newswars--2020-05-27--Pompeo: “Hong Kong is No Longer Autonomous From China”

In what appears to be a preview of the at-this-point inevitable White House decision to strip Hong Kong of its preferred trading status over the new National Security law imposed by Beijing , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted on Wednesday that he has “ reported to Congress that Hong Kong is no longer autonomous from China.
” Congress now has the power to strip Hong Kong of its “ special status ” under the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 , which has allowed for the city-state to be treated more favorably than the rest of China by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what ’ s allowed Hong Kong to develop as a ‘ gateway to the West ’ , a key part of its appeal as an international city .
Without the US ‘ special status ’ , HK might lose its international cachet as well , and eventually become just another Chinese city .
Indeed , without such easy access to the global economy , Hong Kong will become just an extension of Shenzen , which lies just across the border on the mainland .
In a story published just minutes before Pompeo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explains that “ a US law passed last year requires the secretary of state to certify – as part of an annual report to Congress – whether Hong Kong remains ‘ sufficiently autonomous ’ from Beijing to justify its unique treatment .
That includes assessing the degree to which Hong Kong ’ s autonomy had been eroded by the government of China .
( Hong Kong is part of China but has a different legal and economic system , a holdover from its time as a British colony . )
The law also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for human rights abuses or undermining the city ’ s autonomy .
Such sanctions were also said to be under consideration at the White House in the wake of the Chinese government ’ s decision in May to impose new national security laws on the city.
” Stocks have shown a surprising degree of resilience , though the offshore yuan – a key barometer of China-related risks – skidded lower .
Aside from the fact that the decision – which was widely anticipated – marks another milestone in the deterioration in Washington-Beijing relations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begun arresting protesters brave enough to take the streets in the face of an unprecedented police crackdown , it also jeopardizes nearly $ 40 billion in bilateral trade , as WaPo explains .
“ Longer term , people might have a second thought about raising money or doing business in Hong Kong , ” said Kevin Lai , chief economist for Asia excluding Japan at Daiwa Capital Markets .
Another expert described revoking HK ’ s special status as “ the nuclear option ” for the US , and “ the beginning of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know it ” .
For the last day or so , the editor of China ’ s Global Times has been taunting the US in a series of tweets , daring it to use its navy and come save the protesting Hong Kongers , some of whom have written messages begging Trump to interfere .
Senior administration officials have insisted that this likely won ’ t be the end of Trump ’ s aggression toward China .
Earlier on Wednesday , Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross , who leads the department in charge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said the president has more in store .
While there ’ s no question rescinding HK ’ s special status will be interpreted as another economy attack by Washington .
But there ’ s something else even more alarming possibly lying in wait : The law passed last year in the US also requires the president to freeze US-based assets and bar entry to anyone who helps China repress Hong Kong .
It ’ s this possibility – which we could hear more about in the coming days – that should really stick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaks down the horror behind the Michigan Governor ’ s purposeful planting of COVID-19 in nursing homes , endangering the most vulnerable of the population to the deadly virus .

In what appears to be a preview of the at-this-point inevitable White House decision to strip Hong Kong of its preferred trading status over the new National Security law imposed by Beijing, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted on Wednesday that he has “reported to Congress that Hong Kong is no longer autonomous from China.”
Congress now has the power to strip Hong Kong of its “special status” under the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, which has allowed for the city-state to be treated more favorably than the rest of China by the US.
The status is part of what’s allowed Hong Kong to develop as a ‘gateway to the West’, a key part of its appeal as an international city. Without the US ‘special status’, HK might lose its international cachet as well, and eventually become just another Chinese city.
Indeed, without such easy access to the global economy, Hong Kong will become just an extension of Shenzen, which lies just across the border on the mainland.
Today, I reported to Congress that Hong Kong is no longer autonomous from China, given facts on the ground. The United States stands with the people of Hong Kong. — Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) May 27, 2020
In a story published just minutes before Pompeo’s tweet, the Washington Post explains that “a US law passed last year requires the secretary of state to certify – as part of an annual report to Congress – whether Hong Kong remains ‘sufficiently autonomous’ from Beijing to justify its unique treatment. That includes assessing the degree to which Hong Kong’s autonomy had been eroded by the government of China. (Hong Kong is part of China but has a different legal and economic system, a holdover from its time as a British colony.) The law also provides for sanctions against officials deemed responsible for human rights abuses or undermining the city’s autonomy. Such sanctions were also said to be under consideration at the White House in the wake of the Chinese government’s decision in May to impose new national security laws on the city.”
Stocks have shown a surprising degree of resilience, though the offshore yuan – a key barometer of China-related risks – skidded lower.
Aside from the fact that the decision – which was widely anticipated – marks another milestone in the deterioration in Washington-Beijing relations, as police in HK have already begun arresting protesters brave enough to take the streets in the face of an unprecedented police crackdown, it also jeopardizes nearly $40 billion in bilateral trade, as WaPo explains.
“Longer term, people might have a second thought about raising money or doing business in Hong Kong,” said Kevin Lai, chief economist for Asia excluding Japan at Daiwa Capital Markets. Another expert described revoking HK’s special status as “the nuclear option” for the US, and “the beginning of the death of Hong Kong as we know it”.
For the last day or so, the editor of China’s Global Times has been taunting the US in a series of tweets, daring it to use its navy and come save the protesting Hong Kongers, some of whom have written messages begging Trump to interfere.
Will you really send US troops to land on Hong Kong? If you don’t’, your “powerful” response is nothing but bluffing, isn’t it? Canceling Hong Kong’s separate customs territory status is not “powerful,” and China has long been prepared for that. pic.twitter.com/WhMNCP5HAs — Hu Xijin 胡锡进 (@HuXijin_GT) May 27, 2020
Senior administration officials have insisted that this likely won’t be the end of Trump’s aggression toward China. Earlier on Wednesday, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who leads the department in charge of Washington’s crackdown on Huawei, said the president has more in store.
While there’s no question rescinding HK’s special status will be interpreted as another economy attack by Washington. But there’s something else even more alarming possibly lying in wait: The law passed last year in the US also requires the president to freeze US-based assets and bar entry to anyone who helps China repress Hong Kong.
It’s this possibility – which we could hear more about in the coming days – that should really stick in investors’ minds.
Alex Jones breaks down the horror behind the Michigan Governor’s purposeful planting of COVID-19 in nursing homes, endangering the most vulnerable of the population to the deadly virus.


newswars--2020-05-27--CNBC Scandal: Watch As Raging Screamfest Erupts Between Kernen, Sorkin Over Coronavirus

For years , the “ friendly ” riffing between CNBC ’ s Andrew Ross Sorkin and Joe Kernen had prompted many to ask : do the two popular anchors actually enjoy each other ’ s company , or is there a Cushing of bad blood built up behind the smiling facades ?
Who knew that the answer would be revealed during a seemingly innocuous discussion over the market and social impact of the coronavirus pandemic .
During the early morning hours of Squawk Box , just after 6am ET when few CNBC viewers were up , a discussion about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is when it escalated into an all-out screamfest in which Kernen and Sorkin ’ s obvious distaste for each other finally exploded .
And , providing nearly three minutes of sheer , unscripted entertainment without the cooler head of Becky Quick mediating between the two , the anchors were left to boom and fire shots at each another without interruption .
The exchange begins with Sorkin calling out Kernen ’ s record of “ missing ” the market move lower .
When Kernen tried to cut him off , Sorkin continued : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not going do this with you , Joe .
Every morning , you try to question the questions I ’ m asking , these are questions that investors are asking every single morning .
I ’ m trying to get through some of this clutter .
I may be right , I may be wrong .
That makes the market .
It doesn ’ t make people good or bad or right to act the way you are .
I ’ m sorry.
” “ You panicked about the market , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ventilators , panicked about the PPE , panicked about ever going out again , ” Kernen said to Sorkin .
“ Hold on , hold on , HOLD ON .
I ’ m not going do this with you , Joe .
Every morning , you try to question the questions I ’ m asking , these are questions that investors are asking every single morning .
I ’ m trying to get through some of this clutter .
I may be right , I may be wrong .
That makes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people good or bad or right to act the way you are .
I ’ m sorry.
” “ Joseph , you didn ’ t panic about anything .
A hundred thousand people died , Joe .
All you did was try to help your friend the president .
That ’ s what you did .
Every single morning on this show .
Every single morning on this show you have used and abused your position , Joe .
You have used and abused your position !
” “ That ’ s totally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investors keep their cool , keep their heads .
And as it turns out , that ’ s what they should have done , ” Kernen responded baiting his so-anchor , and it worked : “ You know what , Joseph ?
Do the news , ” Sorkin said .
“ If they had listened to you , we should be at about 8,000 , ” Kernen sniped back “ I wasn ’ t arguing about selling stocks , I was arguing about people ’ s lives .
Do the news , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s a global pandemic , Andy where per capita deaths where we ’ re down near the low end .
Most places are at 60 deaths per 100,000 , we ’ re at 29 .
It ’ s terrible that we lost 100,000 lives but it was never going to be that we weren ’ t going to come back , we weren ’ t going to return to normal .
Siding with Ackman and giving credence to all that panic didn ’ t help any investors at all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kernen concludes .
You can watch the full exchange here : Social media , or at least the couple dozen people that tune into CNBC early in the morning for their news , had plenty of takes :

For years, the “friendly” riffing between CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin and Joe Kernen had prompted many to ask: do the two popular anchors actually enjoy each other’s company, or is there a Cushing of bad blood built up behind the smiling facades? Who knew that the answer would be revealed during a seemingly innocuous discussion over the market and social impact of the coronavirus pandemic.
During the early morning hours of Squawk Box, just after 6am ET when few CNBC viewers were up, a discussion about the coronavirus demonstrated just how politicized this topic is when it escalated into an all-out screamfest in which Kernen and Sorkin’s obvious distaste for each other finally exploded.
And, providing nearly three minutes of sheer, unscripted entertainment without the cooler head of Becky Quick mediating between the two, the anchors were left to boom and fire shots at each another without interruption.
The exchange begins with Sorkin calling out Kernen’s record of “missing” the market move lower.
“Joe, Joe. You missed it 100% on the way down and you missed 100,000 deaths. We can have this debate back and forth, and you can try to question the questions I’m asking — “
When Kernen tried to cut him off, Sorkin continued:
“Hold on, hold on. I’m not going do this with you, Joe. Every morning, you try to question the questions I’m asking, these are questions that investors are asking every single morning. I’m trying to get through some of this clutter. I may be right, I may be wrong. That makes the market. It doesn’t make people good or bad or right to act the way you are. I’m sorry.”
“You panicked about the market, you panicked about Covid, panicked about the ventilators, panicked about the PPE, panicked about ever going out again,” Kernen said to Sorkin.
That set off Sorkin:
“Joe. You missed it 100% on the way down and you missed 100,000 deaths. We can have this debate back and forth, and you can try to question the questions I’m asking — “
After Kernen interrupted, Sorkin boomed, losing all cool:
“Hold on, hold on, HOLD ON. I’m not going do this with you, Joe. Every morning, you try to question the questions I’m asking, these are questions that investors are asking every single morning. I’m trying to get through some of this clutter. I may be right, I may be wrong. That makes the market. It doesn’t make people good or bad or right to act the way you are. I’m sorry.” “Joseph, you didn’t panic about anything. A hundred thousand people died, Joe. All you did was try to help your friend the president. That’s what you did. Every single morning on this show. Every single morning on this show you have used and abused your position, Joe. You have used and abused your position!”
“That’s totally unfair. I am trying to help investors keep their cool, keep their heads. And as it turns out, that’s what they should have done,” Kernen responded baiting his so-anchor, and it worked:
“You know what, Joseph? Do the news,” Sorkin said.
“If they had listened to you, we should be at about 8,000,” Kernen sniped back
“I wasn’t arguing about selling stocks, I was arguing about people’s lives. Do the news, I’m begging you.”
“Andrew, it’s a global pandemic, Andy where per capita deaths where we’re down near the low end. Most places are at 60 deaths per 100,000, we’re at 29. It’s terrible that we lost 100,000 lives but it was never going to be that we weren’t going to come back, we weren’t going to return to normal. Siding with Ackman and giving credence to all that panic didn’t help any investors at all. Or people with their anxiety,” Kernen concludes.
You can watch the full exchange here:
Social media, or at least the couple dozen people that tune into CNBC early in the morning for their news, had plenty of takes:
Andrew Sorkin has run out of fucks. pic.twitter.com/NBFNmqvTnx — Greg Hogben (@MyDaughtersArmy) May 27, 2020
The Sorkin/Kernen dust up reminded me of when the Cleveland Indians started beating the shit out of each other in Major League. As Harry Doyle said, “At least they’re showing their first signs of life in weeks” over at CNBC — Quoth the Raven (@QTRResearch) May 27, 2020
Woah! Andrew Ross Sorkin (@AndrewSorkin) just tore to @JoeKernan on @CNBC: “100K people died, and all you did was try to help your friend, the president.” It’s about time and well overdue. Kernan is a climate denier and shameless GOP suck up. Report the news. Don’t color it. — So-called Dave (@DavidWetherell) May 27, 2020
Kernen can be a bit of a bully on Sorkin, nice to see him stand up to him even though he’s wrong. — EdAsante (@EdAsante77) May 27, 2020
Sorkin is a whiny Karen. Looks awful as usual. Way to go Joe Kernen. — gma (@illini3) May 27, 2020
CNBC Wow, A. R. Sorkin just had a total melt down on Joe Kernen. Finally some good TV from CNBC. I don’t think Squwawk Box will ever be the same now. lol Apparently Sorkin can’t handle having his ideas or opinions being challenged. — Flashtrading (@Flashtrading) May 27, 2020


newswars--2020-05-27--Terrestrial bacteria can grow on nutrients from space

In the past decade , there has been renewed thinking about human missions to the moon and perhaps even to Mars .
Inevitably , terrestrial microorganisms on the bodies of astronauts , spaceships or equipment will come into contact with extraterrestrial environments .
Researchers from the Radboudumc describe in an article in Astrobiology that bacteria can survive on an “ extraterrestrial diet , ” which affected their pathogenic potential .
No matter how well astronauts and material are decontaminated , co-traveling microorganisms can not be prevented .
Given the enormous adaptability potential of bacteria , it is conceivable that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an extraterrestrial environment .
For this study , four non-fastidious environment-derived bacterial species with pathogenic features were selected , including Klebsiella pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa .
To determine whether extraterrestrial survival and growth were possible , the researchers developed a minimal bacterial diet based on nitrogen , phosphorus , sulphur , iron and water to which carbohydrates found in carbonaceous meteorites were added .
The four bacterial species were shown to survive and multiply on this minimal diet .
In follow-up experiments , the researchers observed that the adaptation of bacteria , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , caused changes in the cell membrane , as a result of which the immune system reacted more strongly to the bacteria .
In short , the bacteria become more immunogenic .
Research in cell culture , but also in mice , showed that the bacteria survive on extraterrestrial nutrients and become less virulent as a result of this necessary adaptation .
At the same time , this research shows that bacteria can survive under these conditions , which means that the risk of infection among space travelers remains , because—as other researchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the functioning of the immune system , making astronauts more susceptible to infections .

In the past decade, there has been renewed thinking about human missions to the moon and perhaps even to Mars.
Inevitably, terrestrial microorganisms on the bodies of astronauts, spaceships or equipment will come into contact with extraterrestrial environments. Researchers from the Radboudumc describe in an article in Astrobiology that bacteria can survive on an “extraterrestrial diet,” which affected their pathogenic potential.
No matter how well astronauts and material are decontaminated, co-traveling microorganisms cannot be prevented. Given the enormous adaptability potential of bacteria, it is conceivable that they could even survive space travel and settle in an extraterrestrial environment.
For this study, four non-fastidious environment-derived bacterial species with pathogenic features were selected, including Klebsiella pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. To determine whether extraterrestrial survival and growth were possible, the researchers developed a minimal bacterial diet based on nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur, iron and water to which carbohydrates found in carbonaceous meteorites were added. The four bacterial species were shown to survive and multiply on this minimal diet.
In follow-up experiments, the researchers observed that the adaptation of bacteria, especially in the case of K. pneumoniae, caused changes in the cell membrane, as a result of which the immune system reacted more strongly to the bacteria. In short, the bacteria become more immunogenic. Research in cell culture, but also in mice, showed that the bacteria survive on extraterrestrial nutrients and become less virulent as a result of this necessary adaptation. At the same time, this research shows that bacteria can survive under these conditions, which means that the risk of infection among space travelers remains, because—as other researchers have shown—a space journey has negative effects on the functioning of the immune system, making astronauts more susceptible to infections.


newswars--2020-05-27--Ex-Top FBI Official: FBI  investigated Trump Campaign Without Justification, New Docs Confirm

A document released by the FBI that launched the entire Russia collusion hoax investigation shows the bureau had absolutely zero justification to probe the Trump campaign , according to a former top FBI official .
In an editorial for The Hill , former FBI assistant director of intelligence Kevin R. Brock explains how the electronic communication document drafted by now-fired FBI special agent Peter Strzok fails to justify opening the “ Crossfire Hurricane ” counterintelligence investigation into Trump ’ s campaign .
“ Late last week the FBI document that started the Trump-Russia collusion fiasco was publicly released , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t received a lot of attention but it should , because not too long from now this document likely will be blown up and placed on an easel as Exhibit A in a federal courtroom.
” Brock systematically breaks down how the document is an “ absurdity ” and “ invalid on its face.
” “ In a normal , legitimate FBI Electronic Communication , or EC , there would be a ‘ To ’ and a ‘ From ’ line .
The Crossfire Hurricane EC has only a ‘ From ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the FBI ’ s Counterintelligence Division whose contact is listed as Peter Strzok , ” Brock explained .
“ The EC was drafted also by Peter Strzok .
And , finally , it was approved by Peter Strzok .
Essentially , it is a document created by Peter Strzok , approved by Peter Strzok , and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok.
” “ An agent can not approve his or her own case ; that would make a mockery of the oversight designed to protect Americans .
Yet , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , catcher , batter and umpire.
” Brock then notes how the EC was opened as a Foreign Agent Registration Act ( FARA ) investigation , which is “ rarely investigated ” because it involves a clearly established “ criminal violation , ” which of which there was none here .
“ Ultimately , there was no attempt by Strzok to articulate any factors that address the elements of FARA , ” Brock wrote .
“ He couldn ’ t , because there are none .
Instead , there was a weak attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russians by unknown individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign , again , with no supporting facts listed.
” “ What this FBI document clearly establishes is that Crossfire Hurricane was an illicit , made-up investigation lacking a shred of justifying predication , sprung from the mind of someone who despised Donald Trump , and then blessed by inexperienced leadership at the highest levels who harbored their own now well-established biases.
” Brock then asserts that no competent FBI leader would have approved of such a flimsy and poorly-articulated EC .
“ Instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a presidential campaign that had no legitimate predication ; that spawned a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intercept of a U.S. citizen that had no legitimate predication ; that resulted in a confrontation with a new administration ’ s national security adviser that had no legitimate predication ; and , finally , that led to an expensive special counsel investigation that had no legitimate predication.
” “ Accountability is demanded by the American people .
Let ’ s pray we see some , ” he concluded .
As the true story behind the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FBI falsified reports , withheld evidence and bullied a 33 year military veteran and his family in order to protect the Deep State .

A document released by the FBI that launched the entire Russia collusion hoax investigation shows the bureau had absolutely zero justification to probe the Trump campaign, according to a former top FBI official.
In an editorial for The Hill, former FBI assistant director of intelligence Kevin R. Brock explains how the electronic communication document drafted by now-fired FBI special agent Peter Strzok fails to justify opening the “Crossfire Hurricane” counterintelligence investigation into Trump’s campaign.
“Late last week the FBI document that started the Trump-Russia collusion fiasco was publicly released,” Brock wrote Wednesday. “It hasn’t received a lot of attention but it should, because not too long from now this document likely will be blown up and placed on an easel as Exhibit A in a federal courtroom.”
Brock systematically breaks down how the document is an “absurdity” and “invalid on its face.”
“In a normal, legitimate FBI Electronic Communication, or EC, there would be a ‘To’ and a ‘From’ line. The Crossfire Hurricane EC has only a ‘From’ line; it is from a part of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division whose contact is listed as Peter Strzok,” Brock explained. “The EC was drafted also by Peter Strzok. And, finally, it was approved by Peter Strzok. Essentially, it is a document created by Peter Strzok, approved by Peter Strzok, and sent from Peter Strzok to Peter Strzok.”
“An agent cannot approve his or her own case; that would make a mockery of the oversight designed to protect Americans. Yet, for this document, Peter Strzok was pitcher, catcher, batter and umpire.”
Brock then notes how the EC was opened as a Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) investigation, which is “rarely investigated” because it involves a clearly established “criminal violation,” which of which there was none here.
“Ultimately, there was no attempt by Strzok to articulate any factors that address the elements of FARA,” Brock wrote. “He couldn’t, because there are none. Instead, there was a weak attempt to allege some kind of cooperation with Russians by unknown individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign, again, with no supporting facts listed.”
“What this FBI document clearly establishes is that Crossfire Hurricane was an illicit, made-up investigation lacking a shred of justifying predication, sprung from the mind of someone who despised Donald Trump, and then blessed by inexperienced leadership at the highest levels who harbored their own now well-established biases.”
Brock then asserts that no competent FBI leader would have approved of such a flimsy and poorly-articulated EC.
“Instead, the nation was left with an investigation of a presidential campaign that had no legitimate predication; that spawned a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intercept of a U.S. citizen that had no legitimate predication; that resulted in a confrontation with a new administration’s national security adviser that had no legitimate predication; and, finally, that led to an expensive special counsel investigation that had no legitimate predication.”
“Accountability is demanded by the American people. Let’s pray we see some,” he concluded.
View the full FBI/Strzok EC below:
Twitter: Follow @WhiteIsTheFury
Gab: https://gab.com/WhiteIsTheFury
Minds: https://www.minds.com/whiteisthefury
As the true story behind the Michael Flynn emerges, it appears that the FBI falsified reports, withheld evidence and bullied a 33 year military veteran and his family in order to protect the Deep State.


newswars--2020-05-27--Another Gates Vaccine Bites the Dust

Another Gates Vaccine Bites the Dust

One day after revelations that the Gates/Fauci Moderna vaccine caused severe illnesses in 20 % of high-dose recipients , Bill Gates got devastating news about his other “ warp-speed ” COVAX bet .
The Oxford Vaccine Group ( OVG ) spike-protein vaccine was on an even faster track than Moderna .
In May , Melinda Gates predicted it would be jab-ready by years ’ end .
Oxford and UK officials promised 30 million doses by September .
On April 24 , OVG scientists announced that a small macaque study proved the vaccine effective .
OVG quickly recruited 510 healthy volunteers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on May 13th reveals the vaccine is less promising than the OVG team implied .
All vaccinated macaques sickened after exposure to COVID-19 .
Edinburgh University ’ s Eleanor Riley told Forbes the vaccine provided “ insufficient ” antibodies to prevent infection and viral shedding .
Vaccinated monkeys spread the disease as readily as unvaccinated .
The OVG is politically wired .
Lead developer Andrew Pollard juggles scandalous conflicts that allow him to license , register , and mandate his own untested vaccines to the masses .
Pollard is Senior Advisor to Britain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , chairs Britain ’ s JVCI committee that mandates them , and advises the European Medicine Agency ( EMA ) .
He takes payments from virtually all the big vaccine makers .
In 2014 , Pollard developed GlaxoSmithKline ’ s notorious Bexsero meningitis vaccine , and then mandated it to children despite significant safety signals for Kawasaki Disease and the rarity of meningococcal B infections .
The package insert says Bexsero may cause Kawasaki disease in as many as one out of every 1000 children based on reports in the clinical trials .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the monkey trial to bulldoze his COVID vaccine into human trials .
He shunned inert placebo tests and restricted safety studies to three weeks to hide long-term injuries .
Bombshell report on Bill Gates and top globalists ’ plan for population reduction .
Forbes reported on May 21 that the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority ( BARDA ) has given $ 1 billion to Astra Zeneca in partnership with Oxford for a rushed rollout of the vaccine in September .
In an update on May 22 , the Oxford researchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completed ” and that next study will enroll “ up to 10,260 adults and children and will involve a number of partner institutions across the country.
” Pollard is steaming ahead with his ineffective vaccine .
But a vaccine that hides symptoms and allows transmission is worse than no vaccine at all .
The White House Covid-19 response team is made up of Big Pharma and Bill Gates operatives !

One day after revelations that the Gates/Fauci Moderna vaccine caused severe illnesses in 20% of high-dose recipients, Bill Gates got devastating news about his other “warp-speed” COVAX bet.
The Oxford Vaccine Group (OVG) spike-protein vaccine was on an even faster track than Moderna. In May, Melinda Gates predicted it would be jab-ready by years’ end. Oxford and UK officials promised 30 million doses by September.
On April 24, OVG scientists announced that a small macaque study proved the vaccine effective. OVG quickly recruited 510 healthy volunteers for human trials. Pre-publication data released on May 13th reveals the vaccine is less promising than the OVG team implied.
All vaccinated macaques sickened after exposure to COVID-19. Edinburgh University’s Eleanor Riley told Forbes the vaccine provided “insufficient” antibodies to prevent infection and viral shedding. Vaccinated monkeys spread the disease as readily as unvaccinated.
Alex Jones exposes Bill Gates’ depopulation agenda!
Andrew Pollard strikes again
The OVG is politically wired. Lead developer Andrew Pollard juggles scandalous conflicts that allow him to license, register, and mandate his own untested vaccines to the masses. Pollard is Senior Advisor to Britain’s MRHA Panel which licenses vaccines, chairs Britain’s JVCI committee that mandates them, and advises the European Medicine Agency (EMA). He takes payments from virtually all the big vaccine makers. In 2014, Pollard developed GlaxoSmithKline’s notorious Bexsero meningitis vaccine, and then mandated it to children despite significant safety signals for Kawasaki Disease and the rarity of meningococcal B infections. The package insert says Bexsero may cause Kawasaki disease in as many as one out of every 1000 children based on reports in the clinical trials.
Pollard used his power and deceitful puffery about the monkey trial to bulldoze his COVID vaccine into human trials. He shunned inert placebo tests and restricted safety studies to three weeks to hide long-term injuries.
Bombshell report on Bill Gates and top globalists’ plan for population reduction.
Forbes reported on May 21 that the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) has given $1 billion to Astra Zeneca in partnership with Oxford for a rushed rollout of the vaccine in September.
In an update on May 22, the Oxford researchers revealed that “1,000 immunisations have been completed” and that next study will enroll “up to 10,260 adults and children and will involve a number of partner institutions across the country.”
Pollard is steaming ahead with his ineffective vaccine. But a vaccine that hides symptoms and allows transmission is worse than no vaccine at all.
The White House Covid-19 response team is made up of Big Pharma and Bill Gates operatives!


newswars--2020-05-27--Twitter & media know this isn’t about mail-in ballots or fraud, but about who gets to define truth;

Twitter & media know this isn’t about mail-in ballots or fraud, but about who gets to define truth; Trump does too

Twitter opened a new battlefront in the 2020 US election by ‘ fact-checking ’ posts by President Donald Trump to say he was wrong about voter fraud .
That would normally be the end of the story – except nothing about this is normal .
On Tuesday , Twitter took the unprecedented step of posting a link under the two tweets – made by the president on his personal account – listing a bunch of mainstream media articles to assert that “ fact-checkers say there is no evidence that mail-in ballots are linked to voter fraud , ” and therefore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is factually wrong .
The move followed a campaign by mainstream media and Democrats to censor Trump over other tweets , insinuating that the intern for former congressman and current MSNBC host Joe Scarborough may not have died accidentally , which culminated in a demand for Twitter to “ cleanse the Trump stain ” in a New York Times op-ed earlier on Tuesday .
Try as they might , Twitter couldn ’ t find any violation of their ever-shifting rules to pin on Trump , so they did the next best thing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whoever came up with this figured it was a really clever way to appease the outrage mob .
Sure , the Trump 2020 campaign would protest the bias – and reveal in the process that they pulled advertisements from Twitter months ago – but they can be brushed off , unlike the chorus of his critics .
Then the White House Press Secretary fired off a thread filled with recent stories about mail-in ballot problems – forms being mailed to the dead or people who ’ d long since moved away , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballot box , etc .
– clearly showing the Twitter “ fact checkers ” had some explaining to do .
That should not come as a surprise to anyone .
After all , these are the same outlets that have peddled the Russiagate conspiracy theory with impunity for the past four years , and even racked up prestigious awards for the blatantly fraudulent coverage .
Mainstream media archives are littered with “ bombshells ” designed to first prevent Trump ’ s election , then inauguration , then get him impeached or otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned out to be a dud .
“ But Trump lies !
Constantly !
” scream in unison the people used to being not just gatekeepers of “ respectable discourse ” but the tone police of Washington , the arbiters of the acceptable , the people who believe their pen shapes the very fabric of reality .
People who headline their stories with “ what you should know ” and “ how you should think.
” When challenged , they form ranks and scream they are being unjustly attacked and “ delegitimized ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of their mainstream colleagues called out for their excesses .
Anyone else , from Julian Assange to alternative outlets , can rot because the precious First Amendment doesn ’ t apply to them , supposedly .
CNN had to settle a lawsuit after defaming a teenager from Covington , Kentucky .
To avoid a similar fate , MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow argued that when she says “ literally ” that ’ s not news but humorous hyperbole , essentially dismissing her entire show as fake news .
It ’ s telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – has become synonymous with Trump ’ s criticism of the media , even though it was originally used by Hillary Clinton as an excuse for losing the 2016 election .
You know , the election the mainstream media gave her 98 percent chances of winning almost to the very end , and openly endorsed her at the same rate ?
If you thought Clinton took that loss hard , though , you clearly haven ’ t been paying attention to the media .
Trump ’ s victory was an existential crisis for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dictate the shape of reality itself was exposed as a mirage .
This is why they ’ ve spent the past four years lobbing Russiagate and other ‘ bombshells ’ at him .
This is why they have led the outrage mobs , not just against Trump or the millions of “ deplorables ” that voted for him , but also against the social media platforms he used to bypass them in 2016 , so he wouldn ’ t be able to do that again this November .
Don ’ t think for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail-in ballots , which – much like immigration and other issues – Democrats themselves once used to be against .
When they wrote freedom of speech into the Constitution , America ’ s founders may not have imagined that a president would be an unlikely champion of it , while the “ free press ” would be clamoring for censorship to preserve its power .
Yet here we are .

Twitter opened a new battlefront in the 2020 US election by ‘fact-checking’ posts by President Donald Trump to say he was wrong about voter fraud. That would normally be the end of the story – except nothing about this is normal.
On Tuesday, Twitter took the unprecedented step of posting a link under the two tweets – made by the president on his personal account – listing a bunch of mainstream media articles to assert that “fact-checkers say there is no evidence that mail-in ballots are linked to voter fraud,” and therefore Trump’s opinion about the matter is factually wrong.
The move followed a campaign by mainstream media and Democrats to censor Trump over other tweets, insinuating that the intern for former congressman and current MSNBC host Joe Scarborough may not have died accidentally, which culminated in a demand for Twitter to “cleanse the Trump stain” in a New York Times op-ed earlier on Tuesday.
Try as they might, Twitter couldn’t find any violation of their ever-shifting rules to pin on Trump, so they did the next best thing and “fact-checked” him. No doubt, whoever came up with this figured it was a really clever way to appease the outrage mob. Sure, the Trump 2020 campaign would protest the bias – and reveal in the process that they pulled advertisements from Twitter months ago – but they can be brushed off, unlike the chorus of his critics.
Then the White House Press Secretary fired off a thread filled with recent stories about mail-in ballot problems – forms being mailed to the dead or people who’d long since moved away, a Philadelphia judge just convicted for stuffing the ballot box, etc. – clearly showing the Twitter “fact checkers” had some explaining to do.
That should not come as a surprise to anyone. After all, these are the same outlets that have peddled the Russiagate conspiracy theory with impunity for the past four years, and even racked up prestigious awards for the blatantly fraudulent coverage. Mainstream media archives are littered with “bombshells” designed to first prevent Trump’s election, then inauguration, then get him impeached or otherwise removed from office. Every single one turned out to be a dud.
“But Trump lies! Constantly!” scream in unison the people used to being not just gatekeepers of “respectable discourse” but the tone police of Washington, the arbiters of the acceptable, the people who believe their pen shapes the very fabric of reality. People who headline their stories with “what you should know” and “how you should think.”
When challenged, they form ranks and scream they are being unjustly attacked and “delegitimized” – but only if it’s one of their mainstream colleagues called out for their excesses. Anyone else, from Julian Assange to alternative outlets, can rot because the precious First Amendment doesn’t apply to them, supposedly.
CNN had to settle a lawsuit after defaming a teenager from Covington, Kentucky. To avoid a similar fate, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow argued that when she says “literally” that’s not news but humorous hyperbole, essentially dismissing her entire show as fake news.
It’s telling that this very phrase – fake news – has become synonymous with Trump’s criticism of the media, even though it was originally used by Hillary Clinton as an excuse for losing the 2016 election. You know, the election the mainstream media gave her 98 percent chances of winning almost to the very end, and openly endorsed her at the same rate?
If you thought Clinton took that loss hard, though, you clearly haven’t been paying attention to the media. Trump’s victory was an existential crisis for them, the moment their power to dictate the shape of reality itself was exposed as a mirage.
This is why they’ve spent the past four years lobbing Russiagate and other ‘bombshells’ at him. This is why they have led the outrage mobs, not just against Trump or the millions of “deplorables” that voted for him, but also against the social media platforms he used to bypass them in 2016, so he wouldn’t be able to do that again this November. Don’t think for a second any of this is about mail-in ballots, which – much like immigration and other issues – Democrats themselves once used to be against.
When they wrote freedom of speech into the Constitution, America’s founders may not have imagined that a president would be an unlikely champion of it, while the “free press” would be clamoring for censorship to preserve its power. Yet here we are.


newswars--2020-05-27--How We Might Respond to a Pandemic Were Society Not So Dominated by the State

“ There are no libertarians in an epidemic ” crowed Atlantic reporter Peter Nicholas back on March 10 , as he listed the numerous economic interventions the Trump administration was undertaking in the wake of the mounting COVID-19 crisis .
This intervention , Nicholas declared , just goes to show you that whatever antigovernment talk one might talk , government intervention in the economy is “ nothing new and , as may well prove the case this time around , it ’ s often necessary.
” Setting aside the fact that it is simply absurd to refer to Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have pointed out that far from there being no libertarians during a crisis , all levels of government have been on a mad dash to slash meaningless regulations and rules that are simply getting in the way of the response .
But beyond such obvious problems with claiming that there are no libertarians in a pandemic , many people are quick to argue that the state has no choice but to get involved in solving all the world ’ s problems , especially during a crisis like the current pandemic because no other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do so .
Although , yes , the state currently enjoys a vastly unbalanced share of the power within a society , such an arrangement is not in any way preordained , and the assumption that it must be so betrays a narrowness of vision and a lack of historical knowledge .
History is filled with examples where the balance of social power has been weighted in favor of other institutions in society , such as the Catholic Church during certain periods of European history or what sociologist Carle Zimmerman calls the trustee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extended clan wields the most power .
Power has waxed and waned between various poles within society throughout history , and it is a mistake to assume that the arrangement we are living under is how life has always been and will be .
The state currently has so much of the power in society , simply because it has purposely sucked it up and taken it at the expense of everything else .
The great American classical liberal Albert J. Nock began his classic work Our Enemy the State by declaring that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our public affairs , we can discern one fundamental fact , namely : a great redistribution of power between society and the State .
This is the fact that interests the student of civilization.
” Keeping this in mind , one must ask how a society in which social power is more balanced between the various institutions and groups that comprise it would react to a pandemic , in contrast to our current society in which so much power is concentrated in the state .
One of the most obvious differences is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ larger role in public health planning .
In the current crisis , state bureaucrats are making recommendations and issuing orders and regulations to the healthcare system .
Yet healthcare systems are , perhaps next to victims and their families , the institutions most affected by the outbreak of disease , not the mayor , governor , or federal government .
Under the current state-dominated system , bad incentives abound .
Politicians and bureaucrats are always incentivized toward appearing to be doing something .
They face little risk in going too far , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and blab on and on about all the steps they are taking to fix the situation .
The policies ’ actual consequences are irrelevant .
Health systems , in contrast , have a vested interest in managing a disease outbreak as efficiently and as effectively as possible .
For one thing , they are at risk of going bankrupt and ceasing to operate , unlike governments .
Who would have guessed six months ago that in the middle of a pandemic hospitals around the country would be at risk of closing down due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Under a system in which social power is balanced harmoniously throughout society , institutions that have the correct incentive structure will be able to carry out necessary social functions , rather than being shunted aside by the state .
In my own hometown of Pittsburgh , one of the main health systems , the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center ( UPMC ) , which is also the largest employer in the state , has maintained a distinctly different tone from the state government ’ s throughout the crisis .
Due to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of social power ( thanks to its size and its billions of dollars in revenue ) , the UMPC has been able to chart its own course , to a certain extent .
In doing so it has provided insight into what a nonstate response to a pandemic might look like .
When the Harvard Global Health Insitute released a study on March 17 predicting a nigh apocalyptic disaster for western Pennsylvania , with hospital bed and ICU capacity overwhelmed by over 1,000 percent in some scenarios , the UPMC expressed no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and in contrast to the panic at the time stated , “ We anticipate that most patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 will not need to be admitted and will recover at home.
” The UPMC continued elective surgeries for some time after the governor ordered such procedures to cease , stating that there were many procedures that could not be delayed .
Then , after ceasing for a few weeks , they released a statement on April 22 saying that the UPMC would be resuming elective surgeries and simply informing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead .
By May 7 , the head of the UPMC ’ s emergency medicine division , Dr. Don Yealy , flat out contradicted the Pennsylvania health secretary and stated that it was acceptable for people to visit with family for Mother ’ s Day .
Yealy stated that given what is known about the virus now , the fact that it bears almost no risk to the vast majority of the population , and the need to reduce the harmful health effects stemming from the shutdown , “ we are ready for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also noted during the press conference that as of May 7 there had not been any positive cases of the virus in any of the UPMC senior communities due to the safeguards they had in place .
This is noteworthy in light of the fact that in Pennsylvania nearly 70 percent of the virus deaths have been in nursing homes and that the state government has done a disastrous job of protecting care home residents , going so far as to mandate that nursing homes keep admitting new patients , including people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one can predict with any certainty exactly what the picture would look like if the state did not control so much social power .
No doubt existing health systems owe some of their current form to the conditions the state has created .
But the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center serves as an example of an alternative pole of social power that has done things differently from what the state has mandated and in doing so has demonstrated a better understanding of the tradeoffs involved in mitigating disease and an all-around sounder approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s .
How would nursing homes have responded if there weren ’ t a government health bureaucracy issuing guidance , but instead local health systems such as the UPMC were issuing the guidance ?
What actions would mayors and administrators have taken if they had received guidance from experts with skin in the game rather than state bureaucrats ?
Further understanding of such possibilities and alternative social arrangements may prove to be a fruitful field of study in the years ahead .
New diseases will undoubtedly continue to trouble humanity , and as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempt to deal with this outbreak makes clear , the cost of leaving such power in its hands is astronomically high .
The classical liberal tradition is not blinded by the power of the state and is therefore uniquely capable of envisioning alternative social arrangements that could avert the recurrence of such a large-scale catastrophe the next time a new pathogen arrives .
It is imperative for it to do so .

“There are no libertarians in an epidemic” crowed Atlantic reporter Peter Nicholas back on March 10, as he listed the numerous economic interventions the Trump administration was undertaking in the wake of the mounting COVID-19 crisis.
This intervention, Nicholas declared, just goes to show you that whatever antigovernment talk one might talk, government intervention in the economy is “nothing new and, as may well prove the case this time around, it’s often necessary.”
Setting aside the fact that it is simply absurd to refer to Donald Trump as being a libertarian, numerous commentators have pointed out that far from there being no libertarians during a crisis, all levels of government have been on a mad dash to slash meaningless regulations and rules that are simply getting in the way of the response.
But beyond such obvious problems with claiming that there are no libertarians in a pandemic, many people are quick to argue that the state has no choice but to get involved in solving all the world’s problems, especially during a crisis like the current pandemic because no other institutions in society have the power to do so.
Although, yes, the state currently enjoys a vastly unbalanced share of the power within a society, such an arrangement is not in any way preordained, and the assumption that it must be so betrays a narrowness of vision and a lack of historical knowledge. History is filled with examples where the balance of social power has been weighted in favor of other institutions in society, such as the Catholic Church during certain periods of European history or what sociologist Carle Zimmerman calls the trustee form of family, in which the extended clan wields the most power. Power has waxed and waned between various poles within society throughout history, and it is a mistake to assume that the arrangement we are living under is how life has always been and will be.
The state currently has so much of the power in society, simply because it has purposely sucked it up and taken it at the expense of everything else. The great American classical liberal Albert J. Nock began his classic work Our Enemy the State by declaring that “If we look beneath the surface of our public affairs, we can discern one fundamental fact, namely: a great redistribution of power between society and the State. This is the fact that interests the student of civilization.”
Keeping this in mind, one must ask how a society in which social power is more balanced between the various institutions and groups that comprise it would react to a pandemic, in contrast to our current society in which so much power is concentrated in the state.
One of the most obvious differences is that health systems would play a much larger role in public health planning. In the current crisis, state bureaucrats are making recommendations and issuing orders and regulations to the healthcare system. Yet healthcare systems are, perhaps next to victims and their families, the institutions most affected by the outbreak of disease, not the mayor, governor, or federal government.
Under the current state-dominated system, bad incentives abound. Politicians and bureaucrats are always incentivized toward appearing to be doing something. They face little risk in going too far, as long as they can give press conferences and blab on and on about all the steps they are taking to fix the situation. The policies’ actual consequences are irrelevant.
Health systems, in contrast, have a vested interest in managing a disease outbreak as efficiently and as effectively as possible. For one thing, they are at risk of going bankrupt and ceasing to operate, unlike governments. Who would have guessed six months ago that in the middle of a pandemic hospitals around the country would be at risk of closing down due to being unable to treat any patients? Under a system in which social power is balanced harmoniously throughout society, institutions that have the correct incentive structure will be able to carry out necessary social functions, rather than being shunted aside by the state.
In my own hometown of Pittsburgh, one of the main health systems, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), which is also the largest employer in the state, has maintained a distinctly different tone from the state government’s throughout the crisis. Due to the fact that it has maintained a significant amount of social power (thanks to its size and its billions of dollars in revenue), the UMPC has been able to chart its own course, to a certain extent. In doing so it has provided insight into what a nonstate response to a pandemic might look like.
When the Harvard Global Health Insitute released a study on March 17 predicting a nigh apocalyptic disaster for western Pennsylvania, with hospital bed and ICU capacity overwhelmed by over 1,000 percent in some scenarios, the UPMC expressed no worry at all about its hospital capacity, and in contrast to the panic at the time stated, “We anticipate that most patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 will not need to be admitted and will recover at home.”
The UPMC continued elective surgeries for some time after the governor ordered such procedures to cease, stating that there were many procedures that could not be delayed. Then, after ceasing for a few weeks, they released a statement on April 22 saying that the UPMC would be resuming elective surgeries and simply informing the state government of the decision and moved ahead. By May 7, the head of the UPMC’s emergency medicine division, Dr. Don Yealy, flat out contradicted the Pennsylvania health secretary and stated that it was acceptable for people to visit with family for Mother’s Day. Yealy stated that given what is known about the virus now, the fact that it bears almost no risk to the vast majority of the population, and the need to reduce the harmful health effects stemming from the shutdown, “we are ready for a smart reopening of society.”
Yealy also noted during the press conference that as of May 7 there had not been any positive cases of the virus in any of the UPMC senior communities due to the safeguards they had in place. This is noteworthy in light of the fact that in Pennsylvania nearly 70 percent of the virus deaths have been in nursing homes and that the state government has done a disastrous job of protecting care home residents, going so far as to mandate that nursing homes keep admitting new patients, including people who tested positive for the virus.
No one can predict with any certainty exactly what the picture would look like if the state did not control so much social power. No doubt existing health systems owe some of their current form to the conditions the state has created. But the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center serves as an example of an alternative pole of social power that has done things differently from what the state has mandated and in doing so has demonstrated a better understanding of the tradeoffs involved in mitigating disease and an all-around sounder approach than the state Department of Health’s.
How would nursing homes have responded if there weren’t a government health bureaucracy issuing guidance, but instead local health systems such as the UPMC were issuing the guidance? What actions would mayors and administrators have taken if they had received guidance from experts with skin in the game rather than state bureaucrats? Further understanding of such possibilities and alternative social arrangements may prove to be a fruitful field of study in the years ahead.
New diseases will undoubtedly continue to trouble humanity, and as the carnage of the state’s attempt to deal with this outbreak makes clear, the cost of leaving such power in its hands is astronomically high. The classical liberal tradition is not blinded by the power of the state and is therefore uniquely capable of envisioning alternative social arrangements that could avert the recurrence of such a large-scale catastrophe the next time a new pathogen arrives. It is imperative for it to do so.


newswars--2020-05-27--Trump Threatens “Big Action” Against Twitter After ‘Fact-Check’, Political Bias Exposed

That did not take long .
As more and more information is exposed about Twitter ’ s bias , President Trump has tweeted an ominous warning to “ Jack ” and his crew of social justice warriors… And Kellyanne follows up with devastating blows… Update ( 0845ET ) : Last night , President Trump slammed Twitter for tagging several of his tweets touting the alleged risks of mail-in ballots as ‘ misinformation ’ , with the president accusing the social media giant of interfering in the 2020 election .
On Wednesday morning , Trump issued a couple more tweets claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or close them down ” – referring to social media companies who suppress conservative voices in the name of protecting “ the truth ” ( ie the progressive narrative that Silicon Valley tech giants have promised to perpetuate ) .
He also linked his accusations of bias with his opposition to mail-in ballots .
“ We saw what they attempted to do , and failed , in 2016 .
We can ’ t let a more sophisticated version of that happen again .
Just like we can ’ t let large scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Trump said in a series of tweets .
Weeks ago , anonymously sourced reports claimed that the White House was considering a panel to investigate anti-conservative bias on popular social media platforms and across Silicon Valley , an issue that has been explored in a series of Congressional hearings involving top officials at the biggest tech firms .
Shortly after Twitter announced it would start “ fact-checking ” President Trump ’ s tweets , yet more evidence has been exposed of the blatant anti-Trump bias at the most senior levels of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past we have seen Project Veritas expose the ‘ fact ’ behind the so-called ‘ conspiracy theory ’ of shadow-banning for conservative voices on Twitter .
Meanwhile , explains on December 15th , 2017 at a Twitter holiday party that the development of a system of “ down ranking ” “ shitty people ” is in the works : Then there is the Jeff Rich ( his LinkedIn page is here ) who in January urged his 1,500 followers to “ cull ” and “ excise ” the “ cancerous ” president Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rich , does this violate Twitter ’ s “ Abuse and harassment ” rules ?
And more recently expressed his biased opinion : And now , as Jonathan Turley details below , the latest controversy concerns the person who has said that he is in charge of “ developing and enforcing Twitter ’ s rules , ” Twitter ’ s “ Head of Site Integrity ” Yoel Roth .
Critics have highlighted fairly extreme postings from Roth calling Trump and his supporters Nazis .
I do not agree that the problem is Roth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The problem is his role and the rules at Twitter .
The problem is anyone exercising this power of speech regulation .
Indeed , as this controversy grew around Roth , Kathy Griffin is the latest poster to face calls for removal for effectively calling for Trump to kill himself .
Again , Griffin should be allowed to post such hateful thoughts and the rest of the world should be allowed to denounce her , again , for her unhinged humor .
Roth has attacked Bernie Sanders supporters and proclaimed how he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels .
He has referred to Trump and his team as “ ACTUAL NAZIS ” and called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , a “ personality-free bag of farts.
” As Fox noted , “ last August , Twitter suspended McConnell ’ s Twitter account , prompting the GOP to threaten to cut off advertising on the site until Twitter relented.
” The attacks are numerous , raw , and offensive .
However , conservatives calling for him to be fired or his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The problem is not Roth but his role .
He has a right to express himself .
I have no problem with Twitter hiring people with such political views and I believe it is a good thing for people to express themselves on social media .
Indeed , we have discussed the free speech concerns as private and public employers punish workers for their statements or actions in their private lives .
We have addressed an array of such incidents , including social media controversies involving academics .
In some cases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free speech while in others they have resulted in discipline or termination .
It is that lack of a consistent standard that has magnified free speech concerns .
We have previously discussed the issue of when it is appropriate to punishment people for conduct outside of the work place .
We have followed cases where people have been fired after boorish or insulting conduct once their names and employers are made known .
( here and here and here and here and here and here ) .
Roth ’ s comments highlight how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who take it upon themselves to decide who can speak or who must be “ corrected ” in communications with others .
Twitter is notorious for a lack of consistency and coherence in the enforcement of its rules .
However , regardless of such enforcement , there remains a core free speech issue in the regulation of speech .
I recently criticized the calls of Democratic leaders like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff for greater censorship of the Internet and social media .
Such calls have been growing for years but leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a basis for speech monitoring and censorship .
Roth is merely the personification of the problem of such speech regulation .
Again , the real problem is his role and Twitter ’ s rules .

Update (10:25ET): That did not take long. As more and more information is exposed about Twitter’s bias, President Trump has tweeted an ominous warning to “Jack” and his crew of social justice warriors…
Twitter has now shown that everything we have been saying about them (and their other compatriots) is correct. Big action to follow! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 27, 2020
And Kellyanne follows up with devastating blows…
Kellyanne Conway: “Twitter cannot suppress voices and others can’t suppress votes.” pic.twitter.com/NIyq2azxmJ — The Hill (@thehill) May 27, 2020
* * *
Update (0845ET): Last night, President Trump slammed Twitter for tagging several of his tweets touting the alleged risks of mail-in ballots as ‘misinformation’, with the president accusing the social media giant of interfering in the 2020 election.
On Wednesday morning, Trump issued a couple more tweets claiming the federal government will “strongly regulate, or close them down” – referring to social media companies who suppress conservative voices in the name of protecting “the truth” (ie the progressive narrative that Silicon Valley tech giants have promised to perpetuate).
He also linked his accusations of bias with his opposition to mail-in ballots.
“We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of that happen again. Just like we can’t let large scale Mail-In ballots take root in our Country,” Trump said in a series of tweets.
….happen again. Just like we can’t let large scale Mail-In Ballots take root in our Country. It would be a free for all on cheating, forgery and the theft of Ballots. Whoever cheated the most would win. Likewise, Social Media. Clean up your act, NOW!!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 27, 2020
Weeks ago, anonymously sourced reports claimed that the White House was considering a panel to investigate anti-conservative bias on popular social media platforms and across Silicon Valley, an issue that has been explored in a series of Congressional hearings involving top officials at the biggest tech firms.
* * *
Shortly after Twitter announced it would start “fact-checking” President Trump’s tweets, yet more evidence has been exposed of the blatant anti-Trump bias at the most senior levels of the social media giant.
In the past we have seen Project Veritas expose the ‘fact’ behind the so-called ‘conspiracy theory’ of shadow-banning for conservative voices on Twitter.
A former Twitter software engineer who explains how/why Twitter “shadow bans” certain users:
Abhinav Vadrevu : “One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting but no one sees their content.” “So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it. I don’t know if Twitter does this anymore.”
Meanwhile, Olinda Hassan, a Policy Manager for Twitter’s Trust and Safety team explains on December 15th, 2017 at a Twitter holiday party that the development of a system of “down ranking” “shitty people” is in the works:
“Yeah. That’s something we’re working on. It’s something we’re working on. We’re trying to get the shitty people to not show up. It’s a product thing we’re working on right now.”
Then there is the company’s associate General Counsel, Jeff Rich (his LinkedIn page is here) who in January urged his 1,500 followers to “cull” and “excise” the “cancerous” president Trump from the herd.
YES!! Again, this 👇 Excise the Trump cancer, then deliberate over policy differences. He is the single most destructive force against our system of government, way of life and American values EVER! He must be culled from the herd. ASAP! https://t.co/MVfdAylV2H — Jeff Rich (@jeffrich) February 1, 2020
One wonders, Rich, does this violate Twitter’s “Abuse and harassment” rules?
And more recently expressed his biased opinion:
BAHAHAHA!! I love how this perfectly accurate ad has gotten under his thin, orange skin. What a small, pathetic, weak person he is. Such a sad, neglected child. https://t.co/4xNooiJx1a — Jeff Rich (@jeffrich) May 5, 2020
And now, as Jonathan Turley details below, the latest controversy concerns the person who has said that he is in charge of “developing and enforcing Twitter’s rules,” Twitter’s “Head of Site Integrity” Yoel Roth. Critics have highlighted fairly extreme postings from Roth calling Trump and his supporters Nazis. I do not agree that the problem is Roth’s personal views or postings. The problem is his role and the rules at Twitter.
The problem is anyone exercising this power of speech regulation. Indeed, as this controversy grew around Roth, Kathy Griffin is the latest poster to face calls for removal for effectively calling for Trump to kill himself. Again, Griffin should be allowed to post such hateful thoughts and the rest of the world should be allowed to denounce her, again, for her unhinged humor.
Roth has attacked Bernie Sanders supporters and proclaimed how he is working against Trump. He compared senior Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. He has referred to Trump and his team as “ACTUAL NAZIS” and called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a “personality-free bag of farts.” As Fox noted, “last August, Twitter suspended McConnell’s Twitter account, prompting the GOP to threaten to cut off advertising on the site until Twitter relented.”
This person is the “head of site integrity” at Twitter pic.twitter.com/hyZcl5VIe0 — Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) May 27, 2020
The attacks are numerous, raw, and offensive. However, conservatives calling for him to be fired or his tweets censored are reaching the wrong conclusion.
The problem is not Roth but his role. He has a right to express himself. I have no problem with Twitter hiring people with such political views and I believe it is a good thing for people to express themselves on social media. Indeed, we have discussed the free speech concerns as private and public employers punish workers for their statements or actions in their private lives. We have addressed an array of such incidents, including social media controversies involving academics. In some cases, racially charged comments have been treated as free speech while in others they have resulted in discipline or termination. It is that lack of a consistent standard that has magnified free speech concerns. We have previously discussed the issue of when it is appropriate to punishment people for conduct outside of the work place. We have followed cases where people have been fired after boorish or insulting conduct once their names and employers are made known. (here and here and here and here and here and here).
Roth’s comments highlight how bias is always a concern for those who take it upon themselves to decide who can speak or who must be “corrected” in communications with others. Twitter is notorious for a lack of consistency and coherence in the enforcement of its rules. However, regardless of such enforcement, there remains a core free speech issue in the regulation of speech. I recently criticized the calls of Democratic leaders like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff for greater censorship of the Internet and social media. Such calls have been growing for years but leaders like Schiff are citing the pandemic as a basis for speech monitoring and censorship. Roth is merely the personification of the problem of such speech regulation. Again, the real problem is his role and Twitter’s rules.
“He leads the teams responsible for developing and enforcing Twitter’s rules” pic.twitter.com/OdBTqlInDZ — Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) May 27, 2020


newswars--2020-05-27--It’s Immoral to Confine Innocent People Who Might Be a Threat

A few weeks ago I presented a libertarian take on the ethics of the lockdown .
Following Murray Rothbard in his Ethics of Liberty , I argued that the government has no right to confine or quarantine innocent people , even though it might lengthen some lives .
The government is not the just owner of the streets .
Rather citizens or taxpayers are , and consequently have the right to use their streets .
Moreover , anyone is innocent until proven guilty and can not just be assumed to intentionally be infecting others with a deadly virus .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moral high ground and maintain that it is unethical to leave one ’ s house during the corona epidemic .
Their argument is that by leaving one ’ s house one could contribute to the transmission of a deadly virus .
People can be confined during a pandemic such as the present one , because they are ( potential ) aggressors .
Anyone could unknowingly carry the virus and transmit it , and therefore poses a potential threat to the health of others .
My reply is that preemptive violence can not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential aggressor .
One must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that someone is infected and wants to infect others .
It is unethical to use defensive violence without having proven an imminent attack .
The question of street use is easier in a free society .
As everything is private property in a free society , owners would establish rules for the use of their property , including streets .
Note that people in their right minds would secure access rights before buying or renting a property and could not simply be denied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an epidemic .
As long as streets are not fully privatized , however , the question remains : Should there be any restriction on the use of streets for their owners , the citizens ?
It seems reasonable not to allow negligent behavior when it endangers the private property of others , such as other street users .
For example , a drunk driver who is not in control of his car and does not keep a prudent distance could be considered to be acting negligently , and it seems to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Applying this reasoning to the corona epidemic , someone who is infected with the virus and does not keep far enough away from others or sneezes in the street without covering could be asked to take precautions or be sent back to his property .
What is clearly unjust and disproportionate is to prohibit everyone from driving because of the mere possibility of negligent driving , or to quarantine everyone because there ’ s a risk of infection .
To make the point more pronounced I will apply this reasoning to a useful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone aiming a deadly arrow at a tree on his property .
The assumption is that if he misses his target , the arrow will fly into his neighbor ’ s property , possibly hurting innocent people .
Is shooting the arrow negligent behavior that should be stopped ?
Depending on the exact circumstances , so it seems .
However , it does not justify quarantining the general population .
First of all , not everyone owns a bow and arrow .
Similarly , today not everyone has the virus and can “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not everyone who owns a “ bow and arrow ” ( is infected ) “ shoots ” ( spreads germs ) negligently in the direction of their neighbors .
If confining everyone because they could become infected , and in addition could act negligently , is justified in the case of the epidemic , one can make an analogous argument in the case of the bow and arrow : anyone could in principle purchase a bow and arrow and could in principle shoot arrows negligently .
Hence , anyone is a potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be locked up in their homes .
Or , alternatively , the sale of bows and arrows must be prohibited .
However , this clearly violates private property rights .
The violators of private property rights , far from occupying the moral high ground , must be considered criminals .
If we allow the use of violence against innocent people because they are a potential risk or threat to others , then there will be virtually no limit to the coercion that can be justified .
For instance , in World War II @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps , because these citizens were assumed to be a threat .
They were expected to commit acts of sabotage killing innocent people .
Possibly these acts of sabotage would encourage others to copy these acts , leading to more and more acts of sabotage and the loss of the war .
Even if we grant that there was a higher risk that US citizens of Japanese ancestry would commit such acts , this does not justify the internment of innocent people .
One must prove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act of sabotage .
The proof must be presented for each individual .
Responsibility is individual , never collective .
If we allow violence based on collective guilt , there is no limit to violence .
Why not , as a preemptive measure , lock up ethnic groups that have had a higher probability of committing crimes in the past than other groups ?
When we allow violence against someone who is considered a threat based on statistics , there is no limit to violence .
And what about other infectious diseases ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an aggressive act , what about infecting others with the flu or a mild cold .
A mild cold can develop into a severe problem for someone with a weak immune system .
These are just differences of degree .
If one of these instances is an aggression and immoral , the others are , too .
What is a fair punishment for someone who spreads a cold ?
Shall we quarantine the whole population every winter because thousands die from the flu ?
If we follow this reasoning , there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole population all the time ?
It saves lives ( or could save at least some lives in the short run ) .
There always exists a risk that someone will catch a new , unknown virus , let ’ s say COVID-20 , and will infect others , becoming an “ aggressor.
” Following this reasoning , anyone is a potential threat to anyone else—just by being alive and in contact with others , because he may spread bacteria and viruses .
There is no limit to this reasoning .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we do not control completely .
Unfortunately , accidents also occur .
Life is risky .
Let ’ s suppose that a driver ’ s tire was punctured on the highway , leading to an accident that hurt others .
The person was a careful driver whose car had recently passed inspection .
What happened was not due to the driver ’ s negligence , but an accident .
It certainly does not justify prohibiting all driving .
Is the transmission of a cold , flu , or the coronavirus not often more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act ?
If we can not prohibit driving because of the possibility of accidents , we can not quarantine people because they could accidently spread a cold or flu .
Let us take another scenario from driving .
What if someone tries to cross a highway on foot or in a wheelchair and is hit ?
Is the solution to oblige everyone to drive five miles per hour on highways from then on because there exists the possibility that someone in a wheelchair might try to cross and could get hurt ?
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for those who are in danger of being hit , or for them to find safer paths to their destinations .
In the case of the corona epidemic , older people with preexisting illnesses can take precautionary measures and isolate themselves if they want to .
If we allow violence to be employed against innocent people because someone else may benefit from it , there is no limit to the violence that can be employed .
In sum , just the possibility of an “ aggression ” does not justify the violation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until proven otherwise .
Violence against innocent people is unethical .
Once we allow aggression against innocent people , such as a lockdown or general quarantine , we are on a slippery slope with no limits .

A few weeks ago I presented a libertarian take on the ethics of the lockdown.
Following Murray Rothbard in his Ethics of Liberty, I argued that the government has no right to confine or quarantine innocent people, even though it might lengthen some lives. The government is not the just owner of the streets. Rather citizens or taxpayers are, and consequently have the right to use their streets. Moreover, anyone is innocent until proven guilty and cannot just be assumed to intentionally be infecting others with a deadly virus.
However, there are some who claim the moral high ground and maintain that it is unethical to leave one’s house during the corona epidemic. Their argument is that by leaving one’s house one could contribute to the transmission of a deadly virus. People can be confined during a pandemic such as the present one, because they are (potential) aggressors. Anyone could unknowingly carry the virus and transmit it, and therefore poses a potential threat to the health of others.
My reply is that preemptive violence cannot be justified against someone who is just a potential aggressor. One must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that someone is infected and wants to infect others. It is unethical to use defensive violence without having proven an imminent attack.
The question of street use is easier in a free society. As everything is private property in a free society, owners would establish rules for the use of their property, including streets. Note that people in their right minds would secure access rights before buying or renting a property and could not simply be denied access to or egress from their property in an epidemic.
As long as streets are not fully privatized, however, the question remains: Should there be any restriction on the use of streets for their owners, the citizens? It seems reasonable not to allow negligent behavior when it endangers the private property of others, such as other street users.
For example, a drunk driver who is not in control of his car and does not keep a prudent distance could be considered to be acting negligently, and it seems to be justified to pull this driver over. Applying this reasoning to the corona epidemic, someone who is infected with the virus and does not keep far enough away from others or sneezes in the street without covering could be asked to take precautions or be sent back to his property. What is clearly unjust and disproportionate is to prohibit everyone from driving because of the mere possibility of negligent driving, or to quarantine everyone because there’s a risk of infection.
To make the point more pronounced I will apply this reasoning to a useful example provided by Walter Block: imagine someone aiming a deadly arrow at a tree on his property. The assumption is that if he misses his target, the arrow will fly into his neighbor’s property, possibly hurting innocent people. Is shooting the arrow negligent behavior that should be stopped? Depending on the exact circumstances, so it seems. However, it does not justify quarantining the general population. First of all, not everyone owns a bow and arrow. Similarly, today not everyone has the virus and can “shoot” it at others. Second, not everyone who owns a “bow and arrow” (is infected) “shoots” (spreads germs) negligently in the direction of their neighbors.
If confining everyone because they could become infected, and in addition could act negligently, is justified in the case of the epidemic, one can make an analogous argument in the case of the bow and arrow: anyone could in principle purchase a bow and arrow and could in principle shoot arrows negligently. Hence, anyone is a potential “arrow threat” and everyone must be locked up in their homes. Or, alternatively, the sale of bows and arrows must be prohibited. However, this clearly violates private property rights. The violators of private property rights, far from occupying the moral high ground, must be considered criminals.
If we allow the use of violence against innocent people because they are a potential risk or threat to others, then there will be virtually no limit to the coercion that can be justified. For instance, in World War II the US government interned Japanese people and US citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps, because these citizens were assumed to be a threat. They were expected to commit acts of sabotage killing innocent people. Possibly these acts of sabotage would encourage others to copy these acts, leading to more and more acts of sabotage and the loss of the war. Even if we grant that there was a higher risk that US citizens of Japanese ancestry would commit such acts, this does not justify the internment of innocent people. One must prove that someone is planning to commit an act of sabotage. The proof must be presented for each individual. Responsibility is individual, never collective. If we allow violence based on collective guilt, there is no limit to violence.
Why not, as a preemptive measure, lock up ethnic groups that have had a higher probability of committing crimes in the past than other groups? When we allow violence against someone who is considered a threat based on statistics, there is no limit to violence.
And what about other infectious diseases? If infecting others with the coronavirus is an aggressive act, what about infecting others with the flu or a mild cold. A mild cold can develop into a severe problem for someone with a weak immune system. These are just differences of degree. If one of these instances is an aggression and immoral, the others are, too. What is a fair punishment for someone who spreads a cold? Shall we quarantine the whole population every winter because thousands die from the flu? If we follow this reasoning, there is no limit to violence.
Why not confine the whole population all the time? It saves lives (or could save at least some lives in the short run). There always exists a risk that someone will catch a new, unknown virus, let’s say COVID-20, and will infect others, becoming an “aggressor.” Following this reasoning, anyone is a potential threat to anyone else—just by being alive and in contact with others, because he may spread bacteria and viruses. There is no limit to this reasoning.
We live in nature and with things that we do not control completely. Unfortunately, accidents also occur. Life is risky. Let’s suppose that a driver’s tire was punctured on the highway, leading to an accident that hurt others. The person was a careful driver whose car had recently passed inspection. What happened was not due to the driver’s negligence, but an accident. It certainly does not justify prohibiting all driving. Is the transmission of a cold, flu, or the coronavirus not often more akin to an accident than a criminal act? If we cannot prohibit driving because of the possibility of accidents, we cannot quarantine people because they could accidently spread a cold or flu.
Let us take another scenario from driving. What if someone tries to cross a highway on foot or in a wheelchair and is hit? Is the solution to oblige everyone to drive five miles per hour on highways from then on because there exists the possibility that someone in a wheelchair might try to cross and could get hurt? It makes more sense to create a crossing for those who are in danger of being hit, or for them to find safer paths to their destinations. In the case of the corona epidemic, older people with preexisting illnesses can take precautionary measures and isolate themselves if they want to. If we allow violence to be employed against innocent people because someone else may benefit from it, there is no limit to the violence that can be employed.
In sum, just the possibility of an “aggression” does not justify the violation of private property rights. Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. Violence against innocent people is unethical. Once we allow aggression against innocent people, such as a lockdown or general quarantine, we are on a slippery slope with no limits.