We live overseas and have dual citizenship and therefore, we may still have the privilege of voting in the USA elections. We vote for the one we believe will continue to uphold the Constitution as the founding fathers intended. Nevertheless, the enemies of freedom have been at work since the founding of the nation and are today doing all they can to tear down America morally, finically and spiritually. Sometimes it seems like a losing battle but God is still on the throne. May this reading of Psalm One be a blessing to you as you meditate not on man but on the Creator and Sustainer of all life! Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Freedom
All posts tagged Freedom
I remember as a boy hearing about Russia where people had to have passes to travel within Russia. The China virus has created the same here in Australia with Victoria being one of the worse CCP strongholds.
‘Tony Pecora, who is one of the plaintiffs in our Supreme Court challenge on Monday, did not join the protest in Melbourne today.
Instead, Mr Pecora stood back with his child and filmed from afar. But that didn’t stop police from grabbing Tony for “not complying with the Chief Health Officer’s directives while on bail”.
Police refused to accept Tony’s medical exemption and detained him and his child for the alleged offence.
I was asked to take the child, but the police refused to allow it.
There was only one new Coronavirus case recorded in the state of Victoria today.’https://www.rebelnews.com/melbourne_man_arrested_with_7_yr_old_child_for_not_wearing_mask?utm_campaign=rb_10_23_20&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel
Muslims are a mission field for the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ but when they gain political office in a Western nation and continue to hold Islamic political beliefs they are a threat to freedom. However, that doesn’t bother many for ‘Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden vowed Muslim Americans would be included in every social and political aspect in his administration, and reiterated his pledge to repeal President Donald Trump’s “Muslim ban” on his first day in office.’https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/joe-biden-muslim-advocates-donald-trump-ban
Recently in France a teacher was beheaded by a follower of Islam for simply showing caricatures of Mohammad. Do those authorities within French Islam condemn such an act of murder? No, it was ‘condoned by imams who had called [the beheaded teacher] Paty “delinquent”.’
- “This is not an act of ‘separatism’, it is a declaration of war that must be dealt with accordingly”. — Pascal Bruckner, French author.
- France’s elites… fail to understand the ideological war that the enemies of open societies have declared on them. You can see it from the targets of the attacks by extremists: Jews, a priest, cartoonists, tourists, ordinary people, policemen, now a teacher.
- An entire community of immigrants, who enjoyed all the freedoms we had granted them, ambushed him…. It is a racism condoned by imams who had called [the beheaded teacher] Paty “delinquent”.
- “[T]here is the continuity of our submission. I am convinced that if we had known how to say no, we would not be here. They all bowed their heads out of fear of appearing racist or out of patronage.” — Élisabeth Badinter, author, Le Point, October 16, 2020.
- If the French authorities do not take the many warnings to heart, even after a school teacher was beheaded in broad daylight by a terrorist shouting “Allahu Akbar”, it means that the fight is over and they might as well raise a white flag over the Eiffel Tower.’https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16659/western-lives-matter
Victoria, Australia’s Dictator Dan Andrews is a menace to freedom loving Aussies. ‘It’s one thing to play apparently endless cat-and-mouse with coronavirus by curbing its spread through draconian restrictive lockdowns (only to see it flare up again) but it’s quite another to burst into people’s homes and arrest them in front of the their children merely for expressing doubt that this may be the right way to go about fixing this global catastrophe.
And yet that’s exactly what happened to an Australian woman, who was in September arrested for allegedly organizing an anti-lockdown protest in Ballarat, Victoria. 28-year-old Zoe Buehler, who has young children and is currently pregnant, was detained by the police and taken away from her own living room over a Facebook post that was seen as incitement to what you might call “coronavirus sedition.”
Buehler has since been released on bail but under strict conditions – and on Friday, her legal representative managed to convince the court to drop five of the seven conditions.
However, she is still forbidden from posting on social media, for fear she may influence others in questioning the drastic lockdowns (really – the government). Like a hardened criminal, she also still has to report to the police if she decides to move.
The original Facebook post called for a peaceful protest and urged participants to wear masks and follow all distancing rules. But it also accused authorities of implementing scare tactics via the media to prevent the protest that was to take place in Melbourne.
Buehler also called for an end to lockdowns, respect of human rights, and reminded everyone that Australian are supposed to live in a free country.
Her partner filmed the arrest taking place in their home, which showed the woman confused as to what “incitement” she was guilty of – unable to comprehend that peaceful assembly was now tantamount to breaking the law in her country.
Like a viral video that might have been taken somewhere in China, of police unmoved by any reasoning or plea, the footage showed the Australian officers say the fact “Freedom Day” never took place made no difference.
“You’ve already committed the offense,” the police told her, referring to the Facebook post.’https://reclaimthenet.org/zoe-buehler-bail/
THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE or is it? ‘The independent human rights group UN Watch condemned today’s election of rights-abusing governments in China, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan to the UN’s top human rights body, and expressed alarm that the percentage of non-democracies on the UN human rights council now goes from 51% to a staggering 60%.
“Today is a black day for human rights,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, the Geneva-based non-governmental human rights organization, which deemed those countries to be “unqualified” in a Joint NGO Report, on account of the regimes’ domestic human rights records as well as their voting records on UN resolutions concerning human rights.
At a UN Watch online press conference on Friday, human rights dissidents who were persecuted for their activism by China, Russia, Cuba and Pakistan joined in calling on all UN member states to oppose those countries’ bids for election to the 47-nation council.
UN Watch regretted that the regimes won support today from more than 70% of the 193-nation UN General Assembly:
• Cuba: 170 votes (88%)
• Pakistan: 169 (87.5%)
• Uzbekistan: 169 (87.5%)
• Russia: 158 (82%)
• China: 130 (72%)
“Electing these dictatorships as UN judges on human rights is like making a gang of arsonists into the fire brigade,” said Neuer.’https://unwatch.org/non-democracies-rise-to-60-of-unhrc-as-china-cuba-russia-pakistan-uzbekistan-win-seats/
Where are the leaders in the West condemning this? Australia and other Western nations continue to pour funds into the UN and its imbecile bodies which make a mockery of freedom and real human rights.
In the Land Down Under one WILL NOT HEAR OF THIS travesty even though ‘Australia is a founding member of the UN, has been an active participant in UN institutions for 70 years and is currently the 12th largest contributor to the UN regular budget.’https://www.dfat.gov.au/international-relations/international-organisations/un/Pages/united-nations-un#:~:text=Australia%20is%20a%20founding%20member,to%20the%20UN%20regular%20budget.
We, the people, are being sold down the river by our own elected officials!
One wonders why those who profess to be Christian parents would send their child for an education in some of these private, Christian denominational, liberal arts colleges!? For instance, ‘An Ivy League-educated scholar called for an end to capitalism as the only means to create a moral world during her recent guest lectures at the Presbyterian-affiliated Maryville College last week.
Skidmore College Professor of Religious Studies Lucia Hulsether said the country is
Lucia Hulsether
“drenched” in capitalism’s blood. There is “no nonviolent action” in capitalism, she said.
Hulsether gave two lectures as part of the Margaret M. Cummings Conversations speaker series, which is named for a late Bible studies professor and focuses on “faith, service and learning.”
The lecture series was hosted by the college’s Center for Campus Ministry and held in the school’s chapel as well as recital hall.
The Rev. Anne McKee, the campus minister of Maryville, said the purpose of the lecture series was to answer the question: “What does it mean to be a person of faith in the world?”
In two lectures totaling almost two hours, Professor Hulsether did not bring up Jesus once.
With a stained glass window picturing Jesus behind her, Hulsether promoted Karl Marx’s critiques of capitalism as a remedy for injustice in the world. https://www.thecollegefix.com/faith-lecture-by-religious-studies-professor-lauds-karl-marx-doesnt-mention-jesus/
The video of Hulsther’s talk may be see at https://www.facebook.com/maryvillecollegeccm/videos/490693318275578/
Without doubt it was the totalitarian Communist Party that is responsible for this pandemic of Coronavirus around the world! The China Communist Party knew what the West just might do to conquer this virus and that the freedom and liberties we once knew and loved would be eroded. That is exactly what the ‘Former Supreme Court Justice, Jonathan Sumption, QC, warned this week that we are in danger of becoming a police state. He was interviewed by BBC Radio 4 World at One on Monday, and it is worth reflecting on some of his comments.
This is how freedoms are lost
Lord Sumption explained that the lesson of history is that freedoms are lost in exchange for protection from a threat.
“The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it’s not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It’s usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated. That’s what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don’t pause to ask whether the action will work. They don’t ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying. They want action anyway. And anyone who has studied history will recognise here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria. Hysteria is infectious. We are working ourselves up into a lather in which we exaggerate the threat and stop asking ourselves whether the cure may be worse than the disease.”
Lord Sumption does not deny that the threat from Covid-19 is serious, but questions whether the measures are appropriate:
“So yes this is serious and yes it’s understandable that people cry out to the government. But the real question is: is this serious enough to warrant putting most of our population into house imprisonment, wrecking our economy for an indefinite period, destroying businesses that honest and hardworking people have taken years to build up, saddling future generations with debt, depression, stress, heart attacks, suicides and unbelievable distress inflicted on millions of people who are not especially vulnerable and will suffer only mild symptoms or none at all, like the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister.”
‘This is what a police state is like’
Police in Derbyshire were criticised for releasing drone footage of people out walking in the Peak District. Lord Sumption was scathing about this, describing it as “disgraceful”, and pointing out that going for a walk in the countryside is not illegal – it is just something that government ministers have said they prefer that people not do. When the police start enforcing guidance, we are in the realms of a police state:
“This is what a police state is like. It’s a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers’ wishes.”
Derbyshire police subsequently admitted that Lord Sumption was right and they did not have authority to stop people from walking in the Peak District.
Phone tracking
The government has been given legal permission to use mobile phone data to track whether people are complying with coronavirus regulations. The government can then watch where you go and how often to travel to see whether you are in compliance. This extreme invasion of privacy is deemed worthwhile because of the health risks at the present time.
Informants
Several police forces have set up websites encouraging people to inform on their neighbours if they see them breaching the coronavirus regulations. This means that we now face the prospect of law-abiding citizens worrying whether a neighbour might report them for leaving the house more than once a day! In fact, the BBC has reported that a police force has had a surge in calls from people reporting their neighbours for “going out for a second run”.
No parliamentary scrutiny
What is more, with parliament now disbanded, the government is now acting with no scrutiny or accountability. After explicitly telling parliament that there would be no changes to abortion rules, the government then went ahead and made changes shortly after parliament was closed. Changes that would most likely not have been possible if parliament was sitting. The government is therefore now not acting democratically. Is there really no possible way with modern technology for parliament to meet and scrutinise these things?
Unimaginable a few weeks ago
Just a few weeks ago, such restrictions on freedom in the UK were unimaginable. I would never have believed that within a few weeks we would have people reporting their neighbours for leaving the house more than once in a day. If someone had told me this would happen, I would have dismissed them as an irrational crackpot. Yet here we are!
I understand the fears. I understand how dangerous this virus is. I know that the nation needs to take action to try to stop its spread. But stopping people from going for a run more than once a day? Just how many lives will that save?
It is incredible how quickly this has happened. Freedoms not fought for are freedoms forfeited. Our freedoms are being forfeited before our eyes in real time. Freedoms are hard to obtain, and easy to lose. I hope and pray that we will recover them and recover them soon. I pray that the Lord would have mercy on us. Our nation is spiritually sick and needs the healing that only God can provide.’ https://christianconcern.com/comment/are-we-becoming-a-police-state/
I had never heard of KrisAnne Hall before but a little search showed a lot of information on her which includes her own web site (https://krisannehall.com/index.php) and YouTube channell. This is her autobiography as given there.
‘KrisAnne Hall is an attorney and former prosecutor, fired after teaching the Constitution to TEA Party groups – she would not sacrifice liberty for a paycheck. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor’s wife and a patriot. She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents. KrisAnne Hall does not just teach the Constitution, she lays the foundations that show how reliable and relevant our founding documents are today.’
Here is the entire article. 
‘Coronavirus Or No Coronavirus, Feds Cannot Shut Down Churches
‘A bloody path was trod to bring religious freedom to modern America. Christian martyrs and patriots secured our God-given right to freedom of religion with their suffering and even with their lives.
Religious freedom in America is not simply a fundamental right, but a foundational one. The settlements of the first American colonies were established in the flight from oppressive religious persecution and the struggle continued even on these shores. From the beating of Obadiah Holmes, the lynching of Quakers and the imprisonment of 50 Baptist preachers who were defended by a fiery attorney named Patrick Henry, religious liberty has been something American Christians have always been willing to stand for or even to die for.
This history and more gave us our First Amendment to the Constitution and its underlying principle of religious conscience, which has been part of the bedrock of our republic for more than two centuries.
The “Father of the Constitution” and fourth President James Madison wrote in 1792, “Conscience is the most sacred of all property … the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more sacred than his castle.”
Indeed prohibitions upon the government’s authority to infringe, limit or dictate the operation of the church had been codified in western law long before the settlement of American colonies.
Many American Christians have heard of Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists ensuring them that America would never return to a time where the government sought to dictate the operations of the church. But long before 1802, Jefferson’s “wall of separation of church and state” that kept government outside the sacred walls of the church was one alluded to by King Henry I in the 1100 Charter of Liberties.
Henry declared the body of the church to be free from government intrusions. Two centuries later, one of the tipping points in the fight that brought us Magna Carta was the crown’s attempt to interfere in the free operation of the church. This charter history of our founding documents continued its development through the Grand Remonstrance of 1641 and the English Bill of Rights of 1689 under which our founders arrived in this New World.
Each of these installments, which would later culminate in our founding documents; all happened amid the fight for religious liberty.
However, even with the clear language of our First Amendment and the history that should inform our actions, the struggle to maintain this essential right from the control of government continues to this day. Modern lawmakers like to carve out excuses and causes for government intrusions into our inherent rights when some imagined need arises.
William Pitt, The Younger, warned in 1783, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.”
Necessity seems to always be the most powerful tool to persuade the masses into accepting these infringements. Today, because of the coronavirus scare, religious liberty is facing a huge “necessity plea” in the form of limits upon assembly. At least one church has been descended upon by police and threatened with the National Guard for having more than 250 people attend.
According to the courts, a law that infringes upon a fundamental right like freedom of religion must overcome certain challenges: The law must not be arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable. The law must be equally applied to secular businesses and it must satisfy a qualification of being the least restrictive means necessary to accomplish a compelling governmental interest.
The restrictions imposed by governors and municipalities upon the number of people who can assemble in a private church gathering appears to fail these tests.
First, these numerical restrictions are completely arbitrary in nature. There has been no tested nor proven scientific or medical data to show us what “number” of people that congregate together are a danger to society. The number has varied from place to place and moment by moment. Somewhere it’s 50, other places its 10 and there are still other variations.
When politicians assign an “acceptable” number of people allowed in a private church, they are reducing our right to freedom of religion to a first come, first served privilege. Our first foundational document reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The government deciding who can attend a service by way of a numerical limit does not demonstrate an equality of rights and ought to be seen as a per se violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
Secondly, these laws are not being applied equally upon secular businesses and other institutions. When arbitrary number limits are applied to a church and not to a library, post office, grocery store or hotel gym, there is not equal application.
These laws try to justify unequal application based upon the definition of essential services. By what authority does the government declare the church nonessential? The Church is a place where people turn for help and for comfort in a climate of fear and uncertainty. In a time of crisis, people are fearful and in need of comfort and community, more than ever before. Even people who do not attend church regularly, or perhaps never go to church, need to know that there is somewhere for them to go when they need help.
Throughout history, the church has been viewed as an essential part of society, a refuge in time of trouble or need, a place of peace and a sanctuary for the weary, even a place of healing and provision. More salient for believers is that the Bible pointedly addresses the issue of assembling during troubled times: “not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” (Heb. 10:25) Many in the church take this as a solemn command.
To deny a Christian his obligation to gather with his local body is to put him at odds with a fundamental tenet of the faith. For a believer in Christ there are few things as essential as the gathering of the body of Christ in the study of God’s Word and worship of His Glory. As a matter of fact, the Bible teaches that since we are eternal beings in this temporary world, God’s word is more essential than food: “But he answered, ‘It is written, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”‘” (Mt. 4:4, ESV)
When those in government can assign a label of nonessential to the practice of religion, then government is taking a very serious and dangerous role of defining religion, which is expressly forbidden in our Bill of Rights and in a majority of our state constitutions.
Finally, these restrictions are not reasonable and not the least restrictive means necessary. The case law used to define reasonableness in these laws are easily distinguishable. In Moore v. Draper, the court held that Moore could be quarantined and prevented from attending church because he had Tuberculosis. The court also said that once he was healthy he could no longer be reasonably or legally quarantined and prevented from attending church.
The current laws restricting the number of attendees of a church are not restrictions on one unhealthy individual. They are restrictions upon a group of healthy people, which the court said would be unreasonable.
Additionally, the court did not order the entire church to be shut down to keep Moore healthy, which is exactly what these laws are trying to suggest is a reasonable and constitutional solution.
Limiting an entire congregation of people for the safety of those who may be at risk of infection does not meet the standard of Moore, nor can it be seen as the least restrictive means necessary. The case of Varholy v. Sweat can be distinguishable for the same reasons as Moore.
Finally, in Employment Division vs. Smith, the court held that the outlawed use of peyote is not an unreasonable interference upon freedom of religion as it was a “neutral, generally applicable law.” Because the current restrictions upon church assemblies are not generally applicable to every place where people will congregate, this case is not controlling.
Although it is argued the “protection of the public health is one of the prime duties resting upon the State” we cannot escape the reality that the first prime duty of every state is codified in the Declaration of Independence: “… that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
There is nothing in the law or precedent to establish a blanket and arbitrary assertion of “state of emergency” as an unquestionable authority.
There is also nothing in the law or precedent to support a restriction on the number of people who can assemble in a church, for health reasons or otherwise, as a criterion for denying the essential right of freedom of religion.
There is, however, everything in history and experience that says such actions by government are unreasonable and oppressive restrictions upon the essential and inherent right of freedom of religion.
Rev. Jonathan Witherspoon, founder of Princeton University gave this warning: “There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire.”
Indeed, when Peter and the apostles were told by law not to gather, preach or lay hands on the sick for God to grant them healing on threat of prison, they chose to continue to practice their faith. After they escaped from prison and were told by God to go back and assemble with the people and preach and heal, they did exactly that.
And when they were questioned by the government as to why they continued to break this law, the apostles did not hesitate or make excuse, they simply said, “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)
True to the history that makes America great, our pastors and church members should not so easily surrender a fundamental rights so faithfully contended for by those who have gone before.
Who will stand and not let the landmarks be moved?’ https://www.westernjournal.com/krisanne-hall-coronavirus-no-coronavirus-feds-cannot-shut-churches/
Why doesn’t this surprise me? From the UK we read that;
‘Doctors will have power to section people indefinitely
The Coronavirus Bill (which is being passed into law this week at breakneck speed) will, among other things, (1) authorise a forcible detention of people on mental health grounds (‘sectioning’) on the opinion of any one doctor (rather than two, as previously required) and (2) abolish the six-month time limit on ‘sectioning’. Any one doctor will have the power to lock you up in a lunatic asylum indefinitely – all in the interests of your own and others’ safety.
It is well-known, and self-evident, that forcible psychiatric detention is an area which is open to abuse in the absence of effective safeguards. In the Soviet Union, it was used simply as a tool to suppress political dissent. This may be an extreme example, but where is the guarantee that one rogue doctor or another will not, once in a while, abuse his newly found unlimited power? For very good reasons, we have had safeguards against that in our law. Now they are being urgently abolished – supposedly as an obstacle to our survival of the epidemic. How exactly are they such an obstacle?
It should be stressed that this has nothing to do with increasing doctors’ capacity to deal with coronavirus patients. A psychiatrist is not much help in treating a respiratory disease. In fact, he would be as useful as a gynaecologist. Just like gynaecologists can safely continue to supervise (and hopefully, sometimes refuse to authorise) abortions, there is no reason why psychiatrists cannot carry on doing their usual job – which includes, most importantly, protecting people from arbitrary detention on unsound psychiatric grounds. Those duties are expendable luxuries, but are vital safeguards of liberty.
Powers to issue warrants for surveillance
Another frightening power-grab in the Coronavirus Bill is the expansion of the power to appoint temporary judicial commissioners, with the powers to issue warrants for surveillance, under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The threat to civil liberty is obvious; and this has nothing to do with coronavirus.
Given those examples, one inevitably looks more sceptically at the idea that the government knows best about its other measures which ostensibly have something to do with coronavirus. Things like prolonging local councillors’ term in office for a whole year without a democratic mandate; police power to detain anyone for up to 48 hours on suspicion of a threat to public health; Ministers’ authority to ban mass gatherings; or court trials by skype. Are all those things really necessary? Or have some civil servants simply been waiting (heaven knows for how long) for a convenient moment to introduce them without provoking mass protests on the streets?
For example, skype trials in court sound sensible at the time of an epidemic, but the very first reported trial is a rather frightening one. That is a Court of Protection trial last week to decide the fate of an anonymous man in his ‘70s, whose GP wants to switch off his life support to let him die ‘in dignity’, and whose family objects. Remember all the debates and protests over the cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans in this country, and Vincent Lambert in France? Under the new regime, decisions on life and death cases of this kind are being made on a skype call. No proper trial, no ‘army’ of protesters, no real media coverage. It was only reported as a technological curiosity – the first major trial taking place by skype.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance
These and other measures are meant to be introduced only on a temporary basis. There is a subset clause in the Bill, whereby these new laws will automatically lose force after two years unless Parliament votes to extend them beyond that period. Amendments are being debated to shorten that period. However, this does not answer the concern that some of the most drastic innovations in the Act are clearly not necessary to contain coronavirus at all. If in those two years, someone is wrongly ‘sectioned’ in a lunatic asylum, it is small comfort to them that this practice will cease in 2022. Further, as a general rule of constitutional history, temporary limitations on liberty tend to become permanent whenever they are convenient for the state. We still live today with all sorts of draconian laws introduced as a matter of emergency after 11 September 2001. Come 2022, the Coronavirus Bill powers may also be extended on whatever pretext. Indeed, section 90 of the Bill even permits the extension of those powers without a vote in Parliament.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Many dictatorships originate in people’s panicked enthusiasm for drastic measures to deal with a genuine crisis. Putin’s regime in Russia, for example, took hold because people trusted their democratically elected president to do whatever it takes to defeat the threat of terrorism. Eventually, when Putin responded to another terrorist attack by replacing regional elections with appointed governors, that trust was largely lost – but it was too late. It is no surprise that when we see fairly similar moves attempted in this country, our trust in the government hangs in the balance.
At least in terms of public trust, the next few days will be crucial for the government’s efforts to control the epidemic. If the government is serious about it, its legislation must be cleansed of all disingenuous attempts to take advantage. And if they are not serious about it, nobody else will be.’ https://christianconcern.com/comment/coronavirus-exploited-by-enemies-of-democracy/?utm_source=Christian+Concern&utm_campaign=a5725850b3-WN-20200228_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9e164371ca-a5725850b3-127681039
whatyareckon 