Group Releases Analysis of Pinal County’s 2022 Election, Finds ‘Deliberate Malfeasance,’ Concludes Election Should Not Have Been Certified thumbnail

Group Releases Analysis of Pinal County’s 2022 Election, Finds ‘Deliberate Malfeasance,’ Concludes Election Should Not Have Been Certified

The CONELRAD Group found “malfeasance, incompetence, and possible criminal activity” in their review of the 2022 election in Pinal County. The team of mostly former intelligence and military officers located primarily in southern Arizona concluded in a new report sent to The Arizona Sun Times on Wednesday, “Evidence was clearly identified that should have led to an immediate halt to certifying the General Election.”

Jack Dona, who holds 43 intelligence and technical certifications and diplomas from civilian colleges, technical schools and military academies, and who served in military intelligence, retiring as a master sergeant/first, summarized his team’s report for The Sun Times.

“It is our opinion that the entire legal system in Arizona may be compromised. From the State Bar attacking the law license of Brian Blehm, to the entire judicial system of Arizona dismissing election integrity cases, this appears to be a coordinated effort to intimidate and block any BOS [board of supervisor] elected official attempting to verify our election system via hand counts, or any election integrity transparency at all,” he said. “All cases being blocked and shut down via ‘lawfare’ in the courts and by county attorneys … All avenues of redress are being shut down.”

The report contained six main findings. It was based on 637 pages of evidence, consisting primarily of transcripts of meetings of the Pinal County supervisors, emails, reports, and articles.

Two of the findings related to Pinal County Attorney Kent Volkner, who appointed the law firm of Coppersmith & Brockelman PLC to analyze the 2022 primary election results. However, that firm also represents Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs, an election fraud denier who has fought attempts to uncover corruption in the elections. It was founded by Sam Coppersmith, who has previously served as chair for the Arizona Democratic Party. The team was concerned about why Volkner chose a firm with conflicts.

The team recommended, “At a minimum, candidates who lost their elections statewide and in Pinal County should subpoena to see the communications records between Katie Hobbs, Pinal County Attorney Kent Volkmer and the firm used by both of them for elections, Coppersmith & Brockelman PLC.”

The team found regarding Volkner, “It appears that the County Attorney’s Office now effectively controls all elections in Pinal County and will fight fiercely, using his interpretations of state and county laws, to ensure there is no verification of the internal workings of these machines by a full hand count.”

The report recommended, “Kent Volkmer in his capacity as Pinal County Attorney should be investigated to the fullest extent allowable under the law.”

The report was skeptical of Volkner stating during a meeting that it would take days or weeks to hand count ballots. The team responded in its report, “Ridiculous comment on face value. Given the correct procedure and personnel with observers, a full hand count could have taken place within 48 to 72 hours. Our ancestors did it successfully on election night 40 years ago.”

A third finding in the report compiled a list of Election Day problems, from “multiple problems with these machines receiving re-programming on election day to multiple poll books not functioning correctly.” The team said the election must be hand-counted to fix this issue, and “source codes and super user or root passwords must be given to independent IT experts for analysis.”

The report included testimony from an election worker who said they were instructed to help tear up Republican ballots that had been double-voted or scanned twice through the tabulators. The election worker admitted no Democratic ballots were ripped up.

“I don’t believe the double ballot issue involved the Democrats because other poll workers assisted me with tearing up mail in ballots but the ballots I tore up were all RED,” the ballot worker said.

The team responded in the report, “This is evidence of nefarious activity. These mistakes always affect GOP Candidates. Why wasn’t this referred to Sheriff Lamb for investigation?”


To read the rest of this story, click here, and go to The Arizona Sun-Times.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Interesting Charts For Provocative Thoughts thumbnail

Interesting Charts For Provocative Thoughts

We have been told that we have had the hottest summer on record and the forests over the summer were all burning up.  That is what the media tells us.  There seems to be just a slight conflict with the facts.

Technology continues to pull the stock market up, even as other shares dither.  We are now priced in relative terms ( tech stocks to the general market), similar to the Dot-Com bubble peak of 1999-2000.  What could go wrong with this?  Either tech stocks will have to weaken, or the general market will have to surge. How likely is the latter?

This chart from the Manhattan Institute shows that revenue flowing to the Federal Government has been amazingly steady, even over the years of major tax rate changes and economic cycles.  It seems that it is hard to extract more than about 18-20% of GDP, without causing money to seek avoidance.  Given this fairly steady flow of revenue, that goes up automatically as GDP increases, it is clear that the problem of deficits is one of SPENDING simply outrunning the rate of economic growth.  We don’t need and have never needed higher taxes. It is only by addressing spending that deficits will ever be reduced.

Aid per capita to “the Palestinians” far exceeds the aid given to any other country in North Africa or elsewhere.  It raises several questions.  Why after years of aid in excess of what anyone else receives, do they live in such poverty, while their neighbor Israel, prospers?  Secondly, why do the US and the UN give so much aid with no conditions or demands to change behavior or to see that the money is not stolen by corrupt leadership?  How many marching college students know this?  Why don’t they?

When compared to what the US gave to war-torn Europe for recovery under the Marshall Plan:

Dr. Eli David compiled these numbers about the wealth of Palestinian leaders:

Where did the money go?
💰 Yasser Arafat: $3B
💰 Mahmoud Abbas: $2B
💰 Khaled Mashal: $5B
💰 Ismail Haniyeh: $4B
💰 Mousa Abu Marzouk: $3B
💰 Cost of Hamas terror tunnels: $10B

When will the US demand some accountability for the expenditure of these funds?

The media and the Biden Administration promote the idea of some kind of “white nationalist” reign of terror against Black people.  They claim it is the most dangerous domestic security issue. Any white-on-black crime is blown way out of proportion while the pervasive assault on white people by blacks is ignored.  What is the end purpose of distorting reality in such an extreme fashion?

We have been told all this monstrous spending will benefit all of us.  Money will be spent to improve “infrastructure”.  This chart from The Economist shows that will all the deficits, infrastructure spending is not even back to the level seen in the decade before Covid and the need to “build back better.” In fact, the level today is about at the same area as the previous troughs in spending. Tired of getting lied to?

This chart from CFACT shows that while the Biden Administration is chasing down our gas stoves, wants us to eat bugs, and drive exploding EVs, China continues to build a massive amount of coal-fired generating plants.  Now if they really believed what they were saying about coal and global warming, why is China given this kind of a pass on this issue?  Why aren’t our climate justice warrior students gluing themselves in front of the Chinese Embassy?  The don’t seem to ever throw paint on any Chinese art exhibits, either.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Even Though Unparalleled Deeds Offend Today, Great Men Did Shift History thumbnail

Even Though Unparalleled Deeds Offend Today, Great Men Did Shift History

Napoleon’s ambition, decisiveness, and drive made him excellently suited to make the most out of the tumult of the revolution.

Antony Beevor’s latest article in The Telegraph discusses Ridley Scott’s upcoming film about Napoleon’s life and laments the fact that heroic figures like Napoleon give weight to the Great Man Theory. Beevor sees the idea that a few significant figures have outsized effects as “unfashionable and offensive.”

It is a shame that someone like Beevor, an excellent writer who has produced many magisterial history books about World War II, wrote such a historically misguided article.

What about Great Women?

One of Beevor’s points is that the Great Man Theory “carries the insulting implication that women cannot be great leaders.” But appreciating Napoleon or Caesar does not exclude recognition of the achievements of female rulers. Maria Theresa of Austria is considered by some to be “the most important ruler of the age of Enlightened Absolutism.” Queen Victoria’s rule defined one of Great Britain’s most vibrant eras. Catherine the Great played a key role in turning the Russian Empire into a great power.

Beevor’s assertion that female rulers are somehow “much less susceptible to the narcissistic narratives so favored by male dictators” appears silly to anyone who’s read a biography of Cleopatra or Catherine de Medici.

To his credit, Beevor recognizes that individuals can have an outsized effect on history. He goes on to say, however, that “individuals alone have not created history. Threats to food or energy supplies have played their part in leading to revolution and war. So have differences over religion and its 20th-century successor, political ideology.”

Great Men Need Great Opportunities

But he is attacking a strawman. Yes, of course, great rulers have never appeared in a vacuum. The French Revolution was key to clearing Napoleon’s path to the throne, as Beevor points out. If Japan had not been mired in the turmoil of the Warring States Period, Tokugawa Ieyasu would not have had the opening to unify Japan and proclaim himself Shogun. Without the centuries of social and economic forces and army reforms of Marius that shaped the Roman Republic’s army into the finest the world had ever seen, even a talented commander like Caesar would not have been able to cover himself in glory.

Recognizing that events can provide opportunities for the great men of history does not detract from their agency and talent. They still had the foresight and strength of character to bend those events according to their vision. Napoleon’s ambition, decisiveness, and drive made him excellently suited to make the most out of the tumult of the revolution.

Yes, Alexander may never have started his conquests were it not for Macedonian society’s strong military ethos, his father’s military reforms, and the Greek world’s abundance of the cornel wood that was necessary for producing the Macedonians’ deadly 16-foot-long sarissa pikes. But it took Alexander’s courage and genius for war to make the fullest use of those factors. He used the opportunities to achieve a legendary, unbroken string of victories that military academies still study today.

Social and economic factors, the people a prince rules, and natural and political disasters all shape history. But great individuals impose order on the chaos and make the best use of the opportunities and resources granted to them. Dough without a baker will never turn to bread on its own.

Denying the agency of great individuals is like belittling the artwork of Mozart or Michelangelo because, without years of training by their teachers, financing by wealthy patrons, and society around them that appreciated their masterpieces, they would have been nothing. Of course, all those factors contributed to their artistic success. That doesn’t detract one particle from the beauty of Mozart’s “Marriage of Figaro” or Michelangelo’s “David.”

Great Men and Reckless Politics

It’s true that, as Beevor says, many politicians love melodramatic comparisons to World War II. They cast themselves as reincarnations of Winston Churchill and foreign dictators as Adolf Hitler. The lazy analogy erases nuance in foreign relations and leads to dangerous decisions. Politicians are naturally given to such grandiloquent statements and thoughtless foreign policy choices. But Beevor fails to show why the Great Man Theory leads to this sad state of affairs.

The most absurd claim in Beevor’s article is his last one. He is upset because he thinks the Great Man Theory “is no longer limited to military conquest. It also extends to those leaders who can, through the force of personality, toxify politics by encouraging and exploiting hatred: the Trumps, the Orbans, the Miloševićs.”

How can Beevor shake his head at politicians who keep seeing a new Hitler behind every foreign tyrant’s military uniform and then seriously go on to compare Trump and Orban to Slobodan Milošević?

It’s also inconsistent to blame populist leaders like Trump and Orban for “fomenting hate.” Leftist leaders have turned hatred and division into an industrial complex. Kamala Harris egged on violent rioters burning down our cities. Joe Biden tarred half of the country as fascists. A Marxist professor threatened a conservative reporter with a machete. Myriad other leftist politicians, professors, actors, woke corporations, and media personalities daily try to turn our country into a giant Tower of Babel by dividing us according to race, sexual orientation, and “gender identity.”

Why Are Great Men So Controversial?

Perhaps the best argument against Beevor and all other detractors of the Great Man Theory is the fact that great men like Napoleon still generate so much controversy. As Beevor wrote, Tolstoy believed that powerful rulers are “history’s [slaves].” Yet Tolstoy still cast Napoleon as the principal monstrous villain of his greatest work, War and Peace. That choice makes no sense if the French emperor was just another cog helplessly moved by historical forces beyond his control.

Napoleon, as some have claimed, “has had more books written about him than any other individual, with the sole exception of Jesus Christ.” Although he lived more than two centuries before our time, the ideals he formulated and enacted through his Napoleonic Code reverberate to this day.

It’s worth noting that not all powerful rulers are good men. Individuals like Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong have also had a great effect on history for the worse, murdering tens of millions of innocents.

And Napoleon is just one triumphant example of how true the Great Man Theory is. One could spend hours discussing great men and their contributions to history. Churchill played a key role in stopping Nazi aggression. America might not exist without George Washington’s inspired leadership. The emperor Constantine’s legalization of Christianity helped speed the new religion onto the global stage.

In the end, detractors can say what they want about the Napoleons and Alexanders of our history books. The achievements of these heroes speak for themselves.


This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: YouTube screen shot Sony Pictures Official Trailer


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

The Administrative State’s Digital Currency Ruse thumbnail

The Administrative State’s Digital Currency Ruse

When I read about an executive order issued by the Biden administration last year regarding a plan for digital currency, I naturally suspected something quite dire. Generally speaking, whatever the modern, self-described “liberal democratic” administrative state claims to be doing to help supposedly disadvantaged people is actually intended primarily, if not exclusively, to increase government control. Whenever that regime, moreover, claims to be assisting the lowly, we may safely assume that our freedom and property rights are under assault.

A story that appeared in The New York Times on July 22, 2021, describing a plan to help the “unbanked” engage in financial transactions told the discriminating reader all he needed to know about government-run digital currency. Banks right now throw their services at just about anyone who enters their facilities, save for the most unreliable deadbeats. How many people out there really don’t have the means of filling out a banking application due to some insurmountable difficulty? Possibly a number equal to those who can’t show voter identification but feel excluded from the “democratic process” when their votes for the Democratic Party aren’t certified.

Another clue about the government’s intention in pushing for Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) while cutting back on the use of paper money is that this policy is being introduced “bigly” in China, a country not well-known for its high regard for personal freedom. The Chinese are no longer required to trade in paper yuan but can access electronic allocations of credit, which allow them to buy commodities and engage in business transactions. A similar process would be open to us in this country if central banks on instruction from the government were authorized to issue digital currency. Although we might be told differently, sooner or later it might become feasible to ditch paper currency entirely. We’ll then carry out all financial dealings electronically with government-issued electronic currency and receive electronically issued compensation for our labor. A further benefit of this innovation, or so we’ve been assured, is that it wouldn’t be necessary under the new system to worry about unauthorized digital currency, like Bitcoin. The government and central banks would be making a safer product available to us, which would benefit particularly the “unbanked.” We should also hope that Bitcoin would then vanish as a fake alternative to real, that is, government-guaranteed digital currency.

The problem with this argument is what it fails to reveal. CBDC can expand the market for unauthorized credit because it will drive investors to operate outside the purview of public administration. It is precisely the government’s involvement in digital currency that will cause traders and investors to look for alternative means of issuing credit and even to create makeshift currencies without having the government breathing down their necks.

The government’s intention to control financial markets and investments should be obvious here. Who invests where, how much, and when will depend on obtaining the needed capital from state bureaucrats perhaps under the influence of party functionaries. The attempt to present CBDC as a courtesy the state is extending to grateful citizens is patent nonsense. The government’s digital currency issued through central banks will more likely help concentrate financial activity in the hands of the state. Government officials will then drone on about equity while extending electronic credit to some but not others. This will have the predictable effect of creating clandestine financial activity.

Brookings Institution Senior Fellow of Global Economy and Development Eswar Prasad
(Brookings Institution)

Eswar Prasad, an economist at Cornell University and the author of the best-seller The Future of Money, can hardly be accused of being a right-winger. Prasad is a frequent consultant at Brookings and seems generally in favor of extensive government economic planning. But when it comes to government-run digital currency, he points out its downside even while noting plans for it may reflect the “noble purpose” of “banking inclusion.” Prasad warns that government-issued digital currency will destroy privacy, allow the government to track every transaction individuals make.

A government could make it impossible to spend the digital currency on things that the ruling party deems problematic. The government could also make transacting with certain people difficult or impossible—China already has a social credit system that ranks citizens algorithmically and punishes them in various ways.

Does anyone care to speculate about the political outcomes that CBDCs will likely produce? What will happen to Latin Mass Catholics or to those who protest the sexual transitioning of their children in our present not-very-democratic democracy after the introduction of government-run digital currency? In all probability the government would weaponize digital currency to suppress those who resist its rule and its continuing woke transmutation of America. Given what we’ve already observed of Democratic Party governance since 2021, should we imagine that anything else would happen with this further acquisition of state power? And why would I believe that Republican politicians would prevent that outcome if the GOP were allowed to win the next presidential race? The Republican record of reining in government overreach has been something worse than anemic.

From CNN we learn the following about the eventual widespread use of digital currency:

The rise of CBDCs could potentially threaten the status of the US dollar as the global reserve currency. Different countries will have a much easier time transacting with each other directly, removing the need for the US dollar or SWIFT, a global financial messaging system.

The takeaway here is that the government is considering plans to introduce a digital currency to offset the effects of this possible move by other major countries. But it’s hard to see how government-controlled digital credit would benefit most Americans. Many of our commercial transactions are already conducted through digitally transmitted credit, even without the state overseeing who receives this service. An article in The Wall Street Journal on Feb. 7, 2023 makes clear that “A CBDC Dollar Would Empower the Fed, Not Americans.”

In the end, it may pay to consider the broader context of the government’s actions in the economic sphere to understand how digital currency would advance long-established political goals. Let us consider how the government is presently handling economic tasks. The Biden administration, to its discredit, has already caused an inflationary spiral through reckless spending and irresponsible energy policies. Biden’s Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, clearly lied to us when she assured us that inflation would make more disposable income available to more American families. The removal of American energy independence, moreover, was definitely not a move intended to strengthen our dollar; and the predictable effect of that disaster to weaken our currency by necessitating our begging other countries to sell us their energy at higher and higher prices.

In a carefully researched essay in this issue, our foreign policy editor, Srdja Trifkovic, observes that much of the decline of the American dollar as an international currency resulted from the American government’s decision to restrict the use of American currency, lest too many dollars fall into the hands of hostile foreign powers:

A backlash was both predictable and inevitable. In the five years leading up to 2021, the share of the dollar in central bank reserves fell from 70 percent to 59 percent. Dollars held by non-American banks fell from $7.1 trillion to $6.5 trillion between December 2021 and December 2022. The greenback accounted for two-thirds of the world’s monetary reserves in 2003, 55 percent in 2021, and just 47 percent in 2022. The decline of 8 percentage points in the space of one year is remarkable, equal to 10 times the average annual rate of decline of the dollar’s market share recorded in previous years.

In all these activities it is possible to see how the modern administrative state operates in economic affairs. It presses onward even when its policies fail. It is not deterred by these failures but works to take even more control, in the name of equity, climate change, or in the present case, the unbanked. This critical perspective makes more sense than swallowing bromide about the government seeking to help the disadvantaged by introducing CBDCs. (According to Prasad, slightly less than 5 percent of the American population lacks access to banking.)

We might also consider in this vein Michael Rectenwald’s reference in his book The  Google Archipelago to “governmentalities,” agencies that appear to have an independent existence, but which function as extensions of the administrative state and carry out state functions. The most conspicuous of these governmentalities is the mainstream media, which defines and affirms the woke state religion and which assails any interest that stands athwart the expansion of state power. Central banks are another extension of the central government. Ditto for major corporations, which serve equally the state and state religion, and which receive in return government contracts and the privilege of not being investigated for such grave offenses as allowing employees to misgender or for failing to produce the stipulated LGBT quota in the workplace. Universities and most thinktanks are likewise included among Rectenwald’s “governmentalities,” something that should not surprise anyone who has bothered to notice these entities and who is even minimally sentient. It is also hard to miss the fact that the Brookings Institution, whose associates move in and out of government, has been among the most enthusiastic advocates of CBDCs. 

According to Brookings, CBDCs would facilitate international commerce, reverse de-dollarization, and, contrary to putative misinformation, would not be accompanied by the gradual removal of paper currency. Nor should we in this instance, Brookings assures, fear further government control of financial activity. State actors are there to help us engage in safe transactions during a peaceful transition to a more global economy.

The dethroning of the U.S. dollar will knock down the status of the U.S. government from a seemingly godlike entity, immune from the laws of scarcity and accounting that mere corporations, let alone households, must obey.

Another obvious example of a government agency claiming to be dealing with finance but really punishing enemies and rewarding friends of the ruling class is the IRS. This may be an even more brazen partisan actor than the Federal Reserve because there is nothing clandestine about how our tax collectors harass and shake down opponents of the state party. The Obama administration engaged in this activity uninterruptedly for years with impunity. And I’m still waiting to see if Lois Lerner and other IRS officials—who targeted conservative religious organizations and Republican and libertarian critics, subjecting them to painful audits that revealed only the most minor tax infractions—will be brought to justice. Perhaps we shouldn’t count on that happening. Lerner and her associates were doing the bidding of the state party, which treats financial activities as one more means of extending its power.

We may note with satisfaction that some presidential candidates namely, Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Robert Kennedy, Jr. have expressed their opposition to government-controlled digital currency. All of them view it quite properly as a tool for allowing the federal government to restrict financial activity, to gather information on our spending, and to deny financial resources to those who displease the state party and its minions. Minnesota Congressman Tom Emmer, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, has gone even further in opposing this plan which is already in the works. Emmer is sponsoring a bill that would deny the Federal Reserve the right to produce or manage digital currencies. According to Emmer, this “simple” legislation “stops the administrative state under President Biden from introducing a financial surveillance tool that could undermine the very essence of the American way of life.”

On May 12, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that forbids CBDCs in his state. The explanation accompanying this signing is that the governor and state legislature oppose any attempt by the federal government to oversee our use of money. Let us hope that other governors will follow this worthy example. By now it should be clear that this innovation has sinister motives behind it and is one more effort to increase government control over our lives. Any attempt to present CBDCs as a mere convenience or as an act of generosity toward the unbanked diverts our attention from this obvious danger.


This article was published by Chronicles and is reproduced with permission.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

WHO’s Edict Caused the Lockdown Disaster thumbnail

WHO’s Edict Caused the Lockdown Disaster

Jeffrey Tucker of Brownstone Institute has identified the key WHO “edict” that led to four years of Covid madness.
In an essay for the Epoch Times, Tucker notes that draconian lockdowns were imposed on  virtually all people of the world after the World Health Organization showered praise on Chinese officials for ordering lockdowns to “interrupt virus spread.

The predicate accepted by all key public health and government officials  – that lockdowns slow or stop virus spread and thus prevent Covid deaths – was never challenged and was indeed embraced as “settled science” (although public health officials had never before locked down billions of people at the same time.)

In a nutshell, the “China solution” to fighting Covid became THE solution every nation must … and did implement.

To me, a key alleged “fact” is that China (a nation of one billion people) recorded very few “Covid deaths” after it ordered its citizens to stay inside their apartments. Thus, if every other nation wanted to avoid massive numbers of Covid deaths, they should emulate China.

By now, every sane person should know the horrific consequences this edict produced. I believe I’m one of the few commentators who notes the entire scientific premise would be bogus and moot if, in fact, this “novel” virus had already been spreading for months before these lockdowns.

I’ll come back to the nonsensical or never-considered points of illogic later, but first I’ll reprint a few of Jeffrey’s excellent points. Writes Tucker (emphasis added):

Jeffrey Tucker’s Excellent Points …

“Three years ago, our social, economic, political, and cultural institutions were shattered by a central decreeThe key edict came from the World Health Organization (WHO). The date was Jan. 30, 2020. The WHO was thrilled with how China was responding to the virus by shattering the lives of its citizens. It told the entire world of the CCP’s miracle cure!

“The WHO, said an official communique, believes that it is still possible to interrupt virus spread, provided that countries put in place strong measures to detect disease early, isolate and treat cases, trace contacts, and promote social distancing measures commensurate with the risk.”

“The entire world, wrote the WHO, should embrace a “spirit of support and appreciation for China … and the actions China has taken on the front lines of this outbreak, with transparency, and, it is to be hoped, with success.” Cheers to China, said the WHO, because it is “setting a new standard.

“And so the CCP welded doors of apartments shut and an entire city was turned into a prison in the name of virus control. Suicides and despair followed, along with population-wide terror. A month later, the government proclaimed that it had beat the virus.

“The WHO was thrilled, and so it set up a special junket for health officials from the United States, Europe, and the UK. This took place Feb. 16–24, 2020. The chartered flight to see the glories of the CCP miracle included Anthony Fauci’s deputy assistant. The report came in with nothing but rave reviews.

“At the individual level, the Chinese people have reacted to this outbreak with courage and conviction. They have accepted and adhered to the starkest of containment measures — whether the suspension of public gatherings, the month-long ‘stay at home’ advisories or prohibitions on travel.”

Report Became an ‘Instruction Manual for the Entire World’ …

“This one report should have been enough to discredit the WHO forever, and prompt its instant abolition. Instead, the report issued on Feb. 24, 2020, became an instruction manual for the entire world, including the United States. Three days later, the New York Times was calling for nationwide lockdowns. Two weeks later, the Trump administration ordered that “public and private venues where people gather should be closed.”

“We know the rest of the tragedy …Businesses, schools, churches, families, and communities were wrecked, and not just for two weeks but for a year or two or more. Looking back the goal was always to buy time to get the entire population pumped with mRNA shots delivered through lipid nanoparticles. Governments around the world used all their power to make it so.


Above, Tucker presents the salient points or global “takeaways” from The Great China Example. China did nip this virus in the bud. If your nation wanted to do the same thing, it would do what China did and what the WHO recommended with its authoritative “edict” (a decree corroborated by the WHO-appointed Cracker-Jack team of “observers.”)

These (Tiny) Death Figures are very Important

According to a CNN article from January 24th, 2020, China had reported only approximately 50 “Covid deaths” by this date. When President Trump ordered a ban on travel from China on January 31st, his proclamation states that “more than 200” Chinese had (allegedly) died by the end of January.

Forget those videos of people falling dead on the streets of Wuhan; China – per China officials – had recorded hardly any Covid deaths by the end of January. And, presumably, a big spike of deaths hadn’t commenced when the WHO delegation arrived in China in late February to see what was happening for themselves.

The conclusion that framed the narrative that turned the world upside down might be expressed thusly:  “Virtually no Covid deaths in China = every nation should impose draconian lockdowns just like China did.”

I’m Bill Rice … Of Course I’m Going to Get into Early Spread …

Implied – or accepted – in all public health edicts is the “settled science” that this virus definitely originated in Wuhan. But WHEN did the virus really begin to “spread” in China?

Even China’s officials seem to be saying they’d detected the virus early enough and thus were able to prevent the vast majority of its citizens from contracting said novel virus. This, presumably, is the reason so few Chinese died “from Covid.”

According to my research, at least three scenarios attempt to date the initial cases of Covid in China. These are:

The First Cases were People Infected at a “Live Market” in Wuhan in Mid-December, 2019

When calculating “Covid deaths,” one needs to consider the period of time between initial infection and later Covid death. According to multiple studies, on average, people who later died from Covid were infected 21 days before their death.

As the entire premise of the lockdown strategy is that China’s measures prevented Covid deaths, I’ll use this figure to examine the people who did and, more significantly, didn’t die from Covid more than 21 days after the virus allegedly began to spread in this country/city.

If only 200 Chinese citizens had died from Covid by the end of January 2020, spread that began in mid-December at the live market hadn’t spread that far and certainly (if we believe Chinese death figures) hadn’t killed many people.

If this novel virus was super-contagious and super-lethal, in a nation of one billion people, one would have expected to see more than 200 deaths 45 or so days after spread commenced.

It should also be noted that China had NOT ordered lockdowns after the first possible cases were identified at the live market, so for at least a couple of weeks, the virus was able to spread without the resistance of draconian lockdowns.

In a cramped city of more than 11 million people, this would have given this contagious virus a big head start.

Or the Virus really Began to Spread in November

While mid-December was the presumed start date of the virus spread for more than a year, later reports said, “No. The virus probably escaped from a Wuhan lab in November.” This revised timeline is based on articles – published by the Wall Street Journal – that three scientists who worked at the Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough in November that they had to be hospitalized with presumed Covid. (The source for this key anecdote is “US intelligence.”)

The public has never learned when in November these scientists allegedly became sick. It could have been November 1st or November 30th. If one picks the mid-point of November 15, one could say that by the last day of January, the virus had been infecting people in this city for 77 days.

Still, with at least an extra month’s head start, the virus had still just produced 50 to 200 (alleged) fatalities.

Or Maybe the Virus was Really Spreading in Wuhan in October or September 2019

Plenty of contrarians have postulated that the virus was infecting many people in Wuhan by mid-to-late October when the city hosted The World Military Games.

It seems to be beyond dispute that large numbers of athletes and visitors from many countries became sick with ILI (or COVID) symptoms while at these Games.

If these people became sick from Covid, the virus must have been spreading in this city before these delegations arrived. If one believes an outbreak of “early Covid” made these visitors sick, it seems to me the virus would have been spreading weeks before their arrival, which would date “virus origins” in Wuhan to September 2019.

If Wuhan citizens were already sick with Covid in Wuhan on, say, October 1, the virus had a head start of 120 days before the end of January 2020. Surely, far more than 200 people would have died from this lethal and super-contagious virus by the end of January if virus spread really commenced in early October.

Quick Summary

One can pick his preferred “virus birthday.” But even with the latest arriving birthdate (mid-December), the virus had already been spreading in Wuhan for weeks or months before China decided to nip virus spread in the bud with its extreme lockdowns.

I also think this (common-sense) point is important: If an extremely contagious novel virus was spreading unchecked in Wuhan … it wouldn’t have remained in Wuhan. One assumes that perhaps millions of people had traveled to and from Wuhan in the weeks between Oct. 1, 2019 and mid-December 2019.

My takeaway is that whatever virus birthday we believe is accurate, the virus would have spread all around the world by the end of December 2019 (if not October 2019).

Now Let’s Look at America’s Virus-Mitigation Response and the Birthday of Covid in our Country

One of President Trump’s points-of-pride regarding his actions to stop spread and protect American citizens is that, via an executive order, he banned Chinese citizens from traveling to America on January 31, 2020.

If one believes this virus was primarily restricted to Chinese citizens, this order arguably makes sense and was warranted by “facts” known to President Trump at the time.

However, as the paragraphs above should make clear, even if the virus had originated in China in December, November or October 2019, by January 31st, travelers who’d left China would have already probably engaged in billions of “close contacts” with millions of people back in their native countries.

That is, if one believes “case zero” in China was in mid-December or mid-November, the only travel ban that might have kept Americans from contracting this virus would be one implemented a couple of days after “case zero” was infected.

President Trump’s travel ban on Chinese citizens was actually controversial (in some circles, it was deemed an unnecessary overreaction). Still, it seems to me the CDC should have supported this travel ban and probably did as the CDC, like Trump (and like every other public health expert) clearly believed it was not too late to “interrupt” the virus spread from China.

As I’ve written ad nauseam, the CDC believed (and perhaps still believes) that the first cases of “community spread” in America didn’t occur until “latter January 2020.

According to CDC experts, “late spread” (which occurred outside the typical cold and flu virus season) is what really happened with this virus in America. However, Americans were in luck, as virus spread could be slowed or stopped if the public simply listened to public health officials and locked down for at least 15 days.

Lockdowns – the “narrative” quickly became – would keep hospitals from being overrun and would prevent perhaps millions of deaths.

But the Narrative Didn’t Pass any Logic Test …

However, the narrative that we could prevent “millions of deaths” should have been considered ridiculous …. even by February 2020.

By February 2020, it was believed/understood that the virus had begun to spread in Wuhan around mid-December at the latest. Still, by February 1, only 200 Chinese had (reportedly) died “from Covid.” And probably 90 percent of the people who died had already reached or exceeded normal life expectancy and many suffered from serious comorbid conditions.

Why Didn’t these WHO Experts Pick Up on this?

The death risk from Covid for healthy Chinese under the age of, say, 60, was minuscule. Officials had to know this by the end of February 2020. For example, members of the WHO delegation must have looked at the medical charts of a few Covid patients and noted the ages and comorbid conditions of the “Covid” decedents. (Or maybe they didn’t do this …. in which case, what good is an official delegation of experts from the WHO?)

By mid-February, public health officials (including those with the WHO delegation) should have also known the average span from infection to death is approximately 21 days.

It seems to me at least a few public health officials should have asked: “If this contagious and deadly virus began spreading in China in mid-December, where are the large number of Covid deaths?”

Did China officials somehow conceal tens or hundreds of thousands of “Covid deaths” from the WHO? Why didn’t America’s “intelligence” analysts pick up on tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of extra funerals or cremations that were now occurring in China?

All that Matters is the Lockdowns were Deemed Necessary …

As Jeffrey Tucker notes, all that really matters is that, almost overnight, the public health community decided in unison that lockdowns were the only thing that was going to save millions of world inhabitants. China had prevented X thousands of deaths by locking down.

That is, it never occurred to any of America’s trusted public health officials that the virus might have escaped China’s borders and reached America at some point in 2019.

If nothing else, our trusted public health officials must be obtuse to have never considered the possibility this virus was already spreading (widely) in America at least by December. “Evidence” of this was almost literally “everywhere” (Here’s one summary of this evidence and here’s another possible clue) … if officials had just done some cursory “investigations,” which they could have done before ordering the lockdowns of March 15.

President Trump Signs on to Lockdowns …

At some point, President Trump’s advisors convinced him that the country should lockdown for at least 15 days. As we all know, “15 days to slow spread” (“or flatten the curve”) became, in some states, 365 days to slow the spread.

If he was once skeptical of the pronouncements of his medical advisors, President Trump quickly came around to their point of view.

For example, here’s a quote from an April 22, New York Times article where President Trump urges more patience regarding the duration of the lockdowns.

“President Trump on Wednesday criticized the decision of a political ally, Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia, to allow many businesses to reopen this week, saying the move was premature given the number of coronavirus cases in the state.

“I want him to do what he thinks is right, but I disagree with him on what he is doing,” Mr. Trump said at a White House briefing. “I think it’s too soon.”

“I love those people that use all of those things — the spas, the beauty parlors, barbershops, tattoo parlors,” Mr. Trump said on Wednesday. “I love them. But they can wait a little bit longer, just a little bit — not much, because safety has to predominate.”

These 4 Words Trouble Me …

The last four words of this quote define the authorized narrative of this world-changing period of time. These words also scare the living daylights out of “freedom” proponents like myself.

According to President Trump – “safety has to predominate.

That is, President Trump believed (and perhaps still believes) that “safety has to predominate” but, more importantly, he apparently believes that draconian lockdowns are/were the only thing that provided the public this “safety.”

In other words, he swallowed the WHO guidance – hook, line, and sinker.

I don’t want to pick on President Trump too harshly. In some respects, I give him a pass because he’s not an epidemiologist. He was simply acting on the advice and counsel of what he thought were the greatest minds in American public health.

I have no doubt his advisors told him if he didn’t order lockdowns millions of Americans might die from this virus … and those deaths were going to be on his conscience. Such a massive spike of (believed deaths) occurring under his watch would also no doubt sink his re-election hopes.

The great irony is that the lockdowns President Trump signed off on (and then extended) probably ensured the election of “Joe Biden” via the mechanism of voter fraud, voter fraud largely enabled by the necessity of widespread mail-in ballots … which were themselves a virus-mitigation measure.

The reason President Trump’s quote troubles me is that it accepts as gospel, that for any president, “safety has to predominate.”

To me, this thinking represents the “Nanny State” view of government and should frighten anyone who believes in the rights of individuals to make their own decisions regarding their personal safety.

After the WHO edict, it became widely accepted that the State was in charge of everyone’s safety and could do whatever it wanted to “ensure” this alleged result (a result many skeptics believe actually guaranteed that more people would be harmed).

Our Lockdowns weren’t as Draconian as China’s Lockdowns …

It’s true America’s version of the lockdowns weren’t as draconian as China’s version.

For example, in America, officials did not weld apartment doors shut. Only half the population was told to stay in their houses or apartments, not 100 percent.

Early on in the official pandemic, almost every American was forced to wear a mask when they ventured out to the pharmacy or grocery store (about the only places we were allowed to visit).

(In one infamous example, lifeguards paddled into the ocean to cite a kayaker who was happily paddling sans mask).

But Did the Lockdowns Work as Advertised in America?

No, they didn’t. The reason President Trump publicly (if gently) scolded the governor of Georgia for discontinuing lockdown policies too early is probably because by that date (April 22) President Trump was reading and watching accounts of the staggering number of deaths that were happening in New York City in April.

However, this massive spike in deaths in New York City should have activated the brain synapses of any official capable of critical thinking.

How could there be a massive spike in deaths in New York City in April and May if lockdowns had been ordered in that city in mid-March?

Again, the knowledge that it takes 21 days for someone to die from Covid should have proven the math didn’t add up.

Most (or many) of these New York residents had clearly contracted Covid after the lockdowns were implemented.

Since approximately half of these residents weren’t leaving their apartments (except to go to the grocery store and even there they were socially distancing) … and since there were no public events they could attend …. and since everyone was wearing masks (which supposedly prevent spread) … how did so many New Yorkers contract the virus in the first place?

Furthermore, as censored mortality data later revealed, the vast majority of deaths occurred in senior citizens who interacted with far fewer people than younger people. Many of the people getting Covid – and then dying from it 21 days later – were the people being the most diligent with their precautions.

If it only takes 21 days to contract and then die from Covid, why did all the Covid deaths explode after the lockdowns that were designed to prevent deaths?

Again, we come back to the iron-clad truth that President Trump and his advisors obviously thought was “settled science.” The virus was simply not spreading or infecting hardly anyone in America – until around the second week of March … when, suddenly, millions of people started becoming infected – including millions of people whose only “close contacts” were at home with family members while binge-watching TV shows on Netflix.

Here’s another question our public health officials never asked: Why did a densely-populated huge city like Wuhan not experience a massive spike of deaths like what happened in another densely-populated huge city (New York)?

Surely, virus experts thought the virus spread in Wuhan began much earlier than it did in New York. And Wuhan didn’t lock down for weeks (or probably months) after this contagious virus started doing what contagious viruses do. Despite this, only 200 (very old) people died. Surely most Wuhan citizens had had 21 days to contract the virus and then die from it … but very few did succumb to the virus.

But, for some reason in New York City, they did. 

New York City had 135 Times More Covid Deaths than Wuhan

As Jessica Hockett and her writing colleagues have pointed out, 27,000 (alleged) “excess deaths” occurred in New York City in an 11-week period starting from roughly mid-March (the lockdowns) through the end of May. (The vast majority of extra deaths happened in April and May, well after the lockdowns).

The number of “extra deaths” in New York City (most presumed to be from Covid) was 135 times greater than the number of deaths attributed to Covid in Wuhan by the end of January (27,000 extra New York City deaths/200 Wuhan “Covid deaths”).

Even if one assumes China officials somehow managed to conceal thousands of Covid deaths, the New York virus was still (apparently) far more contagious and lethal than the same virus was in Wuhan.

A Few Officials Should Have at Least Asked these Two Questions:

Shouldn’t Wuhan have experienced far more deaths by January 30?

Or: Shouldn’t New York City have experienced far fewer Covid deaths, especially since half the city locked down by mid-March? (And the other half was taking extreme precautions by then).

These questions, if asked, might have led to this unasked question:

Is it possible all these deaths in New York City really weren’t “from Covid?”

If a few people answered this question with “Yes, that seems entirely possible,” the next question would be even more awkward:

What did cause all or many of these “extra” deaths?

The answers to these questions might be seismic and certainly couldn’t be asked on social media or by the MSM. Maybe other factors explain those deaths (or as Jessica’s hypothesis suggests, maybe all of these “extra” deaths didn’t really happen in the time span we were told they happened).

Maybe the accepted wisdom that “safety must predominate” … actually made many people less safe?


As Jeffrey Tucker’s article makes clear, the key event that ensured the world would be locked down was the WHO’s endorsement of China’s lockdown policies.

As I hope my article makes clear, the lockdowns in China happened far too late to prevent global spread.

If it takes only 21 days for someone to get infected and then die from Covid, the world should have seen a massive spike in deaths by at least some point in January 2020 … in China where spread, allegedly, started.

Instead of the narrative becoming “Lockdowns save millions of lives” perhaps the narrative should have been “This novel new virus isn’t that lethal at all.”

The WHO’s rousing endorsement of the “China model” of lockdowns should have been considered “junk science” before the governments of the world pulled the trigger on these “virus-mitigation” mandates, civil-liberty-eviscerating dictates which also caused a public health disaster for the people of the world.


This article was published by The Brownstone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: Wikiemedia Commons


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.