hotair--2020-05-22--Iranian tankers full of gasoline approach Venezuela

As I mentioned earlier this week , Venezuela is in the midst of a gasoline crisis reminiscent of the United States gas crunch in the 1970s .
Venezuela ’ s gas is heavily subsidized and is usually cheaper than anywhere else in the world but the collapse of the Venezuelan economy has led to shortages .
People are now waiting in line for hours and even days in hopes of getting gas at the subsidized price .
But Venezuela has apparently worked out a deal with Iran and five tankers loaded with gas have been on their way to Venezuela @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tankers is now entering the Caribbean .
Five tankers carrying Iranian fuel for gasoline-starved Venezuela are approaching the Caribbean , with the first vessel expected to reach the South American country ’ s waters on Sunday , Radio Farda was informed by TankerTrackers.com .
The tanker closest to the Caribbean is Fortune carrying around 43 million liters ( 11.3 million gallons ) of gasoline that can fill around one-third of cars in Venezuela… Iranian media on Friday reflected a celebratory tone saying the country ’ s flotilla “ is in America ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Venezuela sent a huge quantity of gold to Iran , in what might have been a payment for the gasoline shipment .
Venezuela is saying it will send it ’ s military to escort the ships to port : Venezuela ’ s military will escort Iranian tankers bringing fuel to the gasoline-starved country as soon as they enter its exclusive economic zone , Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino said on Wednesday… “ When they enter our exclusive economic zone , they will be escorted by Bolivarian National Armed Forces boats and planes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people for their solidarity and cooperation , ” Padrino said on state television , adding that the government was in touch with Iran ’ s defense minister .
Meanwhile , the U.S. is carrying out naval exercises in the Caribbean which the Washington Post reports are the largest in a decade : The convoy was heading toward the largest U.S. military presence in the Caribbean in at least a decade .
The Pentagon has dispatched destroyers , littoral combat ships , Poseidon maritime planes and Air Force surveillance aircraft to the region as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug trafficking routes off the Venezuelan coast .
U.S. officials are downplaying Iran ’ s suggestion that those forces will confront the convoy .
Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman told reporters Thursday he was not aware of plans to launch a military operation against the Iranian tankers .
But a senior Trump administration official , speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions , said the administration “ would not abide ” Iran ’ s support of Maduro .
So while there ’ s no indication things are about to turn ugly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a naval confrontation between Iran and the United States .
Are we about to see the next Cuban Missile Crisis ?
Two days ago the Wall Street Journal reportered there was internal disagreement in the Trump administration about how to respond : The Trump administration has been debating how aggressive its response should be , the officials said .
The U.S. Navy has deployed a flotilla of destroyers in the Caribbean to crack down on narcotics smuggling .
Military personnel on those ships could theoretically board the Iranian vessels for inspection , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials have advocated restraint , arguing that the U.S. should only intervene if the Iranian shipments become a permanent fixture , people familiar with the matter said .
So it seems unlikely that anything dramatic is about to happen unless the Iranians or the Venezuelans do something to press their luck .
What is likely is additional sanctions on Iran to prevent future shipments .

As I mentioned earlier this week, Venezuela is in the midst of a gasoline crisis reminiscent of the United States gas crunch in the 1970s. Venezuela’s gas is heavily subsidized and is usually cheaper than anywhere else in the world but the collapse of the Venezuelan economy has led to shortages. People are now waiting in line for hours and even days in hopes of getting gas at the subsidized price. But Venezuela has apparently worked out a deal with Iran and five tankers loaded with gas have been on their way to Venezuela this week. The first of those tankers is now entering the Caribbean.
Five tankers carrying Iranian fuel for gasoline-starved Venezuela are approaching the Caribbean, with the first vessel expected to reach the South American country’s waters on Sunday, Radio Farda was informed by TankerTrackers.com. The tanker closest to the Caribbean is Fortune carrying around 43 million liters (11.3 million gallons) of gasoline that can fill around one-third of cars in Venezuela… Iranian media on Friday reflected a celebratory tone saying the country’s flotilla “is in America’s backyard”. Earlier this month reports said Venezuela sent a huge quantity of gold to Iran, in what might have been a payment for the gasoline shipment.
Venezuela is saying it will send it’s military to escort the ships to port:
Venezuela’s military will escort Iranian tankers bringing fuel to the gasoline-starved country as soon as they enter its exclusive economic zone, Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino said on Wednesday… “When they enter our exclusive economic zone, they will be escorted by Bolivarian National Armed Forces boats and planes to welcome them in and thank the Iranian people for their solidarity and cooperation,” Padrino said on state television, adding that the government was in touch with Iran’s defense minister.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is carrying out naval exercises in the Caribbean which the Washington Post reports are the largest in a decade:
The convoy was heading toward the largest U.S. military presence in the Caribbean in at least a decade. The Pentagon has dispatched destroyers, littoral combat ships, Poseidon maritime planes and Air Force surveillance aircraft to the region as part of an operation to shut down drug trafficking routes off the Venezuelan coast. U.S. officials are downplaying Iran’s suggestion that those forces will confront the convoy. Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman told reporters Thursday he was not aware of plans to launch a military operation against the Iranian tankers. But a senior Trump administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions, said the administration “would not abide” Iran’s support of Maduro.
So while there’s no indication things are about to turn ugly, there is at least the potential for a naval confrontation between Iran and the United States. Are we about to see the next Cuban Missile Crisis? Two days ago the Wall Street Journal reportered there was internal disagreement in the Trump administration about how to respond:
The Trump administration has been debating how aggressive its response should be, the officials said. The U.S. Navy has deployed a flotilla of destroyers in the Caribbean to crack down on narcotics smuggling. Military personnel on those ships could theoretically board the Iranian vessels for inspection, the U.S. officials said. Some U.S. officials have advocated restraint, arguing that the U.S. should only intervene if the Iranian shipments become a permanent fixture, people familiar with the matter said.
So it seems unlikely that anything dramatic is about to happen unless the Iranians or the Venezuelans do something to press their luck. What is likely is additional sanctions on Iran to prevent future shipments.


hotair--2020-05-22--Trump: If governors don't reopen houses of worship right now I'll override them

We ’ ve been through this before .
Watch today ’ s short statement , then read on .
Whether this is a deliberate legal/political ploy crafted by him and his team or just one of those days where he asserts a power he doesn ’ t actually have , I don ’ t know .
He can ’ t override governors on reopenings .
But he can certainly put political pressure on them to reopen on his timetable rather than theirs .
Today ’ s statement reminds me of the “ LIBERATE MINNESOTA !
” and “ LIBERATE MICHIGAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s more agitation than actual policy .
…Unless he thinks that the Defense Production Act allows him to designate churches as critical infrastructure , as he did with meatpacking plants not long ago in a bid to force them to stay open too .
Is that the argument here ?
A Reuters reporter tried to get Kayleigh McEnany to be specific about which federal law empowers Trump to override governors .
She didn ’ t know because there isn ’ t one , but she did offer a wisecrack about reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not really claiming the authority to force reopenings ( even if he is , his lawyers certainly aren ’ t ) , he just wants to call attention to bias against religion in lockdown orders as a way to build opposition to lockdowns more broadly .
Build a little righteous anger among the public towards governors on this narrow issue and maybe it ’ ll encourage anger towards the continuing oppression of stay-at-home orders more generally .
Trump ’ s obviously not a religious man but he ’ s understandably worried that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reelection .
By mobilizing Republicans against the burden on churches he ’ s hoping to mobilize them against the burden on business too .
And really , he ’ s just following the lead of others .
Pastors in California were already planning to reopen in defiance of lockdown rules this weekend before he made this statement today .
The good news for churches is that they don ’ t need Trump ’ s help to force reopenings of houses of worship .
They can just sue .
David French is a legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ churches may have a case here : Jazz noted a double standard in Minnesota between churches and restaurants just yesterday .
If a governor wants to limit capacity in churches more so than in retail businesses and believes there ’ s no less restrictive means he can use to control the epidemic than by sticking with his current rules , drag him into court and make him explain .
Having said that , let ’ s note that there have been some very bad outcomes this year tied to churches : Maybe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a function of congregants being more likely to flout social distancing rules for whatever cultural reason .
Relatedly , the CDC has already issued guidelines on how to safely reopen for schools , camps , retail businesses , etc , but there ’ s a delay on advice to religious institutions .
Why ?
The Times reported a week ago : White House and other administration officials rejected the recommendations over concerns that they were overly prescriptive , infringed on religious rights and risked further damaging an economy that Mr. Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One senior official at the Department of Health and Human Services with deep ties to religious conservatives objected to any controls on church services .
“ Governments have a duty to instruct the public on how to stay safe during this crisis and can absolutely do so without dictating to people how they should worship God , ” said Roger Severino , the director of the Department of Health and Human Services ’ Office for Civil Rights , who once oversaw the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any guidelines for religious institutions ?
No , there will — according to a senior administration official who spoke to NBC , they ’ ll be out sometime within the next seven to 10 days .
But why are they being published at all if the White House is worried about infringing on religious rights ?
And how exactly would official recommendations on practicing basic pandemic hygiene in church amount to an infringement of anyone ’ s rights ?
And why is Trump demanding that governors let churches reopen right now if his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how they can reopen safely for another week ?
The CDC ’ s interim guidelines on hygiene and social distancing for houses of worship leaked a few weeks ago .
You can read them here , starting on page 7 : By the way , Trump said yesterday that we ’ re not doing another series of lockdowns if a second wave strikes the country this fall .
To which I ’ d say : ( 1 ) Once again , that ’ s not his call to make ; ( 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense that both governors and citizens will be very reluctant to embark upon Lockdown 2.0 ; ( 3 ) if there ’ s a second wave people will start staying home voluntarily en masse to protect themselves , forcing another gruesome economic downturn and imperiling his reelection chances .
Which is all he really cares about , of course .
If he wants to make sure that the recovery is still in progress when polls open in November he should do everything he can to prevent and contain new outbreaks .
Railing against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Update : Aha .
So this *was* a deliberate strategy by the president and his team .
A sudden shift in support for Donald Trump among religious conservatives is triggering alarm bells inside his reelection campaign , where top aides have long banked on expanding the president ’ s evangelical base as a key part of their strategy for victory this November… The polls paint a bleak picture for Trump , who has counted on broadening his religious support by at least a few percentage points to compensate for weakened appeal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official said the dip in the president ’ s evangelical support also appeared in internal party polling , but disputed the notion that it had caused panic .
Another person close to the campaign described an April survey by the Public Religion Research Institute , which showed a double-digit decline in Trump ’ s favorability among white evangelicals ( -11 ) , white Catholics ( -12 ) and white mainline protestants ( -18 ) from the previous month , as “ pretty concerning.
” He ’ s not going to force governors to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it can only help him with evangelicals if he sounds like he wants to .

We’ve been through this before. Watch today’s short statement, then read on.
President Trump: "Today, I am identifying houses of worship – churches, synagogue and mosques – as essential places that provide essential services…I call upon governors to allow our churches and places of worship to open right now." Full video: https://t.co/juaLaeaW65 pic.twitter.com/3zahnkokl0 — CSPAN (@cspan) May 22, 2020
Whether this is a deliberate legal/political ploy crafted by him and his team or just one of those days where he asserts a power he doesn’t actually have, I don’t know. He can’t override governors on reopenings. But he can certainly put political pressure on them to reopen on his timetable rather than theirs. Today’s statement reminds me of the “LIBERATE MINNESOTA!” and “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” tweets from last month. It’s more agitation than actual policy.
…Unless he thinks that the Defense Production Act allows him to designate churches as critical infrastructure, as he did with meatpacking plants not long ago in a bid to force them to stay open too. Is that the argument here? A Reuters reporter tried to get Kayleigh McEnany to be specific about which federal law empowers Trump to override governors. She didn’t know because there isn’t one, but she did offer a wisecrack about reporters hating religion instead.
“Kayleigh, I object to that. I go to church. I’m dying to go back to church” — @jeffmason1 takes umbrage after McEnany suggests that reporters don’t want churches to reopen because they have something against religion pic.twitter.com/uEJQDgcApN — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 22, 2020
Trump’s not really claiming the authority to force reopenings (even if he is, his lawyers certainly aren’t), he just wants to call attention to bias against religion in lockdown orders as a way to build opposition to lockdowns more broadly. Build a little righteous anger among the public towards governors on this narrow issue and maybe it’ll encourage anger towards the continuing oppression of stay-at-home orders more generally. Trump’s obviously not a religious man but he’s understandably worried that a sluggish economy this fall may cost him reelection. By mobilizing Republicans against the burden on churches he’s hoping to mobilize them against the burden on business too. And really, he’s just following the lead of others. Pastors in California were already planning to reopen in defiance of lockdown rules this weekend before he made this statement today.
The good news for churches is that they don’t need Trump’s help to force reopenings of houses of worship. They can just sue. David French is a legal expert on religious liberty and thinks some churches may have a case here:
Duration: Indefinite or excessively-extended lockdown orders are constitutionally problematic. Reasonable time limits on decision-makers are imperative. An excessively-extended or indefinite lockdown can be struck down on those grounds alone. /2 — David French (@DavidAFrench) May 22, 2020
Unlawful discrimination can take many forms — including, for example, definitions of "essential" that are so broad that they include commercial businesses that are not obviously connected to life-sustaining activities but exclude houses of worship. /4 — David French (@DavidAFrench) May 22, 2020
In RFRA states, governors can't forget they must use the "least restrictive means" if they enact regulations that burden free exercise — and they cannot continue to presume that flat bans on gatherings (regardless of distancing) will meet that test. /6 — David French (@DavidAFrench) May 22, 2020
Jazz noted a double standard in Minnesota between churches and restaurants just yesterday. If a governor wants to limit capacity in churches more so than in retail businesses and believes there’s no less restrictive means he can use to control the epidemic than by sticking with his current rules, drag him into court and make him explain.
Having said that, let’s note that there have been some very bad outcomes this year tied to churches:
Trump is calling houses of worship “essential” and urging governors to reopen them immediately. There is a way to reopen the indoors safely. But two of the most dramatic super-spreader events in the world happened in churches—in Korea and France.https://t.co/P3G3NceQxP pic.twitter.com/gONnECYnNB — Derek Thompson (@DKThomp) May 22, 2020
Maybe that’s a coincidence or maybe it’s a function of congregants being more likely to flout social distancing rules for whatever cultural reason. Relatedly, the CDC has already issued guidelines on how to safely reopen for schools, camps, retail businesses, etc, but there’s a delay on advice to religious institutions. Why? The Times reported a week ago:
White House and other administration officials rejected the recommendations over concerns that they were overly prescriptive, infringed on religious rights and risked further damaging an economy that Mr. Trump was banking on to recover quickly. One senior official at the Department of Health and Human Services with deep ties to religious conservatives objected to any controls on church services. “Governments have a duty to instruct the public on how to stay safe during this crisis and can absolutely do so without dictating to people how they should worship God,” said Roger Severino, the director of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights, who once oversaw the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation.
So there won’t be any guidelines for religious institutions? No, there will — according to a senior administration official who spoke to NBC, they’ll be out sometime within the next seven to 10 days. But why are they being published at all if the White House is worried about infringing on religious rights? And how exactly would official recommendations on practicing basic pandemic hygiene in church amount to an infringement of anyone’s rights?
And why is Trump demanding that governors let churches reopen right now if his own government won’t have guidance on how they can reopen safely for another week?
The CDC’s interim guidelines on hygiene and social distancing for houses of worship leaked a few weeks ago. You can read them here, starting on page 7:
By the way, Trump said yesterday that we’re not doing another series of lockdowns if a second wave strikes the country this fall. To which I’d say: (1) Once again, that’s not his call to make; (2) he’s right in the sense that both governors and citizens will be very reluctant to embark upon Lockdown 2.0; (3) if there’s a second wave people will start staying home voluntarily en masse to protect themselves, forcing another gruesome economic downturn and imperiling his reelection chances. Which is all he really cares about, of course. If he wants to make sure that the recovery is still in progress when polls open in November he should do everything he can to prevent and contain new outbreaks. Railing against lockdowns won’t be nearly enough.
Update: Aha. So this *was* a deliberate strategy by the president and his team.
A sudden shift in support for Donald Trump among religious conservatives is triggering alarm bells inside his reelection campaign, where top aides have long banked on expanding the president’s evangelical base as a key part of their strategy for victory this November… The polls paint a bleak picture for Trump, who has counted on broadening his religious support by at least a few percentage points to compensate for weakened appeal with women and suburban populations. One GOP official said the dip in the president’s evangelical support also appeared in internal party polling, but disputed the notion that it had caused panic. Another person close to the campaign described an April survey by the Public Religion Research Institute, which showed a double-digit decline in Trump’s favorability among white evangelicals (-11), white Catholics (-12) and white mainline protestants (-18) from the previous month, as “pretty concerning.”
He’s not going to force governors to reopen churches because he can’t, but it can only help him with evangelicals if he sounds like he wants to.


hotair--2020-05-22--Biden: Okay, fine, I shouldn't have been so cavalier in what I said about black voters

But … it was a joke , no ?
That ’ s what his campaign told us this afternoon .
Surely they weren ’ t brazenly lying in a desperate attempt to clean up an ugly comment equating partisan loyalty with racial authenticity .
Look , jack , here ’ s the deal : He said it because he meant it .
It ’ s not just that he believes his record on racial issues is better than Trump ’ s , it ’ s that he ’ s willing to demagogue racial identity to help his party .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when he told a black audience that Republicans want to “ put y ’ all back in chains.
” Whatever the particulars of his record and Trump ’ s , he uttered a party orthodoxy this morning so commonplace that I think you could take literally any Democratic politician in the country with literally any Republican opponent and they ’ d offer the same view ( privately ) of whether they ’ re entitled to black votes or not .
If there was anything interesting about Biden saying “ you ain ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considering voting for Trump it was that in context he said it to wriggle free from criticism from the *left .
* Charlamagne Tha God wasn ’ t grilling him about the merits of his policies relative to Trump ’ s , he was asking him about whether he ’ s considering nominating a black woman as VP .
By equating blackness with preferring him to Trump , Biden was essentially telling black voters to get off his back about that and fall in line .
What are they gon na do if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their blackness by supporting Trump ?
I can think of two reasons why Biden might have tried to get away with that remark .
They seem mutually exclusive at first blush but I don ’ t think they are .
First , after becoming VP to the first black president and then turning the tide of this year ’ s primaries via black voters in South Carolina , he may believe he ’ s got enough cred banked with black Americans that he ’ s entitled to be racially presumptuous in a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has special privileges .
Not so special that he can get away with anything — he ’ s not going to call anyone “ my nigga , ” I hope — but special enough that , sure , he ’ ll amiably question your blackness if you support Trump .
His problem is that his self-perceived privileges aren ’ t clearly defined even to him , which led to him crossing the line this morning .
Second , he may be panicked that he ’ s underperforming with black voters .
Sure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in every national poll , but the battleground polls haven ’ t been quite as solid for him and some of the data even in national polling has looked worrisome for his campaign among nonwhites .
The single worst number for Biden in that splashy Fox News poll I wrote about this morning was that he leads Trump by “ only ” 64 points among African-Americans whereas Hillary Clinton led Trump by 81 .
A Morning Consult poll taken a few weeks ago found Biden ’ s favorable rating sliding among numerous groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tara Reade story gained traction .
Last month Nate Cohn identified nonwhite voters as a surprising vulnerability for Biden , noting that Trump has made gains within that group since 2016 .
Quote : “ It is hard to break this down further , since many pollsters do not disaggregate nonwhite voters by race , but there are signs that [ the president ] is overperforming among both black and Hispanic voters and perhaps especially among young nonwhite voters.
” Put it all together and Biden may be feeling anxious about his hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll win it by a landslide , needless to say , but the exact margin of that landslide will matter to the final outcome of the election .
He wants to duplicate Obama ’ s gigantic edge among African-Americans in 2008 and 2012 and maybe feels like he *should* be duplicating it because of his bio — but he isn ’ t , at least not yet .
So maybe that anxiety led him into an unusually crass and desperate formulation of what black voters supposedly owe him this fall .
The irony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most damaging thing he said today .
Democrats will forgive him for being presumptuous about feeling entitled to black votes because , after all , they semi-secretly share his opinion .
I don ’ t know if lefties will forgive him for this , though : There ’ s sound strategic logic in signaling that he won ’ t tax households earning $ 400,000 or less .
Democrats badly want to press the advantage they gained among suburbanites in 2018 this fall against Trump .
Those voters dislike the president but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democratic administration hitting them in the pocketbook .
Losing suburbanites was a core reason the Democratic leadership feared having Bernie Sanders as their nominee , as they knew Bernie ’ s program called for soaking everyone .
So here ’ s Biden promising suburbanites that he ’ ll cut them a break if they vote blue in November .
Just one problem : Progressives are perfectly aware that they need to tax the upper middle class to pay for their policy wishlist .
If Biden ’ s carving out earners who make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s already limiting his ability to pursue a left-wing agenda .
He ’ ll hear about this from them .
A lot .
In lieu of an exit question , new merchandise from the Trump campaign shop .
Made me laugh .

But … it was a joke, no? That’s what his campaign told us this afternoon.
Surely they weren’t brazenly lying in a desperate attempt to clean up an ugly comment equating partisan loyalty with racial authenticity.
Look, jack, here’s the deal: He said it because he meant it. It’s not just that he believes his record on racial issues is better than Trump’s, it’s that he’s willing to demagogue racial identity to help his party. He did it eight years ago, infamously, when he told a black audience that Republicans want to “put y’all back in chains.” Whatever the particulars of his record and Trump’s, he uttered a party orthodoxy this morning so commonplace that I think you could take literally any Democratic politician in the country with literally any Republican opponent and they’d offer the same view (privately) of whether they’re entitled to black votes or not.
If there was anything interesting about Biden saying “you ain’t black” if you’re considering voting for Trump it was that in context he said it to wriggle free from criticism from the *left.* Charlamagne Tha God wasn’t grilling him about the merits of his policies relative to Trump’s, he was asking him about whether he’s considering nominating a black woman as VP. By equating blackness with preferring him to Trump, Biden was essentially telling black voters to get off his back about that and fall in line. What are they gonna do if he nominates Amy Klobuchar instead? Forfeit their blackness by supporting Trump?
Former VP Biden, on the call, said: No one should have to vote for any party based on their race, background, religion, or any demographic information. He added that he wants to earn the votes of African Americans and that they are “critical” to his ability to win the presidency. — Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) May 22, 2020
Former VP Biden said it was "unfortunate" that he said black voters "ain’t black" if they’re considering voting for Pres Trump. Biden said, "I am prepared to put my record against his. That was the bottom line. And it was really unfortunate. I shouldn’t have been so cavalier." — Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) May 22, 2020
I can think of two reasons why Biden might have tried to get away with that remark. They seem mutually exclusive at first blush but I don’t think they are. First, after becoming VP to the first black president and then turning the tide of this year’s primaries via black voters in South Carolina, he may believe he’s got enough cred banked with black Americans that he’s entitled to be racially presumptuous in a way most whites aren’t. He has special privileges. Not so special that he can get away with anything — he’s not going to call anyone “my nigga,” I hope — but special enough that, sure, he’ll amiably question your blackness if you support Trump. His problem is that his self-perceived privileges aren’t clearly defined even to him, which led to him crossing the line this morning.
Second, he may be panicked that he’s underperforming with black voters. Sure, he still leads Trump head to head in every national poll, but the battleground polls haven’t been quite as solid for him and some of the data even in national polling has looked worrisome for his campaign among nonwhites. The single worst number for Biden in that splashy Fox News poll I wrote about this morning was that he leads Trump by “only” 64 points among African-Americans whereas Hillary Clinton led Trump by 81. A Morning Consult poll taken a few weeks ago found Biden’s favorable rating sliding among numerous groups, including black voters, as the Tara Reade story gained traction. Last month Nate Cohn identified nonwhite voters as a surprising vulnerability for Biden, noting that Trump has made gains within that group since 2016. Quote: “It is hard to break this down further, since many pollsters do not disaggregate nonwhite voters by race, but there are signs that [the president] is overperforming among both black and Hispanic voters and perhaps especially among young nonwhite voters.”
Put it all together and Biden may be feeling anxious about his hold on the black vote. He’ll win it by a landslide, needless to say, but the exact margin of that landslide will matter to the final outcome of the election. He wants to duplicate Obama’s gigantic edge among African-Americans in 2008 and 2012 and maybe feels like he *should* be duplicating it because of his bio — but he isn’t, at least not yet. So maybe that anxiety led him into an unusually crass and desperate formulation of what black voters supposedly owe him this fall.
The irony is that this isn’t even the most damaging thing he said today. Democrats will forgive him for being presumptuous about feeling entitled to black votes because, after all, they semi-secretly share his opinion. I don’t know if lefties will forgive him for this, though:
Joe Biden vows not to raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. Biden on CNBC: "Nobody making under $400,000 would have their taxes raised. Period. bingo." (Context: Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000) — Heather Long (@byHeatherLong) May 22, 2020
There’s sound strategic logic in signaling that he won’t tax households earning $400,000 or less. Democrats badly want to press the advantage they gained among suburbanites in 2018 this fall against Trump. Those voters dislike the president but they’re upscale and naturally worried about a Democratic administration hitting them in the pocketbook. Losing suburbanites was a core reason the Democratic leadership feared having Bernie Sanders as their nominee, as they knew Bernie’s program called for soaking everyone. So here’s Biden promising suburbanites that he’ll cut them a break if they vote blue in November. Just one problem: Progressives are perfectly aware that they need to tax the upper middle class to pay for their policy wishlist. If Biden’s carving out earners who make $400K or less, he’s already limiting his ability to pursue a left-wing agenda. He’ll hear about this from them. A lot.
In lieu of an exit question, new merchandise from the Trump campaign shop. Made me laugh.


hotair--2020-05-22--FBI director orders after-action review of Flynn investigation

FBI Director Christopher Wray has ordered an after-action review of the Michael Flynn investigation .
Catherine Herridge published the full FBI statement .
It says the review will serve two purposes .
First , it will determine “ whether any current employees engaged in misconduct ” and second it will evaluate whether FBI policies need to be changed going forward .
The FBI review is intended to complement an ongoing DOJ review by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen : The Justice Department is already doing its own review of the case , led by Jeff Jensen , the U.S. attorney for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI said their effort will “ complement ” Jensen ’ s work .
“ The after-action review will complement the already substantial assistance the FBI has been providing to U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen in connection with his work on the Flynn case , ” the FBI said .
“ Under Director Wray ’ s leadership , the FBI has been fully transparent and cooperative with Mr. Jensen , and the FBI ’ s help has included providing special agents to assist Mr. Jensen in the fact-finding process.
” Jensen is the person who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Flynn be dropped .
If the FBI is now coordinating its own review with him ( using some of the same agents ) it might suggest that he ’ s seen evidence of some misbehavior that he wants to deal with .
As the memo above indicates , the FBI co-investigation would be limited to dealing with current employees since it can ’ t bring criminal cases against former employees .
So we ’ re not going to see anything happen with Peter Strzok or Andrew McCabe .
Still , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action against agents involved in Flynn ’ s case who are still there .
The one thing none of these stories give a hint about is why now ?
What exactly was it that prompted Director Wray to launch this review today ?
Just a couple of weeks ago Politico reported that Republicans were frustrated with Wray ’ s response to the Flynn case : “ I ’ m not calling on [ Trump ] to make a change , but I think the FBI needs to show more energy in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) said in a brief interview .
“ They need to up their game.
” … The harshest attacks have come from conservative media figures close to Trump , who accused Wray of covering up evidence that would exonerate Flynn .
In recent days , the Justice Department released documents including a handwritten note that Flynn ’ s allies suggested was proof that the government was trying to trick him into lying .
Another showed that the FBI initially intended to drop its investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview… “ I wouldn ’ t ask for him to go right now , ” said Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-Iowa ) , who has feuded with Justice Department leaders in recent years over access to documents .
“ I want him to take some action .
He ’ s responsible for it .
He ’ s responsible for getting things changed .
[ But ] I don ’ t want to say he ’ s responsible for a lot of the stuff that happened before he was there.
” So there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some action.
” This review might be a response to that criticism .
While this review isn ’ t directly part of the ongoing court battle over the dismissal of Flynn ’ s case , it does seem as if the FBI is issuing a clear signal that it considers the case over .
Notice that third paragraph above : “ Director Wray authorized this additional level of review now that the Department of Justice , through Mr. Jensen ’ s work , has developed sufficient information to determine how to proceed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essentially saying , now that we know the Flynn case was a mistake it ’ s time to find out who made the errors so it doesn ’ t happen again .
Bottom line : Even if Judge Sullivan refuses to take the hint , the FBI is joining the DOJ in treating the Flynn case as a blunder .

FBI Director Christopher Wray has ordered an after-action review of the Michael Flynn investigation. Catherine Herridge published the full FBI statement. It says the review will serve two purposes. First, it will determine “whether any current employees engaged in misconduct” and second it will evaluate whether FBI policies need to be changed going forward.
#FLYNN FBI launches after action review by inspection division (internal affairs) that will “complement the already substantial assistance the FBI has been providing to U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen (including)..special agents to assist..in the fact-finding process.”@CBSNews pic.twitter.com/oqH8rPNnAN — Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) May 22, 2020
The FBI review is intended to complement an ongoing DOJ review by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen:
The Justice Department is already doing its own review of the case, led by Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. The FBI said their effort will “complement” Jensen’s work. “The after-action review will complement the already substantial assistance the FBI has been providing to U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen in connection with his work on the Flynn case,” the FBI said. “Under Director Wray’s leadership, the FBI has been fully transparent and cooperative with Mr. Jensen, and the FBI’s help has included providing special agents to assist Mr. Jensen in the fact-finding process.”
Jensen is the person who recommended to AG Barr that the case against Flynn be dropped. If the FBI is now coordinating its own review with him (using some of the same agents) it might suggest that he’s seen evidence of some misbehavior that he wants to deal with. As the memo above indicates, the FBI co-investigation would be limited to dealing with current employees since it can’t bring criminal cases against former employees. So we’re not going to see anything happen with Peter Strzok or Andrew McCabe. Still, it would be pretty significant if there was disciplinary action against agents involved in Flynn’s case who are still there.
The one thing none of these stories give a hint about is why now? What exactly was it that prompted Director Wray to launch this review today? Just a couple of weeks ago Politico reported that Republicans were frustrated with Wray’s response to the Flynn case:
“I’m not calling on [Trump] to make a change, but I think the FBI needs to show more energy in terms of solving some of these internal problems,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in a brief interview. “They need to up their game.”… The harshest attacks have come from conservative media figures close to Trump, who accused Wray of covering up evidence that would exonerate Flynn. In recent days, the Justice Department released documents including a handwritten note that Flynn’s allies suggested was proof that the government was trying to trick him into lying. Another showed that the FBI initially intended to drop its investigation into Flynn well before the January 2017 interview… “I wouldn’t ask for him to go right now,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who has feuded with Justice Department leaders in recent years over access to documents. “I want him to take some action. He’s responsible for it. He’s responsible for getting things changed. [But] I don’t want to say he’s responsible for a lot of the stuff that happened before he was there.”
So there was mounting pressure on Wray to “take some action.” This review might be a response to that criticism.
While this review isn’t directly part of the ongoing court battle over the dismissal of Flynn’s case, it does seem as if the FBI is issuing a clear signal that it considers the case over. Notice that third paragraph above: “Director Wray authorized this additional level of review now that the Department of Justice, through Mr. Jensen’s work, has developed sufficient information to determine how to proceed in the Flynn case.” Director Wray is essentially saying, now that we know the Flynn case was a mistake it’s time to find out who made the errors so it doesn’t happen again. Bottom line: Even if Judge Sullivan refuses to take the hint, the FBI is joining the DOJ in treating the Flynn case as a blunder.


hotair--2020-05-22--Georgia police charge man who recorded Ahmaud Arbery's death with felony murder

They ’ re not charging him because of the recording , of course .
The state ’ s entire case rests on that footage .
They ’ re charging him because he allegedly followed Arbery in his own car after he saw Greg and Travis McMichael take off after him .
Although “ follow ” is an exceedingly polite way of describing what he did , if you believe the police report .
Critics have spent weeks demanding that William “ Roddie ” Bryan join the McMichaels in jail .
Yesterday they got their wish .
In a news release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with felony murder and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment… “ Right now , we know that he recorded this video from a very close proximity .
According to his attorney , he was home one minute and within minutes , he was behind Ahmaud Arbery with his cellphone , recording his ambush , ” Arbery family attorney Lee Merritt said during an appearance on the “ Tamron Hall Show ” Monday .
“ His response to this very loud , violent shotgun shots repeatedly , and someone being murdered in front of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kept recording .
You didn ’ t hear him gasp .
He didn ’ t cut off the camera .
He didn ’ t intervene .
He didn ’ t honk his horn .
And we believe that is because he knew what was about to happen , and he played a role in it.
” With no trace of irony , Bryan ’ s lawyer responded by insisting that his client is innocent and lamenting that he ’ s receiving death threats .
Please stop saying and doing things that “ put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he begged Merritt .
Because we shouldn ’ t go around recklessly endangering the life of a man who hasn ’ t been convicted of a crime , you see .
“ I truthfully need to be cleared of this because I had nothing to with it , ” said Bryan in a recent video interview .
But that ’ s not what Greg McMichael told police on the day of the shooting .
“ ‘ Roddy ’ attempted to block him.
” I posted this a few days ago but it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t seen it .
The New York Times tried to re-create the pursuit of Arbery by the McMichaels and Bryan in a video based on the police report and other publicly available information .
If this is accurate , it looks like Bryan blocked Arbery not once but twice , first on Burford Road and then again at some point on Holmes Road , forcing him to double back towards his fatal encounter with the McMichaels .
Watch from 3:00 to 4:20 to get the gist .
Why did Bryan join the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the AJC , “ Bryan claimed he got involved only after hearing the commotion generated by the pursuit of Arbery.
” But commotion doesn ’ t explain why a person would immediately jump into his car and try to block a man in the road who ’ s being chased by a truck .
A commotion demands your attention ; it doesn ’ t demand a snap judgment about which party is right and which is wrong in a confusing confrontation about which you supposedly know nothing .
To put that another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue in court that they pursued Arbery because they honestly thought he was a burglary suspect who had been captured on surveillance video at a nearby home .
That doesn ’ t excuse the many things they did wrong , from attempting an unjustified citizen ’ s arrest based on dubious evidence to engaging in hot pursuit to killing a man after forcing a confrontation with him , but it explains why they were interested in catching up to Arbery .
What ’ s Bryan ’ s explanation ?
He saw a pair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and just assumed they must have a valid reason ?
Here ’ s how Georgia law defines the crime of false imprisonment , which is a felony : A defendant is guilty of felony murder in Georgia if “ in the commission of a felony , he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.
” In other words , if Bryan is guilty of false imprisonment ( or attempted false imprisonment in this case ) then he ’ s also guilty of murder if the person he tried to imprison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crime .
One way Bryan could attack those charges would be to argue that there was no way for him realistically to “ confine ” Arbery on an open road , when Arbery was able to ( and did ) run around his car to avoid him .
Or he could argue that , even if he ’ s guilty of false imprisonment , it wasn ’ t his crime that led to Arbery ’ s death .
It was the McMichaels ’ assault on Arbery that did .
That would lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
if Bryan ’ s attempt to falsely imprison Arbery ended before the fatal confrontation with the McMichaels began , when exactly did it end ?
Bryan was pursuing him up to the last few seconds , as his video recording of Arbery ’ s death proves .
If not for Bryan following and blocking him , Arbery may have kept running in the other direction and successfully avoided the McMichaels .
So why shouldn ’ t Bryan share liability for the fatal incident that his pursuit engineered ?
Bryan could also argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to block Arbery in the road .
That was just some self-serving nonsense Greg McMichael told the police .
The problem with that , though , is that Bryan ’ s dashcam apparently recorded four full minutes of the pursuit , of which the public has seen only the last 30 seconds or so .
I ’ m guessing local authorities wouldn ’ t have proceeded to charge him unless that footage contains hard proof of what McMichael said , that Bryan really did try to thwart Arbery ’ s attempt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s passed a polygraph test , so stay tuned .
One other point in closing .
Bryan ’ s critics , including Merritt , noticed that there ’ s a suspicious clicking sound close to the microphone on the audio of the now-famous footage in the moments before Arbery met the McMichaels in the road .
( You can hear it at 0:15 here . )
Was that the sound of Bryan loading a weapon ?

They’re not charging him because of the recording, of course. The state’s entire case rests on that footage.
They’re charging him because he allegedly followed Arbery in his own car after he saw Greg and Travis McMichael take off after him. Although “follow” is an exceedingly polite way of describing what he did, if you believe the police report.
Critics have spent weeks demanding that William “Roddie” Bryan join the McMichaels in jail. Yesterday they got their wish.
In a news release, the GBI said it charged Bryan with felony murder and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment… “Right now, we know that he recorded this video from a very close proximity. According to his attorney, he was home one minute and within minutes, he was behind Ahmaud Arbery with his cellphone, recording his ambush,” Arbery family attorney Lee Merritt said during an appearance on the “Tamron Hall Show” Monday. “His response to this very loud, violent shotgun shots repeatedly, and someone being murdered in front of him, was silence. He just kept recording. You didn’t hear him gasp. He didn’t cut off the camera. He didn’t intervene. He didn’t honk his horn. And we believe that is because he knew what was about to happen, and he played a role in it.”
With no trace of irony, Bryan’s lawyer responded by insisting that his client is innocent and lamenting that he’s receiving death threats. Please stop saying and doing things that “put a target on his back,” he begged Merritt.
Because we shouldn’t go around recklessly endangering the life of a man who hasn’t been convicted of a crime, you see.
“I truthfully need to be cleared of this because I had nothing to with it,” said Bryan in a recent video interview. But that’s not what Greg McMichael told police on the day of the shooting.
“‘Roddy’ attempted to block him.” I posted this a few days ago but it’s worth reupping for those who haven’t seen it. The New York Times tried to re-create the pursuit of Arbery by the McMichaels and Bryan in a video based on the police report and other publicly available information. If this is accurate, it looks like Bryan blocked Arbery not once but twice, first on Burford Road and then again at some point on Holmes Road, forcing him to double back towards his fatal encounter with the McMichaels. Watch from 3:00 to 4:20 to get the gist.
Why did Bryan join the pursuit of Arbery at all? According to the AJC, “Bryan claimed he got involved only after hearing the commotion generated by the pursuit of Arbery.” But commotion doesn’t explain why a person would immediately jump into his car and try to block a man in the road who’s being chased by a truck. A commotion demands your attention; it doesn’t demand a snap judgment about which party is right and which is wrong in a confusing confrontation about which you supposedly know nothing.
To put that another way, the McMichaels can at least argue in court that they pursued Arbery because they honestly thought he was a burglary suspect who had been captured on surveillance video at a nearby home. That doesn’t excuse the many things they did wrong, from attempting an unjustified citizen’s arrest based on dubious evidence to engaging in hot pursuit to killing a man after forcing a confrontation with him, but it explains why they were interested in catching up to Arbery. What’s Bryan’s explanation? He saw a pair of white guys chasing a black guy and just assumed they must have a valid reason?
Here’s how Georgia law defines the crime of false imprisonment, which is a felony:
A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.
A defendant is guilty of felony murder in Georgia if “in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.” In other words, if Bryan is guilty of false imprisonment (or attempted false imprisonment in this case) then he’s also guilty of murder if the person he tried to imprison ends up dying as a result of the crime. One way Bryan could attack those charges would be to argue that there was no way for him realistically to “confine” Arbery on an open road, when Arbery was able to (and did) run around his car to avoid him. Or he could argue that, even if he’s guilty of false imprisonment, it wasn’t his crime that led to Arbery’s death. It was the McMichaels’ assault on Arbery that did. That would lead into thorny questions of causation, i.e. if Bryan’s attempt to falsely imprison Arbery ended before the fatal confrontation with the McMichaels began, when exactly did it end? Bryan was pursuing him up to the last few seconds, as his video recording of Arbery’s death proves. If not for Bryan following and blocking him, Arbery may have kept running in the other direction and successfully avoided the McMichaels. So why shouldn’t Bryan share liability for the fatal incident that his pursuit engineered?
Bryan could also argue that there’s no proof he tried to block Arbery in the road. That was just some self-serving nonsense Greg McMichael told the police. The problem with that, though, is that Bryan’s dashcam apparently recorded four full minutes of the pursuit, of which the public has seen only the last 30 seconds or so. I’m guessing local authorities wouldn’t have proceeded to charge him unless that footage contains hard proof of what McMichael said, that Bryan really did try to thwart Arbery’s attempt to escape.
His lawyer claims he’s passed a polygraph test, so stay tuned. One other point in closing. Bryan’s critics, including Merritt, noticed that there’s a suspicious clicking sound close to the microphone on the audio of the now-famous footage in the moments before Arbery met the McMichaels in the road. (You can hear it at 0:15 here.) Was that the sound of Bryan loading a weapon?


hotair--2020-05-22--Oxford vaccine moves to phase II of human trials

A coronavirus vaccine produced by researchers at Oxford University started Phase 1 trials involving around 1,000 people last month .
Today , those trials advanced to the next stage of human trials involving many more volunteers .
An experimental vaccine for COVID-19 under development at Oxford University hit a milestone Friday with researchers announcing it will be progressing to advanced stages of human trials .
It will be tested in 10,260 volunteers across the United Kingdom to determine how effective it is at preventing infection , the university said in a statement .
If successful , it could be on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to British-Swedish drugmaker AstraZeneca , which partnered with the university in April to manufacture and distribute the vaccine… The company agreed to produce at least 400 million doses and secured total manufacturing capacity to produce 1 billion doses by the end of 2021 , with first deliveries this September .
In a press release , the Oxford group said Phase 2 of the testing would also involve expanding the age range of the people being tested , including to those over 70-years-old .
Professor Andrew Pollard who is leading the research said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very well and we are now initiating studies to evaluate how well the vaccine induces immune responses in older adults , and to test whether it can provide protection in the wider population.
” The Oxford vaccine is based on a version of the common cold virus which has been manipulated so that it can not spread in humans .
A small test in rhesus macaques was performed in March .
Just six monkeys were tested but researchers found some benefit from the vaccine : Researchers reported at least some of the monkeys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days of being vaccinated , and all of the vaccinated animals had evidence of antibodies within 28 days .
What ’ s more , researchers said the vaccine appears to have prevented pneumonia and other lung problems in the animals after they were exposed to the coronavirus .
However , that small study was a pre-print , meaning it has not been peer-reviewed yet .
Also , the findings may not be all that impressive because the vaccine didn ’ t actually prevent any of the dosed monkeys from getting the infection .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Oxford vaccine became infected when challenged , as judged by recovery of virus genomic RNA from nasal secretions .
There was no difference in the amount of viral RNA detected from this site in the vaccinated monkeys as compared to the unvaccinated animals .
Which is to say , all vaccinated animals were infected .
This observation is in marked contrast to the results reported from Sinovac trial .
At the highest dose studied , no virus was recovered from vaccinated monkeys from the throat , lung , or rectum of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ troubling result of the Oxford paper .
The titer of neutralizing antibody , as judged by inhibition of virus replication by successive serum dilutions as reported is extremely low .
Typically , neutralizing antibodies in effective vaccines can be diluted by more than a thousand fold and retain activity .
In these experiments the serum could be diluted only by 4 to 40 fold before neutralizing activity was lost .
Again , by contrast the titer of neutralizing antibodies in the serum of those vaccinated with whole inactivated SARS-CoV-2 was high .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me but there is some evidence from examination of the monkeys post-infection , that the vaccine may have helped prevent the onset of pneumonia .
Still , this was a very small study so it ’ s way too early to draw big conclusions .
CNN has an interview with two of the subjects of the trial who are obviously hoping this vaccine doesn ’ t turn out to be a failure .

A coronavirus vaccine produced by researchers at Oxford University started Phase 1 trials involving around 1,000 people last month. Today, those trials advanced to the next stage of human trials involving many more volunteers.
An experimental vaccine for COVID-19 under development at Oxford University hit a milestone Friday with researchers announcing it will be progressing to advanced stages of human trials. It will be tested in 10,260 volunteers across the United Kingdom to determine how effective it is at preventing infection, the university said in a statement. If successful, it could be on the market as early as September, according to British-Swedish drugmaker AstraZeneca, which partnered with the university in April to manufacture and distribute the vaccine… The company agreed to produce at least 400 million doses and secured total manufacturing capacity to produce 1 billion doses by the end of 2021, with first deliveries this September.
In a press release, the Oxford group said Phase 2 of the testing would also involve expanding the age range of the people being tested, including to those over 70-years-old. Professor Andrew Pollard who is leading the research said, “The clinical studies are progressing very well and we are now initiating studies to evaluate how well the vaccine induces immune responses in older adults, and to test whether it can provide protection in the wider population.”
The Oxford vaccine is based on a version of the common cold virus which has been manipulated so that it cannot spread in humans. A small test in rhesus macaques was performed in March. Just six monkeys were tested but researchers found some benefit from the vaccine:
Researchers reported at least some of the monkeys developed antibodies to the virus within 14 days of being vaccinated, and all of the vaccinated animals had evidence of antibodies within 28 days. What’s more, researchers said the vaccine appears to have prevented pneumonia and other lung problems in the animals after they were exposed to the coronavirus.
However, that small study was a pre-print, meaning it has not been peer-reviewed yet. Also, the findings may not be all that impressive because the vaccine didn’t actually prevent any of the dosed monkeys from getting the infection.
All of the vaccinated monkeys treated with the Oxford vaccine became infected when challenged, as judged by recovery of virus genomic RNA from nasal secretions. There was no difference in the amount of viral RNA detected from this site in the vaccinated monkeys as compared to the unvaccinated animals. Which is to say, all vaccinated animals were infected. This observation is in marked contrast to the results reported from Sinovac trial. At the highest dose studied, no virus was recovered from vaccinated monkeys from the throat, lung, or rectum of the vaccinated animals. There is a second troubling result of the Oxford paper. The titer of neutralizing antibody, as judged by inhibition of virus replication by successive serum dilutions as reported is extremely low. Typically, neutralizing antibodies in effective vaccines can be diluted by more than a thousand fold and retain activity. In these experiments the serum could be diluted only by 4 to 40 fold before neutralizing activity was lost. Again, by contrast the titer of neutralizing antibodies in the serum of those vaccinated with whole inactivated SARS-CoV-2 was high.
That doesn’t sound very successful to me but there is some evidence from examination of the monkeys post-infection, that the vaccine may have helped prevent the onset of pneumonia. Still, this was a very small study so it’s way too early to draw big conclusions.
CNN has an interview with two of the subjects of the trial who are obviously hoping this vaccine doesn’t turn out to be a failure.


hotair--2020-05-22--Team Biden: Come on, the "you ain't black" if you vote for Trump remark was just a joke

Yeah ?
So is calling COVID-19 the “ Kung Flu , ” but Senate Democrats have lost their minds calling that raaacist .
After getting an avalanche of criticism for Joe Biden ’ s declaration that African-Americans supporting Donald Trump “ ain ’ t black , ” senior Biden adviser Symone Sanders claimed that Biden ’ s remark was “ in jest.
” That might be news to Breakfast Club host Charlamagne tha God — and anyone who watched the clip : Jest ?
This looks like something else entirely .
Biden gets thin-skinned and combative when his record on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already observed on the campaign trail .
He challenged a Detroit auto worker to a fight for having the temerity of questioning Biden ’ s gun-control agenda two months ago .
When Charlamagne expressed reservations about Biden ’ s commitment to the black community , Biden reacted combatively , not humorously .
Of course , Scott ’ s a Republican , some might scoff , but it ’ s not just black conservatives who aren ’ t laughing at Biden ’ s remark .
Washington Post reporter Eugene Scott notes that there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among others , especially since Biden ’ s got a track record of condescending rhetoric with these voters : Other African Americans who aren ’ t conservative criticized Biden for the remark , accusing him of a level of cockiness that has made them uncomfortable with his campaign since he launched it more than a year ago .
As the vice president to America ’ s first black president , they say Biden often comes off as if he is entitled to the black vote .
Keith Boykin , a former Clinton White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Columbia , tweeted that as a white man , Biden does not get to question the blackness of black people .
… But telling a black American who prefers Trump over Biden that he or she isn ’ t black reeks of the paternalistic rhetoric that has often found Biden at the receiving end of criticism from black Americans .
Biden has repeatedly been accused of talking down to them .
I ’ m pretty sure that Rolling Stone analyst Jamil Smith doesn ’ t fall in the GOP column either , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s not a much more clearer example of this condescension and arrogance than today ’ s outburst on video .
Or perhaps honesty , as Lindsey Graham remarked .
That is almost certainly true , but it ’ s also why the Biden campaign ’ s trying to sell a lie about Biden making a joke today .
In context , this is much more racist than “ Kung flu ” ever was .
Exit question : When does Biden announce Kamala Harris as his running mate to put this story @ @ @ @ @

Yeah? So is calling COVID-19 the “Kung Flu,” but Senate Democrats have lost their minds calling that raaacist. After getting an avalanche of criticism for Joe Biden’s declaration that African-Americans supporting Donald Trump “ain’t black,” senior Biden adviser Symone Sanders claimed that Biden’s remark was “in jest.” That might be news to Breakfast Club host Charlamagne tha God — and anyone who watched the clip:
The comments made at the end of the Breakfast Club interview were in jest, but let’s be clear about what the VP was saying: he was making the distinction that he would put his record with the African American community up against Trump’s any day. Period. — Symone D. Sanders (@SymoneDSanders) May 22, 2020
Jest? This looks like something else entirely. Biden gets thin-skinned and combative when his record on issues gets challenged, as has been already observed on the campaign trail. He challenged a Detroit auto worker to a fight for having the temerity of questioning Biden’s gun-control agenda two months ago. When Charlamagne expressed reservations about Biden’s commitment to the black community, Biden reacted combatively, not humorously.
Senator Tim Scott — a Republican supporting Donald Trump — isn’t laughing:
.@SenatorTimScott on Joe Biden’s bigoted comment about black @realDonaldTrump supporters: “That is the most arrogant, outrageous comment I've heard in a very long time. And I take offense to that.” Exactly right.pic.twitter.com/4YxY8DvSHF — Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) May 22, 2020
Of course, Scott’s a Republican, some might scoff, but it’s not just black conservatives who aren’t laughing at Biden’s remark. Washington Post reporter Eugene Scott notes that there’s not much chuckling to be found among others, especially since Biden’s got a track record of condescending rhetoric with these voters:
Other African Americans who aren’t conservative criticized Biden for the remark, accusing him of a level of cockiness that has made them uncomfortable with his campaign since he launched it more than a year ago. As the vice president to America’s first black president, they say Biden often comes off as if he is entitled to the black vote. Keith Boykin, a former Clinton White House aide who teaches African American studies at Columbia, tweeted that as a white man, Biden does not get to question the blackness of black people. … But telling a black American who prefers Trump over Biden that he or she isn’t black reeks of the paternalistic rhetoric that has often found Biden at the receiving end of criticism from black Americans. Biden has repeatedly been accused of talking down to them.
I’m pretty sure that Rolling Stone analyst Jamil Smith doesn’t fall in the GOP column either, and he’s not laughing:
No, @JoeBiden. The history of folks deciding who is and who isn’t black is fraught. Even when the remark is made in jest. One would think that that the presumptive Democratic nominee, who served under the first black president for eight years, would know this. https://t.co/jLXlYXjmFq — Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) May 22, 2020
Neither is progressive writer Roxane Gay:
Ma’am. What? He doesn’t get to “jest” like that. It wasn’t funny. It played into the long standing notion that the black vote is uncritical and guaranteed and the notion that blackness is mutable and defined by whiteness. https://t.co/wk1uWA5bzM — roxane gay (@rgay) May 22, 2020
There’s not a much more clearer example of this condescension and arrogance than today’s outburst on video. Or perhaps honesty, as Lindsey Graham remarked. That is almost certainly true, but it’s also why the Biden campaign’s trying to sell a lie about Biden making a joke today. In context, this is much more racist than “Kung flu” ever was.
The comments from @JoeBiden were truly offensive, but a rare and honest insight into liberals thinking. Liberals believe you really can’t be black, Latino, female, or intelligent unless you support their liberal agenda.
https://t.co/WKvHPtpkc9 — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) May 22, 2020
Exit question: When does Biden announce Kamala Harris as his running mate to put this story to rest? Today?


hotair--2020-05-22--Trump rips Fox again: They should fire their fake pollster

It really is funny how often Fox News polls turn out badly for him .
Not always — they had him tied with Biden early last month , which was probably the result of a small “ rally around our leaders ” effect in the first weeks of the pandemic .
But because Fox ’ s biggest stars cheerlead so effusively for him , each middling or downright discouraging poll that the network publishes feels hugely subversive , almost scandalous .
It ’ d be like state TV in another country briefly interrupting programming to announce that the supreme leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it back to another hour of “ The Supreme Leader Is Awesome.
” Every time a new Fox poll drops , I imagine the polling team huddled around a computer together the night before , tabulating the results , and just groaning aloud as they add up the numbers and realize they ’ re going to eat sh*t from him and his fans again .
But I give them and Fox tons of credit for sticking to their guns .
Their loyal fans would surely be happier if they closed down their polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duties to a more Trump-friendly pollster like Rasmussen .
( Although Rasmussen hasn ’ t been so friendly either lately . )
Instead they keep cranking them out .
I assume it ’ s a prestige thing .
You ’ re not really a major credible news agency in the U.S. unless you ’ re doing your own polling , so that ’ s what Fox does .
Once Trump takes over the network next year he ’ ll put a stop to it .
That ’ s funny too because he trailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published recently .
But CNBC at least had the race close ( Biden by three ) and CNN had Trump ahead in the battleground states , which is all that matters .
Fox ’ s new poll last night was less kind : The latest Fox News Poll finds voters trust Biden to do a better job than Trump on health care by 17 points , coronavirus by 9 , and relations with China by 6 .
Trump is trusted more on the economy by a slim 3-point margin… In the 2020 ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent .
Biden ’ s 8-point advantage is outside the poll ’ s margin of error .
However , given that 11 percent are undecided or plan to vote for someone else , neither candidate hits 50 percent support .
The race could go either way… Biden makes inroads with two key groups : independents prefer him by 13 points and voters ages 65+ by 17 points .
In 2016 , Trump won independents by 4 and seniors by 7 .
Trump ’ s personal favorable rating is net negative by 12 points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while 55 percent have an unfavorable opinion ( including 45 percent “ strongly ” unfavorable ) .
Biden has a net positive rating by 2 points : 48 percent favorable , 46 percent unfavorable ( 31 percent “ strongly ” unfavorable ) .
It ’ s not all good news for Biden , as he lags Hillary Clinton ’ s advantage among black voters by 17 points .
I ’ m also highly skeptical that Biden has a 12-point lead among people who are “ extremely motivated ” to vote this fall , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Democratic voters badly want to beat Trump this fall .
But the numbers here among senior citizens are noteworthy because they do jibe with various other polls , including at least one of Florida , showing Biden with a strong advantage among that group .
That ’ s a five-alarm fire for Trump and one he has to put out somehow before November .
Can ’ t have a 20-point swing among a high-turnout group and still get reelected .
Here ’ s how the race looked four years ago at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way : Whether Trump ’ s suffering this year mainly because of his ratings on coronavirus ( even the CNBC poll found Biden leading him by seven on who ’ d do a better job of handling coronavirus ) or simply because Biden isn ’ t nearly as personally disliked as Hillary Clinton is an open question , but the answer matters a lot .
Trump can do something about the first part .
It ’ s not clear if he can do much about the second , no matter how much Obamagate/Burisma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any case , the Fox poll is an outlier in its topline number .
They may see Biden leading nationally by eight but the average right now stands at 5.5 points , very similar to where it ’ s been for most of the year .
If there ’ s any real significance to the poll , it may be as a sign that Biden has shaken off any damage from the Tara Reade accusation .
His lead over Trump had dropped to 4.4 points a few weeks ago as that story started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point since then .
Maybe Trump will get lucky by having Biden pick a highly unlikable VP ?
I know someone who fits the bill and who really seems to want the job .

It really is funny how often Fox News polls turn out badly for him. Not always — they had him tied with Biden early last month, which was probably the result of a small “rally around our leaders” effect in the first weeks of the pandemic. But because Fox’s biggest stars cheerlead so effusively for him, each middling or downright discouraging poll that the network publishes feels hugely subversive, almost scandalous. It’d be like state TV in another country briefly interrupting programming to announce that the supreme leader is polling at 40 percent before throwing it back to another hour of “The Supreme Leader Is Awesome.”
Every time a new Fox poll drops, I imagine the polling team huddled around a computer together the night before, tabulating the results, and just groaning aloud as they add up the numbers and realize they’re going to eat sh*t from him and his fans again.
But I give them and Fox tons of credit for sticking to their guns. Their loyal fans would surely be happier if they closed down their polling shop, or at least outsourced those duties to a more Trump-friendly pollster like Rasmussen. (Although Rasmussen hasn’t been so friendly either lately.) Instead they keep cranking them out. I assume it’s a prestige thing. You’re not really a major credible news agency in the U.S. unless you’re doing your own polling, so that’s what Fox does.
Once Trump takes over the network next year he’ll put a stop to it.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1263841841654444049
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1263843108858597376
That’s funny too because he trailed in the CNBC and the CNN polls published recently. But CNBC at least had the race close (Biden by three) and CNN had Trump ahead in the battleground states, which is all that matters. Fox’s new poll last night was less kind:
The latest Fox News Poll finds voters trust Biden to do a better job than Trump on health care by 17 points, coronavirus by 9, and relations with China by 6. Trump is trusted more on the economy by a slim 3-point margin… In the 2020 ballot test, Biden leads Trump by 48-40 percent. Biden’s 8-point advantage is outside the poll’s margin of error. However, given that 11 percent are undecided or plan to vote for someone else, neither candidate hits 50 percent support. The race could go either way… Biden makes inroads with two key groups: independents prefer him by 13 points and voters ages 65+ by 17 points. In 2016, Trump won independents by 4 and seniors by 7. Trump’s personal favorable rating is net negative by 12 points: 43 percent view him positively, while 55 percent have an unfavorable opinion (including 45 percent “strongly” unfavorable). Biden has a net positive rating by 2 points: 48 percent favorable, 46 percent unfavorable (31 percent “strongly” unfavorable).
It’s not all good news for Biden, as he lags Hillary Clinton’s advantage among black voters by 17 points. I’m also highly skeptical that Biden has a 12-point lead among people who are “extremely motivated” to vote this fall, as Fox claims, notwithstanding the fact that Democratic voters badly want to beat Trump this fall. But the numbers here among senior citizens are noteworthy because they do jibe with various other polls, including at least one of Florida, showing Biden with a strong advantage among that group. That’s a five-alarm fire for Trump and one he has to put out somehow before November. Can’t have a 20-point swing among a high-turnout group and still get reelected.
Here’s how the race looked four years ago at this time in Fox polling, by the way:
May 18 2016 (Fox News poll) Trump: 45%
Clinton: 42% Favorables: Trump: 41/56 (-15%)
Clinton: 37/61 (-24%) May 21 2020 Biden: 48%
Trump: 40% Favorables: Biden: 48/46 (+2)
Trump: 43/55 (-12, job approval 44/54, -10) A different election than 2016. https://t.co/0oL5ApzjOB — Tyler Dinucci (@TylerDinucci) May 21, 2020
Whether Trump’s suffering this year mainly because of his ratings on coronavirus (even the CNBC poll found Biden leading him by seven on who’d do a better job of handling coronavirus) or simply because Biden isn’t nearly as personally disliked as Hillary Clinton is an open question, but the answer matters a lot. Trump can do something about the first part. It’s not clear if he can do much about the second, no matter how much Obamagate/Burisma stuff he throws at Biden.
In any case, the Fox poll is an outlier in its topline number. They may see Biden leading nationally by eight but the average right now stands at 5.5 points, very similar to where it’s been for most of the year. If there’s any real significance to the poll, it may be as a sign that Biden has shaken off any damage from the Tara Reade accusation. His lead over Trump had dropped to 4.4 points a few weeks ago as that story started percolating but he’s regained that point since then.
Maybe Trump will get lucky by having Biden pick a highly unlikable VP? I know someone who fits the bill and who really seems to want the job.


hotair--2020-05-22--Hong Kong lawmaker: China's national security law 'a knockout blow to the democracy movement'

The Chinese Communist Party has picked this moment to effectively end it ’ s commitment to “ one country , two systems ” the agreement it made with Britain during the 1997 handover of Hong Kong .
Since China ’ s previous attempts to crackdown on civil liberties in Hong Kong have been blocked by large street protests , Xi Jinping has decided to take a new approach .
Rather than trying to pass anything through Hong Kong ’ s legislature , he is simply having his National People ’ s Congress pass the new security law in Beijing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence what is happening .
Today , local authorities quickly shut down a small march of elected officials citing the need to maintain social distancing because of the coronavirus : “ They are dealing a knockout blow to the democracy movement , ” said pro-democracy lawmaker Claudia Mo .
“ All the fear , the desperation , the antipathy is now being answered by this national security law.
” Stunned and saddened , many protesters on Friday seemed demoralized and uncertain of their next move .
While some on social media called for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would focus on events already planned for the coming days… At noon , about two dozen protesters walked from a police station on Hong Kong ’ s western side to China ’ s Liaison Office , which represents the mainland government ’ s interests in the semiautonomous territory .
As they walked , they chanted , “ One country , two systems is dead ” and “ Hong Kong is the next Xinjiang ” — a reference to the region in northwest China where the authorities have carried out a vast crackdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers quickly ordered the protesters , largely elected officials , to stop .
Citing social distancing restrictions , the police eventually cordoned them off into two groups and issued formal warnings .
The march lasted about three minutes .
The connection of what is happening now in Hong Kong to the coronavirus is more than coincidental .
Bloomberg reports that the virus has created a moment of crisis for the Chinese Communist Party .
The social and economic disruption represents a threat to Xi Jinping ’ s leadership and a crackdown on Hong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Facing rising unemployment in the mainland due to the Covid-19 outbreak and the potential for a big loss in Hong Kong legislative elections set for September , the Communist Party decided it had more to gain by acting decisively to stem any potential threats .
“ Xi feels threatened , the leadership feels threatened — this is a crisis , ” said David Zweig , an emeritus professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and director of Transnational China Consulting Ltd. “ This is , ‘ We ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re going to tighten up , and Hong Kong ’ s national security as a potential subversive center is greater than its economic value.
’ ” … The unease within the party leadership was on display at the opening of the National People ’ s Congress in Beijing , where Premier Li Keqiang announced China would abandon its decades-long practice of setting an annual target for economic growth due to “ great uncertainty ” in the world economy .
The U.S. is already hinting that Hong Kong ’ s special status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk if China doesn ’ t maintain the “ two systems ” part of the agreement .
A new U.S. law requires the State Department to certify at least annually that Hong Kong , which experienced widespread protests last year over China ’ s extradition plans , retains enough autonomy to justify favorable U.S. trading terms .
President Donald Trump warned on Thursday that Washington could react “ very strongly ” to China ’ s new restrictions… Some $ 67 billion in annual Hong Kong-U.S. trade of goods and services could be put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its preferential lower U.S. tariff rate… A U.S. revocation of Hong Kong ’ s special status would be viewed by Beijing as interfering with its sovereignty , and China has previously threatened to “ take strong countermeasures.
” But with the economy already a mess , Xi Jinping has apparently decided to roll the dice on this power grab counting on the fact that the rest of the world is too occupied right now to react .
If the gamble pays off , Xi will be able to prevent a renewed series of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrate strength at a moment when he would otherwise look weak .
This is red meat for Chinese nationalists and communists who have wanted a harder line on the pro-freedom troublemakers in Hong Kong for months .
This is similar to Putin ’ s seizure of Crimea in 2014 , the likely result will be increased support and approval for Xi ’ s leadership .
But it really depends on how the rest of the world responds .
As for the protesters , organizer Joshua Wong tweeted responses to a series of questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independence appeared to be over and he expected to be one of the first who would be arrested under the new law .
I ’ ll wrap this up with this video of pro-freedom legislator Dennis Kwok .
He predicts that in a very short time we could see “ the end of Hong Kong as an international financial and business center .
”

The Chinese Communist Party has picked this moment to effectively end it’s commitment to “one country, two systems” the agreement it made with Britain during the 1997 handover of Hong Kong. Since China’s previous attempts to crackdown on civil liberties in Hong Kong have been blocked by large street protests, Xi Jinping has decided to take a new approach. Rather than trying to pass anything through Hong Kong’s legislature, he is simply having his National People’s Congress pass the new security law in Beijing. That leaves no opportunity for protesters to influence what is happening. Today, local authorities quickly shut down a small march of elected officials citing the need to maintain social distancing because of the coronavirus:
“They are dealing a knockout blow to the democracy movement,” said pro-democracy lawmaker Claudia Mo. “All the fear, the desperation, the antipathy is now being answered by this national security law.” Stunned and saddened, many protesters on Friday seemed demoralized and uncertain of their next move. While some on social media called for rallies or singalongs, several organizers said they would focus on events already planned for the coming days… At noon, about two dozen protesters walked from a police station on Hong Kong’s western side to China’s Liaison Office, which represents the mainland government’s interests in the semiautonomous territory. As they walked, they chanted, “One country, two systems is dead” and “Hong Kong is the next Xinjiang” — a reference to the region in northwest China where the authorities have carried out a vast crackdown on predominately Muslim minority groups. Police officers quickly ordered the protesters, largely elected officials, to stop. Citing social distancing restrictions, the police eventually cordoned them off into two groups and issued formal warnings. The march lasted about three minutes.
The connection of what is happening now in Hong Kong to the coronavirus is more than coincidental. Bloomberg reports that the virus has created a moment of crisis for the Chinese Communist Party. The social and economic disruption represents a threat to Xi Jinping’s leadership and a crackdown on Hong Kong is one way to look strong.
Facing rising unemployment in the mainland due to the Covid-19 outbreak and the potential for a big loss in Hong Kong legislative elections set for September, the Communist Party decided it had more to gain by acting decisively to stem any potential threats. “Xi feels threatened, the leadership feels threatened — this is a crisis,” said David Zweig, an emeritus professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and director of Transnational China Consulting Ltd. “This is, ‘We’re not going to give an inch, we’re going to tighten up, and Hong Kong’s national security as a potential subversive center is greater than its economic value.’”… The unease within the party leadership was on display at the opening of the National People’s Congress in Beijing, where Premier Li Keqiang announced China would abandon its decades-long practice of setting an annual target for economic growth due to “great uncertainty” in the world economy.
The U.S. is already hinting that Hong Kong’s special status as a trading partner could be at risk if China doesn’t maintain the “two systems” part of the agreement.
A new U.S. law requires the State Department to certify at least annually that Hong Kong, which experienced widespread protests last year over China’s extradition plans, retains enough autonomy to justify favorable U.S. trading terms. President Donald Trump warned on Thursday that Washington could react “very strongly” to China’s new restrictions… Some $67 billion in annual Hong Kong-U.S. trade of goods and services could be put at risk as Hong Kong would lose its preferential lower U.S. tariff rate… A U.S. revocation of Hong Kong’s special status would be viewed by Beijing as interfering with its sovereignty, and China has previously threatened to “take strong countermeasures.”
But with the economy already a mess, Xi Jinping has apparently decided to roll the dice on this power grab counting on the fact that the rest of the world is too occupied right now to react. If the gamble pays off, Xi will be able to prevent a renewed series of protests in Hong Kong this fall and demonstrate strength at a moment when he would otherwise look weak. This is red meat for Chinese nationalists and communists who have wanted a harder line on the pro-freedom troublemakers in Hong Kong for months. This is similar to Putin’s seizure of Crimea in 2014, the likely result will be increased support and approval for Xi’s leadership. But it really depends on how the rest of the world responds.
As for the protesters, organizer Joshua Wong tweeted responses to a series of questions, saying that Hong Kong’s independence appeared to be over and he expected to be one of the first who would be arrested under the new law.
1.2/ More worryingly, Beijing plans to set up a national security agency to enforce the law in the city. This new secret police body will probably supersede HKGov & police forces and launch secret arrests of all dissents in HK, just like Liu Xiaobo and Gui Minhai. — Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 😷 (@joshuawongcf) May 22, 2020
1.4/ China has been notorious for arresting dissents or foreigners in the name of national security or foreign collusion. The so-called foreign collusion is more than an excuse to rip away pro-democracy forces. — Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 😷 (@joshuawongcf) May 22, 2020
1.6/ China is known for its hostage diplomacy by arresting foreigners as hostages to serve its diplomatic purposes. Foreign reporters were also denied renewals of work visas for covering political dissents in the past. — Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 😷 (@joshuawongcf) May 22, 2020
2/ [How do you see this planned law?] 2.1/ The new law is the direct retaliation on HKers' international lobbying efforts over the past year. I will be probably the prime target of the new law since many of Beijing's officials have been criticizing me for attending hearings. — Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 😷 (@joshuawongcf) May 22, 2020
2.3/ China is now scraping the promised autonomy in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a legally binding international treaty at the United Nations. Hence, it also carries deadly implications to other agreements and cooperations with China. — Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 😷 (@joshuawongcf) May 22, 2020
3.2/ This is not a question of whether our choices are easy or not, but right or wrong! To fight for any slight hope of democracy under China's authoritarian claws, we insist on not because we are strong, but because we have no other choice. — Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 😷 (@joshuawongcf) May 22, 2020
3.4/ Hongkongers have carried out a large-scale demonstration once in 2003 to block the first introduction of national security legislation. Now Beijing's move is actually ramming this most controversial and unpopular law down HKer's throat without any legislative scrutiny. — Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 😷 (@joshuawongcf) May 22, 2020
3.5/ It is foreseeable that HKers are prepared to fight to protect our vanishing freedoms. To uphold autonomy and freedoms of the city, I call upon the world to stand with HK once again, and oppose this draconian law and urge China to honour its commitment in Joint Declaration. — Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 😷 (@joshuawongcf) May 22, 2020
I’ll wrap this up with this video of pro-freedom legislator Dennis Kwok. He predicts that in a very short time we could see “the end of Hong Kong as an international financial and business center.”