lewrockwell--2020-05-05--Why Are Blacks Democrats?

Why Are Blacks Democrats?

The fate of Karen Whitsett , a black Democratic representative to the Michigan House of Representatives , who was censured by her fellow black Democrats from Detroit , for developing good relations with President Trump , speaks volumes .
It tells us , if any further proof were required , how deeply American blacks hate the Republican Party and any black person who does not share this loathing completely .
Although Ben Carson may be the famous success story produced by a poor black family in Detroit , this distinguished surgeon and cabinet official was denied the privilege of having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after him .
Carson ’ s sin is having served in a Republican administration .
In 2014 , Tim Scott became the first black Senator from South Carolina since Reconstruction .
But since Scott was a Republican , he won only 10 percent of the black vote in his state , while carrying 88 percent of the white vote .
After Scott ’ s victory , South Carolina black Democratic Congressmen James Clyburn immediately denounced him as a race traitor who was against “ the interests and aspirations of 95 percent of blacks.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ predicted that Trump would increase his share of the black vote in this year ’ s election by 50 percent .
Fascism : The Career of ... Gottfried , Paul Best Price : $ 41.28 Buy New $ 40.07 That share , according to Scott , would rise from 9 percent to 14 percent ; and this was to be considered a vindication for a Republican president who ( before COVID-19 hit ) had improved the job prospects of blacks more than any other president , including his black Democratic predecessor Barack Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelming majority of blacks will vote for any Democrat against Trump ” and put black hostility against Trump at 85 percent , which is actually saying the same thing as Scott , albeit in a less positive way .
The black vote normally goes at a rate of 90 percent or more to Democratic candidates for any office .
Not even Obama won a significantly higher percentage of the black vote than other Democratic presidential candidates .
Although Obama turned out black voters in higher numbers in his presidential bid than John Kerry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black vote against his Republican opponent by only a few points more than other recent Democratic presidential candidates .
Encounters : My Life wi ... Paul Gottfried Best Price : $ 5.20 Buy New $ 5.60 In 2008 , three black Republican candidates , including the Pittsburgh Steelers legend Lynn Swann , lost their races for the governorship , with the black vote going heavily against them .
If Swann had won , he would have been the first black governor of Pennsylvania .
But black voters turned against their onetime sports hero @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting for Swann or another highly qualified black Republican gubernatorial candidate running that year , Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio , was not deemed a racial breakthrough .
The problem in both cases was the black politician belonged to a national party that blacks abhor .
The intensity of this hatred has remained for me a mystery .
I still recall a black girlfriend of my daughter at the University of Michigan who went into a rage because the school had dared to invite as a speaker President George H.W .
Bush .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an act of disrespect against her race .
Curiously , the same black student was a fundamentalist Christian and fierce opponent of abortion , yet she ritualistically voted for the Democrats because she considered the Republicans a living reproach against blacks .
I won ’ t go into the usual GOP song and dance about all the civil rights legislation that the Republicans supported at a higher percentage than Democrats or that Republicans had once freed black slaves .
What is hard for me to figure out is why this hatred has developed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Best of Paul Gottfried

The fate of Karen Whitsett, a black Democratic representative to the Michigan House of Representatives, who was censured by her fellow black Democrats from Detroit, for developing good relations with President Trump, speaks volumes. It tells us, if any further proof were required, how deeply American blacks hate the Republican Party and any black person who does not share this loathing completely.
Although Ben Carson may be the famous success story produced by a poor black family in Detroit, this distinguished surgeon and cabinet official was denied the privilege of having a school in his old neighborhood named after him. Carson’s sin is having served in a Republican administration.
In 2014, Tim Scott became the first black Senator from South Carolina since Reconstruction. But since Scott was a Republican, he won only 10 percent of the black vote in his state, while carrying 88 percent of the white vote. After Scott’s victory, South Carolina black Democratic Congressmen James Clyburn immediately denounced him as a race traitor who was against “the interests and aspirations of 95 percent of blacks.” In an optimistic moment, Scott predicted that Trump would increase his share of the black vote in this year’s election by 50 percent. Fascism: The Career of... Gottfried, Paul Best Price: $41.28 Buy New $40.07 (as of 03:55 UTC - Details)
That share, according to Scott, would rise from 9 percent to 14 percent; and this was to be considered a vindication for a Republican president who (before COVID-19 hit) had improved the job prospects of blacks more than any other president, including his black Democratic predecessor Barack Obama. The Hill reports that an “overwhelming majority of blacks will vote for any Democrat against Trump” and put black hostility against Trump at 85 percent, which is actually saying the same thing as Scott, albeit in a less positive way.
The black vote normally goes at a rate of 90 percent or more to Democratic candidates for any office. Not even Obama won a significantly higher percentage of the black vote than other Democratic presidential candidates. Although Obama turned out black voters in higher numbers in his presidential bid than John Kerry or Al Gore, he won the black vote against his Republican opponent by only a few points more than other recent Democratic presidential candidates.
Encounters: My Life wi... Paul Gottfried Best Price: $5.20 Buy New $5.60 (as of 08:10 UTC - Details) In 2008, three black Republican candidates, including the Pittsburgh Steelers legend Lynn Swann, lost their races for the governorship, with the black vote going heavily against them. If Swann had won, he would have been the first black governor of Pennsylvania. But black voters turned against their onetime sports hero because of his Republican affiliation. Apparently voting for Swann or another highly qualified black Republican gubernatorial candidate running that year, Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio, was not deemed a racial breakthrough. The problem in both cases was the black politician belonged to a national party that blacks abhor.
The intensity of this hatred has remained for me a mystery. I still recall a black girlfriend of my daughter at the University of Michigan who went into a rage because the school had dared to invite as a speaker President George H.W. Bush. This friend considered this unsettling invitation to be an act of disrespect against her race. Curiously, the same black student was a fundamentalist Christian and fierce opponent of abortion, yet she ritualistically voted for the Democrats because she considered the Republicans a living reproach against blacks.
I won’t go into the usual GOP song and dance about all the civil rights legislation that the Republicans supported at a higher percentage than Democrats or that Republicans had once freed black slaves. What is hard for me to figure out is why this hatred has developed and grown more intense over time.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Paul Gottfried


Turbocharging Exodus

The US wants to сut industrial and supply dependence on China amid rising tensions between the two powers .
However , not everyone is eager to pack their bags and leave the lucrative Chinese market in the midst of the previous row .
The Trump administration has long been pushing American firms to get back to US soil , especially when trade tensions were flaring between the two biggest global economies .
Now the US has revived the trade war rhetoric again .
“ We ’ ve been working on [ reducing the reliance of our supply chains in China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are now turbo-charging that initiative , ” Under Secretary for Economic Growth , Energy and the Environment at the US State Department Keith Krach told Reuters .
Poorly Made in China : ... Midler , Paul Best Price : $ 3.96 Buy New $ 9.84 Krach as well as other officials told the agency that some critical and essential manufacturing should be moved from the country , and the government may take steps on it soon .
Apart from the US ’ seemingly favorite options of tariffs and sanctions , the plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsidies as well as closer relations with Taiwan – a move which has always angered Beijing .
Washington is also mulling the creation of what one of the officials called ‘ Economic Prosperity Network ’ which would include companies and groups from some “ trusted partners.
” The network is set to share the same standards “ on everything from digital business , energy and infrastructure to research , trade , education and commerce.
” China ’ s vital role in global supply chains was felt sharply amid the coronavirus pandemic as many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industries – are reliant on the country .
The pandemic has forced some US companies to seriously consider at least partial relocation and changing supply chain strategy , according to one of the latest polls conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce in China and its sister organization in Shanghai .
However , the majority of firms said that the outbreak does push them to turn their backs on China .
Nevertheless , one of the “ China hawks ” told Reuters that the virus created “ a perfect storm ” as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have had about doing business with China ” and the damages from Covid-19 have eclipsed possible profits .
Aulinx 110V 36W UV Lam ... Buy New $ 139.99 When the trade war showed no signs of abating last year and the US and China were still hitting each other with tariffs , another AmCham poll showed that the punitive measures were hurting US businesses operating in China .
While over forty percent of the 250 respondents were “ considering or have relocated ” production facilities outside China , some 35 percent of companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and target the domestic market .
Fewer than six percent wanted to move or already shifted their factory operations to the US .
Set aside the enormous relocation costs – which the White House has recently pledged to cover should an American company decide to ditch China – there is still another massive hurdle in this plan .
China is still the world ’ s top producer of rare earth metals – the group of elements vital for production of multiple devices , from cell phones to some advanced military gear .
Should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it could ban exports of these materials .
Last year Chinese media said the option was already being mulled by Beijing , and it could consider the drastic measure again if trade war tensions further escalate .

The US wants to сut industrial and supply dependence on China amid rising tensions between the two powers. However, not everyone is eager to pack their bags and leave the lucrative Chinese market in the midst of the previous row.
The Trump administration has long been pushing American firms to get back to US soil, especially when trade tensions were flaring between the two biggest global economies. Now the US has revived the trade war rhetoric again.
“We’ve been working on [reducing the reliance of our supply chains in China] over the last few years but we are now turbo-charging that initiative,” Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment at the US State Department Keith Krach told Reuters. Poorly Made in China: ... Midler, Paul Best Price: $3.96 Buy New $9.84 (as of 03:00 UTC - Details)
Krach as well as other officials told the agency that some critical and essential manufacturing should be moved from the country, and the government may take steps on it soon. Apart from the US’ seemingly favorite options of tariffs and sanctions, the plans may include tax incentives and potential reshoring subsidies as well as closer relations with Taiwan – a move which has always angered Beijing.
Washington is also mulling the creation of what one of the officials called ‘Economic Prosperity Network’ which would include companies and groups from some “trusted partners.” The network is set to share the same standards “on everything from digital business, energy and infrastructure to research, trade, education and commerce.”
China’s vital role in global supply chains was felt sharply amid the coronavirus pandemic as many international giants – from tech to car industries – are reliant on the country. The pandemic has forced some US companies to seriously consider at least partial relocation and changing supply chain strategy, according to one of the latest polls conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce in China and its sister organization in Shanghai. However, the majority of firms said that the outbreak does push them to turn their backs on China.
Nevertheless, one of the “China hawks” told Reuters that the virus created “a perfect storm” as it “crystallised all the worries that people have had about doing business with China” and the damages from Covid-19 have eclipsed possible profits. Aulinx 110V 36W UV Lam... Buy New $139.99 (as of 02:28 UTC - Details)
When the trade war showed no signs of abating last year and the US and China were still hitting each other with tariffs, another AmCham poll showed that the punitive measures were hurting US businesses operating in China. While over forty percent of the 250 respondents were “considering or have relocated” production facilities outside China, some 35 percent of companies said they would rather source within China and target the domestic market. Fewer than six percent wanted to move or already shifted their factory operations to the US.
Set aside the enormous relocation costs – which the White House has recently pledged to cover should an American company decide to ditch China – there is still another massive hurdle in this plan. China is still the world’s top producer of rare earth metals – the group of elements vital for production of multiple devices, from cell phones to some advanced military gear. Should all the production be moved from China, it could ban exports of these materials. Last year Chinese media said the option was already being mulled by Beijing, and it could consider the drastic measure again if trade war tensions further escalate.
Reprinted from RT News.


lewrockwell--2020-05-05--Hard Talk With Václav Klaus: ‘The People Should Say No to All of It’

As we get deeper into this crisis and we get used to our “ new normal ” , it ’ s easy to focus on the daily corona-horror stories in the media or the latest shocking unemployment numbers , and lose track of the bigger picture and of what is really , fundamentally important .
Even as the lockdown measures begin to get phased out , the scale of the economic damage is unimaginable and the idea of returning to “ business as usual ” is no longer tenable .
The last couple of months have had a severe impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on our societies and geopolitical reality too .
These changes are most likely irreversible and we as citizens and as investors will have to be prepared to deal with this massive shift and all that it entails for a long time .
Amid the panic , the distractions and the hyperbole that are prevalent these days , my own daily task has been an effort to separate the signals from the noise .
In order to do so , I ’ ve also reached out to the few people whose views and insights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have prioritized critical thought and kept their principles intact throughout this crisis .
Straight talk and direct answers are very hard to come by these days from most Western leaders and institutional figures , this is why I turned to Former President of the Czech Republic , Prof. Ing .
Václav Klaus , who has long been a voice of reason and whose unique perspective is even more important now .
In the interview that follows , he shares his views on the current crisis and on what ’ s to come , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a directness that is as rare and as it is essential in times like these .
Machiavelli : The Art o ... Boucheron , Patrick Best Price : $ 6.19 Buy New $ 5.99 Claudio Grass ( CG ) : The magnitude and the global scale of the lockdown and shutdown measures we ’ ve seen during this corona-crisis are unprecedented .
How do you evaluate the response compared to the threat itself ?
Do you believe it is justified ?
Václav Klaus ( VK ) : I don ‘ t pretend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but my background in economics and statistics tells me that the threat is smaller than the consequences „ organized “ by governments all over the world as a reaction to this pandemic .
I would add unnecessary consequences .
The authorities reacted in an exorbitant way , in a moment of fear .
This is partly the result of the current „ online democracy “ .
CG : The “ emergency measures ” and the restrictions that have been imposed on civilians ’ basic rights have served as a reminder of the true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Do you find this worrying and do you see a risk that these new , extraordinary powers might not be as easy to roll back once the crisis is over ?
VK : The restrictions on basic civil rights that were introduced so swiftly and so easily demonstrate the power of the modern state , with all its new , “ smart “ technologies and drastically expanded enforcement capabilities .
Economists often talk about the so-called “ ratchet effect ” , or the limited ability of existing processes and dynamics to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a specific event has radically altered them .
It is true of prices , of productivity and it is also true of social and political systems .
Therefore , I am afraid it will be very difficult , if not impossible , to return to the pre-corona days .
CG : On an economic level , what is your assessment of the impact of the shutdown measures ?
VK : Most , if not all , of the circulating quantitative estimates and forecasts , are wrong .
The “ experts ” should first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last and when the economic shutdown will be fully lifted .
Their economic forecasts depend on the length of the quarantine period .
They should announce explicitly when they plan to end it .
Until this is established and known , the current forecasts are economically meaningless .
The Culture Of Fear : W ... Glassner , Barry Best Price : $ 1.92 Buy New $ 25.00 CG : The monetary and fiscal interventions that we ’ ve seen so far are as extreme and as shocking as the shutdown policies themselves .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to keep the economy afloat though , or is a deep and long recession simply inevitable ?
VK : The monetary and fiscal measures – unacceptable for the true democrats – may have positive short-term effects , but they will destabilize the economy and public finances for a very long period of time .
They could lead to very high inflation .
CG : Trillions upon trillions are being injected into the system , while wild ideas like the Universal Basic Income have become mainstream .
Apart from the obvious monetary and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you also foresee political and social implications ?
VK : Those of us in the ex-communist countries were used to living in a world of something like “ Universal Basic Income ” .
We wanted to get rid of communism because of principles like this .
These principles destroyed the motivation to work , which proved to be ruinous .
CG : Within just a few weeks we have witnessed an abrupt and absolute turn towards centralization .
The free market has been brought to its knees , individual voluntary exchanges , productivity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to create were all suspended and replaced with central planning .
Do you think this approach has any chance of being sustainable ?
VK : I would not call it “ central planning ” yet .
I prefer Walter Eucken ’ s term ( used for the description of the German economy in Hitler ’ s time ) , “ centrally administrated economy ” .
It is not planning in its original meaning .
It is the very heavy and visible hand of the government at work , instead of the “ invisible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Itself : The Cause ... Gordon , Ann Best Price : $ 23.69 Buy New $ 16.90 CG : The corona-crisis has also had some very serious geopolitical ramifications , especially vis-à-vis China .
What are the main changes that you expect to see going forward in this arena ?
VK : We shouldn ’ t use this situation for the introduction of new dangerous foreign relations policies and to strengthen the demonization of countries such as China and Russia .
To my great regret , however , we see this is already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future of the EU ?
Do you think this crisis has further weakened it and what is your outlook for the bloc ?
VK : The EU will – unfortunately , in my view – survive the corona-crisis .
Its exponents will use it to further weaken nation-states .
They are on the defensive now , but they will reemerge again in full strength very soon .
I wish I ’ ll be proven wrong , but I do believe they ’ ll use this crisis to their advantage and I fear they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Citizens , investors and savers everywhere are justifiably scared , if not of the virus itself then certainly of financial ruin .
In your view , what can we do to take back at least some control of our own future ?
VK : It ’ s quite simple .
The people should say “ NO ” to all of it .
Otherwise , what lies ahead is a real-life approximation of the dystopian “ Brave New World ” of Aldous Huxley .
This article has been published in the Newsroom of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company in Europe with an independent subsidiary in Switzerland .
The Best of Claudio Grass

As we get deeper into this crisis and we get used to our “new normal”, it’s easy to focus on the daily corona-horror stories in the media or the latest shocking unemployment numbers, and lose track of the bigger picture and of what is really, fundamentally important. Even as the lockdown measures begin to get phased out, the scale of the economic damage is unimaginable and the idea of returning to “business as usual” is no longer tenable. The last couple of months have had a severe impact not just on the economy, but on our societies and geopolitical reality too. These changes are most likely irreversible and we as citizens and as investors will have to be prepared to deal with this massive shift and all that it entails for a long time.
Amid the panic, the distractions and the hyperbole that are prevalent these days, my own daily task has been an effort to separate the signals from the noise. In order to do so, I’ve also reached out to the few people whose views and insights I have long found invaluable and who have prioritized critical thought and kept their principles intact throughout this crisis. Straight talk and direct answers are very hard to come by these days from most Western leaders and institutional figures, this is why I turned to Former President of the Czech Republic, Prof. Ing. Václav Klaus, who has long been a voice of reason and whose unique perspective is even more important now. In the interview that follows, he shares his views on the current crisis and on what’s to come, in a succinct and resolute way and with a directness that is as rare and as it is essential in times like these. Machiavelli: The Art o... Boucheron, Patrick Best Price: $6.19 Buy New $5.99 (as of 03:30 UTC - Details)
Claudio Grass (CG): The magnitude and the global scale of the lockdown and shutdown measures we’ve seen during this corona-crisis are unprecedented. How do you evaluate the response compared to the threat itself? Do you believe it is justified?
Václav Klaus (VK): I don‘t pretend to be an expert in epidemiology, but my background in economics and statistics tells me that the threat is smaller than the consequences „organized“ by governments all over the world as a reaction to this pandemic. I would add unnecessary consequences. The authorities reacted in an exorbitant way, in a moment of fear. This is partly the result of the current „online democracy“.
CG: The “emergency measures” and the restrictions that have been imposed on civilians’ basic rights have served as a reminder of the true extent of the state’s powers. Do you find this worrying and do you see a risk that these new, extraordinary powers might not be as easy to roll back once the crisis is over?
VK: The restrictions on basic civil rights that were introduced so swiftly and so easily demonstrate the power of the modern state, with all its new, “smart“ technologies and drastically expanded enforcement capabilities. Economists often talk about the so-called “ratchet effect”, or the limited ability of existing processes and dynamics to be reversed and to return to normal once a specific event has radically altered them. It is true of prices, of productivity and it is also true of social and political systems. Therefore, I am afraid it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to return to the pre-corona days.
CG: On an economic level, what is your assessment of the impact of the shutdown measures?
VK: Most, if not all, of the circulating quantitative estimates and forecasts, are wrong. The “experts” should first say how long the quarantine restrictions will last and when the economic shutdown will be fully lifted. Their economic forecasts depend on the length of the quarantine period. They should announce explicitly when they plan to end it. Until this is established and known, the current forecasts are economically meaningless. The Culture Of Fear: W... Glassner, Barry Best Price: $1.92 Buy New $25.00 (as of 04:07 UTC - Details)
CG: The monetary and fiscal interventions that we’ve seen so far are as extreme and as shocking as the shutdown policies themselves. Do you think they’ll be enough to keep the economy afloat though, or is a deep and long recession simply inevitable?
VK: The monetary and fiscal measures – unacceptable for the true democrats – may have positive short-term effects, but they will destabilize the economy and public finances for a very long period of time. They could lead to very high inflation.
CG: Trillions upon trillions are being injected into the system, while wild ideas like the Universal Basic Income have become mainstream. Apart from the obvious monetary and economic risks of these policies, do you also foresee political and social implications?
VK: Those of us in the ex-communist countries were used to living in a world of something like “Universal Basic Income”. We wanted to get rid of communism because of principles like this. These principles destroyed the motivation to work, which proved to be ruinous.
CG: Within just a few weeks we have witnessed an abrupt and absolute turn towards centralization. The free market has been brought to its knees, individual voluntary exchanges, productivity and the very right to work and to create were all suspended and replaced with central planning. Do you think this approach has any chance of being sustainable?
VK: I would not call it “central planning” yet. I prefer Walter Eucken’s term (used for the description of the German economy in Hitler’s time), “centrally administrated economy”. It is not planning in its original meaning. It is the very heavy and visible hand of the government at work, instead of the “invisible hand” of the market. Fear Itself: The Cause... Gordon, Ann Best Price: $23.69 Buy New $16.90 (as of 04:13 UTC - Details)
CG: The corona-crisis has also had some very serious geopolitical ramifications, especially vis-à-vis China. What are the main changes that you expect to see going forward in this arena?
VK: We shouldn’t use this situation for the introduction of new dangerous foreign relations policies and to strengthen the demonization of countries such as China and Russia. To my great regret, however, we see this is already happening.
CG: What about the future of the EU? Do you think this crisis has further weakened it and what is your outlook for the bloc?
VK: The EU will – unfortunately, in my view – survive the corona-crisis. Its exponents will use it to further weaken nation-states. They are on the defensive now, but they will reemerge again in full strength very soon. I wish I’ll be proven wrong, but I do believe they’ll use this crisis to their advantage and I fear they’ll do so successfully.
CG: Citizens, investors and savers everywhere are justifiably scared, if not of the virus itself then certainly of financial ruin. In your view, what can we do to take back at least some control of our own future?
VK: It’s quite simple. The people should say “NO” to all of it. Otherwise, what lies ahead is a real-life approximation of the dystopian “Brave New World” of Aldous Huxley.
This article has been published in the Newsroom of pro aurum, the leading precious metals company in Europe with an independent subsidiary in Switzerland.
The Best of Claudio Grass


lewrockwell--2020-05-05--Professor Neil Ferguson, and the Idiot Presidents and Prime Ministers Who Believe His Computer Predi

Professor Neil Ferguson, and the Idiot Presidents and Prime Ministers Who Believe His Computer Predictions

Buying , for the moment , the official story about the “ pandemic , ” there were two basic choices : Let people go about their lives and develop , through contact , natural immunity to the disease ; or imprison populations in their homes .
Why was the second choice made ?
This is my second article about Neil Ferguson ( first article , here ) , the UK professor whose computer model of COVID-19 changed the world and drove that second choice .
Ferguson ’ s model predicted a worst-case estimate of 510,000 deaths in the UK , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At that point , anybody who was anybody stood up and saluted .
Pandemics : A Brief His ... Press , University Buy New $ 12.49 Both heads of government , Trump and Johnson , radically changed course .
Instead of allowing people to go about their lives and develop natural immunity , they took the lockdown approach , devastating their economies .
Below , I ’ ll reprint quotes from my first article , exposing Professor Ferguson ’ s track record of abysmal and destructive failures in predicting the spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone—including Trump , Fauci , Deborah Birx , Boris Johnson—but of course these important people have no time to read or think .
Apparently , a key White house conversation went something like this : FAUCI : Mr. President , we have a new report from the UK .
A computer model is predicting the spread of the epidemic .
There could be 2 million deaths in the US , if we don ’ t take drastic action .
There must be heavy lockdowns .
The state governors will have to carry that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs to be unequivocal .
FAUCI : Yes , sir .
Quite sure .
TRUMP : No way out ?
Except lockdowns ?
TRUMP : Well , then .
Okay .
The sheer brilliance in the Oval Office that day must have been blinding .
Narrative Economics : H ... Shiller , Robert J .
Buy New $ 19.95 So , first up , let ’ s take a peek at a recent article from Nature , the venerable British medical journal .
April 2 , “ Special report : The [ computer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to COVID-19 ” : “ …it ’ s natural to wonder how reliable any of the [ computer ] simulations are .
Unfortunately , during a pandemic it is hard to get data — such as on infection rates — against which to judge a model ’ s projections.
” This is called a clue .
Computer models predicting the spread of disease may be an interesting academic exercise , but in the real world , where lives and nations are on the line , THE DATA , on which the projections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurate data , what do you have ?
How about opinion , bias , and conjecture ?
Nature : “ ’ You can project [ via computer models ] forwards and then compare against what you get .
But the problem is that our surveillance systems are pretty rubbish ’ , says John Edmunds , who is a modeller at the LSHTM [ London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ] .
‘ The total numbers of cases reported , is that accurate ?
No .
Accurate anywhere ?
No ’ .
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cases—inaccurate everywhere .
Bad data .
No data .
In other words , the computer models are sophisticated tripe .
Nature : “ ’ Forecasts made during an outbreak are rarely investigated during or after the event for their accuracy , and only recently have forecasters begun to make results , code , models and data available for retrospective analysis , ’ Edmunds and his team noted last year in a paper that assessed the performance of forecasts made in a 2014–15 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone .
They found that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s course one or two weeks ahead of time , but no longer , because of the inherent uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the outbreak.
” Computer predictions are rarely investigated for accuracy .
Can ’ t make accurate predictions for more than two weeks ahead .
Do you suppose Fauci , who has served as a public health dictator since medieval times , is aware of this , but is ignoring it ?
That ’ s a rhetorical question , Your Honor .
I withdraw it .
The answer is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with this startling factoid : “ The 16 March simulations that the [ Neil Ferguson ] team ran to inform the UK government ’ s COVID-19 response used an agent-based model built in 2005 to see what would happen in Thailand if H5N1 avian flu mutated to a version that could spread easily between people.
” That ’ s like saying , “ This year , the driver in the Indianapolis 500 is sitting in a car built 15 years ago .
He ’ s dusted it off and hopes it works and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The Prepperu2019s Blue ... Tess Pennington Best Price : $ 11.98 Buy New $ 18.98 You may think this is an unkind comparison , but we know something about that dusty Ferguson 2005 computer model of avian flu .
Here is a quote from the Business insider , 4/25 : “ …he [ Ferguson ] was accused of creating panic by overestimating the potential death toll during the 2005 Bird [ avian ] Flu outbreak .
Ferguson estimated 200 million could die .
The real number was in the low hundreds.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now used to project deaths from COVID-19 .
Are your eyeballs popping ?
They should be .
Without further ado , here is the Business Insider , 4/25 , reporting Neil Ferguson ’ s other grotesque prediction failures : “ Michael Thrusfield , a professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University , told the paper he had ‘ déjà vu ’ after reading the [ Ferguson ] Imperial paper [ on COVID ] , saying Ferguson was responsible for excessive animal culling during the 2001 Foot and Mouth [ actually , Mad Cow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government that 150,000 people could die .
Six million animals were slaughtered as a precaution , costing the country billions in farming revenue .
In the end , 200 people died.
” “ In 2009 , one of Ferguson ’ s models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK — the final figure was below 500.
” Want more ?
The Business Insider raises the level of shock even higher .
“ Ferguson co-founded the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis , based at Imperial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is the leading body advising national governments on pathogen outbreaks.
” “ It gets tens of millions of dollars in annual funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation , and works with the UK National Health Service , the US Centres for Disease Prevention and Control ( CDC ) , and is tasked with supplying the World Health Organization with ‘ rapid analysis of urgent infectious disease problems ’ .
” Bill Gates wants a COVID vaccine before planetary lockdowns end .
The lockdowns , of course , are already making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economies .
Ferguson supplies , to the CDC and WHO , a vastly worthless but frightening computer projection of COVID deaths .
Ferguson thus communicates a justification for the Gates global vaccine plan .
The CDC and WHO act , based on what Gates wants , as expressed by Ferguson .
National governments surrender to WHO and CDC .
LOCKDOWNS .
What say you , Trump , Johnson , Merkel , Macron , et al ?
Are you merely clueless idiots , no brighter than some passerby on a street corner who ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and joins the line , having zero idea what he ’ s supporting ?
Are you that stupid , as you point to Ferguson ’ s farce of a computer model , with eyes glazed ?
Are you simply in fear of experts who , on their best day , should be consigned to modelling numbers of cockroaches in motel rooms ?
Or are you hostile idiots , who intend to destroy countless lives as economics sink further into ruin , day by day ?
P.S .
Perhaps you ’ re thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be THAT crazy and stupid and vicious .
They couldn ’ t have acted based on Neil Ferguson ’ s computer model… ” Business Insider , 4/25 : “ Ferguson ’ s team warned Boris Johnson that the quest for ‘ herd immunity ’ [ letting people live their lives out in the open in the UK ] could cost 510,000 lives , prompting an abrupt U-turn [ massive national lockdown in the UK ] …His [ Ferguson ’ s ] simulations have been influential in other countries as well , cited by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and France.
” “ On March 23 , the UK scrapped ‘ herd immunity ’ in favor of a suppression strategy , and the country made preparations for weeks of lockdown .
Ferguson ’ s study was responsible.
” “ Dr Deborah Birx , coronavirus response coordinator to the Trump administration , told journalists at a March 16 press briefing that the Imperial paper [ Ferguson ’ s computer projection ] prompted the CDC ’ s new advice to work from home and avoid gatherings of 10 or more.
” The Best of @ @

Buying, for the moment, the official story about the “pandemic,” there were two basic choices:
Let people go about their lives and develop, through contact, natural immunity to the disease; or imprison populations in their homes.
Why was the second choice made?
This is my second article about Neil Ferguson (first article, here), the UK professor whose computer model of COVID-19 changed the world and drove that second choice.
Ferguson’s model predicted a worst-case estimate of 510,000 deaths in the UK, and 2.2 million deaths in the US.
At that point, anybody who was anybody stood up and saluted. Pandemics: A Brief His... Press, University Buy New $12.49 (as of 03:05 UTC - Details)
Both heads of government, Trump and Johnson, radically changed course. Instead of allowing people to go about their lives and develop natural immunity, they took the lockdown approach, devastating their economies.
Below, I’ll reprint quotes from my first article, exposing Professor Ferguson’s track record of abysmal and destructive failures in predicting the spread of diseases.
This record was available to anyone—including Trump, Fauci, Deborah Birx, Boris Johnson—but of course these important people have no time to read or think.
Apparently, a key White house conversation went something like this:
FAUCI: Mr. President, we have a new report from the UK. A computer model is predicting the spread of the epidemic. There could be 2 million deaths in the US, if we don’t take drastic action. There must be heavy lockdowns. The state governors will have to carry that ball, but your position on this needs to be unequivocal.
TRUMP: Two million deaths. You’re sure?
FAUCI: Yes, sir. Quite sure.
TRUMP: No way out? Except lockdowns?
FAUCI: That’s right.
TRUMP: Well, then. Okay.
The sheer brilliance in the Oval Office that day must have been blinding.
Narrative Economics: H... Shiller, Robert J. Buy New $19.95 (as of 03:05 UTC - Details) So, first up, let’s take a peek at a recent article from Nature, the venerable British medical journal. April 2, “Special report: The [computer] simulations driving the world’s response to COVID-19”:
“…it’s natural to wonder how reliable any of the [computer] simulations are. Unfortunately, during a pandemic it is hard to get data — such as on infection rates — against which to judge a model’s projections.”
This is called a clue. Computer models predicting the spread of disease may be an interesting academic exercise, but in the real world, where lives and nations are on the line, THE DATA, on which the projections are based, are elusive. Without accurate data, what do you have? How about opinion, bias, and conjecture?
Nature: “’You can project [via computer models] forwards and then compare against what you get. But the problem is that our surveillance systems are pretty rubbish’, says John Edmunds, who is a modeller at the LSHTM [London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine]. ‘The total numbers of cases reported, is that accurate? No. Accurate anywhere? No’.”
I see. Rubbish. Total number of cases—inaccurate everywhere. Bad data. No data. In other words, the computer models are sophisticated tripe.
Nature: “’Forecasts made during an outbreak are rarely investigated during or after the event for their accuracy, and only recently have forecasters begun to make results, code, models and data available for retrospective analysis,’ Edmunds and his team noted last year in a paper that assessed the performance of forecasts made in a 2014–15 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone. They found that it was possible to reliably predict the epidemic’s course one or two weeks ahead of time, but no longer, because of the inherent uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the outbreak.”
Computer predictions are rarely investigated for accuracy. Can’t make accurate predictions for more than two weeks ahead. Do you suppose Fauci, who has served as a public health dictator since medieval times, is aware of this, but is ignoring it? That’s a rhetorical question, Your Honor. I withdraw it. The answer is obvious.
Finally, Nature provides us with this startling factoid: “The 16 March simulations that the [Neil Ferguson] team ran to inform the UK government’s COVID-19 response used an agent-based model built in 2005 to see what would happen in Thailand if H5N1 avian flu mutated to a version that could spread easily between people.”
That’s like saying, “This year, the driver in the Indianapolis 500 is sitting in a car built 15 years ago. He’s dusted it off and hopes it works and doesn’t crash into the wall.” The Prepperu2019s Blue... Tess Pennington Best Price: $11.98 Buy New $18.98 (as of 02:20 UTC - Details)
You may think this is an unkind comparison, but we know something about that dusty Ferguson 2005 computer model of avian flu. Here is a quote from the Business insider, 4/25:
“…he [Ferguson] was accused of creating panic by overestimating the potential death toll during the 2005 Bird [avian] Flu outbreak. Ferguson estimated 200 million could die. The real number was in the low hundreds.”
THIS is the basic model Ferguson has now used to project deaths from COVID-19.
Are your eyeballs popping? They should be.
Without further ado, here is the Business Insider, 4/25, reporting Neil Ferguson’s other grotesque prediction failures:
“Michael Thrusfield, a professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, told the paper he had ‘déjà vu’ after reading the [Ferguson] Imperial paper [on COVID], saying Ferguson was responsible for excessive animal culling during the 2001 Foot and Mouth [actually, Mad Cow disease] outbreak.”
“Ferguson warned the government that 150,000 people could die. Six million animals were slaughtered as a precaution, costing the country billions in farming revenue. In the end, 200 people died.”
“In 2009, one of Ferguson’s models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK — the final figure was below 500.”
Want more? The Business Insider raises the level of shock even higher.
“Ferguson co-founded the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, based at Imperial [College], in 2008. It is the leading body advising national governments on pathogen outbreaks.”
“It gets tens of millions of dollars in annual funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and works with the UK National Health Service, the US Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC), and is tasked with supplying the World Health Organization with ‘rapid analysis of urgent infectious disease problems’.”
Getting the picture?
Bill Gates wants a COVID vaccine before planetary lockdowns end. The lockdowns, of course, are already making a wreck of the Earth’s economies.
Bill Gates’ money goes to Ferguson.
Ferguson supplies, to the CDC and WHO, a vastly worthless but frightening computer projection of COVID deaths. Ferguson thus communicates a justification for the Gates global vaccine plan.
The CDC and WHO act, based on what Gates wants, as expressed by Ferguson.
National governments surrender to WHO and CDC. LOCKDOWNS.
What say you, Trump, Johnson, Merkel, Macron, et al? Are you merely clueless idiots, no brighter than some passerby on a street corner who’s handed a sign for a protest, and joins the line, having zero idea what he’s supporting? Are you that stupid, as you point to Ferguson’s farce of a computer model, with eyes glazed?
Are you simply in fear of experts who, on their best day, should be consigned to modelling numbers of cockroaches in motel rooms?
Or are you hostile idiots, who intend to destroy countless lives as economics sink further into ruin, day by day?
P.S. Perhaps you’re thinking, “These governments couldn’t be THAT crazy and stupid and vicious. They couldn’t have acted based on Neil Ferguson’s computer model…”
Business Insider, 4/25: “Ferguson’s team warned Boris Johnson that the quest for ‘herd immunity’ [letting people live their lives out in the open in the UK] could cost 510,000 lives, prompting an abrupt U-turn [massive national lockdown in the UK]…His [Ferguson’s] simulations have been influential in other countries as well, cited by authorities in the US, Germany, and France.”
“On March 23, the UK scrapped ‘herd immunity’ in favor of a suppression strategy, and the country made preparations for weeks of lockdown. Ferguson’s study was responsible.”
“Dr Deborah Birx, coronavirus response coordinator to the Trump administration, told journalists at a March 16 press briefing that the Imperial paper [Ferguson’s computer projection] prompted the CDC’s new advice to work from home and avoid gatherings of 10 or more.”
Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.
The Best of Jon Rappoport


lewrockwell--2020-05-05--Beware the Pentagon’s Pandemic Profiteers

At this moment of unprecedented crisis , you might think that those not overcome by the economic and mortal consequences of the coronavirus would be asking , “ What can we do to help ?
” A few companies have indeed pivoted to making masks and ventilators for an overwhelmed medical establishment .
Unfortunately , when it comes to the top officials of the Pentagon and the CEOs running a large part of the arms industry , examples abound of them asking what they can do to help themselves .
It ’ s important to grasp just how staggeringly well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last nearly 19 years since 9/11 .
Its companies ( filled with ex-military and defense officials ) have received trillions of dollars in government contracts , which they ’ ve largely used to feather their own nests .
Data compiled by the New York Times showed that the chief executive officers of the top five military-industrial contractors received nearly $ 90 million in compensation in 2017 .
An investigation that same year by the Providence Journal discovered that , from 2005 to the first half of 2017 , the top five defense contractors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own company stocks and so boosting their value at the expense of new investment .
Mueller 64179 Adjustab ... Best Price : $ 25.36 Buy New $ 27.57 To put this in perspective in the midst of a pandemic , the co-directors of the Costs of War Project at Brown University recently pointed out that allocations for the Food and Drug Administration , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , and the National Institutes of Health for 2020 amounted to less than 1 % of what the U.S. government has spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone since 9/11 .
While just about every imaginable government agency and industry has been impacted by the still-spreading coronavirus , the role of the defense industry and the military in responding to it has , in truth , been limited indeed .
The highly publicized use of military hospital ships in New York City and Los Angeles , for example , not only had relatively little impact on the crises in those cities but came to serve as a symbol of just how dysfunctional the military response has truly been .
Bailing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moment Demands to use the Defense Production Act to direct firms to produce equipment needed to combat Covid-19 have sputtered , provoking strong resistance from industries worried first and foremost about their own profits .
Even conservative Washington Post columnist Max Boot , a longtime supporter of increased Pentagon spending , has recently recanted , noting how just such budget priorities have weakened the ability of the United States to keep Americans safe from the virus .
“ It never made any sense , as Trump ’ s 2021 budget had initially proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by $ 7 billion while cutting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding by $ 1.2 billion , ” he wrote .
“ Or to create an unnecessary Space Force out of the U.S. Air Force while eliminating the vitally important directorate of global health by folding it into another office within the National Security Council.
” In fact , continuing to prioritize the U.S. military will only further weaken the country ’ s public health system .
As a start , simply to call up doctors and nurses in the military reserves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Esper has pointed out , would hurt the broader civilian response to the pandemic .
After all , in their civilian lives many of them now work at domestic hospitals and medical centers deluged by Covid-19 patients .
The present situation , however , hasn ’ t stopped military-industrial complex requests for bailouts .
The National Defense Industrial Association , a trade group for the arms industry , typically asked the Pentagon to speed up contracts and awards for $ 160 billion in unobligated Department of Defense funds to its companies , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without even the most modest level of due diligence .
Lumbar Support , Back S ... Buy New $ 34.99 Already under fire in the pre-pandemic moment for grotesque safety problems with its commercial jets , Boeing , the Pentagon ’ s second biggest contractor , received $ 26.3 billion last year .
Now , that company has asked for $ 60 billion in government support .
And you undoubtedly won ’ t be surprised to learn that Congress has already provided Boeing with some of that desired money in its recent bailout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , $ 17 billion was carved out in that deal for companies “ critical to maintaining national security ” ( with Boeing in particular in mind ) .
When , however , it became clear that those funds wouldn ’ t arrive as a complete blank check , the company started to have second thoughts .
Now , some members of Congress are practically begging it to take the money .
And Boeing was far from alone .
Even as the spreading coronavirus was spurring congressional conversations about what would become a $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the House were already pleading for funds to purchase an additional 98 Lockheed Martin F-35 jet fighters , the most expensive weapons system in history , at the cost of another half-billion dollars , or the price of more than 90,000 ventilators .
Similarly , it should have been absurdly obvious that this wasn ’ t the moment to boost already astronomical spending on nuclear weapons .
Yet this year ’ s defense budget request for such weaponry was 20 % higher than last year ’ s and 50 % above funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The agency that builds nuclear weapons already had $ 8 billion left unspent from past years and the head of the National Nuclear Security Agency , responsible for the development of nuclear warheads , admitted to Representative Susan Davis ( D-CA ) that the agency was unlikely even to be able to spend all of the new increase .
Boosters of such weapons , however , remain undeterred by the Covid-19 pandemic .
If anything , the crisis only seems to have provided a further excuse to accelerate the awarding of an estimated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles ( ICBMs ) , considered the “ broken leg ” of America ’ s nuclear triad .
As William Hartung , the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy , has pointed out , such ICBMs “ are redundant because invulnerable submarine-launched ballistic missiles are sufficient for deterring other countries from attacking the United States .
They are dangerous because they operate on hair-trigger alert , with launch decisions needing to be made in some cases within minutes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear war.
” Mueller 64179 Adjustab ... Best Price : $ 25.36 Buy New $ 27.57 And as children ’ s book author Dr. Seuss might have added , “ But that is not all !
Oh , no , that is not all.
” In fact , defense giant Raytheon is also getting its piece of the pie in the Covid-19 moment for a $ 20- $ 30 billion Long Range Standoff Weapon , a similarly redundant nuclear-armed missile .
It tells you everything you need to know about funding priorities now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , getting that money two years ahead of schedule .
In the midst of the spreading pandemic , the U.S. military ’ s Indo-Pacific Command similarly saw an opportunity to use fear-mongering about China , a country officially in its area of responsibility , to gain additional funding .
And so it is seeking $ 20 billion that previously hadn ’ t gained approval even from the secretary of defense in the administration ’ s fiscal year 2021 budget proposal .
That money would go to dubious missile defense systems and a similarly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not to Deal With Covid-19 Along with those military-industrial bailouts came the fleecing of American taxpayers .
While many Americans were anxiously awaiting their $ 1,200 payments from that congressional aid and relief package , the Department of Defense was expediting contract payments to the arms industry .
Shay Assad , a former senior Pentagon official , accurately called it a “ taxpayer rip-off ” that industries with so many resources , not to speak of the ability to borrow money at incredibly low interest rates , were being so richly and quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giants such funding at this moment was like giving a housing contractor 90 % of upfront costs for renovations when it was unclear whether you could even afford your next mortgage payment .
Right now , the defense industry is having similar success in persuading the Pentagon that basic accountability should be tossed out the window .
Even in normal times , it ’ s a reasonably rare event for the federal government to withhold money from a giant weapons maker unless its performance is truly egregious .
Boeing , however , continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endless program to build the KC-46 Pegasus tanker , basically a “ flying gas station ” meant to refuel other planes in mid-air .
Laptop Bed Tray Desk , ... Buy New $ 97.99 As national security analyst Mark Thompson , my colleague at the Project on Government Oversight ( POGO ) , has pointed out , even after years of development , that tanker has little hope of performing its mission in the near future .
The seven cameras that its pilot relies on to guide the KC-46 ’ s fuel to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many shadows that the possibility of disastrously scraping the stealth coating off F-22s and F-35s ( both manufactured by Lockheed Martin ) while refueling remains a constant danger .
The Air Force has also become increasingly concerned that the tanker itself leaks fuel .
In the pre-pandemic moment , such problems and associated ones led that service to decide to withhold $ 882 million from Boeing .
Now , however , in response to the Covid-19 crisis , those funds are , believe it or not , being released .
Keep all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in mind when you hear people suggest that , in this public health emergency , the military should be put in charge .
After all , you ’ re talking about the very institution that has regularly mismanaged massive weapons programs like the $ 1.4 trillion F-35 jet fighter program , already the most expensive weapons system ever ( with ongoing problems galore ) .
Even when it comes to health care , the military has proved remarkably inept .
For instance , attempts of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were , infamously enough , abandoned after four years and $ 1 billion spent .
Having someone in uniform at the podium is , unfortunately , no guarantee of success .
Indeed , a number of veterans have been quick to rebuke the idea of forefronting the military at this time .
“ Don ’ t put the military in charge of anything that doesn ’ t involve blowing stuff up , preventing stuff from being blown up , or showing up at a place as a message to others that we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with you if need be , ” one wrote .
“ Here ’ s a video from Camp Pendleton of unmasked Marines queued up for haircuts during the pandemic , ” tweeted another .
“ So how about ‘ no ’ ?
” That video of troops without masks or practicing social distancing even shocked Secretary of Defense Esper , who called for a military haircut halt , only to be contradicted by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , desperate to maintain regulation cuts in the pandemic moment .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heroes ” on Twitter .
Unfortunately , as Covid-19 spread on the aircraft carrier the USS Theodore Roosevelt , that ship became emblematic of how ill-prepared the current Pentagon leadership proved to be in combatting the virus .
Despite at least 100 cases being reported on board — 955 crewmembers would , in the end , test positive for the disease and Chief Petty Officer Charles Robert Thacker Jr. would die of it — senior Navy leaders were slow to respond .
Instead , they kept those sailors at close quarters and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When an emailed letter expressing the concerns of the ship ’ s commander , Captain Brett Crozier , was leaked to the press he was quickly removed from command .
But while his bosses may not have appreciated his efforts for his crew , his sailors did .
He left the ship to a hero ’ s farewell .
Wallniture Archivo Han ... Buy New $ 12.99 All of this is not to say that some parts of the U.S. military haven ’ t tried to step up as Covid-19 spreads .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contracts to build “ alternate care ” facilities to help relieve pressure on hospitals .
The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences is allowing its doctors and nurses to join the military early .
Several months into this crisis , the Pentagon has finally used the Defense Production Act to launch a process to produce $ 133 million worth of crucial N95 respirator masks and $ 415 million worth of N95 critical-care decontamination units .
But these are modest acts in the midst of a pandemic and at a moment when bailouts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the military-industrial complex hasn ’ t proved capable of delivering effectively , even for its own troops .
Meanwhile , the Beltway bandits that make up that complex have spotted a remarkable opportunity to secure many of their hopes and dreams .
Their success in putting their desires and their profits ahead of the true national security of Americans was already clear enough in the staggering pre-pandemic $ 1.2 trillion national security budget .
( Meanwhile , of course , key federal medical structures were underfunded or disbanded in the Trump administration years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country . )
That kind of disproportionate spending helps explain why the richest nation on the planet has proven so incapable of providing even the necessary personal protective equipment for frontline healthcare workers , no less the testing needed to make this country safer .
The defense industry has asked for , and received , a lot in this time of soaring cases of disease and death .
While there is undoubtedly a role for the giant weapons makers and for the Pentagon to play in this crisis , they have shown themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the response to this moment .
It ’ s time for the military-industrial complex to truly pay back an American public that has been beyond generous to it .
Isn ’ t it finally time as well to reduce the “ defense ” budget and put more of our resources into the real national security crisis at hand ?

At this moment of unprecedented crisis, you might think that those not overcome by the economic and mortal consequences of the coronavirus would be asking, “What can we do to help?” A few companies have indeed pivoted to making masks and ventilators for an overwhelmed medical establishment. Unfortunately, when it comes to the top officials of the Pentagon and the CEOs running a large part of the arms industry, examples abound of them asking what they can do to help themselves.
It’s important to grasp just how staggeringly well the defense industry has done in these last nearly 19 years since 9/11. Its companies (filled with ex-military and defense officials) have received trillions of dollars in government contracts, which they’ve largely used to feather their own nests. Data compiled by the New York Times showed that the chief executive officers of the top five military-industrial contractors received nearly $90 million in compensation in 2017. An investigation that same year by the Providence Journal discovered that, from 2005 to the first half of 2017, the top five defense contractors spent more than $114 billion repurchasing their own company stocks and so boosting their value at the expense of new investment.
Mueller 64179 Adjustab... Best Price: $25.36 Buy New $27.57 (as of 03:14 UTC - Details) To put this in perspective in the midst of a pandemic, the co-directors of the Costs of War Project at Brown University recently pointed out that allocations for the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health for 2020 amounted to less than 1% of what the U.S. government has spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone since 9/11. While just about every imaginable government agency and industry has been impacted by the still-spreading coronavirus, the role of the defense industry and the military in responding to it has, in truth, been limited indeed. The highly publicized use of military hospital ships in New York City and Los Angeles, for example, not only had relatively little impact on the crises in those cities but came to serve as a symbol of just how dysfunctional the military response has truly been.
Bailing Out the Military-Industrial Complex in the Covid-19 Moment
Demands to use the Defense Production Act to direct firms to produce equipment needed to combat Covid-19 have sputtered, provoking strong resistance from industries worried first and foremost about their own profits. Even conservative Washington Post columnist Max Boot, a longtime supporter of increased Pentagon spending, has recently recanted, noting how just such budget priorities have weakened the ability of the United States to keep Americans safe from the virus. “It never made any sense, as Trump’s 2021 budget had initially proposed, to increase spending on nuclear weapons by $7 billion while cutting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding by $1.2 billion,” he wrote. “Or to create an unnecessary Space Force out of the U.S. Air Force while eliminating the vitally important directorate of global health by folding it into another office within the National Security Council.”
In fact, continuing to prioritize the U.S. military will only further weaken the country’s public health system. As a start, simply to call up doctors and nurses in the military reserves, as even Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has pointed out, would hurt the broader civilian response to the pandemic. After all, in their civilian lives many of them now work at domestic hospitals and medical centers deluged by Covid-19 patients.
The present situation, however, hasn’t stopped military-industrial complex requests for bailouts. The National Defense Industrial Association, a trade group for the arms industry, typically asked the Pentagon to speed up contracts and awards for $160 billion in unobligated Department of Defense funds to its companies, which will involve pushing money out the door without even the most modest level of due diligence. Lumbar Support, Back S... Buy New $34.99 (as of 03:14 UTC - Details)
Already under fire in the pre-pandemic moment for grotesque safety problems with its commercial jets, Boeing, the Pentagon’s second biggest contractor, received $26.3 billion last year. Now, that company has asked for $60 billion in government support. And you undoubtedly won’t be surprised to learn that Congress has already provided Boeing with some of that desired money in its recent bailout legislation. According to the Washington Post, $17 billion was carved out in that deal for companies “critical to maintaining national security” (with Boeing in particular in mind). When, however, it became clear that those funds wouldn’t arrive as a complete blank check, the company started to have second thoughts. Now, some members of Congress are practically begging it to take the money.
And Boeing was far from alone. Even as the spreading coronavirus was spurring congressional conversations about what would become a $2 trillion relief package, 130 members of the House were already pleading for funds to purchase an additional 98 Lockheed Martin F-35 jet fighters, the most expensive weapons system in history, at the cost of another half-billion dollars, or the price of more than 90,000 ventilators.
Similarly, it should have been absurdly obvious that this wasn’t the moment to boost already astronomical spending on nuclear weapons. Yet this year’s defense budget request for such weaponry was 20% higher than last year’s and 50% above funding levels when President Trump took office. The agency that builds nuclear weapons already had $8 billion left unspent from past years and the head of the National Nuclear Security Agency, responsible for the development of nuclear warheads, admitted to Representative Susan Davis (D-CA) that the agency was unlikely even to be able to spend all of the new increase.
Boosters of such weapons, however, remain undeterred by the Covid-19 pandemic. If anything, the crisis only seems to have provided a further excuse to accelerate the awarding of an estimated $85 billion to Northrop Grumman to build a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), considered the “broken leg” of America’s nuclear triad. As William Hartung, the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, has pointed out, such ICBMs “are redundant because invulnerable submarine-launched ballistic missiles are sufficient for deterring other countries from attacking the United States. They are dangerous because they operate on hair-trigger alert, with launch decisions needing to be made in some cases within minutes. This increases the risk of an accidental nuclear war.” Mueller 64179 Adjustab... Best Price: $25.36 Buy New $27.57 (as of 03:14 UTC - Details)
And as children’s book author Dr. Seuss might have added, “But that is not all! Oh, no, that is not all.” In fact, defense giant Raytheon is also getting its piece of the pie in the Covid-19 moment for a $20-$30 billion Long Range Standoff Weapon, a similarly redundant nuclear-armed missile. It tells you everything you need to know about funding priorities now that the company is, in fact, getting that money two years ahead of schedule.
In the midst of the spreading pandemic, the U.S. military’s Indo-Pacific Command similarly saw an opportunity to use fear-mongering about China, a country officially in its area of responsibility, to gain additional funding. And so it is seeking $20 billion that previously hadn’t gained approval even from the secretary of defense in the administration’s fiscal year 2021 budget proposal. That money would go to dubious missile defense systems and a similarly dubious “Pacific Deterrence Initiative.”
How Not to Deal With Covid-19
Along with those military-industrial bailouts came the fleecing of American taxpayers. While many Americans were anxiously awaiting their $1,200 payments from that congressional aid and relief package, the Department of Defense was expediting contract payments to the arms industry. Shay Assad, a former senior Pentagon official, accurately called it a “taxpayer rip-off” that industries with so many resources, not to speak of the ability to borrow money at incredibly low interest rates, were being so richly and quickly rewarded in tough times. Giving defense giants such funding at this moment was like giving a housing contractor 90% of upfront costs for renovations when it was unclear whether you could even afford your next mortgage payment.
Right now, the defense industry is having similar success in persuading the Pentagon that basic accountability should be tossed out the window. Even in normal times, it’s a reasonably rare event for the federal government to withhold money from a giant weapons maker unless its performance is truly egregious. Boeing, however, continues to fit that bill perfectly with its endless program to build the KC-46 Pegasus tanker, basically a “flying gas station” meant to refuel other planes in mid-air.
Laptop Bed Tray Desk, ... Buy New $97.99 (as of 02:51 UTC - Details) As national security analyst Mark Thompson, my colleague at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), has pointed out, even after years of development, that tanker has little hope of performing its mission in the near future. The seven cameras that its pilot relies on to guide the KC-46’s fuel to other planes have so much glare and so many shadows that the possibility of disastrously scraping the stealth coating off F-22s and F-35s (both manufactured by Lockheed Martin) while refueling remains a constant danger. The Air Force has also become increasingly concerned that the tanker itself leaks fuel. In the pre-pandemic moment, such problems and associated ones led that service to decide to withhold $882 million from Boeing. Now, however, in response to the Covid-19 crisis, those funds are, believe it or not, being released.
Keep all of this behavior (and more) in mind when you hear people suggest that, in this public health emergency, the military should be put in charge. After all, you’re talking about the very institution that has regularly mismanaged massive weapons programs like the $1.4 trillion F-35 jet fighter program, already the most expensive weapons system ever (with ongoing problems galore). Even when it comes to health care, the military has proved remarkably inept. For instance, attempts of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense to integrate their health records were, infamously enough, abandoned after four years and $1 billion spent.
Having someone in uniform at the podium is, unfortunately, no guarantee of success. Indeed, a number of veterans have been quick to rebuke the idea of forefronting the military at this time. “Don’t put the military in charge of anything that doesn’t involve blowing stuff up, preventing stuff from being blown up, or showing up at a place as a message to others that we’ll be there to blow stuff up with you if need be,” one wrote.
“Here’s a video from Camp Pendleton of unmasked Marines queued up for haircuts during the pandemic,” tweeted another. “So how about ‘no’?” That video of troops without masks or practicing social distancing even shocked Secretary of Defense Esper, who called for a military haircut halt, only to be contradicted by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, desperate to maintain regulation cuts in the pandemic moment. That inspired a mocking rebuke of “haircut heroes” on Twitter.
Unfortunately, as Covid-19 spread on the aircraft carrier the USS Theodore Roosevelt, that ship became emblematic of how ill-prepared the current Pentagon leadership proved to be in combatting the virus. Despite at least 100 cases being reported on board — 955 crewmembers would, in the end, test positive for the disease and Chief Petty Officer Charles Robert Thacker Jr. would die of it — senior Navy leaders were slow to respond. Instead, they kept those sailors at close quarters and in an untenable situation of increasing risk. When an emailed letter expressing the concerns of the ship’s commander, Captain Brett Crozier, was leaked to the press he was quickly removed from command. But while his bosses may not have appreciated his efforts for his crew, his sailors did. He left the ship to a hero’s farewell. Wallniture Archivo Han... Buy New $12.99 (as of 09:27 UTC - Details)
All of this is not to say that some parts of the U.S. military haven’t tried to step up as Covid-19 spreads. The Pentagon has, for instance, awarded contracts to build “alternate care” facilities to help relieve pressure on hospitals. The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences is allowing its doctors and nurses to join the military early. Several months into this crisis, the Pentagon has finally used the Defense Production Act to launch a process to produce $133 million worth of crucial N95 respirator masks and $415 million worth of N95 critical-care decontamination units. But these are modest acts in the midst of a pandemic and at a moment when bailouts, fraud, and delays suggest that the military-industrial complex hasn’t proved capable of delivering effectively, even for its own troops.
Meanwhile, the Beltway bandits that make up that complex have spotted a remarkable opportunity to secure many of their hopes and dreams. Their success in putting their desires and their profits ahead of the true national security of Americans was already clear enough in the staggering pre-pandemic $1.2 trillion national security budget. (Meanwhile, of course, key federal medical structures were underfunded or disbanded in the Trump administration years, undermining the actual security of the country.) That kind of disproportionate spending helps explain why the richest nation on the planet has proven so incapable of providing even the necessary personal protective equipment for frontline healthcare workers, no less the testing needed to make this country safer.
The defense industry has asked for, and received, a lot in this time of soaring cases of disease and death. While there is undoubtedly a role for the giant weapons makers and for the Pentagon to play in this crisis, they have shown themselves to be anything but effective lead institutions in the response to this moment. It’s time for the military-industrial complex to truly pay back an American public that has been beyond generous to it.
Isn’t it finally time as well to reduce the “defense” budget and put more of our resources into the real national security crisis at hand?
Reprinted with permission from TomDispatch.com.