“There are currently no vaccines available to protect against human Coronaviruses…”¹

I am fresh from my son’s orthodontist appointment where a stern faced dental hygienist, hidden behind a lab coat, oversized gauzy surgical mask, and opaque gloves confronted us before a locked door. As we began up the steps, she waved a spray bottle back and forth like a crazed gunman yelling something unintelligible. Seeing my lack of comprehension, she stabbed a Latex coated finger at a sign jutting from a flowerbed like an East German prison guard. Words in red letters ordered us to return to our car, telephone the orthodontist to announce our arrival, and then wait until we received a callback summons for my son to enter. Can I not tell you we are here, I asked. She shook her head and yelled “no”! We must follow the system. My response in English questioned the intelligence of this process but a phrase in French crossed my mind.

This is a polemic but not necessarily a dissertation on the science of Red China’s² virus. After all, what exactly is the science? Is it the proclamations of government mouthpieces or the opinions of scientists censored by Face Book and other social media platforms? Claims to having the “science” are like moles popping up from numerous holes, no two alike. Science? My high school’s government course included a required unit on AIDS. On the one hand, teachers were to scare the bejabbers out of kids over how easy it was to contract AIDS so they would practice “safe sex”. I was relieved no one asked me to differentiate safe from unsafe sex. I thought it had to do with rhinestone cowboy boots, a unicycle, a giant kite, and a rope bridge spanning an Andean gorge. On the other hand, teachers were to stress how difficult it was to get AIDS in order to relieve homosexuals of further stigma. Science? Yeah, public education. Regardless of what the “science” is, reactions by Americans to China’s virus has been a revelation.

From the nation’s experts: politicians, movie stars, entertainers, and professional athletes, comes the rallying cry, “We’re all in this together”! What a joke. Who is this “we”? How are they suffering? If anything, the frenzied manner in which greedy grubby fingered savages ravage store shelves, hogging up the product de jour, demonstrates it is really, every man for himself. And it’s not even Black Friday. Reaction by the Great Unwashed provide us a peek as to how they will react in the face of a greater crisis.

In the very early days of the Wuhan Pandemic, American officials raced breathlessly to microphones announcing the virus did not originate from a laboratory nor had Commie scientists biologically modified or weaponized an existing virus. These premature declarations reminded me of government officials, following an explosion, mass shooting, or rental truck mowing citizens down in a city center, racing before news cameras to announce, “It’s not terrorism” even before the names of the injured or suspects were known. Okay, what did they say was its origin? It came from Chinese raw bat eaters who coughed on Chinese raw baby Koala bear eaters in Wuhan, China. Make’s sense, doesn’t it? Like ripples from a rock thrown in a pond, Red China’s virus continues to have reverberating consequences.

Years as policeman and teacher left me with a lifelong need to decompress. Peace and quiet in the outdoors, far from Thomas Harding’s Madding Crowd, has proven the best medicament. I spend a fair amount of time in the wild especially winter, my favorite season. For any outdoorsman/woman, the attraction is nature’s beauty, aroma of wild flowering plants, animals, birds, and the sound of wind rushing through branches absent the strident cacophony of civilization. All was good until government lockdowns spawned disastrous levels of people practicing unprotected tourism in the woods and along once tranquil trails.

New to the outdoors, CoronaTourists tend to be loud, obnoxious, and display self-centered ignorance with respect to trail etiquette (yield trails to runners and the mountain bikers who built them). They don jackets, coats, hats, and mittens to brave frigid 60-degree temperatures. Millennial CoronaTourists seem to drag every vestige of civilization along with them. Blaring radios, clouds of marijuana, screaming children, tampons, fast foot wrappers, baby binkies, Big Gulp cups, Happy Meal toys, condoms, cigarettes, Band Aids, undergarments, and beer cans are now parts of the “regular” landscape. For Pete’s sake, shouldn’t these people be crowding into stores fighting over the last roll of toilet paper and box of 9mm ammunition? With respect to Touristbasms, winter has proven the only effective disinfectant to clean them out of the woods.

Following a recent hike, I crossed a rural road to the above shelter perched in a lonely field surrounded by woods. A sign announced the shelter is closed. The incongruity of closing an outdoor shelter, in the middle of nowhere, in the wind, fresh air, and sunlight, as opposed to people cooped up in homes, apartments, and buildings rebreathing the same air, is unfathomable. County officials cannot trust people to limit gatherings to ten or less so, they closed the shelter. One size fits all rules with no appeal to common sense permitted. Typical bureaucrats. Suppose more than ten people gather beneath the shelter to commemorate a War Veteran’s passing, a child’s birthday, or a teen’s graduation. Who would know out there, unless someone snitched? Probably liberals. Would the Coronastapo come and round up these malefactors? Prior to all this, I accepted lockdowns, quarantines, and that millions of us were going to die. However, these incongruities caused me to begin asking questions about the efficacy and legality of the government’s response to the viral outbreak.

If only two people are in a store, one healthy and one infected with the virus, and the latter coughs on the former, the healthy person is now likely infected. Suppose there are two hundred people in the same store, and none infected, and those with a dry throat cough on others, how many will be infected with the virus? None. Stay with me now. Healthy people cannot transmit what they do not have. Why quarantine masses of healthy people? Why is it “safe” for ten or less people to congregate but add one more, and now they are all doomed? It makes no sense. There is one possible explanation however implausible. The Wuhan virus is super-intelligent and someone has taught it arithmetic. Loathing humans, nevertheless, it can tolerate up to ten people but if one more comes along, Red China’s virus goes berserk.

I began asking more questions. Before long, I discovered many Americans have so fallen in line with the government’s talking points that to ask questions makes them go berserk.

I texted a friend about a humorous incident. I found a surgical mask on a trail that is no more than a sliver of dirt, boot width wide, bisecting a large field. Facing the woods from the gravel parking lot, the field extends approximately one hundred yards to the left and a half-mile to the right of the trail. It is always windy out there. Instead of seeing the humor in the situation, like bicyclers and people in cars wearing surgical masks, my friend was outraged. He denounced people who do not wear masks and practice social distancing as “disgusting”, lacking in “proper education” who had probably been “born and lived under a rock” and needed hit over the head by one. He was ecstatic that our governor, Maryland Republican Larry Hogan, had “taken the bull by the horns” implementing “strict enforceable guidelines” and thanked G-d we had a governor with “insight and fortitude”. Considering Hogan is a RHINO, called a “closet Democrat” by the ultra-liberal Baltimore Sun,³ I thought he was joking. I asked if this was sarcasm and he replied with an emphatic “no”. I replied, “I’m sorry to say, I see it a bit differently”. His demand to know why was more emphatic than his no. We had never discussed politics and, not wanting to step on toes, I tread lightly.

Instead of specific arguments, I listed categories; lockdowns based on debunked models, Constitutional problems, and the efficacy of quarantining entire populations. I observed it was remarkable Governors closed down gun stores and churches but deemed pot shops, liquor stores, and abortion mills essential. That was it. My friend’s responses came so rapid fire I could not keep up. I was answering question one but he was on number four. I tried to explain the government based its rationale for shutting down entire countries first on Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College-London computer model predicting two-million dead and then the University of Washington’s model claiming several hundred thousand dead by sometime in April. Reality and the subsequent work by scientists obviated the need for shutdowns when they debunked both models.⁴ Ignoring this, my friend declared medical emergencies superseded my “constitutional theory” adding that the Constitution had been amended many times. I noted the Constitution was the law of the land and superseded by nothing. Uncertain as to the relevance of counting amendments, I pointed out it has been amended only seventeen times since 1792. I added no amendment had abolished the Bill of Rights or principle of federalism. He became angry and told me to pass an amendment overruling the virus. I asked, what is the rationale for shutting the country down for three weeks, why not four, and why six as opposed to seven? I asked how long should we be in lockdown and what was the rationale for his answer. What should happen if, when the government lets Americans out again, there is a spike in viral infections? Do we all go back into lockdown? Refusing to answer my questions, he instead accused me of treating him like a student in one of my classes and called me a “pompous ass”. It went downhill from there. Hoping we could emerge still friends, I did not descend into ad hominin attacks. Had he not ended the conversation abruptly, I would have explained this; the Constitution is a contract between government and the people. It lists specifically what governments, state and federal, may or may not do. It bars the federal government from engaging in any activity not authorized by the Constitution. The Constitution is also a restraining order against government to protect the people’s rights from infringement. If people accept an “exception” to the law in but one case, it establishes precedent for future exceptions made by those in power. Exceptions to one’s Bill of Rights. Witness now how quickly people rush to snitch on those daring to exercise their Bill of Rights. Google how many states are hiring folks to execute contact tracing surveillance schemes. Will the government and schools create National Antiviral Zealous Informer Youth Leagues to Narc on people, even their own parents?

The President’s powers are found in Article II of the Constitution and comprise but three paragraphs. Other than exercise of military powers in time of war, appointing listed government officials, and granting pardons, his/her only other function is to ensure “the laws be faithfully executed”.⁵ No mention is made of executive orders. At most, one could argue presidents may issue an executive order in furtherance of a constitutionally legal law or bill passed by the Congress. However, no such order could create law, directives, regulations, restrictions, and so forth, as those are the sole functions of the legislative branch. The Constitution does not authorize the president to shut down commercial businesses, confine people to their homes, restrict any legal activity, dictate what people must wear in public, social-distancing, or send taxpayer’s money as bailouts to businesses and individuals. Therefore, these activities are illegal. If true, cannot Congress do all this?

The Constitution lists the powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8, known as the Enumerated Powers. Seven of the eighteen deal with the military. The others cover land set aside for the capital, laws regulating immigration, post offices, coining of money, creation of federal courts, copyrights, punishing pirates, trade, and taxing and borrowing money to fund the above.⁶ Congress has no power, under the Declaration or Constitution, to shut down commercial establishments, schools, or confine people to their residences. It has no authority to appropriate the wealth of Americans and transfer it to others for any purpose whatsoever. Nor do Governors. These are grotesque violations of the Constitution. Regardless of what people, mostly liberals, say, there are no “for the public safety” or “for the common good” exceptions to the Constitution. America’s Constitution is over the government. The subordinate cannot overrule its superior. Does anyone care? No doubt, enemies of the Constitution will argue the Commerce Clause grants Congress authority to engage in illegal activities.

At the time [1787] delegates meeting in Philadelphia drafted and debated the proposed Constitution, States had established trade barriers against sister states. They taxed goods crossing their borders. Coastal states with ports added additional tariffs on goods from abroad. This led to a great deal of conflict between states. Delegates wrote the Commerce Clause to deny states the power to restrict interstate commerce in any way. Liberals disguise and lie about Congress’s power to “regulate commerce”⁷ by ignoring its 18^th century common use meaning in favor of their redefinition. Regulate did not mean control, supervise, or make rules in any way. Regulate meant to keep “regular”. If states enacted taxes and tariffs restricting the flow of commerce across their borders, Congress had the power to knock them down. Congress has no authority to control any commercial activity simply because it crosses state lines. It has no authority to direct, regulate, restrict, or control commercial activity within any state whatsoever.⁸ American ignorance with respect to their own Constitution is appalling. Even a conservative Baptist preacher with whom I’m acquainted texted church members saying he had to obey the government’s order to close the church based on Romans 13: 1-2; (1) “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from G-d. (2) “Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of G-d; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves”.⁹ I wanted to ask him what he would say to America’s Founding Fathers who rebelled against George III, King of England, King of the English Empire, King of the colonies, and Head of the Church of England. I held my peace.

Historian and theologian David Barton writes that the pastor’s opinion gave birth to the principle of “Divine Right of Kings”; the notion G-d selected every ruler who ruled, a principle eagerly embraced by monarchs and emperors. Regardless of how arbitrary, capricious, and tyrannical, people have to obey these rulers. French theologian Philippe du Plessis Mornay wrote in 1579 [Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants] the government ordained by G-d referred to “the general institution of government” not each and every distinct form of government. G-d’s purpose expressed in Romans 13 was to oppose anarchy. Dissolution of society leads to lawlessness ending in rebellion against and ultimately rejection of G-d and His law. Therefore, G-d opposes rebellion if it leads to anarchy and chaos. Otherwise, people would have to obey the dictates of murderous Communist regimes.¹⁰ Another way to look at is this; if presidents, Congresses, and Governors violate their own Constitutions and state laws, are they preserving G-d’s order or provoking resistance? If the acts of political officials in violation of the law become so egregious, it sparks rebellion, whose actions then are leading toward anarchy, those of political leaders, or those of people attempting to restore the rule of law?

Red China unleashing yet another Coronavirus has revealed much. If government officials can scare enough people with claims a crisis menaces the United States, (global warming, murder hornets, viruses, etc.) then people will do what they are told without question even if to do so violates the Bill of Rights. If these officials can convince them it is their patriotic duty to obey, they will turn against their neighbors reporting those who do not comply. There is no longer a “we”. In a crisis, it is every man for himself. As Tucker Carlson would say, “I have to live in the same country as these people”? Finally, people who lust for power will always stoke fear, panic, and anarchy in order to promote their personal agenda that, throughout history, has always been to rule over others.