hotair--2020-11-18--Photos: Gavin Newsom's socially un-distanced dinner with friends -- apparently indoors; <span class=

Photos: Gavin Newsom's socially un-distanced dinner with friends -- apparently indoors; Update: Guests included ... doctors

I wrote about it a few days ago but reading about it and seeing it with your own eyes are two different things .
Imagine how thick the bubble of impunity that this tool operates in must be that he was willing to attend this gathering not just in a public place but in full view of other guests .
He wasn ’ t sneakily breaking the rules against gatherings of people from more than three households by slipping in the back door of a friend ’ s home .
He was flouting them , out in the open , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visible to others .
This story reminds me of Trump ’ s disinformation campaign about the election in that they ’ re both newsworthy and must be covered even though lots of people will draw pernicious lessons from them .
Amplifying Trump ’ s claims , even to debunk them , helps spread them to those who are motivated by extreme partisanship to believe everything he says .
Amplifying Newsom ’ s rulebreaking helps spread it to those who ’ ll conclude that it ’ s “ only fair ” that they get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
But news is news is news .
Terrible leadership : An American tradition as familiar as Thanksgiving itself .
The person who snapped the pics spoke to Fox LA and provided a noteworthy detail : “ While we were there we realized there was a very loud party going on in a room 20 feet from us .
It was a bit annoying since you ’ re spending hard-earned money to go there.
” She said , “ It got louder and louder and so they had some sliding glass doors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so then it was a closed-off room but you could still hear them with how loud they were.
” “ I just happened to look over and realize hey is that Gavin Newsom , who is that ?
And I did ask one of the waitresses and she confirmed it was , so I was able to take a couple of photos , I was able to document this especially since nobody was wearing a mask .
It was a very large group of people shoulder to shoulder , something that he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so yeah it was a bit annoying for sure ” , the woman said .
The one mitigating factor in Newsom ’ s rulebreaking was that , supposedly , his dinner party had dined outdoors under the stars .
Not true , it turns out .
They were in an enclosed space which opens to the outdoors via sliding doors on one wall .
But those doors were closed .
Indoor dining at a restaurant in a large group is basically the worst-case scenario for COVID spread , according to the CDC .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t breaking any rules because the state ban on gatherings by more than three households doesn ’ t apply to eateries .
But … why doesn ’ t it ?
The fact that Newsom was arguably within the bounds of his own guidance doesn ’ t mean he behaved appropriately .
It means his guidance is stupid .
Speaking of terrible leadership , this tweet also caught my eye last night : Paul is a medical doctor .
He must grasp that the difference between naturally acquired immunity and vaccine-acquired immunity is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people ( and long-term debilitation for some survivors ) on the one hand and a death toll on the other of … zero .
So what ’ s he talking about ?
He ’ s not dumb , so it must be that his spite for experts like Fauci has deteriorated to a point of pure nihilism , where he ’ s trying to sell his constituents on the idea that natural immunity is somehow “ better ” than the kind provided by a vaccine .
Make sure to spread some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grandpa on Thanksgiving , I guess .
Here ’ s Newsom , almost giggling his way through an apology for his decision to attend the dinner at the restaurant .
At least he ’ s pretending to be sorry .
Sort of .
Update : There ’ s probably a way this incident could be more embarrassing for Newsom and more damaging to the cause of getting people to take COVID seriously , but I can ’ t think of one offhand .
California Medical Association officials were among the guests seated next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top California political operative ’ s opulent birthday dinner at the French Laundry restaurant this month .
CEO Dustin Corcoran and top CMA lobbyist Janus Norman both joined the dinner at the French Laundry , an elite Napa fine dining restaurant , to celebrate the 50th birthday of lobbyist and longtime Newsom adviser Jason Kinney , a representative of the powerful interest group confirmed Wednesday morning… Doctors and other health care workers have been vigilant since the pandemic began in asking Califorians to stay at home — a call that has ramped up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation fill to capacity .

I wrote about it a few days ago but reading about it and seeing it with your own eyes are two different things. Imagine how thick the bubble of impunity that this tool operates in must be that he was willing to attend this gathering not just in a public place but in full view of other guests. He wasn’t sneakily breaking the rules against gatherings of people from more than three households by slipping in the back door of a friend’s home. He was flouting them, out in the open, at a well-known restaurant in a room visible to others.
This story reminds me of Trump’s disinformation campaign about the election in that they’re both newsworthy and must be covered even though lots of people will draw pernicious lessons from them. Amplifying Trump’s claims, even to debunk them, helps spread them to those who are motivated by extreme partisanship to believe everything he says. Amplifying Newsom’s rulebreaking helps spread it to those who’ll conclude that it’s “only fair” that they get to break the rules and spread COVID too. But news is news is news.
Terrible leadership: An American tradition as familiar as Thanksgiving itself.
EXCLUSIVE: We've obtained photos of Governor Gavin Newsom at the Napa dinner party he's in hot water over. The photos call into question just how outdoors the dinner was. A witness who took photos tells us his group was so loud, the sliding doors had to be closed. 10pm on @FOXLA pic.twitter.com/gtOVEwa864 — Bill Melugin (@BillFOXLA) November 18, 2020
The person who snapped the pics spoke to Fox LA and provided a noteworthy detail:
“While we were there we realized there was a very loud party going on in a room 20 feet from us. It was a bit annoying since you’re spending hard-earned money to go there.” She said, “It got louder and louder and so they had some sliding glass doors that they were able to close, so then it was a closed-off room but you could still hear them with how loud they were.” “I just happened to look over and realize hey is that Gavin Newsom, who is that? And I did ask one of the waitresses and she confirmed it was, so I was able to take a couple of photos, I was able to document this especially since nobody was wearing a mask. It was a very large group of people shoulder to shoulder, something that he’s always telling us not to do so yeah it was a bit annoying for sure”, the woman said.
The one mitigating factor in Newsom’s rulebreaking was that, supposedly, his dinner party had dined outdoors under the stars. Not true, it turns out. They were in an enclosed space which opens to the outdoors via sliding doors on one wall. But those doors were closed.
Here's the Town & Country photo that Gavin Newsom's team is apparently referring to alongside the photo of Newsom's party. Except you can see the sliding glass door was closed…https://t.co/lR9humruhL https://t.co/IWyx6Bq4Cu pic.twitter.com/j6cZobLDbj — Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) November 18, 2020
Indoor dining at a restaurant in a large group is basically the worst-case scenario for COVID spread, according to the CDC. Team Newsom insists that it *technically* wasn’t breaking any rules because the state ban on gatherings by more than three households doesn’t apply to eateries. But … why doesn’t it? The fact that Newsom was arguably within the bounds of his own guidance doesn’t mean he behaved appropriately. It means his guidance is stupid.
Speaking of terrible leadership, this tweet also caught my eye last night:
Great news!
– Pfizer vaccine 90% effective
– Moderna vaccine 94.5% effective – Naturally acquired COVID-19 99.9982% percent effective* * (estimating 200 reinfections out of 11 million Americans, which is likely an overestimation of actual reinfections) — Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) November 17, 2020
Paul is a medical doctor. He must grasp that the difference between naturally acquired immunity and vaccine-acquired immunity is a death toll of hundreds of thousands of people (and long-term debilitation for some survivors) on the one hand and a death toll on the other of … zero. So what’s he talking about? He’s not dumb, so it must be that his spite for experts like Fauci has deteriorated to a point of pure nihilism, where he’s trying to sell his constituents on the idea that natural immunity is somehow “better” than the kind provided by a vaccine. Make sure to spread some of those old-fashioned immunity-producing germs to grandma and grandpa on Thanksgiving, I guess.
Here’s Newsom, almost giggling his way through an apology for his decision to attend the dinner at the restaurant. At least he’s pretending to be sorry. Sort of.
Gov. Gavin Newsom apologizes for attending party at French Laundry: "We're all human. We all fall short sometimes." pic.twitter.com/GPegzxt0dl — The Hill (@thehill) November 17, 2020
Update: There’s probably a way this incident could be more embarrassing for Newsom and more damaging to the cause of getting people to take COVID seriously, but I can’t think of one offhand.


hotair--2020-11-18--Breaking: Trump to request *partial* recount in Wisconsin; <span class='red

Breaking: Trump to request *partial* recount in Wisconsin; Update: Dane and Milwaukee?

Hope the checkbook is handy !
Just getting in under the wire , Team Trump announced it would file for a recount in Wisconsin today .
They ’ re not recounting the entire state , though : As the Associated Press reported this morning , the campaign had a 5 pm CT deadline today to make this decision .
They also have to pony up nearly eight million dollars to fund it , or would have if they wanted to recount the whole state : The totals submitted by all 72 counties to the state elections commission showed Trump with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — close enough for Trump to file for a recount .
Biden widened his lead over Trump by 62 votes compared with unofficial totals posted by the counties before they were certified .
Trump has until 5 p.m. Wednesday to file for a recount and pay for it .
If he wants a statewide recount , he will have to pay $ 7.9 million up front .
He can also request recounts only in certain counties , which would reduce the cost .
A recount would have to start no later than Saturday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is , at least , a valid part of the electoral process .
It ’ s not an attempt to invalidate an entire election by getting the legislature to order a new set of electors , for instance .
Recounts might seem churlish to some , but the law provides for them for good reason — even if in this case the gap is far too wide to overcome in recounts , with Joe Biden holding a 20,400+ lead in the state .
So which counties will get the recount ?
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expect to make up more than a few hundred in any case , and the most populous are also the most rigidly Democratic — Dane and Milwaukee .
Trump lost those two counties by a combined 350,000 or so votes , so those have the highest mathematical potential for conversion .
If you know anything about Dane or Milwaukee , however , the lopsided losses Trump suffered are no surprise , and it seems highly unlikely that he ’ d get enough votes in a recount of either to put a dent in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those two counties , Team Trump would have to recount a significant number of counties to find more than a handful of votes .
The parsing of counties might present another problem .
Part of Bush v Gore was an argument over how to recount Florida ; Al Gore wanted only certain counties recounted , while George Bush argued that any recount had to be statewide to be legitimate .
In that case , Florida ordered the recount rather than a request from either campaign , and Wisconsin law apparently allows for partial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue in court , assuming it gets that far .
It ’ s almost certain to be moot anyway .
As we have repeatedly discovered , recounts don ’ t change vote totals in the thousands , but only in the hundreds .
A 20,000-vote gap won ’ t change enough for Team Biden to initiate any legal action .
This is just another step toward resolution — perhaps not as quick as some would like , but a perfectly legal and reasonable check on the electoral process .
Update : They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to CNN and Jason Calvi : That is almost certain to be a waste of both time and money , but one can see why they ’ re making this choice .
It ’ s the total number of votes , which is masking the limited potential for any success .
Here are the results so far in Dane and Milwaukee : The problem is that this isn ’ t much different than in 2016 , when Trump won Wisconsin : Biden marginally outperformed Clinton in both cities , but that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won Wisconsin in 2016 in other counties , not in Dane or Milwaukee .
A recount that focuses only on the two Democratic centers of power in the state is a recount doomed to failure .

Hope the checkbook is handy! Just getting in under the wire, Team Trump announced it would file for a recount in Wisconsin today. They’re not recounting the entire state, though:
BREAKING: The @realDonaldTrump Campaign will be filing for a recount in the state of Wisconsin today — John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) November 18, 2020
UPDATE TO BREAKING: The @realDonaldTrump WI recount request will NOT be statewide – it will be a PARTIAL recount in several key counties. No word on WHICH counties yet. — John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) November 18, 2020
As the Associated Press reported this morning, the campaign had a 5 pm CT deadline today to make this decision. They also have to pony up nearly eight million dollars to fund it, or would have if they wanted to recount the whole state:
The totals submitted by all 72 counties to the state elections commission showed Trump with a roughly six-tenths of a point margin — close enough for Trump to file for a recount. Biden widened his lead over Trump by 62 votes compared with unofficial totals posted by the counties before they were certified. Trump has until 5 p.m. Wednesday to file for a recount and pay for it. If he wants a statewide recount, he will have to pay $7.9 million up front. He can also request recounts only in certain counties, which would reduce the cost. A recount would have to start no later than Saturday and be done by Dec. 1.
They’re paying less than half:
Wisconsin Recount: GOP election commissioner says the Trump campaign paid $3 million for a recount. They can ask for recounts of specific counties; statewide they would need to turn in $7.9M. https://t.co/LqPLikVgMQ — Jason Calvi (@JasonCalvi) November 18, 2020
This is, at least, a valid part of the electoral process. It’s not an attempt to invalidate an entire election by getting the legislature to order a new set of electors, for instance. Recounts might seem churlish to some, but the law provides for them for good reason — even if in this case the gap is far too wide to overcome in recounts, with Joe Biden holding a 20,400+ lead in the state.
So which counties will get the recount? There aren’t many where Trump can expect to make up more than a few hundred in any case, and the most populous are also the most rigidly Democratic — Dane and Milwaukee. Trump lost those two counties by a combined 350,000 or so votes, so those have the highest mathematical potential for conversion. If you know anything about Dane or Milwaukee, however, the lopsided losses Trump suffered are no surprise, and it seems highly unlikely that he’d get enough votes in a recount of either to put a dent in Biden’s lead. Outside of those two counties, Team Trump would have to recount a significant number of counties to find more than a handful of votes.
The parsing of counties might present another problem. Part of Bush v Gore was an argument over how to recount Florida; Al Gore wanted only certain counties recounted, while George Bush argued that any recount had to be statewide to be legitimate. In that case, Florida ordered the recount rather than a request from either campaign, and Wisconsin law apparently allows for partial recounts. It still might become an issue in court, assuming it gets that far.
It’s almost certain to be moot anyway. As we have repeatedly discovered, recounts don’t change vote totals in the thousands, but only in the hundreds. A 20,000-vote gap won’t change enough for Team Biden to initiate any legal action. This is just another step toward resolution — perhaps not as quick as some would like, but a perfectly legal and reasonable check on the electoral process.
Update: They’re sticking with the mathematical prospects, according to CNN and Jason Calvi:
The Trump campaign is filing a request for a recount in two counties in Wisconsin — Milwaukee and Dane. It will cost an estimated $3 million — much less expensive than a statewide recount, which was expected to cost nearly $8 million. — Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) November 18, 2020
BREAKING: President Trump will request a recount of the state's most populous counties: Dane and Milwaukee. More below ⏬ pic.twitter.com/59PCCm8hHc — Jason Calvi (@JasonCalvi) November 18, 2020
That is almost certain to be a waste of both time and money, but one can see why they’re making this choice. It’s the total number of votes, which is masking the limited potential for any success. Here are the results so far in Dane and Milwaukee:
Dane: 260,157 Biden, 78,789 Trump (75.72/22.93)
Milwaukee: 317,251 Biden, 134,355 Trump (69.37/29.38)
The problem is that this isn’t much different than in 2016, when Trump won Wisconsin:
Dane: 217,697 Clinton, 71,275 Trump (71.4/23.4)
Milwaukee: 288,822 Clinton, 126,069 Trump (66.4/29.0)
Biden marginally outperformed Clinton in both cities, but that’s not a big surprise. Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 in other counties, not in Dane or Milwaukee. A recount that focuses only on the two Democratic centers of power in the state is a recount doomed to failure.


hotair--2020-11-18--New study on wearing cloth face masks: protection is "statistically insignificant"

As we all listen to people from Dr. Anthony Fauci to Joe Biden talking about the need for a national face mask mandate in response to a resurgence of the virus , we ’ re faced with the same question we ’ ve been wrestling with since the pandemic began .
Do cloth face masks actually do anything to protect you ?
Experts from the WHO to the CDC have flip-flopped on the question while the masks themselves have become the subject of political fodder more than medical science .
I ’ ve tried researching the question myself over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if nobody has ever done a definitive clinical study on the question .
Now that situation has changed .
Doctors in Denmark have just released the results of what ’ s being described as a first of its kind study on the effectiveness of wearing face masks .
Their conclusions are going to cause a lot of people in the pro-mandate camp plenty of consternation .
They determined that while a cloth mask can definitely reduce transmissions from infected people to others , any protection provided by them to the uninfected is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t stop the New York Times from doing backflips in an effort to call the validity of the study into question .
A new study , the first of its kind , is likely to inflame the controversy .
Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial .
The study , published in the Annals of Internal Medicine , did not contradict growing evidence that masks can prevent transmission of the virus from wearer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at odds with the view that masks also protect the wearers — a position endorsed just last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention… About 4,860 participants completed the study .
The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers .
Instead , 42 people in the mask group , or 1.8 percent , got infected , compared with 53 in the unmasked group , or 2.1 percent .
The difference was not statistically significant .
As I said at the top , the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can dredge up to call the results of this study into question .
They note that the infection rate in Denmark was roughly 2 % during the course of the study , somewhat lower than in America and most of the rest of Europe .
So maybe not as many people were exposed ?
They also noted that participants reported their own results , apparently suggesting that they could have lied about their mask usage .
This all sounds like pretty weak tea .
Here are a few things about the study we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , the participants were all given surgical masks to wear .
While not as good as a medical-grade N95 mask , those are still thicker and designed to better fit your face than the vast majority of decorative cloth face masks most of us are wearing .
And even with surgical masks , the number of people who were infected in the study was only 0.3 % lower than among those wearing no mask at all .
The one thing everyone seems to agree on is the fact that a person who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not eliminate ) the amount of virus they spew into the air when coughing or sneezing .
It ’ s still nowhere close to being 100 % effective , but they at least have a chance of attenuating the amount of the virus that gets launched into the environment .
But once it ’ s out and floating around , it appears that masks for the uninfected have , as one study author put it , “ a symbolic effect ” for the wearer , but “ a mask does not substantially reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we supposed to do with this information now ?
Everyone has been walking around the United States looking like they were ready to rob a bank for the past eight months .
( And a significant number of criminals actually did just that . )
If Biden is sworn in as president , we could be looking at a national mask mandate .
And all the while some of the actual experts in the field are telling us that unless you ’ re contagious yourself , all of this mask-wearing business was really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better ” about our chances ?
Perhaps we should go back to the idea of letting the individual decide if they want to wear a mask and what type they should select .
What we ’ re really all waiting for is the vaccine .
In the meantime , the vast , vast majority of you who do unfortunately contract the virus will survive it with few , if any lasting ill effects .
( I don ’ t count myself in that class due to my age and previous respiratory issues .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ m just pretty much assuming I ’ ll die . )
We ’ re just going to have to continue to slog along as best we can and hope that the new vaccines are effective and arrive soon .

As we all listen to people from Dr. Anthony Fauci to Joe Biden talking about the need for a national face mask mandate in response to a resurgence of the virus, we’re faced with the same question we’ve been wrestling with since the pandemic began. Do cloth face masks actually do anything to protect you? Experts from the WHO to the CDC have flip-flopped on the question while the masks themselves have become the subject of political fodder more than medical science. I’ve tried researching the question myself over the past few months but it seemed as if nobody has ever done a definitive clinical study on the question.
Now that situation has changed. Doctors in Denmark have just released the results of what’s being described as a first of its kind study on the effectiveness of wearing face masks. Their conclusions are going to cause a lot of people in the pro-mandate camp plenty of consternation. They determined that while a cloth mask can definitely reduce transmissions from infected people to others, any protection provided by them to the uninfected is “statistically insignificant.” Of course, that didn’t stop the New York Times from doing backflips in an effort to call the validity of the study into question.
A new study, the first of its kind, is likely to inflame the controversy. Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial. The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, did not contradict growing evidence that masks can prevent transmission of the virus from wearer to others. But the conclusion is at odds with the view that masks also protect the wearers — a position endorsed just last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention… About 4,860 participants completed the study. The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant.
As I said at the top, the New York Times is pushing every theory they can dredge up to call the results of this study into question. They note that the infection rate in Denmark was roughly 2% during the course of the study, somewhat lower than in America and most of the rest of Europe. So maybe not as many people were exposed? They also noted that participants reported their own results, apparently suggesting that they could have lied about their mask usage. This all sounds like pretty weak tea.
Here are a few things about the study we should pay attention to. First of all, the participants were all given surgical masks to wear. While not as good as a medical-grade N95 mask, those are still thicker and designed to better fit your face than the vast majority of decorative cloth face masks most of us are wearing. And even with surgical masks, the number of people who were infected in the study was only 0.3% lower than among those wearing no mask at all.
The one thing everyone seems to agree on is the fact that a person who is infected and symptomatic can reduce (not eliminate) the amount of virus they spew into the air when coughing or sneezing. It’s still nowhere close to being 100% effective, but they at least have a chance of attenuating the amount of the virus that gets launched into the environment. But once it’s out and floating around, it appears that masks for the uninfected have, as one study author put it, “a symbolic effect” for the wearer, but “a mask does not substantially reduce risk.”
So what the heck are we supposed to do with this information now? Everyone has been walking around the United States looking like they were ready to rob a bank for the past eight months. (And a significant number of criminals actually did just that.) If Biden is sworn in as president, we could be looking at a national mask mandate. And all the while some of the actual experts in the field are telling us that unless you’re contagious yourself, all of this mask-wearing business was really only designed to make us “feel better” about our chances?
Perhaps we should go back to the idea of letting the individual decide if they want to wear a mask and what type they should select. What we’re really all waiting for is the vaccine. In the meantime, the vast, vast majority of you who do unfortunately contract the virus will survive it with few, if any lasting ill effects. (I don’t count myself in that class due to my age and previous respiratory issues. If I catch COVID, I’m just pretty much assuming I’ll die.) We’re just going to have to continue to slog along as best we can and hope that the new vaccines are effective and arrive soon.


hotair--2020-11-18--Twitter CEO: Yeah, it was probably "wrong" to block the Hunter Biden laptop story

Hey , do you remember that story about Hunter Biden ’ s laptop and the sweet deals he made while agreeing to cut “ the big guy ” in for a piece of the action ?
No ?
Oh , then you must have been getting all of your election news from CNN , MSNBC or the social media tech giants .
They locked that story down harder than a synagogue in New York City under Bill de Blasio .
But now that Blue America seems to feel that the coast is clear and Hunter ’ s father Joe is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House , perhaps that sort of media blackout will be coming to an end .
As National Review points out , Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was pausing for a few moments of reflection during congressional hearings yesterday and considering the possibility that perhaps his outfit shouldn ’ t have censored everyone trying to discuss the laptop story online .
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Tuesday acknowledged that the platform was “ wrong ” to block a New York Post report about Hunter Biden last month… Dorsey responded in his opening remarks , explaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block the story in accordance with a 2018 policy against sharing hacked materials .
“ We made a quick interpretation using no other evidence that the materials in the article were obtained through hacking , and according to our policy , we blocked them from being spread , ” Dorsey testified .
“ Upon further consideration , we admitted this action was wrong and corrected it within 24 hours.
” We should check and see if that testimony was given under oath because Dorsey was most certainly wrong about “ correcting ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Post ’ s Twitter account was locked for six weeks .
And they clearly continued to either flag or shadowban anyone talking about the paper ’ s article on the younger Biden ’ s laptop .
Their feeble excuse for doing so was that the Post ’ s original article shouldn ’ t be entirely blocked , but the first tweet about it had taken place before the policy changed so they still weren ’ t going to unlock the account unless the Post deleted it .
The paper refused to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter caved .
So does this mean that any stories seen as potentially damaging to Sleepy Joe ’ s reputation will now be allowed to run freely across social media ?
Possibly , but not because of some new tide of responsibility and transparency at Twitter HQ or Facebook .
There is more afoot in this drama than first meets the eye , or so I would wager , anyway .
Isn ’ t this just what many conservatives were predicting all along ?
Once liberals felt that the election was safely behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been defeated , all sorts of things would suddenly be okay to talk about .
( Specifically Joe Biden ’ s China and Ukraine connections and sexual assault accusations against him . )
Other things would suddenly become far less important to talk about , including what a “ poor job ” the government was doing to control the pandemic once Uncle Joe takes office .
Of course , any credit for a successful vaccine will be given to the incoming administration , despite all of the development work being rushed through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But why allow the Hunter Biden news to flow freely now ?
Here ’ s a thought .
For many Democrats , Joe Biden was hardly their first choice to be president .
But he did serve as a useful vehicle to get Kamala Harris into the Vice Presidency .
And do they really want to wait around for four or eight long years before celebrating her “ success ” in becoming the historic First Female President ?
Probably not .
So if anything were to happen that would gently give Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that wouldn ’ t be the worst thing in the world , right ?
They could just thank Joe for his service , wish him the best in his retirement years and begin planning Harris ’ inaugural gala .
Some of you are no doubt already writing this off as a wacky idea that quickly veers into conspiracy theory territory .
But is it really ?
Time shall tell .

Hey, do you remember that story about Hunter Biden’s laptop and the sweet deals he made while agreeing to cut “the big guy” in for a piece of the action? No? Oh, then you must have been getting all of your election news from CNN, MSNBC or the social media tech giants. They locked that story down harder than a synagogue in New York City under Bill de Blasio. But now that Blue America seems to feel that the coast is clear and Hunter’s father Joe is safely on his way to the White House, perhaps that sort of media blackout will be coming to an end. As National Review points out, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was pausing for a few moments of reflection during congressional hearings yesterday and considering the possibility that perhaps his outfit shouldn’t have censored everyone trying to discuss the laptop story online.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Tuesday acknowledged that the platform was “wrong” to block a New York Post report about Hunter Biden last month… Dorsey responded in his opening remarks, explaining that the platform made the decision to block the story in accordance with a 2018 policy against sharing hacked materials. “We made a quick interpretation using no other evidence that the materials in the article were obtained through hacking, and according to our policy, we blocked them from being spread,” Dorsey testified. “Upon further consideration, we admitted this action was wrong and corrected it within 24 hours.”
We should check and see if that testimony was given under oath because Dorsey was most certainly wrong about “correcting” the decision within 24 hours. The New York Post’s Twitter account was locked for six weeks. And they clearly continued to either flag or shadowban anyone talking about the paper’s article on the younger Biden’s laptop. Their feeble excuse for doing so was that the Post’s original article shouldn’t be entirely blocked, but the first tweet about it had taken place before the policy changed so they still weren’t going to unlock the account unless the Post deleted it. The paper refused to do so until the stalemate finally ended and Twitter caved.
So does this mean that any stories seen as potentially damaging to Sleepy Joe’s reputation will now be allowed to run freely across social media? Possibly, but not because of some new tide of responsibility and transparency at Twitter HQ or Facebook. There is more afoot in this drama than first meets the eye, or so I would wager, anyway.
Isn’t this just what many conservatives were predicting all along? Once liberals felt that the election was safely behind them and that the Bad Orange Man had been defeated, all sorts of things would suddenly be okay to talk about. (Specifically Joe Biden’s China and Ukraine connections and sexual assault accusations against him.) Other things would suddenly become far less important to talk about, including what a “poor job” the government was doing to control the pandemic once Uncle Joe takes office. Of course, any credit for a successful vaccine will be given to the incoming administration, despite all of the development work being rushed through while Donald Trump was in office.
But why allow the Hunter Biden news to flow freely now? Here’s a thought. For many Democrats, Joe Biden was hardly their first choice to be president. But he did serve as a useful vehicle to get Kamala Harris into the Vice Presidency. And do they really want to wait around for four or eight long years before celebrating her “success” in becoming the historic First Female President? Probably not. So if anything were to happen that would gently give Joe Biden a shove toward an early exit, that wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world, right? They could just thank Joe for his service, wish him the best in his retirement years and begin planning Harris’ inaugural gala.
Some of you are no doubt already writing this off as a wacky idea that quickly veers into conspiracy theory territory. But is it really? Time shall tell.


hotair--2020-11-18--Great news from House Dems: Pelosi running unopposed for Speaker

At first I worried about Republican prospects for the upcoming midterms .
Surely , thought I , Democrats would learn a hard lesson on the cheap in 2020 .
They already have begun discussing how they managed to lose ground everywhere else while winning the presidential election , hinting that their progressive leadership had marched them into a cul-de-sac .
And then I read about today ’ s leadership elections in the House Democratic caucus .
Hope restored !
House Democrats on Wednesday will launch the delicate affair of choosing their leadership team in the next Congress , a routine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significance following the party ’ s battering at the polls two weeks ago .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) and her top lieutenants — Majority Leader Steny Hoyer ( D-Md . )
and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn ( D-S.C. ) — are all running uncontested , setting the stage for the same power lineup to return for another term after 14 years together at the helm .
That grip on authority comes even despite some rank-and-file lobbying for a leadership facelift following a dismal election cycle when Democrats were forecasting large gains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see their majority shrink instead .
Emphasis mine .
It ’ s not just Pelosi who won ’ t get challenged , but her entire octagenarian entourage getting a free pass , too .
This leadership team has generated the worst performance in a presidential-election win than any time in modern history , at least to my recollection , and they ’ re not just getting another two years at the top — their caucus isn ’ t even bothering to challenge their ineptitude .
Has there ever been a caucus leader who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including two presidential cycles won by her party ( 2012 and 2020 ) , that has gotten a free pass for another term as leader ?
Democrats had more cojones two years ago when they briefly forced Pelosi into pledging to only run for one more term as Speaker , and Pelosi actually won those midterms .
After this embarrassing performance , they ’ re not even bothering to hold her to that promise or even make her work hard to break it .
Pathetic .
Over in the Senate , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same , although Chuck Schumer ’ s at least a bit more humble about it .
The once and future Senate Minority Leader has held two “ listening sessions ” with his caucus to allow them to vent about what went wrong in 2020 , but no one ’ s challenging him either : Schumer has largely stayed quiet on the calls , giving his colleagues a chance to speak freely without interruption , Democratic senators say .
No one criticized Schumer ’ s leadership directly but there were some comments that were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senatorial Campaign Committee .
Democratic senators said Schumer has done a good job maintaining relations within the Democratic caucus and keeping the party unified on key votes .
Lawmakers said no colleague has offered himself or herself as a leadership alternative .
Not even when decisions like this are laid at Schumer ’ s doorstep ?
In particular , there ’ s some second-guessing of the DSCC ’ s decision to back Amy McGrath , a former Marine Corps fighter pilot , in the Kentucky Democratic primary over Charles Booker , a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in recruiting McGrath to take on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) , who wound up winning re-election by 20 percentage points , even after McGrath raised $ 90 million for her campaign .
Basically , Democrats in the House and Senate are incentivizing failure by allowing their barnacle-encrusted progressive leadership to escape any accountability whatsoever .
That makes me very hopeful for the 2022 elections , especially after voters get a load of the barnacle-encrusted president they just elected .

At first I worried about Republican prospects for the upcoming midterms. Surely, thought I, Democrats would learn a hard lesson on the cheap in 2020. They already have begun discussing how they managed to lose ground everywhere else while winning the presidential election, hinting that their progressive leadership had marched them into a cul-de-sac.
And then I read about today’s leadership elections in the House Democratic caucus. Hope restored!
House Democrats on Wednesday will launch the delicate affair of choosing their leadership team in the next Congress, a routine exercise that’s taken on outsized significance following the party’s battering at the polls two weeks ago. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her top lieutenants — Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) — are all running uncontested, setting the stage for the same power lineup to return for another term after 14 years together at the helm. That grip on authority comes even despite some rank-and-file lobbying for a leadership facelift following a dismal election cycle when Democrats were forecasting large gains in the lower chamber, only to see their majority shrink instead.
Emphasis mine. It’s not just Pelosi who won’t get challenged, but her entire octagenarian entourage getting a free pass, too. This leadership team has generated the worst performance in a presidential-election win than any time in modern history, at least to my recollection, and they’re not just getting another two years at the top — their caucus isn’t even bothering to challenge their ineptitude.
Has there ever been a caucus leader who arguably lost five out of six elections, including two presidential cycles won by her party (2012 and 2020), that has gotten a free pass for another term as leader? Democrats had more cojones two years ago when they briefly forced Pelosi into pledging to only run for one more term as Speaker, and Pelosi actually won those midterms. After this embarrassing performance, they’re not even bothering to hold her to that promise or even make her work hard to break it. Pathetic.
Over in the Senate, it’s looking like more of the same, although Chuck Schumer’s at least a bit more humble about it. The once and future Senate Minority Leader has held two “listening sessions” with his caucus to allow them to vent about what went wrong in 2020, but no one’s challenging him either:
Schumer has largely stayed quiet on the calls, giving his colleagues a chance to speak freely without interruption, Democratic senators say. No one criticized Schumer’s leadership directly but there were some comments that were viewed as indirect criticisms of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Democratic senators said Schumer has done a good job maintaining relations within the Democratic caucus and keeping the party unified on key votes. Lawmakers said no colleague has offered himself or herself as a leadership alternative.
Not even when decisions like this are laid at Schumer’s doorstep?
In particular, there’s some second-guessing of the DSCC’s decision to back Amy McGrath, a former Marine Corps fighter pilot, in the Kentucky Democratic primary over Charles Booker, a state representative. Schumer played an active role in recruiting McGrath to take on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who wound up winning re-election by 20 percentage points, even after McGrath raised $90 million for her campaign.
Basically, Democrats in the House and Senate are incentivizing failure by allowing their barnacle-encrusted progressive leadership to escape any accountability whatsoever. That makes me very hopeful for the 2022 elections, especially after voters get a load of the barnacle-encrusted president they just elected.


hotair--2020-11-18--Even more Warnock: Nobody can serve both God and the military

Georgia Democratic Senate candidate Raphael Warnock continues to be the gift that keeps on giving… at least for Republicans .
The runoff election between Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler and the Pastor was supposed to be one that Georgia Democrats could turn into a competitive battle in a traditionally red state .
And they still might if they can maintain the high turnout rates and enthusiasm seen in the general election .
That ’ s a mighty big “ if , ” however , and their cause isn ’ t being helped any by the ghosts of Warnock ’ s past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The latest example comes from yet another of Warnock ’ s recorded sermons , of which there seem to be thousands .
This one comes to us from 2011 , given at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta .
For some reason , Warnock goes off on a bit of a tirade about how it ’ s impossible for anyone to “ serve God and the military.
” Given the massive military presence in Georgia , that may not sit well with a lot of families around the state .
( Free Beacon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a 2011 sermon that Americans can not serve God while also serving in the U.S. military .
The newly unearthed comments threaten to complicate Warnock ’ s candidacy in a tight Georgia Senate race : Georgia is home to the fifth largest active duty military population in the country , according to a 2018 Department of Defense report .
“ America , nobody can serve God and the military , ” Warnock said in the sermon delivered at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta , where he serves as senior pastor .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money .
You can not serve God and mammon at the same time.
” Warnock goes on to demand that America “ choose ye this day !
” It ’ s an apparent reference to picking a side between serving your country in uniform or serving God .
Here ’ s the video , just to give you the full effect of the preacher ’ s enthusiasm for this proposition .
It ’ s certainly a curious choice to talk about serving money , or mammon ( the inherent evil of wealth ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The budget for the United States ’ armed forces is certainly massive , but the individual service members , particularly the enlisted men and women , aren ’ t exactly rolling in dough .
In fact , if most of the single , entry-level soldiers , sailors and airmen weren ’ t provided with free housing and meals on base , they probably couldn ’ t afford to survive , given the cost of living around most bases .
( This is particularly true of San Diego . )
But Warnock doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ the money ” in terms of the conflict of interest he perceives .
He obviously saw something inherently evil , or at least ungodly , in enlisting to fight and potentially die for your country .
One would have to wonder why he would arrive at that conclusion and preach such things to his flock .
We ’ ve heard arguments in the past about how killing is never acceptable in the eyes of the Lord based on the commandment “ Thou shalt not kill.
” But most biblical scholars these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ translation didn ’ t say “ kill , ” but rather “ murder.
” Fighting in battle and taking the life of your enemy isn ’ t considered unjust murder .
Nor is taking a life in self-defense for that matter .
In any event , I ’ d imagine that this doesn ’ t paint Warnock in a very good light , particularly when it comes to military families .
And keep in mind , this is the same guy who told the world that everyone needed to repent for their worship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supported by the Bible .
There have to be some leaders in the Georgia Democratic Party who are slamming their heads into their desks about now .

Georgia Democratic Senate candidate Raphael Warnock continues to be the gift that keeps on giving… at least for Republicans. The runoff election between Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler and the Pastor was supposed to be one that Georgia Democrats could turn into a competitive battle in a traditionally red state. And they still might if they can maintain the high turnout rates and enthusiasm seen in the general election. That’s a mighty big “if,” however, and their cause isn’t being helped any by the ghosts of Warnock’s past that keep popping out of his closet.
The latest example comes from yet another of Warnock’s recorded sermons, of which there seem to be thousands. This one comes to us from 2011, given at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. For some reason, Warnock goes off on a bit of a tirade about how it’s impossible for anyone to “serve God and the military.” Given the massive military presence in Georgia, that may not sit well with a lot of families around the state. (Free Beacon)
Democratic Senate candidate Raphael Warnock said in a 2011 sermon that Americans cannot serve God while also serving in the U.S. military. The newly unearthed comments threaten to complicate Warnock’s candidacy in a tight Georgia Senate race: Georgia is home to the fifth largest active duty military population in the country, according to a 2018 Department of Defense report. “America, nobody can serve God and the military,” Warnock said in the sermon delivered at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where he serves as senior pastor. “You can’t serve God and money. You cannot serve God and mammon at the same time.”
Warnock goes on to demand that America “choose ye this day!” It’s an apparent reference to picking a side between serving your country in uniform or serving God. Here’s the video, just to give you the full effect of the preacher’s enthusiasm for this proposition.
It’s certainly a curious choice to talk about serving money, or mammon (the inherent evil of wealth) when talking about people in the military. The budget for the United States’ armed forces is certainly massive, but the individual service members, particularly the enlisted men and women, aren’t exactly rolling in dough. In fact, if most of the single, entry-level soldiers, sailors and airmen weren’t provided with free housing and meals on base, they probably couldn’t afford to survive, given the cost of living around most bases. (This is particularly true of San Diego.)
But Warnock doesn’t appear to be only speaking of “the money” in terms of the conflict of interest he perceives. He obviously saw something inherently evil, or at least ungodly, in enlisting to fight and potentially die for your country. One would have to wonder why he would arrive at that conclusion and preach such things to his flock. We’ve heard arguments in the past about how killing is never acceptable in the eyes of the Lord based on the commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” But most biblical scholars these days seem to agree that the actual translation didn’t say “kill,” but rather “murder.” Fighting in battle and taking the life of your enemy isn’t considered unjust murder. Nor is taking a life in self-defense for that matter.
In any event, I’d imagine that this doesn’t paint Warnock in a very good light, particularly when it comes to military families. And keep in mind, this is the same guy who told the world that everyone needed to repent for their worship of whiteness and claimed that socialism is supported by the Bible. There have to be some leaders in the Georgia Democratic Party who are slamming their heads into their desks about now.


hotair--2020-11-19--Anti-cop platform didn't work out well for Dem trying to flip Peter King's seat

This will turn out to be yet another unhappy story for the Democrats as we grind our way through all of the election results .
One race out on Long Island in New York State had been touted as potentially being yet another Democratic pick up in the House this year .
In New York ’ s Second Congressional District , Congressman Peter King is retiring after decades of public service .
Given the tumultuous conditions in New York City , Democrats thought they saw an opportunity .
While state assemblyman Andrew Gabarino won the primary for the Republicans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an activist who had supported various efforts to defund or abolish the police .
Well , somebody didn ’ t do a very good job of reading the tea leaves .
It took Gordon until yesterday to finally concede , but Gabarino won the seat and , in the end , it really wasn ’ t even close .
( Free Beacon ) New York assemblyman Andrew Garbarino ( R. ) picked up the seat of retiring Long Island Rep. Peter King ( R. , N.Y. ) in a decisive victory over a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups .
Democrat Jackie Gordon called Garbarino Wednesday evening to concede the race over two weeks after Election Day .
Garbarino ultimately defeated Gordon with 56.9 percent of the vote to Gordon ’ s 42.2 percent… “ I am honored and excited to succeed Congressman Peter King and represent New York ’ s 2nd Congressional District in Washington , ” Garbarino wrote in a statement .
“ In addition to supporting small businesses and fighting to lower taxes , I look forward to working with our brave law enforcement to keep communities safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting our veterans , and delivering real results for Long Island families.
” There was one aspect of this race that ’ s worth noting , though we ’ ve seen the same thing taking place in districts all over the country .
The final tally shows Gabarino defeating Gordon by a full fifteen points .
But in the final days before the election , the Cook Political Report rated the race as a toss-up .
How did the pollsters manage to get this one so abysmally wrong ?
If there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the call for someone who ends up losing by a point or two , that ’ s understandable .
But fifteen points ?
Considering that we ’ re not talking about a district that ’ s as massively tilted to one side or the other ( like most of Manhattan , for example ) , fifteen points is basically a blowout .
For Gordon to have even made the race competitive would have been a fairly shocking turn of events and could have signaled some sort of sea change .
The Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s definitely cut in a way that favors conservatives .
Peter King won his last four races there ( since the district lines were last redrawn ) by margins of 18 , 37 ( ! )
, 24 , and 6 percent .
( 2018 was something of an outlier . )
So a Gabarino win by fifteen seems to fall well within the typical range for Republicans running in that district .
And yet somehow , the polling community managed to convince themselves that Gordon would magically turn this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chalk this contest up as one more example of how the “ blue wave ” turned into a washout .
In order for the Democrats to somehow expand the majority they picked up in 2018 they were always going to have to start flipping a bunch of typically red seats into the blue column .
Instead , the Republicans have been taking back any number of seats they lost last time and shrinking Nancy Pelosi ’ s majority day after day .
Jackie Gordon is just the latest example of this phenomenon .

This will turn out to be yet another unhappy story for the Democrats as we grind our way through all of the election results. One race out on Long Island in New York State had been touted as potentially being yet another Democratic pick up in the House this year. In New York’s Second Congressional District, Congressman Peter King is retiring after decades of public service. Given the tumultuous conditions in New York City, Democrats thought they saw an opportunity. While state assemblyman Andrew Gabarino won the primary for the Republicans, the Democrats put up Jackie Gordon, an activist who had supported various efforts to defund or abolish the police.
Well, somebody didn’t do a very good job of reading the tea leaves. It took Gordon until yesterday to finally concede, but Gabarino won the seat and, in the end, it really wasn’t even close. (Free Beacon)
New York assemblyman Andrew Garbarino (R.) picked up the seat of retiring Long Island Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) in a decisive victory over a Democratic candidate who touted ties to anti-police groups. Democrat Jackie Gordon called Garbarino Wednesday evening to concede the race over two weeks after Election Day. Garbarino ultimately defeated Gordon with 56.9 percent of the vote to Gordon’s 42.2 percent… “I am honored and excited to succeed Congressman Peter King and represent New York’s 2nd Congressional District in Washington,” Garbarino wrote in a statement. “In addition to supporting small businesses and fighting to lower taxes, I look forward to working with our brave law enforcement to keep communities safe, fighting to preserve our environment, supporting our veterans, and delivering real results for Long Island families.”
There was one aspect of this race that’s worth noting, though we’ve seen the same thing taking place in districts all over the country. The final tally shows Gabarino defeating Gordon by a full fifteen points. But in the final days before the election, the Cook Political Report rated the race as a toss-up.
How did the pollsters manage to get this one so abysmally wrong? If there’s a true neck-and-neck battle brewing and you make the call for someone who ends up losing by a point or two, that’s understandable. But fifteen points? Considering that we’re not talking about a district that’s as massively tilted to one side or the other (like most of Manhattan, for example), fifteen points is basically a blowout.
For Gordon to have even made the race competitive would have been a fairly shocking turn of events and could have signaled some sort of sea change. The Second District may not be totally lopsided, but it’s definitely cut in a way that favors conservatives. Peter King won his last four races there (since the district lines were last redrawn) by margins of 18, 37 (!), 24, and 6 percent. (2018 was something of an outlier.) So a Gabarino win by fifteen seems to fall well within the typical range for Republicans running in that district. And yet somehow, the polling community managed to convince themselves that Gordon would magically turn this into a horse race.
We can chalk this contest up as one more example of how the “blue wave” turned into a washout. In order for the Democrats to somehow expand the majority they picked up in 2018 they were always going to have to start flipping a bunch of typically red seats into the blue column. Instead, the Republicans have been taking back any number of seats they lost last time and shrinking Nancy Pelosi’s majority day after day. Jackie Gordon is just the latest example of this phenomenon.


hotair--2020-11-18--Dolly Parton is the hero we have been waiting for this year

Can we all just take a moment and acknowledge what a terrific person Dolly Parton has turned out to be ?
She ’ s a legend with country music lovers and she has entertained the world for decades .
Now she is receiving some well-deserved kudos for an act of philanthropy .
A very generous donation given by Dolly to Vanderbilt University contributed to the development of a coronavirus vaccine .
The story began seven years ago when Dolly Parton was in her first automobile accident .
She wasn ’ t seriously injured but she was sore and bruised so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center .
She met Naji Abumrad , a physician and professor of surgery , and a friendship soon developed .
Because of this friendship , Dolly a $ 1M donation to the university in April in honor of her friend , Dr. Abumrad .
The money was dedicated to supporting research teams working to perfect treatments and cures for COVID-19 .
At the time she said , “ What better time right now , we need this .
I felt like this was the time for me to open my heart and my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So she did and it did .
At the time of her donation , Vanderbilt University acknowledged other acts of generosity from the singer/songwriter/actress/businesswoman .
“ Dolly ’ s amazing generosity is a source of inspiration and will have a lasting impact on the battle against COVID-19 , ” said Jeff Balser , MD , PhD , President and CEO of VUMC and Dean of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine .
“ She cares so much about helping others and we are very grateful for her ongoing support .
These funds will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit millions in their battle with the virus.
” Parton has been a generous donor to VUMC .
Among her gifts was a transformational contribution to the Monroe Carell Jr. Children ’ s Hospital at Vanderbilt Pediatric Cancer Program in honor of Abumrad and her niece , Hannah Dennison , who was successfully treated for leukemia as a child at Children ’ s Hospital .
Parton ’ s $ 1M donation partially funded the biotechnology firm Moderna ’ s experimental vaccine .
The vaccine is reported to be 95 % effective .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abumrad recalled how Parton ’ s curiosity about Vanderbilt ’ s coronavirus research led to a gift that helped fund the vaccine that could be one of two available in the United States on a limited basis by the end of the year .
Among the agencies and universities listed as funding sources for the Moderna vaccine was “ the Dolly Parton COVID-19 Research Fund , ” which left some on social media joking about singing the refrain of her hit “ Jolene ” replaced with the word “ vaccine.
” The doctor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s contribution to the early stages of a vaccine that eventually received nearly $ 1 billion in federal funding .
“ Her work made it possible to expedite the science behind the testing , ” Abumrad , 76 , said on Tuesday night .
“ Without a doubt in my mind , her funding made the research toward the vaccine go 10 times faster than it would be without it.
” Dolly is doing interviews , promoting her new album ( “ A Holly Dolly Christmas ” ) and Netflix musical ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Square ” ) .
She was asked about her part in the vaccine development on the TODAY show Tuesday morning .
“ I ’ m just happy that anything I do can help somebody else.
” Though her contribution alone didn ’ t produce the vaccine , her donation was crucial in the early stages of research and testing .
Mark Denison , a physician , and professor of pathology , microbiology , and immunology said her money “ went a long way.
” “ Her money helped us develop the test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Moderna vaccine was giving people a good immune response that might protect them , ” Denison said .
Though the promising news surrounding the Moderna vaccine was far from an individual achievement , Denison told the New York Times that Parton ’ s $ 1 million donation went a long way toward funding the “ critical ” early stages of research and testing .
I knew she was very generous to her employees and that she kept her Dollywood employees on the payroll as long as possible after the coronavirus lockdowns began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the age of five , over a million books per year .
In 2018 , she donated her 100 millionth book to the Library of Congress .
Now she has the financial support for the medical community to add to the list .
She has given us the feel-good story for which we ’ ve all been waiting .

Can we all just take a moment and acknowledge what a terrific person Dolly Parton has turned out to be? She’s a legend with country music lovers and she has entertained the world for decades. Now she is receiving some well-deserved kudos for an act of philanthropy. A very generous donation given by Dolly to Vanderbilt University contributed to the development of a coronavirus vaccine.
The story began seven years ago when Dolly Parton was in her first automobile accident. She wasn’t seriously injured but she was sore and bruised so she sought treatment at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. She met Naji Abumrad, a physician and professor of surgery, and a friendship soon developed. Because of this friendship, Dolly a $1M donation to the university in April in honor of her friend, Dr. Abumrad. The money was dedicated to supporting research teams working to perfect treatments and cures for COVID-19. At the time she said, “What better time right now, we need this. I felt like this was the time for me to open my heart and my hand, and try to help.” So she did and it did.
At the time of her donation, Vanderbilt University acknowledged other acts of generosity from the singer/songwriter/actress/businesswoman.
“Dolly’s amazing generosity is a source of inspiration and will have a lasting impact on the battle against COVID-19,” said Jeff Balser, MD, PhD, President and CEO of VUMC and Dean of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. “She cares so much about helping others and we are very grateful for her ongoing support. These funds will help us complete promising research that can benefit millions in their battle with the virus.” Parton has been a generous donor to VUMC. Among her gifts was a transformational contribution to the Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt Pediatric Cancer Program in honor of Abumrad and her niece, Hannah Dennison, who was successfully treated for leukemia as a child at Children’s Hospital.
Parton’s $1M donation partially funded the biotechnology firm Moderna’s experimental vaccine. The vaccine is reported to be 95% effective.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Abumrad recalled how Parton’s curiosity about Vanderbilt’s coronavirus research led to a gift that helped fund the vaccine that could be one of two available in the United States on a limited basis by the end of the year. Among the agencies and universities listed as funding sources for the Moderna vaccine was “the Dolly Parton COVID-19 Research Fund,” which left some on social media joking about singing the refrain of her hit “Jolene” replaced with the word “vaccine.” The doctor said he was elated over his friend’s contribution to the early stages of a vaccine that eventually received nearly $1 billion in federal funding. “Her work made it possible to expedite the science behind the testing,” Abumrad, 76, said on Tuesday night. “Without a doubt in my mind, her funding made the research toward the vaccine go 10 times faster than it would be without it.”
Dolly is doing interviews, promoting her new album (“A Holly Dolly Christmas”) and Netflix musical (“Dolly Parton’s Christmas on the Square”). She was asked about her part in the vaccine development on the TODAY show Tuesday morning. “I’m just happy that anything I do can help somebody else.”
Though her contribution alone didn’t produce the vaccine, her donation was crucial in the early stages of research and testing. Mark Denison, a physician, and professor of pathology, microbiology, and immunology said her money “went a long way.”
“Her money helped us develop the test that we used to first show that the Moderna vaccine was giving people a good immune response that might protect them,” Denison said. Though the promising news surrounding the Moderna vaccine was far from an individual achievement, Denison told the New York Times that Parton’s $1 million donation went a long way toward funding the “critical” early stages of research and testing.
I knew she was very generous to her employees and that she kept her Dollywood employees on the payroll as long as possible after the coronavirus lockdowns began. She donates free books to children through the age of five, over a million books per year. In 2018, she donated her 100 millionth book to the Library of Congress. Now she has the financial support for the medical community to add to the list. She has given us the feel-good story for which we’ve all been waiting.


hotair--2020-11-20--Breaking: Pfizer to file today for emergency-use approval for COVID-19 vacc

Breaking: Pfizer to file today for emergency-use approval for COVID-19 vaccine

Merry Vaccine-mas , everyone !
Pfizer has broken the tape first with the FDA , or will within hours or even minutes with its emergency-use authorization request .
If granted , Pfizer says it will only take hours to start shipping its COVID-19 vaccine , and they believe that high-risk groups will get access before Christmas : The drugmaker Pfizer said it plans to submit an application to the Food and Drug Administration on Friday for emergency use authorization of its coronavirus vaccine .
That would set in motion an accelerated regulatory process that could allow the first Americans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December .
… An emergency authorization would allow limited groups of Americans to get the vaccines before the F.D.A .
has completed the typical monthslong approval process , but agency officials have made clear through new guidelines that their bar for emergency authorization will be high .
On the other hand , the FDA is also cognizant of the study data already .
Plus , Pfizer ’ s track record on safety and the urgent need for the vaccine will tilt the process toward expediting their approval .
However , the emergency-use approval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If there ’ s an emergency green light , “ that vaccine is still deemed investigational .
It ’ s not approved yet , ” Dr. Marion Gruber , chief of FDA ’ s vaccine office , told the National Academy of Medicine this week .
That means anyone offered an emergency vaccination must get a “ fact sheet ” describing potential benefits and risks before going through with the shot , she said .
There will be a lot of unknowns .
For example , the 95 % protection rate is based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were tested for the virus .
Can the vaccinated get infected but have no symptoms , able to spread the virus ?
How long does protection last ?
That ’ s why the 44,000-person study needs to keep running — something difficult considering ethically , participants given dummy shots at some point must be offered real vaccine , complicating the search for answers .
Some groups might be excluded from the vaccine due to the structure of the Phase 3 testing done .
Pfizer ’ s testing did not include pregnant women , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be performed before they can access it .
Moderna ’ s test groups didn ’ t include children , while Pfizer included children age 12 and above in its testing .
Children aren ’ t considered high-risk for COVID-19 anyway , but just the same , the testing will have to include them for any vaccinations to be approved .
Speaking of Moderna , they ’ re expected to follow suit shortly with their request .
Their vaccine is as effective but more easily stored and distributed .
That will help in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably not before Christmas , unless the FDA moves fast on both requests .
We ’ re not out of the tunnel yet , and it ’ s still going to be a while before we are .
This might be the brightest light yet that we ’ ve seen at the end of it , however , and it ’ s not going to be as long as we feared eight months ago .

Merry Vaccine-mas, everyone! Pfizer has broken the tape first with the FDA, or will within hours or even minutes with its emergency-use authorization request. If granted, Pfizer says it will only take hours to start shipping its COVID-19 vaccine, and they believe that high-risk groups will get access before Christmas:
The drugmaker Pfizer said it plans to submit an application to the Food and Drug Administration on Friday for emergency use authorization of its coronavirus vaccine. That would set in motion an accelerated regulatory process that could allow the first Americans to get a vaccine by the middle of December. … An emergency authorization would allow limited groups of Americans to get the vaccines before the F.D.A. has completed the typical monthslong approval process, but agency officials have made clear through new guidelines that their bar for emergency authorization will be high.
On the other hand, the FDA is also cognizant of the study data already. Plus, Pfizer’s track record on safety and the urgent need for the vaccine will tilt the process toward expediting their approval. However, the emergency-use approval is not a full green light:
If there’s an emergency green light, “that vaccine is still deemed investigational. It’s not approved yet,” Dr. Marion Gruber, chief of FDA’s vaccine office, told the National Academy of Medicine this week. That means anyone offered an emergency vaccination must get a “fact sheet” describing potential benefits and risks before going through with the shot, she said. There will be a lot of unknowns. For example, the 95% protection rate is based on people who developed symptoms and then were tested for the virus. Can the vaccinated get infected but have no symptoms, able to spread the virus? How long does protection last? That’s why the 44,000-person study needs to keep running — something difficult considering ethically, participants given dummy shots at some point must be offered real vaccine, complicating the search for answers.
Some groups might be excluded from the vaccine due to the structure of the Phase 3 testing done. Pfizer’s testing did not include pregnant women, which means additional safety testing will have to be performed before they can access it. Moderna’s test groups didn’t include children, while Pfizer included children age 12 and above in its testing. Children aren’t considered high-risk for COVID-19 anyway, but just the same, the testing will have to include them for any vaccinations to be approved.
Speaking of Moderna, they’re expected to follow suit shortly with their request. Their vaccine is as effective but more easily stored and distributed. That will help in the first quarter of next year but probably not before Christmas, unless the FDA moves fast on both requests.
We’re not out of the tunnel yet, and it’s still going to be a while before we are. This might be the brightest light yet that we’ve seen at the end of it, however, and it’s not going to be as long as we feared eight months ago.


hotair--2020-11-20--NY AG launches yet another tax probe of Donald and Ivanka Trump

Is Joe Biden the next president ?
Will Donald Trump somehow get a second term ?
None of that matters to New York Attorney General Letitia James .
Sticking with what has apparently been the only agenda she ’ s interested in since taking office , the self-avowed leader of the “ Resistance ” movement has launched yet another probe into the financial affairs of President Trump .
This one comes with a bit of a twist , however , since she ’ s dragging the President ’ s daughter Ivanka into the mix .
This time her questions involve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daughter through a company that she operated .
So what crime may have been committed here ?
We have no idea because the anonymous sources that the New York Times cited when reporting on these developments didn ’ t say .
( Associated Press ) New York ’ s attorney general has sent a subpoena to the Trump Organization for records related to consulting fees paid to Ivanka Trump as part of a broad civil investigation into the president ’ s business dealings , a law enforcement official said Thursday .
The New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported that a similar subpoena was sent to President Donald Trump ’ s company by the Manhattan district attorney , which is conducting a parallel criminal probe .
The Associated Press could not immediately independently confirm the district attorney ’ s subpoena but the one sent by Attorney General Letitia James was described by an official briefed on the investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity .
At issue here , according to the Gray Lady ’ s anonymous sources , is $ 747,622 that was allegedly paid to Ivanka Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ” for consulting services .
Letitia James would like to know if those fees were legitimate or if they were part of a much larger pattern of payments designed to reduce the President ’ s tax liability .
No suggestion is made that Ivanka Trump as done anything wrong by accepting the work .
For her part , Ivanka Trump described the probe as “ harassment pure and simple.
” If the payments were actually made and it can be shown that some reasonable services were rendered in return , the President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worry about .
Whether he got his money ’ s worth for his daughter ’ s consulting services is probably a question best left to his advisers .
Were this any other Attorney General , I might assume that she had received some sort of complaint via the IRS and was looking for proof that some sort of tax dodge was going on .
But since we ’ re talking about Ms. James , I ’ ll default to assuming that this is yet another fishing expedition intended to generate some headlines for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look into someone paying family members huge sums of money for dubious purposes , perhaps New York ’ s Attorney General could look into the business relationship between Ilhan Omar and her husband ’ s political consulting firm the E Street Group .
Tim Mynott ’ s firm received more than four times as much as Ivanka Trump did in less than two years to provide “ consultant services ” to a campaign that couldn ’ t have lost the last election if they tried .
But no… I don ’ t suppose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into that , even though Mynott presumably pools his income with his wife ’ s finances .
After all , they ’ re Democrats so they clearly wouldn ’ t do anything untoward .
( Insert eye-rolling emoji here . )
As we ’ ve noted here in the past , Letitia James ran for office on a pledge to cause as much trouble for Donald Trump as she could possibly manage .
Her interest in actually enforcing the laws of New York and prosecuting actual criminals has appeared minimal at best .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ state of the presidential race , it appears obvious that James plans to continue her vendetta against Donald Trump even after he leaves office .
The Attorney General ’ s blistering hatred of the President has truly left her unhinged .

Is Joe Biden the next president? Will Donald Trump somehow get a second term? None of that matters to New York Attorney General Letitia James. Sticking with what has apparently been the only agenda she’s interested in since taking office, the self-avowed leader of the “Resistance” movement has launched yet another probe into the financial affairs of President Trump. This one comes with a bit of a twist, however, since she’s dragging the President’s daughter Ivanka into the mix. This time her questions involve consulting fees paid to Trump’s daughter through a company that she operated. So what crime may have been committed here? We have no idea because the anonymous sources that the New York Times cited when reporting on these developments didn’t say. (Associated Press)
New York’s attorney general has sent a subpoena to the Trump Organization for records related to consulting fees paid to Ivanka Trump as part of a broad civil investigation into the president’s business dealings, a law enforcement official said Thursday. The New York Times, citing anonymous sources, reported that a similar subpoena was sent to President Donald Trump’s company by the Manhattan district attorney, which is conducting a parallel criminal probe. The Associated Press could not immediately independently confirm the district attorney’s subpoena but the one sent by Attorney General Letitia James was described by an official briefed on the investigation who spoke on condition of anonymity.
At issue here, according to the Gray Lady’s anonymous sources, is $747,622 that was allegedly paid to Ivanka Trump’s firm over a period of “several years” for consulting services. Letitia James would like to know if those fees were legitimate or if they were part of a much larger pattern of payments designed to reduce the President’s tax liability. No suggestion is made that Ivanka Trump as done anything wrong by accepting the work.
For her part, Ivanka Trump described the probe as “harassment pure and simple.”
This is harassment pure and simple. This ‘inquiry’ by NYC democrats is 100% motivated by politics, publicity and rage. They know very well that there’s nothing here and that there was no tax benefit whatsoever. These politicians are simply ruthless.https://t.co/4dQoDzQlRX — Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) November 20, 2020
If the payments were actually made and it can be shown that some reasonable services were rendered in return, the President shouldn’t have too much to worry about. Whether he got his money’s worth for his daughter’s consulting services is probably a question best left to his advisers. Were this any other Attorney General, I might assume that she had received some sort of complaint via the IRS and was looking for proof that some sort of tax dodge was going on. But since we’re talking about Ms. James, I’ll default to assuming that this is yet another fishing expedition intended to generate some headlines for her.
If James really wanted to look into someone paying family members huge sums of money for dubious purposes, perhaps New York’s Attorney General could look into the business relationship between Ilhan Omar and her husband’s political consulting firm the E Street Group. Tim Mynott’s firm received more than four times as much as Ivanka Trump did in less than two years to provide “consultant services” to a campaign that couldn’t have lost the last election if they tried. But no… I don’t suppose anyone would want to launch a probe into that, even though Mynott presumably pools his income with his wife’s finances. After all, they’re Democrats so they clearly wouldn’t do anything untoward. (Insert eye-rolling emoji here.)
As we’ve noted here in the past, Letitia James ran for office on a pledge to cause as much trouble for Donald Trump as she could possibly manage. Her interest in actually enforcing the laws of New York and prosecuting actual criminals has appeared minimal at best. And given the date and the current state of the presidential race, it appears obvious that James plans to continue her vendetta against Donald Trump even after he leaves office. The Attorney General’s blistering hatred of the President has truly left her unhinged.


hotair--2020-11-19--Cold: Kentucky ice cream shop creates a flavor for Kamala Harris

If you walked into an ice cream shop and saw Kamala Pecan on the menu , would you order a scoop or two ?
A Lexington , Kentucky ice cream shop decided to honor the first black/Indian female vice-presidential candidate by naming an ice cream flavor for her .
The Crank & Boom Craft Ice Cream Shop is known for naming flavors after people in the news .
It ’ s caramel ice cream with pecans added in .
The limited-time treat was to be called Caramel Pecan , as one might assume , but after the election , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kamala ’ s victory .
She said it isn ’ t a political statement , but one that honors women of color getting a seat at the table .
Green feels a personal connection .
Owner Toa Green said that the flavor is not a political statement , but intended to be a “ celebration for women everywhere , especially women of color , who are getting their seat at the table that so many have fought for before us.
” “ As an Asian American , 1/2 of an interracial marriage , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that my story and the story of so many other women in this country could look like this , means more to me than I could ever express , ” Green said .
The ice cream is a salted caramel ice cream flavor swirled with candied pecans and salted caramel sauce .
Sounds rich but yummy .
If it sounds good to you and you ’ re in the area , the flavor is available for pre-order Friday .
According to the shop ’ s website , a scoop of ice cream goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flavor will , too , unless ‘ limited editions ’ are more expensive .
I haven ’ t been in an ice cream shop in a long time , apparently , because $ 4.00 sounds pricey for a single scoop of ice cream yet it ’ s comparable to prices on other websites I checked .
Does anyone , other than young children , get just one scoop ?
Crank & Boom said it will donate $ 2 from each pint sold through pre-sales to the Step by Step Emergency Fund , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered on the pre-sale page when I checked was not Kamala Pecan .
The advertised pint sales also contribute to the Step by Step Emergency Fund and is priced at $ 10.00 , so we ’ re in Nancy Pelosi ice cream territory .
When Kentucky Governor Beshear ( Democrat ) delivered daily news conferences about the coronavirus pandemic last spring , Crank & Boom honored him and the American Sign Language interpreter with their own flavors .
Then the shop honored “ Kenneth , ” “ the slide technician who is never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ integral role in showing the slides to which Beshear often refers.
” Sales from his flavor generated donations to an organization that gathers excess fresh vegetables and fruits from farms and markets to distribute to over 100 agencies in Central Kentucky that feed people .
We ’ ll call this story a palate cleanser , much needed after a day of non-stop stories of recounts , lawsuits , and the coronavirus .
I imagine that during times like this , ice cream sales are probably up .

If you walked into an ice cream shop and saw Kamala Pecan on the menu, would you order a scoop or two? A Lexington, Kentucky ice cream shop decided to honor the first black/Indian female vice-presidential candidate by naming an ice cream flavor for her.
The Crank & Boom Craft Ice Cream Shop is known for naming flavors after people in the news. It’s caramel ice cream with pecans added in. The limited-time treat was to be called Caramel Pecan, as one might assume, but after the election, the shop’s owner decided to celebrate Kamala’s victory. She said it isn’t a political statement, but one that honors women of color getting a seat at the table. Green feels a personal connection.
Owner Toa Green said that the flavor is not a political statement, but intended to be a “celebration for women everywhere, especially women of color, who are getting their seat at the table that so many have fought for before us.” “As an Asian American, 1/2 of an interracial marriage, and the daughter of immigrants, seeing that my story and the story of so many other women in this country could look like this, means more to me than I could ever express,” Green said.
The ice cream is a salted caramel ice cream flavor swirled with candied pecans and salted caramel sauce. Sounds rich but yummy. If it sounds good to you and you’re in the area, the flavor is available for pre-order Friday. According to the shop’s website, a scoop of ice cream goes for $4.00. I assume this flavor will, too, unless ‘limited editions’ are more expensive. I haven’t been in an ice cream shop in a long time, apparently, because $4.00 sounds pricey for a single scoop of ice cream yet it’s comparable to prices on other websites I checked. Does anyone, other than young children, get just one scoop? Crank & Boom said it will donate $2 from each pint sold through pre-sales to the Step by Step Emergency Fund, which helps single moms. The only flavor offered on the pre-sale page when I checked was not Kamala Pecan. The advertised pint sales also contribute to the Step by Step Emergency Fund and is priced at $10.00, so we’re in Nancy Pelosi ice cream territory.
https://www.facebook.com/crankandboom/photos/a.299233643569774/2168706459955807
When Kentucky Governor Beshear (Democrat) delivered daily news conferences about the coronavirus pandemic last spring, Crank & Boom honored him and the American Sign Language interpreter with their own flavors. Then the shop honored “Kenneth,” “the slide technician who is never seen during the briefings but plays an integral role in showing the slides to which Beshear often refers.” Sales from his flavor generated donations to an organization that gathers excess fresh vegetables and fruits from farms and markets to distribute to over 100 agencies in Central Kentucky that feed people.
We’ll call this story a palate cleanser, much needed after a day of non-stop stories of recounts, lawsuits, and the coronavirus. I imagine that during times like this, ice cream sales are probably up.