchanan Perr, Daniel Schonborn, and Mayer Mayerfeld — in Brooklyn, represented by the Thomas More Society.
They filed the suit in the Northern District of New York after mass protests and looting occurred in the Big Apple following George Floyd’s police-related death in May.
De Blasio had “simultaneous pro-protest/anti-religious gathering messages” when he “actively encouraged participation in protests and openly discouraged religious gatherings and threatened religious worshipers,” Sharpe said in his federal order.
“Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio could have just as easily discouraged protests, short of condemning their message, in the name of public health and exercised discretion to suspend enforcement for public safety reasons instead of encouraging what they knew was a flagrant disregard of the outdoor limits and social distancing rules,” the judge added. “They could have also been silent. But by acting as they did, Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio sent a clear message that mass protests are deserving of preferential treatment.”
And here is more about another example of the hypocrisy:
“Suddenly, the limit on ‘mass gatherings’ was no longer necessary to ‘save lives,’” Ferrara said in a statement to Fox News. “Yet they were continuing to ban high school graduations and other outdoor gatherings exceeding a mere 25 people.”
He added, “This decision is an important step toward inhibiting the suddenly emerging trend of exercising absolute monarchy on [the] pretext of public health. What this kind of regime really meant in practice is freedom for me, but not for thee.”
Okay, back to the original decision. If I am reading this article correctly this is not a straightforward victory for religious freedom, the judge did not rule the State governments cannot restrict the freedom of religion but rather that all restrictions on our freedoms have to be equally restrictive. In other words if you are going to violate one right you must violate them all.
But still it is a victory at a time when we desperately needed one to help stem the tide of authoritarianism that is creeping across the nation with the approval of the people…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Appeals Court freezes $2 billion in border wall funding
Back and forth we go on Donald Trump’s battle to reallocate some defense monies to build the border wall. When last we left this fiasco the Supreme Court reversed a freeze a lower court put on $2.5 billion.
The Supreme Court decision allowed the President to begin spending the $2.5 billion while the lawsuit made its way through the court system. Well, that lower court has now made its decision and not surprisingly the 9th Circuit Court has ruled against the President. Here is more:
A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against the Trump administration in its transfer of $2.5 billion from military construction projects to build sections of the U.S. border wall with Mexico, ruling it illegally sidestepped Congress, which gets to decide how to use the funds.
In two opinions, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a coalition of border states and environmental groups that contended the money transfer was unlawful and that building the wall would pose environmental threats.
The rulings were the latest twist in the legal battle that has largely gone Trump’s way. Last July, the Supreme Court allowed the $2.5 billion to be spent while the litigation continued, blunting the impact of the latest appeals court action.
The 9th Circuit ruled that the Trump administration not only lacked the authority to authorize the transfer of funds, “but also violated an express constitutional prohibition designed to protect individual liberties.”
The vote on both rulings was 2-1 with judges appointed by former President Bill Clinton in the majority and a Trump nominee dissenting.
Much of the money has already been spent and this is sure to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which has largely ruled in the President’s favor on border wall spending.
And on and on it goes…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 