Just an aside. If you’ll watch yesterday’s Whitehouse briefing, you’ll notice that the modeling graphics used by both Drs. Fauci & Brix only used historical data from Italy. None – not any – from China.

I wonder if it’s finally dawning on people that trusting anything Chinese Communist goes past uncritical, straight to stupidly gullible.

As for America’s lame stream media, just consider them nothing more than propaganda organs for their political masters.


Birx: Initial Western COVID-19 response handicapped by “missing a significant amount of the data” from China.

Perhaps the most important moment of Donald Trump’s daily coronavirus crisis briefing yesterday came not from Trump but from Dr. Deborah Birx. As in other briefings, reporters asked why the administration initially downplayed the potential severity of COVID-19. Birx made it very clear, albeit in a diplomatic fashion, that the official reports from China about the numbers and the spread in Wuhan and Hubei painted a picture of a very different disease.

“I think the medical community made — interpreted the Chinese data as this was serious, but smaller than anyone expected,” Birx explained, “because probably we were missing a significant amount of the data” from China

What data were we missing? The much-larger numbers on COVID-19 spread, for one. China insisted as late as mid-January (if not later) that they were not seeing any signs of “asymptomatic spread,” meaning that casual contact would not propagate the disease. This turned out to be spectacularly wrong, and China knew it. In fact, they were suppressing doctors who tried to warn the outside world of the wildfire spread of this coronavirus, and their initial success in tamping that information down led other countries — including the US — to assume this was a SARS variant with low risk for pandemic, as Birx explains.

When did China finally start being honest about asymptomatic spread? Today, and only maybe:

A top Chinese health official said Wednesday that the government will begin counting coronavirus patients without symptoms in its official tally of cases of the virus, in what is a tacit acknowledgement that Beijing has underreported data on the pandemic.

China’s National Health Commission disclosed that the government is monitoring 1,541 people who have tested positive for coronavirus but have no symptoms.

Chang Jile, the head of the health agency, said at a press conference in Wuhan that the government will start reporting asymptomatic patient numbers Wednesday.

“From April 1, we will publish reports, outcomes and management of asymptomatic people in daily epidemic notifications, and respond to social concerns in a timely manner,” Jile said, according to CCTV.

Jile’s statement is the first time that the government has officially acknowledged that it has undercounted patients.

Yes, you read that correctly. Three months or more after China knew asymptomatic carriers were a problem, and at least a month since other countries learned that the hard way, Beijing now says they’ll start providing that data. It’s a little too late for that to do any good in terms of public policy, even if they start reporting that data honestly, which is far from certain even now. Had we known that data when China knew it and suppressed it, we might have been able to arrest the spread early and save thousands of lives, if not hundreds of thousands of lives.

And yet, as my friend Jeryl Bier points out at The Dispatch, the American media keep treating China’s data as both reliable and remarkable:

As the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 rises quickly in the United States and in many other countries around the world, the official number of new cases in China, the source of the pandemic, has fallen dramatically. Given the record of secrecy, duplicity, and coverup by the Communist government of China, there is little cause to take those official figures at anything close to face value. Nevertheless, Western media organizations, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations have taken to referring to China’s numbers as “confirmed cases” comparable to cases in other countries with more open societies and transparent governments, giving the impression that China has largely conquered the virus. …

Various media organizations have similarly relied on China’s numbers for some pretty dramatic headlines. On March 18, the New York Times declared: “China Hits a Coronavirus Milestone: No New Local Infections.” While the article notes in passing that Chinese “officials initially concealed and mismanaged the outbreak,” it goes on to flatly assert that “Beijing’s sledgehammer approach … worked to quickly lower the number of infections[.]” Axios headlined a similar report “No new coronavirus cases in Wuhan, China, where global pandemic began,” while NPR went with ”China Reports No New Domestic Cases, But Battles Coronavirus Imported From Abroad.”

Eight days later, the Times, again based on China’s “confirmed” numbers, told the world that, “The U.S. Now Leads the World in Confirmed Coronavirus Cases.” While the article says that “The Times is engaged in a comprehensive effort to track the details of every confirmed case in the United States, collecting information from federal, state and local officials,” apparently the Times applied considerably less rigor to acquire information on China.

On Monday, however, came news that China’s numbers have indeed been incomplete. The Wall Street Journal reported that “China said more than 1,500 people who were infected with the virus but haven’t shown symptoms weren’t included in its national tally of confirmed cases.”

That report finally prompted China’s rethink on reporting asymptomatic cases. Their track record right up to today should have everyone highly skeptical that they will suddenly discover honesty and transparency.

Will the Second Amendment Survive Coronavirus?
History shows that tyrannical government diktats can long outlast the crisis that inspired them.

With panicked consumers emptying store shelves around the country, and shoppers in at least one city fighting over toilet paper, the coronavirus pandemic seems just a short distance from coronavirus pandemonium.

The panic comes at a time when many police departments, to reduce spread of the virus, have curtailed arrests and are releasing certain criminals from prison. This is exactly the type of situation that the Second Amendment is meant to address. The White House has publicly recognized that reality. Yet many public officials insist on flaunting the Second Amendment, ordering gun shops closed or banning firearm sales.

Governor Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania, for example, has ordered “all non-life-sustaining businesses” to close their physical locations. The long list of businesses that may remain open in Pennsylvania includes groceries, drug and hardware stores, newspapers, rental centers, and take-out from restaurants. But gun businesses didn’t make the cut.

Yet the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Declaration of Rights declares that “the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, without even mentioning that provision, refused to issue an injunction on behalf of some gun shops against the governor’s order. Three justices dissented, including Justice David Wecht, who wrote:

The inability of licensed firearm dealers to conduct any physical operations amounts to a complete prohibition upon the retail sale of firearms — an activity in which the citizens of this Commonwealth recently have been engaging on a large scale, and one guaranteed by both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of this Commonwealth.

The dissenting justices suggested that the constitutional right could be accommodated by allowing the completion of sales with minimal contact.

New gun buyers are often surprised by how difficult it is to purchase a gun in their state. In Maryland, for example, it takes a month to get a handgun-qualification license. It could take six months in New York, where a judge has to sign off on each handgun license. California has a ten-day waiting period for delivery of a firearm after the sale is approved.

Buying a gun requires a background check, which in most states is conducted by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS conducted 2.8 million checks in February, the third-largest monthly total since the system was set up in 1998. Most NICS searches are automated and tell the dealer almost instantaneously to “proceed” or “deny” a sale, although some transactions must be delayed for examiners to research incomplete records.

Some states insist on conducting the background checks directly. That’s the case in New Jersey, where Governor Phil Murphy has ordered “non-essential” businesses, a category in which he includes gun shops, to close. The state police then shut down NICS checks as well, effectively banning all firearm sales. A legal challenge has been filed. By contrast, Governor J. B. Pritzker of Illinois declared that firearm retailers are “essential” and may remain open for business.

Gun sales already had been skyrocketing from the ever-escalating threats of gun bans coming from Democrat presidential contenders. The fear of societal breakdown stemming from the coronavirus has added to the demand for firearms across the country.

Everyone wants to slow the spread of COVID-19. The various emergency decrees being issued distinguish between essential and non-essential businesses. What could be more essential than protecting yourself and your family from criminal violence, especially when the Bill of Rights declares it to be an essential right that may not be infringed?

Americans should be mindful of the dangers of “emergency” decrees. History tells us that government diktats in response to man-made and natural disasters often lead to unprecedented restrictions on individual liberty that last long after the disasters are forgotten.

Some of the anti-gun decrees now being issued appear to be motivated by the false premise that limiting gun sales will prevent upheaval in the event that the contagion causes mass shortages and desperation. Yet citizens who purchase firearms must pass stringent background checks to ensure that they are mentally stable and have no felony records or other legal barriers to firearm ownership. They are exactly the kinds of armed citizens needed if law and order break down.

Strong measures must be taken against the spread of the coronavirus. But they must be tailored to accommodate the citizens’ ability to protect their safety in all aspects and to preserve their constitutional rights.

Dinos were chasing him…… Were they pink?


Florida mother shot burglar who entered home because ‘dinosaurs were chasing him

DELTONA, Fla. – A Florida man was shot by a mother of three after deputies say he broke into her Deltona home early Tuesday morning because he thought that dinosaurs were chasing him.

The Volusia County Sheriff’s Office said this happened at a home on the 2600 block of Libby Court.

According to deputies, 32-year-old Joseph L. Roberts tried to break into the home around 5:45 a.m. by shattering a front window.

“The woman inside, a 42-year-old mother with several teenagers in the house, called 911, saying ‘I don’t want to shoot him, but I’m going to have to! Get out of my window! Get out of my window!'”

Sheriff Mike Chitwood said during a press conference that the mother gave White several verbal warnings to leave. When he didn’t, she opened fire.

When deputies arrived, they say they found Roberts in the house — and he had quite an interesting story.

“He told us that the dinosaurs were chasing him and he thought he got some bad weed.”

White was airlifted to Central Florida Regional Hospital in Sanford with non life-threatening injuries after being shot in the forearm.

“He’s lucky she was a bad shot.”

Chitwood said they are seeking an enhanced penalty for committing a burglary during a national emergency.

“I guess the only explanation is watch where you’re buying your weed at during this time.”