dailysignal--2020-04-02--Liberal Media’s Double Standard: Censor Trump’s Briefings, Air China’s Propaganda

The lack of regular White House press briefings used to be decried as the end of democracy .
Now it ’ s daily White House briefings that represent the end of democracy .
Actress Jane Lynch demanded on Twitter on Monday that President Donald Trump end his daily press briefings and that the media stop covering them .
Lest one think this is just one misguided voice in the dark crevasse that is celebrity Twitter punditry , there ’ s now a petition by the left-wing activist organization MoveOn.org to get news outlets to stop covering the briefings .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this idea .
“ I would stop putting those briefings on live TV—not out of spite , but because it ’ s misinformation , ” liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said on her prime-time program .
“ Enough is enough .
Americans deserve so much better than what this president offers every time he approaches the podium , ” wrote Maria Cardona , a Democratic strategist .
“ He needs to give up the daily press briefings , and let the experts take control so that they can use these press conferences to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not cause more fear when we need it least.
” Perhaps worst of all , some major media outlets actually seem to be taking the ending of press briefing coverage seriously .
New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet explained why the Gray Lady doesn ’ t find the White House briefings worth covering .
“ Nowadays , it seems they make little news .
We , of course , reserve the right to show them live [ via web streaming ] , if we believe they will actually make news , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Post .
“ But that hasn ’ t happened in quite some time.
” That doesn ’ t seem consistent , however , with his publication ’ s own reporting .
A March 25 New York Times article suggested that the media stop covering Trump ’ s press briefings because they are spreading what it calls “ misinformation.
” Just as bad , in the Times ’ view , the briefings are popular .
The Times piece began with this lead sentence : “ President Trump is a ratings hit , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could be a dangerous thing.
” Margaret Sullivan , media columnist at The Washington Post , wrote that the press needs to “ adjust accordingly ” to the press briefings because , in her view , they are more like political rallies and might serve his political ends .
“ Trump is doing harm and spreading misinformation while working for his own partisan political benefit—a naked attempt to portray himself as a wartime president , bravely leading the nation through a tumultuous time , the [ Franklin Delano Roosevelt ] of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FDR didn ’ t use fireside chats for his political benefit ?
This is basically just saying that the media need to stop covering the White House coronavirus briefings because they might help Trump .
All of this is coming from publications and an industry that formerly fretted over and lambasted the lack of regular White House press briefings before the coronavirus outbreak .
Some even called them “ an essential part of democracy.
” Now that everyone is watching the White House briefings , the media aren ’ t so keen on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What gives ?
The New York Times and other outlets that accuse the White House of spreading misinformation seem to have had no problem publishing literal Chinese propaganda .
In the past week , countless outlets , including the very same New York Times , published stories saying that the total number of U.S. coronavirus cases has surpassed China ’ s , despite the fact that there ’ s no reason whatsoever to trust the information coming out of an authoritarian communist regime that has repeatedly lied to its own citizens and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global pandemic in the past century .
Remember , it wasn ’ t long ago that most major media outlets were publishing stories about how Trump ’ s move to shut off travel from China was misguided , in part based on recommendations from the World Health Organization .
The problem is , the WHO relied on information provided by China , which turned out to be not only wrong , but likely a product of willful misrepresentation .
It ’ s good for the media to have a healthy skepticism of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one would think that skepticism should be directed most strongly at those in positions of absolute power , as in the case of the Chinese communist government .
Despite this , many in the media still seem more consumed with attacking the Trump administration—even through foreign proxies—than simply getting to the truth .
The bottom line is that neither the reduction , nor the uptick , in White House press conferences signals the end of democracy .
Americans are stuck at home en masse , and many more than usual want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a national crisis .
The administration ’ s response to the coronavirus pandemic has been far from perfect , but the media have hardly performed without serious and embarrassing fumbles .
Cutting off the president now , when so many Americans are tuning in , would be a travesty .
When one reporter asked Trump at Sunday ’ s coronavirus task force briefing about outlets discontinuing coverage of the daily events , the president gave a reasonable response .
“ I think the American public , ultimately , they should be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to watch , they should not watch , ” Trump said .
“ When [ the media ] don ’ t want the president of the United States to have a voice , you are not talking about democracy any longer.
” It might be past time , especially amid an international calamity , to hope the media will make a self-correction and restore some of their lost credibility at this time .
Cutting off the president ’ s microphone hardly restores confidence in a collective institution that seems hopelessly partisan and @ @

The lack of regular White House press briefings used to be decried as the end of democracy. Now it’s daily White House briefings that represent the end of democracy.
Actress Jane Lynch demanded on Twitter on Monday that President Donald Trump end his daily press briefings and that the media stop covering them.
Please stop covering Trump’s briefing/rallies. Please. Please. — Jane Lynch (@janemarielynch) March 30, 2020
Lest one think this is just one misguided voice in the dark crevasse that is celebrity Twitter punditry, there’s now a petition by the left-wing activist organization MoveOn.org to get news outlets to stop covering the briefings.
Many in the political punditocracy are hopping aboard this idea.
“I would stop putting those briefings on live TV—not out of spite, but because it’s misinformation,” liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said on her prime-time program.
“Enough is enough. Americans deserve so much better than what this president offers every time he approaches the podium,” wrote Maria Cardona, a Democratic strategist. “He needs to give up the daily press briefings, and let the experts take control so that they can use these press conferences to reassure Americans in our time of distress and not cause more fear when we need it least.”
Perhaps worst of all, some major media outlets actually seem to be taking the ending of press briefing coverage seriously.
New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet explained why the Gray Lady doesn’t find the White House briefings worth covering.
“Nowadays, it seems they make little news. We, of course, reserve the right to show them live [via web streaming], if we believe they will actually make news,” Baquet said, according to The Washington Post. “But that hasn’t happened in quite some time.”
That doesn’t seem consistent, however, with his publication’s own reporting.
A March 25 New York Times article suggested that the media stop covering Trump’s press briefings because they are spreading what it calls “misinformation.”
Just as bad, in the Times’ view, the briefings are popular.
The Times piece began with this lead sentence: “President Trump is a ratings hit, and some journalists and public health experts say that could be a dangerous thing.”
Margaret Sullivan, media columnist at The Washington Post, wrote that the press needs to “adjust accordingly” to the press briefings because, in her view, they are more like political rallies and might serve his political ends.
“Trump is doing harm and spreading misinformation while working for his own partisan political benefit—a naked attempt to portray himself as a wartime president, bravely leading the nation through a tumultuous time, the [Franklin Delano Roosevelt] of the 21st century,” Sullivan wrote.
FDR didn’t use fireside chats for his political benefit?
This is basically just saying that the media need to stop covering the White House coronavirus briefings because they might help Trump.
All of this is coming from publications and an industry that formerly fretted over and lambasted the lack of regular White House press briefings before the coronavirus outbreak. Some even called them “an essential part of democracy.”
Now that everyone is watching the White House briefings, the media aren’t so keen on the daily ritual allegedly sustaining the republic. What gives?
The New York Times and other outlets that accuse the White House of spreading misinformation seem to have had no problem publishing literal Chinese propaganda.
In the past week, countless outlets, including the very same New York Times, published stories saying that the total number of U.S. coronavirus cases has surpassed China’s, despite the fact that there’s no reason whatsoever to trust the information coming out of an authoritarian communist regime that has repeatedly lied to its own citizens and to the world, sparking the greatest global pandemic in the past century.
Remember, it wasn’t long ago that most major media outlets were publishing stories about how Trump’s move to shut off travel from China was misguided, in part based on recommendations from the World Health Organization.
The problem is, the WHO relied on information provided by China, which turned out to be not only wrong, but likely a product of willful misrepresentation.
It’s good for the media to have a healthy skepticism of those in power. That said, however, one would think that skepticism should be directed most strongly at those in positions of absolute power, as in the case of the Chinese communist government.
Despite this, many in the media still seem more consumed with attacking the Trump administration—even through foreign proxies—than simply getting to the truth.
The bottom line is that neither the reduction, nor the uptick, in White House press conferences signals the end of democracy. Americans are stuck at home en masse, and many more than usual want to hear from the president and the administration in a national crisis.
The administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic has been far from perfect, but the media have hardly performed without serious and embarrassing fumbles. Cutting off the president now, when so many Americans are tuning in, would be a travesty.
When one reporter asked Trump at Sunday’s coronavirus task force briefing about outlets discontinuing coverage of the daily events, the president gave a reasonable response.
“I think the American public, ultimately, they should be the decider. If they don’t want to watch, they should not watch,” Trump said. “When [the media] don’t want the president of the United States to have a voice, you are not talking about democracy any longer.”
It might be past time, especially amid an international calamity, to hope the media will make a self-correction and restore some of their lost credibility at this time.
Cutting off the president’s microphone hardly restores confidence in a collective institution that seems hopelessly partisan and one-sided.


dailysignal--2020-03-30--Mark Meadows to Start as White House Chief of Staff

Rep. Mark Meadows , R-N.C. , was expected to resign Monday from the House and begin serving Tuesday as White House chief of staff .
A Trump administration official confirmed to The Daily Signal that Meadows resignation will go into effect Monday evening and his first day at the White House is on Tuesday .
President Donald Trump announced in a March 6 tweet that Meadows would become his new chief of staff , but did not announce a start date .
Fox News reported that Meadows told the network that he would resign Monday afternoon and begin his new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day .
After attending the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in late February in suburban Maryland , where someone had tested positive for the coronavirus , Meadows announced that he was going into a 14-day self- quarantine .
Meadows , elected to the House of Representatives in 2012 to represent North Carolina ’ s 11th Congressional District , will become Trump ’ s fourth chief of staff , following Reince Priebus , John Kelly , and Mick Mulvaney .
Also a former congressman , Mulvaney served more than a year in an acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and former chairman of the Freedom Caucus , made up of some of the most conservative Republicans in the House .
The Freedom Caucus initially clashed with Trump in early 2017 over the best course of action for repealing Obamacare .
However , Trump and the caucus began to work closely on conservative agenda items such as rolling back taxes , cutting regulations , and enforcing immigration laws .
Meadows has been a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee , where he pushed investigations of improper conduct in the Justice Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Foreign Affairs Committee .

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., was expected to resign Monday from the House and begin serving Tuesday as White House chief of staff.
A Trump administration official confirmed to The Daily Signal that Meadows resignation will go into effect Monday evening and his first day at the White House is on Tuesday.
President Donald Trump announced in a March 6 tweet that Meadows would become his new chief of staff, but did not announce a start date.
I am pleased to announce that Congressman Mark Meadows will become White House Chief of Staff. I have long known and worked with Mark, and the relationship is a very good one…. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 7, 2020
Fox News reported that Meadows told the network that he would resign Monday afternoon and begin his new position at the White House the next day.
After attending the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in late February in suburban Maryland, where someone had tested positive for the coronavirus, Meadows announced that he was going into a 14-day self- quarantine.
Meadows, elected to the House of Representatives in 2012 to represent North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District, will become Trump’s fourth chief of staff, following Reince Priebus, John Kelly, and Mick Mulvaney. Also a former congressman, Mulvaney served more than a year in an acting capacity.
Meadows is a vocal member and former chairman of the Freedom Caucus, made up of some of the most conservative Republicans in the House.
The Freedom Caucus initially clashed with Trump in early 2017 over the best course of action for repealing Obamacare.
However, Trump and the caucus began to work closely on conservative agenda items such as rolling back taxes, cutting regulations, and enforcing immigration laws.
Meadows has been a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, where he pushed investigations of improper conduct in the Justice Department, as well as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.


dailysignal--2020-03-30--Trump Predicts Coronavirus Deaths to Peak in 2 Weeks, Extends Distancing Guidelines to End of April

President Donald Trump announced fatalities from coronavirus are likely to reach the highest point in two weeks , then begin to decline .
He also said he ’ s extending the guidelines to slow the spread–that were set to lapse on Monday–to the end of April .
“ The modeling estimates that the peak in death rate is likely to hit in two weeks .
I ’ ll say it again , the peak–the highest point–of death rates is likely to hit in two weeks , ” Trump said Sunday during a Rose Garden press conference .
But he added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declaring victory before the victory is won.
” He noted that everyone should continue to follow the guidelines that Vice President Mike Pence has regularly held up at press conferences for the last two weeks .
“ Therefore , we will be extending our guidelines to April 30 to slow the spread , ” Trump said .
“ On Tuesday , we will be finalizing these plans and providing a summary of our findings supporting data and strategy to the American people.
” Providing the most decisive estimated light at the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We can expect on June 1 , we will be well on our way to recovery .
We think by June 1 .
We think a lot of great things will be happening.
” This comes after Trump has spent several days talking about the need to reopen the economy , and saying he would love to see things open by Easter .
Asked if floating Easter was a mistake , Trump responded , “ No.
” “ It was just an aspiration .
We actually will be hitting , potentially , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sadly to say , that could be the peak number of deaths before it starts coming down , ” Trump said .
“ That was aspirational .
We had an aspiration of Easter .
We don ’ t want to spike up .
We don ’ t want to do it soon and then all of a sudden you go down and you ’ re coming up again.
” Dr. Anthony Fauci , the director of the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases , said it ’ s “ entirely conceivable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with more than 1 million cases without proper mitigation .
“ We feel the mitigation we are doing right now is having an effect .
It ’ s very difficult to quantify it , but the decision to extend this mitigation process until the end of April I think was a wise and prudent decision , ” Fauci said .
Dr. Deborah Birx , the White House coordinator of the coronavirus task force , said flu models showed that without mitigation , the United States could have had between 1.6 million and 2.2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked very hard together to look at the impacts of the different mitigations that have been utilized around the world and use that evidence base to really bring that evidence and that data to the president to consider for extending–which is not a simple situation when you ask people to stay home for another 30 days , ” Birx told reporters .
“ So , they have to know that we built this on scientific evidence and the potential to really save hundreds of thousands of American lives .
”

President Donald Trump announced fatalities from coronavirus are likely to reach the highest point in two weeks, then begin to decline. He also said he’s extending the guidelines to slow the spread–that were set to lapse on Monday–to the end of April.
“The modeling estimates that the peak in death rate is likely to hit in two weeks. I’ll say it again, the peak–the highest point–of death rates is likely to hit in two weeks,” Trump said Sunday during a Rose Garden press conference.
But he added, “Nothing would be worse than declaring victory before the victory is won.” He noted that everyone should continue to follow the guidelines that Vice President Mike Pence has regularly held up at press conferences for the last two weeks.
“Therefore, we will be extending our guidelines to April 30 to slow the spread,” Trump said. “On Tuesday, we will be finalizing these plans and providing a summary of our findings supporting data and strategy to the American people.”
Providing the most decisive estimated light at the end of the tunnel, Trump said, “We can expect on June 1, we will be well on our way to recovery. We think by June 1. We think a lot of great things will be happening.”
This comes after Trump has spent several days talking about the need to reopen the economy, and saying he would love to see things open by Easter. Asked if floating Easter was a mistake, Trump responded, “No.”
“It was just an aspiration. We actually will be hitting, potentially, on Easter, that could be the peak, sadly to say, that could be the peak number of deaths before it starts coming down,” Trump said. “That was aspirational. We had an aspiration of Easter. We don’t want to spike up. We don’t want to do it soon and then all of a sudden you go down and you’re coming up again.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases, said it’s “entirely conceivable” the death rate could read 200,000 with more than 1 million cases without proper mitigation.
“We feel the mitigation we are doing right now is having an effect. It’s very difficult to quantify it, but the decision to extend this mitigation process until the end of April I think was a wise and prudent decision,” Fauci said.
Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coordinator of the coronavirus task force, said flu models showed that without mitigation, the United States could have had between 1.6 million and 2.2 million deaths.
“So, we worked very hard together to look at the impacts of the different mitigations that have been utilized around the world and use that evidence base to really bring that evidence and that data to the president to consider for extending–which is not a simple situation when you ask people to stay home for another 30 days,” Birx told reporters. “So, they have to know that we built this on scientific evidence and the potential to really save hundreds of thousands of American lives.”


dailysignal--2020-03-29--Sen. Tom Coburn Stood Tall for Taxpayers

Former Sen. Tom Coburn was a hero among fiscal conservatives and endless source of inspiration and courage .
The Oklahoma Republican embodied financial stewardship , always showing great respect for the hard-earned tax dollars of working Americans .
Coburn , who died late Friday at 72 , helped the American people better understand the size and scope of Washington ’ s spending problem by highlighting government waste .
His office helped to uncover a vast Social Security Disability Insurance fraud scheme with a plot line ripe for a movie or TV crime show .
He later proposed the first comprehensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improve the disability determination process , reduce fraud , and ensure benefits are there for individuals with disabilities for whom the program was intended .
Coburn , a family doctor and obstetrician in Muskogee , Oklahoma , also led the way on reforms to entitlement programs and toward a better budget process that demanded accountability and fiscal restraint from lawmakers .
He earned the nickname “ Dr .
No ” for confronting members of both parties in blocking fiscally irresponsible legislation .
Washington would be a much better place if it had more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He represented northeastern Oklahoma in the House from 1995 to 2001 before returning to his practice and then serving in the Senate from 2005 through 2014 .
He stepped down before the end of his second term after a recurrence of prostate cancer .
Coburn was popularly known for highlighting egregious government waste in Washington , including the notorious example of tiny shrimps on a treadmill and the perfect combo of scary and cute : Robo-Squirrel .
His highly anticipated annual “ Wastebook ” served as a pertinent way to help hardworking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frivolously their government was spending their taxpayer dollars .
The examples became symbols for excessive government spending and highlighted the need for Congress to exercise better oversight over federal agencies and programs .
His efforts to uncover waste inspired many other lawmakers to get in on the action .
Coburn didn ’ t just point out waste and abuse , though .
He offered a comprehensive solution for how to turn around America ’ s deeply troubled fiscal outlook .
He cared deeply about young Americans and future generations , who he knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s reckless spending .
His 2011 publication , “ Back in Black , ” provided a plan to reduce spending by $ 9 trillion over 10 years and eliminate deficits .
Had policymakers followed more of his recommendations , America ’ s fiscal outlook would be much more sustainable today .
Coburn understood that overspending is a bipartisan affliction and he stated so clearly in his 2012 book with John Hart , “ The Debt Bomb : A Bold Plan to Stop Washington from Bankrupting America.
“ In the book , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on which he served , calling President Barack Obama ’ s decision not to embrace its recommendations “ one of the greatest failures of presidential leadership in American history.
” The commission ’ s failure seems to have marked the end of the attempt at a so-called Grand Bargain to improve America ’ s fiscal position through spending reforms and tax increases .
In 2013 , a two-year investigation led by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations under Coburn ’ s leadership uncovered a vast Social Security Disability Insurance fraud scheme involving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a rubberstamping administrative law judge who together defrauded the government to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars .
To prevent a similar fraud scheme from succeeding in the future and to address the looming insolvency of the disability insurance program , Coburn introduced a comprehensive reform package in the Senate .
The Protecting Social Security Disability Act of 2014 became a guiding framework to improve the program ’ s integrity , encourage employment , and hold disability judges , lawyers , and doctors accountable .
Coburn ’ s legacy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxpayers even if it meant running the risk of upsetting some in his own party .
He is remembered for his steadfastness , principled positions , hard work , and kindness .
He was a committed public servant who had a significant impact on public policy that will far outlast his time on earth .

Former Sen. Tom Coburn was a hero among fiscal conservatives and endless source of inspiration and courage. The Oklahoma Republican embodied financial stewardship, always showing great respect for the hard-earned tax dollars of working Americans.
Coburn, who died late Friday at 72, helped the American people better understand the size and scope of Washington’s spending problem by highlighting government waste.
His office helped to uncover a vast Social Security Disability Insurance fraud scheme with a plot line ripe for a movie or TV crime show.
He later proposed the first comprehensive reform of Social Security Disability Insurance to improve the disability determination process, reduce fraud, and ensure benefits are there for individuals with disabilities for whom the program was intended.
Coburn, a family doctor and obstetrician in Muskogee, Oklahoma, also led the way on reforms to entitlement programs and toward a better budget process that demanded accountability and fiscal restraint from lawmakers.
He earned the nickname “Dr. No” for confronting members of both parties in blocking fiscally irresponsible legislation.
Washington would be a much better place if it had more selfless and dedicated leaders like Tom Coburn.
He represented northeastern Oklahoma in the House from 1995 to 2001 before returning to his practice and then serving in the Senate from 2005 through 2014. He stepped down before the end of his second term after a recurrence of prostate cancer.
Coburn was popularly known for highlighting egregious government waste in Washington, including the notorious example of tiny shrimps on a treadmill and the perfect combo of scary and cute: Robo-Squirrel. His highly anticipated annual “Wastebook” served as a pertinent way to help hardworking, everyday Americans better grasp just how frivolously their government was spending their taxpayer dollars.
The examples became symbols for excessive government spending and highlighted the need for Congress to exercise better oversight over federal agencies and programs. His efforts to uncover waste inspired many other lawmakers to get in on the action.
Coburn didn’t just point out waste and abuse, though. He offered a comprehensive solution for how to turn around America’s deeply troubled fiscal outlook. He cared deeply about young Americans and future generations, who he knew would pay the price of his generation’s reckless spending.
His 2011 publication, “Back in Black,” provided a plan to reduce spending by $9 trillion over 10 years and eliminate deficits. Had policymakers followed more of his recommendations, America’s fiscal outlook would be much more sustainable today.
Coburn understood that overspending is a bipartisan affliction and he stated so clearly in his 2012 book with John Hart, “The Debt Bomb: A Bold Plan to Stop Washington from Bankrupting America.“ In the book, he also reflected on the 2010 Simpson-Bowles Commission, on which he served, calling President Barack Obama’s decision not to embrace its recommendations “one of the greatest failures of presidential leadership in American history.”
The commission’s failure seems to have marked the end of the attempt at a so-called Grand Bargain to improve America’s fiscal position through spending reforms and tax increases.
In 2013, a two-year investigation led by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations under Coburn’s leadership uncovered a vast Social Security Disability Insurance fraud scheme involving a Kentucky lawyer, several physicians, and a rubberstamping administrative law judge who together defrauded the government to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
To prevent a similar fraud scheme from succeeding in the future and to address the looming insolvency of the disability insurance program, Coburn introduced a comprehensive reform package in the Senate. The Protecting Social Security Disability Act of 2014 became a guiding framework to improve the program’s integrity, encourage employment, and hold disability judges, lawyers, and doctors accountable.
Coburn’s legacy is marked by his consistent dedication to serving taxpayers even if it meant running the risk of upsetting some in his own party.
He is remembered for his steadfastness, principled positions, hard work, and kindness. He was a committed public servant who had a significant impact on public policy that will far outlast his time on earth.


dailysignal--2020-03-28--Trump Compels GM to Build More Ventilators for Coronavirus Response

President Donald Trump is applying the Defense Production Act to require General Motors to manufacture more ventilators to respond to the coronavirus pandemic .
“ Ventilators are a big deal , ” the president said at the Friday press briefing .
“ This invocation of the DPA should indicate to all that we will not hesitate to use the full authority of the federal government to combat this crisis , ” Trump said .
“ We thought we had a deal with , as an example , General Motors .
I guess they thought otherwise .
They didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The president also announced he was naming his trade adviser Peter Navarro as the policy coordinator on Defense Production Act .
He will continue to serve in his post as assistant to the president and director of trade and manufacturing policy .
Trump had resisted using the full power of the law that allows the federal government to direct companies to manufacture .
However , he said , Friday , “ We ’ ll work with the private sector but we will do what we have to do.
” The president said regarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal to build 40,000 ventilators .
But GM wanted to build fewer .
“ Price became a big object , but Peter Navaro is going to handle that and Peter will do a very good job .
We ’ ll see .
Maybe they will change their tune , ” Trump said .
“ We didn ’ t want to play games with them.
” Trump said that GM was wasting time in the midst of a crisis .
In a statement , GM said that it has already been working with medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , GM and our supply base have been working around the clock for weeks to meet this urgent need .
Our commitment to build Ventec ’ s high-quality critical care ventilator , VOCSN , has never wavered .
The partnership between Ventec and GM combines global expertise in manufacturing quality and a joint commitment to safety to give medical professionals and patients access to life-saving technology as rapidly as possible .
The entire GM team is proud to support this initiative .

President Donald Trump is applying the Defense Production Act to require General Motors to manufacture more ventilators to respond to the coronavirus pandemic.
“Ventilators are a big deal,” the president said at the Friday press briefing.
“This invocation of the DPA should indicate to all that we will not hesitate to use the full authority of the federal government to combat this crisis,” Trump said. “We thought we had a deal with, as an example, General Motors. I guess they thought otherwise. They didn’t agree and now they do agree.”
The president also announced he was naming his trade adviser Peter Navarro as the policy coordinator on Defense Production Act. He will continue to serve in his post as assistant to the president and director of trade and manufacturing policy.
Trump had resisted using the full power of the law that allows the federal government to direct companies to manufacture. However, he said, Friday, “We’ll work with the private sector but we will do what we have to do.”
The president said regarding GM that he thought there was a deal to build 40,000 ventilators. But GM wanted to build fewer.
“Price became a big object, but Peter Navaro is going to handle that and Peter will do a very good job. We’ll see. Maybe they will change their tune,” Trump said. “We didn’t want to play games with them.”
Trump said that GM was wasting time in the midst of a crisis.
In a statement, GM said that it has already been working with medical device supplier Ventec Life Systems.


dailysignal--2020-03-27--Little of Pelosi’s Wish List Made It Into COVID-19 Relief Bill. That’s a Relief in Itself.

On Friday , the House passed the massive $ 2 trillion-plus coronavirus relief package that the Senate had passed on Wednesday .
There ’ s a lot in those 880 pages , and much of it is problematic : The bill is neither targeted and temporary , nor directed exclusively at the coronavirus—as scholars at The Heritage Foundation and its president , Kay C. James , have explained .
Before the bill made it through the Senate , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , temporarily derailed it by insisting that any relief bill include a left-wing wish list unrelated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slowdown that it ’ s causing .
Among other things , Pelosi would have : • Mandated “ diversity ” on corporate boards and in banks .
• Mandated that states allow voting by mail .
• Prohibited universities from disclosing the citizenship status of their students .
And that ’ s just the tip of the iceberg .
Pelosi was not going to be accused of letting a crisis go to waste .
In what is becoming a familiar theme ( think of her failed attempt to control how the Senate conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down shortly after making her demands .
With the legislation now through Congress , how much of Pelosi ’ s wish list made it into the bill ?
None of the wish-list items listed above made the cut , but there remains a lot of unnecessary and unwise spending in it .
Diversity requirements for banks and corporate boards are out , as is Pelosi ’ s demand for a Securities and Exchange Commission advisory group to promote corporate “ diversity.
” Also out is her demand that companies taking relief funds establish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and inclusion ” program .
Indeed , the words “ diversity ” and “ inclusion ” don ’ t appear in the legislation passed by the Senate .
The package also does not include any new carbon emissions restrictions or disclosure requirements for airlines or other industries .
Similarly missing are any of her proposals for a federal takeover of state elections .
Her attempt to give unions a handout failed , too , as did her attempt to give a handout to wind and solar power providers .
The bill does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students who are illegal aliens , or provide any other shroud for illegal status .
Likewise , the private pension bailouts she demanded are nowhere to be found in the Senate bill .
Pelosi succeeded in delaying the relief package by several days , but she failed to capitalize on what her No .
2 lieutenant , Rep. Jim Clyburn , D-S.C. , called a “ tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.
” Still , Pelosi took to Twitter to celebrate her success in turning the Senate Republicans ’ bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Pelosi supported the bill wholeheartedly .
But despite her self-proclaimed success in turning the Senate bill upside down , progressives in her party are not happy with it .
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , D-N.Y. , thinks that the relief package favors the businesses that employ the vast majority of Americans .
She had threatened to delay the bill ’ s passage .
Even before this relief package becomes law , politicians on both sides of the aisle were already calling for another one to follow , so expect Pelosi and the progressives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their wish list come true .

On Friday, the House passed the massive $2 trillion-plus coronavirus relief package that the Senate had passed on Wednesday.
There’s a lot in those 880 pages, and much of it is problematic: The bill is neither targeted and temporary, nor directed exclusively at the coronavirus—as scholars at The Heritage Foundation and its president, Kay C. James, have explained.
Before the bill made it through the Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., temporarily derailed it by insisting that any relief bill include a left-wing wish list unrelated to the ongoing pandemic and the economic slowdown that it’s causing.
Among other things, Pelosi would have:
Mandated “diversity” on corporate boards and in banks.
Required airlines to disclose and reduce emissions.
Mandated that states allow voting by mail.
Increased union bargaining power.
Expanded tax credits for wind and solar power.
Prohibited universities from disclosing the citizenship status of their students.
Provided a bailout for some private pensions.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Pelosi was not going to be accused of letting a crisis go to waste.
In what is becoming a familiar theme (think of her failed attempt to control how the Senate conducted its impeachment trial), Pelosi backed down shortly after making her demands.
With the legislation now through Congress, how much of Pelosi’s wish list made it into the bill?
None of the wish-list items listed above made the cut, but there remains a lot of unnecessary and unwise spending in it.
Diversity requirements for banks and corporate boards are out, as is Pelosi’s demand for a Securities and Exchange Commission advisory group to promote corporate “diversity.”
Also out is her demand that companies taking relief funds establish and staff a minimum five-year “diversity and inclusion” program. Indeed, the words “diversity” and “inclusion” don’t appear in the legislation passed by the Senate.
The package also does not include any new carbon emissions restrictions or disclosure requirements for airlines or other industries.
Similarly missing are any of her proposals for a federal takeover of state elections.
Her attempt to give unions a handout failed, too, as did her attempt to give a handout to wind and solar power providers.
The bill does not prevent colleges and universities from disclosing their students who are illegal aliens, or provide any other shroud for illegal status.
Likewise, the private pension bailouts she demanded are nowhere to be found in the Senate bill.
Pelosi succeeded in delaying the relief package by several days, but she failed to capitalize on what her No. 2 lieutenant, Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., called a “tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.”
Still, Pelosi took to Twitter to celebrate her success in turning the Senate Republicans’ bill “upside down.”
In the end, Pelosi supported the bill wholeheartedly.
But despite her self-proclaimed success in turning the Senate bill upside down, progressives in her party are not happy with it.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., thinks that the relief package favors the businesses that employ the vast majority of Americans. She had threatened to delay the bill’s passage.
Even before this relief package becomes law, politicians on both sides of the aisle were already calling for another one to follow, so expect Pelosi and the progressives to try again to make the wishes on their wish list come true.


dailysignal--2020-03-27--Congress, Not Coronavirus, Deserves Blame for Postal Service Woes

A $ 10 billion loan to the United States Postal Service was included in the third coronavirus relief bill , which passed the Senate late Wednesday night .
Supporters of the loan claim that the service is in danger of going bankrupt in the next few months .
But the Postal Service ’ s fiscal crisis does not relate to the pandemic at all .
In fact , it has been hurtling toward bankruptcy for years .
As with most chronic problems related to the federal government , Congress has refused to act , placing short-term political considerations ahead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress kicked the can as far as it could .
Now it must face reality and address the viability of the Postal Service .
The $ 10 billion loan in the relief bill is contingent on the Postal Service using the funds to maintain operation .
This is extremely problematic , but it is way better than what House Democrats proposed : a massive bailout , including elimination of $ 11 billion in outstanding debt , subsidies worth $ 25 billion , and an additional $ 15 billion loan .
Neither the loan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Service ’ s underlying problems .
First , the volume of first-class mail has plummeted 47 % from 2001 to 2019 .
Overall income for the service is falling after adjusting for inflation , but costs are increasing .
As a result , the Postal Service has had an operating deficit for the last 13 years , with 2019 reaching a record $ 8.8 billion loss .
The cause of this financial meltdown at the Postal Service is not hard to find .
The simple fact is that the letter is being replaced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , online bill paying , and the internet .
Americans simply don ’ t need mail as much anymore .
For more than a decade , the Postal Service has been sounding the alarm about the impending postal catastrophe .
It could not stop the wave , but it could adjust to the new realities and avoid collapse , or at least lessen the impact .
With that effort having failed , Congress should do more than send cash .
It should address impediments to the Postal Service surviving in today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the number of post offices and their hours of operation .
Many offices simply do not have enough foot traffic to warrant extensive opening hours , and others can be consolidated .
Some politicians resist this , but their arguments tend to treat the Postal Service as a jobs program or a regional subsidy rather than what it is supposed to be—a business producing a product that consumers want .
• Control over service decisions .
This can include reducing the number of deliveries from the current six days per week and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ door-to-door service .
Elimination of these barriers could close the operating deficit , leaving just the mounting burden of paying for health and pension benefits to its retirees .
According to a 2018 report by the Treasury Department , the Postal Service has around $ 120 billion in unfunded liabilities to its retirees .
Paying for these benefits will require it to return to much firmer financial footing .
Thus , reforming postal delivery would only be a start , serving to move the Postal Service from critical care to the infirmary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ start of treatment .
That is more than the current legislation does .
We can expect many members of Congress to blame the coronavirus if the Postal Service falters in the near future .
In reality , the representatives have only themselves to blame .

A $10 billion loan to the United States Postal Service was included in the third coronavirus relief bill, which passed the Senate late Wednesday night. Supporters of the loan claim that the service is in danger of going bankrupt in the next few months.
But the Postal Service’s fiscal crisis does not relate to the pandemic at all. In fact, it has been hurtling toward bankruptcy for years. As with most chronic problems related to the federal government, Congress has refused to act, placing short-term political considerations ahead of the nation’s long-term needs.
Congress kicked the can as far as it could. Now it must face reality and address the viability of the Postal Service.
The $10 billion loan in the relief bill is contingent on the Postal Service using the funds to maintain operation. This is extremely problematic, but it is way better than what House Democrats proposed: a massive bailout, including elimination of $11 billion in outstanding debt, subsidies worth $25 billion, and an additional $15 billion loan.
Neither the loan nor the bailout would address the Postal Service’s underlying problems.
First, the volume of first-class mail has plummeted 47% from 2001 to 2019. Overall income for the service is falling after adjusting for inflation, but costs are increasing. As a result, the Postal Service has had an operating deficit for the last 13 years, with 2019 reaching a record $8.8 billion loss.
The cause of this financial meltdown at the Postal Service is not hard to find. The simple fact is that the letter is being replaced by digital technologies: email, texts, online bill paying, and the internet. Americans simply don’t need mail as much anymore.
For more than a decade, the Postal Service has been sounding the alarm about the impending postal catastrophe. It could not stop the wave, but it could adjust to the new realities and avoid collapse, or at least lessen the impact.
With that effort having failed, Congress should do more than send cash. It should address impediments to the Postal Service surviving in today’s world. Among these:
Restrictions on the number of post offices and their hours of operation. Many offices simply do not have enough foot traffic to warrant extensive opening hours, and others can be consolidated. Some politicians resist this, but their arguments tend to treat the Postal Service as a jobs program or a regional subsidy rather than what it is supposed to be—a business producing a product that consumers want.
Control over service decisions. This can include reducing the number of deliveries from the current six days per week and allowing a shift away from prohibitively expensive door-to-door service.
Elimination of these barriers could close the operating deficit, leaving just the mounting burden of paying for health and pension benefits to its retirees.
According to a 2018 report by the Treasury Department, the Postal Service has around $120 billion in unfunded liabilities to its retirees. Paying for these benefits will require it to return to much firmer financial footing.
Thus, reforming postal delivery would only be a start, serving to move the Postal Service from critical care to the infirmary. But at least it would mark the start of treatment. That is more than the current legislation does.
We can expect many members of Congress to blame the coronavirus if the Postal Service falters in the near future. In reality, the representatives have only themselves to blame.


dailysignal--2020-03-26--House Set to Vote on $2 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Bill

The coronavirus aid package is expected to be voted on by the House Friday , after the Senate passed the bill late Wednesday .
“ Congressional Democrats in the Senate , and in the House , were able to flip this over from corporate trickle-down Republican version , to bubble-up for families first legislation , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , said Thursday .
“ We have some other things we want to do , but first we want to take pride in what happens there.
” The $ 2 trillion stimulus package , dubbed the CARES Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct payments to families and individuals , $ 350 billion allocated for small business loans , $ 250 billion in unemployment insurance benefits and $ 500 billion in loans for distressed companies .
It also includes financial assistance for airlines .
Paul Winfree , director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation , said the CARES Act “ will cripple the economy by pushing people away from their employers and onto unemployment insurance ” in a statement released Wednesday .
“ This will ultimately hurt workers who will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs so that when the pandemic subsides we can all get back to work as quickly as possible , ” Winfree said , adding : The CARES Act passed in the Senate after several days of tense negotiations between Republican and Democrat lawmakers .
The legislation , which required the votes of 60 senators to advance , only received 49 yes votes Monday and 47 on Sunday .
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy was critical of Democrats ’ demands Thursday , saying during a press conference : “ How many people were laid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election law or implement the Green New Deal ?
” Republicans said Democrats were asking for green policies , such as tax credits for solar and wind energy initiatives ; and tougher fuel emission standards , to be included in the legislation .
No such measures made it into the final legislation .
President Donald Trump is expected to sign the coronavirus aid legislation after the House passes it .
On Thursday , Trump tweeted , “ 96-0 in the United States Senate .
Congratulations AMERICA !
” On Twitter , Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not do enough for immigrants .
“ To clarify , $ 1200 checks are ONLY going to some w/social sec numbers , NOT immigrants w/ tax IDs ( ITINs ) , ” Ocasio-Cortez , D-N.Y. , tweeted .
“ Thanks to GOP , these checks will be cut off the backs of *taxpaying immigrants , * who get nothing .
Many are essential workers who pay more taxes than Amazon.
” Rep. Mark Walker , R-N.C. , said that after Congress passes relief for Americans and business , it needs to get serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Once we make sure our families , health care workers and small businesses have the resources needed , it ’ s time to fix our future , ” Walker tweeted .
“ I would like to see if Washington can social distance itself from reckless spending for awhile .
”

The coronavirus aid package is expected to be voted on by the House Friday, after the Senate passed the bill late Wednesday.
“Congressional Democrats in the Senate, and in the House, were able to flip this over from corporate trickle-down Republican version, to bubble-up for families first legislation,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Thursday. “We have some other things we want to do, but first we want to take pride in what happens there.”
The $2 trillion stimulus package, dubbed the CARES Act, includes $250 billion earmarked for direct payments to families and individuals, $350 billion allocated for small business loans, $250 billion in unemployment insurance benefits and $500 billion in loans for distressed companies. It also includes financial assistance for airlines.
Paul Winfree, director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, said the CARES Act “will cripple the economy by pushing people away from their employers and onto unemployment insurance” in a statement released Wednesday.
“This will ultimately hurt workers who will be better off remaining attached to their jobs so that when the pandemic subsides we can all get back to work as quickly as possible,” Winfree said, adding:
The primary goal of policymakers should be to keep Americans attached to their employers, not government programs. The current unemployment insurance provision in the CARES Act works directly against that goal. Heritage scholars have offered an alternative to keep workers connected to employers, provide stability for businesses caught in this uncertainty, and mitigate the overall economic effects of this crisis.
The CARES Act passed in the Senate after several days of tense negotiations between Republican and Democrat lawmakers. The legislation, which required the votes of 60 senators to advance, only received 49 yes votes Monday and 47 on Sunday.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy was critical of Democrats’ demands Thursday, saying during a press conference: “How many people were laid off as the Democrats fought to change the election law or implement the Green New Deal?”
Republicans said Democrats were asking for green policies, such as tax credits for solar and wind energy initiatives; and tougher fuel emission standards, to be included in the legislation. No such measures made it into the final legislation.
President Donald Trump is expected to sign the coronavirus aid legislation after the House passes it. On Thursday, Trump tweeted, “96-0 in the United States Senate. Congratulations AMERICA!”
On Twitter, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez complained that the bill does not do enough for immigrants.
“To clarify, $1200 checks are ONLY going to some w/social sec numbers, NOT immigrants w/ tax IDs (ITINs),” Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., tweeted. “Thanks to GOP, these checks will be cut off the backs of *taxpaying immigrants,* who get nothing. Many are essential workers who pay more taxes than Amazon.”
Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., said that after Congress passes relief for Americans and business, it needs to get serious about the country’s financial status.
“Once we make sure our families, health care workers and small businesses have the resources needed, it’s time to fix our future,” Walker tweeted. “I would like to see if Washington can social distance itself from reckless spending for awhile.”


dailysignal--2020-03-26--3 Big Media Misses During the Coronavirus Pandemic

The coronavirus pandemic has become a health crisis that ’ s almost unprecedented in our lifetimes .
As our country and the world race to contain the spread of COVID-19 , it ’ s important that we all stay informed on how to protect ourselves and our families and neighbors .
This is a time for journalists in a free country to demonstrate how they can bring vital and accurate information to the public when it ’ s needed most .
Many journalists have been doing just that , and at great risk .
Unfortunately , the media has made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acted unseriously in this serious time .
Here are three big media misses during the coronavirus pandemic .
While there is certainly more that Americans and the Trump administration could have done in preparation for the tidal wave that has been the coronavirus outbreak , one early decision likely made a big difference in controlling its scope .
On Jan. 31 , the Trump administration instituted a travel ban to stop the flow of infected people from China to the United States .
“ The travel ban with China made a difference , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and current head of the global health initiative Resolve to Save Lives , told USA Today .
“ It resulted in a significant delay in the number of people coming in with infection and because of that , that bought time in the U.S. to better prepare , ” Frieden said .
“ And yet , that time wasn ’ t optimally used.
” However , critics of the Trump administration roundly attacked the China travel ban as ineffectual , anti-science , and xenophobic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an excellent breakdown on Twitter of the media ’ s coverage of the travel ban .
At the time , the World Health Organization recommended against travel bans because it was relying on China ’ s disinformation and failure to report person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 .
Good on the administration not to rely on information that had gone through the filter of the Chinese communist government , which clearly has been dishonest about the outbreak since the beginning .
But media outlets didn ’ t stop with attacks on the administration ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condemned the more recent restriction on travel from Europe—some calling this move a product of xenophobia as well .
The fact is , contrary to the idea that viruses don ’ t recognize borders , borders are an important method to limit contact with people infected in a global pandemic .
It ’ s the transmission between individuals that causes COVID-19 to spread quickly , one of the reasons why our whole country is practicing various forms of social distancing and in some places is in near total lockdown .
The idea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down borders to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is anathema in a media environment in which the concept of borderless societies is taken as a given .
But if this moment demonstrates anything , it ’ s that border enforcement matters .
It matters not just because of issues such as crime , culture , terrorism , and economics , but also in the realm of public health .
Working alongside the attacks on travel restrictions is the media ’ s ridiculous and unserious condemnation of those who call the new coronavirus the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus , ” “ Wuhan virus , ” or any other name that links the pandemic to its country of origin .
In January and February , most media outlets had no problem using the terms China virus or Wuhan virus .
But suddenly a switch flipped , and prominent journalists began to attack these terms as racist .
This flip-flop followed a wave of Chinese propaganda aimed at attacking the term “ China virus ” as racist and linking the outbreak to the United States .
It was a jarring reminder of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture that at a press conference the day after Trump used the phrase “ Chinese virus ” on Twitter , he received four questions about it .
Clearly , when the nation is shut down due to the most threatening pandemic since the Spanish flu and Americans are facing mass unemployment and possibly a deep recession , our esteemed press is doing the all important work of language policing .
Unfortunately , this big media miss may make it more difficult to get the word out on COVID-19 treatments .
Trump and others—including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democrat—have touted the possibility that a drug long used to treat malaria may be effective in treating COVID-19 .
This would of course be a huge breakthrough in stemming the pandemic if it proves to be effective .
One of the malaria treatments contains the prescription drug hydroxychloroquine .
This story soon broke , with similar headlines in countless media outlets and countless journalists spreading it far and wide .
This stemmed from an NBC News report in which the dead man ’ s wife , who also ingested the substance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s suggestion that it might be a cure .
She would not reveal her name .
“ We saw Trump on TV—every channel— & all of his buddies and that this was safe , ” the woman said , according to NBC News .
“ Trump kept saying it was basically pretty much a cure.
” What the couple reportedly ingested , though , actually was a fish bowl cleaner containing chloroquine phosphate , a different substance used to get rid of parasites .
For the sake of comparison , if it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective chemical to clean with , but if you drink it , you ’ ll end up in a hospital .
This couple certainly did not take a medication prescribed by a doctor .
It ’ s highly deceptive to connect Trump ’ s comments to this couple ’ s reported attempt to treat themselves with an industrial chemical .
Some news outlets were good enough to correct their headlines and stories .
Axios has deleted its tweet and made a correction .
Good for Axios and the other outlets that made corrections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t stop the spread of medications that may prove vital in the future .
Also , let ’ s hope that the prolonged and serious pandemic that the country faces will spur the media to focus on the crisis at hand and less on the vapid virtue signaling and sensationalized digs at the president that have been their hallmark for years now .

The coronavirus pandemic has become a health crisis that’s almost unprecedented in our lifetimes.
As our country and the world race to contain the spread of COVID-19, it’s important that we all stay informed on how to protect ourselves and our families and neighbors.
This is a time for journalists in a free country to demonstrate how they can bring vital and accurate information to the public when it’s needed most.
Many journalists have been doing just that, and at great risk.
Unfortunately, the media has made some serious missteps in recent months and acted unseriously in this serious time.
Here are three big media misses during the coronavirus pandemic.
1. Attacking Travel Bans
While there is certainly more that Americans and the Trump administration could have done in preparation for the tidal wave that has been the coronavirus outbreak, one early decision likely made a big difference in controlling its scope.
On Jan. 31, the Trump administration instituted a travel ban to stop the flow of infected people from China to the United States.
“The travel ban with China made a difference,” Dr. Tom Frieden, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and current head of the global health initiative Resolve to Save Lives, told USA Today.
“It resulted in a significant delay in the number of people coming in with infection and because of that, that bought time in the U.S. to better prepare,” Frieden said. “And yet, that time wasn’t optimally used.”
However, critics of the Trump administration roundly attacked the China travel ban as ineffectual, anti-science, and xenophobic.
My colleague, Lyndsey Fifield, had an excellent breakdown on Twitter of the media’s coverage of the travel ban.
Took a break to read back and see how the media covered Trump's 1/31 announcement barring entry into the U.S. from China and HOO BOY…
Many in the scientific community beclowned themselves because their hatred for Trump blinded them—and does to this day. pic.twitter.com/QjF8zfkCB0 — Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) March 19, 2020
At the time, the World Health Organization recommended against travel bans because it was relying on China’s disinformation and failure to report person-to-person transmission of COVID-19.
Good on the administration not to rely on information that had gone through the filter of the Chinese communist government, which clearly has been dishonest about the outbreak since the beginning.
But media outlets didn’t stop with attacks on the administration’s China travel ban. They also widely condemned the more recent restriction on travel from Europe—some calling this move a product of xenophobia as well.
The fact is, contrary to the idea that viruses don’t recognize borders, borders are an important method to limit contact with people infected in a global pandemic. It’s the transmission between individuals that causes COVID-19 to spread quickly, one of the reasons why our whole country is practicing various forms of social distancing and in some places is in near total lockdown.
The idea that the federal government took precautions and shut down borders to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is anathema in a media environment in which the concept of borderless societies is taken as a given.
But if this moment demonstrates anything, it’s that border enforcement matters. It matters not just because of issues such as crime, culture, terrorism, and economics, but also in the realm of public health.
2. ‘China Virus’ Language Policing
Working alongside the attacks on travel restrictions is the media’s ridiculous and unserious condemnation of those who call the new coronavirus the “Chinese virus,” “China virus,” “Wuhan virus,” or any other name that links the pandemic to its country of origin.
In January and February, most media outlets had no problem using the terms China virus or Wuhan virus. But suddenly a switch flipped, and prominent journalists began to attack these terms as racist.
This flip-flop followed a wave of Chinese propaganda aimed at attacking the term “China virus” as racist and linking the outbreak to the United States.
It was a jarring reminder of the unserious nature of “woke” culture that at a press conference the day after Trump used the phrase “Chinese virus” on Twitter, he received four questions about it.
Clearly, when the nation is shut down due to the most threatening pandemic since the Spanish flu and Americans are facing mass unemployment and possibly a deep recession, our esteemed press is doing the all important work of language policing.
3. Trump Derangement and Fish Bowl Fluid
Unfortunately, this big media miss may make it more difficult to get the word out on COVID-19 treatments.
Trump and others—including New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat—have touted the possibility that a drug long used to treat malaria may be effective in treating COVID-19.
This would of course be a huge breakthrough in stemming the pandemic if it proves to be effective. One of the malaria treatments contains the prescription drug hydroxychloroquine.
This story soon broke, with similar headlines in countless media outlets and countless journalists spreading it far and wide.
An Arizona man has died and his wife is in critical condition after ingesting an anti-malaria drug in an attempt to treat the novel coronavirus https://t.co/Yqb6Xm7mOF — The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) March 23, 2020
After Trump hyped chloroquine, a man died trying to self-medicate https://t.co/frGp1Q0ufK by @RobertMackey — The Intercept (@theintercept) March 24, 2020
A man died after taking chloroquine phosphate, the drug Trump's touted as a potential COVID-19 treatment, via a fish tank additive. His wife is in critical, but stable condition, Banner Health said, imploring people not to self medicatehttps://t.co/MgtUen5xoo — Brianna Sacks (@bri_sacks) March 23, 2020
President Trump has been publicly touting the prescription form of chloroquine in the fight against novel coronavirus despite repeated warnings from health officials that any suggestion that it works is purely anecdotal. https://t.co/KyUgF7XF4C — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) March 24, 2020
A man has died after ingesting chloroquine phosphate – believing it would protect him from #coronavirus https://t.co/KbOtY32iJ3 — Sky News (@SkyNews) March 24, 2020
This stemmed from an NBC News report in which the dead man’s wife, who also ingested the substance, said they took it because of Trump’s suggestion that it might be a cure. She would not reveal her name.
?Her husband is dead & she's in the ICU after ingesting chloroquine:
"We saw Trump on TV — every channel — & all of his buddies and that this was safe," she said.
"Trump kept saying it was basically pretty much a cure."
She implored @VaughnHillyard: "Educate the people" https://t.co/Vl94tIZcdw — Heidi Przybyla (@HeidiNBC) March 23, 2020
“We saw Trump on TV—every channel—& all of his buddies and that this was safe,” the woman said, according to NBC News. “Trump kept saying it was basically pretty much a cure.”
What the couple reportedly ingested, though, actually was a fish bowl cleaner containing chloroquine phosphate, a different substance used to get rid of parasites.
For the sake of comparison, if it needs one: Bleach is a pretty effective chemical to clean with, but if you drink it, you’ll end up in a hospital. This couple certainly did not take a medication prescribed by a doctor.
It’s highly deceptive to connect Trump’s comments to this couple’s reported attempt to treat themselves with an industrial chemical.
Some news outlets were good enough to correct their headlines and stories.
Axios has deleted its tweet and made a correction.
We have deleted this tweet and corrected our story because it did not reflect the full nature of the self-medication done with an additive commonly used to clean fish tanks. https://t.co/0zucqRaIkI pic.twitter.com/3YY86rju2w — Axios (@axios) March 24, 2020
Good for Axios and the other outlets that made corrections. Hopefully this deceptive story won’t stop the spread of medications that may prove vital in the future.
Also, let’s hope that the prolonged and serious pandemic that the country faces will spur the media to focus on the crisis at hand and less on the vapid virtue signaling and sensationalized digs at the president that have been their hallmark for years now.


dailysignal--2020-03-26--Trump’s Strategic Foresight Is Being Put to the Test

The ancient Greeks believed that true leadership in crisis came down to what they called pronoia—the Greek word for “ strategic foresight.
” Some statesman , such as Pericles and Themistocles , had it .
Most others , such as the often brilliant and charismatic but impulsive Alcibiades , usually did not .
“ Foresight ” in crisis means sizing up a nation ’ s assets and debits , then maximizing advantages and minimizing liabilities .
The leader with foresight , especially in times of irrational despair , then charts a rational pathway victory .
Such crisis leaders do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media shouts “ Catastrophe !
” Nor do they preen when the same chorus screams “ Genius !
” in times of success .
The English poet Rudyard Kipling would have defined such a gift as , “ If you can keep your head when all about you/Are losing theirs and blaming it on you , ” or , “ If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster/And treat those two impostors just the same.
” Some American military leaders—such as Gens .
George Patton , William Tecumseh Sherman , and Curtis LeMay—sounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they did in times of war .
The traits ensuring that peacetime life stays predictable are not always the same as those required to return it to predictability when times turn utterly terrifying .
During the Civil War , Abraham Lincoln knew the overwhelming advantages of the Union could eventually defeat the South , but only if he could hold the nation together through disasters such as the battles of Bull Run and Chancellorsville , and only once he found brilliant generals such as Sherman and Ulysses S. Grant .
In World War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most impressive wartime leader in history .
During Britain ’ s darkest hours of nonstop German bombing of London , he knew that declining British assets were still greater than an ascendant Germany ’ s advantages .
Eventually , despite razor-thin margins of error , these assets would ensure victory .
Churchill was assured that Britain had a great navy and Germany did not .
Britain would soon have as allies America and Russia , both far stronger than German partners Italy and Japan .
Churchill foresaw that the economies of those future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Axis .
And Churchill grasped all this even as defeat loomed and some in his own party were calling for him to negotiate with Adolf Hitler .
Franklin D. Roosevelt likewise had foresight .
In the nightmarish days after Pearl Harbor , FDR calmly unleashed private enterprise to rearm America at what he knew would be an astonishing rate .
Roosevelt promised victory not because he knew it would be quick , but because he calculated that if he just made the right choices , the ensuing advantages of the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first bleak days of the war , FDR kept reminding the nation why and how America would win .
That confidence was not based on fantasies but on rational calculation and justified optimism .
In the present crisis of the coronavirus , what will determine the effectiveness of President Donald Trump ’ s leadership is not what the media screams today or the polls say tomorrow .
The praise of his supporters or the predictable damnation of his enemies won ’ t matter .
Rather , Trump will win or lose on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he panics and keeps the country locked down for too long , we will go into depression that will cost more lives than the virus .
But if Trump prematurely declares victory and urges Americans to rush back to normal life , he may reboot the virus and reignite another cycle of panic .
Instead , Trump will have to possess the confidence to see how the world ’ s greatest economy , greatest medical talent , greatest military , and greatest energy and food production can all be marshaled in a symphonic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off a potentially biblical plague without destroying the largest economy in history .
If Trump exhibits such cunning and wisdom , then he can balance the consensus of his medical experts that the virus is existentially dangerous with the warnings of his economic advisers that shutting down a multi-trillion economy can become even more ruinous—and lethal—for Americans .
Like Churchill , Trump must have the right information but also the instincts to determine which expert advice is suspect and which is inspired , and which orthodox recommendation is wrong and which unorthodox alternative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump can defeat the virus , save the economy , and turn a disaster into a collective American victory over both infection and depression .
Such foresight can also remind the nation never again to outsource key industries to China , and not to listen to those who always predict catastrophe in bleak times , only to later take credit for others ’ victories .
( C ) 2020 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY , LLC .

The ancient Greeks believed that true leadership in crisis came down to what they called pronoia—the Greek word for “strategic foresight.”
Some statesman, such as Pericles and Themistocles, had it. Most others, such as the often brilliant and charismatic but impulsive Alcibiades, usually did not.
“Foresight” in crisis means sizing up a nation’s assets and debits, then maximizing advantages and minimizing liabilities. The leader with foresight, especially in times of irrational despair, then charts a rational pathway victory.
Such crisis leaders do not fall into panic and depression when the media shouts “Catastrophe!”
Nor do they preen when the same chorus screams “Genius!” in times of success.
The English poet Rudyard Kipling would have defined such a gift as, “If you can keep your head when all about you/Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,” or, “If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster/And treat those two impostors just the same.”
Some American military leaders—such as Gens. George Patton, William Tecumseh Sherman, and Curtis LeMay—sounded as scary in times of peace as they did in times of war. The traits ensuring that peacetime life stays predictable are not always the same as those required to return it to predictability when times turn utterly terrifying.
During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln knew the overwhelming advantages of the Union could eventually defeat the South, but only if he could hold the nation together through disasters such as the battles of Bull Run and Chancellorsville, and only once he found brilliant generals such as Sherman and Ulysses S. Grant.
In World War II, Winston Churchill proved perhaps the most impressive wartime leader in history. During Britain’s darkest hours of nonstop German bombing of London, he knew that declining British assets were still greater than an ascendant Germany’s advantages. Eventually, despite razor-thin margins of error, these assets would ensure victory.
Churchill was assured that Britain had a great navy and Germany did not. Britain would soon have as allies America and Russia, both far stronger than German partners Italy and Japan.
Churchill foresaw that the economies of those future allies would be far superior to those of the Axis. And Churchill grasped all this even as defeat loomed and some in his own party were calling for him to negotiate with Adolf Hitler.
Franklin D. Roosevelt likewise had foresight. In the nightmarish days after Pearl Harbor, FDR calmly unleashed private enterprise to rearm America at what he knew would be an astonishing rate.
Roosevelt promised victory not because he knew it would be quick, but because he calculated that if he just made the right choices, the ensuing advantages of the U.S. world surely ensure victory.
Even in the first bleak days of the war, FDR kept reminding the nation why and how America would win. That confidence was not based on fantasies but on rational calculation and justified optimism.
In the present crisis of the coronavirus, what will determine the effectiveness of President Donald Trump’s leadership is not what the media screams today or the polls say tomorrow. The praise of his supporters or the predictable damnation of his enemies won’t matter.
Rather, Trump will win or lose on whether he has strategic foresight. If he panics and keeps the country locked down for too long, we will go into depression that will cost more lives than the virus. But if Trump prematurely declares victory and urges Americans to rush back to normal life, he may reboot the virus and reignite another cycle of panic.
Instead, Trump will have to possess the confidence to see how the world’s greatest economy, greatest medical talent, greatest military, and greatest energy and food production can all be marshaled in a symphonic fashion. That correct formula could fend off a potentially biblical plague without destroying the largest economy in history.
If Trump exhibits such cunning and wisdom, then he can balance the consensus of his medical experts that the virus is existentially dangerous with the warnings of his economic advisers that shutting down a multi-trillion economy can become even more ruinous—and lethal—for Americans.
Like Churchill, Trump must have the right information but also the instincts to determine which expert advice is suspect and which is inspired, and which orthodox recommendation is wrong and which unorthodox alternative is right.
Do that, and Trump can defeat the virus, save the economy, and turn a disaster into a collective American victory over both infection and depression.
Such foresight can also remind the nation never again to outsource key industries to China, and not to listen to those who always predict catastrophe in bleak times, only to later take credit for others’ victories.
(C) 2020 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.


dailysignal--2020-03-26--Trump Compares $2.2 Trillion Coronavirus Aid Bill to FDR’s New Deal in Size, Scope

President Donald Trump on Wednesday expressed optimism about the prospects for passage of an emergency coronavirus relief bill to bridge the nation ’ s temporary economic shutdown , as the Senate moved closer to agreement .
“ Together , this $ 2.2 trillion legislative package is bigger than anything I believe ever passed in Congress , ” Trump told reporters , comparing the massive bill to President Franklin Roosevelt ’ s New Deal programs of the 1930s and 1940s .
“ Perhaps , relatively speaking , if you go back and look during the FDR New Deal days , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ for inflation ] , it was bigger , ” the president said .
“ But this is certainly , in terms of dollars , far and away the biggest ever , ever done .
That ’ s a tremendous thing , because a lot of this money goes to jobs , jobs , jobs and families , families , families.
” Just before midnight , the Senate approved the bill in a unanimous vote of 96-0 after days of deadlock and fierce negotiations between Republicans and Democrats that yielded biting public statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House , for what Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , has said will be a voice vote , likely Friday , in part because it ’ s not clear how many House members would return to Washington .
The bill includes $ 350 billion in loans for businesses for job retention purposes as the nation hunkers down during the spread of the contagious new coronavirus , which causes the disease COVID-19 .
The package has an additional $ 300 billion in direct cash payments , or $ 3,400 for the typical family of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , and up to $ 250 billion in expanded unemployment benefits .
Four Republican senators , however , expressed concern that unemployment insurance paying out $ 600 per week—more than many low-wage jobs pay—would be a disincentive to work .
Those GOP senators were Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina , Rick Scott of Florida , and Ben Sasse of Nebraska .
The four senators who missed the vote also are all Republicans , who hold 53 seats in the chamber : Rand Paul of Kentucky , who has tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Lee and Mitt Romney , who isolated themselves after contact with Paul ; and John Thune of South Dakota , who said he felt ill. “ We want to have enhanced unemployment insurance , ” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told reporters .
“ This is the only way we could ensure the states could get money out quickly , in a fair way .
So , we used $ 600 across the board .
I don ’ t think it will create incentives [ not to work ] .
Most Americans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep their jobs.
” Trump is seeking to jump-start and reopen the economy as quickly as possible , but his coronavirus task force is attemping to balance economic and medical concerns .
One reporter asked the president whether he was making political calculations regarding his hopes of reopening the economy by Easter Sunday , which is April 12 .
“ I think there are certain people that would like [ the economy ] not to open so quickly , ” Trump replied , saying there are “ certain people who would like it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him politically .
“ I think it is very clear that there are people in your profession that write fake news .
You do , ” Trump told the reporter , then pointed at another reporter and said , “ She does.
” “ Nobody has done the job that we ’ ve done , ” the president added , indicating Vice President Mike Pence and the top public health officials flanking him .
“ And it ’ s lucky that you have this group here right now for this problem , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country left.
” As of noon Wednesday , the U.S. had 54,453 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and a total of 737 deaths , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
After it appeared that Republicans and Democrats had reached a compromise on a stimulus bill over the weekend , Pelosi put forward a proposal that includes numerous subsidies for the wind and solar energy industries and other liberal causes .
The compromise package that headed for Senate passage after 11 p.m. included $ 25 million for the Kennedy Center , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When asked about that , Trump said he supported it .
“ I approved that .
It was $ 35 million , and we actually took off $ 10 million .
I ’ m a fan of that , although I haven ’ t spent time there because I ’ m far too busy , ” Trump said , adding : I ’ d love to go there for evenings , but I ’ m too busy doing things , because that ’ s more important for me .
The Kennedy Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there .
It ’ s essentially closed , and they do need some funding .
And I said , ‘ Look , that was a Democrat request .
That was not my request.
’ But you ’ ve got to give them something .
It ’ s something that they wanted .
It works that way .
Democrats have treated us fairly .
I really believe that we had a very good back-and-forth .
Trump said he spoke “ a number of times ” with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” This report has been updated since publication to include the Senate ’ s passage of the coronavirus relief bill .

President Donald Trump on Wednesday expressed optimism about the prospects for passage of an emergency coronavirus relief bill to bridge the nation’s temporary economic shutdown, as the Senate moved closer to agreement.
“Together, this $2.2 trillion legislative package is bigger than anything I believe ever passed in Congress,” Trump told reporters, comparing the massive bill to President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs of the 1930s and 1940s.
“Perhaps, relatively speaking, if you go back and look during the FDR New Deal days, there was something that if you time-value it [for inflation], it was bigger,” the president said. “But this is certainly, in terms of dollars, far and away the biggest ever, ever done. That’s a tremendous thing, because a lot of this money goes to jobs, jobs, jobs and families, families, families.”
Just before midnight, the Senate approved the bill in a unanimous vote of 96-0 after days of deadlock and fierce negotiations between Republicans and Democrats that yielded biting public statements.
The package now moves to the House, for what Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said will be a voice vote, likely Friday, in part because it’s not clear how many House members would return to Washington.
The bill includes $350 billion in loans for businesses for job retention purposes as the nation hunkers down during the spread of the contagious new coronavirus, which causes the disease COVID-19.
The package has an additional $300 billion in direct cash payments, or $3,400 for the typical family of four earning less than $99,000 per year, and up to $250 billion in expanded unemployment benefits.
Four Republican senators, however, expressed concern that unemployment insurance paying out $600 per week—more than many low-wage jobs pay—would be a disincentive to work. Those GOP senators were Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Rick Scott of Florida, and Ben Sasse of Nebraska.
The four senators who missed the vote also are all Republicans, who hold 53 seats in the chamber: Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has tested positive for COVID-19; Utah’s Mike Lee and Mitt Romney, who isolated themselves after contact with Paul; and John Thune of South Dakota, who said he felt ill.
“We want to have enhanced unemployment insurance,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told reporters. “This is the only way we could ensure the states could get money out quickly, in a fair way. So, we used $600 across the board. I don’t think it will create incentives [not to work]. Most Americans, what they want, they want to keep their jobs.”
Trump is seeking to jump-start and reopen the economy as quickly as possible, but his coronavirus task force is attemping to balance economic and medical concerns.
One reporter asked the president whether he was making political calculations regarding his hopes of reopening the economy by Easter Sunday, which is April 12.
“I think there are certain people that would like [the economy] not to open so quickly,” Trump replied, saying there are “certain people who would like it to do financially poorly” to hurt him politically.
“I think it is very clear that there are people in your profession that write fake news. You do,” Trump told the reporter, then pointed at another reporter and said, “She does.”
“Nobody has done the job that we’ve done,” the president added, indicating Vice President Mike Pence and the top public health officials flanking him. “And it’s lucky that you have this group here right now for this problem, or you wouldn’t even have a country left.”
As of noon Wednesday, the U.S. had 54,453 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and a total of 737 deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
After it appeared that Republicans and Democrats had reached a compromise on a stimulus bill over the weekend, Pelosi put forward a proposal that includes numerous subsidies for the wind and solar energy industries and other liberal causes.
The compromise package that headed for Senate passage after 11 p.m. included $25 million for the Kennedy Center, a huge performing arts venue in Washington. When asked about that, Trump said he supported it.
“I approved that. It was $35 million, and we actually took off $10 million. I’m a fan of that, although I haven’t spent time there because I’m far too busy,” Trump said, adding:
I’d love to go there for evenings, but I’m too busy doing things, because that’s more important for me. The Kennedy Center has suffered greatly because nobody can go there. It’s essentially closed, and they do need some funding. And I said, ‘Look, that was a Democrat request. That was not my request.’ But you’ve got to give them something. It’s something that they wanted. It works that way. Democrats have treated us fairly. I really believe that we had a very good back-and-forth.
Trump said he spoke “a number of times” with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and that Democrats “had requests also.”
That’s not a good sound bite, but that’s the way life works. With that being said, the Kennedy Center, they do a beautiful job. … This thing has been devastating to it.
This report has been updated since publication to include the Senate’s passage of the coronavirus relief bill.


dailysignal--2020-03-24--Pelosi’s Identity Politics Pork Barrel

Pelosi’s Identity Politics Pork Barrel

“ You never let a serious crisis go to waste , ” Obama adviser Rahm Emanuel said during the country ’ s last major emergency .
Now , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing this noxious idea back as she uses the coronavirus pandemic to permanently stamp identity politics on corporate America .
Pelosi ’ s coronavirus relief bill is a veritable pork barrel for programs that would force corporations receiving government aid to implement “ diversity and inclusion ” initiatives that have nothing to do with combating COVID-19 , the disease caused by the coronavirus , and preventing its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word “ outrage ” has lost its meaning through overuse , one is left speechless that the speaker of the House would hold the country ’ s physical and financial health hostage in an attempt to remake the corporate world along the lines of identity politics .
Pelosi ’ s bill uses the words diversity or diverse 63 times , the word inclusion 14 times , and the word minority 109 times as it lays money aside for large and small pet projects based on national divisions that depend on race , ethnicity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is not showing compassion for those in need ; this is abusing the coronavirus emergency to reorder America .
Title V of Pelosi ’ s bill , “ Investing in a Sustainable Recovery , ” has sections on “ Improving Corporate Governance Through Diversity ” and “ Diverse Investment Advisers.
” The bill is meticulous in its attempt to coerce companies to count Americans along identity categories in every nook and cranny of corporate activity .
The legislation stipulates : “ Any corporation that receives federal aid related to COVID-19 must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and inclusion for no less than 5 years after disbursement of funds.
” The oversight panel set up to distribute the funds “ shall collect diversity data from any corporation that receives Federal aid related to COVID-19 and issue a report that will be made publicly available no later than one year after the disbursement of funds.
” the gender , race and ethnic identity ( and to the extent possible results disaggregated by ethnic group ) as otherwise known or provided voluntarily , for the total number of employees ( full and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees ( executive and managers versus employees in other roles ) .
… The number and dollar value invested with minority- and women-owned suppliers ( and to the extent possible results disaggregated by ethnic group ) including professional services ( legal and consulting ) and asset managers , and deposits and other accounts with minority depository institutions , as compared to all vendors investments .
Pelosi ’ s legislation would require companies to supply a comparison of pay among sexes and racial and ethnic minorities .
They would have to equally hand over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporate boards , the “ reporting structure of lead diversity officials , ” and the size of the budget and staff of offices dedicated to “ diversity and inclusion.
” Pelosi ’ s bill would order the Securities and Exchange Commission to set up a Diversity and Advisory Group composed of college professors , government bureaucrats , and members of the private sector to carry out a study that would propose strategies to “ increase gender , racial and ethnic diversity ” on corporate boards .
Even grantees that hire service personnel who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hire , at all levels of employment , and to greatest extent possible , a diverse staff , including by race , ethnicity , gender and disability status.
” No stone is left unturned in Nancy Pelosi ’ s effort to use the greatest crisis this country has faced in years to stamp identity politics on all aspects of the economy .
What it all has to do with combating the coronavirus or getting our economy humming again is a mystery .
But as Emanuel , who would become chief of staff to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2008 , the moments of greatest urgency and fear create opportunities to do things that are completely unrelated to the crisis at hand—even if one must make one ’ s fellow citizens suffer a little longer .
“ This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision , ” House Majority Whip James Clyburn , D-S.C. , told fellow lawmakers in a conference call last week , according to The Hill newspaper .

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste,” Obama adviser Rahm Emanuel said during the country’s last major emergency. Now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing this noxious idea back as she uses the coronavirus pandemic to permanently stamp identity politics on corporate America.
Pelosi’s coronavirus relief bill is a veritable pork barrel for programs that would force corporations receiving government aid to implement “diversity and inclusion” initiatives that have nothing to do with combating COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, and preventing its spread.
In an age when the word “outrage” has lost its meaning through overuse, one is left speechless that the speaker of the House would hold the country’s physical and financial health hostage in an attempt to remake the corporate world along the lines of identity politics.
Pelosi’s bill uses the words diversity or diverse 63 times, the word inclusion 14 times, and the word minority 109 times as it lays money aside for large and small pet projects based on national divisions that depend on race, ethnicity, sex, disability status, etc.
This is not showing compassion for those in need; this is abusing the coronavirus emergency to reorder America.
Title V of Pelosi’s bill, “Investing in a Sustainable Recovery,” has sections on “Improving Corporate Governance Through Diversity” and “Diverse Investment Advisers.”
The bill is meticulous in its attempt to coerce companies to count Americans along identity categories in every nook and cranny of corporate activity.
The legislation stipulates: “Any corporation that receives federal aid related to COVID-19 must maintain officials and budget dedicated to diversity and inclusion for no less than 5 years after disbursement of funds.”
The oversight panel set up to distribute the funds “shall collect diversity data from any corporation that receives Federal aid related to COVID-19 and issue a report that will be made publicly available no later than one year after the disbursement of funds.”
That report must include:
the gender, race and ethnic identity (and to the extent possible results disaggregated by ethnic group) as otherwise known or provided voluntarily, for the total number of employees (full and part-time) and the career level of employees (executive and managers versus employees in other roles). … The number and dollar value invested with minority- and women-owned suppliers (and to the extent possible results disaggregated by ethnic group) including professional services (legal and consulting) and asset managers, and deposits and other accounts with minority depository institutions, as compared to all vendors investments.
Pelosi’s legislation would require companies to supply a comparison of pay among sexes and racial and ethnic minorities. They would have to equally hand over to the government demographic data on their corporate boards, the “reporting structure of lead diversity officials,” and the size of the budget and staff of offices dedicated to “diversity and inclusion.”
Pelosi’s bill would order the Securities and Exchange Commission to set up a Diversity and Advisory Group composed of college professors, government bureaucrats, and members of the private sector to carry out a study that would propose strategies to “increase gender, racial and ethnic diversity” on corporate boards.
Even grantees that hire service personnel who assist elderly households “shall consider and hire, at all levels of employment, and to greatest extent possible, a diverse staff, including by race, ethnicity, gender and disability status.”
No stone is left unturned in Nancy Pelosi’s effort to use the greatest crisis this country has faced in years to stamp identity politics on all aspects of the economy.
What it all has to do with combating the coronavirus or getting our economy humming again is a mystery.
But as Emanuel, who would become chief of staff to President Barack Obama, made clear in 2008, the moments of greatest urgency and fear create opportunities to do things that are completely unrelated to the crisis at hand—even if one must make one’s fellow citizens suffer a little longer.
“This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision,” House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., told fellow lawmakers in a conference call last week, according to The Hill newspaper.
Indeed.