The Bidens, Burisma and Bad Vibes. The Biden Scandal Widens.

The circumstances of the Burisma payments to Hunter Biden for no apparent reason together with his father's strange boasting in public about using U.S. foreign aid money to force the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor smelled to high heaven. But the lack of direct evidence linking the two parts of this picture, together with the disinterest of the major media, made it easy enough for the senior Mr. Biden to deny any knowledge of his son's activities and to claim, without any particular details, that the matter had been investigated and debunked.

The story excited much interest in conservative circles and the keen interest of the President but up to now has played little part in the fury of arguments in the election campaign. In fact, the impeachment of the President by the Democrats was based largely on his requesting the help of the newly elected Ukrainian president in investigating the matter. Neither the accusers nor the defenders seemed to pay much attention to the issue of whether the President's inquiries were appropriate considering the potential seriousness of the charges. During the presidential debate Mr. Trump tried to resurrect the issue, over the objections of the moderator, and was roundly criticized, by many liberals in particular, for stooping so low as to attack his contender's family.

There now appears new evidence that the suspicions were true, and that Mr. Biden's actions while he was Vice President were even more corrupt than previously suspected. A treasure trove of Hunter Biden's emails have surfaced which, if true, indicate that Mr. Biden was providing access to himself to foreign entities, including Ukraine, Russia and China, and was adjusting U.S. policy in exchange for large money payments to his son and possibly directly to himself.

Thus far the major news media have tried to ignore the story and the social media have actively suppressed discussion of it. However, these allegations come not from a supermarket tabloid or an inconsequential conservative website but from major news sources which have the resources to investigate and reputations at serious risk if they get it wrong. They have been cautious about making claims about the veracity of these allegations and very transparent about their sources, but Mr. Tucker Carlson last night claimed that there is now incontrovertible evidence that the emails in question are truly those of Hunter Biden and accurately document his activities.

How important is all of this? Well let's put it this way. Although I am a strong supporter of Mr. Trump, had evidence been uncovered that he indeed had an arrangement with Mr. Putin to provide election help in exchange for money payment or favorable U.S. policy, I would have had no alternative than to accept the Democrat's calls for impeachment or resignation.

The event is reminiscent of the situation of Richard Nixon whose deception was uncovered and pursued by two tenacious Washington Post reporters. The position of Mr. Nixon, who had won the election of 1972 in a landslide victory, was slowly but surely eroded by the steady accumulation of evidence to the point where he lost the support of the public and thereby his political supporters and was forced to resign. Mr. Nixon's offense was arguably much less serious than that of which Mr. Biden is accused.

What happens next? It's hard to imagine that if the allegations are proved to be true that Mr. Biden could remain viable as either a candidate or an elected President. But a significant number of individuals have already voted, and others will soon follow suit. With the final election day only two weeks away the Democrats and their media allies may try to put off discussion as long as possible in the hopes that the findings will influence a small enough portion of the electorate that Mr. Biden will be elected. After that, if the story lives on and intensifies, he can be sacrificed but the Executive branch will now be in Democrat hands which seems clearly to be their real interest rather than any particular devotion to their candidate.

Can they pull it off? We'll see. News travels dramatically faster in our digital age than it did in the 1970's. Even the attempt of the Silicon Valley social media to suppress the new findings seemed to serve only to bring them more to the public's attention. It took the news media several months to bring down Mr. Nixon, but it will surely be an item on tomorrow's Sunday news shows. Furthermore, somewhere very soon the major media will find it untenable not to take up the matter and Mr. Biden is going to have to be asked for an explanation. Surely the matter will come up in the second Presidential debate, assuming there is one, if not from the moderator, at least by Mr. Trump. His supporters are hopeful that his frustration with the forces allied against him, including perhaps the moderator, will not stimulate intemperate remarks but that he will be calm and factual and allow Mr. Biden to cook his own goose.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Election and the Economy

It makes my head spin to hear Joe Biden and Kamala Harris blame our present economic downturn on the President rather than to our response to the virus which has crashed economies the world over. Could anyone really be gullible enough to accept that argument? Old Joe is famous for his whoppers, but I think only the most rabid Trump hater would have his eyes and ears covered enough to believe that one. Unless you were asleep like Rip Van Winkle you would recall that pre-virus the economy was roaring with GDP over 3%, burgeoning stock values,  increases in manufacturing, full employment especially for minorities, increasing wages and stable prices, and energy independence. All this was based on Trumpian policies of decreasing regulations and taxes, making better trade deals and yes, the so-called "tax break for the rich" cutting the corporate tax rate to competitive levels to incentivize large companies to return home.

 

Mr. Biden has been heard to make the claim that all this abrupt economic progress was actually based on policies put in place by the previous administration, another big Biden whopper. Obama-Biden took over in a housing bust recession which typically would be expected to swing back fairly dramatically but instead the recovery was anemic. Mr. Obama explained that the time of American dominance in manufacturing with lots of blue-collar jobs was over and mocked Mr. Trump during the 2016 campaign for lacking a magic wand to bring them back.

 

Despite this record Mr. Biden loudly proclaims in his incessant ads that it is he who will have us buy American and save manufacturing as if he had completely missed, or maybe forgotten, what had transpired after he and Mr. Obama left office. In fact, despite his proclamations, almost everything he plans to do will surely sink our ship from the economic standpoint. He intends to repeal the Trump tax cuts, increase the corporate tax rate to previous excessive levels, resume environmental regulations and put a lid on American energy production with the Green New Deal. He wants to have the federal government provide our every need without considering that the government takes funding for all these grand enterprises from those of us hard at work in the far more efficient and productive private sector.

 

Besides that, he appears to be enamored of the lockdown approach to control of the virus, the very strategy that has depressed the economy to start with. He doesn't see that he can't have things both ways. His theatrical political speeches, and flashy smile are not enough to lock down businesses and have them survive at the same time. He promises to get us virus treatments and vaccines. What? He hasn't heard of Operation Warp Speed and the unheard of progress it has so far made in developing these things.

 

The President has promised a V-shaped economic return and that appears to be happening. Whether you love or hate his personality, sensible voters will hopefully understand that his longstanding experience in dealing with the difficult problems of the business world make him just the right man for our time.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Biden Says Trump Responsible for Covid19 Deaths

The major news media are fond of fact-checking Mr. Trump. Mr. Biden, not so much. So, I'm going to do a little for them.

 

Mr. Biden, in last night's debate held Mr. Trump responsible for the deaths of thousands by virtue of his management of the coronavirus epidemic. According to Biden, Trump should have known in February, before the administration's lockdown guidelines were made public in March,  what would be the eventual outcome, and instead he played it down.

 

To be sure, on Feb. 9 Mr. Trump noted there were thousands of deaths annually from influenza as compared to, as of that date, a total of 15 cases with no deaths, all in foreign travelers,. The first case of local community transmission was not to occur until 2/26 and the first recorded death on 2/29.

 

But at the same time was Mr. Trump taking the problem seriously? Well, before the above comment,  between 1/29 and 1/31 Mr. Trump had assembled his Coronavirus Task Force, had started the first of numerous conference calls with all the governors with the purpose of producing an action plan for the outbreak and had declared a public health emergency and imposed a ban on flights from China. Mr. Biden's response to that final measure, which even seemed drastic to me at the time, was to accuse Mr. Trump of "hysteria, xenophobia and fear-mongering."  He said pretty close to the same thing after Mr. Trump also restricted flights from Europe on 3/12. And his Democrat colleagues were no more prescient, with Mrs. Pelosi urging people to visit and congregate in San Francisco's Chinatown on 2/24, and on 3/2 Mr. DiBlasio making the same case  to visit NYC, where at the time there was only one known case.

 

Mr. Biden contends that Mr. Trump had special access to the official information and so should have known better. But is that true? Here are some public statements by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the President's chief medical advisor from the CDC:

 

On 1/21 Dr Fauci in an interview with Newsmax noted that, although we had to take it seriously the infection "is not a major threat for the people of the United States. And this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about."   On 2/17 in an Interview with USA Today Dr. Fauci explained that the risk of coronavirus in USA is "minuscule" and that "Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask."   On 2/28 Dr. Fauci wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that "the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza or a pandemic influenza". On the next day in an interview on the Today Show he said in reference to community spread that "right now, at this moment, there is no need to change anything you're doing on a day-to-day basis."   Then on 3/9 Dr. Fauci told reporters that young, healthy people can go on a cruise if they'd like. "If you are a healthy young person, there is no reason if you want to go on a cruise ship, go on a cruise ship."

 

This is not to denigrate Dr. Fauci, who spoke with the evidence he had available. By the last date I mentioned there were a total of 84 cases and 2 deaths in the whole country. However, I do criticize Mr. Biden a bit since he knew what was going to happen and said nothing to Dr. Fauci to warn him.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Coronavirus, the Emerging Picture and Herd Immunity

Here's a different, somewhat positive take on the virus.

If you look at the course of the epidemic around the country you will see that in March and April it hit hard in NYC, New York state generally, and surrounding states such as New Jersey and Connecticut. As this northeast area died down by the beginning of June the epidemic moved to the Southern and Western states where it rose to a peak and began to recede in mid-July. Around the same time as that decline, the infection moved to the Mid-West and Mountain states where it has now leveled off and begun to recede.

What could account for this situation? Certainly not social distancing and masking which does not fit the picture. These things undoubtedly have some effect in delaying the transmission of the virus, but they do not inactivate it, so that there should be a resurgence as these mitigation methods are reduced. But, taking New York as an example, although it has by now relaxed some of its restrictions there has been no resurgence of cases. In fact, since early June cases have been persistent at about 2-300 daily, and at the same time deaths are miniscule, with daily counts in the single digits for the last couple of months.

One factor that might be at least part of the explanation is that it now seems clear that there is a considerable amount of susceptibility variation in the population, as is seen in any other transmissible infection. Some of those exposed resist the virus entirely and for those who do contract it there is a great deal of variation in the severity of the ensuing illness. We're all familiar with the major difference between age groups but even in closely confined nursing home groups, notoriously the source of a great many of the deaths, there are some who do not become infected, and some who are asymptomatic or only mildly ill.

Recently I became aware of the work of Gabriella Gomes, a mathematician who has been studying the behavior and developing predictive models of epidemics for many years and who has been suggesting that the standard thinking about herd immunity is flawed. Herd immunity is a concept that is the whole point of vaccination. Although a vaccine may be only partly effective in producing immunity to a virus in individuals, it gives general resistance in the community which is sufficient to limit the available hosts and so stop its activity temporarily. Herd immunity can also be achieved with natural infection, but the prevailing thought has been that the number of infected individuals required would be 60-70% of the population, an unacceptable number. Dr. Gomes points out, however, that this estimate assumes that everyone is equally susceptible to the virus, which she points out is not the case. She feels that if one puts into the predictive model a factor for variable susceptibility, you come up with a number of only 10-20% of the population required for natural herd immunity to occur.

To my mind Dr. Gomes's idea fits well with the data that is emerging. For example, it would account for New York being so quiet after its initial intense infection even though officials there have relaxed their restrictions. Without going into the detail, it seems to fit with what I can see going on in individual countries around the rest of the world. If we see the same sustained inactivity happening after the cases fully recede in the Southern states and then the Mid-West states, then this would tend to confirm the concept.

Let's hope it is right because there's no question that this virus is here to stay, vaccine or not. Hopefully it will take its place with the other coronaviruses in our population that cause only mild respiratory infections. Alternatively, as we continue to make more observations, it appears that we are beginning to understand the reason why it is so lethal to some individuals which should allow us to devise means for prevention or curative treatments of the occasional severe cases. In that case I would tend to agree with Mr. Trump that, although developing a vaccine is important, finding appropriate treatment would be even better.

Like

Comment

Share

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Killings At The Riots

Well now the inevitable shootings and killings are accompanying the riots in the big cities. If they are allowed to continue it will get worse. Here's what I think is common sense about the issues.

 

In order to avoid general violence, we defer the use of force to the police whose functions are law enforcement and maintenance of peace and order in the community. They must use this force only in specific circumstances such as the protection of their lives or those of others. If a citizen is harmed by an officer's use of force the circumstances are reviewed and if it is concluded that he has used force in a way contrary to the law he is charged by a prosecutor with criminal behavior. Then there is a trial. At the trial both the prosecutor and the defense present their evidence and a jury, selected in accordance with predefined legal procedures, decides the outcome.

 

There are some that think that handling these issues in a case by case manner is not sufficient. They contend that police in general are guilty of systemic racism such that they use excessive force preferentially in their dealings with minorities, most specifically young, black men. There is much disagreement as to whether this is an accurate assessment, but if it is, it seems fair to ask the question that, since systemic racism in the police would presumably be a longstanding phenomenon, why something hasn't been done about it previously by those civic leaders who are in charge of the police and generally seem to be sympathetic to the complaint.

 

Assuming for the sake of argument that it is true, those who are upset about the matter can assemble with others who are similarly concerned, organize and protest. They have full right to do this under our constitution and laws. In order for their protest to be effective they should clearly state their demands as to what they feel should specifically be done about the problem and, assuming there is general agreement by the local public, their desires should be carried out by the local political leaders, most especially since these leaders have expressed sympathy with the protestor's complaints.

 

The aggrieved people do not have the right to riot about the matter and to destroy the property and livelihoods of innocent bystanders or of public property. We are a nation of laws, devised by our elected representatives, written down beforehand and enforced in specific manners. If instead we riot to obtain our wishes evil consequences will result as we are seeing.

 

Some civic leaders are condoning the riots and allowing them to continue. They argue that they are not as bad as they look, that they are limited to relatively small areas and that they are somewhat justifiable considering the severity of the grievances. They appear willing to disregard their oath to uphold the law, and to accept the destruction of property and lives as long as it is in keeping with their political benefit.

 

Mr. Trump has strongly expressed his unhappiness with the situation, but has constitutional constraints limiting what he is allowed to do about it. He has said publicly that he considers the local leaders in these areas to be fools. Mr. Trump is open and direct. Our recent Presidents, Mr. Obama, Bush and Clinton would express such things in private but would speak in public more diplomatically to disguise and make their real opinions more generally acceptable.

 

As I said, these statements appear to me to be common sense. Alternatively we can just say that it's all Trump's fault and be done with it.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Real History of the Black African Slave Trade. The U.S. Didn't Do It.

Two nights ago, Melania Trump mentioned in her Convention speech how much she was emotionally affected by her previous visit to Africa, which included Ghana on the west coast, an area where much of the slave trade occurred. One of the commentators on ABC, which we had been watching, pointed out the irony of her statement considering the present-day racial unrest. Let's review the bidding on the slave trade.

In the early 15th century, 70 years before Columbus, Portuguese seafarers started venturing into the Atlantic Ocean and found and occupied Madeira and Cape Verde islands off the west coast of Africa. They did not venture onto the continent itself, which had already been occupied by Muslim traders who had come down from North Africa. But eventually they did come into contact with these Muslims, some of whom were black Africans themselves who had adopted the Muslim religion and practices.

These Muslim traders introduced the Portuguese to black African slaves whom they purchased and put to work in their island colonies and even brought back to Europe. At the end of the 15th century, following up on Columbus's discovery, the Portuguese, and right behind them the Spaniards as well as the Dutch, went south and east across the Atlantic in massive numbers and occupied large areas of the Caribbean and South America, bringing more black African slaves with them, particularly for the very lucrative sugar cane business. Far more of the black slaves were brought to these areas than were ever transported to North America almost a century and a half later.

But how did this travesty of black African slavery come to be in the first place? How did the Muslim traders along the African coast obtain their captives? The fact is that they were captured, transported and sold by black Africans themselves who had a longstanding practice of enslaving captured enemies or even their own tribesmen who owed debts. Because of the new Portuguese market, they had found a lucrative business. To be sure, later the Portuguese themselves ventured from their coastal islands to the continent itself and participated in the capture of slaves, but the massive numbers to which the trade had evolved involved the full cooperation of the black Africans themselves.

The story is a lot more complex, but that's the essence of it. My point is that it's hypocritical for those who wish to castigate present day America because of its historical moral errors without their considering the complete history of the African slavery story. The whole episode would never have occurred except for the ancestors of our present-day Blacks and Hispanics. Those of us, who like myself, had early 20th century immigrant ancestors had not the slightest involvement. In fact, slavery, which was prevalent in the ancient world of Greece and Rome, was eventually declared to be an evil and put to an end by the early Catholic Church, only to reemerge centuries later as described above. History is important. It must be preserved and investigated and used as a guide. But the present is not the past and children must not be blamed for the sins of their fathers.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Nancy Pelosi's Urgent Call: The Proper Role of Congress

Nancy Pelosi has made an urgent call for congress to return from vacation. Did she do this because, although the epidemic seems to be slowly receding and the economic activity is improving, there are still many small businesses and their employees who need help and the matter is a pressing one. No, ladies and gentlemen, the emergency is the national postal service, which for the past few decades has been in the middle of a seismic shift in its mission due to digitalization, to which it has been trying to adapt with limited success, and for which the President has appointed as leader a highly accomplished shipping and logistics expert to help the process. The Dems proclaim that the President is trying to interfere with mail-in voting, which is total nonsense, although the President admittedly doesn't help the matter by his occasional commentary. The pieces of mail that would involve is a minute fragment of the amount the post office handles with regularity. Any problem would come from the state's ability to handle the job.

And so, Mrs. Pelosi makes a furor about a non-problem at the same time as she twiddles her thumbs about a real one because she wants to ride the issue to the election. But lest you think I'm too partial I do not excuse the Republicans who in their turn railed against Obamacare for years without any consideration for a suitable alternative when they had the opportunity or for the impeachment of Bill Clinton which was almost as hopelessly impossible to succeed as that of Mr. Trump.

It seems that each side is in the business of obtaining power by hook or by crook rather than finding solutions to real problems by finding points of general agreement and compromise. And why is this? I think it's because "congressman" has now become a lifetime occupation, the main focus of which is maintenance of the position rather than attending to serious legislation which by necessity requires compromise. Its non-functional status has gradually transferred more and more power over the actual management of the country to the executive branch and to the federal bureaucracy.

The executive is the one branch which is restricted by term limits, and given the weakness of congress in actually acting as a compromising legislative body and the excessive strength of the executive, the fight over this position every four years has tended to divide our citizenry into two opposing camps of bitter enemies. It's the best argument I can think for congressional term limits. But, you say, wouldn't that further reduce the power of Congress vis a vis the President? My thought is that this change would dilute the pervasive effect of incumbency and so increase the interest of the public in congressional contests and also would tend to select candidates who were more focused on problem solving rather than maintaining their position for life. The function of a U.S. congressman is to assess the needs of the public in which it makes sense to involve the federal government and to make laws that address those needs, and it is not grandstanding in televised hearings to improve his or her visibility. And the function of the executive is to carry out the laws as appropriate and not to run the country in the absence of a functioning congress. Furthermore, shouldn't the federal government's activities be limited to those things which it makes sense to centralize and leave the rest to the states and localities, just as it says in our 10th amendment.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10