wearechange--2020-11-11--Deutsche Bank Proposes a 5% “Work From Home” Privilege Tax

At a time when the Fed is already monetizing the entire US budget deficit thanks to helicopter money , sparking conversations about the utility of taxation , and when a Biden administration is set to at least try and roll back most of the Trump tax cuts , the last thing the population wants to hear about is even more taxes .
Yet in a “ modest proposal ” from Deutsche Bank , the bank argues that in a time of pervasive covid shutdowns , “ those who can work from home ( WFH ) receive direct and indirect financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to smooth the transition process for those who have been suddenly displaced.
” In other words , the argument goes that working from an office is somehow punitive , and since WFH during the pandemic leads to “ many benefits ” as a resulting “ disconnecting themselves from face-to-face society ” a 5 % tax for each WFH day “ would leave the average person no worse off than if they worked in the office.
” The bank calculates that such a tax could raise $ 49bn per year in the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the UK .
“ That can fund subsidies for the lowest-paid workers who usually can not work from home.
” In the report written by DB strategist Like Tumpleman , he argues that the popularity of WFH was growing even before the pandemic : “ between 2005 and 2018 , internet technology fuelled a 173 per cent increase in the number of Americans who regularly worked from home .
It is true that the overall proportion of people working from home before the pandemic was still small , at 5.4 per cent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth was still way ahead of the growth in the overall workforce.
” Naturally , the covid shutdowns have turbocharged that growth , and as a result the proportion of Americans who worked from home increased ten-fold to 56 % during the pandemic .
Many of these people will continue to work remotely for some time .
Indeed , two-thirds of organizations say that at least three-quarters of their staff can work from home effectively , according to S & P Global Markets .
Meanwhile , a DB survey shows that , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of people who tried out WFH want to continue it permanently for between two and three days a week .
This sudden shift to WFH means that , for the first time in history , “ a big chunk of people have disconnected themselves from the face-to-face world yet are still leading a full economic life ” as if that is somehow a bad thing .
It gets crazier : the bank claims that working in the comfort of one ’ s own home leads to a slew of financial benefits including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as travel , lunch , clothes , and cleaning .
• indirect savings via forgone socializing and other expenses that would have been incurred had a worker been in the office .
• intangible benefits of working from home , such as greater job security , convenience , and flexibility .
• There is also the benefit of additional safety .
As if it is difficult to find someone who also sits in front of a computer all day long in Bangladesh and has the exact same skillset but would work for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who are working remotely are , according to DB , the equivalent of social parasites as they “ contribute less to the infrastructure of the economy whilst still receiving its benefits ” potentially extending the slump in national growth .
In other words , the mere act of working from home makes you guilty of not propping up the economy !
That , according to Templeman “ is a big problem for the economy as it has taken decades and centuries to build up the wider business and economic infrastructure that supports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of assets lie redundant , the economic malaise will be extended.
” In short , those who failed to develop the appropriate skillset and are “ forced ” to work in society – mostly employees of service companies – and who were unable to refused to educate and train themselves to be able to “ enjoy ” the benefits of work from home jobs which incidentally include sitting in front of a computer for hours on end and in some notable cases masturbating in front of a zoom conference call , have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are lucky enough to not have to work in public .
While it would be easy to laugh and merely brush this idea off as another ridiculous policy proposal from a bank whose very existence would be very much in question had it not been for several rounds of generous taxpayer funded bailouts , since this is yet another grossly socialist proposal we are concerned it has a very high probability of passage not only in Europe but also in the US , especially if Democrats manage to pull of a “ Blue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So far a WFH tax has merely been floated by a handful of Wall Street strategists ; however once this idea gets more popular coverage , expect a groundswell of support for the idea which will promptly lead to yet another tax .
Below we republish the Deutsche Bank note in its entirety because it is clearly a blueprint for what ’ s to come : For years we have needed a tax on remote workers – covid has just made it obvious .
Quite simply , our economic system is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can disconnect themselves from face-to-face society .
Those who can WFH receive direct and indirect financial benefits and they should be taxed in order to smooth the transition process for those who have been suddenly displaced .
The popularity of WFH was growing even before the pandemic .
Between 2005 and 2018 , internet technology fuelled a 173 per cent increase in the number of Americans who regularly worked from home1 .
It is true that the overall proportion of people working from home before the pandemic was still small , at 5.4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the growth was still way ahead of the growth in the overall workforce .
Covid has turbocharged that growth .
During the pandemic , the proportion of Americans who worked from home increased ten-fold to 56 per cent .
In the UK , there was a seven-fold increase to 47 per cent .
Many of these people will continue to work remotely for some time .
Indeed , two-thirds of organisations say that at least three-quarters of their staff can work from home effectively , according to S & P Global Markets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , after the pandemic has passed , more than half of people who tried out WFH want to continue it permanently for between two and three days a week .
The sudden shift to WFH means that , for the first time in history , a big chunk of people have disconnected themselves from the face-to-face world yet are still leading a full economic life .
That means remote workers are contributing less to the infrastructure of the economy whilst still receiving its benefits .
That is a big problem for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centuries to build up the wider business and economic infrastructure that supports face-to-face working .
If a great swathe of assets lie redundant , the economic malaise will be extended .
WFH offers direct financial savings on expenses such as travel , lunch , clothes , and cleaning .
Add to these the indirect savings via forgone socialising and other expenses that would have been incurred had a worker been in the office .
Then there are the intangible benefits of working from home , such as greater job security , convenience , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit of additional safety .
The newly-discovered gains of home working , both tangible and intangible , all have value .
And they generally outweigh the costs .
The latter have mostly come in the form of additional mental stress of juggling work and children , and dealing with an imperfect home-office setup .
These costs should not be underestimated , however , they usually pale in comparison with the gains .
Hence why the vast majority of home workers want to continue remote working , on at least a part time basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the tax will only apply outside the times when the government advises people to work from home ( of course , the self-employed and those on low incomes can be excluded ) .
The tax itself will be paid by the employer if it does not provide a worker with a permanent desk .
If it does , and the staff member chooses to work from home , the employee will pay the tax out of their salary for each day they work from home .
This can be audited by coordinating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The tax rate ?
Those who can work from home tend to have higher-than-average incomes .
If we assume the average salary of a person who chooses to work from home in the US is $ 55,000 , a tax of five per cent works out to just over $ 10 per working day .
That is roughly the amount an office worker might spend on commuting , lunch , and laundry etc .
A tax at this rate , then , will leave them no worse off than if they had chosen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we apply the same tax rate to workers in the UK with an assumed average WFH salary of £35,000 , it works out to just under £7 per day .
In Germany , a WFH salary of €40,000 leads to a tax of just over €7.50 per day .
A tax at this level means that neither companies or individuals will be worse off .
In fact , companies may be far better off as the savings from downsizing their office will more than make up for the cost of the WFH tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tax raise ?
First the US .
Of the 104m Americans who work full time , half worked from home during the pandemic .
That is up from the 5.4 per cent who already worked from home before the pandemic .
Of that additional 45 per cent , our survey shows that three quarters want to work from home to some degree post-covid with 16 per cent wanting one day a week , 33 per cent two days , 19 per cent three days , 4 per cent four days , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this up , there could be 4.2bn new days every year being worked from home postcovid .
With an additional 394m days for those part time and full time staff who already work from home and are not self-employed , that gives 4.6bn WFH days per year .
At an average salary of $ 55,000 and a tax rate of five per cent , the WFH tax will raise $ 48bn per year .
The same calculation in the UK and Germany ( using country specific WFH data and the salary levels assumed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ £6.9bn and €15.9bn respectively .
What can the government do with this money ?
In the US , the $ 48bn raised could pay for a $ 1,500 grant to the 29m workers who can not work from home and earn under $ 30,000 a year ( excluding those who earn tips ) .
Many of these people are those who assumed the health risks of working during the pandemic and are far more ‘ essential ’ than their wage level suggests .
Similarly , in Germany , the €15.9bn raised could fund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per cent of people in the country who have a standard of living equivalent to €12,600 ( after adjusting for the size of their household ) .
Similarly in the UK , the £6.9bn raised could provide a grant of £2,000 to the 12 per cent of those aged over 25 who work for the minimum wage .
Of course , the exact amount of the grant could be based on an asymmetric tapering system .
Some will argue against the tax .
They will say that engagement with the economy is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ penalised for making that decision .
Yet , these people should remember that governments have always backsolved taxes to suit the social environment .
Consider that in centuries past , when it was socially unpalatable in the UK to introduce an income tax , the government implemented a window tax .
As society changed , the window tax was abolished and , eventually , an income tax was introduced .
In the same way , as our current society moves towards a state of ‘ human disconnection ’ , our tax system must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a WFH tax does not merely subsidise businesses that have no long-term future .
If , for example , a city-centre sandwich shop is no longer needed , it does not make sense for the government to support the business in the medium term .
But it does make sense to support the mass of people who have been suddenly displaced by forces outside their control .
Many will have to take low-paid jobs while they retrain or figure out their next step in life .
From a personal and economic point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these people should be given a helping hand .
It also makes sense to recognise that essential workers that assume covid risk for low wages .
Those who are lucky enough to be in a position to ‘ disconnect ’ themselves from the face-to-face economy owe it to them .

At a time when the Fed is already monetizing the entire US budget deficit thanks to helicopter money, sparking conversations about the utility of taxation, and when a Biden administration is set to at least try and roll back most of the Trump tax cuts, the last thing the population wants to hear about is even more taxes.
Yet in a “modest proposal” from Deutsche Bank, the bank argues that in a time of pervasive covid shutdowns, “those who can work from home (WFH) receive direct and indirect financial benefits and they should be taxed in order to smooth the transition process for those who have been suddenly displaced.”
In other words, the argument goes that working from an office is somehow punitive, and since WFH during the pandemic leads to “many benefits” as a resulting “disconnecting themselves from face-to-face society” a 5% tax for each WFH day “would leave the average person no worse off than if they worked in the office.” The bank calculates that such a tax could raise $49bn per year in the US, €20bn in Germany, and £7bn in the UK. “That can fund subsidies for the lowest-paid workers who usually cannot work from home.”
In the report written by DB strategist Like Tumpleman, he argues that the popularity of WFH was growing even before the pandemic: “between 2005 and 2018, internet technology fuelled a 173 per cent increase in the number of Americans who regularly worked from home. It is true that the overall proportion of people working from home before the pandemic was still small, at 5.4 per cent based on census data, but the growth was still way ahead of the growth in the overall workforce.”
Naturally, the covid shutdowns have turbocharged that growth, and as a result the proportion of Americans who worked from home increased ten-fold to 56% during the pandemic. Many of these people will continue to work remotely for some time. Indeed, two-thirds of organizations say that at least three-quarters of their staff can work from home effectively, according to S&P Global Markets. Meanwhile, a DB survey shows that, after the pandemic has passed, more than half of people who tried out WFH want to continue it permanently for between two and three days a week.
This sudden shift to WFH means that, for the first time in history, “a big chunk of people have disconnected themselves from the face-to-face world yet are still leading a full economic life” as if that is somehow a bad thing.
It gets crazier: the bank claims that working in the comfort of one’s own home leads to a slew of financial benefits including:
financial savings on expenses such as travel, lunch, clothes, and cleaning.
indirect savings via forgone socializing and other expenses that would have been incurred had a worker been in the office.
intangible benefits of working from home, such as greater job security, convenience, and flexibility.
There is also the benefit of additional safety.
As if it is difficult to find someone who also sits in front of a computer all day long in Bangladesh and has the exact same skillset but would work for a fraction of the pay.
Yet those people who are working remotely are, according to DB, the equivalent of social parasites as they “contribute less to the infrastructure of the economy whilst still receiving its benefits” potentially extending the slump in national growth. In other words, the mere act of working from home makes you guilty of not propping up the economy!
That, according to Templeman “is a big problem for the economy as it has taken decades and centuries to build up the wider business and economic infrastructure that supports face-to-face working. If a great swathe of assets lie redundant, the economic malaise will be extended.”
In short, those who failed to develop the appropriate skillset and are “forced” to work in society – mostly employees of service companies – and who were unable to refused to educate and train themselves to be able to “enjoy” the benefits of work from home jobs which incidentally include sitting in front of a computer for hours on end and in some notable cases masturbating in front of a zoom conference call, have to be rewarded monetarily by all those who are lucky enough to not have to work in public.
While it would be easy to laugh and merely brush this idea off as another ridiculous policy proposal from a bank whose very existence would be very much in question had it not been for several rounds of generous taxpayer funded bailouts, since this is yet another grossly socialist proposal we are concerned it has a very high probability of passage not only in Europe but also in the US, especially if Democrats manage to pull of a “Blue wave” sweep in Georgia in January.
So far a WFH tax has merely been floated by a handful of Wall Street strategists; however once this idea gets more popular coverage, expect a groundswell of support for the idea which will promptly lead to yet another tax.
Below we republish the Deutsche Bank note in its entirety because it is clearly a blueprint for what’s to come:
A work-from-home tax, by Luke Templeman
For years we have needed a tax on remote workers – covid has just made it obvious. Quite simply, our economic system is not set up to cope with people who can disconnect themselves from face-to-face society. Those who can WFH receive direct and indirect financial benefits and they should be taxed in order to smooth the transition process for those who have been suddenly displaced.
The popularity of WFH was growing even before the pandemic. Between 2005 and 2018, internet technology fuelled a 173 per cent increase in the number of Americans who regularly worked from home1. It is true that the overall proportion of people working from home before the pandemic was still small, at 5.4 per cent based on census data, but the growth was still way ahead of the growth in the overall workforce.
Covid has turbocharged that growth. During the pandemic, the proportion of Americans who worked from home increased ten-fold to 56 per cent. In the UK, there was a seven-fold increase to 47 per cent. Many of these people will continue to work remotely for some time. Indeed, two-thirds of organisations say that at least three-quarters of their staff can work from home effectively, according to S&P Global Markets. Meanwhile, a DB survey shows that, after the pandemic has passed, more than half of people who tried out WFH want to continue it permanently for between two and three days a week.
The sudden shift to WFH means that, for the first time in history, a big chunk of people have disconnected themselves from the face-to-face world yet are still leading a full economic life. That means remote workers are contributing less to the infrastructure of the economy whilst still receiving its benefits.
That is a big problem for the economy as it has taken decades and centuries to build up the wider business and economic infrastructure that supports face-to-face working. If a great swathe of assets lie redundant, the economic malaise will be extended.
WFH is financially rewarding
WFH offers direct financial savings on expenses such as travel, lunch, clothes, and cleaning. Add to these the indirect savings via forgone socialising and other expenses that would have been incurred had a worker been in the office. Then there are the intangible benefits of working from home, such as greater job security, convenience, and flexibility. There is also the benefit of additional safety. The newly-discovered gains of home working, both tangible and intangible, all have value. And they generally outweigh the costs. The latter have mostly come in the form of additional mental stress of juggling work and children, and dealing with an imperfect home-office setup. These costs should not be underestimated, however, they usually pale in comparison with the gains. Hence why the vast majority of home workers want to continue remote working, on at least a part time basis, after the pandemic passes.
First, the tax will only apply outside the times when the government advises people to work from home (of course, the self-employed and those on low incomes can be excluded). The tax itself will be paid by the employer if it does not provide a worker with a permanent desk. If it does, and the staff member chooses to work from home, the employee will pay the tax out of their salary for each day they work from home. This can be audited by coordinating with company travel and technology systems.
The tax rate? Those who can work from home tend to have higher-than-average incomes. If we assume the average salary of a person who chooses to work from home in the US is $55,000, a tax of five per cent works out to just over $10 per working day. That is roughly the amount an office worker might spend on commuting, lunch, and laundry etc. A tax at this rate, then, will leave them no worse off than if they had chosen to go into the office. If we apply the same tax rate to workers in the UK with an assumed average WFH salary of £35,000, it works out to just under £7 per day. In Germany, a WFH salary of €40,000 leads to a tax of just over €7.50 per day.
A tax at this level means that neither companies or individuals will be worse off. In fact, companies may be far better off as the savings from downsizing their office will more than make up for the cost of the WFH tax they will incur.
How much will the tax raise?
First the US. Of the 104m Americans who work full time, half worked from home during the pandemic. That is up from the 5.4 per cent who already worked from home before the pandemic. Of that additional 45 per cent, our survey shows that three quarters want to work from home to some degree post-covid with 16 per cent wanting one day a week, 33 per cent two days, 19 per cent three days, 4 per cent four days, and 4 per cent five days.
Adding this up, there could be 4.2bn new days every year being worked from home postcovid. With an additional 394m days for those part time and full time staff who already work from home and are not self-employed, that gives 4.6bn WFH days per year. At an average salary of $55,000 and a tax rate of five per cent, the WFH tax will raise $48bn per year. The same calculation in the UK and Germany (using country specific WFH data and the salary levels assumed above) yields a tax take of £6.9bn and €15.9bn respectively.
What can the government do with this money?
In the US, the $48bn raised could pay for a $1,500 grant to the 29m workers who cannot work from home and earn under $30,000 a year (excluding those who earn tips). Many of these people are those who assumed the health risks of working during the pandemic and are far more ‘essential’ than their wage level suggests.
Similarly, in Germany, the €15.9bn raised could fund a €1,500 grant to the bottom 12 per cent of people in the country who have a standard of living equivalent to €12,600 (after adjusting for the size of their household). Similarly in the UK, the £6.9bn raised could provide a grant of £2,000 to the 12 per cent of those aged over 25 who work for the minimum wage. Of course, the exact amount of the grant could be based on an asymmetric tapering system.
Some will argue against the tax. They will say that engagement with the economy is a personal choice and they should not be penalised for making that decision. Yet, these people should remember that governments have always backsolved taxes to suit the social environment. Consider that in centuries past, when it was socially unpalatable in the UK to introduce an income tax, the government implemented a window tax. As society changed, the window tax was abolished and, eventually, an income tax was introduced. In the same way, as our current society moves towards a state of ‘human disconnection’, our tax system must move with it.
Best of all, a WFH tax does not merely subsidise businesses that have no long-term future. If, for example, a city-centre sandwich shop is no longer needed, it does not make sense for the government to support the business in the medium term. But it does make sense to support the mass of people who have been suddenly displaced by forces outside their control. Many will have to take low-paid jobs while they retrain or figure out their next step in life. From a personal and economic point of view, it makes sense that these people should be given a helping hand. It also makes sense to recognise that essential workers that assume covid risk for low wages. Those who are lucky enough to be in a position to ‘disconnect’ themselves from the face-to-face economy owe it to them.
Republished from ZeroHedge.com with permission


wearechange--2020-11-12--Americans Didn’t Vote Against Trump, They Voted Against More Media Psychological Abuse

The word “ coup ” is being thrown about in American liberal media today , not because US liberals suddenly became uncomfortable with the fact that their nation constantly stages coups and topples governments around the world as a matter of routine policy , but because they are all talking about ( you guessed it ) Donald Trump .
To be clear , none of the high-powered influencers who have been promoting the use of this word actually believe there is any possibility that Donald Trump will somehow remain in office after January of next year when he loses his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election , which would be the thing that a coup is .
There is no means or institutional support through which the sitting president could accomplish such a thing .
This is not a coup , it ’ s a glorified temper tantrum .
Trump will leave office at the appointed time .
The establishment narrative managers are not terrifying their audiences with this word because they believe there is any danger of a coup actually happening .
They are doing it because it ’ s their last chance to use Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Last year the Pacific Standard published a report on “ Trump Anxiety Disorder ” or “ Trump Hypersensitive Unexplained Disorder , ” which it describes as follows : As the possibility of a Hillary Clinton victory began to slip away — and the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency became more and more certain — the contours of the new age of American anxiety began to take shape .
In a 2017 column , Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank described this phenomenon as “ Trump Hypertensive Unexplained Disorder ” : Overeating .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chronic neck pain .
Depression .
Irritable bowel syndrome .
Tightness in the chest .
Shortness of breath .
Teeth grinding .
Stomach ulcer .
Indigestion .
Shingles .
Eye twitching .
Nausea .
Irritability .
High blood sugar .
Tinnitus .
Reduced immunity .
Racing pulse .
Shaking limbs .
Hair loss .
Acid reflux .
Deteriorating vision .
Stroke .
Heart attack .
It was a veritable organ recital .
Two years later , the physiological effects of the Trump administration aren ’ t going away .
A growing body of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump-related stress on broad segments of the American population , from young adults to women , to racial and LGBT communities .
“ Trump Anxiety Disorder ” has continued to feature in mass media stories to this day , right up until shortly before the election .
The narrative has been that Trump is so horrible that he is somehow causing liberals to have psychological breakdowns with his awfulness .
What gets overlooked in these analyses , as is so often the case with human perception in general , is the means by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is making them so anxious — in this case the news media .
It is not Trump himself who ’ s been making people feel terrified of a tyrannical Russian agent ending democracy in America and ruling with an iron fist , it is years of shrieking , hysterical coverage about Trump from the mass media .
Without all the deranged and persistent fearmongering , driven by a disdain for Trump ’ s unrefined narrative management style and an insatiable hunger for ratings and clicks , it would never have occurred to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this president than of any other shitty Reaganite Republican .
The Russian collusion narrative which dominated most of Trump ’ s presidency turned out to be essentially nothing .
The concentration camps , millions of deportations and armed militias driving non-whites out of the country that we were promised never came ; he never even came anywhere close to Obama ’ s deportation numbers and his support from minorities actually went up .
He hasn ’ t been any more warlike than his predecessors overall , and by some measures arguably less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their lives had improved over Trump ’ s term before the pandemic hit .
If people had just been given raw information about Trump ’ s presidency , they would have seen a lot of bad things , but things that are bad in the same way all the horrible aspects of the most destructive government on earth are bad .
They wouldn ’ t have known to be horrified and anxious and have headaches and irritable bowel syndrome .
They would have handled themselves in about the same way they always handled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they didn ’ t like .
Instead , they were psychologically terrorized .
Made frightened , sick and traumatized by mass media pundits who only care about ratings and clicks , as was made clear when CBS chief Les Moonves famously said that Trump is bad for America but great for CBS .
Dragged through years of Russia hysteria and Trump hysteria with any excuse to spin Trump ’ s presidency as a remarkable departure from norms , when in reality it was anything but .
It was a fairly conventional Republican presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them probably did not realize it , this is what Americans were actually voting against when they turned out in record numbers to cast their votes .
Not against Trump , but against this continued psychological abuse they ’ ve been suffering both directly and indirectly from the mass media .
Against being bashed in the face by shrieking , hysterical bullshit that hurts their bodies and makes them feel crazy , and against the unpleasantness of having to interact with stressed-out compatriots who haven ’ t been putting up well with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Get him out ” vote , it was a “ Make it stop ” vote .
Meanwhile , another pernicious effect of making Trump seem uniquely horrible has been retroactively making his predecessors seem nice by comparison , which is why George W Bush now enjoys majority support among Democrats after years of unpopularity .
Their depravity is hidden behind a media-generated wall labeled “ NOT TRUMP ” .
And when Biden steps into office , his depravity will be hidden from view in the same way , neutering all mainstream opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The word “coup” is being thrown about in American liberal media today, not because US liberals suddenly became uncomfortable with the fact that their nation constantly stages coups and topples governments around the world as a matter of routine policy, but because they are all talking about (you guessed it) Donald Trump.
To be clear, none of the high-powered influencers who have been promoting the use of this word actually believe there is any possibility that Donald Trump will somehow remain in office after January of next year when he loses his legal appeals against the official results of the election, which would be the thing that a coup is. There is no means or institutional support through which the sitting president could accomplish such a thing. This is not a coup, it’s a glorified temper tantrum. Trump will leave office at the appointed time.
The establishment narrative managers are not terrifying their audiences with this word because they believe there is any danger of a coup actually happening. They are doing it because it’s their last chance to use Trump to psychologically abuse their audiences for clicks.
Warnings of a "coup" should at least come with a plausible mechanism by which a coup could be carried out. "The courts" Ok which court? Deciding which case about what state on which grounds? "The military" Which unit? Doing what? Under whose command? "Intelligence" Huh? https://t.co/0eDTAmxnkq — Alice the Coup-Panic Soother ??? ?? (@AliceFromQueens) November 11, 2020
Last year the Pacific Standard published a report on “Trump Anxiety Disorder” or “Trump Hypersensitive Unexplained Disorder,” which it describes as follows:
As the possibility of a Hillary Clinton victory began to slip away — and the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency became more and more certain — the contours of the new age of American anxiety began to take shape. In a 2017 column, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank described this phenomenon as “Trump Hypertensive Unexplained Disorder”: Overeating. Headaches. Fainting. Irregular heartbeat. Chronic neck pain. Depression. Irritable bowel syndrome. Tightness in the chest. Shortness of breath. Teeth grinding. Stomach ulcer. Indigestion. Shingles. Eye twitching. Nausea. Irritability. High blood sugar. Tinnitus. Reduced immunity. Racing pulse. Shaking limbs. Hair loss. Acid reflux. Deteriorating vision. Stroke. Heart attack. It was a veritable organ recital. Two years later, the physiological effects of the Trump administration aren’t going away. A growing body of research has tracked the detrimental impacts of Trump-related stress on broad segments of the American population, from young adults to women, to racial and LGBT communities. The results aren’t good.
“Trump Anxiety Disorder” has continued to feature in mass media stories to this day, right up until shortly before the election. The narrative has been that Trump is so horrible that he is somehow causing liberals to have psychological breakdowns with his awfulness.
What gets overlooked in these analyses, as is so often the case with human perception in general, is the means by which people are taking in the information that is making them so anxious — in this case the news media.
It is not Trump himself who’s been making people feel terrified of a tyrannical Russian agent ending democracy in America and ruling with an iron fist, it is years of shrieking, hysterical coverage about Trump from the mass media.
Without all the deranged and persistent fearmongering, driven by a disdain for Trump’s unrefined narrative management style and an insatiable hunger for ratings and clicks, it would never have occurred to Americans that they should be more terrified of this president than of any other shitty Reaganite Republican. The Russian collusion narrative which dominated most of Trump’s presidency turned out to be essentially nothing. The concentration camps, millions of deportations and armed militias driving non-whites out of the country that we were promised never came; he never even came anywhere close to Obama’s deportation numbers and his support from minorities actually went up. He hasn’t been any more warlike than his predecessors overall, and by some measures arguably less so. Most Americans actually reported that their lives had improved over Trump’s term before the pandemic hit.
If people had just been given raw information about Trump’s presidency, they would have seen a lot of bad things, but things that are bad in the same way all the horrible aspects of the most destructive government on earth are bad. They wouldn’t have known to be horrified and anxious and have headaches and irritable bowel syndrome. They would have handled themselves in about the same way they always handled themselves during the administration of a president they didn’t like.
Instead, they were psychologically terrorized. Made frightened, sick and traumatized by mass media pundits who only care about ratings and clicks, as was made clear when CBS chief Les Moonves famously said that Trump is bad for America but great for CBS. Dragged through years of Russia hysteria and Trump hysteria with any excuse to spin Trump’s presidency as a remarkable departure from norms, when in reality it was anything but. It was a fairly conventional Republican presidency.
The MSM is brutalizing the American psyche day in and day out with its relentless shrieking coverage of Trump, and it's killing them. Republicans call it "Trump Derangement Syndrome", Dems call it "Trump Anxiety Disorder", but it's not. It's psychological abuse via mass media. https://t.co/2dpDTznBRT — Caitlin Johnstone ? (@caitoz) January 15, 2019
In reality, though most of them probably did not realize it, this is what Americans were actually voting against when they turned out in record numbers to cast their votes. Not against Trump, but against this continued psychological abuse they’ve been suffering both directly and indirectly from the mass media. Against being bashed in the face by shrieking, hysterical bullshit that hurts their bodies and makes them feel crazy, and against the unpleasantness of having to interact with stressed-out compatriots who haven’t been putting up well with the abuse.
It wasn’t a “Get him out” vote, it was a “Make it stop” vote.
Meanwhile, another pernicious effect of making Trump seem uniquely horrible has been retroactively making his predecessors seem nice by comparison, which is why George W Bush now enjoys majority support among Democrats after years of unpopularity. Their depravity is hidden behind a media-generated wall labeled “NOT TRUMP”. And when Biden steps into office, his depravity will be hidden from view in the same way, neutering all mainstream opposition to his most deadly and dangerous actions.
Republished from CaitlinJohnstone.com with permission


wearechange--2020-11-12--No Action Against Prosecutors Who Made Epstein’s Sweetheart Deal, Justice Department Probe Finds

The Justice Department ’ s investigation into the prosecutors who oversaw deceased pedophile/financier Jeffrey Epstein ’ s sweetheart deal—the same deal that led to Epstein ’ s initial conviction and imprisonment in Florida more than 10 years ago—has determined that while the men exercised “ poor judgment ” , they didn ’ t break the law .
The findings , released by Sen. Ben Sasse on Thursday , follow an inquiry by the DoJ ’ s office of professional responsibility .
The group of prosecutors includes former Trump Labor Secretary Alex Acosta , who has previously suggested that at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ because he was a special asset .
Acosta was pushed out of his cabinet-level role last year .
“ Letting a well-connected billionaire get away with child rape and international sex trafficking isn ’ t ‘ poor judgment ’ —it is a disgusting failure , ” Sasse said .
“ Americans ought to be enraged.
” The prosecutors , who reported to Acosta ( at the time he was the US attorney overseeing that territory ) explored reports that Epstein had abused dozens of young girls in his Palm Beach mansion in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plea to lower-level state charges involving the abuse of a single victim .
The Department of Justice reportedly briefed several of Epstein ’ s victims on the findings on Friday in Miami .
While this inquiry into the prosecutors is over , two other federal investigations involving Epstein and potential enablers are ongoing .

The Justice Department’s investigation into the prosecutors who oversaw deceased pedophile/financier Jeffrey Epstein’s sweetheart deal—the same deal that led to Epstein’s initial conviction and imprisonment in Florida more than 10 years ago—has determined that while the men exercised “poor judgment”, they didn’t break the law.
The findings, released by Sen. Ben Sasse on Thursday, follow an inquiry by the DoJ’s office of professional responsibility. The group of prosecutors includes former Trump Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, who has previously suggested that at the time that Epstein had been ‘protected’ because he was a special asset. Acosta was pushed out of his cabinet-level role last year.
“Letting a well-connected billionaire get away with child rape and international sex trafficking isn’t ‘poor judgment’—it is a disgusting failure,” Sasse said. “Americans ought to be enraged.”
The prosecutors, who reported to Acosta (at the time he was the US attorney overseeing that territory) explored reports that Epstein had abused dozens of young girls in his Palm Beach mansion in the early 2000s. Epstein copped a plea to lower-level state charges involving the abuse of a single victim.
The Department of Justice reportedly briefed several of Epstein’s victims on the findings on Friday in Miami.
While this inquiry into the prosecutors is over, two other federal investigations involving Epstein and potential enablers are ongoing.
Republished from ZeroHedge.com with permission


wearechange--2020-11-12--Less Than Half of Americans Likely to Comply With New Lockdown Orders: Gallup

Earlier we featured the worrisome prospect of a second national coronavirus lockdown under a future Biden administration , considering the latest scientist to join Joe Biden ’ s “ special coronavirus transition advisory team ” is calling for just that .
Dr. Michael Osterholm , who serves as director of the Center of Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota , now one of Biden ’ s coronavirus task force doctors told Yahoo News the following on Wednesday : “ We could pay for a package right now to cover all of the lost wages for individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we could lockdown for 4 to 6 weeks.
” But we know that ’ s unlikely to go well based on the latest polling data , as it appears the majority of Americans would not conform to such new stay-at-home orders and travel restrictions : Americans are less likely to comply with another coronavirus lockdown than they were in the spring , with fewer than half saying in a new poll that they ’ re very likely to stay home this time around , according to a new Gallup Poll released as record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the data , according to Gallup , based on the poll taken between Oct.19 and Nov.1 : • 49 % say they ’ re “ very likely ” to stay home for a month if mandated , down from 67 % who said they would in the spring .
• 18 % said they were “ somewhat likely ” to comply .
• One-third said they would be “ unlikely ” to comply with new lockdown orders .
• This despite 61 % saying they believe the situation is getting worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they ’ d be unlikely to comply is double the rate seen from polls in the spring .
However , it appears more Americans are intentional about social distancing measures , including wearing masks , compared to in the spring .
As Newsmax summarizes of the numbers : “ Meanwhile , the number of people who are wearing masks has gone up sharply.
” The report states “ Only about half of Americans reported in April that they were wearing masks , just after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported they wear masks , after the number went up to 92 % in July .
”

Earlier we featured the worrisome prospect of a second national coronavirus lockdown under a future Biden administration, considering the latest scientist to join Joe Biden’s “special coronavirus transition advisory team” is calling for just that.
Dr. Michael Osterholm, who serves as director of the Center of Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, now one of Biden’s coronavirus task force doctors told Yahoo News the following on Wednesday: “We could pay for a package right now to cover all of the lost wages for individual workers… if we did that, then we could lockdown for 4 to 6 weeks.”
But we know that’s unlikely to go well based on the latest polling data, as it appears the majority of Americans would not conform to such new stay-at-home orders and travel restrictions:
Americans are less likely to comply with another coronavirus lockdown than they were in the spring, with fewer than half saying in a new poll that they’re very likely to stay home this time around, according to a new Gallup Poll released as record numbers of cases skyrocket nationwide.
Here’s the data, according to Gallup, based on the poll taken between Oct.19 and Nov.1:
49% say they’re “very likely” to stay home for a month if mandated, down from 67% who said they would in the spring .
for a month if mandated, . 18% said they were “somewhat likely” to comply.
One-third said they would be “unlikely” to comply with new lockdown orders.
This despite 61% saying they believe the situation is getting worse.
The number of respondents who said they’d be unlikely to comply is double the rate seen from polls in the spring.
However, it appears more Americans are intentional about social distancing measures, including wearing masks, compared to in the spring.
One of Biden's new coronavirus task force doctors floating the idea of a 4-6 week lockdown: “We could pay for a package right now to cover all of the lost wages for individual workers … if we did that, then we could lockdown for 4 to 6 weeks."pic.twitter.com/zNmuQvPpIJ — Zack Guzman (@zGuz) November 11, 2020
As Newsmax summarizes of the numbers: “Meanwhile, the number of people who are wearing masks has gone up sharply.”
The report states “Only about half of Americans reported in April that they were wearing masks, just after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested wearing them. Now, 88% reported they wear masks, after the number went up to 92% in July.”
Republished from ZeroHedge.com with permission


wearechange--2020-11-13--Ticketmaster Unveils Plan to Verify Vaccination Status

With several COVID-19 vaccines reportedly just around the corner , Ticketmaster will be verifying concert fans ’ vaccination status , or whether they ’ ve tested negative for the coronavirus within a 24 to 72-hour window , according to Billboard .
As we ’ ve noted several times over the past few months , immunity passports are the future of COVID-19 .
The plan , still in development phase , will employ three prongs ; the Ticketmaster digital app , third-party health status providers such as CLEAR Health Pass or IBM ’ s Digital Health Pass , and testing / @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinic and Labcorp .
Here ’ s how it would work , if approved : After purchasing a ticket for a concert , fans would need to verify that they have already been vaccinated ( which would provide approximately one year of COVID-19 protection [ ZH : really ? ]
) or test negative for coronavirus approximately 24 to 72 hours prior to the concert .
The length of coverage a test would provide would be governed by regional health authorities — if attendees of a Friday night concert had to be tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start the testing process the day before the event .
If it was a 24-hour window , most people would likely be tested the same day of the event at a lab or a health clinic .
Once the test was complete , the fan would instruct the lab to deliver the results to their health pass company , like CLEAR or IBM .
If the tests were negative , or the fan was vaccinated , the health pass company would verify the attendee ’ s COVID-19 status to Ticketmaster , which would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to access the event .
If a fan tested positive or didn ’ t take a test to verify their status , they would not be granted access to the event .
–Billboard According to the report , Ticketmaster will not store or have access to fans ’ medical records , and will only receive ‘ green light or red light ’ on whether a fan is cleared to attend an event .
At present , the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) has yet to approve third-party health information providers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yovich is confident that demand for such screening services will be in heavy demand for multiple applications such as air travel , employment verification and theme park entry .
“ We ’ re already seeing many third-party health care providers prepare to handle the vetting — whether that is getting a vaccine , taking a test , or other methods of review and approval – which could then be linked via a digital ticket so everyone entering the event is verified , ” Yovich told Billboard .
“ Ticketmaster ’ s goal is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ venues and fans have multiple paths to return to events , and is working to create integrations to our API and leading digital ticketing technology as we will look to tap into the top solutions based on what ’ s green-lit by officials and desired by clients.
” For Ticketmaster , two new technologies at the companies will help its clients scale the program .
The first is digital ticketing that ’ s linked to a fan ’ s identity , eliminates paper tickets and can be restricted from being transferred or resold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new SmartEvent system , which helps event organizers and fans manage social distancing , delayed entry and provide possible opportunities for contact tracing .
Many of the safety parameters will be set by regional health officials and event organizers .
Event organizers also have the ability to set their own prevention protocols , like sanitation , mask compliance and social distancing .
–Billboard According to the report , implementing this COVID-19 verification plan will be key to the survival of the live entertainment industry during the pandemic .
“ In order for live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are going to play huge roles in establishing integrated protocols so that fans , artists , and employees feel safe returning to venues , ” says Marianne Herman , co-founder and principal reBUILD20 , which focuses on helping entertainment and live events companies develop COVID-19 strategies ( per Billboard ) .
“ Integrating ticketing platforms with the guests verified testing results is one key way to reimagine how we ’ re going to get fans back to live events .
The experience of attending live events will look completely different , but innovation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ framework to get the live sports and event industry back to work .
”

With several COVID-19 vaccines reportedly just around the corner, Ticketmaster will be verifying concert fans’ vaccination status, or whether they’ve tested negative for the coronavirus within a 24 to 72-hour window, according to Billboard.
As we’ve noted several times over the past few months, immunity passports are the future of COVID-19.
The plan, still in development phase, will employ three prongs; the Ticketmaster digital app, third-party health status providers such as CLEAR Health Pass or IBM’s Digital Health Pass, and testing / vaccine distribution providers such as CVS Minute Clinic and Labcorp.
Here’s how it would work, if approved: After purchasing a ticket for a concert, fans would need to verify that they have already been vaccinated ( which would provide approximately one year of COVID-19 protection [ZH: really?]) or test negative for coronavirus approximately 24 to 72 hours prior to the concert. The length of coverage a test would provide would be governed by regional health authorities — if attendees of a Friday night concert had to be tested 48 hours in advance, most could start the testing process the day before the event. If it was a 24-hour window, most people would likely be tested the same day of the event at a lab or a health clinic. Once the test was complete, the fan would instruct the lab to deliver the results to their health pass company, like CLEAR or IBM. If the tests were negative, or the fan was vaccinated, the health pass company would verify the attendee’s COVID-19 status to Ticketmaster, which would then issue the fan the credentials needed to access the event. If a fan tested positive or didn’t take a test to verify their status, they would not be granted access to the event. –Billboard
According to the report, Ticketmaster will not store or have access to fans’ medical records, and will only receive ‘green light or red light’ on whether a fan is cleared to attend an event.
At present, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to approve third-party health information providers for real-time verification, however Ticketmaster president Mark Yovich is confident that demand for such screening services will be in heavy demand for multiple applications such as air travel, employment verification and theme park entry.
“We’re already seeing many third-party health care providers prepare to handle the vetting — whether that is getting a vaccine, taking a test, or other methods of review and approval – which could then be linked via a digital ticket so everyone entering the event is verified,” Yovich told Billboard. “Ticketmaster’s goal is to provide enough flexibility and options that venues and fans have multiple paths to return to events, and is working to create integrations to our API and leading digital ticketing technology as we will look to tap into the top solutions based on what’s green-lit by officials and desired by clients.”
For Ticketmaster, two new technologies at the companies will help its clients scale the program. The first is digital ticketing that’s linked to a fan’s identity, eliminates paper tickets and can be restricted from being transferred or resold. Ticketmaster also plans to deploy its new SmartEvent system, which helps event organizers and fans manage social distancing, delayed entry and provide possible opportunities for contact tracing. Many of the safety parameters will be set by regional health officials and event organizers. Event organizers also have the ability to set their own prevention protocols, like sanitation, mask compliance and social distancing. –Billboard
According to the report, implementing this COVID-19 verification plan will be key to the survival of the live entertainment industry during the pandemic.
“In order for live events to return, technology and science are going to play huge roles in establishing integrated protocols so that fans, artists, and employees feel safe returning to venues,” says Marianne Herman, co-founder and principal reBUILD20, which focuses on helping entertainment and live events companies develop COVID-19 strategies (per Billboard).
“Integrating ticketing platforms with the guests verified testing results is one key way to reimagine how we’re going to get fans back to live events. The experience of attending live events will look completely different, but innovation married with consistent implementation will provide a framework to get the live sports and event industry back to work.”
Republished from ZeroHedge.com with permission


wearechange--2020-11-13--Florida “Anti-Mob” Bill Gives Civilians Immunity If They Shoot Looters or Run Over Protesters

This week , Florida Gov .
Ron DeSantis announced the drafting of a new piece of legislation that would expand the state ’ s Stand Your Ground law .
He is calling the legislation an “ anti-mob ” bill and it seems specifically targeted at the Black lives Matter movement and the ongoing protests against police brutality that have swept across the United States in recent months .
The new legislation , if it becomes law , would allow armed citizens in the state of Florida to shoot , and potentially kill anyone that they suspect of looting a home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Herald , the legislation is an attempt to prevent “ violent and disorderly assemblies ” by allowing civilians to use violence against anyone involved in the “ interruption or impairment ” of a business .
The law specified that any burglary within 500 feet of “ violent or disorderly assembly , ” could be legally answered with lethal force .
The proposed legislation has been criticized by legal experts in the state , who fear that it could give vigilantes a license to kill anyone who they deem to be a rioter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil unrest .
Former Miami-Dade County prosecutor , Denise Georges , who has experience with Stand Your Ground cases in the state , told the Herald that , “ It allows for vigilantes to justify their actions .
It also allows for death to be the punishment for a property crime — and that is cruel and unusual punishment .
We can not live in a lawless society where taking a life is done so casually and recklessly.
” The legislation also includes other measures that would give immunity to citizens who hurt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ road .
The bill would make it a third-degree felony to block traffic and give immunity to drivers who kill or injure protesters that were blocking the road .
There is also language in the bill that attempts to block local jurisdictions from defunding police departments , by cutting their entire budget if they decide to scale back police funding .
Miami Beach Mayor Dan Gelber , a former prosecutor , and critic of the already existing Stand Your Ground law , said that DeSantis is attempting to earn favor with the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Trump beauty pageant is still going on with governors and senators , who all want to be the next Trump .
And the governor is clearly a very good contestant , ” Gelber said .
The proposed law remains in draft form and could not be considered until the 2021 legislative session at the earliest .
DeSantis has been working to impose measures to crack down on protesters all year , and has promoted similar ideas in recent months , including immunity for drivers who run over protesters .
Legal experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message to counter-protest groups who already perceive themselves to be vigilantes .
This year has seen numerous cases of vigilante violence , and in many of these cases , the suspect ended up walking free because of the laws already on the books .

This week, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced the drafting of a new piece of legislation that would expand the state’s Stand Your Ground law. He is calling the legislation an “anti-mob” bill and it seems specifically targeted at the Black lives Matter movement and the ongoing protests against police brutality that have swept across the United States in recent months.
The new legislation, if it becomes law, would allow armed citizens in the state of Florida to shoot, and potentially kill anyone that they suspect of looting a home or business.
According to the Miami Herald, the legislation is an attempt to prevent “violent and disorderly assemblies” by allowing civilians to use violence against anyone involved in the “interruption or impairment” of a business. The law specified that any burglary within 500 feet of “violent or disorderly assembly,” could be legally answered with lethal force.
The proposed legislation has been criticized by legal experts in the state, who fear that it could give vigilantes a license to kill anyone who they deem to be a rioter, and could further increase the change of civil unrest.
Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, has drafted “anti-mob” legislation that would expand Florida’s Stand Your Ground law that critics say would allow armed citizens to shoot suspected looters or anyone engaged in “criminal mischief” that disrupts a businesshttps://t.co/tVEgmnWmIr — Hamza Shaban (@hshaban) November 10, 2020
Former Miami-Dade County prosecutor, Denise Georges, who has experience with Stand Your Ground cases in the state, told the Herald that, “It allows for vigilantes to justify their actions. It also allows for death to be the punishment for a property crime — and that is cruel and unusual punishment. We cannot live in a lawless society where taking a life is done so casually and recklessly.”
The legislation also includes other measures that would give immunity to citizens who hurt or injure protesters who are blocking the road. The bill would make it a third-degree felony to block traffic and give immunity to drivers who kill or injure protesters that were blocking the road.
There is also language in the bill that attempts to block local jurisdictions from defunding police departments, by cutting their entire budget if they decide to scale back police funding.
Miami Beach Mayor Dan Gelber, a former prosecutor, and critic of the already existing Stand Your Ground law, said that DeSantis is attempting to earn favor with the Trump administration.
“It’s clear that the Trump beauty pageant is still going on with governors and senators, who all want to be the next Trump. And the governor is clearly a very good contestant,” Gelber said.
The proposed law remains in draft form and could not be considered until the 2021 legislative session at the earliest.
DeSantis has been working to impose measures to crack down on protesters all year, and has promoted similar ideas in recent months, including immunity for drivers who run over protesters. Legal experts are concerned that this sends the wrong message to counter-protest groups who already perceive themselves to be vigilantes.
This year has seen numerous cases of vigilante violence, and in many of these cases, the suspect ended up walking free because of the laws already on the books.
Republished from TheMindUnleashed.com with permission


wearechange--2020-11-13--WOW! This Is A Major Issue That NEEDS To Be Addressed!!!

OH YEAH , since we are not corporate or government owned help us out here .
YOU CAN ALSO SUPPORT @ @

In today’s video, we address the elephant in the room that nobody is talking about.
Follow us on Telegram: t.me/s/News4AChange Sign up for our newsletter: bit.ly/3ijjAop
Subscribe on LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@wearechange:1 Use Brave Browser to earn crypto: bit.ly/38PMffD Improve your gut health: bit.ly/34GHbdY Filter your water: bit.ly/37QriDt Storable food for emergencies: SafePreparedAndReady.com #1 best source of Collagen: bit.ly/3mw5uRK #1 best VPN to use: bit.ly/3iT4Ew3


wearechange--2020-11-13--Meet The Filthy Rich War Hawks That Make Up Biden’s New Foreign Policy Team

After triumphing in a bitterly contested presidential election , all eyes are on President-Elect Joe Biden and who he will choose to run his new administration .
For much of October , media spent their time dissecting the news that , despite living a lavish billionaire lifestyle , Donald Trump paid only $ 750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017 .
In contrast , little was made of Biden ’ s self-published tax documents .
This is surprising because the returns show that he is rich .
Filthy rich .
The 77-year-old Delawarean likes to paint himself as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I entered as one of the poorest men in Congress , left one of the poorest men in government — in Congress and as vice-president , ” Biden said during the Democratic presidential nomination process .
And while that was technically true , since leaving the White House , he and his wife Jill have amassed a fortune of more than $ 16.7 million .
For comparison , the median net worth of U.S. households is $ 97,300 .
His tax returns show that he received over $ 900,000 from the University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When I left the United States Senate , I became a professor , ” at the Ivy League institution , he told the country in March .
Yet records show he has not taught even a single class during his time there .
Speaking engagements make up the majority of his earnings , where he is often paid princely sums for minutes ’ work .
For example , his tax returns show that he was paid over $ 134,000 for a talk in Fort Lauderdale , FL in January 2019 .
In this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ footsteps of the likes of Hillary Clinton , Barack Obama , and George W. Bush , who command enormous sums for public appearances — a practice often condemned as little more than payoffs for “ good behavior ” while in office .
Biden is no stranger to the rich and powerful .
He kicked off his presidential campaign last year with a dinner for ultra-rich patrons at a Manhattan hotel , insisting that “ nothing would fundamentally change ” if he were elected , reassuring them that he would never demonize the rich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for growing inequality .
“ I need you very badly , ” he concluded .
The former vice-president ’ s team is also looking to be made up of extremely wealthy individuals as well .
His transition task squad has been , in his website ’ s words , crafted to ensure they “ reflect the values and priorities of the incoming administration , ” and includes executives from Lyft , Amazon , Capital One , Uber , Visa , and JP Morgan .
One name being strongly floated for a cabinet position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a move being met with vocal opposition from the left .
Emanuel ’ s first tour of duty in the White House came under President Bill Clinton , where he was one of the key architects of the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ) , a deal that decimated manufacturing in the Midwest , hobbled union power , and sent well paying blue-collar jobs to Mexico .
In 2016 , Trump constantly brought up NAFTA as a weapon to attack Hillary Clinton , winning him votes ( and states ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through welfare “ reform ” bills that sharply reduced benefits for the poor and worked with Biden on the now-infamous 1994 Crime Bill , a key accelerator of mass incarceration .
He then left politics to pursue a lucrative career in finance — something that quickly netted him a reported $ 16 million fortune — before returning and becoming President Obama ’ s advisor and enforcer .
Many of the president-elect ’ s potential picks for foreign policy positions — including Susan Rice and Michele Flourney — have onlookers worried .
“ With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a continuation of the Middle East wars and possible escalations in places like Syria .
Biden could be better than Trump on Iran and Yemen , but judging by his potential cabinet picks , that should not be expected without significant pressure from antiwar activists and lobbyists in Washington , ” Dave DeCamp , assistant news editor of AntiWar.com told MintPress .
“ His administration will likely be more successful than Trump at expanding the empire , with a more diplomatic and coherent approach at building alliances to face Russia and China.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the United Nations and National Security Advisor under Obama , has amassed a fortune of around $ 40 million .
After leaving office , she was given a spot on the board of Netflix , being paid $ 366,666 as a base salary .
On top of that , she was given $ 2.3 million worth of the company ’ s stock .
However , it is her husband , former ABC News executive producer Ian O. Cameron ( whose father was a super-wealthy industrialist ) , who is the prime source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key driver in U.S. action in Libya , and also successfully lobbied Obama to place harsher sanctions on North Korea and Iran .
Flournoy , meanwhile , was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 in the Obama administration under Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta .
After “ serving the country , ” she received lucrative consulting contracts , joined corporate boards , and began her own security think tank , WestExec Advisors .
By 2017 , she was making a reported $ 452,000 annually .
“ Certainly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WestExec advisors people is concerning , ” Biden biographer Branko Marcetic told MintPress .
“ Biden claims he wants an end to the Yemen conflict , but again , words are only so much .
It ’ s highly likely that he will have Michele Flornoy as his Secretary of Defense who was one of the voices that stated that weapons should continue to be sold to Saudia Arabia ( during the Yemen conflict ) , under certain conditions , as they have a right to protect themselves .
This speaks volumes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Public Accuracy .
Rice and Flournoy , she added , were vocal supporters of the disastrous Iraq War , which does not bode well for those concerned with peace .
Marcetic agreed , noting that , while in office , Flourney was “ a major liberal interventionist hawk who not only wants U.S. troops deployed all over the world , but has also publicly advocated for the U.S. to majorly exploit its fossil fuel reserves for global dominance , ” something which would be a “ disaster for containing climate catastrophe.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them considerably richer than before ) into the new administration suggests that there will be few breaks from the past on policy , and more in the way of continuation .
Biden himself has largely acknowledged this , tweeting , “ When I ’ m speaking to foreign leaders , I ’ m telling them : America is going to be back .
We ’ re going to be back in the game.
” To many suffering under U.S. sanctions or hiding from U.S. bombs , these words will likely not comfort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be no great difference in policy between Trump and Biden administrations : Everett offered a similar analysis , suggesting that , with pro-Israel zealots like Rice advising him , the Biden administration would “ expand ” on what Trump had done in Palestine as well .
Meanwhile , for Latin America , his foreign policy team intends to revive the so-called “ anti-corruption drives ” of the Obama era , which ultimately overthrew an elected government in Brazil and paved the way for the ascendency of far-right figure Jair Bolsonaro .
Marcetic suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the international treaties and organizations that the Trump administration had undermined or pulled out of , including NATO and the Paris Climate Agreement .
Independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone recently mockingly wrote that Biden will have “ the most diverse , intersectional cabinet of mass murderers ever assembled.
” If representation is important , it is because it helps assure that people from all walks of life will have a seat at the negotiating table .
However , judging by Biden ’ s wealthy picks , it appears that yet again , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of working-class Americans .

After triumphing in a bitterly contested presidential election, all eyes are on President-Elect Joe Biden and who he will choose to run his new administration. For much of October, media spent their time dissecting the news that, despite living a lavish billionaire lifestyle, Donald Trump paid only $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017. In contrast, little was made of Biden’s self-published tax documents. This is surprising because the returns show that he is rich. Filthy rich.
The 77-year-old Delawarean likes to paint himself as a man of modest means. “I entered as one of the poorest men in Congress, left one of the poorest men in government — in Congress and as vice-president,” Biden said during the Democratic presidential nomination process. And while that was technically true, since leaving the White House, he and his wife Jill have amassed a fortune of more than $16.7 million. For comparison, the median net worth of U.S. households is $97,300. His tax returns show that he received over $900,000 from the University of Pennsylvania in 2018 and 2019. “When I left the United States Senate, I became a professor,” at the Ivy League institution, he told the country in March. Yet records show he has not taught even a single class during his time there.
Speaking engagements make up the majority of his earnings, where he is often paid princely sums for minutes’ work. For example, his tax returns show that he was paid over $134,000 for a talk in Fort Lauderdale, FL in January 2019. In this sense, he is following in the footsteps of the likes of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush, who command enormous sums for public appearances — a practice often condemned as little more than payoffs for “good behavior” while in office.
Biden is no stranger to the rich and powerful. He kicked off his presidential campaign last year with a dinner for ultra-rich patrons at a Manhattan hotel, insisting that “nothing would fundamentally change” if he were elected, reassuring them that he would never demonize the rich and that they were not at fault for growing inequality. “I need you very badly,” he concluded.
Building Back Better?
The former vice-president’s team is also looking to be made up of extremely wealthy individuals as well. His transition task squad has been, in his website’s words, crafted to ensure they “reflect the values and priorities of the incoming administration,” and includes executives from Lyft, Amazon, Capital One, Uber, Visa, and JP Morgan.
One name being strongly floated for a cabinet position is former mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel, a move being met with vocal opposition from the left. Emanuel’s first tour of duty in the White House came under President Bill Clinton, where he was one of the key architects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a deal that decimated manufacturing in the Midwest, hobbled union power, and sent well paying blue-collar jobs to Mexico. In 2016, Trump constantly brought up NAFTA as a weapon to attack Hillary Clinton, winning him votes (and states) across the region. Emanuel also pushed through welfare “reform” bills that sharply reduced benefits for the poor and worked with Biden on the now-infamous 1994 Crime Bill, a key accelerator of mass incarceration. He then left politics to pursue a lucrative career in finance — something that quickly netted him a reported $16 million fortune — before returning and becoming President Obama’s advisor and enforcer.
Biden’s war room
Many of the president-elect’s potential picks for foreign policy positions — including Susan Rice and Michele Flourney — have onlookers worried. “With a Biden administration, we can expect a continuation of the Middle East wars and possible escalations in places like Syria. Biden could be better than Trump on Iran and Yemen, but judging by his potential cabinet picks, that should not be expected without significant pressure from antiwar activists and lobbyists in Washington,” Dave DeCamp, assistant news editor of AntiWar.com told MintPress. “His administration will likely be more successful than Trump at expanding the empire, with a more diplomatic and coherent approach at building alliances to face Russia and China.”
Rice, who was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and National Security Advisor under Obama, has amassed a fortune of around $40 million. After leaving office, she was given a spot on the board of Netflix, being paid $366,666 as a base salary. On top of that, she was given $2.3 million worth of the company’s stock. However, it is her husband, former ABC News executive producer Ian O. Cameron (whose father was a super-wealthy industrialist), who is the prime source of her wealth. She was a key driver in U.S. action in Libya, and also successfully lobbied Obama to place harsher sanctions on North Korea and Iran.
Flournoy, meanwhile, was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 in the Obama administration under Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta. After “serving the country,” she received lucrative consulting contracts, joined corporate boards, and began her own security think tank, WestExec Advisors. By 2017, she was making a reported $452,000 annually.
“Certainly the possible selection of Michele Flournoy and other WestExec advisors people is concerning,” Biden biographer Branko Marcetic told MintPress.
“This isn’t just because of their corporate/financial ties, though of course that’s alarming — can we be sure that people whose private sector career involved leveraging their government experience and contacts to help multinationals secure favorable business conditions will have their intentions calibrated toward good policy and not to their private sector career?”
“Biden claims he wants an end to the Yemen conflict, but again, words are only so much. It’s highly likely that he will have Michele Flornoy as his Secretary of Defense who was one of the voices that stated that weapons should continue to be sold to Saudia Arabia (during the Yemen conflict), under certain conditions, as they have a right to protect themselves. This speaks volumes,” said Mariamne Everett of the Institute for Public Accuracy. Rice and Flournoy, she added, were vocal supporters of the disastrous Iraq War, which does not bode well for those concerned with peace.
Marcetic agreed, noting that, while in office, Flourney was “a major liberal interventionist hawk who not only wants U.S. troops deployed all over the world, but has also publicly advocated for the U.S. to majorly exploit its fossil fuel reserves for global dominance,” something which would be a “disaster for containing climate catastrophe.”
Back in the game
The recycling of old faces (many of them considerably richer than before) into the new administration suggests that there will be few breaks from the past on policy, and more in the way of continuation. Biden himself has largely acknowledged this, tweeting, “When I’m speaking to foreign leaders, I’m telling them: America is going to be back. We’re going to be back in the game.” To many suffering under U.S. sanctions or hiding from U.S. bombs, these words will likely not comfort them. DeCamp suggested that there will be no great difference in policy between Trump and Biden administrations:
“Despite Trump being painted as an ‘isolationist,’ his administration has actually expanded NATO, shored up the support of some Asian countries to counter China, and significantly increased Washington’s military footprint in the Pacific. Biden will continue this as he made clear in recent phone calls with Asian leaders and his tough talk on China’s claims to the South China Sea during the last presidential debate.”
Everett offered a similar analysis, suggesting that, with pro-Israel zealots like Rice advising him, the Biden administration would “expand” on what Trump had done in Palestine as well. Meanwhile, for Latin America, his foreign policy team intends to revive the so-called “anti-corruption drives” of the Obama era, which ultimately overthrew an elected government in Brazil and paved the way for the ascendency of far-right figure Jair Bolsonaro.
Marcetic suggested that Biden would attempt to rejoin many of the international treaties and organizations that the Trump administration had undermined or pulled out of, including NATO and the Paris Climate Agreement.
I expect the prevailing direction of U.S. foreign policy over these last decades to continue: more lawless bombing and killing multiple countries under the cover of “limited engagement,” continuing genocidal sanctions against countries like Iran and Venezuela, ongoing treatment of Latin America as an American fiefdom, and militarism and conflict continuing to be the dominant organising principle of U.S. foreign policy, rather than, say, co-operation and stopping climate change,” he added.
Independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone recently mockingly wrote that Biden will have “the most diverse, intersectional cabinet of mass murderers ever assembled.” If representation is important, it is because it helps assure that people from all walks of life will have a seat at the negotiating table. However, judging by Biden’s wealthy picks, it appears that yet again, no one will be representing the great majority of working-class Americans.
Republished from MintPressNews.com under Creative Commons


wearechange--2020-11-14--Unelected Officials Override The President To Continue Wars (But Only Kooks Believe In The Deep Stat

Unelected Officials Override The President To Continue Wars (But Only Kooks Believe In The Deep State)

Outgoing US envoy to Syria James Jeffrey stated in a recent interview with Defense One that US officials have been “ playing shell games ” about the number of troops in the region to deceive the Trump administration into thinking there has been a military withdrawal .
Here are some excerpts : “ We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there , ” Jeffrey said in an interview .
The actual number of troops in northeast Syria is “ a lot more than ” the two hundred troops Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … “ What Syria withdrawal ?
There was never a Syria withdrawal , ” Jeffrey said .
“ When the situation in northeast Syria had been fairly stable after we defeated ISIS , [ Trump ] was inclined to pull out .
In each case , we then decided to come up with five better arguments for why we needed to stay .
And we succeeded both times .
That ’ s the story.
” … Officially , Trump last year agreed to keep about 200 U.S. troops stationed in northeast Syria to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States ’ Kurdish allies in the fight against ISIS .
It is generally accepted that the actual number is now higher than that — anonymous officials put the number at about 900 today — but the precise figure is classified and remains unknown even , it appears , to members of Trump ’ s administration keen to end the so-called “ forever wars.
” Some mass media propagandists find it hilarious that the US war machine used deceit to thwart the president ’ s attempts to withdraw from its illegal occupation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time that Jeffrey , a foreign policy insider with the past three presidential administrations , has admitted to deceiving the public about what ’ s happening in Syria .
Earlier this year he admitted at a Hudson Institute video event ( these Beltway insiders always get extra honest in the company of fellow think tank denizens ) that , contrary to the official public narrative of the US military being in Syria to fight terrorism , it ’ s actually there to create “ a quagmire for the Russians ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ time we ’ ve heard reports of the US war machine hiding the facts from the elected commander-in-chief of the most powerful military force ever assembled .
Last year The New York Times cited anonymous US officials in a report on cyber intrusion operations against the Russian government that the US military had deliberately kept Trump in the dark about .
“ Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place ‘ implants ’ — software code that can be used for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grid , ” NYT reports .
“ Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction — and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials.
” Mainstream liberal US discourse has accomplished an amazing feat of Orwellian doublethink with regard to the notion that unelected power structures are running things without the consent of the nation ’ s official elected government .
On the one hand there ’ s been a nonstop deluge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s election saying anyone who dares to suggest the existence of a “ deep state ” in America is a conspiracy kook , but on the other hand there ’ s also been constant praise for the insider “ adults in the room ” who ensure from within the administration that Trump doesn ’ t demolish America ’ s precious norms while in office .
This cognitive two-step became even more reified after comments from the likes of Iraq war architect Bill Kristol tweeting that he ’ d “ prefer the deep state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the famous anonymous New York Times op-ed authored by a “ senior official in the Trump administration ” ( now known to have been former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security Miles Taylor ) saying administration officials are working together against Trump to “ thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations ” .
The understanding of a deep state in America has become even more obfuscated by the other side of America ’ s fake partisan divide , with Trump supporters now using that term to essentially mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump ” .
That erroneous understanding has now become so prevalently associated with the term “ deep state ” that it has lost all use in meaningful discourse and is better off being avoided altogether if you want to point at something real .
In reality the term deep state is meant to refer not to anyone who opposes Trump , nor to a secret cabal of baby-eating Satanists , but simply to the tendency among government agencies and plutocrats to form loose alliances with each other and collaborate toward common agendas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for political analysis to describe large-scale power agendas that are largely playing out right out in the open , hidden in plain sight .
It doesn ’ t take a ton of investigative reporting and WikiLeaks drops to understand that there ’ s been a collective of operatives mostly running the Trump administration while the actual elected president yells at the talking heads on Fox News and tweets .
It ’ s also not hard to brush away the insubstantial narrative fluff and see that US policies have remained more or less unbroken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in office , and it doesn ’ t take a Nostradamus to predict that that will continue to be the case after Trump is replaced by the next empty husk in the White House .
The US government simply is not what Americans were taught it is in school , and it is not what they tell you it is in the news .
It ’ s a mostly unelected power establishment which operates in the interests of imperialist expansionism and oligarchic control , with the official elected government operating sort of like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your kid brother to keep him from whining for a chance to play .
All this fuss over who really won the election is missing the point .
People are bickering over which oligarchic puppet should be sworn in on January 20th when all the evidence we ’ ve been given shows that nobody gets to become president if they inconvenience real power in any way , and if they do inconvenience real power they are simply ignored .
That is the direction we should all be looking .
Not at who ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same no matter who ’ s president .

Outgoing US envoy to Syria James Jeffrey stated in a recent interview with Defense One that US officials have been “playing shell games” about the number of troops in the region to deceive the Trump administration into thinking there has been a military withdrawal. Here are some excerpts:
“We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” Jeffrey said in an interview. The actual number of troops in northeast Syria is “a lot more than” the two hundred troops Trump agreed to leave there in 2019.
…
“What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal,” Jeffrey said. “When the situation in northeast Syria had been fairly stable after we defeated ISIS, [Trump] was inclined to pull out. In each case, we then decided to come up with five better arguments for why we needed to stay. And we succeeded both times. That’s the story.”
…
Officially, Trump last year agreed to keep about 200 U.S. troops stationed in northeast Syria to “secure” oil fields held by the United States’ Kurdish allies in the fight against ISIS. It is generally accepted that the actual number is now higher than that — anonymous officials put the number at about 900 today — but the precise figure is classified and remains unknown even, it appears, to members of Trump’s administration keen to end the so-called “forever wars.”
Some mass media propagandists find it hilarious that the US war machine used deceit to thwart the president’s attempts to withdraw from its illegal occupation of Syria:
US officials have been lying to Trump – and the American people – about the true number of US troops in Syria in order to deter him from withdrawing them, according to the outgoing Syria envoy. Trump thinks it’s 200 ??. By @KatieBoWill https://t.co/P6W9s3Qwvs — Liz Sly (@LizSly) November 13, 2020
This would not be the first time that Jeffrey, a foreign policy insider with the past three presidential administrations, has admitted to deceiving the public about what’s happening in Syria. Earlier this year he admitted at a Hudson Institute video event (these Beltway insiders always get extra honest in the company of fellow think tank denizens) that, contrary to the official public narrative of the US military being in Syria to fight terrorism, it’s actually there to create “a quagmire for the Russians”.
This would also not be the first time we’ve heard reports of the US war machine hiding the facts from the elected commander-in-chief of the most powerful military force ever assembled. Last year The New York Times cited anonymous US officials in a report on cyber intrusion operations against the Russian government that the US military had deliberately kept Trump in the dark about.
“Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place ‘implants’ — software code that can be used for surveillance or attack — inside the Russian grid,” NYT reports. “Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction — and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials.”
America's special envoy to Syria publicly admits that the continued illegal US military occupation of parts of the country isn't about fighting ISIS or other terrorists, as Washington claims. Instead the US aims to "make it a quagmire for the Russians." https://t.co/rqL28aM1Ps — Bryan MacDonald (@27khv) May 13, 2020
Mainstream liberal US discourse has accomplished an amazing feat of Orwellian doublethink with regard to the notion that unelected power structures are running things without the consent of the nation’s official elected government. On the one hand there’s been a nonstop deluge of Daily Beast articles since Trump’s election saying anyone who dares to suggest the existence of a “deep state” in America is a conspiracy kook, but on the other hand there’s also been constant praise for the insider “adults in the room” who ensure from within the administration that Trump doesn’t demolish America’s precious norms while in office.
This cognitive two-step became even more reified after comments from the likes of Iraq war architect Bill Kristol tweeting that he’d “prefer the deep state to the Trump state”, and the famous anonymous New York Times op-ed authored by a “senior official in the Trump administration” (now known to have been former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security Miles Taylor) saying administration officials are working together against Trump to “thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations”.
The understanding of a deep state in America has become even more obfuscated by the other side of America’s fake partisan divide, with Trump supporters now using that term to essentially mean “anyone who doesn’t like Donald Trump”. That erroneous understanding has now become so prevalently associated with the term “deep state” that it has lost all use in meaningful discourse and is better off being avoided altogether if you want to point at something real.
In reality the term deep state is meant to refer not to anyone who opposes Trump, nor to a secret cabal of baby-eating Satanists, but simply to the tendency among government agencies and plutocrats to form loose alliances with each other and collaborate toward common agendas. It’s a term used for political analysis to describe large-scale power agendas that are largely playing out right out in the open, hidden in plain sight.
It doesn’t take a ton of investigative reporting and WikiLeaks drops to understand that there’s been a collective of operatives mostly running the Trump administration while the actual elected president yells at the talking heads on Fox News and tweets. It’s also not hard to brush away the insubstantial narrative fluff and see that US policies have remained more or less unbroken regardless of which elected officials have been in office, and it doesn’t take a Nostradamus to predict that that will continue to be the case after Trump is replaced by the next empty husk in the White House.
The US government simply is not what Americans were taught it is in school, and it is not what they tell you it is in the news. It’s a mostly unelected power establishment which operates in the interests of imperialist expansionism and oligarchic control, with the official elected government operating sort of like the unplugged video game controller you hand your kid brother to keep him from whining for a chance to play.
All this fuss over who really won the election is missing the point. People are bickering over which oligarchic puppet should be sworn in on January 20th when all the evidence we’ve been given shows that nobody gets to become president if they inconvenience real power in any way, and if they do inconvenience real power they are simply ignored.
That is the direction we should all be looking. Not at who’s president, but why things stay the same no matter who’s president.
Republished from CaitlinJohnstone.Substack.com with permission


wearechange--2020-11-14--Fauci Showed Breakthrough Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Results To Biden Before Trump

When news first broke about the headline numbers from Pfizer ’ s vaccine trial on Monday morning , we couldn ’ t help but wonder how the Trump Administration and the White House had seemingly been left out of the loop .
The Biden team was reportedly briefed on the data Sunday , one day before its release .
Meanwhile , many at the WH first learned about the data from the press .
Since then , the media ’ s message that we were finally seeing “ the light at the end of the tunnel ” has been tempered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from epidemiology to logistics assuring investors and the general public that there ’ s still a lot we don ’ t about the vaccines , from their long-term efficacy and side-effects , to what unanticipated delays might arise as the first approved vaccines start making their way from warehouses to doctor ’ s offices or pharmacies , wherever the vaccines will ultimately be distributed .
During his first press briefing since the election , President Trump delivered a bitter ‘ I told you so , ’ and slammed Dr. Fauci and Pfizer for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his team before the White House .
Trump comments followed confirmation from DHHS head Alex Azar , who told WMAL host Vince Coglianese that he learned about the trial results from the press…even though the trials were being overseen by agencies within DHHS .
If accurate , that would mean Dr. Fauci & Co. shared the results with Joe Biden , before his victory was even officially certified , which sounds like a pretty brazen gesture of disrespect toward the president and his administration .
According to media reports , White House staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been given a sneak peak at the data ahead of Trump .
As the Federalist pointed out in a report on Azar ’ s revelation , the fact that Biden was briefed before Trump is just another sign that the rollout was a coordinated effort between Pfizer , Dr. Fauci and the NIH to delay the results until after the election to try and boost the former vice president ’ s chances .
Egged on by Bloomberg and other other media outlets , Pfizer has also been blatantly misrepresenting its participation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pfizer didn ’ t receive any money upfront , the US government has promised to deliver a $ 2 billion payment in exchange for 100 million doses .
“ We were never part of the Warp Speed … We have never taken any money from the U.S. government , or from anyone , ” company Senior Vice President Kathrin Jansen said in an interview reported by the New York Times .
Pfizer later had to revise her statement , as they have indeed benefited from a $ 2 billion dollar contract with HHS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top Dems , including NY Gov Andrew Cuomo and Biden ’ s running mate Kamala Harris , have gone from trying to discredit the Trump FDA , to trying to completely white was the administration ’ s efforts and accomplishments with OWS and other aspects of the COVID-19 response .

When news first broke about the headline numbers from Pfizer’s vaccine trial on Monday morning, we couldn’t help but wonder how the Trump Administration and the White House had seemingly been left out of the loop. The Biden team was reportedly briefed on the data Sunday, one day before its release. Meanwhile, many at the WH first learned about the data from the press.
Since then, the media’s message that we were finally seeing “the light at the end of the tunnel” has been tempered by numerous ‘experts’ in fields from epidemiology to logistics assuring investors and the general public that there’s still a lot we don’t about the vaccines, from their long-term efficacy and side-effects, to what unanticipated delays might arise as the first approved vaccines start making their way from warehouses to doctor’s offices or pharmacies, wherever the vaccines will ultimately be distributed.
During his first press briefing since the election, President Trump delivered a bitter ‘I told you so,’ and slammed Dr. Fauci and Pfizer for sharing the data with Joe Biden and his team before the White House.
Trump comments followed confirmation from DHHS head Alex Azar, who told WMAL host Vince Coglianese that he learned about the trial results from the press…even though the trials were being overseen by agencies within DHHS.
“I, as Secretary of Health and Human Services, learned about this from media reports on Monday morning,” Azar said Wednesday during an interview with Washington D.C. radio station WMAL.
If accurate, that would mean Dr. Fauci & Co. shared the results with Joe Biden, before his victory was even officially certified, which sounds like a pretty brazen gesture of disrespect toward the president and his administration.
“If the Biden campaign found out Sunday night but you…didn’t find out until Monday, that sounds like there’s a problem there,” WMAL host Vince Coglianese said during his interview with Azar. “There certainly was a gap in communication, let’s say,” Azar responded.
According to media reports, White House staff were infuriated when they found out Biden had been given a sneak peak at the data ahead of Trump.
As the Federalist pointed out in a report on Azar’s revelation, the fact that Biden was briefed before Trump is just another sign that the rollout was a coordinated effort between Pfizer, Dr. Fauci and the NIH to delay the results until after the election to try and boost the former vice president’s chances.
Egged on by Bloomberg and other other media outlets, Pfizer has also been blatantly misrepresenting its participation in ‘Operation Warp Speed’. Though Pfizer didn’t receive any money upfront, the US government has promised to deliver a $2 billion payment in exchange for 100 million doses.
“We were never part of the Warp Speed … We have never taken any money from the U.S. government, or from anyone,” company Senior Vice President Kathrin Jansen said in an interview reported by the New York Times. Pfizer later had to revise her statement, as they have indeed benefited from a $2 billion dollar contract with HHS.
In a matter of weeks, top Dems, including NY Gov Andrew Cuomo and Biden’s running mate Kamala Harris, have gone from trying to discredit the Trump FDA, to trying to completely white was the administration’s efforts and accomplishments with OWS and other aspects of the COVID-19 response.
Republished from ZeroHedge.com with permission