|
|
|
|
|||
https://dailykenn.blogspot.
https://dailykenn.blogspot.
https://dailykenn.blogspot.
https://dailykenn.blogspot.
https://dailykenn.blogspot.
|
|
|
|
|||
A “wet market” in Wuhan, China, is catching the blame as the probable source of the current coronavirus outbreak that’s sweeping the globe.
Patients who came down with disease at the end of December all had connections to the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan China. The complex of stalls selling live fish, meat and wild animals is known in the region as a “wet market.” Researchers believe the new virus probably mutated from a coronavirus common in animals and jumped over to humans in the Wuhan bazaar.
I visited the Tai Po wet market in Hong Kong, and it’s quite obvious why the term “wet” is used. Live fish in open tubs splash water all over the floor. The countertops of the stalls are red with blood as fish are gutted and filleted right in front of the customers’ eyes. Live turtles and crustaceans climb over each other in boxes. Melting ice adds to the slush on the floor. There’s lots of water, blood, fish scales and chicken guts. Things are wet.
At the Tai Po market, a woman who runs a shellfish stall — she only wants to give her name as Mrs. Wong — says people blame wet markets for spreading disease. But she says that’s not fair. Like just about everyone else in the market. Wong is wearing a surgical face mask because of the coronavirus outbreak. She’s heard about the links between the wet market in Wuhan, China, and the coronavirus but doesn’t think something like that would happen in Hong Kong.
“It’s much cleaner in the Hong Kong markets. It’s so different from what’s happening in mainland China,” she says. “When I go to mainland China and I’m trying to eat something, I’m concerned about what’s in the food.”
Meanwhile, this kind of market is not just an Asian phenomenon. There are similar markets all over the world — places where fish, poultry and other animals are slaughtered and butchered right on the premises.
But researchers of zoonotic diseases — diseases that jump from animals to humans – pinpoint the wet markets in mainland China as particularly problematic for several reasons. First, these markets often have many different kinds of animals – some wild, some domesticated but not necessarily native to that part of Asia. The stress of captivity in these chaotic markets weakens the animals’ immune systems and creates an environment where viruses from different species can mingle, swap bits of their genetic code and spread from one species to another, according to biologist Kevin Olival, vice president for research at the EcoHealth Alliance. When that happens, occasionally a new strain of an animal virus gets a foothold in humans and an outbreak like this current coronavirus erupts.
The Tai Po market in Hong Kong does have some live animals besides the seafood but the selection is rather boring compared to the exotic assortment of snakes, mammals and birds on offer in some markets in mainland China. They’re known to sell animals such as Himalayan palm civets, raccoon dogs, wild boars and cobras.
The only live birds in Tai Po are chickens, which are kept behind the butchered pork section of the market.
Chan Shu Chung has been selling chicken here for more than 10 years. He says business is really good right now because the price of pork — his main competition — is through the roof. Pork is in short supply due to trade tensions between China and the U.S. and a recent bout of swine flu.
So people are buying more chicken. Customers can select a live bird from Chung’s cages. Chung pulls them out by their feet, holds them upside down to show off their plump breasts. If the customer is happy with the bird, Chung puts a plastic tag with a number on the chicken’s foot. He gives the customer a matching tag, sort of like a coat check. Fifteen minutes later the shopper can come back and pick up the chicken meat.
Chung says he and his colleagues do their best to keep the area clean. They wash down the stalls regularly and disinfect the countertops to stop germs from spreading.
Chung, however, is one of the few people in the market who is not wearing a face mask. Face masks have become so common in Hong Kong since the coronavirus outbreak started that pharmacies across the city are sold out of them.
Chung says he isn’t afraid of this new coronavirus. He always gets his annual flu shot so he believes he’s protected against this new disease, even though scientists say the flu shot will not protect people against this new coronavirus.
Chung adds confidently that he’s even immune to SARS — for which there also is no commercially available vaccine.
But he does keep his chicken stalls incredibly clean, which public health officials say is one important step in stopping the spread of diseases. So maybe he’s on to something.
An earlier version of this story incorrectly spelled the name of the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, China as Hunan.
Marcus Kolga: By wrapping themselves in ethno-nationalist rhetoric, the Chinese Communist Party often claims that a critique of their actions is equivalent to a critique of their people—a tried and true tactic in the authoritarian playbook

In this Feb. 7, 2020, file photo, people wearing masks attend a vigil for Chinese doctor Li Wenliang, who was reprimanded for warning about the outbreak of the new coronavirus, in Hong Kong. China has taken the highly unusual move of exonerating the doctor who was reprimanded for warning about the coronavirus outbreak and later died of the disease. (Kin Cheung/AP File/CP)
Marcus Kolga is a digital communications strategist and expert on foreign disinformation. He is a Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute’s Centre for Advancing Canada’s Interests Abroad.
When we criticize the actions of governments run by autocrats and dictators, like those in Russia and China, we must bear in mind that it is not the citizens who are responsible for their government’s abuse and negligence; they are in fact, the greatest victims of it.
For instance, the Chinese people bear no responsibility for their government’s illegitimate imprisonment of Canadians Michael Kovrig, Michael Spavor and Hussein Celil. It is also the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) criminal negligence that directly contributed to the mass outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan, and the ensuing pandemic we face today. In fact, I very much doubt the families of China’s COVID-19 victims are celebrating their government’s actions today.
When we criticize the actions of these governments, we must be very specific and accurate in directing our criticism towards those who are in power. In the case of China, it is the Communist Party that holds exclusive decision-making power, and in Russia, the Putin regime. In both cases, the people of these nations have no meaningful say in the decision-making process of their governments, and face arrest and imprisonment for criticizing them.
MORE: When will the Chinese government be held accountable for the spread of coronavirus?
By generalizing our disapproval and outrage towards the citizens of these regimes, we risk hurting and stigmatizing these communities, and that plays directly into the disinformation warfare tactics that such regimes are engaged in against the Western world, including accusations of “racism.”
Authoritarian regimes frequently label foreign criticism of their policies as “racist” as a way to delegitimize them and polarize debate. By wrapping themselves in ethno-nationalist rhetoric, these regimes often claim that a critique of their actions is equivalent to a critique of the people itself; this heightens the need to be precise with our language and aware of the propaganda efforts of authoritarian regimes. It’s a tried and true tactic in the authoritarian playbook.
China’s former ambassador to Canada, Lu Shaye, accused the Canadian government of “white supremacy” last year, when Canada demanded the release of its citizens who had been arbitrarily detained in China, in retaliation after Canada complied with a U.S. extradition request for Huawei CEO Meng Wanzhou.
MORE: China kidnapped two Canadians. What will it take to free them?
Last week, the E.U. published a report that warned Vladimir Putin is seeking to use the COVID-19 pandemic to destabilize Western nations and undermine our alliances. The report states that the Russian government’s cynical disinformation attack is designed to “aggravate the public health crisis in Western countries, specifically by undermining public trust in national health care systems, thus preventing an effective response to the outbreak.”
In the apparent absence of any evidence that would disprove the E.U. claim, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Pskov accused the E.U. of “Russophobia” in an effort to intimidate European policy-makers, critics and media into silence.
The same tactic has been used by the Russian government to discredit Canadian political leaders, like Chrystia Freeland, whose Ukrainian background has been cited as tainting her judgment. Putin critics, like myself, have also been labelled “Russophobic” for advocating for Canadian Magnitsky human rights legislation, a law that was lauded as the most pro-Russian measure that any Western government could take, according to assassinated Russian pro-democracy opposition leader, Boris Nemtsov.
Yet the concerns of Canadians who are worried about ethnic communities being stigmatized by the global pandemic must not be dismissed either. As the Washington Post’s Josh Rogin has pointed out, President Trump’s recent reference to COVID-19 being a “Chinese virus” is “simplistic but technically accurate,” and plays into the hands of Chinese Communist Party propagandists, who in turn use this to provoke anti-Trump and anti-Western sentiments.
Leading U.S.-based Chinese human rights activist Jianli Yang told me that he “may not like the term ‘Chinese virus’ that President Trump has been using in the past few days,” but he doesn’t believe “it is intended by him for any racist meaning.” He believes that Trump was using the term to counter the Chinese government’s attempts to “divert responsibility for its mishandling of the outbreak which has resulted in this global pandemic.”
Yang believes that “there should be and must be a moment when all, victimized individuals and countries, come together to hold the CCP regime accountable.”
Here in Canada, we can be fairly certain that our governments’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic, at all three levels of government, have been shaped by our sensitivity to potential accusations of racism by Chinese government propaganda. Why else did Canada refrain from limiting travel from Hubei and China, only to close off virtually all foreign travel mere weeks later?
Canada is not alone in facing such foul accusations.
In Sweden, a former, long-serving Swedish MP, Gunnar Hökmark, wrote in a recent opinion piece that “China’s leaders should apologize to the world for epidemics coming from China because of the dictatorship’s failure to address food safety, animal standards, and because its repression of truth and the freedom of its own citizens.” China’s ambassador to Sweden Gui Congyou condemned the statement and accused Hökmark of “stigmatizing” China. China’s ambassador also went on to criticize Hökmark, his colleague Patrik Oksanen and their think tank, the Stockholm Free World Forum, for being part of an “anti-China political machine” and for “attacking, slandering and stigmatizing China.”
Canadians and our government must take great care to avoid generalizations that risk stigmatizing Canadians of Chinese heritage, or any other community, whose governments engage in similar repressive behaviour, including the Russian and Iranian regimes. However, we must also be alert to regime propagandists who seek to dismiss and silence legitimate criticism of their actions when they smear critics with false accusations of “racism.”
As Jianli Yang underlined for me, “the Chinese Communist regime is not justified in accusing anyone of racism, who criticize its early-stage covering up of the COVID-19 outbreak, and the latest information (disinformation) war against other countries.”

|
POLITICALLY CORRECT TRUDEAU’S RESPONSE TO THE WUHAN VIRUS — ILLEGALS CONTINUE TO STREAM ACROSS THE BORDER AT ROXHAM ROAD & CHINESE CONTINUE TO POUR IN FROM ASIA
|
“I STAND WITH GREECE RALLY” — RALLY AGAINST TURKISH ENGINEERED “REFUGEE” INVASION OF GREECE
PLEASE SHARE!
SUNDAY, MARCH 8 @ 2PM:
“I Stand With Greece” rally Toronto.
Queen’s Park – Ontario Provincial Legislature, 111 Wellesley St W
Please support us in saying:
NO to Turkey’s weaponization of refugees!
NO to violations of human rights!
NO to Turkey’s threats in the Aegean!
Turkish enabled invaders massing on the border
The last few days, pressure has been exerted on Greece’s eastern land and sea borders with the purposeful round up and transport of thousands of people seeking entry into Greece. This operation is coordinated from the top of the Turkish government, by Turkish President Erdogan himself. This Turkish operation is in direct violation of Turkey’s agreement with the European Union in regards to thwarting human trafficking.
Bring your flags!
Meet at the south part of the building.
See you on Sunday!
FAITH GOLDY
Facebook event:
https://www.facebook.com/events/579659899295930/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i79X9jTAfEM
Chuck Baldwin
March 5, 2020
Tomorrow, March 6, marks the anniversary of the fall of the Alamo outside of San Antonio, Texas, back in 1836. This event is so significant in my mind that I always try to devote a column that honors the heroism of these men on or around the anniversary of the occasion.
For 13 days, 189 brave and determined patriots withstood Santa Anna’s seasoned army of over 4,000 troops. To a man, the defenders of that mission fort knew that they would never leave those ramparts alive. They had several opportunities to leave and live. Yet they chose to fight and die. How foolish they must look to this generation of spoiled Americans.
It is difficult to recall that lionhearted men such as Davy Crockett (a nationally renowned frontiersman and former U.S. congressman), Will Travis (only 26 years old with two small children at home), Jim Bowie (a wealthy landowner with properties on both sides of the Rio Grande) and Almaron Dickinson (a 36-year-old blacksmith and artillery captain who was one of the very last men to die at the Alamo and whose young wife and daughter were two of only three Alamo survivors) really existed. These were real men with real dreams and real desires. Real blood flowed through their veins. They loved their families and enjoyed life as much as any of us do. However, there was something different about them. They possessed a commitment to liberty that transcended personal safety and comfort.
Freedom is an easy word to say, but it is a hard word to live up to. Freedom involves much more than financial gain or personal pleasure. Accompanying Freedom is her constant and unattractive companion, Responsibility. Neither is she an only child. Courage and Honesty are her sisters. They are inseparable: Destroy one, and all will die.
Early in the siege, Travis wrote these words to the people of Texas:
“Fellow Citizens & Compatriots: I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. . . . The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword. . . . I have answered the demand with a cannon shot & our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. . . . VICTORY OR DEATH! P.S. The Lord is on our side.”
As you read those words, remember that Travis and the others did not have the National Education Association (NEA) telling them how intolerant and narrow-minded their notions of honor and patriotism were. They didn’t have the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) telling them they were a hate group. A hostile media did not constantly castigate them as a bunch of wild-eyed extremists. As schoolchildren, they were not taught that their forefathers were nothing more than racist jerks. The TSA didn’t have them on a terrorist watch list. Neither did they have 501c3 pastors constantly filling their hearts and minds with this imbecilic “obey-the-government-no-
The brave men at the Alamo labored under the belief that America (and Texas) really was “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” They believed in God and that their cause was just. They also believed that the freedom of future generations depended on their courage and resolve. They further believed their posterity would remember their sacrifice as an act of love and devotion. It all looks pale now.
By today’s standards, the gallant men of the Alamo appear rather foolish. After all, they had no chance of winning—none. Yet the call for pragmatism and compromise never sounded. Instead, they answered the clarion call, “Victory or death!”
Try to remember the heroes of the Alamo as you watch Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C., create a more draconian Police State than Santa Anna could have even dreamed of creating.
One thing is certain: Those courageous champions at the Alamo did not fight and die for a political party or for some “lesser of two evils” mantra. They fought and died for a cause—and that cause was liberty and independence.
Those 189 defenders of the Alamo joined the ranks of the world’s greatest freedom fighters: patriots such as the 70 Minutemen (most of whom were congregants in Pastor Jonas Clark’s Church of Lexington) who stood against 800 British troops in the pre-dawn hours of April 19, 1775, at Lexington Green and the hundreds more who joined them at the Concord Bridge a few hours later.
I’m also talking about men such as the great freedom fighter, William Wallace, and his band of 7,000 stouthearted Scots who stood against a force of 18,000 well-trained British soldiers at the Battle of Stirling Bridge on September 11, 1297—and again on July 22, 1298, when Wallace and 5,000 Scots went up against an English force of over 15,000 soldiers at the Battle of Falkirk.
And let’s not forget the single greatest example of men who chose to fight for liberty against the greatest of odds: The 300 Spartans who squared off against more than 100,000 Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae in August or September of 480 B.C.
These stories—and hundreds like them—are the heritage of free men everywhere. And the willingness to stand against overwhelming odds for the cause of liberty is certainly America’s heritage.
At the same time, it is extremely important to note that the Alamo defenders (and the rest of the honorable men mentioned above) did NOT act as a mob. These men acted in accordance with the Natural Laws of God, and thus their resistance was just and righteous.
I heard a pastor recently say, “I can find no justification in the Scriptures for America’s War for Independence.” I hope many of his congregants found no justification for staying under his spiritual leadership after hearing that egregiously erroneous exposition.
The only reason a pastor could say such a thing is because he has totally ignored numerous Biblical references and is totally ignorant of Biblical Natural Law. Either that or he is a desperately deceived monarchical statist. Sadly, I would guess that a huge percentage of America’s pastors today actually share this misguided pastor’s sentiment. (Why don’t you ask YOUR pastor what HE thinks this Sunday?)
The heroes of the Alamo, as well as the heroes of America’s fight for independence, acted bravely and in good conscience under the moral laws of God and the just laws of Nature.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote,
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”
John Locke (The Father of America’s Founding Fathers) said,
“If a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going; it is not to be wondered, that they should then rouze themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected.”
Locke continued:
“Whosoever uses force without right, as every one does in society, who does it without law, puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it; and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.”
In line with the law of conscience, for those who advance that civil society’s rules must be abandoned and armed resistance taken (thus putting society in a state of war), there is a standard of proof that must be met, so as to convince The People that the actions taken outside the rules of established law are justified. This is what our founders did when they penned a Declaration of Independence. The founders of the Republic of Texas did likewise.