Pink Moon: Europe illuminated by lunar light show

Stargazers have enjoyed the emergence of what is known as a pink moon in the night skies of Europe.

Despite its name, there is not any noticeable colour difference to the full moon - due to reach a peak in the UK at 03:55 BST on Wednesday.
The pink supermoon name is a northern Native American reference to an early-blooming wildflower and is first seen across North America as spring begins.
Tuesday evening's lunar light show was captured through breathtaking images.

 Paris, the supermoon could be seen between the two towers of Notre Dame

April's supermoon is the third of the year, following the worm moon on 9 March. Here, the moon is seen above Windsor Castle on Tuesday evening

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52209331

Why Inspector General Michael Atkinson Roundly Deserved To Be Fired

Here are the details you need to know to fully understand why President Trump lost confidence in Inspector General Michael Atkinson and exercised his presidential prerogative to replace him.

Margot Cleveland reporting for The Federalist

On Saturday, reporters queried President Trump about his Friday firing of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson. Trump’s response seemingly confirmed the left-leaning press and Democrats’ narrative that the firing was retaliation for the IG informing the House Intelligence Committee of a whistleblower’s complaint. That complaint concerned Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian president that set in motion Trump’s impeachment.

But what the media and Trump’s political opponents won’t tell you is that Trump is right. Atkinson bestowed on the still-unnamed intelligence officer a “whistleblower status he doesn’t deserve.” “He is a fake whistleblower,” Trump said.

The MSM also won’t report the other troubling aspects of Atkinson’s handling of the fake whistleblower’s complaint, some of which Trump also touched on in the briefing. A full vetting of Atkinson’s handling of the so-called whistleblower’s complaint confirms Trump’s take that Atkinson “did an absolutely terrible job.”

But this does require a deep dive into both the law and the fact, as opposed to a mere mimicking of the Democrats’ talking points that seems the default of today’s lazy journalists. So, here are the details you need to know to fully understand why Trump lost confidence in Atkinson and opted to exercise his presidential power-of-appointment prerogative and replace him.

The Ukrainian Phone Call

On Aug. 12, 2019, a still-unnamed CIA official filed with the ICIG a nine-page complaint that alleged Trump was “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.” The so-called whistleblower complaint relied on hearsay and second-hand information to support its allegations, as well as a bevy of newspaper reports.

The genesis of the complaint was a July 25, 2019, telephone conversation between Trump and the newly elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky. The complaint portrayed Trump’s call with Zelensky as demanding a quid-pro-quo investigation “into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden” in exchange for U.S. subsidies to Ukraine.

On Aug. 26, 2019, Atkinson forwarded the supposed whistleblower complaint to the then-acting director of national intelligence (DNI), Joseph Maguire. In forwarding the complaint to Maguire, Atkinson maintained that the allegations fell within the statutory provisions of the Intelligence Community Whistle Protection Act (ICWPA). That statute, if applicable, would have provided both whistleblower protection to the complainant and required the DNI to forward the complaint within seven days to the intelligence committees.

But, as Maguire later told the House Intelligence Committee, “because the allegations on their face did not appear to fall into the statutory framework, the Acting DNI consulted the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concerning IG Atkinson’s conclusion that the ICWPA applied.” Maguire included the inspector general “in those consultations.”

The Allegations Didn’t Fit the Whistleblower Definition

In a detailed opinion issued on Sept. 3, 2019, the Office of Legal Counsel confirmed that the ICWPA did not apply to the allegations presented to Atkinson under the auspices of a whistleblower complaint. Rather, as the opinion confirmed, the ICWPA only applies to a statutorily defined “urgent concern,” which, for purposes of the complaint lodged against Trump, required the allegations to concern “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters” (emphasis added).

But, as the Office of Legal Counsel explained, the complaint against the president did not accuse the president of misconduct related “to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity.” Rather, the complainant charged Trump with “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election”—an allegation the transcript from the call negated, in any event. Moreover, the DNI does not have “responsibility and authority” over Trump, making the ICWPA further inapplicable to the situation at hand.

Accordingly, the Legal Counsel concluded in a memorandum opinion that, because the “complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community,” the ICWPA did not apply.

The Office of Legal Counsel, however, did not leave matters there. “Our conclusion that the ‘urgent concern’ requirement is inapplicable does not mean that the DNI or the ICIG must leave such allegations unaddressed,” it stressed. Rather, “should the DNI or the ICIG receive a credible complaint of alleged criminal conduct that does not involve an ‘urgent concern,’ the appropriate action is to refer the matter to the Department of Justice, rather than to report to the intelligence committees under section 3033(k)(5).” The Legal Counsel then noted that it had referred the complaint to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice “for appropriate review.”

Atkinson Sidesteps DOJ, Sends to Political Hack

Atkinson ignored the Legal Counsel’s opinion that “the appropriate action is to refer the matter to the Department of Justice, rather than to report to the intelligence committees.” On Sept. 9, 2019, he dispatched a letter to Rep. Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, informing him of the complaint. The following day, Schiff demanded Maguire provide the complaint to the committee—something Maguire could not do because it contained communications protected by executive privilege.

In his letter, Schiff also falsely called the complaint a whistleblower complaint and asserted the acting DNI was withholding it from the committee in violation of his “express obligations under the law.” Schiff then implied the White House had somehow interfered to prevent Maguire from fulfilling his duties.

Predictably, a media firestorm erupted, eventually prompting Trump to waive executive privilege and release a copy of both the complaint and a readout of his call to the Ukrainian president. Months later, on Dec. 18, 2019, the Democratic-controlled House impeached President Trump on an abuse of power charge related to his communications with the Ukrainian ambassador and a charge of obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted Trump on Feb. 5, 2020.

Atkinson Didn’t Do Basic Review of the Complaint

In the process, many more details were disclosed about the complaint, the complainant, and Atkinson’s handling of the matter. For instance, declassified documents revealed that Atkinson determined the complaint “appeared credible” even though the complainant “was not a direct witness to the President’s telephone call with the Ukrainian President,” and even though “as part of its preliminary review, the ICIG did not request access to records of the President’s July 25, 2019, call with the Ukrainian President.”

Had Atkinson reviewed the read-out of Trump’s July 25 call, he would have discovered numerous allegations contained in the complaint were false:

For example, the complainant falsely alleged that Trump demanded Zelensky return multiple servers from CrowdStrike, an IT contractor for the Democratic National Committee, that were physically located in Ukraine. Trump made no such demand. The complainant also alleged that Trump urged Zelensky to either hire or retain a particular government prosecutor in Ukraine. That exchange never happened. Additionally, the complainant alleged that a specific State Department official had listened in on the phone call between the two leaders. The State Department stated last week that particular official did not listen in on the phone call.

These blatant falsehoods, which Atkinson would have discovered had he done his due diligence, call into question his conclusion that the complaint “appears credible.” Atkinson’s judgment in finding the complaint “appears credible” is further suspect given that the Atkinson admitted that the claimant had an arguable political bias “in favor of a rival political candidate.”

That Atkinson couldn’t read between the lines of the lawyerly crafted nine-page complaint and see the political hit job in the making also calls into question his acumen and good sense. The tell came early, when the claimant suggested that “Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well” in the supposed misconduct—a clear attempt to sideline a second attorney general.

Atkinson also failed to spot the “whistleblower’s” deceptive spot-quoting of the relevant statutory language—something necessary to create the appearance that the complaint qualified as an “urgent matter” within the meaning of the ICWPA. Here’s what the complainant wrote:

Significantly, the complainant omitted from the quote the statutory requirement that the misconduct is “relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of the National Intelligence.”

Atkinson should have noticed the selective quoting used in the complaint and realized the reason for the omission: the quid pro quo scenario the supposed whistleblower was selling did not implicate the ICWPA because it did not involve an intelligence activity and Trump was not subject to the authority of the DNI.

Fishy Edits to Whistleblower Form

Atkinson also should have smelled a second coup attempt in the making: He should have smelled Schiff, whose staff coordinated with the so-called whistleblower and directed him to file a complaint with Atkinson.

Schiff’s involvement with the “whistleblower” wasn’t the only fishy fact revealed since news first broke of the “whistleblower’s” complaint against Trump. The Federalist’s Sean Davis uncovered stealth edits the ICIG’s office had made to the whistleblower forms, deleting a stated requirement that, for a complaint to be deemed “credible,” the whistleblower must possess “first-hand information”—something Trump’s accuser lacked.

Atkinson’s office later admitted it had changed the forms. House Republicans on the Intelligence Committee questioned Atkinson about the changes and his decision to accept the complaint based on hearsay and rumor. But Schiff has blocked the release of the transcript of Atkinson’s House testimony, leaving the public in the dark concerning why Atkinson changed the stated first-hand information requirement.

That Hidden Testimony Is Damaging to Atkinson

In January, Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the committee, told “The Sara Carter Show” that “everyone needs to see that testimony and the reason that it’s not being released is because it’s very damaging, not only to the whistleblower, but also to Atkinson himself.” Nunes also told Carter, “Republicans have an active investigation into Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.”

Nunes confirmed yesterday that “Intelligence Committee Republicans have been investigating Atkinson’s handling of the whistleblower complaint and failed to get satisfactory answers or documents that we repeatedly requested.” “Chairman Schiff should send the transcript of Atkinson’s briefing on the whistleblower complaint for declassification review so the American people can see his explanations for themselves,” Nunes told The Federalist.

Given that Nunes’ memo on FISA abuse proved thoroughly accurate—if not understated—his claim that Atkinson’s testimony was damaging to both the whistleblower and to Atkinson deserve credence. Speaking of FISA abuse, in an added wrinkle, Nunes highlighted Atkinson’s previous position in the National Security Division, telling The Federalist that “the new IG report on FISA abuse is damning concerning the time Atkinson served in the National Security Division, when he was responsible for reviewing FISA applications.”

What Is Michael Atkinson Hiding?

Atkinson’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee also proved lacking, revealed in a scathing letter penned by Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican member of the committee. Following Atkinson’s Sept. 26, 2019

testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Cotton chastised Atkinson for his “disappointing testimony” that “was evasive to the point of being insolent and obstructive.” Cotton also rebuked Atkinson for refusing “to disclose to SSCI members why Atkinson initially determined the anti-Trump complainant had a partisan political bias against Trump.”

“Despite repeated questions, you refused to explain what you meant in your written report by ‘indicia of an arguable political bias on the part of a rival political candidate,’” Cotton wrote. “This information is, of course, unclassified and we were meeting in a closed setting. Yet you moralized about how you were duty bound not to share even a hint of this political bias with us.”

Cotton added that, according to media reports, Atkinson had disclosed “to the House Intelligence Committee not only that the complainant is a registered Democrat, but also that he has a professional relationship with a Democratic presidential campaign.” Cotton then directed Atkinson to inform the Senate Intelligence Committee of “the exact nature and examples of the anti-Trump complainant’s partisan political bias against the president.” Atkinson, however, did not provide the Senate the requested information.

This Guy Is Either Incompetent or Playing Games

This timeline and added details reveal many problems with Atkinson’s performance, beginning with his inability to properly interpret the unambiguous statutory language of the ICWPA. That plain language proves the “whistleblower” was a “fake whistleblower.”

Atkinson also ignored the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion that where a matter is not covered by the ICWPA, but potentially involves criminal conduct, “the appropriate action is to refer the matter to the Department of Justice, rather than to report to the intelligence committees under section 3033(k)(5).” Further, IG Atkinson knew the matter had already been referred to the Criminal Division of the DOJ, but nonetheless informed Schiff of his receipt of the non-ICWPA complaint. That decision evidences a disregard for the competency and integrity of the DOJ.

Atkinson’s conclusion that a complaint based solely on hearsay and second-hand information appeared “credible” is also questionable. And that Atkinson reached this conclusion without reviewing the read-out of Trump’s call with the Ukraine president and in light of the political bias of the claimant further calls into question Atkinson’s judgment.

The changes to the whistleblower forms and the deletion of the stated “first-hand knowledge” requirement is even more troubling, as is the fact that Atkinson could not provide satisfactory answers to the House Committee and refused to respond to questions posed by the Senate’s Intelligence Committee. Or, in Trump-speak: He did an absolutely terrible job.

A Party of Haters

by John Hinderaker at PowerlineBlog

A Party of Haters

The Democrats are hysterically blaming President Trump for the fact that the Wuhan virus is killing some Americans. No doubt, they also will blame Trump for the recession that will be caused, not by the virus, but by government’s reaction–overreaction, in my opinion–to the virus.

In doing this, the Democrats are making some critical assumptions. They assume that voters won’t remember that when President Trump banned travel from China at the end of January, Democrats unanimously (including Joe Biden) denounced his action as racist and xenophobic. While, on the other hand, as late as February 24, Nancy Pelosi did a photo-op for San Francisco news stations in Chinatown, strolling down the sidewalk surrounded by community “leaders” and cameramen, urging everyone to come to Chinatown, the rumored virus is no problem, no one is sick here.

They assume, further, that voters won’t remember that prior to the virus panic, the U.S. had probably the strongest economy in our history, with record levels of employment and rising wages. It wasn’t Trump’s fault that a global pandemic damaged the economy–not, that is, unless you think that Trump overreacted, which is an argument the Democrats can’t make.

Those are problems. But they aren’t the Democrats’ biggest problem. Their biggest problem is Trump’s argument that his vigorous conduct of the “war” against the coronavirus saved countless lives. Disease modelers, who have no track record of success, predicted as many as two million deaths from COVID-19 in the U.S. More conservative modelers, like those at the University of Washington, have predicted 80,000 or 90,000 deaths, even with a total shutdown of our economy. I doubt that those numbers will be approached. No one is now talking about millions of deaths, or a million deaths. The Washington group is already backing down on its predictions, with its hospitalization numbers turning out to be wildly inflated. At the moment, it seems more likely that the COVID-19 fatality total may look like a bad flu season, in the U.S.

So what is the Democrats’ answer when Trump claims credit for saving a million lives? That the modelers were all wet from the beginning? They can’t say that (although it is true) because they have been hysterically demanding that the administration do more, ever since they stopped hysterically demanding that the administration do less. It is hard to see the Democrats’ end game here.

So the Democrats are doing what they do best: they are resorting to hate. They rely on blind, irrational hatred of President Trump to win back the White House and empower their socialist dreams. Examples could be multiplied endlessly–just go on Twitter!–but here are a couple.

Haley Stevens is an actual Congresswoman from Michigan. She tweeted this, and apparently has deleted it since her Republican opponent started using it in his fundraising appeals:

Totally rational. Then we have state Rep. Tavia Galonski of Ohio, who tweeted this:

Galonski’s vow to charge Trump with crimes against humanity at the Hague was applauded by a large number of Democrats. What was the president’s “crime against humanity?” Apparently, his suggestion during a press briefing that chloroquine could prove to be an effective treatment for the Wuhan virus.

There isn’t much point in trying to talk rationally to a guy in an asylum who thinks he is Napoleon. Likewise, there probably isn’t much point in trying to talk rationally to a Democratic politician or activist in 2020 America. But for what it is worth, let’s just note that 1) the variants of chloroquine are all prescription drugs that will not be administered absent a prescription by a doctor, who probably doesn’t intend to commit a crime against humanity; 2) numerous studies have found chloroquine compounds, alone or in combination with other drugs, to be effective treatments for COVID-19 sufferers; 3) chloroquine has now been approved by the FDA as a COVID-19 treatment; and 4) even assuming that the president was wrong, making a wrong prediction about the efficacy of a drug treatment is hardly a “crime against humanity.” 

Is it possible that American voters will give power to a party running on a platform of the crudest, most ignorant hate? I doubt it. The Democrats know that they have the press on their side; the Washington Post, for instance, is just one short notch above Ms. Stevens and Ms. Galonski. But the days when the press could choose a president are long gone, if they ever existed. 

My prediction for 2020? #LoveWins.

Coronavirus: The Wrong Numbers

Robert Stacy McCain for American Spectator

Coronavirus: The Wrong Numbers

Turn on your TV, and cable news will show you a chyron with the cumulative total of known COVID-19 cases in the United States. That number increases daily, by a simple process of addition, but that’s not the number that matters most in terms of coping with the pandemic. What matters, from the perspective of avoiding a crisis that overwhelms our health-care system, is not how many people are infected with the coronavirus, but rather the number of patients hospitalized. As tests for the Chinese virus have become more widely available, a majority of people who test positive — more than 80 percent in some states — are never hospitalized. Earlier projections of a system-crashing crisis have so far been proven false, but the media refuse to acknowledge the failure of the doomsday prophets and their computer-generated pandemic models.

It feels unfair to point this out, at a time when health-care workers in the hardest-hit areas of the country like New York, Detroit, and New Orleans are struggling to keep up with a surging number of COVID-19 cases, and the daily death toll continues increasing. More than 1,300 Americans died from the virus Saturday, concluding a week in which U.S. deaths totaled 6,232. Next week’s coronavirus death toll will almost certainly be much larger; the progression of the disease takes time, and patients who die typically were infected two or three weeks earlier. But at least 95 percent of those infected survive — in some states, the death rate is less than 2 percent — and most people with the virus never require hospitalization.

Dr. Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute last week produced a chart of coronavirus statistics from Florida, showing three lines: reported cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. The case number line curved sharply upward, but the lines depicting the numbers of hospitalizations and deaths were on much lower trajectories. Why? Since March 25, Florida conducted more than 6,000 coronavirus tests daily; more than 65,000 people were tested in Florida during a single week, March 28 to April 3. More testing means more cases are identified, Q.E.D. But of those who tested positive (about 12 percent), very few were hospitalized. As of Sunday, Florida had reported 11,545 cases of COVID-19, but only 1,490 were hospitalized with the disease (12.3 percent) and there were 218 reported deaths — a death rate of 1.8 percent.

This is good news, especially in comparison to the doomsday projections that were widely circulated after the Wuhan virus emerged as a global pandemic. We cannot presume to know what will happen in the future, but so far, America’s coronavirus outbreak has been less deadly than in Italy, where the reported fatality rate has exceeded 12 percent. Even the states with higher fatality rates, including Washington state, Michigan, and Louisiana, are about 70 percent below the reported death rates in Italy. And even as case numbers nationally keep rising — past 330,000 Sunday, with more than 30,000 new cases reported — these numbers are lagging behind projections issued in late March by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington’s School of Medicine. The title of that March 26 report, “Forecasting COVID-19 impact on hospital bed-days, ICU-days, ventilator days and deaths by US state in the next 4 months,” explains the study’s purpose. The report predicted “that 41 states will need more ICU beds than they currently have available and that 11 states may need to increase their ICU beds by 50% or more to meet patient needs,” according to an IMHE press release.

The so-called “Murray model,” named for the IHME’s director Dr. Christopher Murray, made headlines after a March 29 White House briefing, at which President Trump announced he would extend federal “social distancing” guidelines through April 30. The president’s coronavirus task force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx cited Murray’s projection of “between 80,000 and 160,000” deaths from the pandemic. Birx made the point that the IHME projection assumed that current “mitigation” strategies — stay-at-home orders, etc. — would continue for many more weeks. The Murray model was the basis for local news headlines like “New models predict Texas COVID-19 deaths could reach over 4,000” (KEYE-TV, Austin) and “Coronavirus: Deaths in Florida projected to hit 6,766 by August” (Florida Times-Union). Within days, however, observers pointed out that actual case numbers were not confirming the IHME projections.

On April 2, Justin Hart published on Twitter a series of charts comparing the Murray model forecasts of coronavirus hospitalizations for April 1 to the actual numbers reported by states. (Only 41 states at the time were publicly reporting their hospitalization numbers.) The gap between the forecast and the reality was startling. Whereas the Murray model had predicted more than 100,000 hospitalizations by April 1, the states reported only about 30,000. State-by-state comparisons yielded similar gaps: New York had only 18,000 COVID-19 patients hospitalized on April 1, compared to more than 50,000 projected for that date by the Murray model. In some states, the gap was much larger: for example, 2,500-plus projected versus about 500 actually hospitalized in Colorado. If these projections were missing the mark so badly less than a week after they were issued, how could anyone trust IHME model forecasts of what the patient load would be in mid-April or later?

This is a very important question because, for example, when you turn on the TV and see New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo warning of a shortage of ICU beds and ventilators to treat coronavirus patients, he is speaking of an anticipated future shortage, based upon the predicted trajectory of the outbreak. Cuomo is concerned about whether or not his state’s hospitals will have the necessary resources to cope with the patient load at what he calls the “apex” of the “curve.” According to the Murray model’s late-March forecast, as many as 75,000 patients would be hospitalized in New York by April 11, the predicted “apex.” During his Sunday briefing, however, Cuomo acknowledged that the “curve” already appears to have reached a “plateau.” Hospital admissions for COVID-19 decreased from 1,095 new patients Friday to 574 on Saturday, and new ICU admissions also declined, while the number of patients discharged went up, from 1,502 Friday to 1,709 Saturday.

Cuomo was cautious in saying it’s still too soon to tell whether his state will continue this encouraging trend, but clearly if more coronavirus patients are being discharged from hospitals than admitted on a daily basis, the total number of hospitalized patients is not currently on an upward trajectory, contradicting the Murray model projection. As of Sunday, 16,479 COVID-19 patients were hospitalized in New York, which is about 22 percent of what the IHME model projected as the “apex” peak on April 11. While a sudden surge in cases cannot be ruled out — we can’t predict the future course of the outbreak — it now seems unlikely that New York’s hospital load will ever reach what the model predicted in late March.

New York is the epicenter of America’s coronavirus outbreak, with nearly 40 percent of all U.S. cases and the highest per-capita infection rate (632 cases per 100,000 residents). So if the computer-modeled projections have failed to accurately predict the course of the pandemic in New York, what about the rest of the country? In Florida, for example, Gov. Ron DeSantis came under harsh criticism for delaying a statewide stay-at-home order. DeSantis pointed out that Florida’s outbreak was mainly confined to three counties (Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach) on the state’s southeast coast, and argued that local restrictions were sufficient to prevent spreading the disease. National media demonized DeSantis as irresponsible, yet his state continues to have relatively low levels of coronavirus infection. Florida’s per capita rate (57 per 100,000 residents) is about 90 percent lower than New York’s, and in many counties is substantially lower than the statewide level. As in New York, the outbreak in Florida has fallen short of the model projections that forecast that the patient load from coronavirus cases would exceed the capacity of the hospital system. The IHME model forecast that Florida would not reach the apex of its outbreak until early May, so we don’t know what numbers the state will be reporting at the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak there, but so far the numbers are far below what they were predicted to be at this point.

None of this debunking of doomsday forecasts should be interpreted as an argument against “social distancing.” In fact, the effectiveness of these mitigation efforts may explain why the pandemic has failed to become the disaster that the projection models predicted. We are certainly not past the crisis point yet. Far away from the “epicenter” in New York, local outbreaks are turning into mini-epicenters. In Louisiana, for example, St. John the Baptist Parish and Orleans Parish now have America’s highest per-capita death rates from coronavirus.

While the cumulative totals of cases and deaths continue rising, the media are doing a lousy job of reporting the most important numbers: How many COVID-19 patients are currently hospitalized? How many new patients are admitted to the hospital each day, and how many patients are discharged? The reason for “social distancing” policies was to slow the spread of the disease, to “flatten the curve” of the pandemic and avoid overwhelming the hospital system. We have reason to believe that these policies are succeeding in that regard, and something else may explain why we may be averting the “apex” crisis: chloroquine. The anti-malarial drug which Trump famously touted as a “game-changer” in the fight against coronavirus is now being prescribed to thousands of patients, and anecdotal reports indicate that the drug is effective. The number of COVID-19 hospitalizations may have been reduced by this treatment and, if so, chloroquine was probably a variable not factored into the models that projected a shortage of ventilators and ICU beds.

We are still a long way from the point at which we can evaluate the course of this pandemic with the safety of hindsight. It may be many weeks before it is considered safe to hold large gatherings at church or sporting events. We are doing better than the doomsday models predicted, however, and this is good news. When will the media report that news?

Joe Biden Explains How He Would Approach Cornavirus Crisis

Former Vice President Joe Biden has been using podcasts and home interviews to keep his campaign going as the COVID-19 shutdown continues.  However, things have not gotten any better on the cognitive side of the candidate…. and it’s getting even worse than before.

Here’s an example of the current leading democrat candidate for president explaining how he would confront the coronavirus pandemic differently.  

WATCH:

Here’s the word-for-word transcript – Joe Biden: 

…“We cannot let this, we’ve never allowed any crisis from the Civil War straight through to the pandemic of 17, all the way around, 16, we have never, never let our democracy sakes second fiddle, way they, we can both have a democracy and … correct the public health.”…

Pentagon, President Trump confirm Navy hospital ships to accept COVID-19 patients in N.Y., Calif.

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 7:23 AM PT — Tuesday, April 7, 2020

U.S. Navy officials confirmed a crew member aboard the USNS Comfort has tested positive for the coronavirus. This came after the Comfort and USNS Mercy began treating COVID-19 patients in New York and Los Angeles respectively. Officials have said the case will not impact medical operations.
On Monday, the Defense Department said it’s expanded the mission of both hospital ships to accept all patients going forward. This change was made after New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) requested additional support to manage the high number of cases in his state.

“If we determine that they have coronavirus then we will isolate them and right now in many cases, if we think they might, we’re isolating them proactively until we get the test results back going forward,” explained Brig. Gen. Paul Friedrichs, Joint Staff Surgeon for the Defense Department. “So, yes we have the ability to isolate a small number on each of the ships and we are using that as we go forward.”
For his part, President Trump has confirmed that if New York or Los Angeles need the ships to treat coronavirus patients then they should do exactly that.

https://www.oann.com/pentagon-president-trump-confirm-navy-hospital-ships-to-accept-covid-19-patients-in-n-y-calif/

State Department refuses to back Hillary Clinton’s attempt to avoid deposition

Hillary Clinton and Cheryl Mills are seeking to avoid depositions ordered by a judge earlier this year

Alex Nitzberg reporting for Just the News

The State Department on Monday rejected Hillary Clinton’s effort to avoid depositions for herself and her former chief of staff in a lawsuit brought by the government watchdog organization Judicial Watch.

The former Secretary of State and her former top aide Cheryl Mills are seeking a writ of mandamus to avoid a judge’s order requiring their testimony in an open records case involving Clinton’s use of a private email server for government business.

"The government did not seek and thus does not support the extraordinary relief of mandamus due to the unique circumstances of this case," reads the State Department's response signed by multiple members of the Justice Department."One aspect of the district court’s rulings, although not central to the pending petition, is of particular concern to the government: assertions that the government acted in bad faith in litigating this FOIA request are wholly without basis," the Department's response says.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in early March granted the request to depose Clinton about why she utilized a private email server, her grasp of "State's records management obligations," and any information she has about materials pertaining to the 2012 Benghazi attack. 

Clinton and her former Chief of Staff later in March sought a writ of mandamus from the Court of Appeals to avoid having to sit for depositions.

Clinton has long come under scrutiny for her use of a private email server while serving as the Secretary of State. 

Peak Week – DPA Policy Coordinator Peter Navarro Discusses Status of Supplies for Combatting COVID-19

National Defense Production Act policy coordinator Peter Navarro appeared on ‘Fox & Friends’ this morning to discuss various issues of supply chain needs for the U.S. to combat coronavirus.

Mr. Navarro touches on how the DPA is being used to secure medical supplies and equipment including hydroxychloroquine as a treatment.

Why Many Statewide Shutdown Don’t...

by David R. Henderson for F.E.E.

Why Many Statewide Shutdown 

Don't Make Sense

California is too diverse a state for the 

same regulations to apply everywhere.

Sunday, April 5, 2020

Tom Means, a fellow UCLA Ph.D. in economics and a retired economics professor at San Jose State University, made a point to me the other day that seems obvious: California is too diverse a state for the same regulations to apply everywhere.

Extreme Economic Impacts

I take as given that social distancing makes sense. My wife and I started practicing it on or about March 10. In fact, one of my strong regrets (and I think “regrets” is too mild) is that the mayor of San Francisco and the governments of 7 urban counties in Northern California didn’t give social distancing a chance. I had gotten emails from Starbuck’s and from various restaurants about their plans to limit the number of people inside so that people would be at least 6 feet from each other.

That was in place for a few days before the San Francisco mayor and the urban county governments made their move. Do I know that it would have worked? No. But do I know that it would have had much less of a destructive effect on people’s economic lives? Yes. So I would have liked to see how much compliance there would have been before these governments took the next step.

But they did and so did the governments of the urban areas in southern California. Together, both northern and southern California urban counties probably account for 90 percent of California’s population. It’s not hard to understand, therefore, how a politician, Governor Newsom, looking at numbers, decided to put all of California under the shelter-in-place order. Government officials usually think that way: they look at the 90 percent, especially when it includes them, and don’t think hard about the ten percent.

Tom Means made that point to me and passed on a note that he received from a friend of his. I’ve edited it slightly for grammar. Here it is:

Professor,

Its amazing how many people argue for a lockdown across states or even a country. If you look at the number of cases by county in California, you will see that the largest and probably the denser(?) counties have 90% of the cases. I live in Eldorado County which is a large county ranging from El Dorado Hills (where I live in a 55+ community just next to Sacramento county) and all the way up to South Lake Tahoe, a popular tourist attraction. As of last week, the county had 2 cases, like many other counties. Yesterday it increased to 3 cases, a whopping 50% increase. Nevertheless, many in our city are calling for complete isolation. They cite forecast and simulations of data, exponential growth formulas, that may apply to cities like NY, but clearly don’t apply to most of the counties and cities in California When I ask on our blogs what explains this discrepancy, they cannot answer. When I point out that maybe this dispersion in cases suggests that from a benefit/cost perspective we shouldn’t impose a one size fits all rule, they gasp in fear.

I would add that it’s much easier to socially distance when you live rurally and still go about much of your daily life. I think governments should let them.

The vast majority of people are afraid. I’m one of them. But we shouldn’t let our fear stop us from thinking on the margin.

This site shows a breakdown of cases and deaths by California county.

This article was reprinted with permission from EconLib.

Tucker Carlson Questions Data Behind Prolonged Shutdown Arguments: ‘It’s Time To Start Caring About The Entire Population’

 
Article by Scott Morefield in "The Daily Caller":

Fox News host Tucker Carlson questioned the arguments used by those who argue for a prolonged national shutdown during a Monday night “Tucker Carlson Tonight” monologue.

After earlier pointing out that Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti predicts the “first in a series of lockdowns will go on until June,” Carlson quoted former Obama official Jason Furman predicting a “meaningful level of deliberate suppression of economic activity for the rest of the year.”

“It would be nice to know there’s a good reason for all this,” the Fox News host said earlier in the segment. “Everyone wants there to be. Yet the arguments for a prolonged national lockdown are starting to sound strained.”

Carlson questioned the contention of a Medium article that most people still remain uninfected by the virus:

“We don’t even know when the disease first arrived in the United States,” he said, referring to “informed speculation” that it could have been in the U.S. “since late November or December.” Given its transmissibility, the number of Americans infected during the time when nobody tried to quarantine people “could be enormous.”

The Fox News host listed several examples to bolster his case, citing researchers learning that the virus can be transmitted “merely by speaking.” These included residents of a Hong Kong apartment building who got infected through plumbing pipes and the fact that the Italian village of Lombardy tested 60 people who came to give blood and found 40 positive cases, all without symptoms.

“Keep in mind that Lombardy has been strictly locked down by government order since March 9, that’s almost a month ago,” Carlson said. “Yet about 70 percent of this group got it anyway.”

“It’s starting to look like the Coronavirus is more transmissible than we expected, or were told,” said Carlson. “The good news is, it also seems far less lethal overall. People are dying in large numbers. Not all of them are sick or old, and that’s terrifying to watch. But as the data trickle in, there’s evidence that many infected people aren’t sick.”

Iceland, for example, has tested “about five percent of all citizens,” and half of those “have been completely asymptomatic.”

“So given all this, what’s a wise response to this pandemic?” Carlson asked. Although historically “we have a pretty good idea that targeted quarantines work,” the U.S. “and many other countries instituted mass quarantines, in which governments shut down entire nations for long periods.”

“That’s never happened before,” said the Daily Caller co-founder. “A mass quarantine makes sense if you’re fairly certain it will prevent mass infection. But are we certain of that? Despite what you may hear on television, we are not certain of that still. In fact, there are some indications it hasn’t been as effective as we’d hoped it would be. Italy imposed one of the toughest lockdowns in Europe. Almost a month later, as we just told you, an overwhelming majority of at least one town had been infected with the virus anyway.” (

In fact, the possibility of a real mass quarantine is impossible unless the government forces everyone to not buy food.

“People would starve to death,” he said. “Instead, the directive we’re living under is this: ‘stay home, except to buy food. The one place you can go is the supermarket, where, by the way, everyone else in the neighborhood has been this week.’ From an epidemiological standpoint, this is lunacy. If you wanted to infect an entire population, you’d encourage everyone in a specific zip code to meet regularly in one enclosed location. It doesn’t make sense. Authorities must know it doesn’t make sense, that’s obvious, but instead of changing course, or fine-tuning, they’re doubling down, hoping that vehemence will compensate for bad science.”

While people can go shopping and exercise, Carlson said, “Working is one activity we’ve decided should not be allowed.”

“We’ve decided that offices are somehow more dangerous than supermarkets, far more dangerous, though no one has bothered to explain how. The result: by some estimates, more 17 million Americans are unemployed right now. That’s the highest number in the history of this country. A year from now, we should think about this. How will we feel about all this, about our decisions in the face of this pandemic? Is there a single person who sincerely expects the coronavirus itself will hurt more people in the end than the damage we’re causing in our response to it? Probably not. Mass unemployment is almost certain to cause far more harm — including physical harm — to the average family than this disease.”

Carlson then contrasted the media and political response to coronavirus to the lack of empathy for the tens of thousands of Americans who have died from drug overdoses.

“Why is that?’ Carlson asked rhetorically. “Well, you know why: it’s not their peer group. It doesn’t seem real. They’re not that interested. The same thing is going on now. If the coronavirus shutdown was crushing college administrators or non-profit executives or green energy lobbyists, it would have ended last week. Instead, it’s mainly service workers and small business owners who’ve been hurt, and they’re not on television talking about what they’ve been through.”

“Once again, coronavirus is not the only bad thing that’s happening in America right now, horrifying as it is” Carlson concluded. “We should never minimize the danger of this pandemic, or minimize our obligation to respond to it wisely. We’ve been saying that on this show for months. No thoughtful person wants to reopen baseball stadiums tomorrow or book a cruise to Shanghai, but there has to be a more balanced course than the one we are on now. For most people, going to work cannot be more dangerous than buying produce at Safeway twice a week. And if it is more dangerous, tell us how it’s more dangerous, and be specific when you describe that. Otherwise, it’s time to start caring about the entire population. Healthy people are suffering badly too.”

https://dailycaller.com/2020/04/06/tucker-carlson-arguments-prolonged-national-lockdown-strained-coronavirus/

The Trump-haters are chronically addicted to their rage

Article by Patricia McCarthy in "The American Thinker":

“Shame was an emotion he had abandoned years earlier. Addicts know no shame. You disgrace yourself so many times you become immune to it.”
― John Grisham

As anyone who has been watching the daily press briefings about the virus knows, the duplicitous non-journalists in the room are not one bit interested in actual facts or any good news about the virus, hydroxychloroquine, or medical equipment supplies, or any other information that may be gleaned about the administration’s war against this flu.  They are driven only by their hatred for this President who has risen to the challenge as a true leader.

  

President Trump put the medical and scientific task force together early on, when the left was paying attention to and reporting only on the impeachment.  He banned travelers from China when the Democrats and media called him a racist for implementing it, and started screening passengers from all over the world. 

We see the reporters’ ill-mannered disrespect throughout the mainstream media, network television, on CNN and MSNBC.  No one can miss the truth of the left’s plan:  We can use this virus to destroy the economy and the country and that will be the end of Trump.  

But it won’t.  A majority of Americans can see for themselves that he has handled this crisis like a pro at problem-solving.  Trump is exactly that, a problem-solver, no matter the magnitude of the problem.

Then there are the foaming-at-their-mouths Democrats in Congress:  Nancy Pelosi, as VDH wrote, has thoroughly disgraced herself over the past many months, from the Kavanaugh hearings to impeachment, her stunt at the SOTU, her push to load up the relief bill with regressive, authoritarian pork.  She is truly a vile, evil person.  So is Schumer. So is Schiff -- to name just a few. 

Like the perpetually deranged Maxine Waters, they are addicted to their own rage and like any addict, the drug destroys the addict that is dependent on it.  It is eating away at them like an opioid addiction.  

The Democrats have been reduced to hurling ridiculous accusations virtually blaming Trump for every death from the virus when he was on the case long before any of them were paying any attention to it.  The timeline is what it is.  

The left suffers from a dearth of character.  Since Trump became President, they have exhibited and rationalized their toxic dependency on cruelty to those they abhor – Trump and his supporters.  It is a near certainty that millions of Americans who admire and respect the President’s leadership have not only lost life-long friends, they have been viciously and personally vilified by them.  This addiction to hating Trump has destroyed not just friendships but families. 

Many observers have noted over the last three years that the DC establishment crowd loathes the man because he is an outsider, not a member of their elite club of self-appointed bosses of the rest of us.  Despite Trump’s phenomenal success in business around the world, he was never more than a reality show host to them.  The left rarely looks beneath the surface of any issue or person.  They rarely for a moment doubt that their view is the only correct view and assume without consideration that anyone with a different perspective is a moron.  Simple as that.   They never question their certainty that they are the best and brightest.  

So, when Donald Trump beat their oh-so-corrupt candidate in 2016, they suffered paroxysms of anger and rage.  They have always had contempt for the Americans between the coasts.  No one made that clearer than the tone-deaf Michael Bloomberg with his admitted disdain for farmers.  

The furious and frenzied left found treatment for their own epidemic of sudden-onset psychosis by banding together in unity to bring the man down.  They descended into the gutter that is social media to vent their outrage.  The Russia collusion hoax was a bust and so was the impeachment fantasy. 

CNN and MSNBC began and continue their full assault on the President 24/7.  It is pathetic.  They ignore or twist any and all facts that deviate from their narrative.  They spew provable lies all day long and call it news.  No wonder their ratings are so very, very low.  Truth is hard; it’s propaganda that is cheap.

The former media giants like the NYT and WaPo, mere scraps of what they once were, are similarly addicted to their own rage and so publish hateful distortions of the truth day after day.  A marquee New York Times columnist called the virus Trumpvirus!  They attacked Trump for his travel ban on Jan. 31. They refuse to acknowledge that he assembled the task force immediately thereafter. 

That governors like Cuomo were wholly unprepared (Cuomo refused to purchase ventilators, choosing to invest $750m in solar panels instead) and blamed the President for their own failures.   These Democrat governors are apparently not familiar with the Constitution or the founders’ creation of federalism.  Governors are in charge of their states and the responsibility for preparedness lies with them. 

Trump masterfully got up to speed to fill the gaps in the states and the sorry state of medical mask supplies left by the Obama administration.  He brought all manner of private corporations on board.  He has accomplished what no other leader could have or would have up against such an event.  He has surrounded himself with experts and advisers and he listens to them.

  

The left went berserk when he talked about the possibility of hydroxychloroquine as an effective treatment.  Now that it is proving to be effective, the left is still nonsensically attacking hm for “pushing” it!  He never pushed it; he mentioned it and was hopeful.  The piteously ignorant Mika Brzezinski thinks Trump must have a financial interest in the drug which has been around since before he was born and is inexpensive, and other deranged leftists from Sonny Hostin to the New York Times join in the innuendo. 

Mark Finkelstein @markfinkelstein

Mika Brzezinski: Trump must have "financial tie" to someone that leads him to promote hydroxychloroquine.
Mika's allegation is tantamount to an accusation that Trump is on the take

Tom Elliott @tomselliott

The View’s @Sunny Hostin suggests Trump has a financial interest in the non-patented drug hydroxychloroquine: "let’s face it, there’s always something in it for this president when he wants to tout something."

Ian Sams ✔ @IanSams

Wow. NYT reports Trump himself has a financial stake in the French company that makes the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine.

The nonsense emanating from CNN and MSNBC is appalling.  The Trump presidency has exposed the sheer idiocy of the political, bureaucratic and media classes.  They have succumbed to their addiction to rage against the Trump machine and it has rotted their brains as surely as meth rots the brains of meth addicts.  And it has reminded all Americans who our true heroes are – all the doctors, nurses, healthcare workers and all first responders, truckers who are still getting essentials to us, and the clerks and staff at our local markets.  These are the people on whom we all ultimately depend upon and they have all risen to the task. 

We have learned just how irrelevant the Nancy Pelosis Joe Bidens and Chuck Schumers truly are. Trump knew this when he chose to run for the office; he knows exactly who makes this nation function and it is not the political class.  And that is why he won.  His supporters know he recognizes and supports them. 

“The greatest fool is not the person who has been fooled by the lies of others, despite how crafty and ingenious those lies might have been. Rather, it is the fool who has lied with such amazing dexterity and subtle finesse that he himself has come to believe his own lies. And this is the most forlorn and yet the most dangerous person that I can imagine.” 
― Craig D. Lounsbrough

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/04/the_trumphaters_are_chronically_addicted_to_their_rage.html