hotair--2020-04-17--Laurence Tribe: It's time for us all to get infected and have lots of people die in order to achieve

Laurence Tribe: It's time for us all to get infected and have lots of people die in order to achieve herd immunity

I can ’ t tell if he ’ s serious or if he ’ s making a rhetorical point about Trump ’ s failures .
Or if he ’ s just trying to get a Fox News gig .
I mean , this is “ recurring guest ” -caliber material for Laura Ingraham ’ s show .
Whatever the answer , try to grasp that this dude used to be considered a respected public intellectual .
Lachlan Markay replied , “ are you volunteering , or is this some chickenhawk punditry ?
” As I say , it may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We could limit deaths if we had treatments , but because our president is a lamebrain we won ’ t have those so we have no choice but to die en masse.
” I wish I shared his confidence that infection provides durable immunity to the disease .
He seems to know more than epidemiologists do about that right now .
Anyway , if you read his daily Russiagate commentary on Twitter , you know Tribe ’ s always ready to one-up the competition in expressing his contempt for the president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative but COVID Jonestown , Mr. President ” would fit right in .
That ’ s probably what this is about .
The irony is , although there ’ s plenty to criticize in Trump ’ s handling of the crisis , there ’ s no reason to think he ’ s standing in the way of developing effective treatments .
We ’ re not even 24 hours removed from news that a promising treatment may be coming , in fact .
Hang in there until we have more data on remdesivir , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bust , then we can start planning a national pox party and decide where the mass graves are going to be dug .
In terms of what sort of body count we ’ d be looking at if we put the Tribe plan into practice , it ’ s hard to say .
But Scott Gottlieb brought me up short last night with this point : The infection fatality rate for the flu is around 0.1 percent .
If ev-uh-ree-one in NYC was infected , which of course they aren ’ t , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent .
That ’ s one of the best demonstrations yet that this illness is much worse than the flu .
In fact , if we assume an infection rate in NYC of 15 percent — the same rate recently measured in pregnant women admitted to a New York hospital in late March — we ’ d have a fatality rate in the city of slightly less than one percent .
Applied nationally , that would require somewhere around 1.8 million deaths before we reached Tribe ’ s 60 percent target for herd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we ’ re counting deaths from COVID in New York City and beyond more or less accurately , without missing many .
But that proposition is very much in doubt : There are a lot of “ excess deaths ” in jurisdictions hit hard by the virus , not just in the U.S. but everywhere .
Lost in the debate over how to distinguish people who died with the virus from people who died from the virus is a simple question : How do deaths in a given area in March 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 2019 ?
Absent some concurrent catastrophe happening locally alongside the coronavirus epidemic , it ’ s a safe bet that the increase in deaths this year from last year is due directly or indirectly ( e.g.
, less hospital capacity ) to COVID-19 .
Demographer Lyman Stone has taken to using total deaths instead of “ official ” coronavirus deaths to try to gauge the true death toll from the disease across different regions .
His verdict : We shouldn ’ t be using the “ official ” toll as our metric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopen .
Use the total regional death toll , which will be a truer measure of how many people are actually dying from the disease .
Exit question : Why has New York been hit so much harder than every other U.S. city ?
Is the answer this obvious ?

I can’t tell if he’s serious or if he’s making a rhetorical point about Trump’s failures.
Or if he’s just trying to get a Fox News gig.
I mean, this is “recurring guest”-caliber material for Laura Ingraham’s show.
Whatever the answer, try to grasp that this dude used to be considered a respected public intellectual.
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1251124028359741447
Lachlan Markay replied, “are you volunteering, or is this some chickenhawk punditry?”
As I say, it may be a critique of Trump. I.e. “We could limit deaths if we had treatments, but because our president is a lamebrain we won’t have those so we have no choice but to die en masse.”
The expert consensus seems to be that this virus won’t begin to disappear until a far higher % of the population — at least 60% — develops immunity. If that doesn’t happen with a vaccine, it must happen through exposure. So creating an effective vaccine is JOB 2. Testing is JOB 1 — Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 17, 2020
Developing an effective treatment regimen is also an option. But that’ll require national leadership akin to that of the Manhattan Project. Trump won’t provide that leadership. He can’t. It’s not in his DNA. https://t.co/ZcPuLznQlb — Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 17, 2020
I wish I shared his confidence that infection provides durable immunity to the disease. He seems to know more than epidemiologists do about that right now.
Anyway, if you read his daily Russiagate commentary on Twitter, you know Tribe’s always ready to one-up the competition in expressing his contempt for the president. “Your incompetence has left us no alternative but COVID Jonestown, Mr. President” would fit right in. That’s probably what this is about. The irony is, although there’s plenty to criticize in Trump’s handling of the crisis, there’s no reason to think he’s standing in the way of developing effective treatments. We’re not even 24 hours removed from news that a promising treatment may be coming, in fact.
Hang in there until we have more data on remdesivir, Larry. If it’s a bust, then we can start planning a national pox party and decide where the mass graves are going to be dug.
In terms of what sort of body count we’d be looking at if we put the Tribe plan into practice, it’s hard to say. But Scott Gottlieb brought me up short last night with this point:
1/2 New York City, with population of 8.4 million, has 11,477 confirmed and probable #COVID19 deaths. Even if everyone in the city had covid (8.4M people) which is improbable, then 11,477 deaths would put its case fatality rate higher than what's seen in seasonal flu. #NotTheFlu — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) April 17, 2020
The infection fatality rate for the flu is around 0.1 percent. If ev-uh-ree-one in NYC was infected, which of course they aren’t, the fatality rate would be around .14 percent. That’s one of the best demonstrations yet that this illness is much worse than the flu. In fact, if we assume an infection rate in NYC of 15 percent — the same rate recently measured in pregnant women admitted to a New York hospital in late March — we’d have a fatality rate in the city of slightly less than one percent. Applied nationally, that would require somewhere around 1.8 million deaths before we reached Tribe’s 60 percent target for herd immunity.
And all of this assumes that we’re counting deaths from COVID in New York City and beyond more or less accurately, without missing many. But that proposition is very much in doubt:
From March 11 through April 13, there were 8184 deaths *in addition* to the 3778 probable and 6589 confirmed COVID-19 deaths. 2/https://t.co/3RuC3DRNIF pic.twitter.com/6sgL5MJx2q — Adrenochrome Harvester (@ClenchedFisk) April 15, 2020
There are a lot of “excess deaths” in jurisdictions hit hard by the virus, not just in the U.S. but everywhere. Lost in the debate over how to distinguish people who died with the virus from people who died from the virus is a simple question: How do deaths in a given area in March 2020 compare to deaths in that area in March 2019? Absent some concurrent catastrophe happening locally alongside the coronavirus epidemic, it’s a safe bet that the increase in deaths this year from last year is due directly or indirectly (e.g., less hospital capacity) to COVID-19. Demographer Lyman Stone has taken to using total deaths instead of “official” coronavirus deaths to try to gauge the true death toll from the disease across different regions. His verdict: We shouldn’t be using the “official” toll as our metric of when it’s safe to reopen. Use the total regional death toll, which will be a truer measure of how many people are actually dying from the disease.
I'm just saying we shouldn't reopen until we can at least finish counting the body bags. Like I get that we won't know cause of death perfectly. But let's at least make sure we're not totally misunderstanding the scale of the outbreak. — Lyman Stone 石來民 (@lymanstoneky) April 17, 2020
Exit question: Why has New York been hit so much harder than every other U.S. city? Is the answer this obvious?


hotair--2020-04-17--WaPo: WHO has a China problem -- but it's waaaay worse than that

The World Health Organization ’ s corruption by China got put on full display in the COVID-19 crisis , so much so that the US and other nations are considering serious defunding decisions .
However , as Josh Rogin writes at the Washington Post , WHO ’ s problems go far beyond China .
Like other United Nations subsidiaries , WHO has a dictator problem — and it ’ s far past time to demand that the UN deal with it : This week , President Trump announced that he is suspending U.S. funding for the World Health Organization .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ China ’ s assurances at face value ” and pushing “ China ’ s misinformation ” about the coronavirus outbreak there .
He ’ s not wrong .
On that count , the WHO is guilty as charged .
But the WHO ’ s penchant for cozying up to dictatorships at the expense of public health is not limited to China .
Just look at its shameful track record in Syria .
The WHO has done the same things and worse when it comes to the regime led by Bashar al-Assad .
Its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in United Nations organizations that argue that their need to work with terrible governments justifies actions to further those regimes ’ agendas .
Read the rest of Rogin ’ s column to get the details on WHO ’ s abetting of Assad ’ s genocide .
The lesson won ’ t be lost on Hot Air readers , though , considering the corruption and collaboration that the UN and especially its Human Rights Council has had with the world ’ s worst regimes .
The UN and its subsidiaries more often than not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leftist regimes , as those countries burrow into the UN ’ s bureaucracies .
WHO is no exception , and this problem gets an apt demonstration in a catch made by the Daily Caller yesterday .
Back in late February , when senior advisor Bruce Aylward had returned from China to review their response to COVID-19 , the BBC asked him whether WHO had bothered to check the data China had provided to ensure its accuracy — a basic step in any scientific review .
Aylward said that they couldn ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China hadn ’ t lied to them , but as the transcript shows , that didn ’ t stop Aylward from praising China ’ s response ( emphasis mine ) : BBC : From BBC News .
Dr Aylward , you spoke very eloquently about the positive measures China has taken .
But of course , for the world fully understand how such a virus on such a huge scale has taking hold in a province like Hubei , causing such a devastating impact on the Chinese economy and threatening the global economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also need to understand what went wrong .
But I was interested that you touched on it , but didn ’ t really expand on it , what the lessons to the negative might be .
My question to you is this .
You obviously spoke to people in Wuhan , the doctors , the people on the front lines .
What extent do you think cover up and censorship played a role in allowing the virus to accelerate at the rate it did ?
Bruce Aylward : Do you want one question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the purpose of the mission right now was look at what works .
I ’ m not avoiding question , but the purpose was what works .
We ’ re in a global emergency .
Are the things we can take from here that we comply to the others ?
So we do need to know what didn ’ t work as well to your question .
And as I mentioned , one of the things we looked at , it wasn ’ t , frankly , just in Hubei , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s delays that rapidly acting on alerts can be one issue .
This is such a common problem in every single outbreak of an emergent or unexpected disease , because you ’ re not thinking of that disease in that place .
Whether other factors such as the one you mentioned , play role , I don ’ t know , frankly , didn ’ t look at that .
… And what I don ’ t understand is China learned a lesson in one way really sour and horrific , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of control .
It is extraordinary .
And then as soon as it hits other countries , boom , it ’ s going like this .
And that was the reason I took so long to explain what I did .
There ’ s really important lesson about speed here and the aggressiveness of these .
These are not control measures that people know how to do anymore .
They don ’ t do case finding or contact tracing , except for Ebola in West Africa or in DR Congo .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like these to try and that ’ s what China did .
Of course , one has to just accept that whatever China allowed Aylward to see was the whole truth , and not just a PR spin campaign designed to sucker WHO into becoming its propaganda patsy .
Six weeks earlier , WHO had already learned the hard way that China couldn ’ t be trusted when it reported on January 14th that it had seen no evidence of human-to-human transmission — when the shutdown that Aylward cites here should have beeb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that doesn ’ t even count the fact that Taiwan had warned WHO directly about human-to-human transmission in late December , after cases showed up there .
Rather than act as scientists , WHO ignored Taiwan to appease Beijing ’ s political stance that Taiwan should not be recognized as a separate entity from the People ’ s Republic of China .
Donald Trump reminded everyone of that point earlier this morning : Why ?
Because WHO ’ s primary focus is politics , not science .
That doesn ’ t mean they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that politics interferes with it to the point of uselessness .
That was certainly the case in late December and early January when it mattered most , and it was still the case in late February when WHO and Aylward simply accepted China ’ s data without verifying or testing it .
That may be a lot of things , but science it ain ’ t .

The World Health Organization’s corruption by China got put on full display in the COVID-19 crisis, so much so that the US and other nations are considering serious defunding decisions. However, as Josh Rogin writes at the Washington Post, WHO’s problems go far beyond China. Like other United Nations subsidiaries, WHO has a dictator problem — and it’s far past time to demand that the UN deal with it:
This week, President Trump announced that he is suspending U.S. funding for the World Health Organization. He accused the organization of taking “China’s assurances at face value” and pushing “China’s misinformation” about the coronavirus outbreak there. He’s not wrong. On that count, the WHO is guilty as charged. But the WHO’s penchant for cozying up to dictatorships at the expense of public health is not limited to China. Just look at its shameful track record in Syria. The WHO has done the same things and worse when it comes to the regime led by Bashar al-Assad. Its behavior is emblematic of a greater problem in United Nations organizations that argue that their need to work with terrible governments justifies actions to further those regimes’ agendas.
Read the rest of Rogin’s column to get the details on WHO’s abetting of Assad’s genocide. The lesson won’t be lost on Hot Air readers, though, considering the corruption and collaboration that the UN and especially its Human Rights Council has had with the world’s worst regimes. The UN and its subsidiaries more often than not act as apologists for dictatorships, especially leftist regimes, as those countries burrow into the UN’s bureaucracies.
WHO is no exception, and this problem gets an apt demonstration in a catch made by the Daily Caller yesterday. Back in late February, when senior advisor Bruce Aylward had returned from China to review their response to COVID-19, the BBC asked him whether WHO had bothered to check the data China had provided to ensure its accuracy — a basic step in any scientific review. Aylward said that they couldn’t be bothered at the time to confirm that China hadn’t lied to them, but as the transcript shows, that didn’t stop Aylward from praising China’s response (emphasis mine):
BBC: From BBC News. Dr Aylward, you spoke very eloquently about the positive measures China has taken. But of course, for the world fully understand how such a virus on such a huge scale has taking hold in a province like Hubei, causing such a devastating impact on the Chinese economy and threatening the global economy. From the global perspective, we also need to understand what went wrong. But I was interested that you touched on it, but didn’t really expand on it, what the lessons to the negative might be. My question to you is this. You obviously spoke to people in Wuhan, the doctors, the people on the front lines. What extent do you think cover up and censorship played a role in allowing the virus to accelerate at the rate it did? Bruce Aylward: Do you want one question at a time? First of all, the purpose of the mission right now was look at what works. I’m not avoiding question, but the purpose was what works. We’re in a global emergency. Are the things we can take from here that we comply to the others? So we do need to know what didn’t work as well to your question. And as I mentioned, one of the things we looked at, it wasn’t, frankly, just in Hubei, because also in other areas, there’s delays that rapidly acting on alerts can be one issue. This is such a common problem in every single outbreak of an emergent or unexpected disease, because you’re not thinking of that disease in that place. Whether other factors such as the one you mentioned, play role, I don’t know, frankly, didn’t look at that. … And what I don’t understand is China learned a lesson in one way really sour and horrific, but the others 30 provinces have not gotten out of control. It is extraordinary. And then as soon as it hits other countries, boom, it’s going like this. And that was the reason I took so long to explain what I did. There’s really important lesson about speed here and the aggressiveness of these. These are not control measures that people know how to do anymore. They don’t do case finding or contact tracing, except for Ebola in West Africa or in DR Congo. This is old fashioned stuff using really modern tools like these to try and that’s what China did.
Of course, one has to just accept that whatever China allowed Aylward to see was the whole truth, and not just a PR spin campaign designed to sucker WHO into becoming its propaganda patsy. Six weeks earlier, WHO had already learned the hard way that China couldn’t be trusted when it reported on January 14th that it had seen no evidence of human-to-human transmission — when the shutdown that Aylward cites here should have beeb obvious evidence to the contrary.
And that doesn’t even count the fact that Taiwan had warned WHO directly about human-to-human transmission in late December, after cases showed up there. Rather than act as scientists, WHO ignored Taiwan to appease Beijing’s political stance that Taiwan should not be recognized as a separate entity from the People’s Republic of China.
Donald Trump reminded everyone of that point earlier this morning:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1251138465246449664
Why? Because WHO’s primary focus is politics, not science. That doesn’t mean they don’t do science, but that politics interferes with it to the point of uselessness. That was certainly the case in late December and early January when it mattered most, and it was still the case in late February when WHO and Aylward simply accepted China’s data without verifying or testing it. That may be a lot of things, but science it ain’t.


hotair--2020-04-17--Obama's SBA chief to Pelosi: Replenish Paycheck Protection Program <i>now</i>

It shouldn ’ t take a Barack Obama economic adviser to explain the bad optics of holding up $ 251 billion in badly-needed small-business aid while showing off your twin $ 12,000 freezers and ice-cream hoard , but here we are anyway .
In an interview with Roll Call , Karen Mills acknowledges that Democrats have specific policy goals in mind for managing the COVID-19 pandemic ’ s economic crisis .
To that , though , Mills says first things first , and the first thing is to rescue America ’ s small businesses : Karen G. Mills , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barack Obama ’ s first term , has a message for top Capitol Hill Democrats : Refill the so-called Paycheck Protection Program ’ s coffers now and ask questions later .
The SBA program , established as part of the $ 2.3 trillion COVID-19 aid package to help battered small businesses , ran out of cash to make new loans on Thursday morning , barely two weeks after it began taking applications .
“ Congress has to act as soon as possible , ” Mills told CQ Roll Call in an interview Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently with Democratic senators and Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s office .
“ What I ’ m saying is : Number one , get the money replenished.
” Democrats also want some changes to the PPP , some of which make sense .
There have been concerns that better-off business owners have pushed through to the head of the line and that some may be getting more than they actually need .
The average loan has been $ 239,000 thus far , perhaps a bit too high and fund-draining in this crisis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to the PPP only make sense in a non-emergency situation , Mills said .
Other than a couple of quick changes that could be easily applied , the SBA doesn ’ t have the time to handle it : “ Complexity is not our friend here , ” she said .
“ Things that have to be implemented quickly can ’ t have a lot of bells and whistles , or else there will be too many unintended consequences — one of which is delay .
And we don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s an easier way to ensure that the smallest small businesses get help : Congress should put a lending cap on $ 100 billion of the guarantee funds , limiting those to loans under a certain maximum , like $ 45,000 .
According to SBA data released Tuesday , the average PPP loan has been $ 239,000 .
One point Mills doesn ’ t make is that Congress approved the PPP by voice vote in the Senate and the House .
This is Congress ’ creation , their best shot at providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working , at least in getting some resources to the small businesses government forced to close .
If Congress doesn ’ t like the way it ’ s operating , then it should come back into session to deal with it .
Failing that , Pelosi et al should replenish the fund until its members decide to finally show up in a crisis .
So what now ?
Apparently talks have resumed with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin about re-funding PPP .
At yesterday ’ s press briefing , Donald Trump promised that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” but there hasn ’ t been any word yet that Democrats will agree to replenishing the fund without its other demands being met : The banking industry is calling on Congress to increase the program ’ s funding .
“ Additional funding for all lenders is needed now to ensure there are no breaks in service to small businesses seeking assistance as a result of the coronavirus outbreak , ” said Richard Hunt , president of the Consumer Bankers Association .
In the next round of funding , 25 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aside for small community banks to make these loans , according to the Independent Community Bankers Association .
The PPP program reached its funding limit while a separate program , called Economic Injury Disaster Loans , is also running short on funds .
The funding shortfall has already caused that program to slash the size of loans it gives to small businesses , SBA officials say .
… There had been scant progress for the past week , but talks finally started Wednesday with aides to Mnuchin , Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They did not yield results in time for action at a brief Senate “ pro forma ” session Thursday afternoon , as some had hoped .
But the negotiations were ongoing , with Trump sounding notes of optimism at his daily coronavirus briefing Thursday evening even while criticizing Democrats ’ demands .
“ We ’ re negotiating with Democrats .
And they should , frankly , approve it quickly .
This is a great thing for our country .
It ’ s a great thing for small business and for the workers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re having a hard time getting them to approve it .
I think it ’ s going to happen .
It should happen really unanimously .
But they ’ re trying to get things and we ’ re not too happy with what they ’ re trying to get.
” What Democrats want is a massive grant program to states in order to subsidize state and local government jobs .
No one seriously thinks those jobs will get destroyed ; even if they get furloughed , government will quickly reinstate its bureaucracies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SEIU and AFSCME jobs ( 12.6 % of the overall workforce ) at the expense of nearly half of all Americans who work in small businesses , whose jobs really will get destroyed unless we can find a way to backstop those small-business owners .
In short , Mnuchin and the White House are acting like this is an emergency .
Pelosi is acting like it ’ s an intrusion on her ice-cream break .
It doesn ’ t take a former SBA chief under the most recent Democratic administration to see just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are .

It shouldn’t take a Barack Obama economic adviser to explain the bad optics of holding up $251 billion in badly-needed small-business aid while showing off your twin $12,000 freezers and ice-cream hoard, but here we are anyway. In an interview with Roll Call, Karen Mills acknowledges that Democrats have specific policy goals in mind for managing the COVID-19 pandemic’s economic crisis.
To that, though, Mills says first things first, and the first thing is to rescue America’s small businesses:
Karen G. Mills, who led the Small Business Administration during President Barack Obama’s first term, has a message for top Capitol Hill Democrats: Refill the so-called Paycheck Protection Program’s coffers now and ask questions later. The SBA program, established as part of the $2.3 trillion COVID-19 aid package to help battered small businesses, ran out of cash to make new loans on Thursday morning, barely two weeks after it began taking applications. “Congress has to act as soon as possible,” Mills told CQ Roll Call in an interview Thursday, adding that she’s spoken recently with Democratic senators and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office. “What I’m saying is: Number one, get the money replenished.”
Democrats also want some changes to the PPP, some of which make sense. There have been concerns that better-off business owners have pushed through to the head of the line and that some may be getting more than they actually need. The average loan has been $239,000 thus far, perhaps a bit too high and fund-draining in this crisis. However, even the changes that Democrats want to the PPP only make sense in a non-emergency situation, Mills said. Other than a couple of quick changes that could be easily applied, the SBA doesn’t have the time to handle it:
“Complexity is not our friend here,” she said. “Things that have to be implemented quickly can’t have a lot of bells and whistles, or else there will be too many unintended consequences — one of which is delay. And we don’t have time to delay.” Mills said there’s an easier way to ensure that the smallest small businesses get help: Congress should put a lending cap on $100 billion of the guarantee funds, limiting those to loans under a certain maximum, like $45,000. According to SBA data released Tuesday, the average PPP loan has been $239,000.
One point Mills doesn’t make is that Congress approved the PPP by voice vote in the Senate and the House. This is Congress’ creation, their best shot at providing a rescue. It seems to be working, at least in getting some resources to the small businesses government forced to close. If Congress doesn’t like the way it’s operating, then it should come back into session to deal with it. Failing that, Pelosi et al should replenish the fund until its members decide to finally show up in a crisis.
So what now? Apparently talks have resumed with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin about re-funding PPP. At yesterday’s press briefing, Donald Trump promised that “something’s going to be happening,” but there hasn’t been any word yet that Democrats will agree to replenishing the fund without its other demands being met:
The banking industry is calling on Congress to increase the program’s funding. “Additional funding for all lenders is needed now to ensure there are no breaks in service to small businesses seeking assistance as a result of the coronavirus outbreak,” said Richard Hunt, president of the Consumer Bankers Association. In the next round of funding, 25 percent of the $250 billion should be set aside for small community banks to make these loans, according to the Independent Community Bankers Association. The PPP program reached its funding limit while a separate program, called Economic Injury Disaster Loans, is also running short on funds. The funding shortfall has already caused that program to slash the size of loans it gives to small businesses, SBA officials say. … There had been scant progress for the past week, but talks finally started Wednesday with aides to Mnuchin, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). They did not yield results in time for action at a brief Senate “pro forma” session Thursday afternoon, as some had hoped. But the negotiations were ongoing, with Trump sounding notes of optimism at his daily coronavirus briefing Thursday evening even while criticizing Democrats’ demands. “We’re negotiating with Democrats. And they should, frankly, approve it quickly. This is a great thing for our country. It’s a great thing for small business and for the workers,” Trump said. “And we’re having a hard time getting them to approve it. I think it’s going to happen. It should happen really unanimously. But they’re trying to get things and we’re not too happy with what they’re trying to get.”
What Democrats want is a massive grant program to states in order to subsidize state and local government jobs. No one seriously thinks those jobs will get destroyed; even if they get furloughed, government will quickly reinstate its bureaucracies. Pelosi’s trying to protect SEIU and AFSCME jobs (12.6% of the overall workforce) at the expense of nearly half of all Americans who work in small businesses, whose jobs really will get destroyed unless we can find a way to backstop those small-business owners.
In short, Mnuchin and the White House are acting like this is an emergency. Pelosi is acting like it’s an intrusion on her ice-cream break. It doesn’t take a former SBA chief under the most recent Democratic administration to see just how badly that plays. But here we are.


hotair--2020-04-17--More Whitmer: Government shouldn't intrude on your rights -- to get a "life sustaining" abortion

But what if it ’ s snowing ?
Governor Gretchen Whitmer has banned gardening and planting in the coronavirus pandemic and blocked Michiganders from traveling between their own homes .
Like many other states , Whitmer ’ s stay-at-home orders also include a ban on elective surgeries , an order intended to preserve desperately needed surgical masks and gowns to deal with the COVID-19 outbreak .
Well , except for one elective surgery , that is .
The RNC jumped all over this clip from Whitmer ’ s interview yesterday with David Axelrod , and for good reason ( via @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak , in Texas and a couple of other states — I think Ohio may be another — the state has asked to suspend abortion services as part of this COVID-19 protocol .
This is probably going to go to the Supreme Court .
What is your reaction to that ?
You ’ re a governor , you have to make these decisions as well .
There are other procedures that have been suspended .
WHITMER : You know , we stopped elective surgeries here in Michigan , and some people have tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ procedure is considered the same and that ’ s ridiculous .
You know , a woman ’ s healthcare , her whole future , her ability to decide if and when she starts a family is not an election , it is a fundamental to her life .
It is life sustaining and it ’ s something that government should not be getting in the middle of .
Well , planting vegetables in your own garden or crops in your own field is also pretty “ life sustaining ” too , but Whitmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the middle of those actions .
Whitmer ’ s amused dismissal of rights in yesterday ’ s defense of her chaotic and arbitrary list of orders in her “ COVID-19 protocol ” sounds more like a list of things that Whitmer simply has no particular interest in allowing than a narrowly-tailored set of temporary limits on the rights of Michiganders .
This declaration makes that arbitrariness all the more apparent , and Whitmer ’ s status as a wanna-be petty tyrant all the more clear .
There actually is a legitimate state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency medical use , which is why other elective surgeries have been suspended in many states for the time being .
An abortion is an elective surgery , except in the extremely rare cases where a pregnancy could be fatal to the mother ( ectopic pregnancies , for example ) .
All other abortions consume PPE the same way that hip replacements , discectomies , and other reconstructive surgeries do .
Ask people who have to wait for such surgeries and they might describe those as “ life-sustaining , ” too , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , life styles , family engagement , future physical health , and so on .
In fact , why don ’ t we ask the babies being aborted as to whether abortions are “ life sustaining.
” They might have a different perspective on a surgery where one of out the two human beings who go in end up dead .

But what if it’s snowing? Governor Gretchen Whitmer has banned gardening and planting in the coronavirus pandemic and blocked Michiganders from traveling between their own homes. Like many other states, Whitmer’s stay-at-home orders also include a ban on elective surgeries, an order intended to preserve desperately needed surgical masks and gowns to deal with the COVID-19 outbreak.
Well, except for one elective surgery, that is. The RNC jumped all over this clip from Whitmer’s interview yesterday with David Axelrod, and for good reason (via Twitchy):
AXELROD: As we speak, in Texas and a couple of other states — I think Ohio may be another — the state has asked to suspend abortion services as part of this COVID-19 protocol. This is probably going to go to the Supreme Court. What is your reaction to that? You’re a governor, you have to make these decisions as well. There are other procedures that have been suspended. WHITMER: You know, we stopped elective surgeries here in Michigan, and some people have tried to say that that type of a procedure is considered the same and that’s ridiculous. You know, a woman’s healthcare, her whole future, her ability to decide if and when she starts a family is not an election, it is a fundamental to her life. It is life sustaining and it’s something that government should not be getting in the middle of.
Well, planting vegetables in your own garden or crops in your own field is also pretty “life sustaining” too, but Whitmer didn’t have any trouble getting in the middle of those actions. Whitmer’s amused dismissal of rights in yesterday’s defense of her chaotic and arbitrary list of orders in her “COVID-19 protocol” sounds more like a list of things that Whitmer simply has no particular interest in allowing than a narrowly-tailored set of temporary limits on the rights of Michiganders.
This declaration makes that arbitrariness all the more apparent, and Whitmer’s status as a wanna-be petty tyrant all the more clear. There actually is a legitimate state interest in preserving PPE for critical and emergency medical use, which is why other elective surgeries have been suspended in many states for the time being. An abortion is an elective surgery, except in the extremely rare cases where a pregnancy could be fatal to the mother (ectopic pregnancies, for example). All other abortions consume PPE the same way that hip replacements, discectomies, and other reconstructive surgeries do. Ask people who have to wait for such surgeries and they might describe those as “life-sustaining,” too, with lots of implications about choices of careers, life styles, family engagement, future physical health, and so on.
In fact, why don’t we ask the babies being aborted as to whether abortions are “life sustaining.” They might have a different perspective on a surgery where one of out the two human beings who go in end up dead.


hotair--2020-04-17--"Empty the jails" inmate manages one day of freedom

Let ’ s get to the good news first .
Well… this is probably only “ good news ” if you happen to be one of the progressives pushing for criminal justice reform , bail reform and related goals .
The jails in New York City are as empty as they ’ ve been in nearly 75 years .
Part of this can be attributed to the lower crime rates Gotham has been experiencing with so many people staying home because of the pandemic .
But a lot of inmates have been put back out on the streets as part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been catching fire on social media .
And Mayor de Blasio has been listening .
( NY Post ) The city ’ s jail population dipped below 4,000 inmates , the lowest level since shortly after WWII , Mayor Bill de Blasio announced Thursday as he also said 11,000 hotel rooms are being prepared to quarantine coronavirus victims .
“ The jail population is now under 4,000 inmates , ” de Blasio said during a City Hall conference call with reporters .
“ That is the lowest in 74 years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War II ended , ” de Blasio said .
New York officials are emphasizing their claim that the inmates being released are “ those who were deemed low-risk for reoffending.
” Really ?
Who did they put in charge of that… Tom Cruise ?
We might also ask why these people were behind bars to begin with if their risk of recidivism is so negligible .
In any event , it ’ s not just New York City where this pattern is being seen .
Cities all over the country are taking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get out of jail free cards in the name of protecting the inmates ( and the staff ) from the novel coronavirus .
That ’ s been happening in Tampa , Florida as well .
They ’ ve been emptying the jail cells as much as possible just like New York .
In fact , the Hillsborough County sheriff ’ s office released 164 inmates to try to prevent the spread of the coronavirus at the county jail .
One such lucky recipient of this opportunity was Joseph Edwards Williams .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crowbar Motel for heroin possession and related offenses .
But Mr. Williams ’ freedom wasn ’ t destined to last very long .
Only a day later he was back in custody , but not just for slinging heroin .
He was arrested and charged with murder , felony gun charges and resisting arrest .
( Daily Caller ) A Florida man was accused of murdering a man hours after being released from jail last month over concerns about the coronavirus pandemic .
Joseph Edwards Williams , 26 , was arrested Monday in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connection with a March 20 homicide .
He also faces charges of felony firearm possession , heroin possession and resisting arrest .
Hillsborough County arrest records show that Williams was released from jail on March 19 after a week in custody on charges of possession of heroin and drug paraphernalia .
We ’ ve already seen interviews with residents of New York City who say that they are currently too afraid to leave their homes even if all of the social distancing orders weren ’ t in place .
Too many municipal governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to shrink the “ incarceration nation ” they claim we all live in .
I understand the need to keep people as safe as possible during the pandemic , and that applies to prisoners and jail workers as well .
The crowded conditions in many jails no doubt offer a fertile ground for the spread of the disease .
But if the example of Joseph Williams teaches us anything , it ’ s that we need to be thoughtful and cautious with these decisions .
Most people who are behind bars are there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really rare these days for anyone to get locked up for any lengthy period of time for marijuana possession charges or other minor offenses .
Even during a crisis such as this pandemic , you can ’ t simply empty all the jail cells .
Someone killed by a violent felon is just as dead as the people dying from the disease .

Let’s get to the good news first. Well… this is probably only “good news” if you happen to be one of the progressives pushing for criminal justice reform, bail reform and related goals. The jails in New York City are as empty as they’ve been in nearly 75 years. Part of this can be attributed to the lower crime rates Gotham has been experiencing with so many people staying home because of the pandemic. But a lot of inmates have been put back out on the streets as part of the Empty the Jails campaign that’s been catching fire on social media. And Mayor de Blasio has been listening. (NY Post)
The city’s jail population dipped below 4,000 inmates, the lowest level since shortly after WWII, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced Thursday as he also said 11,000 hotel rooms are being prepared to quarantine coronavirus victims. “The jail population is now under 4,000 inmates,” de Blasio said during a City Hall conference call with reporters. “That is the lowest in 74 years, since 1946, the year after World War II ended,” de Blasio said.
New York officials are emphasizing their claim that the inmates being released are “those who were deemed low-risk for reoffending.” Really? Who did they put in charge of that… Tom Cruise? We might also ask why these people were behind bars to begin with if their risk of recidivism is so negligible.
In any event, it’s not just New York City where this pattern is being seen. Cities all over the country are taking the opportunity afforded by the pandemic to distribute get out of jail free cards in the name of protecting the inmates (and the staff) from the novel coronavirus.
That’s been happening in Tampa, Florida as well. They’ve been emptying the jail cells as much as possible just like New York. In fact, the Hillsborough County sheriff’s office released 164 inmates to try to prevent the spread of the coronavirus at the county jail.
One such lucky recipient of this opportunity was Joseph Edwards Williams. He’d been doing a stretch in the Crowbar Motel for heroin possession and related offenses. But Mr. Williams’ freedom wasn’t destined to last very long. Only a day later he was back in custody, but not just for slinging heroin. He was arrested and charged with murder, felony gun charges and resisting arrest. (Daily Caller)
A Florida man was accused of murdering a man hours after being released from jail last month over concerns about the coronavirus pandemic. Joseph Edwards Williams, 26, was arrested Monday in Tampa on charges of second-degree murder in connection with a March 20 homicide. He also faces charges of felony firearm possession, heroin possession and resisting arrest. Hillsborough County arrest records show that Williams was released from jail on March 19 after a week in custody on charges of possession of heroin and drug paraphernalia.
We’ve already seen interviews with residents of New York City who say that they are currently too afraid to leave their homes even if all of the social distancing orders weren’t in place. Too many municipal governments are using the virus as an excuse to shrink the “incarceration nation” they claim we all live in.
I understand the need to keep people as safe as possible during the pandemic, and that applies to prisoners and jail workers as well. The crowded conditions in many jails no doubt offer a fertile ground for the spread of the disease. But if the example of Joseph Williams teaches us anything, it’s that we need to be thoughtful and cautious with these decisions. Most people who are behind bars are there for a reason. It’s really rare these days for anyone to get locked up for any lengthy period of time for marijuana possession charges or other minor offenses. Even during a crisis such as this pandemic, you can’t simply empty all the jail cells. Someone killed by a violent felon is just as dead as the people dying from the disease.


hotair--2020-04-18--Democrats are 'grappling' with Tara Reade's allegations against Joe Biden (many in silence)

Yesterday CNN published a story headlined “ Democrats grapple with questions about Tara Reade ’ s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden.
” The story notes that high profile Democrats are being asked about the allegations : Looking at the same basic facts , Fox News makes a more interesting point in a story headlined , “ Biden ’ s former rivals face questions about Tara Reade ’ s assault claim from the media before he does.
” Since Tara Reade , a former staffer of the then senator , spoke out about the alleged 1993 assault in her March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden had made ten appearances on various news networks and did not face a single question about her claims .
However , Sens .
Amy Klobuchar , D-Minn. , and Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , who have both endorsed Biden , were asked to weigh in on the controversy during their televised interviews on Thursday… Katie Halper , the progressive podcast host who interviewed Reade last month , slammed the media , saying it has given Sanders a “ harder time than Biden ” on Biden ’ s own sexual assault allegation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a better job here than CNN because the most noteworthy thing here isn ’ t that Klobuchar and Sanders have been asked about this , but that Biden has not been .
It has been more than three weeks since this story became public and Biden hasn ’ t said a word about it .
All we have is a flat denial from his campaign .
Mother Jones published a story today titled , “ Sexual Assault Advocates Are Grappling With the Allegations Against Joe Biden.
” The gist of this is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who really care about this issue and who are genuinely upset about the obvious double standard they are seeing play out in the media .
But many others are sitting back in silence trying to weigh the cost of speaking up against Biden : “ For me , this is extremely painful , ” said an advocate who had worked with Biden ’ s office on sexual violence issues during the Obama administration .
She asked to remain anonymous because she worries that expressing support for further investigation into Reade ’ s claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House if Biden wins .
“ I really saw Biden as a champion for a really long time , ” she said .
“ I ’ m experiencing cognitive dissonance right now .
I haven ’ t had the ability or the time to process emotionally what it means for me to believe that he did this.
” … Sage Carson , the leader of Know Your IX , a campus sexual assault advocacy group , said she is personally angry about the way the allegations against Biden have been treated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kavanaugh when he was a Supreme Court nominee in 2018 .
“ This is just further evidence that survivors will always be political pawns , ” she said .
“ I ’ m extremely frustrated to see so many people who publicly came out and said that they supported survivors during Kavanaugh only then to do a 180 when it was someone within their own party.
” … “ Some people are certainly responding the way that they are because of political calculus , ” said Robyn Swirling , who runs Works In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations and campaigns with their internal response to sexual harassment .
“ Right now , there ’ s a lot of ‘ Blue no matter who.
’ It ’ s been really disappointing to see voices who are otherwise very outspoken on these issues be silent or make excuses like , ‘ Well he has a record of fighting for women on the policy level.
’ ” … The advocate who requested anonymity believes she ’ s not the only one feeling internal pressure to stay silent not just because it could hurt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also because it could kneecap advocacy for survivors .
If Biden wins , she said , she hopes to implement “ a huge policy agenda ” undoing Trump ’ s policies on sexual violence .
“ There ’ s a ton of people like me , who want to be changemakers on the inside and the outside , and don ’ t know what it will do to their ability to be a changemaker on the inside if we rightfully say at this moment , ‘ There needs to be an investigation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to speak up isn ’ t just theoretical .
The Mother Jones story states “ Eight national organizations that advocate for sexual violence survivors did not respond to a request for a comment or interview.
” These national organizations who exist solely to deal with issues like this are sitting in the background , choosing not to say anything which might damage the candidate .
In other words , they are behaving just like Joe Biden himself .
I ’ ve said before that I don ’ t know the truth about Reade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that , as it stands at this moment , her allegations appear more credible than those leveled against Brett Kavanaugh , including by Dr. Ford .
That could change of course but Dr. Ford had one big advantage when telling her story .
Because Democrats were supporting her , she got to tell her story on television in front of the whole country .
Then her words were repeatedly endlessly for weeks by the media .
She had a platform and a very big microphone .
Have you heard Tara Reade ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t mean reading about it or seeing tweets about it .
I mean have you heard her tell it ?
When Ed wrote about this last month he included video of an account she gave to the Hill last month .
So if you ’ re a regular reader maybe you have heard it .
But I ’ d be willing to bet most Americans have not .
Why is that ?
Here ’ s the podcast where Reade first told her story .
If you don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , skip ahead to 14 minutes where she starts talking about the sexual assault incident with Biden .

Yesterday CNN published a story headlined “Democrats grapple with questions about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden.” The story notes that high profile Democrats are being asked about the allegations:
Some of Biden’s highest-profile surrogates — including Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, as well as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who ended his own 2020 campaign last week before endorsing Biden on Monday — have confronted questions in recent days about the serious accusation brought forth by Reade, a woman who worked in Biden’s Senate office in the early 1990s. The Biden campaign has denied the allegation.
Looking at the same basic facts, Fox News makes a more interesting point in a story headlined, “Biden’s former rivals face questions about Tara Reade’s assault claim from the media before he does.”
Since Tara Reade, a former staffer of the then senator, spoke out about the alleged 1993 assault in her March 25 interview with podcast host Katie Halper, Biden had made ten appearances on various news networks and did not face a single question about her claims. However, Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who have both endorsed Biden, were asked to weigh in on the controversy during their televised interviews on Thursday… Katie Halper, the progressive podcast host who interviewed Reade last month, slammed the media, saying it has given Sanders a “harder time than Biden” on Biden’s own sexual assault allegation. https://twitter.com/kthalps/status/1251025554679246848
I think Fox News is doing a better job here than CNN because the most noteworthy thing here isn’t that Klobuchar and Sanders have been asked about this, but that Biden has not been. It has been more than three weeks since this story became public and Biden hasn’t said a word about it. All we have is a flat denial from his campaign.
Mother Jones published a story today titled, “Sexual Assault Advocates Are Grappling With the Allegations Against Joe Biden.” The gist of this is that there are some people on the left who really care about this issue and who are genuinely upset about the obvious double standard they are seeing play out in the media. But many others are sitting back in silence trying to weigh the cost of speaking up against Biden:
“For me, this is extremely painful,” said an advocate who had worked with Biden’s office on sexual violence issues during the Obama administration. She asked to remain anonymous because she worries that expressing support for further investigation into Reade’s claims could jeopardize her chance of working with the White House if Biden wins. “I really saw Biden as a champion for a really long time,” she said. “I’m experiencing cognitive dissonance right now. I haven’t had the ability or the time to process emotionally what it means for me to believe that he did this.”… Sage Carson, the leader of Know Your IX, a campus sexual assault advocacy group, said she is personally angry about the way the allegations against Biden have been treated differently than those leveled against Justice Brett Kavanaugh when he was a Supreme Court nominee in 2018. “This is just further evidence that survivors will always be political pawns,” she said. “I’m extremely frustrated to see so many people who publicly came out and said that they supported survivors during Kavanaugh only then to do a 180 when it was someone within their own party.”… “Some people are certainly responding the way that they are because of political calculus,” said Robyn Swirling, who runs Works In Progress, a nonprofit that helps progressive organizations and campaigns with their internal response to sexual harassment. “Right now, there’s a lot of ‘Blue no matter who.’ It’s been really disappointing to see voices who are otherwise very outspoken on these issues be silent or make excuses like, ‘Well he has a record of fighting for women on the policy level.’”… The advocate who requested anonymity believes she’s not the only one feeling internal pressure to stay silent not just because it could hurt Biden’s electoral chances, but also because it could kneecap advocacy for survivors. If Biden wins, she said, she hopes to implement “a huge policy agenda” undoing Trump’s policies on sexual violence. “There’s a ton of people like me, who want to be changemakers on the inside and the outside, and don’t know what it will do to their ability to be a changemaker on the inside if we rightfully say at this moment, ‘There needs to be an investigation, and this is unacceptable.”
The reluctance to speak up isn’t just theoretical. The Mother Jones story states “Eight national organizations that advocate for sexual violence survivors did not respond to a request for a comment or interview.” These national organizations who exist solely to deal with issues like this are sitting in the background, choosing not to say anything which might damage the candidate. In other words, they are behaving just like Joe Biden himself.
I’ve said before that I don’t know the truth about Reade’s allegations, but I do think that, as it stands at this moment, her allegations appear more credible than those leveled against Brett Kavanaugh, including by Dr. Ford. That could change of course but Dr. Ford had one big advantage when telling her story. Because Democrats were supporting her, she got to tell her story on television in front of the whole country. Then her words were repeatedly endlessly for weeks by the media. She had a platform and a very big microphone.
Have you heard Tara Reade’s story in her own words? I don’t mean reading about it or seeing tweets about it. I mean have you heard her tell it?
When Ed wrote about this last month he included video of an account she gave to the Hill last month. So if you’re a regular reader maybe you have heard it. But I’d be willing to bet most Americans have not. Why is that?
Here’s the podcast where Reade first told her story. If you don’t have time to listen to the entire podcast, skip ahead to 14 minutes where she starts talking about the sexual assault incident with Biden.


hotair--2020-04-18--Cuomo hires firm with close ties to CCP to develop reopening plan

Earlier this week , Allahpundit wrote about New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ’ s strategy of developing a “ Trump-proof ” strategy for reopening businesses in his state without letting the President take credit for it or Cuomo taking the blame over a longer shutdown and/or a resurgence of the virus , depending on how it plays out .
As part of this strategy , Cuomo has hired the consultant firm McKinsey & Company to help him develop the plan .
While this may not look like an unusual choice at first glance , a deeper look into McKinsey ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ option at best .
It ’ s not that they aren ’ t experienced in such things… they absolutely are , so this sort of work should be right up their alley .
But what should be making people suspicious is the firm ’ s long , very close ties to the Chinese Communist Party .
Their associations with the Chinese government are lengthy and well documented .
For example , when China launched its One Belt , One Road initiative several years ago ( later rebranded as the Belt Road Initiative , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times reported that it was McKinsey that was selected to promote their efforts globally .
They “ sprang into action , ” producing numerous reports that were widely cited in Chinese state-owned media , talking up the program in glowing terms .
But the BRI was yet another far-reaching effort to expand China ’ s tendrils into governments and private businesses around the globe , locking down their control of the global supply chain even further .
It ’ s a plan that Foreign Policy magazine once described as “ One Belt , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On their own website , McKinsey brags about the fact that a major portion of their business is in China working for the CCP .
Fully 30 % of their clients there are state-owned enterprises and other CCP governmental organizations .
Another large slice of their business there is done for multinational corporations based in or with strong ties to China .
Even here in the United States and in other parts of the world , McKinsey ’ s favored strategies involved promoting “ unbundling.
” They advised large corporations regarding the wisdom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chain strategies , with a particular emphasis on sending everything to China .
Their clients in these efforts included IBM and General Motors , both of which became famous for outsourcing jobs and supply chain sources .
McKinsey recently held one of its company retreats in China .
And , as reported in the New York Times , the location they chose was only a few miles from one of the larger Uyghur concentration camps .
With all this in mind , do you really believe that McKinsey would develop or even endorse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that didn ’ t paint the CCP in a favorable light ?
Or at least portray them as neutral , innocent actors in the origins and subsequent handling of the pandemic ?
They would be risking drawing the anger of one of their largest cash cows and closest business partners , the CCP .
And since we ’ re talking about the Wuhan coronavirus here , this all makes them a dubious choice to partner with New York on this plan .

Earlier this week, Allahpundit wrote about New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s strategy of developing a “Trump-proof” strategy for reopening businesses in his state without letting the President take credit for it or Cuomo taking the blame over a longer shutdown and/or a resurgence of the virus, depending on how it plays out. As part of this strategy, Cuomo has hired the consultant firm McKinsey & Company to help him develop the plan.
While this may not look like an unusual choice at first glance, a deeper look into McKinsey’s history makes them a very problematic option at best. It’s not that they aren’t experienced in such things… they absolutely are, so this sort of work should be right up their alley. But what should be making people suspicious is the firm’s long, very close ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Their associations with the Chinese government are lengthy and well documented.
For example, when China launched its One Belt, One Road initiative several years ago (later rebranded as the Belt Road Initiative, or BRI), the New York Times reported that it was McKinsey that was selected to promote their efforts globally. They “sprang into action,” producing numerous reports that were widely cited in Chinese state-owned media, talking up the program in glowing terms. But the BRI was yet another far-reaching effort to expand China’s tendrils into governments and private businesses around the globe, locking down their control of the global supply chain even further. It’s a plan that Foreign Policy magazine once described as “One Belt, One Road, One Big Mistake.”
On their own website, McKinsey brags about the fact that a major portion of their business is in China working for the CCP. Fully 30% of their clients there are state-owned enterprises and other CCP governmental organizations. Another large slice of their business there is done for multinational corporations based in or with strong ties to China.
Even here in the United States and in other parts of the world, McKinsey’s favored strategies involved promoting “unbundling.” They advised large corporations regarding the wisdom of offshoring both their employment and supply chain strategies, with a particular emphasis on sending everything to China. Their clients in these efforts included IBM and General Motors, both of which became famous for outsourcing jobs and supply chain sources.
McKinsey recently held one of its company retreats in China. And, as reported in the New York Times, the location they chose was only a few miles from one of the larger Uyghur concentration camps.
With all this in mind, do you really believe that McKinsey would develop or even endorse any sort of policy in New York that didn’t paint the CCP in a favorable light? Or at least portray them as neutral, innocent actors in the origins and subsequent handling of the pandemic? They would be risking drawing the anger of one of their largest cash cows and closest business partners, the CCP. And since we’re talking about the Wuhan coronavirus here, this all makes them a dubious choice to partner with New York on this plan.


hotair--2020-04-18--Guess who Team Biden is in talks with for the next big endorsement?

Joe Biden ’ s campaign is reported to be in talks with Michelle Obama to announce her endorsement of the Democratic candidate .
Second , only to her husband ’ s , this will be Biden ’ s biggest endorsement of his campaign .
To many Democrat voters , Michelle ’ s endorsement will likely carry more weight than the former president ’ s .
Michelle Obama is wildly popular with Democrats and Independent voters .
I ’ ve heard some conservative women speak favorably of her , too .
Not me , mind you , but other conservative women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no doubt seen polls like the Gallup poll at the end of last year which ranked Michelle Obama as the most admired woman in the United States in 2019 .
Melania Trump came in second in that poll , followed by Oprah and Hillary Clinton .
The push is on to lockdown her endorsement and perhaps even talk her into doing some campaigning for good old Joe .
“ We know what pretty much everyone in America does : Michelle Obama is probably the most beloved member of the Democratic Party and her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Biden aide told The Hill .
“ Any future announcement would reflect the incredible impact her voice has.
” Howard Gutman , who worked in the Obama administration , told The Hill the Biden team would take anything it can get from her , but “ It ’ s a question of how much [ she and her family ] want her to be out there in the crossfire.
” Joe Biden has been talking up Michelle Obama as someone he ’ d love to have as his running mate for months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wouldn ’ t consider running for the presidency herself .
Michelle Obama has never held public office and at this point in her life isn ’ t likely to do so .
Why would she ?
She has all the platform she wants any time she wants it through the Obama-loving press and the Democrat Party .
Hollywood loves the Obamas even more than they loved the Clintons .
The Obamas are making sweet Netflix money now .
There are also book deals and speaking appearances .
Why would someone who has never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public servant take such a huge pay reduction now ?
She won ’ t .
She remains popular because she isn ’ t involved in politics publicly .
She doesn ’ t have to play second fiddle to a bumbling old man who has trouble stringing a couple of sentences together .
Mrs. Obama is involved in politics behind the scenes and in specially selected projects .
She was quick to slam any woman who didn ’ t vote for Hillary Clinton after the 2016 election and groused that Republican and conservative voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boy , good thing Democrats were so kind and gracious to George W. Bush , amirite ?
Michelle Obama launched a voter registration initiative in 2018 to help Democrats win that election cycle .
She is still active with that , along with her celebrity friends she has brought into her efforts .
Friday it was announced that Michelle will be hosting a PBS children ’ s show .
“ Mondays with Michelle Obama ” will show Mrs. Obama reading books to children .
The first show airs April 20 .
The idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something she is doing as a good deed during the days of quarantine .
It ’ s for the children .
I wonder why PBS didn ’ t ask Laura Bush or Melania Trump , both of whom regularly read to children , to do the same .
Just kidding .
We all know why .
The point is , Michelle Obama never really left the public debate arena .
She just does it without the obvious pleas for attention that people like Hillary Clinton do .
Both of the Obamas tweet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of that .
I ’ m sure the most valuable action they can take on behalf of Joe Biden , besides making public endorsements , is to raise money for his campaign .
In that effort , they will be very successful .
Just think of the star-studded events in Hollywood and in New York City , as well as the humble video requests made for the normal folks in real America .
The money will flow in .
The election in November will depend on what elections always depend on – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and very loyal .
Biden has yet to catch fire and very well may not with Democrat voters , other than the very vocal Never-Trump opposition on social media .
It remains to be seen if Joe can go the distance of a national campaign , make the adjustments necessary during the present coronavirus pandemic , and hire a team of people who can think outside the box as much as the Trump team does .
Biden is going to have to do a lot better than he has done so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Joe Biden’s campaign is reported to be in talks with Michelle Obama to announce her endorsement of the Democratic candidate. Second, only to her husband’s, this will be Biden’s biggest endorsement of his campaign. To many Democrat voters, Michelle’s endorsement will likely carry more weight than the former president’s.
Michelle Obama is wildly popular with Democrats and Independent voters. I’ve heard some conservative women speak favorably of her, too. Not me, mind you, but other conservative women. Joe Biden’s people have no doubt seen polls like the Gallup poll at the end of last year which ranked Michelle Obama as the most admired woman in the United States in 2019. Melania Trump came in second in that poll, followed by Oprah and Hillary Clinton. The push is on to lockdown her endorsement and perhaps even talk her into doing some campaigning for good old Joe.
“We know what pretty much everyone in America does: Michelle Obama is probably the most beloved member of the Democratic Party and her support is a big deal,” a Biden aide told The Hill. “Any future announcement would reflect the incredible impact her voice has.” Howard Gutman, who worked in the Obama administration, told The Hill the Biden team would take anything it can get from her, but “It’s a question of how much [she and her family] want her to be out there in the crossfire.”
Joe Biden has been talking up Michelle Obama as someone he’d love to have as his running mate for months, especially after it became clear she wouldn’t consider running for the presidency herself.
Michelle Obama has never held public office and at this point in her life isn’t likely to do so. Why would she? She has all the platform she wants any time she wants it through the Obama-loving press and the Democrat Party. Hollywood loves the Obamas even more than they loved the Clintons. The Obamas are making sweet Netflix money now. There are also book deals and speaking appearances. Why would someone who has never shown a personal desire to be a public servant take such a huge pay reduction now? She won’t. She remains popular because she isn’t involved in politics publicly. She doesn’t have to play second fiddle to a bumbling old man who has trouble stringing a couple of sentences together.
Mrs. Obama is involved in politics behind the scenes and in specially selected projects. She was quick to slam any woman who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton after the 2016 election and groused that Republican and conservative voters were so critical of her husband. Boy, good thing Democrats were so kind and gracious to George W. Bush, amirite?
Michelle Obama launched a voter registration initiative in 2018 to help Democrats win that election cycle. She is still active with that, along with her celebrity friends she has brought into her efforts.
Friday it was announced that Michelle will be hosting a PBS children’s show. “Mondays with Michelle Obama” will show Mrs. Obama reading books to children. The first show airs April 20. The idea is that this is supposed to be something she is doing as a good deed during the days of quarantine. It’s for the children.
I'm thrilled to share some of my favorite children's books and give kids an opportunity to practice their reading (while giving families a much-needed break!). Join me, @PBSKIDS, and @penguinrandom for read-alongs on Mondays at 12pm ET on @PBSKIDS Facebook and YouTube! https://t.co/839isAWKSt — Michelle Obama (@MichelleObama) April 17, 2020
I wonder why PBS didn’t ask Laura Bush or Melania Trump, both of whom regularly read to children, to do the same. Just kidding. We all know why.
The point is, Michelle Obama never really left the public debate arena. She just does it without the obvious pleas for attention that people like Hillary Clinton do. Both of the Obamas tweet, though Michelle doesn’t do very much of that. I’m sure the most valuable action they can take on behalf of Joe Biden, besides making public endorsements, is to raise money for his campaign. In that effort, they will be very successful. Just think of the star-studded events in Hollywood and in New York City, as well as the humble video requests made for the normal folks in real America. The money will flow in.
The election in November will depend on what elections always depend on – voter turnout. Trump voters are fired up and very loyal. Biden has yet to catch fire and very well may not with Democrat voters, other than the very vocal Never-Trump opposition on social media. It remains to be seen if Joe can go the distance of a national campaign, make the adjustments necessary during the present coronavirus pandemic, and hire a team of people who can think outside the box as much as the Trump team does. Biden is going to have to do a lot better than he has done so far, that’s for sure.


hotair--2020-04-18--Preliminary antibody study: Just 2-3% in Wuhan have had the virus

If you find these numbers suspiciously low for the global epicenter of the disease , and if you ’ re inclined to distrust any and all COVID data that comes from China : Well , me too .
But if I ’ m not mistaken , no antibody study of a regional or national population anywhere in the world has shown prevalence higher than around five percent so far .
One would think that it must be much higher than that in nuclear hot spots like Lombardy , for instance , or in New York City , where a recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found 15 percent infected at the time .
But the sort of figures we ’ re hoping for — 30-40 percent or higher — to suggest we ’ re closer to herd immunity than we think are largely absent .
Even that hyped Stanford study of Santa Clara County that made the rounds yesterday showed a local prevalence of only three percent or so .
If any place on Earth could produce big numbers in antibody testing , you would think it ’ d be a hospital in Wuhan .
But no .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2.4 % of its employees and 2 % to 3 % of recent patients and other visitors , including people tested before returning to work , had developed antibodies , according to senior doctors there .
“ This is a long way from herd immunity , ” said Wang Xinghuan , the head of Zhongnan hospital , one of the city ’ s largest .
“ So a vaccine may be our last hope.
” … The antibody tests at Zhongnan Hospital involved 3,600 healthy employees , including security guards and cleaners as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also included about 5,000 visitors , including people who were required to take the tests before being allowed to return to work or leave Wuhan… It ’ s striking that antibody results were roughly the same for hospital visitors and staff , given that staff are more likely to have encountered the virus .
One explanation could be that hospital staff had more exposure to the virus but also more protective gear , said Robert Garry , a virologist at Tulane University in New Orleans .
Right , and another explanation could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support China ’ s lie that the virus was quickly contained in Wuhan thanks to old-fashioned communist managerial ingenuity .
Chinese authorities know that western countries will soon begin reporting prevalence in their own hardest-hit areas .
If New York City comes in at , say , 10 percent , having an official rate in Wuhan of 2.4 percent gives Beijing a new reason to say they did a much better job of controlling their outbreak than incompetent westerners did .
But I don ’ t know .
A higher prevalence rate in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for propaganda .
If the rate reported by the hospital were 35 percent , for instance , China could point to its bogus official death toll of 3,869 as remarkably low relative to the high prevalence of the disease locally .
What an amazing triumph for communist medicine , saving so many lives and preventing so many severe cases despite the fact that so many people were infected !
We can ’ t count on the accuracy of Chinese data .
But how about data from the Netherlands ?
The Dutch have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fifth-highest number of deaths per one million residents of any major country in the world and the seventh-highest number of confirmed cases per million .
And yet only three percent have been infected per antibody testing .
Recent testing in Denmark of health-care workers , among whom you might expect much higher prevalence , found just 4.1 percent infected .
Want something closer to home ?
Okay : Less than one percent in King County , Washington , which saw one of the earliest outbreaks in the U.S. and could have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggressive social distancing .
This result from Massachusetts is interesting but one question hovering over many antibody studies is how they ’ re selecting people for their “ random ” samples .
Is it truly random , which would give us a sense of how the total population is faring , or are the people being tested self-selecting somehow ?
Note the last bit .
Inviting passersby to walk on up and get tested might logically attract more people who have reason to suspect they ’ ve had the disease recently ( e.g.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ week ) , especially if those people were unable to get tested when they were under the weather .
There might be much higher prevalence in a group like that than across the entire city .
Likewise , as NRO ’ s Robert VerBruggen points out , people who are willing to take the risk of being out and about right now might logically have been more likely to contract the virus over the past few weeks than the share of the population that ’ s holed up at home for fear of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk-averse people to be less likely to get infected , but risk-averse people are probably underrepresented in a group that ’ s strolling past the town square .
Selection bias was also a potential problem in the Stanford study I wrote about yesterday .
Scientists and other statistically-minded people have begun to pick apart that study ’ s methodology in the past 24 hours , with one critique focused on the fact that participants were recruited via Facebook ads .
That poses the same problem as the Chelsea study by potentially attracting people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a person who ’ s eager may have more reason than the average person to believe that he or she has been infected .
If that ’ s true then the prevalence in Santa Clara County would be even less than three percent .
But we ’ re getting into the weeds .
Here ’ s a common-sense approach from investor Balaji Srinivasan to the grand question of how many people are infected .
Looking around at the hard numbers we have in the U.S. now , with more than 32,000 dead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ excess deaths ” on top of that , we would need a gigantic number to have been infected already to produce a death toll like that if the fatality rate from the disease was as low as the Stanford study ( and the Oxford model ) imagines it to be .
In order to generate these thousands of excess deaths in just a few weeks with the very low infection fatality rate of 0.12–2 % claimed in the paper , the virus would have to be wildly contagious .
It would mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last few weeks as the virus goes vertical , churns out millions of infections per week to get thousands of deaths , and then suddenly disappears as it runs out of bodies .
I guess this isn ’ t strictly impossible , but I was skeptical when this theory was first mooted because it ’ s different from the way past influenza-like pandemics have played out , including H1N1 in 2009 .
That took 12+ months to infect 11–21 % of the world over multiple waves .
COVID-19 would need to be way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come to believe , especially relative to other flu-like illnesses .
And even if it was , remember that herd immunity is a moving target .
The more infectious a disease is , the more of us need to be infected in order to slow down the rate of transmission .
For a disease that ’ s wildly contagious like the measles , herd immunity requires something like 93 percent of the population to be infected for herd immunity .
Whether the current prevalence in the U.S. really is on the order of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get sick or whether the prevalence is more like 20 percent and we need 80 percent or whatever to get sick , we ’ ve still got a long way to go , it seems .
Even if we ignore the new Wuhan data .

If you find these numbers suspiciously low for the global epicenter of the disease, and if you’re inclined to distrust any and all COVID data that comes from China: Well, me too.
But if I’m not mistaken, no antibody study of a regional or national population anywhere in the world has shown prevalence higher than around five percent so far. One would think that it must be much higher than that in nuclear hot spots like Lombardy, for instance, or in New York City, where a recent sample of pregnant women in one hospital found 15 percent infected at the time. But the sort of figures we’re hoping for — 30-40 percent or higher — to suggest we’re closer to herd immunity than we think are largely absent. Even that hyped Stanford study of Santa Clara County that made the rounds yesterday showed a local prevalence of only three percent or so.
If any place on Earth could produce big numbers in antibody testing, you would think it’d be a hospital in Wuhan. But no.
Wuhan’s Zhongnan Hospital found that 2.4% of its employees and 2% to 3% of recent patients and other visitors, including people tested before returning to work, had developed antibodies, according to senior doctors there. “This is a long way from herd immunity,” said Wang Xinghuan, the head of Zhongnan hospital, one of the city’s largest. “So a vaccine may be our last hope.”… The antibody tests at Zhongnan Hospital involved 3,600 healthy employees, including security guards and cleaners as well as doctors and nurses. They also included about 5,000 visitors, including people who were required to take the tests before being allowed to return to work or leave Wuhan… It’s striking that antibody results were roughly the same for hospital visitors and staff, given that staff are more likely to have encountered the virus. One explanation could be that hospital staff had more exposure to the virus but also more protective gear, said Robert Garry, a virologist at Tulane University in New Orleans.
Right, and another explanation could be that the data has been doctored to support China’s lie that the virus was quickly contained in Wuhan thanks to old-fashioned communist managerial ingenuity. Chinese authorities know that western countries will soon begin reporting prevalence in their own hardest-hit areas. If New York City comes in at, say, 10 percent, having an official rate in Wuhan of 2.4 percent gives Beijing a new reason to say they did a much better job of controlling their outbreak than incompetent westerners did.
But I don’t know. A higher prevalence rate in Wuhan could also be exploited by China for propaganda. If the rate reported by the hospital were 35 percent, for instance, China could point to its bogus official death toll of 3,869 as remarkably low relative to the high prevalence of the disease locally. What an amazing triumph for communist medicine, saving so many lives and preventing so many severe cases despite the fact that so many people were infected!
We can’t count on the accuracy of Chinese data. But how about data from the Netherlands?
Survey of thousands of Dutch blood donors shows 3% now carry COVID-19 antibodies. Just presented by Dutch CDC @rivm. Slides: https://t.co/N8QLZxuHIR pic.twitter.com/YrAFmv3x5y — Bert Hubert (@PowerDNS_Bert) April 16, 2020
The Dutch have been hit hard by the disease, with the fifth-highest number of deaths per one million residents of any major country in the world and the seventh-highest number of confirmed cases per million. And yet only three percent have been infected per antibody testing. Recent testing in Denmark of health-care workers, among whom you might expect much higher prevalence, found just 4.1 percent infected.
Want something closer to home? Okay:
Less than one percent in King County, Washington, which saw one of the earliest outbreaks in the U.S. and could have been a disaster if not for early and aggressive social distancing.
This result from Massachusetts is interesting but one question hovering over many antibody studies is how they’re selecting people for their “random” samples. Is it truly random, which would give us a sense of how the total population is faring, or are the people being tested self-selecting somehow?
Nearly one third of 200 Chelsea residents who gave a drop of blood to researchers on the street this week tested positive for antibodies linked to COVID-19, a startling indication of how widespread infections have been in the densely populated city. Sixty-four residents who had a finger pricked in Bellingham Square on Tuesday and Wednesday had antibodies that the immune system makes to fight off the coronavirus, according to Massachusetts General Hospital physicians who ran the pilot study. The 200 participants generally appeared healthy, but about half told the doctors they had had at least one symptom of COVID-19 in the past four weeks.
Note the last bit. Inviting passersby to walk on up and get tested might logically attract more people who have reason to suspect they’ve had the disease recently (e.g., they had a cough for a week), especially if those people were unable to get tested when they were under the weather. There might be much higher prevalence in a group like that than across the entire city. Likewise, as NRO’s Robert VerBruggen points out, people who are willing to take the risk of being out and about right now might logically have been more likely to contract the virus over the past few weeks than the share of the population that’s holed up at home for fear of getting sick. We’d expect risk-averse people to be less likely to get infected, but risk-averse people are probably underrepresented in a group that’s strolling past the town square.
Selection bias was also a potential problem in the Stanford study I wrote about yesterday. Scientists and other statistically-minded people have begun to pick apart that study’s methodology in the past 24 hours, with one critique focused on the fact that participants were recruited via Facebook ads. That poses the same problem as the Chelsea study by potentially attracting people who are *eager* to be tested, as a person who’s eager may have more reason than the average person to believe that he or she has been infected. If that’s true then the prevalence in Santa Clara County would be even less than three percent.
But we’re getting into the weeds. Here’s a common-sense approach from investor Balaji Srinivasan to the grand question of how many people are infected. Looking around at the hard numbers we have in the U.S. now, with more than 32,000 dead in the official count and many more “excess deaths” on top of that, we would need a gigantic number to have been infected already to produce a death toll like that if the fatality rate from the disease was as low as the Stanford study (and the Oxford model) imagines it to be.
In order to generate these thousands of excess deaths in just a few weeks with the very low infection fatality rate of 0.12–2% claimed in the paper, the virus would have to be wildly contagious. It would mean all the deaths are coming in the last few weeks as the virus goes vertical, churns out millions of infections per week to get thousands of deaths, and then suddenly disappears as it runs out of bodies. I guess this isn’t strictly impossible, but I was skeptical when this theory was first mooted because it’s different from the way past influenza-like pandemics have played out, including H1N1 in 2009. That took 12+ months to infect 11–21% of the world over multiple waves.
COVID-19 would need to be way, way more infectious than scientists have come to believe, especially relative to other flu-like illnesses. And even if it was, remember that herd immunity is a moving target. The more infectious a disease is, the more of us need to be infected in order to slow down the rate of transmission. For a disease that’s wildly contagious like the measles, herd immunity requires something like 93 percent of the population to be infected for herd immunity. Whether the current prevalence in the U.S. really is on the order of five percent and we need 50-60 percent to get sick or whether the prevalence is more like 20 percent and we need 80 percent or whatever to get sick, we’ve still got a long way to go, it seems. Even if we ignore the new Wuhan data.


hotair--2020-04-18--Video: Did Tom DeLonge reveal a secret Pentagon telekinesis program in a radio interview?

Buckle up , campers , because this is a truly bizarre story .
Of course , I don ’ t remember the last time I read a story about former Blink 182 frontman Tom DeLonge that didn ’ t wind up diving down one rabbit hole or another .
This week , Tom did an interview with two DJs on radio station 91X in San Diego .
He was promoting a new song that was just released by his current band , Angels and Airwaves .
The hosts seemed thrilled to have him on as a guest and they clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DeLonge ’ s more “ unique ” work with To The Stars Academy , UFOs , aliens or any of the rest of the stuff that Tom ’ s regularly asked about these days .
Instead , they kicked off the interview by asking him how he decided to release the single now and if he was trying to cheer people up during these dark times of the pandemic .
That ’ s when things got weird .
Tom started off talking about how it was important for people to use the power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things , which was a normal enough thing to say .
But then he derailed the conversation by talking about how powerful human consciousness really is .
As an example , he claimed to have secret government documents showing how the Pentagon was interested in some kid from China who could supposedly move things with his mind .
He then went further , claiming that the Department of Defense established its own program where they found people who could replicate the experiment .
The radio hosts just sat there looking more and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added ) Tom DeLonge : I was struck , kind of , by public consciousness because there ’ s a lot of studies that have been done , and a lot within the US government as well that I ’ m aware of , but that your mind… your mind over matter… that saying is very true… where they found , and I actually have a really amazing sensitive document that… and I ’ d always tell people about this , where they actually were…it was part of the UFO program at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in China that can move objects with his mind and he was like 10 years old .
Tom DeLonge : Yeah , so they repeated the experiment in the Department of Defense .
And they put a piece of paper in a glass mason jar and they screwed the lid on it .
With their mind they moved the paper through the lid of the jar six feet across the floor .
And it says right there in the document with the letterhead and everything , on our defense ( letterhead ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview .
You only have to watch roughly the first half to get all of the telekinesis chatter .
After that , they finally get around to discussing his new song .
DeLonge goes on to claim that he has another report detailing how “ they healed like thirty mice with crazy terminal cancers , they healed all the mice with just energy healing in a lab.
” All I could picture while listening to this was the rest of the former government and intelligence agency individuals on the board at To The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Luis Elizondo .
While he ’ s repeatedly stated that they have a lot more information on AATIP , UFOs and paranormal research conducted by the government that they can ’ t release , he ’ s been exceedingly careful not to put out anything that could violate his NDAs and get the Academy in trouble .
And now , seemingly out of the blue and in the middle of what was supposed to be an interview about DeLonge ’ s band , he ’ s talking about top-secret government programs investigating telekinesis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depends on whether or not DeLonge was being accurate in his claims .
First of all , could there be any truth to this ?
Don ’ t brush off the idea too quickly .
We ’ ve known for a long time that the United States government – particularly the CIA – has had a running interest in psychic phenomenon and done research on related subjects .
One such program was the basis for the 2009 movie The Men Who Stare at Goats , which was actually based on a true story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have been tinkering around with telekinesis or energy healing probably isn ’ t all that crazy .
But if there ’ s documentation showing any of that actually worked , well… that would be something of a bombshell .
But what about the document ( s ) DeLonge claims to personally “ have ?
” There ’ s a big difference between a government document you call “ sensitive ” and one that ’ s marked secret or top secret .
If DeLonge actually has one of the latter types in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elizondo or one of his associates .
And if the document wasn ’ t declassified and cleared for release , I ’ m guessing that Luis ’ phone is already ringing off the hook and some people will want to have a word with him .
But perhaps DeLonge was mistaken .
Could it be that he doesn ’ t actually have such a document , but rather that he ’ s seen it ?
Or maybe just heard about it from one of his government sources ?
That would be far less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonetheless .
Assuming such documents exist , I doubt they ’ re part of the trove of information allegedly collected by Robert Bigelow ’ s aerospace group out at Skinwalker Ranch , particularly because Tom says that they are on Department of Defense letterhead .
As if it wasn ’ t already weird enough that two years ago the Blink 182 guy suddenly became the world ’ s go-to person for information on government UFO programs .
Now we ’ re veering off into the realms of telekinesis and energy healing .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , my friends .
And I have a feeling the roller coaster ride only gets bumpier from here on out .

Buckle up, campers, because this is a truly bizarre story. Of course, I don’t remember the last time I read a story about former Blink 182 frontman Tom DeLonge that didn’t wind up diving down one rabbit hole or another. This week, Tom did an interview with two DJs on radio station 91X in San Diego. He was promoting a new song that was just released by his current band, Angels and Airwaves. The hosts seemed thrilled to have him on as a guest and they clearly weren’t there to talk about DeLonge’s more “unique” work with To The Stars Academy, UFOs, aliens or any of the rest of the stuff that Tom’s regularly asked about these days. Instead, they kicked off the interview by asking him how he decided to release the single now and if he was trying to cheer people up during these dark times of the pandemic.
That’s when things got weird. Tom started off talking about how it was important for people to use the power of their minds to focus on positive things, which was a normal enough thing to say. But then he derailed the conversation by talking about how powerful human consciousness really is. As an example, he claimed to have secret government documents showing how the Pentagon was interested in some kid from China who could supposedly move things with his mind. He then went further, claiming that the Department of Defense established its own program where they found people who could replicate the experiment. The radio hosts just sat there looking more and more bewildered. (Silva Record, emphasis added)
Tom DeLonge: I was struck, kind of, by public consciousness because there’s a lot of studies that have been done, and a lot within the US government as well that I’m aware of, but that your mind… your mind over matter… that saying is very true… where they found, and I actually have a really amazing sensitive document that… and I’d always tell people about this, where they actually were…it was part of the UFO program at the Pentagon. They were following this kid in China that can move objects with his mind and he was like 10 years old. Danielle: What? Tom DeLonge: Yeah, so they repeated the experiment in the Department of Defense. And they put a piece of paper in a glass mason jar and they screwed the lid on it. With their mind they moved the paper through the lid of the jar six feet across the floor. And it says right there in the document with the letterhead and everything, on our defense (letterhead).
Here’s the video of the interview. You only have to watch roughly the first half to get all of the telekinesis chatter. After that, they finally get around to discussing his new song.
But wait… there’s more.
DeLonge goes on to claim that he has another report detailing how “they healed like thirty mice with crazy terminal cancers, they healed all the mice with just energy healing in a lab.”
All I could picture while listening to this was the rest of the former government and intelligence agency individuals on the board at To The Stars Academy facepalming in unison, particularly Luis Elizondo. While he’s repeatedly stated that they have a lot more information on AATIP, UFOs and paranormal research conducted by the government that they can’t release, he’s been exceedingly careful not to put out anything that could violate his NDAs and get the Academy in trouble. And now, seemingly out of the blue and in the middle of what was supposed to be an interview about DeLonge’s band, he’s talking about top-secret government programs investigating telekinesis.
Of course, all of that depends on whether or not DeLonge was being accurate in his claims. First of all, could there be any truth to this? Don’t brush off the idea too quickly. We’ve known for a long time that the United States government – particularly the CIA – has had a running interest in psychic phenomenon and done research on related subjects. One such program was the basis for the 2009 movie The Men Who Stare at Goats, which was actually based on a true story. So the idea that the DoD might have been tinkering around with telekinesis or energy healing probably isn’t all that crazy. But if there’s documentation showing any of that actually worked, well… that would be something of a bombshell.
But what about the document(s) DeLonge claims to personally “have?” There’s a big difference between a government document you call “sensitive” and one that’s marked secret or top secret. If DeLonge actually has one of the latter types in his possession he almost undoubtedly received it from Elizondo or one of his associates. And if the document wasn’t declassified and cleared for release, I’m guessing that Luis’ phone is already ringing off the hook and some people will want to have a word with him.
But perhaps DeLonge was mistaken. Could it be that he doesn’t actually have such a document, but rather that he’s seen it? Or maybe just heard about it from one of his government sources? That would be far less problematic in legal terms, but interesting nonetheless. Assuming such documents exist, I doubt they’re part of the trove of information allegedly collected by Robert Bigelow’s aerospace group out at Skinwalker Ranch, particularly because Tom says that they are on Department of Defense letterhead.
As if it wasn’t already weird enough that two years ago the Blink 182 guy suddenly became the world’s go-to person for information on government UFO programs. Now we’re veering off into the realms of telekinesis and energy healing. We have truly lived to see interesting times, my friends. And I have a feeling the roller coaster ride only gets bumpier from here on out.