newswars--2020-05-07--Police Are Complicit in Politicians’ Disregard for the Rule of Law

People of a certain age might remember the old John Birch Society slogan “ Support your local police !
” The idea here is that your local policeman is a liberty-loving buddy of yours who would only ever support just laws and constitutional mandates .
Only those bad guys in the FBI or BATF would ever consider violating your rights .
Now , obviously that has always been a rather naïve fantasy , but the notion certainly has a long history of support among American conservatives .
The idea that unionized , well-paid government employees sympathize with the common man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cops ’ checks apparently has long made sense ( for some reason ) to conservatives and many others .
But thanks to the ongoing “ state of emergency ” and the fact that state governors , mayors , and health officials now rule by decree , we ’ re witnessing more and more how local law enforcement officers have no particular interest in the rule of law , the Bill of Rights , or basic human rights of any sort .
Police have been at the forefront of arresting business owners for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own private property , using city parks , and engaging in other peaceful activities .
As Judge Napolitano has noted , these “ stay-at-home orders ” —and the penalties that accompany them—aren ’ t even real laws since they were never passed by a legislature or brought into being by any process other than on the authority of a single person who is usually a state governor or municipal official .
By no definition of “ rule of law ” do these measures meet basic moral requirements for their imposition on peaceful citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these edicts nonetheless , and using them as an excuse to harass the taxpayers .
Here are just a few examples from around the United States .
• Police arrest a business owner for refusing to close his smoke shop .
• Police harass and detain a man for playing softball with his family in a nearly empty park .
• In Delaware , “ a local business owner was even arrested for personally violating Carney ’ s stay-at-home order.
” • In Odessa , Texas , a SWAT team descended on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in mind that no one is required to go near these places or interact with anyone involved .
Those who wish to isolate themselves from these businesses and their clientele may freely do so .
Yet these are just a handful of the many cases of police harassment involving citations , arrests , and other forms of coercion and intimidation brought against people who are just trying to live their lives .
Nor should we assume that this is “ as bad as it gets.
” Since there is no longer any due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checks and balances , governors and mayors can unilaterally decide at any time to ramp up social distancing requirements and business closures .
If the public appears uncooperative , public officials can simply order police to being making mass arrests .
We have no reason to think the police would not comply with this order .
After all , police personnel , who do not have a particularly impressive record when it comes to stopping or investigating real crime , have plenty of resources to crack down on nonviolent “ perpetrators.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instructive .
Odessa law enforcement officers apparently have the extra time and resources to assemble a SWAT team in response to protests , but does this mean there is no real crime that needs investigating in Odessa ?
Of course not .
According to the FBI ’ s 2018 crime survey , Odessa had 1,049 violent crimes in 2018 , including 118 rapes and 819 aggravated assaults .
If late 2019 and early 2020 were at all similar , then we ’ re talking about hundreds of violent crimes that Odessa-area police officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for entering a tavern .
Indeed , if Odessa law enforcement agencies are anything like countless police agencies in other areas , only about half of violent crimes are “ resolved ” at all .
That is , only 45 percent of violent crime lead to arrest and prosecution .
That is , less than half of violent crimes result in what is known as a “ clearance ” of the crime .
Property crime clearances are much worse .
Only 17 percent of burglaries , arsons , and car thefts are “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience the highest clearance rate by far , at 61 percent .
Aggravated assault comes in at 53 percent , and rape at 34 percent .
But these are just cases where arrests are made and prosecutions are initiated .
A smaller number of cases actually lead to convictions .
A crime may be cleared even when the suspect is later exonerated .
New York is not exempt from these trends , yet the New York mayor recently dispatched one thousand cops to break up Jewish funerals and ensure that people don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By the way , there were more than forty-six thousand violent crimes in New York in 2018 .
But don ’ t fear , the police have extra personnel to come and break up your small backyard gathering .
There ’ s nothing surprising here , however .
Police have long shown a lack of enthusiasm for addressing real crime , knowing that business owners , small-time drug users , and loiterers won ’ t fight back , and thus make for much better targets .
This is why police are often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violent criminals while the victims must fend for themselves , as in the case of the Parkland shooting or the case of the stabbing of Joseph Lozito .
Police are always careful to use the legal defense that they are not obligated to actually protect anyone from anything .
The courts agree with this defense , and it is now well established legally that although you have an obligation to pay the police to “ protect and serve , ” the police have no obligation to actually provide protection .
But police officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the really important policing right now involves hauling dog groomers off to jail and collecting revenue from parkgoers who are only standing five feet from the next person .
But if you have a problem with real crime ?
You ’ re likely out of luck .

People of a certain age might remember the old John Birch Society slogan “Support your local police!”
The idea here is that your local policeman is a liberty-loving buddy of yours who would only ever support just laws and constitutional mandates. Only those bad guys in the FBI or BATF would ever consider violating your rights.
Now, obviously that has always been a rather naïve fantasy, but the notion certainly has a long history of support among American conservatives. The idea that unionized, well-paid government employees sympathize with the common man instead of with the government that signs the cops’ checks apparently has long made sense (for some reason) to conservatives and many others.
But thanks to the ongoing “state of emergency” and the fact that state governors, mayors, and health officials now rule by decree, we’re witnessing more and more how local law enforcement officers have no particular interest in the rule of law, the Bill of Rights, or basic human rights of any sort. Police have been at the forefront of arresting business owners for the “crime” of using their own private property, using city parks, and engaging in other peaceful activities.
As Judge Napolitano has noted, these “stay-at-home orders”—and the penalties that accompany them—aren’t even real laws since they were never passed by a legislature or brought into being by any process other than on the authority of a single person who is usually a state governor or municipal official. By no definition of “rule of law” do these measures meet basic moral requirements for their imposition on peaceful citizens.
But the police are enthusiastically enforcing these edicts nonetheless, and using them as an excuse to harass the taxpayers.
Here are just a few examples from around the United States.
Keep in mind that no one is required to go near these places or interact with anyone involved. Those who wish to isolate themselves from these businesses and their clientele may freely do so. Yet these are just a handful of the many cases of police harassment involving citations, arrests, and other forms of coercion and intimidation brought against people who are just trying to live their lives. Nor should we assume that this is “as bad as it gets.” Since there is no longer any due process or public legislative process subject to checks and balances, governors and mayors can unilaterally decide at any time to ramp up social distancing requirements and business closures. If the public appears uncooperative, public officials can simply order police to being making mass arrests. We have no reason to think the police would not comply with this order.
After all, police personnel, who do not have a particularly impressive record when it comes to stopping or investigating real crime, have plenty of resources to crack down on nonviolent “perpetrators.”
The cases of New York and Odessa are instructive. Odessa law enforcement officers apparently have the extra time and resources to assemble a SWAT team in response to protests, but does this mean there is no real crime that needs investigating in Odessa? Of course not. According to the FBI’s 2018 crime survey, Odessa had 1,049 violent crimes in 2018, including 118 rapes and 819 aggravated assaults. If late 2019 and early 2020 were at all similar, then we’re talking about hundreds of violent crimes that Odessa-area police officials are ignoring in order to harass people for entering a tavern.
Indeed, if Odessa law enforcement agencies are anything like countless police agencies in other areas, only about half of violent crimes are “resolved” at all. That is,
only 45 percent of violent crime lead to arrest and prosecution. That is, less than half of violent crimes result in what is known as a “clearance” of the crime. Property crime clearances are much worse. Only 17 percent of burglaries, arsons, and car thefts are “cleared.”
Among violent crimes, homicides experience the highest clearance rate by far, at 61 percent. Aggravated assault comes in at 53 percent, and rape at 34 percent.
But these are just cases where arrests are made and prosecutions are initiated. A smaller number of cases actually lead to convictions. A crime may be cleared even when the suspect is later exonerated.
New York is not exempt from these trends, yet the New York mayor recently dispatched one thousand cops to break up Jewish funerals and ensure that people don’t have barbecues on warm spring days.
By the way, there were more than forty-six thousand violent crimes in New York in 2018. But don’t fear, the police have extra personnel to come and break up your small backyard gathering.
There’s nothing surprising here, however. Police have long shown a lack of enthusiasm for addressing real crime, knowing that business owners, small-time drug users, and loiterers won’t fight back, and thus make for much better targets.
This is why police are often found to run and hide from truly violent criminals while the victims must fend for themselves, as in the case of the Parkland shooting or the case of the stabbing of Joseph Lozito.
Police are always careful to use the legal defense that they are not obligated to actually protect anyone from anything. The courts agree with this defense, and it is now well established legally that although you have an obligation to pay the police to “protect and serve,” the police have no obligation to actually provide protection.
But police officers and their bosses have convinced themselves that the really important policing right now involves hauling dog groomers off to jail and collecting revenue from parkgoers who are only standing five feet from the next person. But if you have a problem with real crime? You’re likely out of luck.


newswars--2020-05-07--“There is something happening”: Tanzanian President Blasts COVID-19 Tests After Goat, Fruit Test Pos

“There is something happening”: Tanzanian President Blasts COVID-19 Tests After Goat, Fruit Test Positive

The president of Tanzania has launched an investigation into test kits after samples submitted from a goat and a fruit tested positive for the COVID-19 virus .
President John Magufuli on Sunday said he ’ d ordered his security forces to evaluate the test kits obtained from overseas by submitting non-human samples and labeling them with human names and ages .
The samples , which originated from a pawpaw fruit , a goat and a sheep , were then sent to a lab where they tested positive for COVID-19 , according to the president .
President Magufuli said “ this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were being tested positive when in fact they were not infected by the coronavirus , ” reports Reuters .
“ There is something happening , ” Magufuli stated .
“ I said before we should not accept that every aid is meant to be good for this nation.
” Amid the faulty testing crisis , the president said he ’ d procure a remedy from nearby Madagascar , which has reported positive results in treating the coronavirus using an herbal tea .
“ I ’ m communicating with Madagascar .
They have got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flight there and the medicine will be brought into the country so that Tanzania too can benefit.
” The president also suspended the head of the laboratory that conducted the testing , pending an investigation .
According to statements from the African CDC and WHO , the kits may have originated from China ’ s Jack Ma Foundation .
On Thursday the head of the Africa CDC rejected the Tanzanian president ’ s allegations , saying , “ The tests that Tanzania is using , we know they are working very well.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , providing training to nearly all countries and providing them with test kits .
We ’ ve also in the last couple of weeks and months distributed tests from the Jack Ma Foundation that have been validated and proven to be very , very reliable , ” said Africa CDC Director John Nkengasong .
Africa ’ s World Health Organization head , Matshidiso Moeti , also insisted the tests “ were not contaminated ” with COVID-19 : “ We are convinced that the tests that have been provided … both through procurement through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ma donations , were not contaminated with the virus.
” Reuters reports : “ Tanzania , where places of worship remain open , has at least 480 confirmed cases and 18 deaths , the fourth highest case load in Eastern Africa ” – that is , if the tests can be trusted .
The CBS 60 Minutes report the mainstream news media wants you to forget .
This version , edited by Darrin McBreen , includes classic public service announcements ( PSAs ) funded by our government to persuade the American people to @ @ @ @

The president of Tanzania has launched an investigation into test kits after samples submitted from a goat and a fruit tested positive for the COVID-19 virus.
President John Magufuli on Sunday said he’d ordered his security forces to evaluate the test kits obtained from overseas by submitting non-human samples and labeling them with human names and ages.
The samples, which originated from a pawpaw fruit, a goat and a sheep, were then sent to a lab where they tested positive for COVID-19, according to the president.
President Magufuli said “this meant it was likely that some people were being tested positive when in fact they were not infected by the coronavirus,” reports Reuters.
“There is something happening,” Magufuli stated. “I said before we should not accept that every aid is meant to be good for this nation.”
Amid the faulty testing crisis, the president said he’d procure a remedy from nearby Madagascar, which has reported positive results in treating the coronavirus using an herbal tea.
“I’m communicating with Madagascar. They have got a medicine. We will send a flight there and the medicine will be brought into the country so that Tanzania too can benefit.”
The president also suspended the head of the laboratory that conducted the testing, pending an investigation.
According to statements from the African CDC and WHO, the kits may have originated from China’s Jack Ma Foundation.
On Thursday the head of the Africa CDC rejected the Tanzanian president’s allegations, saying, “The tests that Tanzania is using, we know they are working very well.”
“We are very instrumental in training, providing training to nearly all countries and providing them with test kits. We’ve also in the last couple of weeks and months distributed tests from the Jack Ma Foundation that have been validated and proven to be very, very reliable,” said Africa CDC Director John Nkengasong.
Africa’s World Health Organization head, Matshidiso Moeti, also insisted the tests “were not contaminated” with COVID-19: “We are convinced that the tests that have been provided … both through procurement through WHO and those that came through Jack Ma donations, were not contaminated with the virus.”
Reuters reports: “Tanzania, where places of worship remain open, has at least 480 confirmed cases and 18 deaths, the fourth highest case load in Eastern Africa” – that is, if the tests can be trusted.
Follow the author on Gab: https://gab.ai/adansalazar
On Twitter: Follow @AdanSalazarWins
On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/adan.salazar.735
On Minds: https://www.minds.com/adan_infowars
The CBS 60 Minutes report the mainstream news media wants you to forget. This version, edited by Darrin McBreen, includes classic public service announcements (PSAs) funded by our government to persuade the American people to accept the jab.


newswars--2020-05-07--The Global Airline Industry Is in Even Worse Shape Than You Think

The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has reached all productive sectors .
The massive spread of the virus and social distancing measures have led to a dramatic decrease in economic activity .
The aviation industry , vital for tourism and business , has been hit hard .
Investors and analysts state that this crisis could be worse than the one that followed the SARS outbreak in 2003 and the one after 9/11 .
In this article we will describe how the future of airlines looks and explain how bad the current situation is .
When a new epidemic emerges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , governments often implement social distancing measures and travel restrictions to avoid overburdening health systems .
These measures are known as nonpharmacological interventions ( NPIs ) .
Since COVID-19 began to spread around the world , economic activity has declined as a result of NPIs .
Although these measures may help contain the virus and prevent the early collapse of health systems , they have an inevitable negative impact on the economy .
When NPIs are implemented , the authors explain , many companies do not have incomes ( since they can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must continue to pay their regular expenses ( debts , rent , taxes , salaries , equipment maintenance , etc. )
.
In a recent United Nations Development Programme study , Constantino Hevia and Andrés Neumeyer explain that “ many firms experience negative added value because the cost of inputs exceeds gross output.
” Thus , long periods of NPI cause bankruptcies ( especially in small businesses and those linked to intensive social contact ) , massive layoffs , and a loss of efficiency in supply chains and production networks , among other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge increase in demand for liquidity .
Both families and businesses demand liquid assets to cover their expenses while their incomes temporarily drop .
Since businesses have limited liquidity , they are not likely to be able to sustain themselves , and unemployment rises sharply ( link ) .
The Impact on the Airline Industry The airline industry necessarily requires intensive social contact and is directly affected by travel restrictions .
Therefore , it has been one of the industries that has suffered most from NPIs .
According to a Wall Street Journal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ canceled flights and routes are immense .
Statistics from Flightradar24 show a 73 percent fall in the number of commercial flights per day from the beginning of March to the second half of April .
According to the WSJ report cited above , the reduction in global capacity ( measured by how many seats are in the air ) is greater than the one that followed the 2003 SARS outbreak and even 9/11 .
The financial forecasts are very discouraging .
Alexandre de Juniac , CEO of the International Air Transport Association ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ within a matter of a few weeks , our previous worst case scenario is looking better than our latest estimates.
” In an updated analysis published on April 14 , the forecasts were even worse .
In this last report , the IATA states that full-year passenger demand ( measured by revenue passenger kilometers , or RPKs ) will decline by 48 percent compared to 2019 .
Also , they are expecting airline passenger revenues in 2020 to fall by $ 314 billion , 55 percent in comparison with 2019 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is very complicated .
In addition to the unavoidable costs , airlines must refund sold but unused tickets to the tune of $ 35 billion just for Q2 ( quarter 2 ) as a result of the massive cancellations caused by government-imposed restrictions .
Cash burn will be critical .
IATA estimates that “ airlines could be burning through $ 61 billion of their cash balances in the second quarter.
” And although many governments have already launched relief packages , the question is whether this aid will arrive in time : most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equivalents for two months .
Layoffs as a result of the shutdowns are already happening .
The WSJ report notes that Cathay Pacific and Asiana Airlines have asked thousands of employees to take unpaid leave .
Hong Kong Airlines announced that it would lay off four hundred employees , and its president said that it was a matter of survival .
According to a CNBC report , Delta Airlines cut capacity by 70 percent , United Airlines by 65 percent , and American Airlines by 50 percent .
Norwegian , SAS , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and similar cuts are expected in other airlines .
The CEO of American Airlines , Doug Parker , stated that this is the worst crisis in the history of the industry .
In a nutshell , the economic impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the aviation industry is enormous , and the situation could get even worse .
After all , it is not only about the ruin of the airlines or how they will manage to recover ( if they survive ) .
The aviation industry represents 3.6 percent of global GDP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact on the economy as a whole .
Today the industry supports 65.5 million jobs worldwide , and 25 million of them are at now at risk .
This is not the time to stop worrying about industries ’ performance .
The global recession could have more devastating effects than the virus itself , and the example of the airlines put things in perspective .

The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has reached all productive sectors. The massive spread of the virus and social distancing measures have led to a dramatic decrease in economic activity.
The aviation industry, vital for tourism and business, has been hit hard. Investors and analysts state that this crisis could be worse than the one that followed the SARS outbreak in 2003 and the one after 9/11.
In this article we will describe how the future of airlines looks and explain how bad the current situation is.
The Nonpharmacological Interventions
When a new epidemic emerges and there is no effective medical treatment, governments often implement social distancing measures and travel restrictions to avoid overburdening health systems. These measures are known as nonpharmacological interventions (NPIs).
Since COVID-19 began to spread around the world, economic activity has declined as a result of NPIs. Although these measures may help contain the virus and prevent the early collapse of health systems, they have an inevitable negative impact on the economy.
When NPIs are implemented, the authors explain, many companies do not have incomes (since they cannot sell their goods and services) but must continue to pay their regular expenses (debts, rent, taxes, salaries, equipment maintenance, etc.). In a recent United Nations Development Programme study, Constantino Hevia and Andrés Neumeyer explain that “many firms experience negative added value because the cost of inputs exceeds gross output.” Thus, long periods of NPI cause bankruptcies (especially in small businesses and those linked to intensive social contact), massive layoffs, and a loss of efficiency in supply chains and production networks, among other effects.
Therefore, we see a huge increase in demand for liquidity. Both families and businesses demand liquid assets to cover their expenses while their incomes temporarily drop. Since businesses have limited liquidity, they are not likely to be able to sustain themselves, and unemployment rises sharply (link).
The Impact on the Airline Industry
The airline industry necessarily requires intensive social contact and is directly affected by travel restrictions. Therefore, it has been one of the industries that has suffered most from NPIs.
According to a Wall Street Journal report, the financial implications of the canceled flights and routes are immense. Statistics from Flightradar24 show a 73 percent fall in the number of commercial flights per day from the beginning of March to the second half of April.
According to the WSJ report cited above, the reduction in global capacity (measured by how many seats are in the air) is greater than the one that followed the 2003 SARS outbreak and even 9/11.
The financial forecasts are very discouraging. Alexandre de Juniac, CEO of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), stated in late March that “within a matter of a few weeks, our previous worst case scenario is looking better than our latest estimates.” In an updated analysis published on April 14, the forecasts were even worse.
In this last report, the IATA states that full-year passenger demand (measured by revenue passenger kilometers, or RPKs) will decline by 48 percent compared to 2019. Also, they are expecting airline passenger revenues in 2020 to fall by $314 billion, 55 percent in comparison with 2019.
From the liquidity aspect, the situation is very complicated. In addition to the unavoidable costs, airlines must refund sold but unused tickets to the tune of $35 billion just for Q2 (quarter 2) as a result of the massive cancellations caused by government-imposed restrictions. Cash burn will be critical. IATA estimates that “airlines could be burning through $61 billion of their cash balances in the second quarter.” And although many governments have already launched relief packages, the question is whether this aid will arrive in time: most airlines started 2020 with enough cash and equivalents for two months.
Layoffs as a result of the shutdowns are already happening. The WSJ report notes that Cathay Pacific and Asiana Airlines have asked thousands of employees to take unpaid leave. Hong Kong Airlines announced that it would lay off four hundred employees, and its president said that it was a matter of survival. According to a CNBC report, Delta Airlines cut capacity by 70 percent, United Airlines by 65 percent, and American Airlines by 50 percent. Norwegian, SAS, and Lufthansa suspended most of their operations, and similar cuts are expected in other airlines.
The CEO of American Airlines, Doug Parker, stated that this is the worst crisis in the history of the industry.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, the economic impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the aviation industry is enormous, and the situation could get even worse.
After all, it is not only about the ruin of the airlines or how they will manage to recover (if they survive). The aviation industry represents 3.6 percent of global GDP. Its crisis will have a wide impact on the economy as a whole. Today the industry supports 65.5 million jobs worldwide, and 25 million of them are at now at risk.
This is not the time to stop worrying about industries’ performance. The global recession could have more devastating effects than the virus itself, and the example of the airlines put things in perspective.


newswars--2020-05-07--How Government Spending Can Make the Debt Burden Look Smaller than It Really Is

In economics , numbers without context are often difficult to understand .
The price of apples can only be understood when compared to the price of oranges , or to your salary , or to yesterday ’ s price .
This is especially true with astronomically high numbers , such as $ 23 trillion .
As of April 16 , 2020 , the US national debt stands at this amount .
If we split it evenly among the working-age US population ( 15–64 ) , it corresponds to a lump-sum tax of $ 118,000 per person .
The national debt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the gross domestic product ( GDP ) .
What is not always known is how these quantities are defined , and here lies my interest .
Understanding debt is straightforward : it is the money the government borrows to finance expenses that exceed tax revenue .
Let ’ s move on to the denominator , the GDP .
From the International Monetary Fund , the most common formulation of GDP is : The value of purchases made by final users—for example , the consumption of food , televisions , and medical services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by companies ; and the purchases of goods and services by the government and foreigners .
According to this formula , GDP , or the nation ’ s production , is the sum of consumption , investments , exports ( minus imports ) , and government spending .
If you divide the US debt by the sum of these four elements , you get a debt-to-GDP ratio of 107 percent for 2019 .
This is the regular procedure and how this data is read .
Now , consider some hypothetical worlds with different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to invest more and consume less ( assume the two effects are equal in size ) , GDP wouldn ’ t change .
If China produced for domestic consumption rather than for export , GDP wouldn ’ t change .
If Germans decided they have saved enough and started consuming more , GDP wouldn ’ t change .
These decisions imply shifts on a global scale , but they simply reflect a reallocation of resources toward more desired ends .
The standards of living would be expected , if anything , to increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a priori beneficial .
Now assume a different set of economic realities .
What if people reduced consumption and the government decided to offset this by increasing its consumption by the same amount ?
What if people stopped investing ( perhaps due to thirteen years of zero interest rates ) and the government decided to handpick which companies deserve funding ?
From the basic formula it would look like nothing has changed , as in the previous examples .
But there ’ s a problem here .
In Human Action Mises writes : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a government can only spend or invest what it takes away from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens ’ spending and investment to the full extent of its quantity .
While government has no power to make people more prosperous by interference with business , it certainly does have the power to make them less satisfied by restriction of production .
( p. 737 ) This is a key reason why government spending isn ’ t really the same as private spending or saving .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by self-interest and the desire to avoid losses , while the government doesn ’ t care about funding junk zombie companies : losses would be offloaded through taxation or inflation .
Further reasons could fill a book , but I think this brief explanation is sufficient .
I propose a simple solution to this measurement problem : focus on private GDP only .
That is , look at private gross domestic product ( PGDP ) : This is GDP but without government spending .
This measure is similar to the gross domestic private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as follows : Why should government product be excluded ?
First , the government ’ s activities may be viewed as giving rise to intermediate , rather than final products….Second , because most government services are not sold in markets , they have no market-determined prices to be used in calculating their total value to those who benefit from them .
Third , because many government services arise from political , rather than economic motives and institutions , some of them may have little or no value .
Indeed , some commentators—including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assert that some government services have negative value .
Murray Rothbard in Power and Market similarly asserted that : [ The GDP calculation ] fallaciously assumes that the government ’ s “ product ” is measurable by what the government spends .
On what possible basis can this assumption be made ?
…The government ’ s tax revenue and deficit are both burdens imposed on production .
( p. 1293 ) Now , let ’ s compare government debt with PGDP .
The ratio of debt to PGDP has a clear interpretation : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; below is how the people earn their salaries to pay taxes .
There is no more ambiguity now : previously you could think that government spending can increase GDP faster than debt ; now it is clear that government spending can only have an effect on the numerator .
The graph below compares the debt-to-GDP and debt-to-PGDP ratios over time : All data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve .
Both measures are clearly trending upward over time .
However , the accurate measure , with PGDP in the denominator , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the uptrend faster than in the classic measure ( it was only 8 percent higher in 1980 ) .
This indicates an ever larger drain from the private sector , as well as the results of the fake accounting standards by which government spending is assumed to increase the capital stock of the country .
And note that this data only goes up to 2019—the coronavirus was not even a factor then !
You can imagine what this will look like once the new numbers are in .
The difference between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the implications are momentous .
The real ratio shows a dramatic reduction in the alleged “ debt capacity ” or “ fiscal capacity ” ( how much more debt you can take on before you ’ re in trouble ) .
Almost everybody tried to justify the precrisis levels ( “ 60 percent debt to GDP is small ” ) .
Many still justified the postcrisis levels ( “ 100 percent is high but not sky-high ” ) .
But 130 percent can not be justified but by the most ardent Keynesian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in big trouble well before hitting the 130 percent mark .
Of course , by now these countries are close to 200 percent , and their extreme “ stimulus packages ” ( another expression that needs to be changed ) are adding fuel to the fire .
The debt-to-PGDP ratio shows that the fiscal cliff is much closer ; government accounting tricks can not make the situation look better .
As always in history , excessive government debt will end , either with a default or inflation destroying the creditors ( among whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social security spending cuts and tax increases .
Either way , the end will not be pretty .
There are two main takeaways : it is high time to face these long-postponed problems , but first we need to frame the problems correctly and reject these classic but mistaken definitions .
GDP does not measure production , the Consumer Price Index ( CPI ) does not measure inflation , cost does not measure value .
As long as establishment economists are allowed to dictate the language and the measures , there is little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong .

In economics, numbers without context are often difficult to understand.
The price of apples can only be understood when compared to the price of oranges, or to your salary, or to yesterday’s price. This is especially true with astronomically high numbers, such as $23 trillion. As of April 16, 2020, the US national debt stands at this amount. If we split it evenly among the working-age US population (15–64), it corresponds to a lump-sum tax of $118,000 per person. The national debt is almost always reported as a fraction of the gross domestic product (GDP). What is not always known is how these quantities are defined, and here lies my interest.
Understanding debt is straightforward: it is the money the government borrows to finance expenses that exceed tax revenue. Let’s move on to the denominator, the GDP. From the International Monetary Fund, the most common formulation of GDP is: The value of purchases made by final users—for example, the consumption of food, televisions, and medical services by households; the investments in machinery by companies; and the purchases of goods and services by the government and foreigners.
In a formula:
GDP = C + I + (X – M) + G
According to this formula, GDP, or the nation’s production, is the sum of consumption, investments, exports (minus imports), and government spending. If you divide the US debt by the sum of these four elements, you get a debt-to-GDP ratio of 107 percent for 2019. This is the regular procedure and how this data is read.
Now, consider some hypothetical worlds with different economic realities. If US consumers were to invest more and consume less (assume the two effects are equal in size), GDP wouldn’t change. If China produced for domestic consumption rather than for export, GDP wouldn’t change. If Germans decided they have saved enough and started consuming more, GDP wouldn’t change. These decisions imply shifts on a global scale, but they simply reflect a reallocation of resources toward more desired ends. The standards of living would be expected, if anything, to increase. These would be purposeful decisions, a priori beneficial.
Now assume a different set of economic realities. What if people reduced consumption and the government decided to offset this by increasing its consumption by the same amount? What if people stopped investing (perhaps due to thirteen years of zero interest rates) and the government decided to handpick which companies deserve funding? From the basic formula it would look like nothing has changed, as in the previous examples. But there’s a problem here. In Human Action Mises writes:
There is need to emphasize the truism that a government can only spend or invest what it takes away from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens’ spending and investment to the full extent of its quantity.
While government has no power to make people more prosperous by interference with business, it certainly does have the power to make them less satisfied by restriction of production. (p. 737)
This is a key reason why government spending isn’t really the same as private spending or saving. A second reason is that people are moved by self-interest and the desire to avoid losses, while the government doesn’t care about funding junk zombie companies: losses would be offloaded through taxation or inflation. Further reasons could fill a book, but I think this brief explanation is sufficient.
I propose a simple solution to this measurement problem: focus on private GDP only. That is, look at private gross domestic product (PGDP):
PGDP = C + I + (X – M)
This is GDP but without government spending.
This measure is similar to the gross domestic private product of Robert Higgs, who reasoned as follows:
Why should government product be excluded? First, the government’s activities may be viewed as giving rise to intermediate, rather than final products….Second, because most government services are not sold in markets, they have no market-determined prices to be used in calculating their total value to those who benefit from them. Third, because many government services arise from political, rather than economic motives and institutions, some of them may have little or no value. Indeed, some commentators—including the present writer—ultimately went so far as to assert that some government services have negative value.
Murray Rothbard in Power and Market similarly asserted that:
[The GDP calculation] fallaciously assumes that the government’s “product” is measurable by what the government spends. On what possible basis can this assumption be made?…The government’s tax revenue and deficit are both burdens imposed on production. (p. 1293)
Government Dept as a Proportion of Private GDP
Now, let’s compare government debt with PGDP. The ratio of debt to PGDP has a clear interpretation: the burden of the public debt towers; below is how the people earn their salaries to pay taxes. There is no more ambiguity now: previously you could think that government spending can increase GDP faster than debt; now it is clear that government spending can only have an effect on the numerator. The graph below compares the debt-to-GDP and debt-to-PGDP ratios over time:
All data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve.
Both measures are clearly trending upward over time. However, the accurate measure, with PGDP in the denominator, is much higher (currently 27 percent) and the uptrend faster than in the classic measure (it was only 8 percent higher in 1980). This indicates an ever larger drain from the private sector, as well as the results of the fake accounting standards by which government spending is assumed to increase the capital stock of the country. And note that this data only goes up to 2019—the coronavirus was not even a factor then! You can imagine what this will look like once the new numbers are in.
The difference between the two may seem small or unimportant, but the implications are momentous. The real ratio shows a dramatic reduction in the alleged “debt capacity” or “fiscal capacity” (how much more debt you can take on before you’re in trouble). Almost everybody tried to justify the precrisis levels (“60 percent debt to GDP is small”). Many still justified the postcrisis levels (“100 percent is high but not sky-high”). But 130 percent cannot be justified but by the most ardent Keynesian. European countries were deemed to be in big trouble well before hitting the 130 percent mark. Of course, by now these countries are close to 200 percent, and their extreme “stimulus packages” (another expression that needs to be changed) are adding fuel to the fire. The debt-to-PGDP ratio shows that the fiscal cliff is much closer; government accounting tricks cannot make the situation look better.
As always in history, excessive government debt will end, either with a default or inflation destroying the creditors (among whom are domestic savers) or through massive social security spending cuts and tax increases. Either way, the end will not be pretty. There are two main takeaways: it is high time to face these long-postponed problems, but first we need to frame the problems correctly and reject these classic but mistaken definitions. GDP does not measure production, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) does not measure inflation, cost does not measure value. As long as establishment economists are allowed to dictate the language and the measures, there is little one can do to prove their conclusions wrong.


newswars--2020-05-07--Multimillionaire Celebrities Call For End to Capitalism From The Comfort of Their Luxury Mansions

Multimillionaire celebrities have signed a petition calling for an end to capitalism from the comfort of their luxury mansions .
The petition , called ‘ Please , let ’ s not go back to normal ’ , says the COVID-19 pandemic is a “ tragedy , ” but that the “ ongoing ecological catastrophe is a meta-crisis.
” “ The pursuit of consumerism and an obsession with productivity have led us to deny the value of life itself : that of plants , that of animals , and that of a great number of human beings , ” states the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the destruction of our remaining natural zones has brought the world to a breaking point.
” The petition urges world leaders to not allow everyone to “ go back to normal ” after the coronavirus pandemic is over .
This is yet another example of the sheer disdain these celebrities have for ordinary , working aspirational people .
When they talk of ‘ ending consumerism ’ – they ’ re not talking about people not watching their movies or buying their music ( God forbid ) , they ’ re talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s living standards while they , the celebrity elite , continue to live like royalty .
While they dance and their giant kitchens and virtue signal about how “ we ’ re all in this together ” during the lockdown , people in the real world are losing their businesses and jobs .
They want to create a vertical economy of princes and paupers where no one outside of their bubble is allowed to elevate themselves .
Meanwhile , once the lockdown is over , they ’ ll continue to travel the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property while lecturing you about the necessity of eating bugs to save the planet .
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever .
It is CRUCIAL that you support me .
Please sign up for the free newsletter here .
Donate to me on SubscribeStar here .
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown .

Multimillionaire celebrities have signed a petition calling for an end to capitalism from the comfort of their luxury mansions.
The petition, called ‘Please, let’s not go back to normal’, says the COVID-19 pandemic is a “tragedy,” but that the “ongoing ecological catastrophe is a meta-crisis.”
“The pursuit of consumerism and an obsession with productivity have led us to deny the value of life itself: that of plants, that of animals, and that of a great number of human beings,” states the letter. “Pollution, climate change, and the destruction of our remaining natural zones has brought the world to a breaking point.”
The petition urges world leaders to not allow everyone to “go back to normal” after the coronavirus pandemic is over.
Signatories include Madonna, Robert de Niro, Cate Blanchett, Jane Fonda, Marion Cotillard and Monica Bellucci.
This is yet another example of the sheer disdain these celebrities have for ordinary, working aspirational people.
When they talk of ‘ending consumerism’ – they’re not talking about people not watching their movies or buying their music (God forbid), they’re talking about a reduction in everyone else’s living standards while they, the celebrity elite, continue to live like royalty.
While they dance and their giant kitchens and virtue signal about how “we’re all in this together” during the lockdown, people in the real world are losing their businesses and jobs.
They want to create a vertical economy of princes and paupers where no one outside of their bubble is allowed to elevate themselves.
Meanwhile, once the lockdown is over, they’ll continue to travel the world in private jets and buy expensive beachfront property while lecturing you about the necessity of eating bugs to save the planet.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
———————————————————————————————————————
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.
Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
———————————————————————————————————————


newswars--2020-05-07--When Governments Switched Their Story from “Flatten the Curve” to “Lockdown Until Vaccine”

In the early days of the COVID-19 panic—back in mid-March—articles began to appear pushing the idea of “ flattening the curve ” ( the Washington Post ran an article called “ Flatten the Curve ” on March 14 ) .
This idea was premised on spreading out the total number of COVID-19 infections over time , so as to not overburden the healthcare infrastructure .
A March 11 article for Statnews , summed it up : “ I think the whole notion of flattening the curve is to slow things down so that this doesn ’ t hit us like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mina , associate medical director of clinical microbiology at Boston ’ s Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital .
“ It ’ s really all borne out of the risk of our health care infrastructure pulling apart at the seams if the virus spreads too quickly and too many people start showing up at the emergency room at any given time.
” In those days , it was still considered madness to suggest outlawing jobs for millions of Americans or “ shutting down ” entire national economies in an effort to “ flatten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lists for more moderate mitigation strategies : By taking certain steps—canceling large public gatherings , for instance , and encouraging some people to restrict their contact with others—governments have a shot at stamping out new chains of transmission , while also trying to mitigate the damage of the spread that isn ’ t under control .
What we got , of course , was something much more far reaching , radical , and disastrous for both the economy and for long-term health problems .
For the next two weeks or so , governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distancing as a measure to “ flatten the curve ” and the phrase began appearing everywhere in social media , media publications and government announcements .
Many people found this message reasonable enough , especially when coupled with claims that hospitals and governments would seek to buy up large numbers of ventilators and expand capacity with temporary hospitals .
This flatten-the-curve narrative persisted for two weeks or so , but at some point in late March and early April , the narrative switched to something new .
The new narrative was this : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gruesome and unbearable to allow people to continue on with some semblance of an ordinary life .
So , we must keep society locked down indefinitely until a vaccine is found or until there can be enough testing and tracking of infections among the entire population .
Until then , only minimal “ essential ” activities will be allowed .
This could last eighteen months , or two years , or more .
And even then , there will need to be “ COVID passports ” and official freedom-to-work documents issued by governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every move must be controlled and monitored to prevent the spread of this disease .
Thus , on April 2 , Anthony Fauci , one of the lead bureaucrats on the White House ’ s COVID-19 advisory commission insisted that mandatory social distancing could not be eased until further notice : “ If we get to the part of the curve where it goes down to essentially no new cases , no deaths for a period of time , I think it makes sense that you have to relax social distancing , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one thing we hope to have in place , and I believe we will have in place , is a much more robust system to be able to identify someone who is infected , isolate them , and then do contact tracing.
” Similarly , former presidential advisor and physician Ezekiel Emmanuel flatly stated that there is “ no choice ” but to stay locked down indefinitely : Realistically , COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more .
We will not be able to return to normalcy until we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I know that ’ s dreadful news to hear .
How are people supposed to find work if this goes on in some form for a year and a half ?
Is all that economic pain worth trying to stop COVID-19 ?
The truth is we have no choice .
This messaging was used at the state level as well .
On April 9 , the Hawaii Department of Education announced that all “ public schools are expected to stay shut until COVID-19 is no longer spreading in the community , defined as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Needless to say , such a situation is unlikely to happen any time that ’ s soon enough to save Hawaii from an economic implosion .
Similarly , in Colorado , during an April 1 briefing , Governor Jared Polis stated that when it comes to COVID-19 his policy is “ stamping this out , ” and claimed that mandatory social distancing could not be eased until total cases were falling .
This switcheroo on the reason for the lockdowns was a great victory for the World Health Organization ( WHO ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy and daily life .
Already by early March , some WHO officials had come out in favor of the Chinese approach of draconian lockdowns imposed by the Chinese police state and surveillance state .
As noted by Statnews , Mike Ryan , the head of the WHO ’ s health emergencies program , embraced the Chinese “ containment ” strategy and denounced flatten-the-curve style “ mitigation ” strategies as “ counterproductive.
” Perhaps not surprisingly , by early April we had leading national figures in the US insisting that China-style lockdowns were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease .
“ Flatten the curve ” was still used as a slogan , but its meaning had changed .
Another Switch in Early May : Back to the Old Idea of “ Flatten the Curve ” By early May , it was clear that the “ containment ” strategy was failing , since , in the United States at least , few elected officials were prepared to stomach the idea of keeping their economies locked down until a vaccine appeared or until new cases disappeared completely .
After all , as unemployment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budgets cratered , “ lockdown until vaccine ” didn ’ t seem like such a viable strategy anymore .
Indeed , two weeks earlier , the Hawaii Department of Education had already abandoned its declaration about the need for no new cases , with the department director backpedaling furiously and stating : “ We would expect to be living with COVID-19 for a long time , and to have to wait for the last case to have occurred and another 28 days probably is not going to happen , so I believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April , numerous states ’ governors and municipal officials were discussing ways to scale back their lockdowns .
Many governors and mayors nonetheless continued to claim that they would not allow any easing of the lockdowns until cases began to decline , or until testing became widespread .
Neither of those things has happened , yet governments have already begun to significantly loosen lockdowns .
In many states , total deaths have plateaued but show no sign of disappearing .
The Sweden Model Is the Future “ Flatten the curve ” remains a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re back to the old definition : fear remains that hospitals and healthcare personnel will be overwhelmed .
The preferred political solution lies in both continuing to encourage social distancing and in prohibiting larger gatherings .
But the idea that everyone will sit at home until a vaccine is found has at the moment fallen out of favor except in the most dogmatically leftist areas .
Hard-left activist Matthew Yglesias , for example , complained this week that flattening the curve “ isn ’ t good enough.
” Indeed , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that even the WHO has abandoned it .
The WHO now endorses the Swedish model , which is based on increasing healthcare capacity while relying primarily on voluntary social distancing .
The Financial Times reported on April 29 : The World Health Organization has defended Sweden ’ s approach to tackling Covid-19 , saying it has implemented “ strong measures ” to tackle the virus… .
The director of the WHO ’ s health emergencies programme said on Wednesday there was a perception that Sweden had not done enough to contain coronavirus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the truth ” .
Sweden has put in place a “ very strong public health policy ” , Mike Ryan said , but unlike many other countries has chosen to rely on its “ relationship with its citizenry ” and trust them to self-regulate .
Its healthcare system has not been overwhelmed , he said , adding that its approach could be a “ model ” for other countries when lockdowns begin to relax .
In other words , the containment strategy favored by Fauci and Emanuel is dead ( for now ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ design , the US is moving toward a Sweden model .
Nonetheless , one is still likely to encounter rabid “ COVID warriors ” on social media , who think that interminable lockdowns will ( somehow ) significantly reduce the overall total deaths from COVID-19 .
But it increasingly seems that such a scenario is wishful thinking .
In a new article posted at The Lancet on Tuesday , Swedish infectious disease clinician Johan Giesecke writes on how lockdowns don ’ t really reduce overall total deaths , and says that when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are likely to have similar death rates to lockdown areas : It has become clear that a hard lockdown does not protect old and frail people living in care homes—a population the lockdown was designed to protect .
Neither does it decrease mortality from COVID-19 , which is evident when comparing the UK ’ s experience with that of other European countries .
PCR testing and some straightforward assumptions indicate that , as of April 29 , 2020 , more than half a million people in Stockholm county , Sweden , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been infected ( Hansson D , Swedish Public Health Agency , personal communication ) .
98–99 % of these people are probably unaware or uncertain of having had the infection ; they either had symptoms that were severe , but not severe enough for them to go to a hospital and get tested , or no symptoms at all .
Serology testing is now supporting these assumptions .
These facts have led me to the following conclusions .
Everyone will be exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus , and most people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like wildfire in all countries , but we do not see it—it almost always spreads from younger people with no or weak symptoms to other people who will also have mild symptoms .
This is the real pandemic , but it goes on beneath the surface , and is probably at its peak now in many European countries .
There is very little we can do to prevent this spread : a lockdown might delay severe cases for a while , but once restrictions are eased , cases will reappear .
I expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths from COVID-19 in each country in 1 year from now , the figures will be similar , regardless of measures taken .
Will Giesecke be proven correct ?
We ’ ll find out .

In the early days of the COVID-19 panic—back in mid-March—articles began to appear pushing the idea of “flattening the curve” (the Washington Post ran an article called “Flatten the Curve” on March 14).
This idea was premised on spreading out the total number of COVID-19 infections over time, so as to not overburden the healthcare infrastructure. A March 11 article for Statnews, summed it up:
“I think the whole notion of flattening the curve is to slow things down so that this doesn’t hit us like a brick wall,” said Michael Mina, associate medical director of clinical microbiology at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “It’s really all borne out of the risk of our health care infrastructure pulling apart at the seams if the virus spreads too quickly and too many people start showing up at the emergency room at any given time.”
In those days, it was still considered madness to suggest outlawing jobs for millions of Americans or “shutting down” entire national economies in an effort to “flatten the curve.” Thus, the article lists for more moderate mitigation strategies:
By taking certain steps—canceling large public gatherings, for instance, and encouraging some people to restrict their contact with others—governments have a shot at stamping out new chains of transmission, while also trying to mitigate the damage of the spread that isn’t under control.
What we got, of course, was something much more far reaching, radical, and disastrous for both the economy and for long-term health problems.
For the next two weeks or so, governments mostly sold the idea of forced social distancing as a measure to “flatten the curve” and the phrase began appearing everywhere in social media, media publications and government announcements.
Many people found this message reasonable enough, especially when coupled with claims that hospitals and governments would seek to buy up large numbers of ventilators and expand capacity with temporary hospitals. This flatten-the-curve narrative persisted for two weeks or so, but at some point in late March and early April, the narrative switched to something new.
The new narrative was this: the death toll will simply be too gruesome and unbearable to allow people to continue on with some semblance of an ordinary life. So, we must keep society locked down indefinitely until a vaccine is found or until there can be enough testing and tracking of infections among the entire population. Until then, only minimal “essential” activities will be allowed. This could last eighteen months, or two years, or more. And even then, there will need to be “COVID passports” and official freedom-to-work documents issued by governments. The future is one in which every move must be controlled and monitored to prevent the spread of this disease.
Thus, on April 2, Anthony Fauci, one of the lead bureaucrats on the White House’s COVID-19 advisory commission insisted that mandatory social distancing could not be eased until further notice:
“If we get to the part of the curve where it goes down to essentially no new cases, no deaths for a period of time, I think it makes sense that you have to relax social distancing,” [Fauci] added. “The one thing we hope to have in place, and I believe we will have in place, is a much more robust system to be able to identify someone who is infected, isolate them, and then do contact tracing.”
Similarly, former presidential advisor and physician Ezekiel Emmanuel flatly stated that there is “no choice” but to stay locked down indefinitely:
Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more. We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications. I know that’s dreadful news to hear. How are people supposed to find work if this goes on in some form for a year and a half? Is all that economic pain worth trying to stop COVID-19? The truth is we have no choice.
This messaging was used at the state level as well. On April 9, the Hawaii Department of Education announced that all “public schools are expected to stay shut until COVID-19 is no longer spreading in the community, defined as four weeks with no new cases.”
Needless to say, such a situation is unlikely to happen any time that’s soon enough to save Hawaii from an economic implosion.
Similarly, in Colorado, during an April 1 briefing, Governor Jared Polis stated that when it comes to COVID-19 his policy is “stamping this out,” and claimed that mandatory social distancing could not be eased until total cases were falling.
This switcheroo on the reason for the lockdowns was a great victory for the World Health Organization (WHO) and advocates for widespread state controls on the economy and daily life. Already by early March, some WHO officials had come out in favor of the Chinese approach of draconian lockdowns imposed by the Chinese police state and surveillance state. As noted by Statnews, Mike Ryan, the head of the WHO’s health emergencies program, embraced the Chinese “containment” strategy and denounced flatten-the-curve style “mitigation” strategies as “counterproductive.”
Perhaps not surprisingly, by early April we had leading national figures in the US insisting that China-style lockdowns were the only way to deal with the disease. “Flatten the curve” was still used as a slogan, but its meaning had changed.
Another Switch in Early May: Back to the Old Idea of “Flatten the Curve”
By early May, it was clear that the “containment” strategy was failing, since, in the United States at least, few elected officials were prepared to stomach the idea of keeping their economies locked down until a vaccine appeared or until new cases disappeared completely. After all, as unemployment numbers skyrocketed and state and local government budgets cratered, “lockdown until vaccine” didn’t seem like such a viable strategy anymore.
Indeed, two weeks earlier, the Hawaii Department of Education had already abandoned its declaration about the need for no new cases, with the department director backpedaling furiously and stating:
“We would expect to be living with COVID-19 for a long time, and to have to wait for the last case to have occurred and another 28 days probably is not going to happen, so I believe that was really a placeholder.”
By late April, numerous states’ governors and municipal officials were discussing ways to scale back their lockdowns. Many governors and mayors nonetheless continued to claim that they would not allow any easing of the lockdowns until cases began to decline, or until testing became widespread. Neither of those things has happened, yet governments have already begun to significantly loosen lockdowns. In many states, total deaths have plateaued but show no sign of disappearing.
The Sweden Model Is the Future
“Flatten the curve” remains a popular goal among policymakers, but now we’re back to the old definition: fear remains that hospitals and healthcare personnel will be overwhelmed. The preferred political solution lies in both continuing to encourage social distancing and in prohibiting larger gatherings. But the idea that everyone will sit at home until a vaccine is found has at the moment fallen out of favor except in the most dogmatically leftist areas. Hard-left activist Matthew Yglesias, for example, complained this week that flattening the curve “isn’t good enough.”
Indeed, the Chinese-style containment strategy has failed so completely that even the WHO has abandoned it. The WHO now endorses the Swedish model, which is based on increasing healthcare capacity while relying primarily on voluntary social distancing. The Financial Times reported on April 29:
The World Health Organization has defended Sweden’s approach to tackling Covid-19, saying it has implemented “strong measures” to tackle the virus….
The director of the WHO’s health emergencies programme said on Wednesday there was a perception that Sweden had not done enough to contain coronavirus, but “nothing could be further from the truth”. Sweden has put in place a “very strong public health policy”, Mike Ryan said, but unlike many other countries has chosen to rely on its “relationship with its citizenry” and trust them to self-regulate.
Its healthcare system has not been overwhelmed, he said, adding that its approach could be a “model” for other countries when lockdowns begin to relax.
In other words, the containment strategy favored by Fauci and Emanuel is dead (for now). Although it has not happened by design, the US is moving toward a Sweden model.
Nonetheless, one is still likely to encounter rabid “COVID warriors” on social media, who think that interminable lockdowns will (somehow) significantly reduce the overall total deaths from COVID-19. But it increasingly seems that such a scenario is wishful thinking.
In a new article posted at The Lancet on Tuesday, Swedish infectious disease clinician Johan Giesecke writes on how lockdowns don’t really reduce overall total deaths, and says that when it’s all over, nonlockdown jurisdictions are likely to have similar death rates to lockdown areas:
It has become clear that a hard lockdown does not protect old and frail people living in care homes—a population the lockdown was designed to protect.
Neither does it decrease mortality from COVID-19, which is evident when comparing the UK’s experience with that of other European countries.
PCR testing and some straightforward assumptions indicate that, as of April 29, 2020, more than half a million people in Stockholm county, Sweden, which is about 20–25% of the population, have been infected (Hansson D, Swedish Public Health Agency, personal communication). 98–99% of these people are probably unaware or uncertain of having had the infection; they either had symptoms that were severe, but not severe enough for them to go to a hospital and get tested, or no symptoms at all. Serology testing is now supporting these assumptions.
These facts have led me to the following conclusions. Everyone will be exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and most people will become infected. COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire in all countries, but we do not see it—it almost always spreads from younger people with no or weak symptoms to other people who will also have mild symptoms. This is the real pandemic, but it goes on beneath the surface, and is probably at its peak now in many European countries. There is very little we can do to prevent this spread: a lockdown might delay severe cases for a while, but once restrictions are eased, cases will reappear. I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in 1 year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken.
Will Giesecke be proven correct? We’ll find out.


newswars--2020-05-07--American COUP: How James Comey and The Deep State Tried To Overthrow Our Republic

As the true story behind the Michael Flynn case emerges , it appears the FBI falsified reports , withheld evidence @ @ @ @ @ veteran and his family in order to protect the Deep State .

American COUP: How James Comey and The Deep State Tried To Overthrow Our Republic Americans need to know the truth behind the General Flynn saga


newswars--2020-05-07--Leftists Attack Black Sports Reporter For Not Pushing Racial Narrative

Black sports journalist Jason Whitlock was targeted by leftists for disagreeing with LeBron James who claimed African-Americans are “ literally @ @ @ @ @ responding to James who commented on the Feb. shooting of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia .
@ @ @ @ @ proof that African-Americans overall are “ literally hunted EVERYDAY/EVERYTIME , ” which Whitlock disagreed with @ @ @ @ @ noting that Whitlock also said “ Ahmaud Arbery deserves justice , ” so he ’ @ @ @ @ @ emotional response to the shooting rather than the shooting itself .
This prompted outrage from @ @ @ @ @ crowd , but Whitlock didn ’ t waver from his opinion ; instead , he @ @ @ @ @ sports reporter Nate Scott wrote an article criticizing Whitlock by stating that James never mentioned @ @ @ @ @ , but notably he didn ’ t comment on the meat of Whitlock ’ s @ @ @ @ @ , as an African-American , he didn ’ t feel he was being “ hunted @ @ @ @ @ commentator for Fox Sports and was an offensive lineman for Ball State University .

Black sports journalist Jason Whitlock was targeted by leftists for disagreeing with LeBron James who claimed African-Americans are “literally hunted EVERYDAY/EVERYTIME.”
Whitlock was responding to James who commented on the Feb. shooting of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia.
James said the shooting was proof that African-Americans overall are “literally hunted EVERYDAY/EVERYTIME,” which Whitlock disagreed with.
This isn’t helpful. It’s twitter trolling. It’s using this man’s tragedy to build a brand as more outspoken than Michael Jordan. There are all kinds of ways to draw attention to this tragedy. Suggesting that we are hunted everyday/every time is just shit-stirring. https://t.co/zLPICaCKuA — Jason Whitlock (@WhitlockJason) May 6, 2020
It’s worth noting that Whitlock also said “Ahmaud Arbery deserves justice,” so he’s disagreeing with James’ emotional response to the shooting rather than the shooting itself.
This prompted outrage from Twitter “blue checkmark” crowd, but Whitlock didn’t waver from his opinion; instead, he doubled down:
Do u believe we r hunted every day, every time we step out? It’s ridiculous, unsophisticated hyperbole that promotes fear/emotion. Fear is the enemy of common sense, enemy of rational behavior. LeBron’s tweet doesn’t promote justice. It promotes emotion. Emotion improves nothing. https://t.co/x34MjlPBCi — Jason Whitlock (@WhitlockJason) May 7, 2020
Social media is a tool to keep all of us wrapped up in our emotions, divided from each other and removed from common sense and rational behavior. Ahmaud Arbery deserves justice. We keep looking to get justice with emotion. Doesn’t work. Emotion gets likes/follows/retweets. — Jason Whitlock (@WhitlockJason) May 7, 2020
Marc, I’m a sports commentator. I’d like to see athletes use their platforms to promote justice for Ahmaud Arbery, not promote emotion, fear or individual brand. LeBron’s tweet doesn’t promote justice. It’s intentionally hyperbolic, divisive and unsophisticated. https://t.co/gZ6eep14RX — Jason Whitlock (@WhitlockJason) May 7, 2020
LeBron is the Pied Piper for a lot of athletes. If the goal is to promote justice for Ahmaud Arbery, LeBron’s rhetoric doesn’t promote justice. It promotes emotion and fear, the enemies of justice. We can continue to promote emotion/fear or we can seek justice. — Jason Whitlock (@WhitlockJason) May 7, 2020
Additionally, sports reporter Nate Scott wrote an article criticizing Whitlock by stating that James never mentioned Michael Jordan in his tweet, but notably he didn’t comment on the meat of Whitlock’s argument, which was that, as an African-American, he didn’t feel he was being “hunted everyday/everytime.”
Whitlock is a commentator for Fox Sports and was an offensive lineman for Ball State University.


newswars--2020-05-07--Peter Schiff: Fed Can Never Take the Easy Money Drug Away

The Federal Reserve is creating a massive amount of money out of thin air and injecting it into the economy .
Pretty much everybody believes this is the only choice given the economic emergency we face .
But we ’ re told once the emergency is over , the Fed will take the excesses away .
In his podcast , Peter Schiff explains why this will never happen .
Once the drug addict is hooked , you can ’ t just take the drug away .
Peter started the podcast saying he thinks the bear market relief rally is coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can only buy so much with its QE and rate cuts.
” The stock market rally in April created a lot of optimism about the economy .
The prevailing mindset was “ if we can turn it off , we can turn it back on.
” Peter said now that the fog is starting to lift a bit , people are starting to realize that narrative wasn ’ t true and that this is going to be a much deeper and protracted recession .
But people still don ’ t realize just how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
Now the government and the Federal Reserve are engaging in the same policies that undermined the economy in the first place .
Pundits and analysts keep talking about how the Fed is “ injecting liquidity into the economy.
” That translates to inflation .
The Fed is creating money out of thin air and spending it into circulation .
“ But that does not help the economy .
It ’ s never helped the economy .
What it does do is help to sustain a bubble.
” During a recent interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how the Fed is supporting the economy through this pandemic .
How does a central bank “ support an economy ?
” Peter said it really can ’ t .
“ What can the Fed actually do ?
Just print money , right ?
That ’ s all they can do .
They can artificially suppress interest rates so that we can take on more debt , and they can create money .
They can rob people of their purchasing power through inflation and allow the government to spend that stolen purchasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that help the economy ?
No .
The Fed has no tools to support the economy .
You don ’ t support the economy by printing money .
Now , the Fed could try to support the bubble .
It can try to prevent the bubble from deflating or have it deflate more slowly .
But that ’ s actually hurting the real economy.
” In a nutshell , by enabling the government to borrow and spend even more money , by monetizing the massive debt , the Fed is hurting the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s a lot the Fed can do to undermine the economy , but there ’ s nothing it can do to support the economy other than extracting themselves from interfering .
“ They have to undo the damage they ’ ve done .
They have to allow interest rates to go up .
They have to stop monetizing debt .
That would help the economy only because they stopped hurting it .
That ’ s what they could do to help – stop hurting !
” During that same interview , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withdraw and remove all of the excesses it ’ s injecting into the economy .
We ’ ve heard that promise before .
When the Fed launched quantitative easing early in the 2008 financial crisis , Ben Bernanke told Congress it was temporary .
He insisted the central bank was not monetizing the debt .
He swore that the Fed would sell all of the bonds it was adding to the balance sheet .
“ Isn ’ t that the same BS line they fed us after the 2008 financial crisis ?
QE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to eliminate it or unwind it as soon as the emergency was over .
They weren ’ t monetizing the debt .
It was all temporary .
They were going to normalize rates , shrink the balance sheet .
That ’ s what they said before .
It was a lie before .
I knew it was a lie before .
I told everybody that would listen that the Fed was lying.
” Peter said this is an even bigger lie .
It ’ s impossible for the central bank to remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They are basically giving a drug addict drugs .
And if you ’ re high on drugs , you can ’ t say we ’ re going to take away the drugs when you don ’ t need it anymore when the drugs are the source of the high .
When you ’ re high on drugs , you constantly need those drugs .
You can ’ t take the drugs away .
So , all the Federal Reserve does when it intervenes in the way that it has , and it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can never take the cheap money away .
Again , that ’ s the monetary roach motel that I ’ ve talked about.
” Peter said the reason gold didn ’ t go higher after the 2008 financial crisis is because the Fed managed to convince everybody that it wasn ’ t a monetary roach motel .
People actually believe the extraordinary monetary policy in the wake of the crash was temporary , that the Fed could unwind its balance sheet and raise interest rates .
That ’ s why gold had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was gold discounting the normalization process .
All of the rate hikes , all of the quantitative tightening was priced into gold before the Fed even started.
” If you recall , gold ’ s decline ended at the same time the Fed raised rates for the first time .
“ It was a sell the rumor , buy the fact .
They were selling gold for years based on the anticipation of the Fed returning to normal .
And then the minute they took their first step on the road to normalcy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they started buying gold .
Except the Fed never completed the journey.
” Now the Fed is doing the same thing again .
They are giving a bigger dose of the same drug that they couldn ’ t get the economy off before .
Keep in mind , the Fed was cutting rates and doing QE before COVID-19 .
This is like a rerun of a bad movie .
We have Clarida tossing out the same old lines .
“ This is temporary — for the emergency.
” When it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take it away .
But as Peter said , it ’ s always needed .
“ I mean , if you want to keep the bubble going .
If you want to let the bubble pop , if you want to let the whole house of cards collapse , sure , you can remove the policy .
But if you ’ re determined to keep the bubble going , which is what the Fed is , then you can never stop.
” Peter said the difference this time and the reason he thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nobody is going to believe the Fed this time .
“ They can ’ t fool anybody .
Fool me once , shame on you .
Fool me twice , shame on me .
The market ’ s not going to get fooled again by the exact same lie .
Especially on that is so much more preposterous now because the debt is so much bigger .
The size of the monetary stimulus is so much larger .
We have a much bigger drug habit than we ever had .
And if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ habit , how are we going to kick this one ?
” David Knight joins The Alex Jones Show to expose the real data against the inflated bell curve that was used to implement t lockdown of society .

The Federal Reserve is creating a massive amount of money out of thin air and injecting it into the economy. Pretty much everybody believes this is the only choice given the economic emergency we face.
But we’re told once the emergency is over, the Fed will take the excesses away.
In his podcast, Peter Schiff explains why this will never happen. Once the drug addict is hooked, you can’t just take the drug away.
Peter started the podcast saying he thinks the bear market relief rally is coming to an end.
“The Fed can only buy so much with its QE and rate cuts.”
The stock market rally in April created a lot of optimism about the economy. The prevailing mindset was “if we can turn it off, we can turn it back on.” Peter said now that the fog is starting to lift a bit, people are starting to realize that narrative wasn’t true and that this is going to be a much deeper and protracted recession.
But people still don’t realize just how weak the economy was before the coronavirus pandemic. Now the government and the Federal Reserve are engaging in the same policies that undermined the economy in the first place.
Pundits and analysts keep talking about how the Fed is “injecting liquidity into the economy.” That translates to inflation. The Fed is creating money out of thin air and spending it into circulation.
“But that does not help the economy. It’s never helped the economy. What it does do is help to sustain a bubble.”
During a recent interview, Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida talked about how the Fed is supporting the economy through this pandemic. How does a central bank “support an economy?” Peter said it really can’t.
“What can the Fed actually do? Just print money, right? That’s all they can do. They can artificially suppress interest rates so that we can take on more debt, and they can create money. They can rob people of their purchasing power through inflation and allow the government to spend that stolen purchasing power into the economy. But does that help the economy? No. The Fed has no tools to support the economy. You don’t support the economy by printing money. Now, the Fed could try to support the bubble. It can try to prevent the bubble from deflating or have it deflate more slowly. But that’s actually hurting the real economy.”
In a nutshell, by enabling the government to borrow and spend even more money, by monetizing the massive debt, the Fed is hurting the economy over the long-term. Peter said that there’s a lot the Fed can do to undermine the economy, but there’s nothing it can do to support the economy other than extracting themselves from interfering.
“They have to undo the damage they’ve done. They have to allow interest rates to go up. They have to stop monetizing debt. That would help the economy only because they stopped hurting it. That’s what they could do to help – stop hurting!”
During that same interview, Clarida also claimed that the Fed would withdraw and remove all of the excesses it’s injecting into the economy. We’ve heard that promise before. When the Fed launched quantitative easing early in the 2008 financial crisis, Ben Bernanke told Congress it was temporary. He insisted the central bank was not monetizing the debt. He swore that the Fed would sell all of the bonds it was adding to the balance sheet.
It never happened.
“Isn’t that the same BS line they fed us after the 2008 financial crisis? QE was a temporary emergency. They were going to eliminate it or unwind it as soon as the emergency was over. They weren’t monetizing the debt. It was all temporary. They were going to normalize rates, shrink the balance sheet. That’s what they said before. It was a lie before. I knew it was a lie before. I told everybody that would listen that the Fed was lying.”
Peter said this is an even bigger lie. It’s impossible for the central bank to remove the support from the economy.
“They are basically giving a drug addict drugs. And if you’re high on drugs, you can’t say we’re going to take away the drugs when you don’t need it anymore when the drugs are the source of the high. When you’re high on drugs, you constantly need those drugs. You can’t take the drugs away. So, all the Federal Reserve does when it intervenes in the way that it has, and it comes in with all this cheap money — it can never take the cheap money away. Again, that’s the monetary roach motel that I’ve talked about.”
Peter said the reason gold didn’t go higher after the 2008 financial crisis is because the Fed managed to convince everybody that it wasn’t a monetary roach motel. People actually believe the extraordinary monetary policy in the wake of the crash was temporary, that the Fed could unwind its balance sheet and raise interest rates. That’s why gold had its big downward correction.
“It was gold discounting the normalization process. All of the rate hikes, all of the quantitative tightening was priced into gold before the Fed even started.”
If you recall, gold’s decline ended at the same time the Fed raised rates for the first time.
“It was a sell the rumor, buy the fact. They were selling gold for years based on the anticipation of the Fed returning to normal. And then the minute they took their first step on the road to normalcy, that’s when gold bottomed and they started buying gold. Except the Fed never completed the journey.”
Now the Fed is doing the same thing again. They are giving a bigger dose of the same drug that they couldn’t get the economy off before. Keep in mind, the Fed was cutting rates and doing QE before COVID-19.
This is like a rerun of a bad movie. We have Clarida tossing out the same old lines. “This is temporary — for the emergency.” When it’s no longer needed, we’ll take it away. But as Peter said, it’s always needed.
“I mean, if you want to keep the bubble going. If you want to let the bubble pop, if you want to let the whole house of cards collapse, sure, you can remove the policy. But if you’re determined to keep the bubble going, which is what the Fed is, then you can never stop.”
Peter said the difference this time and the reason he thinks gold will keep going up is that nobody is going to believe the Fed this time.
“They can’t fool anybody. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The market’s not going to get fooled again by the exact same lie. Especially on that is so much more preposterous now because the debt is so much bigger. The size of the monetary stimulus is so much larger. We have a much bigger drug habit than we ever had. And if we couldn’t kick the last drug habit, how are we going to kick this one?”
David Knight joins The Alex Jones Show to expose the real data against the inflated bell curve that was used to implement t lockdown of society.


newswars--2020-05-08--Facebook Censorship Council Includes Pro-Muslim Brotherhood Activist

Facebook ’ s new censorship council , which will decide what content gets deleted from the website , includes a pro-Muslim Brotherhood Yemeni activist .
“ The independent board , which will be able to overturn Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg ’ s decisions on whether individual pieces of content should be allowed on Facebook and Instagram , is a high-profile response to criticism of how the social media company handles problematic content , ” reported Channel News Asia .
The “ oversight board ” will include none other than Nobel Laureate Tawakkol Karman , the Yemeni woman who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arab Spring uprising in 2011 .
Karman ’ s activism includes supporting the Muslim Brotherhood , an Islamist organization that has been blamed for terrorist attacks .
Karman previously denounced arrests of Muslim Brotherhood members and opposed the move to bar the Muslim Brotherhood from participating in Egyptian politics .
In Yemen , the Muslim Brotherhood is led by Abdul Majeed al-Zindani , a Sunni Islamist viewed by the United States as a “ Bin Laden loyalist ” and someone who is listed as a “ Specially Designated Global Terrorist ” by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s tolerance for allowing criticism of Islam on Facebook ’ s platform will be in short supply .
As we highlighted earlier this week , another one of Facebook ’ s censorship czars is none other than anti-Trump Professor Pamela Karlan .
Karlan made a name for herself because of a rant at the impeachment hearings during which she made Barron Trump the punch line of a joke .
Karlan was also described by the New York Times as a “ full-throated , unapologetic liberal torchbearer.
” These are the people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violate the social media network ’ s increasingly draconian rules .
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr responded to the announcement of the oversight board by slamming it as a partisan fraud .
“ Meet your new speech police , ” said Carr .
“ Facebook now has an Oversight Board empowered to take down posts.
” “ Got ta be non-partisan people , right ?
Nope !
1 is Pam Karlan : testified to impeach @ POTUS , “ baron ” Trump line , Obama DOJ , & NYT calls ‘ full-throated , unapologetic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s decision undermines its claim that posts won ’ t be censored for partisan political reasons .
Karlan testified that ‘ President Trump must be held to account.
’ She wrote *in 2016* that she felt ‘ a responsibility to challenge [ Trump ] in the court of public opinion.
’ ” My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever .
It is CRUCIAL that you support me .
Please sign up for the free newsletter here .
Donate to me on SubscribeStar here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown .

Facebook’s new censorship council, which will decide what content gets deleted from the website, includes a pro-Muslim Brotherhood Yemeni activist.
“The independent board, which will be able to overturn Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s decisions on whether individual pieces of content should be allowed on Facebook and Instagram, is a high-profile response to criticism of how the social media company handles problematic content,” reported Channel News Asia.
The “oversight board” will include none other than Nobel Laureate Tawakkol Karman, the Yemeni woman who became one of the faces of the Arab Spring uprising in 2011.
Karman’s activism includes supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization that has been blamed for terrorist attacks.
Karman previously denounced arrests of Muslim Brotherhood members and opposed the move to bar the Muslim Brotherhood from participating in Egyptian politics.
In Yemen, the Muslim Brotherhood is led by Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, a Sunni Islamist viewed by the United States as a “Bin Laden loyalist” and someone who is listed as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” by the US Treasury Department.
No doubt Karman’s tolerance for allowing criticism of Islam on Facebook’s platform will be in short supply.
Facebook forms a “supreme court” which will decide what content to allow or remove from the world’s largest social media platform. One of the members of the supreme court is notorious Muslim Brotherhood activist Tawakkol Karman. pic.twitter.com/m2PHDvhi9c — Kevork Almassian (@KevorkAlmassian) May 7, 2020
As we highlighted earlier this week, another one of Facebook’s censorship czars is none other than anti-Trump Professor Pamela Karlan.
Karlan made a name for herself because of a rant at the impeachment hearings during which she made Barron Trump the punch line of a joke.
Karlan was also described by the New York Times as a “full-throated, unapologetic liberal torchbearer.”
These are the people who will be deciding whether your Facebook posts violate the social media network’s increasingly draconian rules.
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr responded to the announcement of the oversight board by slamming it as a partisan fraud.
“Meet your new speech police,” said Carr. “Facebook now has an Oversight Board empowered to take down posts.”
“Gotta be non-partisan people, right? Nope! 1 is Pam Karlan: testified to impeach @POTUS, “baron” Trump line, Obama DOJ, & NYT calls ‘full-throated, unapologetic liberal torchbearer.’”
“Facebook’s decision undermines its claim that posts won’t be censored for partisan political reasons. Karlan testified that ‘President Trump must be held to account.’ She wrote *in 2016* that she felt ‘a responsibility to challenge [Trump] in the court of public opinion.’”
2. Facebook’s decision undermines its claim that posts won’t be censored for partisan political reasons. Karlan testified that “President Trump must be held to account.” She wrote *in 2016* that she felt “a responsibility to challenge [Trump] in the court of public opinion.” — Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) May 7, 2020
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
———————————————————————————————————————
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.
Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
———————————————————————————————————————


newswars--2020-05-08--EU Defends Bowing To Communist Chinese Censors

The EU has attempted to defend the fact that it allowed the communist Chinese government to censor a letter it wrote to China before publication in a Chinese newspaper , erasing a sentence that stated the coronavirus originated in China .
The letter , co-written by the bloc ’ s 27 ambassadors , was published in China ’ s English-language newspaper China Daily on Tuesday .
However , the EU agreed to allow censors to remove the sentence , which stated “ But the outbreak of the coronavirus , in China , and its subsequent spread to the rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ China has state-controlled media .
There is censorship , that ’ s a fact , ” EU foreign affairs spokesperson Virginie Battu-Henriksson told reporters in an attempt to justify bowing to the Chinese censors .
Henriksson suggested that the EU reluctantly agreed to the amendment because it was better than not being able to communicate with a Chinese audience on ‘ key EU issues ’ , including climate change , human rights and the pandemic response .
It is the second time in the space of two weeks that the EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having previously softened criticism of the communist regime in a report documenting how governments have pushed “ disinformation ” about the coronavirus pandemic .
The European Union was set to issue the report until Chinese officials “ quickly contacted the European Union ’ s representatives in Beijing to try to kill the report , ” according to two diplomats .
The EU then “ diluted the focus on China , a vital trading partner.
” German conservative politician Norbert Roettgen criticised the EU ’ s actions , stating “ I am shocked not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU ambassadors generously adopt Chinese narratives and then the EU representative on top accepts Chinese censorship of the joint op-ed.
” he added .
“ This story beggars belief , ” another EU diplomat told Politico , asking “ What is the point in letting yourself be censored ?
” The source urged that it was an “ embarrassment ” for the EU , adding : “ The cost of taking a stand and defending what you believe in would have been very small .
”

The EU has attempted to defend the fact that it allowed the communist Chinese government to censor a letter it wrote to China before publication in a Chinese newspaper, erasing a sentence that stated the coronavirus originated in China.
The letter, co-written by the bloc’s 27 ambassadors, was published in China’s English-language newspaper China Daily on Tuesday. However, the EU agreed to allow censors to remove the sentence, which stated “But the outbreak of the coronavirus, in China, and its subsequent spread to the rest of the world over the past three months…”
“China has state-controlled media. There is censorship, that’s a fact,” EU foreign affairs spokesperson Virginie Battu-Henriksson told reporters in an attempt to justify bowing to the Chinese censors.
Henriksson suggested that the EU reluctantly agreed to the amendment because it was better than not being able to communicate with a Chinese audience on ‘key EU issues’, including climate change, human rights and the pandemic response.
It is the second time in the space of two weeks that the EU has rolled over for Chinese censorship, having previously softened criticism of the communist regime in a report documenting how governments have pushed “disinformation” about the coronavirus pandemic.
The European Union was set to issue the report until Chinese officials “quickly contacted the European Union’s representatives in Beijing to try to kill the report,” according to two diplomats. The EU then “diluted the focus on China, a vital trading partner.”
German conservative politician Norbert Roettgen criticised the EU’s actions, stating “I am shocked not once but twice.”
“First the EU ambassadors generously adopt Chinese narratives and then the EU representative on top accepts Chinese censorship of the joint op-ed.” he added.
“This story beggars belief,” another EU diplomat told Politico, asking “What is the point in letting yourself be censored?”
The source urged that it was an “embarrassment” for the EU, adding: “The cost of taking a stand and defending what you believe in would have been very small.”