Thursday, April 25, 2024
Facebook Instagram RSS Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 3

Although Never Officially Shut Down, South Dakota Governor Unveils ‘Back To Normal’ Plan

By
Gustavo
-
0

South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem unveiled her state’s “Back to Normal” plan Tuesday, outlining steps she is encouraging her citizens to take without implementing draconian orders forcing South Dakotans into compliance.

“I am not announcing new government programs, more red tape, proscriptive phases, tight controls, or anything like that,” Noem made clear in a Tuesday press conference. “The plan I am unveiling today continues to put the power of decision-making into the hands of the people – where it belongs.”

Noem’s reopening strategy offers guidance to residents to maintain proper social distancing measures and includes a continuation of remote learning for students with a limited return to in-person education by the end of the school year for students to “check-in.” Noem is also encouraging employers to begin transitioning previously teleworking employees back to the workplace with enhanced sanitation practices while pleading with individuals who feel sick to stay home. State health care facilities are also being told to keep restricting outside visitors and reserve beds and supplies for coronavirus patients.

The South Dakota governor emphasized that these directives, as have previous guidelines issued by the governor’s office, are nonbinding, leaving it up to the state’s citizens to act responsibly.

“Ultimately it is the people themselves that are primarily responsible for their safety,” Noem said. “They are the ones who are entrusted expansive freedoms. They are free to exercise their rights to work, worship, and play or to stay at home and to conduct social distancing.”

South Dakota was one of few states that never saw a statewide shelter-in-place order implemented as the rest of the country was locked down to curb the spread of the novel Wuhan coronavirus. Other states that refrained from shutting down include North Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Arkansas, all of which are primarily rural. Only Iowa ranks with the top half of states in the number of confirmed cases where the Hawkeye State comes 24th with more than 6,800 people known to be infected. South Dakota, on the other hand, places 41st in the nation with just more than 2,300 confirmed cases and 11 deaths as of Wednesday afternoon.

South Dakota saw its first case of the virus on March 10th with projections at the time warning of a surging caseload that would allegedly overwhelm the state’s health care system. Today, however, through steps taken voluntarily under the guidance of state and federal health officials, Noem reports that South Dakota was able to delay the peak of infections and cut it down by more than 75 percent, leaving ample room in the state’s hospitals to deal with a second outbreak.

“As governor, I did not dictate to the people of South Dakota,” Noem said. “I didn’t tell you what activities you could do, which ones were officially approved of or not approved of. I didn’t begin arresting or ticketing or fining individuals who are exercising their rights, nor am I going to do that today.”

State residents were encouraged to follow federal rules regarding social distancing and clean hygiene but were never coerced into doing so.

Noem’s resistance to follow a one-size-fits-all policy implementing a shelter-in-place order prompted backlash from national media blaming the governor for an outbreak at the world’s largest pork processor, Smithfield Foods in Sioux Falls where hundreds of employees fell sick. The Washington Post, featuring a crazy eyes photo reminiscent of Newsweek’s infamous cover of former Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachman, branded South Dakota as a coronavirus hot-spot in mid-April. The article attributed the surge in new cases to the governor’s refusal to threaten citizens with fines or arrests for not adhering to government-sponsored social distancing guidelines.

“South Dakota’s governor resisted ordering people to stay home. Now it has one of the nation’s largest coronavirus hot spots,” the Post headlined its piece.

With fewer than 1,000 cases and six deaths at the time however, South Dakota was no “hot spot” and never became one. Even if Noem had shut down the state, Smithfield Foods where at least a third of the state’s coronavirus cases came from still would have been operating under the order as it is considered an essential business necessary to keep the nation’s supply chains resilient through the crisis.

Some Governors Are Getting Serious About The Cost Of Coronavirus Lockdowns. Some Aren’t

By
Gustavo
-
0

As the spread of COVID-19 begins to slow nationwide, some governors are proving to be more serious than others about what comes next.

As the coronavirus spread slows, governors are responding in different, sometimes wildly divergent ways. Many of them, recognizing their states are not likely to see an outbreak on the scale of New York or New Jersey, have in recent days announced plans to loosen lockdown orders and get their residents back to work. Others have taken the opposite tack, extending lockdown orders and keeping businesses shuttered even as jobless claims mount.

The first set of governors, generally speaking, is serious about the trade-offs and tensions between protecting public health and preventing an economic collapse. They know they have to be careful about reopening their states, that they don’t yet have enough testing or contact tracing in place, and that we don’t have an effective treatment or vaccine for COVID-19. They also know that their residents and businesses cannot go on like this for months or years and that allowing people to get back to work and feed their families is also an urgent need—and at some point becomes a question of public health.

Hence, governors in Texas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Missouri, Florida, Ohio, Montana, Tennessee, Utah, and South Carolina have all announced substantive plans to allow some businesses to reopen this week, with varying restrictions remaining in place. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday announced perhaps the most ambitious plan, allowing retail stores, restaurants, movie theaters, and malls to open Friday, so long as they operate at 25 percent capacity. Abbott’s order will supersede all local orders, unlike Missouri Gov. Mike Parson’s announcement on Monday that Missouri businesses can reopen next week but local governments can impose stricter rules if they so choose.

Texas and Missouri’s changes follow more limited loosening of lockdown orders by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt last week, which were roundly criticized by the media. Defending his decision in an interview with Fox’s Chris Wallace on Sunday, Stitt noted that Oklahoma has had only 300 hospitalizations from COVID-19 with the statewide capacity for 4,600. “We think it’s a reasonable time to reopen,” he said.

It’s Time Get Real About How Long Lockdowns Can Last

The second set of governors, those who are extending their lockdown orders, are coming off as… not so reasonable. California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday he was still weeks away from making “measurable and meaningful changes” to his statewide stay-at-home order.

Newsom’s decision about reopening the country’s most populous state, he said, would be driven by data and “behavior”—and the behavior he saw over the weekend, with crowds of people gathering at Ventura and Orange County beaches, is just the sort of thing that will delay reopening. “We can’t see the images like we saw, particularly on Saturday in Newport Beach and elsewhere, in the state of California.”

But is it data or behavior that Newsom is relying on? Because the data show that California, a state of some 40 million people, has had fewer than 1,800 COVID-19 fatalities and currently has fewer than 3,400 hospitalizations, with Los Angeles alone accounting for about half of all fatalities and hospitalizations. Meanwhile, millions have filed jobless claims in California but the state’s overwhelmed labor agency has only been able to pay one out of every eight claims, one of the lowest rates in the country.

Other governors have even less reason to extend lockdowns. Over the weekend, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers extended his stay-at-home order until May 26 despite the relatively few numbers of coronavirus deaths in his state (less than 300 as of Tuesday) and a recent decline in the number of positive COVID-19 tests.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak said Monday they would join California, Oregon, and Washington in a Western States Pact that puts “science ahead of politics.” But politics, like science, can’t be easily ignored. Nevada has fewer than 5,000 cases and just 219 deaths, yet Sisolak has announced no plans to loosen his stay-at-home order despite protests across the state over the weekend calling on him to reopen.

Colorado has about three times as many coronavirus cases as Nevada, but Polis is allowing hair salons, dog groomers, and personal trainers to begin opening this week in some areas. Retail stores will be able to open to customers on Friday with strict social distancing rules in place, and on May 4, commercial businesses can open with up to 50 percent of employees working in-person.

In other words, the governors who are opening up their states aren’t calling for some kind of a free-for-all. If anything, they’re drawing criticism for being too cautious. Abbott, for example, has provoked the ire of conservatives in Texas for moving too slowly. In Ohio, where about 1 million residents are unemployed because of the pandemic, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine has faced protests over what critics say is a reopening plan that moves too slowly, with retail stores not set to open for another two weeks and restaurant, bars, and many other businesses still closed indefinitely.

In the coming days and weeks, expect to see a growing divide between governors willing to risk reopening and those who think their residents can remain jobless and out of work for weeks or months longer. That divide will expose leaders who are serious about the economic and social costs being borne by the vast majority of Americans, and those who are not.

Dear Nancy Pelosi, You Don’t Need To Pay $13 A Pint For Good Ice Cream

By
Gustavo
-
0

Bad optics and lacking leadership during this time of crisis aside, someone needs to tell the House speaker there are better, cheaper options to stock her freezer with.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was slammed by lawmakers and media alike this week after she simultaneously blocked funds for America’s suffering small businesses, and showed off her gourmet ice cream stockpile.

House Republicans have attempted for over a week to pass a clean funding bill to replenish funds for the Paycheck Protection Program, of which all $349 billion available was officially depleted on Thursday. Democrats blocked the assistance, offering a counter-proposal with a wish-list of progressive propositions. As Republicans and even some Democrats begged for Congress to bail out more small businesses, Pelosi called it a “stunt” and claimed there’s “no data as to why we need it.”

Meanwhile, in an undeniably tone-deaf move, the millionaire congresswoman from California appeared on CBS’ “Late Late Show” Monday, standing in front of a refrigerator that costs more than many Americans earn in a year, and opened her freezer to reveal it was full to the brim with ice cream and gelato.

Clearly, the staffer that thought this was a cute idea has yet to lose their own paycheck like 22 million other Americans, or at least they hadn’t until this video aired. Not to mention, any experienced communications staffer would also know the last time a politician indulged in ice cream gluttony, it made blaring headlines. “PRESIDENT GETS 2 SCOOPS OF ICE CREAM, EVERYONE ELSE 1,” as CNN’s chyron once read.

Of course, Pelosi should be shamed for her bad politics and lacking leadership during this time of crisis, but I’m here to talk about ice cream. Any ice cream connoisseur took one look at Pelosi’s freezer and saw stacks of cash. Jeni’s Splendid Ice Creams, the colorful pints you see on the right, cost $13 per pint in the grocery store, or $68 for 6 pints if you mail order like the Speaker suggests in the interview. Talenti gelato, which she points out as her two chocolate favorites on the left, are $5 a pint, but still on the higher end of grocery store options.

I will concede, Jeni’s is a very good ice cream. It’s a premium, Philadelphia-style ice cream, which means it doesn’t contain any eggs or yolks. It has a creamy and smooth texture — some even complain too creamy. Jeni herself describes it as a “buttercream body.” Their flavors are top-notch and are often perfect balances of salty and sweet, like the popular Brown Butter Almond Brittle. So I do not blame Pelosi for her obsession one bit, but there are other amazing, less expensive options.

Blue Bell

As a resident Texan, my first recommendation has to be Blue Bell. The little creamery in small-town Brenham, Texas, only delivers to 13 southern states to which it can drive within a day, and California is not included, but Pelosi has already established she’s happy to mail order. A pint of Blue Bell will cost you $2.57, a half-gallon $6, and you will not be sacrificing an ounce of flavor or texture.

When Blue Bell had to halt production in 2015 after a deadly listeria outbreak, some Texans hoarded their dwindling supplies, while others auctioned off their half-eaten cartons on eBay to the deprived. It was devastating, and Texans collectively fought for the company to make a comeback. When freezer aisles were finally restocked, one Kroger public relations rep said customers had vocal reactions, exclaiming “God is Good!” or “Amen!” So yes, it’s that good for costing $2.57 a pint.

Tillamook

Despite churning out cheese and other dairy products for over 100 years, Tillamook recently relaunched and rebranded itself into the ice cream competition, and quite successfully. It has a soft, fluffy texture, almost as if it’s been whipped, but doesn’t lose its creaminess. And a whole quart costs $4.99.

Häagen-Dazs

Häagen-Dazs will do in a pinch, and let’s be honest, it just sounds like something Nancy Pelosi would like. It’s also Ina Garten-approved. Being so creamy and thick, it just tastes expensive, and it’s usually $4 to $5 a pint. Pricey, but not Jeni’s pricey.

Snicker Ice Cream Bar

This winner may be surprising, but the Snickers ice cream bar, specifically the Snickers Dark ice cream bar, takes first place in the novelty frozen treat category. They’re only $4.19 for six at Walmart, and you can often find them for an even better price at Sam’s Club or Costco. This dark chocolate bar, filled with peanut butter-chocolate ice cream, peanuts, and caramel, is everything you want in flavor and texture. Plus, you can eat it right out of the wrapper. No need to even get a scoop involved, Nancy.

Make Your Own Ice Cream

I would hope that if Pelosi has a $24,000 refrigerator, she also has an ice cream maker somewhere in that chef’s kitchen. Homemade ice cream is undoubtedly the most delicious and cheapest ice cream. At a time when we are all baking our own bread and cutting our own hair, making our own ice cream is on the horizon with warming months of social distancing approaching. There are countless easy recipes, and you can make as much as you want for pennies on the dollar. If all else fails and you’re still missing the $13/pint confection, try making Jeni’s Splendid Ice Cream at home.

Support Small Ice Cream Businesses

Obviously Pelosi is in no real need of ice cream recommendations as we’ve just seen some of her most extravagant assets. But perhaps she can finally get around to doing what she’s stalled on for over a week and support American small businesses like her local ice cream shop. If she won’t give them a loan so they can make payroll, she could at least buy a scoop. Maybe even leave a tip. I’m sure they will even sell it to her by the pint to put in her safe of sorbet.

Pentagon Preparing Navy Hospital Ships Mercy, Comfort for Coronavirus Response

By
Gustavo
-
0

This post has been updated with statements from Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.

The Pentagon is starting the process of activating Navy hospital ships USNS Mercy (T-AH-19) and USNS Comfort (T-AH-20) as part of the Defense Department’s domestic response to the spreading COVID-19 virus, USNI News has learned.

“We’ve already given orders to the Navy… to lean forward in terms of getting them ready to deploy,” Secretary of Defense Mark Esper told reporters on Tuesday.

The ships will now begin the several days-long processes of bringing aboard medical staff and equipment ahead of deploying along the East and West coasts, a defense official confirmed to USNI News on Tuesday afternoon.

Two sources told USNI News that the idea was for the ships to provide relief for coastal hospital systems, with the ships taking on non-COVID-19 cases and allowing the hospitals to focus on the most critical patients suffering from the virus. The Pentagon also has extensive equipment for erecting field hospitals in addition to the hospital ships, but those facilities are optimized for trauma cases, with several beds close together, and not for infectious patients.

“So one of the ways you could use field hospitals, hospital ships or things in between is to take the pressure off of civilian hospitals when it comes to trauma cases, to open up civilian hospital rooms for infectious diseases,” Esper said.

On Monday, Joint Staff surgeon Air Force Brig. Gen. Paul Friedrichs gave more details on how the ships could support civilian hospitals.

“If, for example, a community has a large outbreak and there’s a need for emergency room support or trauma support, a hospital ship is perfectly designed to do that,” Friedrichs told Politico on Monday.
“It’s hard to get the hospital ship to St. Louis, but along the coasts, it is an option to use.”

Each ship has a 1,000-bed capacity and is manned by military medical personnel, requiring about a week or more to mobilize that personnel from across the active duty and reserve forces. Pentagon officials have stressed that many of the reserve medical personnel that would be called up to staff mobile hospitals or Mercy and Comfort would be partially pulled from civilian medical facilities.

“The big challenge isn’t the availability of these inventories, it’s the medical professionals. All of those doctors and nurses either come from our medical treatment facilities or they come from the reserves, which means civilians,” Esper said.
“What I don’t want to do is take reservists from a hospital where they are needed just to put them on a ship to take them somewhere else where they’re needed.”

Esper said he’s been in consultation with several state governors on how the military can best support civilian medical efforts.

“The Department of Defense is ready, willing and able to support civilian authorities to the greatest extent possible with the direction of the president,” Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman told reporters on Monday. “We just want to make sure that the conversation that is being had is informed by the facts of what is possible, what is not, and what those trade-offs are.”

Mercy is homeported at Naval Station San Diego, Calif., while Comfort is at Naval Station Norfolk, Va.

Trump Defends Calling Wuhan Virus ‘Chinese Virus’

By
Gustavo
-
0


“I have to call it where it came from. It did come from China, so I think it’s a very accurate term.”

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump defended calling the Wuhan virus a “Chinese Virus” during a White House press briefing on the outbreak.

Trump tweeted about the “Chinese Virus” Tuesday night.

“China and others have criticized you for using the phrase ‘Chinese Virus.’ How do you feel about that?” one reporter asked.

“China was putting out information, which was false, that our military gave this to them, that was false,” Trump said. “And rather than having an argument, I have to call it where it came from. It did come from China, so I think it’s a very accurate term.”

Trump also rejected the idea perpetuated by the Chinese government and woke media elites that using the phrase was “stigmatizing” to the Chinese people.

“I think saying that our military gave it to them creates a stigma,” Trump responded.

Last week, China began promoting a conspiracy theory that members of the U.S. military who visited the Chinese city of Wuhan in October, where the first outbreak occurred, was cause for the virus spreading in the East Asian superpower.

The Chinese tale comes as a response to American leaders and media outlets calling the virus the “Wuhan Virus” to reference where the novel infection spreading across the globe first originated.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang accused Secretary of State Mike Pompeo of racism by using the phrase earlier this month, prompting the woke corporate media empire to enthusiastically embrace Chinese messaging to condemn those who call the virus by its name.

Never mind that it is common practice for new diseases to be named after places or people such as German Measles or the West Nile Virus. Others include Guinea Worm, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Lyme Disease, Ross River Fever, Omsk Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Valley Fever, Marburg Virus Disease, Norovirus, Zika Fever, Japanese Encephalitis, Spanish Flu, Lassa Fever, and Legionnaire’s Disease, to name a few.

In the case of the Wuhan coronavirus however, it has become even more important to attach China to the virus given China’s role in downplaying the threat of the virus and silencing whistleblowers who raised concerns. Now the world is faced with a global economic recession where entire nations and regions go on lockdown to prevent the spread of the deadly virus overwhelming hospitals.

The Latest On COVID-19 Suggests Most Of Us Will Be Fine

By
Gustavo
-
0

Mounting evidence suggests that if you don’t smoke or aren’t 70 or older or have underlying health conditions, you’ll be fine—although you can spread it to other, more vulnerable people.

The latest information on Coronavirus COVID-19, also known as the Wuhan Flu, from Johns Hopkins University shows widely varying numbers of confirmed cases and apparent mortality rates by nation.

The People’s Republic of China, the virus’ epicenter, was reporting 81,058 cases as of March 17 with 3,230 deaths, with 4.0 percent of those diagnosed subsequently dying. Italy is similarly hard hit, with 31,506 cases and 2,503 deaths for a mortality rate of 7.9 percent of those diagnosed.

Yet South Korea, a nation with frequent, direct contact with people from China, is only showing 8,320 cases of COVID-19 with 81 deaths, a rate of 1.0 percent—likely not too different than can be expected every year from common influenza if one considers the many mild cases who didn’t present to medical personnel.

Different Countries, Different Results

So, why the huge differences in diagnosed cases and mortality, and what does that mean for America? Important factors to consider are government (both competence and transparency), the state of the health-care system (the number of people tested and its critical care system), and the affected population (its age and health).

A stark example of this can be seen in the two Koreas, one free and prosperous, the other enslaved and poor. South Korea’s 8,320 confirmed cases of the Wuhan Flu contrast with none in North Korea.

This is a pathogenic impossibility. The COVID-19 numbers out of North Korea are not to be believed for the same reason the survival rate for any North Korean who criticizes paramount leader Kim Jong-un approaches zero: the government controls all information on penalty of death.

Similarly, the People’s Republic of China has a casual association with the truth related to a virus that was first diagnosed in and around the city of Wuhan in Hubei province. In December, Li Wenliang, a Chinese ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital, used the WeChat app to warn the medical community about what he thought was an outbreak of a SARS-like (severe acute respiratory syndrome) illness.

SARS is a coronavirus. Li was quickly contacted by police, who admonished him to “stop making false comments.” He was subsequently investigated for “spreading rumors.” Within four days he was ordered to appear at the Public Security Bureau, where he had to sign a false confession that he “severely disturbed the social order.” Local officials later apologized to Li, just before he died from the virus.

At the same time, some 100 miles across the Taiwan Strait, the freely elected Taiwanese government has reported 77 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with one death. Had Taiwan suffered a similar infection level and reported death rate as on mainland China, it would be reporting about 1,400 cases and 56 deaths.

The reporting out of China suggests the Chinese Communist Party is artificially pushing the new infections rate down, reporting fewer than 1,000 new cases in the past two weeks while the number of cases reported worldwide exceeded that in China on March 15 at 81,700 and is now rising rapidly. It is highly likely that the total infections numbers out of China cannot be trusted. In fact, Chinese authorities have been highly effective in preventing independent reporting out of Wuhan, forcing the outside world to rely solely on Beijing’s word.

So, should Americans be worried? Mounting evidence suggests that if you don’t smoke or aren’t 70 or older or have underlying health conditions, you’ll be fine—although you can spread it to other, more vulnerable people.

Risk Factors Vary by Person and Country

Some 319 million people in China smoke, about 23 percent of the population. In Italy, 19 percent of the population smokes. In South Korea, 40.7 percent of the male population smokes compared to 6.4 percent of the females. By comparison, about 37.8 million Americans smoke—18 percent of men and 14 percent of women.

Italy’s mortality numbers are further burdened by agedness. Italy has one of the oldest populations in the world, with almost 60 percent of Italians aged 40 and up and a national average age of 46. The median age in the United States is 38.2 years.

Even so, conflicting reports out of Italy suggest there may only be two people who died from the coronavirus who did not also present other pathologies. This, as Silvio Brusaferro, the president of the Higher Institute of Health in Rome, noted that, “Positive deceased patients have an average of over 80 years—80.3 to be exact—and are essentially predominantly male.” Only 25.8 percent of deaths attributed to the virus were women.

Lastly, when the virus makes Americans sick enough to seek medical attention, there’s one more advantage we have: the U.S. has almost three times the critical care beds per capita as does Italy, more than triple what South Korea has (where the death rate may be close to that of the flu, depending the number of mild, undiagnosed cases), and almost 10 times that in China.

Even as the Trump administration and state and local officials enact prudent measures and provide guidance to mitigate the rapid spread of the virus, coronavirus-induced panic may be overwrought. America will emerge just fine after the epidemic passes, and with some lasting benefits: a greater acceptance of telecommuting and distance learning.

Don’t Believe the Hype or Misinformation

Even so, there are troubling developments from unexpected quarters: both rumors and official misinformation seeking to blame America for the virus. When the virus was still largely confined to Wuhan, China, Islamists said it showed the “power of God” striking communists because “China declared war on Islam and Muslims and persecuted our brothers Uyghurs.”

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the nation with the third-highest number of reported cases, 16,169, an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps general said the coronavirus might be a U.S. biological weapon aimed at Iran and China.

More worrisome, this theme has been picked up by Chinese government officials. Last week, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Zhao Lijian, tweeted that the U.S. Army could be responsible for starting the epidemic in Wuhan during the Military World Games held from Oct. 18 through27.

This propaganda outburst led to a rare dressing down by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who warned China against promoting “outlandish rumors.” A State Department spokeswomen noted Pompeo “conveyed strong U.S. objection to [China’s] efforts to shift blame for COVID-19 to the United States” with his counterpart in Beijing. Last week the State Department summoned China’s ambassador to the United States to its headquarters to admonish him for his government spreading conspiracy theories.

Since then, word has leaked of Chinese state-run news (there is no other kind) showing the video of a man purported to be a U.S. soldier removing his facemask, sticking his finger in his mouth, then stroking a handhold. The Communist regime shows no sign of turning away from the contention that the United States purposefully infected China. This is why President Trump pointedly called the coronavirus the “Chinese virus.”

The People’s Republic of China’s burgeoning line of disinformation accusing the United States of being the origin of the deadly virus could be a casus belli. Lies often create a terrible logic of their own. Beijing’s lies have amplified the virus’ suffering and death and may, in their own right, prove far deadlier than the virus that emerged out of Wuhan.

Biden Calls Trump Racist For Stating The Fact That Wuhan Virus Began In China

By
Gustavo
-
0

Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden complained Thursday about President Donald Trump calling the Wuhan coronavirus “a foreign virus” in Wednesday’s Oval Office address.

“Labeling COVID-19 a foreign virus does not displace the accountability for the misjudgments that have taken place so far by the Trump administration,” Biden said. “The [Wuhan] coronavirus does not discriminate based on national origin, race, gender, or zip code.”


In Wednesday night’s primetime White House address announcing new travel restrictions to Europe, Trump pointed out that the novel coronavirus wreaking havoc on global public health and stock markets around the world began in China, accurately referring to it as a “foreign virus.” Many on the left, however, have been quick to decry the label as “racist” and “xenophobic,” although it’s common practice to identify a new disease with the site of its first outbreak, such as the West Nile virus and Spanish Flu.

In this case, however, it is even more important to identify the new coronavirus with where it originated in the Chinese city of Wuhan, as the Chinese government attempted to cover up warnings and brushed off the threat of its severity, giving rise to what the World Health Organization has now declared a global pandemic.

On Thursday, Biden also criticized the administration’s decision to implement a near-total European travel ban recommended by White House public health advisors, with an exception for the United Kingdom.

“Banning all travel from Europe or any other part of the world may slow it, but…it will not stop it,” Biden warned.

In January, Biden also criticized as xenophobic the administration’s travel ban to China as the outbreak began to worsen, although it was instrumental in preventing an outbreak in the United States much sooner.

“This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia,” Biden said during an Iowa campaign event.


In response to Biden’s Thursday press conference, the Trump campaign put out a statement reminding the public of Biden’s opposition to the China travel ban.

“Just weeks ago, he was openly critical of President Trump’s early move to restrict travel from China to the United States in response to the coronavirus – a decision which medical experts agree helped impede the spread of the virus to this country,” Trump Communications Director Tim Murtaugh said. “President Trump acted early and decisively and has put the United States on stronger footing than other nations.”

Why CNN’s Normalizing Of A White Nationalist Matters

By
Gustavo
-
0

It’s transparent partisan attempt to smear Republican voters.

In 2016, a bunch of real-life white supremacists—not just Republicans who happen to disagree with the Democrats’ preferred immigration policy—put together a conferencein Washington, D.C., to attract attention. All kinds of major news networks dutifully showed up, because legacy media has something of a symbiotic relationship with the alt-right. White supremacists get to feed off of the preposterously outsized coverage they are given by histrionic journalists while journalists get to use white nationalists to smear Republicans.

In its report on the conference, NPR—which made sure to note what was implicit in most coverage: the Republican victory had given this once-fringe movement a “jolt”— noted that maybe 300 people, “split nearly evenly between conference attendees and protesters of the conference outside” had been on hand for the event. So maybe 150 people. To put this in perspective, there was—by far—more coverage of this idiotic get-together than there has ever been given to the March for Life, which pulls hundreds of thousands of people every year, or even this week’s progressive Netroots Nation, which, inconveniently, featured elected both elected Democrats and anti-Semites—sometimes simultaneously.

This kind of journalistic malpractice is just an upcycled version of one of those pieces lamenting the imaginary racist backlashagainst Disney remakes that, in actuality, amounts to nothing more than some random Twitter users acting like jackasses.

All of it caters to historical illiterates and partisans who act like every tax cut is another Reichstag fire.

Which brings me to the purpose of CNN featuring white supremacist Richard Spencer on as a pundit yesterday. These are kinds of people, you see, who say “love it or leave it.” These are the kinds of people who support the president. Literally, the chyron read, “White Nationalist who once backed Trump calls Trump’s racist tweets ‘red meat.’”

Spencer was there to reiterate a point. CNN and other networks have decided that Trump’s tweets are objectively racist and they will repeat that his tweets are racist hundreds of times a day just in case anyone disagrees. They won’t make the same kind of journalistic judgments about the anti-Semitism that infects a sizable faction of the progressive left. They won’t do the same for Ilhan Omar’s tweets.

Well, white nationalists get a “jolt” from Republicans winning elections in the same way terrorist Hamas or Antifa goons get a “jolt” from Democrats winning elections. CNN would never ask an Islamic radical or masked leftist arsonist to talk about Ilhan Omar’s anti-American sentiments in an effort to tacitly tie her to those groups.

There are plenty of articulate conservatives out there who don’t meltdown every time the president tweets something stupid. Whether you agree with them or not, they could easily have provided a pro-Trump perspective (which is what I imagine CNN was looking for but didn’t get, from Spencer).

Because there are basically two varieties of right-center guests that dominate these news shows. One is a centrist who is perpetually dismayed by what’s happened to the modern Republican Party. When it was Reagan, he pined for Eisenhower. When it was W., he pined for H.W. Now that it’s Trump, he pines for Reagan. The second is a cartoon avatar of what liberals imagine most Republicans are like. Basically, “Let’s go down to CPAC and find the biggest nut we can.” Guess what? It’s not hard to find a nut.

“Does a figure like Spencer disappear into the darkness when news outlets pretend he’s not there?” asked CNN’s Brian Stelter (hat tip (not that) Stephen Miller). Couldn’t the same be said about Alex Jones or any of the ugly conspiracy theorists that he and the other media pundit over at CNN were crusading to de-platform? CNN has taken the same kinds of demagogue, and put him on their news network—a network that doesn’t even pretend to be an open platform for millions of users, but one that chooses only a handful of guests every day to feature.

Moreover, Stelter’s argument is risible because Spencer wasn’t on CNN to respond to an investigation into the Nazi movement or some king of journalistic venture meant to remind us he is “there.” The interview was about Trump.

But to answer to Stelter’s question: yes. White nationalists have no genuine political power or support in this country. They are a fringe movement that sometimes resorts to violence and harassment, not a political entity with any legitimate power in American life. We should be thankful that very few people know who Spencer is—no thanks to CNN. Then again, no one does more to normalize these people than the media. And the reasons are transparently partisan.

New York Times Admits Obama Admin Deployed Multiple Spies Against Trump Campaign In 2016

By
Gustavo
-
0

The New York Times admitted on Thursday that the Obama administration deployed multiple spies against the Trump campaign in 2016, confirming recent comments by Attorney General William Barr that ‘spying did occur’ during the campaign.

Following months of angry claims by journalists and Democratic operatives that the Obama administration never spied on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, The New York Times admitted Thursday that multiple overseas intelligence assets were deployed against associates of the Republican nominee. It is not the first time the Times has revealed widespread spying operations against the campaign.

In addition to noting that long-time informant Stefan Halper was tasked with collecting intelligence on the Trump campaign, the Times story details how a woman was sent overseas under a fake name and occupation to oversee the spy operation. The woman’s real name is not mentioned in the article, though the Times says she went by “Azra Turk” and has a relationship with an unidentified federal intelligence agency.

Halper was handpicked by a seasoned FBI counterintelligence agent out of the New York office, according to the article. While the Times does not identify the agent by name, the paper says the FBI agent spoke at a conference organized by Halper about a 2010 case involving Russians posing as Americans. The public schedule for a 2011 conference hosted by Halper about the exact same case shows that three FBI counterintelligence agents were invited to speak on the topic.

The three agents publicly identified as speaking at that conference on the topic are George J. Ennis, Jr., Alan E. Kohler, Jr., and Stephen M. Somma. Ennis currently serves as the special agent in charge in the FBI’s New York office, according to his LinkedIn profile, and worked closely with Preet Bharara, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, a virulent anti-Trump activist whom the president fired in 2017.

The public schedule for a 2014 conference led by Halper shows that Kohler also spoke to the same group about the same Russian case on May 9, 2014.

“Alan Kohler the FBI representative at the United States Embassy in London will talk about the challenges of modern counter espionage: including the case of Anna Chapman and other Russian illegals,” the schedule noted.

A representative for the FBI’s office in Norfolk, where Kohler worked as of March 2017, said he is no longer with that office. The representative, who refused to provide her name, did not say when or why Kohler left that office or whether he was still employed by the FBI. The FBI’s New York office did not respond to queries about the current employment status of Kohler, Ennis, or Somma.

“Turk,” the U.S. intelligence operative who claimed to work as Halper’s assistant, had previously been identified to George Papadopoulos, whom she targeted, as a spy who rather blatantly tried to plumb him for information about Russia and other topics. After the Times published its article on “Turk,” Papadopolous wrote on Twitter that she “clearly was not FBI” and instead “was CIA and affiliated with Turkish intel.”

“She could hardly speak English and was tasked to meet me about my work in the energy sector offshore Israel/Cyprus which Turkey was competing with,” Papadopoulos wrote.

The NYT also admits in its article that the aggressive and unprecedented action of deploying spies and luring American targets overseas to collect intelligence on a rival political campaign “yielded no fruitful information.” It is not clear whether information collected by Halper and “Turk” was used to justify formal spy warrants against any U.S. citizens.

Why Leak This News Now?

The New York Times has repeatedly been used by FBI officials who ran the anti-Trump spy operation to launder damaging information that reflects poorly on the agency. Nearly a year ago, the Times confirmed that the U.S. intelligence apparatus was used to spy on Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.

While that article included explosive revelations, it downplayed their significance and later curiously denied that any spying had ever occurred:

The F.B.I. investigated four unidentified Trump campaign aides in those early months, congressional investigators revealed in February. The four men were Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said …

The F.B.I. obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters — a secret type of subpoena — officials said. And at least one government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said.

In that case, the ostensible purpose of the leak was to get ahead of what congressional investigators had figured out: the Obama administration targeted the Trump campaign with secret informants.

The leak that fueled the Thursday NYT bombshell was likely placed in anticipation of the formal release of even more damaging information about how U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies potentially abused their authority to punish the government’s political enemies. The article specifically references the forthcoming release of an extensive inspector general review of potential improprieties at the Department of Justice (DOJ).

By leaking the information to the friendliest of friendly reporters, including Michael Schmidt at the Times, the individuals who ran the anti-Trump operation are likely hoping to spin the news in their favor.

This Explains the Anti-Barr Freakout

So long as anti-Trump operatives controlled the FBI and DOJ, this type of leaking and concealing of information worked well. Most major media outlets have chosen to ignore the spying scandal in favor of non-stop anti-Trump advocacy. That left actual fact-finding and truth-seeking to a small group of media outlets and a handful of elected lawmakers tasked with oversight of the nation’s spy agencies.

When William Barr took over as attorney general, it was the first time in years the agency had any real political accountability. Trump’s first attorney general recused himself from overseeing anything related to the 2016 campaign, and his deputy who took over is alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to oust the president.

While Barr was adamant that Mueller’s special counsel probe be unimpeded and his report fully published, he scared the anti-Trump forces in and out of government when he said spying on opposing political campaigns is inappropriate. His public vow to examine whether the widespread spying operation against Trump and his affiliates was lawful and appropriate sent shockwaves through an organized anti-Trump political operation that had completely controlled the narrative until recently.

Reason Democrats Hate Bill Barr

By
Gustavo
-
0

The day of Attorney General Bill Barr’s testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, there was, as always, a selective leak dropped into the fray. With bated breath, we learned Special Counsel Robert Mueller had sent the attorney general a sternly worded letter grousing that Barr’s four-page March 24 explanation of the core conclusions of the Mueller report “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the Mueller’s “work and conclusions.”

The customary histrionics followed. Posturing Democrats on the judicial committee gave long soliloquies on Barr’s treacherous behavior. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D–HI) accusedthe attorney general of abusing his office and lying to Congress, and many others demanded his resignation. The usual suspects called for impeachment.

Barr had apparently masterminded the most inept cover-up in history, first by accurately laying out the outcome of the special counsel’s investigation. Then, after some light redactions (none instigated by the president), by releasing the report to the public so everyone in the entire world could read it for themselves.

Now, if a fresh observer to the Russia collusion circus only heard from Democrats, he might not know that the Mueller report had been public for weeks—sifted through and debated extensively. He certainly wouldn’t know that no criminality was uncovered. But most people heard something else. And Barr’s greatest sin had been preempting the collusion spin for the first time.

In his initial letter, the attorney general informed the public, before media was able to manipulate and confuse the core findings, that, despite its best efforts, the special counsel—an open-ended, unimpeded investigation with virtually no oversight—couldn’t find evidence to corroborate the prevailing myth that had been perpetuated for more than two years by Democrats and the political media.

By accurately conveying that the investigation had exonerated Trump and his administration of criminal conspiracy or coordination with the Russians, two years of ostensibly serious reporting was exposed as little more than Resistance fan fiction. Rather than take a moment’s self-reflection about how their actions had caused unprecedented political chaos, undermined trust in the electoral system, and crowded out legitimate coverage of the presidency, the entire collusion industry just moved its frenzied focus onto an obstruction.

Well, under oath, the attorney general confirmed that he had spoken to Mueller on the phone and that the special counsel had been “very clear” that the AG’s letter laying out the conclusions was not inaccurate. There’s been no evidence to contradict his claim.

The AG’s letter had also accurately conveyed that Mueller, who it seems spent a lot of his efforts ferreting out unseemly Trumpian outbursts rather than finding nefarious Russians, punted on charges of obstruction. Volume II of the Mueller report, on the issue of obstruction, reads like a political document meant to incite Democrats into doing what the investigation did not. And that is Barr’s other sin: refusing to play Mueller’s game.

As National Review’s Rich Lowry noted, Mueller’s letter “shows how the special counsel—or people around him—was deeply concerned about the political spin around the report, especially if it wasn’t damaging enough to Trump.” It’s quite telling that for more than two years, the Mueller team only once thought it important enough to debunk the media’s misleading coverage of collusion (and this, probably when the investigation was functionally over) when there were dozens of instances that could have warranted a similar reaction.

According to the law, Mueller’s job ended when he handed in his report to the attorney general. Yet Barr, who was under no legal obligation to release any of the findings, offered Mueller a chance to review his letter before sending it to Congress. Mueller reportedly declined, only offering his own summary after the Barr letter had been released.

For Democrats and their allies, an investigation “not clearing” someone makes that someone as good as guilty if he happens to be a Republican. Sen. Kamala Harris (D–CA) actually accused Barr of failing to revisitthe underlying evidence in Mueller’s report before making a decision on obstruction. The same Democrats who acted apoplectic when Barr took a couple of weeks to go through redactions in the 400-page report want Trump’s AG to sift through the underlying evidence of a two-year, $35 million investigation and make his own recommendations … when, a year from now? What was the point of the Mueller report, then?

Barr accepted the finding of the special counsel and made his legal judgment based on the evidence and arguments as outlined by Mueller. If Democrats disagree with his legal reasoning, they have a constitutional remedy called impeachment. Are all the liberal pundits and news outlets pretending that Harris’s line of inquiry is shrewd, really arguing that Barr should act as if there might be a smoking gun buried in the evidence that Mueller himself didn’t deem worthy to bring forward in his report? What would the reaction be if Barr investigated and found the evidence less compelling than the Mueller report’s framing? Would Democrats accept Barr’s findings? It’s absurd, and another sign of how this is all just partisan bluster.

Another thing Mueller didn’t seem at all concerned about was whether the Trump-Russian collusion conspiracy had been initiated or stoked by Russians. Those clamoring for transparency when useful—now acting as if investigating how the entire country was thrown into a panic over non-existent Russian infiltration of the White House is absurd—are the true conspiracy theorists.

Yet Barr, who dropped some interesting tidbits in yesterday’s hearings, seems willing to investigate the impetus of the Russia “collusion” investigation, the role of the infamous dossier, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants used by the previous administration for “spying.” Now that Trump has been cleared of criminal conspiracy, it seems reasonable for the American people to have an understanding of how the Obama administration rationalized spying on its political rivals during a presidential election.

Perhaps it will be vindicated, or perhaps someone will find evidence of abuse of power. Either way, in a healthy media environment, such a story would launch a massive investigatory effort. Today, it seems, the political media would rather engage in a concerted effort with Democrats to preemptively smear Barr.

1234...15Page 3 of 15
- Advertisement -

RECENT POSTS

© Website Created by Gustavo Frias