Category: Update

The coronavirus pandemic panic — called by Michael Knowles the “Dem panic” for the Democrats’ opportunistic obsession on the subject, using it to unseat Trump from power in 2020 — has been covered extensively by Paul Jacob on this site. But it’s not Paul’s main focus, so most stories just have to be left unnoticed.

But every now and then it’s good to check in on the developing story. Here is an interesting update: Ryan King, at the New York Post, offered us “CDC doctor monitoring bad COVID vaccine reactions may have deleted files, alleges Sen. Ron Johnson,” yesterday.

“Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) struggled to find records belonging to Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, the director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office,” writes Mr. King, “while trying to comply with a subpoena from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) for vaccine safety data.

In January, after becoming chair of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Johnson blasted out a subpoena for records on internal COVID-19 vaccine safety communications, which led to HHS discovering the potential discrepancies with Shimabukuro’s emails. 

“Any attempt to obstruct or interfere with my investigatory efforts would be grounds for contempt of Congress,” Johnson wrote Wednesday. 

Contempt of Congress is punishable by up to a six-figure fine and 12 months in prison.

The deleting of files is a common accusation, as has crossed the mind of anyone contemplating the JFK assassination or the weird world of UFOs. As the pandemic panic moves from news to history, we can expect many such accusations.

News editors sometimes choose odd titles: “First country to cut tariffs down for US and awaits deal — Trump.” That is for a brief Oleh Velhan article from RBC Ukraine. OK: maybe something got lost in translation. But the article follows a theme from this week’s Common Sense commentary and yesterday’s update: Trump’s goofy schedules of tariffs and what to do about them.

Vietnam is ready to completely scrap tariffs for the United States. This may become possible after an agreement between the two countries, according to US leader Donald Trump and his statement via Truth Social.

Trump reported that he had held talks with the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, To Lam. According to him, Lam stated that Vietnam is ready to reduce its tariffs to zero.

“Vietnam wants to cut their tariffs down to zero if they are able to make an agreement with the US. I thanked him on behalf of our country, and said that I look forward to a meeting in the near future,” said the US president.

Oleh Velhan, Saturday April 5, 2025.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and other countries are going the proverbial other direction, responding with a “list of 8,000 US products that could be subject to tariffs. This list includes various items, ‘from binoculars to bourbon whiskey.’”

Is that Trump wants? Retaliatory tariffs? That happened under Smoot-Hawley.

That is what economists fear: Like the McKinley Tariff of 1890 (which President Trump has praised), the Smoot-Hawley tax hike on goods coming into the country (which is what a tariff is, an international trade tax) to a whopping amount — higher than the nearly 50 percent tariff duty level of the 1890 effort. The Smoot-Hawley hikes have long been known to have factored in the Great Depression, with economist Thomas Rustici (see Lessons of the Great Depression, 2005) arguing that the influence was far more significant than previously thought.

An international war of tariffs, with each nation responding to others’ tariffs with tariffs of their own, is just not good for business. But as wars go, it is an extremely foolish one. A tariff chiefly harms consumers (economists like Milton Friedman tell us) in the national economy of the state that erects them: a tariff war is where each nation shoots itself in the foot, and retaliates for others’ self-harm by further harming themselves.

This was made clear by Frederic Bastiat, whom no one in power appears to have read.

But there is still the inscrutable Trump. If he likes tariffs so much, why does he want them for America but for no one else? That is the implication — right until he praises To Lam and Javier Milei for responding to his tariffs not as Britain is retaliating, or as the EU prepares to. If Trump is really after free trade, apparently he demands a special form of it: not unilateral but multilateral.

So why not just honestly aim for that?

Because it is not popular?

Still, his current strategy seems a bit like Cleavon Little’s strategy when a town turns guns on him: he points his own gun at his own head. But with Trump’s tariff hike policy, there’s less provocation.

Trump’s momentous tariff schedule, legal only by reason of Congress’s dereliction of duty, came up with a multitude of negative reactions this week — with one exception: Argentina President Javier Milei’s.

Milei’s ratline disclosure was the subject of yesterday’s commentary by Paul Jacob, and Trump’s peculiar ambiguities regarding tariffs was tackled Tuesday. But the big story, now, is Argentine . . . free trade:

Speaking at an event at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and resort in Florida, Milei delivered a brief speech as he received an award for his defence of free markets and conservative values.

Declaring he is ready to work side-by-side with the United States and Trump, Milei praised the US president and ruled out retaliatory measures.

“Argentina is going to move forward to readjust the regulations so that we meet the requirements of the reciprocal tariffs proposal developed” by Trump, Milei said, according to remarks briefed by his office.

“We have already met nine of the 16 necessary requirements , and I have instructed my country’s Foreign Ministry and Commerce Secretariat to move forward with the remaining requirements,” he said, speaking a day after Trump slapped 10-percent tariffs on Argentine goods entering the United States.

“Milei says he will change Argentina’s laws to mitigate Trump’s tariffs,” Buenos Aires Times (April 4, 2025).

Milei’s reaction to Trump’s outrageous “Liberation” tariffs is so far unique. Argentina’s “libertarian” president appears to bend over backwards to get along with the U.S.

In March, Trump said he was open to discussing the possibility of a free-trade deal with Argentina.

Milei, whom Trump calls a “great leader,” has said he is willing to pull Argentina out of Mercosur regional trade bloc if necessary.

Ibid.

The American president, in defiance of the consensus of political economy, has made much of concern with balance of trade — and Argentina, under Milei’s leadership, sported, this year, a positive balance of trade with the United States for the first time in many moons. So how does one square this circle?

If Milei succeeds, think of it as political alchemy, turning Trump’s leaden protectionism into golden free trade. We still wonder, has this been Trump’s goal all along? Based on his rhetoric, it seems a No; but if Milei’s reaction spreads, maybe then Yes.

After Elon Musk purchased Twitter in 2022, the very American cause of free speech made a comeback. “Elon Musk’s sunlight on Twitter’s backroom censorship dealings,” wrote Paul Jacob on December 22 of that year, “has cast a black shadow upon the U.S. Government.” But that sunlight offered enlightenment, as well. 

We learned just how bad it had gotten under Biden’s first two years in office. “In sum, the federal government made Twitter its b … uh … disinformation agent.”

The triumph of freer speech had ramifications, from the amusing — leftists leaving Twitter (now X.com) for alternatives such as BlueSky, where they did not have to interact with those whom they disagree — to the momentous — the return of Donald Trump to the presidency. 

Elon and Twitter/X get much of the credit.

Now the latest news: “Tech billionaire Elon Musk’s xAI artificial intelligence firm has acquired his social media company X, formerly known as Twitter, for $33 billion (€30.5 billion),” writes Srinivas Mazumdaru. “Musk announced the transaction in a post on X, saying: ‘The combination values xAI at $80 billion and X at $33 billion ($45B less $12B debt).’

“xAI and X’s futures are intertwined,” he wrote. “Today, we officially take the step to combine the data, models, compute, distribution and talent. This combination will unlock immense potential by blending xAI’s advanced AI capability and expertise with X’s massive reach.”

Much of the deal’s specifics remained unclear. Both companies are privately held, so they are not required to disclose their finances to the public.

It’s also not clear if the move will change anything for X users.

“Elon Musk sells X to his AI company xAI,” DW, March 28, 2025.

Let’s hope speech on X — and on the Internet generally — becomes even freer.

“The whole point of taxes and government spending is to promote the general welfare, or so the standard theory runs,” Paul Jacob wrote two years ago. “But there’s nothing ‘general’ about the extreme sectarianism of ‘public radio and TV,’ with less well-to-do taxpayers subsidizing the far wealthier public media audience.”

That “extreme sectarianism” was on display this week in the hilarious questioning of Katherine Maher, Chief Executive Officer and President, National Public Radio, and Paula Kerger, Chief Executive Officer and President, Public Broadcasting Service.

This was part of the House Subcommittee on “Delivering Efficiency in Government,” which — like Elon Musk’s band of waste-cutters — initials down to DOGE:

A lot of this is hilarious. Must-see TV. Representative Jasmine Crockett was especially clueless in her comments, which have to be heard to be . . . believed?

Just remember what Paul’s said, though:

One shouldn’t need the latest ratcheting-up of the culture wars to oppose what we call, in America, “public radio and TV.” Taxpayer-subsidized broadcast media is a bad idea. Period. Full stop.

Defund NPR. Defund PBS. No more state-run or ‑subsidized media.

Paul Jacob, “Public TV Vetoed” (Common Sense, May 9, 2023).

“I really thought Trump’s approval might break below 50 today,” Rasmussen Reports pollster Mark Mitchell confessed. “Back up to 51.”

Why?

“He’s doing what he promised to do. Hence the approval.”

Yet it is hard to hear the support from the din of the critics. And some of Trump’s moves do seem reckless, unconstitutional, or at least not well-thought-out.

But significantly unmentioned in most reports is the common-sense revulsion of normal citizens to the riotous vandalism against Tesla owners’ property.

The more Teslas burn, the more electric cars keyed, the more surfaces spray-painted, the higher Trump’s approval rating will likely go. This was the general tenor of Paul Jacob’s commentary from last week.

But as Trump’s popularity bounces back, the Vermont fake socialist’s popularity rises, too:

Just to be clear about the moment we’re in:@BernieSanders biggest crowd in Phoenix previously was 11,300 in 2015 when he was running for president. 

Tonight, in a non-campaign year, when he is running for nothing, 15,000 Arizonans turned out.

This is a big deal. 

Anna Bahr (@anna_bahr), X.com (March 20, 2025).

The question is, will Bernie succeed in revving up crowds while dampening down the wildfire of riot and mayhem?

If he doesn’t do the latter, the opposition to the left will get stronger too, feeding Trump’s popularity. For most people not committed to leftism do in fact disapprove of violence, on the whole — despite the constant fear in the Deep State of “right-wing extremism.”

“I can’t walk past the TV without seeing a Tesla on fire,” lamented Elon Musk.

“At least ten Tesla dealerships, charging stations and facilities have been hit by vandals,” a Friday NBC News article explains, “many of whom have lit cars on fire, while a growing collection of videos posted to social media have shown people defacing and damaging Tesla vehicles.”

NBC’s estimate may rest on a Fox News report that actually listed ten Tesla dealerships and charging stations by name and location. 

“Some of the most prominent incidents have been reported in left-leaning cities in the Pacific Northwest,” asserts the Associated Press, “like Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, where anti-Trump and anti-Musk sentiment runs high.”

These appear to be “spontaneous” eruptions of hatred towards Elon Musk, whose DOGE task force has loudly proclaimed major cuts to “waste, fraud and abuse” in the federal government. 

“The Hamilton police in Ontario announced that over 80 Tesla vehicles were damaged in a vandalism attack at a Tesla service center,” a Canadian news source reports. 

“US Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Thursday that three defendants accused of vandalism targeting Elon Musk’s Tesla electric vehicle company could face up to 20 years in prison,” adds the BBC.

“Bondi said the damage to Tesla cars, dealerships and charging stations was ‘domestic terrorism.’

“Arrests and charges against the three suspects were previously announced by prosecutors.”

Musk is the electric automobile company’s largest shareholder, at 5.3 percent, but investment firms own no small amount of Tesla stock, and the hit in price hurts more people than Mr. Musk himself. “‘Hang onto your stock,’ Elon Musk tells Tesla workers,” explains the Financial Times, and “urges vandals to ‘stop being psycho,’” but does anyone expect programed leftist saboteurs to “stop being psycho”? Really?

Paul Jacob’s commentary on the uprising of saboteurs appeared at this website on Wednesday.

“Ever since billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump won his second presidential election, tech barons like Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai, and of course Elon Musk have made no bones about shedding their progressive skin and embracing the new administration,” explains Joe Wilkins at Futurism. “Gates, too, is cozying up to the returning president. In early January, the Microsoft founder spent three hours dining with his fellow billionaire, telling the Wall Street Journal he was ‘frankly impressed’ by Trump’s grasp on the issues dear to him.”

The Futurism article is entitled “Bill Gates Gives Up on Climate Change” and is blurbed “That’s enough of that.”

A major chapter in climate giving has ended,” is how Heatmap puts it. “Breakthrough Energy, the climate philanthropy organization founded by Bill Gates, is closing its policy and advocacy office and has laid off much of its staff in Washington, D.C. . . .”

Courtesy of GeekWire, we learn of the New York Times’s coverage:

The Seattle-based organization has scrapped its U.S. climate policy team, its European team and employees working in partnership with other climate groups, said the Times, citing an internal memo issued Tuesday and unnamed sources.

“Bill Gates remains as committed as ever to advancing the clean energy innovations needed to address climate change,” according to a statement provided to GeekWire by a Breakthrough Energy spokesperson.

“His work in this area will continue and is focused on helping drive reliable, affordable, clean energy solutions that will enable people everywhere to thrive,” she added.

Lisa Stiffler, “Report: Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy cuts climate policy team and partnership support,” Geek Wire (March 12, 2025).

“Gates, who is worth $106.5 billion,” GeekWire further explains, “donated $50 million to Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, according to earlier reports from the Times.” The article goes on to explain just how many billions Gates has invested in this cause, and how many more billions have been gathered up from other sources. Many, many billions: $2 billion raised in two rounds; an $839 million fund; and $4 billion from Gates himself.

Climate scientist Michael Mann has appeared in these pages before, the subject of some criticism for his less-than-honest science and public pronouncements. So a recent news story is worth sharing, even if we leave the commentary to you. Quoting from Roger Pielke, Jr.:

The DC Court that heard the defamation case brought by climate scientist Michael Mann against two bloggers has ruled today that Mann and his lawyers acted in “bad faith” during the case, by presenting false claims on multiple occasions related to Mann’s grant funding:

Here, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Dr. Mann, through [his lawyers] Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Williams, acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding. . . The Court does not reach this decision lightly.

This ruling follows closely on the heels of the same court reducing the punitive damages awarded to Mann against one of the defedents from $1,000,000 to $5,000. That reduction follows the Court’s order that Mann pay $530,820.21 of legal expenses that his lawsuit resulted in for National Review — which Mann had also sued, but whose case was dismissed.

Roger Pielke, Jr., “In Bad Faith” (March 12, 2025).

The judge was none too pleased with Mann and his lawyers:

They each knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court and Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavoring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information.

As those who have followed Michael Mann’s sorry career pushing Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) may remember, Mann has been caught conspiring to keep hidden in his data and graphs the reality of the Medieval Warming Period. As a public figure and one of the main faces of the AGW “climate change” hysteria, he has helped diminish the public’s confidence in scientists in general.

So maybe we should thank him? After he pays off the damages and court costs, of course.

“The irony here is deep,” concludes Mr. Pielke. “The lawsuit Mann brought on the basis that he was intemperately accused of misconduct winds up revealing that Mann engaged in misconduct that was ‘extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent.’ It’ll be interesting to see what the climate science community does now.”

Before Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., won the presidency in 2020, the signs of his senescence — indeed, his precipitous mental decline — were already in evidence; as his term in office chugged along, it became clear that he was running neither the country nor even his own bath.

Paul Jacob, in these pages, began referring to the administration as “The Biden,” to signal that he knew, like you knew, that the man himself, “Sleepy Joe,” was not in charge.

But who was?

Speculate was all we could do. Oh, sure, an investigative reporter could have done the job of investigative reporting, but that’s so yesteryear. This is the third decade of the 21st century!

But now, courtesy of a guest on Patrick Bet-David’s “Valuetainment” PBD Podcast, we have insider testimony. Former Mid-Atlantic Regional Chair of the DNC, Lindy Li, was a rich, enthusiastic fundraiser for the Democratic Party, and she tells her full story in “‘I Was Inside The CULT!’ – Lindy Li EXPOSES DNC Cover-Up, Billion-Dollar SCAM & Obama’s 3rd Term.”

Who ran the country, as we say colloquially, from 2021 to 2025?

Jill Biden.

The First Lady pulled a four-year Edith Wilson/Weekend at Bernie’s routine. With help from Joe’s only surviving son, Hunter.

And behind her were three key advisors who “ran the world,” in Ms. Li’s phrasing: Anita Dunn, Steve Ricchetti, and Mike Donilon.

So now we know. One could doubt Lindy Li’s testimony, but it seems more than merely plausible, it seems believable. “The Biden” was President Jill and a triumvirate of old Biden cronies.