hotair--2020-05-17--Justin Amash declines presidential run

Justin Amash declines presidential run

Michigan Congressman Justin Amash spent three weeks as a potential presidential candidate .
He conversed with potential voters , appeared on podcasts and Libertarian Party-friendly outlets , participated in one debate , and won the Libertarian Party of Kentucky ’ s Putative Delegates poll in the sixth round .
Ultimately , Amash passed on seeking the Libertarian Party ’ s nomination and dropped out of the race yesterday .
Amash listed his reasoning on Twitter heaping scorn on traditional media outlets “ dominated by voices strongly averse to the political risks posed by a viable third candidate ” and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a political party ’ s tune is more important than having one ’ s voice heard .
The Libertarian Congressman noted fundraising issues due to government-halted economies and the general public ’ s understandable concern about coronavirus , jobs , and their own livelihood as steep cliffs too high , at the moment , for a legitimate alternative to the Republican and Democratic parties .
I waited 24 hours to process Amash ’ s decision to step out of the presidential race .
He was “ my candidate ” because I believed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tired of seeing old people telling them how they should live their lives .
The idea of a Libertarian Party candidate completely different from the others on stage in policy is intoxicating for those who value freedom and liberty above everything .
Especially if that candidate possesses the important trait of electability .
Do not take this as a criticism of the remaining LP National presidential candidates , as decent ones remain on the ballot , but an explanation of why Amash is better than the rest .
His name generated the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone not beholden to any party .
He resonated with younger voters and explained his votes as thoroughly as possible on social media .
FreedomWorks ’ Jason Pye called Amash “ principled to a fault ” in Rolling Stone last year , a compliment if there ever was one despite its double-edged nature .
Yet , Amash ’ s reasoning to eschew a 2020 run contains logic .
His late entry into the field ruffled feathers , especially of those who spent months drumming up support ( Adam Kokesh and John McAfee began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest started early last year ) .
LP presidential candidate Jacob Hornberger quickly labeled Amash an “ LP Interloper ” looking to put him as just another Republican looking to keep their political career alive while so-called real libertarians toiled in the shadows .
Amash , as much as I like him , is a politician so there ’ s likely a shard of truth to the label .
Hornberger was nicer to Amash after his exit commenting he ’ s glad Amash is staying in the party .
Other Amash detractors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronation and found the fight too bruising for his mettle .
An unlikely summation , given the Republican primary fights Amash won in Michigan where he destroyed his more establishment opponents .
He always termed his run as an “ exploratory committee , ” a phrase used by potential candidates not ready to commit full-bore to a project .
He possessed an out if too many challenges popped up thus mostly avoiding the unseemly “ failed candidate ” stamp .
It gives him the chance to make more inroads within the fractious Libertarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beneath the porcupine-quilled exterior of the party .
He might end up a coalition candidate in 2024 , should he pursue a true run , despite certain policy questions on congressional immigration votes and abortion ( Amash is pro-life which turns off some libertarians ) .
Amash ’ s desire for victory in November , instead of a Quixotic 3 % , likely played a factor in the hesitancy of pursuing the LP nomination full bore .
Moral victories in Congress are one thing .
They don ’ t exist in elections where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit of hope glimmered in Amash ’ s announcement despite its disappointment .
His full-throated endorsement of the Libertarian Party itself and the work done by people including Nicholas Sarwark , Jess Mears , Kryssi Wichers , Free the People , and Reason magazine can be a boon for politically homeless individuals looking for a true electoral representation of their beliefs .
Not some squishy “ No Labels ” group whose policy goals barely deviate from those of either major party , save for social issues , and the occasional spending bill .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ government , and whose actions and words agree .
Amash can help the Libertarian Party achieve its goals : by winning re-election in Michigan ’ s 3rd District if he decides to make it his refocus .
His presidential exploratory committee may be over , but the real work ’ s just begun .

Michigan Congressman Justin Amash spent three weeks as a potential presidential candidate. He conversed with potential voters, appeared on podcasts and Libertarian Party-friendly outlets, participated in one debate, and won the Libertarian Party of Kentucky’s Putative Delegates poll in the sixth round. Ultimately, Amash passed on seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination and dropped out of the race yesterday.
Amash listed his reasoning on Twitter heaping scorn on traditional media outlets “dominated by voices strongly averse to the political risks posed by a viable third candidate” and the current political polarization climate where blindly marching to a political party’s tune is more important than having one’s voice heard. The Libertarian Congressman noted fundraising issues due to government-halted economies and the general public’s understandable concern about coronavirus, jobs, and their own livelihood as steep cliffs too high, at the moment, for a legitimate alternative to the Republican and Democratic parties.
I waited 24 hours to process Amash’s decision to step out of the presidential race. He was “my candidate” because I believed his messaging could gather in more voters tired of seeing old people telling them how they should live their lives. The idea of a Libertarian Party candidate completely different from the others on stage in policy is intoxicating for those who value freedom and liberty above everything. Especially if that candidate possesses the important trait of electability. Do not take this as a criticism of the remaining LP National presidential candidates, as decent ones remain on the ballot, but an explanation of why Amash is better than the rest. His name generated the most publicity given his role in Congress as someone not beholden to any party. He resonated with younger voters and explained his votes as thoroughly as possible on social media. FreedomWorks’ Jason Pye called Amash “principled to a fault” in Rolling Stone last year, a compliment if there ever was one despite its double-edged nature.
Yet, Amash’s reasoning to eschew a 2020 run contains logic. His late entry into the field ruffled feathers, especially of those who spent months drumming up support (Adam Kokesh and John McAfee began their campaigns in 2018 while most of the rest started early last year). LP presidential candidate Jacob Hornberger quickly labeled Amash an “LP Interloper” looking to put him as just another Republican looking to keep their political career alive while so-called real libertarians toiled in the shadows. Amash, as much as I like him, is a politician so there’s likely a shard of truth to the label. Hornberger was nicer to Amash after his exit commenting he’s glad Amash is staying in the party. Other Amash detractors within the party opined he expected a coronation and found the fight too bruising for his mettle. An unlikely summation, given the Republican primary fights Amash won in Michigan where he destroyed his more establishment opponents.
He always termed his run as an “exploratory committee,” a phrase used by potential candidates not ready to commit full-bore to a project. He possessed an out if too many challenges popped up thus mostly avoiding the unseemly “failed candidate” stamp. It gives him the chance to make more inroads within the fractious Libertarian Party and soothe whatever bruised egos sit beneath the porcupine-quilled exterior of the party. He might end up a coalition candidate in 2024, should he pursue a true run, despite certain policy questions on congressional immigration votes and abortion (Amash is pro-life which turns off some libertarians). Amash’s desire for victory in November, instead of a Quixotic 3%, likely played a factor in the hesitancy of pursuing the LP nomination full bore. Moral victories in Congress are one thing. They don’t exist in elections where there are winners and losers.
A bit of hope glimmered in Amash’s announcement despite its disappointment. His full-throated endorsement of the Libertarian Party itself and the work done by people including Nicholas Sarwark, Jess Mears, Kryssi Wichers, Free the People, and Reason magazine can be a boon for politically homeless individuals looking for a true electoral representation of their beliefs. Not some squishy “No Labels” group whose policy goals barely deviate from those of either major party, save for social issues, and the occasional spending bill. A group that endorsed freedom and limited government, and whose actions and words agree.
Amash can help the Libertarian Party achieve its goals: by winning re-election in Michigan’s 3rd District if he decides to make it his refocus. His presidential exploratory committee may be over, but the real work’s just begun.


hotair--2020-05-17--Bubba's back: Bill Clinton is alive and well and speaking again

Bill Clinton looks well , at least as well as he has looked in recent years .
He ’ s been the topic of speculation for weeks as every prominent Democrat in or out of office comes forward to endorse Joe Biden for president , now that Biden is the last candidate standing .
He re-emerged from his bunker during this weekend ’ s virtual commencement activities .
The former president participated in CNN ’ s “ Class of 2020 : In This Together ” , a special tribute to this year ’ s graduates .
The video of Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The first minute and 50 seconds are rather dark , frankly , given the reason for the celebration .
The coronavirus has given you a graduation you will never forget and it ’ s released you into an uncertain future .
I urge you to embrace the challenge .
The world needs you .
Your country needs you .
Even before the outbreak , you knew you were entering a world of growing inequalities , and divisive tribalism , with people pulling away from those who are different from them .
Seething @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empowered those who for profit and power for themselves , are willing to inflame our worst instincts .
It ’ s put your future , our democracy , and our very planet at risk .
In ways large and small , people the world over have been urged to see life as a dog eat dog , zero-sum game .
Someone else is winning , you ’ re losing .
You can only win if someone else loses .
It ’ s fun in sports but bad in an interdependent world .
Talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he reels it in and transitions to a more positive , uplifting message .
The old Bubba comes through as he does what he does best , making the listener think he sincerely cares about them .
He kind of goes into grandpa mode in the second half of the speech .
Hang in there , kids .
You can change the world .
He ended on a positive note .
We have the resources we need to overcome all of these challenges but only if we choose to face them together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and your future .
You know more .
You can learn faster .
Most of our problems can be thought through and solved or managed much better .
I know you ’ ve been dealt a hard hand , but you can play it well .
With a tough but open mind and a caring heart , you can help keep us together .
Help find ways to serve others , not run away from them .
Help to unite , not to divide .
Help to build , not tear down .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you do , you will find your own path to fulfillment and happiness and in so doing , your example will inspire the world .
Good luck and God speed.
” It looks like Bill Clinton is ready to get back to campaigning .
He ’ s been kept under wraps , though , ever since the # MeToo movement began and Democrat women realized how stupid they were when it came to supporting Bill Clinton .
I never understood how women who called themselves feminists could support a hound dog like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
They always blamed the women Clinton abused rather than Clinton , usually at Hillary ’ s assistance .
With the scandal of the Tara Reade accusations against Joe Biden , Bill Clinton isn ’ t exactly a go-to guy right now for Team Biden .
So , there has been no formal endorsement of Joe Biden .
It is hard to believe that Bill Clinton is going to continue to keep a low profile much longer though as we move closer to the November election .
Unlike Hillary , who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to find the right time and place .
Safely delivering some remarks to graduating students from the comfort of one of his homes is an easy way for him to re-emerge , test the water .
Plus , let ’ s face it , Democrats prefer to see and hear from Hillary , not Bill .
Bill Clinton can do some virtual campaigning for Joe and still play a part in Democrat politics , especially with black voters .
Clinton will also participate in “ Class of 2020 : Ready for Anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Verizon .
Unlike other virtual commencement events , this series features successful business leaders and other leaders instead of celebrities .
The 42nd president of the United States will be a featured speaker in Verizon ’ s four-week “ Class of 2020 : Ready for Anything ” series honoring this year ’ s graduating seniors .
Clinton is scheduled to deliver a livestreamed address on Friday , June 12 .
Verizon ’ s 2020 commencement series will feature 30-minute sessions over four consecutive Fridays with business execs and sports figures , capped with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be able to submit questions to the speakers .
Speakers in the series are : William P. Lauder , executive chairman , the Estée Lauder Cos. , and Katie Sowers , San Francisco 49ers assistant coach ( May 22 ) ; NBA star Kevin Love of the Cleveland Cavaliers ( May 29 ) ; Hugh Evans , co-founder/CEO , Global Citizen , and Jen Rubio , co-founder of Away ( June 5 ) ; and Bill Clinton and Verizon chairman/CEO Hans Vestberg ( June 12 ) .
Start times for the sessions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be streamed on Verizon ’ s LinkedIn page .
The series will also be simulcast on the company ’ s Yahoo and Yahoo Life properties .
We ’ ll see how the re-appearance of Bill Clinton plays out .
Most of us wish that both Clintons would just go away , but that ’ s not likely .

Bill Clinton looks well, at least as well as he has looked in recent years. He’s been the topic of speculation for weeks as every prominent Democrat in or out of office comes forward to endorse Joe Biden for president, now that Biden is the last candidate standing. He re-emerged from his bunker during this weekend’s virtual commencement activities.
The former president participated in CNN’s “Class of 2020: In This Together”, a special tribute to this year’s graduates. The video of Clinton lasts for 3 minutes, 52 seconds. The first minute and 50 seconds are rather dark, frankly, given the reason for the celebration.
The coronavirus has given you a graduation you will never forget and it’s released you into an uncertain future. I urge you to embrace the challenge. The world needs you. Your country needs you. Even before the outbreak, you knew you were entering a world of growing inequalities, and divisive tribalism, with people pulling away from those who are different from them. Seething resentments and a broken information system have empowered those who for profit and power for themselves, are willing to inflame our worst instincts. It’s put your future, our democracy, and our very planet at risk. In ways large and small, people the world over have been urged to see life as a dog eat dog, zero-sum game. Someone else is winning, you’re losing. You can only win if someone else loses. It’s fun in sports but bad in an interdependent world.
Talk about a downer. Yikes. Fortunately, he reels it in and transitions to a more positive, uplifting message. The old Bubba comes through as he does what he does best, making the listener think he sincerely cares about them. He kind of goes into grandpa mode in the second half of the speech. Hang in there, kids. You can change the world. He ended on a positive note.
We have the resources we need to overcome all of these challenges but only if we choose to face them together. I have great faith in you and your future. You know more. You can learn faster. Most of our problems can be thought through and solved or managed much better. I know you’ve been dealt a hard hand, but you can play it well. With a tough but open mind and a caring heart, you can help keep us together. Help find ways to serve others, not run away from them. Help to unite, not to divide. Help to build, not tear down. Help to support, not demean. If you do, you will find your own path to fulfillment and happiness and in so doing, your example will inspire the world. Good luck and God speed.”
It looks like Bill Clinton is ready to get back to campaigning. He’s been kept under wraps, though, ever since the #MeToo movement began and Democrat women realized how stupid they were when it came to supporting Bill Clinton. I never understood how women who called themselves feminists could support a hound dog like Clinton. It was all about keeping power. They always blamed the women Clinton abused rather than Clinton, usually at Hillary’s assistance. With the scandal of the Tara Reade accusations against Joe Biden, Bill Clinton isn’t exactly a go-to guy right now for Team Biden. So, there has been no formal endorsement of Joe Biden.
Some Democrats say that’s likely not unintentional, arguing that a high-profile endorsement of Biden by Bill Clinton would be off-key as the former vice president deals with a 1993 charge of sexual assault from a former staffer. “Talk about a man who doesn’t fit the moment,” said one longtime Democratic fundraiser.
It is hard to believe that Bill Clinton is going to continue to keep a low profile much longer though as we move closer to the November election. Unlike Hillary, who is everywhere all the time, Bill just has to find the right time and place. Safely delivering some remarks to graduating students from the comfort of one of his homes is an easy way for him to re-emerge, test the water. Plus, let’s face it, Democrats prefer to see and hear from Hillary, not Bill. Bill Clinton can do some virtual campaigning for Joe and still play a part in Democrat politics, especially with black voters.
Democratic strategist Brad Bannon said the Biden campaign could use Bill Clinton to gin up turnout in urban areas, particularly with black voters “who adore the former president.” “Otherwise you won’t see much interaction between the Biden campaign and Bill Clinton,” he predicted.
Clinton will also participate in “Class of 2020: Ready for Anything”, a commencement series sponsored by Verizon. Unlike other virtual commencement events, this series features successful business leaders and other leaders instead of celebrities.
The 42nd president of the United States will be a featured speaker in Verizon’s four-week “Class of 2020: Ready for Anything” series honoring this year’s graduating seniors. Clinton is scheduled to deliver a livestreamed address on Friday, June 12. Verizon’s 2020 commencement series will feature 30-minute sessions over four consecutive Fridays with business execs and sports figures, capped with interactive Q&As in which viewers will be able to submit questions to the speakers. Speakers in the series are: William P. Lauder, executive chairman, the Estée Lauder Cos., and Katie Sowers, San Francisco 49ers assistant coach (May 22); NBA star Kevin Love of the Cleveland Cavaliers (May 29); Hugh Evans, co-founder/CEO, Global Citizen, and Jen Rubio, co-founder of Away (June 5); and Bill Clinton and Verizon chairman/CEO Hans Vestberg (June 12). Start times for the sessions are TBA.
The speaker series will be streamed on Verizon’s LinkedIn page. The series will also be simulcast on the company’s Yahoo and Yahoo Life properties.
We’ll see how the re-appearance of Bill Clinton plays out. Most of us wish that both Clintons would just go away, but that’s not likely.


hotair--2020-05-17--Lindsey Graham reverses, now says Senate GOP will fill SCOTUS vacancy in election year

Nothing should be more elementary than Senate Republicans wanting to use their majority to fill an election-year vacancy on the Supreme Court , especially as their hold on that majority grows more tenuous .
If a seat opens up before November , it could be the GOP ’ s last chance for a very long time to add a right-wing justice .
Mitch McConnell has always been mindful of the optics of Republicans rushing to confirm someone this year after they roadblocked Obama ’ s attempt to fill Scalia ’ s seat in 2016 .
The two situations simply aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : In 2016 we had divided government , with the president a member of one party and the Senate controlled by the other , whereas this year we have unified government .
When government is divided , we hold the seat vacant and defer to the voters in November to decide which party they want to fill it .
But when government is united , no such deference is necessary .
Pretty straightforward — except for the fact that Lindsey Graham , the chairman of the Judiciary Committee , went on camera in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that his party would hold a vacant SCOTUS seat open in 2020 provided that the vacancy happened after the primary process had begun .
There was no mention of divided government in Graham ’ s pitch ; he seemed to be in agreement with Senator Joe Biden ’ s belief that any election-year vacancy should be left to the voters to decide .
Take 80 seconds to watch .
Graham is eager to convince the skeptical audience that he ’ s not a hypocrite and that the GOP will show the same deference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a president from their own party who ’ s in position to fill a vacancy , as they did in 2016 with Obama and the Scalia vacancy .
Note the bit at the very end where Jeffrey Goldberg warns Graham that he ’ s going to hold him to this promise and Graham , with maximum bravado , invites him to do so .
I ’ ve written at least two posts about that pledge just because of how surprising and short-sighted it was .
Obviously Graham wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority from filling a SCOTUS vacancy this year .
He couldn ’ t do so even if he wanted to : Although he ’ s the chair of the Judiciary Committee , if he went to the mat to try to hold the seat open McConnell would bring the nomination to the floor without a committee vote in order to get around him .
Graham ’ s opposition to confirmation would be not just futile but potentially politically ruinous , spoiling his relationship with Trump and alienating Republican voters in South Carolina , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So what the hell was he thinking ?
Why make a promise , on tape , in front of a liberal crowd , beside a liberal interviewer , that he knew he could never , ever keep ?
The news today is that he ’ s now faced reality and is backing off his pledge .
He ’ s abandoning the Biden rule for the McConnell rule , i.e .
we only hold open Supreme Court seats in an election year when government is divided .
“ Well , Merrick Garland was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president of one party nominating , and you had the Senate in the hands of the other party .
A situation where you ’ ve got them both would be different .
I don ’ t want to speculate , but I think appointing judges is a high priority for me in 2020 , ” Graham said in an interview on “ Full Court Press with Greta Van Susteren ” set to air Sunday… “ If you look into the history of the country , there had not been an occasion where somebody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after primary started when you had divided government , ” he added… “ Joe Biden urged President Bush 41 not to appoint somebody in the election year .
So we call that the Biden Rule , but this would be a different circumstance , ” Graham said .
The Biden Rule is the rule he touted in the 2018 clip !
On camera !
Why didn ’ t he see this coming ?
I ’ m mystified that an old pro would have made a pledge he knew there was no realistic way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create some electoral peril for him if a vacancy really does open up before November .
Although he ’ s a heavy favorite to win to his Senate race , he ’ s not quite the sure thing he was pre-pandemic .
His opponent is looking for ways to mobilize turnout in South Carolina , knowing that the Democratic minority there may need extra motivation to bother showing up to support a longshot candidacy .
If Graham had simply followed McConnell ’ s lead about the Garland precedent applying only in periods of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been paid .
He ’ d be in lockstep with his party and consistent in his strategy .
As it is , his reversal looks cynical and expedient , perfect attack-ad material .
How ’ d he let that happen ?

Nothing should be more elementary than Senate Republicans wanting to use their majority to fill an election-year vacancy on the Supreme Court, especially as their hold on that majority grows more tenuous. If a seat opens up before November, it could be the GOP’s last chance for a very long time to add a right-wing justice. Mitch McConnell has always been mindful of the optics of Republicans rushing to confirm someone this year after they roadblocked Obama’s attempt to fill Scalia’s seat in 2016. The two situations simply aren’t analogous, McConnell has said: In 2016 we had divided government, with the president a member of one party and the Senate controlled by the other, whereas this year we have unified government. When government is divided, we hold the seat vacant and defer to the voters in November to decide which party they want to fill it.
But when government is united, no such deference is necessary.
Pretty straightforward — except for the fact that Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, went on camera in October 2018 and promised a hostile crowd that his party would hold a vacant SCOTUS seat open in 2020 provided that the vacancy happened after the primary process had begun. There was no mention of divided government in Graham’s pitch; he seemed to be in agreement with Senator Joe Biden’s belief that any election-year vacancy should be left to the voters to decide.
Take 80 seconds to watch. Graham is eager to convince the skeptical audience that he’s not a hypocrite and that the GOP will show the same deference to voters in 2020, now that it’s a president from their own party who’s in position to fill a vacancy, as they did in 2016 with Obama and the Scalia vacancy.
Sen. @LindseyGrahamSC: "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait 'til the next election." #SCOTUS #TheAtlanticFest pic.twitter.com/3he6LCGDeC — CSPAN (@cspan) October 3, 2018
Note the bit at the very end where Jeffrey Goldberg warns Graham that he’s going to hold him to this promise and Graham, with maximum bravado, invites him to do so. I’ve written at least two posts about that pledge just because of how surprising and short-sighted it was. Obviously Graham wasn’t going to block Trump and the GOP majority from filling a SCOTUS vacancy this year. He couldn’t do so even if he wanted to: Although he’s the chair of the Judiciary Committee, if he went to the mat to try to hold the seat open McConnell would bring the nomination to the floor without a committee vote in order to get around him. Graham’s opposition to confirmation would be not just futile but potentially politically ruinous, spoiling his relationship with Trump and alienating Republican voters in South Carolina, where he’s up for reelection.
So what the hell was he thinking? Why make a promise, on tape, in front of a liberal crowd, beside a liberal interviewer, that he knew he could never, ever keep?
The news today is that he’s now faced reality and is backing off his pledge. He’s abandoning the Biden rule for the McConnell rule, i.e. we only hold open Supreme Court seats in an election year when government is divided.
“Well, Merrick Garland was a different situation. You had the president of one party nominating, and you had the Senate in the hands of the other party. A situation where you’ve got them both would be different. I don’t want to speculate, but I think appointing judges is a high priority for me in 2020,” Graham said in an interview on “Full Court Press with Greta Van Susteren” set to air Sunday… “If you look into the history of the country, there had not been an occasion where somebody was confirmed in a presidential election year after primary started when you had divided government,” he added… “Joe Biden urged President Bush 41 not to appoint somebody in the election year. So we call that the Biden Rule, but this would be a different circumstance,” Graham said.
The Biden Rule is the rule he touted in the 2018 clip! On camera!
Why didn’t he see this coming? I’m mystified that an old pro would have made a pledge he knew there was no realistic way he could honor. It could even create some electoral peril for him if a vacancy really does open up before November. Although he’s a heavy favorite to win to his Senate race, he’s not quite the sure thing he was pre-pandemic. His opponent is looking for ways to mobilize turnout in South Carolina, knowing that the Democratic minority there may need extra motivation to bother showing up to support a longshot candidacy. If Graham had simply followed McConnell’s lead about the Garland precedent applying only in periods of divided government, little attention would have been paid. He’d be in lockstep with his party and consistent in his strategy. As it is, his reversal looks cynical and expedient, perfect attack-ad material. How’d he let that happen?


hotair--2020-05-18--Who's ready for Michelle Obama's "Prom-athon" with MTV?

It ’ s not really a prom because there are no proms in 2020 thanks to the coronavirus pandemic .
Everything is virtual now and that includes high school proms .
Not wanting to let a public health crisis go to waste , Michelle Obama has teamed up with MTV to encourage high school students to register to vote and show up on election day .
In 2018 the former first lady launched When We All Vote with the stated goal of “ changing the culture around voting ” .
From the website : “ When We All Vote is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brings together citizens , institutions , brands , and organizations to increase participation in every election .
We are committed to closing the race and age voting gap and empowering all eligible voters to cast their ballot by harnessing grassroots energy , establishing strategic partnerships , and implementing digital organizing strategies.
” Lofty goals , right ?
I call malarkey on the assertion that the organization is nonpartisan , by the way .
I have yet to see any Republicans or conservatives with whom she has teamed up for any of the organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among young voters .
Co-founders listed on the website are all liberal celebrities , all Barack Obama supporters : Tom Hanks , Lin-Manuel Miranda , Janelle Monáe , Chris Paul , Faith Hill , and Tim McGraw .
Like the virtual commencement speeches delivered by liberal celebrities and public figures , MTV ’ s Prom-athon will be live-streamed , this time on MTV ’ s YouTube channel .
What is being billed as a virtual prom event to honor the Class of 2020 , it is scheduled for Friday , May 22 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ MTV featuring all things prom .
It will include throwback movies and short-form original content in the lead-up to the 90-minute virtual prom party , which will live stream digitally at 9pm ET on MTV YouTube .
MTV ’ s Prom-athon will feature special celebrity appearances and live performances to be announced soon .
The partnership will include the 2020 Prom Challenge — a celebration to shine a light on 20 winning high schools and students who organized the most creative nonpartisan voter registration efforts in the country .
After all not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year , most will be eligible to vote in November ’ s national election .
During a Zoom call last week , Michelle Obama announced the 20 winning high schools of the 2020 Prom Challenge .
You may notice something I did about the winning schools – all are in states that are important to the presidential election in November .
Yes , all states are important but most of these states are often considered swing states or a state that Democrats hope to pick up this cycle , like Texas and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win Texas but Democrats are working hard to make inroads , especially down-ballot . )
Dobson High School ( Mesa , AZ ) invited celebrities like Natalie Portman to visit their school and help bolster registration rates .
Western School of Science & Technology ’ s ( Phoenix , AZ ) Prom Committee organized to register 84 % of seniors to vote .
Norte Vista High School ( Riverside , CA ) began registering members of their community to vote after all eligible students were registered .
Compton Early College High School ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their mission to pre-register and register every 16 and 18 year old , and nearly 100 % of seniors have registered .
Community Charter Early College High School ( Lake View Terrace , CA ) informed students about how to register to vote and important election information during daily announcements , homeroom and government courses .
Thurgood Marshall Academy Public Charter High School ( Washington , DC ) made registering to vote a part of school spirit , and registered 100 % of the senior class .
Hialeah Gardens High School ( Hialeah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registration drive where nearly 200 students registered to vote and continue to organize digitally .
Meadowcreek High School ( Norcross , GA ) changed the culture around voting in their school through “ Woke Wednesdays , ” where they educated one another about local voting laws , elections and other important issues .
TF North High School ( Calumet City , IL ) worked with their state senator to amend the election code , giving students two hours away from school to vote without penalty .
Muchin College Prep ( Chicago , IL @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through lessons on the history and importance of voting .
Communication and Media Arts High School ( Detroit , MI ) created a Voting Squad and hosted two days of action that resulted in 99 % of eligible students registering .
John F. Kennedy High School ( Winston-Salem , NC ) created a culture around voting in their school by promoting voter registration during open houses , parent-teacher conferences and other school-wide events .
R.J. Reynolds High School ( Winston-Salem , NC ) started having conversations as a school community about voting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote .
Valley High School ( Las Vegas , NV ) hosted events during lunch around voting , and about 250 students registered to vote .
Cass Technical High School ( Detroit , MI ) registered more than 400 students through pep rallies and other events .
STEM Academy at Showalter ( Chester , PA ) students are going beyond their school , and registering community members to vote as well .
Abraham Lincoln High School ( Philadelphia , PA ) students celebrate their “ Almost ” 18th birthdays by registering to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , PA ) integrated voter registration into their US Government course .
Westbury High School ( Houston , TX ) students created a video to dispel myths about voting as a school community and encourage one another to not only register , but show up for local and national elections .
Golda Meir High School ( Milwaukee , WI ) students who are registered marched to city hall to rally around the power of the youth vote .
Get out the vote efforts on a national level , especially with young voters has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was president .
Private citizens now but still with large social media followings , the Obamas clearly intend to remain active and also campaign for Joe Biden .
These virtual events in 2020 are essentially turning into in-kind donations to the Biden campaign , especially as Barack Obama attacks President Trump and his administration .
Michelle Obama brings on woke celebrities to capture the attention of high school students , all who have publicly criticized the president .
The indoctrination into leftist politics during their high school years is topped off with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrations of all students .
Sorry , future conservative voters .

It’s not really a prom because there are no proms in 2020 thanks to the coronavirus pandemic. Everything is virtual now and that includes high school proms. Not wanting to let a public health crisis go to waste, Michelle Obama has teamed up with MTV to encourage high school students to register to vote and show up on election day.
In 2018 the former first lady launched When We All Vote with the stated goal of “changing the culture around voting”. From the website: “When We All Vote is a national, nonpartisan, non-profit that brings together citizens, institutions, brands, and organizations to increase participation in every election. We are committed to closing the race and age voting gap and empowering all eligible voters to cast their ballot by harnessing grassroots energy, establishing strategic partnerships, and implementing digital organizing strategies.” Lofty goals, right?
I call malarkey on the assertion that the organization is nonpartisan, by the way. I have yet to see any Republicans or conservatives with whom she has teamed up for any of the organization’s events to increase voter registration among young voters. Co-founders listed on the website are all liberal celebrities, all Barack Obama supporters: Tom Hanks, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Janelle Monáe, Chris Paul, Faith Hill, and Tim McGraw.
Like the virtual commencement speeches delivered by liberal celebrities and public figures, MTV’s Prom-athon will be live-streamed, this time on MTV’s YouTube channel. What is being billed as a virtual prom event to honor the Class of 2020, it is scheduled for Friday, May 22.
Prom-athon is a daylong on-air takeover on MTV featuring all things prom. It will include throwback movies and short-form original content in the lead-up to the 90-minute virtual prom party, which will live stream digitally at 9pm ET on MTV YouTube. MTV’s Prom-athon will feature special celebrity appearances and live performances to be announced soon. The partnership will include the 2020 Prom Challenge — a celebration to shine a light on 20 winning high schools and students who organized the most creative nonpartisan voter registration efforts in the country. After all not only will these students graduate from high school this year, most will be eligible to vote in November’s national election.
During a Zoom call last week, Michelle Obama announced the 20 winning high schools of the 2020 Prom Challenge. You may notice something I did about the winning schools – all are in states that are important to the presidential election in November. Yes, all states are important but most of these states are often considered swing states or a state that Democrats hope to pick up this cycle, like Texas and Arizona. (Biden won’t win Texas but Democrats are working hard to make inroads, especially down-ballot.)
Dobson High School (Mesa, AZ) invited celebrities like Natalie Portman to visit their school and help bolster registration rates. Western School of Science & Technology’s (Phoenix, AZ) Prom Committee organized to register 84% of seniors to vote.
Norte Vista High School (Riverside, CA) began registering members of their community to vote after all eligible students were registered. Compton Early College High School (Compton, CA) has made it their mission to pre-register and register every 16 and 18 year old, and nearly 100% of seniors have registered. Community Charter Early College High School (Lake View Terrace, CA) informed students about how to register to vote and important election information during daily announcements, homeroom and government courses. Thurgood Marshall Academy Public Charter High School (Washington, DC) made registering to vote a part of school spirit, and registered 100% of the senior class. Hialeah Gardens High School (Hialeah Gardens, FL) hosted a voter registration drive where nearly 200 students registered to vote and continue to organize digitally. Meadowcreek High School (Norcross, GA) changed the culture around voting in their school through “Woke Wednesdays,” where they educated one another about local voting laws, elections and other important issues. TF North High School (Calumet City, IL) worked with their state senator to amend the election code, giving students two hours away from school to vote without penalty. Muchin College Prep (Chicago, IL) registered 98% of eligible students through lessons on the history and importance of voting. Communication and Media Arts High School (Detroit, MI) created a Voting Squad and hosted two days of action that resulted in 99% of eligible students registering. John F. Kennedy High School (Winston-Salem, NC) created a culture around voting in their school by promoting voter registration during open houses, parent-teacher conferences and other school-wide events. R.J. Reynolds High School (Winston-Salem, NC) started having conversations as a school community about voting, and nearly 100 students have registered to vote. Valley High School (Las Vegas, NV) hosted events during lunch around voting, and about 250 students registered to vote.
Cass Technical High School (Detroit, MI) registered more than 400 students through pep rallies and other events. STEM Academy at Showalter (Chester, PA) students are going beyond their school, and registering community members to vote as well. Abraham Lincoln High School (Philadelphia, PA) students celebrate their “Almost” 18th birthdays by registering to vote.
Building 21 High School (Allentown, PA) integrated voter registration into their US Government course. Westbury High School (Houston, TX) students created a video to dispel myths about voting as a school community and encourage one another to not only register, but show up for local and national elections. Golda Meir High School (Milwaukee, WI) students who are registered marched to city hall to rally around the power of the youth vote.
Get out the vote efforts on a national level, especially with young voters has been a focus of both Obamas since he was president. Private citizens now but still with large social media followings, the Obamas clearly intend to remain active and also campaign for Joe Biden. These virtual events in 2020 are essentially turning into in-kind donations to the Biden campaign, especially as Barack Obama attacks President Trump and his administration. Michelle Obama brings on woke celebrities to capture the attention of high school students, all who have publicly criticized the president. The indoctrination into leftist politics during their high school years is topped off with the same politicization during what should be celebrations of all students. Sorry, future conservative voters.


hotair--2020-05-18--Feminist Susan Faludi: "Believe All Women" is a right-wing straw man that liberals don't actually em

Feminist Susan Faludi: "Believe All Women" is a right-wing straw man that liberals don't actually embrace

I see .
Could it be that we hallucinated all of those maximalist statements about alleged victims ’ credibility ?
I didn ’ t think we hallucinated them .
But we live in strange times .
I suppose collective delusions are possible .
By using the term “ survivor , ” did they mean “ Believe all women who actually did endure a sexual assault ” ?
Because that proposition would be so uncontroversial as to be banal , hardly worth the rhetorical effort spent on # MeToo activism over the past three years .
It ’ d be like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling the truth.
” It ’ s also useless as an adjudicatory principle since what we ’ re looking for is a threshold of belief to trigger a criminal or professional inquiry , not resolve it .
Of course we believe people whose account has been borne out after the evidence has been examined .
What we want is a standard for how much attention we should devote to the initial claim .
Is Tara Reade a “ survivor ” ?
Should Joe Biden be the subject of some sort of formal investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tells of him sexually violating her ?
My favorite part of this Susan Faludi piece is her admitting after reviewing many “ Believe All Women ” tweets that yes , okay , some feminists really are using that slogan in earnest .
But the right is still to blame for distorting the left ’ s position .
Spend some mind-numbing hours tracking the origins of “ Believe All Women ” on social media sites and news databases — as I did — and you ’ ll discover how language , like a virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sudden , yesterday ’ s quotes suffer the insertion of some foreign DNA that makes them easy to weaponize .
In this case , that foreign intrusion is a word : “ all.
” … In my online searches , I encountered some feminists who seemed genuinely to subscribe to the phrase .
But overwhelmingly , the Twitterati deploying the phrase were conservatives , wielding it as a whip .
Why ?
Because the right knows what # MeToo activists do well to keep in mind : Peril lies in purity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s movement can be reduced to rigid boilerplate in the public mind , then the future of # MeToo will have more to lose from a single untruthful woman whom it ’ s sworn to defend than from boatloads of predatory men .
This is why “ Believe All Women ” is not an amplification of “ Believe Women , ” but its negation .
Ramesh Ponnuru cuts to the heart of the dishonesty .
Whether you ’ re demanding that we “ Believe Women ” or “ Believe All Women , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ switch the presumption from innocence to guilt when a woman accuses a man of sexual misconduct .
If you take Faludi ’ s argument seriously about the alleged significance of the word “ all , ” the entire history of # MeToo rhetoric from Weinstein to Kavanaugh to Biden is aimed at nothing more interesting than believing women who deserve to be believed and not believing women who don ’ t deserve to be believed , which is all but meaningless as a political position .
( “ Believe Some Women ” would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slogans in American history . )
Although it does have the hidden virtue of accurately stating the left ’ s real position on this .
Believe the women who deserve to be believed , i.e .
women who accuse men who are either actively antagonistic to the left ( Kavanaugh ) or of no real political use to them ( Weinstein ) .
And don ’ t believe women who don ’ t deserve to be believed , i.e .
women who accuse men in whom the left has a lot invested , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton 20 years ago or basically the entire Kennedy family years before that .
Ponnuru also noticed this sarcastic line in the opening of Faludi ’ s piece , referring to the Reade/Biden matter : “ A woman , with no corroboration beyond contemporaneous accounts , charges a powerful man with a decades-old crime ?
Hmm , doesn ’ t that sound mighty close to Christine Blasey Ford ’ s complaint against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh ?
” Uh … no , it doesn ’ t , because Christine Blasey Ford didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Faludi ’ s managed to delude herself about the strength of Ford ’ s case , it follows that she ’ d delude herself about the true meaning of “ Believe Women ” because it ’ s now convenient for Democrats to strike a much more moderate pose on that subject now their party ’ s nominee is the one on the hot seat .
The “ tell ” in all this is that , although righties have described the left ’ s # MeToo position as “ Believe All Women ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushback on the alleged mischaracterization from the left until the Biden/Reade thing .
Suddenly , at the moment it became expedient for Democrats not to have to believe all women , we were informed that “ Believe Women ” simply means listening respectfully to accusers before patting them on the head and dismissing them out of hand for reasons of political convenience .
How come Faludi didn ’ t write this piece a year ago , gently instructing righties who thought the left wanted all accusers to be believed that , you see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ?
Somehow it took the Democratic nominee being imperiled by a # MeToo claim for the record to be belatedly corrected .
Anyway , the Times op-ed page should really hash this out amongst themselves .
Centrist liberal Bari Weiss complained in a column written nearly a year before the Kavanaugh hearings that the “ huntresses ’ war cry — ‘ believe all women ' ” might just create some knotty due-process problems down the road .
Weird how she misunderstood what feminists were demanding in the same way that the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quotation , I leave you with a hypothetical from our own John Sexton .

I see. Could it be that we hallucinated all of those maximalist statements about alleged victims’ credibility?
I didn’t think we hallucinated them. But we live in strange times. I suppose collective delusions are possible.
The fundamental questions we must answer right now: Do we value women?
Do we believe women?
Do we give them the opportunity to tell their story? To be heard?
Will we ensure they get the justice they deserve? We must fight to be a country that answers, “Yes,” every time. — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) September 20, 2018
It’s a pretty elaborate delusion, in any case.
Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported. https://t.co/mkD69RHeBL — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 23, 2015
By using the term “survivor,” did they mean “Believe all women who actually did endure a sexual assault”? Because that proposition would be so uncontroversial as to be banal, hardly worth the rhetorical effort spent on #MeToo activism over the past three years. It’d be like saying, “Believe people who are telling the truth.” It’s also useless as an adjudicatory principle since what we’re looking for is a threshold of belief to trigger a criminal or professional inquiry, not resolve it. Of course we believe people whose account has been borne out after the evidence has been examined. What we want is a standard for how much attention we should devote to the initial claim.
Is Tara Reade a “survivor”? Should Joe Biden be the subject of some sort of formal investigation because of the increasingly doubtful story Reade tells of him sexually violating her?
My favorite part of this Susan Faludi piece is her admitting after reviewing many “Believe All Women” tweets that yes, okay, some feminists really are using that slogan in earnest. But the right is still to blame for distorting the left’s position.
Spend some mind-numbing hours tracking the origins of “Believe All Women” on social media sites and news databases — as I did — and you’ll discover how language, like a virus, can mutate overnight. All of a sudden, yesterday’s quotes suffer the insertion of some foreign DNA that makes them easy to weaponize. In this case, that foreign intrusion is a word: “all.”… In my online searches, I encountered some feminists who seemed genuinely to subscribe to the phrase. But overwhelmingly, the Twitterati deploying the phrase were conservatives, wielding it as a whip. Why? Because the right knows what #MeToo activists do well to keep in mind: Peril lies in purity. If the pluralism of the women’s movement can be reduced to rigid boilerplate in the public mind, then the future of #MeToo will have more to lose from a single untruthful woman whom it’s sworn to defend than from boatloads of predatory men. This is why “Believe All Women” is not an amplification of “Believe Women,” but its negation.
Ramesh Ponnuru cuts to the heart of the dishonesty. Whether you’re demanding that we “Believe Women” or “Believe All Women,” the point of your activism is to switch the presumption from innocence to guilt when a woman accuses a man of sexual misconduct. If you take Faludi’s argument seriously about the alleged significance of the word “all,” the entire history of #MeToo rhetoric from Weinstein to Kavanaugh to Biden is aimed at nothing more interesting than believing women who deserve to be believed and not believing women who don’t deserve to be believed, which is all but meaningless as a political position. (“Believe Some Women” would be one of the most laughably ridiculous slogans in American history.) Although it does have the hidden virtue of accurately stating the left’s real position on this. Believe the women who deserve to be believed, i.e. women who accuse men who are either actively antagonistic to the left (Kavanaugh) or of no real political use to them (Weinstein). And don’t believe women who don’t deserve to be believed, i.e. women who accuse men in whom the left has a lot invested, be it Joe Biden now or Bill Clinton 20 years ago or basically the entire Kennedy family years before that.
Ponnuru also noticed this sarcastic line in the opening of Faludi’s piece, referring to the Reade/Biden matter: “A woman, with no corroboration beyond contemporaneous accounts, charges a powerful man with a decades-old crime? Hmm, doesn’t that sound mighty close to Christine Blasey Ford’s complaint against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh?” Uh … no, it doesn’t, because Christine Blasey Ford didn’t have any contemporaneous corroboration. If Faludi’s managed to delude herself about the strength of Ford’s case, it follows that she’d delude herself about the true meaning of “Believe Women” because it’s now convenient for Democrats to strike a much more moderate pose on that subject now their party’s nominee is the one on the hot seat.
The “tell” in all this is that, although righties have described the left’s #MeToo position as “Believe All Women” since Kavanaugh, we saw scarcely any pushback on the alleged mischaracterization from the left until the Biden/Reade thing. Suddenly, at the moment it became expedient for Democrats not to have to believe all women, we were informed that “Believe Women” simply means listening respectfully to accusers before patting them on the head and dismissing them out of hand for reasons of political convenience. How come Faludi didn’t write this piece a year ago, gently instructing righties who thought the left wanted all accusers to be believed that, you see, they wanted nothing so radical as that? Somehow it took the Democratic nominee being imperiled by a #MeToo claim for the record to be belatedly corrected.
Anyway, the Times op-ed page should really hash this out amongst themselves. Centrist liberal Bari Weiss complained in a column written nearly a year before the Kavanaugh hearings that the “huntresses’ war cry — ‘believe all women'” might just create some knotty due-process problems down the road. Weird how she misunderstood what feminists were demanding in the same way that the rest of us did. For your exit quotation, I leave you with a hypothetical from our own John Sexton.


hotair--2020-05-19--South Korea: Retested COVID-19 positives are actually *great* news

This initially looked like a *gulp* moment , but might actually turn out to be the best news about the virus we ’ ve yet had .
Over a month ago , researchers in South Korea sent out a warning that some previously infected and recovered COVID-19 patients had tested positive again .
That prompted fears about the virus “ reactivating , ” which would have doomed vaccine and treatment efforts .
Later studies suggested that the tests had malfunctioned by picking up dead viral matter , but the worries about immunity continued .
Now , a new study in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirms that the patients testing positive have not been reinfected .
Bloomberg reports that this actually confirms conferred immunity , and perhaps points the path back to normality : Scientists from the Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied 285 Covid-19 survivors who had tested positive for the coronavirus after their illness had apparently resolved , as indicated by a previous negative test result .
The so-called re-positive patients weren ’ t found to have spread any lingering infection , and virus samples collected from them couldn ’ t be grown in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-infectious or dead virus particles .
The findings , reported late Monday , are a positive sign for regions looking to open up as more patients recover from the pandemic that has sickened at least 4.8 million people .
The emerging evidence from South Korea suggests those who have recovered from Covid-19 present no risk of spreading the coronavirus when physical distancing measures are relaxed .
The results mean health authorities in South Korea will no longer consider people infectious after recovering from the illness .
Research last month showed that so-called PCR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acid can ’ t distinguish between dead and viable virus particles , potentially giving the wrong impression that someone who tests positive for the virus remains infectious .
In practical terms , that means patients that have recovered from a certified diagnosis of COVID-19 infection need no further testing .
Their bodies are killing COVID-19 effectively , which means they can go out in public without fear of reinfection , and without fear of becoming a COVID-19 carrier .
As more and more people acquire the virus and produce the antibodies , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In other words , it looks like herd immunity has a very good chance of standing up to COVID-19 .
But for how long ?
Research in the UK has found that children turn out to be poor vectors for the disease , which is also good news .
Only one outbreak has been documented at a school thus far , one expert testified , which means that school reopenings might not present nearly as much risk as first thought .
However , John Edmunds questioned just how long conferred immunity might last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Britain ’ s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies ( SAGE ) , told the House of Lords ’ science committee that it was striking how children did not seem to play much of a role in spreading the novel coronavirus .
“ It is unusual that children don ’ t seem to play much of a role in transmission because for most respiratory viruses and bacteria they play a central role , but in this they don ’ t seem to , ” said Edmunds , a professor at the London School of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is only one documented outbreak associated with a school – which is amazing , ” Edmunds said .
But he added there was potentially bad news , though , that human immunity to the novel coronavirus may not last long .
That will be the question of the year , no ?
We have a long experience with influenza and vaccines that make it pretty clear we only have limited time for immunity — because the virus keeps mutating , though .
What about for non-mutating viruses ?
Bloomberg ’ s article notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce “ significant ” levels of antibodies for nine to seventeen years , the latter of which is the length of time since its outbreak .
It might be that many people produce immunity to SARS for a lifetime , which might explain why we ’ ve never had another major outbreak of it .
Herd immunity and isolation may have killed it off for good .
Given the relation between SARS and COVID-19 , that ’ s at least cause for hope .
So too are the results from Moderna ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb told CNBC ’ s Squawk Box this morning .
There ’ s a lot of work to be done and more trials to do , but “ it does show that this vaccine can produce an immune response.
” If this vaccine can do it , then perhaps others will do the same .
The bad news is that the Moderna test turned out to be only eight people , not 45 , which means that there ’ s a lot of work left to be done @ @

This initially looked like a *gulp* moment, but might actually turn out to be the best news about the virus we’ve yet had. Over a month ago, researchers in South Korea sent out a warning that some previously infected and recovered COVID-19 patients had tested positive again. That prompted fears about the virus “reactivating,” which would have doomed vaccine and treatment efforts. Later studies suggested that the tests had malfunctioned by picking up dead viral matter, but the worries about immunity continued.
Now, a new study in South Korea on a much larger sample confirms that the patients testing positive have not been reinfected. Bloomberg reports that this actually confirms conferred immunity, and perhaps points the path back to normality:
Scientists from the Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied 285 Covid-19 survivors who had tested positive for the coronavirus after their illness had apparently resolved, as indicated by a previous negative test result. The so-called re-positive patients weren’t found to have spread any lingering infection, and virus samples collected from them couldn’t be grown in culture, indicating the patients were shedding non-infectious or dead virus particles. The findings, reported late Monday, are a positive sign for regions looking to open up as more patients recover from the pandemic that has sickened at least 4.8 million people. The emerging evidence from South Korea suggests those who have recovered from Covid-19 present no risk of spreading the coronavirus when physical distancing measures are relaxed. The results mean health authorities in South Korea will no longer consider people infectious after recovering from the illness. Research last month showed that so-called PCR tests for the coronavirus’s nucleic acid can’t distinguish between dead and viable virus particles, potentially giving the wrong impression that someone who tests positive for the virus remains infectious.
In practical terms, that means patients that have recovered from a certified diagnosis of COVID-19 infection need no further testing. Their bodies are killing COVID-19 effectively, which means they can go out in public without fear of reinfection, and without fear of becoming a COVID-19 carrier. As more and more people acquire the virus and produce the antibodies, the less transmissible the virus will become. In other words, it looks like herd immunity has a very good chance of standing up to COVID-19.
But for how long? Research in the UK has found that children turn out to be poor vectors for the disease, which is also good news. Only one outbreak has been documented at a school thus far, one expert testified, which means that school reopenings might not present nearly as much risk as first thought. However, John Edmunds questioned just how long conferred immunity might last:
John Edmunds, a member of Britain’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), told the House of Lords’ science committee that it was striking how children did not seem to play much of a role in spreading the novel coronavirus. “It is unusual that children don’t seem to play much of a role in transmission because for most respiratory viruses and bacteria they play a central role, but in this they don’t seem to,” said Edmunds, a professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “There is only one documented outbreak associated with a school – which is amazing,” Edmunds said. But he added there was potentially bad news, though, that human immunity to the novel coronavirus may not last long.
That will be the question of the year, no? We have a long experience with influenza and vaccines that make it pretty clear we only have limited time for immunity — because the virus keeps mutating, though. What about for non-mutating viruses? Bloomberg’s article notes that people exposed to SARS continue to produce “significant” levels of antibodies for nine to seventeen years, the latter of which is the length of time since its outbreak. It might be that many people produce immunity to SARS for a lifetime, which might explain why we’ve never had another major outbreak of it. Herd immunity and isolation may have killed it off for good.
Given the relation between SARS and COVID-19, that’s at least cause for hope. So too are the results from Moderna’s first-run trial of its vaccine candidate, former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb told CNBC’s Squawk Box this morning. There’s a lot of work to be done and more trials to do, but “it does show that this vaccine can produce an immune response.” If this vaccine can do it, then perhaps others will do the same. The bad news is that the Moderna test turned out to be only eight people, not 45, which means that there’s a lot of work left to be done indeed.


hotair--2020-05-19--Norma "Jane Roe" McCorvey's deathbed confession: Evangelicals paid me to say I was pro-life

Assuming she ’ s telling the truth , and more on that in a second , this might be the most benevolent bit of astroturfing in American political history .
But it ’ s also depressing .
On the one hand there ’ s McCorvey converting her influence in a national debate over the dignity of life into a payday .
On the other there are evangelical leaders willing to bribe a vulnerable lower-class woman desperate for money into acting as their secret mouthpiece .
Barf-bag material all around .
It ’ s shocking to read her admission but pro-choicers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ angrier than pro-lifers .
She worked against their cause for 20 years .
In the end , her effort to undo that work consisted of one brief recorded interview .
How many people who were touched by Jane Roe ’ s journey from legalized-abortion advocate to pro-life Christian will even see this clip ?
“ I was the big fish .
I think it was a mutual thing .
I took their money and they ’ d put me out in front of the cameras and tell me what to say .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she says in “ AKA Jane Roe , ” which premieres Friday on FX .
“ It was all an act .
I did it well too .
I am a good actress.
” In what she describes as a “ deathbed confession , ” a visibly ailing McCorvey restates her support for reproductive rights in colorful terms : “ If a young woman wants to have an abortion , that ’ s no skin off my ass .
That ’ s why they call it choice.
” … The documentary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 — a few months before she died of heart failure at age 69 — expressing her support for Hillary Clinton .
“ I wish I knew how many abortions Donald Trump was responsible for , ” McCorvey muses .
“ I ’ m sure he ’ s lost count , if he can count that high.
” She passed away in 2017 .
The footage comes from an interview she did a few months before her death for a documentary that ’ s being released this week .
Reverend Rob Schenck , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has since also drifted away somewhat from the pro-life movement , apparently corroborated her claim — at least the part about being paid and coached : “ I had never heard her say anything like this… But I knew what we were doing .
And there were times when I was sure she knew .
And I wondered , Is she playing us ?
What I didn ’ t have the guts to say was , because I know damn well we ’ re playing her.
” Reverend Schenck admits that McCorvey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ needy ” person in need of love and protection , and that “ as clergy , ” people like Schenck and Benham were “ used to those personalities ” and thus easily able to exploit her weaknesses .
He also confirms that she was “ coached on what to say ” in her anti-abortion speeches .
Benham denies McCorvey was paid ; Schenck insists she was , saying that “ at a few points , she was actually on the payroll , as it were.
” AKA Jane Roe finds documents disclosing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gifts ” from the anti-abortion movement to McCorvey .
I believe it — but I ’ m not sure I believe her conversion was completely phony .
She became a Christian and then a pro-life advocate in the mid-90s , right ?
And until this interview from the new documentary surfaced , it was assumed she died a pro-life advocate .
Twenty years is a long time to do paid propaganda , and $ 450,000 spread across those 20 years isn ’ t much pay to do it .
If in fact McCorvey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the adulation she received from pro-lifers for switching sides was as least as much of a reason for her sticking with it as the money was .
And maybe she wasn ’ t insincere : The Daily Beast notes that other interviews in the documentary suggest that McCorvey really did break off her relationship with her longtime girlfriend after she became an evangelical in the mid-90s , leading her girlfriend to feel “ confused and hurt.
” Maybe McCorvey really did become a pro-life Christian and then , at some point between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on it for whatever reason and drifted back towards pro-choicers .
Claiming in her deathbed interview that she had been acting the whole time would have been an efficient way at getting back at whoever on the right had wronged her .
If in fact this was all mercenary on her part , was turning pro-life even the most lucrative option for her ?
Probably — both left and right looooove converts , since converts validate their belief that they ’ ve been right in their positions all along .
But McCorvey was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She could have done pro-choice speaking tours , Planned Parenthood events , on and on .
Whatever the truth , there ’ s something tragic about the fact that she ’ s now destined to be remembered unfondly by both sides .
But maybe that ’ s by design .
Early in life she was a political football for pro-choicers , later in life she was a political football for pro-lifers .
The ambiguity she created in the interview for the documentary finally yanked the football away .
Must have felt good to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however briefly and belatedly .

Assuming she’s telling the truth, and more on that in a second, this might be the most benevolent bit of astroturfing in American political history.
But it’s also depressing. On the one hand there’s McCorvey converting her influence in a national debate over the dignity of life into a payday. On the other there are evangelical leaders willing to bribe a vulnerable lower-class woman desperate for money into acting as their secret mouthpiece. Barf-bag material all around.
It’s shocking to read her admission but pro-choicers will be, and should be, angrier than pro-lifers. She worked against their cause for 20 years. In the end, her effort to undo that work consisted of one brief recorded interview. How many people who were touched by Jane Roe’s journey from legalized-abortion advocate to pro-life Christian will even see this clip?
“I was the big fish. I think it was a mutual thing. I took their money and they’d put me out in front of the cameras and tell me what to say. That’s what I’d say,” she says in “AKA Jane Roe,” which premieres Friday on FX. “It was all an act. I did it well too. I am a good actress.” In what she describes as a “deathbed confession,” a visibly ailing McCorvey restates her support for reproductive rights in colorful terms: “If a young woman wants to have an abortion, that’s no skin off my ass. That’s why they call it choice.”… The documentary includes scenes of McCorvey on election night 2016 — a few months before she died of heart failure at age 69 — expressing her support for Hillary Clinton. “I wish I knew how many abortions Donald Trump was responsible for,” McCorvey muses. “I’m sure he’s lost count, if he can count that high.”
She passed away in 2017. The footage comes from an interview she did a few months before her death for a documentary that’s being released this week.
Reverend Rob Schenck, who was interviewed for the film and who has since also drifted away somewhat from the pro-life movement, apparently corroborated her claim — at least the part about being paid and coached:
“I had never heard her say anything like this… But I knew what we were doing. And there were times when I was sure she knew. And I wondered, Is she playing us? What I didn’t have the guts to say was, because I know damn well we’re playing her.” Reverend Schenck admits that McCorvey was “a target,” a “needy” person in need of love and protection, and that “as clergy,” people like Schenck and Benham were “used to those personalities” and thus easily able to exploit her weaknesses. He also confirms that she was “coached on what to say” in her anti-abortion speeches. Benham denies McCorvey was paid; Schenck insists she was, saying that “at a few points, she was actually on the payroll, as it were.” AKA Jane Roe finds documents disclosing at least $456,911 in “benevolent gifts” from the anti-abortion movement to McCorvey.
I believe it — but I’m not sure I believe her conversion was completely phony. She became a Christian and then a pro-life advocate in the mid-90s, right? And until this interview from the new documentary surfaced, it was assumed she died a pro-life advocate. Twenty years is a long time to do paid propaganda, and $450,000 spread across those 20 years isn’t much pay to do it. If in fact McCorvey was insincere, I’d guess that the adulation she received from pro-lifers for switching sides was as least as much of a reason for her sticking with it as the money was.
And maybe she wasn’t insincere:
I spoke to this woman off the record, and I highly doubt this is true. Though even if it is, it says nothing about the morality of abortion. https://t.co/8wlTrH9yXt — David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) May 19, 2020
The Daily Beast notes that other interviews in the documentary suggest that McCorvey really did break off her relationship with her longtime girlfriend after she became an evangelical in the mid-90s, leading her girlfriend to feel “confused and hurt.” Maybe McCorvey really did become a pro-life Christian and then, at some point between the mid-90s and her death, soured on it for whatever reason and drifted back towards pro-choicers. Claiming in her deathbed interview that she had been acting the whole time would have been an efficient way at getting back at whoever on the right had wronged her.
If in fact this was all mercenary on her part, was turning pro-life even the most lucrative option for her? Probably — both left and right looooove converts, since converts validate their belief that they’ve been right in their positions all along. But McCorvey was a pro-choice celebrity unlike any other. She could have done pro-choice speaking tours, Planned Parenthood events, on and on.
Whatever the truth, there’s something tragic about the fact that she’s now destined to be remembered unfondly by both sides. But maybe that’s by design. Early in life she was a political football for pro-choicers, later in life she was a political football for pro-lifers. The ambiguity she created in the interview for the documentary finally yanked the football away. Must have felt good to liberate herself from being a political pawn, however briefly and belatedly.


hotair--2020-05-19--The revenge of the... hair stylists?

The revenge of the... hair stylists?

Some Connecticut residents are clearly unhappy with Governor Ned Lamont ’ s shutdown order and reopening plan for their state .
Or , at least in the case of most hair stylists , lack of a reopening plan .
Lamont ’ s recently revised outline will have hair and nail salon workers and barbershops cooling their heels for considerably longer , and many people in that particular line of work are fed up with him .
Today they took to the streets in New Haven in large numbers to make their voices heard .
( WTNH News 8 ) More @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers took to the streets of New Haven Tuesday to protest Governor Ned Lamont ’ s decision to push back their opening to June 1 .
Unlike Monday ’ s protesters , these owners say they are ready to open Wednesday , as planned .
They want to be preparing their shops to open Wednesday .
Instead , they are crowding the sidewalk in front of New Haven ’ s Skull & Combs .
“ A lot of us here today did what was necessary and what was called on us to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jason Bunce .
“ The rug just got pulled out from underneath us.
” Here ’ s some video of the protest provided via Twitter .
This may be a lesson in the need for decisiveness more than anything else .
As it turns out , Lamont had previously issued an order that would have allowed the salons to open up tomorrow .
Then , yesterday , a caravan of cars full of other salon workers had come to protest , saying that the proposed opening date was too soon and they weren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their demands and pushed the opening date back by 11 days to June 1st .
That ’ s sparked today ’ s protest .
These salon owners are saying that they already went out and spent thousands of dollars to upgrade their shops , getting them ready to open up under the state ’ s new social distancing rules .
Now they have to sit on their heels and can ’ t make any of that money back .
One barbershop owner who said he spent more than $ 4,000 dollars on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ All the hard work we put in place is down the drain , and now those bills are coming due of all the money I spent.
” Governor Lamont has nobody but himself to blame here because today ’ s protesters are making exactly the right point .
If the state had determined that tomorrow was the correct date when it would be safe for them to reopen and the reason was based on the current pandemic conditions , it didn ’ t become less safe to open just because some people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s either safe to reopen while following the new rules or it isn ’ t .
And besides , just giving businesses permission to reopen is not an order saying that they have to reopen .
( Although it might be hard to tell these days , what with all of the executive orders flying around telling private businesses what they can or can ’ t do . )
The ones who had done the preparations and were ready could have opened tomorrow and the others could continue with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were ready .
All that Lamont has managed to accomplish here is to make everyone on both sides of the debate mad at him .
And he ’ s come off looking feckless and indecisive to boot .
The Governor might want to think this over for a while and perhaps lay low .
You don ’ t want to anger all of the barbers and hairstylists in the state .
They all tend to carry around razors and scissors .
Oh , and he should probably skip going out for a shave @ @ @ @

Some Connecticut residents are clearly unhappy with Governor Ned Lamont’s shutdown order and reopening plan for their state. Or, at least in the case of most hair stylists, lack of a reopening plan. Lamont’s recently revised outline will have hair and nail salon workers and barbershops cooling their heels for considerably longer, and many people in that particular line of work are fed up with him. Today they took to the streets in New Haven in large numbers to make their voices heard. (WTNH News 8)
More than a hundred hair salon owners and workers took to the streets of New Haven Tuesday to protest Governor Ned Lamont’s decision to push back their opening to June 1. Unlike Monday’s protesters, these owners say they are ready to open Wednesday, as planned. They want to be preparing their shops to open Wednesday. Instead, they are crowding the sidewalk in front of New Haven’s Skull & Combs. “A lot of us here today did what was necessary and what was called on us to do,” said Skull & Combs owner Jason Bunce. “The rug just got pulled out from underneath us.”
Here’s some video of the protest provided via Twitter.
Hundreds of hair stylists gathered in New Haven to protest @GovNedLamont’s decision to push back their opening date. @FOX61News pic.twitter.com/NZlAqG5SxU — Ashley Afonso (@AshleyAfonso) May 19, 2020
This may be a lesson in the need for decisiveness more than anything else. As it turns out, Lamont had previously issued an order that would have allowed the salons to open up tomorrow. Then, yesterday, a caravan of cars full of other salon workers had come to protest, saying that the proposed opening date was too soon and they weren’t ready. Lamont apparently caved to their demands and pushed the opening date back by 11 days to June 1st.
That’s sparked today’s protest. These salon owners are saying that they already went out and spent thousands of dollars to upgrade their shops, getting them ready to open up under the state’s new social distancing rules. Now they have to sit on their heels and can’t make any of that money back. One barbershop owner who said he spent more than $4,000 dollars on new equipment is quoted as saying, “All the hard work we put in place is down the drain, and now those bills are coming due of all the money I spent.”
Governor Lamont has nobody but himself to blame here because today’s protesters are making exactly the right point. If the state had determined that tomorrow was the correct date when it would be safe for them to reopen and the reason was based on the current pandemic conditions, it didn’t become less safe to open just because some people protested that they weren’t ready. It’s either safe to reopen while following the new rules or it isn’t.
And besides, just giving businesses permission to reopen is not an order saying that they have to reopen. (Although it might be hard to tell these days, what with all of the executive orders flying around telling private businesses what they can or can’t do.) The ones who had done the preparations and were ready could have opened tomorrow and the others could continue with their preparations and open as soon as they were ready.
All that Lamont has managed to accomplish here is to make everyone on both sides of the debate mad at him. And he’s come off looking feckless and indecisive to boot. The Governor might want to think this over for a while and perhaps lay low. You don’t want to anger all of the barbers and hairstylists in the state. They all tend to carry around razors and scissors. Oh, and he should probably skip going out for a shave for a while.


hotair--2020-05-19--Trump: The VA study showing more deaths among hydroxychloroquine recipients was a "Trump enemy state

Trump: The VA study showing more deaths among hydroxychloroquine recipients was a "Trump enemy statement"

This is right on the cusp of self-parody in how he takes adverse information , i.e .
the discouraging VA study on hydroxychloroquine from a few weeks ago , and reflexively spins it into a plot by some shadowy “ enemy ” to embarrass him .
When did the VA join the deep state ?
He ’ s a day away from accusing Obama of having engineered the coronavirus in a lab and set it loose to help Biden win the election .
Let ’ s run through the recent history of hydroxychloroquine trials .
There were some small yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its possible efficacy , but by far the biggest news in HCQ ’ s favor was the French study in March led by Dr. Didier Raoult that claimed to find remarkable success with the drug in treating COVID-19 .
Amid all the hype from that result , though , some critics began questioning the study ’ s methodology ; they found enough flaws in it that the journal that published it later admitted that it didn ’ t meet their standards and shouldn ’ t have run .
That was weeks after Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touting it repeatedly in public appearances as a potential miracle cure .
In mid-April a small French study found no difference in deaths or ICU admissions between coronavirus patients who had received hydroxychloroquine and those who hadn ’ t .
The VA study followed a week later , finding that patients who received HCQ not only saw no benefit but died more often than those who didn ’ t receive it .
A few days after that preliminary data from a study of 22 different New York City hospitals found that HCQ recipients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who didn ’ t receive it .
Ten days ago a separate study of patients at New York-Presbyterian Hospital-Columbia University Irving Medical Center also found no benefit from the drug .
Apparently there was a new study published recently in China , which I missed at the time : A second study saw researchers in China split 150 Covid-19 patients into two groups , one of which received HCQ .
After four weeks tests revealed similar rates of sustained infection among both groups , though adverse reactions to treatment were more common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the severity or duration of symptoms differ between each group .
The jury ’ s still out .
All of the studies done so far were either observational rather than clinical or of sufficiently small scale that we can ’ t feel too confident about the results .
Few if any of them involve patients getting getting a placebo to help doctors compare how those who received HCQ fared by comparison .
And Trump ’ s right that patients who get hydroxychloroquine in these trials tend to be quite sick — which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circumstances , when doctors have nothing more efficacious to offer and are hoping against hope that HCQ will save them .
Maybe the drug works better earlier in the course of the disease , or as a prophylaxis before people are infected .
Until there ’ s a large randomized clinical trial to disprove it , it remains possible that hydroxychloroquine has some benefit in treating COVID-19 .
But there are a lot of “ Trump enemy statements ” out there right now in this field .
By the way , what is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hydroxychloroquine ?
Pundits on both sides in the U.S. have complained about the drug becoming a political football between right and left , but it ’ s not a purely American phenomenon .
Authoritarians the world over have taken a shine to the miracle drug that doesn ’ t seem to perform any miracles .
Did the strongman union have a secret meeting where they all agreed to back this medication for whatever reason ?
If Trump was focused on helping himself politically you would think he ’ d forget HCQ and instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a clinical trial , or the good news yesterday about Moderna ’ s vaccine .
Why focus on hydroxychloroquine instead ?
Is Conor Friedersdorf right that he just doesn ’ t understand much of anything about the pandemic ?
Here ’ s Fox News contributor Dr. Manny Alvarez laying into Trump yesterday for promoting hydroxychloroquine , which I think is what inspired the president to tweet last night that Fox News is “ no longer the same ” and that he ’ s “ looking for a new outlet.
” His very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & Friends ” for beating “ Morning Joe ” in the ratings .

This is right on the cusp of self-parody in how he takes adverse information, i.e. the discouraging VA study on hydroxychloroquine from a few weeks ago, and reflexively spins it into a plot by some shadowy “enemy” to embarrass him.
When did the VA join the deep state?
He’s a day away from accusing Obama of having engineered the coronavirus in a lab and set it loose to help Biden win the election.
“It was a Trump enemy statement” — Trump dismisses doctors who have warned about possible bad consequences of hydroxychloroquine and insists he knows better pic.twitter.com/CiyTtOBJlu — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 19, 2020
Let’s run through the recent history of hydroxychloroquine trials. There were some small yet encouraging studies from China early on regarding its possible efficacy, but by far the biggest news in HCQ’s favor was the French study in March led by Dr. Didier Raoult that claimed to find remarkable success with the drug in treating COVID-19. Amid all the hype from that result, though, some critics began questioning the study’s methodology; they found enough flaws in it that the journal that published it later admitted that it didn’t meet their standards and shouldn’t have run. That was weeks after Trump had made hydroxychloroquine a global sensation by touting it repeatedly in public appearances as a potential miracle cure.
In mid-April a small French study found no difference in deaths or ICU admissions between coronavirus patients who had received hydroxychloroquine and those who hadn’t. The VA study followed a week later, finding that patients who received HCQ not only saw no benefit but died more often than those who didn’t receive it. A few days after that preliminary data from a study of 22 different New York City hospitals found that HCQ recipients were no more likely to survive than those who didn’t receive it. Ten days ago a separate study of patients at New York-Presbyterian Hospital-Columbia University Irving Medical Center also found no benefit from the drug.
Apparently there was a new study published recently in China, which I missed at the time:
A second study saw researchers in China split 150 Covid-19 patients into two groups, one of which received HCQ. After four weeks tests revealed similar rates of sustained infection among both groups, though adverse reactions to treatment were more common in the HCQ group. Nor did the severity or duration of symptoms differ between each group.
The jury’s still out. All of the studies done so far were either observational rather than clinical or of sufficiently small scale that we can’t feel too confident about the results. Few if any of them involve patients getting getting a placebo to help doctors compare how those who received HCQ fared by comparison. And Trump’s right that patients who get hydroxychloroquine in these trials tend to be quite sick — which is what you’d expect under the circumstances, when doctors have nothing more efficacious to offer and are hoping against hope that HCQ will save them. Maybe the drug works better earlier in the course of the disease, or as a prophylaxis before people are infected. Until there’s a large randomized clinical trial to disprove it, it remains possible that hydroxychloroquine has some benefit in treating COVID-19.
But there are a lot of “Trump enemy statements” out there right now in this field.
By the way, what is it with nationalist leaders being drawn to hydroxychloroquine? Pundits on both sides in the U.S. have complained about the drug becoming a political football between right and left, but it’s not a purely American phenomenon. Authoritarians the world over have taken a shine to the miracle drug that doesn’t seem to perform any miracles.
Did the strongman union have a secret meeting where they all agreed to back this medication for whatever reason? If Trump was focused on helping himself politically you would think he’d forget HCQ and instead tout remdesivir, which did show effectiveness in a clinical trial, or the good news yesterday about Moderna’s vaccine. Why focus on hydroxychloroquine instead?
Is Conor Friedersdorf right that he just doesn’t understand much of anything about the pandemic?
Here’s Fox News contributor Dr. Manny Alvarez laying into Trump yesterday for promoting hydroxychloroquine, which I think is what inspired the president to tweet last night that Fox News is “no longer the same” and that he’s “looking for a new outlet.” His very next tweet this morning congratulated “Fox & Friends” for beating “Morning Joe” in the ratings.


hotair--2020-05-19--Today's topics on Relevant Radio®: UN pushing abortion as COVID-19 relief; faith journeys

Once again , I get to step outside the box and guest host A Closer Look on Relevant Radio® from @ @ @ @ @ Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air , as well as online and @ @ @ @ @ that plays live and podcast shows .
• Is abortion an “ essential ” service @ @ @ @ @ Stefano Gennarini J.D.
, is the Director of the Center for Legal Studies for C-Fam @ @ @ @ @ & Human Rights .
C-Fam is a watchdog group whose mission is to monitor and @ @ @ @ @ at the United Nations and other international institutions .
• Dr. Ian Murphy , formerly @ @ @ @ @ in Arlington , VA. , is currently a full-time Catholic writer and speaker .
He @ @ @ @ @ Dying to Live : From Agnostic to Baptist to Catholic .
We will also take @ @ @ @ @ You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in @ @ @ @ @ it now .
I ’ ll look forward to talking with you !

Once again, I get to step outside the box and guest host A Closer Look on Relevant Radio® from 6-7 ET today! The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air, as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows.
Today’s Relevant Radio® show includes:
Is abortion an “essential” service in the COVID-19 pandemic? Stefano Gennarini J.D., is the Director of the Center for Legal Studies for C-Fam, the Center for Family & Human Rights. C-Fam is a watchdog group whose mission is to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions.
Dr. Ian Murphy, formerly instructor for Divine Mercy University in Arlington, VA., is currently a full-time Catholic writer and speaker. He’s the author of Dying to Live: From Agnostic to Baptist to Catholic.
We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149. You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world, so download it now. I’ll look forward to talking with you!