newswars--2020-04-17--Russia & Saudi Arabia ready to make deeper joint OPEC+ output cuts to boost oil prices

Oil prices continue to plummet despite a deal by major producers to cut crude production by 9.7 million barrels per day .
Further reductions may be necessary to meet falling demand amid global Covid-19 shutdowns .
Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak and his Saudi counterpart Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said in a joint statement on Friday they will “ continue to closely monitor the oil market and are prepared to take further measures jointly with OPEC+ and other producers if these are deemed necessary.
” According to the Russian Energy Ministry , both countries are firmly committed to fulfilling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Russia and Saudi Arabia are also confident that their partners in OPEC+ and other producers will fulfill the undertaken commitments , ” the ministry said after a phone call between the two officials .
Bin Salman said earlier that the kingdom is ready to cut oil production further if needed when the OPEC+ alliance meets again in June .
“ Flexibility and pragmatism will enable us to continue to do more if we have to , ” he said .
State-run oil major Saudi Aramco announced that it would supply customers with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May 1 .
That is almost four million a day below planned sales in April .
OPEC warned on Thursday that even full implementation of the cuts won ’ t prevent a surplus in the second quarter , when demand for its crude will fall to the lowest in three decades .
“ The Saudis and Russians are being proactive in providing forward policy guidance in an effort to reassure markets that they mean business when it comes to reducing their output , ” head of commodity markets strategy at BNP Paribas SA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its allies have been trying to hammer out an accord since their March failure to introduce new output cuts .
The OPEC+ agreement that has been in place for around three years expired at the end of March and Saudi Arabia ramped up its production to a record high of more than 12 million barrels per day .
Crude prices have been affected by the coronavirus pandemic which has greatly reduced the demand for oil , creating a global oversupply .
Despite the finalized accord , oil prices hit a fresh 18-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WTI down almost 10 percent below $ 18 a barrel .
Brent gained slightly to $ 28 per barrel .

Oil prices continue to plummet despite a deal by major producers to cut crude production by 9.7 million barrels per day. Further reductions may be necessary to meet falling demand amid global Covid-19 shutdowns.
Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak and his Saudi counterpart Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said in a joint statement on Friday they will “continue to closely monitor the oil market and are prepared to take further measures jointly with OPEC+ and other producers if these are deemed necessary.”
According to the Russian Energy Ministry, both countries are firmly committed to fulfilling the OPEC+ deal on cutting oil output.
“Russia and Saudi Arabia are also confident that their partners in OPEC+ and other producers will fulfill the undertaken commitments,” the ministry said after a phone call between the two officials.
Bin Salman said earlier that the kingdom is ready to cut oil production further if needed when the OPEC+ alliance meets again in June. “Flexibility and pragmatism will enable us to continue to do more if we have to,” he said. State-run oil major Saudi Aramco announced that it would supply customers with 8.5 million barrels a day as of May 1. That is almost four million a day below planned sales in April.
OPEC warned on Thursday that even full implementation of the cuts won’t prevent a surplus in the second quarter, when demand for its crude will fall to the lowest in three decades.
“The Saudis and Russians are being proactive in providing forward policy guidance in an effort to reassure markets that they mean business when it comes to reducing their output,” head of commodity markets strategy at BNP Paribas SA, Harry Tchilinguirian told Bloomberg.
OPEC and its allies have been trying to hammer out an accord since their March failure to introduce new output cuts. The OPEC+ agreement that has been in place for around three years expired at the end of March and Saudi Arabia ramped up its production to a record high of more than 12 million barrels per day.
Crude prices have been affected by the coronavirus pandemic which has greatly reduced the demand for oil, creating a global oversupply. Despite the finalized accord, oil prices hit a fresh 18-year low on Friday, with US benchmark WTI down almost 10 percent below $18 a barrel. Brent gained slightly to $28 per barrel.


newswars--2020-04-17--Anthony Fauci Only Knows His Narrow Field of Expertise

As the COVID-19 shutdown across the US continues , one can not but help see the importance of specialization and the division of labor time and time again , as many Americans deal with true shortages of goods for the first time in their lives .
Specialization has allowed us to enjoy a much more prosperous life than we would were we all to do everything ourselves .
However , as with everything in this imperfect world , specialization comes with certain tradeoffs that are important to understand .
As the unemployment numbers continue to rise by millions more every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and as our highly organized society slides into chaos it is important to understand the way in which an unbalanced intellectual specialization has contributed to bringing about the current crisis .
In his 1930 book The Revolt of the Masses , Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset addresses what he considers to be a strange byproduct of the prevalence of specialization in everything , specifically the intellectual sphere .
“ Previously , ” he writes , “ men could be divided simply into the learned and the ignorant , those more or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or less the other.
” Now , however , a new kind of person has emerged , “ an extraordinarily strange kind of man , ” who can not be called “ learned for he is formally ignorant of all that does not enter into his specialty , ” yet at the same time can not be considered “ ignorant because he is ‘ a scientist ’ who ‘ knows ’ very well his own tiny portion of the universe.
” Thus , Ortega y Gasset says that the only fitting name for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignoramus.
” There can be no doubt that numerous learned ignoramuses can be found in all parts of society , but most importantly they are very clearly involved in the response to the COVID-19 virus , as sweeping calls for months of lockdown make clear .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and seen by many as the face of the federal virus response , has perhaps made the most ridiculous assertion , stating at a White House briefing on April 1 that “ we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s ‘ no new cases , no deaths , ’ but the real turning point won ’ t come until there ’ s a vaccine.
” Similarly , Dr. Zeke Emanuel , an architect of Obamacare and current advisor to Joe Biden , declared that it will be impossible to return to “ normalcy ” for eighteen months and that no matter the economic cost : “ The truth is we have no choice….We can not return to normal until there ’ s a vaccine.
” Such ideas are frankly madness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the health and wealth of all Americans .
Tens of millions of Americans find themselves out of work or with reduced hours or pay .
The idea that society could continue to exist in such a state betrays a lack of any understanding of the social order .
Smithfield Foods is shutting down a meat processing plant that produces 4 to 5 percent of all the pork in the entire country , and its CEO warned that “ the closure of this facility , combined with a growing list of other protein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is pushing our country perilously close to the edge in terms of our meat supply .
It is impossible to keep our grocery stores stocked if our plants are not running.
” Mass unemployment will inevitably lead to an increase in suicide and substance abuse and the stay-at-home orders have already led to increased domestic violence .
New instances of outrageous police conduct in the name of enforcing lockdowns emerge everyday .
It is no exaggeration to say that in eighteen months there would likely not be any society left to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could suggest such an obviously catastrophic course of action .
Those plebeians who dare to question “ experts ” such as Fauci and Emanuel are lectured to listen to their betters , who use “ science ” to understand the situation and are far more knowledgeable .
In other words , “ stay in your lane.
” Yet such critics miss their glaring contradiction .
Public health officials certainly have a role to play , but they themselves are not experts at everything .
By definition , they do not fully understand the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weighed and balanced , and they , of course , are lacking in the local dispersed knowledge needed to make such decisions .
Yet that does not stop them from making declarations dripping with arrogance , such as Fauci ’ s assessment of the implosion of the economy and the resulting unemployment and hardship as being merely “ inconvenient from an economic and a personal standpoint.
” As Ortega y Gasset pointed out , learned ignoramuses are “ ignorant , not in the fashion of the ignorant man , but with all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own special line.
” The phenomenon of the learned ignoramus can be seen in every field and at all levels of intellectual life and popular punditry .
However , the current crisis reveals the damage such “ experts ” can wreak upon civilization itself .
Ortega y Gasset fully recognized the important role that specialization has in making modern life possible ; however , he calls for a balanced intellectual specialization , in contrast to the unbalanced status quo that he fears threatens the advancement of scientific discovery itself .
Two such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ von Mises and F.A .
Hayek ; although economists , they could be more accurately called social thinkers whose work encompassed far more than that of the typical economist today .
Rather than insular , unbalanced specialization , Mises argued that “ He who wants to achieve anything in praxeology must be conversant with mathematics , physics , biology , history , and jurisprudence.
” Hayek similarly warned that “ Unless you really know your economics or whatever your special field is , you will be simply a fraud .
But if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you will be a bane to mankind , good , perhaps , for writing articles for other economists to read , but for nothing else.
” Undoubtedly , the entire situation would look entirely different from the chaotic disruptive mess it is now if our public health officials and social scientists were trained in the mold of Mises and Hayek .
Whereas both men stressed the complex and ultimately fragile nature of the social order , and therefore the need for broad understanding of this complexity , the learned ignoramus , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes that civilization is there in just the same way as the earth ’ s crust and the forest primeval.
” Every time the “ experts ” demand that life be halted into the indeterminate future , they vindicate Ortega y Gasset ’ s observation that the learned ignoramuses are ignorant of the very nature of the social order itself and are therefore a menace to its preservation .
This crisis demonstrates how prescient Ortega y Gasset ’ s warning was .
Hopefully it is not too late to prevent a true societal @ @

As the COVID-19 shutdown across the US continues, one cannot but help see the importance of specialization and the division of labor time and time again, as many Americans deal with true shortages of goods for the first time in their lives.
Specialization has allowed us to enjoy a much more prosperous life than we would were we all to do everything ourselves. However, as with everything in this imperfect world, specialization comes with certain tradeoffs that are important to understand. As the unemployment numbers continue to rise by millions more every week, as meager savings are eliminated, and as our highly organized society slides into chaos it is important to understand the way in which an unbalanced intellectual specialization has contributed to bringing about the current crisis.
In his 1930 book The Revolt of the Masses, Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset addresses what he considers to be a strange byproduct of the prevalence of specialization in everything, specifically the intellectual sphere. “Previously,” he writes, “men could be divided simply into the learned and the ignorant, those more or less the one, and those more or less the other.” Now, however, a new kind of person has emerged, “an extraordinarily strange kind of man,” who cannot be called “learned for he is formally ignorant of all that does not enter into his specialty,” yet at the same time cannot be considered “ignorant because he is ‘a scientist’ who ‘knows’ very well his own tiny portion of the universe.” Thus, Ortega y Gasset says that the only fitting name for such a person is a “learned ignoramus.”
There can be no doubt that numerous learned ignoramuses can be found in all parts of society, but most importantly they are very clearly involved in the response to the COVID-19 virus, as sweeping calls for months of lockdown make clear.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and seen by many as the face of the federal virus response, has perhaps made the most ridiculous assertion, stating at a White House briefing on April 1 that “we could ‘relax social distancing’ once there’s ‘no new cases, no deaths,’ but the real turning point won’t come until there’s a vaccine.” Similarly, Dr. Zeke Emanuel, an architect of Obamacare and current advisor to Joe Biden, declared that it will be impossible to return to “normalcy” for eighteen months and that no matter the economic cost: “The truth is we have no choice….We cannot return to normal until there’s a vaccine.”
Such ideas are frankly madness, and would take an incalculable toll on the health and wealth of all Americans. Tens of millions of Americans find themselves out of work or with reduced hours or pay. The idea that society could continue to exist in such a state betrays a lack of any understanding of the social order.
Smithfield Foods is shutting down a meat processing plant that produces 4 to 5 percent of all the pork in the entire country, and its CEO warned that “the closure of this facility, combined with a growing list of other protein plants that have shuttered across our industry, is pushing our country perilously close to the edge in terms of our meat supply. It is impossible to keep our grocery stores stocked if our plants are not running.”
Mass unemployment will inevitably lead to an increase in suicide and substance abuse and the stay-at-home orders have already led to increased domestic violence. New instances of outrageous police conduct in the name of enforcing lockdowns emerge everyday. It is no exaggeration to say that in eighteen months there would likely not be any society left to “reopen.”
Truly, only learned ignoramuses could suggest such an obviously catastrophic course of action. Those plebeians who dare to question “experts” such as Fauci and Emanuel are lectured to listen to their betters, who use “science” to understand the situation and are far more knowledgeable. In other words, “stay in your lane.” Yet such critics miss their glaring contradiction. Public health officials certainly have a role to play, but they themselves are not experts at everything. By definition, they do not fully understand the other consequences and considerations that must be weighed and balanced, and they, of course, are lacking in the local dispersed knowledge needed to make such decisions. Yet that does not stop them from making declarations dripping with arrogance, such as Fauci’s assessment of the implosion of the economy and the resulting unemployment and hardship as being merely “inconvenient from an economic and a personal standpoint.” As Ortega y Gasset pointed out, learned ignoramuses are “ignorant, not in the fashion of the ignorant man, but with all the petulance of one who is learned in his own special line.”
The phenomenon of the learned ignoramus can be seen in every field and at all levels of intellectual life and popular punditry. However, the current crisis reveals the damage such “experts” can wreak upon civilization itself.
Ortega y Gasset fully recognized the important role that specialization has in making modern life possible; however, he calls for a balanced intellectual specialization, in contrast to the unbalanced status quo that he fears threatens the advancement of scientific discovery itself. Two such balanced intellectuals are without a doubt Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek; although economists, they could be more accurately called social thinkers whose work encompassed far more than that of the typical economist today.
Rather than insular, unbalanced specialization, Mises argued that “He who wants to achieve anything in praxeology must be conversant with mathematics, physics, biology, history, and jurisprudence.” Hayek similarly warned that “Unless you really know your economics or whatever your special field is, you will be simply a fraud. But if you know only economics and nothing else, you will be a bane to mankind, good, perhaps, for writing articles for other economists to read, but for nothing else.”
Undoubtedly, the entire situation would look entirely different from the chaotic disruptive mess it is now if our public health officials and social scientists were trained in the mold of Mises and Hayek. Whereas both men stressed the complex and ultimately fragile nature of the social order, and therefore the need for broad understanding of this complexity, the learned ignoramus, in the words of Ortega y Gasset, “believes that civilization is there in just the same way as the earth’s crust and the forest primeval.”
Every time the “experts” demand that life be halted into the indeterminate future, they vindicate Ortega y Gasset’s observation that the learned ignoramuses are ignorant of the very nature of the social order itself and are therefore a menace to its preservation. This crisis demonstrates how prescient Ortega y Gasset’s warning was. Hopefully it is not too late to prevent a true societal catastrophe.


newswars--2020-04-17--More Tornados Expected For South This Weekend

Severe thunderstorms and tornadoes are expected for much of the South on Sunday , including areas that are still recovering from last weekend ’ s deadly storm .
“ The highest probability will be on Sunday across many of the same areas that saw severe weather on Easter , ” CNN meteorologist Dave Hennen said .
“ This storm will be similar , but not as strong.
” About 105 tornadoes were spotted across the South during Easter weekend .
The devastating storms resulted in at least 32 deaths , and dozens of homes and buildings ripped apart across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 million people on the East Coast were under a tornado watch .
At the time of the storms , the National Weather Service ( NWS ) Eastern Region tweeted a map of the most heavily impacted areas .
Hennen says this weekend ’ s storm will develop in East Texas on Saturday night and early Sunday , with potential for large hail , damaging winds , and tornados .
The storm will trek east throughout the day .
“ Tornadoes will be possible , but this time the ingredients will favor strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” CNN meteorologist Taylor Ward says .
The most high-risk regions for severe weather on Sunday will be North Louisiana , Southern Mississippi , Alabama , and West Georgia .
Since the ground is mostly saturated from last weekend ’ s storm , there ’ s an elevated risk of flooding in the South on Sunday .
NOAA ’ s Weather Prediction Center shows rain totals for southern states could be exceptionally high in Alabama and Georgia through Monday .
By Monday afternoon , the system is expected to move off the Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts of leftists to oppose Trump at every turn to steer America into tyranny .

Severe thunderstorms and tornadoes are expected for much of the South on Sunday, including areas that are still recovering from last weekend’s deadly storm.
“The highest probability will be on Sunday across many of the same areas that saw severe weather on Easter,” CNN meteorologist Dave Hennen said. “This storm will be similar, but not as strong.”
About 105 tornadoes were spotted across the South during Easter weekend.
The devastating storms resulted in at least 32 deaths, and dozens of homes and buildings ripped apart across the South. At one point, nearly 25 million people on the East Coast were under a tornado watch.
These tornadoes were BAD. This is from my sister’s live. I don’t own this. I’m not selling it. Please do not contact me about using it. I’m not giving out her name. I just want people to know what’s going on in the South. #Mississippi #tornado pic.twitter.com/ERgtiOoIIG — Carole Baskin Hate Account (@theori) April 13, 2020
“My boy’s house gone, man.” Shocking footage shows significant damage done to homes in a neighborhood of Monroe, Louisiana after a suspected tornado tore through the area. https://t.co/TiQP7vbu28 pic.twitter.com/nSVJAqsNAx — ABC News (@ABC) April 12, 2020
At the time of the storms, the National Weather Service (NWS) Eastern Region tweeted a map of the most heavily impacted areas.
Updated severe thunderstorm reports from Sunday-Sunday night, and Monday as of 6 pm. Wind reports are from thunderstorms only…not including gusts/damage reports from winds not associated with thunderstorms. NWS storm surveys are ongoing, and will continue for most of the week. pic.twitter.com/ZYAbvfc1sU — NWS Eastern Region (@NWSEastern) April 13, 2020
Hennen says this weekend’s storm will develop in East Texas on Saturday night and early Sunday, with potential for large hail, damaging winds, and tornados.
The storm will trek east throughout the day. “Tornadoes will be possible, but this time the ingredients will favor strong winds as the most prevalent threat,” CNN meteorologist Taylor Ward says.
The most high-risk regions for severe weather on Sunday will be North Louisiana, Southern Mississippi, Alabama, and West Georgia.
There is an Enhanced Risk level (3/5) for Day 4 Sunday April 19th across portions of the Southeast. Damaging Wind gusts and tornadoes will be the main hazards. For more information and later updates please visit https://t.co/DFvb0t7WMD #TXwx #LAwx #MSwx #GAwx #SCwx pic.twitter.com/uCmmDuRPeS — NWS SPC (@NWSSPC) April 16, 2020
Since the ground is mostly saturated from last weekend’s storm, there’s an elevated risk of flooding in the South on Sunday.
NOAA’s Weather Prediction Center shows rain totals for southern states could be exceptionally high in Alabama and Georgia through Monday.
A MODERATE risk is in effect in our Day 3 Excessive Rainfall Outlook. More details: https://t.co/FQU5sb4jjg pic.twitter.com/q3jQt84l3d — NWS WPC (@NWSWPC) April 17, 2020
By Monday afternoon, the system is expected to move off the Carolina coast.
Alex Jones breaks down the efforts of leftists to oppose Trump at every turn to steer America into tyranny.


newswars--2020-04-17--MSNBC Host: Biden Should Form A “Shadow Government” & “Shadow SWAT Team”

MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle openly called for Joe Biden to form secretive teams to oppose President Trump on Thursday .
Speaking to former Obama White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina , Ruhle criticized Trump ’ s “ clown show ” press conferences and praised former Vice President Joe Biden .
“ What did you just call it , ‘ the president ’ s daily clown show ?
’ That ’ s his press briefing ?
Should Joe Biden be counter-programming that ?
” she asked .
“ Should he be creating his own shadow government , shadow cabinet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up there at a podium every night saying here ’ s the crisis we ’ re in , here ’ s what we need to do to address this ?
” So , here is a nationally televised “ news ” anchor calling for the secretive overthrow of the Trump administration .
Also , what exactly would a “ shadow SWAT team ” be used for ?
Is Ruhle calling for Joe Biden to oversee a physical coup ?
The catch is that a shadow government has already been established with Barack Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply another pawn of the reticent cabal .
NBC published an article in March 2020 titled , “ Looking for Obama ’ s Hidden Hand in Candidates Coalescing Around Biden , ” and Rep. Mike Kelly ( R-Pa. ) and Fox host Lou Dobbs have both accused Obama of running a “ shadow government .
”

MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle openly called for Joe Biden to form secretive teams to oppose President Trump on Thursday.
Speaking to former Obama White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, Ruhle criticized Trump’s “clown show” press conferences and praised former Vice President Joe Biden.
“What did you just call it, ‘the president’s daily clown show?’ That’s his press briefing? Should Joe Biden be counter-programming that?” she asked.
“Should he be creating his own shadow government, shadow cabinet, shadow SWAT team? And gearing up there at a podium every night saying here’s the crisis we’re in, here’s what we need to do to address this?”
So, here is a nationally televised “news” anchor calling for the secretive overthrow of the Trump administration.
Also, what exactly would a “shadow SWAT team” be used for?
Is Ruhle calling for Joe Biden to oversee a physical coup?
The catch is that a shadow government has already been established with Barack Obama at the helm and Joe Biden is simply another pawn of the reticent cabal.
NBC published an article in March 2020 titled, “Looking for Obama’s Hidden Hand in Candidates Coalescing Around Biden,” and Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) and Fox host Lou Dobbs have both accused Obama of running a “shadow government.”


newswars--2020-04-17--Governments Make Us More Vulnerable in a Pandemic

This article focuses on Canada , but the analysis applies in every country to varying degrees , and in most countries to a very significant degree .
Even before COVID-19 , Canada ’ s socialized healthcare system was characterized by a decades-long failure to make good on a government promise “ to make sure that people could get care when it was needed without regard to other considerations.
” Hundreds ( possibly thousands ) of Canadians die each year because they have universal access to waiting lists , but not to actual healthcare .
It is within this context that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ draconian response to the coronavirus pandemic : quarantine orders and business closures enforced by the jackboot of government , which is less concerned about the total number of infections and deaths than it is with spreading those numbers out over a long period .
This attempt to flatten the curve to avoid suffocating a healthcare system that was already on life support will likely have the following consequences : • More deaths due to longer waiting lists for non-COVID-19 care • Stress , anxiety , and despair for millions who are now unemployed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for millions who are in isolation • More substance abuse , crime , suicides , homicides , child abuse , domestic violence , divorces , and cardiovascular disease due to the effects of unemployment and isolation Dr. Roger McIntyre , a psychiatrist and professor at the University of Toronto noted : If you are shocked by the extent to which Canada ’ s various governments have shut down the economy with the onset of COVID-19 , you should be more shocked by how much they shut it down before COVID-19 .
For many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies have prevented the vast majority of Canadians from earning substantially higher employment income , which would have put them in a far better position to withstand the economic and financial impact of the current pandemic .
How much income has been denied to Canadians ?
There is no Canadian study on the subject , but a US study will suffice , because Canada and the United States have similar regulatory environments .
The amount of income that has been denied to Americans provides a good approximation for Canadians .
The US study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of which I have previously written , estimates that in 2011 , each US household was legally denied the opportunity to increase its income by an average of $ 277,100 ( or $ 129,300 per person ) .
This represents the amount of economic output that was prohibited by all US federal regulations implemented since 1949 .
Imagine this happening each year , because that is the reality .
Moreover , the figure of $ 277,100 captures data only at the federal level .
The figure would be higher if taking in consideration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulations at the state/city/county level .
Regulations are government rules that are intended specifically to modify the economic behavior of individuals and firms in the private sector .
Do we need these regulations ?
No .
The propaganda used to justify regulations is that the government must protect consumers .
This conveniently ignores the fact that in an environment of unfettered competition , profit-seeking firms who fail to satisfy consumers will lose those customers to competitors producing superior products .
For example , a Harvard study showed that consumers care far more about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When special interest groups ( e.g.
, a corporation or group of corporations ) lobbies the government to enact a new regulation , they are the intended beneficiaries , and they often write the regulation themselves .
Politicians promoting a new regulation also act out of self-interest , collecting rewards from the regulatory beneficiaries , such as political campaign contributions , corporate jobs after departure from political office , etc .
Regulations reduce the level of competition for the corporations that lobbied for them , because they can afford the regulatory compliance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not .
Thus , many small businesses are unable to compete , not because the entrepreneurs , managers , and workers are not good enough , but because they are compelled to obey authoritarian laws favoring large firms with more political influence .
Consequently , many entrepreneurs are forced out of business , while many others are dissuaded from starting one .
Economic production falls considerably when the regulatory state is used to eliminate competitors .
Less competition = less wealth creation , which is reflected in higher prices for consumer goods , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incomes for the 99 percent .
This does not concern the 1 percent , whose objective is to use the power of government to grab a larger slice of the smaller economic pie .
The Government Makes Us More Vulnerable The government told us that the impetus to socialized healthcare in Canada was that “ many poorer people just did not get care when it was needed.
” In an imperfect world , some people will inevitably fall through the cracks , but the claim that many poor people did not receive necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
Before the government got involved , people paid cash for routine doctor visits , prices were not outrageous , affordable private insurance was widely available for more serious health problems ( just as it was in the US ) , and poor people often received free treatment from doctors .
The crisis which the government claimed existed under private healthcare did not exist until the government created the it by socializing healthcare .
As noted above , numerous Canadians die every year waiting for the government to keep its promise .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ far more vulnerable to sickness and death , a vulnerability that has been compounded by the government ’ s response to COVID-19 .
Absent the government ’ s regulatory bureaucracy with its perverse incentives , healthcare would be private and affordable .
Moreover , if not for the government ’ s unethical propensity to favour special interest groups by limiting economic growth , the 99 percent would be much wealthier than they are today .
Thus , individuals , healthcare providers , and charitable institutions would have ample resources to stockpile personal protective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respirators , disinfectants , hand sanitizer , etc .
The cost of building and maintaining an inventory of equipment to treat a large number of people during a possible future pandemic would represent a drop in the bucket for this wealthy society .
Thus , they would be highly incentivized to make these emergency preparations .
In contrast , the Canadian government ’ s insufficient inventory increases our vulnerability to the pandemic .
The government ’ s failure to stockpile a sufficient quantity of equipment reflects an inability and lack of incentive to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the experience of recent pandemics such as SARS , swine flu , Ebola , etc .
This is a mistake unlikely to be repeated in the absence of the government ’ s regulatory bureaucracy , where individuals , healthcare providers , and charitable institutions would ( a ) learn from previous experience and ( b ) have the ability , incentive , and resources to create and implement their own emergency plans , thus reducing their reliance on counterproductive government bureaucracies .
Throughout the world , governments ’ interventionist COVID-19 policies have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here , and here .
These articles present compelling arguments against governments ’ draconian policies while recognizing the strong incentives of individuals and businesses to voluntarily adopt behavioral changes in response to perceived risk .
This is true even in our government-regulated economy .
In a non-government-regulated economy , history suggests that those still capable of producing would have sufficient wealth to further mitigate the negative economic effects of a pandemic , thereby lowering their levels of stress @ @ @ @ @ @

This article focuses on Canada, but the analysis applies in every country to varying degrees, and in most countries to a very significant degree.
Even before COVID-19, Canada’s socialized healthcare system was characterized by a decades-long failure to make good on a government promise “to make sure that people could get care when it was needed without regard to other considerations.” Hundreds (possibly thousands) of Canadians die each year because they have universal access to waiting lists, but not to actual healthcare.
It is within this context that we should consider the government’s draconian response to the coronavirus pandemic: quarantine orders and business closures enforced by the jackboot of government, which is less concerned about the total number of infections and deaths than it is with spreading those numbers out over a long period. This attempt to flatten the curve to avoid suffocating a healthcare system that was already on life support will likely have the following consequences:
More deaths due to longer waiting lists for non-COVID-19 care
Stress, anxiety, and despair for millions who are now unemployed
Stress, anxiety, and despair for millions who are in isolation
More substance abuse, crime, suicides, homicides, child abuse, domestic violence, divorces, and cardiovascular disease due to the effects of unemployment and isolation
Dr. Roger McIntyre, a psychiatrist and professor at the University of Toronto noted:
You lose your job overnight, you lose the security of your paycheque overnight. That is nothing short of an assault to your mental health and well-being. And we already know that being at work is not just a place that one takes away a paycheque, but it’s often a very important source of interpersonal connectedness. Why I find this scary is that we know from a large body of scientific literature that there’s a close relationship between so-called macro-economic indicators, like unemployment and employment, and mental health and suicide.
Prohibited Income
If you are shocked by the extent to which Canada’s various governments have shut down the economy with the onset of COVID-19, you should be more shocked by how much they shut it down before COVID-19. For many decades, the government’s interventionist policies have prevented the vast majority of Canadians from earning substantially higher employment income, which would have put them in a far better position to withstand the economic and financial impact of the current pandemic.
How much income has been denied to Canadians? There is no Canadian study on the subject, but a US study will suffice, because Canada and the United States have similar regulatory environments. The amount of income that has been denied to Americans provides a good approximation for Canadians.
The US study (see here or here), of which I have previously written, estimates that in 2011, each US household was legally denied the opportunity to increase its income by an average of $277,100 (or $129,300 per person). This represents the amount of economic output that was prohibited by all US federal regulations implemented since 1949. Imagine this happening each year, because that is the reality. Moreover, the figure of $277,100 captures data only at the federal level. The figure would be higher if taking in consideration the lower economic output due to prevailing regulations at the state/city/county level.
Regulations are government rules that are intended specifically to modify the economic behavior of individuals and firms in the private sector. Do we need these regulations? No. The propaganda used to justify regulations is that the government must protect consumers. This conveniently ignores the fact that in an environment of unfettered competition, profit-seeking firms who fail to satisfy consumers will lose those customers to competitors producing superior products. For example, a Harvard study showed that consumers care far more about reviews and prices than government-mandated licensing requirements.
When special interest groups (e.g., a corporation or group of corporations) lobbies the government to enact a new regulation, they are the intended beneficiaries, and they often write the regulation themselves. Politicians promoting a new regulation also act out of self-interest, collecting rewards from the regulatory beneficiaries, such as political campaign contributions, corporate jobs after departure from political office, etc.
Regulations reduce the level of competition for the corporations that lobbied for them, because they can afford the regulatory compliance costs but many of their competitors cannot. Thus, many small businesses are unable to compete, not because the entrepreneurs, managers, and workers are not good enough, but because they are compelled to obey authoritarian laws favoring large firms with more political influence. Consequently, many entrepreneurs are forced out of business, while many others are dissuaded from starting one.
Economic production falls considerably when the regulatory state is used to eliminate competitors. Less competition = less wealth creation, which is reflected in higher prices for consumer goods, as well as fewer jobs and lower incomes for the 99 percent. This does not concern the 1 percent, whose objective is to use the power of government to grab a larger slice of the smaller economic pie.
The Government Makes Us More Vulnerable
The government told us that the impetus to socialized healthcare in Canada was that “many poorer people just did not get care when it was needed.” In an imperfect world, some people will inevitably fall through the cracks, but the claim that many poor people did not receive necessary healthcare was a complete fabrication by the government. Before the government got involved, people paid cash for routine doctor visits, prices were not outrageous, affordable private insurance was widely available for more serious health problems (just as it was in the US), and poor people often received free treatment from doctors.
The crisis which the government claimed existed under private healthcare did not exist until the government created the it by socializing healthcare. As noted above, numerous Canadians die every year waiting for the government to keep its promise. Thus, socialized healthcare has made people far more vulnerable to sickness and death, a vulnerability that has been compounded by the government’s response to COVID-19.
Absent the government’s regulatory bureaucracy with its perverse incentives, healthcare would be private and affordable. Moreover, if not for the government’s unethical propensity to favour special interest groups by limiting economic growth, the 99 percent would be much wealthier than they are today. Thus, individuals, healthcare providers, and charitable institutions would have ample resources to stockpile personal protective equipment such as masks, gloves, respirators, disinfectants, hand sanitizer, etc. The cost of building and maintaining an inventory of equipment to treat a large number of people during a possible future pandemic would represent a drop in the bucket for this wealthy society. Thus, they would be highly incentivized to make these emergency preparations. In contrast, the Canadian government’s insufficient inventory increases our vulnerability to the pandemic.
The government’s failure to stockpile a sufficient quantity of equipment reflects an inability and lack of incentive to effectively plan for emergencies, especially given the experience of recent pandemics such as SARS, swine flu, Ebola, etc. This is a mistake unlikely to be repeated in the absence of the government’s regulatory bureaucracy, where individuals, healthcare providers, and charitable institutions would (a) learn from previous experience and (b) have the ability, incentive, and resources to create and implement their own emergency plans, thus reducing their reliance on counterproductive government bureaucracies.
Conclusion
Throughout the world, governments’ interventionist COVID-19 policies have been rightfully criticized. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. These articles present compelling arguments against governments’ draconian policies while recognizing the strong incentives of individuals and businesses to voluntarily adopt behavioral changes in response to perceived risk. This is true even in our government-regulated economy. In a non-government-regulated economy, history suggests that those still capable of producing would have sufficient wealth to further mitigate the negative economic effects of a pandemic, thereby lowering their levels of stress, anxiety, and despair.


newswars--2020-04-17--Pompeo: Nations Will Rethink Use of Huawei Amid Coronavirus Pandemic

Earlier this week , Reuters reported , citing unnamed sources , that Huawei was shifting the production of chips away from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd to Shanghai-based Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation , in anticipation of new US restrictions .
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the role China has played in the coronavirus pandemic will likely make countries rethink the use of its tech giant Huawei ’ s 5G networks .
“ I am very confident that this moment where the Chinese Communist Party failed to be transparent and open and handle data in an appropriate way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they were doing with respect to their telecom architecture , ” Pompeo told Fox Business Network .
This comes amid a report by Reuters earlier this week , which said that Chinese tech giant Huawei had started to gradually shift the production of chips away from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd ( TSMC ) to Shanghai-based Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp ( SMIC ) , in anticipation of extra restrictions from the United States .
Previously , the US media said that new restrictions had been agreed by senior US officials requiring companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selling chips using US-made technologies .
Washington imposed sanctions against Huawei last year for the first time , accusing the tech giant of cooperating with Chinese intelligence , an allegation that the company denies .
Despite US restrictions , which among other things include a ban on Google installing its Android operating system on new models of Huawei ’ s smartphones , the Chinese tech giant reported last month that its revenues grew by more than 19 % last year .
Alex Jones breaks down the efforts of leftists to oppose Trump at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Earlier this week, Reuters reported, citing unnamed sources, that Huawei was shifting the production of chips away from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd to Shanghai-based Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, in anticipation of new US restrictions.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the role China has played in the coronavirus pandemic will likely make countries rethink the use of its tech giant Huawei’s 5G networks.
“I am very confident that this moment where the Chinese Communist Party failed to be transparent and open and handle data in an appropriate way will cause many, many countries rethink what they were doing with respect to their telecom architecture,” Pompeo told Fox Business Network.
This comes amid a report by Reuters earlier this week, which said that Chinese tech giant Huawei had started to gradually shift the production of chips away from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd (TSMC) to Shanghai-based Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp (SMIC), in anticipation of extra restrictions from the United States.
Previously, the US media said that new restrictions had been agreed by senior US officials requiring companies cooperating with Huawei to receive licenses before selling chips using US-made technologies.
Washington imposed sanctions against Huawei last year for the first time, accusing the tech giant of cooperating with Chinese intelligence, an allegation that the company denies. Despite US restrictions, which among other things include a ban on Google installing its Android operating system on new models of Huawei’s smartphones, the Chinese tech giant reported last month that its revenues grew by more than 19% last year.
Alex Jones breaks down the efforts of leftists to oppose Trump at every turn to steer America into tyranny.


newswars--2020-04-17--CNN Heavily Revises Article Called Out for Looking Suspiciously Like Chinese News Release

As CNN continues its charge to deflect blame for the coronavirus pandemic away from communist China and toward President Donald @ @ @ @ @ was reduced this week to literally publishing Chinese Communist Party propaganda .
The network published @ @ @ @ @ near-verbatim lede of a Chinese Communist Party news release that praised the Chinese military ’ @ @ @ @ @ aboard People ’ s Liberation Army Navy ships .
In a story headlined “ China @ @ @ @ @ controlling coronavirus and aircraft carrier ’ s deployment proves it , report says , ” @ @ @ @ @ ’ s handling of the coronavirus outbreak on aircraft carriers .
“ A Chinese naval @ @ @ @ @ over the weekend , evidence that the People ’ s Liberation Army Navy has done @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus than the US Navy , according to a story posted on the PLA ’ @ @ @ @ @ editor Brad Lendon wrote .
The Chinese Government ’ s dominance of propaganda is as @ @ @ @ @ invisible .

As CNN continues its charge to deflect blame for the coronavirus pandemic away from communist China and toward President Donald Trump, the left-leaning network was reduced this week to literally publishing Chinese Communist Party propaganda.
The network published a story Monday with a near-verbatim lede of a Chinese Communist Party news release that praised the Chinese military’s handling of the disease aboard People’s Liberation Army Navy ships.
In a story headlined “China’s PLA Navy is controlling coronavirus and aircraft carrier’s deployment proves it, report says,” CNN criticized the U.S. Navy’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak on aircraft carriers.
“A Chinese naval flotilla headed into the Pacific over the weekend, evidence that the People’s Liberation Army Navy has done a much better job controlling coronavirus than the US Navy, according to a story posted on the PLA’s English-language website,” editor Brad Lendon wrote.
Read more
The Chinese Government’s dominance of propaganda is as slick as it is nearly invisible.


newswars--2020-04-17--COVID-19 Is Forcing Governments to Admit Their Regulations Aren’t Really Necessary

It ’ s no exaggeration to say that most of the blame for the world ’ s poor response to the coronavirus pandemic can be laid squarely at the feet of politicians and bureaucrats .
Even as it became clear that the virus was becoming increasingly dangerous , politicians around the world were quick to downplay its severity .
The Chinese state attempted to silence those trying to broadcast warnings , while American political leaders actually encouraged folks to go out and party in crowded public areas .
When coronavirus cases were finally confirmed within the United States , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firms from taking measures to fight the pandemic .
Will those responsible face a reckoning for their massive failures ?
They certainly ought to .
From the very beginning , government regulators got in the way as innovative firms worked to develop an accurate coronavirus test .
The government fought hard to make sure that private labs could not offer coronavirus tests at all .
In fact , the first positive test in the United States was conducted illegally , as researchers became impatient waiting for the Food and Drug Administration to grant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the FDA was still throwing up unnecessary hurdles .
Arrogating to itself the power to prohibit all testing conducted without its express permission , the agency slowed progress at the time when detecting the virus was most crucial .
“ I could have tested over 1,000 patients by now instead of checking boxes , ” one frustrated researcher said .
Bureaucratic red tape has also prevented hospitals from getting desperately needed supplies .
Current regulations require FDA inspection of medical supplies before they can ship , and with massive new orders flowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t keep up .
But rather than allowing the market to work by letting hospitals freely order supplies from trusted producers , the FDA has refused to budge on its strict rules .
As Tom Rogan reported at the Washington Examiner , one company “ had more than 20 pallets of coronavirus-specific medical supplies waiting in a warehouse for five days….At another depot in the south-central United States , this same supplier has had 500,000 level-three or level-four masks sitting in a warehouse for two days now .
They expect the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Right Direction These kinds of stories are more than enough to make one ’ s blood boil .
But , thankfully , there are indications that as the crisis grows the federal government and state governments will be willing to waive their anti-health regulations .
Massachusetts , for example , has granted temporary licenses to nurses who are already licensed in other states .
Other states have quickly followed suit .
Before the crisis began , only three states had automatically licensed doctors and nurses who held out-of-state licenses : Arizona @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided to grant them on a permanent , rather than temporary , basis .
Several states have also moved to suspend their so-called “ certificate of need ” laws , which require healthcare facilities to receive government approval before establishing or expanding their services .
As Vittorio Nastasi at the Reason Foundation writes , “ Ample research suggests that CON laws increase costs and reduce access to care by limiting competition and supply.
” Nastasi also notes that some states are loosening their requirements under “ scope of practice ” laws , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professionals are permitted to provide.
” Often the restrictions make little sense , requiring doctors to perform tasks that could be easily and competently done by a nurse .
Relaxing scope of practice laws will go a long way toward making coronavirus testing and treatment more efficient .
Will We See Permanent Deregulation ?
Unfortunately , many of these regulatory reforms are temporary .
And although all of them should have been enacted before the pandemic began , the pandemic is what has allowed deregulation to be politically possible .
But it may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never become permanent .
The vast majority of state governors and federal regulators responsible for the deregulations have justified them , not by any prior commitment to advancing liberty , but by their necessity to counteract the pandemic .
Once the coronavirus threat has been sufficiently mitigated , it is highly unlikely that these same politicians and bureaucrats will tolerate “ emergency deregulations ” becoming the new normal .
Moreover , many regulations exist because they benefit powerful interest groups .
Once the emergency has subsided , these groups will argue vociferously in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , some of the recent reforms have already received significant pushback .
Florida ’ s attempt to ease its scope of practice laws , for example , was intensely criticized by the Florida Medical Association ( FMA ) .
The group has opposed reform for decades despite the fact that its state is one of the most restrictive in the country .
The bill passed anyway , though the FMA will probably continue to fight for its repeal .
Nonmedical deregulations are likely to face even more scrutiny once the crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food and adult beverages .
Governor Abbott of Texas recently waived a curious law which prohibited trucks carrying groceries from also carrying alcohol .
Boston is now allowing nearly every restaurant to offer carryout without a license .
And throughout the country , state and local authorities have issued orders permitting restaurants to offer alcohol with takeout and delivery orders .
But even these somewhat small and sensible measures have faced criticism .
It is , of course , entirely possible that the coronavirus will create a lasting paradigm shift toward more liberty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outrage at the deadly failures of bureaucracy and petty regulatory prohibitions be loud enough , the pandemic could wind up being the catalyst for the significant institutional reforms for which libertarians have been advocating for years .

It’s no exaggeration to say that most of the blame for the world’s poor response to the coronavirus pandemic can be laid squarely at the feet of politicians and bureaucrats.
Even as it became clear that the virus was becoming increasingly dangerous, politicians around the world were quick to downplay its severity. The Chinese state attempted to silence those trying to broadcast warnings, while American political leaders actually encouraged folks to go out and party in crowded public areas. When coronavirus cases were finally confirmed within the United States, many realized that burdensome regulations were preventing private firms from taking measures to fight the pandemic.
Will those responsible face a reckoning for their massive failures?
Anti-Health Regulations
They certainly ought to. From the very beginning, government regulators got in the way as innovative firms worked to develop an accurate coronavirus test. The government fought hard to make sure that private labs could not offer coronavirus tests at all. In fact, the first positive test in the United States was conducted illegally, as researchers became impatient waiting for the Food and Drug Administration to grant them approval.
Weeks into the crisis and the FDA was still throwing up unnecessary hurdles. Arrogating to itself the power to prohibit all testing conducted without its express permission, the agency slowed progress at the time when detecting the virus was most crucial. “I could have tested over 1,000 patients by now instead of checking boxes,” one frustrated researcher said.
Bureaucratic red tape has also prevented hospitals from getting desperately needed supplies. Current regulations require FDA inspection of medical supplies before they can ship, and with massive new orders flowing in to manufacturers, the inspectors simply can’t keep up. But rather than allowing the market to work by letting hospitals freely order supplies from trusted producers, the FDA has refused to budge on its strict rules.
As Tom Rogan reported at the Washington Examiner, one company “had more than 20 pallets of coronavirus-specific medical supplies waiting in a warehouse for five days….At another depot in the south-central United States, this same supplier has had 500,000 level-three or level-four masks sitting in a warehouse for two days now. They expect the FDA delays to continue indefinitely.”
Moving in the Right Direction
These kinds of stories are more than enough to make one’s blood boil. But, thankfully, there are indications that as the crisis grows the federal government and state governments will be willing to waive their anti-health regulations.
Massachusetts, for example, has granted temporary licenses to nurses who are already licensed in other states. Other states have quickly followed suit. Before the crisis began, only three states had automatically licensed doctors and nurses who held out-of-state licenses: Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Montana, which decided to grant them on a permanent, rather than temporary, basis.
Several states have also moved to suspend their so-called “certificate of need” laws, which require healthcare facilities to receive government approval before establishing or expanding their services. As Vittorio Nastasi at the Reason Foundation writes, “Ample research suggests that CON laws increase costs and reduce access to care by limiting competition and supply.”
Nastasi also notes that some states are loosening their requirements under “scope of practice” laws, which restrict the “range of services medical professionals are permitted to provide.” Often the restrictions make little sense, requiring doctors to perform tasks that could be easily and competently done by a nurse. Relaxing scope of practice laws will go a long way toward making coronavirus testing and treatment more efficient.
Will We See Permanent Deregulation?
Unfortunately, many of these regulatory reforms are temporary. And although all of them should have been enacted before the pandemic began, the pandemic is what has allowed deregulation to be politically possible.
But it may also be the reason that the reforms never become permanent. The vast majority of state governors and federal regulators responsible for the deregulations have justified them, not by any prior commitment to advancing liberty, but by their necessity to counteract the pandemic. Once the coronavirus threat has been sufficiently mitigated, it is highly unlikely that these same politicians and bureaucrats will tolerate “emergency deregulations” becoming the new normal.
Moreover, many regulations exist because they benefit powerful interest groups. Once the emergency has subsided, these groups will argue vociferously in favor of reinstating their favored regulations.
In fact, some of the recent reforms have already received significant pushback. Florida’s attempt to ease its scope of practice laws, for example, was intensely criticized by the Florida Medical Association (FMA). The group has opposed reform for decades despite the fact that its state is one of the most restrictive in the country. The bill passed anyway, though the FMA will probably continue to fight for its repeal.
Nonmedical deregulations are likely to face even more scrutiny once the crisis has passed, particularly those related to food and adult beverages. Governor Abbott of Texas recently waived a curious law which prohibited trucks carrying groceries from also carrying alcohol. Boston is now allowing nearly every restaurant to offer carryout without a license. And throughout the country, state and local authorities have issued orders permitting restaurants to offer alcohol with takeout and delivery orders. But even these somewhat small and sensible measures have faced criticism.
It is, of course, entirely possible that the coronavirus will create a lasting paradigm shift toward more liberty and fewer government controls. Should public outrage at the deadly failures of bureaucracy and petty regulatory prohibitions be loud enough, the pandemic could wind up being the catalyst for the significant institutional reforms for which libertarians have been advocating for years.
But don’t hold your breath.


newswars--2020-04-17--In Bid to Extend Lockdowns, Leftist Governors Embrace “States’ Rights”

Some White House advisors like Anthony Fauci have often acted as if they were in a position to dictate to states whether or not to mandate “ social distancing.
” But neither the president nor his advisors have ever demonstrated that they actually have the legal authority to set state and local policies on these matters .
Indeed , Donald Trump appeared to quite clearly defer to states on these matters since the COVID-19 panic began in March .
Oddly , the president reversed himself on deference to states earlier this week , and has begun claiming the authority to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all states .
The claim came in response to efforts by state governors who seek to set their own timelines and methods for eliminating social distancing orders and other forced shutdowns of local businesses and enterprises .
Specifically , New York is leading a coalition of several states including Massachusetts , Rhode Island , New Jersey , Connecticut , and Pennsylvania in “ coordinating ” a scaling back of the economy-paralyzing orders .
California is leading a similar pact among West Coast states .
Apparently not inclined to allow these states to act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 13 press conference insisted that he will decide when states scale back social distancing orders and declared , “ when someone is president of the United States , the authority is total.
” It ’ s not unusual for presidents to insist they can do whatever they want , whether publicly or privately .
What is unusual now is the way left-wing politicians and media organizations have reacted .
For decades , the dominant narrative on the American left , and among national media outlets , has been that there is essentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government over states , municipalities , and over individuals .
From financial bailouts , to healthcare , to vaping , to air pollution , to schools , and more , it is simply assumed that if the federal government wishes to regulate , subsidize , fund , or otherwise meddle in some aspect of life , Congress or the president need merely wish it .
The idea that the US constitution limits these powers , of course , is treated as quaint , or worse .
For decades , those who suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decentralized to the states ( or to local governments ) have generally been denounced as seeking nefarious ends , such as the reintroduction of slavery .
It has long been assumed that people who want a more activist federal government are progressive and enlightened .
Those who want decentralized and localized government , on the other hand , are assumed to be troglodytes .
Yet now we find national media outlets and high-profile Democratic politicians openly calling for more political decentralization and for open defiance of federal attempts to dictate state policy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs to take the federalism of the US Constitution very seriously , and even embrace the Tenth Amendment , which strictly limits federal powers to those explicitly listed in the Constitution .
For example , in an April 14 segment on CBS , the host began by stating , “ we know , in fact , this falls to governors ” when describing the process of ending government-forced lockdowns .
Rarely has a claim of state sovereignty—sometimes inaccurately called “ states ’ rights ” —been stated with such certainty and finality by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , New York governor Andrew Cuomo goes on to insist that his state government need not take direction from the Trump administration , because “ The president ’ s position is…absurd…we don ’ t have a king , we have a president.
” Similarly , in an NBC segment on the topic , the NBC presenter immediately followed Trump ’ s claims of “ total authority ” over state lockdowns with a declaration that “ In fact , the constitution gives that power to the states.
” In an interview with NBC , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The Constitution is there , the tenth amendment is there….It ’ s very clear states have power by the Tenth Amendment.
” Until this week , insisting that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution limits federal powers was likely to get someone branded some kind of “ neo-Confederate ” by left-wing activists .
Yet now the Governor of New York is apparently a devotee of the amendment ’ s limitations on federal power .
The Tenth Amendment , for those unfamiliar with it , is the much-ignored final article of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States , are reserved to the States respectively , or to the people.
” The amendment is so often ignored—by both federal judges and politicians—because it is so inconvenient to them .
The powers delegated to the federal government are specific .
Thus , what the Tenth Amendment says is that most everything done by government shall be done at the state or local levels , or not done at all .
Were federal policymakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there would be no federal war on drugs , no federal welfare programs , no federally controlled public lands , and no federal immigration controls .
There would be no federal farm subsidies , housing programs , or regulations on food safety .
The feds wouldn ’ t be telling people whom to hire or what level of air pollution is acceptable .
There would , of course , almost certainly still be state- and local-level welfare programs , prohibitions , regulations , and public lands .
Yet so devoted have major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismissing any attempts at decentralization and limitations on federal power that it has long been assumed in the national media narrative that all these government powers can be and should be exercised primarily at the federal level .
Now , in an effort to oppose the Trump presidency , a number of governors have embraced what they ’ ve spent much of their careers denouncing : decentralization and the Tenth Amendment .
The opposition to federal control this week was so fierce , in fact , that by Wednesday morning Trump had backtracked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But the sudden turn toward decentralization didn ’ t stop there .
In a column for Reuters yesterday , Rob Cox suggests that maybe a “ Great American Breakup ” isn ’ t such a bad idea : It started with the abdication of leadership in Washington in coordinating an effective public-health response to the spread of the Covid-19 disease , followed by threats from President Donald Trump to override states ’ rights .
It ’ s all fodder for arguments that the United States has become too big to manage—and several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth considering .
Suggestions of radical decentralization of this sort have apparently been appearing with greater frequency in recent years .
State governments increasingly talk about nullifying federal drug laws , gun laws , healthcare laws , and more .
As the Scots and the Brits talk about seceding from larger political entities , some Americans are increasingly suggesting that the time has come for some American states .
It is likely premature to describe such talk as “ mainstream.
” This week ’ s flare-up in demands for more state sovereignty , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is notable for the casualness with which it is being bandied about by high-level media outlets and politicians .

Some White House advisors like Anthony Fauci have often acted as if they were in a position to dictate to states whether or not to mandate “social distancing.” But neither the president nor his advisors have ever demonstrated that they actually have the legal authority to set state and local policies on these matters.
Indeed, Donald Trump appeared to quite clearly defer to states on these matters since the COVID-19 panic began in March.
Until Monday.
Oddly, the president reversed himself on deference to states earlier this week, and has begun claiming the authority to set policies on forced economic shutdowns for all states. The claim came in response to efforts by state governors who seek to set their own timelines and methods for eliminating social distancing orders and other forced shutdowns of local businesses and enterprises.
Specifically, New York is leading a coalition of several states including Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania in “coordinating” a scaling back of the economy-paralyzing orders. California is leading a similar pact among West Coast states.
Apparently not inclined to allow these states to act on their own, Trump at an April 13 press conference insisted that he will decide when states scale back social distancing orders and declared, “when someone is president of the United States, the authority is total.”
It’s not unusual for presidents to insist they can do whatever they want, whether publicly or privately.
What is unusual now is the way left-wing politicians and media organizations have reacted.
For decades, the dominant narrative on the American left, and among national media outlets, has been that there is essentially no limit to the power of the federal government over states, municipalities, and over individuals. From financial bailouts, to healthcare, to vaping, to air pollution, to schools, and more, it is simply assumed that if the federal government wishes to regulate, subsidize, fund, or otherwise meddle in some aspect of life, Congress or the president need merely wish it.
The idea that the US constitution limits these powers, of course, is treated as quaint, or worse. For decades, those who suggested that government powers—on any matter—ought to be decentralized to the states (or to local governments) have generally been denounced as seeking nefarious ends, such as the reintroduction of slavery. It has long been assumed that people who want a more activist federal government are progressive and enlightened. Those who want decentralized and localized government, on the other hand, are assumed to be troglodytes.
Yet now we find national media outlets and high-profile Democratic politicians openly calling for more political decentralization and for open defiance of federal attempts to dictate state policy.
Suddenly, the American left thinks America needs to take the federalism of the US Constitution very seriously, and even embrace the Tenth Amendment, which strictly limits federal powers to those explicitly listed in the Constitution.
For example, in an April 14 segment on CBS, the host began by stating, “we know, in fact, this falls to governors” when describing the process of ending government-forced lockdowns. Rarely has a claim of state sovereignty—sometimes inaccurately called “states’ rights”—been stated with such certainty and finality by a major media company. During the segment, New York governor Andrew Cuomo goes on to insist that his state government need not take direction from the Trump administration, because “The president’s position is…absurd…we don’t have a king, we have a president.”
Similarly, in an NBC segment on the topic, the NBC presenter immediately followed Trump’s claims of “total authority” over state lockdowns with a declaration that “In fact, the constitution gives that power to the states.”
In an interview with NBC, Cuomo then went on to conclude, “The Constitution is there, the tenth amendment is there….It’s very clear states have power by the Tenth Amendment.”
Until this week, insisting that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution limits federal powers was likely to get someone branded some kind of “neo-Confederate” by left-wing activists. Yet now the Governor of New York is apparently a devotee of the amendment’s limitations on federal power.
The Tenth Amendment, for those unfamiliar with it, is the much-ignored final article of the Bill of Rights which states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The amendment is so often ignored—by both federal judges and politicians—because it is so inconvenient to them. The powers delegated to the federal government are specific. Thus, what the Tenth Amendment says is that most everything done by government shall be done at the state or local levels, or not done at all.
Were federal policymakers to actually pay attention to the amendment, there would be no federal war on drugs, no federal welfare programs, no federally controlled public lands, and no federal immigration controls. There would be no federal farm subsidies, housing programs, or regulations on food safety. The feds wouldn’t be telling people whom to hire or what level of air pollution is acceptable.
There would, of course, almost certainly still be state- and local-level welfare programs, prohibitions, regulations, and public lands. Yet so devoted have major media organizations and left-wing ideologues been to dismissing any attempts at decentralization and limitations on federal power that it has long been assumed in the national media narrative that all these government powers can be and should be exercised primarily at the federal level.
Now, in an effort to oppose the Trump presidency, a number of governors have embraced what they’ve spent much of their careers denouncing: decentralization and the Tenth Amendment.
The opposition to federal control this week was so fierce, in fact, that by Wednesday morning Trump had backtracked on his claims of “total authority.”
But the sudden turn toward decentralization didn’t stop there. In a column for Reuters yesterday, Rob Cox suggests that maybe a “Great American Breakup” isn’t such a bad idea:
It started with the abdication of leadership in Washington in coordinating an effective public-health response to the spread of the Covid-19 disease, followed by threats from President Donald Trump to override states’ rights. It’s all fodder for arguments that the United States has become too big to manage—and several U.S. states just provided an alternative blueprint worth considering.
Suggestions of radical decentralization of this sort have apparently been appearing with greater frequency in recent years. State governments increasingly talk about nullifying federal drug laws, gun laws, healthcare laws, and more. As the Scots and the Brits talk about seceding from larger political entities, some Americans are increasingly suggesting that the time has come for some American states. It is likely premature to describe such talk as “mainstream.” This week’s flare-up in demands for more state sovereignty, however, does suggest an escalation, and is notable for the casualness with which it is being bandied about by high-level media outlets and politicians.


newswars--2020-04-17--Is Dr. Fauci A Super-Spreader?

Is Dr. Fauci A Super-Spreader?

In a video going viral on Twitter , Millie Weaver caught NIH Director Anthony Fauci groping members of the Coronavirus Task Force team , including Vice-President Pence , as well as wiping snot from his nose using his hand and suit jacket sleeve .
This all happened towards the end of yesterday ’ s press briefing right after he instructed Americans under quarantine how to follow new federal guidelines to slow the spread of the coronavirus where President Trump unveiled conditions for parts of the U.S. to start reopening .
In light of allegations that NIH under the direction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute of Virology that possibly contributed to the pandemic spread of COVID-19 , Fauci ’ s unsanitary actions and flagrant disregarding for the “ guidelines ” he helped impose on Americans raised serious concerns of onlookers .
For years , the US government has been funding cruel animal experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology , which may have contributed to the global spread of COVID-19 , and research at other labs in China with virtually no US oversight .
It has to end now.https : //t.co/Bjxs89GPgw Commenters posted clips showing Fauci groping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Team .
” Expert ” Dr. # Fouci rubs his hand on @ VP & then wipes is runny nose w/ his sleeve from the same hand 🤦♀ Hopefully he didn ’ t just infect @ VP w/ # Covid_19 as patient zero for the next wave 🤦♀ And they wonder why @ WHO ’ s funding has been suspended # Fouci isn ’ t # SocialDistanacing pic.twitter.com/IfuBMjUe23 Meanwhile , protests have sparked across the United States where Americans are expressing frustration of the economic shutdown and “ shelter in place ” guidelines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but in some states are enforced with fines and arrest .
It ’ s a little difficult to take serious the need to “ stay home ” and continue “ not to work ” and “ trust the government ” while one of the leading experts proves once again that there is one set of rules for us and another set of rules for them .

In a video going viral on Twitter, Millie Weaver caught NIH Director Anthony Fauci groping members of the Coronavirus Task Force team, including Vice-President Pence, as well as wiping snot from his nose using his hand and suit jacket sleeve.
”Expert” Dr. #Fouci rubs his hand on @VP & then wipes is runny nose w/ his sleeve from the same hand 🤦♀ Hopefully he didn’t just infect @VP w/ #Covid_19 as patient zero for the next wave 🤦♀ And they wonder why @WHO’s funding has been suspended#Fouci isn’t #SocialDistanacing pic.twitter.com/IfuBMjUe23 — Millie Weaver (@Millie__Weaver) April 16, 2020
This all happened towards the end of yesterday’s press briefing right after he instructed Americans under quarantine how to follow new federal guidelines to slow the spread of the coronavirus where President Trump unveiled conditions for parts of the U.S. to start reopening.
In light of allegations that NIH under the direction of Dr. Fauci funded experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that possibly contributed to the pandemic spread of COVID-19, Fauci’s unsanitary actions and flagrant disregarding for the “guidelines” he helped impose on Americans raised serious concerns of onlookers.
For years, the US government has been funding cruel animal experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which may have contributed to the global spread of COVID-19, and research at other labs in China with virtually no US oversight. It has to end now.https://t.co/Bjxs89GPgw — Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) April 13, 2020
Michelle Malkin retweeted Millie’s tweet calling Dr. Fauci a “Super Spreader”.
Commenters posted clips showing Fauci groping other members of the Coronavirus Task Force Team.
”Expert” Dr. #Fouci rubs his hand on @VP & then wipes is runny nose w/ his sleeve from the same hand 🤦♀ Hopefully he didn’t just infect @VP w/ #Covid_19 as patient zero for the next wave 🤦♀ And they wonder why @WHO’s funding has been suspended#Fouci isn’t #SocialDistanacing pic.twitter.com/IfuBMjUe23 — Millie Weaver (@Millie__Weaver) April 16, 2020
Meanwhile, protests have sparked across the United States where Americans are expressing frustration of the economic shutdown and “shelter in place” guidelines which not only violate our personal liberties but in some states are enforced with fines and arrest.
It’s a little difficult to take serious the need to “stay home” and continue “not to work” and “trust the government” while one of the leading experts proves once again that there is one set of rules for us and another set of rules for them.


newswars--2020-04-17--Dr. Phil Slams Coronavirus Lockdown: “We probably shouldn’t have ever started” Quarantine

The psychological damage caused by arbitrary lockdown orders may be worse for Americans than the virus itself , says daytime talk show host Dr. Phil .
Speaking with Fox News ’ Laura Ingraham Thursday , Dr. Phil , AKA Phil McGraw , explained the crushing psychological trauma , including depression and anxiety , heaved on vulnerable Americans from the isolation experienced as a result of lockdown measures .
“ The fact of the matter is : the longer this lockdown goes on the more vulnerable people get , ” the TV doctor said .
“ There ’ s a point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in lockdown that it will actually create more destruction and actually more death across time than the actual virus will itself.
” McGraw said the numbers don ’ t reflect the need for a lockdown , and highlighted various death statistics over which America never closes .
“ 250 a year die from poverty and the poverty line is getting such that people are going to fall below that because the economy is crashing around us , ” said McGraw , who holds a Ph.D. in clinical psychology .
“ And they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the coronavirus , ” he told Ingraham .
“ I get that .
But look , the fact of the matter is we have people dying , 45,000 people a year die from automobile accidents , 480,000 from cigarettes , 360,000 a year from swimming pools , but we don ’ t shut the country down for that .
But yet we are doing it for this and the fallout is going to last for years because people ’ s lives are being destroyed.
” On the swimming pool statistic , Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of deaths , exaggerating it by a factor of 100 .
“ This will end soon , ” Dr. Phil told people attempting to cope with being quarantined in homes with multiple people .
“ We probably shouldn ’ t have ever started this [ quarantine ] , but just realize there ’ s a light at the end of the tunnel .
We need to get out of this and get back to work.
” While President Trump has expressed a desire to reopen America by May 1 , medical advisors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cautioned against reopening too soon and warn of a “ new normal ” in society following the pandemic where the public will continue practicing social distancing guidelines for the foreseeable future .
Reopen America protests have hit Texas as citizens from all over the state spent the afternoon protesting required face masks , economic shutdown and unconstitutional state mandates .
The police were also in attendance , issuing a warning to a protester for honking her horn too loudly .

The psychological damage caused by arbitrary lockdown orders may be worse for Americans than the virus itself, says daytime talk show host Dr. Phil.
Speaking with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham Thursday, Dr. Phil, AKA Phil McGraw, explained the crushing psychological trauma, including depression and anxiety, heaved on vulnerable Americans from the isolation experienced as a result of lockdown measures.
“The fact of the matter is: the longer this lockdown goes on the more vulnerable people get,” the TV doctor said.
“There’s a point at which people start having enough problems in lockdown that it will actually create more destruction and actually more death across time than the actual virus will itself.”
McGraw said the numbers don’t reflect the need for a lockdown, and highlighted various death statistics over which America never closes.
“250 a year die from poverty and the poverty line is getting such that people are going to fall below that because the economy is crashing around us,” said McGraw, who holds a Ph.D. in clinical psychology.
“And they’re doing that because people are dying from the coronavirus,” he told Ingraham. “I get that. But look, the fact of the matter is we have people dying, 45,000 people a year die from automobile accidents, 480,000 from cigarettes, 360,000 a year from swimming pools, but we don’t shut the country down for that. But yet we are doing it for this and the fallout is going to last for years because people’s lives are being destroyed.”
On the swimming pool statistic, Dr. Phil was widely criticized for misstating the number of deaths, exaggerating it by a factor of 100.
“This will end soon,” Dr. Phil told people attempting to cope with being quarantined in homes with multiple people. “We probably shouldn’t have ever started this [quarantine], but just realize there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. We need to get out of this and get back to work.”
While President Trump has expressed a desire to reopen America by May 1, medical advisors including NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci have cautioned against reopening too soon and warn of a “new normal” in society following the pandemic where the public will continue practicing social distancing guidelines for the foreseeable future.
Follow the author on Gab: https://gab.ai/adansalazar
On Twitter: Follow @AdanSalazarWins
On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/adan.salazar.735
On Minds: https://www.minds.com/adan_infowars
Reopen America protests have hit Texas as citizens from all over the state spent the afternoon protesting required face masks, economic shutdown and unconstitutional state mandates. The police were also in attendance, issuing a warning to a protester for honking her horn too loudly.


newswars--2020-04-17--Watch Bill Gates Laugh, and Giggle About Vaccines and Mass Death

Footage in this compilation was taken from several recent interviews where Bill Gates laughs , snickers and giggles when he @ @ @ @ @ mass pandemics .
What is so funny ?

Footage in this compilation was taken from several recent interviews where Bill Gates laughs, snickers and giggles when he mentions vaccines, testing and mass pandemics.
What is so funny?
YouTube Version: