thelibertydaily--2020-05-11--Liberal Lockdown Lunacy has Destroyed the Economy Much Worse Than We are Being Told

For a long time I warned that our economic bubble would burst and that we would plunge into a nightmarish economic collapse .
Now it has happened , and it turns out that fear of COVID-19 was the “ black swan event ” that triggered the collapse .
The ironic thing is that COVID-19 is not even close to the worst thing that is going to happen to us .
But it was more than enough to topple our incredibly fragile economic system , and now tens of millions of Americans are deeply suffering .
On Friday , the April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the worst jobs report in U.S. history by a very , very wide margin .
According to the official numbers , 20.5 million Americans lost their jobs during the month , and the unemployment rate shot up to 14.7 percent .
During the last recession , the unemployment rate peaked at about 10 percent , and we have already left that number in the dust .
The figures that we are seeing now are truly , truly horrifying , and what is even more frightening is that they aren ’ t even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take my word for it .
On Friday , the U.S. Labor Department publicly admitted that the true unemployment rate in April was closer to 20 percent… I applaud the Labor Department for trying to be honest .
In the report , they openly admitted that an “ additional 7.5 million workers ” should have been classified as unemployed… If those workers had been correctly classified , the official unemployment rate would have been about 19.5 percent , and that would have put us solidly in Great Depression territory .
But others have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the true rate of unemployment should be even higher than that .
For example , Standard Chartered has calculated that the true rate of unemployment could be as high as 27.5 percent… So how did Standard Chartered arrive at those numbers ?
The following is how Zero Hedge explained it… And Standard Chartered is not the only one that has come up with such a high figure .
In fact , John Williams of shadowstats.com says that if honest numbers were being used that the U.S. unemployment rate would now be an eye-popping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that things are really , really bad and that the numbers for next month are likely to be even worse .
If you can believe it , even White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett is admitting that the official unemployment rate is likely to surge above 20 percent in “ May or June ” … And even once this pandemic fades , many of those jobs won ’ t be coming back .
Initially , many employers had anticipated that they would be bringing all of their employees back following a short , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality is beginning to set in for many of them .
For example , a restaurant owner in Kentucky named Britney Ruby Miller has had to lower her expectations as this pandemic has dragged on… Yes , the state of Kentucky is starting to “ reopen for business ” , but for now her restaurants will “ be limited to 33 % of capacity ” and there will be all sorts of other new expenses that Miller will be forced to deal with… There are very , very few restaurants that can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state of Kentucky lifts those ridiculous restrictions , Miller may soon lose all of her restaurants and all of her employees may soon be permanently out of jobs .
Of course more layoff announcements just keep rolling in from all over America with each passing day .
The following examples come from the Wall Street Journal… This is what an economic depression looks like , and it is going to be so incredibly painful .
And it is critical to understand that what we have experienced so far is just a warm-up act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember how bitter the last recession was , that should motivate you to take action to prepare for what is ahead , because this economic downturn is already even worse .
Yes , the months in front of us will be exceptionally challenging , but you can get through this .
Things may look really bleak , but for now you just need to keep hanging in there .
There will be life on the other side , but your future may end up looking far different than you originally anticipated .
About @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crying out for change in a society that generally seems content to stay asleep .
My name is Michael Snyder and I am the publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog , End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News , and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe .
I have written four books that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The End , Get Prepared Now , and Living A Life That Really Matters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ books you help to support my work .
I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites , but due to government regulations I need those that republish my articles to include this “ About the Author ” section with each article .
In order to comply with those government regulations , I need to tell you that the controversial opinions in this article are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the websites where my work is republished .
The material contained in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only , and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal , business , financial or health decisions .
Those responding to this article by making comments are solely responsible for their viewpoints , and those viewpoints do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of Michael Snyder or the operators of the websites where my work is republished .
I encourage you to follow me on social media on Facebook and Twitter , and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help .
During these very challenging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than ever before , and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with all many people as we possibly can .

For a long time I warned that our economic bubble would burst and that we would plunge into a nightmarish economic collapse. Now it has happened, and it turns out that fear of COVID-19 was the “black swan event” that triggered the collapse. The ironic thing is that COVID-19 is not even close to the worst thing that is going to happen to us. But it was more than enough to topple our incredibly fragile economic system, and now tens of millions of Americans are deeply suffering. On Friday, the April jobs report was released, and it was the worst jobs report in U.S. history by a very, very wide margin. According to the official numbers, 20.5 million Americans lost their jobs during the month, and the unemployment rate shot up to 14.7 percent. During the last recession, the unemployment rate peaked at about 10 percent, and we have already left that number in the dust. The figures that we are seeing now are truly, truly horrifying, and what is even more frightening is that they aren’t even that accurate.
But don’t take my word for it.
On Friday, the U.S. Labor Department publicly admitted that the true unemployment rate in April was closer to 20 percent…
Millions of U.S. residents were counted as employed in April despite having no job, suggesting April’s true unemployment rate was closer to 20%, much higher than the official 14.7% reported, the Labor Department said Friday. The jobless rate should have included people on temporary unpaid leave, furloughed because of the coronavirus pandemic, the government said.
I applaud the Labor Department for trying to be honest. In the report, they openly admitted that an “additional 7.5 million workers” should have been classified as unemployed…
But responses to the survey by which the data was collected show 11.5 million people were categorized as employed but absent from work because of vacation, parental leave or other reasons, but including 8.1 million absent for “unspecified” reasons, a group that usually numbers about 620,000. “One assumption might be that these additional 7.5 million workers …should have been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff,” a note attached to the government’s jobs report Friday said.
If those workers had been correctly classified, the official unemployment rate would have been about 19.5 percent, and that would have put us solidly in Great Depression territory.
But others have looked at the numbers and calculated that the true rate of unemployment should be even higher than that.
For example, Standard Chartered has calculated that the true rate of unemployment could be as high as 27.5 percent…
While it is true that what the BLS reported that the April unemployment rate (UR) was less than expected (14.7% versus consensus of 16.0%) and the drop in payroll employment of 20.5 million was also less than the 22.0 million expected, Standard Chartered bank has calculated that adjustments to the headline unemployment rate push the effective number of unemployed to 42 million and the effective UR rate to 25.5%, higher even than the U-6 underemployment rate of 22.8%. Worse, if one treats underemployed in line with the U-6 methodology, the true April unemployment number would rise to an mindblowing 27.5%.
So how did Standard Chartered arrive at those numbers? The following is how Zero Hedge explained it…
How does one get these numbers? As the bank’s chief FX strategist Steve Englander explains, start with the 23.1 million unemployed as published by BLS. To this add 8.1mn people who have dropped out of the labor force since February (previously the labor force had been growing steadily, so these are likely unemployed). Add back 7.5MM workers classified as ‘employed but not at work for other reasons’ – BLS states that these workers are likely misclassified as employed, when they are in fact unemployed. Involuntary part-time work for economic reasons has gone up by 6.6MM and we treat these as half-unemployed (i.e., a contribution of 3.3MM). This totals almost 42 Million effectively unemployed.
And Standard Chartered is not the only one that has come up with such a high figure.
In fact, John Williams of shadowstats.com says that if honest numbers were being used that the U.S. unemployment rate would now be an eye-popping 35.4 percent.
Wow.
Of course everyone admits that things are really, really bad and that the numbers for next month are likely to be even worse.
If you can believe it, even White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett is admitting that the official unemployment rate is likely to surge above 20 percent in “May or June”…
White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett believes the unemployment rate could rise above 20% and the worst job losses would come in “May or June” because of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. When asked Sunday what the “bottom” of the country’s unemployment pain would be, Hassett, who advises the Trump administration on economic policy and is the former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, told CBS’s “Face the Nation,” “to get unemployment rates like the ones that we’re about to see … which I think will climb up toward 20% by next month, you have to really go back to the Great Depression to see that.”
And even once this pandemic fades, many of those jobs won’t be coming back.
Initially, many employers had anticipated that they would be bringing all of their employees back following a short, severe crisis. But at this point reality is beginning to set in for many of them.
For example, a restaurant owner in Kentucky named Britney Ruby Miller has had to lower her expectations as this pandemic has dragged on…
In late March, Britney Ruby Miller, co-owner of a small chain of steakhouse restaurants, confidently proclaimed that once the viral outbreak had subsided, her company planned to recall all its laid-off workers. Now? Miller would be thrilled to restore, by year’s end, three-quarters of the roughly 600 workers her company had to let go.
Yes, the state of Kentucky is starting to “reopen for business”, but for now her restaurants will “be limited to 33% of capacity” and there will be all sorts of other new expenses that Miller will be forced to deal with…
Yet business won’t be returning to what it was before. In Kentucky, the restaurants will be limited to 33% of capacity. They are putting six feet between tables in all their restaurants, thereby limiting seating. Miller estimates that the company’s revenue will plunge by half to three-quarters this year. And expenses are rising because the company must buy face masks and other equipment for the workers it does recall and restock its food, drink, and equipment supplies.
There are very, very few restaurants that can be profitable under such circumstances.
Unless the state of Kentucky lifts those ridiculous restrictions, Miller may soon lose all of her restaurants and all of her employees may soon be permanently out of jobs.
Of course more layoff announcements just keep rolling in from all over America with each passing day. The following examples come from the Wall Street Journal…
This is what an economic depression looks like, and it is going to be so incredibly painful.
And it is critical to understand that what we have experienced so far is just a warm-up act for the next chapters.
If you remember how bitter the last recession was, that should motivate you to take action to prepare for what is ahead, because this economic downturn is already even worse.
Yes, the months in front of us will be exceptionally challenging, but you can get through this. Things may look really bleak, but for now you just need to keep hanging in there.
There will be life on the other side, but your future may end up looking far different than you originally anticipated.
About the Author: I am a voice crying out for change in a society that generally seems content to stay asleep. My name is Michael Snyder and I am the publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. I have written four books that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The End, Get Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned) By purchasing those books you help to support my work. I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but due to government regulations I need those that republish my articles to include this “About the Author” section with each article. In order to comply with those government regulations, I need to tell you that the controversial opinions in this article are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the websites where my work is republished. The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions. Those responding to this article by making comments are solely responsible for their viewpoints, and those viewpoints do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of Michael Snyder or the operators of the websites where my work is republished. I encourage you to follow me on social media on Facebook and Twitter, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help. During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with all many people as we possibly can.


thelibertydaily--2020-05-11--Cultural Marxism Update: Latina Drama Series: ICE Agent ‘Self-Hating Mexican,’ ‘Race Traitor’

A show airing on Starz about two Mexican-American sisters living in East Los Angeles struggling to keep the bar going that their mother left them slipped in a random anti-ICE scene in the May 10 episode .
There is no context for the scene but the message is clear – ICE is evil and separates families .
In the “ Episode 19 ” of Vida , the Starz network series featured a community activist named Marisol `` Mari '' Sanchez ( Chelsea Rendon ) witnessing two ICE agents arresting a man outside his home .
He was sitting in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the sidewalk .
When he didn ’ t open the car door for the ICE agents , they broke the window and removed him from the car .
One ICE agent is white , the other is Mexican-American .
Mari , who was riding her bike down the street , stopped and began filming the arrest .
She asked the wife if the ICE agents had a warrant or paperwork that they showed her and she said they did not .
Apparently we are to believe that the ICE agents just magically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason at all .
When Mari confronted the ICE agents and said that they were violating the man ’ s due process to which he is entitled under the Constitution , the white agent says , `` Uh , little lesson for you : Non-citizens do n't get due process . ''
Woman : No , no do n't hurt him please .
ICE Agent : Sir , I 'm going to have to if you are refusing to open this door .
All right , last chance .
Agent : Man : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to get ugly .
Agent : You two on the other side .
Mari : Señora-señora , did they -- did they ask you for a warrant ?
Le enseñaron paperwork ?
Wife : No , they just came , and -- look at them .
They broke his window and yanked him out .
– Mari : Hey , hey !
No , you 're violating this man 's right to due process !
ICE Agent : Uh , little lesson for you : Non-citizens do n't get due process .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
The Constitution protects everyone 's rights to due process !
Did you hear this motherfucker ?
Mari : ICE is out here in these streets , acting illegally , picking people up without warrants .
This man has rights , and you 're violating them .
Yo , are you serious , dude ?
You 're fucking gente .
You 're one of us , and this is what you 're doing with your life , rounding fucking people up ?
You fucking arrepentido !
Now I 'll put all of you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Papi .
Fucking cabrones .
You fucking race traitor !
S -- Ah !
Fuck !
Mari is a member of a group that protests gentrification and alleged injustices in the neighborhood .
When Mari showed the group the video she took during the man ’ s arrest , they were hesitant to get involved and then couldn ’ t decide what the correct action was for them to take .
So , they left Mari frustrated with their indecision and inability to be as angry as she is about the arrest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is to that random story in the episode .
It was a cheap shot at ICE and the agents who are just doing their job without providing a reason for the scene .
It was just another example of a television show portraying ICE law enforcement officers as the bad guys , not the people who are breaking the law .

A show airing on Starz about two Mexican-American sisters living in East Los Angeles struggling to keep the bar going that their mother left them slipped in a random anti-ICE scene in the May 10 episode. There is no context for the scene but the message is clear – ICE is evil and separates families.
In the “Episode 19” of Vida, the Starz network series featured a community activist named Marisol "Mari" Sanchez (Chelsea Rendon) witnessing two ICE agents arresting a man outside his home. He was sitting in his car while his wife and daughter stood on the sidewalk. When he didn’t open the car door for the ICE agents, they broke the window and removed him from the car. One ICE agent is white, the other is Mexican-American.
Mari, who was riding her bike down the street, stopped and began filming the arrest. She asked the wife if the ICE agents had a warrant or paperwork that they showed her and she said they did not. Apparently we are to believe that the ICE agents just magically appeared and arrested a man for no reason at all.
When Mari confronted the ICE agents and said that they were violating the man’s due process to which he is entitled under the Constitution, the white agent says, "Uh, little lesson for you: Non-citizens don't get due process."
Woman: No, no don't hurt him please. ICE Agent: Sir, I'm going to have to if you are refusing to open this door. All right, last chance. Agent: Man: C'mon buddy, you don't want it to get ugly. Girl: No! Agent: Okay, let's go. Girl: Mommy! ICE Agent: Hold him. Andrés, no digas nada. Agent: Get back, get back! Andres: No digas nada, MI Amor. Wife: No te preocupes, MI'ja. Te quiero mucho, MI Amor. Nada más... Agent: You two on the other side. Mari: Señora-señora, did they--did they ask you for a warrant? Le enseñaron paperwork? Wife: No, they just came, and--look at them. They broke his window and yanked him out. – Girl: Mommy. Mari: Hey, hey! No, you're violating this man's right to due process! ICE Agent: Uh, little lesson for you: Non-citizens don't get due process. Mari: That's a fucking lie! The Constitution protects everyone's rights to due process! Did you hear this motherfucker? ICE Agent: Stay back! Mari: ICE is out here in these streets, acting illegally, picking people up without warrants. This man has rights, and you're violating them. Yo, are you serious, dude? You're fucking gente. You're one of us, and this is what you're doing with your life, rounding fucking people up? You fucking arrepentido! Now I'll put all of you on blast, fucking self-hating Mexican. Papi. Fucking cabrones. You fucking race traitor! S-- Ah! Fuck! Wife: I don't know baby. Ay, todo va a salir Bien, MI Amor. Ay, no te preocupes de nada. Todo va a salir Bien.
Mari is a member of a group that protests gentrification and alleged injustices in the neighborhood. When Mari showed the group the video she took during the man’s arrest, they were hesitant to get involved and then couldn’t decide what the correct action was for them to take. So, they left Mari frustrated with their indecision and inability to be as angry as she is about the arrest. Mari stormed off and that is all there is to that random story in the episode.
It was a cheap shot at ICE and the agents who are just doing their job without providing a reason for the scene. It was just another example of a television show portraying ICE law enforcement officers as the bad guys, not the people who are breaking the law.


thelibertydaily--2020-05-11--The Subtle Tyranny Of The ‘Expert’ Class

Some believe our intellectual betters should be able to censor the internet .
They do n't know nearly as much as they think they do .
Three recent developments have raised the issue of whether social media should be able to censor opinions that differ from expert opinion .
The first involves YouTube ’ s decision to take down a widely circulated video by the co-owners of a Bakersfield , California , “ Urgent Care ” clinic , Dr. Dan Erickson and Dr. Artin Massahi .
Their presentation , based on their own research , suggests that widespread lockdowns are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The second is The Atlantic ‘ s publication of an article by two law professors , Harvard ’ s Jack Goldsmith and the University of Arizona ’ s Andrew Keane Woods , in which they argue that some censorship of the internet “ can do enormous public good.
” This , they say , is because today ’ s technological sophistication , combined with data centralization and government-industry cooperation , makes it possible for social media to reliably screen out all unscientific ideas .
“ Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Goldsmith and Wood say .
“ And governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society ’ s norms and values.
” The final development is a joint statement on COVID-19 by America ’ s biggest internet providers , which easily could have been written by the aforementioned law professors .
From now on , Facebook , Google , LinkedIn , Microsoft , Twitter , Reddit , and YouTube declare that they will collaborate to combat “ fraud and misinformation ” by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platforms.
” There is , it must be admitted , a seemingly valid case for allowing expert opinion to guide the results of online searches—especially where public health and safety are concerned .
It goes without saying that credentialed authorities generally know more about their respective fields than laypeople .
And conversely , there are more than a few people online who all too readily accept poorly documented answers to complex and difficult problems even if it puts them and their neighbors in jeopardy .
But beneath these arguments is a false , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowledge these experts claim to possess .
Much of what is accepted as experimentally true in the social sciences , education , medicine , and even biology can not , in fact , be replicated .
Although it has not received the journalistic coverage it should , concerns about what academics call “ experimental irreproducibility ” have been surfacing for nearly a decade .
In 2012 , scientists at the biotech firm Amgen found they could confirm the results of only six of 53 supposedly landmark cancer studies published in prominent journals .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ online survey of scientists , 70 percent of whom said they ’ d tried and failed to reproduce their colleagues ’ published findings .
In science , the ability to duplicate the results of a study is the ultimate test of its validity .
And by this gold standard , the deference we have been taught to show medical and social science researchers turns out to be completely unjustified .
John Ioannidis , co-director of Stanford University ’ s Meta-Research Innovation Center , believes that up to half the information published in peer-reviewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shares with The Lancet ’ s respected editor-in-chief , Richard Charles Horton .
National Association of Scholars President Peter Wood says that many of the regulations , law , and programs routinely passed by Congress are based on little more than research flukes and , in many cases , outright “ statistical manipulation.
” If the findings of today ’ s irreproducible studies were wrong in some random , unpredictable way , then we could at least credit the researchers with trying their best .
We could be generous enough to say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with luck , some future measurement technique or statistical formula might get them even closer .
But while today ’ s medical and social science experiments do not appear to be overwhelmingly biased in favor of a single theory , policy , or , in the case of medicine , cure , neither are they completely random .
For no matter what these investigations conclude , they all somehow manage to shine a favorable light on the federal government , state government , or government-affiliated nonprofit sponsors .
Whatever knowledge is actually gleaned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Congress and state legislatures make in scientific research , the subsequent study write-ups always leave two impressions .
The first is that the results are so promising as to justify “ further investigation.
” In other words , more public funding next year .
The second is that those outside the academy who have the education , experience , and authority to implement what has supposedly been learned thus far—in others words , the government officials who subsidize the research—are , as a result , even wiser and more trustworthy than before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ army of college and university administrators , which grew by over 60 percent between 1993 and 2009 , and which , not coincidentally , is supported by overhead fees collected from government research grants .
( The base rate averages 52 percent nationwide .
At elite institutions like Yale , it goes up to 67.5 percent . )
As New York Times columnist Ross Douthat has observed , when college presidents are called on the fact that modern scientific research is not nearly as advanced as government grants to their schools would suggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same answer : “ Give us even more money.
” The idea of a tacit alliance between scientists and government bureaucrats is not new .
As far back as the early 1970s , the late cultural philosopher Irving Kristol coined the phrase “ New Class ” to describe the rising number of economists , environmentalists , health care workers , policy analysts , and other professionals with a common need for increased public funding .
Kristol was not suggesting anything as blatantly corrupt as a deliberate conspiracy .
He was simply acknowledging the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials to see the most value in those studies that promise to validate their authority .
More recently , at least a few academics have gone public with their concerns about slanted research , even at their own universities .
In theory , faculty have an objective “ truth finding ” and “ truth telling ” role , says University of California-Berkeley law professor Stephen D. Sugarman .
But “ because of their own financial interests , [ they ] may be dishonest in what they say they have discovered and/or how they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ field.
” Musa al-Gharbi , a Paul F. Lazarsfeld fellow in sociology at Columbia and a research associate at Heterodoxy Academy , has similarly suggested that nearly every academic paper touching on “ how society should be best arranged ” has likely been subject to “ prejudicial design ” based on how the outcome would end up profiting the author .
Nowhere has the opportunistic embellishment of study findings been more blatant in recent years than with cancer research , funded with $ 6 billion annually from the federal National Cancer Institute and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and related nonprofits .
Indeed , not a day goes by without a breathless headline that some investment led to “ incredible progress ” and millions of “ cancer deaths averted.
” A 2016 report by Kaiser Health News found that cancer experts often describe questionable treatments with terms such as “ breakthrough , ” “ game changer , ” “ miracle , ” “ cure , ” “ home run , ” “ revolutionary , ” “ transformative , ” “ life saver , ” “ groundbreaking , ” and “ marvel.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been achieved , writes John Horgan , director of the Center for Science Writing at Stevens Institute of Technology in a recent issue of Scientific American , is far less impressive .
While there have been some improved therapies for childhood cancers and cancers of the blood , bone-marrow , and lymph systems , Horgan reports that most highly publicized advances are statistically unimpressive .
Indeed , “ the current age-adjusted mortality rate for all cancers in the U.S. , 152.4 deaths per 100,000 people , is just under what it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent analysis.
” Without condemning every academic researcher—some of whom are undoubtedly committed to the advancement of knowledge—it is not an exaggeration to say that a good percentage of contemporary scientists have , consciously or unconsciously , allowed short-term self-interest to distort their pursuit of truth .
Nor is it an exaggeration to say that their actions have been enabled by equally self-interested experts in government , nonprofit organizations , and professional associations .
Perhaps this situation will be corrected in the wake of the growing scandal over experimental irreproducibility .
But clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elites a veto over what is available on the internet , even in their own fields .
In the end , every argument about online censorship boils down to a debate over which is more likely to benefit society : trust in the collective integrity of the average end-user or in the collective interests of credentialed experts .
Nothing we know about scientific research gives us any reason to opt for the latter .
Dr. Lewis Andrews was executive director of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy at Trinity College from 1999 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new book Living Spiritually in the Material World ( Fidelis Press ) .

Three recent developments have raised the issue of whether social media should be able to censor opinions that differ from expert opinion.
The first involves YouTube’s decision to take down a widely circulated video by the co-owners of a Bakersfield, California, “Urgent Care” clinic, Dr. Dan Erickson and Dr. Artin Massahi. Their presentation, based on their own research, suggests that widespread lockdowns are not necessary to combat the virus.
The second is The Atlantic‘s publication of an article by two law professors, Harvard’s Jack Goldsmith and the University of Arizona’s Andrew Keane Woods, in which they argue that some censorship of the internet “can do enormous public good.” This, they say, is because today’s technological sophistication, combined with data centralization and government-industry cooperation, makes it possible for social media to reliably screen out all unscientific ideas.
“Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet,” Goldsmith and Wood say. “And governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.”
The final development is a joint statement on COVID-19 by America’s biggest internet providers, which easily could have been written by the aforementioned law professors. From now on, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Reddit, and YouTube declare that they will collaborate to combat “fraud and misinformation” by systematically “elevating authoritative content on our platforms.”
There is, it must be admitted, a seemingly valid case for allowing expert opinion to guide the results of online searches—especially where public health and safety are concerned. It goes without saying that credentialed authorities generally know more about their respective fields than laypeople. And conversely, there are more than a few people online who all too readily accept poorly documented answers to complex and difficult problems even if it puts them and their neighbors in jeopardy.
But beneath these arguments is a false, if widely accepted, assumption about the knowledge these experts claim to possess. Much of what is accepted as experimentally true in the social sciences, education, medicine, and even biology cannot, in fact, be replicated.
Although it has not received the journalistic coverage it should, concerns about what academics call “experimental irreproducibility” have been surfacing for nearly a decade. In 2012, scientists at the biotech firm Amgen found they could confirm the results of only six of 53 supposedly landmark cancer studies published in prominent journals. Four years later, Nature conducted an online survey of scientists, 70 percent of whom said they’d tried and failed to reproduce their colleagues’ published findings.
In science, the ability to duplicate the results of a study is the ultimate test of its validity. And by this gold standard, the deference we have been taught to show medical and social science researchers turns out to be completely unjustified. John Ioannidis, co-director of Stanford University’s Meta-Research Innovation Center, believes that up to half the information published in peer-reviewed journals is wrong, an opinion he shares with The Lancet’s respected editor-in-chief, Richard Charles Horton. National Association of Scholars President Peter Wood says that many of the regulations, law, and programs routinely passed by Congress are based on little more than research flukes and, in many cases, outright “statistical manipulation.”
If the findings of today’s irreproducible studies were wrong in some random, unpredictable way, then we could at least credit the researchers with trying their best. We could be generous enough to say that they are circling the truth and, with luck, some future measurement technique or statistical formula might get them even closer.
But while today’s medical and social science experiments do not appear to be overwhelmingly biased in favor of a single theory, policy, or, in the case of medicine, cure, neither are they completely random. For no matter what these investigations conclude, they all somehow manage to shine a favorable light on the federal government, state government, or government-affiliated nonprofit sponsors.
Whatever knowledge is actually gleaned from the annual $40 billion investment that Congress and state legislatures make in scientific research, the subsequent study write-ups always leave two impressions. The first is that the results are so promising as to justify “further investigation.” In other words, more public funding next year. The second is that those outside the academy who have the education, experience, and authority to implement what has supposedly been learned thus far—in others words, the government officials who subsidize the research—are, as a result, even wiser and more trustworthy than before.
These impressions are reinforced by an army of college and university administrators, which grew by over 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, and which, not coincidentally, is supported by overhead fees collected from government research grants. (The base rate averages 52 percent nationwide. At elite institutions like Yale, it goes up to 67.5 percent.) As New York Times columnist Ross Douthat has observed, when college presidents are called on the fact that modern scientific research is not nearly as advanced as government grants to their schools would suggest, they all fall back on the same answer: “Give us even more money.”
The idea of a tacit alliance between scientists and government bureaucrats is not new. As far back as the early 1970s, the late cultural philosopher Irving Kristol coined the phrase “New Class” to describe the rising number of economists, environmentalists, health care workers, policy analysts, and other professionals with a common need for increased public funding.
Kristol was not suggesting anything as blatantly corrupt as a deliberate conspiracy. He was simply acknowledging the natural human tendency of federal and state officials to see the most value in those studies that promise to validate their authority.
More recently, at least a few academics have gone public with their concerns about slanted research, even at their own universities. In theory, faculty have an objective “truth finding” and “truth telling” role, says University of California-Berkeley law professor Stephen D. Sugarman. But “because of their own financial interests, [they] may be dishonest in what they say they have discovered and/or how they describe the state of knowledge in their field.” Musa al-Gharbi, a Paul F. Lazarsfeld fellow in sociology at Columbia and a research associate at Heterodoxy Academy, has similarly suggested that nearly every academic paper touching on “how society should be best arranged” has likely been subject to “prejudicial design” based on how the outcome would end up profiting the author.
Nowhere has the opportunistic embellishment of study findings been more blatant in recent years than with cancer research, funded with $6 billion annually from the federal National Cancer Institute and with even more from other government agencies and related nonprofits. Indeed, not a day goes by without a breathless headline that some investment led to “incredible progress” and millions of “cancer deaths averted.” A 2016 report by Kaiser Health News found that cancer experts often describe questionable treatments with terms such as “breakthrough,” “game changer,” “miracle,” “cure,” “home run,” “revolutionary,” “transformative,” “life saver,” “groundbreaking,” and “marvel.”
Unfortunately, the reality of what’s been achieved, writes John Horgan, director of the Center for Science Writing at Stevens Institute of Technology in a recent issue of Scientific American, is far less impressive. While there have been some improved therapies for childhood cancers and cancers of the blood, bone-marrow, and lymph systems, Horgan reports that most highly publicized advances are statistically unimpressive. Indeed, “the current age-adjusted mortality rate for all cancers in the U.S., 152.4 deaths per 100,000 people, is just under what it was in 1930, according to a recent analysis.”
Without condemning every academic researcher—some of whom are undoubtedly committed to the advancement of knowledge—it is not an exaggeration to say that a good percentage of contemporary scientists have, consciously or unconsciously, allowed short-term self-interest to distort their pursuit of truth. Nor is it an exaggeration to say that their actions have been enabled by equally self-interested experts in government, nonprofit organizations, and professional associations.
Perhaps this situation will be corrected in the wake of the growing scandal over experimental irreproducibility. But clearly we have no reason to give credentialed elites a veto over what is available on the internet, even in their own fields. In the end, every argument about online censorship boils down to a debate over which is more likely to benefit society: trust in the collective integrity of the average end-user or in the collective interests of credentialed experts.
Nothing we know about scientific research gives us any reason to opt for the latter.
Dr. Lewis Andrews was executive director of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy at Trinity College from 1999 to 2009. He is author of the new book Living Spiritually in the Material World (Fidelis Books).


thelibertydaily--2020-05-11--Google’s Monopoly on Speech

Google’s Monopoly on Speech

“ Don ’ t be evil ” was explicit to Google ’ s motto and code of conduct for some 15 years .
In 2015 , Google updated its motto to “ Do the right thing.
” Today , Google , which owns YouTube , seems to have altered its motto to “ Be evil ” or “ Do the wrong thing ” —including censoring free speech of doctors , scientists , professors , politicians and journalists whose ideas differ from those of Google executives .
“ This is the next step in the evolution of the Internet , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s purchase of YouTube for $ 1.65 billion in 2006 .
We now know Schmidt ’ s definition of Internet “ progress ” ostensibly centers around inducing users to think like him—by using YouTube to push assenting views and censor differing perspectives under the guise of legality or neutrality .
On April 27 , YouTube deleted a video–that had accumulated over five million views—of a news conference hosted by Drs .
Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi .
The video contained no obscene content ; no hate speech ; and no copyright violations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clinic in Bakersfield , California , and they courageously questioned the scientific accuracy of massive , elongated shutdowns extending to the young and healthy : `` Do we need to still shelter in place ?
Our answer is emphatically no ... We 're actually seeing the patients .
Dr. Fauci has n't seen a patient for 20 years . ''
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki quickly took to CNN to defend the censorship , claiming : “ anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently changed to include such a stipulation . )
A quick search on YouTube after Wojcicki censored the Bakersfield doctors revealed at least 20 videos that purport to be “ cure-alls ” for all or nearly “ all diseases ” —including chanting a mantra 108 times and taking an herb .
If these so-called health videos , which YouTube kept up , comply with WHO standards—it certainly makes you question WHO standards and YouTube ’ s compliance team .
Last week , YouTube censored yet another video critical of Dr. Anthony Fauci that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Massihi : Plandemic Documentary : The Hidden Agenda Behind Covid-19 .
YouTube deleted this video three times in 24 hours – even after it had accrued nearly 10 million views ( across three channels ) .
Millions upon millions of people—including practicing doctors and celebrated researchers—disagree with YouTube ’ s arbitrary criteria .
So why is YouTube afraid of their ideas ?
After all , YouTube purports to be a platform for ideas .
Clearly , YouTube is no longer operating as a platform—but a publisher .
It ’ s fine if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s not fair that YouTube simultaneously enjoys the legal privileges of a platform while censoring and editing content in the manner of a traditional publisher .
Capricious discrimination is wrong .
Unless you ’ re YouTube .
Or Facebook .
Or Twitter .
Or Instagram .
Most Americans have never heard of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act .
Passed in 1996 , professedly to keep the Internet clean of pornography , the clause gives platforms like YouTube , Facebook , Instagram , and Twitter special protection against libel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ television , newspapers , magazines and book publishers .
Newspapers are liable for anything printed within their pages or websites—including external submissions—such as Letters to the Editor .
In contrast , thanks to Section 230—YouTube , Facebook , Instagram and Twitter—because they claim to be platforms ( podiums for all ideas versus an editor or promotor of content ) have virtually zero liability for what is posted or deleted from their sites .
Unfortunately , these so-called platforms increasingly abuse this privilege , acting more like publishers and less like platforms—censoring certain content @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , scientific , cultural or religious perspective .
Not foreseeing the consequences , the Supreme Court tossed the anti-porn portion of Section 230 on First Amendment grounds , while retaining the special perks in Section 230 for online publishers .
Result : the exact opposite of what legislators intended .
Today ’ s Internet is a breeding ground for graphic sensuality and vitriol melded with the blatant censorship of conservative , libertarian , Judeo-Christian , and other ideas that don ’ t fit “ the criteria.
” Harvard-educated Dr. Robert Epstein – former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done copious research regarding Google Search , and its influence on elections .
He uncovered the phenomenon known as “ Search Engine Manipulation Effect.
” Up to 10.4 million and as low as 2.6 million votes were swayed in favor of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election by Google Search results , Epstein ’ s research found .
“ Even though I lean left and was publicly supportive of Hillary Clinton , numbers that large tell you that there is no free and fair election anymore , ” Epstein said of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Patten in the March 2020 issue of Newsmax magazine .
Google , Epstein says , took advantage of the fact that its search engine users assume its results for common queries like “ Hillary email scandal ” or “ best Democratic candidate ” are neutral and unbiased .
In 2016 , the results for such searches pushed results that overtly favored Hillary Clinton and liberal ideas .
Epstein further found that Google “ blacklists ” right-leaning sites , forcing them outside natural search results—in favor of left-leaning news sources .
“ It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not more present [ in Google Search results ] , given the enormous traffic some of these websites get , Breitbart especially , ” Epstein told Los Angeles Times .
Yahoo and Bing results were found to be considerably more impartial than Google—another indication that Google ’ s search results favor agenda over accuracy .
Predictably , Google calls Epstein ’ s research the flawed work of an amateur .
But Google stands to lose its righteous “ Don ’ t be evil ” public image—and significant ad revenue—if its worldwide users @ @ @ @ @ @ @ search results , and therefore of election results .
Google ’ s influence on the world , post-COVID-19 , extends beyond web censorship .
Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt is being enlisted by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to help “ reimagine ” New York ’ s economy .
Using COVID-19 as an excuse , the liberal billionaire behind Google is being invited to tell New Yorkers how they may live for the foreseeable future .
Which businesses may open , and how—with an emphasis on telemedicine , remote education and working from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues and also helps Democrats , politically-speaking .
Democrats are pushing for voting from home because it ’ s more susceptible to influence and fraud .
Telemedicine is useful in some cases , but threatens the integrity of patient-doctor relationships .
Certainly , there are benefits to having people stay home for work or school , such as family bonding .
However , forcing people to stay at home is essentially zookeeping for humans and second , there is no such thing as guaranteed safety , only choices between risks and benefits .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ default Internet search engine to DuckDuckGo , Yahoo or Bing due to Google ’ s censorship of free speech on its search engine and sites it owns—including YouTube .
Ultimately , preserving free speech is a bipartisan issue .
Left , Right and in-between must come together in this cause—because , once even one small group loses free speech—we all do .
Texas Senator Ted Cruz has found bipartisan support ( including from Sen. Elizabeth Warren ) for dismantling the protection that platform-publishers like YouTube , Instagram , Facebook and Twitter gain from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggled to find sufficient courageous allies .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , for example , is a staunch promoter of perpetuating the perks afforded social media giants in Section 230 .
So , we must pressure our elected officials—especially Republicans—to challenge Section 230 protections for platforms .
“ It is the Press which has corrupted our political morals - and it is to the Press we must look for the means of our political regeneration , ” said Alexander Hamilton .
Today ’ s Press is broader than the newspaper of Hamilton ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online publishers like YouTube , Facebook and Twitter—constitute the Press and we must hold them to the highest standards .
We must support good journalism and media outlets that do promote the truth with our clicks , subscriptions and shares .
Let ’ s also encourage listening to all perspectives—including those we despise or consider dangerous .
For , what ’ s the point of protecting milk-toast , non-controversial statements that no one would care if one said ( or not ) anyway ?
Use your voice to speak up and pressure your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech—and end the unfair monopoly of ideas currently held by Google and its subsidiaries .

“Don’t be evil” was explicit to Google’s motto and code of conduct for some 15 years. In 2015, Google updated its motto to “Do the right thing.” Today, Google, which owns YouTube, seems to have altered its motto to “Be evil” or “Do the wrong thing”—including censoring free speech of doctors, scientists, professors, politicians and journalists whose ideas differ from those of Google executives.
“This is the next step in the evolution of the Internet,” former Google CEO Eric Schmidt lauded Google’s purchase of YouTube for $1.65 billion in 2006. We now know Schmidt’s definition of Internet “progress” ostensibly centers around inducing users to think like him—by using YouTube to push assenting views and censor differing perspectives under the guise of legality or neutrality.
On April 27, YouTube deleted a video–that had accumulated over five million views—of a news conference hosted by Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi. The video contained no obscene content; no hate speech; and no copyright violations. The doctors operate a private urgent-care clinic in Bakersfield, California, and they courageously questioned the scientific accuracy of massive, elongated shutdowns extending to the young and healthy: "Do we need to still shelter in place? Our answer is emphatically no...We're actually seeing the patients. Dr. Fauci hasn't seen a patient for 20 years."
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki quickly took to CNN to defend the censorship, claiming: “anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy.” (YouTube’s policy was only recently changed to include such a stipulation.)
A quick search on YouTube after Wojcicki censored the Bakersfield doctors revealed at least 20 videos that purport to be “cure-alls” for all or nearly “all diseases”—including chanting a mantra 108 times and taking an herb. If these so-called health videos, which YouTube kept up, comply with WHO standards—it certainly makes you question WHO standards and YouTube’s compliance team.
Last week, YouTube censored yet another video critical of Dr. Anthony Fauci that also contained snippets of Drs. Erickson and Massihi: Plandemic Documentary: The Hidden Agenda Behind Covid-19. YouTube deleted this video three times in 24 hours – even after it had accrued nearly 10 million views (across three channels).
Millions upon millions of people—including practicing doctors and celebrated researchers—disagree with YouTube’s arbitrary criteria. So why is YouTube afraid of their ideas? After all, YouTube purports to be a platform for ideas.
Clearly, YouTube is no longer operating as a platform—but a publisher. It’s fine if YouTube wants to be a publisher, but it’s not fair that YouTube simultaneously enjoys the legal privileges of a platform while censoring and editing content in the manner of a traditional publisher.
YouTube’s Unfair Advantage at Taxpayer Expense
Capricious discrimination is wrong. Unless you’re YouTube. Or Facebook. Or Twitter. Or Instagram.
Most Americans have never heard of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Passed in 1996, professedly to keep the Internet clean of pornography, the clause gives platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter special protection against libel that is not afforded to traditional publishers—including television, newspapers, magazines and book publishers.
Newspapers are liable for anything printed within their pages or websites—including external submissions—such as Letters to the Editor. In contrast, thanks to Section 230—YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter—because they claim to be platforms (podiums for all ideas versus an editor or promotor of content) have virtually zero liability for what is posted or deleted from their sites. Unfortunately, these so-called platforms increasingly abuse this privilege, acting more like publishers and less like platforms—censoring certain content and boosting other content based on political, scientific, cultural or religious perspective.
Not foreseeing the consequences, the Supreme Court tossed the anti-porn portion of Section 230 on First Amendment grounds, while retaining the special perks in Section 230 for online publishers. Result: the exact opposite of what legislators intended. Today’s Internet is a breeding ground for graphic sensuality and vitriol melded with the blatant censorship of conservative, libertarian, Judeo-Christian, and other ideas that don’t fit “the criteria.”
Harvard-educated Dr. Robert Epstein – former editor of Psychology Today magazine – has done copious research regarding Google Search, and its influence on elections. He uncovered the phenomenon known as “Search Engine Manipulation Effect.”
Up to 10.4 million and as low as 2.6 million votes were swayed in favor of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election by Google Search results, Epstein’s research found. “Even though I lean left and was publicly supportive of Hillary Clinton, numbers that large tell you that there is no free and fair election anymore,” Epstein said of his findings – as reported by David A. Patten in the March 2020 issue of Newsmax magazine.
Google, Epstein says, took advantage of the fact that its search engine users assume its results for common queries like “Hillary email scandal” or “best Democratic candidate” are neutral and unbiased. In 2016, the results for such searches pushed results that overtly favored Hillary Clinton and liberal ideas.
Epstein further found that Google “blacklists” right-leaning sites, forcing them outside natural search results—in favor of left-leaning news sources. “It is astonishing that Breitbart and some similar websites are not more present [in Google Search results], given the enormous traffic some of these websites get, Breitbart especially,” Epstein told Los Angeles Times. Yahoo and Bing results were found to be considerably more impartial than Google—another indication that Google’s search results favor agenda over accuracy.
Predictably, Google calls Epstein’s research the flawed work of an amateur. But Google stands to lose its righteous “Don’t be evil” public image—and significant ad revenue—if its worldwide users wake up to its active manipulation of search results, and therefore of election results.
Google’s influence on the world, post-COVID-19, extends beyond web censorship. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt is being enlisted by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to help “reimagine” New York’s economy. Using COVID-19 as an excuse, the liberal billionaire behind Google is being invited to tell New Yorkers how they may live for the foreseeable future. Which businesses may open, and how—with an emphasis on telemedicine, remote education and working from home.
Social distancing is rife with issues and also helps Democrats, politically-speaking. Democrats are pushing for voting from home because it’s more susceptible to influence and fraud. Telemedicine is useful in some cases, but threatens the integrity of patient-doctor relationships. Certainly, there are benefits to having people stay home for work or school, such as family bonding. However, forcing people to stay at home is essentially zookeeping for humans and second, there is no such thing as guaranteed safety, only choices between risks and benefits.
What We Can Do
Consider switching your default Internet search engine to DuckDuckGo, Yahoo or Bing due to Google’s censorship of free speech on its search engine and sites it owns—including YouTube.
Ultimately, preserving free speech is a bipartisan issue. Left, Right and in-between must come together in this cause—because, once even one small group loses free speech—we all do.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz has found bipartisan support (including from Sen. Elizabeth Warren) for dismantling the protection that platform-publishers like YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter gain from Section 230. Unfortunately, Cruz has struggled to find sufficient courageous allies. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, is a staunch promoter of perpetuating the perks afforded social media giants in Section 230. So, we must pressure our elected officials—especially Republicans—to challenge Section 230 protections for platforms.
“It is the Press which has corrupted our political morals - and it is to the Press we must look for the means of our political regeneration,” said Alexander Hamilton. Today’s Press is broader than the newspaper of Hamilton’s time. Today, all publishers—including online publishers like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter—constitute the Press and we must hold them to the highest standards. We must support good journalism and media outlets that do promote the truth with our clicks, subscriptions and shares.
Let’s also encourage listening to all perspectives—including those we despise or consider dangerous. For, what’s the point of protecting milk-toast, non-controversial statements that no one would care if one said (or not) anyway?
Use your voice to speak up and pressure your local and national government to promote free speech—and end the unfair monopoly of ideas currently held by Google and its subsidiaries.


thelibertydaily--2020-05-12--Communist Democrat Bill de Bozo Under Fire for Selective Enforcement of Social-Distancing Guidelines

New York City mayor Bill de Blasio is under fire from liberal groups raising serious concerns about the selective enforcement of social-distancing regulations .
In the wake of a tweet in which de Blasio singled out Jewish New Yorkers , warning them to adhere to the regulations , two liberal groups on Monday called on the mayor to remove enforcement of the regulations from the purview of the New York Police Department .
Data compiled by the NYPD show that though de Blasio has chided Jews for their failure to follow the guidelines , there is no indication the Orthodox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a higher rate than other New Yorkers .
Black and Hispanic New Yorkers have received the vast majority of police summonses for violating social-distancing laws , which criminal justice reform advocates say is evidence that they are being selectively targeted by law enforcement .
`` Following Mayor de Blasio 's comments last month that raised legitimate fears of disparate enforcement toward New York 's Orthodox Jewish community , his administration and local officials across the state should have taken every precaution to ensure the enforcement of social distancing rules was carried out equally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and without resorting to the kind of over-criminalization that has unnecessarily subjected far too many people to the criminal justice system , '' said Khalil Cumberbatch , the chief strategist of New Yorkers United for Justice , which advocates for criminal justice reform .
De Blasio 's stumbling coronavirus response efforts have been a source of controversy .
The head of the NYPD called de Blasio an `` idiot '' for his comments about the Jewish community , which has been the target of increasing anti-Semitic violent attacks .
The mayor also faced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close the city parks—just days after he was spotted traveling 12 miles to take a walk in his favorite park in Brooklyn , a potential violation of his ban on `` nonessential '' trips .
His former spokeswoman Lis Smith panned his performance on Monday , telling Politico : `` I do not think he has done well , and I do n't know a single person who thinks he has done well . ''
While de Blasio criticized the NYPD on Friday , saying the racial discrepancies show `` something 's wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on what guidance he has given police and why he has singled out the Jewish community in his public statements .
The NYPD said it has issued 374 summonses `` for acts likely to spread disease and to violate emergency measures '' —such as a failure to properly distance or wear masks—between March 16 and May 5 .
Over half of those summonses , 193 , were issued to black respondents , and 111 were issued to Hispanic respondents .
Fifty-one were white , 14 were Asian or Pacific Islander , 3 were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to the NYPD statistics .
The NYPD has `` had around 1,000,000 contacts with the public in our awareness and educational visits across the five boroughs '' during its enforcement of de Blasio 's coronavirus laws , spokeswoman Mary Frances O'Donnell told the Washington Free Beacon .
The department indicated earlier this month that it would provide masks to individuals without face protection rather than impose a criminal penalty .
De Blasio decried the police statistics during a press conference on Friday .
`` When I saw those numbers I found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's wrong and we need to fix it .
And we will fix it , '' said de Blasio .
The New York City mayor faced public backlash after he posted a Twitter comment singling out the `` Jewish community '' for alleged violations of his social-distancing laws .
`` My message to the Jewish community , and all communities , is this simple : the time for warnings has passed .
I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives .
Period , '' wrote de Blasio on April 28 .
He made the comments after photos went viral online showing crowds of Orthodox Jewish mourners attending the funeral of a Hasidic rabbi .
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also issued a statement on Monday criticizing the `` disparate treatment by law enforcement authorities as well as pronouncements by elected political officials adversely impacting groups including African Americans , Asian Americans , Hasidic Jewish Americans , and Hispanic Americans , among others . ''
`` Overcriminalization inevitably results in selective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardest , '' said NACDL president Nina J. Ginsberg .
`` Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past when we turned public health concerns associated with drugs into an instrument of oppression and put the nation on a path to mass incarceration .
Let us be smart this time and rely on civic education rather than criminal prosecution . ''

New York City mayor Bill de Blasio is under fire from liberal groups raising serious concerns about the selective enforcement of social-distancing regulations.
In the wake of a tweet in which de Blasio singled out Jewish New Yorkers, warning them to adhere to the regulations, two liberal groups on Monday called on the mayor to remove enforcement of the regulations from the purview of the New York Police Department.
Data compiled by the NYPD show that though de Blasio has chided Jews for their failure to follow the guidelines, there is no indication the Orthodox Jewish community has violated the laws at a higher rate than other New Yorkers. Black and Hispanic New Yorkers have received the vast majority of police summonses for violating social-distancing laws, which criminal justice reform advocates say is evidence that they are being selectively targeted by law enforcement.
"Following Mayor de Blasio's comments last month that raised legitimate fears of disparate enforcement toward New York's Orthodox Jewish community, his administration and local officials across the state should have taken every precaution to ensure the enforcement of social distancing rules was carried out equally and consistently throughout the whole city, and without resorting to the kind of over-criminalization that has unnecessarily subjected far too many people to the criminal justice system," said Khalil Cumberbatch, the chief strategist of New Yorkers United for Justice, which advocates for criminal justice reform.
De Blasio's stumbling coronavirus response efforts have been a source of controversy. The NYPD union president called de Blasio an "idiot" for his comments about the Jewish community, which has been the target of increasing anti-Semitic violent attacks.
The mayor also faced criticism last week for suggesting he might close the city parks—just days after he was spotted traveling 12 miles to take a walk in his favorite park in Brooklyn, a potential violation of his ban on "nonessential" trips. His former spokeswoman Lis Smith panned his performance on Monday, telling Politico: "I do not think he has done well, and I don't know a single person who thinks he has done well."
While de Blasio criticized the NYPD on Friday, saying the racial discrepancies show "something's wrong," his office declined to comment on what guidance he has given police and why he has singled out the Jewish community in his public statements.
The NYPD said it has issued 374 summonses "for acts likely to spread disease and to violate emergency measures"—such as a failure to properly distance or wear masks—between March 16 and May 5. Over half of those summonses, 193, were issued to black respondents, and 111 were issued to Hispanic respondents. Fifty-one were white, 14 were Asian or Pacific Islander, 3 were American Indian, and 2 were unknown, according to the NYPD statistics.
The NYPD has "had around 1,000,000 contacts with the public in our awareness and educational visits across the five boroughs" during its enforcement of de Blasio's coronavirus laws, spokeswoman Mary Frances O'Donnell told the Washington Free Beacon. The department indicated earlier this month that it would provide masks to individuals without face protection rather than impose a criminal penalty.
De Blasio decried the police statistics during a press conference on Friday.
"When I saw those numbers I found them to be an indicator that something's wrong and we need to fix it. And we will fix it," said de Blasio.
The New York City mayor faced public backlash after he posted a Twitter comment singling out the "Jewish community" for alleged violations of his social-distancing laws.
"My message to the Jewish community, and all communities, is this simple: the time for warnings has passed. I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups. This is about stopping this disease and saving lives. Period," wrote de Blasio on April 28.
He made the comments after photos went viral online showing crowds of Orthodox Jewish mourners attending the funeral of a Hasidic rabbi.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also issued a statement on Monday criticizing the "disparate treatment by law enforcement authorities as well as pronouncements by elected political officials adversely impacting groups including African Americans, Asian Americans, Hasidic Jewish Americans, and Hispanic Americans, among others."
"Overcriminalization inevitably results in selective law enforcement that hits minority communities the hardest," said NACDL executive director Norman L. Reimer. "Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past when we turned public health concerns associated with drugs into an instrument of oppression and put the nation on a path to mass incarceration. Let us be smart this time and rely on civic education rather than criminal prosecution."
CORRECTION, May 10, 9:54 p.m.: This article has been updated to reflect the fact that the head of the NYPD union, not the head of the NYPD, called de Blasio an "idiot."
CORRECTION, May 11, 3:52 p.m.: This article previously misattributed a quote to NACDL president Nina Ginsberg. The quote came from NACDL executive director Reimer.


thelibertydaily--2020-05-12--Judge Grants Restraining Order Against Petty Tyrant, Democrat Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear Over Un

Judge Grants Restraining Order Against Petty Tyrant, Democrat Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear Over Unconstitutional Edict That Violates Religious Liberty

On Friday , May 8 , U.S. District Court Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove granted a temporary restraining order ( TRO ) preventing Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear from enforcing an executive order that both prohibits in-person church services and threatens criminal penalties for those who violate the order .
The motion for the TRO was filed Wednesday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky by First Liberty Institute , WilmerHale , and Bilby Law PLLC on behalf of Tabernacle Baptist Church of Nicholasville .
The judge ’ s decision allows “ mass gatherings with respect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to applicable social distancing and hygiene guidelines.
” In response , Roger Byron , Senior Counsel at First Liberty , said , “ Judge Van Tatenhove recognized that Governor Beshear ’ s order unlawfully prohibits religious worship and violates the First Amendment .
The church will gather together for worship on Sunday with grateful hearts and observe the CDC ’ s guidelines to keep everyone safe and well.
” “ The state can not forbid people to assemble in a room for a religious reason but allow them to assemble in a room @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Martens , partner at WilmerHale , added .
“ The Governor ’ s order does just that , and that is a textbook violation of the free exercise of religion.
” The court ’ s order stated that “ the prohibition on religious services presently operating in the Commonwealth is ‘ beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public.
’ If social distancing is good enough for Home Depot and Kroger , it is good enough for in-person religious services which , unlike the foregoing , benefit from constitutional protection.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution will endure .
It would be easy to put it on the shelf in times like this , to be pulled down and dusted off when more convenient .
But that is not our tradition .
Its enduring quality requires that it be respected even when it is hard.
” The governor ’ s March 19 order was issued by Kentucky ’ s Cabinet for Health and Family Services , prohibiting church gatherings on threat of criminal penalty .
Since March 22 , churches– on fear of criminal prosecution– have not been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctuary despite their willingness to abide by social distancing guidelines .
On March 25 , Governor Beshear issued Executive Order 2020-257 , and asserted religious organizations are not “ life-sustaining ” organizations , except when they function as charities by providing “ food , shelter , and social services.
” While restricting churches the governor permits residents to congregate indoors in a variety of other venues including , big box stores like Target and Walmart , grocery stores , laundromats , liquor stores , and others , as long as they were following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against churches and churchgoers continue to take place all across our nation during the ‘ new normal , ’ we believe the work we are doing is vital for our freedoms and the future of our country , ” First Liberty says .

On Friday, May 8, U.S. District Court Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear from enforcing an executive order that both prohibits in-person church services and threatens criminal penalties for those who violate the order.
The motion for the TRO was filed Wednesday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky by First Liberty Institute, WilmerHale, and Bilby Law PLLC on behalf of Tabernacle Baptist Church of Nicholasville.
The judge’s decision allows “mass gatherings with respect to any in-person religious service which adheres to applicable social distancing and hygiene guidelines.”
In response, Roger Byron, Senior Counsel at First Liberty, said, “Judge Van Tatenhove recognized that Governor Beshear’s order unlawfully prohibits religious worship and violates the First Amendment. The church will gather together for worship on Sunday with grateful hearts and observe the CDC’s guidelines to keep everyone safe and well.”
“The state cannot forbid people to assemble in a room for a religious reason but allow them to assemble in a room for a secular reason,” Matthew Martens, partner at WilmerHale, added. “The Governor’s order does just that, and that is a textbook violation of the free exercise of religion.”
The court’s order stated that “the prohibition on religious services presently operating in the Commonwealth is ‘beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public.’ If social distancing is good enough for Home Depot and Kroger, it is good enough for in-person religious services which, unlike the foregoing, benefit from constitutional protection.”
The judge added, “The Constitution will endure. It would be easy to put it on the shelf in times like this, to be pulled down and dusted off when more convenient. But that is not our tradition. Its enduring quality requires that it be respected even when it is hard.”
The governor’s March 19 order was issued by Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services, prohibiting church gatherings on threat of criminal penalty. Since March 22, churches– on fear of criminal prosecution– have not been unable to gather in person in their sanctuary despite their willingness to abide by social distancing guidelines.
On March 25, Governor Beshear issued Executive Order 2020-257, and asserted religious organizations are not “life-sustaining” organizations, except when they function as charities by providing “food, shelter, and social services.”
While restricting churches the governor permits residents to congregate indoors in a variety of other venues including, big box stores like Target and Walmart, grocery stores, laundromats, liquor stores, and others, as long as they were following social distancing guidelines.
“As attacks against churches and churchgoers continue to take place all across our nation during the ‘new normal,’ we believe the work we are doing is vital for our freedoms and the future of our country,” First Liberty says.


thelibertydaily--2020-05-12--Ice Cream Parlor Shuts Down Just One Day After Reopening Due to Democrat Harassment of Employees

Ice cream parlor shuts down just 1 day after reopening — because the public harassed employees 'People have forgotten how @ @ @ @ @ '

A Massachusetts ice cream parlor was forced to close its doors just one day after reopening amid the COVID-19 crisis.
What are the details?
WFXT-TV reported that Mark Lawrence's Polar Cave Ice Cream Parlour in Mashpee, Massachusetts, made the decision to close its doors Friday after customers reportedly harassed and disrespected the store's young employees.
The store had opened for just one day after the state determined that ice cream parlors could open with certain restrictions in place.
Lawrence said that he shared news of the opening on Facebook and asked customers to call ahead to place their pickup-only orders one hour in advance. He said that many people disregarded the directive and simply showed up.
When a crowd began to form at the ice cream parlor, Lawrence said that many of the customers began to harass the teenagers working at the dessert store.
"One of my best workers quit yesterday at the end of her shift," he said. "[T]he words she was called, and the language — you wouldn't even say in a men's locker room. And to say it to a 17-year-old kid, they should be ashamed of themselves."
Lawrence said that he was greatly disturbed by the customers' behavior and immediately decided to close the store once more.
"People have forgotten how to treat other human beings in the six or seven weeks that they've been confined to their homes," he lamented. "They have no clue how to respect other human beings."
Lawrence said that the business was simply trying but pointed out that people are going to have to follow directives if they want life to return to semi-normal.
“We're not claiming that we know what we're doing," he added. "We don't know what we're doing, but we're giving it a shot."
Anything else?
Lawrence created a GoFundMe page to benefit his 17-year-old employee's college fund in order to help compensate her for lost tips and wages.
At the time of this writing, the crowdfunding page has received more than $3,300.
"No one deserves this kind of abuse, especially a 17-year-old young girl, in a time when we as a country should stand united," Lawrence wrote on the GoFundMe page.


thelibertydaily--2020-05-12--Los Angeles County Inmates Intentionally Catch Chi-Com Virus to Force Their Release — Sheriff Releas

Los Angeles County Inmates Intentionally Catch Chi-Com Virus to Force Their Release — Sheriff Releases Video of How They Did It

Inmates intentionally catch coronavirus to force their release — Sheriff releases video of how they did it Progressive activists want @ @ @ @ @

Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva released video reportedly showing inmates purposely spreading and catching coronavirus in an attempt to force their release.
Villanueva talked about the shocking inmate behavior in a media briefing on Monday.
"It's sad to think someone deliberately tried to expose themself to COVID-19. As a result of this behavior, from this particular module 21 inmates tested positive for COVID-19 within a week of these videos being taken," he explained.
The video came from the North County Correctional Facility in Castaic and reportedly shows inmates huddled together and passing a mask around that they hoped would help them become infected.
Villanueva says the spike in coronavirus cases is due to these efforts to purposely spread the virus.
Here's the video from Villanueva:
LA Sheriff Uncovers Inmate Plot to Spread COVID-19 in Jail; Outlines Methods of Prevention & Stats www.youtube.com
"There was some mistaken belief among the inmate population that if they tested positive, there was a way to force our hand and somehow release more inmates out of our jail environment, and that's not gonna happen," Villanueva said, according to CBS Los Angeles.
He also indicated that 107 of his employees had tested positive, with 320 quarantined.
Progressive activists are clamoring for inmates to be released over concerns that the crowded conditions in prisons and jails are perfect for a virus to spread quickly and easily.
Sheriff Villanueva made headlines earlier when he expressed worry that many of the criminals he released from jail over the pandemic might go out and start a crime wave in Los Angeles.
Here's a local news report about the video:


thelibertydaily--2020-05-12--Despotic Democrat Governor Jared Polis Suspends License of Restaurant That Defied Unconstitutional L

Despotic Democrat Governor Jared Polis Suspends License of Restaurant That Defied Unconstitutional Lockdown Order

Colorado suspends license of restaurant that reopened to packed crowds in defiance of lockdown Gov .
Jared Polis ( D @ @ @ @ @ Coffee and Kitchen 's reopening caused an 'immediate health hazard '

Officials in Colorado have suspended the license of a Castle Rock eatery, after the restaurant reopened its dining area over the weekend in defiance of the state's coronavirus lockdown.
What are the details?
C&C Coffee and Kitchen allowed customers into its dining room for Mother's Day on Sunday despite the state's ongoing mandate requiring restaurants to limit their service to delivery and takeout. The restaurant gained national attention after images went viral showing the crowded establishment with people exhibiting little to no social distancing measures.
The restaurant's owner, April Arellano, had announced beforehand that she was reopening despite reportedly being turned in to health officials by a police officer. A passerby also reportedly complained to the local health department about C&C Coffee and Kitchen after seeing its business booming on Sunday.
Arellano explained on Facebook, "[We will] go out of business if I don't do something. [I]f I lose this business, at least I'm fighting."
The Denver Post reported Monday that the Tri-County Health Department ordered C&C Coffee and Kitchen to close, before state health officials stepped in and pulled the restaurant's business license indefinitely.
Gov. Jared Polis (D) announced that C&C Coffee and Kitchen's license would remain revoked for at least 30 days, saying the defiance of his order caused an "immediate health hazard."
The governor said, "I hope, I pray that nobody falls sick from businesses that chose to violate the law. But if the state didn't act and more businesses follow suit, it's a near guarantee that people would lose their lives and it would further delay the opening of legitimate businesses."
Polis provides update on state's COVID-19 response youtu.be
C&C Coffee and Kitchen remained open as of Monday afternoon and was "packed" with business despite the shutdown order, according to KUSA-TV.
Customer Mike Lindsay told the outlet, "I don't feel that the decisions of others or really the fear of others should infringe upon my rights. If you have fear of contracting the coronavirus or anything else then you can stay home."
He added, "I think that I should be able to do what I want. I will make the best decisions for myself and my family. That's not up to the government. That's not up to anybody else. I will do that and I support what they're doing here."


thelibertydaily--2020-05-12--President Trump Abruptly Ends Press Conference After Being Asked Ridiculous Question by a CBS Fake N

President Trump Abruptly Ends Press Conference After Being Asked Ridiculous Question by a CBS Fake News Chi-Com Propagandist

President Donald Trump stormed off and ended his press conference Monday after he told a reporter to “ ask China ” about coronavirus testing .
“ Why is this a global competition to you if every day Americans are still losing their lives and we ’ re still seeing more cases every day ?
” CBS reporter Weijia Jiang asked about Trump ’ s rhetoric on testing .
“ Well , they ’ re losing their lives everywhere in world .
And maybe that ’ s a question you should ask China .
Don ’ t ask me , ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump responded .
“ When you ask them that question , you may get a very unusual answer , ” he added .
“ Sir , why are you saying that to me , specifically , that I should ask China ?
” Jiang said back after Trump tried to move on .
“ I ’ m not saying it specifically to anybody .
I ’ m saying it to anybody that would ask a nasty question like that , ” Trump said .
Trump again tried to move on , pointing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the back , please , ” in the direction of CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins , but when she tried to ask a question , he said “ No it ’ s okay … next please.
” “ But , you called on me , ” she said .
“ I did , and you didn ’ t respond , and now I ’ m calling on the young lady in the back , ” Trump said .
“ I just wanted to let my colleague finish , but can I ask you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interrupted to end the press conference and left .
Trump has had skirmishes with Jiang before , telling her last month to “ keep your voice down.
” ( RELATED : Trump Singles Out Two CBS Reporters As Being Particularly Irritating , Compares Them To Actress Donna Reed )

President Donald Trump stormed off and ended his press conference Monday after he told a reporter to “ask China” about coronavirus testing.
WATCH:
“Why is this a global competition to you if every day Americans are still losing their lives and we’re still seeing more cases every day?” CBS reporter Weijia Jiang asked about Trump’s rhetoric on testing.
“Well, they’re losing their lives everywhere in world. And maybe that’s a question you should ask China. Don’t ask me, ask China that question, okay?” Trump responded.
“When you ask them that question, you may get a very unusual answer,” he added.
“Sir, why are you saying that to me, specifically, that I should ask China?” Jiang said back after Trump tried to move on.
“I’m not saying it specifically to anybody. I’m saying it to anybody that would ask a nasty question like that,” Trump said.
“That’s not a nasty question,” Jiang said.
Trump again tried to move on, pointing and saying “please, go ahead, in the back, please,” in the direction of CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins, but when she tried to ask a question, he said “No it’s okay … next please.”
“But, you called on me,” she said.
“I did, and you didn’t respond, and now I’m calling on the young lady in the back,” Trump said.
“I just wanted to let my colleague finish, but can I ask you … ” Collins said, as Trump interrupted to end the press conference and left.
Trump has had skirmishes with Jiang before, telling her last month to “keep your voice down.” (RELATED: Trump Singles Out Two CBS Reporters As Being Particularly Irritating, Compares Them To Actress Donna Reed)


thelibertydaily--2020-05-12--Former U.S. Ambassador to China: What the Chi-Coms Fear Most is ‘Transparency’

China ’ s Communist Party fears transparency more than anything else , former U.S .
Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman said Monday .
Huntsman praised a letter sent Monday by 18 attorneys general demanding a congressional investigation into China ’ s coverup of the coronavirus outbreak in its early stages , saying on Fox News that such an investigation is necessary .
“ Well , I ’ ll tell you why this letter is such an important one , by these attorneys general .
The Chinese have invested a lot in their relationship-building in our nation ’ s capital .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of time and resources — listen to me , we have 350,000 Chinese students at our universities across this great country — they have also invested in state-by-state relationships , thinking they can use one against the other , ” Huntsman said .
“ What is the one thing that the Chinese Communist Party fears more than anything ?
They like control , they like domestic stability , they control the airwaves for the most part .
They hate transparency .
The more voices coordinated in this country , even at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happened , and the lying , the cheating , the disinformation , and let ’ s be very clear about this .
“ Early November we saw the first cases of coronavirus in China .
It wasn ’ t until late January that they actually reported the facts to the [ World Health Organization ] .
In the meantime , you probably have 5 million people who left the Hubei province , which is where the epicenter was located , and they went throughout China , they went throughout the world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that China has made in recent years , and it ’ s the reason that we are where we are , ” Huntsman said .
Huntsman said what ’ s needed is “ transparency , a coordinated United States , voices in Congress , voices in the states , voices from the business community — because that ’ s when China really starts to listen , when it affects their economy.
” ( RELATED : Top WHO Official Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Won Election With China ’ s Help .
Now He ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Huntsman served as ambassador to China from 2009 to 2011 after serving four years as governor of Utah .
Huntsman also served as President Donald Trump ’ s ambassador to Russia before stepping down in August 2019 to explore a 2020 gubernatorial run .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

China’s Communist Party fears transparency more than anything else, former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman said Monday.
Huntsman praised a letter sent Monday by 18 attorneys general demanding a congressional investigation into China’s coverup of the coronavirus outbreak in its early stages, saying on Fox News that such an investigation is necessary.
“Well, I’ll tell you why this letter is such an important one, by these attorneys general. The Chinese have invested a lot in their relationship-building in our nation’s capital. But they’ve also spent a lot of time and resources — listen to me, we have 350,000 Chinese students at our universities across this great country — they have also invested in state-by-state relationships, thinking they can use one against the other,” Huntsman said.
“What is the one thing that the Chinese Communist Party fears more than anything? They like control, they like domestic stability, they control the airwaves for the most part. They hate transparency. The more voices coordinated in this country, even at the state level, that speak out about what happened, and the lying, the cheating, the disinformation, and let’s be very clear about this.
“Early November we saw the first cases of coronavirus in China. It wasn’t until late January that they actually reported the facts to the [World Health Organization]. In the meantime, you probably have 5 million people who left the Hubei province, which is where the epicenter was located, and they went throughout China, they went throughout the world. That was probably the most significant mistake that China has made in recent years, and it’s the reason that we are where we are,” Huntsman said.
Huntsman said what’s needed is “transparency, a coordinated United States, voices in Congress, voices in the states, voices from the business community — because that’s when China really starts to listen, when it affects their economy.” (RELATED: Top WHO Official Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Won Election With China’s Help. Now He’s Running Interference For China On Coronavirus)
Huntsman served as ambassador to China from 2009 to 2011 after serving four years as governor of Utah. Huntsman also served as President Donald Trump’s ambassador to Russia before stepping down in August 2019 to explore a 2020 gubernatorial run.
WATCH:
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


thelibertydaily--2020-05-12--Rush Limbaugh: Obama ‘Collaborated to Invent the Russia Collusion Narrative’

It 's a fact that Barack Obama `` collaborated to invent the Russia collusion narrative , '' so now the former president is throwing mud on President Trump 's handling of the coronavirus pandemic to deflect attention , charged talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh .
`` None of this Trump-Russia collusion stuff could have happened without Obama knowing about it , Limbaugh told his listeners Monday .
`` These people that perpetrated it – the FBI and the DOJ , the Comeys , the McCabes , the Clappers , the Brennans , none of them could have done it without Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowing about it , and at worse directing it , '' he said .
Limbaugh said `` it turns out [ Obama ] was directing it , '' pointing to the Oval Office meeting Jan. 5 , 2017 , led by Obama `` to plan how to sabotage Trump with the Russia collusion narrative and get it out there the next day in a Comey and Brennan meeting with Trump at Trump Tower . ''
`` So it is not a stretch .
In fact , it 's factual to say that Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Limbaugh said .
`` That 's why Obama is taking all of his time and trying to focus on Trump and his supposedly horrible , chaotic response to the coronavirus .
Obama knows he 's got buddies .
He knows he 's got sycophants .
He knows he 's got butt-kissers in the Drive-By Media .
But he still needs to give them somewhere to go .
So harping on Trump and Trump 's supposed incompetence is Obama ’ s way of deflecting . ''
He said Obama is very good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does n't fool smart people . ''
U.S. Attorney John Durham is conducting a criminal investigation into the origins of the Obama administration 's Trump-Russia probe .
Limbaugh said there are people who `` literally ought to be in jail . ''
`` There are people who need to have everything taken away from them like Flynn and Manafort have had taken away from them , the people that ran this operation .
There are American citizens including Robert Mueller , Andrew McCabe , James Comey , Peter Strzok Smirk , Lisa Page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the list of people , who all participated in the willful destruction of lives of their fellow American citizens , '' he said .
Justice might come to those figures , but nothing ever will happen to Obama , he said .
`` The walls are not closing in on Obama .
We wish they were , but they ’ re not .
Who ’ s gon na close the walls on the guy ? ''
he asked .
`` There isn ’ t gon na be an investigation of Barack Obama .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t care what they turn up , I don ’ t care what Durham has , there will never be an investigation of Barack Obama .
It just won ’ t happen .
We just don ’ t do that to ex-presidents . ''
But in the future , he said , it might happen to Trump .

It's a fact that Barack Obama "collaborated to invent the Russia collusion narrative," so now the former president is throwing mud on President Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic to deflect attention, charged talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh.
"None of this Trump-Russia collusion stuff could have happened without Obama knowing about it, Limbaugh told his listeners Monday.
"These people that perpetrated it – the FBI and the DOJ, the Comeys, the McCabes, the Clappers, the Brennans, none of them could have done it without Obama knowing about it, at bare minimum knowing about it, and at worse directing it," he said.
Limbaugh said "it turns out [Obama] was directing it," pointing to the Oval Office meeting Jan. 5, 2017, led by Obama "to plan how to sabotage Trump with the Russia collusion narrative and get it out there the next day in a Comey and Brennan meeting with Trump at Trump Tower."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"So it is not a stretch. In fact, it's factual to say that Obama collaborated to invent the Russian collusion narrative," Limbaugh said. "That's why Obama is taking all of his time and trying to focus on Trump and his supposedly horrible, chaotic response to the coronavirus. Obama knows he's got buddies. He knows he's got sycophants. He knows he's got butt-kissers in the Drive-By Media. But he still needs to give them somewhere to go. So harping on Trump and Trump's supposed incompetence is Obama’s way of deflecting."
He said Obama is very good at fooling people, but "he doesn't fool smart people."
U.S. Attorney John Durham is conducting a criminal investigation into the origins of the Obama administration's Trump-Russia probe.
Did Obama direct the collusion coup to oust President Trump? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 98% (445 Votes) 2% (9 Votes)
Limbaugh said there are people who "literally ought to be in jail."
"There are people who need to have everything taken away from them like Flynn and Manafort have had taken away from them, the people that ran this operation. There are American citizens including Robert Mueller, Andrew McCabe, James Comey, Peter Strzok Smirk, Lisa Page, Bill Priestap, I go through the list of people, who all participated in the willful destruction of lives of their fellow American citizens," he said.
Justice might come to those figures, but nothing ever will happen to Obama, he said.
"The walls are not closing in on Obama. We wish they were, but they’re not. Who’s gonna close the walls on the guy?" he asked.
"There isn’t gonna be an investigation of Barack Obama. It will never happen. I don’t care what they turn up, I don’t care what Durham has, there will never be an investigation of Barack Obama. It just won’t happen. We just don’t do that to ex-presidents."
But in the future, he said, it might happen to Trump.