australiannationalreview--2020-05-02--Teachers more worried about students’ social isolation than academic progress

Most teachers believe students will need extra learning support when they go back to school , but they are more worried about children ’ s social isolation than their academic progress .
Almost half of more than 3500 teachers in a trans-Tasman survey lacked confidence in their ability to meet students ’ learning needs online , but they were divided over whether remote teaching was as effective as the face-to-face kind .
Pivot Professional Learning , which helps schools improve teacher effectiveness , surveyed the teachers across Australia and New Zealand in early April , when 95 per cent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or were preparing to as schools sent students home due to COVID-19 .
Four in five believed students would need extra support when they returned to on-campus learning , the survey – which covered 1 per cent of the Australian teaching workforce , and more than 2 per cent of teachers in New Zealand – found .
But when asked their top three concerns during the pandemic , students ’ social isolation was their main worry ( 56 per cent ) , followed by a decrease in students ’ wellbeing ( 54 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of learning ( 46 per cent ) .
Other concerns were lack of access to technology and lack of support from parents .
Teachers were particularly concerned about disadvantaged students , those with disabilities , and young kids .
“ The difficulty of engaging younger children online was a recurring theme , ” the report said .
“ Younger students should be considered a high-needs population in terms of interventions.
” Pivot chief executive Amanda Bickerstaff said the results showed teachers were worried about their connections with students , and pupils ’ connections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that learning is not just about outcomes , it ’ s the social and emotional health and relationships that students experience at school , ” she said .
“ There is a recognition that this has been deeply disrupted .
“ They worked so hard in term one to build their relationships .
[ Students ] went from having up to six , seven hours a day with their teacher , building and creating and collaborating , and that ’ s been completely stopped.
” Teachers also reported wildly varying confidence in using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using between two and five different types , which came with “ different passwords , different needs , and different training , ” said Ms Bickerstaff .
The report recommended schools make social and emotional wellbeing a key focus of remote learning , and suggested learning support for disadvantaged , disabled and younger students be prioritised as students return to the classroom .
Phil Seymour , the president of the Primary Principals Association , agreed that early primary school students had been the most difficult to engage online .
“ You can only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit of literacy , numeracy and some sort of creative or activity work , ” he said .
“ In kinder and year one , you need the explicit teaching and the solid foundation to build on .
That ’ s the first thing we ’ ll be doing [ when students get back into the classroom ] – looking at how they ’ ve gone , where they ’ re up to and where they have to go .
”

By Jordan Baker
Most teachers believe students will need extra learning support when they go back to school, but they are more worried about children’s social isolation than their academic progress.
Almost half of more than 3500 teachers in a trans-Tasman survey lacked confidence in their ability to meet students’ learning needs online, but they were divided over whether remote teaching was as effective as the face-to-face kind.
Pivot Professional Learning, which helps schools improve teacher effectiveness, surveyed the teachers across Australia and New Zealand in early April, when 95 per cent of them had either moved to remote learning, or were preparing to as schools sent students home due to COVID-19.
Four in five believed students would need extra support when they returned to on-campus learning, the survey – which covered 1 per cent of the Australian teaching workforce, and more than 2 per cent of teachers in New Zealand – found.
But when asked their top three concerns during the pandemic, students’ social isolation was their main worry (56 per cent), followed by a decrease in students’ wellbeing (54 per cent) and the potential loss of learning (46 per cent).
Other concerns were lack of access to technology and lack of support from parents.
Teachers were particularly concerned about disadvantaged students, those with disabilities, and young kids. “The difficulty of engaging younger children online was a recurring theme,” the report said. “Younger students should be considered a high-needs population in terms of interventions.”
Workload had also increased, particularly in Australia, where more than three-quarters of teachers said they were spending more time preparing. Teachers in Australia were more concerned about meeting parent expectations than those in New Zealand.
Pivot chief executive Amanda Bickerstaff said the results showed teachers were worried about their connections with students, and pupils’ connections with each other.
“This proves that learning is not just about outcomes, it’s the social and emotional health and relationships that students experience at school,” she said. “There is a recognition that this has been deeply disrupted. “They worked so hard in term one to build their relationships. [Students] went from having up to six, seven hours a day with their teacher, building and creating and collaborating, and that’s been completely stopped.” Teachers also reported wildly varying confidence in using different types of technology. Schools were using between two and five different types, which came with “different passwords, different needs, and different training,” said Ms Bickerstaff. The report recommended schools make social and emotional wellbeing a key focus of remote learning, and suggested learning support for disadvantaged, disabled and younger students be prioritised as students return to the classroom.


australiannationalreview--2020-05-02--Investigation into possible breaches of infection protocols at Newmarch House

NSW Health authorities have identified possible issues with infection control processes at the Newmarch aged care facility , which has been linked to 61 coronavirus cases and 13 deaths .
Two expert infection control nurses were deployed to the facility in Caddens in Sydney ’ s west this week to report on and help improve infection control practices at the nursing home , where two additional staff members were confirmed as having COVID-19 on Saturday .
“ There have been some elements where consistent application of practice has not occurred , ” NSW Chief Health Officer Kerry Chant said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases , we ’ ve seen transmission that looks like breaches of infection control , particularly among staff.
” Dr Chant said the infection control experts were working with the providers and staff at the facility to ensure that strict processes around personal protective equipment and other requirements were being adhered to consistently .
Health Minister Brad Hazzard said he had made his “ views on [ the outbreak ] very clear to Anglicare ” , the provider of the facility .
NSW reported five new cases of COVID-19 on Saturday amid near-record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients would begin receiving results within an hour due to rapid tests being dispatched across the state .
The tests are sourced from the United States , and supply is limited to about 600 per week .
“ The faster we can isolate higher risk patients and quarantine their contacts , the less likely they can unknowingly spread it to others , ” Mr Hazzard said .
Victoria ’ s cluster of cases at a meat processing facility grew , with three more cases identified at the company , bringing the total to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urgently tracking down passengers aboard a plane from Melbourne to Brisbane on April 22 after a traveller tested positive .
Meanwhile , new guidelines drawn up by the Australian Institute of Sport with health experts , and endorsed by national cabinet , could pave the way for swimmers to return to the pool , pilates and dance classes to resume and small groups of footballers to do non-contact training drills together .
The guidelines for community activities describe how individual sports could operate if restrictions are eased .
Under the first stage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have more than 10 people – with one per four square metres indoors – and must ensure there is no physical contact .
But they could share equipment such as footballs , weights or skipping ropes .
Athletics could fully resume , as long as participants did not run in the slipstream of others .
Cyclists would have to keep to the same rule , as well as stay 10 metres apart .
Soccer and football players could do non-contact training drills .
Ten people , rather than the two presently allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while swimmers could use a pool as long as there were limited numbers and only one athlete per lane .
Cricketers are under strict instructions to avoid using spit or sweat on the ball .
Gyms , yoga and dance were permitted if they followed social distancing measures , while all sport must involve regular hand washing , and abide by a “ get in , train , and get out ” rule to minimise use of change rooms .
The national cabinet will meet next Friday to consider relaxing restrictions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how many Australians have downloaded the COVIDSafe phone applications .
Final decisions on sport would be made by local authorities .
“ We can expect some variation because of local factors including COVID-19 epidemiology , risk mitigation strategies , and public health capacities , ” federal Sports Minister Richard Colbeck said .

NSW Health authorities have identified possible issues with infection control processes at the Newmarch aged care facility, which has been linked to 61 coronavirus cases and 13 deaths.
Two expert infection control nurses were deployed to the facility in Caddens in Sydney’s west this week to report on and help improve infection control practices at the nursing home, where two additional staff members were confirmed as having COVID-19 on Saturday.
“There have been some elements where consistent application of practice has not occurred,” NSW Chief Health Officer Kerry Chant said.
“We’re looking at secondary cases, we’ve seen transmission that looks like breaches of infection control, particularly among staff.”
Dr Chant said the infection control experts were working with the providers and staff at the facility to ensure that strict processes around personal protective equipment and other requirements were being adhered to consistently.
Health Minister Brad Hazzard said he had made his “views on [the outbreak] very clear to Anglicare”, the provider of the facility.
NSW reported five new cases of COVID-19 on Saturday amid near-record testing, with health authorities saying high-risk patients would begin receiving results within an hour due to rapid tests being dispatched across the state. The tests are sourced from the United States, and supply is limited to about 600 per week. “The faster we can isolate higher risk patients and quarantine their contacts, the less likely they can unknowingly spread it to others,” Mr Hazzard said.


australiannationalreview--2020-05-02--Is the Draft Coming Back?

Is the Draft Coming Back?

During recent increased US-Iran confrontation , so many people viewed the Selective Service website to find out about the draft that the website crashed .
People were right to be concerned about a return of the draft .
With the ongoing military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan unlikely to end any time soon , and the possibly of the US being neoconned into war with Iran and possibly even Russia or China , the demand for troops is likely to rise .
At the same time , soldiers return home with lifelong medical problems , including psychological problems , causing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suicide .
All this can make it more difficult for the military to attract recruits .
And it can leave a Congress unwilling to pursue nonintervention with a choice : increase spending on troops ’ pay and benefits or bring back the draft .
A Congress facing an over 25 trillion dollars debt may reinstate the draft instead of further increasing spending on the troops .
Any future draft will probably include women , thanks to judges , politicians , and feminists who think women should have the “ opportunity ” to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military draft violates the principle that individuals have inalienable rights that no government should violate .
A draft also puts all of our rights at risk .
If we accept that the government has the legitimate authority to force individuals to fight , kill , and die in a war , then how can we argue that the government can not force citizens to pay high taxes , purchase health insurance , or submit to TSA screenings ?
How can we argue against the government forbidding people from smoking marijuana or owning “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including Ronald Reagan , opposed the draft , pointing to its threat to individual rights .
Some antiwar individuals have endorsed the draft on the theory that a draft makes politicians less likely to support war .
But the draft did not stop politicians from supporting unnecessary wars like World War One , the Korean War , and the Vietnam War .
While the draft helped galvanize opposition to the Vietnam War , it took almost a decade of American casualties for opposition to reach critical mass .
More importantly , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the moral heart of libertarianism .
Advocating use of force to advance even as noble a goal as peace is itself immoral and sets back the cause of liberty .
Some antiwar progressives oppose a military draft but support forcing young people to participate in a “ national service ” program .
Some conservatives join these progressives to say that national service is a way for young people to “ pay back ” government for the privilege of living in a free society , as if our rights and liberties are gifts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely gain support when the next market meltdown occurs , as it would serve as a jobs programs for young people .
All those who support liberty must be prepared to fight any attempt to reinstate the military draft or to mandate any other type of national service .
We must mobilize as many people as possible to tell the politicians it is unacceptable for the US government to enslave people in the military or otherwise .
We must also support those who engage in civil disobedience .
As Ronald Regan stated , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that your kids belong to the state… .
That assumption isn ’ t a new one .
The Nazis thought it was a great idea .
”

By Ron Paul
During recent increased US-Iran confrontation, so many people viewed the Selective Service website to find out about the draft that the website crashed. People were right to be concerned about a return of the draft.
With the ongoing military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan unlikely to end any time soon, and the possibly of the US being neoconned into war with Iran and possibly even Russia or China, the demand for troops is likely to rise. At the same time, soldiers return home with lifelong medical problems, including psychological problems, causing a horrifying number of veterans to commit suicide. All this can make it more difficult for the military to attract recruits. And it can leave a Congress unwilling to pursue nonintervention with a choice: increase spending on troops’ pay and benefits or bring back the draft. A Congress facing an over 25 trillion dollars debt may reinstate the draft instead of further increasing spending on the troops.
Any future draft will probably include women, thanks to judges, politicians, and feminists who think women should have the “opportunity” to be forced to join the military.
A military draft violates the principle that individuals have inalienable rights that no government should violate. A draft also puts all of our rights at risk. If we accept that the government has the legitimate authority to force individuals to fight, kill, and die in a war, then how can we argue that the government cannot force citizens to pay high taxes, purchase health insurance, or submit to TSA screenings? How can we argue against the government forbidding people from smoking marijuana or owning “assault” weapons? Many traditional conservatives, including Ronald Reagan, opposed the draft, pointing to its threat to individual rights.
Some antiwar individuals have endorsed the draft on the theory that a draft makes politicians less likely to support war. But the draft did not stop politicians from supporting unnecessary wars like World War One, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. While the draft helped galvanize opposition to the Vietnam War, it took almost a decade of American casualties for opposition to reach critical mass. More importantly, the draft violates the nonaggression principle, which is the moral heart of libertarianism. Advocating use of force to advance even as noble a goal as peace is itself immoral and sets back the cause of liberty.
Some antiwar progressives oppose a military draft but support forcing young people to participate in a “national service” program. Some conservatives join these progressives to say that national service is a way for young people to “pay back” government for the privilege of living in a free society, as if our rights and liberties are gifts from government. Mandatory national service will likely gain support when the next market meltdown occurs, as it would serve as a jobs programs for young people.
All those who support liberty must be prepared to fight any attempt to reinstate the military draft or to mandate any other type of national service. We must mobilize as many people as possible to tell the politicians it is unacceptable for the US government to enslave people in the military or otherwise. We must also support those who engage in civil disobedience. As Ronald Regan stated, the draft “rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state…. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.”


australiannationalreview--2020-05-02--Democrats Ignore Trump’s Real Violations

This week the latest Democratic Party attempt to remove President Trump from office – impeachment over Trump allegedly holding up an arms deal to Ukraine – flopped .
Just like “ Russiagate ” and the Mueller investigation , and a number of other attempts to overturn the 2016 election .
We ’ ve had three years of accusations and investigations with untold millions of dollars spent in a never-ending Democratic Party effort to remove President Trump from office .
Why do the Democrats keep swinging and missing at Trump ?
They can ’ t make a good case for abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really oppose Trump ’ s most egregious abuses of power .
Congress , with a few exceptions , strongly supports the President flouting the Constitution when it comes to overseas aggression and shoveling more money into the military-industrial complex .
In April , 2018 , President Trump fired 100 Tomahawk missiles into Syria allegedly as punishment for a Syrian government chemical attack in Douma .
Though the US was not under imminent threat of attack from Syria , Trump didn ’ t wait for a Congressional declaration of war on Syria or even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , he didn ’ t even wait for an investigation of the event to find out what actually happened !
He just decided to send a hundred missiles – at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars – into Syria .
We are now finding out from whistleblowers on the UN team that investigated the alleged attack that the report blaming the Syrian government was falsified and that the whole “ attack ” was nothing but a false flag operation .
Is such unauthorized aggression against a country with which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigating as a potential “ high crime ” or “ misdemeanor ” ?
Last month , President Trump authorized the assassination of a top Iranian General , Qassim Soleimani , and a top Iraqi military officer inside Iraqi territory while Soleimani was on a diplomatic mission .
Trump and his Administration tried to claim that the attack was essential because of an “ imminent threat ” of a Soleimani attack on US troops in the region .
We found out shortly afterward that they lied about the “ imminent threat.
” The assassination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was planned back in June .
Trump then claimed it didn ’ t matter whether there was an imminent threat : Soleimani was a bad guy so he deserved to be assassinated .
But the attack was an act of war on Iran without Congressional declaration or authorization for war .
Is that not perhaps a “ high crime ” or “ misdemeanor ” ?
We are finding out that , contrary to Trump claims , Soleimani was not even behind the December attack on US troops in Iraq .
New evidence suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to goad the US into moving against Iraq ’ s Shia militias .
Fantasies about Trump being an agent of Putin or trying to get Ukraine to help him win the election are presented as urgent reasons Trump must be removed from office .
Real-life violations of the Constitution and reckless militarism that may get us embroiled in another Middle East war are shrugged off as “ business as usual ” by both Democrats and Republicans in Washington .
Democrats won ’ t move against Trump for what may be real “ high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they support his overseas aggression .
They just wish they were the ones pulling the trigger .

By Ron Paul
This week the latest Democratic Party attempt to remove President Trump from office – impeachment over Trump allegedly holding up an arms deal to Ukraine – flopped. Just like “Russiagate” and the Mueller investigation, and a number of other attempts to overturn the 2016 election.
We’ve had three years of accusations and investigations with untold millions of dollars spent in a never-ending Democratic Party effort to remove President Trump from office.
Why do the Democrats keep swinging and missing at Trump? They can’t make a good case for abuse of power because they don’t really oppose Trump’s most egregious abuses of power. Congress, with a few exceptions, strongly supports the President flouting the Constitution when it comes to overseas aggression and shoveling more money into the military-industrial complex.
In April, 2018, President Trump fired 100 Tomahawk missiles into Syria allegedly as punishment for a Syrian government chemical attack in Douma. Though the US was not under imminent threat of attack from Syria, Trump didn’t wait for a Congressional declaration of war on Syria or even an authorization for a missile strike. In fact, he didn’t even wait for an investigation of the event to find out what actually happened! He just decided to send a hundred missiles – at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars – into Syria.
We are now finding out from whistleblowers on the UN team that investigated the alleged attack that the report blaming the Syrian government was falsified and that the whole “attack” was nothing but a false flag operation.
Is such unauthorized aggression against a country with which we are not at war not worth investigating as a potential “high crime” or “misdemeanor”?
Last month, President Trump authorized the assassination of a top Iranian General, Qassim Soleimani, and a top Iraqi military officer inside Iraqi territory while Soleimani was on a diplomatic mission. Trump and his Administration tried to claim that the attack was essential because of an “imminent threat” of a Soleimani attack on US troops in the region.
We found out shortly afterward that they lied about the “imminent threat.” The assassination was not “urgent” – it was planned back in June. Trump then claimed it didn’t matter whether there was an imminent threat: Soleimani was a bad guy so he deserved to be assassinated.
But the attack was an act of war on Iran without Congressional declaration or authorization for war. Is that not perhaps a “high crime” or “misdemeanor”?
We are finding out that, contrary to Trump claims, Soleimani was not even behind the December attack on US troops in Iraq. New evidence suggests it was actually an ISIS operation attempting to goad the US into moving against Iraq’s Shia militias.
Fantasies about Trump being an agent of Putin or trying to get Ukraine to help him win the election are presented as urgent reasons Trump must be removed from office. Real-life violations of the Constitution and reckless militarism that may get us embroiled in another Middle East war are shrugged off as “business as usual” by both Democrats and Republicans in Washington.
Democrats won’t move against Trump for what may be real “high crimes” and “misdemeanors” because they support his overseas aggression. They just wish they were the ones pulling the trigger.


australiannationalreview--2020-05-02--When Liberty Is Brushed Aside

When Liberty Is Brushed Aside

Billionaires get a lot of press these days .
They ’ re the bad guys .
There ’ s only a handful of them , and they ’ re such an easy target .
So if you ’ re a politician looking to ‘ get votes , ’ people with a lot of money can be painted as “ greedy ” and the votes will come pouring in .
It ’ s very simplistic , but it works .
People are led to believe that we have non-greedy , pure as the driven snow “ public servants ” in Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling to “ serve the people , ” and a bunch of billionaires show up with their bags of money and ruin everything .
Well , if lobbyists , corporate interests , and billionaires are showing up with bags of money , what on Earth could they be buying ?
What is for sale in Washington D.C. ?
Surely , when one reads the U.S. Constitution , nothing should ever be for sale .
The Constitution was meant to “ chain down ” political power , as the Founders said .
This was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ and power was to be a non-issue .
“ Checks and Balances ” were meant to keep bureaucrats tied up and hindered , while Americans enjoyed their natural individual liberty .
Furthermore , every pure as the driven snow politician swears to obey the U.S. Constitution .
It ’ s the very first thing that they do before taking office .
Family and friends gather around , there are Bibles , raised right hands , and photos .
If the non-greedy superhuman politicians keep their word , and honor their oath of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sale in Washington D.C. ?
Well , it turned out that the oath of office ended up being the politician ’ s very first “ official ” lie .
Today we find that American politicians don ’ t follow the Constitution at all ( or barely ) .
Just about everything that is done by Washington is blatantly unconstitutional .
It didn ’ t have to be this way , of course .
The “ public servants ” could have taken their oath seriously .
In fact , that ’ s exactly what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His votes were tied to the U.S. Constitution .
If something was unconstitutional ( i.e.
, just about everything ) he voted “ No.
” Do you know how many “ public servants ” joined him in voting “ No ” to unconstitutional laws ?
Go look at the votes .
It ’ s ironic because the nickname was meant to have a negative connotation to it .
But Ron Paul was actually “ Dr .
Yes.
” He was voting “ Yes ” for the Constitution and “ Yes ” for individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer to our earlier question — What is for sale in Washington D.C. ?
The answer to that question is — unconstitutional power .
Ron Paul never had an issue with corporate interests or “ billionaires.
” Lobbyists of all stripes would walk right past his office door .
They wouldn ’ t even knock .
Why was that ?
Because nothing was for sale .
There was absolutely no unconstitutional power that anyone could horse-trade for .
So no one bothered .
This leads us to the next question .
When something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who becomes the ultimate buyer ?
The highest bidder , of course .
If someone wants to buy your home , will you take the bid below your offer , at your offer , or above your offer ?
Your home will go to the highest bidder .
So if unconstitutional powers are for sale , who will those powers go to ?
The average Joe ?
The poor ?
The vulnerable and weak ?
Are they the highest bidders ?
Of course not !
The unconstitutional powers will go to those with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or whatever is involved in the horse-trade .
So the problem with the breaking of the oath of office .
The problem does not begin with the lobbyists , and corporations , and billionaires .
They capitalize on it for sure , but they are not the source .
Blaming corporations and billionaires solves absolutely nothing , even though it ’ s a guaranteed vote getter .
You don ’ t see politicians campaigning to follow the Constitution , right ?
There ’ s no “ movement ” of those who promise to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law of the land .
There may be 1 or 2 out of 500 .
Politicians , every election season , dupe the rest of the American public .
They “ promise ” the public that they too can get in on the unconstitutional game .
They don ’ t have to be billionaires .
They can get unconstitutional stuff on the cheap !
Politicians promise lots of unconstitutional stuff … .
FREE this … FREE that … FREE everything !
Everyone jumps in on the unconstitutional fire sale charade … .
and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re going to have a country where the Constitution is completely ignored and unconstitutional power is up for grabs , the highest bidder will get the sale .
That ’ s not what America was supposed to be .
Unconstitutional powers were not supposed to be available to anyone – rich or poor .
Americans were supposed to ‘ pursue their own individual happiness ’ and enjoy their freedom .
Government was supposed to protect that freedom , not be the one who attempts to take it all away .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @

By Chris Rossini
Billionaires get a lot of press these days. They’re the bad guys. There’s only a handful of them, and they’re such an easy target. So if you’re a politician looking to ‘get votes,’ people with a lot of money can be painted as “greedy” and the votes will come pouring in.
It’s very simplistic, but it works.
People are led to believe that we have non-greedy, pure as the driven snow “public servants” in Washington DC. They’ve followed their calling to “serve the people,” and a bunch of billionaires show up with their bags of money and ruin everything.
Well, if lobbyists, corporate interests, and billionaires are showing up with bags of money, what on Earth could they be buying?
What is for sale in Washington D.C.?
Surely, when one reads the U.S. Constitution, nothing should ever be for sale. The Constitution was meant to “chain down” political power, as the Founders said. This was the ‘land of the free,’ and power was to be a non-issue.
“Checks and Balances” were meant to keep bureaucrats tied up and hindered, while Americans enjoyed their natural individual liberty.
Furthermore, every pure as the driven snow politician swears to obey the U.S. Constitution. It’s the very first thing that they do before taking office. Family and friends gather around, there are Bibles, raised right hands, and photos.
What happened?
If the non-greedy superhuman politicians keep their word, and honor their oath of office, what can possibly be for sale in Washington D.C.?
Well, it turned out that the oath of office ended up being the politician’s very first “official” lie.
Today we find that American politicians don’t follow the Constitution at all (or barely). Just about everything that is done by Washington is blatantly unconstitutional.
It didn’t have to be this way, of course. The “public servants” could have taken their oath seriously. In fact, that’s exactly what Ron Paul did as a Congressman. His votes were tied to the U.S. Constitution. If something was unconstitutional (i.e., just about everything) he voted “No.”
Do you know how many “public servants” joined him in voting “No” to unconstitutional laws? Go look at the votes.
Dr. Paul even earned the noble moniker “Dr. No.”
It’s ironic because the nickname was meant to have a negative connotation to it. But Ron Paul was actually “Dr. Yes.” He was voting “Yes” for the Constitution and “Yes” for individual liberty.
So we have identified the answer to our earlier question — What is for sale in Washington D.C.?
The answer to that question is — unconstitutional power.
Ron Paul never had an issue with corporate interests or “billionaires.” Lobbyists of all stripes would walk right past his office door. They wouldn’t even knock.
Why was that?
Because nothing was for sale. There was absolutely no unconstitutional power that anyone could horse-trade for. So no one bothered.
This leads us to the next question.
When something (anything) is for sale, who becomes the ultimate buyer? The highest bidder, of course.
If someone wants to buy your home, will you take the bid below your offer, at your offer, or above your offer? Your home will go to the highest bidder.
So if unconstitutional powers are for sale, who will those powers go to?
The average Joe? The poor? The vulnerable and weak?
Are they the highest bidders?
Of course not!
The unconstitutional powers will go to those with the most money, or perks, or whatever is involved in the horse-trade.
So the problem begins with the breaking of the oath of office. The problem does not begin with the lobbyists, and corporations, and billionaires. They capitalize on it for sure, but they are not the source.
Blaming corporations and billionaires solves absolutely nothing, even though it’s a guaranteed vote getter.
You don’t see politicians campaigning to follow the Constitution, right? There’s no “movement” of those who promise to get to Washington to actually follow the law of the land. There may be 1 or 2 out of 500.
Instead, it’s the exact opposite.
Politicians, every election season, dupe the rest of the American public. They “promise” the public that they too can get in on the unconstitutional game. They don’t have to be billionaires. They can get unconstitutional stuff on the cheap!
“Just vote for me!”
Politicians promise lots of unconstitutional stuff …. FREE this … FREE that … FREE everything!
It’s cheap!
Just vote!
Everyone jumps in on the unconstitutional fire sale charade …. and nothing ever changes in Washington.
If you’re going to have a country where the Constitution is completely ignored and unconstitutional power is up for grabs, the highest bidder will get the sale.
That’s not what America was supposed to be.
Unconstitutional powers were not supposed to be available to anyone – rich or poor.
Americans were supposed to ‘pursue their own individual happiness’ and enjoy their freedom. Government was supposed to protect that freedom, not be the one who attempts to take it all away.
A big U-Turn is definitely in order.


australiannationalreview--2020-05-02--Trump’s Budget: More Warfare, Slightly Less Welfare

Listening to the howls from Democrats and the applause from Republicans , one would think President Trump ’ s proposed fiscal year 2021 budget is a radical assault on the welfare state .
The truth is the budget contains some minor spending cuts , most of which are not even real cuts .
Instead they are reductions in the “ projected rate of growth.
” This is equivalent of saying you are sticking to your diet because you ate five chocolate chip cookies when you wanted to eat ten .
President Trump ’ s plan reduces the Education Department ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving the department with “ only ” 66.6 billion dollars .
Cuts to other departments are similarly small , while reductions in entitlement spending consist mostly of reforms that will not affect most of those dependent on these programs .
President Trump deserves credit for proposing an 11.6 billion dollars cut in funding for the Department of State and the US Agency for International Development ( USAID ) .
Foreign aid does little to help impoverished people overseas .
Instead , it benefits foreign government officials willing to do the US government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ USAID are extensively involved in US intervention abroad , including efforts to overthrow governments .
President Trump ’ s budget proposes a number of increases in spending .
For example , his budget spends around 900 million additional dollars on vocational education .
It also includes additional spending on items including infrastructure and childcare .
Few in DC have expressed concern over the fact that President Trump ’ s 4.8 trillion dollars budget proposal is the largest budget in American history .
There is also little outcry from supposedly antiwar progressive Democrats over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of billions of dollars on militarism .
This is not surprising , as many progressives are happy to support increased warfare spending as long as conservatives go along with increased welfare spending .
Similarly , many conservatives are happy to support increased welfare spending as long as it means that progressives will vote for increased warfare spending .
So , Congress is unlikely to approve any of President Trump ’ s spending cuts , but Congress will gleefully agree to all of his spending increases .
Even if Congress agrees to all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deficits will still be over one trillion dollars for the next several years .
However , President Trump claims the budget will balance in 15 years .
In order to show a balanced budget by 2035 , the administration assumes three percent economic growth for most of the next decade .
This level of growth is unlikely to come to pass .
Instead , the current boom will likely end soon , and the economy will experience another major recession .
Signs that we are on the verge of a downturn include rising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bailout of the repurchasing market .
The current economic boom is built on debt , and the debt-based economy is facilitated by the Federal Reserve ’ s easy money policies .
The massive amount of debt held by consumers , businesses , and especially government is the main reason the Fed feels compelled to maintain historically low interest rates .
If rates were to increase to market levels , government interest payments would be unstable .
This would cause the government debt bubble to burst , leading to a major crisis .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low interest rates will inevitably lead to a dollar crisis and a collapse of the welfare-warfare Keynesian system .
Continuing to waste billions on wars abroad and failed programs at home while pretending that we can avoid a crisis via phony cuts and Fed-fueled growth will only make the inevitable collapse more painful .
The only way to avoid economic disaster is to cut spending and audit , then end , the Federal Reserve .

By Ron Paul
Listening to the howls from Democrats and the applause from Republicans, one would think President Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2021 budget is a radical assault on the welfare state. The truth is the budget contains some minor spending cuts, most of which are not even real cuts. Instead they are reductions in the “projected rate of growth.” This is equivalent of saying you are sticking to your diet because you ate five chocolate chip cookies when you wanted to eat ten.
President Trump’s plan reduces the Education Department’s budget by nearly eight percent, leaving the department with “only” 66.6 billion dollars. Cuts to other departments are similarly small, while reductions in entitlement spending consist mostly of reforms that will not affect most of those dependent on these programs.
President Trump deserves credit for proposing an 11.6 billion dollars cut in funding for the Department of State and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Foreign aid does little to help impoverished people overseas. Instead, it benefits foreign government officials willing to do the US government’s bidding. The State Department and USAID are extensively involved in US intervention abroad, including efforts to overthrow governments.
President Trump’s budget proposes a number of increases in spending. For example, his budget spends around 900 million additional dollars on vocational education. It also includes additional spending on items including infrastructure and childcare.
Few in DC have expressed concern over the fact that President Trump’s 4.8 trillion dollars budget proposal is the largest budget in American history. There is also little outcry from supposedly antiwar progressive Democrats over Trump’s proposal to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on militarism. This is not surprising, as many progressives are happy to support increased warfare spending as long as conservatives go along with increased welfare spending. Similarly, many conservatives are happy to support increased welfare spending as long as it means that progressives will vote for increased warfare spending. So, Congress is unlikely to approve any of President Trump’s spending cuts, but Congress will gleefully agree to all of his spending increases.
Even if Congress agrees to all of President Trump’s cuts, federal deficits will still be over one trillion dollars for the next several years. However, President Trump claims the budget will balance in 15 years. In order to show a balanced budget by 2035, the administration assumes three percent economic growth for most of the next decade. This level of growth is unlikely to come to pass. Instead, the current boom will likely end soon, and the economy will experience another major recession. Signs that we are on the verge of a downturn include rising homelessness and the Federal Reserve’s bailout of the repurchasing market.
The current economic boom is built on debt, and the debt-based economy is facilitated by the Federal Reserve’s easy money policies. The massive amount of debt held by consumers, businesses, and especially government is the main reason the Fed feels compelled to maintain historically low interest rates. If rates were to increase to market levels, government interest payments would be unstable. This would cause the government debt bubble to burst, leading to a major crisis. However, continuing on the current path of low interest rates will inevitably lead to a dollar crisis and a collapse of the welfare-warfare Keynesian system.
Continuing to waste billions on wars abroad and failed programs at home while pretending that we can avoid a crisis via phony cuts and Fed-fueled growth will only make the inevitable collapse more painful. The only way to avoid economic disaster is to cut spending and audit, then end, the Federal Reserve.


australiannationalreview--2020-05-02--Has the Constitution Failed?

Has the Constitution Failed?

Given the massive welfare-warfare state system under which Americans live , the natural assumption is that the Constitution failed in its mission to constrain the powers of the federal government .
Actually , though , that isn ’ t the case .
How , then , can these two points be reconciled ?
How can the Constitution be said to have succeeded in its mission given that , at the same time , we now live under a massive welfare-warfare state way of life ?
During the first decade of American history , the American people lived under a governmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Under the Articles , the federal government ’ s powers were few and weak .
That ’ s the way Americans wanted it .
They did not want a federal government with big , massive powers .
Under the Articles , Americans hadn ’ t even given the federal government the power to tax people .
Owing to various problems had arisen under the Articles , when the delegates met at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia , it was only for the purpose of amending the Articles .
Instead , they came out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of governmental system , one called a limited-government republic .
Under this type of governmental system , the powers of the federal government would be greater than under the Articles but still extremely limited in scope and nature .
The American people were not enthusiastic about the proposal .
They were concerned that under this new governmental structure , the federal government would end up wielding and exercising vast powers over the nation .
That was the last thing our American ancestors wanted .
 If the Constitution had proposed the type of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massive welfare-warfare state — there is absolutely no possibility that our American ancestors would have approved the deal .
They would have laughed at such a proposal , thinking that it was big joke .
Once they realized that the proposal was serious , they would have summarily rejected it and continued operating under the Articles of Confederation .
Freedom and limited government The argument that sold the Americans was that the Constitution , which was the document calling the federal government into existence , set forth its powers .
If a power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be exercised .
Since the enumerated powers were so few and limited in nature , Americans took the chance with this new governmental system .
But even that wasn ’ t good enough for Americans .
To make sure that the federal government could not do bad things to them , they demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights , which expressly forbade the federal government from destroying their rights and liberties .
The result was the most unusual society in history .
Imagine : no income tax , Social Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farm subsidies , education grants , corporate bailouts , foreign aid , public schooling , minimum-wage law , drug laws , Pentagon , CIA , NSA , Homeland Security , TSA , war on terrorism , foreign military bases , foreign wars of aggression , coups , alliances with dictatorial regimes , torture , state-sponsored assassinations , immigration controls , fiat ( i.e.
, paper ) money , secret surveillance , gun control , Federal Reserve , and very few economic regulations .
Today ’ s Americans , of course , live under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those things .
Therefore , how can it be said that the Constitution succeeded in keeping the powers of government few and limited ?
The protection of civil liberties For one thing , consider the right of trial by jury .
There is no doubt that U.S. national-security state officials hate the right of trial by jury .
We can see that in the “ judicial ” system that the Pentagon and the CIA have established in Cuba .
In their system , people who are being criminally prosecuted for terrorism are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one that is kangaroo in nature .
In fact , the Pentagon and the CIA rejected virtually all of the protections of the Fourth , Fifth , Sixth , and Eighth Amendments in their system .
In Cuba , Pentagon and CIA officials are empowered to torture people into making confessions .
Hearsay evidence and evidence acquired by torture are admissible .
Lawyer communications with clients are secretly monitored .
The accused are presumed guilty .
No one is entitled to bail .
There is little doubt that that ’ s the type @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living under here in the United States if it hadn ’ t been for the Bill of Rights .
The Constitution has protected us from the type of criminal justice system that the Pentagon and the CIA have established in Cuba , which , in many respects , resembles the criminal justice system that the communists have on their side of Cuba .
The same holds true with respect to freedom of speech and other liberties .
While there are assaults on freedom of speech , no one is being jailed for criticizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , say , China , Cuba , and North Korea .
So , why then didn ’ t Constitution protect us from the massive welfare state and warfare state under which we now live ?
The Constitution as a sea wall The answer can be explained with an analogy .
The Constitution is much like a sea wall .
The purpose of a sea wall is to protect a coastal community from high tides .
But it is not designed to protect a community from a tsunami .
Thus , when a tsunami @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t say that the sea wall has failed because that wasn ’ t ever the purpose of the sea wall .
The Constitution was intended to be a political sea wall , one designed to protect America from high tides of tyranny , such as assaults on civil liberties that took place during the Civil War or during World War I .
But it was never designed to protect the country against a tsunami of public opinion favoring and even demanding an oppressive and tyrannical system , such as a massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened with socialism .
The move toward socialism began in the late 1800s and early 1900s .
It culminated in a massive tsunami-sized wave of public opinion in favor of the welfare-state way of life in the 1930s and has grown ever since .
The same is true with respect to the warfare state .
Foreign interventionism , empire , and meddling began in the late 1800s and then proceeded apace with the two world wars .
The tsunami of public opinion reached an apogee with the conversion of the federal government to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one where the Pentagon , the CIA , and the NSA were brought into existence and empowered to exercise omnipotent , dark-side , sordid powers that were characteristic of communist and totalitarian regimes .
The experience shows that a Constitution is never sufficient to protect liberty because if a critical mass of people in society lose their love for liberty and demand “ security ” instead , the Constitution will not prevent that from happening .
Is it possible to restore the good founding principles of America ?
Of course it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tsunami of public opinion to run in the direction of liberty and limited government .
This article was originally published at The Future of Freedom Foundation .

By Jacob G. Hornberger
Given the massive welfare-warfare state system under which Americans live, the natural assumption is that the Constitution failed in its mission to constrain the powers of the federal government.
Actually, though, that isn’t the case.
How, then, can these two points be reconciled? How can the Constitution be said to have succeeded in its mission given that, at the same time, we now live under a massive welfare-warfare state way of life?
During the first decade of American history, the American people lived under a governmental system called the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, the federal government’s powers were few and weak. That’s the way Americans wanted it. They did not want a federal government with big, massive powers. Under the Articles, Americans hadn’t even given the federal government the power to tax people.
Owing to various problems had arisen under the Articles, when the delegates met at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, it was only for the purpose of amending the Articles. Instead, they came out with a proposal for a different type of governmental system, one called a limited-government republic. Under this type of governmental system, the powers of the federal government would be greater than under the Articles but still extremely limited in scope and nature.
The American people were not enthusiastic about the proposal. They were concerned that under this new governmental structure, the federal government would end up wielding and exercising vast powers over the nation. That was the last thing our American ancestors wanted.

If the Constitution had proposed the type of governmental system we have today — a massive welfare-warfare state — there is absolutely no possibility that our American ancestors would have approved the deal. They would have laughed at such a proposal, thinking that it was big joke. Once they realized that the proposal was serious, they would have summarily rejected it and continued operating under the Articles of Confederation.
Freedom and limited government
The argument that sold the Americans was that the Constitution, which was the document calling the federal government into existence, set forth its powers. If a power wasn’t enumerated, it could not be exercised. Since the enumerated powers were so few and limited in nature, Americans took the chance with this new governmental system.
But even that wasn’t good enough for Americans. To make sure that the federal government could not do bad things to them, they demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights, which expressly forbade the federal government from destroying their rights and liberties.
The result was the most unusual society in history. Imagine: no income tax, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, farm subsidies, education grants, corporate bailouts, foreign aid, public schooling, minimum-wage law, drug laws, Pentagon, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, TSA, war on terrorism, foreign military bases, foreign wars of aggression, coups, alliances with dictatorial regimes, torture, state-sponsored assassinations, immigration controls, fiat (i.e., paper) money, secret surveillance, gun control, Federal Reserve, and very few economic regulations.
Today’s Americans, of course, live under a welfare-warfare state system that has all of those things.
Therefore, how can it be said that the Constitution succeeded in keeping the powers of government few and limited?
The protection of civil liberties
For one thing, consider the right of trial by jury. There is no doubt that U.S. national-security state officials hate the right of trial by jury. We can see that in the “judicial” system that the Pentagon and the CIA have established in Cuba. In their system, people who are being criminally prosecuted for terrorism are entitled only to a military tribunal, one that is kangaroo in nature.
In fact, the Pentagon and the CIA rejected virtually all of the protections of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments in their system. In Cuba, Pentagon and CIA officials are empowered to torture people into making confessions. Hearsay evidence and evidence acquired by torture are admissible. Lawyer communications with clients are secretly monitored. The accused are presumed guilty. No one is entitled to bail.
There is little doubt that that’s the type of criminal justice system we would be living under here in the United States if it hadn’t been for the Bill of Rights. The Constitution has protected us from the type of criminal justice system that the Pentagon and the CIA have established in Cuba, which, in many respects, resembles the criminal justice system that the communists have on their side of Cuba.
The same holds true with respect to freedom of speech and other liberties. While there are assaults on freedom of speech, no one is being jailed for criticizing the government, as they are in, say, China, Cuba, and North Korea.
So, why then didn’t Constitution protect us from the massive welfare state and warfare state under which we now live?
The Constitution as a sea wall
The answer can be explained with an analogy. The Constitution is much like a sea wall. The purpose of a sea wall is to protect a coastal community from high tides. But it is not designed to protect a community from a tsunami. Thus, when a tsunami hits and overwhelms the community, we can’t say that the sea wall has failed because that wasn’t ever the purpose of the sea wall.
The Constitution was intended to be a political sea wall, one designed to protect America from high tides of tyranny, such as assaults on civil liberties that took place during the Civil War or during World War I. But it was never designed to protect the country against a tsunami of public opinion favoring and even demanding an oppressive and tyrannical system, such as a massive welfare-warfare state.
That’s what happened with socialism. The move toward socialism began in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It culminated in a massive tsunami-sized wave of public opinion in favor of the welfare-state way of life in the 1930s and has grown ever since.
The same is true with respect to the warfare state. Foreign interventionism, empire, and meddling began in the late 1800s and then proceeded apace with the two world wars. The tsunami of public opinion reached an apogee with the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state after World War II, one where the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA were brought into existence and empowered to exercise omnipotent, dark-side, sordid powers that were characteristic of communist and totalitarian regimes.
The experience shows that a Constitution is never sufficient to protect liberty because if a critical mass of people in society lose their love for liberty and demand “security” instead, the Constitution will not prevent that from happening.
Is it possible to restore the good founding principles of America? Of course it is. All it takes is for the tsunami of public opinion to run in the direction of liberty and limited government.
This article was originally published at The Future of Freedom Foundation.


australiannationalreview--2020-05-02--The Cell Phone Radiation Scandal: Top Brands are Lying About Safety

As the controversy over 5G networks and cell phone radiation continues , it turns out that manufacturers aren ’ t playing fair .
In a groundbreaking expose by the Chicago Tribune , popular phones by Apple , Samsung , and Motorola were found to produce radiation that exceeds federal limits .
The new data has forced the FCC to investigate – and could be a major blow to the industry .
The question has been asked about as long as mobile phones have existed : “ Are they safe ?
” Manufacturers and service providers have assured us time and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to worry about , but the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) did eventually set limits .
For a cell phone to be approved for sale , it must undergo FCC-approved testing to determine the amount of radiofrequency radiation that will be absorbed by organic matter .
This gives us an idea of just how much radiation users will experience , day in and day out .
The current limit for cell phone radiation is 1.6 watts per kilogram .
1.6 W/kg .
Keep that number in mind as we continue… Journalists at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threshold was truly being observed by manufacturers , so they funded their own testing to find out .
They began with Apple ’ s iPhone 7 .
The test was conducted at a lab accredited by the FCC to perform the tests according to federal guidelines .
To conduct the tests , phones were placed under a tub containing liquid that simulates human tissue .
The phone was then powered on and a call was placed so that it was operating at full power .
For the next 18 minutes , a robotic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone was tested twice , once at 5 millimeters away from the liquid and once at 2mm away .
The second test , they explained , was to simulate a phone being stored in clothing , like pockets .
They measured this by cutting out pieces of dress shirts , T-shirts , jeans , track pants , and undergarments and using them to find the appropriate distance .
The iPhone 7 was tested in August of 2018 , followed by 11 more phones in October : 2 more iPhone 7s , an iPhone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ iPhone 8 Plus , a Galaxy S9 , a Galaxy S8 , a Galaxy J3 , a Moto e5 Play , a Moto g6 Play and a Vivo 5 Mini .
The Tribune reports that the results of the first iPhone 7 test were so high that they wanted to test two more to be sure .
With a federal limit of 1.6 W/kg , nearly half of the phones failed the test at 5mm .
At 2mm , representing a phone kept in your clothing , all but one failed .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a catastrophic failure of FCC oversight , and severe ineptitude or diabolical deceit by the manufacturers ( except Vivo , who was well within guidelines ) .
Apple , understandably , was not happy with the results .
After receiving the report , they complained that the results were invalid because they were not performed properly .
They failed to specify the problem , but the Tribune decided to repeat tests on the iPhones , this time activating sensors meant to reduce power during use .
They added a 4th iPhone 7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Still , the results were disturbing .
While the scores generally dropped , 6 of the 7 Apple phones failed to meet radiation standards at 5mm .
At 2mm , every single phone manufactured by Apple produced radiation above the legal limit .
The FCC has approved all of these phones and claims that they will “ never exceed ” radiofrequency radiation of 1.6 W/kg .
Clearly something is wrong .
To avoid any kind of scrutiny , the Chicago Tribune used RF Exposure Lab , located in San Marcos , California .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to conduct these tests and has been conducting radiation tests for FCC approval for nearly 15 years .
Owner and former engineering director for Qualcomm Jay Moulton conducted the tests personally , ensuring that they met all FCC standards .
But when it comes time for companies to prove that their products are safe , the system is deeply flawed .
Manufacturers get to choose their own labs for testing , which leaves room for at least the appearance of impropriety .
Additionally , manufacturers are allowed to test the phone as far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inch .
Tribune author Sam Roe speculates that this is due to timing .
For the tests conducted by the Tribune , phones were tested at the same distances reported by the manufacturers .
Apple claims that their tests are conducted at 5mm .
Samsung phones are tested at 10mm or 15mm , depending on the model .
And while the 2mm distance was closer than the FCC requires , it may be the distance most accurate when it comes to the way people store cell phones .
7 years ago , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revisit the testing requirements and exposure limits .
They specifically mentioned that , because phones are most often held against the body , it was impossible for the current testing to demonstrate that cell phone radiation levels were within the federal limit .
Earlier this month , the FCC announced that the standards were sufficient and did not need to be changed .
But these guidelines were established back in 1996 .
This was just after we were married and before losing Ty ’ s dad to dangerous cancer treatments .
Few people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phones that were around were bulky and had poor battery life .
No one texted , and the idea of children owning or using cell phones was absurd .
To put things in perspective , the Nokia 3310 ( the phone you played “ snake ” on ) was first launched on September 1st , 2000 .
The way people used cell phones in 1996 is absolutely nothing like the way we use them now .
Even the current testing methods exclude eyes and ears , which may be most vulnerable to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FCC has done nothing .
But the new data discovered by the Tribune can not be ignored .
After receiving a copy of the report , the FCC agreed to conduct their own testing to determine if the phones are not in compliance .
“ We take seriously any claims on non-compliance with the RF ( radiofrequency ) exposure standards and will be obtaining and testing the subject phones for compliance with FCC rules , ” FCC spokesman Neil Grace said .
Of course , the FCC has a long and cozy history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lobbying groups for the wireless industry have been led by former FCC chairmen and commissioners .
Tom Wheeler , the last FCC commissioner , was the president of two different trade groups representing the wireless industry before joining the FCC .
Wheeler ’ s predecessor , Julius Genachowski , took a lucrative job with The Carlyle Group ( an asset management company working with telecom and media companies ) after leaving the FCC .
And the current commissioner , Ajit Pai , is no better .
A former Associate General Counselor for Verizon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neutrality rules – a top priority for his former employer .
Pai ’ s FCC has helped to establish laws and rules that prevent states , cities , and counties from regulating technology companies for health and safety reasons .
This is likely to help fast track the new 5G networks that have already been deployed in select cities .
Although no safety studies have been conducted on 5G radiation in the U.S. , research compiled by the European Union has found health risks , including cancer .
Dozens of cities , towns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushback from their citizens , citing the health risks .
When it comes to the technology we already have , it seems the game is rigged .
Antiquated guidelines established at the dawn of the cellular age are still in place .
Regulators , in bed with the industry , are making concessions designed to help the wireless industry .
And now it seems that cell phone manufacturers themselves have been scamming us .
Sure , it ’ s possible that these results are an anomaly , and that the phones in question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it ’ s unlikely .
Nearly all of the Apple phones failed – even with the newer test .
Samsung ’ s Galaxy S8 , which sold over 5 million units in its first month , had radiation levels more than 5 times the legal limit .
Our system is broken , and it seems that regulators need to have the evidence spoon-fed to them in order to even look into it ( just look at the new evidence regarding fluoridated water ) .
So , what can we do ?
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are responsible for nominating and confirming the industry-friendly regulators .
But there are other steps we can take : # 1 .
Turn off your phone when not in use .
# 2 .
Never store your phone in pockets or other clothing , # 4 .
Avoid using your cell phone in the car or other vehicles .
# 5 .
Use the speaker or regular headphones whenever possible so your phone is not pressed against your body .

By Ty & Charlene Bollinger
As the controversy over 5G networks and cell phone radiation continues, it turns out that manufacturers aren’t playing fair. In a groundbreaking expose by the Chicago Tribune, popular phones by Apple, Samsung, and Motorola were found to produce radiation that exceeds federal limits. The new data has forced the FCC to investigate – and could be a major blow to the industry.
The question has been asked about as long as mobile phones have existed: “Are they safe?”
Manufacturers and service providers have assured us time and time again that radiofrequency radiation is nothing to worry about, but the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) did eventually set limits.
For a cell phone to be approved for sale, it must undergo FCC-approved testing to determine the amount of radiofrequency radiation that will be absorbed by organic matter. This gives us an idea of just how much radiation users will experience, day in and day out. The current limit for cell phone radiation is 1.6 watts per kilogram.
1.6 W/kg. Keep that number in mind as we continue…
Journalists at the Tribune wanted to know if this threshold was truly being observed by manufacturers, so they funded their own testing to find out. They began with Apple’s iPhone 7. The test was conducted at a lab accredited by the FCC to perform the tests according to federal guidelines.
To conduct the tests, phones were placed under a tub containing liquid that simulates human tissue. The phone was then powered on and a call was placed so that it was operating at full power. For the next 18 minutes, a robotic sensor took over 275 measurements.
The phone was tested twice, once at 5 millimeters away from the liquid and once at 2mm away. The second test, they explained, was to simulate a phone being stored in clothing, like pockets. They measured this by cutting out pieces of dress shirts, T-shirts, jeans, track pants, and undergarments and using them to find the appropriate distance.
The iPhone 7 was tested in August of 2018, followed by 11 more phones in October: 2 more iPhone 7s, an iPhone 8, an iPhone X, an iPhone 8 Plus, a Galaxy S9, a Galaxy S8, a Galaxy J3, a Moto e5 Play, a Moto g6 Play and a Vivo 5 Mini.
The Tribune reports that the results of the first iPhone 7 test were so high that they wanted to test two more to be sure.
The results were staggering.
With a federal limit of 1.6 W/kg, nearly half of the phones failed the test at 5mm. At 2mm, representing a phone kept in your clothing, all but one failed. If the tests are accurate, this would be a catastrophic failure of FCC oversight, and severe ineptitude or diabolical deceit by the manufacturers (except Vivo, who was well within guidelines).
Apple, understandably, was not happy with the results. After receiving the report, they complained that the results were invalid because they were not performed properly. They failed to specify the problem, but the Tribune decided to repeat tests on the iPhones, this time activating sensors meant to reduce power during use. They added a 4th iPhone 7 so there could be no mistake.
Still, the results were disturbing.
While the scores generally dropped, 6 of the 7 Apple phones failed to meet radiation standards at 5mm. At 2mm, every single phone manufactured by Apple produced radiation above the legal limit.
The FCC has approved all of these phones and claims that they will “never exceed” radiofrequency radiation of 1.6 W/kg. Clearly something is wrong. To avoid any kind of scrutiny, the Chicago Tribune used RF Exposure Lab, located in San Marcos, California. The lab is accredited by the FCC to conduct these tests and has been conducting radiation tests for FCC approval for nearly 15 years.
Owner and former engineering director for Qualcomm Jay Moulton conducted the tests personally, ensuring that they met all FCC standards.
But when it comes time for companies to prove that their products are safe, the system is deeply flawed. Manufacturers get to choose their own labs for testing, which leaves room for at least the appearance of impropriety. Additionally, manufacturers are allowed to test the phone as far away as 25mm, or about an inch. Tribune author Sam Roe speculates that this is due to timing.
The testing standards were adopted in the 1990s, when people frequently carried cellphones on belt clips,” he wrote.
For the tests conducted by the Tribune, phones were tested at the same distances reported by the manufacturers. Apple claims that their tests are conducted at 5mm. Samsung phones are tested at 10mm or 15mm, depending on the model. And while the 2mm distance was closer than the FCC requires, it may be the distance most accurate when it comes to the way people store cell phones.
7 years ago, the Government Accountability Office recommended that the FCC revisit the testing requirements and exposure limits. They specifically mentioned that, because phones are most often held against the body, it was impossible for the current testing to demonstrate that cell phone radiation levels were within the federal limit.
Earlier this month, the FCC announced that the standards were sufficient and did not need to be changed. But these guidelines were established back in 1996.
This was just after we were married and before losing Ty’s dad to dangerous cancer treatments. Few people had cell phones back then. The phones that were around were bulky and had poor battery life. No one texted, and the idea of children owning or using cell phones was absurd.
To put things in perspective, the Nokia 3310 (the phone you played “snake” on) was first launched on September 1st, 2000. The way people used cell phones in 1996 is absolutely nothing like the way we use them now. Even the current testing methods exclude eyes and ears, which may be most vulnerable to the effects of radiation. Still, the FCC has done nothing.
But the new data discovered by the Tribune cannot be ignored. After receiving a copy of the report, the FCC agreed to conduct their own testing to determine if the phones are not in compliance. “We take seriously any claims on non-compliance with the RF (radiofrequency) exposure standards and will be obtaining and testing the subject phones for compliance with FCC rules,” FCC spokesman Neil Grace said.
Of course, the FCC has a long and cozy history with the communications industry. The top lobbying groups for the wireless industry have been led by former FCC chairmen and commissioners. Tom Wheeler, the last FCC commissioner, was the president of two different trade groups representing the wireless industry before joining the FCC.
Wheeler’s predecessor, Julius Genachowski, took a lucrative job with The Carlyle Group (an asset management company working with telecom and media companies) after leaving the FCC. And the current commissioner, Ajit Pai, is no better. A former Associate General Counselor for Verizon, Pai immediately tried to overturn net neutrality rules – a top priority for his former employer.
Pai’s FCC has helped to establish laws and rules that prevent states, cities, and counties from regulating technology companies for health and safety reasons. This is likely to help fast track the new 5G networks that have already been deployed in select cities.
Although no safety studies have been conducted on 5G radiation in the U.S., research compiled by the European Union has found health risks, including cancer. Dozens of cities, towns, and even nations have seen major pushback from their citizens, citing the health risks.
When it comes to the technology we already have, it seems the game is rigged. Antiquated guidelines established at the dawn of the cellular age are still in place. Regulators, in bed with the industry, are making concessions designed to help the wireless industry. And now it seems that cell phone manufacturers themselves have been scamming us.
Sure, it’s possible that these results are an anomaly, and that the phones in question are within the FCC radiation limits. But it’s unlikely. Nearly all of the Apple phones failed – even with the newer test. Samsung’s Galaxy S8, which sold over 5 million units in its first month, had radiation levels more than 5 times the legal limit.
Our system is broken, and it seems that regulators need to have the evidence spoon-fed to them in order to even look into it (just look at the new evidence regarding fluoridated water).
So, what can we do? We can write our elected officials, who are responsible for nominating and confirming the industry-friendly regulators. But there are other steps we can take:
#1. Turn off your phone when not in use.
#2. Never store your phone in pockets or other clothing,
#3. Avoid using Bluetooth headsets.
#4. Avoid using your cell phone in the car or other vehicles.
#5. Use the speaker or regular headphones whenever possible so your phone is not pressed against your body.


australiannationalreview--2020-05-02--$425M in World Bank catastrophe bonds set to default if coronavirus declared a pandemic by June

Investors betting big against catastrophic diseases are watching the World Health Organization closely as insurance bonds tied to whether the organization labels COVID-19 a pandemic are set to mature in June .
In 2017 , the World Bank designed a new way to raise money : Pandemic Emergency Financing bonds .
Over $ 425 million worth of such bonds , which bet against a global outbreak of infectious diseases and will default if WHO declares the coronavirus a pandemic , were sold by the World Bank in its first-ever issuance of catastrophe bonds .
In the event of no pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annualized return .
Meanwhile , the World Bank could use the bonds to insure itself against the risk of a global outbreak .
“ As an investor , we do not want to lose money , ” said Chin Liu , a portfolio manager at Amundi Pioneer , a Boston-based firm that purchased the bonds as a way to diversify the company ’ s $ 1 billion catastrophe fund .
“ But then , we also understand if it ’ s unfortunately triggered , it benefits every single person , including ourselves , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large-scale investors looking for above-average returns in a bloated market , the bonds were the next logical place to hedge against disaster .
At the time of issuance , then-World Bank President Jim Yong-Kim heralded the bonds as an opportunity to leverage “ capital market expertise to serve the world ’ s poorest people.
” The bonds were administered in two tranches , with Class A bond investors receiving a return of 6.9 % annually .
Class B bond investors received 11.5 % annually .
The World Bank raised $ 225 million in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Class B bonds .
The investors , mainly endowments and pension funds , have long bet against natural disasters such as hurricanes , but the 2017 issuance of the bonds marked a shift in the market .
Before , investors were betting on the wind speed of hurricanes , but now , they were betting on the likelihood of an infectious disease that could tear through nations across the globe .
“ This marks the first time that World Bank bonds are being used to finance efforts against infectious diseases , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low-income countries is being transferred to the financial markets , ” read a statement from the World Bank at the time of issuance .
The conditions under which the payout on bonds will default are staggered based on how rapidly the disease spreads , the number of deaths associated with the illness , and whether the virus crosses international borders .
As of Wednesday , the coronavirus has claimed the lives of more than 2,500 people and infected more than 80,000 , with most cases contained to mainland China .
This week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of China — with more than 100 cases reported in Iran and a run on stores in Italy after the number of infected patients increased 45 % on Tuesday alone .
[ Read more : No bowling , dining out , or handshakes for US troops in South Korea after first soldier infected with coronavirus ]

Investors betting big against catastrophic diseases are watching the World Health Organization closely as insurance bonds tied to whether the organization labels COVID-19 a pandemic are set to mature in June.
In 2017, the World Bank designed a new way to raise money: Pandemic Emergency Financing bonds. Over $425 million worth of such bonds, which bet against a global outbreak of infectious diseases and will default if WHO declares the coronavirus a pandemic, were sold by the World Bank in its first-ever issuance of catastrophe bonds. In the event of no pandemic, investors would be paid a healthy annualized return. Meanwhile, the World Bank could use the bonds to insure itself against the risk of a global outbreak.
“As an investor, we do not want to lose money,” said Chin Liu, a portfolio manager at Amundi Pioneer, a Boston-based firm that purchased the bonds as a way to diversify the company’s $1 billion catastrophe fund. “But then, we also understand if it’s unfortunately triggered, it benefits every single person, including ourselves, to keep the virus controlled.”
For large-scale investors looking for above-average returns in a bloated market, the bonds were the next logical place to hedge against disaster. At the time of issuance, then-World Bank President Jim Yong-Kim heralded the bonds as an opportunity to leverage “capital market expertise to serve the world’s poorest people.”
The bonds were administered in two tranches, with Class A bond investors receiving a return of 6.9% annually. Class B bond investors received 11.5% annually. The World Bank raised $225 million in Class A bonds and $95 million in Class B bonds.
The investors, mainly endowments and pension funds, have long bet against natural disasters such as hurricanes, but the 2017 issuance of the bonds marked a shift in the market. Before, investors were betting on the wind speed of hurricanes, but now, they were betting on the likelihood of an infectious disease that could tear through nations across the globe.
“This marks the first time that World Bank bonds are being used to finance efforts against infectious diseases, and the first time that pandemic risk in low-income countries is being transferred to the financial markets,” read a statement from the World Bank at the time of issuance.
The conditions under which the payout on bonds will default are staggered based on how rapidly the disease spreads, the number of deaths associated with the illness, and whether the virus crosses international borders.
As of Wednesday, the coronavirus has claimed the lives of more than 2,500 people and infected more than 80,000, with most cases contained to mainland China. This week, the illness has begun to spread outside of China — with more than 100 cases reported in Iran and a run on stores in Italy after the number of infected patients increased 45% on Tuesday alone.
[Read more: No bowling, dining out, or handshakes for US troops in South Korea after first soldier infected with coronavirus]