hotair--2020-05-04--DHS: China did more than just lie about the virus

The more we learn about the early stages of the novel coronavirus outbreak , the worse the Chinese Communist Party looks .
Far from being innocent victims of Mother Nature , the CCP was reportedly plotting to maximize its own advantages at the expense of everyone else on the planet .
At least that ’ s the upshot of the latest report from the Department of Homeland Security .
Were the Chinese lying about the virus initially , or at least hiding critical information about it from the rest of the world ?
Of course they were .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves look bad , though that was a part of it .
They were also using the delay to begin rapidly stockpiling vital medical supplies for their own use before there was a run on the market .
( Associated Press ) U.S. officials believe China covered up the extent of the coronavirus outbreak — and how contagious the disease is — to stock up on medical supplies needed to respond to it , intelligence documents show .
Chinese leaders “ intentionally concealed the severity ” of the pandemic from the world in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Homeland Security intelligence report dated May 1 and obtained by The Associated Press .
The revelation comes as the Trump administration has intensified its criticism of China , with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying Sunday that that country was responsible for the spread of disease and must be held accountable .
Oddly , the DHS analysis starts off rather blatantly accusing the CCP of buying time to hoard surgical gowns , masks , gloves , ventilators and other supplies , but then throws a bit of doubt into the mix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying there was “ no public evidence to suggest it was an intentional plot to buy up the world ’ s medical supplies.
” Wait… so you ’ re saying there ’ s no public evidence of them doing precisely what you just accused them of doing ?
Instead , the report suggests that the delay in sharing all they knew about the virus may have been the result of “ bureaucratic hurdles , tight controls on information , and officials hesitant to report bad news.
” All three of those labels certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but that doesn ’ t mean that they weren ’ t taking advantage of the situation .
The report also states that there is a “ 95 % probability that China ’ s changes in imports and export behavior were not within the normal range.
” That sounds like a lot more than simple bureaucratic hurdles .
The timeline now being provided makes it look pretty obvious that there was intentional deception taking place .
China obviously knew that they had some sort of viral outbreak taking place in early December , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ informed the WHO that there had been an “ outbreak ” on December 31st .
They waited until January 3rd to tell the CDC .
And it wasn ’ t until January 8th that they announced they had identified the contagion as a new type of coronavirus .
All the while , they were ramping up their purchases of medical equipment .
Even if we assume that China is telling the truth about precisely when they learned that this was something new and a serious threat , it now appears that it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyway , at least in terms of containment .
People were being infected and flying back and forth from China to the United States well before Christmas .
And as more and more data is being collected in the United States , it ’ s growing increasingly apparent that the bug was already in our country before we even knew there was a problem .
So what ’ s the takeaway from this development in the story ?
The same as it ’ s been for months now .
We should be learning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States – has outsourced far too much control of the global supply chain to a country that can ’ t be trusted with that sort of power .
The CCP is a bad actor on the world stage , and their benevolence only extends as far as the point where it ’ s no longer economically advantageous for them to work with others .

The more we learn about the early stages of the novel coronavirus outbreak, the worse the Chinese Communist Party looks. Far from being innocent victims of Mother Nature, the CCP was reportedly plotting to maximize its own advantages at the expense of everyone else on the planet. At least that’s the upshot of the latest report from the Department of Homeland Security. Were the Chinese lying about the virus initially, or at least hiding critical information about it from the rest of the world? Of course they were. But it wasn’t just to avoid making themselves look bad, though that was a part of it. They were also using the delay to begin rapidly stockpiling vital medical supplies for their own use before there was a run on the market. (Associated Press)
U.S. officials believe China covered up the extent of the coronavirus outbreak — and how contagious the disease is — to stock up on medical supplies needed to respond to it, intelligence documents show. Chinese leaders “intentionally concealed the severity” of the pandemic from the world in early January, according to a four-page Department of Homeland Security intelligence report dated May 1 and obtained by The Associated Press. The revelation comes as the Trump administration has intensified its criticism of China, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying Sunday that that country was responsible for the spread of disease and must be held accountable.
Oddly, the DHS analysis starts off rather blatantly accusing the CCP of buying time to hoard surgical gowns, masks, gloves, ventilators and other supplies, but then throws a bit of doubt into the mix at the end. They conclude by saying there was “no public evidence to suggest it was an intentional plot to buy up the world’s medical supplies.” Wait… so you’re saying there’s no public evidence of them doing precisely what you just accused them of doing?
Instead, the report suggests that the delay in sharing all they knew about the virus may have been the result of “bureaucratic hurdles, tight controls on information, and officials hesitant to report bad news.” All three of those labels certainly seem to fit China like a glove, but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t taking advantage of the situation. The report also states that there is a “95% probability that China’s changes in imports and export behavior were not within the normal range.” That sounds like a lot more than simple bureaucratic hurdles.
The timeline now being provided makes it look pretty obvious that there was intentional deception taking place. China obviously knew that they had some sort of viral outbreak taking place in early December, if not sooner. But they first informed the WHO that there had been an “outbreak” on December 31st. They waited until January 3rd to tell the CDC. And it wasn’t until January 8th that they announced they had identified the contagion as a new type of coronavirus. All the while, they were ramping up their purchases of medical equipment.
Even if we assume that China is telling the truth about precisely when they learned that this was something new and a serious threat, it now appears that it was too late to do anything about it anyway, at least in terms of containment. People were being infected and flying back and forth from China to the United States well before Christmas. And as more and more data is being collected in the United States, it’s growing increasingly apparent that the bug was already in our country before we even knew there was a problem.
So what’s the takeaway from this development in the story? The same as it’s been for months now. We should be learning that the entire world – including the United States – has outsourced far too much control of the global supply chain to a country that can’t be trusted with that sort of power. The CCP is a bad actor on the world stage, and their benevolence only extends as far as the point where it’s no longer economically advantageous for them to work with others.


hotair--2020-05-04--If Kavanaugh wasn't entitled to the benefit of the doubt in a "job interview," why is Biden?

A nice compilation by David Rutz of the Free Beacon featuring a familiar face at the end of the clip .
I mentioned this Kavanaugh-era talking point in a post on Friday .
It was everywhere at the time , as you ’ re about to see .
Watch , then read on .
We don ’ t want to send Kavanaugh to prison , said Democrats of Christine Blasey Ford ’ s allegation , we just want to deny him a job to which he ’ s not entitled .
It ’ s not like Chuck Schumer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kavanaugh is borked .
Trump will simply go back to the drawing board .
But that was far too cute .
It ’ s not “ just a job interview ” if the candidate ’ s being disqualified based on an unsubstantiated allegation of attempted rape .
That ’ s a reputation-destroying claim .
If supported , it would have made us question whether Kavanaugh belongs in civil society as a free man , never mind the Supreme Court .
If you apply for a job and you ’ re turned down for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough experience , them ’ s the breaks .
If you apply for a job and you ’ re turned down because someone emailed the hiring coordinator afterward and claimed without evidence that you ’ re a child molester , you have a grievance .
But if an unsupported accusation of a sexual offense was sufficient to deprive Kavanaugh of a job according to Democratic thinking , why isn ’ t it sufficient to deprive Biden of one ?
He hasn ’ t clinched a majority of delegates yet .
Even if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way to step in and deny the nomination to a candidate who ’ d been charged with a serious crime even if he hadn ’ t yet been convicted .
It ’ s a matter of protecting the party ’ s honor , not to mention its chances in November .
You don ’ t anoint someone as nominee when there ’ s good reason to believe he ’ s committed a felony , whether or not that ’ s been proven in court .
And there must be good reason in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re told .
Tara Reade ’ s a woman .
Whether Biden belongs in prison or not is between him and the relevant D.A .
For the DNC ’ s purposes , it ’ s enough to say that … it ’ s just a job interview .
Next .
DNC chief Tom Perez isn ’ t following that standard , though , surprisingly enough : “ There ’ s been so many investigations of the vice-president .
The most comprehensive investigation of the vice-president was when he was vetted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m very familiar with the vice-presidential vetting process .
They look at everything about you , ” Perez said on ABC News ’ “ This Week.
” “ They looked at the entire history of Joe Biden , his entire career .
And I ’ ll tell you , if Barack Obama had any indication that there was an issue , Barack Obama would not have had him as his vice-president .
Barack Obama trusted Joe Biden .
I trust Joe Biden .
And those investigations have been done.
” … “ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was nothing there , ” he said .
It ’ s true , Team Obama had every reason to vet Biden thoroughly and skeptically .
And they did , according to David Axelrod , and found nothing regarding Reade .
But Team Trump had every reason to vet Kavanaugh thoroughly .
As did Team Bush , which first brought him on as White House staff secretary and then nominated him to the D.C .
Circuit .
I can ’ t remember a single Democrat citing the fact that Kavanaugh had been vetted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple Republican administrations as evidence that he must be innocent of the accusation against him .
The best Dems can do to distinguish the two cases is to say that Biden ’ s been chosen by the people while Kavanaugh was seeking confirmation by the Senate .
In a democracy the people are always right ; if Democratic voters decided that Biden ’ s passed his “ job interview ” then it ’ s not for the party to second-guess them .
Except … virtually every ballot for Biden was cast before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats insist on adopting this standard of “ the people have spoken ” for their nominee , presumably they agree that the many allegations of sexual misconduct pending against Trump have also been rendered moot politically by his election .
If Republican Party delegates concluded this summer that there ’ s too much smoke around Trump for there not to be fire and declined to nominate him , Democrats would have to reluctantly conclude that that ’ s inappropriate and undemocratic and that the president should be rightly nominated anyway .
I assume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases of Biden and Trump by pointing out that there ’ s one accusation against Biden ( not including the creepy hair-sniffing stuff ) versus dozens against Trump .
But if we ’ re going by numbers then we ’ re back to the Kavanaugh comparison .
Why was one allegation enough to end his Supreme Court candidacy but not enough to end Biden ’ s presidential candidacy ?
The best thing going for Joe right now is that Trump is in a uniquely poor position to accuse him of sexual offenses .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it all day long but the White House and the party leadership is necessarily forced to stay away .
Team Trump is also having to tread lightly on its other big weapon against Biden , his apparent senescence .
The RNC has leveraged that , cutting clips of Biden ’ s “ senior moments ” in interviews and posting them to YouTube , but reportedly the White House is nervous about how that ’ s going to play with the electorate .
“ Several political advisers , including White House senior aide Kellyanne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relentlessly mocking the 77-year-old Biden ’ s mental acuity because the president has already lost ground with senior citizens , people familiar with the matter said , ” according to WaPo .
Declining popularity with seniors is Trump ’ s biggest electoral problem right now .
If he goes all-in on mocking Biden for having “ lost a step , ” how does that play with people 65 and older ?

A nice compilation by David Rutz of the Free Beacon featuring a familiar face at the end of the clip. I mentioned this Kavanaugh-era talking point in a post on Friday. It was everywhere at the time, as you’re about to see. Watch, then read on.
FLASHBACK: Democrats Said Kavanaugh Was Undergoing ‘Job Interview,’ Didn’t Deserve Presumption of Innocence https://t.co/6dherKS2Fv pic.twitter.com/MrdKZgYrxc — Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) May 4, 2020
We don’t want to send Kavanaugh to prison, said Democrats of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation, we just want to deny him a job to which he’s not entitled. It’s not like Chuck Schumer’s going to nominate the next candidate if Kavanaugh is borked. Trump will simply go back to the drawing board.
But that was far too cute. It’s not “just a job interview” if the candidate’s being disqualified based on an unsubstantiated allegation of attempted rape. That’s a reputation-destroying claim. If supported, it would have made us question whether Kavanaugh belongs in civil society as a free man, never mind the Supreme Court. If you apply for a job and you’re turned down for some pedestrian reason, like not having enough experience, them’s the breaks. If you apply for a job and you’re turned down because someone emailed the hiring coordinator afterward and claimed without evidence that you’re a child molester, you have a grievance.
But if an unsupported accusation of a sexual offense was sufficient to deprive Kavanaugh of a job according to Democratic thinking, why isn’t it sufficient to deprive Biden of one? He hasn’t clinched a majority of delegates yet. Even if he had, surely the DNC would find a way to step in and deny the nomination to a candidate who’d been charged with a serious crime even if he hadn’t yet been convicted. It’s a matter of protecting the party’s honor, not to mention its chances in November. You don’t anoint someone as nominee when there’s good reason to believe he’s committed a felony, whether or not that’s been proven in court.
And there must be good reason in this case. Believe all women, we’re told. Tara Reade’s a woman. Whether Biden belongs in prison or not is between him and the relevant D.A. For the DNC’s purposes, it’s enough to say that … it’s just a job interview. Next.
DNC chief Tom Perez isn’t following that standard, though, surprisingly enough:
“There’s been so many investigations of the vice-president. The most comprehensive investigation of the vice-president was when he was vetted by Barack Obama in 2008. I’m very familiar with the vice-presidential vetting process. They look at everything about you,” Perez said on ABC News’ “This Week.” “They looked at the entire history of Joe Biden, his entire career. And I’ll tell you, if Barack Obama had any indication that there was an issue, Barack Obama would not have had him as his vice-president. Barack Obama trusted Joe Biden. I trust Joe Biden. And those investigations have been done.”… “This is like the Hillary emails, because there was nothing there,” he said.
It’s true, Team Obama had every reason to vet Biden thoroughly and skeptically. And they did, according to David Axelrod, and found nothing regarding Reade.
But Team Trump had every reason to vet Kavanaugh thoroughly. As did Team Bush, which first brought him on as White House staff secretary and then nominated him to the D.C. Circuit. I can’t remember a single Democrat citing the fact that Kavanaugh had been vetted and received a vote of confidence by multiple Republican administrations as evidence that he must be innocent of the accusation against him.
The best Dems can do to distinguish the two cases is to say that Biden’s been chosen by the people while Kavanaugh was seeking confirmation by the Senate. In a democracy the people are always right; if Democratic voters decided that Biden’s passed his “job interview” then it’s not for the party to second-guess them. Except … virtually every ballot for Biden was cast before the Reade allegation broke big. And if Democrats insist on adopting this standard of “the people have spoken” for their nominee, presumably they agree that the many allegations of sexual misconduct pending against Trump have also been rendered moot politically by his election. If Republican Party delegates concluded this summer that there’s too much smoke around Trump for there not to be fire and declined to nominate him, Democrats would have to reluctantly conclude that that’s inappropriate and undemocratic and that the president should be rightly nominated anyway.
I assume they’d try to distinguish the cases of Biden and Trump by pointing out that there’s one accusation against Biden (not including the creepy hair-sniffing stuff) versus dozens against Trump. But if we’re going by numbers then we’re back to the Kavanaugh comparison. Why was one allegation enough to end his Supreme Court candidacy but not enough to end Biden’s presidential candidacy?
The best thing going for Joe right now is that Trump is in a uniquely poor position to accuse him of sexual offenses. Righties like me can make hay of it all day long but the White House and the party leadership is necessarily forced to stay away. Team Trump is also having to tread lightly on its other big weapon against Biden, his apparent senescence. The RNC has leveraged that, cutting clips of Biden’s “senior moments” in interviews and posting them to YouTube, but reportedly the White House is nervous about how that’s going to play with the electorate. “Several political advisers, including White House senior aide Kellyanne Conway, have warned his allies against relentlessly mocking the 77-year-old Biden’s mental acuity because the president has already lost ground with senior citizens, people familiar with the matter said,” according to WaPo. Declining popularity with seniors is Trump’s biggest electoral problem right now. If he goes all-in on mocking Biden for having “lost a step,” how does that play with people 65 and older?


hotair--2020-05-04--Poll: Top choice for Biden's vice-president aligns with Hollywood's

A new poll out from CBS News is out with results on who Democrat voters want Joe Biden to pick for his vice-presidential choice .
Interestingly , the results line up pretty well with opinions coming from big-money donors in Hollywood and not at all with donors on Wall Street .
The CBS News poll asked only about women because Biden has indicated he ’ d pick a woman .
There is no way the party of identity politics can run a presidential ticket with two men on it , and certainly not two white men .
It wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , either .
“ This CBS News survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 2,200 U.S. residents interviewed between April 28 – May 1 , 2020 .
This sample was weighted according to gender , age , race and education based on the American Community Survey , conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census , as well as 2016 presidential vote and registration status .
The margin of error is ± 2.5 points.
” Ok .
So , who ’ s up and who ’ s down ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a coronavirus pandemic crisis overshadowing all other issues , both economic expertise and crisis management skills are of top importance .
The importance of crisis management experience comes in at 57 % , economic expertise at 49 % , national security experience at 39 % , and legislative experience at 37 % .
The potential choice that comes in first is Elizabeth Warren .
If you look at the four categories of importance , she fits the bill .
A whopping 71 % of Democrat voters polled said she should be chosen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the respondents , though not with such a big lead – she is in first place at 36 % .
The other top choices are Kamala Harris ’ at 19 % , Stacey Abrams at 14 % , and Amy Klobuchar at 13 % .
No one else gets over 4 % .
Other names on the list included Tammy Duckworth , Susan Rice , and Gretchen Whitmer .
There ’ s no doubt that Warren , Harris , and Klobuchar have the top name recognition as they all ran for the presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsed Biden .
Ironically , to me , it ’ s Amy Klobuchar who has seemed to be most anxious to be chosen of the top three women .
Stacey Abrams is lesser-known but still well-known since she ran for governor of Georgia and captured the Hollywood vote , though not the final Georgia vote .
Since then she has played victim of alleged voter suppression and refused to get on with her life .
Like Hillary , she refuses to leave the stage and now is downright aggressively pursuing becoming Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen such bold public begging for the vice-presidential spot on the ticket .
Duckworth might appeal to war veterans .
Whitmer was unknown until the coronavirus hit and though she ’ s captured the spotlight , it hasn ’ t gone so well for her .
Her inner dictator appeared fairly early on and residents of Michigan are not so favorable of her performance .
For voters claiming that economic expertise is their number one priority , Warren is preferred .
Kamala Harris , though , is favorable among both white and black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the most likely to motivate Democrat turn-out , which would be helpful since Biden has a real enthusiasm problem with voters .
Joe Biden is the candidate the establishment Democrats settled for , not who the grassroots and the progressive wing of voters are enthusiastic about .
Abrams is favored by black Democrats over white Democrats and by liberals over moderates .
That makes sense given her continued claims of victimhood and racism from her last campaign .
Amy Klobuchar is favored by older voters more so than younger voters and white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be a safe choice that could pull in support from the midwest region of the country .
While the majority of Democrats are found to want a more liberal or progressive person to be chosen , they also acknowledge that a moderate , safer choice would be of more help in winning the election .
Hence , the rub .
Above all , voters want someone who can step up and do the job of the president if it comes down to that with a Biden administration .
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frail and feeble Status Quo Joe appears to be .
I question if he ’ ll survive the campaign , much less a four-year term in the highest office in the land .
What do the pampered and privileged big donors in Hollywood think about Biden ’ s choice ?
As much as they would like it to happen , they acknowledge that Michelle Obama isn ’ t going to step in and save the election for the Democrats .
She doesn ’ t check off any of the boxes for the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for in expertise or experience but she ’ s a superstar .
Hollywood ’ s big donors are going with Elizabeth Warren , Kamala Harris , and Stacey Abrams for now .
They think that Klobuchar is just too safe of a choice .
“ She is so impressive , but if you were blah about Biden , you are still going to be blah if Amy is the pick , ” says a well-connected insider about the Minnesota senator , who has been a frequent surrogate for Biden over the weeks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the exact opposite of most presidential campaigns , right ?
Usually , the top of the ticket is the one with all the enthusiasm and the choice for vice-president is suppose to project a safe and experienced choice .
In the case of Biden himself when Team Obama decided on him , Biden was put on the ticket to assure voters that there would be someone with foreign policy experience in the inner circle .
Those in Hollywood who identify more on the progressive wing of the Democrat Party like Warren .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will alienate voters in the heartland of America .
Then there ’ s a celebrity in the world of sports who has tossed her hat in the ring for consideration by Team Biden .
Dr. Jill approves , too .
It ’ s women ’ s soccer star/political and social activist Megan Rapinoe .
She could be the official kneeler at ceremonies and whatnot to protest the injustice du jour for the Biden administration .
Mrs. Biden a.k.a .
Dr. Jill is a huge fan .
She died her hair purple to match @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Rapinoe did an Instagram live spot with both Bidens last week .
She originally backed Warren then settled for Joe when he was the last candidate standing .
Big money donors on Wall Street , though , are still not on board with Elizabeth Warren .
They prefer Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar , even Gretchen Whitmer , over Warren .
There you have it .
From the polling of regular Democrat voters , Warren is the top choice .
In the entertainment world , Warren is a favorite .
Yet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her .
That ’ s the bridge Biden has to build now .
In order to reap the big financial donations , which he will need up against Trump , he has to find a way to satisfy all of them .

A new poll out from CBS News is out with results on who Democrat voters want Joe Biden to pick for his vice-presidential choice. Interestingly, the results line up pretty well with opinions coming from big-money donors in Hollywood and not at all with donors on Wall Street.
The CBS News poll asked only about women because Biden has indicated he’d pick a woman. There is no way the party of identity politics can run a presidential ticket with two men on it, and certainly not two white men. It wasn’t a particularly large sample of voters, either. “This CBS News survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 2,200 U.S. residents interviewed between April 28 – May 1, 2020. This sample was weighted according to gender, age, race and education based on the American Community Survey, conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, as well as 2016 presidential vote and registration status. The margin of error is ± 2.5 points.”
Ok. So, who’s up and who’s down? With the economy in the dumpster and a coronavirus pandemic crisis overshadowing all other issues, both economic expertise and crisis management skills are of top importance. The importance of crisis management experience comes in at 57%, economic expertise at 49%, national security experience at 39%, and legislative experience at 37%. The potential choice that comes in first is Elizabeth Warren. If you look at the four categories of importance, she fits the bill. A whopping 71% of Democrat voters polled said she should be chosen. She also is the first choice of the respondents, though not with such a big lead – she is in first place at 36%. The other top choices are Kamala Harris’ at 19%, Stacey Abrams at 14%, and Amy Klobuchar at 13%. No one else gets over 4%. Other names on the list included Tammy Duckworth, Susan Rice, and Gretchen Whitmer.
There’s no doubt that Warren, Harris, and Klobuchar have the top name recognition as they all ran for the presidential nomination. All have dropped out and endorsed Biden. Ironically, to me, it’s Amy Klobuchar who has seemed to be most anxious to be chosen of the top three women. Stacey Abrams is lesser-known but still well-known since she ran for governor of Georgia and captured the Hollywood vote, though not the final Georgia vote. Since then she has played victim of alleged voter suppression and refused to get on with her life. Like Hillary, she refuses to leave the stage and now is downright aggressively pursuing becoming Biden’s choice. I’ve never seen such bold public begging for the vice-presidential spot on the ticket. Duckworth might appeal to war veterans. Whitmer was unknown until the coronavirus hit and though she’s captured the spotlight, it hasn’t gone so well for her. Her inner dictator appeared fairly early on and residents of Michigan are not so favorable of her performance.
For voters claiming that economic expertise is their number one priority, Warren is preferred. Kamala Harris, though, is favorable among both white and black voters. She also is looked upon as the most likely to motivate Democrat turn-out, which would be helpful since Biden has a real enthusiasm problem with voters. Joe Biden is the candidate the establishment Democrats settled for, not who the grassroots and the progressive wing of voters are enthusiastic about.
Abrams is favored by black Democrats over white Democrats and by liberals over moderates. That makes sense given her continued claims of victimhood and racism from her last campaign. Amy Klobuchar is favored by older voters more so than younger voters and white Democrats more than black Democrats. Klobuchar would be a safe choice that could pull in support from the midwest region of the country.
While the majority of Democrats are found to want a more liberal or progressive person to be chosen, they also acknowledge that a moderate, safer choice would be of more help in winning the election. Hence, the rub. Above all, voters want someone who can step up and do the job of the president if it comes down to that with a Biden administration. It’s a fair concern, too, given how frail and feeble Status Quo Joe appears to be. I question if he’ll survive the campaign, much less a four-year term in the highest office in the land.
What do the pampered and privileged big donors in Hollywood think about Biden’s choice? As much as they would like it to happen, they acknowledge that Michelle Obama isn’t going to step in and save the election for the Democrats. She doesn’t check off any of the boxes for the top four considerations that Democrat voters are looking for in expertise or experience but she’s a superstar.
“Michelle Obama is a superstar and could be a big asset, but she doesn’t need or want this,” a prominent Tinseltown donor to the Democrats wistfully says of the popular former First Lady becoming the running mate to her husband’s ex-Vice President. “Michelle would be ideal, but that’s not going to happen,” another politically active insider added, calling it “a dream ticket that will remain a dream.” Michelle Obama has a new Becoming documentary debuting on Netflix on May 6 as part of the couple’s overall deal with the streamer.
Hollywood’s big donors are going with Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Stacey Abrams for now. They think that Klobuchar is just too safe of a choice. “She is so impressive, but if you were blah about Biden, you are still going to be blah if Amy is the pick,” says a well-connected insider about the Minnesota senator, who has been a frequent surrogate for Biden over the weeks of the COVID-19 lockdown.” That’s the exact opposite of most presidential campaigns, right? Usually, the top of the ticket is the one with all the enthusiasm and the choice for vice-president is suppose to project a safe and experienced choice. In the case of Biden himself when Team Obama decided on him, Biden was put on the ticket to assure voters that there would be someone with foreign policy experience in the inner circle.
Those in Hollywood who identify more on the progressive wing of the Democrat Party like Warren. She is also acknowledged to be someone who will alienate voters in the heartland of America.
“Elizabeth Warren would be a great pick, would unify the party and would be a great President eventually in her own right,” says another politically active filmmaker about the Massachusetts senator, whose policy stances appeal to the progressive instincts of many in Hollywood’s donor class.
Then there’s a celebrity in the world of sports who has tossed her hat in the ring for consideration by Team Biden. Dr. Jill approves, too. It’s women’s soccer star/political and social activist Megan Rapinoe. She could be the official kneeler at ceremonies and whatnot to protest the injustice du jour for the Biden administration. Mrs. Biden a.k.a. Dr. Jill is a huge fan. She died her hair purple to match Megan’s during the World Cup. Rapinoe did an Instagram live spot with both Bidens last week. She originally backed Warren then settled for Joe when he was the last candidate standing.
Big money donors on Wall Street, though, are still not on board with Elizabeth Warren. They prefer Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar, even Gretchen Whitmer, over Warren.
“I think a lot of the donor base, on board and coming, would prefer almost anyone but Elizabeth. I don’t see him choosing her for veep” said a longtime fundraiser for Biden who is regularly in touch with him. “She would be horrible. He would lose the election,” said a Wall Street executive who was once backing others running in the Democratic primary and later joined Biden’s donor ranks.
There you have it. From the polling of regular Democrat voters, Warren is the top choice. In the entertainment world, Warren is a favorite. Yet, Wall Street wants nothing to do with her. That’s the bridge Biden has to build now. In order to reap the big financial donations, which he will need up against Trump, he has to find a way to satisfy all of them.


hotair--2020-05-05--Trump: People are going to die when we reopen but Americans are "warriors"

Not a word in the answer below about the federal guidelines that he personally announced a few weeks ago , I notice .
On the day he unveiled them I remember thinking that he was probably seeing them for the first time when he was at the podium , reading them aloud , and would never mention them again in discussing when to reopen .
Has he mentioned them since then ?
Just that time he took exception to Brian Kemp authorizing nail salons and tattoo parlors to reopen in Georgia , right ?
Otherwise it ’ s been pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work ” cheerleading .
Also , contra what he says , there ’ s not a doctor in the country who ’ s told him that we need to stay home for two years .
There are plenty of doctors who are projecting a two-year epidemic , but if anyone ’ s advising total economic paralysis until 2022 , shoot me an email and let me know because I missed it .
Some anti-Trumpers are grumbling on social media about the part where he acknowledges that some unlucky number of Americans will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But that ’ s a banal admission .
Chris Christie made news yesterday for the same observation and I don ’ t understand why .
Of course more people will die once we open back up .
That ’ s always been priced into the calculus , or should have been .
Renewed social interaction means a higher rate of infection , which means more deaths .
Greg Abbott understands that too , even if his critics don ’ t : “ Lock down until we won ’ t risk more deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the equation and couldn ’ t be part of it logically .
To the extent that the pro-lockdown group is trying to shift the goalposts on that , I sympathize with the position of Trump and his fans .
On the other hand , the vibe I get from some of them is that the inevitability of *some* deaths when we reopen means we should tolerate *any* number of deaths .
Which , uh , no .
In a way the great debate over reopening is like the old debate over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ ll have more fatal accidents ; set it low and it ’ ll take people forever to get where they want to go .
We accept a certain number of casualties in the name of expediting travel , just as we should accept a certain number of casualties in the name of restarting the economy .
But we don ’ t accept any number of casualties .
If , instead of the customary annual 35,000 deaths , America suddenly saw 350,000 deaths on the road this year , I guarantee that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rethink about auto safety .
Is new tech in cars making driving less safe ?
Have we suddenly become worse , more distracted drivers for some reason ?
Do we need to lower the speed limit after all ?
“ Debates ” over speed limits are irrational in the sense that different people have different comfort levels with different death projections and there ’ s no clearly logical explanation as to why .
I may be willing to accept 200,000 dead on the road whereas you may blanch after 100,000 , and neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persuasive justify why .
It ’ s a gut thing .
The gut reaction among anti-Trumpers right now seems to be that we can ’ t reopen until the risk of an uptick in deaths has been eliminated , which could take many months .
But the gut reaction among some Trumpers seems to be that we should reopen and plow ahead whatever the toll .
Am I wrong about that ?
If so , give me a metric that should properly trigger a rethink by a mayor or governor after reopening for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent ?
If new cases climb by 50 percent ?
Recognize that at some point consumers will notice the outbreak exploding around them and hunker down voluntarily whether there ’ s a stay-at-home order in place or not , bringing the local economy to a crashing halt .
That ’ s the wrinkle in my point about different people having different degrees of risk tolerance .
What my , or your , or Trump ’ s gut has to say about acceptable casualties from reopening is irrelevant .
The public ’ s aggregate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it won ’ t take many people hunkering down to make business unsustainable .
If 25 percent of the public , say , decides to scrupulously avoid restaurants and retail , how many businesses can survive on that reduced profit margin ?
The strongest point the lockdown supporters have in their favor is that there ’ s good reason to think meaningful economic recovery simply can ’ t happen so long as people feel unsafe .
“ Warriors ” are willing to accept some risk for commerce but they ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge .
Give them the amount of testing experts think we need to control new outbreaks , give them a local team of contact tracers to monitor people at special risk of infection , and they ’ ll circulate .
Have we done that , by the way ?
I ’ ve read various smart op-eds recently arguing that the lockdown brigades have unfairly moved the goalposts from flattening the curve to crushing the curve .
We locked down to flatten the curve in the name of preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ventilators , and we have a glimmer of hope from remdesivir .
Mission accomplished .
All of which is great , but we also have federal guidelines reflecting the considered judgment of Trump ’ s expert team about when reopening can be done safely .
They won ’ t take years to satisfy ; if they did , Trump presumably wouldn ’ t have approved them .
If the guidelines are followed , local officials can cite them to persuade reluctant consumers that it ’ s okay to come out of hiding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revival .
Are any states following the guidelines ?
Is the White House still even supporting the guidelines ?
I mentioned this new Monmouth poll in a separate post but that post was paywalled so not everyone saw it .
Let me flag this data for you again : I don ’ t think Trump and his fans fully appreciate the political risk they ’ re taking here , even though poll after poll after poll confirms that voters are more worried about a resurgence of the disease than extending the economic freeze @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the potential backlash if people decide months of quarantine weren ’ t worth the health benefits , ” writes Benjy Sarlin , “ but there ’ s also a risk months from now that there ’ s continued bad health outcomes and the economy ’ s not strong enough to make it feel worth that sacrifice.
” Trump seems not to appreciate that the scale of the recovery is at the mercy of the most reluctant Americans .
Not the MAGA-ites who really would organize Pickett ’ s charge for him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever who need to see real , sustained progress in the daily death and case numbers before plunging back into commerce will decide whether the economic comeback is anemic or hardy .
What has he done lately to reassure those people ?
Assuring them that they ’ re “ warriors ” in hopes that they ’ ll be willing corona cannon fodder for him , so that he can cut an ad touting the Dow ’ s climbing numbers in September , ain ’ t gon na do it .
By the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there were more deaths in the U.S. this week than last week .
It ’ s not all bad news ; testing is up , the rate of positive tests is down , and deaths two weeks ago exceeded this week ’ s total .
But to get people out of the house in a sustained way , it ’ ll take clear-cut evidence across various metrics that things are getting better .
That evidence isn ’ t there yet .

Not a word in the answer below about the federal guidelines that he personally announced a few weeks ago, I notice. On the day he unveiled them I remember thinking that he was probably seeing them for the first time when he was at the podium, reading them aloud, and would never mention them again in discussing when to reopen. Has he mentioned them since then? Just that time he took exception to Brian Kemp authorizing nail salons and tattoo parlors to reopen in Georgia, right? Otherwise it’s been pretty much pure “time to go back to work” cheerleading.
Also, contra what he says, there’s not a doctor in the country who’s told him that we need to stay home for two years. There are plenty of doctors who are projecting a two-year epidemic, but if anyone’s advising total economic paralysis until 2022, shoot me an email and let me know because I missed it.
Watch, then read on.
Trump on why businesses should reopen: “I’m viewing our great citizens of this country to a certain extent and to a large extent as warriors. They’re warriors. We can’t keep our country closed. We have to open our country … Will some people be badly affected? Yes.” pic.twitter.com/hNXws4bwtd — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 5, 2020
Some anti-Trumpers are grumbling on social media about the part where he acknowledges that some unlucky number of Americans will be “affected badly” by reopening. But that’s a banal admission. Chris Christie made news yesterday for the same observation and I don’t understand why. Of course more people will die once we open back up. That’s always been priced into the calculus, or should have been. Renewed social interaction means a higher rate of infection, which means more deaths. Greg Abbott understands that too, even if his critics don’t:
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
During a private call on Friday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott admitted “every scientific and medical report shows” state reopenings lead to more coronavirus cases, even as he publicly announced plans that week to end the state's stay-at-home order https://t.co/xi5f58TMgl pic.twitter.com/9VUW9z3TKd — Harry Siegel (@harrysiegel) May 5, 2020
“Lock down until we won’t risk more deaths by opening up” was never part of the equation and couldn’t be part of it logically. To the extent that the pro-lockdown group is trying to shift the goalposts on that, I sympathize with the position of Trump and his fans. On the other hand, the vibe I get from some of them is that the inevitability of *some* deaths when we reopen means we should tolerate *any* number of deaths. Which, uh, no.
In a way the great debate over reopening is like the old debate over the speed limit. Set it high and you’ll have more fatal accidents; set it low and it’ll take people forever to get where they want to go. We accept a certain number of casualties in the name of expediting travel, just as we should accept a certain number of casualties in the name of restarting the economy. But we don’t accept any number of casualties. If, instead of the customary annual 35,000 deaths, America suddenly saw 350,000 deaths on the road this year, I guarantee that we’d all have a big rethink about auto safety. Is new tech in cars making driving less safe? Have we suddenly become worse, more distracted drivers for some reason? Do we need to lower the speed limit after all? “Debates” over speed limits are irrational in the sense that different people have different comfort levels with different death projections and there’s no clearly logical explanation as to why. I may be willing to accept 200,000 dead on the road whereas you may blanch after 100,000, and neither one of us would be able to persuasive justify why. It’s a gut thing.
The gut reaction among anti-Trumpers right now seems to be that we can’t reopen until the risk of an uptick in deaths has been eliminated, which could take many months. But the gut reaction among some Trumpers seems to be that we should reopen and plow ahead whatever the toll. Am I wrong about that? If so, give me a metric that should properly trigger a rethink by a mayor or governor after reopening for business. If daily deaths climb 20 percent? If new cases climb by 50 percent? Recognize that at some point consumers will notice the outbreak exploding around them and hunker down voluntarily whether there’s a stay-at-home order in place or not, bringing the local economy to a crashing halt. That’s the wrinkle in my point about different people having different degrees of risk tolerance. What my, or your, or Trump’s gut has to say about acceptable casualties from reopening is irrelevant. The public’s aggregate gut is going to decide this.
And it won’t take many people hunkering down to make business unsustainable. If 25 percent of the public, say, decides to scrupulously avoid restaurants and retail, how many businesses can survive on that reduced profit margin? The strongest point the lockdown supporters have in their favor is that there’s good reason to think meaningful economic recovery simply can’t happen so long as people feel unsafe. “Warriors” are willing to accept some risk for commerce but they’re not going to do a Pickett’s charge. Give them the amount of testing experts think we need to control new outbreaks, give them a local team of contact tracers to monitor people at special risk of infection, and they’ll circulate.
Have we done that, by the way? I’ve read various smart op-eds recently arguing that the lockdown brigades have unfairly moved the goalposts from flattening the curve to crushing the curve. We locked down to flatten the curve in the name of preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed; since then hospitals have added capacity and ventilators, and we have a glimmer of hope from remdesivir. Mission accomplished. All of which is great, but we also have federal guidelines reflecting the considered judgment of Trump’s expert team about when reopening can be done safely. They won’t take years to satisfy; if they did, Trump presumably wouldn’t have approved them. If the guidelines are followed, local officials can cite them to persuade reluctant consumers that it’s okay to come out of hiding, which should mean a more robust economic revival.
Are any states following the guidelines? Is the White House still even supporting the guidelines?
I mentioned this new Monmouth poll in a separate post but that post was paywalled so not everyone saw it. Let me flag this data for you again:
I don’t think Trump and his fans fully appreciate the political risk they’re taking here, even though poll after poll after poll confirms that voters are more worried about a resurgence of the disease than extending the economic freeze. “There’s been commentary on the potential backlash if people decide months of quarantine weren’t worth the health benefits,” writes Benjy Sarlin, “but there’s also a risk months from now that there’s continued bad health outcomes and the economy’s not strong enough to make it feel worth that sacrifice.” Trump seems not to appreciate that the scale of the recovery is at the mercy of the most reluctant Americans. Not the MAGA-ites who really would organize Pickett’s charge for him. Not Republicans. The 25 percent or whatever who need to see real, sustained progress in the daily death and case numbers before plunging back into commerce will decide whether the economic comeback is anemic or hardy. What has he done lately to reassure those people? Assuring them that they’re “warriors” in hopes that they’ll be willing corona cannon fodder for him, so that he can cut an ad touting the Dow’s climbing numbers in September, ain’t gonna do it.
By the way, today’s COVID data shows there were more deaths in the U.S. this week than last week. It’s not all bad news; testing is up, the rate of positive tests is down, and deaths two weeks ago exceeded this week’s total. But to get people out of the house in a sustained way, it’ll take clear-cut evidence across various metrics that things are getting better. That evidence isn’t there yet.


hotair--2020-05-05--America needs a Biden coronation regardless of Reade allegation, says ... founder of The Hill, Polit

America needs a Biden coronation regardless of Reade allegation, says ... founder of The Hill, Politico

No better way to wrap up a day in which NBC News finds itself the subject of an attorney general investigation , and the Pulitzer committee offers a new low standard for journalism .
In the immortal words of the late , great Denny Green … they are who we thought they were .
Less well known were these words — “ If you want to crown ’ em , then crown their *** !
” Martin Tolchin wants to get right on that — for Joe Biden : Martin Tolchin , a veteran journalist who worked for the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Hill and Politico , rejected an investigation into Tara Reade ’ s sexual assault allegation against 2020 Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden , Monday , in case it results in Biden being found guilty and losing the election .
In a letter to the New York Times , which was written in response to an editorial board article titled , “ Investigate Tara Reade ’ s Allegations , ” Tolchin wrote , “ I totally disagree with this editorial.
” “ I don ’ t want an investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , ” he declared .
“ Would he make a great president ?
Unlikely .
Would he make a good president ?
Good enough .
Would he make a better president than the present occupant ?
Absolutely.
” Guy Benson has a suggestion for everyone : Consider it done , Guy .
Virtually , for now , anyway .
I might literally want to print this out and frame it at some point , especially when media outlets keep lecturing us on speaking truth to power .
Bear in mind too that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing but a desperate plea to cover Biden ’ s *** in the first place .
The New York Times ’ editors wanted the DNC to conduct an investigation into its own nominee as the only credible way in which to clear Biden ’ s name : As is so often the case in such situations , it is all but impossible to be certain of the truth .
But the stakes are too high to let the matter fester — or leave it to be investigated by and adjudicated in the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s highest office .
In 2018 , this board advocated strongly for a vigorous inquiry into accusations of sexual misconduct raised against Brett Kavanaugh when he was nominated to a seat on the Supreme Court .
Mr. Biden ’ s pursuit of the presidency requires no less .
His campaign , and his party , have a duty to assure the public that the accusations are being taken seriously .
The Democratic National Committee should move to investigate the matter swiftly and thoroughly , with the full cooperation of the Biden campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s suggestion that the RNC investigate Trump and deliver the definitive resolution to , er , every question the Times and others have about him .
The only way that this could be taken less seriously is if the Times demanded that Hunter Biden head the blue-ribbon investigative committee .
Even this transparent dodge of an “ investigation ” was too much for Tolchin , though .
An allegation of sexual assault isn ’ t going to derail Tolchin from his political agenda , and he seems to wonder why it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I don ’ t want justice , whatever that may be , ” Tolchin declares , “ I want a win.
” Why , a real investigation — or even the farcical one the NYT proposed — might actually prove Reade correct .
And what then ?
Why , America might just give Donald Trump another four years !
What ’ s most revealing about this is how utilitarian Tolchin treats Tara Reade in this circumstance .
And it ’ s not all that different from how other media outlets that set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh is treating her , either .
Believe All Women is a great standard for accusations involving Republican men .
When it comes to Democrat men , suddenly we get nuance and public reputation and denial and character witnesses that overrule Believe All Women .
It ’ s all just manipulation for political purposes , mainly to defend access to abortion at all costs .
The bottom Democratic line is all that matters to Tolchin , and based on how they have treated the Reade issue in contrast to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all that matters to many of Tolchin ’ s colleagues , too .
But that ’ s why we take the damn field … right , Coach ?

No better way to wrap up a day in which NBC News finds itself the subject of an attorney general investigation, and the Pulitzer committee offers a new low standard for journalism. In the immortal words of the late, great Denny Green … they are who we thought they were.
Less well known were these words — “If you want to crown ’em, then crown their ***!” Martin Tolchin wants to get right on that — for Joe Biden:
Martin Tolchin, a veteran journalist who worked for the New York Times before departing to help found The Hill and Politico, rejected an investigation into Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against 2020 Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden, Monday, in case it results in Biden being found guilty and losing the election. In a letter to the New York Times, which was written in response to an editorial board article titled, “Investigate Tara Reade’s Allegations,” Tolchin wrote, “I totally disagree with this editorial.” “I don’t want an investigation. I want a coronation of Joe Biden,” he declared. “Would he make a great president? Unlikely. Would he make a good president? Good enough. Would he make a better president than the present occupant? Absolutely.”
Guy Benson has a suggestion for everyone:
Frame it and hang it on a wall. pic.twitter.com/QeBH2P9jnT — Guy Benson (@guypbenson) May 5, 2020
Consider it done, Guy. Virtually, for now, anyway. I might literally want to print this out and frame it at some point, especially when media outlets keep lecturing us on speaking truth to power.
Bear in mind too that the editorial to which Tolchin responded was nothing but a desperate plea to cover Biden’s *** in the first place. The New York Times’ editors wanted the DNC to conduct an investigation into its own nominee as the only credible way in which to clear Biden’s name:
As is so often the case in such situations, it is all but impossible to be certain of the truth. But the stakes are too high to let the matter fester — or leave it to be investigated by and adjudicated in the media. Mr. Biden is seeking the nation’s highest office. In 2018, this board advocated strongly for a vigorous inquiry into accusations of sexual misconduct raised against Brett Kavanaugh when he was nominated to a seat on the Supreme Court. Mr. Biden’s pursuit of the presidency requires no less. His campaign, and his party, have a duty to assure the public that the accusations are being taken seriously. The Democratic National Committee should move to investigate the matter swiftly and thoroughly, with the full cooperation of the Biden campaign.
Maybe we missed the Gray Lady’s suggestion that the RNC investigate Trump and deliver the definitive resolution to, er, every question the Times and others have about him. The only way that this could be taken less seriously is if the Times demanded that Hunter Biden head the blue-ribbon investigative committee.
Even this transparent dodge of an “investigation” was too much for Tolchin, though. An allegation of sexual assault isn’t going to derail Tolchin from his political agenda, and he seems to wonder why it would matter to anyone else, either. “I don’t want justice, whatever that may be,” Tolchin declares, “I want a win.” Why, a real investigation — or even the farcical one the NYT proposed — might actually prove Reade correct. And what then? Why, America might just give Donald Trump another four years!
What’s most revealing about this is how utilitarian Tolchin treats Tara Reade in this circumstance. And it’s not all that different from how other media outlets that set their collective hair on fire over Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh is treating her, either. Believe All Women is a great standard for accusations involving Republican men. When it comes to Democrat men, suddenly we get nuance and public reputation and denial and character witnesses that overrule Believe All Women. It’s all just manipulation for political purposes, mainly to defend access to abortion at all costs.
The bottom Democratic line is all that matters to Tolchin, and based on how they have treated the Reade issue in contrast to the Kavanaugh allegations, it’s all that matters to many of Tolchin’s colleagues, too. But that’s why we take the damn field … right, Coach?


hotair--2020-05-05--UK scientist who championed lock-down orders broke his own advice by letting his girlfriend visit hi

UK scientist who championed lock-down orders broke his own advice by letting his girlfriend visit his home

The rules are only for other people apparently .
Neil Ferguson is the most high-profile face of the UK government ’ s scientific advisory group ( SAGE ) .
Ferguson is the epidemiologist behind the Imperial College London modelling which convinced Boris Johnson that pursing a herd immunity strategy would cost far too many lives .
Instead , on March 23rd Johnson ordered a lock down based largely on the Imperial College research .
But today Ferguson resigned his position with SAGE after the Telegraph reported he violated the lock-down order by having his girlfriend visit his home : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lock down Britain resigned from his Government advisory position on Tuesday night as The Telegraph can reveal he broke social distancing rules to meet his married lover .
Professor Neil Ferguson allowed the woman to visit him at home during the lockdown while lecturing the public on the need for strict social distancing in order to reduce the spread of coronavirus .
The woman lives with her husband and their children in another house .
The BBC reports that Ferguson had become known as “ Professor Lockdown ” in the UK but today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a statement , Prof Ferguson said : “ I accept I made an error of judgement and took the wrong course of action .
“ I have therefore stepped back from my involvement in Sage ( Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies ) .
“ I acted in the belief that I was immune , having tested positive for coronavirus and completely isolated myself for almost two weeks after developing symptoms .
“ I deeply regret any undermining of the clear messages around the continued need for social distancing.
” It does sound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He ’ d had the virus and the woman in question is in an “ open marriage.
” But that ’ s really beside the point .
If you are literally the face of the lockdown message for an entire nation , you can ’ t allow yourself special privileges even as the government is telling everyone else , on your advice , to stay isolated .
This story really can be summed up in a meme : It ’ s still an open question whether the lockdown will result in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That depends on a lot of things we don ’ t know including how soon we ’ re able to create a working vaccine .
But Neil Ferguson was in many ways the polar opposite of Sweden ’ s Anders Tegnell , the man who advocated a less draconian ( but still substantial ) response in his own country .
I don ’ t think it ’ s clear the evidence support ’ s Tegnell ’ s view either as Sweden does have a much higher death toll at this point than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And , to his credit , Tegnell himself doesn ’ t seem confident he ’ s taken the right path , though he obviously hopes it works out that way .
Asked recently if he made the right not instituting a lockdown , Tegnell replied , “ I ’ m not convinced at all.
” But it has to be said that one of the things Tegnell has argued for the past several weeks is that the Swedish model is more realistic in the long term precisely because it ’ s hard for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown orders for more than a few weeks .
If nothing else , Neil Ferguson ’ s actions prove Tegnell was right about that .
The longer this goes on the harder it is going to be for everyone to not cheat and break the rules .
In a sense , we ’ re creating a black market for socializing .
That black market , like many other black markets , could turn out to be harmful to many people , but that doesn ’ t mean it will stop .

The rules are only for other people apparently. Neil Ferguson is the most high-profile face of the UK government’s scientific advisory group (SAGE). Ferguson is the epidemiologist behind the Imperial College London modelling which convinced Boris Johnson that pursing a herd immunity strategy would cost far too many lives. Instead, on March 23rd Johnson ordered a lock down based largely on the Imperial College research. But today Ferguson resigned his position with SAGE after the Telegraph reported he violated the lock-down order by having his girlfriend visit his home:
The scientist whose advice prompted Boris Johnson to lock down Britain resigned from his Government advisory position on Tuesday night as The Telegraph can reveal he broke social distancing rules to meet his married lover. Professor Neil Ferguson allowed the woman to visit him at home during the lockdown while lecturing the public on the need for strict social distancing in order to reduce the spread of coronavirus. The woman lives with her husband and their children in another house.
The BBC reports that Ferguson had become known as “Professor Lockdown” in the UK but today he admitted he made a mistake:
In a statement, Prof Ferguson said: “I accept I made an error of judgement and took the wrong course of action. “I have therefore stepped back from my involvement in Sage (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies). “I acted in the belief that I was immune, having tested positive for coronavirus and completely isolated myself for almost two weeks after developing symptoms. “I deeply regret any undermining of the clear messages around the continued need for social distancing.”
It does sound as if no harm was done here. He’d had the virus and the woman in question is in an “open marriage.” But that’s really beside the point. If you are literally the face of the lockdown message for an entire nation, you can’t allow yourself special privileges even as the government is telling everyone else, on your advice, to stay isolated.
BREAKING: Govt's top science expert Professor Neil Ferguson resigns after flouting his own social distancing lockdown rules to be with married lover.
Unbelievable & shocking scoop by the Telegraph's @AVMikhailova >>>>https://t.co/Ja1m52qcSN pic.twitter.com/FEc88ztRBi — Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) May 5, 2020
This story really can be summed up in a meme:
It’s still an open question whether the lockdown will result in a lower death toll over the long term. That depends on a lot of things we don’t know including how soon we’re able to create a working vaccine. But Neil Ferguson was in many ways the polar opposite of Sweden’s Anders Tegnell, the man who advocated a less draconian (but still substantial) response in his own country.
I don’t think it’s clear the evidence support’s Tegnell’s view either as Sweden does have a much higher death toll at this point than Norway, Finland and Denmark combined. And, to his credit, Tegnell himself doesn’t seem confident he’s taken the right path, though he obviously hopes it works out that way. Asked recently if he made the right not instituting a lockdown, Tegnell replied, “I’m not convinced at all.” But it has to be said that one of the things Tegnell has argued for the past several weeks is that the Swedish model is more realistic in the long term precisely because it’s hard for people to abide the strict isolation of lockdown orders for more than a few weeks. If nothing else, Neil Ferguson’s actions prove Tegnell was right about that.
The longer this goes on the harder it is going to be for everyone to not cheat and break the rules. In a sense, we’re creating a black market for socializing. That black market, like many other black markets, could turn out to be harmful to many people, but that doesn’t mean it will stop.


hotair--2020-05-05--Poll finds most college students want to ban "threatening ideas"

A new poll of college and university students around the country finds that a huge majority of them are in favor of “ safe spaces ” where they can ’ t be exposed to “ threatening actions , ideas , or conversations.
” Strangely , a majority of these same students support the Trump administration ’ s policy of cutting off federal funding to schools that don ’ t support free speech on campus .
Are you confused yet ?
Probably , but I ’ m guessing you ’ re not nearly as confused as some of these students .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ make any sense of this .
( Free Beacon ) More than three-in-four college students want “ safe spaces ” on their campuses that are free of “ threatening actions , ideas , or conversations , ” even as a majority support President Trump ’ s threat to withhold taxpayer dollars from universities that restrict speech , according to a new poll .
While 97 percent of college students believe that free speech is an essential pillar of American democracy , a significant majority of students also support policies to restrict specific types @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , conducted by Gallup and the Knight Foundation , found that 78 percent of students support “ safe spaces ” where threatening ideas and conversations would be barred .
More than 80 percent favor the establishment of a “ free-speech zone ” where preapproved protests and the distribution of literature are permitted .
As far as the 80 % who favored “ free speech zones ” on campus go , we ’ ve got a quick tip for you .
We already have a free speech zone .
It ’ s called the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , pal .
Moving on , take a moment and consider those numbers and then add in the fact that the same survey also found that 63 percent of students feel that their campus climates deter students from expressing themselves openly .
But while nearly every one of those figures seems to contradict the rest , there ’ s probably a good explanation for this .
A lot of this comes from the same crowd that claims hate speech isn ’ t protected speech .
( Spoiler alert : It is . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this country , everyone seems to believe that they can generate their own definition of hate speech .
And when everything is hate speech , nothing is hate speech .
It ’ s the same principle that informs my belief that when everything is racist , nothing is racist .
One other point I wanted to bring up was the fact that a majority of these college students ( 58 % ) said , according to the linked article , that they “ supported President Trump ’ s threat to withhold taxpayer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Given that the President is about as popular as the coronavirus on most campuses , that sounds rather shocking , right ?
But there ’ s an explanation for that as well .
If you go to the crosstabs of the poll and scroll down to question number 53 , you ’ ll see the way the question was actually phrased .
“ As you may know , many colleges receive funds from the federal government .
Do you think the federal government should or should not be able to deny those funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ college is not adequately protecting free speech rights on its campus ?
” As you can see , it was not mentioned that this was a policy put in place by President Trump .
The survey simply asked if the federal government should be able to do that .
I can assure you that if it had been phrased the way it showed up in the Free Beacon article , describing it as “ President Trump ’ s threat to withhold taxpayer dollars… ” the percentage supporting the exact same policy would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steven Crowder is so fond of saying… Change My Mind .

A new poll of college and university students around the country finds that a huge majority of them are in favor of “safe spaces” where they can’t be exposed to “threatening actions, ideas, or conversations.” Strangely, a majority of these same students support the Trump administration’s policy of cutting off federal funding to schools that don’t support free speech on campus. Are you confused yet? Probably, but I’m guessing you’re not nearly as confused as some of these students. Let’s see if we can make any sense of this. (Free Beacon)
More than three-in-four college students want “safe spaces” on their campuses that are free of “threatening actions, ideas, or conversations,” even as a majority support President Trump’s threat to withhold taxpayer dollars from universities that restrict speech, according to a new poll. While 97 percent of college students believe that free speech is an essential pillar of American democracy, a significant majority of students also support policies to restrict specific types of speech on campus. The poll, conducted by Gallup and the Knight Foundation, found that 78 percent of students support “safe spaces” where threatening ideas and conversations would be barred. More than 80 percent favor the establishment of a “free-speech zone” where preapproved protests and the distribution of literature are permitted.
As far as the 80% who favored “free speech zones” on campus go, we’ve got a quick tip for you. We already have a free speech zone. It’s called the United States. Welcome to the party, pal.
Moving on, take a moment and consider those numbers and then add in the fact that the same survey also found that 63 percent of students feel that their campus climates deter students from expressing themselves openly. But while nearly every one of those figures seems to contradict the rest, there’s probably a good explanation for this.
A lot of this comes from the same crowd that claims hate speech isn’t protected speech. (Spoiler alert: It is.) But much like the debates over racism in this country, everyone seems to believe that they can generate their own definition of hate speech. And when everything is hate speech, nothing is hate speech. It’s the same principle that informs my belief that when everything is racist, nothing is racist.
One other point I wanted to bring up was the fact that a majority of these college students (58%) said, according to the linked article, that they “supported President Trump’s threat to withhold taxpayer dollars from universities that restrict speech.” Given that the President is about as popular as the coronavirus on most campuses, that sounds rather shocking, right? But there’s an explanation for that as well. If you go to the crosstabs of the poll and scroll down to question number 53, you’ll see the way the question was actually phrased.
“As you may know, many colleges receive funds from the federal government. Do you think the federal government should or should not be able to deny those funds to a college if it believes that college is not adequately protecting free speech rights on its campus?”
As you can see, it was not mentioned that this was a policy put in place by President Trump. The survey simply asked if the federal government should be able to do that. I can assure you that if it had been phrased the way it showed up in the Free Beacon article, describing it as “President Trump’s threat to withhold taxpayer dollars…” the percentage supporting the exact same policy would be in single digits at best. As Steven Crowder is so fond of saying… Change My Mind.


hotair--2020-05-05--Hannity to lockdown protesters: Leave the guns at home

Good advice , but I can ’ t believe he ’ d willingly risk getting on the wrong side of his viewers by telling them something they don ’ t want to hear , no matter how much they need to hear it .
Did Trump put him up to this ?
Remember that the president ’ s campaign manager confronted him with data last week showing that aspects of his coronavirus messaging , starting with the daily briefing , weren ’ t playing well with voters .
I don ’ t imagine that the spectacle of maskless protesters packed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AR-15s is polling great either .
Maybe Trump got some data about that too and called up Hannity to put the word out to Fox viewers that it ’ s time to take a more low-key approach .
It ’ s a little odd , and maybe revealing , that he hasn ’ t tweeted about “ LIBERATING ” any states lately , no ?
Lower-key , all around .
If Hannity wants to do some more good tonight *and* help the protesters appeal more to average people , he ’ d nudge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today Elizabeth Nolan Brown has a nice piece about how mask-wearing can fit comfortably into a right-wing ethic of privacy and personal responsibility despite the recent complaints that it ’ s a symbol of obedience and “ social control.
” I think she ’ s pumping a dry well , though : The modern GOP and its subsidiary movements are defined more by what they ’ re against than what they ’ re for .
If liberals are insisting that masks are necessary then masks must not be necessary , or at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concession by wearing one .
No amount of libertarian oratory about masks as a form of self-defense and self-reliance is going to overcome that impulse towards negative partisanship .
The lure of being against something instead of for something extends to Trump too .
Coming up with a policy plan , defending it , and executing it is messy and leaves one ripe for criticism from all sides .
Attacking others for the flaws in their own plans is easier and cleaner .
And so we get the spectacle of the president rooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though the recent COVID numbers in some states make them ineligible under his own guidelines .
A slew of states — such as Texas , Indiana , Colorado and Florida — have pushed forward with relaxing social distancing guidelines even as the number of people testing positive in many states has increased in recent weeks and testing continues to lag behind .
White House recommendations released last month encouraged states to wait to see a decline in cases over a two-week period , as well as having robust testing in place for front-line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a gradual comeback… Politically , governors have come to learn they are more likely to be criticized by Trump for maintaining stay-at-home orders that comply with White House guidelines than they are for opening up their economies before meeting the Trump administration ’ s own criteria for doing so .
Trump has singled out Virginia for its reluctance to quickly ease social distancing measures , telling Fox News that it was one of the states that “ aren ’ t going fast enough.
” He did criticize Georgia for reopening too quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during his Fox News town hall on Sunday night .
It was only certain businesses like nail salons that he opposed reopening , he stressed .
The impulse to reopen now , whatever the guidelines might say , is terrific .
This is why I still think Fauci and Birx should have quit when they had the chance .
They ’ re not needed anymore , at least not at the federal level .
The guidelines they helped set are being treated as a joke .
There ’ s no more daily briefing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jour to the public either , and even if there were , they can have as much cable-news airtime as they want by sitting for interviews .
They should go work for the states .
At least governors might listen to them about the need to build a department of contact tracing .
Since we ’ re on the subject of Trump , Hannity , and Fox , here ’ s a tasty scoop from Vanity Fair : Trump has been complaining more about Fox and praising OAN lately .
It must irk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modicum of “ disloyal ” ( i.e .
non-obsequious ) content on Fox , from newsier types like Chris Wallace to a handful of critics like Andrew Napolitano to the well-respected Fox polling bureau that reliably delivers discouraging numbers for him .
If he wants an out-and-out propaganda network he ’ ll have to build his own .
He could have done so already if he ’ d lost the 2016 election .
Remember , there were rumors down the stretch of that campaign that he was looking to parlay his looming defeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Imagine how much happier he ’ d be right now running Trump TV , pushing COVID trutherism on his Twitter feed , and carping at President Hillary for every aspect of her handling of the crisis than he is having to organize a federal response .
Being against something instead of for something is so much easier .

Good advice, but I can’t believe he’d willingly risk getting on the wrong side of his viewers by telling them something they don’t want to hear, no matter how much they need to hear it.
Did Trump put him up to this?
Remember that the president’s campaign manager confronted him with data last week showing that aspects of his coronavirus messaging, starting with the daily briefing, weren’t playing well with voters. I don’t imagine that the spectacle of maskless protesters packed in together at the state capitol toting AR-15s is polling great either. Maybe Trump got some data about that too and called up Hannity to put the word out to Fox viewers that it’s time to take a more low-key approach. It’s a little odd, and maybe revealing, that he hasn’t tweeted about “LIBERATING” any states lately, no? Lower-key, all around.
Hannity comes out against armed protests: This with the militia look here and these long guns uhhh no. Show of force is dangerous. That puts our police at risk… No one should be attempting to intimidate officials with a show of force pic.twitter.com/glWU0uaEio — Acyn (@Acyn) May 5, 2020
If Hannity wants to do some more good tonight *and* help the protesters appeal more to average people, he’d nudge them about wearing masks. At Reason today Elizabeth Nolan Brown has a nice piece about how mask-wearing can fit comfortably into a right-wing ethic of privacy and personal responsibility despite the recent complaints that it’s a symbol of obedience and “social control.” I think she’s pumping a dry well, though: The modern GOP and its subsidiary movements are defined more by what they’re against than what they’re for. If liberals are insisting that masks are necessary then masks must not be necessary, or at least not necessary enough to hand them a concession by wearing one. No amount of libertarian oratory about masks as a form of self-defense and self-reliance is going to overcome that impulse towards negative partisanship.
The lure of being against something instead of for something extends to Trump too. Coming up with a policy plan, defending it, and executing it is messy and leaves one ripe for criticism from all sides. Attacking others for the flaws in their own plans is easier and cleaner. And so we get the spectacle of the president rooting on governors to reopen for business even though the recent COVID numbers in some states make them ineligible under his own guidelines.
A slew of states — such as Texas, Indiana, Colorado and Florida — have pushed forward with relaxing social distancing guidelines even as the number of people testing positive in many states has increased in recent weeks and testing continues to lag behind. White House recommendations released last month encouraged states to wait to see a decline in cases over a two-week period, as well as having robust testing in place for front-line workers before entering “Phase One” of a gradual comeback… Politically, governors have come to learn they are more likely to be criticized by Trump for maintaining stay-at-home orders that comply with White House guidelines than they are for opening up their economies before meeting the Trump administration’s own criteria for doing so. Trump has singled out Virginia for its reluctance to quickly ease social distancing measures, telling Fox News that it was one of the states that “aren’t going fast enough.”
He did criticize Georgia for reopening too quickly last week but he clarified that point during his Fox News town hall on Sunday night. It was only certain businesses like nail salons that he opposed reopening, he stressed. The impulse to reopen now, whatever the guidelines might say, is terrific.
This is why I still think Fauci and Birx should have quit when they had the chance. They’re not needed anymore, at least not at the federal level. The guidelines they helped set are being treated as a joke. There’s no more daily briefing for them to communicate their message du jour to the public either, and even if there were, they can have as much cable-news airtime as they want by sitting for interviews. They should go work for the states. At least governors might listen to them about the need to build a department of contact tracing.
Since we’re on the subject of Trump, Hannity, and Fox, here’s a tasty scoop from Vanity Fair:
According to sources, an investor group aligned with his son Don Jr. and the Dallas-based Hicks family has acquired a major stake in One America News Network, the fledgling conservative cable-news channel that features hosts like Jack Posobiec, a chief promoter of the Pizzagate conspiracy. “[RNC co-chair] Tommy Hicks and Don Jr. have been looking to buy a station for Trump TV,” said one source briefed on the talks. “This is all about building a Fox competitor. Trump is really aiming to take down Fox,” the person briefed on the deal told me.
Trump has been complaining more about Fox and praising OAN lately. It must irk him that there’s still a modicum of “disloyal” (i.e. non-obsequious) content on Fox, from newsier types like Chris Wallace to a handful of critics like Andrew Napolitano to the well-respected Fox polling bureau that reliably delivers discouraging numbers for him. If he wants an out-and-out propaganda network he’ll have to build his own. He could have done so already if he’d lost the 2016 election. Remember, there were rumors down the stretch of that campaign that he was looking to parlay his looming defeat into starting his own Fox-like infotainment network. Imagine how much happier he’d be right now running Trump TV, pushing COVID trutherism on his Twitter feed, and carping at President Hillary for every aspect of her handling of the crisis than he is having to organize a federal response. Being against something instead of for something is so much easier.


hotair--2020-05-05--Five-year-old boy attempts to drive to California after mom refuses to buy him a Lamborghini

We ’ ve all been there .
Okay , not all of us , but a lot of young men have , at some point in elementary school , expressed their opinions about supercars , i.e .
which ones they like and which ones they plan to own some day .
But one boy in Utah was more determined than most to make his dream of owning a Lamborghini come true .
The driver of the SUV swerved on the freeway at about 32 miles per hour when a trooper for the Utah Highway Patrol spotted and pulled him over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head above the seat ’ s headrest , and thought the driver might have been impaired .
But when he approached the driver ’ s side window on Monday , the trooper was surprised by what he saw : a young boy wearing a gray Utah Royals soccer hoodie .
“ You ’ re 5 years old .
Wow !
” the trooper , Rick Morgan , said in the dash camera video of the traffic stop .
He then asked him , “ OK , where did you learn how to drive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old , who turns six next month , was pretty big for his age .
He explained to the officer that he ’ d had a fight with his mother .
She refused to buy him a Lamborghini , so he decided he would take the family car and drive out to California where his sister lived .
He took the key from a hook where it was kept , somehow started the car and drove to the freeway .
Somehow , despite having never driven before , he made it about two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him swerving and pulled him over .
The surprised officer noted that the boy , whose name hasn ’ t been released because of his age , had a wallet on him with $ 3 in it .
Maybe he was counting on his sister to chip in the rest for the Lambo .
The photo below shows the boy talking to an officer .
His face has been blurred in a way that makes it look like there ’ s a hole in his face which is disturbing , but they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This local news report says the police are still gathering information and haven ’ t decided if the boy , his parents or both will face charges : I don ’ t see the point in charging a five-year-old for something like this , at least not with an eye toward punishment .
I guess a case could be made for some kind of court-ordered monitoring to make sure he doesn ’ t engage in any risky behavior like this again in the near future .
It ’ s a miracle he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seriously injure himself or someone else .
I guess the parents could be charged with some sort of negligence but in my view they didn ’ t do anything wrong .
Many families leave the car keys somewhere by the front door but no parent I ’ ve ever heard of is worried that a five-year-old might take them and go for a joy ride .
Threaten to run away from home on a bicycle ?
A kid might do that .
Actually drive the car toward California on the freeway ?
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
All that to say , if the story we ’ ve heard so far is accurate , I hope the police go easy on the parents .
They must be as shocked as the officer was .
Here ’ s the dashcam video of the traffic stop .
The first part of this has no external audio so you can ’ t hear what the officer is saying but he returns to the car and turns on the external microphones .
It ’ s noisy because of the traffic but you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boy .

We’ve all been there. Okay, not all of us, but a lot of young men have, at some point in elementary school, expressed their opinions about supercars, i.e. which ones they like and which ones they plan to own some day. But one boy in Utah was more determined than most to make his dream of owning a Lamborghini come true.
The driver of the SUV swerved on the freeway at about 32 miles per hour when a trooper for the Utah Highway Patrol spotted and pulled him over. The trooper could not see a head above the seat’s headrest, and thought the driver might have been impaired. But when he approached the driver’s side window on Monday, the trooper was surprised by what he saw: a young boy wearing a gray Utah Royals soccer hoodie. “You’re 5 years old. Wow!” the trooper, Rick Morgan, said in the dash camera video of the traffic stop. He then asked him, “OK, where did you learn how to drive a car?”
The five year old, who turns six next month, was pretty big for his age. He explained to the officer that he’d had a fight with his mother. She refused to buy him a Lamborghini, so he decided he would take the family car and drive out to California where his sister lived. He took the key from a hook where it was kept, somehow started the car and drove to the freeway.
Somehow, despite having never driven before, he made it about two miles from home before a cop saw him swerving and pulled him over. The surprised officer noted that the boy, whose name hasn’t been released because of his age, had a wallet on him with $3 in it. Maybe he was counting on his sister to chip in the rest for the Lambo.
The photo below shows the boy talking to an officer. His face has been blurred in a way that makes it look like there’s a hole in his face which is disturbing, but they’re just trying to protect his identity.
His story is that he left home after an argument with Mom, in which she told him she would not buy him a Lamborghini. He decided he'd take the car and go to California to buy one himself. He might have been short on the purchase amount, as he only had $3 dollars in his wallet. — Utah Highway Patrol (@UTHighwayPatrol) May 4, 2020
This local news report says the police are still gathering information and haven’t decided if the boy, his parents or both will face charges:
It’s unclear if the parents would be charged alone, or with their son. It’s also unclear if the boy would alone face any charges. UHP says all they are still working the case before announcing any charges.
I don’t see the point in charging a five-year-old for something like this, at least not with an eye toward punishment. I guess a case could be made for some kind of court-ordered monitoring to make sure he doesn’t engage in any risky behavior like this again in the near future. It’s a miracle he didn’t crash the car and seriously injure himself or someone else.
I guess the parents could be charged with some sort of negligence but in my view they didn’t do anything wrong. Many families leave the car keys somewhere by the front door but no parent I’ve ever heard of is worried that a five-year-old might take them and go for a joy ride. Threaten to run away from home on a bicycle? A kid might do that. Actually drive the car toward California on the freeway? Not something many parents would be worried about. All that to say, if the story we’ve heard so far is accurate, I hope the police go easy on the parents. They must be as shocked as the officer was.
Here’s the dashcam video of the traffic stop. The first part of this has no external audio so you can’t hear what the officer is saying but he returns to the car and turns on the external microphones. It’s noisy because of the traffic but you can hear part of his conversation with the boy.
Finally, here’s a CBS News report on the incident:


hotair--2020-05-05--Japan would like America's data on UFOs, please

Over the weekend , we talked about how some scientists are coming around to the idea that the UFOs our Navy pilots have been chasing around were created by actual extraterrestrial species , some of whom are hanging around here on Earth and potentially interacting with certain terrestrial governments .
I know… I know… some of you scoffed .
It can ’ t be true , right ?
Well , if that ’ s the case , why is Japan asking our government for our UFO data ?
Who ’ s got egg on their faces now ?
The following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mysterious Universe ) The U.S. military establishment has finally publicly admitted that the infamous Tic-Tac UFO videos are real and the objects in them are unidentified .
Do you believe them ?
Do you think the Pentagon has much more information about these flying objects that hasn ’ t been released ?
Of course it does … and most likely so does the Japanese military , which nonetheless has formally requested more data on them from the Pentagon .
Will the Pentagon release all of it to Japan ?
Any of it ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports that Japan ’ s Defence Minister Taro Kono has appealed to the U.S. Defense Department for more info on UFOs which he himself doesn ’ t believe in .
He also claims that no Japanese military pilot has ever encountered a UFO ( more on the claim later ) but , being a good Defense minister , he wants to develop a protocol so that they are prepared if that day ever happens .
Or has it already happened , and this feigned disbelief is merely a cover-up ?
I would like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Japanese Defence Minister Taro Kono .
Take a number , pal .
Some of us have been asking the Pentagon for this information for decades , and particularly during the past 28 months .
We haven ’ t had much luck , to say the least .
If they ’ re not giving it to me , they ’ re certainly not going to be giving it to you .
All kidding aside , it ’ s long been known that the Japanese official position on UFOs is that they don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of remarkable , since their own pilots report seeing them regularly . )
It ’ s just something that ’ s never been accepted in Japan ’ s very traditional , conservative culture .
Anyone taking such subjects seriously is generally ridiculed .
The Defence Minister ’ s own statement reflects this , carefully pointing out that he doesn ’ t believe in any of this .
He ’ s just covering all of his bets and making sure they have procedures in place in case it happens .
I sense that some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it doesn ’ t seem plausible .
But if that ’ s the case , how do you explain this picture ?
That ’ s right .
It ’ s the aforementioned Defence Minister of Japan .
And who is he meeting with ?
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo .
They ’ re probably chatting about antigravitational propulsion systems as we speak .
And it ’ s not just the Japanese , by the way .
The United Kingdom had its own UFO investigatory program running for decades and they ’ ve released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to the cold war days , the Russians ( the Soviet Union at the time ) had a secret project of their own .
They rarely discussed it , but the CIA document archive contains a report from Dr. J. Allen Hynek ( of Project Blue Book fame ) detailing Russian astronomers who were very involved in this research .
The evidence keeps piling up that there ’ s something going on in the upper echelons of government , and not just in the United States .
For Japan to make this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they probably already know a lot more about what ’ s been going on up in our upper atmosphere than they ’ re letting on .
For that matter , so does the Pentagon .
At some point , they ’ re going to need to let the rest of us in on the details .
Or at least the details that don ’ t need to be classified for legitimate national security purposes .

Over the weekend, we talked about how some scientists are coming around to the idea that the UFOs our Navy pilots have been chasing around were created by actual extraterrestrial species, some of whom are hanging around here on Earth and potentially interacting with certain terrestrial governments. I know… I know… some of you scoffed. It can’t be true, right? Well, if that’s the case, why is Japan asking our government for our UFO data? Who’s got egg on their faces now? The following report is from Paul Seaburn. (Mysterious Universe)
The U.S. military establishment has finally publicly admitted that the infamous Tic-Tac UFO videos are real and the objects in them are unidentified. Do you believe them? Do you think the Pentagon has much more information about these flying objects that hasn’t been released? Of course it does … and most likely so does the Japanese military, which nonetheless has formally requested more data on them from the Pentagon. Will the Pentagon release all of it to Japan? Any of it? Should it? South China Morning Post reports that Japan’s Defence Minister Taro Kono has appealed to the U.S. Defense Department for more info on UFOs which he himself doesn’t believe in. He also claims that no Japanese military pilot has ever encountered a UFO (more on the claim later) but, being a good Defense minister, he wants to develop a protocol so that they are prepared if that day ever happens. Or has it already happened, and this feigned disbelief is merely a cover-up?
I would like to begin by offering a cautionary note to Japanese Defence Minister Taro Kono. Take a number, pal. Some of us have been asking the Pentagon for this information for decades, and particularly during the past 28 months. We haven’t had much luck, to say the least. If they’re not giving it to me, they’re certainly not going to be giving it to you.
All kidding aside, it’s long been known that the Japanese official position on UFOs is that they don’t exist. (Which is kind of remarkable, since their own pilots report seeing them regularly.) It’s just something that’s never been accepted in Japan’s very traditional, conservative culture. Anyone taking such subjects seriously is generally ridiculed.
The Defence Minister’s own statement reflects this, carefully pointing out that he doesn’t believe in any of this. He’s just covering all of his bets and making sure they have procedures in place in case it happens.
“No SDF [Self-Defence Force] pilot has encountered a UFO. The videos have come from the US Defence Department so I would like to hear their analysis. I don’t really believe in UFOs. We would like to establish procedures in the event an encounter takes place with a UFO.”
I sense that some of you are still skeptical. Perhaps it doesn’t seem plausible. But if that’s the case, how do you explain this picture? That’s right. It’s the aforementioned Defence Minister of Japan. And who is he meeting with? Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. They’re probably chatting about antigravitational propulsion systems as we speak.
And it’s not just the Japanese, by the way. The United Kingdom had its own UFO investigatory program running for decades and they’ve released a lot of their documentation. Going back to the cold war days, the Russians (the Soviet Union at the time) had a secret project of their own. They rarely discussed it, but the CIA document archive contains a report from Dr. J. Allen Hynek (of Project Blue Book fame) detailing Russian astronomers who were very involved in this research.
The evidence keeps piling up that there’s something going on in the upper echelons of government, and not just in the United States. For Japan to make this sort of request at least implies that they probably already know a lot more about what’s been going on up in our upper atmosphere than they’re letting on. For that matter, so does the Pentagon. At some point, they’re going to need to let the rest of us in on the details. Or at least the details that don’t need to be classified for legitimate national security purposes.