It’s the President’s Prerogative to Name a COVID-19 Spending Watchdog He Trusts By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/its-the-presidents-prerogative-to-name-a-co

Another media non-story shows the double standard of presidential appointments for Republicans vs. Democrats.

And now, the latest melodrama: Media shrieking over President Trump’s removal of an Obama holdover who had been designated to be the inspector general overseeing the gargantuan spending authorized by the coronavirus relief legislation.

That official, Glenn Fine, a longtime Democratic favorite, is currently working in the Defense Department’s Office of Inspector General.

The $2 trillion bill signed by the president in March creates an $80 million fiefdom known as the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee. The PRAC will audit government spending. By law, its chairman must be an inspector general or acting inspector general of one of the executive branch departments or agencies. Up until Tuesday, Fine had been DoD’s acting inspector general, a position he assumed during the Obama administration.

Last week, what the New York Times describes as “an umbrella group of agency inspectors general across the executive branch” got together and named Fine to be the PRAC’s chairman. On Tuesday, however, President Trump pushed Fine out as acting IG. That renders him ineligible for the PRAC post.

The president did this by replacing Fine at DoD with Sean O’Donnell, who is currently the Environmental Protection Agency’s IG. Trump also nominated Jason Abend to become DoD’s IG. Pending Abend’s confirmation, O’Donnell will be DoD’s acting IG while continuing to wear his EPA IG hat. Meanwhile, if Fine chooses to stay in government, he will revert to his former position as DoD’s deputy IG. That is the job in which President Obama installed him in 2015. Fine became DoD’s acting IG the next year, but he was never confirmed.

The Supreme Court’s Misunderstood Ruling on Wisconsin’s Coronavirus Primary By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/the-supreme-courts-misunderstood-ruling-on-wisconsins-coronavirus-primary/

There seems to be some confusion about the Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday in connection with Tuesday’s Wisconsin primary. This owes to reporting that suggests, or at least could lead its audience to believe, that the Court’s five conservative-leaning, Republican-appointed justices, over the strident objection of its four left-leaning, Democratic-appointed justices, directed that the primary proceed with in-person voting, despite the coronavirus threat.

That is not what happened.

The state government of Wisconsin, led by Governor Anthony Steven Evers, a Democrat, made the decision to go forward with the primary, and with in-person voting. As the Court’s majority emphasizes, that was not the Court’s call, nor is it the Court’s place to opine on the wisdom of the state government’s decision.

The majority’s unsigned opinion explains that the issue the Court was called upon to decide was a narrow one, pertaining to absentee ballots. Specifically, at the urging of Democratic Party organizations concerned about the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on voting, federal district judge William Conley (an Obama appointee) extended the deadline for receipt of mail-in ballots from Tuesday April 7 (the primary-election day) to Monday afternoon, April 13. That aspect of the district court’s ruling was not in dispute. Judge Conley, however, directed that that absentee ballots were eligible to be counted regardless of when they were mailed in or otherwise delivered, as long as they came in by the April 13 deadline. In effect, that meant absentee ballots could be cast after in-person primary voting had closed on April 7.

Using COVID-19 Crisis, Democrats Seek Radical Changes In How U.S. Votes

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/04/08/using-covid-19-crisis-democrats-seek-radical-changes-in-how-u-s-votes/

Once again letting no good crisis go to waste, Democrats in Congress recently tried to use the coronavirus stimulus bill to achieve one of their longtime objectives: Mail-in ballots for everyone, opening the possibility for massive voting fraud, abuse and stolen elections. President Donald Trump is right to oppose this awful idea.

To hear Democrats tell it, you’d think it’s a pro-voter initiative meant to foster participation by those who don’t vote or can’t during the pandemic. It’s no such thing.

Mass mail-in votes are the easiest way to run a fraudulent election and deprive legitimate voters of their actual right to vote. Democrats seem determined not just to “extend the franchise,” but to make it easier to cheat.

Just last week, Democratic Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed a law that would have required Kentuckians to show some ID before they vote. We require an ID for everything from buying a six-pack of beer to cashing a check. But somehow, the reasoning goes, requiring an ID for voting infringes on people’s voting rights.

Mail-In Voting For All?

Last Friday, at his coronavirus update, Trump was asked if he would support the push for a mail-in election. Trump was his usual blunt self: “No, because I think a lot of people cheat with mail-in voting. I think people should vote with ID, voter ID. I think voter ID is very important, and the reason they don’t want voter ID is because they intend to cheat.”

Democrats say because of coronavirus lockdowns, the 2020 presidential election should be by mail. Don’t worry, email will be next.

Pope Says Virus Is Nature’s Response to the Climate Crisis By Rick Moran (!!!???)

https://pjmedia.com/trending/pope-says-virus-is-natures-response-to-the-climate-crisis/

Pope Francis is certainly not letting a planetary crisis go to waste. He is trying to piggyback the religion of climate change on the back of the coronavirus pandemic.

MSNNews:

“We did not respond to the partial catastrophes. Who now speaks of the fires in Australia, or remembers that 18 months ago a boat could cross the North Pole because the glaciers had all melted? Who speaks now of the floods?” the Pope said.

“I don’t know if these are the revenge of nature, but they are certainly nature’s responses,” he added.

Huh? What? Have the glaciers all melted? Why didn’t you wake me up? That would have been pretty cool to watch.

For the record, you cannot cross the North Pole. Climate scientists are predicting that by 2050, it might be possible to “sail over the North Pole,” but not now, or 18 months ago, or 18 months from now.

The Vatican fact-checkers blew that one.

The theory that life systems on the world are all interconnected is a well-established one. But that doesn’t mean that a virus, originally found in bats, has anything to do with whatever stress is being placed on life on earth because the climate may be changing.

Cardinal Pell :Robbed of Reputation and Achievement Peter O’Brien

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/04/robbed-of-reputation-and-achievement/

The classic definition of a libel is the consigning of an individual to ridicule and disrepute. Cardinal George Pell endured that in spades and for years before the grotesque exercise in character assassination culminated in 405 days behind bars. Someone, many if there is any justice, has to pay.

Much has been, and will be, written about the Pell case, most of it by commentators much more qualified than I, but indulge me to offer, humbly, a few thoughts. If we go back to basics, we can ask ourselves the simple question, how probable is it that a middle-aged man, clever and ambitious enough to rise to the very top ranks of his profession, would risk everything by molesting two boys in circumstances where he could be discovered at any minute? Most people would say ‘not impossible but very improbable’, I would venture to guess.

That premise would, or should, inform a healthy scepticism from the get-go on the part of any competent and disinterested investigator.  It should demand that evidence against the subject be compelling.  That ‘guilt beyond reasonable doubt’ should be as apparent to the prosecution team as it would be to the jury.

Except, it seems, if the subject were Cardinal George Pell.

Another aspect the astute investigator might consider is if this alleged perpetrator, this highly intelligent achiever, is also something of a risk-taker?  As far as I am aware, most paedophiles, at least those within the clergy, are not opportunistic predators.  They carefully groom their victims over time.  The investigator might ask himself, how probable is it that the past life of this self-indulgent middle-aged risk-taker with so little self-control as to take this immense risk for just a moment’s fleeting pleasure would not be littered with similar instances?

The dubious Dr. Fauci By Carol Brown

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/04/the_dubious_dr_fauci.html

On January 26, speaking about the coronavirus, Dr. Fauci said the risk to Americans was low, that there was nothing to be worried or frightened about, and that we were prepared (here: 5:08 mark, audio).

By mid-February, Fauci was more concerned about the seasonal flu and continued to say the coronavirus risk to Americans was low, and there was no need, for example, to avoid going to Chinese restaurants.

He also noted that things could change (as if we need an expert to tell us that).  By making such (obvious) statements, he covers himself by leaving the door open to whatever may happen down the road à la, you see, I told you things could change (here).

On April 3, in direct contradiction to a statement made just a few days prior by Dr. Birx that initial reports coming out of China were suggestive of a SARS-like virus and not a global pandemic (here), Fauci claimed that it was clear to him in early to mid-January that this virus was transmittable from human to human, that transmission was very efficient, and that it wasn’t just another SARS or MERS (here: 13:20 mark).

Huh?

How Low Can Higher Education Go? By John Ellis

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2020/03/29/how-low-can-higher-education-go/

A new book from author John Ellis examines the real reasons why most college graduates are woefully undereducated when they leave college after four or more years. Below is an eye-opening excerpt from The Breakdown of Higher Education: How it Happened, The Damage It Does, and What Can be Done.

Everyone knows that complaints about the quality of higher education are now heard with great frequency. What is less well known is that a large number of careful studies have already investigated what college graduates have learned by the time they get their degrees. These studies have been done by all kinds of people and agencies with quite different attitudes and interests. They include employer organizations, think tanks, educational theorists, and academic researchers. But though the people who have performed these studies come at the question from different directions with differing social and political attitudes and with differing methodologies, there is very little difference in their conclusions. They all find that recent graduates seem to have been very poorly educated. One study after another has found that they write badly, can’t reason, can’t read any reasonably complex material, have alarming gaps in their knowledge of the history and institutions of the society in which they live, and are in general poorly prepared for the workplace.

The most interesting—and devastating—of these studies is that by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, whose book documenting their study, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, appeared in 2011. Arum and Roksa found that higher education in America today “is characterized by limited or no learning for a large proportion of students.” More specifically, “An astounding proportion of students are progressing through higher education today without measurable gains in general skills as assessed by the CLA [Collegiate Learning Assessment].” The authors also find “at least some evidence that college students improved their critical thinking skills much more in the past than they do today.”

‘We Are Now Bending the Curve:’ Daily Hospitalizations From COVID-19 Drop in New York By Zachary Stieber

https://www.theepochtimes.com/we-are-now-bending-the-curve-daily-hospitalizations-from-covid-19-drop-in-new-york_3303914.html

Social distancing measures in New York are working so well that the projected curve of COVID-19 is bending, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said on Wednesday, describing “mixed emotions” as he also reported the state’s largest single-day death toll from the new disease.

COVID-19, caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, commonly known as novel coronavirus, led to just 586 new hospitalizations overnight, as New York officials continued reporting more discharges than new admissions.

“What we have done and what we are doing is actually working and is making a difference,” Cuomo told reporters at a press conference in Albany. “There’s no doubt that we are now bending the curve.”

The curve refers to the rise in any one of several measures, such as infections or hospitalizations, followed by a peak before the number falls.

Josh Hawley Has a Good Idea for Phase Four

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/josh-hawley-has-a-good-idea-for-phase-four/

To protect public health, governments throughout the country are shutting businesses down. It is not just morally right, but also important to a quick recovery, that those businesses be kept afloat and connected to their workers.

That is why we supported the $2 trillion “Phase Three” relief bill, and it’s why we support efforts to improve these policies or replace them with something better. Lawmakers should especially study a new proposal from Josh Hawley that would take an entirely different approach to the rescue.

The Phase 3 bill makes loans available to struggling businesses and promises to forgive those loans to the extent the companies retain their payrolls. There are some early snags, though things seem to be getting better with time: Some of the banks charged with administering the loans were slow to start lending; the Small Business Association, which oversees the program, scrambled to clarify the rules; and some businesses are finding that their employees would rather get expanded unemployment benefits than stay on the payroll. It’s also likely the program’s money will run out before the lockdowns are over and businesses have recovered, and 10 million people have already filed for unemployment.

There are two ways forward.

Fauci now is part of the problem, not part of the solution Howard Richman

The South Korean solution to the COVID-19 virus (widespread testing and the hydroxychloroquine-zinc cure) is beginning to work in the United States. Americans, like South Koreans, will soon be back at work and school. But at Monday’s Coronavirus Task Force press briefing, Dr. Anthony Fauci ignored the success.

Instead, he pretended that the only way the U.S. could get back to normal was through vaccines and new therapies. He was responding to a question directed to him, and him only, by reporter Jonathan Karl at the 37:37 mark of this video:  HERE. 

Karl: Will we truly get back to normal before there’s a vaccine available to everybody?…

Fauci: … I believe with the therapies that will be coming online, with the fact that I feel confident that over a period of time we will get a good vaccine, that we will never have to get back to where we are right now. So, if that means getting back to normal, then we’ll get back to normal.

Fauci was being disingenuous. His own organization NIAID (one of the institutes of NIH) is slow walking both therapies and vaccines. For example, NIAID is currently conducting a study on the effectiveness of Remdesivir, a drug which, along with chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, proved effective against COVID-19 in the Chinese test-tube studies.Here’s NIAID’s schedule for completing Phase 3 of its approval process: