A Quick Run Around the Web (4/16/2020)

"INFANTRYMANS GUIDE: React to & avoid enemy ambush"--Brent0331 (11 min.)

• Somehow I missed this when putting together my article the other day: "Predator Defense With a Handgun"--Shooting Illustrated. The article first discusses how the 1986 Miami shootout drove the shooting industry to produce better bullets and that modern self-defense loads are fantastic at delivering uniform performance under the FBI standards. He even notes Federal's new Hydra-Shok Deep load for the .380 ACP. which, "[t]hough I’ve not tested it, reliable sources tell me it will expand and that it will reliably meet that 12-inch penetration minimum." But, he also notes, the FBI criteria are not just about penetration, but avoiding over-penetration. And, "[i]f you’re looking for a critter-defense load or ammo for your trail gun, over-penetration is not high on your list of concerns." He continues:

       Hard-cast handgun bullets are popular with those who hunt with handguns because they do one thing better than any other projectile—penetrate. Lots of folks think hard-cast bullets are lead bullets. Though they contain lead and even look like they are made of nothing but lead, they are not lead. Hard-cast bullets are a mixture of a variety of metals that can include antimony, tin and even silver. ... Pure lead has a Brinell hardness (BHN) of about 4, hard-cast bullets have a BHN of between 11 and 30. The toughest hard-cast bullets are more than seven times harder than lead. ...

      Hard-cast bullets can be made in a variety of shapes, but the most common for hunting and the best for terminal performance have a flat nose. This flat nose greatly enhances tissue destruction. Not only will it cut through thick skulls, bone, cartilage and muscle, but the flat nose increases what might be called the splash of the bullet; it forces tissue to separate widely as it plows through. From a tissue-damage standpoint, a flat-nose, hard-cast bullet can create a radial wound cavity similar to that of a hollow-point bullet that expands to approximately 1.2 to 1.3 times its unfired diameter.

      But, the real benefit of a hard-cast bullet is penetration. Since they are hard enough to retain their shape and weight, and since the flat nose helps the bullet maintain its stability during penetration, hard-cast bullets drive amazingly deep. I’ve tested the Buffalo Bore hard-cast loads in .32 H&R Mag., .327 Fed. Mag., .380 ACP, .38 Spl., 9 mm and .357 Mag. All of the above can push through as much as 3 feet of 10-percent ordnance gelatin and couldn’t care less about leather jackets or heavy clothing.

• Before the Tac-14: "Witness Protection 870: The 12.5-Inch Short-Barreled US Marshals Shotgun"--Guns & Weapons For Law Enforcement Magazine. An excerpt:

       The WP870 gains its name from its adoption and use by the United States Marshals Service. Fellow gun scribe Chris McLoughlin outlined the beginnings of the original guns in a 1984 article. According to McLoughlin, Gene Thompson, Lynn Jordall and Jim Wilson built three prototypes. This was a collaborative effort with each man working on a select feature to produce the most effective platform. The result was a cut-down Remington 870 with a 14.5-inch barrel, a custom-built hand stop and, most significantly, an ergonomic grip that retained the shape of the original factory stock. Other modifications included a slotted shell lifter to assist in clearing a short-stroke-induced double feed and a unique sling system. In the 1984 article, McLoughlin reports that some 240 modified 870s were in the inventories of the Marshals Service.

* * *

       The barrels on the original marshals guns were simply cut to 14.5 inches with little thought or testing given to patterns and performance. Wilson made several changes to the original WP870 design, with the most notable changes being to the barrel. Wilson thought the 14.5-inch barrel was longer than needed and cut the barrel to 12.5 inches, just even with the magazine cap. Wilson wanted to improve the performance of his gun and installed a modified WinChoke to tighten up the patterning. The barrel retained a factory bead sight. As with the original design, the grip is manufactured from the original stock and is rounded to a bird’s head configuration. As with any combat shotgun, the shotgun was given a shorter forend to allow access to the loading port while the slide is in the rearward position.

      One of the marshals’ requirements of the Witness Protection 870 was that it be concealable under a jacket. The original designers came up with an ingenious solution to carry the 25-inch shotgun. The hand stop, which was installed at the end of the magazine tube to prevent the user’s hand from slipping in front of the muzzle, also served as a sling receptacle. A traditional sling swivel was installed at the rear of the pistol grip. The key to this system was the design of the sling. The designers utilized an M1 Carbine sling with a quick-release snap that was mounted to the hand stop. The shotgun could be slung under a jacket in an upside-down configuration. To present the shotgun, the user would grasp the forend with his or her support hand, reach across their body and unsnap the sling. This freed the shotgun, and the support hand pulled the gun from under the jacket for a reasonably efficient presentation.

• "How to inspect your duty ammunition"--Police One Magazine. Tips on how to inspect a new box of ammunition for use in a defensive pistol, something that even us concealed carry users should do. Basically, you first pull the tray holding the ammunition from the box and visually inspect from several angles for primers that are high, missing, or inserted backward; flip the tray over so the bullets can all be compared one to another for differences in height (you're looking for problems with seating depth or bullets that crooked; then, after removing the barrel from your handgun (or opening the cylinder on your revolver), individually drop each cartridge into the chamber to make sure if fully and easily drops into the chamber and can easily be removed. If a cartridge cannot do this, it generally indicates a bulge or deformity with the case; but, in any case, could result in a stoppage when shooting. (If you reload and you come across loads like this, you can run them through a Lee Factory Crimp Die--backing the crimping setting out so you don't further crimp the bullet--and size it up to fix those bulges or deformities).  
• Interesting: "How To Close Assault Cases with Thermal Images"--Police Magazine. Key part:

For the purposes of this discussion, the value of using such a device can be summed up by looking at two images. One is a standard photograph of an assault victim who appears to have no bruising around her neck. However, in the thermal image of her neck we can clearly see the thermal "shadow" of fingers wrapped around the victim's throat.

• "Gunfighting Science: Shooting Through Glass"--Tactical Life. Side window glass provides little or no deflection because of its construction and angle: it simply shatters. Windshields, however, are different:

       Now, if you aim at the threat’s center-mass and fire your shot, the impact will be higher than your point of aim. If you look at the bullet hole on the windshield you will notice that it is oblong. This is because the windshield is at an angle. This angle causes the top of the bullet to impact first, thus changing its flight path. As you can imagine, there are a number of moving parts to this copper and laminated glass formula. As a general rule of thumb, though, you are encouraged to shoot several inches low when firing from inside a vehicle.

      If the roles are reversed and you find yourself shooting into a vehicle through the windshield, the same physics apply. This time, however, the slope of the glass will cause the lower part of the bullet to strike first, thus causing a lower point of impact. So, you need to aim higher.

The article goes on to discuss the construction of the windshield out of laminated glass and how that can strip the jackets off bullets and prevents the window from shattering. Nevertheless, if a threat is presenting from the front of your vehicle with you in the driver's seat, you are probably better off using the vehicle to run over the threat rather than dropping back to using a firearm.

• "Follow-Through: A Shooting Fundamental"--NRA Family. From the article:

      The simplest description of follow-through is that it's when you maintain aim, breath control, hold control and trigger control until after the shot has been fired and the gun has settled back into position. When does follow-through start? Follow-through starts when the shooter has aligned the sights and begun to aim the shot.

      NRA Junior Rifle Shooting, the handbook for training young people in rifle shooting, says to extend follow-through for a full two seconds after the shot is fired. Those seconds include time for the firearm to recoil and for the shooter to recall what the sight picture looked like as the shot was fired, making it possible to call the shot. The time required for recovery depends on the shooting position and the caliber of the firearm being used. Good recovery is the last stage of follow-through and pays big dividends when it comes to evaluating both a shot and a shooter's position. Reflexive recovery at the end of follow-through also prepares the shooter for sustained fire.

• "Handgunning in the 1920s: The Techniques of W.E. Fairbairn"--American Rifleman. Since the sights on handguns were terrible at that time, Fairbairn instructed on using point shooting for self-defense. A few excerpts:

      Our experience, the result of years of instructing with both weapons, has clearly shown that it takes five times the amount of ammunition to make a man as proficient with the revolver, compared with the semi-automatic pistol, also years of practice are required with the revolver, to get used to the "feel" of the gun.

      Whereas the semi-automatic pistol fits the hand, and even the novice immediately gets the feeling of a sense of direction when handling it for the first time, which is far more than the old timers can say when they first took up shooting with the old .45 Single Action.

And:

To become a good semi-automatic pistol shot, one must remember right at the start that the semi-automatic pistol is, or should be, carried for quick work at very close range, under such conditions where it would be almost impossible to use a rifle of carbine. There will be no time to line up the backsight with the foresight, and if your shot takes longer than a third of a second in the "let off" you are not going to be the one to tell the newspapers about it. It is obvious that the foundation of practical semi-automatic pistol shooting is speed, and more speed.

And:

We advocate in our method: Grip the pistol as if it was 30 or 40 pounds in weight. Try to imagine the target is an armed assailant who is shooting back at you. Cultivate the offensive spirit, and if your time is up—well, die fighting. When you can get that spirit into your shooting, you have some idea of what practical pistol shooting really is and the "wild and wooly West" stories you have read will appear more understandable.

A lot more and it makes an interesting read.

• "Old-School Outfit: The Benefits of Wool and Canvas Hunting Clothing"--American Hunter. 

      Wool has some unique properties. For starters, because every wool fiber contains moisture, it is fire resistant. It’s also incredibly flexible—a wool fiber can be bent more than 20,000 times before it breaks, and can be stretched as much as 50 percent of its original length when wet, or about 30 percent when dry. According to the American Sheep Industry Association, wool is comparatively stronger than steel.

     Wool is also a great insulator, with the ability to keep you warm or cool. The secret is the tiny pockets of air within wool fibers that provide both insulation and breathability. Wool is also resistant to mold and mildew, and can soak up as much 30 percent of its own weight in moisture without feeling wet. This is why it can keep you warm even in the rain—the fibers naturally wick moisture away from the body. Are you starting to realize why sheep farming has been a part of worldwide human culture for so long?

• "My Home Invasion Story: Break In & Robbery Attempt – While I Was Home"--More Than Just Surviving. The author was in his teens at the time and living in that remarkably crime free utopia of England when someone tried to break into his residence by (ineffectually) picking the lock, but then tried to break down the door after the author had announced himself. Although the author collected many knives, his first reaction was to grab a tomahawk. He confronted the man who, seeing the weapon, took off running. On the point of his weapon, the author observes: "I think to this day I would still grab a hawk for home defence if all I had were edged tools. If I got to choose, either the SOG F06P-N FastHawk or the CRKT Chogan T-Hawk. Can’t decide which."
• "Court Ruling: AR-15s Are Now Machineguns In Nevada…Apparently"--The Truth About Guns. The case is a lawsuit stemming from the Mandela Bay shooting and directed against manufacturers of the various ARs. The US District Court judge presiding over the case is Andrew P. Gordon (an Obama appointee). The decision, which you can read here, was written as to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As an aside, motions to dismiss early on in a lawsuit are generally difficult to win because, under this type of motion, the factual allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true. Although there were several grounds for the motion, the one that interests us here is that the manufacturers had moved to dismiss a wrongful death claim because they are immunized under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). 

       The specific issue here was that the PLCAA has an exception to its immunity where a manufacturer or dealer "knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought. . . ." The plaintiffs argued that this exception was met because the manufacturers had knowingly built and sold machine guns. Of course, we all know that commercial ARs are not machine guns because they don't shoot more than one round with each pull of the trigger.

      This is where the plaintiffs and the judge take liberties with rules and administrative determinations from the ATF. The definition of machine gun under federal law includes "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." 26 U.S.C. § 5845. Now keep that "designed to shoot" phrasing in mind, because the judge next went to a 1982 ruling by the ATF that defined “designed to shoot” to include “those weapons which have not previously functioned as machineguns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts.” ATF Ruling 82-2. In this instance, the judge, relying on the ATF rule classifying a bumpstock as a machine gun, reasoned that the edition of a bump stock made semi-auto ARs a machine gun by "simple modification" of existing parts: i.e., the ease with which the bump stock could be installed on the existing buffer tube. The judge then reasoned that because the manufacturers were aware of bump stocks when the firearms were manufactured, and knew that the stocks would change the function of the weapon, they "knowingly" sold machine guns.

      There are several weaknesses to the judge's ruling even if you accept the premise, with the most significant in my mind being that the determination that the bumpstock was a "machine gun" was not made until after the shooting that forms the subject of the lawsuit. I would also like to look at the complaint filed by the plaintiffs to see if they actually alleged that the manufacturers knew what the judge says the manufacturers knew--the judge can't rely on statements or allegations of fact made at the hearing or as part of the briefing that are not in the complaint. 

       The natural implication of this ruling, however, is that all ARs are now machine guns. If the issue is ever appealed, it might set up a disagreement between Circuit Courts because the D.C. Circuit had previously held that the "ATF's determination will not bring all semiautomatic rifles within the NFA's definition of 'machinegun' because, without a bump stock or similar device attached, semiautomatic rifles do 'require[ ] a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.'" Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives, 356 F. Supp. 3d 109, 132 (D.D.C. 2019). This Nevada judge, however, says that the bumpstock does not have to be affixed to create a machine gun, but that AR rifles are inherently a machine gun. (I'm not even going to go into how court decisions, over time, have effectively replaced "a single function of the trigger"--a mechanical operation of the trigger initiating the firing process--with "a separate pull of the trigger"--i.e., what you do with your booger picker).

• For you fans of Marcus Wynne's novels, or if you are looking for something new to read, he has three of his books currently available for free on Amazon for the Kindle: With A Vengeance, Lovelady, and Air Marshals. I've read several of his books and have enjoyed all of them. Also, his latest novel, Ariel (Book 2 of his Revenger's Series) will be available for purchase Sunday, April 19, 2020. I read the first in the series and really liked it (see my mini-review here), and had pre-ordered Ariel a week or two ago.

"Vital Signs"--Prep Medic (18 min.)

How to take and interpret vital sign measurements.

• "Sources believe coronavirus outbreak originated in Wuhan lab as part of China's efforts to compete with US"--Fox News. From the article:

       There is increasing confidence that the COVID-19 outbreak likely originated in a Wuhan laboratory, though not as a bioweapon but as part of China's attempt to demonstrate that its efforts to identify and combat viruses are equal to or greater than the capabilities of the United States, multiple sources who have been briefed on the details of early actions by China's government and seen relevant materials tell Fox News.

      This may be the "costliest government cover-up of all time," one of the sources said.

      The sources believe the initial transmission of the virus – a naturally occurring strain that was being studied there – was bat-to-human and that "patient zero" worked at the laboratory, then went into the population in Wuhan.

      The “increasing confidence” comes from classified and open-source documents and evidence, the sources said. Fox News has requested to see the evidence directly. Sources emphasized -- as is often the case with intelligence -- that it’s not definitive and should not be characterized as such. Some inside the administration and the intelligence and epidemiological communities are more skeptical, and the investigation is continuing.

      What all of the sources agree about is the extensive cover-up of data and information about COVID-19 orchestrated by the Chinese government.

* * *

      China "100 percent" suppressed data and changed data, the sources tell Fox News. Samples were destroyed, contaminated areas scrubbed, some early reports erased, and academic articles stifled. 

      There were doctors and journalists who were "disappeared" warning of the spread of the virus and its contagious nature and human to human transmission. China moved quickly to shut down travel domestically from Wuhan to the rest of China, but did not stop international flights from Wuhan.

       Additionally, the sources tell Fox News the World Health Organization (WHO) was complicit from the beginning in helping China cover its tracks.  

• Related: "Red Flags: Chinese Laboratory in Wuhan Cited Two Years Ago For Dangerous Research On Bats and Coronavirus"--Jonathon Turley (h/t The New Neo). Key part:

      The point is not that this proves that the virus originated in the lab. Rather, my interest is the overwhelming media narrative that emerged to deny that this was a credible potential source.  That narrative emerged around the time that the media was hammering Trump for his use of “China virus” and “Wuhan virus.”  That criticism was enhanced by the argument that the virus developed naturally.  That could still be the case but it never seemed rational to me to discount the lab theory.

      What is most amazing is that, if the Chinese allowed this virus to escape and then arrested doctors raising the alarm over the spread, it would be one of the greatest stories of our lifetime: a world pandemic caused by human error.  Millions have been infected and thousands have died. If the cause was negligence by a totalitarian nation (that ignored warnings and punished doctors), this would be a story of the century. Suddenly magazines care saying that they are now thinking about the “unthinkable.”  Yet, it was never truly unthinkable was it?

       ... Many commentators and journalists worked too hard to dismiss the lab as a potential source. ...

        There is a story here. Not just on whether the lab was the source of the outbreak but whether the media blinded itself to that possibility.

• Related: "Six Days In Hubei: How China’s Lies And Intimidation Cost The World Its Last Chance To Stop A Pandemic"--Hot Air. Discussing an article from the AP, the author writes:

Six days? The cover-up of the Wuhan Flu and its pandemic potential went on for much longer than six days, but the Associated Press highlights the final six days of Beijing’s initial campaign of lies and denial over COVID-19. Even though they knew that community transmission had turned the infection into a wildfire, China allowed Wuhan to host a party for “tens of thousands,” while watching millions transit to celebrate New Year.

• Related: "China 'concealed' coronavirus from West and is trying to evade blame, says ex-MI6 chief - as former Cabinet minister William Hague warns UK must NOT rely on Beijing for technology"--Daily Mail.

• Related: "No human-to-human transmission, no travel bans, but plenty of praise for Beijing: How WHO parroted Chinese lies as coronavirus pandemic unfolded"--Daily Mail.   

Whether or not you believe that the virus originated with a lab in China, it is clear that the Chinese believed it. There also appears to have been a conspiracy between China and various organizations and individuals at the WHO, the major media, and the Democratic party to cover it up.

• "This Pandemic Will Lead to Social Revolutions"--Andreas Kluth at Bloomberg. From his op-ed:

       Social unrest had already been increasing around the world before SARS-CoV-2 began its journey. According to one count, there have been about 100 large anti-government protests since 2017, from the gilets jaunes riots in a rich country like France to demonstrations against strongmen in poor countries such as Sudan and Bolivia. About 20 of these uprisings toppled leaders, while several were suppressed by brutal crackdowns and many others went back to simmering until the next outbreak.

      The immediate effect of Covid-19 is to dampen most forms of unrest, as both democratic and authoritarian governments force their populations into lockdowns, which keep people from taking to the streets or gathering in groups. But behind the doors of quarantined households, in the lengthening lines of soup kitchens, in prisons and slums and refugee camps — wherever people were hungry, sick and worried even before the outbreak — tragedy and trauma are building up. One way or another, these pressures will erupt.

      The coronavirus has thus put a magnifying glass on inequality both between and within countries. In the U.S., there’s been a move by some of the very wealthy to “self-isolate” on their Hamptons estates or swanky yachts — one Hollywood mogul swiftly deleted an Instagram picture of his $590 million boat after a public outcry. Even the merely well-heeled can feel pretty safe working from home via Zoom and Slack.

      But countless other Americans don’t have that option. Indeed, the less money you make, the less likely you are to be able to work remotely (see the chart below). Lacking savings and health insurance, these workers in precarious employment have to keep their gigs or blue-collar jobs, if they’re lucky enough still to have any, just to make ends meet. As they do, they risk getting infected and bringing the virus home to their families, which, like poor people everywhere, are already more likely to be sick and less able to navigate complex health-care mazes. And so the coronavirus is coursing fastest through neighborhoods that are cramped, stressful and bleak. Above all, it disproportionately kills black people.

Read the whole thing.

• Related: "Wall Street feasts on federal coronavirus aid while Main Street starves"--New York Post.The article's title is misleading. The The Federal Reserve is pumping an estimated $10 trillion in liquidity into the financial system, which will essentially all go to aid Wall Street investors and banks. The Federal Reserve, however, is a private entity. The Federal government, over the shenanigans that the Democrats have been playing, has passed a stimulus, including amounts set aside to help small businesses. Except, the assistance to small businesses is being processed slowly (the large national banks, in particular, seem to be dragging their feet) and the demand for assistance far exceeds the amount allocated for that purpose--it will be too little too late for many businesses. Thus we see headlines like this from the Wall Street Journal: "JPMorgan Prepares for Wave of Defaults Linked to Coronavirus Shutdown." The article is primarily about JPMorgan's projected earnings crashing and the amount of money that the bank is setting aside to cover defaulted loans. Nevertheless, there is this tidbit deeper into the article: "JPMorgan economists have amended their forecast to a 40% decline in GDP and a 20% unemployment rate." Meanwhile, The Epoch Times reports that "Retail Sales in America Plunge to Record Low in March," according to data from the Census Bureau. In particular, the article reports that "[t]he Bureau said advance estimates of retail and food services sales for March came in at $483.1 billion, a drop of 8.7 percent from the previous month. This is the biggest decline since the government started tracking the series in 1992." And I'm hearing that the U.S. Courts are calling up retired bankruptcy judges to prepare for the wave of bankruptcies. 

• Related: "SBA Small Business Loan SCAM - $1 BILLION STOLEN"--Free Republic. Rumors that "[s]hell companies have already siphoned off all SBA relief funding via the $10k EIDL grants by April 1st with the help of SBA insiders connected to Chuck Schumer."

• Related: "Another 5 million people filed jobless claims last week, bringing total to almost 22 million in one month"--NBC News.

• Related: "Tucker Carlson asks an important question about the shutdown’s end"--American Thinker. The author observes: "He points out that, based upon computer projections, we were given one reason to acquiesce shutting down the American economy. However, now that the predictions have proven to be completely wrong, the media and various 'experts' are insisting that we continue the shutdown for a different reason. In other words, it’s the old 'bait and switch.'" The first reason we were told was to "flatten the curve" so the medical system would not be overwhelmed. Now we are being told that stay-in-home orders may continue for months or even into next year in order to eradicate the virus.

• Related: "Who Will Get Blamed If Coronavirus Shutdown Turns Out To Be A Massive Overreaction?"--Issues and Insights. The authors relate:

       As the Trump administration tries to figure out when to reopen the economy, and Democrats try to blame President Donald Trump for every coronavirus death, there’s another question lurking in the background. What if we learn that trillions of dollars in economic costs from the coronavirus shutdown bought us little or nothing in terms of public health?

      As the disease progresses and our understanding of it increases, that possibility grows.

The authors go on to discuss, in detail, certain facts undermining the raison d'etre for the unprecedented shut down of economies: (1) Death projections were wildly exaggerated; (2) Reports of overwhelmed health care were exaggerated; (3) Death counts are likely inflated; (4) The death rate is magnitudes lower than it appears (i.e., we were told there was a 3% death rate when in reality it appears to be between 0.1%--the same as seasonal flu--to 0.4%; and there is the possibility it could even be orders of magnitude lower than that); (5)  There are clear at-risk groups--the elderly, the obese, and those with diabetes, high blood pressure or heart or breathing problems; (6) Ventilators might be causing deaths; and (7) and it’s not entirely clear how well isolation has worked. On this latter point the article notes:

       Sweden has been in the news lately because, unlike almost every other country, it isn’t enforcing a strict lockdown. While the country postponed major public events, it’s taken a “low-scale” approach.

      “Most places are open. Some places have reduced hours. Few places have closed. High schools and universities all are closed or working on remotely. But normal, like, elementary schools and middle schools are all open,” Sanna Bjorling, a reporter at the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, told NPR this week.

      As the Los Angeles Times reports: “Crowds swarm Stockholm’s waterfront, with some people sipping cocktails in the sun. In much of the world, this sort of gathering would be frowned upon or even banned.”

     Sweden’s somewhat more lackadaisical approach is coming under attack as the country’s death toll tops 1,000. But look at the numbers on a per capita basis and Sweden is doing about as good or even better than some of its lockdown counterparts. It has fewer confirmed cases than neighboring Norway and essentially the same as Denmark. It has fewer deaths per capita than countries such as the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Italy and France.

The authors conclude:

       We are the first to admit that, because this coronavirus is new and early signs about its lethality were worrisome, extra precaution was warranted as coronavirus spread. But not everyone was hitting the panic button, it’s just that voices of calm were ignored. If it turns out that the risks were far less dire, and the disease far more manageable without draconian restrictions, how will the public react? Who will they blame for needlessly crashing the economy?

     We know who Democrats will blame, of course. But if the evidence shows that massive shutdowns weren’t needed, there must be a reckoning. And it should start with the public health “experts” who brought them about.

• Related: "China’s US$1 trillion consumer loan bubble is bursting as army of borrowers flinch under pandemic strain"--South China Morning Post. 

• The WHO bit the hand that feeds it: "Trump Halts WHO Funding Over Its Handling of the CCP Virus"--The Epoch Times. "The United States is the biggest overall donor to the Geneva-based WHO, contributing more than $400 million in 2019, roughly 15 percent of its budget."
• "Did Xi Jinping Deliberately Sicken the World? PRC moral turpitude forces us to consider the unthinkable."-- Ben Lowsen writing at The Diplomat.

       We often ascribe a basic level of humanity to even the cruelest leaders, but People’s Republic of China leader Xi Jinping’s actions have forced us to rethink this assumption. Although the emergence of the novel coronavirus now known as SARS-CoV-2 was probably not due to China’s actions, the emphasis that its authoritarian system places on hiding bad news likely gave the disease a sizable head start infecting the world. But most ominously, China’s obsession with image and Machtpolitik raises serious questions about its lack of moral limits.

      At some point the Chinese Communist Party learned of the epidemic and made a decision to hide its existence, hoping it went away. Exposés in Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post and the Chinese mainland’s Caixin show that the information that did flow out of China early in the crisis did so only because of the courage of individual Chinese people in the face of government repression. People in the Wuhan epicenter, however, began to get wise — and scared (here and here) — by the end of December 2019, forcing their government to say something. The authorities gave the impression of a nontransmissible disease already under containment. We know now this was entirely false, likely designed more to ease civil unrest than protect the people.

      The mayor of Wuhan even suggested that the central government prevented him from revealing details about the epidemic until January 20. Considering the first public announcements came out of Wuhan on January 1, we can assume that Xi had a sense of the danger prior to that.

      Clearly, downplaying the disease wasn’t working and it was time for the Party to get serious. But how serious? Would it provide full cooperation to the international community? Would being seen as the source of this virus hurt its international image? Beyond these, there was a darker dimension: the more Beijing cooperated, the less the disease stood to affect other countries. This includes countries China sees as a threat to its existence, like the United States. Why should China suffer the effects of a pandemic while others stayed safe — and increased their strength relative to China — based on China’s own costly experience?

      Such a question is of course inimical to human decency. And yet we must consider that Xi Jinping has produced the greatest program of ethnic cleansing in the world today. He has curtailed freedoms in China severely and is the father of the panopticon state. His incessant military buildup threatens neighbors while using economic and other subversive means to erode the sovereignty of countries around the world. We should not assume it was beyond his imagining to withhold a degree of support from the international community to ensure that China would not suffer alone.

      Strong evidence supports this idea. Hearing the World Health Organization (WHO) repeat and praise the Party line while giving short shrift to health advice until quite recently has alarmed many. Seeing Beijing sell defective wares and claim it as humanitarian aid has angered many more. Spreading disinformation during the crisis and hinting at using life-saving goods for leverage (original here) — while denying even the faintest hint of wrongdoing — I suspect have ruined China’s reputation for some time to come. In short, China’s good offices have been reserved almost entirely for burnishing its image at the world’s expense, while calling it “the greatest kindness and good deeds.”

      None of this can prove whether or when Xi made a deliberate decision to withhold information in order to imperil others. However, as a long-time student and admirer of China, it is with great sadness I must concede that such a state — and its increasingly paranoid leader — might very well provide less than full cooperation to stem the pandemic of the century in the crass pursuit of its own interests. This may constitute biological warfare. But even if it doesn’t Xi should be brought to account for his other crimes against humanity.

Strong words from a typically dove-like magazine.

• The Democrats always accuse Trump of being a tyrant, even though he has been quite moderate when compared to his predecessors, but the Democrats may push him to being one: "President Trump Threatens to Adjourn Congress: 'They’ve Been Warned and They’re Being Warned Right Now'…"--The Last Refuge. The reason is that the Democrats in the Senate have delaying confirmation of many of his appointments for the past 2 years, and he sees this as a possible way to at least get short term recess appointments for positions he needs filled.
• Speaking of the Deep State: "'New York Times' Allowed Biden Team to Edit Story on Sexual Assault Allegation"--PJ Media. 
• What happens when you rely on low-cost Indian programmers: "New document reveals significant fall from grace for Boeing’s space program"--Ars Technica. The article notes that "[t]he 2014 crew contract analysis, authored by NASA's then-chief of human spaceflight, William Gerstenmaier, frequently lauds Boeing for its technical and management expertise." But "[i]n his assessment late last year, NASA's acting chief of human spaceflight, Ken Bowersox, wrote, 'Since Boeing’s proposal was the highest priced and the lowest rated under the Mission Suitability factor, while additionally providing a conditional fixed price, I have decided to eliminate Boeing from further award consideration.'" Part of the problem:

Boeing's proposal was characterized as "inaccurate" and possessing no "significant strengths." Boeing also was cited with a "significant weakness" in its proposal for pushing back on providing its software source code.

But who cares about all of that when "[d]iversity and inclusion are part of Boeing's values at the highest level." 

• "DOES LIBERALISM CAUSE MENTAL ILLNESS?"--Powerline Blog. Polls show that liberals are more than twice as likely as conservatives to have a mental health condition. The title of the article, however, has it backwards: liberalism is the consequence of mental illness and an atrophied amygdala. 
• "Ipsos Poll: Nearly 8-in-10 Americans Want Immigration Moratorium for U.S."--Breitbart.