newswars--2020-09-10--The Evidence Keeps Piling up: Lockdowns Don’t Work

The toll lockdowns have taken on human life and human rights has been incalculable .
Increases in child abuse , suicide , and even heart attacks , all appear to be a feature of mandatory stay-at-home orders issued by politicians who now rule by decree without any legislative or democratic due process .
And then , of course , there is the economic toll on employment , which will feed negative impacts into the longer term .
The economic burden has fallen the most on the young and on working-class families , whose earners are least able to work from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mockery of basic human rights while essentially expropriating private property .
Mom-and-pop business owners were told to shut their doors indefinitely or face arrest .
The unemployed were told it was now illegal to work for a living if their careers were deemed “ nonessential.
” Police officers have beaten citizens for not “ social distancing ” while mothers have been manhandled by cops for attempting to use playground equipment .
This was all done because some politicians and bureaucrats—who were in no danger of losing their large paychecks—decided it was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and risky experiment : forcing large swaths of the population to stay at home in the name of preventing the spread of disease .
Indeed , politicians have long dreamed of forcing people into isolation en masse .
But this was most recently revived during the George W. Bush administration .
As the New York Times reported in April , Fourteen years ago , two federal government doctors , Richard Hatchett and Carter Mecher , met with a colleague at a burger joint in suburban Washington for a final review of a proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piñata : telling Americans to stay home from work and school the next time the country was hit by a deadly pandemic .
Drs .
Hatchett and Mecher were proposing…that Americans in some places might have to turn back to an approach , self-isolation , first widely employed in the Middle Ages .
How that idea — born out of a request by President George W. Bush to ensure the nation was better prepared for the next contagious disease outbreak — became the heart of the national playbook for responding to a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus crisis .
The concept of social distancing is now intimately familiar to almost everyone .
But as it first made its way through the federal bureaucracy in 2006 and 2007 , it was viewed as impractical , unnecessary and politically infeasible .
And why was it considered impractical and unnecessary ?
There is more than one reason , but one major reason is that lockdowns have never been shown to be particularly effective .
And this lack of success in containment must also be weighed with the very real costs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 2006 paper in Biosecurity and Bioterrorism called “ Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza ” by Thomas V. Inglesby , Jennifer B. Nuzzo , Tara O ’ Toole , and D.A .
Henderson .
The authors conclude : There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza .
A World Health Organization ( WHO ) Writing Group , after reviewing the literature and considering contemporary international experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarantine are ineffective and impractical.
” Despite this recommendation by experts , mandatory large-scale quarantine continues to be considered as an option by some authorities and government officials .
The interest in quarantine reflects the views and conditions prevalent more than 50 years ago , when much less was known about the epidemiology of infectious diseases and when there was far less international and domestic travel in a less densely populated world .
It is difficult to identify circumstances in the past half-century when large-scale quarantine has been effectively used in the control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of large-scale quarantine are so extreme ( forced confinement of sick people with the well ; complete restriction of movement of large populations ; difficulty in getting critical supplies , medicines , and food to people inside the quarantine zone ) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration .
Not surprisingly , then , it ’ s now becoming apparent that lockdowns don ’ t work when actually tried .
Earlier this month , for example , Donald Luskin noted in the Wall Street Journal : Measuring from the start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s point of maximum lockdown—which range from April 5 to April 18—it turns out that lockdowns correlated with a greater spread of the virus .
States with longer , stricter lockdowns also had larger Covid outbreaks .
The five places with the harshest lockdowns—the District of Columbia , New York , Michigan , New Jersey and Massachusetts—had the heaviest caseloads .
Basically , Luskin searched for a clear correlation between lockdowns and better health outcomes in relation to covid-19 .
He found none .
He continues : It could be that strict lockdowns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ severe outbreaks .
But the surprising negative correlation , while statistically weak , persists even when excluding states with the heaviest caseloads .
And it makes no difference if the analysis includes other potential explanatory factors such as population density , age , ethnicity , prevalence of nursing homes , general health or temperature .
The only factor that seems to make a demonstrable difference is the intensity of mass-transit use .
We ran the experiment a second time to observe the effects on caseloads of the reopening that began in mid-April .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ started from each state ’ s peak of lockdown and extended to July 31 .
Confirming the first experiment , there was a tendency ( though fairly weak ) for states that opened up the most to have the lightest caseloads .
The states that had the big summer flare-ups in the so-called “ Sunbelt second wave ” —Arizona , California , Florida and Texas—are by no means the most opened up , politicized headlines notwithstanding… .
[ T ] here ’ s no escaping the evidence that , at minimum , heavy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ones , and that opening up a lot was no more harmful than opening up a little .
So where ’ s the science that would justify the heavy lockdowns many public-health officials are still demanding ?
This is just the most recent of many studies of this sort .
A July study published by The Lancet concluded : “ The authors identified a negative association between the number of days to any lockdown and the total reported cases per million , where a longer time prior to implementation of any lockdown was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases per million.
” In April , T.J. Rogers looked at “ a simple one-variable correlation of deaths per million and days to shutdown ” and found that “ The correlation coefficient was 5.5 % —so low that the engineers I used to employ would have summarized it as “ no correlation ” and moved on to find the real cause of the problem .
( The trendline sloped downward—states that delayed more tended to have lower death rates—but that ’ s also a meaningless result due to the low correlation coefficient .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Bloomberg showed “ there ’ s little correlation between the severity of a nation ’ s restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities.
” In an August 1 study , also published by The Lancet , the authors concluded , “ Rapid border closures , full lockdowns , and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.
” A June study published in Advance by Stefan Homburg and Christof Kuhbandner found that the data “ strongly suggests ” that the UK lockdown was both superfluous ( it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the spread of the coronavirus ) and ineffective ( it did not slow down the death growth rate visibly ) .
In fact , the overall trend of infection and death appears to be remarkably similar across many jurisdictions regardless of what nonpharmaceutical interventions ( NPIs ) are taken by policymakers .
In a paper published with the National Bureau of Economic Research ( NBER ) , authors Andew Atkeson et al .
found that covid-19 deaths followed a similar pattern “ virtually everywhere in the world ” and that “ Failing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overstating the importance of policy mandated NPIs for shaping the progression of this deadly pandemic.
” Along these lines , Simon Wood , examined the progression of the disease in the United Kingdom and in Sweden and found that the data strongly suggest that the decline in infections in England and Wales began before full lockdown , and that community infections , unlike deaths , were probably at a low level well before lockdown was eased .
Furthermore , such a scenario would be consistent with the infection profile in Sweden , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the UK , but did so on the basis of measures well short of full lockdown .
Is the Prolockdown Data Good Enough to Justify Massive Human Rights Violations ?
Extraordinary measures require extraordinary evidence .
And the burden of proof is on those who seek to use the coercive power of the state to force people into their homes , cripple the economy , and abolish countless basic freedoms for the duration .
Have the advocates for lockdowns made their case ?
It ’ s hard to see how they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to present obvious and overwhelming evidence that lockdowns bring big benefits far in excess of the no-lockdown approach .
They have not done so .
Moreover , they have not shown that a lack of lockdowns is anywhere near as dangerous as they have claimed in the name of pushing lockdowns to begin with .
We can already see what the no-lockdown scenario looks like .
It looks like Sweden , and that ’ s a better outcome than many prolockdown regimes can claim .
Governments are nonetheless likely to continue claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a witch doctor might perform a rain dance on Tuesday and claim credit when it rained on Wednesday .
Lockdowns are increasingly looking like the modern equivalent of a rain dance .

The toll lockdowns have taken on human life and human rights has been incalculable.
Increases in child abuse, suicide, and even heart attacks, all appear to be a feature of mandatory stay-at-home orders issued by politicians who now rule by decree without any legislative or democratic due process. And then, of course, there is the economic toll on employment, which will feed negative impacts into the longer term. The economic burden has fallen the most on the young and on working-class families, whose earners are least able to work from home.
These measures also have made a mockery of basic human rights while essentially expropriating private property. Mom-and-pop business owners were told to shut their doors indefinitely or face arrest. The unemployed were told it was now illegal to work for a living if their careers were deemed “nonessential.” Police officers have beaten citizens for not “social distancing” while mothers have been manhandled by cops for attempting to use playground equipment.
This was all done because some politicians and bureaucrats—who were in no danger of losing their large paychecks—decided it was a great idea to carry out a bizarre and risky experiment: forcing large swaths of the population to stay at home in the name of preventing the spread of disease.
An Experiment Concocted by Governments
Indeed, politicians have long dreamed of forcing people into isolation en masse. But this was most recently revived during the George W. Bush administration. As the New York Times reported in April,
Fourteen years ago, two federal government doctors, Richard Hatchett and Carter Mecher, met with a colleague at a burger joint in suburban Washington for a final review of a proposal they knew would be treated like a piñata: telling Americans to stay home from work and school the next time the country was hit by a deadly pandemic.
Drs. Hatchett and Mecher were proposing…that Americans in some places might have to turn back to an approach, self-isolation, first widely employed in the Middle Ages.
How that idea — born out of a request by President George W. Bush to ensure the nation was better prepared for the next contagious disease outbreak — became the heart of the national playbook for responding to a pandemic is one of the untold stories of the coronavirus crisis.
The concept of social distancing is now intimately familiar to almost everyone. But as it first made its way through the federal bureaucracy in 2006 and 2007, it was viewed as impractical, unnecessary and politically infeasible.
Lockdowns Don’t Work
And why was it considered impractical and unnecessary? There is more than one reason, but one major reason is that lockdowns have never been shown to be particularly effective. And this lack of success in containment must also be weighed with the very real costs of forced isolation. This was explained in a 2006 paper in Biosecurity and Bioterrorism called “Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza” by Thomas V. Inglesby, Jennifer B. Nuzzo, Tara O’Toole, and D.A. Henderson. The authors conclude:
There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza. A World Health Organization (WHO) Writing Group, after reviewing the literature and considering contemporary international experience, concluded that “forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.” Despite this recommendation by experts, mandatory large-scale quarantine continues to be considered as an option by some authorities and government officials.
The interest in quarantine reflects the views and conditions prevalent more than 50 years ago, when much less was known about the epidemiology of infectious diseases and when there was far less international and domestic travel in a less densely populated world. It is difficult to identify circumstances in the past half-century when large-scale quarantine has been effectively used in the control of any disease. The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration.
Not surprisingly, then, it’s now becoming apparent that lockdowns don’t work when actually tried. Earlier this month, for example, Donald Luskin noted in the Wall Street Journal:
Measuring from the start of the year to each state’s point of maximum lockdown—which range from April 5 to April 18—it turns out that lockdowns correlated with a greater spread of the virus. States with longer, stricter lockdowns also had larger Covid outbreaks. The five places with the harshest lockdowns—the District of Columbia, New York, Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts—had the heaviest caseloads.
Basically, Luskin searched for a clear correlation between lockdowns and better health outcomes in relation to covid-19. He found none. He continues:
It could be that strict lockdowns were imposed as a response to already severe outbreaks. But the surprising negative correlation, while statistically weak, persists even when excluding states with the heaviest caseloads. And it makes no difference if the analysis includes other potential explanatory factors such as population density, age, ethnicity, prevalence of nursing homes, general health or temperature. The only factor that seems to make a demonstrable difference is the intensity of mass-transit use.
We ran the experiment a second time to observe the effects on caseloads of the reopening that began in mid-April. We used the same methodology, but started from each state’s peak of lockdown and extended to July 31. Confirming the first experiment, there was a tendency (though fairly weak) for states that opened up the most to have the lightest caseloads. The states that had the big summer flare-ups in the so-called “Sunbelt second wave”—Arizona, California, Florida and Texas—are by no means the most opened up, politicized headlines notwithstanding….
[T]here’s no escaping the evidence that, at minimum, heavy lockdowns were no more effective than light ones, and that opening up a lot was no more harmful than opening up a little. So where’s the science that would justify the heavy lockdowns many public-health officials are still demanding?
This is just the most recent of many studies of this sort.
A July study published by The Lancet concluded: “The authors identified a negative association between the number of days to any lockdown and the total reported cases per million, where a longer time prior to implementation of any lockdown was associated with a lower number of detected cases per million.”
In April, T.J. Rogers looked at “a simple one-variable correlation of deaths per million and days to shutdown” and found that “The correlation coefficient was 5.5%—so low that the engineers I used to employ would have summarized it as “no correlation” and moved on to find the real cause of the problem. (The trendline sloped downward—states that delayed more tended to have lower death rates—but that’s also a meaningless result due to the low correlation coefficient.)”
In May, Elaine He at Bloomberg showed “there’s little correlation between the severity of a nation’s restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities.”
In an August 1 study, also published by The Lancet, the authors concluded, “Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.”
A June study published in Advance by Stefan Homburg and Christof Kuhbandner found that the data “strongly suggests” that
the UK lockdown was both superfluous (it did not prevent an otherwise explosive behavior of the spread of the coronavirus) and ineffective (it did not slow down the death growth rate visibly).
In fact, the overall trend of infection and death appears to be remarkably similar across many jurisdictions regardless of what nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are taken by policymakers.
In a paper published with the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), authors Andew Atkeson et al. found that covid-19 deaths followed a similar pattern “virtually everywhere in the world” and that “Failing to account for this familiar pattern risks overstating the importance of policy mandated NPIs for shaping the progression of this deadly pandemic.”
Along these lines, Simon Wood, examined the progression of the disease in the United Kingdom and in Sweden and found that the data
strongly suggest that the decline in infections in England and Wales began before full lockdown, and that community infections, unlike deaths, were probably at a low level well before lockdown was eased. Furthermore, such a scenario would be consistent with the infection profile in Sweden, which began its decline in fatal infections shortly after the UK, but did so on the basis of measures well short of full lockdown.
Is the Prolockdown Data Good Enough to Justify Massive Human Rights Violations?
Extraordinary measures require extraordinary evidence. And the burden of proof is on those who seek to use the coercive power of the state to force people into their homes, cripple the economy, and abolish countless basic freedoms for the duration. Have the advocates for lockdowns made their case? It’s hard to see how they have. For one, advocates for lockdowns need to present obvious and overwhelming evidence that lockdowns bring big benefits far in excess of the no-lockdown approach. They have not done so. Moreover, they have not shown that a lack of lockdowns is anywhere near as dangerous as they have claimed in the name of pushing lockdowns to begin with. We can already see what the no-lockdown scenario looks like. It looks like Sweden, and that’s a better outcome than many prolockdown regimes can claim. Governments are nonetheless likely to continue claiming their lockdowns worked. In ancient days, a witch doctor might perform a rain dance on Tuesday and claim credit when it rained on Wednesday. Lockdowns are increasingly looking like the modern equivalent of a rain dance.


newswars--2020-09-10--Why Freedom of Association Is So Important

If one were to come up with a word cloud for the year 2020 , among the largest words , such as “ awful ” and “ disaster ” one would most assuredly find the word “ lonely.
” Thanks to the convenient excuse of covid , numerous state governments instituted a regime of veritable house arrest for their citizens .
Streets were deserted , stores empty , churches closed by government decree .
Restaurants and bars usually filled to the brim with happy chatting people were instead filled with an eerie silence , punctuated , perhaps , only by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imminent bankruptcy .
While in most places the “ social distancing ” has lessened in its severity , there are still many hindrances to what would be considered normal social existence , as the horror stories coming out of colleges and schools demonstrate all too clearly .
Sadly , but not unexpectedly , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports a widespread increase in anxiety , depression , substance abuse , and suicidal ideation among the population .
Young people have been especially hard hit , with over 25 percent of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this is surprising .
In the words of Aristotle , “ man is a social animal , ” after all .
Under such circumstances , the recent publication of the book Why Associations Matter : The Case for First Amendment Pluralism by Professor Luke Sheahan at Duquesne University could hardly be more timely and needed .
In this short and easy-to-follow , yet thorough , work , Sheahan guides the reader through not only a crash course in why the right of free association is necessary for human life and liberty but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment jurisprudence on the subject and a potential legal theory under which the right to association could be operationalized in the courts .
Sheahan opens the book with a short example of freedom of association under attack from the Harry Potter series , specifically the way in which the Ministry of Magic , having effectively nationalized and taken over Hogwarts , banned any groups and gatherings not sanctioned by the authorities at the school .
Sheahan asks “ What is it about an alternative source of authority , even one as mild as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ministry ?
” Tyrants , in whatever form they take , inevitably hate and work to destroy private associations .
Such associations are outside of their control and are an alternative pole of allegiance , and therefore must be eliminated .
Such an obvious attack on an essential liberty might seem fanciful to Harry Potter fans , Sheahan notes , but unfortunately , due to recent Supreme Court jurisprudence , such an attack bears an uncomfortable resemblance in some respects to the world we actually inhabit now .
The villain Sheahan points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Be Named , but rather the 2010 Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez , a case dealing with whether or not a student group was allowed to require voting members and leadership to agree to a statement of faith .
Sheahan heralds this case as the point at which the Supreme Court fully erased the freedom of association from legal precedent .
He meticulously traces out the way in which First Amendment jurisprudence on the issue has evolved leading up to the Martinez decision .
He identifies a trend of freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the context of the freedom of expression , which he identifies as the First Amendment dichotomy .
This evolution culminates in the aforementioned case , in which , in Sheahan ’ s words , the court “ only considered First Amendment rights in terms of speech .
This maneuver by the Court effectively removes the freedom of association from First Amendment protection .
To sum up : a public forum , governed by the First Amendment and created by a public university for the express purpose of allowing groups to form , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect freedom of associations for groups that formed there.
” If Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez is central to the legal aspect of Sheahan ’ s argument , the works of the sociologist Robert Nisbet serve as the underlying foundation for the sociological and political understanding of association that explains why freedom of association is so important in the first place .
Sheahan provides a chapter-length summary of many of Nisbet ’ s key points regarding the sociology of groups and social pluralism that establishes a “ theory of the social ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of the book .
Even standing alone this section is a valuable introductory resource on Nisbet ’ s work and would be beneficial for readers who are not yet familiar with his strong critiques of the centralizing state .
Having laid out a theory of the social that contextualizes just why the freedom to associate is necessary for human life itself and demonstrated that such freedom is clearly under threat under the prevailing legal doctrine , Sheahan turns to explicating an alternative legal doctrine to the First Amendment dichotomy , which he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that courts must recognize that expressive association , while important , is not the only aspect of association that must be protected .
The First Amendment guarantees the right to assemble , but people assemble for far more than to exercise free speech .
Every group has some kind of function and develops dogmas to help achieve that end .
If the legal system only protects groups when they are engaged in free expression and does not protect their functional integrity , meaning their ability to wield authority within the group itself that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exists , the system has left the existential core of the group defenseless .
Having worked through what First Amendment pluralism would look like , Sheahan proposes a judicial test that he calls the functional autonomy test as a method of operation and also suggests a draft piece of legislation modeled on the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act that could serve as a legislative basis for the principle .
In this short book , Sheahan explores many of the facets of the sociology of groups and interprets them into the legal and judicial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ informed layperson should find easy to understand .
He does so with thoroughness for both his own ideas and alternative interpretations and proposals .
His evenhandedness is especially on display when addressing the thorny issue of freedom of association as it relates to groups that desire to restrict membership based on race and how they should be considered , both sociologically and legally .
Laypeople , as well as those pursuing or interested in pursuing a legal career , will likely find the book to be a most edifying and worthwhile read .

If one were to come up with a word cloud for the year 2020, among the largest words, such as “awful” and “disaster” one would most assuredly find the word “lonely.”
Thanks to the convenient excuse of covid, numerous state governments instituted a regime of veritable house arrest for their citizens. Streets were deserted, stores empty, churches closed by government decree. Restaurants and bars usually filled to the brim with happy chatting people were instead filled with an eerie silence, punctuated, perhaps, only by the muffled cries of proprietors lamenting their imminent bankruptcy. While in most places the “social distancing” has lessened in its severity, there are still many hindrances to what would be considered normal social existence, as the horror stories coming out of colleges and schools demonstrate all too clearly. Sadly, but not unexpectedly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports a widespread increase in anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation among the population. Young people have been especially hard hit, with over 25 percent of those ages 18–24 experiencing suicidal ideation.
None of this is surprising. In the words of Aristotle, “man is a social animal,” after all. Under such circumstances, the recent publication of the book Why Associations Matter: The Case for First Amendment Pluralism by Professor Luke Sheahan at Duquesne University could hardly be more timely and needed. In this short and easy-to-follow, yet thorough, work, Sheahan guides the reader through not only a crash course in why the right of free association is necessary for human life and liberty but also through the current state of First Amendment jurisprudence on the subject and a potential legal theory under which the right to association could be operationalized in the courts.
Sheahan opens the book with a short example of freedom of association under attack from the Harry Potter series, specifically the way in which the Ministry of Magic, having effectively nationalized and taken over Hogwarts, banned any groups and gatherings not sanctioned by the authorities at the school. Sheahan asks “What is it about an alternative source of authority, even one as mild as an independent student group, that rankles the ministry?” Tyrants, in whatever form they take, inevitably hate and work to destroy private associations. Such associations are outside of their control and are an alternative pole of allegiance, and therefore must be eliminated.
Such an obvious attack on an essential liberty might seem fanciful to Harry Potter fans, Sheahan notes, but unfortunately, due to recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, such an attack bears an uncomfortable resemblance in some respects to the world we actually inhabit now.
The villain Sheahan points to is not He Who Must Not Be Named, but rather the 2010 Supreme Court case Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez, a case dealing with whether or not a student group was allowed to require voting members and leadership to agree to a statement of faith. Sheahan heralds this case as the point at which the Supreme Court fully erased the freedom of association from legal precedent. He meticulously traces out the way in which First Amendment jurisprudence on the issue has evolved leading up to the Martinez decision. He identifies a trend of freedom of association coming to be recognized only in the context of the freedom of expression, which he identifies as the First Amendment dichotomy.
This evolution culminates in the aforementioned case, in which, in Sheahan’s words, the court “only considered First Amendment rights in terms of speech. This maneuver by the Court effectively removes the freedom of association from First Amendment protection. To sum up: a public forum, governed by the First Amendment and created by a public university for the express purpose of allowing groups to form, was not required by the Supreme Court to protect freedom of associations for groups that formed there.”
If Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez is central to the legal aspect of Sheahan’s argument, the works of the sociologist Robert Nisbet serve as the underlying foundation for the sociological and political understanding of association that explains why freedom of association is so important in the first place. Sheahan provides a chapter-length summary of many of Nisbet’s key points regarding the sociology of groups and social pluralism that establishes a “theory of the social” that serves as the foundation for the rest of the book. Even standing alone this section is a valuable introductory resource on Nisbet’s work and would be beneficial for readers who are not yet familiar with his strong critiques of the centralizing state.
Having laid out a theory of the social that contextualizes just why the freedom to associate is necessary for human life itself and demonstrated that such freedom is clearly under threat under the prevailing legal doctrine, Sheahan turns to explicating an alternative legal doctrine to the First Amendment dichotomy, which he calls First Amendment pluralism.
Sheahan argues that courts must recognize that expressive association, while important, is not the only aspect of association that must be protected. The First Amendment guarantees the right to assemble, but people assemble for far more than to exercise free speech. Every group has some kind of function and develops dogmas to help achieve that end. If the legal system only protects groups when they are engaged in free expression and does not protect their functional integrity, meaning their ability to wield authority within the group itself that preserves the end for which the group exists, the system has left the existential core of the group defenseless.
Having worked through what First Amendment pluralism would look like, Sheahan proposes a judicial test that he calls the functional autonomy test as a method of operation and also suggests a draft piece of legislation modeled on the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act that could serve as a legislative basis for the principle.
In this short book, Sheahan explores many of the facets of the sociology of groups and interprets them into the legal and judicial sphere in a manner that any reasonably informed layperson should find easy to understand. He does so with thoroughness for both his own ideas and alternative interpretations and proposals. His evenhandedness is especially on display when addressing the thorny issue of freedom of association as it relates to groups that desire to restrict membership based on race and how they should be considered, both sociologically and legally. Laypeople, as well as those pursuing or interested in pursuing a legal career, will likely find the book to be a most edifying and worthwhile read.


newswars--2020-09-10--Biden Claims 6,000 US Military Members Died From COVID – The Real Number Is 7

During a campaign speech in Michigan on Wednesday , Democratic Party presidential nominee Joe Biden incorrectly told his audience “ @ @ @ @ @ have died of COVID-19 .
In actuality , DOD statistics show only seven deaths among @ @ @ @ @ with CNN , a Biden campaign spokesperson said , “ Biden misspoke , accidentally citing @ @ @ @ @ and cases instead of military numbers.
” This is simply more proof of Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ desperate Democrats push one of the weakest candidates in U.S. history on their voters .

During a campaign speech in Michigan on Wednesday, Democratic Party presidential nominee Joe Biden incorrectly told his audience “6,114” U.S. military members have died of COVID-19.
In actuality, DOD statistics show only seven deaths among American military personnel.
Joe #Biden read from a printed list of #COVID19 statistics, he exaggerated (lied) the number of military #COVID deaths over 6,000. According to DOD, there is 7 members of US military died from COVID17.
Watch!#Trump2020 #KAG pic.twitter.com/bWqpbV8nu7 — Wyn (@Wyn1745) September 10, 2020
Speaking with CNN, a Biden campaign spokesperson said, “Biden misspoke, accidentally citing Michigan numbers of Covid-19 deaths and cases instead of military numbers.”
This is simply more proof of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline as desperate Democrats push one of the weakest candidates in U.S. history on their voters.


newswars--2020-09-10--The Fed’s New Policy Risks a Return of the 1970s

On August 27 , the Federal Reserve released an important revision to its monetary policy strategy , replacing 2 percent price inflation targeting—initially adopted in 2012—with a new approach in which the Fed will target an average inflation rate instead .
To quote the Fed ’ s statement , “ following periods when inflation has been running persistently below 2 percent , appropriate monetary policy will likely aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2 percent for some time.
” The idea is thus to allow inflation to move above 2 percent until it averages 2 percent over some unspecified number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a consistent 2 percent level .
In addition to being a violation of the Fed ’ s price stability mandate , which , as Philipp Bagus has pointed out , “ literally means and is 0 percent price inflation , ” the new strategy as it has been described so far is also lacking two essential details that would be required for it to count as anything more than a self-conferred license to make up monetary policy on the fly .
First , as many authors have noted , practically any policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice of the number of periods over which to average ( see this Wall Street Journal commentary ) .
There is also nothing to rule out the possibility that this number might be arbitrarily changed to suit the whims of the policymakers .
Second , there is no indication of how the Fed would react to a steady uptrend in price inflation .
Here I would like to focus on this latter omission , which strikes me as especially glaring given the upside inflation risks resulting from this year ’ s unprecedented explosion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the central banker , as former Fed chair William McChesney Martin famously said , is to “ take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going.
” Clearly as long as inflation stays below the 2 percent target , there will be plenty of punch for everyone .
The funds rate will be kept at zero and the new policy will be moot .
The policy change would only begin to matter with inflation above 2 percent .
At first , the average would presumably still be below this level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when they might otherwise have been raised .
But what would happen if the average then continued climbing until it too exceeded 2 percent ?
How abruptly would the punch bowl have to be taken away at that point ?
Under these circumstances , it is hard to see how the price stability mandate would be consistent with the 25 basis points per meeting pace that has been typical of prior rate hike cycles .
With inflation trending upward , proceeding so slowly after delaying for so long would risk “ unmooring ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inflationary spiral .
Logically , under the new average inflation targeting regime the central bank would have to respond much more forcefully once the average exceeded its target .
This would mean that the “ lower for longer ” phase would have to be reversed through subsequent aggressive tightening .
Where formerly the Fed might have been expected to adjust rates upward in a smooth and reasonably predictable fashion , the new policy might require an interest rate path characterized by abrupt upward jumps , possibly terminating with rates at an even higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restore price stability with a more preemptive reaction function .
This scenario will be familiar to anyone acquainted with the economic history of the 1970s .
US inflation first began to pick up in the late 1960s in tandem with deficit spending resulting from “ Great Society ” programs and the war in Vietnam , then exploded higher following the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 ( see figure 1 ) .
Monetary policy remained overly accommodative until the end of the decade , when the Fed was finally forced to veer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fed funds rate to almost 20 percent by the beginning of the 1980s ( see figure 2 ) .
The new average targeting policy only really makes sense in a world of permanently low inflation , where the Fed could safely set aside its price stability mandate and focus on other objectives .
Unfortunately , there is no reason to rule out future periods of high inflation , and it is unlikely to be obvious in advance when the next such episode has begun .
Whenever this transition takes place , average inflation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be well behind the curve .
It is easy to see why the Fed might have neglected to describe its plans for dealing with a future uptrend in inflation in explaining its new strategy .
It would like to reassure markets by committing itself to leaving the punch on the table too long but might prefer not to consider the fact that this commitment must come at a price .
As in 1980 , it will be necessary to take a sledgehammer to the punch bowl when the party ’ s over @

On August 27, the Federal Reserve released an important revision to its monetary policy strategy, replacing 2 percent price inflation targeting—initially adopted in 2012—with a new approach in which the Fed will target an average inflation rate instead.
To quote the Fed’s statement, “following periods when inflation has been running persistently below 2 percent, appropriate monetary policy will likely aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2 percent for some time.” The idea is thus to allow inflation to move above 2 percent until it averages 2 percent over some unspecified number of prior periods rather than to aim for a consistent 2 percent level.
In addition to being a violation of the Fed’s price stability mandate, which, as Philipp Bagus has pointed out, “literally means and is 0 percent price inflation,” the new strategy as it has been described so far is also lacking two essential details that would be required for it to count as anything more than a self-conferred license to make up monetary policy on the fly.
First, as many authors have noted, practically any policy action could be justified through an appropriate choice of the number of periods over which to average (see this Wall Street Journal commentary). There is also nothing to rule out the possibility that this number might be arbitrarily changed to suit the whims of the policymakers. Second, there is no indication of how the Fed would react to a steady uptrend in price inflation. Here I would like to focus on this latter omission, which strikes me as especially glaring given the upside inflation risks resulting from this year’s unprecedented explosion in the money supply.
The job of the central banker, as former Fed chair William McChesney Martin famously said, is to “take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going.” Clearly as long as inflation stays below the 2 percent target, there will be plenty of punch for everyone. The funds rate will be kept at zero and the new policy will be moot. The policy change would only begin to matter with inflation above 2 percent. At first, the average would presumably still be below this level, implying that rates would remain unchanged when they might otherwise have been raised. But what would happen if the average then continued climbing until it too exceeded 2 percent? How abruptly would the punch bowl have to be taken away at that point?
Under these circumstances, it is hard to see how the price stability mandate would be consistent with the 25 basis points per meeting pace that has been typical of prior rate hike cycles. With inflation trending upward, proceeding so slowly after delaying for so long would risk “unmooring” inflation expectations and setting off an uncontrollable inflationary spiral.
Logically, under the new average inflation targeting regime the central bank would have to respond much more forcefully once the average exceeded its target. This would mean that the “lower for longer” phase would have to be reversed through subsequent aggressive tightening. Where formerly the Fed might have been expected to adjust rates upward in a smooth and reasonably predictable fashion, the new policy might require an interest rate path characterized by abrupt upward jumps, possibly terminating with rates at an even higher level than would have been necessary to restore price stability with a more preemptive reaction function.
This scenario will be familiar to anyone acquainted with the economic history of the 1970s. US inflation first began to pick up in the late 1960s in tandem with deficit spending resulting from “Great Society” programs and the war in Vietnam, then exploded higher following the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 (see figure 1). Monetary policy remained overly accommodative until the end of the decade, when the Fed was finally forced to veer to the opposite extreme, pushing the effective fed funds rate to almost 20 percent by the beginning of the 1980s (see figure 2).
Figure 1: US CPI Inflation (Annual Data)
Figure 2: Effective Federal Funds Rate (Monthly Data)
The new average targeting policy only really makes sense in a world of permanently low inflation, where the Fed could safely set aside its price stability mandate and focus on other objectives. Unfortunately, there is no reason to rule out future periods of high inflation, and it is unlikely to be obvious in advance when the next such episode has begun. Whenever this transition takes place, average inflation targeting virtually guarantees that the central bankers will be well behind the curve.
It is easy to see why the Fed might have neglected to describe its plans for dealing with a future uptrend in inflation in explaining its new strategy. It would like to reassure markets by committing itself to leaving the punch on the table too long but might prefer not to consider the fact that this commitment must come at a price. As in 1980, it will be necessary to take a sledgehammer to the punch bowl when the party’s over.


newswars--2020-09-10--What Possible Disruption Is Coming That Requires China To Start Massive Stockpiling Of All Possible

What Possible Disruption Is Coming That Requires China To Start Massive Stockpiling Of All Possible Commodities

By Michael Every of Rabobank Today is like one of those rare occasions when the Broadway understudy for a leading role finds out that the star has the ‘ flu ( not Covid-19 ) and so they get to go in front of the audience for once .
Yes , Europe , today is your time to shine : “ Everything ’ s coming up Milhouse !
” .
Or not .
Because the pressure is certainly on .
First , we have the ECB .
The market whisper is that they have decided that a global backdrop where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , among others , have all flagged that things remain grave , and that far more easing can still be ; where a second wave of the virus is clearly evident ; and where we are worryingly close to a Hard Brexit , is the right time to sell sunny economic uplands ahead .
Or at least that is what the markets will perceive the outcome to be if we indeed see their economic forecasts revised upwards without the right serious tone .
They will take that to mean that while everyone else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ECB isn ’ t .
And the impact , if we haven ’ t already seen it in buy-the-rumour , sell-the-fact manner , will be appropriate .
So over to the always-says-exactly-what-the-market-wants-to-hear ECB President Lagarde to try to explain how they are upbeat , but not so upbeat that anything needs to change in any of the wrong ways – like EUR hitting the roof , for example .
Second , we have the EU trying to deal with Brexit , where the UK is , on its own admittance , steering towards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaking international law .
There is an emergency meeting today between the two sides and , frankly , it ’ s unclear if the UK is going to talk or declare “ There is a bomb in this briefcase !
” One would imagine that part of this might feed into the ECB ’ s thinking if the meetings overlap ( ? )
At the same time , the EU is dealing with China .
EC executive vice-president Vestager is going to be talking to China ’ s Liu He , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be offering Europe the chance to join it in its proposed new China Network on data security….as opposed to the US Clean Network , being the unspoken part .
Once again , we see Europe caught in the middle .
Once again , it will probably “ try to go its own way ” .
In the same way Europe doesn ’ t rely on the US in NATO and on the USD in the Eurodollar markets .
The understudy , indeed .
Let ’ s see how Milhouse does when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something to study .
China has announced it plans to boost its strategic commodities reserves to assuage anxiety over energy and food security .
Starting in 2021 , it will make what Bloomberg calls “ mammoth ” purchases of crude , strategic materials , and farm goods , officials apparently say .
This is being done to ensure China can ride out any repeat of this year ’ s supply disruptions , or a deterioration in trade relations with the US , for example .
This is apparently part of the shift to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-reliance , which is already being flagged , and which will kick in for the five year plan 2021-25 .
Actually , those in the know know that this has already been happening across the board for some time : China has been swallowing up raw materials and strategic goods far in advance of what the economy needs right now .
That means the drop in other imports –which are still down y/y overall even including this commodity surge– is even larger .
( And why aren ’ t FX reserves rising even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
Here ’ s the understudy way to study this : go long commodities !
– because obviously China buying in vast quantities for years to come , right ?
Expect lots of stories like that .
Here ’ s the star way to think about it : what does it really say if China is stocking up so much ?
Has there ever been a point during trade tensions where anyone has ever threatened not to sell to China ?
The issue is always that trade partners don ’ t ONLY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commodities to it , but rather to hold more of the technology and value chain themselves .
That is as true for Europe as it is for the US .
What possible disruption could be on the horizon that would require China to have a large enough buffer of all conceivable inputs –in remote inland areas to boot– that it needs to use up its precious USD reserves in a bulk splurge now ?
“ Geopolitics ” , as we say euphemistically ?
That hardly suggests the benign , sunny uplands that ECB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with its eyes firmly on its own shoes , RBA-style .
It can ’ t be on *imminent* concerns of the US acting on China ’ s USD access because all these purchases will presumably still be made in those precious USD , even in vast size , … right ?
Or is the idea with THAT much buying , a shift to CNY can be accelerated ?
For commodity sellers , that ’ s something to consider .
So is that this would be a multi-year bull-run – and then a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China would no longer have to worry about not having enough of X , or Y , or Z ; and it could simply stop buying from industry/country X , or Y , or Z for a year or two if prices were too high , ….and watch them collapse , …until prices were again amenable , or the asset was for sale , or the relevant government ‘ came to its senses ’ on foreign policy .
I am not saying this is what China *IS* doing .
Yet this is how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that others are going to do the same , would think – and act .
We have more than enough examples from history from all round the word ; and our domestic economies are replete with monopoly and monosophy , and at the firm level we see the same game play out .
Is everything really coming up Milhouse , Milhouse ?
But let ’ s ignore all that and watch Christine Lagarde try to explain why there may be marginally more of the inflation the ECB never generates ahead than the previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such forecasting is not worth doing anyway .

By Michael Every of Rabobank
Today is like one of those rare occasions when the Broadway understudy for a leading role finds out that the star has the ‘flu (not Covid-19) and so they get to go in front of the audience for once. Yes, Europe, today is your time to shine: “Everything’s coming up Milhouse!”.
Or not. Because the pressure is certainly on.
First, we have the ECB. The market whisper is that they have decided that a global backdrop where the Fed, BOE, RBA and RBNZ, among others, have all flagged that things remain grave, and that far more easing can still be; where a second wave of the virus is clearly evident; and where we are worryingly close to a Hard Brexit, is the right time to sell sunny economic uplands ahead. Or at least that is what the markets will perceive the outcome to be if we indeed see their economic forecasts revised upwards without the right serious tone. They will take that to mean that while everyone else is close to doing more, the ECB isn’t. And the impact, if we haven’t already seen it in buy-the-rumour, sell-the-fact manner, will be appropriate.
So over to the always-says-exactly-what-the-market-wants-to-hear ECB President Lagarde to try to explain how they are upbeat, but not so upbeat that anything needs to change in any of the wrong ways – like EUR hitting the roof, for example.
Second, we have the EU trying to deal with Brexit, where the UK is, on its own admittance, steering towards acting like a rogue state and unilaterally breaking international law. There is an emergency meeting today between the two sides and, frankly, it’s unclear if the UK is going to talk or declare “There is a bomb in this briefcase!” One would imagine that part of this might feed into the ECB’s thinking if the meetings overlap(?)
At the same time, the EU is dealing with China. EC executive vice-president Vestager is going to be talking to China’s Liu He, and the South China Morning Post reports the latter will be offering Europe the chance to join it in its proposed new China Network on data security….as opposed to the US Clean Network, being the unspoken part. Once again, we see Europe caught in the middle. Once again, it will probably “try to go its own way”. In the same way Europe doesn’t rely on the US in NATO and on the USD in the Eurodollar markets. The understudy, indeed.
Let’s see how Milhouse does when the spotlight shines.
Meanwhile, here is something to study. China has announced it plans to boost its strategic commodities reserves to assuage anxiety over energy and food security. Starting in 2021, it will make what Bloomberg calls “mammoth” purchases of crude, strategic materials, and farm goods, officials apparently say. This is being done to ensure China can ride out any repeat of this year’s supply disruptions, or a deterioration in trade relations with the US, for example. This is apparently part of the shift to “internal circulation”, or greater self-reliance, which is already being flagged, and which will kick in for the five year plan 2021-25.
Actually, those in the know know that this has already been happening across the board for some time: China has been swallowing up raw materials and strategic goods far in advance of what the economy needs right now. That means the drop in other imports –which are still down y/y overall even including this commodity surge– is even larger. (And why aren’t FX reserves rising even as the trade surplus soars…? Mmmm.)
Here’s the understudy way to study this: go long commodities! – because obviously China buying in vast quantities for years to come, right? Expect lots of stories like that.
Here’s the star way to think about it: what does it really say if China is stocking up so much? Has there ever been a point during trade tensions where anyone has ever threatened not to sell to China? The issue is always that trade partners don’t ONLY want to sell raw materials and unprocessed commodities to it, but rather to hold more of the technology and value chain themselves. That is as true for Europe as it is for the US.
What possible disruption could be on the horizon that would require China to have a large enough buffer of all conceivable inputs –in remote inland areas to boot– that it needs to use up its precious USD reserves in a bulk splurge now?
“Geopolitics”, as we say euphemistically? That hardly suggests the benign, sunny uplands that ECB is going to try to sell today, with its eyes firmly on its own shoes, RBA-style.
It can’t be on *imminent* concerns of the US acting on China’s USD access because all these purchases will presumably still be made in those precious USD, even in vast size,… right? Or is the idea with THAT much buying, a shift to CNY can be accelerated? For commodity sellers, that’s something to consider. So is that this would be a multi-year bull-run – and then a very sharp stop.
Indeed, theoretically China would no longer have to worry about not having enough of X, or Y, or Z; and it could simply stop buying from industry/country X, or Y, or Z for a year or two if prices were too high,….and watch them collapse,…until prices were again amenable, or the asset was for sale, or the relevant government ‘came to its senses’ on foreign policy.
I am not saying this is what China *IS* doing. Yet this is how anyone seeing trade geostrategically, or fearing that others are going to do the same, would think – and act. We have more than enough examples from history from all round the word; and our domestic economies are replete with monopoly and monosophy, and at the firm level we see the same game play out.
Is everything really coming up Milhouse, Milhouse?
But let’s ignore all that and watch Christine Lagarde try to explain why there may be marginally more of the inflation the ECB never generates ahead than the previous set of forecasts predicted, underlining why such forecasting is not worth doing anyway.


newswars--2020-09-10--U. of Michigan Dearborn Hosts Racially Segregated ‘BIPOC’ and ‘Non-POC’ Events

The University of Michigan-Dearborn hosted racially segregated events on Tuesday , one for “ Non-POC , ” and the other @ @ @ @ @ Black , Indigenous , and People Of Color ) students .
During the two racially @ @ @ @ @ the groups were encouraged to “ discuss their experience as students on campus.
” The @ @ @ @ @ “ sincerely regrets ” describing the cafes as “ Non-POC ” and “ BIPOC ” @ @ @ @ @ ( People Of Color ) Cafe is a space for students that do not identify @ @ @ @ @ gather and to discuss their experience as students on campus and as non-POC in the @ @ @ @ @ event description on the university ’ s website .
Although the university has since pulled @ @ @ @ @ website , archives of the information pages exist .
“ Feel free to drop in @ @ @ @ @ non-persons of color and hopefully brainstorm solutions to common issues within the non-POC community , @ @ @ @ @

The University of Michigan-Dearborn hosted racially segregated events on Tuesday, one for “Non-POC,” and the other for “BIPOC” (Black, Indigenous, and People Of Color) students.
During the two racially segregated “cafes,” the groups were encouraged to “discuss their experience as students on campus.” The university now says that it “sincerely regrets” describing the cafes as “Non-POC” and “BIPOC” events.
“The Non-POC (People Of Color) Cafe is a space for students that do not identify as persons of color to gather and to discuss their experience as students on campus and as non-POC in the world,” read the event description on the university’s website. Although the university has since pulled the relevant pages off their website, archives of the information pages exist.
“Feel free to drop in and discuss your experiences as non-persons of color and hopefully brainstorm solutions to common issues within the non-POC community,” added the description.
Read More


newswars--2020-09-10--Spain: Cop Kneels on 14-Year-Old Boy For Refusing to Wear a Mask

A new video out of Spain shows a police officer kneeling on a 14-year-old boy because he refused to wear a face mask .
The incident occurred in the city of Miranda de Ebro after police “ observed the boy walking with his mask incorrectly on , ” according to reports .
Police claim the boy tried to attack them , although this is not seen in the video and the family denies any assault took place .
The clip shows the officer kneeling on the boy as he pushes his head into the ground .
The boy repeatedly screams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Police also claim the boy ’ s mother assaulted them and she was arrested along with her son .
Authorities claimed they used “ minimum force ” against the boy .
While the 14-year-old is clearly resisting arrest , this incident would never have happened in the first place without Spain ’ s draconian face mask rule , which dictates the coverings must be worn everywhere , outside and inside , by law .
As we have repeatedly highlighted , Spain has seen perhaps the most draconian coronavirus enforcement measures besides Australia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how Spanish authorities are using drones and low-flying helicopters fitted with loudspeakers to enforce COVID-19 curfew rules on beaches .
We also previously reported on the case of two women in Spain who were beaten by police for not properly wearing their masks .
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch .
I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here .
Also , I urgently need your financial support here .

A new video out of Spain shows a police officer kneeling on a 14-year-old boy because he refused to wear a face mask.
The incident occurred in the city of Miranda de Ebro after police “observed the boy walking with his mask incorrectly on,” according to reports.
Police claim the boy tried to attack them, although this is not seen in the video and the family denies any assault took place.
The clip shows the officer kneeling on the boy as he pushes his head into the ground. The boy repeatedly screams out and appears to have difficulty breathing.
Una nueva actuación desproporcionada de la Policia local de Miranda, reduciendo y deteniendo a un chaval de 14 años y a su madre, por llevar la mascarilla bajada pic.twitter.com/O55Nw03qY4 — Izquierda Mirandesa (@IzqMirandesa) September 8, 2020
Police also claim the boy’s mother assaulted them and she was arrested along with her son.
Authorities claimed they used “minimum force” against the boy.
While the 14-year-old is clearly resisting arrest, this incident would never have happened in the first place without Spain’s draconian face mask rule, which dictates the coverings must be worn everywhere, outside and inside, by law.
As we have repeatedly highlighted, Spain has seen perhaps the most draconian coronavirus enforcement measures besides Australia.
Earlier this week we reported on how Spanish authorities are using drones and low-flying helicopters fitted with loudspeakers to enforce COVID-19 curfew rules on beaches.
We also previously reported on the case of two women in Spain who were beaten by police for not properly wearing their masks.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
———————————————————————————————————————
ALERT!
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.
I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.
Also, I urgently need your financial support here.
———————————————————————————————————————


newswars--2020-09-10--Over 1,000 HS Football Games Already Played With No Covid Spread

Over 1,000 high school football games have been played across the United States without a significant spread of Covid-19 , according to athletic news .
Many states chose to allow high school football games despite critics worrying that it would lead to spikes of Covid-19 , but that hasn ’ t been the case at all .
“ To our knowledge , there have been no reported cases of significant community spread following a high school football game , ” according to Football Scoop .
“ High schools in the state of Utah have been playing for 4+ weeks now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alaska have all been playing for 3+ weeks .
A significant number of states have now been playing for 2+ weeks.
” “ Data shows there has not been a significant spike in COVID cases in any of the states that have been playing football for the last 2-4 weeks.
” Now before you think that this can be attributed to mandatory mask wearing at high school games , keep in mind that several California cities had mandatory mask mandates in place BEFORE reporting their peak case numbers : Also , keep in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own Covid-19 rules , meaning that , occasionally , there ’ s going to be a mishmash of contradictory rules when two teams are playing in the same stadium – and there ’ s of course the fact that most players aren ’ t wearing masks on the field and they ’ re certainly not social distancing .
Despite that , there ’ s been no reported resurgence of Covid-19 from high school games , although , at this point , we shouldn ’ t be looking at total case numbers but rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mortality rates .
As Sky News host Alan Jones pointed out , the vast majority of cases have been mild , leading some to say , sarcastically , that Covid-19 is a virus “ so severe that many don ’ t know they ’ ve have it until they ’ re tested.
” Yet there ’ s still politicians demanding that Americans vote by mail , exposing the election to mass voter fraud .

Over 1,000 high school football games have been played across the United States without a significant spread of Covid-19, according to athletic news.
Many states chose to allow high school football games despite critics worrying that it would lead to spikes of Covid-19, but that hasn’t been the case at all.
“To our knowledge, there have been no reported cases of significant community spread following a high school football game,” according to Football Scoop. “High schools in the state of Utah have been playing for 4+ weeks now. Alabama, Indiana, Tennessee and Alaska have all been playing for 3+ weeks. A significant number of states have now been playing for 2+ weeks.”
“Data shows there has not been a significant spike in COVID cases in any of the states that have been playing football for the last 2-4 weeks.”
Now before you think that this can be attributed to mandatory mask wearing at high school games, keep in mind that several California cities had mandatory mask mandates in place BEFORE reporting their peak case numbers:
In today’s “masks don’t work” segment…LA, Orange & San Diego Counties all had different mask timing. Orange even tried to follow science & rescinded the mandate briefly And yet, the curve was the same, & the 7-day average peaked on almost the exact same day How can that be?! pic.twitter.com/F9REfwA2dq — Ian Miller (@ianmSC) September 2, 2020
Also, keep in mind that each school district has its own Covid-19 rules, meaning that, occasionally, there’s going to be a mishmash of contradictory rules when two teams are playing in the same stadium – and there’s of course the fact that most players aren’t wearing masks on the field and they’re certainly not social distancing.
Despite that, there’s been no reported resurgence of Covid-19 from high school games, although, at this point, we shouldn’t be looking at total case numbers but rather the number of severe cases and the mortality rates.
As Sky News host Alan Jones pointed out, the vast majority of cases have been mild, leading some to say, sarcastically, that Covid-19 is a virus “so severe that many don’t know they’ve have it until they’re tested.”
Yet there’s still politicians demanding that Americans vote by mail, exposing the election to mass voter fraud.


newswars--2020-09-10--Chinese Government Combines ‘Track and Trace’ Corona System With Social Credit Score

The Communist government of China has combined its coronavirus ‘ track and trace ’ system with the country ’ s notorious social credit score .
As the Epoch Times ’ Joshua Philipp explains , fears that the new COVID surveillance system would be used for “ totalitarian social monitoring ” are being realized in China .
“ The local government of China ’ s Jiangsu province has launched a new social control system that combines the CCP ’ s health code program with the regime ’ s social credit system to create what they ’ re calling a civilization code @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system ranks each citizen via a “ civilization score ” and then places them in a category which determines whether they get priority access to services or are punished and restricted .
The new system represents an expansion of the social credit score and is being initially rolled out in the city of Suzhou and will apply to everyone over the age of 18 .
Last year , we also highlighted how Chinese citizens would need to pass a facial recognition test to access the Internet in another expansion of the social credit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Communist state bragged about how it had prevented 2.5 million “ discredited entities ” from purchasing plane tickets and 90,000 people from buying high speed train tickets in the month of July alone .
As we document in the video below , the onerous social credit score system is literally designed to punish and socially ostracize dissidents who express controversial opinions .
In the age of social media deplatforming , an identical system is gradually being introduced in the west , where people who have been banned by social media networks for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deplatformed by companies and banks .
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch .
I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here .
Also , I urgently need your financial support here .

The Communist government of China has combined its coronavirus ‘track and trace’ system with the country’s notorious social credit score.
As the Epoch Times’ Joshua Philipp explains, fears that the new COVID surveillance system would be used for “totalitarian social monitoring” are being realized in China.
“The local government of China’s Jiangsu province has launched a new social control system that combines the CCP’s health code program with the regime’s social credit system to create what they’re calling a civilization code,” Philipp reported.
The new system ranks each citizen via a “civilization score” and then places them in a category which determines whether they get priority access to services or are punished and restricted.
The new system represents an expansion of the social credit score and is being initially rolled out in the city of Suzhou and will apply to everyone over the age of 18.
CCP has launched a new #SocialControl system called “civilization code,” that combines China’s coronavirus #HealthCode app with the “social credit system” which allows the #CCP to track and trace citizens with a tighter grip. WATCH HERE 👉 https://t.co/AtA8xajdWM pic.twitter.com/OBuM5gHD5g — crossroads (@crossroads_josh) September 9, 2020
Last year, we also highlighted how Chinese citizens would need to pass a facial recognition test to access the Internet in another expansion of the social credit score system.
In August 2019, the Communist state bragged about how it had prevented 2.5 million “discredited entities” from purchasing plane tickets and 90,000 people from buying high speed train tickets in the month of July alone.
As we document in the video below, the onerous social credit score system is literally designed to punish and socially ostracize dissidents who express controversial opinions.
In the age of social media deplatforming, an identical system is gradually being introduced in the west, where people who have been banned by social media networks for ‘offensive’ views are then also deplatformed by companies and banks.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
———————————————————————————————————————
ALERT!
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.
I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.
Also, I urgently need your financial support here.
———————————————————————————————————————


newswars--2020-09-10--Breaking! General Mattis Plotted With Democratic Party to Overthrow US Government & Install Deep Sta

Breaking! General Mattis Plotted With Democratic Party to Overthrow US Government & Install Deep State Dictatorship

The globalists can ’ t allow the United States to be independent .
Tune in how to see how this @ @ @ @ @ play a part in history : David Knight Show : The Unholy Alliance Between Islam @ @ @ @ @ to this censored broadcast for information you won ’ t find on mainstream media On @ @ @ @ @ David Knight Show , your guest host Harrison Smith will be joined by special guest @ @ @ @ @ unlikely , yet dangerous alliance between Antifa and radical Islamic groups .

The globalists can’t allow the United States to be independent. Tune in how to see how this is unfolding and how YOU play a part in history:
David Knight Show: The Unholy Alliance Between Islam and Antifa Revealed
Tune in to this censored broadcast for information you won’t find on mainstream media
On this Thursday transmission of The David Knight Show, your guest host Harrison Smith will be joined by special guest John Guandolo to discuss the unlikely, yet dangerous alliance between Antifa and radical Islamic groups.


newswars--2020-09-10--IMDB Parental Warning For Netflix’s ‘Cuties’ Says Scenes in Movie are “Lawfully Defined as Pedophili

IMDB Parental Warning For Netflix’s ‘Cuties’ Says Scenes in Movie are “Lawfully Defined as Pedophilia”

IMDB ’ s parental warning on the new Netflix movie ‘ Cuties ’ literally states that some of the scenes in the film are “ lawfully defined as pedophilia.
” Outrage over the film , which focuses on four pre-teen girls preparing for a dance competition , has exploded after the full movie was released last night .
As we highlighted earlier , there are numerous scenes where children are overtly sexualized in the most disgusting ways possible .
Despite the backlash , which led to # CancelNetflix trending on Twitter today , the mainstream media has been gushing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lauding the film , journalists are celebrating a movie which IMDB ’ s parental guide literally describes as pedophilia .
“ Parental Warning : During one of the many highly sexualized & erotic dance scenes that purposefully exploit & objectify numerous scantily clad under age girls , one of the female child dancers lifts up her cropped top to fully display her bare breast .
This is lawfully defined as pedophilia and can be extremely distressing to many viewers , ” states the text on the IMDB website .
The website then lists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the movie are sexualized .
“ Trigger Warning : An 11 year old girl watches a female rap music video where naked women role play through dance both heterosexual & lesbian sex acts .
An 11 year old female dance group then mimics these sexual moves via on themselves and on each other while the camera zooms in on their sexual body parts as they erotically writher .
This can be highly distressing to many viewers.
” “ Female breast nudity of a minor during an erotic dance scene and lengthy & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and spread crotches of scantily clad 11 year old girls during numerous sexualized dance routines.
” “ A pair of tight leather pants on an 11 year old girl are forcefully pulled down in the midst of a scuffle ; the camera glances at her panty exposed bum.
” Despite the transparently vile nature of the film , it has received a 90 % positive review score on Rotten Tomatoes .
The media responded to the controversy by blaming “ right-wingers ” for being “ angry ” over a film which is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of age ” story .
There is nothing more to say aside from the fact that the entertainment industry and the media is run by truly sick people .
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch .
I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here .
Also , I urgently need your financial support here .

IMDB’s parental warning on the new Netflix movie ‘Cuties’ literally states that some of the scenes in the film are “lawfully defined as pedophilia.”
Outrage over the film, which focuses on four pre-teen girls preparing for a dance competition, has exploded after the full movie was released last night.
As we highlighted earlier, there are numerous scenes where children are overtly sexualized in the most disgusting ways possible.
In case you believe everyone is just naive and didn’t think this had anything to do with pedophilia: pic.twitter.com/z9IBpup2JV — (@GhostJim4) September 9, 2020
Despite the backlash, which led to #CancelNetflix trending on Twitter today, the mainstream media has been gushing in its praise for the movie.
In lauding the film, journalists are celebrating a movie which IMDB’s parental guide literally describes as pedophilia.
I just took this screenshot from the IMDb website. It straight up says it’s child pornography. I’m beyond appalled. Who would allow their child be filmed like this? I don’t care why they did it. It’s child pornography. #CancelNetflix pic.twitter.com/bKiV9mwd5u — Just Me. (@dazzlingblu) September 10, 2020
“Parental Warning : During one of the many highly sexualized & erotic dance scenes that purposefully exploit & objectify numerous scantily clad under age girls, one of the female child dancers lifts up her cropped top to fully display her bare breast. This is lawfully defined as pedophilia and can be extremely distressing to many viewers,” states the text on the IMDB website.
The website then lists numerous other instances of how the children in the movie are sexualized.
“Trigger Warning : An 11 year old girl watches a female rap music video where naked women role play through dance both heterosexual & lesbian sex acts. An 11 year old female dance group then mimics these sexual moves via on themselves and on each other while the camera zooms in on their sexual body parts as they erotically writher. This can be highly distressing to many viewers.”
“Female breast nudity of a minor during an erotic dance scene and lengthy & excessive closeup shots of breasts, bums and spread crotches of scantily clad 11 year old girls during numerous sexualized dance routines.”
“A pair of tight leather pants on an 11 year old girl are forcefully pulled down in the midst of a scuffle; the camera glances at her panty exposed bum.”
Despite the transparently vile nature of the film, it has received a 90% positive review score on Rotten Tomatoes.
Live look at the absolute joke that has become of the movie critic business…#CancelNetflix #BoycottNetflix pic.twitter.com/65WFjgt6yd — Matthew White (@atMatthewWhite) September 10, 2020
The media responded to the controversy by blaming “right-wingers” for being “angry” over a film which is in fact a ‘beautiful’ “coming of age” story.
There is nothing more to say aside from the fact that the entertainment industry and the media is run by truly sick people.
They’re all promoting it as a “coming of age” movie. Watch the clips. Hideous. pic.twitter.com/nYT64hKnta — Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) September 10, 2020
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
———————————————————————————————————————
ALERT!
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.
I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.
Also, I urgently need your financial support here.
———————————————————————————————————————


newswars--2020-09-10--Airliner Kicks Off Family, Cancels Entire Plane Journey Because Baby Wasn’t Wearing a Face Mask

A video posted to Twitter shows a family being kicked off a WestJet plane because their 19-month-old baby wasn ’ t wearing a face mask .
Safwan Choudhry described his horrific treatment at the hands of the airliner , which also subsequently cancelled the entire flight and removed all the passengers from the plane .
The clip shows two police officers explaining to the family that they are removing them from the plane .
Another passenger tries to defend the family while arguing with another man who is angry at the flight being delayed .
“ Based on what law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Choudhry asks the officers .
The officer then accuses Choudhry of repeatedly refusing to put a mask on his baby , citing other “ witnesses ” on the plane .
“ Eventually , the entire flight was cancelled & all passengers were removed from the plane , ” tweeted Choudhry .
The father added that most of the passengers on the plane expressed support for his family .
Choudhry said that WestJet tried to justify their action by citing a Transport For Canada policy which mandates all passengers to wear a mask .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ website says that children under the age of 2 “ should not wear a mask.
” In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch .
I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here .
Also , I urgently need your financial support here .

A video posted to Twitter shows a family being kicked off a WestJet plane because their 19-month-old baby wasn’t wearing a face mask.
Safwan Choudhry described his horrific treatment at the hands of the airliner, which also subsequently cancelled the entire flight and removed all the passengers from the plane.
The clip shows two police officers explaining to the family that they are removing them from the plane. Another passenger tries to defend the family while arguing with another man who is angry at the flight being delayed.
“Based on what law? Based on what policy?” Choudhry asks the officers.
Earlier today my family endure the most horrific & dehumanizing treatment onboard @WestJet plane. My wife was threatening to be arrested & forcibly removed unless my daughters, 3 yrs & 19 months would wear a mask. While my 3yrs wore her mask, the 19 months old was hysterical. pic.twitter.com/MHnaTnKgCU — Safwan Choudhry (@SafwanChoudhry) September 9, 2020
The officer then accuses Choudhry of repeatedly refusing to put a mask on his baby, citing other “witnesses” on the plane.
“Eventually, the entire flight was cancelled & all passengers were removed from the plane,” tweeted Choudhry.
The father added that most of the passengers on the plane expressed support for his family.
Choudhry said that WestJet tried to justify their action by citing a Transport For Canada policy which mandates all passengers to wear a mask.
However, the official Transport For Canada website says that children under the age of 2 “should not wear a mask.”
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
———————————————————————————————————————
ALERT!
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.
I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.
Also, I urgently need your financial support here.
———————————————————————————————————————


newswars--2020-09-10--Netflix’s ‘Cuties’ is Even Worse Than the Trailer

The ‘ Cuties ’ movie that stirred controversy last month following the release of its trailer has now been released and it ’ s even worse – featuring numerous scenes that showcase the vile sexualization of children .
As we previously highlighted , the French production centers around four pre-teen children from a ‘ diverse ’ neighborhood attempting to win a dance competition .
The trailer shows the girls twerking and adopting other sexualized poses .
Even after a massive backlash , Netflix refused to pull the plug on the movie , acknowledging merely that the promo poster for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be changed .
After its release last night , Twitter user Ghost Jim watched the movie and posted several clips which illustrate how the film is basically soft porn for pedophiles .
“ Netflix just released the controversial ‘ Cuties ’ and it ’ s worse than you could imagine .
Make no mistake : Netflix is at the forefront of sexualizing children and normalizing pedophilia !
” he tweeted .
The first clip shows the girls aggressively shaking their backsides while putting their fingers in their mouth .
The next clips shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stage in front of judges in a similar manner while an audience watches , some of them applauding , some of them booing .
Note that the dance routine performed by the main characters is very similar to that seen in WAP ( Wet-Ass Pussy ) – a Cardi B song released last month which caused controversy for its overtly sexual dance choreography , something that has since been copied by underage girls across America .
The next scene shows the black girl in the movie vigorously shaking her entire body .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all .
It shows the girls accusing a security guard of being a “ pervert ” and trying to molest them .
Another security guard then arrives and the black girl begins performing a dance in front of him as he ogles her and the camera lingers on her torso .
“ That ’ s as far as I ’ ll go with this demonic garbage .
No doubt the film has much more .
Netflix is streaming it right into peoples homes where young , impressionable girls can watch it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to children can pleasure themselves to .
Thanks Netflix !
” remarks the Twitter user .
He then reveals the details of other revolting scenes in the film , including the girls experimenting with webcam porn and a girl taking a photo of her vagina and posting it online .
While Turkey ’ s media watchdog has ordered the film removed from Turkey ’ s Netflix portal , British newspaper the Independent described the movie as an “ important contribution to the coming-of-age genre.
” The New Yorker ’ s blasted a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by right-wingers , while Rolling Stone called the movie “ a sensitive portrait of growing pains that deserves to be seen.
” Meanwhile , a petition to pressure Netflix into removing the movie has reached over 123,000 signatures .
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch .
I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here .
Also , I urgently need your financial support here .

The ‘Cuties’ movie that stirred controversy last month following the release of its trailer has now been released and it’s even worse – featuring numerous scenes that showcase the vile sexualization of children.
As we previously highlighted, the French production centers around four pre-teen children from a ‘diverse’ neighborhood attempting to win a dance competition. The trailer shows the girls twerking and adopting other sexualized poses.
Even after a massive backlash, Netflix refused to pull the plug on the movie, acknowledging merely that the promo poster for the film was unsuitable and that it would be changed.
After its release last night, Twitter user Ghost Jim watched the movie and posted several clips which illustrate how the film is basically soft porn for pedophiles.
“Netflix just released the controversial ‘Cuties’ and it’s worse than you could imagine. Make no mistake: Netflix is at the forefront of sexualizing children and normalizing pedophilia!” he tweeted.
The first clip shows the girls aggressively shaking their backsides while putting their fingers in their mouth.
Netflix just released the controversial ‘Cuties’ and it’s worse than you could imagine. Make no mistake: Netflix is at the forefront of sexualizing children and normalizing pedophilia! pic.twitter.com/emiMzk8w1z — (@GhostJim4) September 9, 2020
The next clips shows the girls wearing skimpy outfits dancing on stage in front of judges in a similar manner while an audience watches, some of them applauding, some of them booing.
Someone needs to go to jail for this shit! pic.twitter.com/Ln0CnZSyok — (@GhostJim4) September 9, 2020
Note that the dance routine performed by the main characters is very similar to that seen in WAP (Wet-Ass Pussy) – a Cardi B song released last month which caused controversy for its overtly sexual dance choreography, something that has since been copied by underage girls across America.
The next scene shows the black girl in the movie vigorously shaking her entire body.
“I received numerous attacks on my character from people who had not seen the film, who thought I was actually making a film that was apologetic about hypersexualisation of children” – Cuties director Maïmouna Doucouré Really? pic.twitter.com/CGyXPdtR3G — (@GhostJim4) September 9, 2020
The next scene is perhaps the most revolting of all. It shows the girls accusing a security guard of being a “pervert” and trying to molest them.
Another security guard then arrives and the black girl begins performing a dance in front of him as he ogles her and the camera lingers on her torso.
In case you believe everyone is just naive and didn’t think this had anything to do with pedophilia: pic.twitter.com/z9IBpup2JV — (@GhostJim4) September 9, 2020
“That’s as far as I’ll go with this demonic garbage. No doubt the film has much more. Netflix is streaming it right into peoples homes where young, impressionable girls can watch it. And where grown men with sexual attraction to children can pleasure themselves to. Thanks Netflix!” remarks the Twitter user.
He then reveals the details of other revolting scenes in the film, including the girls experimenting with webcam porn and a girl taking a photo of her vagina and posting it online.
No more clips but here is what else happens: – an 11 year old girl takes a photo of her vagina and posts it online
– the 5 young girls take a turn at webcam porn
– a young girl tries to take a photo of a schoolboys penis
– an 11 year old girl finds a used condom and blows it up — (@GhostJim4) September 9, 2020
While Turkey’s media watchdog has ordered the film removed from Turkey’s Netflix portal, British newspaper the Independent described the movie as an “important contribution to the coming-of-age genre.”
The New Yorker’s blasted a “scurrilous campaign against the film” waged by right-wingers, while Rolling Stone called the movie “a sensitive portrait of growing pains that deserves to be seen.”
Meanwhile, a petition to pressure Netflix into removing the movie has reached over 123,000 signatures.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
———————————————————————————————————————
ALERT!
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.
I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.
Also, I urgently need your financial support here.
———————————————————————————————————————


newswars--2020-09-11--Video: Black Woman Refuses to let Flight Attendant Pass Her on Plane Because of “White Privilege”

Video footage from inside the cabin of a plane shows an African-American woman belligerently refusing to let a flight attendant pass her in the aisle because of “ white privilege ” .
The clip begins with the flight attendant attempting to get past the black woman as the obnoxious passenger repeatedly expresses her demand to go to the bathroom before accusing the attendant of “ getting aggressive with me.
” Another female passenger then gets involved in the argument as the black woman gets in her face and tells her , “ Are you my boss ?
You are white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boss .
Sit down , ” ( she is already sat down ) .
The black woman then accuses the flight attendant of exercising her “ white privilege ” while still blocking her way .
The encounter is made all the more stupid by the fact that the black woman could at any time just turn around and enter the bathroom , but she is intent on being insufferable and having an argument .
“ I need to get to my door , ” repeats the flight attendant as the black woman continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privilege and it ’ s not here , it ’ s over with , it ’ s 2020 , wake up.
” “ I ’ m a Queen , California , she was from a black queen , ” says the woman before again arguing with the other passenger and accusing her of having “ white privilege ” and telling her to “ shut up.
” “ You need to understand , you don ’ t run America no more sweetheart , ” she tells the blonde white woman before explaining how she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a “ white bitch ” for disrespecting her .
Despite the fact that the black woman is not wearing a mask and she is clearly acting aggressively and impeding flight staff , she was not removed from the plane .
That could be referred to as “ black privilege ” .
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch .
I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here .
Also , I urgently need your financial support here .

Video footage from inside the cabin of a plane shows an African-American woman belligerently refusing to let a flight attendant pass her in the aisle because of “white privilege”.
Yes, really.
The clip begins with the flight attendant attempting to get past the black woman as the obnoxious passenger repeatedly expresses her demand to go to the bathroom before accusing the attendant of “getting aggressive with me.”
Another female passenger then gets involved in the argument as the black woman gets in her face and tells her, “Are you my boss? You are white privilege, you’re not my boss. Sit down,” (she is already sat down).
Won’t let anyone pass her in the aisle cause that would be ‘white privilege’. pic.twitter.com/je5BV3FJEG — Rita Panahi (@RitaPanahi) September 11, 2020
The black woman then accuses the flight attendant of exercising her “white privilege” while still blocking her way.
The encounter is made all the more stupid by the fact that the black woman could at any time just turn around and enter the bathroom, but she is intent on being insufferable and having an argument.
“I need to get to my door,” repeats the flight attendant as the black woman continues to bicker.
“You have white privilege and it’s not here, it’s over with, it’s 2020, wake up.”
“I’m a Queen, California, she was from a black queen,” says the woman before again arguing with the other passenger and accusing her of having “white privilege” and telling her to “shut up.”
“You need to understand, you don’t run America no more sweetheart,” she tells the blonde white woman before explaining how she once “slapped the shit” out of a “white bitch” for disrespecting her.
Despite the fact that the black woman is not wearing a mask and she is clearly acting aggressively and impeding flight staff, she was not removed from the plane.
That could be referred to as “black privilege”.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
———————————————————————————————————————
ALERT!
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.
I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.
Also, I urgently need your financial support here.
———————————————————————————————————————


newswars--2020-09-11--Twitter Says It Will Remove Any Tweets ‘Claiming Victory Before Election Results Have Been Certified

Twitter Says It Will Remove Any Tweets ‘Claiming Victory Before Election Results Have Been Certified’

Twitter further extended its censorship policy Thursday , announcing that it will label as ‘ false information ’ or remove any posts claiming an election victory before results have been officially certified .
In recognition of the changing circumstances of how people will vote in 2020 , and in line with our commitment to protecting the integrity of the election conversation , we ’ re expanding this existing framework .
The goal is to further protect against content that could suppress the vote and help stop the spread of harmful misinformation that could compromise the integrity of an election or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we will label or remove false or misleading information intended to undermine public confidence in an election or other civic process .
This includes but is not limited to : False or misleading information that causes confusion about the laws and regulations of a civic process , or officials and institutions executing those civic processes .
Disputed claims that could undermine faith in the process itself , e.g .
unverified information about election rigging , ballot tampering , vote tallying , or certification of election results .
Misleading claims about the results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls for or could lead to interference with the implementation of the results of the process , e.g .
claiming victory before election results have been certified , inciting unlawful conduct to prevent a peaceful transfer of power or orderly succession .
The move is seemingly part of the ongoing narrative that Americans will have to wait weeks for the results of the election to be announced , as mail in ballots , which are speculated to be open to corruption , are tallied .
The move also means that any post by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough votes to secure a second term could be removed by Twitter , which has censored Trump several times over the past few months .
Owen and Tom Pappert watch as Joe Biden tries to make it through another speech , and then can ’ t find his schedule .

Twitter further extended its censorship policy Thursday, announcing that it will label as ‘false information’ or remove any posts claiming an election victory before results have been officially certified.
In a blog post, Twitter wrote:
In recognition of the changing circumstances of how people will vote in 2020, and in line with our commitment to protecting the integrity of the election conversation, we’re expanding this existing framework. The goal is to further protect against content that could suppress the vote and help stop the spread of harmful misinformation that could compromise the integrity of an election or other civic process.
The post continued:
Starting next week, we will label or remove false or misleading information intended to undermine public confidence in an election or other civic process. This includes but is not limited to: False or misleading information that causes confusion about the laws and regulations of a civic process, or officials and institutions executing those civic processes.
Disputed claims that could undermine faith in the process itself, e.g. unverified information about election rigging, ballot tampering, vote tallying, or certification of election results.
Misleading claims about the results or outcome of a civic process which calls for or could lead to interference with the implementation of the results of the process, e.g. claiming victory before election results have been certified, inciting unlawful conduct to prevent a peaceful transfer of power or orderly succession.
The move is seemingly part of the ongoing narrative that Americans will have to wait weeks for the results of the election to be announced, as mail in ballots, which are speculated to be open to corruption, are tallied.
The move also means that any post by President Trump hinting that he has garnered enough votes to secure a second term could be removed by Twitter, which has censored Trump several times over the past few months.
Yet another reminder that social media companies have more power than the President of the United States. https://t.co/g7seWDsKra — Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) August 23, 2020
Owen and Tom Pappert watch as Joe Biden tries to make it through another speech, and then can’t find his schedule.