The View’s Navarro Says She Now Has Tested COVID Negative Twice After Kamala Chaos – RedState

As we reported on Friday, Kamala Harris was set to join the table of co-hosts on ABC’s “The View” as a guest, when two of the co-hosts learned what appeared to be shocking news live on air. Their tests for COVID came back positive, leading to a chaotic moment when both Ana Navarro and fellow co-host Sunny Hostin were whisked backstage by producers, which my colleague Nick Arama wrote about.

We also reported on the short interview they ended up doing remotely with Kamala, from another area of the building.

As Nick shared, all the nattering nabobs at the table managed to do was give Harris, the Biden Administration’s most do-nothing member on the border crisis, a platform to spew dishonest slander about CPS and the fake “whipping” at Del Rio narrative they continue to sell to the American people.

“I was outraged by it, it was horrible, and deeply troubling…[T]here needs to be consequences…Human beings should not be treated that way and it also evoked images of some of the worst moments of our history” where such ‘”behavior” has been used like in times of “slavery,” Harris claimed.

Later on Friday night, Ana Navarro joined CNN’s Anderson Cooper on his show. She told him she and her co-hosts were looking forward to the big interview and prepared to ask Kamala “tough questions,” a dubious claim if there ever was one. But the biggest revelation in the interview was that Navarro has taken at least two COVID tests (both the antigen and the PCR tests) since the show — and both results were negative.

Navarro added that “[a]ll indications are that those were false positives,” since both she and Hostin have now tested negative for COVID. While she said she didn’t want to speak for Hostin beyond that, she revealed that she was waiting for the results of yet a third test, “so I can fly home to Miami” to be with her family there.

Let’s think about this testing thing a moment, readers. During the CNN interview, Navarro explained that, as she only appears on “The View” a couple times a week, she would describe her tests for COVID as weekly — as she put it, “every time I come into the building.”

To me, that doesn’t make a lick of sense. By all indications, Navarro and Hostin (and all of “The View” co-hosts) are fully vaccinated against COVID. Isn’t testing supposed to be reserved for unvaccinated people or those with symptoms of the Chinese flu? I’ve never taken a COVID test — not once. This is saying the quiet part out loud by the left, since it puts a lie to the assurances by the government — and by companies and organizations ready to bend over for government coercion — who are gung-ho about more people being vaccinated… that if you are vaccinated, you can go about your daily life normally.

No, it appears that is not the case, if someone is being forced to have invasive tests for COVID several times a week. Also, Navarro mentioned that the rest of the show’s production team wears masks — just like the unimportant people behind the cameras on the Emmys last weekend. Seems legit.

And what good does it all do, but to lead to a panic over false positive tests when a high-ranking government official is nearby?

I’ve gotta say…if your goal, as it appears the Biden Administration and its allies in the legacy media have, is to convince more so-called ‘vaccine hesitant’ Americans to get the jab, this is not the way to do it.

Source link

That New CDC ‘Study’ Showing Masks Work in Schools Is Misleading Garbage – RedState

The lengths to which the federal government is willing to go to push their chosen narrative continue to amaze, especially when dealing with the supposedly sacrosanct realm of science. Enter the CDC, the largely discredited bureaucracy that is fresh off overriding the vote of government health experts on vaccine boosters for those under 65.

With masks continuing to show little to no effect on spread throughout not just the United States, but the entire world, it’s no surprise the CDC would keep “studying” the issue until they got the result they wanted. Thus, we got this result being touted this morning.

When I first saw this, my spidey sense immediately started going off. Notice the massaging being done to the language in this announcement. It doesn’t actually say schools with mask mandates show a smaller increase in pediatric COVID-19 case rates. Rather, it says “counties,” and we’ll get to why that is in a minute. Further, the CDC absconds from including in their graphic the actual, numerical difference being touted.

For posterity, here’s the link to the full study so you can see exactly what it actually covers.

So, what’s the real story here? The real story is that the CDC cherry-picked a time period from July 1st-September 4th, meaning that children weren’t even in school for the vast majority of the study. In fact, in some of the counties covered, children were only in school for a week or so by the time the study concluded. The study also cherry-picked some counties that already had rising infection rates prior to school beginning, with no control for testing so as to compare counties with similar case trends.

It gets worse, though. Even the actual results, forgetting the fact that the study is misleading garbage on its face because of how it was conducted, don’t really say what the CDC claims. Rather, the change in infection rates is arguably statistically insignificant.

In short, what we have is a “study” that didn’t even cover a period where children were in school — save for a week or so. The “study” is also based on a data set of counties that do not control for prior infection rates, testing capacity, etc. in order to conduct a valid comparison between areas that have school mask mandates and ones that don’t. And even still, they came up with a result that shows almost no difference in the real number of cases.

Lastly, just to put a fine point on all this, the CDC’s own study admits that it’s ecological and should not be used to assign causation in regards to masks and infection rates. They also admit a lack of control regarding several other key variables.

First, this was an ecologic study, and causation cannot be inferred. Second, pediatric COVID-19 case counts and rates included all cases in children and adolescents aged <18 years; later analyses will focus on cases in school-age children and adolescents. Third, county-level teacher vaccination rate and school testing data were not controlled for in the analyses; later analyses will control for these covariates. Finally, because of the small sample size of counties selected for the analysis, the findings might not be generalizable.

Despite those realities, the CDC rushed out to push causation anyway without a second thought. That’s just deeply dishonest, and this is the kind of stuff that makes people distrust our scientific institutions. If you are concerned about vaccine hesitancy, you should be speaking firmly against the manipulation of data we are seeing from the federal government to push what ultimately boils down to a political narrative.

Source link

The GP crisis. And why it may prove that the lockdown sceptics had a point.

“We’re still operating under pandemic conditions” is the automatic message I receive when I phone my GP practice. Like many people in the UK, I have been bemused to find out that face to face appointments aren’t available at my surgery, even in spite of the fact that lockdown is over, and the economy has fully reopened.

Data shows that while 80 per cent of GP appointments were conducted face to face before the pandemic, in July only 57 per cent were. And far from the vaccine roll out boosting face-to-face appointments, the opposite trend appears to have happened, with GPs on course to see 80 million fewer people in person this year than in 2019.

Experts such as Professor Karol Sikora, an oncologist, are incredibly worried about the consequences of remote appointments; he tells me that “over my career I’ve probably held over 100,000 face-to-face appointments with patients and you pick up something important every single time. A patient’s body language, visual symptoms and in-person physical examination are all crucial to getting to the crux of the issue.”

The Government is concerned too; in the last few days, Boris Johnson has warned that patients must be allowed to see doctors face-to-face. Ministers will be under no illusions that the UK could be on course for a health crisis much worse than Covid; it is already estimated that 175,000 diagnoses of key conditions were missed last year.

So what exactly is going on with GP practices? Why – with the vaccine here, more PPE and better Covid treatments – are they continuing to operate in pandemic conditions? And how does the Government deal with this matter? 

When I started out this piece, I simply asked the receptionist at my GP why face-to-face appointments aren’t going ahead, and I was intrigued by her response. She had no idea, and responded as though she’d never been posed the question before.

However, reports suggest there are several big reasons for the situation.

First, GPs are feeling overstretched, due to staff shortages, which the Government has been trying to remedy with a recruitment drive. It’s unsurprising that some want to continue with the video/ digital system deployed during the pandemic, so as to get through patients quicker.

Second is that e-consults have not come out of nowhere; Coronavirus, in fact, sped up a move towards digital/phone services that was already under way. E-consults are not necessarily bad in themselves – saving time for digitally-savvy patients in a hurry.

But the main issue is one of accessibility, particularly with those who find technology or staying on the phone difficult. As Dr Ben Spencer, the MP for Runnymede and Weybridge and former psychiatrist, tells me: “Digital exclusion will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in society”. 

The third, under-reported reason why GP surgeries aren’t fully open is to do with widespread variations in the “physical environment” of practices up and down the country. Some, for instance, are purpose-built, with ventilation and lots of space, meaning that they find it easier to see people compared to smaller surgeries. The latter will be behind the troublesome statistics.

While the Government has issued strong statements about GPs reopening – with Sajid Javid, the Health Secretary, warning that it’s “high time” for them to get back to normal – behind the scenes the Department of Health has taken a softer approach, speaking to NHS England and GP groups about the pressures they face, and how these can be alleviated.

Although the Government has invested £270 million to expand GP practice, improving things isn’t simply about throwing money at the NHS. Bureaucracy, for instance, is something that doctors have complained about; reducing it may be next on Javid’s list.

The Government will also be keen to cool tensions between the public and GPs. Yesterday Javid also held an “emergency” meeting with the BMA GP committee chair to discuss the abuse currently being suffered by GPs, in large part because the media has framed the story as “lazy doctors” against everyone else. In fact, the situation is more complicated than has been presented.

Is this issue going away any time soon? The biggest challenge for the Government is recruiting staff. Although record numbers of people are training to be GPs, it takes years before they can actually practice. No doubt Government critics will use worker shortages to criticise Brexit, and it may come under pressure to recruit from outside the UK.

At the same time, the NHS backlog will increase, and GPs will feel even more reticent to move away from phone/digital services, particularly as flu season arrives. Expect challenging months ahead, which may leave lockdown sceptics feeling vindicated.

After all, they warned that shutting down the economy would prove more dangerous than the immediate threat of the virus. The GP debacle, and the data that’s beginning to emerge from missed appointments, may be the biggest evidence for their argument yet.

Source link

Marble Halls & Silver Screens With Sarah Lee Ep. 106: The ‘Virus Funding, Courier, And Voluntary Vax Mandate’ Edition

Marble Halls & Silver Screens With Sarah Lee Ep. 106: The ‘Virus Funding, Courier, And Voluntary Vax Mandate’ Edition

Source link

Federal Workers Sue Biden Admin Over COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates

A group of federal workers and contractors filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government over COVID-19 vaccination mandates that were announced earlier this month by President Joe Biden.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Washington district court, is asking a court to declare unlawful Biden’s executive order and a Department of Defense memorandum in August mandating all military members get the vaccine.

Lawyers argue that members of the Christian faith are required “to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her informed conscience comes to this sure judgment,” and it further stipulates that “naturally acquired immunity provides greater protection than vaccines.”

One of the plaintiffs, U.S. Foreign Service Officer Daniel Jackson has a faith that “also instructs him that vaccination is not morally obligatory in principle and therefore must be voluntary” and that there is “a general moral duty to refuse the use of medical products, including certain vaccines, that are produced using human cells lines derived from direct abortions.”

Another plaintiff was identified as Secret Service agent Lionel Klein. The lawsuit stipulates that because Klein had already contracted COVID-19 and survived, he has enough antibodies to ward against future infection and doesn’t need the vaccine.

“The human body knows how to develop immunity to new viruses. The adaptive immune system consists of an enormously diverse repertoire of B cells—precursors of antibody-secreting plasma cells—and T cells with a nearly unlimited capacity to recognize and ‘adapt’ to previously unseen pathogens,” the suit reads.

The lawsuit also lists federal contractor Zachary Amigone, who works for 3M, as a plaintiff and says he has “a personal and family history of severe vaccine reactions and has been determined to be medically exempt from vaccination by a licensed physician.”

Earlier this month, Biden announced that it will now be mandatory for all federal workers and contractors to get the shot. Before, federal workers and contractors could opt out of the vaccine by undergoing regular testing, wearing a mask, and practicing social distancing while in the workplace.

At the same time, the president unveiled a plan that would direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, to potentially fine private businesses with 100 employees or more to compel their workers to either get vaccinated or submit to weekly testing. Several GOP-led states have threatened to file lawsuits over the mandate, while Arizona on Sept. 14 became the first to sue the administration over the plan.

COVID-19 is the illness caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.

The case is Gregg Costin et al v Joseph R. Biden, 1:21-cv-2484, District Court for the District of Columbia

Jack Phillips

Senior Reporter


Jack Phillips is a reporter at The Epoch Times based in New York.

Source link

Florida extends mandate ban to include ‘institutionalized quarantining’ of K-12 students

The DeSantis administration has opened a new front in its campaign against public health mandates, expanding bans against universal mask and vaccine policies into a new prohibitory realm – “institutionalized quarantining.”

On his second day as Florida Department of Health (FDOH) Secretary and Surgeon General, Dr. Joe Lapado joined Gov. Ron DeSantis and Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran to announce new FDOH protocols applicable to school districts.

The new rules reiterate the previous policy that parents have sole discretion whether their children wear masks in school but also accords sole discretion to parents in choosing to quarantine their children after an exposure to COVID-19.

“Basically there is no high quality data about benefits” of quarantining students, Lapado said Wednesday. “We’re about 18 months into this pandemic and there is not a single high-quality study that shows that any child has ever benefited from that policy.”

While benefits of quarantining students are difficult to assess, “We actually do have good data about the costs,” he said. “There have been several studies that show that kids taken out of school, it’s extremely harmful. It’s too bad we needed a study to know that. But it’s great the studies agree with what I think most parents would have known without the study.”

“Quarantining healthy students is incredibly damaging for their educational advancement,” DeSantis said. “It’s also disruptive for families. We are going to be following a symptoms-based approach.”

The revised protocols eliminate a previous standard that required students quarantine for at least four days off campus if exposed to someone who tested positive.

Students who have been exposed, but are asymptomatic, can now go to school “without restrictions or disparate treatment” under the new guidelines.

The protocols retain previous guidelines for students who test positive. They still either quarantine for 10 days, receive a negative test and be asymptomatic before returning to campus.

The new protocols discard Rule 64DER21-12 , which authorized FDOH to issue rules governing “the control of preventable communicable diseases” in schools.

Under that rule, the state’s Department of Education was enforcing DeSantis’ executive order and Board of Education orders banning school boards from adopting universal mask mandates.

The Alachua, Broward, Leon and Miami-Dade and Orange county school districts sought an administrative hearing to challenge Rule 64DER21-12. But, because it was repealed, an administrative law judge Wednesday dismissed their case.

“Essentially, the state is responding to the legal challenges of its rules by repealing them and creating new ones, with limited public notice,” Alachua County Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Carlee Simon said in a statement, calling the new protocols “disingenuous.”

The replacement rule retains the same policy — schools can require masks if parents can opt children out — but with revised language that stipulates compliance is “at the parent or legal guardian’s sole discretion.”

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), people who get infected can spread the virus starting from two days before they have any symptoms.

The CDC recommends students quarantine 14 days if unvaccinated. They can shorten the quarantine to seven days by testing negative, the CDC recommends.

That approach is too unwieldly, DeSantis said, touting the new “symptoms-based approach.”

“If someone is symptomatic, of course they stay at home,” he said. “If there is a close contact but someone has not developed any symptoms, you monitor them. You notify a parent. The parent always has the right to make their kids stay home, if they think that is in the best interest of the student and the family, 100% we would not want to intrude upon that.”

Source link

Sam Hall: Energy prices. We should urgently wean ourselves off gas and not give up on Net Zero.

So if Net Zero isn’t to blame, how should the Government respond? One idea gaining traction is to take environmental levies off people’s bills. Although the levies aren’t the cause of the price spike, removing them would offer some relief to consumers by delivering an immediate cut to their electricity bills in particular.

Since they are underpinned by legally-binding contracts with energy generators, the levies must be funded by other means. The Treasury could temporarily fund them out of general taxation.

But since this would be expensive, once gas prices have fallen, the Treasury could introduce a small carbon charge on gas bills to cover the costs of the levies longer term.

Gas bills currently have no carbon price, a reduced VAT rate, and hardly any levies, despite the fact it’s now a higher carbon fuel than electricity. This creates precisely the wrong economic incentive for consumers and businesses when they are deciding what new heating system to buy.

To protect those in fuel poverty, as I argued a few months ago on this site, some of the revenue from the gas carbon charge could be recycled and given back as a carbon cheque to people in receipt of Universal Credit and other vulnerable households.

Cutting electricity prices in this way would have a range of benefits. Many of the poorest energy customers use electricity for heating. They’d face no gas carbon charge and pay lower levies, so this would reduce fuel poverty.

It would also support heat pump deployment, critical for reducing our gas dependence and reaching Net Zero, by reducing their running costs relative to gas boilers. Similarly, it would incentivise more industries to switch to lower-carbon electricity, while boosting the competitiveness of those already using electricity.

Another option that the Treasury will currently be considering is simply subsidising the energy bills of the most vulnerable households. This would deliver short-term relief and would target public funds at those most in need, but wouldn’t move us longer term away from gas.

We’d risk a repeat of this problem in a few years’ time when gas prices inevitably spike again. And if the Treasury has to issue more short-term relief, it could end up being worse for the public purse.

Longer term, the Government needs to accelerate its deployment of renewables. Renewables are cheaper than new fossil fuel generation, support tens of thousands of jobs in our industrial heartlands, and reduce our dependence on volatile gas. As well as rolling out the cheaper, more established renewables, we should scale up support for nascent renewable technologies such as floating offshore wind and geothermal.

The £9.2 billion energy efficiency fund from the Conservative manifesto should be delivered in next month’s spending review and front-loaded as much as possible. Better home insulation will mean people using less gas to keep their homes warm, delivering short-term bill savings and reducing gas demand.

And, finally, we need to reform the Capacity Market – the Government’s policy for buying reserve generation capacity to ensure security of supply – so it actually brings forward new, clean, flexible storage and generation technologies, and doesn’t just subsidise existing gas power stations. This would also make us less reliant on volatile gas as a back-up for wind.

This is a worrying time for billpayers and lays bare the cost of our gas dependency. The Government should act now to relieve some of the pressure on people’s cost of living at the same time as driving forward its Net Zero agenda. The two go hand in hand.

Source link

School districts are greenlighting COVID-19 vaccine mandates for students ages 12 and older

More school districts have moved to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for students ages 12 and older.

Oakland Unified School District issued a press release announcing that at a Wednesday Board of Education meeting the directors voted 5-1, with one abstention, in support of a vaccine mandate for students 12 and above. The mandate will not take effect until sometime next year.

“Superintendent Kyla Johnson-Trammell and her team will now work out the logistics of how the requirement will take effect and when as directed by the resolution,” according to the release. “The District will create a plan and present it to the Board by October, so they are aware of how it will happen. Superintendent Johnson-Trammell indicated the requirement would go into effect no earlier than January 1, 2022, so as to be less disruptive during the middle of the fall semester, and to give students time to get their required vaccination, if not before, then during winter break.”

The mandate will include any exemptions demanded by law as well as a “personal belief exemption.”

“As for how the District will create the requirement, the team will take a look at the vaccine requirement in Los Angeles Unified and adjust it based on local context and need. There may be aspects of that requirement that work in Oakland, and others that do not, so we will use the best parts of it, and add to it where needed. Per the resolution, all exemptions required by law and a ‘personal belief exemption’ will be included,” the press release noted.

Currently in the U.S. the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine available for use in individuals ages 12 and up. It has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in individuals 16 and up, but remains available under an emergency use authorization for kids ages 12-15.

Hayward Unified School District and Piedmont Unified School District also approved student vaccine requirements, according to Bay Area News Group.

Hayward Unified School District’s Board of Trustees on Wednesday greenlit a COVID-19 vaccination requirement for kids 12 and up, according to, which reported that students eligible for vaccination will need to furnish proof of vaccination by Dec. 17, which is the final day of classes prior to the district’s Winter Recess.

District officials said that the requirement will pertain to kids ages 5 to 11 after the vaccine is authorized for kids in that age range, according to the outlet. Eligible students who fail to supply vaccination proof or who get an exemption under state law will face weekly testing, according to the outlet.

Piedmont Unified’s vaccine requirement will take effect Nov. 17 and allow medical exemptions, district spokesperson Brian Killgore said, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The outlet reported that religious exemptions will not be available.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 64.3% of the U.S. population ages 12 and up has been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, while 74.9% of that demographic has had at least one dose.

Source link

West Virginia vaccination rates are much lower than state has reported

A lot fewer West Virginians have received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine than the government had previously reported, according to Joint Interagency Task Force Director Jim Hoyer.

As of yesterday, the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources was reporting that more than 74% of eligible West Virginians received at least one dose of the vaccine, but now the department is saying that number is actually less than 64%, a drop of more than 10 percentage points.

The department’s tally of fully vaccinated West Virginians remains about the same – slightly more than 60%.

Although the department had previously included a breakdown of vaccination rates based on age, those numbers have been removed from the website. A team of data scientists from the DHHR and West Virginia University are currently reevaluating numbers and have established a new process with more checks on the data to ensure accuracy, Hoyer said in a statement.

Hoyer said the discrepancy was caused by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention double counting some of the numbers.

“Since the first part of May, the CDC has been double-counting the numbers that they send us related to the federal pharmacy program,” Hoyer said. “So it has made a significant impact on our numbers.”

Gov. Jim Justice said the new revelation means he has to double down on getting people vaccinated. West Virginia has one of the lowest rates in the country.

“The net of the whole thing is that there are a lot of folks still out in West Virginia that haven’t been vaccinated,” Justice said in a statement. “So now, by having this information, it makes it even better in some ways, because now I know we’ve got to double down even more. We have got to all work just one step harder, because there are a lot of people out there that we can still get to, and when we get to them, maybe we’ll be able to stop this thing. But we really need to step up.”

West Virginia’s COVID-19 cases have been increasing over the past couple of months, but have started to decline, according to DHHR numbers. Hospitalization numbers, on the other hand, continue to go up; there are currently 1,000 people hospitalized for COVID-19, which is the height of the pandemic.

There are 280 patients in the ICU, which is slightly down from the pandemic height of 292, which was reached on Monday. The number of patients on ventilators matches the pandemic peak at 168.

Source link

Atty General Eric Schmitt Is Fighting for Missouri, and Plans to Take the Fight to the Senate – RedState

Misouri’s Attorney General Eric Schmitt is fresh off his victory in the St. Louis County Circuit Court, where the court upheld his lawsuit against St. Louis County’s Executive Council mask mandates, as well as the preliminary injunction preventing the county from enforcing said mandates. St. Louis County Executive Dr. Sam Page issued motions to have the lawsuit dismissed, to dissolve the preliminary injunction, and to stay discovery. All of these motions were denied.

“The people of St. Louis County scored another win as the Court denied the County’s motions to dismiss our case and dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, which remains in place,” said Attorney General Schmitt. “There is no mask mandate in St. Louis County, and I will continue to lead this important fight on behalf of the people of Missouri.”

As well as for the people of America. When asked why Schmitt chose this hill, he replied:

“This is a much larger issue of individual liberty, and how much power are we going to cede to government,” Schmitt said.

Schmitt stated that our Founders were very clear about the type of governance they wanted America to have, and this current push for mask and vaccine mandates is not it.

“This is about power and control, pure and simple,” he said.

As our RedState Deputy Managing Editor Susie Moore (a Missouri native) reported, Schmitt is battling the mask mandates in the state of Missouri one lawsuit at a time. On August 24, Schmitt filed a class action lawsuit against Missouri school districts forcing mask mandates on schoolchildren and teachers. On September 21, Schmitt also filed an amicus brief in support of Rae’s Café (now Rae’s Private Club) in their lawsuit against Jackson County’s COVID restrictions, and for the county violating the owner’s due process rights.

Schmitt is looking to remove these mandates from the state completely, and was particularly critical of the mandates concerning children.

“This is overreach, trying to tell people how to live their lives. They [school districts] are making this stuff up as they go along. Infringing on freedom and individual liberty with information not based on facts or science. Parents should have the right to decide what is best for their kids, not the government.”

Schmitt also has the vaccine mandate that President Joe Biden threatened to impose on companies who employ 100 or more people in his crosshairs.

“The people have had enough. America has been the freest country, but we have to ask ourselves, ‘What do we want to become?’ Are we going to become a biomedical security state? We have to be on our guard here.”

Schmitt is not tired of fighting or winning, and as one of five candidates hoping to fill the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Roy Blunt, Schmitt is unafraid of his association with former President Donald J. Trump. Schmitt, along with the Texas Attorney General’s office, fought to have the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)—the “Remain in Mexico” policy reinstated.

“I’m proud of being the America First candidate, and I’m proud to be leading the charge nationally. I am working to hold on to this great country, and ensure that we protect liberty and freedom. People want their country back.”

When asked if he was splitting the baby by waging the fight against these mandates on the state level, while also running for Senate, Schmitt disagreed.

“I worked with Trump to fight for energy independence and a successful economy. I’ve fought for border security. All of these are big issues that are going to roll through the Senate, and we need a fighter to continue upholding these issues.”

When asked how he saw himself stacking up against his fellow candidates, Schmitt was confident:

“Voters know me as a proven, lifelong Constitutional conservative who will fight for them. We need more fighters in D.C. who will stand up for regular folks and their individuals rights. I’ve been the one candidate doing this for the people of Missouri and taking action.”

“Actions speak louder than words.”


Source link