| WELCOME |
|
comments, ephemera, speculation, etc. (protected political speech and personal opinion) - If this is your 1st visit to this page, please start at the bottom - 2020- 2020-12-27 d WHEN EVIL PREVAILS IV Mathematician Bobby Piton
Finds More Than 500,000 Unique Last Names in
Pennsylvania: ‘Sophisticated State Actor Was Able to
Optimize Desired Outcome’
Bobby Piton, the mathematician who testified at the Arizona voter fraud hearing dropped a bombshell this weekend. Mr. Piton has done extraordinary work crunching data and his testimony pointed out blatant voter fraud through incontrovertible evidence, at one point claiming he’d stake his life on the factual nature of his testimony. Piton revealed this weekend that he examined just over 9 million records in Pennsylvania and has identified 521,879 unique last names. In other words, these people have no parents, siblings, aunts, uncles or cousins who share the same last name (phantom voters). Follow this thread: The
Honorable @POTUS
@realDonaldTrump
I have some absolutely Stunning News to report regarding PA. I examined just over 9,008,753 records and have identified 521,879 unique Last Names. 245,033 or just under 47% of the total Last Names in PA only belong to 1 and only 1 person! — BobbyPiton (@BobbyPiton3) December 27, 2020 (read more) 2020-12-27 c WHEN EVIL PREVAILS III The Conqueror Worm
By Edgar Allan Poe LO! 't is a gala night Within the lonesome latter years! An angel throng, bewinged, bedight In veils, and drowned in tears, Sit in a theatre, to see A play of hopes and fears, While the orchestra breathes fitfully The music of the spheres. Mimes, in the form of God on high, Mutter and mumble low, And hither and thither fly— Mere puppets they, who come and go At bidding of vast formless things That shift the scenery to and fro, Flapping from out their Condor wings Invisible Woe! That motley drama!—oh, be sure It shall not be forgot! With its Phantom chased for evermore, By a crowd that seize it not, Through a circle that ever returneth in To the self-same spot, And much of Madness, and more of Sin And Horror the soul of the plot. But see, amid the mimic rout, A crawling shape intrude! A blood-red thing that writhes from out The scenic solitude! It writhes!—it writhes!—with mortal pangs The mimes become its food, And the angels sob at vermin fangs In human gore imbued. Out—out are the lights—out all! And over each quivering form, The curtain, a funeral pall, Comes down with the rush of a storm, And the angels, all pallid and wan, Uprising, unveiling, affirm That the play is the tragedy "Man," And its hero the Conqueror Worm. Originally published for the January, 1843 issue of Graham's Magazine. 2020-12-27 b WHEN EVIL PREVAILS II "Christmas is not its old self." + "For a generation or two or even three, forces of culture and ideology, in a titanic though sometimes subliminal struggle, have managed to drain the meaning out of America." Christmas in a Dark Time
Meaning and meaninglessness, and a year of trials Scrooge will still send the goose around to the Cratchits, but the boy who delivers it will be wearing a mask. I imagine the nephew has called off his party, so that Uncle Ebenezer will not perform his usual Dickensian frolic (the geezer’s dance of grace and redemption). Instead, he will make the best of a bad time, sitting alone in the cold house and waving at his relatives through the Zoom lens. Christmas is not its old self. None of us is. The holiday is fraught and compromised—a distracted pause in the country’s uncertain journey through a land of pandemic danger, political turmoil, and economic chaos. December 25 somehow seems less to the point than January 5, the date of the special elections for the Georgia Senate seats that will determine the American balance of power in the next two years (at least); or January 20, when the unpredictable Donald Trump is supposed to vacate the White House (but who knows?) and Joe Biden is scheduled to take possession. Like Scrooge, we’ll do our best. Christmas should be better than this. If the phrase did not sound a little violent, I’d adapt Kafka’s line about books and say, “Christmas should be an axe for the frozen sea within us.” Christmas should speak of the power of love, of forgiveness—a truce, a tenderness. There’s not much of that right now in the noisy, nasty public square. Privately, of course, Christmas in any year may be packed with intense emotional meanings—some fairly neurotic. (I know people who are delighted that the pandemic has spared them their usual ordeal). This abnormal Christmas of 2020 is so complicated and novel in its stresses that it may allow us to see the country from an unusual angle. As I write this, it is Christmas Eve morning. The year 2020, more than most, calls for a sermon. I ascend the pulpit. On Christmas, we wish to speak of innocence and the manger. But lo—politics, saturated this year with an unusual measure of stupidity and incompetence and ill will, corrupts the atmosphere. Christmas, in its religious essence, is a profoundly meaningful occasion—and it happens that at this moment, America is in the grip of unprecedented meaninglessness. Or rather, it is suspended—dangling, frantic—between meanings. It needs to be reminded of the First Law of Wing-Walking: Never let go of what you’ve got until you’ve got hold of something else. It’s a good idea to make sure the new something is preferable to the old something. For a generation or two or even three, forces of culture and ideology, in a titanic though sometimes subliminal struggle, have managed to drain the meaning out of America. Sanity, it seems, has gone with it. I exaggerate—but not much—to make the point. In a culture of screens, the flash-mob sanctifies every experimental impulse, every idiot whim, as a New Truth. Vanished are the premises of the former normality: the remnants of the origin myths, what Lincoln called the “mystic chords of memory.” (When he used the phrase in his First Inaugural, he was trying to avert a civil war; it didn’t work). The American backstory (heroes, equestrian statues) has been chipped away, and so have such stabilizing contexts as domesticity, the quaint masculinity of the American male, the (well, you know, atavistic, sexist) meanings of men and women in the Dagwood and Blondie roles. Those all have been scorned out of favor as having been the old lies of a wicked country, which, in reality, was a sort of tsarist regime of “white supremacy.” Good riddance to it. (Really?) The former America and its meanings have been so damned and assaulted and canceled that they seem almost to have passed out of existence, at least in the minds of elites (media, universities, sleek corporate tech), where a new universe of values—a realm self-confidently totalitarian, incapable of self-criticism, and not nearly as wonderful as it thinks it is—has coalesced. The last samurai, defending the old dispensation, do battle, faute de mieux, under the flag of Trump. That’s a shame, because Trump and his ways give a wrong impression of the samurai and what they defend. What does the country stand for? What does America believe? What is it? A hero? A monster of injustice? Or just an incompetent slob? Americans have always been a self-conscious people—if such a various bunch may call themselves “a people”—and have needed to think of themselves as virtuous and significant and preeminent: exceptional. The current crisis leaves them feeling meaningless. It’s not much of a City on a Hill if its citizens are out rioting and the food lines go around the block. America is in exile from itself. Truth does exist, but it must be approached with humility, with the chaste excellence of Cordelia—a quality entirely lost in our time, which belongs to Goneril and Regan. In the year 2020, the truth seems to have gone into hiding, out of disgust and embarrassment and confusion. (read more) 2020-12-27 a WHEN EVIL PREVAILS I "Totalitarianism has never produced anything but destruction, destitution, and death and never will, regardless of the totalitarians’ lofty rhetoric." The Gray Curtain Descends,
Part 1
Let’s dispense with the obscenity that expressed intentions excuse all crimes and consequences. It’s a close contest between which officially approved story is more implausible: Coronavirus as the Scourge of Humanity or America’s Free and Fair Election. The former enabled the latter, and they were propagated by the same people pursuant to an all-in power grab. Both are riddled with glaring inconsistencies and fraud, none of which are mentioned in polite society. It was strange, she
thought, to obtain news by means of nothing but
denials, as if existence had ceased, facts had
vanished and only the frantic negatives uttered by
officials and columnists gave any clue to the
reality they were denying.
Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, 1957 The stories’ propagators don’t address the inconsistencies and fraud because they can’t; they simply deny their existence. They suppress questions, inquiry, and exploration of actual evidence and facts, and promote mindless slogans. The legacy media censorship has been overt, but not as effective as hoped, thanks in large part to the alternative media. The censorship itself is a red flag. If the approved stories are Shining Truth, why can’t they bear challenge? The propagandists are suppressing free inquiry and debate, and they’re about to eliminate it entirely. With next month’s ascension of Biden and Harris and the predatory and parasitic ruling cabal to which they answer, the prize is in site. They see no need to continue feigning fealty to anything other than subjugation and control. For the most part they’ve even dropped their shopworn rhetoric of concern for their subjects. In the good old days there was “for the people” codswallop with the goodies, which you got as long as you did what you were told. The new diktat will be to do as you’re told or else, but there will be no goodies; governments are bankrupt and the ruling cabal has no ability to produce. They will not be bothered by destitution and deaths among the ruled, that’s a feature, not a bug. Indeed, any detectable concern would be grounds for immediate expulsion from the cabal. Let’s dispense with the obscenity that expressed intentions excuse all crimes and consequences. Totalitarianism has never produced anything but destruction, destitution, and death and never will, regardless of the totalitarians’ lofty rhetoric. Totalitarians are vultures, not eagles, and the current kettle of vultures intend to dine on the corpse of history’s most advanced civilization. Draft animals work harder for a morsel or kind words than for the whip or switch, but somehow humans are different. Whips, switches, prisons, and subjugation pave the road to utopia. When they instead lead to a charnel house, that’s not the fault of the whippers, switchers, wardens, or subjugators. Except it is. Orwell said it best: “The object of power is power.” Power’s trite slogans and rationalizations don’t excuse its murderous depredations, they only increase its inescapable guilt. Compromise between good and evil spells death for the good. If I ask you to drink a cup of cyanide and you refuse, but we compromise on half a cup, who wins? It’s these sort of compromises, exacted bit by bit over decades, that have destroyed a once great nation. It’s understandable how it happened. There’s a problem and more power for the rulers is always the solution: a Civil War, central bank fiat debt, an income tax, make the world safe for democracy, a New Deal, Frontier, or Covenant, Hope and Change, leader of the Free World, wars on poverty, drugs, terror, and now, germs, and so on. The compromises serve as precedents that launch the next compromises and consequent government accretions of power. (The Civil War was precedent for both the income tax and fiat currency 48 years later.) Solutions are always presented in a blinding blaze of propaganda. There are always the unblinded few who question and dissent. They are always ostracized or worse. The rest learn the lesson. Herd behavior is hard-wired. Like a pack of wildebeests after one spots a lion, there are times when reflexive flight is the right response. However, nothing government does is quick enough to be considered reflexive; there’s been time enough to question, analyze, and protest virtually everything the US government has done since its inception. Unfortunately, at the individual level, sticking with the pack often makes perfect sense. To be the one who refuses to obey, or to even question the dictates of a powerful government that is both stoking and benefiting from herd frenzy, is to risk ruin, imprisonment, and sometimes, death. The crowd does what the crowd does. Regardless of the arguments, and perhaps the insults and deprecations from the few outside the crowd, it rationalizes its own behavior. Who are we to question? It’s still a great nation, it could be worse. Why risk our comfortable lifestyle for intangible principles? Better safe than sorry. And there’s the secret thought: yes, there may be unfortunate consequences, but I’ll be dead by then. Except the unfortunate consequences have arrived. We’re confronted by a dystopian totalitarianism the design of which the totalitarians are no longer trying to hide. Virtually everything has already been compromised and the meager remnant of freedom is on the table. As the crowd is prodded into the cattle cars (not social distancing, their well-being no longer even a faux concern) uneasy whispers circulate: is the final destination the abattoir? ... The gray curtain descends. What further demonstration is necessary of impoverish, subjugate, and kill than Coronavirus totalitarianism, which has done all three? It’s the preview of coming attractions. The last flimsy excuse for the ruled is the one that would presumably be offered by roadkill if it wasn’t dead: it was too stunned by the headlights to think or act. The moment is nigh: you’ll be totalitarian roadkill if you’re too stunned by the brazen evil unfolding to think and act, now. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are no more the rightful president and vice president than I would be the rightful owner of your house if I forced my way in, held a gun to your head, and made you sign over the deed. Unlike the solipsistic plaints after President Trump won a semi-legitimate election in 2016 (“Not my president!”), Joe Biden will not be my or anyone else’s rightful president in 2021. (The 2016 election probably was rigged—for Hillary—the riggers just didn’t do an adequate job, unlike 2020.) Biden and his partner in crime are usurpers and SLL will not refer to either one by their stolen titles. Until the inauguration SLL will refer to Biden as Not Our President-Elect, or NOPE. They’re small gestures, but revolutions start with small gestures. (read more) 2020-12-26 d THE BILL GATES VACCINES Mainstream Media Urges Men to
Freeze Sperm Before Getting COVID-19 Vaccine Due to
Infertility Concerns
These vaccines do not seem safe. The fake news media is actually telling men to freeze their sperm before getting a COVID-19 vaccine because it may cause infertility. The University of Miami is conducting research into the experimental COVID-19 vaccine potentially causing infertility. They are conducting a study to determine whether or not the vaccine has these damaging effects. “We’re evaluating the sperm parameters and quality before the vaccine and after the vaccine. From the biology of the COVID vaccine we believe it shouldn’t affect fertility but we want to do the study to make sure that man who want to have kids in the future to assure them it’s safe to go ahead and get the vaccine,” said Dr. Ranjith Ramasamy, a reproductive urologist with U Health. WPLG Local 10 News offered an ominous warning: “To protect fertility, some men may want to consider freezing their sperm prior to vaccination.” ... These vaccines may end up causing worse health problems than the COVID-19 virus itself. Big Pharma will make out like bandits though so the truth will ultimately be swept under the rug by the globalists. The mass hysteria from the scamdemic is the perfect crisis to usher in a one-world technocracy. (read more) 2020-12-26 c THE COVID-CON I COVID-19 and Resisting
Government Malfeasance
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic [of lies], the governments of the United States have mistreated the citizens of the country by destroying their means of making a living and limiting their freedom of movement. Government powers have been used to shut down enterprises, knowing full well that people's livelihoods depend on their operation. Government edicts have prohibited people from moving freely in small localities and even between states. Individual citizens have the right to move about and do work for the purpose of maintaining themselves and their families as long as their work is not harming others. The government's judicial system is authorized to interfere only if that work does such harm. A tradition has developed that the executive branches of our governments can, in the event of an emergency, interfere in these rights to work and to move about, but the understanding always has been that the interference would be a temporary, stopgap measure that would be withdrawn as soon as possible. The COVID-19 pandemic [of lies] was at first a mysterious adversary. Its infectiousness and deadliness were unknown. So the citizens initially accepted the imposition of limits to their innate rights to move freely and work, but since the arrival in our country of this new virus, we have clearly learned that: 1.COVID-19 is not as
deadly as initially feared.
2.The risk of death is very much limited to those who are elderly and infirm. 3.Various low-cost and low-risk medications effectively treat the disease. 4.Public health officials cannot accurately forecast the spread of the virus. 5.Tabulations of deaths from the virus are inflated. 6.Nobody knows how effective masks are. 7.And government directives are arbitrary, inconsistent, and contradictory. Our governments cannot credibly refute any of these seven lessons learned. They have had a year to deal with this supposed emergency, yet they offer no specifics regarding why it should continue to be treated as such. We the citizens, therefore, must hold our governments responsible for an ongoing denial of our right to work and move about. With each passing month, it becomes increasingly clear that these governments are reluctant to surrender a source of power over us that they have no right to exercise. The time has come to reject their authority. The problem we have is that a significant portion of the national population supports these illegitimate limits on our rights to work and movement and, indeed, peaceable assembly. Those who support this governmental overreach are often unaffected by it. Government employees continue to work, or at least to get paid whether they work or not. Knowledge workers and office workers who do not have to be in a specific place where actual calories get expended to any significant degree feel limited adverse effects from government policies regarding COVID-19. Unemployed people and others who are sustained by public assistance also rarely suffer much from the regulations and stipulations placed on the productive populace. Most of those who suffer from governmental limits on work and movement are blue-collar workers and employed families in which both spouses must work to pay the bills. The many people who continue to support strictures base their view on the notion that the virus is an existential threat. But where is the evidence? That over 300,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 is weak evidence since the great majority of those deaths occurred in people who already were sick with other diseases. The estimated incidence of comorbidities in those who die is very high — perhaps more than 90%. COVID-19 may have been the prime cause of death in some instances, but not all of them. Automatically coding COVID-19 as the cause of death even when comorbidities are present obviously leads to significant overcounting. Most of those who view COVID-19 as a continuing existential threat have little skin in the game. Their relative immunity to the negative consequences of quarantines and lockdowns allows them to focus their attention on the potential benefits. For them, it is easy to ignore the illegality of imposing limits to work and movement based on the poorly documented existence of a temporary emergency. Those of us who recognize the brazen lawlessness of current governmental actions to deal with COVID-19 have an obligation to resist this overreach. A first step would be to stop humbling ourselves before social norms and authority figures. Not wearing masks ought to be a default position. ... We should move around in public as we wish, not just alone, but in groups as large as we commonly did before the pandemic [of lies] — all without wearing masks. ... We should travel free of worry about consequences. ... For now, the aim is just to establish that a large part of the American population does not believe that mask-wearing or limitations on freedom of movement are legitimate government actions. This will do nothing to alleviate the unjust alienation of citizens from their work, but at this stage overt, resistance by individual enterprises will only bring down excessive punishment, and complaints from the unemployed will go unheeded. We must start with what is feasible. Challenging government diktats regarding masks and personal movement confronts governmental overreach where it is most vulnerable. If enough people resist in this arena, the governments will not be able to cope with the large numbers and geographic spread of this resistance to the rules — especially if the resistance is neither violent nor totally uncooperative. This is just the start. For now, we should passively resist directives to wear a mask or to limit our freedom of movement because this can drain the resources and sap the will of central authority. In the process, we become visible, and this will stimulate a sense of solidarity among freedom-loving citizens. (read more) 2020-12-26 b TRUMP TWEETS - @realDonaldTrump I saved
at least 8 Republican Senators, including Mitch,
from losing
in the last Rigged (for President) Election. Now they (almost all) sit back and watch me fight against a crooked and vicious foe, the Radical Left Democrats. I will NEVER FORGET! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 24, 2020 * Twitter
is going wild with their flags, trying hard to
suppress even the truth.
Just shows how dangerous they are, purposely stifling free speech. Very dangerous for our Country. Does Congress know that this is how Communism starts? Cancel Culture at its worst. End Section 230! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 24, 2020 * VOTER
FRAUD IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY, IT IS A FACT!!!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 24, 2020 2020-12-26 a "His power will be plenary and unappealable." + "There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth, but no one has the authority to override his decision." It's for Mike Pence to Judge
whether a Presidential Election Was Held at All
On January 6, a joint session of Congress will open with Vice President Pence presiding as president of the Senate. His power will be plenary and unappealable. You heard that right. As president of the Senate, every objection comes directly to him, and he can rule any objection "out of order" or "denied." His task will be to fulfill his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. This is a high standard of performance, and V.P. Pence will have two choices. He can roll over on "certified" electors, or he can uphold the law. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution gives state legislatures "plenary authority" as enunciated in Bush v. Gore. This is key, since the counting of votes is discussed in Article II, the 12th Amendment, and 3 USC 15. To this we must add the history of counting and objections recounted by Alexander Macris (here and here). Put bluntly, it's as clear as mud. Add to that the fact that the contested states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have sent dueling slates of electors to D.C. This means that the V.P. has to decide how he will handle the situation when two sealed envelopes are handed to him from any of those states. Macris points out that in 1800, even with constitutional deficiencies in Georgia, Thomas Jefferson blithely counted defective electoral votes from Georgia, effectively voting himself into the presidency. This demonstrates that the president of the Senate is the final authority on any motions or objections during the vote-counting. There is no appeal. That doesn't mean there won't be any outrage. Whatever Pence does, people will be angry. But what does the law demand? Seven contested states clearly violated their own laws. Rather than list the facts, which have been detailed in multiple articles, we must consider the following: An election is a process of counting votes for candidates. Only valid, lawful votes may be counted. A valid lawful vote is: •Cast by an eligible, properly registered
elector as prescribed by laws enacted by the state
Legislature.
•Cast in a timely manner, as prescribed by laws enacted by the state Legislature. •Cast in a proper form as prescribed by laws enacted by the state Legislature. Any process that does not follow these rules is not an election. Anything that proceeds from it cannot be regarded as having any lawful import. Most commentators suggest that a process of collecting pieces of paper with marks on them is an election regardless of errors, omissions, and even deliberate malfeasance. This is a mistake. Imagine a golf tournament where every bad shot by one player gets a do-over, but the competing player has to follow USGA rules in detail. One player gets to drop freely out of hazards, but the other has to tackle every embedded ball as it lies. The result is a travesty. The same thing applies to elections. If there are a handful of improper votes, we can suggest that there was in fact an election, perhaps tainted, but the election wasn't materially harmed. But when the people charged with managing the election decide to ignore the law, whatever process they supervise is not the process defined by the law. Therefore, it is not an election. This leaves V.P. Pence with a dilemma. He is a gentleman who regards our governmental traditions with a degree of reverence, so he will be reluctant to take any bold action. But as an honorable man, faced with massive illegality, he must act to protect the law. Consider how things might go down as the two closed envelopes from Georgia are handed to the V.P. Rather than opening them, he says: In my hand are envelopes purporting to contain electoral votes from Georgia. They are competing for consideration, so it is essential that I consider the law that governs this. That law, according to the Legislature of Georgia and Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution is the Georgia statute that includes procedures for signature-matching on absentee ballots, a requirement that all absentee ballots be first requested by a legitimate voter, and that election monitors be meaningfully present at all times while votes were counted. The Georgia secretary of state, who is not empowered by the U.S. Constitution to make changes to election law, entered into a Consent Decree that gutted these protections enacted by the Georgia Legislature. The processes that he prescribed and were ultimately followed were manifestly contrary to that law. Further, the State of Georgia, in unprecedented concert with other states, suspended counting of ballots in the middle of the night, covering its conspiracy with a false claim of a "water main break." We now know from surveillance video that many thousands of "ballots" were counted unlawfully in the absence of legally required observers. Finally, the State of Georgia, under the authority of secretary of state Brad Raffensperger, a non-legislative actor, used fatally flawed Dominion voting machines that have been demonstrated to be unreliable. In testing, the error rate of Dominion machines has exceeded 60%, far in excess of legal limits. They are designed to facilitate fraud without creating the legally required paper trail. This alone is far more than enough to swing an election. Since the state of Georgia has failed to follow the election law established by its legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, it has not conducted a presidential election. Therefore, no "presidential electors" were appointed in Georgia. Further, "electors" "certified" by non-legislative actors pursuant to this process are in fact not "presidential electors." The competing slate of "electors" is similarly deficient, having not been elected through a presidential election. Therefore, the chair rules that Georgia has not transmitted the votes of any presidential electors to this body. Georgia presents zero votes for Donald Trump and zero votes for Joseph Biden. The central point is that the VP, as the presiding officer and final authority, has the unquestionable authority to declare that the states in question have not conducted presidential elections. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth, but no one has the authority to override his decision. The statement says nothing about who might or might not have "won" the contested states. Rather, by not following their own laws, as enacted by their own legislatures, they have violated Article II, Section 1. Thus, they have not conducted an election, and their results are void. If the votes of all seven contested states are registered as zero, President Trump will have 232 votes, and Joe Biden will have 222. The 12th Amendment says, "[T]he votes shall then be counted[.] ... The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President[.]" In plain language, Donald Trump will be re-elected, since he has a majority of the actual electoral votes. There will be no need to involve the House of Representatives to resolve a contingent election. Richard Nixon chose not to contest the 1960 election because he felt that winning that way would lead to an ungovernable country. If V.P. Pence does this, that same argument might be made. But is the country governable even now? Blue states such as California, Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, and Michigan are already operating in an openly lawless manner with their "emergency" "COVID-related" restrictions. Their denial of the civil rights of law-abiding citizens is horrific. Their refusal to do basic policing and law enforcement is a recipe for open war. How much worse would things be if the V.P. lived up to his oath and upheld the law? (read more) (this material was first covered in 2020-12-11 d) 2020-12-25 d "In the vernacular, the Supreme Court blew it, threatening the bonds that hold the union together." Overcoming the Court’s
Abdication in Texas
v. Pennsylvania
William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney December 24, 2020 In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court. As a result, the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever. However, even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff. This paper explains that legal strategy. But first we focus on the errors made by the Supreme Court — in the hopes that they will not be made again. Texas v. Pennsylvania The Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge brought by the State of Texas against four states which had refused to abide by Article II, § 1, cl. 2 — the Presidential Electors Clause, which establishes the conditions and requirements governing the election of the President of the United States. In adopting that provision, the Framers vested in each State legislature the exclusive authority to determine the manner of appointing Presidential electors. The Framers’ plan was shown to be exceedingly wise, because we have now learned that allowing other state and private actors to write the election rules led to massive election fraud in the four defendant states. Individuals can be bought, paid for and corrupted so much easier than state legislatures. In refusing to hear the case, the sole reason given was that Texas lacked “standing.” In doing so, all nine justices committed a wrong against: (i) Texas and the 17 states that supported its suit; (ii) the United States; (iii) the President; and (iv) the People. The Court’s Many Wrongs in Texas v. Pennsylvania. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 78, courts have “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” As such, in deciding cases courts have a duty to explain their decisions so the rest of us may know if they constitute arbitrary exercises of political power, or reasoned decisions of judicial power which the People can trust. In Texas v. Pennsylvania, all that the justices felt obligated to do was to state its — “lack of standing” — supported by a one sentence justification: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” Resolving a case of this magnitude with one conclusory sentence is completely unacceptable. The Supreme Court docket consists primarily of only those cases the High Court chooses to hear. However, just like when it agrees to decide a case, and in disputes where the original jurisdiction of the Court is invoked, it has a duty to decide cases properly brought to them. Two centuries ago, Chief Justice John Marshall construed the obligation of contracts clause in a decision where he wrote: “however irksome the task may be, this is a duty from which we dare not shrink.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). Courts have a duty to resolve important cases even if they would prefer to avoid them. In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Marshall described “the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is” because “every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” Abdication in a case of this sort is not a judicial option. The Supreme Court’s reliance on standing as its excuse has had one positive result — provoking many to study the origins of that doctrine who may be surprised to learn that the word “standing” nowhere appears in the Constitution. There is compelling evidence to demonstrate it was birthed by big-government Justices during the FDR Administration to shield New Deal legislation, and to insulate the Administrative State from challenges by the People. Those who favored the Texas decision argue that standing is a conservative doctrine as it limits the power of the courts — but the true constitutionalist uses only tests grounded in its text. The true threshold constitutional test is whether a genuine and serious “controversy” exists between the States that could be resolved by a court. The only reason given by the Supreme Court was: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” In truth, Texas did make such a showing. When Pennsylvania violated the exclusive authority bestowed on state legislators in the Constitution’s Electors Clause, it opened the door to corruption and foreign intrigue to corrupt the electoral votes of Pennsylvania, and as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 68, that is exactly why the Framers created the Electoral College. During the 2020 election cycle, changes to the election process in Pennsylvania were made by judges, state office holders and election officials which would never have been made by its state legislature. If the process by which Presidential Electors are chosen is corrupted in a few key states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin by rigging the system in favor of one candidate, it becomes wholly irrelevant who the People of Texas support. That political reality presents a real “judicially cognizable interest” no matter what the Supreme Court decided. What happens in Pennsylvania does not stay in Pennsylvania, as electors from all States acting together select the President of the United States. In the Federalist Papers, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton recognized the need to combat “the spirit of faction” and the tendency of each State to yield to its immediate interest at the expense of national unity. They reasoned that the Constitution provided a solution to this centrifugal pressure while reserving a measure of sovereignty to each State. When differences arise between States that threaten to lead to disunion, the Republic can be held together, as Hamilton observed, either “by the agency of the Courts or by military force.” A constitutional remedy to enable the States to resolve their differences peacefully is the provision that permits any State to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to address and settle their differences. In the vernacular, the Supreme Court blew it, threatening the bonds that hold the union together. Round Two: The United States Must Enter the Fray Fortunately, that might have been only the first round in the fight to preserve the nation. A strategy exists to re-submit the Texas challenge under the Electors Clause to the Supreme Court in a way that even that Court could not dare refuse to consider. Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution, it harms the nation. Article III, § 2, cl. 2 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in any case suit brought by the United States against a state. Thus, the United States can and should file suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. Like the Texas suit, that new suit would seek an order invalidating the appointment of the electors appointed by those four defendant States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause. That would leave it to the state legislatures in those four states to “appoint” electors — which is what the Constitution requires. When those four States violated the Constitution by allowing electors who had not been appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature, the United States suffered an injury. Indeed, there could hardly have been a more significant injury to the nation than that which corrupted its Presidential election. The United States has a vital interest and a responsibility to preserve the constitutional framework of the Republic, which was formed by a voluntary compact among the States. As with any contractual relationship of participants in an ongoing enterprise, no party is entitled to ignore or alter the essential terms of the contract by its unilateral action. The President who has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution has the right and the duty to order the U.S. Department of Justice bring such an action in the Supreme Court — and should do so quickly. (read more) (read first memo) 2020-12-25 c "The White House has instructed Trump staff to STOP packing… The Pentagon has stopped giving Joe Biden intelligence briefings…" Rudy Giuliani: “You’re going
to find it out all at once – it’s going to be very
shocking to the country."
Have you noticed how confident President Trump appears to be lately? Have you noticed how Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, appears to be happier than usual? That’s because something BIG is coming! We’ve been telling you for weeks. Let’s put 2 + 2 together. The White House has instructed Trump staff to STOP packing… The Pentagon has stopped giving Joe Biden intelligence briefings… More Republican representatives are on the record claiming they will contest the electoral votes… Dan Scavino has been posting increasingly cryptic messages on Twitter… And Kamala Harris STILL hasn’t left her Senate seat! Now, Rudy Giuliani has given an explanation on the voter fraud: Forget about a drip-drip-drip. Rudy is telling you what is going to happen! Whatever “it” is will happen ALL AT ONCE. This means that Democrats and the fake news cannot “spin” and attempt to “debunk” every story as it drips out. Instead, the EVIDENCE will be dropped so quickly that their heads will be spinning! Rudy discussed this in a mammoth episode on YouTube, explaining the Trump strategy and what is to come! Remember, this is coming straight from the source. No media filter! (read more) 2020-12-25 b "For the sake of public confidence, it would be prudent to have a credible law enforcement body conduct forensic exams and audits of the machines and software to rule out interference by third parties, or any other illegalities or mischief." 2020 Election Screaming Red
Flags That Deserved Criminal Inquiry
The presidential election is no casual, unimportant event. Polling shows that, today, the public’s confidence in the 2020 elections, polling, law enforcement, media, and government are largely shaken. For that reason, the widespread claims of election irregularities and fraud should have been taken more seriously by government officials and law enforcement, and promptly and aggressively investigated. Today, there are hundreds of witnesses, declarations, sworn statements, and videos that continue to raise questions about the integrity of the results. It’s untrue that most of the claims have been dispelled by courts. By and large, there’s been no opportunity for witnesses to testify or present evidence to a judge or jury. More importantly, perhaps, there’s been no way to collect evidence of alleged fraud without the tools of a criminal inquiry, such as subpoenas, depositions, and the ability to compel forensic exams. If legitimate and transparent investigations were to find the witnesses who claim fraud or irregularities are mistaken or not telling the truth, the inquiries would serve the crucial purpose of assuring the public that the claims were thoroughly investigated but found to be unsupportable or false. The following are eight examples of screaming red flags that begged for a prompt, thorough criminal inquiry. 1. Ballots Allegedly Trucked Across State Lines The FBI has a role in determining whether an interstate crime occurred, and who is responsible, if hundreds of thousands of ballots were trucked from New York to Pennsylvania, as a firsthand witness states. It should be simple for law enforcement to get to the bottom of it by finding out who hired the truck and moved the cargo, or showing that the story is made up or a misunderstanding. 2. Subtracted Votes There are several reported accounts of vote switching in real time, as shown on television, supposedly an example of how mischief can occur. It would not be difficult for an investigative team to track down what happened in the specific instances and, if verified, it implicates more switching could have happened undetected. 3. Vote Count Pauses Vote counting was oddly paused in several states. If, as some claim, it was done so that Joe Biden’s ballot deficit could be figured and erased, it would point to a coordinated effort. It would not be difficult for criminal investigators to question decision makers at each location and find out who they communicated with. This could prove or dispel the notion of a coordinated scheme. 4. Fulton County, Georgia’s Mysterious Water Pipe Break Fulton County is a special case since the reason given for a major vote pause, and the reason uncritically accepted and reported by many in the press, was that a water pipe burst and interrupted the count. However, the story morphed over weeks, and a state investigator ultimately concluded there was no pipe burst that would have interrupted any counting. No good public explanation for this discrepancy has been provided by a credible authority. It would not be difficult for criminal investigators to identify and question whoever called the vote count suspension, and then moved forward with counting after some observers were dismissed. 5. Blocked Observation There are widespread accounts from Republican election observers, and some Democrats, about being allegedly blocked from seeing what was going on. It would make sense for a law enforcement authority to question who was at the top of the organizational chain at each location where this is credibly claimed by a witness in a declaration or sworn statement, and find out how the official decided to determine and deploy the rules for observation. It would not be difficult to learn whether there was a coordinated effort or, in the alternative, to hold accountable anyone at the local level who improperly shielded ballot counting from observers. 6. Voting Machines In recent testimony to the Michigan state legislature, Dominion Voting Systems’ CEO stated he saw no credible claims of fraud. But when asked how it can be proved that bad actors didn’t impact and infiltrate voting systems, he advocated the idea of audits and even machine examinations to answer those outstanding questions. He even said this is the common way such questions are answered. For the sake of public confidence, it would be prudent to have a credible law enforcement body conduct forensic exams and audits of the machines and software to rule out interference by third parties, or any other illegalities or mischief. 7. Mail-in Ballots Numerous witnesses from the postal service as well as at polling precincts have provided specific information about allegedly being instructed to falsely date, add birth dates, or otherwise improperly alter mail-in ballots, or have testified about hearing plans to do so. This is an important and easy issue for criminal investigative authorities to nail down one way or the other. 8. Backdoor Ballots The midnight dumps of tens of thousands of ballots in key swing states overturning the Trump lead could be perfectly legitimate. However, it’s unusual to say the least. And so, in this environment, it’s important that a criminal investigative body conduct at least a preliminary inquiry in places where witnesses observed what they considered to be suspicious behavior or ballots. It should not be difficult to track the chain of custody and show they’re legitimate or, if not, find out who transported them. Finding evidence that dispels mischief is as equally important as an investigation that finds wrongdoing. The simple declaration that there’s nothing to investigate, or having people who have no way to know the truth call the claims “conspiracy theories,” is unlikely to dismiss widespread concerns and may, in fact, heighten mistrust. (read more) 2020-12-25 a STONE IS BACK Roger
Stone · @rogerstone
1 day ago - 274572 The terms of my pardon allow me to sue the Department of Justice, Robert Mueller, James Comey, John Brennan, Rod Rosenstein ,Josnathan Kravis , Aaron " Fat Ass" Zelinsky Jeanie Rhee and Michael Morando. My lawyers will be filing formal complaints for prosecutorial misconduct's with DOJ office of professional responsibility at the same time I file a 25 million Dollar lawsuit against the DOJ and each of these individuals personally:In fact I am going to add Bill Barr to the lawsuit and I will handle his cross-examination personally.. 2020-12-24 e "completely erasing the criminal conviction to which I was subjected in a Soviet-style show trial on politically-motivated charges" Statement of Roger Stone on
Presidential Pardon
On behalf of my family and myself, I wish to praise God and give my deepest thanks to President Donald J. Trump for his extraordinary act of justice in issuing me a presidential pardon, completely erasing the criminal conviction to which I was subjected in a Soviet-style show trial on politically-motivated charges, further corrupted by egregious, illegal misconduct by the Jury Forewoman in the case. Just weeks ago, when the US Department of Justice released the last remaining redacted sections of the ‘Mueller Report’ that pertained to my case, the Special Counsel admitted that there was no “factual” evidence whatsoever of coordination, collaboration or collusion between me, any Russians, WikiLeaks or publisher Julian Assange. Additionally, they found no “factual” evidence that I had advance knowledge of the precise timing, source, or content of any of WikiLeaks’ 2016 disclosures, including the release of John Podesta’s apparently purloined emails. Even more incredibly, the ‘Mueller Report’ concludes that even if they had found evidence that I had received data from WikiLeaks and disseminated it to anyone, these were perfectly legal, constitutionally-protected actions under the First Amendment. In short: Mueller’s intrusive, lawless, malicious multi-million-dollar witch hunt could find no prosecutable crime against me, other than what they managed to fabricate. Why am I not shocked that only BuzzFeed, whose lawsuit won release of this material, the Washington Examiner and ZeroHedge reported this shocking news? Perhaps it’s because the Justice Department released it at midnight of election day – the busiest news day of the year – in other words, they wanted it buried deep. Or perhaps media outlets like the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, the Business Insider, Politico, and others who gleefully reported lie after lie about me, my case, and the purported “evidence” against me. In fact, the media jackals reported nothing. I have no doubt that the unhinged radical left, who despise both President Trump and me, will now recycle the entirely-false and now thoroughly debunked narrative that I “maintained my silence” regarding misconduct by the President in return for the commutation of my sentence and a pardon. Hillary Clinton has said it, Jerry Nadler has said it, Adam Schiff and Hakeem Jeffries have said it and Eric Swalwell, the communist Chinese-compromised Congressman, echoed it. It’s a lie. This canard is based on a conversation I had with Howard Fineman that he later misreported on MSNBC. Fortunately, I have Fineman’s text message reaffirming that I never said I ‘knew of criminal misconduct’ by the President or ever said that I maintained my silence to protect him, but rather that I merely repeated what I had said on multiple occasions after the commutation of my sentence, namely that I refused to bear false testimony against the President when the Mueller prosecutors approached my attorneys seeking my “cooperation” in return for a recommendation for leniency in my sentencing. Claims falsely made by Michael Cohen and Rick Gates that they overheard conversations between candidate Trump and myself discussing WikiLeaks are not only totally uncorroborated, but also materialized only after the Special Counsel’s legal operators’ induced the two with favorable plea bargains for their other crimes. These manufactured claims are unsupported by any phone records or witnesses and their sworn testimony is contradicted by their FBI 302 documents released by the Justice Department. I was charged with “lying to Congress,” even though any misstatements I made to partisan Democrat inquisitors on the House Intelligence Committee concealed nothing material either to their investigation or regarding any underlying crime, because there was none. Rod Rosenstein testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he did not approve the investigation into my affairs. His statement is belied by his own signed scope-memo authorizing the Special Counsel’s expansion. In other words, Rosenstein lied to Congress under oath. More recently, the Washington Post reported that three top senior nonpolitical career prosecutors denied claims made by Assistant US Attorney Aaron Zelinsky in sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Committee that they told him they were being pressured by the White House and top administration officials regarding my sentencing, specifically to “go easy on Stone in their sentencing recommendation.” In other words, both Rosenstein and Zelinsky lied to Congress. When will they be prosecuted? ... The injustice done to me does not stand alone. Other good Americans have been victims of a corrupt system made to serve venal power-seekers, rewarding deceit and manipulation, rather than reason and justice. President Trump can be the purveyor of justice over the vile machinations of wicked pretenders to the mantle of public service. I hope the president will consider granting full and unconditional pardons to Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Marcus Garvey, and Former Secret Service Agent Abraham W. Bolden, Sr. (read more) 2020-12-24 d TRUMP TWEETS - @realDonaldTrump * * After
seeing the massive Voter Fraud in the 2020
Presidential Election,
I disagree with anyone that thinks a strong, fast, and fair Special Counsel is not needed, IMMEDIATELY. This was the most corrupt election in the history of our Country, and it must be closely examined! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2020 2020-12-24 c THE COVID-CON III "Although the science behind keeping restaurants open is a worthy debate, it is important to remember that society is not a science experiment. There are tremendous social, economic, and legal consequences that come with such policies that we have seen play out throughout the pandemic." Closing Restaurants Is
Unscientific and Dangerous
With small business owners struggling under the weight of lockdown orders, Los Angeles and New York City drew intense criticism recently for closing restaurants again. Los Angeles issued an outdoor dining ban on top of its existing indoor dining ban and New York an indoor dining ban which, with the coming winter cold, by default ends outdoor dining as well. Both these cities have been especially heavy-handed with their application of public health interventions, issuing different policies with alarming frequency. Such behavior in itself leads to confusion and turmoil as communities are forced into situations to which they can never adapt financially or socially. In light of growing knowledge about Covid-19 as well as our experience with the outcomes of public health interventions, restaurant closures should not be seen as a sensible policy. Not only do they cause tremendous economic and social trauma, but they also lack strong scientific backing and legal consistency. Closing restaurants, especially at this stage in the pandemic, will not only lead to adverse public health consequences, but will also undermine the rule of law. The Faulty Science Behind Restaurant Closures The main rationale behind closing restaurants pertains to stemming the recent upticks in Covid-19 cases and deaths. Part of this could be attributed to the fact that this time of the year is flu season, and it was correctly predicted earlier in the year that winter would bring a resurgence of the virus. Another explanation cites Thanksgiving family gatherings as another large contributor, as individuals gathered in spaces where guidelines were unlikely practiced. These are all reasonable explanations and one can go in many directions with this information, but closing restaurants is not one of them. Although restaurants are sometimes labeled “superspreaders” according to contact tracing published by the state of New York, restaurants and bars only account for 1.43% of transmissions. Such data does not seem to be an anomaly as another report from Marion County, Oregon suggests that only 1% of transmissions could be traced to restaurants and bars. ... According to a recent study published by researchers at Stanford University, highly broad and disruptive policies such as restaurant closures are inferior to more precise policies such as occupancy limits. It also found that restrictive policies such as stay at home orders lead to increased transmission rates upon reopening, likley due to a backload of pent up demand ... Another important and concerning development that could result from restaurant closures is the general unraveling of the rule of law. In the eyes of many, restaurant closures are unscientific, arbitrary, economically devastating, and culturally demoralizing. On their face, restaurant closures represent a legally undisciplined policy that exhibits arbitrary and reckless rulemaking. ... The recent wave of restaurant closures, most notably in New York City and Los Angeles, threatens to continue the disastrous policies that have characterized the pandemic. They not only go against mounting scientific evidence, but seem to conform to a style of decision-making based on narratives and not reality. (read more) 2020-12-24 b THE COVID-CON II "It has taken the additional step of actually mischaracterizing the structure and functioning of vaccines." WHO Deletes Naturally Acquired
Immunity from Its Website
Maybe you have some sense that something fishy is going on? Same. If it’s not one thing, it’s another. Coronavirus lived on surfaces until it didn’t. Masks didn’t work until they did, then they did not. There is asymptomatic transmission, except there isn’t. Lockdowns work to control the virus except they do not. All these people are sick without symptoms until, whoops, PCR tests are wildly inaccurate because they were never intended to be diagnostic tools. Everyone is in danger of the virus except they aren’t. It spreads in schools except it doesn’t. On it goes. Daily. It’s no wonder that so many people have stopped believing anything that “public health authorities” say. In combination with governors and other autocrats doing their bidding, they set out to take away freedom and human rights and expected us to thank them for saving our lives. At some point this year (for me it was March 12) life began feeling like a dystopian novel of your choice. Well, now I have another piece of evidence to add to the mile-high pile of fishy mess. The World Health Organization, for reasons unknown, has suddenly changed its definition of a core conception of immunology: herd immunity. Its discovery was one of the major achievements of 20th century science, gradually emerging in the 1920s and then becoming ever more refined throughout the 20th century. Herd immunity is a fascinating observation that you can trace to biological reality or statistical probability theory, whichever you prefer. (It is certainly not a “strategy” so ignore any media source that describes it that way.) Herd immunity speaks directly, and with explanatory power, to the empirical observation that respiratory viruses are either widespread and mostly mild (common cold) or very severe and short-lived (Ebola). Why is this? The reason is that when a virus kills its host, it cannot migrate. The more aggressively it does this, the less it spreads. If the virus doesn’t kill its host, it can hop to others through all the usual means. When you get a virus and fight it off, your immune system encodes that information in a way that builds immunity to it. When it happens to enough people (and each case is different so we can’t put a clear number on it) the virus loses its pandemic quality and becomes endemic, which is to say predictable and manageable. Each new generation incorporates that information through more exposure. This is what one would call Virology/Immunology 101. It’s what you read in every textbook. It’s been taught in 9th grade cell biology for probably 80 years. Observing the operations of this evolutionary phenomenon is pretty wonderful because it increases one’s respect for the way in which human biology has adapted to the presence of pathogens without absolutely freaking out. And the discovery of this fascinating dynamic in cell biology is a major reason why public health became so smart in the 20th century. We kept calm. We managed viruses with medical professionals: doctor/patient relationships. We avoided the Medieval tendency to run around with hair on fire but rather used rationality and intelligence. Even the New York Times recognizes that natural immunity is powerful with Covid-19, which is not in the least bit surprising. Until one day, this strange institution called the World Health Organization – once glorious because it was mainly responsible for the eradication of smallpox – has suddenly decided to delete everything I just wrote from cell biology basics. It has literally changed the science in a Soviet-like way. ... What this note at the World Health Organization has done is deleted what amounts to the entire million-year history of humankind in its delicate dance with pathogens. You could only gather from this that all of us are nothing but blank and unimprovable slates on which the pharmaceutical industry writes its signature. In effect, this change at WHO ignores and even wipes out 100 years of medical advances in virology, immunology, and epidemiology. It is thoroughly unscientific – shilling for the vaccine industry in exactly the way the conspiracy theorists say that WHO has been doing since the beginning of this pandemic. What’s even more strange is the claim that a vaccine protects people from a virus rather than exposing them to it. What’s amazing about this claim is that a vaccine works precisely by firing up the immune system through exposure. Why I had to type those words is truly beyond me. This has been known for centuries. There is simply no way for medical science completely to replace the human immune system. It can only game it via what used to be called inoculation. Take from this what you will. It is a sign of the times. For nearly a full year, the media has been telling us that “science” requires that we comply with their dictates that run contrary to every tenet of liberalism, every expectation we’ve developed in the modern world that we can live freely and with the certainty of rights. Then “science” took over and our human rights were slammed. And now the “science” is actually deleting its own history, airbrushing over what it used to know and replacing it with something misleading at best and patently false at worst. ... The science has not changed; only the politics have. And that is precisely why it is so dangerous and deadly to subject virus management to the forces of politics. Eventually the science too bends to the duplicitous character of the political industry. (read more) 2020-12-24 a THE COVID-CON I "A case is only a case if a person is sick. Mass testing asymptomatic individuals is harmful to public health." Twelve Forgotten Principles of
Public Health
By Martin Kulldorff, a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School 1.Public health is about all health outcomes, not just a single disease like Covid-19. It is important to also consider harms from public health measures. More. 2.Public health is about the long term rather than the short term. Spring Covid lockdowns simply delayed and postponed the pandemic to the fall. More. 3.Public health is about everyone. It should not be used to shift the burden of disease from the affluent to the less affluent, as the lockdowns have done. More. 4.Public health is global. Public health scientists need to consider the global impact of their recommendations. More. 5.Risks and harms cannot be completely eliminated, but they can be reduced. Elimination and zero-Covid strategies backfire, making things worse. More. 6.Public health should focus on high-risk populations. For Covid-19, many standard public health measures were never used to protect high-risk older people, leading to unnecessary deaths. More. 7.While contact tracing and isolation are critically important for some infectious diseases, it is futile and counterproductive for common infections such as influenza and Covid-19. More. 8.A case is only a case if a person is sick. Mass testing asymptomatic individuals is harmful to public health. More. 9.Public health is about trust. To gain the trust of the public, public health officials and the media must be honest and trust the public. Shaming and fear should never be used in a pandemic. More. 10.Public health scientists and officials must be honest with what is not known. For example, epidemic models should be run with the whole range of plausible input parameters. More. 11.In public health, open civilized debate is profoundly critical. Censoring, silencing and smearing leads to fear of speaking, herd thinking and distrust. More. 12.It is important for public health scientists and officials to listen to the public, who are living the public health consequences. This pandemic has proved that many non-epidemiologists understand public health better than some epidemiologists. More. (read more) 2020-12-23 f "Secondly, the 2024 election will not matter. Simply because America won’t exist in 2024. Not the America we know now. Democrats will destroy that America. Trust me, this will be a foreign country by 2024." A Christmas Message for
President Trump: You Must Win Now, You Can’t Win in
2024
By Wayne Allyn Root I have the most important Christmas message ever for President Trump. I’m one of the few who can deliver this message. I understand the man. I appreciate the man. Even the liberal media has described me as President Trump’s fiercest champion since the day he came down that escalator in June 2015. The liberal Daily Beast called me, “The Las Vegas version of Trump.” Anthony Scaramucci said, “Wayne Allyn Root was there for Trump before Trump was there.” Steve Bannon only days ago called me “The OG (Original Gangster) for Trump and the MAGA Movement.” And my current #1 bestselling book, “TRUMP RULES” catalogues my 41 years of studying and modeling Trump and his rules of success. It’s been a #1 bestseller at Amazon in a dozen categories for the past 7 weeks. So, it’s pretty well established as fact, I’m #1 in President Trump’s corner. So, no one is in a better position to tell him the cold, hard truth… Mr. President, your time is now. There is no tomorrow. Winning again in 2024 is not going to happen. You have to win now- for you, for your legacy, for the 74 million voters you love, for America, for American exceptionalism, for capitalism. There is no tomorrow. If you don’t win now, there is no chance for you in 2024. For 2 reasons… First, because Democrats cheated and stole this election, without punishment (so far). If they get away with rigging and stealing this election, it’s all over for Republicans forever more. They stole the election with you in charge. Who’s going to stop them, when they’re in charge? That’s like letting the wolf guard the hen house. It’s only going to get worse. Secondly, the 2024 election will not matter. Simply because America won’t exist in 2024. Not the America we know now. Democrats will destroy that America. Trust me, this will be a foreign country by 2024. By 2024 there will be tens of millions of new Democrat voters. Democrats won’t even need to steal elections anymore. They won’t need dead voters. They won’t need to stop counting at Midnight on election night and add millions of emergency fake ballots in the middle of the night. No more need for vans at 3 AM. No more Postal Service 18-wheelers filled with fake ballots rushed to Pennsylvania the day after the election. No need to keep Republican witnesses out of the counting room. They won’t even need computer systems to switch votes away from you. That will all be old news by 2024. To paraphrase James Carville, “It’s all about illegal immigration, stupid.” First, Democrats will legalize the 22 million to 32 million illegal aliens already in the country. Next, they’ll knock down Trump’s wall and open the borders, while offering free healthcare for anyone who comes, from anywhere in the world. Tens of millions more foreigners will come to America. Democrats will make sure they can all legally vote. Those two moves will erase any need for cheating and stealing elections. Democrats will have 40 to 60 million new Democrat voters by 2024. Almost all of them will legally vote Democrat, in order to keep the bribes coming (citizenship, welfare, food stamps, free healthcare, free college). No cheating will ever be necessary again. America will cease to exist. America will be a foreign nation. Certainly, foreign to Republicans and patriots. So, as much as I love and appreciate you Mr. President, and everything you’ve done for America, there is no tomorrow for you. 2024 is a mirage. You can never win again. You won’t even recognize America in 2024. It will be a country no Republican can live in, let alone run. So, my Christmas message is simple. Your time to win is now. You have to overturn a stolen election between now and January 20 th . But that’s okay. You’ve got this. I’ve studied your “TRUMP RULES” for 41 years. You are Houdini. You are a man of miracles. Only you can pull this off. You were born to do this. You have the rules and tools to make the impossible, possible. I wrote the book. I believe in you. But it has to be now. You’ve got only a few days left. After that, your window closes forever. And, so does the future of America. (read more) 2020-12-23 e D.I.E. (diversity, inclusion, equity) AT DALTON SCHOOL V "Our real societal issue is class. And yes in the lower class it is predominately ethnic minorities. Our politicians throw in race when they don't want us to see the widening class divide which affects most Americans. Solve poverty and fatherlessness (possibly one in the same problem) and color and class will lessen as an issue." + "He sounds like somebody who should move to the Bronx or Lagos and observe his beloved pets in their natural habitat for a couple weeks." Dalton Head of School Responds
to the Naked Dollar
In a carefully worded email to the Dalton community, Head of School Jim Best has responded to the Naked Dollar's revelations about their woke agenda. The email, reprinted in full below, was no doubt crafted with the outside consultants who have been hired to help manage the crisis. I have a number of comments directly for Mr. Best. •You refer to the original document as a "thought piece." A document signed by over one hundred people strikes me as much more of an end point than a beginning. The fact you put "thought starter" in quotes means it's not a thought starter at all. •You say I have "mis-characterized" your efforts? How, exactly? I am providing the transparency that you, apparently, have not. The only point we could have a legitimate argument over is whether the letter can be characterized as "demands." Something signed by over one hundred staffers seems very much like a demand, and that's certainly how the parents I have been in touch with view them. This is an age-old tactic: find one thing that may not be a provable fact in order to discredit everything else. •Dalton does not "stand behind all the concepts shared or actions prescribed." So, which ones do you stand by? Because the entire thing reads like some manifesto written by a freshman sociology major. The Port Huron Statement had nothing on Dalton Letter. The whole agenda smacks of indoctrination. This is a dangerous echo of the Red Guard and Maoist "struggle sessions." •You claim that the letter was only "recently brought to (your) attention." Could you define "recently?" Because I find this extremely difficult to believe. •Dalton is committed to an "anti-racist curriculum." These are chilling words to those schooled in Orwell. As I pointed out in a previous post, Dalton is even finding ways to make the STEM curriculum woke. •You say you will conduct a parental survey. Excellent idea. One question: will it be anonymous? Because if it isn't, you will only get answers you want to hear. •Your letter closes by saying that Dalton is a "unified community." No, it's not. I have experienced this personally. You only think it is because no one dares speak out. Many parents are extremely angry. And no, they are not crypto-racists. The agenda of the letter, in any part, will only hurt the very people it aims to help creating a permanent victim class. Mr. Best's full letter is reprinted below. Side note: the Daily Mail story said that I was a Dalton parent. I am not, and I have asked them to make the correction. To the Dalton Community, (read the Headmaster's consultant-crafted response) 2020-12-23 d D.I.E. (diversity, inclusion, equity) AT DALTON SCHOOL IV "Every seemingly-virtuous act as some dark secret at its heart and the mystery at the center of this one is that the new cadre of diversity warriors are themselves racist. In their minds, minorities can't help themselves but only the Great White Hope of Postmodernists can. The whole thing is self-flagellating drivel, perpetuated by people educated beyond their own intelligence." Dalton Update
The Head of School (we can't say Headmaster anymore - triggering) emailed the Dalton community. He characterizes the faculty letter as a "thought starter," not a list of demands. A working document, if you will, although it was signed by over one hundred staffers. There's clearly some backpedaling going on here. I hear there was a hastily called board meeting. To be fair, the faculty letter does not say "demands." My sources say they view them as much, but I can't know for sure. Also, in the spirit of accuracy, the faculty is not tying this to their return to the school. This may have been floated, but if so, is no longer the case. Too weak a hand? Dalton has been one of the only schools in New York that hasn't returned at all this year. But this doesn't change the substance of what's going on here. If you haven't, I urge you to read all the "proposals." (See my previous post.) If you think it's a sane, rational document, if you think the ideas put forth would produce anything other than more divisiveness, you probably live that kind of woke bubble that only exists on the coasts and university towns. Twelve full time diversity officers? Diversity officers are hammers looking for nails. Their very job descriptions necessitate finding them, and they do, even in progressive utopias like Dalton. This often means resorting to ill-defined "microagressions" and the like. You're racist even if you don't know it. Diversity has become a full blown industry in America. It's not just Dalton. Hire more officers and they will find ever-more nuanced definitions of racism, as one commenter put it. The goals of the diversity movement were, theoretically, commendable, at least for a time. the movement has become something else altogether. Sadly, it reduces the very people it strives to help to a permanent victim class. How this is good for anyone, white or black, I don't know. (read comments, including a list of the Board of Trustees) 2020-12-23 c D.I.E. (diversity, inclusion, equity) AT DALTON SCHOOL III "Your demands are stupid and you people are stupid. Critical Race Theory is a stupid religion and a scam but I actually hope the school meets all of these ridiculous demands just to watch it implode just like Evergreen hahahahaha. CRT is a gift that destroys everything it touches. Enjoy being racist fanatics while you can because the world is waking up to your bullshit gift. You people are the real racists." Teacher Demands at Dalton
As promised. Looks like it's signed by most or all of the faculty. I'd like to meet anyone who didn't sign. That would be a very brave person. This is unedited. As you can see, I left plenty out of my first post. Without new visions we don’t know what to build, only what to knock down. We not only end up confused, rudderless, and cynical, but we forget that making a revolution is not a series of clever maneuvers and tactics but a process that can and must transform us. Robin D.G. Kelley Context During the past few months, we have been inspired by the Black Lives Matter uprisings across the country. Black activists and their accomplices continue to put their personal safety at risk in order to make a better world for all of us; we thank them for their courage and vision. We have also had the opportunity to see this activism up close, in our own community. Dalton’s Black students and students of color demonstrated that same courage—going forth unafraid—when they shared personal stories of racism and trauma in the high school town hall at the end of the year. On Instagram, @blackatdalton and @dalton_anonymous have held Dalton accountable for its shortcomings, and Dalton’s Black alumni and parents of Black students are helping us to envision a more inclusive school. We are also inspired by the demands currently being championed by Black Students Demanding Change. Dalton has also made a public commitment to “live up to our stated values as a visibly, vocally, structurally anti-racist institution.” Towards this end, Head of School Jim Best outlined the following list of actions: •Create and apply a comprehensive anti-racism
and inclusion plan
•Revise course content to be relevant and inclusive of a full range of experiences including those of people of color •Learn specific teaching practices that foster an inclusive classroom without burdening students of color and marginalized students •Establish a clear system for reporting incidents of bias, discrimination, or racism •Implement a mandatory parent orientation that is aligned with our mission, our values, and our commitment to anti-racism We are heartened to see Dalton’s leadership taking such a strong stance on this issue, and we are energized for the work ahead. In the spirit of eager collaboration, we have identified 24 proposals, detailed below, that we believe will complement and extend Dalton’s existing efforts. To contextualize these proposals, we would like to include the following definitions, put forward by the Aspen Institute: Structural Racism: A system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity. It identifies dimensions of our history and culture that have allowed privileges associated with “whiteness” and disadvantages associated with “color” to endure and adapt over time. Structural racism is not something that a few people or institutions choose to practice. Instead it has been a feature of the social, economic and political systems in which we all exist. Institutional Racism: Institutional racism refers to the policies and practices within and across institutions that, intentionally or not, produce outcomes that chronically favor, or put a racial group at a disadvantage. Poignant examples of institutional racism can be found in school disciplinary policies in which students of color are punished at much higher rates than their white counterparts, in the criminal justice system, and within many employment sectors in which day-to-day operations, as well as hiring and firing practices can significantly disadvantage workers of color. Much of the discourse surrounding equity and inclusion in schools focuses on reducing interpersonal racism, training faculty about implicit bias, and diversifying the curriculum. We heartily affirm the importance of these anti-racist efforts, especially in light of student testimony detailing microagressions, careless remarks, and blatant racial prejudice. In this document, we imagine what it would mean for Dalton to move towards its stated goal of becoming a more “structurally anti-racist institution” (emphasis added)—an inspiring charge that requires more than well-intentioned, individualized efforts. On the contrary, we must “[engage with] the Dalton community in an intensive, comprehensive, ongoing examination of our cultural norms, our policies, and our programs,” and most importantly, we must change them. Structural racism is cumulative, pervasive, durable, and mutable; our response must be similarly thorough and systematic. It’s important to note that the language in this document focuses primarily on the Black community at Dalton. While we acknowledge that white supremacy harms all people of color, we believe that anti-Blackness must be understood as distinct from “racism” writ large. In this moment, our collective anti-racist efforts must center Black people and their needs. Nonetheless, we believe that many of the proposals outlined below could be extended to consider indigenous and native people; people from other underrepresented racial and ethnic identities; people from working-class backgrounds; people with disabilities; the queer community; non-binary, genderqueer, and gender nonconforming people; etc. ... Proposals (read their Communist Manifesto with a barf bag) 2020-12-23 b D.I.E. (diversity, inclusion, equity) AT DALTON SCHOOL II "It has been my experience that black people are the most racist and first to comment on differences. White kids (white people in general) have been shamed over the years to know better than to say anything about race to a black kid." Moral Panic at Dalton
* Editor's Note: We are
still in the Pleistocene. The Holocene is just an
interglacial period. Throughout the Pleistocene, this
planet has been in glacial periods for 90% of the time.
Baby, it's going to get even colder outside.It seems a lot of parents didn't know about the faculty demands until yesterday. The Naked Dollar has learned that the demands were originally made in August, and have somehow been kept under wraps until now. One imagines today is not a pleasant day to be a Dalton board member. The Head of School has asked parents not to contact teachers until after the break. One parent tells me that there is zero separation between the board and the school administration. This is not surprising. Most school boards, including colleges, are now wholly owned subsidiaries of their administrations, which are, in turn, controlled by their faculties. People want their kids to go to schools like Dalton so they can grease the Ivy League skids. Nothing wrong with that, prima facie. Dalton, for its part, needs rich kids to juice the endowment and fund all their wish list items, including diversity outreach. Nothing really wrong with that, either. ... I could go on. This is educational malpractice of the first order. Parents who don't buy in - and there are many - learn to keep their mouths shut. Nod and smile. Because Yale. Those who play the game the best - and give the most - wind up on the board. This not only brings major wood to Manhattan cocktail parties - oh, to dangle those recommendation letters - but again, Yale. So the Dalton board, which has happily gone along for the progressive ride, now finds the train has arrived at Crazy Town. After years of kowtowing to every progressive whim, they are faced with demands that are objectively impossible to meet. But how to say no? That's social suicide. Cancel city. I'm guessing the last time a board like Dalton's said no was sometime in the Pleistocene Era*. One insider I know said this: "Dalton is a perfect storm of narcissistic self-importance, ignorance, virtues, and empty Upper East Side values." Ouch. But there's one thing the board doesn't understand, something that run-of-the-mill, virtue signaling liberals never understand about revolutionary movements. (And make no mistake, that's what this is.) There is a reason that revolutionary demands are always outrageous and can't be (entirely) met: because the Revolution is the point. Leftist revolutions never, ever, say "mission accomplished" and go home. It's not how they work. If Dalton somehow did agree to everything on the list, the board would find a new list on its doorstep the next day. To be fair, though, while Dalton is perhaps the most egregious example, what's happening there is happening everywhere. Not just schools, either. All of our institutions. Fear of cancel culture is such that our institutional leaders can't roll over fast enough. Statements of obeisance are made, indulgences paid. Mea culpas made for thought crimes never committed. (read more) 2020-12-23 a D.I.E. (diversity, inclusion, equity) AT DALTON SCHOOL I "What Jim Best fails to realize is that what the Naked Dollar has done may potential save the Dalton School from imploding. Just like evil is the privation of good, wokeness is the privation of wisdom." The above series of blog
entries updates 2020-12-21
d and 2020-12-21
e.
I have no direct connection to the Dalton School, though I once knew a delightful alumna of that institution. Unfortunately, the Dalton School embarked on its self-destructive path years ago; earlier than this nation as a whole. A restoration of sanity and wisdom is not impossible, just highly unlikely. The Left hates us for our culture, values, history, and accomplishments. They motivate their partisans by filling them with envy and resentment. The Left will not begin to relent until the West has been turned into a sordid assortment of shithole countries. 2020-12-22 i THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH - Approved Narrative, a complete travesty of a mockery of a sham Big Media: Selling the
Narrative and Crushing Dissent for Fun and Profit
The profit-maximizing Big Tech / Big Media Totalitarian regime hasn't just strangled free speech and civil liberties; it's also strangled democracy. The U.S. has entered an extremely dangerous time, and the danger has nothing to do with the Covid virus. Indeed, the danger long preceded the pandemic, which has served to highlight how far down the road to ruin we have come. The danger we are ill-prepared to deal with is the consolidation of the private-sector media and its unification of content into one Approved Narrative which is for sale to the highest bidders. This is the perfection of for-profit Totalitarianism in which dissent is crushed, dissenters punished and billions of dollars are reaped in managing the data and content flow of the one Approved Narrative. So don't post content containing the words (censored), (censored) or (censored), or you'll be banned, shadow-banned, demonetized, demonized and marginalized. Your voice will be erased from public access via the Big Media platforms and you will effectively be disappeared but without any visible mess or evidence--or recourse in the courts. That's the competitive advantage of for-profit Totalitarianism--no legal recourse against the suppression of free speech and dissent. And if you're shadow-banned as I was, you won't even know just how severely your free speech has been suppressed because the Big Tech platforms are black boxes: no one outside the profit-maximizing corporation knows what its algorithms and filters actually do or exactly what happens to the disappeared / shadow-banned. Shadow-banning is an invisible toxin to free speech: if you're shadow-banned, you won't even know that the audience for your posts, tweets, etc. has plummeted to near-zero and others can no longer retweet your content. You only see your post is online as usual, because this is the whole point of shadow-banning: you assume your speech is still free even as its been strangled to death by Big Tech black box platforms. Since Andy Grove's dictum only the paranoid survive is my Prime Directive, I've paid a bit more to have access to server traffic data. So I can pinpoint precisely when I was shadow-banned: my overall traffic fell off a cliff and the number of readers visiting from links on Big Tech platforms fell from thousands to near-zero. The new consolidated Big Media Totalitarians play an interesting game of circular sources: in the traditional, now-obsolete / suppressed form of journalism, a reporter would be required to identify a minimum of three different sources for the story, and make at least a desultory effort to present two sides of the issue. That model is out the window in the USSA's Big Media Totalitarian regime. Now reporters only have to use a completely bogus, fabricated source in another Big Media story. Just being in another Big Media platform / publication is now "proof" that the source is legitimate. In other words, investigative journalism is nothing but a Potemkin Village of circular sources conjured out of thin air by Big Media. ... But if you question the Approved Narrative, you put a big day-glo target on your back. Now if you're a multi-millionaire, you know, a top 0.1% per-center, you can afford to keep posting dissenting views even after you've been demonetized and your income falls to near-zero. (read more) 2020-12-22 h THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH - nosocomial and iatrogenic super-spreaders Covid infections caught in
hospital rise by a third in one week
•Probable
hospital-acquired covid-19 infections rise by a
third in a week
•Covid infections caught in hospital doubling in some trusts •Almost one in four hospital covid cases caught in hospital The number of people likely to have caught covid-19 in NHS hospitals in England has risen by more than a third in the last week. The 35 per cent rise in probable hospital-acquired covid-19 from 6 to 13 December is the highest weekly increase since 30 October, HSJ analysis of NHS England data reveals. Hospital-acquired infections are rising across areas such as London, the South East, and South West, and also at some hospitals in the North East, Yorkshire and the Midlands. At some trusts, the weekly total of likely hospital-acquired covid-19 infections has more than doubled since last week. (read more) 2020-12-22 g THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH - strains credulity There are thousands of Covid
strains, so this new scare is NOT a big deal, but
politicians just love their new authoritarianism
The UK’s virus mutation is nothing but recycled alarmism, with no substance to justify the cancellation of Christmas and plunging us all into yet more misery. It’s unscientific, unjustifiable and unforgivable. Let me set the scene. The world (we are told) is in the grip of a deadly plague. Health services (we are told) are on the brink of collapse. And just when you think things cannot get any worse, the horrific news comes down from on high that our invisible enemy has mutated into an even scarier form. Although it is too early to know anything of substance about it, it is entirely possible that it is more contagious, or more dangerous, or – who knows – maybe both. Was that the situation at the weekend as the UK was plunged into what’s rapidly become its worst crisis since World War II (and certainly the worst self-induced one), just ahead of Christmas? No, this was the precise situation FIVE MONTHS AGO, when I wrote about Spike D614G, a mutant variant of coronavirus that we were told could be up to NINE TIMES more contagious. You may not remember because that mutant strain turned out to be a total nothing burger. So why would this one be any different? The name game This time around, our Covid commissars haven’t even bothered to give the new strain a flashy name – it is called ‘VUI2020/12/01’. For those interested in what evidence ‘the experts’ have to excuse the panic they are sowing, here is their own one-page justification. Unsurprisingly it is a scant, wishy-washy patchwork of hasty findings, centring on already debunked PCR tests and the mystical ‘R number’. There is absolutely no suggestion it poses any additional threat. These experts, styling themselves as NERVTAG (why do they love to come up with acronyms that sound as they came from a James Bond movie?), say they have “moderate confidence” that VUI2020/12/01 is more contagious than the supermarket-brand coronavirus. (Would it also be fair to say, then, that they have “moderate confidence” that it is not more contagious?) In any case, I am tickled to see the name of our old pal Neil Ferguson pop up in NERVTAG, the man who screwed his mistress, screwed us all, and – we thought – screwed his career in the process. I think I am actually starting to like this nutty professor, who must have a neck of the purest, untarnished brass. Maybe it’s something you pick up on the London swinging circuit. As the old saying goes, you just can’t keep a good man down! Meanwhile, a top Scottish doctor has remarked that there isn’t a shred of evidence that this strain is any more contagious (let alone deadly). Professor Hugh Pennington even notes that the timing of the announcement is ‘’very handy to cancel Christmas.” An entire group of anti-lockdown scientists have issued a challenge to Health Secretary Matt Hancock to back up his claims about the new variant. Professor Carl Heneghan is still waiting for evidence for the claim that the new strain is, precisely, 70 percent more contagious. And I hardly need to tell you by now that the fantastic Dr Mike Yeadon is having none of it. Nothing new under the sun Back in July, I made the argument that it would actually be a good thing if the Spike D614G strain was more contagious. I explained the school of thought that says that seasonal respiratory viruses, like the one that causes Covid, evolve to become less dangerous as they spread through a population. This is because respiratory viruses always have thousands of variants, some that increase the deadliness and some that reduce it. The deadliest ones sicken or kill their hosts quickly, before they have a chance to spread it to other people. But the least deadly ones, which cause no or mild symptoms, can hitch a ride in their hosts to many people who they can then infect and multiply. Thus, natural selection favours the mildest, most contagious strains. I still believe in the logic of that theory, and I think it explains why the coronavirus is now endemic (i.e. everywhere) and by extension why all further restrictions are completely pointless and do only harm. (read more) (related story here) 2020-12-22 f THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH - media see no electoral fraud, hear no electoral fraud, speak no electoral fraud Big
meeting today with @realDonaldTrump,
@VP,
the President's legal team,
@freedomcaucus and other Members of Congress. I will lead an objection to Georgia's electors on Jan 6. The courts refuse to hear the President's legal case. We're going to make sure the People can! — Rep. Jody Hice (@CongressmanHice) December 22, 2020 * THE
DEMOCRATS DUMPED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF BALLOTS
IN THE SWING STATES LATE IN THE EVENING. IT WAS A RIGGED ELECTION!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 22, 2020 * YouTube
has decided that my opening statement in the U.S.
Senate, given under oath and
based upon hard evidence, is too dangerous for you to see; they removed it. To this day, “our evidence has never been refuted, only ignored.” Why is Google so afraid of the truth? #BigBrother — Jesse R. Binnall ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ (@jbinnall) December 20, 2020 * I’m
proud to be number one on Biden Vindictive
government list.
Sounds like the DOJ anti-Trumpers can’t wait for Biden to make DOJ the GOVERNMENT Secret Police like they were under Obama. They want to seize my emails. No reason No wrongdoing Attorney-Client privilege.? — Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) December 22, 2020 2020-12-22 e THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH - male bovine excrement As we
roll into 2021, I just wanted to remind everyone
there’s ALWAYS a
solution to every problem! So, cut through all the bullshit, and don’t let these people that don’t matter tell you how to live your life. pic.twitter.com/HPMbtojjJx — danawhite (@danawhite) December 21, 2020 2020-12-22 d THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH - the protectors of "truth" AI can predict Twitter users
likely to spread disinformation before they do it
A new artificial intelligence-based algorithm that can accurately predict which Twitter users will spread disinformation before they actually do it has been developed by researchers from the University of Sheffield. •University of Sheffield researchers have
developed an artificial intelligence-based algorithm
that can accurately predict (79.7 per cent) which
Twitter users are likely to share content from
unreliable news sources before they actually do it
•Study found that Twitter users who spread disinformation mostly tweet about politics or religion, whereas users who share reliable sources of news tweet more about their personal lives •Research also found that Twitter users who share disinformation use impolite language more frequently than users who share reliable news sources •Findings could help governments and social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook better understand user behaviour and help them design more effective models for tackling the spread of disinformation A team of researchers, led by Yida Mu and Dr Nikos Aletras from the University’s Department of Computer Science, has developed a method for predicting whether a social media user is likely to share content from unreliable news sources. Their findings have been published in the journal PeerJ. The researchers analysed over 1 million tweets from approximately 6,200 Twitter users by developing new natural language processing methods - ways to help computers process and understand huge amounts of language data. The tweets they studied were all tweets that were publicly available for anyone to see on the social media platform. Twitter users were grouped into two categories as part of the study - those who have shared unreliable news sources and those who only share stories from reliable news sources. The data was used to train a machine-learning algorithm that can accurately predict (79.7 per cent) whether a user will repost content from unreliable sources sometime in the future. Results from the study found that the Twitter users who shared stories from unreliable sources are more likely to tweet about either politics or religion and use impolite language. They often posted tweets with words such as ‘liberal’, ‘government’, ‘media’, and their tweets often related to politics in the Middle East and Islam, with their tweets often mentioning ‘Islam’ or ‘Israel’. In contrast, the study found that Twitter users who shared stories from reliable news sources often tweeted about their personal life, such as their emotions and interactions with friends. This group of users often posted tweets with words such as ‘mood’. ‘wanna’, ‘gonna’, ‘I’ll’, ‘excited’, and ‘birthday’. Findings from the study could help social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook develop ways to tackle the spread of disinformation online. They could also help social scientists and psychologists improve their understanding of such user behaviour on a large scale. Dr Nikos Aletras, Lecturer in Natural Language Processing at the University of Sheffield, said: “Social media has become one of the most popular ways that people access the news, with millions of users turning to platforms such as Twitter and Facebook every day to find out about key events that are happening both at home and around the world. However, social media has become the primary platform for spreading disinformation, which is having a huge impact on society and can influence people’s judgement of what is happening in the world around them. “As part of our study, we identified certain trends in user behaviour that could help with those efforts - for example, we found that users who are most likely to share news stories from unreliable sources often tweet about politics or religion, whereas those who share stories from reliable news sources often tweeted about their personal lives. “We also found that the correlation between the use of impolite language and the spread of unreliable content can be attributed to high online political hostility.” (read more) 2020-12-22 c THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH - Influenza (the alleged influence of the stars) "So we’re all into something much bigger than any neo-Orwellian scenario." + "The nefarious potential of the Aquarian emphasis is the control of society through technology, be it techno-feudalism or, gods forbid, techno-slavery." Behold the dawning of the Age
of Aquarius
An astrological reading for Planet Earth at a time of Great Mutation We are all in the gutter,
but some of us are looking at the stars. – Oscar Wilde
Today all radio stations on Planet Earth should be playing this song. What the aptly named Fifth Dimension immortalized in their spring of 1969 psychedelic soul classic is now literally true: This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius – the Grand Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn on December 21st at 𝟬° in Aquarius. Aquarius starts just as some dodgy, self-important elites gear up to impose a Great Reset on most of the planet – following a very specific, reductionist and exclusionist political agenda. Yet the real deal is not the Reset; it’s the Mutation. So we’re all into something much bigger than any neo-Orwellian scenario. To shed much needed light into what seems our current, interminable darkness, I posed selected questions to Vanessa Guazzelli, a respected astrologer, writer and speaker in astrology conferences worldwide, as well as a practicing psychoanalyst and psychologist. Let astrology fertilize geopolitics. Let the sunshine in. ... The US Pluto return happens in 2022. That’s massive. It’s a cycle of approximately 247 years. Pluto has a sense of fate to it. The return of the lord of the underworld also speaks of the return of that which was repressed, hidden or rejected. It will have three exact hits throughout 2022, and the final and definitive of the next Pluto cycle has the planet of death and regeneration facing Black Moon Lilith in Cancer, in opposition. Karma is a bitch and hits home. It is also a cycle related to power and power status. It won’t all be bad and some victorious moments will be there, but there is a change in the country’s position in the balance of powers in the world which is not so easy to digest. The power struggle will be intense, both externally and internally, with considerable risks of destructive manifestations. The best way to go through such a moment would be to purge – although it’s hard to believe “the swamp” can be so easily drained. It is a call for a deep transformation, when all things under the rug and corpses out of the basement are to be dealt with. For the nation’s people it is a call for maturity (Saturn conjoins Moon), compassion and a more humanly receptive disposition (Neptune opposition), letting illusions dissolve and realizing the empire is losing its hegemony and status, but the nation will continue. What nation should it be for its people – as opposed to against other peoples? This doesn’t mean the American Empire will fall by 2022, but it is collapsing and will undergo dramatic transformations in the coming decade. (read more) 2020-12-22 b THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH - B'resheet (in the digital beginning) "Soon I was deep into Minsky’s “frames” – a basic concept to organize every subsequent AI program – and the Chomsky paradigm: the notion that language is at the root of knowledge, and that formal syntax is at the root of language. That was the Bible of cognitive science at MIT." + "And it would be a long time, up to the Snowden revelations in 2013, for most of the planet to have a clearer idea of how the NSA orchestrates the Orwellian-Panopticon complex. " Kim No-VAX does DARPA
A Back to the Future exercise: time-traveling to survey the sci-tech scene in the mid-1980s I have
been going through my Asia Times archives
selecting reports and columns for a new e-book on
the Forever Wars – Afghanistan and Iraq. But then,
out of the blue, I found this palimpsest,
originally published by Asia Times in February
2014. It happened to be a Back to the Future
exercise – traveling in time to survey the scene
in the mid-1980s across Silicon Valley, MIT’s AI
lab, DARPA and the NSA, weaving an intersection of
themes, and a fabulous cast of characters, which
prefigure the Brave New Techno World we’re now
immersed in, especially concerning the role of
artificial intelligence. So this might be read
today as a sort of preamble, or a background
companion piece, to No Escape from our
Techno-Feudal World, published early this month.
Incidentally, everything that takes place in this
account was happening 18 years before the end of
the Pentagon’s LifeLog project, run by DARPA, and
the simultaneous launch of Facebook. Enjoy the
time travel.
In the spring of 1986, Back to the Future, the Michael J Fox blockbuster featuring a time-traveling DeLorean car, was less than a year old. The Apple Macintosh, launched via a single, iconic ad directed by Ridley (Blade Runner) Scott, was less than two years old. Ronald Reagan, immortalized by Gore Vidal as “the acting president,” was hailing the mujahideen in Afghanistan as “freedom fighters.” The world was mired in Cyber Cold War mode; the talk was all about electronic counter-measures, with American C3s (command, control, communications) programmed to destroy Soviet C3s, and both the US and the USSR under MAD (mutually assured destruction) nuclear policies being able to destroy the earth 100 times over. Edward Snowden was not yet a three-year-old. It was in this context that I set out to do a special report for a now-defunct magazine about artificial intelligence (AI), roving from the Computer Museum in Boston to Apple in Cupertino and Pixar in San Rafael, and then to the campuses of Stanford, Berkeley and MIT. AI had been “inaugurated” in 1956 by Stanford’s John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky, a future MIT professor who at the time had been a student at Harvard. The basic idea, according to Minsky, was that any intelligence trait could be described so precisely that a machine could be created to simulate it. My trip inevitably involved meeting a fabulous cast of characters. At MIT’s AI lab, there was Minsky and also an inveterate iconoclast, Joseph Weizenbaum, who had coined the term “artificial intelligentsia” and believed computers could never “think” just like a human being. At Stanford, there was Edward Feigenbaum, absolutely paranoid about Japanese scientific progress; he believed that if the Japanese developed a fifth-generation computer, based on artificial intelligence, that could think, reason and speak even such a difficult language as Japanese “the US will be able to bill itself as the first great post-industrial agrarian society.” And at Berkeley, still under the flame of hippie utopian populism, I found Robert Wilensky – Brooklyn accent, Yale gloss, California overtones; and philosopher Hubert Dreyfus, a tireless enemy of AI who got his kicks delivering lectures such as “Conventional AI as a Paradigm of Degenerated Research.” Meet Kim No-VAX Soon I was deep into Minsky’s “frames” – a basic concept to organize every subsequent AI program – and the Chomsky paradigm: the notion that language is at the root of knowledge, and that formal syntax is at the root of language. That was the Bible of cognitive science at MIT. Minsky was a serious AI enthusiast. One of his favorite themes was that people were afflicted with “carbon chauvinism”: “This is central to the AI phenomenon. Because it’s possible that more sophisticated forms of intelligence are not incorporated in cellular form. If there are other forms of intelligent life, then we may speculate over other types of computer structure.” At the MIT cafeteria, Minsky delivered a futurist rap without in the least resembling Dr Emmett Brown in Back to the Future: I believe
that in less than five centuries we will be
producing machines very similar to us, representing
our thoughts and point of view. If we can build a
miniaturized human brain weighing, let’s say, one
gram, we can lodge it in a spaceship and make it
travel at the speed of light. It would be very hard
to build a spaceship to carry an astronaut and all
his food for 10,000 years of travel …
With Professor Feigenbaum, in Stanford’s philosophical garden, the only space available was for the coming yellow apocalypse. But then one day I crossed Berkeley’s post-hippie Rubicon and opened the door of the fourth floor of Evans Hall, where I met none other than Kim No-VAX. No, that was not the Hitchcock blonde and Vertigo icon; it was an altered hardware computer (No-VAX because it had moved beyond Digital Equipment Corporation’s VAX line of supercomputers), financed by the mellifluously acronymed Pentagon military agency DARPA, decorated with a photo of Kim Novak and humming with the sexy vibration of – at the time immense – 2,900 megabytes of electronic data spread over its body. The US government’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency – or DARPA – was all about computer science. In the mid-1980s, DARPA was immersed in a very ambitious program linking microelectronics, computer architecture and AI way beyond a mere military program. That was comparable to the Japanese fifth generation computer program. At MIT, the overwhelming majority of scientists were huge DARPA cheerleaders, stressing how the agency was leading research. Yet Terry Winograd, a computer science professor at Stanford, warned that had DARPA been a civilian agency, “I believe we would have made much more progress”. It was up to Professor Dreyfus to provide the voice of reason amidst so much cyber-euphoria: “Computers cannot think like human beings because there’s no way to represent all retrospective knowledge of an average human life – that is, ‘common sense’ – in a form that a computer may apprehend.” Dreyfus’s drift was that with the boom of computer science, philosophy was dead – and he was a philosopher: “Heidegger said that philosophy ended because it reached its apex in technology. Philosophy in fact reached its limit with AI. They, the scientists, inherited our questions. What is the mind? Now they have to answer for it. Philosophy is over.” Yet Dreyfus was still teaching. Likewise at MIT, Weizenbaum was condemning AI as a racket for “lunatics and psychopaths” – but still continued to work at the AI lab. NSA’s wet web dream In no time, helped by these brilliant minds, I figured out that the AI “secret” would be a military affair, and that meant the National Security Agency – already in the mid-1980s vaguely known as “no such agency,” with double the CIA’s annual budget to pay for snooping on the whole planet. The mission back then was to penetrate and monitor the global electronic net – that was years before all the hype over the “information highway” – and at the same time reassure the Pentagon over the inviolability of its lines of communication. For those comrades – remember, the Cold War, even with Gorbachev in power in the USSR, was still on – AI was a gift from God (beating Pope Francis by almost three decades). So what was the Pentagon/NSA up to, at the height of the star wars hype, and over a decade and a half before the revolution in military affairs and the full spectrum dominance doctrine? They already wanted to control their ships and planes and heavy weapons with their voices, not their hands; voice command a la Hal, the star computer in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Still, that was a faraway dream. Minsky believed that “only in the next century” would we be able to talk to a computer. Others believed that would never happen. Anyway, IBM was already working on a system accepting dictation; and MIT on another system that identified words spoken by different people; while Intel was developing a special chip for all this. Although, predictably, prevented from visiting the NSA, I soon learned that the Pentagon was expecting to possess “intelligent” computing systems by the 1990s; Hollywood, after all, already had unleashed the Terminator series. (read more) 2020-12-22 a THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH - Emmanuel Goldstein = APT29 = Cozy Bear A Pandemic of ‘Russian
Hacking’
The hyperbolic, evidence-free media reports on the “fresh outbreak” of the Russian-hacking disease seems an obvious attempt by intelligence to handcuff President-elect Joe Biden into a strong anti-Russian posture as he prepares to enter the White House. Biden might well need to be inoculated against the Russophobe fever. There are obvious Biden intentions worrying the intelligence agencies, such as renewing the Iran nuclear deal and restarting talks on strategic arms limitation with Russia. Both carry the inherent “risk” of thawing the new Cold War. Instead, New Cold Warriors are bent on preventing any such rapprochement with strong support from the intelligence community’s mouthpiece media. U.S. hardliners are clearly still on the rise. Interestingly, this latest hack story came out a day before the Electoral College formally elected Biden, and after the intelligence community, despite numerous previous warnings, said nothing about Russia interfering in the election. One wonders whether that would have been the assessment had Trump won. Instead Russia decided to hack the U.S. government. Except there is (typically) no hard evidence pinning it on Moscow. Uncertainties The official story is Russia hacked into U.S. “government networks, including in the Treasury and Commerce Departments,” as David Sanger of The New York Times reported. But plenty of things are uncertain. First, Sanger wrote last Sunday that “hackers have had free rein for much of the year, though it is not clear how many email and other systems they chose to enter.” The motive of the hack is uncertain, as well what damage may have been done. “The motive for the attack on the agency and the Treasury Department remains elusive, two people familiar with the matter said,” Sanger reported. “One government official said it was too soon to tell how damaging the attacks were and how much material was lost.” On Friday, five days after the story first broke, in an article misleadingly headlined, “Suspected Russian hack is much worse than first feared,” NBC News admitted: “At this stage, it’s not
clear what the hackers have done beyond accessing
top-secret government networks and monitoring data.”
Who conducted the hack is also not certain. NBC reported that the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency “has not said who it thinks is the ‘advanced persistent threat actor’ behind the ‘significant and ongoing’ campaign, but many experts are pointing to Russia.” At first Sanger was certain in his piece that Russia was behind the attack. He refers to FireEye, “a computer security firm that first raised the alarm about the Russian campaign after its own systems were pierced.” But later in the same piece, Sanger loses his certainty: “If the Russia connection is confirmed,” he writes. In the absence of firm evidence that damage has been done, this may well be an intrusion into other governments’ networks routinely carried out by intelligence agencies around the world, including, if not chiefly, by the United States. It is what spies do. So neither the actor, nor the motive, nor the damage done is known for certain. (read more) 2020-12-21 h THE COVID-CON III - False Choices "Jane Fonda was right when she said COVID-19 was God’s gift for the left. " + "This is a debate about the rights of the individual in relation to the state. It’s a debate about whether the ends always justify the means, and whether the risk of a tiny increase in mortality among the over-80s justifies interventions unseen in modern history." Personal Liberty Sacrificed at
the Altar of Covid Public Safety
An uptick in deaths from or with COVID-19 in the Scandinavian nation late last month, in common with the rest of Europe, has prompted a deluge of condemnation: Sweden’s strategy to control the coronavirus has “failed”. Yet Sweden does not stand out in terms of coronavirus deaths. The prevailing image of disaster and catastrophe — journalist Garry Linnell says Sweden has been “ravaged” — is sensationalist rubbish, reflecting poor numeracy, poor vocabulary or perhaps a desire to promote what I call health fascism. Globally, Sweden is 22nd in terms of COVID-19 deaths per million; in Europe it is 12th (excluding microstates). Sweden’s second wave, so far, appears to be much smaller than the first. Total mortality for this year, for the 11 months up to December 1, is lower than 2015, when there was no hysteria, and is only a little higher than in succeeding years. The average across this year and last (an unusually low year) is on track to be lower than any two years prior. Across nine months about 7,900 Swedes, or 0.08 per cent, have died from or with COVID-19, a quarter of those in their 90s, and half over 80 — and vastly fewer than the 100,000-odd that catastrophists warned would die without lockdown. Sweden’s intensive care units are not even close to being full. In short, the so-called ravaging would be news to Swedes, who have been able to go about their lives relatively normally this year. Without the relentless drumbeat about cases in the media — often induced by mass testing rather than actual illness — few would even know there was a pandemic in Sweden or anywhere else. A more reasonable conclusion from the data would be that Sweden has had much the same level of death as other countries, without resorting to mask orders and authoritarian lockdowns, whose costs are yet to be assessed. In the US, for instance, excess deaths this year are far greater than the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19, and their average age skews lower, suggesting lockdowns, rather than the virus, are to blame. Every country ahead of Sweden in COVID-19 deaths has imposed far tougher restrictions for far longer. It will take statistical genius to tease out a correlation between lockdowns and lives saved, let alone causation. If Sweden has failed — as its king, Carl XVI Gustaf, said this week — then practically every country in Europe has failed too. Yet no one is accusing Hungary, which overtook Sweden in coronavirus deaths on Thursday, of failure. What does distinguish Sweden — and why it is attacked so viciously — is because, rather than copying China, it followed the conventional advice for responding to influenza-like pandemics. It issued recommendations and banned large gatherings. It eschewed forcing people to wear masks, which countless studies had shown to be ineffective. It tried to strike a balance between health and well-being, broadly defined. Quarantining entire healthy populations for months, by force, was considered so extreme it wasn’t even canvassed. Nor was the mass testing of healthy people. ... Let’s be frank. This isn’t really a debate about saving lives. Cost-benefit analyses will show the expenditure on saving people from COVID-19 was magnitudes greater than we spend to avoid other deaths. Communicable diseases kill about five million people, of a far younger age than COVID-19 victims, every year. And there’s barely a peep of concern about that from those who are suddenly dripping with compassion for nursing-home residents, urging action from their salubrious homes with tenured incomes. This is a debate about the rights of the individual in relation to the state. It’s a debate about whether the ends always justify the means, and whether the risk of a tiny increase in mortality among the over-80s justifies interventions unseen in modern history. (read more) 2020-12-21 g THE COVID-CON II - Following the Séance or Following the Science? “Some men just want to watch the world burn.” + "Today’s most vocal admonishers condone political-bureaucratic micromanaging and controls; they seem to love shaming innocent people into obeying draconian, life-stifling edicts." + "Those who demand an end to lockdowns are smeared as selfish seekers of wealth over health." Yes, Follow the Science – in
Every Field
Eepeatedly this year we have heard the admonition, from acolytes of Covid-19 lockdowns, to “follow the science.” Many of the admonishers presume that lockdown skeptics are myopic, “anti-science” miscreants infected with a reckless disregard for human health, safety, and life. Yes, some people are so emotional, phobic, religious, or political that they cannot reason right; but can there be no rational, healthy skepticism about the health effects of Covid-19 or the health-wealth effects of lockdowns? Nothing can be farther from the truth – nothing farther from . . . science. Yes, of course we must follow science, but we must do so in every field, not only in epidemiology but also in politics, economics, and philosophy. The last-mentioned field – which means “love of wisdom” – teaches mankind to follow his nature, to be rational, logical, objective, and contextual. To be scientific in every field means to incorporate both theory and practice, to assess all real and relevant factors, not just a select few of them; it means cultivating a perspective that is likewise impartial (not biased), comprehensive (not narrow) view, and proportional (not imbalanced). In Economics in One Lesson (1946), Henry Hazlitt distinguishes between scientific and nonscientific methods in economics, but his distinction applies as much to other fields. “The bad economist,” he writes, “sees only what immediately strikes the eye,” while “the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups.” Likewise, I’d say, competent epidemiologists, political scientists, economists, and philosophers must look beyond what strikes their eyes or fits their predilections; they must consider also intermediate and longer-term effects, and effects on all types of people, groups, and livelihoods, not just those which bureaucrats favor as “essential.” The purpose of “following the science” in every field is best captured in the immortal words of Ben Franklin: to be “healthy, wealthy, and wise.” But to be frank, not everyone shares these goals or wants this kind of world, for it is a world that only reason, science, liberty, and capitalism can deliver. As Alfred Pennington once observed: “Some men just want to watch the world burn.” Today’s most vocal admonishers condone political-bureaucratic micromanaging and controls; they seem to love shaming innocent people into obeying draconian, life-stifling edicts. If millions must sacrifice and suffer, so what? Most religions (secular and otherwise) say that this signifies “virtue.” Covid-19 bullies use science language to shield themselves from criticism and cloak their nefarious designs; they seem to sense that most Americans still respect science (not despotism). The etymology of “science” originates in the 14th century and derives from the Latin scientia, which derives from scire (“know”). Our knowledge is the accumulation of all that we have come to know – and to know anything is to know it is true, that it derives from and corresponds to the facts of reality. As humans we are fundamentally distinguished from other animals and organisms in that we possess the faculty of reason; we are homo sapiens (from the Latin, sapere – “to know”). Additionally, and importantly, we know that knowledge does not come automatically, and surely not from faith, revelation, or intuition. Enlightenment thinkers taught mankind that knowledge comes solely from applied reason – a volitional tool. We must use experience, sensory evidence, and the laws of logic to verify our hypothesis and theories – i.e., to establish their truth. Verification is the process of establishing a “verity” (from the Latin, veritas) – i.e., a truth. Science has three crucial components, each of which is necessary to acquiring reliable knowledge: description, explanation, and prediction. Description is accurate observation of facts, requiring careful data gathering and classification. Explanation is the provision of valid theories of how and why facts come to be, requiring a careful tracing and explication of causes and effects. Prediction uses facts and theories to project the future, which helps us anticipate, plan, prepare, act, and prosper. Mere description devoid of explanation or prediction is but a journalistic chronicling of that which is. Explanation devoid of facts is mere surmise, guesswork, assertion, or speculation; to merely surmise, as many do today, means not to prove definitively but only to “suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it.” Finally, if valid theories (those which correspond to the facts of reality) are to have practical value, they too must have predictive power. Now, let’s consider the current status of science (and non-science) in contemporary epidemiology, politics (governance), economics (production), and philosophy (epistemology and morality). ... Less-than-scientific epidemiologists, although probably a small fraction of all epidemiologists, nevertheless have enjoyed disproportionately greater influence in political circles, especially among those with paternalistic predilections (pre-Covid-19) for authoritarianism. The harshest decree-issuers have been keen to follow those epidemiologists who’ve least followed the science. ... Last March, prior to the imposition of harsh lockdowns, the same New York Times reported that public health policy on Covid-19 was being driven by the work of British epidemiologist Neil Ferguson at Imperial College of London – thereafter to be exposed as a quack. Even assuming masks and social distancing, his team of fifty epidemiologists projected that in 2020 the U.K. would see 510,000 deaths from Covid-19 while the U.S. would suffer 2.2. million. The facts? The science? How good was the Ferguson prediction? Let us see. So far, deaths have totaled only 65,520 in the U.K. (14% of Ferguson’s projection) and 307,642 in the U.S. (13% of his projection). Not even the global total of Covid-19 deaths has reached 2 million (it is now only 1.65 million, a mere 0.021% of the global population). For those less than 70 years old who get Covid-19, the survival rate is quite high (99.94%). For this, dozens of the world’s major economies have been shuttered while millions of lives and livelihoods have been ruined. This is not a case of “following the science.” Many narrowly focused, phobic epidemiologists have allowed their work to be tainted and worse, weaponized by would-be political despots in the “public health” sector. ... For decades, but especially in 2020, we have seen the awful effects of “junk science” – i.e., “the use of faulty scientific data and analysis to advance special interests and hidden agendas” – and the vast array of flawed public policies that rely on it. We can also observe a bipartisan politicization of public health, reflecting deeper defects in the health sciences as well as in political science. What about political science? Has it been followed in 2020? It teaches that public governance (state action) necessarily entails coercion and thus should be deployed carefully, sparingly, and legitimately – by this last criterion, only in retaliation against those who initiate force. The legitimate state does not itself initiate force against innocents. That would be despotism. A proper state is constitutionally restricted to protecting individual rights; its main functions, therefore, include national defense, police, and courts. The proper state necessarily upholds the rule of law. ... What about economic science? It teaches that the production of wealth must be primary, the main feature of an ever expansive, durable prosperity, which necessarily precedes the exchange and consumption of wealth. Economics teaches that production is driven by creative intelligence, entrepreneurial energy, and the profit motive. People at every stage of production derive great value, self-esteem, and pride from work well done. Economic science further demonstrates how private property, the sanctity of contact, a free and flexible price system, fair taxation, sound money, free trade, and light regulation are indispensable prerequisites of prosperity (and human well-being). Sadly, in 2020 we have not seen policymakers (or advisors) “follow the science” of economics. Lockdowns have been accompanied by a widespread violation of property and commercial rights, including the right to own, open and operate businesses, the right to work and exchange, to shop in person, to travel or congregate, to enjoy public entertainments. Licenses to do business – which already abridge rights per se – have been routinely revoked as a means of punishing and criminalizing the recalcitrant (those who wish to keep working for a living). There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that mandatory business closures materially mitigate Covid-19 lethality; but there is ample evidence that closures erode liberty, prosperity, solvency, and sanity. ... If science had been followed in 2020 – in all fields – we’d be much healthier and wealthier than we now are. But control freaks have used Covid-19 to justify still more government controls, still more statism. In every field they’ve cited chaos as an (alleged) reason to “reimagine” (i.e., sabotage) capitalism – a system they hated already, pre-virus – to promote despotism, a system they preferred already. For such people, crises are to be welcomed, if necessary, even concocted. (read more) 2020-12-21 f THE COVID-CON I - VUI-202012/01 as pretext for more tyranny "The ‘mutant strain’ has been circulating since September, according to the government, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson using it to justify literally cancelling Christmas." Scientists, MPs Ask ‘Where Is
Evidence Of 70% More Contagious Mutant COVID?’
Oxford University Professor: “I’ve been doing this job for 25 years and I can tell you can’t establish a quantifiable number in such a short time frame.” As London and the entire South East of the UK was plunged into a fresh lockdown over the weekend, scores of countries have banned all travel to and from the UK, but scientists there are demanding to see any evidence that there is a 70% more contagious mutant strain of COVID, having not been shown anything by the government. The Daily Mail reports that Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University’s Nuffield Department of Primary Care, has expressed scepticism over the 70 per cent figure. “I’ve been doing this job for 25 years and I can tell you can’t establish a quantifiable number in such a short time frame,” Heneghan said. “Every expert is saying it’s too early to draw such an inference,” the professor added. “I would want to have very clear evidence rather than ‘we think it’s more transmissible’ so we can see if it is or not,” Heneghan continued. “It has massive implications, it’s causing fear and panic, but we should not be in this situation when the Government is putting out data that is unquantifiable,” the professor further urged. “They are fitting the data to the evidence. They see cases rising and they are looking for evidence to explain it,” Heneghan declared. However, Professor Heneghan emphasised that if this strain really is that much more contagious “we should be locking down the whole country”. ... Within minutes of Johnson making the announcement that London and the South East would be locked down at midnight on Saturday, thousands of people crammed into train stations in an attempt to escape to other parts of the country. ... The data the government has on the ‘new strain’ off COVID comes from analysis by advisory body The New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag). No one has seen the data, with the Prim (sic ?) Minster (sic) noting it is “early data, “subject to review” but “It’s the best we have at the moment.” (read more) More fearmongering here. More about this here 2020-12-21 e IT'S ELEMENTARY MY DEAR DALTON, NEVER COMPROMISE Off-the-cuff
suggestions for the Dalton
School
1. Immediately terminate the malcontents. Acquiescing to any of their demands will destroy you and your reputation. 2. Admit students based on merit, not melanin. 3. Hire faculty based on merit, not melanin. NBA players and NFL players do not "look like America." Nobel Prize winners also do not "look like America." Diversity for its own sake is not merely silly, IT IS DESTRUCTIVE. 4. Do not let Marxists, Redistributionists, or Socialists enter, either through the front door or the back door. Always and everywhere, the revolution devours its own. You are no exception. 5. Most young boys (and some girls) are squirminators and cannot sit still for long. Accommodate them. Don't drug them. 6. Teach your students the basics. You'll know you have succeeded if they can pass the Regent's Exams from one hundred years ago. 7. Teach your students ethics, especially if their parents are in morally questionable occupations, such as Politics, the Law, or Plunder (now called "finance" euphemistically). 8. Teach your students how to think and how to express their thoughts lucidly. 9. Teach your students the good, the true and the beautiful. Music and the arts are important. 10. When dealing with children, "amor vincit omnia." That is as true today as in 37 B.C. when Publius Vergilius Maro wrote that phrase (Gallus, in Eclogues, no. 10, l. 69) (the above was composed in 9 minutes) 2020-12-21 d IT'S ELEMENTARY MY DEAR DALTON, FIRE THEM ALL "They have actively encouraged the sort of thinking that is now biting them in the ass. And the obvious irony is that if Dalton is "systemically racist," a belief they themselves promote, it is progressives who bear the responsibility." The Dalton School Is in a Full
Meltdown
The Dalton School, one of the most prestigious private schools in Manhattan, is in the throes of a full-on racial meltdown. The precursor of this, as first reported by Bloomberg News, was the school refusing to reopen even while most other public and private schools in New York did. (This despite the lack of any scientific evidence suggesting schools were significant vectors for COVID 19.) Parents signed an angry letter, saying that the $54,000 annual tuition, none of which was being rebated, should buy something more than Zoom classes. Possibly relenting under the pressure, Dalton has announced plans to reopen, but this has ignited another firestorm, this time from the faculty. Apparently, reopening is racist. The charge has been leveled by black faculty and staffers. They suggest, among other things, that faculty of color are more at risk from having to come to work. The reasoning is that they have, on average, more distant commutes and therefore expose themselves longer to risky public transportation. But that's just the start of Dalton's problems. Over one hundred faculty have taken the opportunity to issue a lengthly set of racially-based demands that are breathtaking in their wokeness. Black students have added their own demands. These demands, which have been obtained exclusively by the Naked Dollar, go on for eight pages, and have as their underlying assumption that Dalton is systemically racist. Dalton's teachers are refusing to come back until they are met. Parents are in an uproar, some threatening to remove their children. Major donors are said to be balking. The board, filled with New York movers and shakers, is in turmoil. The Naked Dollar has learned they have contracted an outside consulting firm to advise on handling the crisis. Here is just a sample of the demands: •The hiring of twelve (!) full time diversity
officers
•An additional full time employee whose "entire role is to support Black students who come forward with complaints." •Hiring of multiple psychologists with "specialization on the psychological issues affecting ethnic minority populations." •Pay off student debt of incoming black faculty •Re-route 50% of all donations to NYC public schools •Elimination of AP courses if black students don't score as high as white •Required courses on "Black liberation" •Reduced tuition for black students whose photographs appear in school promotional materials •Public "anti-racism" statements required from all employees •Mandatory "Community and Diversity Days" to be held "throughout the year" •Required anti-bias training to be conducted every year for all staff and parent volunteers •Mandatory minority representation in (otherwise elected) student leadership roles •Mandatory diversity plot lines in school plays •Overhaul of entire curriculum to reflect diversity narratives The demands for additional staffers alone would add millions of dollars to Dalton's annual budget. Siphoning off 50% of donations would dry up funding. Eliminating AP classes (referred to as "leveled courses") would destroy college admissions. It's not an exaggeration to say these demands, if implemented, would destroy Dalton altogether. According to insiders, much damage has already been done. What you may not know is that Dalton has long been one of the most progressive schools in the country. ... When progressive institutions embrace revolutionary ideologies, as Dalton has done, they fail to appreciate that the revolution comes for them first. The scaffolding is being built on East 89th street. We'll see how this plays out. (read more) 2020-12-21 c SANTA KLAUS WANTS US IN THE DARK (WINTER) "If Schwab says we must
prepare for a specific crisis, it likely means it is
in the works."
Klaus Schwab: Cyberattack Worse than COVID-19 Crisis – Power Grid Down, Banking Offline Klaus Schwab, 82, is a German engineer and economist (sic) best known as the founder of the World Economic Forum. The World Economic Forum hosts an annual four day conference in Davos, Switzerland that brings elites together, including political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. If Schwab says we must prepare for a specific crisis, it likely means it is in the works. A cyber pandemic means loss of the Internet and possibly electrical power for an extended period of time – months or years. We cannot afford to dismiss this merely as the ravings of a mad man. It could be the master plan of a mad man who has the power and the influence to make it happen. (read more) 2020-12-21 b THE GOWNED CLOWNS The Supreme Court Denies
Rumors but not the Substance
The Supreme Court has come out and made a statement denying that Chief Justice Roberts screamed in a room because they met by phone. This shows that they have been monitoring the comments since they denied the Texas lawsuit when there was no justification for “discretion” to deny taking the case. This is like asking if someone beat their spouse on Sunday, and they say no I was at church. If later caught, they simply say: Oh, sorry, I thought that was Saturday. They did not deny refusing to take the case because of protests. There were other rumors that Chief Justice Roberts on a phone call to Justice Breyer also said they will not take any case from Trump on the election. The Supreme Court has condemned the nation to violence for anyone who has read history knows that the very purpose of courts is to provide a civilized resolution. If courts will not be honest, then the only solution is violence which may rise to the level of revolution. It has now not just denied the civil rights of the 74 million people who voted for Trump, a record for any incumbent president, but they have condemned democracy for here on out there will be no trust in any future election. Our model warns that the United States has a short-fuse. The break-up of the nation has just been set in motion by the Supreme Court and we have perhaps at best 13 years left. There will only be hatred and bitterness and trying to claim Biden has a mandate to drastically change the country will lead to bloodshed. This will all be on the hands of the Supreme Court. If there was no evidence of fraud then review the evidence, show the world, and rule. The refusal to hear the case will leave that question unanswered. Ruling against Trump would have at least calmed the turmoil. This way, there will be no rest. This was jurisdiction squarely created by the Constitution. It is already well established that voter fraud violates the civil rights of everyone else. The rights of Texas as even a state are violated by any other state which engages in voter fraud. This now justifies the rising tensions for separatism. Pennsylvania is often at the top of the list of voter fraud in the country. This is not a small number of ballots. Pennsylvania is violating EVERYONE’S civil rights and there should be a major class-action suit filed ASAP. We all now have a right to file a class-action lawsuit under 18 USC 241 for Pennsylvania and Michigan have violated the civil rights of everyone in the country. Section 241 has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. It has long been held to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections for federal office. It has been applied to stuffing a ballot box with forged ballots, United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 (1944); United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915) as well as preventing the official count of ballots in primary elections, United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941), which may come in handy in this election. This means private suites can be filed claiming that interfering with the ballots is a civil rights violation to all in the country. Destroying voter registration applications is also applicable (United States v. Haynes, Nos. 91-5979, 91-6076, 1992 WL 296782, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 15, 1992)), as well as destroying ballots (United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070, 1073–75 (8th Cir. 1988)). Anyone who exploits the infirmities of elderly or handicapped people by casting absentee ballots in their names is also a violation of civil rights, United States v. Morado, 454 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1972), just as anyone who illegally register voters and cast absentee ballots in their names, United States v. Weston, 417 F.2d 181, 182–85 (4th Cir. 1969). Anyone who threatens injury, threaten, or intimidate a voter in the exercise of his right to vote is also a serious actionable issue under this statute, Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th Cir. 1955). This even extends to someone who impersonates qualified voters, Crolich v. United States, 196 F.2d 879, 879 (5th Cir. 1952). Chief Justice Roberts should be Impeached, but the Deep State will support him. ... Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over suits between states. That original jurisdiction of SCOTUS is laid out by statute in 28 U.S.C. § 1251. Section 1251(a) provides that with disputes between states, the jurisdiction of SCOTUS is not only “original,” it is exclusive. In other words, if the parties cannot settle the matter, no other court but SCOTUS has authority, under the Constitution, to take jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act of 1925 made such jurisdiction discretionary, which requires a Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint when the complaint is between states. That legislatively created change is equivalent to locking the courthouse door to suits like Texas, et al. v. Pennsylvania, et al. Giving “discretion to hear” to courts that have original and exclusive jurisdiction over a case or controversy between states destroys the fundamental right of access to the courts. The jurisdiction of SCOTUS was created directly by the Constitution. Therefore, such jurisdiction requires an amendment to the Constitution to alter same. The Judiciary Act of 1925 passed by Congress cannot be substituted for an amendment to the Constitution when such is required, and a “no standing” ruling is, simply put a cop-out. Once leave to file a bill of complaint is denied there is no further remedy, so this maze of laws should be treated as an unintended consequence and a grave mistake of the American system of justice. Similar unintended consequences have occurred before, e.g., the famous “Moitie footnote” was rectified by the opinion of SCOTUS in Rivet v. Regions Bank, 522 U.S. 470 (1998). This mistake ties the hands of other courts that could provide review of the denial of the fundamental right of access to the courts. The denial of the Motion to File a Bill of Complaint is, at its core, an action of a trial court with original and exclusive jurisdiction per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution but, untenably, with discretion to hear per the Judiciary Act of 1925, 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a). This scheme seems to have been designed by Kafka because it bars more than the courthouse door of the court of the first instance. When all doors to all courts that could provide review are barred in an unstoppable breathtaking cascade of severe judicial unfairness, it is reasonable, perhaps necessary, to assume that a mistake like the one made in the Moitie case was unintended, and that no one could possibly desire that such legal quandary continue. The movers in the Motion to File Bill of Complaint should take a step toward rectification of such by filing a Notice of Appeal with the D.C. Circuit under FRAP 4 which would spotlight the quandary and move forward toward rectification to achieve the goals of appellate procedure consisting, inter alia, of correcting errors, developing the law, and achieving uniformity across courts. At first blush, the errors are: (1) violation of due process and equal protection for locking the door of the courthouse of SCOTUS by discretion where a case between two states must be heard in the first instance as per a grant and obligation of jurisdiction imposed upon SCOTUS directly by the U.S. Constitution, (2) it was error to find no standing, because____________, (3) the Judiciary Act of 1925 is unconstitutional because it violates due process and equal protection by allowing SCOTUS discretion to hear a case when the case is within the court’s original and exclusive jurisdiction of Article III, Article 2 of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a), and by failing to provide a method of appeal that provides a review of a denial of a Motion to File Bill of Complaint alleging a case and controversy between two states thereby allowing the denial of access to SCOTUS to metastasize to other courts causing a monopolization of all avenues of relief, (4) the Judiciary Act of 1925 is unconstitutional because it converts a fundamental right to a discretionary right which Congress cannot do since such can only be done by the amendment of the Constitution, (read more) 2020-12-21 a "If masks worked, six
feet apart would not be necessary.
If six feet apart worked, masks would not be necessary." (source) Editor's Note: I believe Big Brother wants us six feet apart so individual cell phone location signals are distinct. ______________________ Permission is hereby granted to any and all to copy and paste any entry on this page and convey it electronically along with its URL, http://www.usaapay.com/comm.html ______________________ 2020 - December 17 - 20 ARCHIVE 2020 - December 13 - 16 ARCHIVE 2020 - December 8 - 12 ARCHIVE 2020 - December 1 - 7 ARCHIVE 2020 - November 22 - 30 ARCHIVE 2020 - November 16 - 21 ARCHIVE 2020 - November 9 - 15 ARCHIVE 2020 - November 1 - 8 ARCHIVE 2020 - October 24 - 31 ARCHIVE 2020 - October 16 - 23 ARCHIVE 2020 - October 1 - 15 ARCHIVE 2020 - September 16 - 30 ARCHIVE 2020 - September 1 - 15 ARCHIVE 2020 - August 16 - 31 ARCHIVE 2020 - August 1 - 15 ARCHIVE 2020 - July 16 - 31 ARCHIVE 2020 - JULY 1 - 15 ARCHIVE 2020 - JUNE 16 - 30 ARCHIVE 2020 - JUNE 1 - 15 ARCHIVE 2020 - MAY 16 - 31 ARCHIVE 2020 - MAY 1 - 15 ARCHIVE 2020 - APRIL 16 - 30 ARCHIVE 2020 - APRIL 1 - 15 ARCHIVE 2020 - MARCH ARCHIVE 2020 - FEBRUARY ARCHIVE 2020 - JANUARY ARCHIVE |
...
News and facts for
those sick and tired of the National Propaganda Radio
version of reality.
|
|
| THE ARCHIVE PAGE |
| If
you let them redefine words, they will control
language. If you let them control language, they will control thoughts. If you let them control thoughts, they will control you. They will own you. |
| © 2020 - thenotimes.com - All Rights Reserved |