newswars--2020-05-21--Do Lockdowns Work? Mounting Evidence Says No

The coerced economic “ shutdowns ” —enforced with fines , arrests , and revoked business licenses—are not the natural outgrowth of a pandemic .
They are the result of policy decisions taken by politicians who have suspended constitutional institutions and legal recognition of basic human rights .
These politicians have instead imposed a new form of central planning based on an unproven , theoretical set of ideas about police-enforced “ social distancing.
” Suspending the rule of law and civil rights will have enormous consequences in terms of human life counted in suicides , drug overdoses , and other grave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ elective ” medical care , and social isolation .
None of that is being considered , however , since it is now fashionable to have governments determine whether or not people may open their businesses or leave their homes .
So far , the strategy for dealing with the resulting economic collapse is no more sophisticated than record-breaking deficit spending , followed by debt monetization via money printing .
In short , politicians , bureaucrats , and their supporters have insisted a single policy goal—ending the spread of a disease—be allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in society .
Has it even worked ?
Mounting evidence says no .
In The Lancet , Swedish infectious disease clinician ( and World Health Organization ( WHO ) advisor ) Johan Giesecke concluded : It has become clear that a hard lockdown does not protect old and frail people living in care homes—a population the lockdown was designed to protect .
Neither does it decrease mortality from COVID-19 , which is evident when comparing the UK ’ s experience with that of other European countries .
At best , lockdowns push cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower total deaths .
Gieseck continues : Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect , but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future—it will not prevent them .
Admittedly , countries have managed to slow down spread so as not to overburden health-care systems , and , yes , effective drugs that save lives might soon be developed , but this pandemic is swift , and those drugs have to be developed , tested , and marketed quickly .
Much hope is put in vaccines , but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unclear protective immunological response to infection , it is not certain that vaccines will be very effective .
As a public policy measure , the lack of evidence that lockdowns work must be balanced with the fact that we have already observed that economic destruction is costly in terms of human life .
Yet in the public debate , lockdown enthusiasts insist that any deviation from the lockdown will result in total deaths far exceeding those places where there are lockdowns .
So far , there is no evidence of this .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policies in Western Europe Countries Have No Evident Impacts on the COVID-19 Epidemic , ” author Thomas Meunier writes , “ total deaths numbers using pre-lockdown trends suggest that no lives were saved by this strategy , in comparison with pre-lockdown , less restrictive , social distancing policies.
” That is , the “ full lockdown policies of France , Italy , Spain and United Kingdom haven ’ t had the expected effects in the evolution of the COVID-19 epidemic.
” The premise here is not that voluntary “ social distancing ” has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to whether “ police-enforced home containment ” works to limit the spread of disease .
Meunier concludes it does not .
Meanwhile a study by polititical scientist Wilfred Reilly compared lockdown policies and COVID-19 fatalities among US states .
Reilly writes : The question the model set out to ask was whether lockdown states experience fewer Covid-19 cases and deaths than social-distancing states , adjusted for all of the above variables .
The answer ?
No .
The impact of state-response strategy on both my cases and deaths measures was utterly insignificant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variable representing strategy was 0.94 when it was regressed against the deaths metric , which means there is a 94 per cent chance that any relationship between the different measures and Covid-19 deaths was the result of pure random chance .
Overall , however , the fact that good-sized regions from Utah to Sweden to much of East Asia have avoided harsh lockdowns without being overrun by Covid-19 is notable .
Another study on lockdowns—again , we ’ re talking about forced business closures and stay-at-home orders here—is this study by researcher Lyman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stone notes that areas where lockdowns were imposed either had already experienced a downward trend in deaths before the lockdown could have possibly shown effects or showed the same trend as the year prior .
In other words , lockdown advocates have been taking credit for trends that had already been observed before lockdowns were forced on the population .
Here ’ s the thing : there ’ s no evidence of lockdowns working .
If strict lockdowns actually saved lives , I would be all for them , even if they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and medical case for strict lockdowns is paper-thin .
Experience increasingly suggests that a more targeted approach is better for those who actually want to limit the spread of disease among the most vulnerable .
The overwhelming majority—nearly 75 percent—of deaths from COVID-19 occur in patients over sixty-five years of age .
Of those , approximately 90 percent have other underlying conditions .
Thus , limiting the spread of COVID-19 is most critical among those who are already engaged with the healthcare system and are elderly .
In the US and Europe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occuring in nursing homes and similar institutions .
This is why Matt Ridley at The Spectator quite reasonably observes that testing , not lockdowns , appears to be the key factor in limiting deaths from COVID-19 .
Those areas where testing is widespread have performed better : Yet it is not obvious why testing would make a difference , especially to the death rate .
Testing does not cure the disease .
Germany ’ s strange achievement of a consistently low case fatality rate seems baffling—until you think through where most early cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing a lot more testing , countries like Germany might have partly kept the virus from spreading within the healthcare system .
Germany , Japan and Hong Kong had different and more effective protocols in place from day one to prevent the virus spreading within care homes and hospitals .
The horrible truth is that it now looks like in many of the early cases , the disease was probably caught in hospitals and doctors ’ surgeries .
That is where the virus kept returning , in the lungs of sick people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often caught it , including plenty of healthcare workers .
Many of these may not have realised they had it , or thought they had a mild cold .
They then gave it to yet more elderly patients who were in hospital for other reasons , some of whom were sent back to care homes when the National Health Service made space on the wards for the expected wave of coronavirus patients .
We could contrast this with the policies of Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York , who mandated that nursing homes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ method nearly ensures that the disease will spread quickly among those who are most likely to die from it .
Meanwhile , Governor Cuomo saw fit to impose police-enforced lockdowns on the entire population of New York , ensuring economic ruin and ruined health for many non-COVID patients who were then cut off from vital treatments .
Yet , disturbingly , lockdown fetishists like Cuomo are hailed as wise statesmen who “ acted decisively ” to prevent the spread of disease .
But this is the sort of regime we now live under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is better to abolish human rights and consign millions to destitution in the name of pursuing trendy unproven policies .
The prolockdown party has even turned basic fundamentals of policy debate upside down .
As Stone notes : At this point , the question I usually get is , “ What ’ s your evidence that lockdowns don ’ t work ?
” It ’ s a strange question .
Why should I have to prove that lockdownsdon ’ t work ?
The burden of proof is to show that they do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to essentially cancel the civil liberties of the entire population for a few weeks , you should probably have evidence that the strategy will work .
And there , lockdown advocates fail miserably , because they simply don ’ t have evidence .
With economic output crashing worldwide and unemployment soaring to Great Depression levels , governments are already looking for a way out .
Don ’ t expect to hear any mea culpas from politicians , but we can already see how governments are quickly moving toward a voluntary social-distancing , nonlockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and disease “ experts ” have been insisting that lockdowns must be imposed indefinitely until there ’ s a vaccine .
The longer the lockdown-created economic destruction continues , the greater will be the threat of social unrest and even economic free fall .
The political reality is thst the current situation can not be sustained without threatening the regimes in power themselves .
In an article for Foreign Policy titled “ Sweden ’ s Coronavirus Strategy Will Soon Be the World ’ s , ” authors Nils Karlson , Charlotta Stern , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be forced to retreat to a Swedish model : As the pain of national lockdowns grows intolerable and countries realize that managing—rather than defeating—the pandemic is the only realistic option , more and more of them will begin to open up .
Smart social distancing to keep health-care systems from being overwhelmed , improved therapies for the afflicted , and better protections for at-risk groups can help reduce the human toll .
But at the end of the day , increased—and ultimately , herd—immunity may be the only viable defense against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are protected along the way .
Whatever marks Sweden deserves for managing the pandemic , other nations are beginning to see that it is ahead of the curve .

The coerced economic “shutdowns”—enforced with fines, arrests, and revoked business licenses—are not the natural outgrowth of a pandemic.
They are the result of policy decisions taken by politicians who have suspended constitutional institutions and legal recognition of basic human rights. These politicians have instead imposed a new form of central planning based on an unproven, theoretical set of ideas about police-enforced “social distancing.”
Suspending the rule of law and civil rights will have enormous consequences in terms of human life counted in suicides, drug overdoses, and other grave health problems resulting from unemployment, denial of “elective” medical care, and social isolation.
None of that is being considered, however, since it is now fashionable to have governments determine whether or not people may open their businesses or leave their homes. So far, the strategy for dealing with the resulting economic collapse is no more sophisticated than record-breaking deficit spending, followed by debt monetization via money printing. In short, politicians, bureaucrats, and their supporters have insisted a single policy goal—ending the spread of a disease—be allowed to destroy all other values and considerations in society.
Has it even worked? Mounting evidence says no.
In The Lancet, Swedish infectious disease clinician (and World Health Organization (WHO) advisor) Johan Giesecke concluded:
It has become clear that a hard lockdown does not protect old and frail people living in care homes—a population the lockdown was designed to protect. Neither does it decrease mortality from COVID-19, which is evident when comparing the UK’s experience with that of other European countries.
At best, lockdowns push cases into the future, they do not lower total deaths. Gieseck continues:
Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect, but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future—it will not prevent them. Admittedly, countries have managed to slow down spread so as not to overburden health-care systems, and, yes, effective drugs that save lives might soon be developed, but this pandemic is swift, and those drugs have to be developed, tested, and marketed quickly. Much hope is put in vaccines, but they will take time, and with the unclear protective immunological response to infection, it is not certain that vaccines will be very effective.
As a public policy measure, the lack of evidence that lockdowns work must be balanced with the fact that we have already observed that economic destruction is costly in terms of human life.
Yet in the public debate, lockdown enthusiasts insist that any deviation from the lockdown will result in total deaths far exceeding those places where there are lockdowns. So far, there is no evidence of this.
In a new study titled “Full Lockdown Policies in Western Europe Countries Have No Evident Impacts on the COVID-19 Epidemic,” author Thomas Meunier writes, “total deaths numbers using pre-lockdown trends suggest that no lives were saved by this strategy, in comparison with pre-lockdown, less restrictive, social distancing policies.” That is, the “full lockdown policies of France, Italy, Spain and United Kingdom haven’t had the expected effects in the evolution of the COVID-19 epidemic.”
The premise here is not that voluntary “social distancing” has no effect. Rather, the question is to whether “police-enforced home containment” works to limit the spread of disease. Meunier concludes it does not.
Meanwhile a study by polititical scientist Wilfred Reilly compared lockdown policies and COVID-19 fatalities among US states. Reilly writes:
The question the model set out to ask was whether lockdown states experience fewer Covid-19 cases and deaths than social-distancing states, adjusted for all of the above variables. The answer? No. The impact of state-response strategy on both my cases and deaths measures was utterly insignificant. The “p-value” for the variable representing strategy was 0.94 when it was regressed against the deaths metric, which means there is a 94 per cent chance that any relationship between the different measures and Covid-19 deaths was the result of pure random chance.
Overall, however, the fact that good-sized regions from Utah to Sweden to much of East Asia have avoided harsh lockdowns without being overrun by Covid-19 is notable.
Another study on lockdowns—again, we’re talking about forced business closures and stay-at-home orders here—is this study by researcher Lyman Stone at the American Enterprise Institute. Stone notes that areas where lockdowns were imposed either had already experienced a downward trend in deaths before the lockdown could have possibly shown effects or showed the same trend as the year prior. In other words, lockdown advocates have been taking credit for trends that had already been observed before lockdowns were forced on the population.
Stone writes:
Here’s the thing: there’s no evidence of lockdowns working. If strict lockdowns actually saved lives, I would be all for them, even if they had large economic costs. But the scientific and medical case for strict lockdowns is paper-thin.
Experience increasingly suggests that a more targeted approach is better for those who actually want to limit the spread of disease among the most vulnerable. The overwhelming majority—nearly 75 percent—of deaths from COVID-19 occur in patients over sixty-five years of age. Of those, approximately 90 percent have other underlying conditions. Thus, limiting the spread of COVID-19 is most critical among those who are already engaged with the healthcare system and are elderly. In the US and Europe, more than half of COVID-19 deaths are occuring in nursing homes and similar institutions.
This is why Matt Ridley at The Spectator quite reasonably observes that testing, not lockdowns, appears to be the key factor in limiting deaths from COVID-19. Those areas where testing is widespread have performed better:
Yet it is not obvious why testing would make a difference, especially to the death rate. Testing does not cure the disease. Germany’s strange achievement of a consistently low case fatality rate seems baffling—until you think through where most early cases were found: in hospitals. By doing a lot more testing, countries like Germany might have partly kept the virus from spreading within the healthcare system. Germany, Japan and Hong Kong had different and more effective protocols in place from day one to prevent the virus spreading within care homes and hospitals.
The horrible truth is that it now looks like in many of the early cases, the disease was probably caught in hospitals and doctors’ surgeries. That is where the virus kept returning, in the lungs of sick people, and that is where the next person often caught it, including plenty of healthcare workers. Many of these may not have realised they had it, or thought they had a mild cold. They then gave it to yet more elderly patients who were in hospital for other reasons, some of whom were sent back to care homes when the National Health Service made space on the wards for the expected wave of coronavirus patients.
We could contrast this with the policies of Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York, who mandated that nursing homes accept new residents without testing. This method nearly ensures that the disease will spread quickly among those who are most likely to die from it.
Meanwhile, Governor Cuomo saw fit to impose police-enforced lockdowns on the entire population of New York, ensuring economic ruin and ruined health for many non-COVID patients who were then cut off from vital treatments. Yet, disturbingly, lockdown fetishists like Cuomo are hailed as wise statesmen who “acted decisively” to prevent the spread of disease.
But this is the sort of regime we now live under. In the minds of many, it is better to abolish human rights and consign millions to destitution in the name of pursuing trendy unproven policies. The prolockdown party has even turned basic fundamentals of policy debate upside down. As Stone notes:
At this point, the question I usually get is, “What’s your evidence that lockdowns don’t work?”
It’s a strange question. Why should I have to prove that lockdownsdon’t work? The burden of proof is to show that they do work! If you’re going to essentially cancel the civil liberties of the entire population for a few weeks, you should probably have evidence that the strategy will work. And there, lockdown advocates fail miserably, because they simply don’t have evidence.
With economic output crashing worldwide and unemployment soaring to Great Depression levels, governments are already looking for a way out. Don’t expect to hear any mea culpas from politicians, but we can already see how governments are quickly moving toward a voluntary social-distancing, nonlockdown strategy. This comes even after politicians and disease “experts” have been insisting that lockdowns must be imposed indefinitely until there’s a vaccine.
The longer the lockdown-created economic destruction continues, the greater will be the threat of social unrest and even economic free fall. The political reality is thst the current situation cannot be sustained without threatening the regimes in power themselves. In an article for Foreign Policy titled “Sweden’s Coronavirus Strategy Will Soon Be the World’s,” authors Nils Karlson, Charlotta Stern, and Daniel B. Klein suggest that regimes will be forced to retreat to a Swedish model:
As the pain of national lockdowns grows intolerable and countries realize that managing—rather than defeating—the pandemic is the only realistic option, more and more of them will begin to open up. Smart social distancing to keep health-care systems from being overwhelmed, improved therapies for the afflicted, and better protections for at-risk groups can help reduce the human toll. But at the end of the day, increased—and ultimately, herd—immunity may be the only viable defense against the disease, so long as vulnerable groups are protected along the way. Whatever marks Sweden deserves for managing the pandemic, other nations are beginning to see that it is ahead of the curve.


newswars--2020-05-21--Father of Swedish Man Killed by Migrant Forced by Media to Defend His Dead Son From ‘Nazi’ Smears

The father of a 19-year-old Swedish man who was killed by a Sudanese migrant while trying to prevent a woman being raped has been forced by the media to defend his son after suggestions the victim was a “ Nazi.
” As we previously highlighted , Tommie Lindh was stabbed to death while trying to stop the assault after a group of migrants crashed a house party in Härnösand uninvited .
After killing Lindh , the migrant continued to rape the woman .
The culprit was later named as 22-year-old Abubaker Mohamed , a Sudanese migrant who was granted Swedish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal record , including a 2015 conviction of raping a girl under the age of 15 .
Following the murder , a right-wing group staged a protest in Härnösand against the killing , but the demonstrators were immediately smeared as “ Nazis ” by the media .
Swedish public broadcaster SVT , which dutifully amplified the “ Nazi ” narrative , then paid a visit to the home of Lindh ’ s father , where he was forced to defend his dead son against accusations he was racist .
As the article makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why his son had a shaved head as he insisted Lindh was not a Nazi but may have had friends who sympathize with the Nordic Resistance Movement , the group that staged the protest .
Apparently , SVT was more interested in the victim ’ s political leanings than reporting on the fact he was killed by a migrant while trying to stop a woman being raped .
It was already known that Lindh was a supporter of Alternative For Sweden , a right-wing populist party .
Given the media ’ s reaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bigger sin than the crimes of rape and murder committed by Abubaker Mohamed .
So to summarize ; A man is stabbed to death while bravely trying to rescue a woman from being raped .
The Swedish media responds not by asking hard questions about the clear link between mass immigration and violent crime and Sweden ’ s notorious rape epidemic , but by trying to defame the dead victim by framing him as a Nazi .
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support me .
Please sign up for the free newsletter here .
Donate to me on SubscribeStar here .
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown .

The father of a 19-year-old Swedish man who was killed by a Sudanese migrant while trying to prevent a woman being raped has been forced by the media to defend his son after suggestions the victim was a “Nazi.”
As we previously highlighted, Tommie Lindh was stabbed to death while trying to stop the assault after a group of migrants crashed a house party in Härnösand uninvited. After killing Lindh, the migrant continued to rape the woman.
The culprit was later named as 22-year-old Abubaker Mohamed, a Sudanese migrant who was granted Swedish citizenship in 2011 and had a long criminal record, including a 2015 conviction of raping a girl under the age of 15.
Following the murder, a right-wing group staged a protest in Härnösand against the killing, but the demonstrators were immediately smeared as “Nazis” by the media.
Swedish public broadcaster SVT, which dutifully amplified the “Nazi” narrative, then paid a visit to the home of Lindh’s father, where he was forced to defend his dead son against accusations he was racist.
As the article makes clear, the father was grilled about why his son had a shaved head as he insisted Lindh was not a Nazi but may have had friends who sympathize with the Nordic Resistance Movement, the group that staged the protest.
Apparently, SVT was more interested in the victim’s political leanings than reporting on the fact he was killed by a migrant while trying to stop a woman being raped.
It was already known that Lindh was a supporter of Alternative For Sweden, a right-wing populist party. Given the media’s reaction, you’d think this was a bigger sin than the crimes of rape and murder committed by Abubaker Mohamed.
So to summarize; A man is stabbed to death while bravely trying to rescue a woman from being raped.
The Swedish media responds not by asking hard questions about the clear link between mass immigration and violent crime and Sweden’s notorious rape epidemic, but by trying to defame the dead victim by framing him as a Nazi.
Only in Sweden.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
———————————————————————————————————————
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.
Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
———————————————————————————————————————


newswars--2020-05-21--Past Pandemics Show The Lockdowns—Not the Virus—Caused Our Economic Chaos

Media pundits and politicians are now in the habit of claiming it was the pandemic itself that has caused unemployment to skyrocket and economic growth to plummet .
The claim is that sick and dying workers , fearful consumers , and disrupted supply chains would cause economic chaos .
Some have even claimed that economic shutdowns actually help the economy , because it is claimed allowing the spread of the disease will itself destroy employment and economic growth .
Leaving aside the fact there ’ s no evidence lockdowns actually work , we can nonetheless look to past pandemics—where coercive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see immense economic damage .
Specifically , we can look to the the pandemic of 1957-58 , which was more deadly than the COVID-19 pandemic has been so far .
We can also look to the 1918-19 pandemic .
Yet , we will see that neither produced economic damage on a scale we now see as a result of the government mandated lockdowns .
This thoroughly undermines the claims that the lockdowns are only a minor factor in economic destruction , and that the virus itself is the real culprit .
Economic Reactions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CDC estimates that as of May 18 this year approximately ninety thousand Americans have died of COVID-19 .
Adjusted for population size , that comes out to a mortality rate of 272 per million .
This is ( so far ) less than half the mortality rate for the 1957–58 flu pandemic .
In that pandemic , it is estimated that as many as 116,000 Americans died .
Yet , the US population was much smaller then , totaling only 175 million .
Adjusted for population size , mortality as a result of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1957–58 was more than 660 per million .
That ’ s the equivalent of 220,000 deaths in the United States today .
Yet , Americans in 1957 did not respond by shutting down commerce , forcing people into “ lockdown , ” or driving unemployment up to Depression-era levels .
In fact , reports show that Americans took little action beyond the usual measures involved in trying to slow the spread of disease : hand washing , staying home when ill , etc .
Although the virus does appear to have been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic effects were miniscule compared to what the US now faces from the reaction to the COVID-19 virus .
This suggests that most of the economic damage now being experienced by workers and households in the US is more a product of the policy reaction to the virus , than to the virus itself .
The pandemic of 1957–58 was a serious and deadly problem for many .
As cases of the Asian flu began to spread , it became clear to many scientists and other observers that there was something different and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to D.A .
Henderson , et al in “ Public Health and Medical Responses to the 1957–58 Influenza Pandemic , “ Humans under 65 possessed no immunity to this H2N2 strain.
” This meant that the “ highest attack rates were in school-age children through young adults up to 35 or 40 years of age.
” Total deaths due to the flu over this period range from 70,000 to 116,000 .
This is cause for concern , to say the least .
With younger Americans , many of them in prime working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one could anticipate significant costs in terms of economic growth and health .
What was the policy reaction to this ?
Henderson et al .
continue : The 1957–58 pandemic was such a rapidly spreading disease that it became quickly apparent to U.S. health ofﬁcials that efforts to stop or slow its spread were futile .
Thus , no efforts were made to quarantine individuals or groups , and a deliberate decision was made not to cancel or postpone large meetings such as conferences , church gatherings , or athletic events for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was made to limit travel or to otherwise screen travelers .
Emphasis was placed on providing medical care to those who were afﬂicted and on sustaining the continued functioning of community and health services….there were no reports that major events were canceled or postponed except for high school and college football games , which were often delayed because of the number of players afﬂicted .
In 1957–58 , there was concern over the availability of medical services .
But the emphasis then was on increasing medical services rather than state-enforced quarantines and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine offer an easy way out : Health officers had hopes that significant supplies of vaccine might become available in due time , and special efforts were made to speed the production of vaccine , but the quantities that became available were too late to affect the impact of the epidemic .
Schools and workplaces were affected by absent students and workers , but absenteeism at schools was a larger factor , with some schools even closed for short periods as a result of so many missing students .
Absenteeism did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Available data on industrial absenteeism indicate that the rates were low and that there was no interruption of essential services or production .
The overall impact on GDP was negligible and likely within the range of normal economic variation .
Overall , the economy declined by approximately 2 percent during both the first and second quarter of 1958 , but this could not all be attributed to the effects of the virus .
Unemployment at the time also surged , peaking at 7.5 percent during July 1958 .
Economic growth was positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarter of 1958 and had soared to over 9 percent growth in 1959 .
Unemployment had fallen to 5 percent by June of 1959 .
But the overall economic impact of the virus itself was hardly disastrous .
Henderson , et al conclude : Despite the large numbers of cases , the 1957 outbreak did not appear to have a significant impact on the U.S. economy .
For example , a Congressional Budget Office estimate found that a pandemic the scale of which occurred in 1957 would reduce real GDP by approximately 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause a recession and might not be distinguishable from the normal variation in economic activity.
’ ’ The 1918–19 pandemic , which caused an astounding ten times as many deaths per million as the 1957–58 pandemic , also failed to produce economic disaster .
Although the US entered the 1918–19 pandemic in poor economic shape thanks to the Great War , according to economists Efraim Benmelech and Carola Frydman , The Spanish flu left almost no discernible mark on the aggregate US economy….According to some estimates , real gross national product actually grew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 % ( Romer 1988 ) .
In new work , Velde ( 2020 ) shows that most indicators of aggregate economic activity suffered modestly , and those that did decline more significantly right after the influenza outbreak , like industrial output , recovered within months .
Nor can the pandemic be blamed for the 1921 recession , because “ by then the decline in output had all to do with a collapse in commodity prices when post-war European production finally recovered.
” Not surprisingly then , we find relatively mild estimates in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic consequences of new pandemics .
The authors concluded that moderate and severe pandemics would lead to GDP declines of 2–5 percent .
Or , as a 2009 Reuters report summarized it : If we get hit with something like the 1957 Asian flu , say goodbye to 2 percent of GDP .
Something as bad as the 1918–19 Spanish flu would cut the world ’ s economic output by 4.8 percent and cost more than $ 3 trillion .
Not even a 1918-sized pandemic was expected to produce the sort of economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Needless to say , the economy today appears to be in far worse shape in the wake of the 2020 pandemic than in the days following the 1957–58 outbreak , or even in 1919 .
As of April 2020 , the unemployment rate has ballooned to 14.4 percent , the highest rate recorded since the Great Depression .
The Atlanta Federal Reserve , meanwhile , forecasts a drop in GDP of more than 40 percent .
More mild estimates suggest drops of 8 to 15 percent .
If the milder predictions prove true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only ” the worst since the Great Depression .
If the Atlanta Fed is right , then we ’ re in an unprecedented economic disaster .
The World Bank ’ s estimates of even a “ severe ” pandemic , which predicted a GDP drop of around 5 percent , don ’ t even come close to estimates for the 2020 collapse .
And why should they ?
The World Bank report didn ’ t anticipate the global economic shutdown imposed on billions of human beings by the world ’ s regimes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ assumed that economic losses would be limited to absenteeism , disrupted trade and travel , and declining demand due directly to disease or fear of disease .
So why the enormous difference in economic effects ?
The answer almost certainly lies in the fact that governments in 2020—unlike in any other period in American history—engaged in widespread business closures , “ stay-at-home ” orders , and other state-mandated and state-enforced actions that led to widespread layoffs and plummeting economic output .
Defenders of government-coerced “ lockdowns ” have insisted that fear of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without lockdowns , but there is no historical precedent for this claim , and no current evidence to support it .
Although some survey data has been proffered to suggest that more than 60 percent of Americans say they plan to comply with stay-at-home orders , this merely tells us how people make plans when threatened with fines , police harassment , and other coercive measures .
In reality , the experience of the 1957–58 pandemic—or even the 1918–19 pandemic—gives us no reason to believe that joblessness should be increasing at unprecedented rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels .
In a modern industrialized economy , that sort of economic damage is only achievable through government intervention , such as socialist coups , wars , and forced economic shutdowns in the name of combating disease .
The cost in terms of human life will be significant .
One study contends that the current economic downturn could lead to seventy-five thousand “ deaths of despair.
” This is not shocking , however , since the fatal effects of unemployment and economic decline have been known for decades .
Defenders of lockdowns will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no choice ” but to continue lockdowns for long periods of time .
At the very least , many claim that the lockdowns until now have been “ worth it.
” Yet the efficacy of lockdowns remains an open question , and has hardly been proven .
Meanwhile , the world faces the worst economic disaster experienced in centuries .
It didn ’ t have to be this way .

Media pundits and politicians are now in the habit of claiming it was the pandemic itself that has caused unemployment to skyrocket and economic growth to plummet.
The claim is that sick and dying workers, fearful consumers, and disrupted supply chains would cause economic chaos. Some have even claimed that economic shutdowns actually help the economy, because it is claimed allowing the spread of the disease will itself destroy employment and economic growth.
Leaving aside the fact there’s no evidence lockdowns actually work, we can nonetheless look to past pandemics—where coercive government interventions were at most sporadic—we should see immense economic damage. Specifically, we can look to the the pandemic of 1957-58, which was more deadly than the COVID-19 pandemic has been so far. We can also look to the 1918-19 pandemic. Yet, we will see that neither produced economic damage on a scale we now see as a result of the government mandated lockdowns. This thoroughly undermines the claims that the lockdowns are only a minor factor in economic destruction, and that the virus itself is the real culprit.
Economic Reactions in 1957–58, and in 1918-1919
The CDC estimates that as of May 18 this year approximately ninety thousand Americans have died of COVID-19. Adjusted for population size, that comes out to a mortality rate of 272 per million.
This is (so far) less than half the mortality rate for the 1957–58 flu pandemic. In that pandemic, it is estimated that as many as 116,000 Americans died. Yet, the US population was much smaller then, totaling only 175 million. Adjusted for population size, mortality as a result of the “Asian flu” pandemic of 1957–58 was more than 660 per million.
That’s the equivalent of 220,000 deaths in the United States today.
Yet, Americans in 1957 did not respond by shutting down commerce, forcing people into “lockdown,” or driving unemployment up to Depression-era levels. In fact, reports show that Americans took little action beyond the usual measures involved in trying to slow the spread of disease: hand washing, staying home when ill, etc.
Although the virus does appear to have been a factor in the 1958 recession, the economic effects were miniscule compared to what the US now faces from the reaction to the COVID-19 virus. This suggests that most of the economic damage now being experienced by workers and households in the US is more a product of the policy reaction to the virus, than to the virus itself.
The pandemic of 1957–58 was a serious and deadly problem for many. As cases of the Asian flu began to spread, it became clear to many scientists and other observers that there was something different and deadly about this flu. Indeed, according to D.A. Henderson, et al in “Public Health and Medical Responses to the 1957–58 Influenza Pandemic, “Humans under 65 possessed no immunity to this H2N2 strain.” This meant that the “highest attack rates were in school-age children through young adults up to 35 or 40 years of age.” Total deaths due to the flu over this period range from 70,000 to 116,000. This is cause for concern, to say the least. With younger Americans, many of them in prime working age, susceptible to the disease, one could anticipate significant costs in terms of economic growth and health.
What was the policy reaction to this? Henderson et al. continue:
The 1957–58 pandemic was such a rapidly spreading disease that it became quickly apparent to U.S. health ofﬁcials that efforts to stop or slow its spread were futile. Thus, no efforts were made to quarantine individuals or groups, and a deliberate decision was made not to cancel or postpone large meetings such as conferences, church gatherings, or athletic events for the purpose of reducing transmission. No attempt was made to limit travel or to otherwise screen travelers. Emphasis was placed on providing medical care to those who were afﬂicted and on sustaining the continued functioning of community and health services….there were no reports that major events were canceled or postponed except for high school and college football games, which were often delayed because of the number of players afﬂicted.
In 1957–58, there was concern over the availability of medical services. But the emphasis then was on increasing medical services rather than state-enforced quarantines and “social distancing” measures. Nor did a vaccine offer an easy way out:
Health officers had hopes that significant supplies of vaccine might become available in due time, and special efforts were made to speed the production of vaccine, but the quantities that became available were too late to affect the impact of the epidemic.
Schools and workplaces were affected by absent students and workers, but absenteeism at schools was a larger factor, with some schools even closed for short periods as a result of so many missing students. Absenteeism did not rise to the level of causing shortages:
Available data on industrial absenteeism indicate that the rates were low and that there was no interruption of essential services or production. The overall impact on GDP was negligible and likely within the range of normal economic variation.
Overall, the economy declined by approximately 2 percent during both the first and second quarter of 1958, but this could not all be attributed to the effects of the virus. Unemployment at the time also surged, peaking at 7.5 percent during July 1958. Economic growth was positive again, however, by the fourth quarter of 1958 and had soared to over 9 percent growth in 1959. Unemployment had fallen to 5 percent by June of 1959.
But the overall economic impact of the virus itself was hardly disastrous. Henderson, et al conclude:
Despite the large numbers of cases, the 1957 outbreak did not appear to have a significant impact on the U.S. economy. For example, a Congressional Budget Office estimate found that a pandemic the scale of which occurred in 1957 would reduce real GDP by approximately 1% ‘‘but probably would not cause a recession and might not be distinguishable from the normal variation in economic activity.’’
The 1918–19 pandemic, which caused an astounding ten times as many deaths per million as the 1957–58 pandemic, also failed to produce economic disaster. Although the US entered the 1918–19 pandemic in poor economic shape thanks to the Great War, according to economists Efraim Benmelech and Carola Frydman,
The Spanish flu left almost no discernible mark on the aggregate US economy….According to some estimates, real gross national product actually grew in 1919, albeit by a modest 1% (Romer 1988). In new work, Velde (2020) shows that most indicators of aggregate economic activity suffered modestly, and those that did decline more significantly right after the influenza outbreak, like industrial output, recovered within months.
Nor can the pandemic be blamed for the 1921 recession, because “by then the decline in output had all to do with a collapse in commodity prices when post-war European production finally recovered.”
How Do Pandemics Affect Economic Growth?
Not surprisingly then, we find relatively mild estimates in a 2009 World Bank report estimating the economic consequences of new pandemics. The authors concluded that moderate and severe pandemics would lead to GDP declines of 2–5 percent. Or, as a 2009 Reuters report summarized it:
If we get hit with something like the 1957 Asian flu, say goodbye to 2 percent of GDP. Something as bad as the 1918–19 Spanish flu would cut the world’s economic output by 4.8 percent and cost more than $3 trillion.
Not even a 1918-sized pandemic was expected to produce the sort of economic carnage we now see from COVID-19.
The Reaction in 2020
Needless to say, the economy today appears to be in far worse shape in the wake of the 2020 pandemic than in the days following the 1957–58 outbreak, or even in 1919.
As of April 2020, the unemployment rate has ballooned to 14.4 percent, the highest rate recorded since the Great Depression. The Atlanta Federal Reserve, meanwhile, forecasts a drop in GDP of more than 40 percent. More mild estimates suggest drops of 8 to 15 percent. If the milder predictions prove true, then the current downtown is “only” the worst since the Great Depression. If the Atlanta Fed is right, then we’re in an unprecedented economic disaster.
The World Bank’s estimates of even a “severe” pandemic, which predicted a GDP drop of around 5 percent, don’t even come close to estimates for the 2020 collapse. And why should they? The World Bank report didn’t anticipate the global economic shutdown imposed on billions of human beings by the world’s regimes. Thus, the Bank’s estimates assumed that economic losses would be limited to absenteeism, disrupted trade and travel, and declining demand due directly to disease or fear of disease.
So why the enormous difference in economic effects? The answer almost certainly lies in the fact that governments in 2020—unlike in any other period in American history—engaged in widespread business closures, “stay-at-home” orders, and other state-mandated and state-enforced actions that led to widespread layoffs and plummeting economic output.
Defenders of government-coerced “lockdowns” have insisted that fear of the virus would have destroyed the economy even without lockdowns, but there is no historical precedent for this claim, and no current evidence to support it. Although some survey data has been proffered to suggest that more than 60 percent of Americans say they plan to comply with stay-at-home orders, this merely tells us how people make plans when threatened with fines, police harassment, and other coercive measures.
In reality, the experience of the 1957–58 pandemic—or even the 1918–19 pandemic—gives us no reason to believe that joblessness should be increasing at unprecedented rates and that GDP would collapse by catastrophic levels. In a modern industrialized economy, that sort of economic damage is only achievable through government intervention, such as socialist coups, wars, and forced economic shutdowns in the name of combating disease.
The cost in terms of human life will be significant. One study contends that the current economic downturn could lead to seventy-five thousand “deaths of despair.” This is not shocking, however, since the fatal effects of unemployment and economic decline have been known for decades.
Defenders of lockdowns will likely continue to claim that “we have no choice” but to continue lockdowns for long periods of time. At the very least, many claim that the lockdowns until now have been “worth it.” Yet the efficacy of lockdowns remains an open question, and has hardly been proven. Meanwhile, the world faces the worst economic disaster experienced in centuries. It didn’t have to be this way.


newswars--2020-05-21--How Government Intervention Triggers Depressions

Although painful , the solution to the 2020 economic recession is simple—uncover our problems , let prices adjust , and reallocate capital toward productive usages .
The quicker we adjust , the shorter the recession and the sooner we create a sustainable economic foundation for future prosperity .
This approach is the polar opposite to the current interventionist and inflationist orthodoxy .
Murray Rothbard ’ s America ’ s Great Depression highlights the folly of government intervention during the 1930s and the economic malaise followed .
The similarities to today are a warning sign .
It ’ s time to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status quo or prepare for the recession to turn into a depression .
The “ Roaring 20s ” in the lead-up to the 1929 equity market crash that started the Great Depression were characterized by numerous factors that were also seen in the decade leading up to 2020 .
My top three : 1 ) Soft Consumer Price Index ( CPI ) inflation encouraged significant monetary inflation by the Fed .
US money supply grew approximately 60 percent between 1921 and 1929 , and an astounding 145 percent between 2009 and 2019 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ without appreciating broader inflation , particularly in asset prices .
2 ) Rampant equity prices appreciated the monetary inflation—the S & P500 gained 700 percent between 1921 and 1929 and 480 percent between 2009 and 2019 .
3 ) Powerful global central bankers had close political allegiances and were overconfident in their ability to micromanage monetary imbalances .
Bank of England governor Montagu Norman ( from 1920–44 ) tried to maintain London ’ s position as the world ’ s premier financier , lending capital to troubled European nations in return for political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these loans .
He returned Britain to the gold standard but failed to revalue the British pound after substantial World War I inflation , making the link to gold implausible .
The market disciplined the UK ’ s unwillingness to deflate prices or revalue its currency relative to gold by withdrawing gold .
Norman convinced Fed governor Benjamin Strong to inflate US monetary policy to prevent further gold flows from Europe to the US .
This coordinated and political approach has a remarkable resemblance to the coordination between the Bank of England , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Japan , and the Fed in the past decade .
The standard history of the Great Depression is that President Hoover made the Depression worse because he was economically indecisive and that Roosevelt began to solve the problems after his inauguration in 1933 with the fiscal and monetary expansion of the New Deal .
Rothbard shows that the New Deal began during Hoover ’ s presidency with massive government intervention , clearly refuting the popular narrative .
Hoover ’ s poor logic is characterized by his belief that America was more productive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wages , rather than identifying America ’ s superior productivity as the cause for higher real wages .
His faulty logic led to numerous interventionist policies—bolstering wages and prices , expanding credit , propping up weak firms and banks , increasing government spending , public works programs , weakening bankruptcy laws , raising tariffs , increasing taxes , and placing restrictions on immigration .
The federal government has already implemented restrictions on immigration , hiked tariffs , expanded the size of government , and is rewriting the playbook by propping up weak firms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to understand that a monetary inflation–driven economic expansion period , like those of the 1920s and 2010s , distorts the structure of production , misleads households and businesses , and misallocates capital .
A market crash and an economic recession are opportunities to reallocate , creating a sound and sustainable foundation .
Like today , the policies that Hoover implemented hinder the market adjustment mechanism and could lead to prolonged economic weakness .
A few examples .
• Maintaining wage rates during a recession , when consumer prices are falling , leads to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employed .
The rising cost of employing each worker leads to layoffs and reduced hours for those who are employed .
As an example , average weekly hours worked fell from forty-eight in 1929 to thirty-two in 1932 .
In previous recessions hours worked had never fallen by more than 10 percent .
Governments across the globe have succumbed to minimum wage laws over recent years to protect workers without appreciating the cost to those who are unemployed and the economic inefficiency that arises .
• In order to contend with bank run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withdrawals and imposed bank holidays on all banks in the 1930s .
Good banks were unable to display their strength relative to the bad banks , leading to a broad loss of confidence in the banking system altogether .
Today , banks have ample funding from their central banks , which should prevent bank runs .
But watch out for redemption restrictions from investment accounts if market conditions deteriorate and for measures to reduce interest in non-government-approved assets such as gold and bitcoin .
• One of Hoover ’ s last acts as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the property rights of creditors in bankruptcy laws in order to prevent bankruptcies .
This implies that creditors can ’ t take ownership of their rightful assets and reallocate capital toward productive ventures .
Unprofitable ventures are kept afloat , leading to a decline in productivity and efficiency .
In the current cycle , authorities appear to be trying to avoid bankruptcies altogether and have reduced the property rights of savers extensively .
• Monetary manipulation remains the biggest hindrance during an economic crisis for a host of reasons .
Touching on one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returns on lending , which disincentivizes lending exactly at the time when the economy needs it most .
Interest rates must rise in order to get savers and banks to lend real savings .
During the Great Depression authorities launched campaigns against hoarding of gold and cash , and they were frustrated by banks ’ unwillingness to lend .
I think we ’ ll see increasing frustration through 2020 and 2021 as global monetary policies fail to encourage a healthy market between savers and lenders .
Central banks can supply billions of bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s less clear whether banks will lend to consumers and businesses .
I expect increasing government intervention and large direct fiscal transfers to become commonplace as authorities circumvent the lending market .
• Low interest rates , fiscal injections and numerous relief packages fail to weed out the bad businesses , leading to a less robust investment climate with reduced appreciation of real risk .
On the surface , these interventionist policies appear morally justified because we ’ re protecting jobs , supporting firms , and shielding households from economic pain .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with a natural and external enemy .
Critics of these policies are characterized as heartless capitalists who only care about profits—I know , it hurts !
This surface-level and paternalistic approach followed by the majority disguises second-round implications and the massive cost to human life from an extended economic depression .
Joblessness , suicide , domestic violence , crime , and violence were rife during the 1930s , and we need to avoid these in the 2020s .
Although painful , the best policy response to recession is submission to market forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during recessions prior to the Great Depression .
Intervention delays adjustment , leading to prolonged economic pain and a weaker recovery .
It ’ s no surprise , then , that the 2009–20 US business cycle was the weakest on record after we failed to submit ourselves to real adjustment during 2008/2009 .
The resemblance between the 1920s and the 2010s , and the similarity in economic response , is cause for concern .
There ’ s almighty support for intervention within government and big business , so I ’ m cognizant that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trajectory .
Elites are too invested in the status quo , both economically and intellectually , to allow their bad investments and ideas to deflate .
We must invest our time and capital accordingly given the poor decisions and the risks for economic growth , capital formation , and job growth .
The more intervention , the deeper the recession and the greater the probability that we will shift into a 1930s-style depression .

Although painful, the solution to the 2020 economic recession is simple—uncover our problems, let prices adjust, and reallocate capital toward productive usages.
The quicker we adjust, the shorter the recession and the sooner we create a sustainable economic foundation for future prosperity. This approach is the polar opposite to the current interventionist and inflationist orthodoxy. Murray Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression highlights the folly of government intervention during the 1930s and the economic malaise followed. The similarities to today are a warning sign. It’s time to push back against the stimulatory and interventionist status quo or prepare for the recession to turn into a depression.
The “Roaring 20s” in the lead-up to the 1929 equity market crash that started the Great Depression were characterized by numerous factors that were also seen in the decade leading up to 2020. My top three: 1) Soft Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation encouraged significant monetary inflation by the Fed. US money supply grew approximately 60 percent between 1921 and 1929, and an astounding 145 percent between 2009 and 2019. Economists were myopically focused on CPI inflation without appreciating broader inflation, particularly in asset prices. 2) Rampant equity prices appreciated the monetary inflation—the S&P500 gained 700 percent between 1921 and 1929 and 480 percent between 2009 and 2019. 3) Powerful global central bankers had close political allegiances and were overconfident in their ability to micromanage monetary imbalances.
Bank of England governor Montagu Norman (from 1920–44) tried to maintain London’s position as the world’s premier financier, lending capital to troubled European nations in return for political influence without properly assessing the risk of these loans. He returned Britain to the gold standard but failed to revalue the British pound after substantial World War I inflation, making the link to gold implausible. The market disciplined the UK’s unwillingness to deflate prices or revalue its currency relative to gold by withdrawing gold. Norman convinced Fed governor Benjamin Strong to inflate US monetary policy to prevent further gold flows from Europe to the US. This coordinated and political approach has a remarkable resemblance to the coordination between the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, and the Fed in the past decade.
The standard history of the Great Depression is that President Hoover made the Depression worse because he was economically indecisive and that Roosevelt began to solve the problems after his inauguration in 1933 with the fiscal and monetary expansion of the New Deal. Rothbard shows that the New Deal began during Hoover’s presidency with massive government intervention, clearly refuting the popular narrative. Hoover’s poor logic is characterized by his belief that America was more productive than its peers because of its high wages, rather than identifying America’s superior productivity as the cause for higher real wages. His faulty logic led to numerous interventionist policies—bolstering wages and prices, expanding credit, propping up weak firms and banks, increasing government spending, public works programs, weakening bankruptcy laws, raising tariffs, increasing taxes, and placing restrictions on immigration. The federal government has already implemented restrictions on immigration, hiked tariffs, expanded the size of government, and is rewriting the playbook by propping up weak firms during the 2020 crisis.
Interventionists fail to understand that a monetary inflation–driven economic expansion period, like those of the 1920s and 2010s, distorts the structure of production, misleads households and businesses, and misallocates capital. A market crash and an economic recession are opportunities to reallocate, creating a sound and sustainable foundation. Like today, the policies that Hoover implemented hinder the market adjustment mechanism and could lead to prolonged economic weakness. A few examples.
Maintaining wage rates during a recession, when consumer prices are falling, leads to rising real wages for those who are employed. The rising cost of employing each worker leads to layoffs and reduced hours for those who are employed. As an example, average weekly hours worked fell from forty-eight in 1929 to thirty-two in 1932. In previous recessions hours worked had never fallen by more than 10 percent. Governments across the globe have succumbed to minimum wage laws over recent years to protect workers without appreciating the cost to those who are unemployed and the economic inefficiency that arises.
In order to contend with bank run risks, authorities implemented arbitrary restrictions on withdrawals and imposed bank holidays on all banks in the 1930s. Good banks were unable to display their strength relative to the bad banks, leading to a broad loss of confidence in the banking system altogether. Today, banks have ample funding from their central banks, which should prevent bank runs. But watch out for redemption restrictions from investment accounts if market conditions deteriorate and for measures to reduce interest in non-government-approved assets such as gold and bitcoin.
One of Hoover’s last acts as president in March 1933 was to weaken the property rights of creditors in bankruptcy laws in order to prevent bankruptcies. This implies that creditors can’t take ownership of their rightful assets and reallocate capital toward productive ventures. Unprofitable ventures are kept afloat, leading to a decline in productivity and efficiency. In the current cycle, authorities appear to be trying to avoid bankruptcies altogether and have reduced the property rights of savers extensively.
Monetary manipulation remains the biggest hindrance during an economic crisis for a host of reasons. Touching on one, downward interest rate manipulation reduces the returns on lending, which disincentivizes lending exactly at the time when the economy needs it most. Interest rates must rise in order to get savers and banks to lend real savings. During the Great Depression authorities launched campaigns against hoarding of gold and cash, and they were frustrated by banks’ unwillingness to lend. I think we’ll see increasing frustration through 2020 and 2021 as global monetary policies fail to encourage a healthy market between savers and lenders. Central banks can supply billions of bank reserves to banks, but it’s less clear whether banks will lend to consumers and businesses. I expect increasing government intervention and large direct fiscal transfers to become commonplace as authorities circumvent the lending market.
Low interest rates, fiscal injections and numerous relief packages fail to weed out the bad businesses, leading to a less robust investment climate with reduced appreciation of real risk.
On the surface, these interventionist policies appear morally justified because we’re protecting jobs, supporting firms, and shielding households from economic pain. This argument is particularly strong during the coronavirus, with a natural and external enemy. Critics of these policies are characterized as heartless capitalists who only care about profits—I know, it hurts! This surface-level and paternalistic approach followed by the majority disguises second-round implications and the massive cost to human life from an extended economic depression. Joblessness, suicide, domestic violence, crime, and violence were rife during the 1930s, and we need to avoid these in the 2020s.
Although painful, the best policy response to recession is submission to market forces, which indeed was the policy followed during recessions prior to the Great Depression. Intervention delays adjustment, leading to prolonged economic pain and a weaker recovery. It’s no surprise, then, that the 2009–20 US business cycle was the weakest on record after we failed to submit ourselves to real adjustment during 2008/2009. The resemblance between the 1920s and the 2010s, and the similarity in economic response, is cause for concern.
There’s almighty support for intervention within government and big business, so I’m cognizant that we are unlikely to change the policy trajectory. Elites are too invested in the status quo, both economically and intellectually, to allow their bad investments and ideas to deflate. We must invest our time and capital accordingly given the poor decisions and the risks for economic growth, capital formation, and job growth. The more intervention, the deeper the recession and the greater the probability that we will shift into a 1930s-style depression.


newswars--2020-05-21--Russia’s Latest Radar That Tracks Hypersonic Weapons Now Available to Foreign Buyers

Russia once claimed gold in the race for hypersonic dominance after rolling out a range of ultra-fast projectiles .
Now it ’ s offering unique radar protecting against weapons of the same kind – even if they come in huge numbers .
Having unbeatable offensive weapons – for example hypersonic missiles – could be a game-changer in the age of modern , fast-paced warfare .
But it ’ s equally crucial to have something that shields you from those designed or deployed by an adversary .
And Russia ’ s newest radar station is able to fit the bill , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of arms trade , said this Wednesday .
The radar , which is the latest addition to the Protivnik ( Adversary ) family , is likely to turn a few heads abroad due to its capability to “ efficiently detect a wide range of existing and future flying objects , including hypersonic targets.
” The looks of the radar , mounted atop a standard military-issue KAMAZ truck , isn ’ t as impressive as its unique features .
Its antenna is sensitive enough to detect targets flying at 8,000kph ( nearly 5,000mph ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 450km ( 280 miles ) .
The newest edition of the Protivnik series “ can simultaneously track at least 1,000 thousand objects ” and distinguish between eight classes of missiles , Rosoboronexport revealed .
The radar is highly mobile , meaning that its crew can move around quickly and avoid being tracked by the enemy in what is known as ‘ shoot-scoot-tactics ’ in military lingo .
The agency hopes the system will grasp the attention of users in Asia-Pacific , North Africa , and the Middle East , where Russian military hardware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Russian armed forces have started using previous models of the Protivnik family in recent years , along with early warning facilities put in place across the country .
Apart from defensive equipment , Russia is working on state-of-the-art hypersonic projectiles .
Some , like the Avangard ( Vanguard ) hypersonic glider , were already put into service , while others , like the Kinzhal ( Dagger ) cruise missile , are undergoing trials or said to be in the works now .
Alex Jones covers what is on the horizon with COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how Big Tech wants to run your life .

Russia once claimed gold in the race for hypersonic dominance after rolling out a range of ultra-fast projectiles.
Now it’s offering unique radar protecting against weapons of the same kind – even if they come in huge numbers.
Having unbeatable offensive weapons – for example hypersonic missiles – could be a game-changer in the age of modern, fast-paced warfare. But it’s equally crucial to have something that shields you from those designed or deployed by an adversary.
And Russia’s newest radar station is able to fit the bill, Rosoboronexport, the government agency in charge of arms trade, said this Wednesday. The radar, which is the latest addition to the Protivnik (Adversary) family, is likely to turn a few heads abroad due to its capability to “efficiently detect a wide range of existing and future flying objects, including hypersonic targets.”
The looks of the radar, mounted atop a standard military-issue KAMAZ truck, isn’t as impressive as its unique features. Its antenna is sensitive enough to detect targets flying at 8,000kph (nearly 5,000mph) and at a distance of up to 450km (280 miles).
The newest edition of the Protivnik series “can simultaneously track at least 1,000 thousand objects” and distinguish between eight classes of missiles, Rosoboronexport revealed.
The radar is highly mobile, meaning that its crew can move around quickly and avoid being tracked by the enemy in what is known as ‘shoot-scoot-tactics’ in military lingo.
The agency hopes the system will grasp the attention of users in Asia-Pacific, North Africa, and the Middle East, where Russian military hardware has always been in great demand.
The Russian armed forces have started using previous models of the Protivnik family in recent years, along with early warning facilities put in place across the country.
Apart from defensive equipment, Russia is working on state-of-the-art hypersonic projectiles. Some, like the Avangard (Vanguard) hypersonic glider, were already put into service, while others, like the Kinzhal (Dagger) cruise missile, are undergoing trials or said to be in the works now.
Alex Jones covers what is on the horizon with COVID-19, the lockdown, the vaccine, and how Big Tech wants to run your life.


newswars--2020-05-21--Over 20 Million People Entered UK With No COVID-19 Health Checks

In the first quarter of 2020 , over 20 million people entered the United Kingdom coinciding with the outbreak of the coronavirus global pandemic .
The Daily Mail reported that the UK Home Office revealed a staggering number of both foreigners and citizens coming to the country via airports and sea .
Towards the end of the quarter , the total number slumped against the previous year as other countries began introducing travel restrictions to slow the spread of infection .
Despite falling 18 % against the previous year , the UK failed to implement any health checks and required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the wider population .
Although the outbreak originated in Wuhan , almost 35,000 Chinese nationals came to the UK within the first quarter .
The UK has been slammed for neglecting any formal health checks for new arrivals .
National File reported on the UK being the only country without any border restrictions or health checks for arrivals–and Papua New Guinea and Afghanistan were the only country , at the time of the article , to have unrestricted access , but with health checks at the border .
Despite strict rules on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there are no limitations on passengers arriving from outside .
Researchers tracking different government responses to the coronavirus pandemic found this was at odds with policies around the globe .
Live data shows the majority of countries have imposed some form of international travel controls in a bid to limit imported cases .
The UK ’ s largest airports will belatedly roll out temperature screening as bosses look to get the tourism industry back on track following lockdowns .
Alex Jones covers what is on the horizon with COVID-19 , the lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tech wants to run your life .

In the first quarter of 2020, over 20 million people entered the United Kingdom coinciding with the outbreak of the coronavirus global pandemic.
The Daily Mail reported that the UK Home Office revealed a staggering number of both foreigners and citizens coming to the country via airports and sea.
Towards the end of the quarter, the total number slumped against the previous year as other countries began introducing travel restrictions to slow the spread of infection.
Despite falling 18% against the previous year, the UK failed to implement any health checks and required newcomers to begin social distancing, similar to the wider population.
Although the outbreak originated in Wuhan, almost 35,000 Chinese nationals came to the UK within the first quarter.
The UK has been slammed for neglecting any formal health checks for new arrivals.
National File reported on the UK being the only country without any border restrictions or health checks for arrivals–and Papua New Guinea and Afghanistan were the only country, at the time of the article, to have unrestricted access, but with health checks at the border.
According to Metro:
Despite strict rules on the movement of people within the UK, there are no limitations on passengers arriving from outside.
Researchers tracking different government responses to the coronavirus pandemic found this was at odds with policies around the globe. Live data shows the majority of countries have imposed some form of international travel controls in a bid to limit imported cases.
The UK’s largest airports will belatedly roll out temperature screening as bosses look to get the tourism industry back on track following lockdowns.
Alex Jones covers what is on the horizon with COVID-19, the lockdown, the vaccine, and how Big Tech wants to run your life.


newswars--2020-05-21--DOJ Charges Philadelphia Election Official with Stuffing Ballot Box

Oh brother , Philadelphia is more corrupt than we could have imagined .
Today the United States Department of Justice announced criminal charges against an election official for stuffing a ballot box with fraudulent votes to help Democratic judicial candidates .
United States Attorney William M. McSwain announced today that Domenick J. DeMuro of Philadelphia , a former Judge of Elections , an elected official responsible for elections , has been charged and has entered a guilty plea .
What did DeMuro do ?
He literally stood at the voting machine and cranked in vote after vote after vote for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegedly paid by various unnamed political consultants for the behavior .
DeMuro fraudulently stuffed the ballot box by literally standing in a voting booth and voting over and over , as fast as he could , while he thought the coast was clear .
This is utterly reprehensible conduct .
The charges announced today do not erase what he did , but they do ensure that he is held to account for those actions .
The Trump administration ’ s prosecution of election fraud stands in stark contrast to the total failure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws .
Right now , other federal prosecutors are aware of cases of double voting in federal elections as well as noncitizen voting .
Attorney General William Barr should prompt those other offices to do their duty and prosecute known election crimes .
Those who are considering election crimes should take note of U.S. Attorney McSwain ’ s work .
Now , they have something to fear before they violate federal election laws .
Alex Jones covers what is on the horizon with COVID-19 , the lockdown , the vaccine , and how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Oh brother, Philadelphia is more corrupt than we could have imagined. Today the United States Department of Justice announced criminal charges against an election official for stuffing a ballot box with fraudulent votes to help Democratic judicial candidates.
United States Attorney William M. McSwain announced today that Domenick J. DeMuro of Philadelphia, a former Judge of Elections, an elected official responsible for elections, has been charged and has entered a guilty plea.
What did DeMuro do? He literally stood at the voting machine and cranked in vote after vote after vote for particular Democrat judicial candidates. He was allegedly paid by various unnamed political consultants for the behavior.
U.S. Attorney McSwain:
DeMuro fraudulently stuffed the ballot box by literally standing in a voting booth and voting over and over, as fast as he could, while he thought the coast was clear. This is utterly reprehensible conduct. The charges announced today do not erase what he did, but they do ensure that he is held to account for those actions.
The Trump administration’s prosecution of election fraud stands in stark contrast to the total failure of the Obama Justice Department to enforce these laws. Right now, other federal prosecutors are aware of cases of double voting in federal elections as well as noncitizen voting.
Attorney General William Barr should prompt those other offices to do their duty and prosecute known election crimes. Those who are considering election crimes should take note of U.S. Attorney McSwain’s work. Now, they have something to fear before they violate federal election laws.
Alex Jones covers what is on the horizon with COVID-19, the lockdown, the vaccine, and how Big Tech wants to run your life.


newswars--2020-05-21--EXCLUSIVE – Deep State Protection Racket Exposed!

President Trump has been in a battle over the various Inspector General Offices – the frontline between the Trump administration and the DC swamp .
Recently fired Inspector General of the State Department , Steve Linick , was a major source of leaks and colluded with former Inspector General Michael Atkinson to create the appearance of a ‘ whistleblower ’ ( Eric Ciaramella ) to act as cover for a wiretap , aka the NSA over collection problem used to spy on all Americans including candidate and now President Trump , his campaign and staff .
This illicit collection of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s CIA Director John Brennan ’ s direction .
According to cybersecurity sources , Edward Snowden created a data bridge from the NSA database into private servers controlled by private intelligence and cybersecurity contractors such as the Analysis Corporation , Global Strategies Group , and their nested shell corporations .
Snowden ’ s actions kick-off , on the federal level , justification for spying on all US Citizens , including the Senate and Congress , in the name of preventing Americans with classified and top secret clearances from being able to repeat Snowdens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pioneer of the psychological warfare program known publicly as the Shadownet , “ In 2013 , following the Edward Snowden leaking of classified information , components of the ShadowNet and its iPsy relational social media profile database were used in the development of a new application , ClearForce , by adding real-time social-media , criminal , financial , medical , travel and other personally identifiable information ( PII ) , then analyzing it using Artificial Intelligence ( AI ) .
The ClearForce application then creates , “ predictive ” behavioral profiles of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to steal or leak classified information .
The ClearForce application was turned into the ClearForce corporation and opened to the public on or around .
” According to Tore , a former contractor for John Brennan ’ s the Analysis Corporation , the twinned stream of data Snowden set up for Brennan is what provides the personal identifiable information for ClearForce .
Retired General James Jones , former National Security Adviser under Present Obama , and retired General Michael Hayden , former Director of the CIA under Obama , are not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key advisors for Wikistrat .
According to Wikistrat insiders , Wikistrat was able to piggyback Wikileaks ’ servers .
This is enabled them to go after whistleblowers that leaked information to Wikileaks and ultimately go after Julien Assange .
With all of this corruption in place and with Obama administration operatives serving as the Inspector Generals of key intelligence and law enforcement agencies , the deep state had secured their ability to control leaks , blackmail , and monitor the backchannels of the United States government .
On , 2020 President Trump fired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General .
He was fired for taking the fake whistleblower complaint to congress which initiated the bogus impeachment of President Trump .
Atkinson had retroactively changed the rules for whistleblowing so that they could accept secondhand and tertiary information as ‘ whistleblowing ’ .
On , 2020 President Trump removed Glenn Fine , the acting Inspector General of the Defense of Department , keeping him from chairing the congressionally-mandated Pandemic Response Accountability Committee to overseeing a two-trillion dollar budget for the pandemic .
Firing Glenn Fine cleared the way for Trump to defunding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second impeachment .
On , President Trump fired Christi Grimm , who wrote a report claiming the Trump Administration didn ’ t provide enough medical supplies to hospitals alleging it caused unnecessary delays .
This report was based on outdated and inaccurate information .
She also leaked a politically motivated whistleblower report to the media rather than acting on it in her official capacity knowing it had no merit .
Then , on , 2020 , President Trump fired Steve Linick , the Inspector General of the State Department .
He worked with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to act as witnesses against the President during the impeachment hearing .
Linick oversaw all of the State Department corruption involved in Benghazi and Ukraine , such as laundered USAID money , and did nothing to stop any of it .
This purge of Inspector Generals helps clear the way for President Trump to appoint new Inspector Generals to actually conduct oversight .

President Trump has been in a battle over the various Inspector General Offices – the frontline between the Trump administration and the DC swamp.
Recently fired Inspector General of the State Department, Steve Linick, was a major source of leaks and colluded with former Inspector General Michael Atkinson to create the appearance of a ‘whistleblower’ (Eric Ciaramella) to act as cover for a wiretap, aka the NSA over collection problem used to spy on all Americans including candidate and now President Trump, his campaign and staff. This illicit collection of data was set up under Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan’s direction.
According to cybersecurity sources, Edward Snowden created a data bridge from the NSA database into private servers controlled by private intelligence and cybersecurity contractors such as the Analysis Corporation, Global Strategies Group, and their nested shell corporations. Snowden’s actions kick-off, on the federal level, justification for spying on all US Citizens, including the Senate and Congress, in the name of preventing Americans with classified and top secret clearances from being able to repeat Snowdens actions.
According to Patrick Bergy, the pioneer of the psychological warfare program known publicly as the Shadownet, “In 2013, following the Edward Snowden leaking of classified information, components of the ShadowNet and its iPsy relational social media profile database were used in the development of a new application, ClearForce, by adding real-time social-media, criminal, financial, medical, travel and other personally identifiable information (PII), then analyzing it using Artificial Intelligence (AI). The ClearForce application then creates, “predictive” behavioral profiles of their targets to determine if they are likely to steal or leak classified information. The ClearForce application was turned into the ClearForce corporation and opened to the public on or around .”
According to Tore, a former contractor for John Brennan’s the Analysis Corporation, the twinned stream of data Snowden set up for Brennan is what provides the personal identifiable information for ClearForce. Retired General James Jones, former National Security Adviser under Present Obama, and retired General Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA under Obama, are not only board members of ClearForce but are simultaneously key advisors for Wikistrat. According to Wikistrat insiders, Wikistrat was able to piggyback Wikileaks’ servers. This is enabled them to go after whistleblowers that leaked information to Wikileaks and ultimately go after Julien Assange.
With all of this corruption in place and with Obama administration operatives serving as the Inspector Generals of key intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the deep state had secured their ability to control leaks, blackmail, and monitor the backchannels of the United States government.
On , 2020 President Trump fired Michael Atkinson, the Intelligence Community Inspector General. He was fired for taking the fake whistleblower complaint to congress which initiated the bogus impeachment of President Trump. Atkinson had retroactively changed the rules for whistleblowing so that they could accept secondhand and tertiary information as ‘whistleblowing’.
On , 2020 President Trump removed Glenn Fine, the acting Inspector General of the Defense of Department, keeping him from chairing the congressionally-mandated Pandemic Response Accountability Committee to overseeing a two-trillion dollar budget for the pandemic. Firing Glenn Fine cleared the way for Trump to defunding the World Health Organization without facing a second impeachment.
On , President Trump fired Christi Grimm, who wrote a report claiming the Trump Administration didn’t provide enough medical supplies to hospitals alleging it caused unnecessary delays. This report was based on outdated and inaccurate information. She also leaked a politically motivated whistleblower report to the media rather than acting on it in her official capacity knowing it had no merit.
Then, on , 2020, President Trump fired Steve Linick, the Inspector General of the State Department. He worked with Democrats to provide state department officio nata to act as witnesses against the President during the impeachment hearing. Linick oversaw all of the State Department corruption involved in Benghazi and Ukraine, such as laundered USAID money, and did nothing to stop any of it.
This purge of Inspector Generals helps clear the way for President Trump to appoint new Inspector Generals to actually conduct oversight.


newswars--2020-05-21--VA Democrat City Councils Flip to GOP in Response to Northam Gun Control

The city councils in Staunton and Waynesboro , Virginia , flipped from Democrat to Republican on Tuesday , as voters rejected Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s ( D ) gun control agenda .
Bearing Arms reported : “ With little fanfare and almost no national attention , Virginians headed to the polls in local elections on Tuesday , and there was a stunning upset in one city that ’ s been dominated by Democrats in recent elections .
Control of the Staunton City Council flipped from blue to red after a surge in turnout among Republican voters.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from blue to red ” was due to Northam ’ s gun control efforts .
They noted : The tailwind for the Rs , dating back to the winter , was the tumult locally over gun-control legislation being advanced in the General Assembly by Democrats , who had run on gun control as a key issue in the 2019 legislative races that gave them control of the House of Delegates for the first time in more than two decades .
It ’ s MASK HYSTERIA and mass hysteria !
Dictates of governors & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some states ’ anti-mask laws .

The city councils in Staunton and Waynesboro, Virginia, flipped from Democrat to Republican on Tuesday, as voters rejected Gov. Ralph Northam’s (D) gun control agenda.
Bearing Arms reported: “With little fanfare and almost no national attention, Virginians headed to the polls in local elections on Tuesday, and there was a stunning upset in one city that’s been dominated by Democrats in recent elections. Control of the Staunton City Council flipped from blue to red after a surge in turnout among Republican voters.”
The Augusta Free Press reported the flip “from blue to red” was due to Northam’s gun control efforts. They noted:
The tailwind for the Rs, dating back to the winter, was the tumult locally over gun-control legislation being advanced in the General Assembly by Democrats, who had run on gun control as a key issue in the 2019 legislative races that gave them control of the House of Delegates for the first time in more than two decades.
Read more
It’s MASK HYSTERIA and mass hysteria! Dictates of governors & local officials are in direct contradiction of some states’ anti-mask laws.


newswars--2020-05-21--Non-EU Migration to UK Hits Highest Level Since Records Began Under “Conservative” Government

Non-EU immigration to the United Kingdom has hit its highest level since records began under a supposedly “ conservative ” government that is also overseeing a de-facto tax service to rescue illegal boat migrants and bring them into the country .
“ Figures show an estimated 282,000 more non-EU citizens came to the UK than left in 2019 , the highest since the information was first gathered in 1975 , ” reports BBC News .
More than 677,000 people moved to the UK last year , despite the current Conservative government vowing to being immigration levels down to the tens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ migrants moving to Britain under the Tories than under the left-wing Labour government , a party which openly embraced “ multiculturalism ” and mass immigration .
As if to rub salt in the wounds , the current government is also overseeing a policy of rescuing illegal migrants arriving via small boats in the English Channel .
As Nigel Farage has documented , the boat migrants are being handed over by the French Navy to the British Navy who then offer them a de-facto taxi service into the country .
In the period that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK government has picked up at least 1,085 people according to official figures .
“ Having witnessed such a French Navy-assisted crossing myself this week , I feel qualified to predict that if this influx is not tackled , thousands more will come over the summer , ” writes Farage .
“ It is important to be clear from the outset : the vast majority of the people choosing this route into our country are young men and economic migrants .
They are not refugees .
It is as if a sign has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dover that reads : “ Everyone welcome.
” One of the reasons the people of Britain voted for Brexit is to take back control of immigration .
While this of course only technically applies to EU immigration , the Conservative government has proven that it is conservative in name only and has in fact allowed unprecedented numbers of migrants , both legal and illegal , to enter the UK .
What is the point in voting for a supposedly “ conservative ” government that has opened up Britain ’ s borders even wider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever .
It is CRUCIAL that you support me .
Please sign up for the free newsletter here .
Donate to me on SubscribeStar here .
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown .

Non-EU immigration to the United Kingdom has hit its highest level since records began under a supposedly “conservative” government that is also overseeing a de-facto tax service to rescue illegal boat migrants and bring them into the country.
“Figures show an estimated 282,000 more non-EU citizens came to the UK than left in 2019, the highest since the information was first gathered in 1975,” reports BBC News.
More than 677,000 people moved to the UK last year, despite the current Conservative government vowing to being immigration levels down to the tens of thousands.
There are more non-EU migrants moving to Britain under the Tories than under the left-wing Labour government, a party which openly embraced “multiculturalism” and mass immigration.
As if to rub salt in the wounds, the current government is also overseeing a policy of rescuing illegal migrants arriving via small boats in the English Channel.
As Nigel Farage has documented, the boat migrants are being handed over by the French Navy to the British Navy who then offer them a de-facto taxi service into the country.
I just witnessed the French Navy escorting illegal migrants into British waters, despite the money we are paying them. They even tried to prevent us from filming the handover, as you can see in the video. This is an outrage and a scandal. Time for the government to get a grip. pic.twitter.com/hT8ctbZag5 — Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) May 20, 2020
In the period that citizens have been in lockdown, the UK government has picked up at least 1,085 people according to official figures.
“Having witnessed such a French Navy-assisted crossing myself this week, I feel qualified to predict that if this influx is not tackled, thousands more will come over the summer,” writes Farage.
“It is important to be clear from the outset: the vast majority of the people choosing this route into our country are young men and economic migrants. They are not refugees. It is as if a sign has been hung on the White Cliffs of Dover that reads: “Everyone welcome.”
One of the reasons the people of Britain voted for Brexit is to take back control of immigration. While this of course only technically applies to EU immigration, the Conservative government has proven that it is conservative in name only and has in fact allowed unprecedented numbers of migrants, both legal and illegal, to enter the UK.
What is the point in voting for a supposedly “conservative” government that has opened up Britain’s borders even wider than Labour ever could?
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
———————————————————————————————————————
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.
Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
———————————————————————————————————————


newswars--2020-05-21--California Colleges Sue to Give Coronavirus Bailout Aid to Illegals

The California Community Colleges are suing Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos over illegal immigrants ’ ineligibility for coronavirus aid .
The lawsuit , filed May 11 by the System Board of Governors and its chancellor Eloy Ortiz Oakley , along with several specific districts , came as a response to Devos ’ announcement that illegal immigrants and DACA recipients were not qualified to receive funding through the CARES act .
The lawsuit states that Chancellor Oakley brought the lawsuit to stop the Department of Education from placing any restrictions on emergency funding , specifically from the COVID-19 pandemic .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegal students from receiving federal bailout funds “ will irreparably harm Plaintiffs and their students at a time when emergency relief is needed immediately.
” The lawsuit also claims that the exclusion of illegal students from receiving federal money is “ unlawful and unconstitutional.
” California Community Colleges spokeswoman Christina Jimenez pointed Campus Reform to a press release from Oakley telling colleges to “ act swiftly to distribute these funds…to students with the greatest need.
” The same release emphasizes “ significant discretion ” awarded to colleges by the CARES Act surrounding “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The lawsuit came just days before the attorney general of Washington State , Robert Ferguson , also sued DeVos in her official capacity for excluding illegal immigrants from the federal relief funds .
Ferguson also cited the department ’ s “ significant discretion ” clause .
Calling the Education Department ’ s interpretation of the CARES Act “ unlawful , ” the lawsuit states , “ as a result of the Department ’ s unauthorized eligibility restriction , over 85,000 Washington higher education students who desperately need financial assistance have been excluded from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not being available to illegal immigrant students , the University of Washington still found a way to provide illegal immigrants with financial assistance .
As Campus Reform previously reported , UW announced monetary aid for illegals using “ non-federal sources.
” But as Heritage Foundation expert Mike Howell said , “ it ’ s all fungible money , so every dollar that goes to an illegal alien is a dollar that a US citizen is not getting.
” Paul Joseph Watson joins The Alex Jones Show to break down the dubious numbers being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more deaths than the coronavirus .

The California Community Colleges are suing Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos over illegal immigrants’ ineligibility for coronavirus aid.
The lawsuit, filed May 11 by the System Board of Governors and its chancellor Eloy Ortiz Oakley, along with several specific districts, came as a response to Devos’ announcement that illegal immigrants and DACA recipients were not qualified to receive funding through the CARES act.
The lawsuit states that Chancellor Oakley brought the lawsuit to stop the Department of Education from placing any restrictions on emergency funding, specifically from the COVID-19 pandemic. The complaint argues that eligibility requirements that prohibit illegal students from receiving federal bailout funds “will irreparably harm Plaintiffs and their students at a time when emergency relief is needed immediately.”
The lawsuit also claims that the exclusion of illegal students from receiving federal money is “unlawful and unconstitutional.”
California Community Colleges spokeswoman Christina Jimenez pointed Campus Reform to a press release from Oakley telling colleges to “act swiftly to distribute these funds…to students with the greatest need.”
The same release emphasizes “significant discretion” awarded to colleges by the CARES Act surrounding “how to award this emergency aid.”
The lawsuit came just days before the attorney general of Washington State, Robert Ferguson, also sued DeVos in her official capacity for excluding illegal immigrants from the federal relief funds. Ferguson also cited the department’s “significant discretion” clause.
Calling the Education Department’s interpretation of the CARES Act “unlawful,” the lawsuit states, “as a result of the Department’s unauthorized eligibility restriction, over 85,000 Washington higher education students who desperately need financial assistance have been excluded from federal help.”
Despite the federal aid not being available to illegal immigrant students, the University of Washington still found a way to provide illegal immigrants with financial assistance.
As Campus Reform previously reported, UW announced monetary aid for illegals using “non-federal sources.” But as Heritage Foundation expert Mike Howell said, “it’s all fungible money, so every dollar that goes to an illegal alien is a dollar that a US citizen is not getting.”
Paul Joseph Watson joins The Alex Jones Show to break down the dubious numbers being used to lock down society and cause more deaths than the coronavirus.