Category Archives: DOJ, DC and inside the Beltway

More Forced Lockdowns?

Posted on by

Pandemic lockdown has brought Earth’s vibrations to a halt  source

Joe Biden has said he would lockdown the nation based on the science. Question is, what science? Virology experts hardly all agree on the threats and implications of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Dr. Michael Osterholm says COVID-19 testing is in crisis ...

Michael Osterholm, an infectious-disease expert and one of the 13 members of Biden’s new coronavirus task force called for a national lockdown lasting four to six weeks to slow the rise of virus cases across the country. Read here in detail.

Then we have governors that are going to another round of lockdowns: California, New York, Michigan and Oregon and in various forms including just some cities like Chicago. Cancel the holidays they say….close businesses at 10pm, that is when the virus shows up. Yeesh….but let’s go deeper into critical thinking shall we?

The New England Journal of Medicine has published a study that goes to the heart of the issue of lockdowns. The question has always been whether and to what extent a lockdown, however extreme, is capable of suppressing the virus. If so, you can make an argument that at least lockdowns, despite their astronomical social and economic costs, achieve something. If not, nations of the world have embarked on a catastrophic experiment that has destroyed billions of lives, and all expectation of human rights and liberties, with no payoff at all.

COVID-19: New York to shut down as it becomes next ...

AIER has long highlighted studies that show no gain in virus management from lockdowns. Even as early as April, a major data scientist said that this virus becomes endemic in 70 days after the first round of infection, regardless of policies. The largest global study of lockdowns compared with deaths as published in The Lancet found no association between coercive stringencies and deaths per million.

To test further might seem superfluous but, for whatever reason, governments all over the world, including in the US, still are under the impression that they can affect viral transmissions through a range of “nonpharmaceutical interventions” (NPIs) like mandatory masks, forced human separation, stay-at-home orders, bans of gatherings, business and school closures, and extreme travel restrictions. Nothing like this has been tried on this scale in the whole of human history, so one might suppose that policy makers have some basis for their confidence that these measures accomplish something.

A study conducted by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in cooperation with the Naval Medical Research Center sought to test lockdownsm along with testing and isolation. In May, 3,143 new recruits to the Marines were given the option to participate in a study of frequent testing under extreme quarantine. The study was called CHARM, which stands for COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines. Of the recruits asked, a total of 1,848 young people agreed to be guinea pigs in this experiment which involved “which included weekly qPCR testing and blood sampling for IgG antibody assessment.” In addition, the CHARM study volunteers who did test positively “on the day of enrollment (day 0) or on day 7 or day 14 were separated from their roommates and were placed in isolation.”

What did the recruits have to do? The study explains, and, as you will see, they faced an even more strict regime that has existed in civilian life in most places. All recruits, even those not in the CHARM group, did the following.

All recruits wore double-layered cloth masks at all times indoors and outdoors, except when sleeping or eating; practiced social distancing of at least 6 feet; were not allowed to leave campus; did not have access to personal electronics and other items that might contribute to surface transmission; and routinely washed their hands. They slept in double-occupancy rooms with sinks, ate in shared dining facilities, and used shared bathrooms. All recruits cleaned their rooms daily, sanitized bathrooms after each use with bleach wipes, and ate preplated meals in a dining hall that was cleaned with bleach after each platoon had eaten. Most instruction and exercises were conducted outdoors. All movement of recruits was supervised, and unidirectional flow was implemented, with designated building entry and exit points to minimize contact among persons. All recruits, regardless of participation in the study, underwent daily temperature and symptom screening. Six instructors who were assigned to each platoon worked in 8-hour shifts and enforced the quarantine measures. If recruits reported any signs or symptoms consistent with Covid-19, they reported to sick call, underwent rapid qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and were placed in isolation pending the results of testing.

Instructors were also restricted to campus, were required to wear masks, were provided with preplated meals, and underwent daily temperature checks and symptom screening. Instructors who were assigned to a platoon in which a positive case was diagnosed underwent rapid qPCR testing for SARS-CoV-2, and, if the result was positive, the instructor was removed from duty. Recruits and instructors were prohibited from interacting with campus support staff, such as janitorial and food-service personnel. After each class completed quarantine, a deep bleach cleaning of surfaces was performed in the bathrooms, showers, bedrooms, and hallways in the dormitories, and the dormitory remained unoccupied for at least 72 hours before reoccupancy.

The reputation of Marine basic training is that it is tough going but this really does take it to another level. Also, this is an environment where those in charge do not mess around. There was surely close to 100% compliance, as compared with, for example, a typical college campus.

What were the results? The virus still spread, though 90% of those who tested positive were without symptoms. Incredibly, 2% of the CHARM recruits still contracted the virus, even if all but one remained asymptomatic. “Our study showed that in a group of predominantly young male military recruits, approximately 2% became positive for SARS-CoV-2, as determined by qPCR assay, during a 2-week, strictly enforced quarantine.”

And how does this compare to the control group that was not tested and not isolated in the case of a positive case?

Have a look at this chart from the study:

New England Journal of Medicine

Which is to say that the nonparticipants actually contracted the virus at a slightly lower rate than those who were under an extreme regime. Conversely, extreme enforcement of NPIs plus more frequent testing and isolation was associated with a greater degree of infection.

I’m grateful to Don Wolt for drawing my attention to this study, which, so far as I know, has received very little attention from any media source at all, despite having been published in the New England Journal of Medicine on November 11.

Here are four actual media headlines about the study that miss the point entirely:

  • CNN: “Many military Covid-19 cases are asymptomatic, studies show”
  • SciTech Daily: “Asymptomatic COVID-19 Transmission Revealed Through Study of 2,000 Marine Recruits”
  • ABC: “Broad study of Marine recruits shows limits of COVID-19 symptom screening”
  • US Navy: “Navy/Marine Corps COVID-19 Study Findings Published in New England Journal of Medicine”

No national news story that I have found highlighted the most important finding of all: extreme quarantine plus frequent testing and isolation among military recruits did nothing to stop the virus.

The study is important because of the social structure of control here. It’s one thing to observe no effects from national lockdowns. There are countless variables here that could be invoked as cautionary notes: demographics, population density, preexisting immunities, degree of compliance, and so on. But with this Marine study, you have a near homogeneous group based on age, health, and densities of living. And even here, you see confirmed what so many other studies have shown: lockdowns are pointlessly destructive. They do not manage the disease. They crush human liberty and produce astonishing costs, such as 5.53 million years of lost life from the closing of schools alone.

The lockdowners keep telling us to pay attention to the science. That’s what we are doing. When the results contradict their pro-compulsion narrative, they pretend that the studies do not exist and barrel ahead with their scary plans to disable all social functioning in the presence of a virus. Lockdowns are not science. They never have been. They are an experiment in social/political top-down management that is without precedent in cost to life and liberty.

[The earliest version of this article misstated the conditions of the control group. They were equally locked down with those who participated in the study. The difference between the two concerned testing frequency and the isolation response. This does not affect this article’s conclusion; indeed it strengthens it: even under extreme measures, the virus spread, and more so with the extra measure intended to control the virus. Nearly all infections were without symptoms.]

Barring District of Columbia or Puerto Rico from Senate Representation

Posted on by

Legislation introduced by Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC6).

Should the Senate be capped at 100 members, the way the House has been capped at 435 since 1929?

Context

Democrats increasingly call for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia to become official U.S. states. With 3.1 million and 700 thousand American citizens respectively, their residents have no representation in the Senate or the House.

In November, Puerto Rico residents voted 52 percent for statehood, in a nonbinding referendum. In June, the House passed the Washington, D.C. Admission Act by 232–180, with no Republicans in favor and all but one Democrat — Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN7) — in support.

The Constitution’s 17th Amendment requires the Senate “shall be composed of two Senators from each State.” Republicans say that adding Puerto Rico and/or the District of Columbia as states is just a partisan ploy to add more Democrats to the Senate, not to mention the House. (That said, Puerto Rico’s elected but nonvoting member of the House, Jenniffer González-Colón, is a Republican.)

What the constitutional amendment would do

A constitutional amendment proposal would limit the Senate to states that existed in 2019. In other words, it would block the seating of senators from potential future states Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia — or any other potential future states, for that matter.

That also means it would officially cap the Senate at 100 members. The House has been officially set at 435 members since the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, but while the Senate has remained at 100 members since 1959 because that was the last year a new state was added, the Senate has never had an official number of members like the House does.

This was introduced as a constitutional amendment, rather than as normal legislation, because it seeks to supersede the portions of the 17th Amendment; specifically, superseding the portion which says the Senate is composed of two senators from each state, with a new clause saying the Senate is composed of two senators from each state that existed in 2019.

It was introduced on September 29 as House Joint Resolution 97, by Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC6).

What supporters say

Supporters argue that the widespread Democratic support for new states during the Trump era, especially considering how previous pre-Trump proposals didn’t gain nearly as much Democratic support, merely reflects a partisan gambit to pass policies that existing voters don’t sufficiently support.

“From packing the Supreme Court to passing the disastrous Green New Deal, it’s no secret Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and their Washington elites will do anything to reshape the political future of our nation — no matter the cost,” Rep. Walker said in a press release.

“Democrats’ blatant attempts to strategically manipulate and mold dark blue strongholds in their quest to achieve a Senate majority treats Americans as pawns in their pathetic chess game,” Rep. Walker continued. “There is a cap on the number of members in the House and the Senate should have the same to avoid political abuse and hostage-taking of our standards and norms.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that places such as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia currently experience taxation without full representation — exactly the type of oppression the American Revolutionary War was fought to end.

“The rights to vote, to be equally represented in the governments that make our own laws, and that elections are carried out fairly are the most fundamental and essential elements of democracy,” Commish. González-Colón said during a July congressional hearing. “I represent 89 percent of the inhabitants of the five territories of the United States … Those of us who live in the territories, live in jurisdictions that constitutionally does not have a vote in a government that dictates our national laws and that can, and has intervened, with local laws.”

“D.C. pays more federal taxes per capita than any state and pays more federal taxes than 22 states,” Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC0) said during another July congressional hearing. “D.C.’s population of 705,000 is larger than those of two states,… D.C.’s $15.5 billion budget is larger than those of 12 states… D.C. has a higher per capita personal income and gross domestic product than any state. Eighty-six percent of D.C. residents voted for statehood in 2016.”

Odds of passage

A constitutional amendment requires passage by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, plus three-quarters of state legislatures. And this one has a particularly long road ahead, considering it has not yet attracted any cosponsors.

It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

***  Washington Dc Map / Geography of Washington Dc/ Map of ...

DS: Legislative proposals to make D.C. a state violate the Constitution in at least two ways.

Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the right to “exercise exclusive Legislation” over the “District” that is “the Seat of the Government of the United States.”

Congress cannot simply change the “Seat of the Government” into a state or delegate its power over the District to the government of a new state.

It took a constitutional amendment to give D.C. residents the ability to vote for president because they are not a state and Congress could not make them a state.

Ratified in 1961, the 23rd Amendment recognizes Congress’s authority to oversee the manner in which the District appoints electors to the Electoral College.

Congress cannot single-handedly eliminate the power this amendment grants only to Congress.

Article I would need to be amended, and the 23rd Amendment would need to be repealed for legislative efforts to be constitutional.

In Adams v. Clinton (2000), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found that legislative efforts to allow for voting representation in Congress were unconstitutional.

The three judge panel made it clear that the Constitution would need to be amended in order for such changes to take place within the law.

Congress itself recognized this in 1977 with a constitutional amendment to grant D.C. representation—it failed to gain the approval of the states.

Constitutional questions aside, proponents pushing for D.C. statehood overlook the fact that D.C. residents are already well-represented.

The Founders reasoned that the whole Congress would represent the interests of the residents of the District of Columbia.

According to Justice Joseph Story, those who lived in the District “would receive with thankfulness such a blessing, since their own importance would be thereby increased, their interests subserved, and their rights be under the immediate protection of the representatives of the whole.”

This remains true today, especially in light of the fact that federal spending often benefits D.C. residents more than those living in the states, whose residents usually receive far less in federal funding per capita than D.C. residents.

In fact, seven of the 10 wealthiest counties in America surround Washington, D.C.

The interests of the residents of the District are already highly promoted, even perhaps at the expense of the rest of the country.

Furthermore, D.C. residents are represented by a second body, the Council of the District of Columbia.

With the passage of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act in 1973, Congress ceded a portion of its authority to govern local affairs to a city council.

The council is made up of 13 members and a mayor—each of which is an elected position.

Though the campaign to make the District of Columbia a state and grant it full congressional voting will lumber on, supporters should come to terms with the constitutional and practical impediments outlined above.

If proponents of D.C. statehood want to live in a state and not a district, they have some options that are very close by.

 

Diplomat James Jeffrey Lied to Pres Trump about Syria

Posted on by

JTN:

A former infantry officer in the U.S. army, Ambassador Jeffrey served in Germany and Vietnam from 1969 to 1976.

>> Think of it <<

James Jeffrey—who is retiring from his posts as the Special Representative for Syria Engagement and Special Envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS — reportedly said that “shell games” have been used to avoid telling U.S. leaders the true number of American troops in Syria.

“We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” Jeffrey said, according to Defense One.

Jeffrey reportedly said that when President Donald Trump was interested in withdrawing from Syria, arguments against a withdrawal were presented to the commander in chief.

“What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal,” Jeffrey told the outlet. “When the situation in northeast Syria had been fairly stable after we defeated ISIS, [Trump] was inclined to pull out. In each case, we then decided to come up with five better arguments for why we needed to stay. And we succeeded both times. That’s the story.”

The president last year officially agreed to maintain some troops in Syria, according to Defense One.

While Jeffrey in 2016 prior to the presidential election signed onto an anti-Trump letter with other individuals who had previously served under Republican administrations, Defense One noted that Jeffrey’s advice for the Biden administration is to persist in the course set by President Trump’s team.

Legislation on Supreme Court Term Limits

Posted on by

Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act would establish 18-year terms and nominations every two years

Supreme Court Examines When Juveniles May Be Sentenced to ...

Introduced by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA17)

Context

Two of the three most recent Supreme Court justices were appointed because a member died. As the comedian Bill Maher recently put it, in practice this country has “Supreme Court nomination by fluke.”

In the past 44 years, Republicans have held the White House for 24 years versus the Democrats’ 20 — not much difference. But during that same period, Republican presidents confirmed 12 Supreme Court justices versus the Democrats’ four.

As the most recent example, Republican Donald Trump confirmed more justices in four years alone than his Democratic predecessors Barack Obama or Bill Clinton each did in eight. (And Democrat Jimmy Carter didn’t even get the opportunity to nominate a single justice.)

This discrepancy — and its disconnect from election results — has produced proposals for ways in which presidents get a consistent number of justice appointments, regardless of party.

In Upcoming Case, Supreme Court Should Uphold Separation ...

What the bill does

The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act would establish several reforms to change the existing process for selecting the top judges in the country.

The existing nine justices would be grandfathered in, and not subject to the bill’s requirements. From then on, a justice would be nominated by the president every two years, specifically during odd-numbered years. As usual, the Senate would hold a vote to confirm or deny the nomination. And once those justices were confirmed, they would serve for 18 years.

In response to Obama’s 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland, for whom Senate Republicans refused to hold a vote for almost a year, the bill adds an interesting twist. If a justice hasn’t received a Senate vote within 120 days, that justice would automatically be seated on the Court. In other words, had this bill been in effect in 2016, Garland would have joined the Court. (Or maybe not. Under that scenario, presumably the Republican-led Senate wouldn’t have let that outcome happen by delaying Garland’s vote for that long.)

What about if a justice dies, as Antonin Scalia did in 2016 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg did in 2020? In that case, the living former Supreme Court justice who most recently retired would temporarily fill the seat, until the next odd-numbered year when a president could nominate someone new again.

How would that have played out if this bill was law during the two most recent deaths? Ginsburg would have been temporarily replaced by Anthony Kennedy, who was more conservative than she was, though not as conservative as her actual replacement Amy Coney Barrett. And Scalia would have been temporarily replaced by John Paul Stevens, who leaned much more left than Scalia did, as well as much more left than Scalia’s actual replacement Neil Gorsuch.

It was introduced in the House on September 29 as bill number H.R. 8424, by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA17).

What supporters say

Supporters argue that the bill would add a level of regularity and predictability to the judicial branch, without the likelihood of massive potential change because of a single appointment, as Barrett seems potentially likely to usher in after Ginsburg’s death.

“We can’t face a national crisis every time a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court,” Rep. Khanna said in a press release.

“No justice should feel the weight of an entire country on their shoulders. No president should be able to shift the ideology of our highest judicial body by mere chance,” Rep. Khanna continued. Most importantly, our country’s top constitutional questions shouldn’t be decided by a panel of jurists who are biding their time until a president of their choice is elected. It’s time to standardize and democratize the Supreme Court.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that lifetime tenure serves a purpose by insulating the Supreme Court from political pressures.

“It is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist №78. “Nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence, as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution; and in a great measure as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.”

Opponents also include some top Democrats. “No. There is a question about whether or not — it’s a lifetime appointment. I’m not going to try to change that at all,” Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said in October.

Odds of passage

The bill has attracted seven cosponsors, all Democrats. It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled Senate. But this bill, while it seems Democratic given the current political reality and recent history, is in theory nonpartisan. Although a Republican president and Senate happened to get to confirm the two most recent Supreme Court justices following deaths, perhaps the next two — or more — such vacancies will be confirmed by Democrats.

Beware of Biden’s New Virus Task Force

Posted on by

As the news breaks from Operation Warp Speed (Trump Administration) on the news of Pfizer’s vaccine. As announced by StatNews:

Pfizer and partner BioNTech said Monday that their vaccine against Covid-19 was strongly effective, exceeding expectations with results that are likely to be met with cautious excitement — and relief — in the face of the global pandemic.

The vaccine is the first to be tested in the United States to generate late-stage data. The companies said an early analysis of the results showed that individuals who received two injections of the vaccine three weeks apart experienced more than 90% fewer cases of symptomatic Covid-19 than those who received a placebo. For months, researchers have cautioned that a vaccine that might only be 60% or 70% effective.

The Phase 3 study is ongoing and additional data could affect results.

In keeping with guidance from the Food and Drug Administration, the companies will not file for an emergency use authorization to distribute the vaccine until they reach another milestone: when half of the patients in their study have been observed for any safety issues for at least two months following their second dose. Pfizer expects to cross that threshold in the third week of November. More here.

Exactly what is presumptive president elect Biden’s plan and will he take full credit for the remarkable work of the Trump White House?

 

Well, let’s look at that shall we?

Source in part with additional context: The experts include Rick Bright, the former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) who said he was forced out his position earlier this year after opposing promoting unproven treatments.(Bright was fired from HHS and became a whistle-blower for fully disagreeing with hydroxychloroquine.

Dr. Zeke Emanuel on concerns surrounding politicization of ...

Bioethicist and oncologist Zeke Emanuel, who served as former adviser to the Obama administration on the Affordable Care Act and is brother of former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and Atul Gawande, a surgeon who served as advisor to the Clinton and Obama administrations, will also serve on the panel. (Emanuel was the cat that believes people — particularly the aged — who aren’t contributing materially to society should get out of the way for the benefit of the strong. And, Emanuel was a prime architect of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, and remains one of the law’s most enthusiastic apologists. Readers may also recall his infamous 2014 article in The Atlantic, where he wrote that he wants to die at age 75 — implying that we should too — because people after that age become “feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic.”

Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel is the vice provost for global initiatives and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

He’s also a special adviser to the director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO) as well as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. If asked to put a chip on the betting calendar as to when we return to at least a “new normal,” where are you willing to place yours?

I’ve been saying this for months and I’ll continue to say it: November 2021. Even if we get a vaccine and have to play out getting it out there, it’s November 2021. I’m sticking with it. Source

Other experts who will serve as co-chairs include Vivek Murthy, a former surgeon general who served under the Obama administration; David Kessler, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; and Marcella Nunez-Smith, an associate professor of internal medicine, public health and management and the founding director of the Equity Research and Innovation Center. (Marcella Nunez-Smith is at the core of blaming discrimination of healthcare and the pandemic on race.

The three also served as advisers on Biden’s campaign.

“Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the most important battles our administration will face, and I will be informed by science and by experts,” the president-elect said in a statement.

Biden had announced plans shorty after being projected winner of the presidential election on Saturday to name “a group of leading scientists and experts as transition advisers to help take the Biden-Harris COVID plan and convert it into an action blueprint” that will start in January, when he is inaugurated.

“That plan will be built on bedrock science,” he said.

Meanwhile….the Biden operation is also drafting nominees for cabinet posts:

The Biden transition team, which has been working behind-the-scenes since Labor Day, also has preferred candidates in mind for major Cabinet posts that require Senate confirmation and positions inside the West Wing that do not. The Cabinet announcements are not expected for a few weeks, aides said, and some are likely to be delayed even longer until it’s known who will control the Senate following the January run-offs in Georgia.
Ron Klain, a longtime adviser to Biden and his chief of staff during the early years of the Obama administration, is a leading contender to be White House chief of staff, people close to the process tell CNN.
The Biden transition is a robust effort with two Biden advisers, Jeff Zients and Ted Kaufman, taking the primary lead in overseeing these ongoing efforts. Anita Dunn, a senior adviser to the Biden campaign and former White House communications director, is another one of the co-chairs, along with New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, and Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond.