Category: Update

What did they know and when did they know it?

This classic question, derived from Senator Howard Baker and the Watergate brouhaha of the 1970s, continues to echo as we uncover each new scandal. But no one is calling the pandemic debacle as “COVIDgate” or “WuhanGate” or even “FauciGate,” for the scandal is broad.

How broad? In Britain, a very small minority is getting a handle on it:

In America, keeping track of all the pieces has been an ongoing issue for a number of podcasters, not least of whom is Tom Woods, whose book Diary of a Psychosis (2023) is itself a good indicator of where we are at. A recent podcast of his (“Ep. 2481 Yale’s Harvey Risch: The Corruption of American Medicine”) shows just how daunting a task this endeavor can be.

“At least 15 federal agencies knew from the beginning of the pandemic that EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology were seeking federal funding in 2018 to create a virus genetically very similar if not identical to COVID-19,” informs Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) “Disturbingly, not one of these 15 agencies spoke up to warn us that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been pitching this research.”

According to information on the U.S. Senate’s Homeland Security page, foreknowledge of the gain-of-function research program that led to the development of SARS-Cov-2 may have been rather widespread:

“Despite at least fifteen federal agencies having knowledge of the DEFUSE project in 2018,” the page continues, “its existence was not revealed to the public until 2021 and the involvement of NIH Rocky Mountain Lab in the initial proposal has never been previously disclosed. Dr. Paul expressed that the failure of these agencies to disclose their awareness of the risky research proposed in the DEFUSE project raises serious concerns.”

This reminds Common Sense of a catchphrase of the Watergate era: “What did the president know, and when did he know it?” But in 2020, the U.S. President was kept in the dark about the origin of the novel coronavirus — as was the American public. But a whole lot of members of the Administrative State knew a whole lot that they did not let on.

Who knew about the U.S.-subsidized origin of the Wuhan Institute-created virus, and when did they know it?

---

Past coverage of the origin of the “novel coronavirus” here at Common Sense is extensive, but these four articles might be a place to start:

• Twelve Monkeys in Charge? (June 18, 2020)
• Lab Rats (March 31, 2021)
• Lab Rats II: The Conspiracy (April 6, 2021)
• Lab Rats III: Doubling Down on Danger (April 7, 2021)

What’s the latest on the prosecution of the January 6th “rioters” at the Capitol?

Well, take the case of Mr. Daniel Goodwyn, 35, of Corinth, Texas. He pled guilty on January 31, 2023, to one misdemeanor count of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. 

“A sentencing requirement that Jan. 6 defendant Daniel Goodwyn have his computer monitored by the government for “disinformation” has been vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,” explains The Epoch Times:

The court on March 26 published a mandate sending the case back to U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to remove the computer monitoring requirement he issued as part of the sentencing judgment in the case on June 15, 2023.

“Judge Walton had no legal basis to issue the special condition,” Carolyn Stewart, Mr. Goodwyn’s attorney, told The Epoch Times in an April 3 email.

The judge had also censured the defendant for his interview with Tucker Carlson, who, said the judge, had minimized Goodwyn’s involvement on the fateful day.

As The Epoch Times story relates, it’s been a colorful case, with the judge showing he was misinformed about some of the facts of the case, and adamantine in his error. He also disagreed with the defendant’s contention that Ashli Babbitt had been murdered by the police.

Using pseudonyms, or even legally changing your name, to run for office, is not unheard-of. The classic case came from the 2015-2016, when a likely lad ran for the U.S. Presidency under the name “Deez Nuts”:

EXCLUSIVE

The candidate polling at 9 percent in North Carolina against Trump and Clinton isn’t a real person. But 15-year-old Brady Olson, who lives on a farm in Iowa and gamed the FEC filing system, certainly is.

Ben Collins & Emily Shire, “Presidential Sensation Deez Nuts Is a 15-Year-Old Iowa Farm Boy,” Daily Beast, August 19, 2015.

For years, a man named Jim Burns ran for office using his altered middle name, “Libertarian,” to help make his statement in lieu of the shifting ballot status of his party of choice.

But has anyone done it better than Dustin Ebey?

The 35-year-old Texan became a viral sensation this week after legally changing his name to Literally Anybody Else and declaring his candidacy for the White House. The goal, he told Reason on Thursday, is “giving a unified voice to the idea that we deserve better.”

Eric Boehm, “Meet ‘Literally Anybody Else,’ the Presidential Candidate That 2024 Demands,” Reason, April 5, 2024.

The case he makes on his website is not very radical, though:

The call to action is clear: stand up to Washington and reclaim the voice of the American people. We refuse to accept the status quo, where the interests of the privileged few outweigh the needs of the many. It’s time to disrupt the entrenched power structures and demand accountability from all of our elected officials on both sides.

Let this rallying cry echo across the nation: “The American people want literally anybody else.” It’s a declaration of our collective desire for change, for leadership that prioritizes integrity, self-awareness, and a commitment to the common good.

“A New Way of Thinking about Politics,” LiterallyAnybodyElse.com.

In Argentina, they aren’t getting caught up on words. Real things are happening, substantive changes. Javier Milei is actually reducing the size of government:

Argentine President Javier Milei announced his plans to slash 70,000 government jobs in an effort to shrink government expenditure and reduce the national deficit to zero. The cuts are part of his broader strategy to achieve fiscal balance at any cost. 

Katarina Hall, “Milei To Slash 70,000 Government Jobs To Reform Argentina’s Economy,” Reason (March 28, 2024).

But it is worth noting that he has tremendous opposition. People with cushy government jobs do not want to lose their cushy government jobs:

Milei assured that he would move forward with reforms ‘in spite of the politics.’ He said that the Senate’s recent rejectionof his bills was an opportunity to expose corrupt politicians, those ‘who do not want to give up their jobs and seek to maintain their privileges.’ Looking ahead, the Argentine president said he plans to introduce 3,000 more reforms after the 2025 congressional elections.

Katarina Hall, “Milei To Slash 70,000 Government Jobs To Reform Argentina’s Economy,” Reason (March 28, 2024).

This being an election year, it is impossible to ignore the schism in America’s political culture, especially between the “two sides’” apparent presidential contenders, President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and former President Donald John Trump. What do American voters really think of them?

In “Democrats Are More Fearful and Angry If Trump Is Elected Than Republicans About Biden: Poll,” in The Epoch Times, we learn that the fear and loathing in 2024 is asymmetrical: “According to a recent poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, the majority of Democrats are both extremely fearful (66 percent) and very angry (60 percent) if the former president wins another term in the 2024 White House race,” Aaron Pan writes. “In contrast, 49 percent of Republicans feel very fearful, and 45 percent are angry about President Biden’s victory.”

More provocative yet is that the racial divide is less extremely asymmetrical than in the recent past, with “a recent poll by The New York Times and Siena College show[ing] that President Trump is taking the lead over President Biden from Hispanic and black voters, where Democratic candidates traditionally won in the past. Among Hispanic voters, President Trump received 46 percent support; the incumbent received 40 percent. Latino voters are estimated to account for around 15 percent of the electorate. Black voters’ support for the former president is 23 percent, while 66 percent support President Biden.”