Join our growing community to challenge mainstream media bias and fix the news
Leader of group protesting lockdowns tests positive for COVID-19

Leader of group protesting lockdowns tests positive for COVID-19

A leader of a group demanding that North Carolina allow businesses to reopen has tested positive for COVID-19. Audrey Whitlock, who administers the Facebook group of ReOpen NC, was under quarantine for two weeks ending Sunday. Whitlock insists that Gov. Cooper’s stay-at-home order be rescinded, saying it violates her right to freedom of religion.

Kyle G
Kyle G 6 months

I don’t believe them when they say that these protesters are testing positive. Why would these people even offer to be tested at all?

soapy 6 months

“...saying it violates her right to freedom of religion.” amend. 1 - freedom of religion: “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” No one is kicking in doors ripping psalms from peoples’ hands... that would be a prohibition on free exercise. She’s being arrested for endangering her fellow citizens. Let’s stay home and pray for her.

themdg 6 months

Yes, and? Does she need to be hospitalized? Probably not. We're all going to be positive for this virus at some point. And now that the hospitals are not in danger of being overwhelmed, the risk of her dying from lack of treatment is gone. Go outside, folks. It's the same as it was before.

Delterra 6 months

I'd posit that at the moment their protests are violating the right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness for others. Which means as a society we have the right to repress their repressions of others 😂

Jim K
Jim K 6 months

Seeing these protests has me convinced that our species is too dumb to survive. It's their right but at least wear a mask.

J. P.
J. P. 6 months

Who cares? It’s like 2x flu. That’s it. Yes it sucks. Yes people will die. But no ANY infringement on fundamental liberties like freedom of travel, association, or to make a living is way out of bounds. All of you bootlickers trying to justify this after the fact have some serious issues. They KNEW they didn’t have the data to know how deadly it was which means the ‘lockdowns’ were unconstitutional from the beginning. If you don’t want to get sick then STAY HOME but for everyone else it’s our right to accept the risk no matter how high (as as the truth has shown actually quite low) the risk may be.

SickOfTribalisem 6 months

well.. (if true and accurate...) that's hoerible but what'll be better.. to starve and suffer becuse the economy isn't runing... we need some balance... a gradual reverersal to normal

Daniel McEwen
Daniel McEwen 6 months

Misleading. Tested positive does not mean sick. That will only fuel the idea that it's safe to be out. My opinion on the subject is irrelevant in this context but isn't going to away the many people who believe it's okay to be out there.

Cole. 6 months

ok and?

Kathleen 6 months

She might be positive, but while she’s out there breathing on everyone, she passing on to someone who might die. Will she accept that she murdered someone?

ronnie massart
ronnie massart 6 months

Testing positive doesn't mean they'll get sick but it looks good for media

michael 6 months

what a stupid woman. does god not live in her heart? Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. she has the freedom to be a christian. she can do that from home. let us pray: we believe in one god, the father, the almighty, maker of heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen. does my prayer not reach god because I say it at home, keeping my fellow man safe? or is she in truth a heathen idolater who worships a building and a book and an execution device?

krayzie 6 months

2 Choices: Choice #1 - Open the economy and risk infecting some more people Choice #2 - Keep the economy closed down like it has been and risk many, many more people dying from starvation down the road Even if you want to be VERY generous and give this virus a 3% kill rate, that means that of the 7.7 billion people on the planet, approximately 231 million would die. We need to decide if that number is higher than the potential number of people starving in the next 6 months to 2 years.

KM 6 months

This thing has a 99% recovery rate. True, we don't know long term effects, but a new version of "the flu" comes around every few years. I'm having trouble processing how many people are willing to give away all their rights for a 1% chance they may die. Nobody is suggesting a bunch of strangers rub up on one another, but we can't hide inside our homes and hope the government takes care of us.

krayzie 6 months

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

vito 6 months


Matt Hardy
Matt Hardy 6 months

Bet she is still protesting though. Getting the virus is practically inevitable. OPEN THE ECONOMY!!!

krayzie 6 months

2 Choices: Choice #1 - Open the economy and deal with the consequences Choice #2 - Keep the economy closed and deal with the consequences 2 Risks: Risk #1 - We may infect more people by opening the economy Risk #2 - We may all starve to death if we keep the economy closed too long Can we all just agree on this please? Otherwise, we're just waxing idiotic.

Diehard 270
Diehard 270 6 months

This lady doesn’t listen to Jesus If she’s trying to disobey the law like this. The church is a people not a place, and christians are called to obey the law. She can worship Jesus and be in relationship with him at home, unless it’s not about a relationship for her, which would make her not a Christian

Tom 6 months

Did Audrey display any symptoms? If not it only helps her case that we need to reopen

Top in U.S.