content for usaapay.com courtesy of thenotimes.com
WELCOME

spread the word
.


The No Times
comments, ephemera, speculation, etc.
(protected political speech and personal opinion)

- If this is your 1st visit to this page, please start at the bottom -


2021-


2021-12-18 d
NO SHIT, SHERLOCK IV

IN HEPA FILTERS WE TRUST

Southwest Airlines CEO Gary Kelly: Face masks “don’t add much” additional protection against the spread of COVID-19 on airplanes.

American Airlines CEO Doug Parker: “The airplane is the safest place you can be indoors… safer than an ICU.” pic.twitter.com/SeuCvTCLVQ

— Moshe Schwartz (@YWNReporter) December 16, 2021



2021-12-18 c
NO SHIT, SHERLOCK III

Do you feel white guilt? I sure don't.

*
— Zach Goldberg (@ZachG932) December 17, 2021


2021-12-18 b
NO SHIT, SHERLOCK II

*
2021-12-18 a
NO SHIT, SHERLOCK I

PSA: Be Careful on Telegram

Assume that most large chat groups are infiltrated by [state] security services [plus their local and Israeli contractors] and that everything you say there is being surveilled by the police.

For a few weeks, regime-friendly press outlets in Germany, like the Süddeutsche Zeitung, have been ringing the alarm about Telegram as a “lawless space” that poses a “danger to society.” Apparently it is a den of hate speech and incitement. This coordinated hyperventilation comes with demands that the new German government regulate Telegram as a social media application, which would require its administrators to report illegal content to authorities. Right now German law regards Telegram as a messenger app and thus exempts it from some of these rules.

In perfect tandem with this false press hysteria, police have raided the apartments of a Telegram chat group in Dresden. Allegedly, members of the chat, in the context of discussions about vaccine mandates, contemplated assassinating Michael Kretschmer, the CDU minister president of Saxony. Whenever police actions and press messaging campaigns align this perfectly, you should presume it is the work of agents provocateurs. In all likelihood, German security services are infiltrating Telegram chat groups, and putting about violent rhetoric in the interests of creating arrests and headlines to reinforce the press narrative.

I understand most of my readers aren’t in Germany, but as a back-up to Twitter I have my own Telegram channel, so I just want to advise everyone that caution is extremely important here. If you’re in a chat and anyone proposes violence, the chances that this is a bad actor are high, and you should distance yourself from these statements immediately. “I disavow all political violence and you should too” is the line I always use. Protect yourself. (read more)

2021-12-17 i
LAWLESS MANDARINS

A Note to My Well-Credentialed Friends

t really isn’t that complex.

The [spike protein mRNA gene therapy] injections [containing graphene hydroxide] you and many others were dragooned into taking under the threat of losing your job and your basic civil liberties do not protect you from getting Covid or passing it on.

Nor have they liberated you from mask-wearing, social distancing, the ongoing threat of lockdowns, and helpful advice from the government on how, and with whom, you can socialize at Christmas.

Among some populations, the risks of adverse effects are higher than from exposure to Covid.

Meanwhile, the mandates, enforcements, track-and-trace rituals, and now the bio-passports, continue to crush small enterprises and exclude huge swaths of minority populations from participation in public life.

The segregation in major cities is palpable and becoming more entrenched. Classes and events in large northeastern universities are being cancelled due to rising [fake PCR] cases, and this is despite high vaccinations and masking.

The rituals and draconian impositions have not given us our lives and freedoms back. They continue to grind down marginalized peoples not only in the US but all over the world.

It’s all there to see for anyone disposed to going beyond the mental parameters established and enforced by legacy media.

So, the real question at play here is a psychological and spiritual one.

And it can be summarized more or less in the following fashion.

Are you as a member of the well-educated Western elite class prepared to explore the possibility that members of the sociological cohort to which you belong are capable of highly organized evil and deception rooted in a deep disdain for the core humanity and inherent dignity of all people?

Are open to imagining that people—to borrow a phrase much-loved in certain circles— “who look like you,” live in “nice” neighborhoods like you, and want all the markings of the good life for their children like you, are also capable of monstrous deeds and the propagation of extremely damaging herd-induced stupidities?

Do you ever think of using the knowledge of history your prestigious education might have afforded you for something other than establishing favorable comparisons with the past that prop up the idea of Western man’s triumphant march of progress and, of course, your sociological cohort’s starring role within it?

For example, do you ever think about how Europe’s best and brightest sent millions of people to senseless deaths between 1914 and 1918, well after it was clear that doing so would do nothing to achieve the announced objectives of the conflict, objectives which were themselves based on deeply flawed logic and analytical assumptions?

Or will you avoid all that by mentally invoking a key, if largely unstated, conceit of late modernity’s meritocratic mind: that success within the games established to distribute elite power (such as entry into Ivied schools with big endowments and plum jobs in finance) confer upon the games’ winners a moral weight that effectively exonerates them from the type of moral scrutiny that they compulsively apply to other, “less accomplished” human beings?

This is a question that those of us of fortunate to be reasonably well-educated, reasonably well-fed and reasonably well-sheltered must now urgently confront [regarding the lethal injections and the society-shattering "containment" strategies].

And the manner in which the majority of us choose to respond to it will go a long way toward determining the shape of the world our children and grandchildren will inherit from us. (read more)

2021-12-17 h
LAWLESS LOWLIFE RACIST


2021-12-17 g
LAWLESS LESBIAN

Philadelphia teacher records herself coming out to all her students: pic.twitter.com/FPogww8luI

— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) December 12, 2021


2021
-12-17 f
LAWLESS PANDEMICISTS

The Pandemicists Must Be Stopped

Corona has vastly expanded the ranks of pandemic planners and public health botherers. Unless something is done, these people will destroy all of society in their radical pursuit of a few viruses.

Just a few words on “Omicron is a Dress Rehearsal for the Next Pandemic”, a New York Times article by Emily Anthes, a science journalist with ties to the World Economic Forum. It’s subtitled “America’s response to the variant highlights both how much progress we have made over the past two years — and how much work remains,” and it’s every inch as awful as you’d imagine.

In the piece, Anthes laments that the United States is “woefully unprepared for the challenges ahead, starting with the most fundamental of tasks: detecting the virus.” She quotes a microbiologist to complain that “We had a delay of one to two months before we were even able to identify the presence of [Omicron] … And by that time, it had already circulated widely between multiple states and from coast to coast.” She wastes many words on the necessity of “Testing, testing, testing”; here, apparently, America still needs vastly more capacity. She and her many scientist informants also want more gene sequencing to detect variants sooner. She’s sure that all of this is absolutely necessary, even though she doesn’t know why:

Scientists are finding more Omicron cases every day, and the variant could soon overtake Delta. What comes next — what we should aim for, even — is less clear. Should we spend the winter trying to stop every infection? Protecting the highest risk people from severe disease and death? Ensuring that hospitals are not overrun?

One thing that we’ve lacked continuously through the pandemic is a goal,” said Emily Gurley, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “We still don’t have that. Certainly, we don’t have that for Omicron.”

No realistic public health goal underpins this diagnostic mania, of course. People who test positive for Corona are sent home to suffer in untreated silence by themselves. Endlessly testing, tracing, sequencing, panicking and closing is, however, a goal in itself for people like Emily Gurley and all the other pandemicists Anthes gleefully quotes, from Eric Topol to Trevor Bedford to Ezekiel J. Emanuel. All of them want the Corona Circus to play on, and after it ends they hope for a sequel sometime soon. Never before have they enjoyed such personal and professional prominence.

Even if by some miracle all of this winds down tomorrow, this whole odious internationally networked enterprise of Virus Astrology, from virologers to sequencers to testers to planners to nudgers to vaccinators, won’t go away. They were a malign influence even before Corona, of course. In 2009, when we suffered under a small fraction of the Pandemicism that burdens us now, they succeeded in causing an international uproar over a mild strain of pandemic influenza. Now their ranks have been vastly expanded, and they are already hoping for the next opportunity to close our schools, lock us up at home and stick us full of needles.

The pandemicists are truly dangerous, and they will grind human civilisation into the dust unless we find some way of putting all of them out of work. They aren’t going to save anybody from the next pandemic; in the event it happens, they’ll just take advantage of the opportunity to expand their ranks still further and make all of our lives worse. And should novel viruses prove slow to materialise in the post-Corona era, they’ll get up to other tricks. Tricks like new and enhanced histrionics over every seasonal influenza outbreak. Tricks like the intentional release of more engineered viral pathogens to keep the grant funding flowing. Tricks like constant lunatic mass vaccination schemes against ever milder viruses. Still other tricks I haven’t considered. The pandemicists have to go. (read more)

2021-12-17 e
LAWLESS LOCKDOWN LOVERS

Am I Detecting a Shift at the New York Times?

The New York Times bears heaps of responsibility for the initial lockdowns. On February 28, 2020, the paper published a piece by its since-fired virus reporter Donald J. McNeil: “To Take On the Coronavirus, Go Medieval on It.” Praising China’s brutality, McNeil said the right way to deal with SARS-CoV-1 is to “close the borders, quarantine the ships, pen terrified citizens up inside their poisoned cities.”

The paper has long had an enormous influence over the line that the media takes, if only because every editor and reporter hopes one day to work there. That editorial changed everything. It made the unthinkable thinkable. Throughout the pandemic, they have since been scrupulous in excluding scientists who doubt the wisdom of mandates and lockdowns. Their universal recommendation to their readers has been to stay home, mask up, take your medicine, and comply with every edict. 

The people who do not read the New York Times were expected to keep working: deal with the sick, work the meatpacking plants and fields, drive the trucks, deliver the groceries, keep the lights on, and face the virus bravely. It was all a grotesque scene of class-based exploitation of which this paper heartily approved. 

Finally, after 21 months of this, I’m detecting some slight shifts in the paper. Its lead Dec 11, 2021, editorial begins with a bang, and a hint that their entire program has completely undermined public trust in government. 

Let’s look at the good parts of the editorial and then the inevitable bad parts. It’s worth a close examination because it could portend a real shift. 

NYT: “Nearly two years into the pandemic, it is clear that the coronavirus is not going to disappear anytime soon.”

Perhaps that sounds like a truism. It is not. The original lockdowns were based in part on the belief that the virus could be made to disappear through the use of force. Donald Trump certainly believed so, having been misled by his scientific advisors. “Once this virus has gone,” he repeatedly said on March 16, 2020. “The market will be very strong as soon as we get rid of the virus.”

Recognizing that every virus of this sort becomes endemic is progress. That anyone thought otherwise – the temptation to believe in Zero Covid is still driving policy in major parts of the world – is a pathetic commentary on the lack of serious thought that has been behind nearly all policy responses. It’s the reason for the brutality of interventions against the whole population rather than a focus on protection and therapeutics among the vulnerable. 

NYT: “Surges will happen, variants of concern will pop up and mitigation strategies will need to evolve.”

The phrase “mitigation strategy” has become a euphemism for lockdowns and mandates, so let us hope that “evolve” here is code for: let people live their lives while leaving mitigation to medical professionals. 

NYT: “Yet too many Americans are still paralyzed with doubt and fear over each new uncertainty, as trust in government and other institutions to manage the virus ranges from shaky to nonexistent.”

True and this newspaper is a major reason for the paralyzation, the doubt, and the fear. The paper apparently realizes that the disasters of the last 21 months have completely undermined trust. The use of the term “nonexistent” is uncharacteristically blunt. The word reminds me of D.H. Henderson’s 2006 prediction that if governments ever use lockdowns, they will wreck public trust for a generation or more. 

NYT: “The virus will continue to surprise us, and even when scientists manage to predict its worst turns, officials will not necessarily be able to prevent those turns from coming. But what if leaders at all levels made choices so that we don’t have to exhaust ourselves with stress over every curve ball? To help us all live more normally with this virus, rather than let it control us?”

Hear hear! Officials have never been able to prevent and direct. They have tried and completely failed. We should have lived “normally” all along while focusing energies on the populations that we knew then and know now are actually in danger. Regardless, that the paper is officially declaring that we have to live with the virus represents real progress. 

It’s not the Great Barrington Declaration but it takes steps in that direction. 

NYT: “​​But even amid that uncertainty, we should push for a more pragmatic path from our decision makers that will help us protect ourselves and live more normal lives, even as the virus continues to evolve.”

Fine: 21 months late on the point but good nonetheless. 

NYT: “Quarantine and isolation policies will also need an upgrade. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still advises people to isolate for 10 days after experiencing symptoms or testing positive, regardless of their vaccination status. Many schools still require anyone who’s been in contact with an infected person to quarantine for several days, at least. As breakthrough infections become more common, even among those who have received their boosters, it makes sense to allow workers and students to avoid confinement, or test their way out of it much more quickly.”

Again, thank you! Here we have the NYT actually disagreeing with the CDC! These policies have been preposterous and wrecked countless lives for no reason. The risk to students is mostly negligible and always has been. We’ve known this from day one. Not one kid in Sweden and Germany died. That classes are still being cancelled and students forced to sit at home doing nothing is an outrage. 

By the way, in many places around the country, this editorial would make no sense. People in Texas, Florida, Georgia, and many other states have been living normally for a very long time. But I suppose that the NYT writes with an audience in mind: Zoom-class people living in blue states. They are the ones who need to hear this. 

Here is where the editorial gets interesting. 

On masking students: “No one wants to force young children to wear masks for several hours a day indefinitely, but it would also be foolish to abandon the practice completely. A happy medium may be to require masks for students during surges or when new variants of concern are detected and vaccine escape is still being measured. The rest of the time, evidence so far suggests the requirement could be lifted.”

Again, thank you! The masking of kids has been heartbreaking throughout. As for the “happy medium,” it’s not so happy for the kids themselves to have their faces forcibly covered whenever some bureaucrat decides it is time. But, hey, at least the NYT sees the problem. 

NYT: “Country-specific travel bans are futile: By the time a variant like Omicron is detected in one country, it’s already spread halfway around the globe.”

Exactly! Countless families have been shattered by these restrictions that still exist. The first impulse of policy makers on the discovery of Omicron was to ban travel. That’s an extremely bad habit. The status quo ante of the freedom to travel the world must come back as a precondition of reasserting liberal values. 

And get this. The newspaper that invented Covid theater now says: “Do away with Covid theater.”

“The coronavirus is airborne, and any money spent on deep cleaning would be better put toward improved building ventilation. But instead of upgrading their HVAC systems, too many schools and businesses are still relying on things that won’t work nearly as well. The plastic barriers that have become common in restaurants, nail salons and offices, for example, can actually impede airflow and exacerbate viral spread.”

Exactly correct. Keep in mind: OSHA itself is the whole reason for these ridiculous plexiglass barriers everywhere. They issued an edict in the spring of 2020: “Install plexiglass partitions at counters and cash registers.” This “alert” is still in effect! And keep in mind that this is the same OSHA that the Biden administration has demanded impose vaccine mandates before the courts said no way. 

The rest of the editorial is quite terrible, emphasizing vaccine mandates and arbitrary and dictatorial rule by bio-fascists regardless of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or sound science. “Administration officials should stay the course no matter how many legal battles they encounter,” they say in a passage that basically endorses lawless government. 

That said, to stay on the good aspects of this editorial, the NYT concludes: “Returning to the sound basics of public health, continuing the progress of medical innovation and ratcheting back the societal anxiety around the pandemic could make us all a lot healthier.”

This is extremely interesting language: the sound basics of public health. Exactly. Why did almost every government in the world in 2020 and 2021 abandon them? Why did Fauci and so much of the establishment believe that promoting fear was consistent with good public health? 

Reading the New York Times has always required a decoder ring. What this editorial tells me is that the ruling class that did this to this country and the world knows that it is on the losing side of history. They are scrambling fast to dial it back while preserving what they can of their dignity and credibility, both of which are mostly shot. 

Maybe, after all, it wasn’t such a good idea to “go medieval” on this pathogen. (read more)

2021-12-17 d
LAWLESS JACOBINS

How American Progressives Became French Jacobins

The iconoclastic gestures of the woke left bear an alarming resemblance to the excesses of the French Revolution

[...] In the early 20th century, Progressive reformers—based, like today’s progressives, in the white, Northeastern upper middle class—hoped to insulate government from ignorant voters and corrupt machine politicians and lobbies by creating a powerful national civil service like those of continental Europe. Congress, however, repeatedly killed proposals for executive branch reorganization that would have created an American mandarinate of Ivy League graduates comparable to the powerful enarques of France (graduates of prestigious schools of public administration).

The technocratic progressive dream of the 1900s is alive in the 2000s. The technocratic—dare we say French?—turn in American progressive thought is evident by looking at the heroes of many American progressives. The icons of today’s center left—literal icons, with their own posters, statuettes, and votive candles—are not politicians like FDR and LBJ but wise bureaucratic or judicial technocrats who were uncorrupted by the need to win elections: Dr. Anthony Fauci and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Of course, denunciations of the American left as “Jacobin” in tendency are nothing new. Back in the 1960s, John P. Roche, a Johnson administration official, derided radical leftists as “a bunch of Upper West Side Jacobins.” His interviewer, the journalist Jimmy Breslin, transcribed this as “a bunch of Upper West Side jackal bins,” as the neoconservative author and editor Norman Podhoretz has long delighted in pointing out. Yet until recently, claims that the American left resembles the Jacobin faction in the French Revolution were as absurd as comparisons of New Deal liberals and democratic socialists to Bolsheviks. Even today, most on the left do not relish the thought of beheading or otherwise executing their political enemies in cold blood, along with their spouses and children, with the possible exception of Bhaskar Sunkara, former vice-chair of Democratic Socialists of America and founding editor of the appropriately named Jacobin magazine, who wrote in a now-deleted tweet on Oct. 2, 2020: “The question isn’t what we think justice demands. I think killing little Romanov children was justified. But it’s not surprising why these views are controversial given most people’s ethical and moral frameworks.”

Let us grant that most progressives are not as depraved as Bhaskar “Kill the Kids” Sunkara. What makes contemporary American progressivism resemble Jacobinism is not the brutality of its methods, but its increasing resemblance to traditional French republican political culture—and the increasing alienation of American progressives from American political traditions, including those of liberals, labor activists, populists, Jewish religious leaders, and Christian reformers of all races..

The 18th-century political concepts invoked by both the American revolutionaries of 1776 and the French revolutionaries of 1789 were the same: popular sovereignty, which includes the collective right of a sovereign people to depose its government and install a new one, and universal human rights. But for more than two centuries the French version of republicanism, including relatively conservative versions of it, has been characterized by themes that are literally foreign to American democratic republicanism.

Centralization.

With its roots in the royal absolutism of the Ancien Regime, reinforced by revolutionary and Napoleonic consolidation, the degree of centralization in government that is considered legitimate in France has tended to be viewed as excessive if not tyrannical by liberals and conservatives alike in the English-speaking nations. Not anymore.

Executive authority.

Under the present constitution of the Gaullist Fifth Republic, the president of France has authority that could only be dreamed of by a power-mad U.S. president. Under Obama and Biden, that difference has been diminishing.

Deference to experts.

In Britain and its cultural offshoots, including the populist U.S., professors and bureaucrats tend to be figures of fun. Anglo-American lack of deference to the titled and credentialed has been a source of frustration to American progressive intellectuals and civil servants, who have longed for the respect and authority granted their grave and dignified German and French counterparts. In the case of COVID-19 and climate change, many progressives have gone beyond arguing that elected politicians should be informed by scientific advice when weighing the costs and benefits of public policies to supporting the delegation of public policymaking in these and other areas to unelected experts: “Follow the science.”

Anticlericalism.

American advocates of separation of church and state have seldom shared the uncompromising hostility of the French left to any public expression of religious identity or accommodation of religious believers by government. In fact, the history of the American left is inconceivable without the participation of the devoutly religious—whether evangelical Populists, Catholic trade unionists, Social Gospel reformers, Jewish clergy in the civil rights era, or Black preachers like Martin Luther King Jr. and the Reverend Jesse Jackson.

The exception to the rule has been a paranoid hostility to Catholicism that has warped American politics for centuries. Fear that the pope and his Jesuits and Catholic American voters will subvert American democracy explains the numerous state constitutions with “Blaine amendments” prohibiting the use of state funding for religious schools. (Every other English-speaking democracy—the U.K., Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—provides public funding for religious as well as secular schools, with no harmful effects.)

For most of American history, the alternative to Catholicism was not French-style radical anticlericalism, but a kind of generic Protestantism in the public realm. In the last generation, however, the formerly dominant mainline Protestant churches have rapidly lost membership, while the number of nonaffiliated, more or less secular “Nones” in the U.S. has risen rapidly. The Nones—overwhelmingly progressive and Democratic—have transformed the traditional hostility of their mainline Protestant ancestors to the Catholic church into something like rigid French anticlericalism.

A major line was crossed in December 2019, when a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Texas Rep. Robert “Beto” O’Rourke—now a candidate for governor of Texas—declared that if he were elected president he would push for revocation of tax-exempt status for any religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage on theological grounds: “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us. And so as president, we’re going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.”

With O’Rourke’s proposal, we have a Gallic twofer: official anticlericalism and Bonapartism combined. First, the Internal Revenue Service will systematically inflict financial damage on the Catholic church, many Protestant denominations, Conservative and Orthodox Jews, and mainstream Muslim congregations which teach that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman. Second, this anticlerical revolution from above to reward “good theology” and punish “bad theology” will be led somehow by Bonapartist presidents like the would-be President O’Rourke, perhaps on the basis of constitutionally dubious executive orders like those of Obama and Biden.

Radical Iconoclasm.

The radical left in the French Revolution, although it was not collectivist in economics, foreshadowed 20th-century totalitarianism by attempting to abolish most national traditions and substitute new, ideologically useful replacements. Maximilian Robespierre, the leader of the Jacobins when they were in power, tried to replace both Christianity and the Cult of Reason with a fabricated, state-sponsored version of deism called the Cult of the Supreme Being. In 1793 the Jacobin-controlled National Convention adopted a revolutionary calendar, which renamed all of the months and dated the modern epoch, the Republican Era, only back to 1792 with the abolition of the French monarchy.

While many have argued that the Great Awokening that has swept the American corporate-bureaucratic-nonprofit-media-academic oligarchy, though not the population as a whole, is driven by a kind of sublimated Protestantism, the iconoclastic gestures of the woke left—toppling statues, vandalizing churches and public buildings, censoring books and movies, “canceling” people (who are allowed to keep their heads)—more directly evoke the excesses of the French Revolution. The attempt of The New York Times to push, through the culture and the public schools, the idea that “1619,” the date of the arrival of the first Black slaves in British North American colonies, is the true “founding” of the United States of America, is an example of elite-sponsored ideological iconoclasm and brainwashing comparable to the French revolutionary calendar. Robespierre might have admired the pseudo-religious ritual in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer “took a knee” to protest the history of American white supremacy while wearing kente cloth, which along with the daishiki is part of the kitsch culture of the old Black Power movement that fell out of fashion in the 1970s.

Analogies can be pushed too far, and my thesis about the Jacobinization of American progressivism has its limits. For one thing, the contemporary American center left is too crazy for France. With few exceptions, French intellectuals and politicians of left, right, and center have rejected American progressive ideological fads like grammar-wrecking, gender-neutral language, gender fluidity, and racial essentialism.

So my thesis should be qualified. It might be said that American progressives are becoming more like those in the French Jacobin tradition, except that would be an insult to the French. (read more)

2021-12-17 c
LAWLESS MEMBER OF SCHOOL BOARD

VIDEO: School Board Member Leaves Stage To Confront Speaker

Protest at school board was over demands to restore school team names: “We are offended by the Board of Education’s removal of the TOMAHAWKS mascot name AND the process by which it was removed and replaced.”

In a meeting of the Glastonbury, CT, School Board on December 14, video shows what appears to be a board member leaving the stage to physically confront a member of the public. The confrontation occurred during a recess of the meeting, after the member of the public made a comment about the board’s previous decision to change the high school mascot over concerns about cultural insensitivity.

The meeting was a petitioned meeting of the board called by the citizens of Glastonbury.

According to local media:

Of the nearly 40 residents that spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting, only one got into a contentious back and forth with the board members.

A board member told resident Mark Finocchiaro “your time is up” to which he responded, “This is the history of our town,” referring to the Tomahawks name.

The Board member shot back, “You’re not paying attention.”

“You’re not paying attention, but they are,” said an angry Finocchiaro, pointing to the audience, before dropping an expletive.

(read more)


2021-12-17 b
LAWLESS DEPUTY WARDEN

Droves of anti-Trump & anti-republican tweets from the Deputy Warden of the DC Jail where all of the protesters from J6 are being held in AWFUL conditions.@awkathyjo is responsible for GRAVE human rights violations and she must be held accountable immediately.

Watch & RT! pic.twitter.com/mTn3KSk569

— Alex Bruesewitz (@alexbruesewitz) December 11, 2021


2021-12-17 a
LAWLESS BLACKS

Heather Mac Donald: The Truth About Crime, Race, and Policing in America

Minnesota based Center of the American Experiment CEO John Hinderaker introduces Heather Mac Donald who shares the statistical truth about crime, race, and policing in America.

John Hinderaker: Welcome everyone, I am John Hinderaker, President of Center of the American Experiment. Our program today features Heather MacDonald, a Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute in a Contributing Editor of City Journal. She is a graduate of Yale University, Cambridge University, and University and Stanford University Law School. Heather is the author of The War on Cops, a New York Times bestseller published in 2016. She has testified before the House Judiciary Committee on issues related to policing, and is America’s foremost expert on the intersection of crime, race and policing. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions described Heather as “The greatest thinker on criminal justice in America today. Heather McDonald.

Heather McDonald: Thank you so much John and its an honor to be back at the Center of the American Experiment, the feistiest think tank in America. If anybody can bring Minnesota, and the United States in fact, back to sanity it the CAE, so thank you for having me on.

On May 25th, four Minneapolis police officers arrested a man for passing a counterfeit $20 bill. One of the officers kept his knee on George Floyd’s neck for nearly 8 minutes while Mr. Floyd was handcuffed on the ground and pleading that he couldn’t breathe. Mr. Floyd died of a heart attack during the arrest. The next day, Minneapolis Mayor, Jacob Frey, announced that whatever the investigation into Mr Floyd’s death revealed quote, “being black in America should not be a death sentence”. Mayor Frey interpretation of Mr. Floyds horrifying end, that it was a function of his race instantly became universal. That idea was coupled with the claim that Mr Floyd’s death was representative of an epidemic of racially biased police killings of black men. Together these two claims triggered an explosion of violence in Minneapolis and across the country, destroying thousands of livelihoods, turning city streets into war zones, and ripping apart the very foundation of law and order. Police officers were shot at, slashed, and assaulted with bricks and bottles. Their precinct houses and cruisers were firebombed. Courthouses were vandalized. Firefighters let public and private property burn to the ground rather than risk being attacked by the rioters. Professional thieves use stolen cars as missiles to hurdle into stores, which the then cleaned out through the shattered glass. The flames of that terrible week have burned out, but the attack on civil order continues. Monuments to the nation’s Founders have been torn down and defaced. Anarchist colonized portions of Seattle and New York with impunity. Violence has become a responsive choice to any criminal justice’s decision, the activist do not like. In mid July, vandals tried to torch the Georgia Department of Public Safety as part of ongoing protests against the police in Atlanta. In Salt Lake City vandals broke the windows of the District Attorney’s office and pepper sprayed police officers after the district attorney declined to prosecute an officer-involved shooting. Courthouses in police precincts removed favorite physical targets. In Portland, for weeks on end, Antifa thugs have hurled bombs at the federal courthouse tried to blind federal agents with lasers, and across the country, police officers are routinely attacked as they try to make a lawful arrest. The unchecked anarchy of those riots and their long aftermath have sent a clear message to criminals, no one is controlling the streets. Gang shootings and homicides has spiked nationwide as a demoralized police force pulls back from discretionary stops in arrests. In the weeks following the Floyd riots, homicides were up by 100% in Minneapolis, 200% in Seattle, 40% in St Louis, 240% in Atlanta, and 182 percent in Chicago. In New York City, shooting some more than double so far in 2020 compared with last year. In June, 97% of New York shooting victims were people of color. Since George Floyd’s death, at least 35 children under the age of 18 have been fatally shot, nearly all black. We’ve been here before.

In 2015 and 2016 homicides in the US are the largest increase in there with 50 years, following the police shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in August 2014. Brown’s death fueled the first iteration of the Black Lives Matter movement. Cops backed off from proactive policing, having been relentlessly told they were racist, for example, to question someone hanging out on a known drug corner at 1:00am, hitching up his waistband as if you had a gun. As a result of this decline in discretionary enforcement another 2000 blacks lost their lives in 2015 and 2016, compared to 2014 numbers. The rapid rise of crime over the last two months makes that first version of what I’ve called the Ferguson effect look like child’s play. Today’s Ferguson Effect 2 .00 or better, the Minneapolis Effect, promises far worse, especially since the Black Lives Matter narrative, that policing in the U.S. is lethally racist, has been amplified by every mainstream institution in the country. A lot is riding therefore on whether that narrative about the police is correct, not just thousands of lives, but the very possibility of a civilized society. Essential criminal justice practices are being rapidly dismantled in the name of fighting alleged law enforcement bias. So is it true as Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden announced after Mr Floyd’s death, that every time a black person leaves his house his family members need to fear for his safety from the police? It is not. The idea that the police are wantonly killing black men is a creation of a politicized press and an elite establishment dedicated to the idea that racism is America’s defining trait.

Today I’m going to examine three types of evidence for the Black Lives Matter claim about police racism. The raw numbers on police shootings and deaths, individual cases like Mr. Floyd’s, and academic research. The raw numbers are these. Every year the police fatally shoot about a thousand people, the vast majority of whom or threatening the officer or bystanders with deadly force. About 50% of those police fatalities are white and about 25% are black. The Black Lives Matter folks look at 25% number and proclaim police bias since blacks are about 13% of the population. That is the wrong benchmark however. If there is one thing you should take away from today’s discussion, it isn’t police activity must be measured against crime, not population ratios. Every article you read, every news story you watch in the mainstream media will compare police activity to a population benchmark because that is the only way it’s the Black Lives Matter narrative can be sustained. Such an analysis ignores the fact that policing today is data-driven. Officers are deployed to where people are most being victimized and that is in minority neighborhoods. And it is in minority neighborhoods where officers are most likely to interact with armed violent and resisting suspects.

Here are the victimization data.

Nationwide, blacks between the ages of 10 and 43 die of homicide at 13 times the rate of whites, according to the CDC. In Minnesota, blacks of all ages die of homicide at 12 times the rate of whites. You might think it’s a Black Lives Matter activists would care about such loss of black life, but you be wrong. They ignore those black deaths because the victims are killed overwhelmingly, not by the police, not by whites, but by other blacks.

Here are the criminal offending data.

In the 75 largest U.S. counties which is where most of the population resides, blacks constitute around 60% of all murder and robbery defendants according to the Bureau of Justice statistics. Though they are only 15% of the population in those counties. Nationwide, blacks commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined. In Chicago blacks commit about 80% of all shootings and homicides though they are less than a third of the population. Whites commit about 2% of all shootings and homicides in Chicago, though they too are less than a third of the population. In a typical year blacks in St Louis, commit all or nearly all homicides though they are less than half of the population. In New York City blacks commit a little less than 75% of all shootings on average, though they are 23% of the city’s population. Whites commit less than 3% of all shootings in New York City, though they are less than 34% of the City’s population. These crime disparities have enormous consequences for police use-of-force. The biggest determinant of officer behavior is civilian behavior. The greater the chance that officers confront armed and resistance suspects, the more likely they are to escalate their own use of force, and that chance is far higher in black communities. As you will see, blacks are actually shot less by the police than their crime rates would predict, and whites are shot more. The percentage of white and Hispanic homicide victims who were killed by cop is 3 times higher than the percentage of black homicide victims who were killed by a cop. So that 25% or so share of fatal police shootings each year comprised of black victims, when measured against a crime benchmark, does not support the Black Lives Matter narrative.

What about the individual case?

Mr. Floyd’s death was immediately portrayed as what is known in literary theory as a synecdoche, a part that stands in for a whole. In this case, the whole of anti-black police violence. But if we conclude from that one case, however shocking, that the police are biased against black men, we could just as easily conclude from other individual cases that the police are biased against white men.

Take the death of Tony Timpa which adumbrated the death of Mr. Floyd. In 2016 the 32 year old schizophrenic called 911 in Dallas to report that he was off his medication, frightened and needed help. Three Dallas police officers responded and kept him face down on the ground for 13 minutes with a knee to his back, all the while joking about Timpa’s mental illness. Timpa was handcuffed and had not resisted or threatened the officers. He pleaded for help more than 30 times, exclaiming that the cops were killing him. Eventually Timpa stopped moving or making any sound, yet the officers continue their wisecracks. After Temple was loaded into an ambulance an officer said, I hope I didn’t kill him. Timpa was already dead from homicide caused by physical restraint and cocaine. Very few Americans outside of Timpa’s family know his name. His death did not make international news or spur widespread riots. Because Timpa was white his death did not fit the Black Lives Matter narrative and thus was of no interest to the media. That same year a cop in Mesa Arizona unleashed a barrage of gunfire from his AR-15 riffle at a 26 year old man in a motel who had been reported as having a gun. The victim was down on his hands and knees in the quarter outside his motel room trying to comply with the conflicting demands that the sergeant was screaming at him and begging please don’t shoot me. Like Timpa, the victim Daniel Shaver was white. In 2015 the year that the Black Lives Matter movement became a national phenomenon, a 50 year old white man in Tuscaloosa involved in a domestic violence incident ran at the officer with a spoon and was fatally shot. A white 25 year old male in Des Moines led the police on a car chase and walked quickly towards the officer when he got out of the car and was fatally shot. A white 21 year old male in Akron escaped from the grocery store robbery on a bike and didn’t take his hand out of his waistband when commanded to do so and was fatally shot. None of these victims were armed. No one knows these men’s names either, because they don’t help the narrative. Had any of these victims been black, however, there is a good chance that they too would have become international cause celebra. The widespread perception that questionable police shootings occur exclusively or almost exclusively against black males is a function of selective coverage.

Let’s look more closely at unarmed victims of fatal police shootings.

According to the Washington Post database of fatal police shootings there were nine unarmed black victims of fatal police shootings in 2019 and 19 unarmed white victims of fatal police shootings. The Washington Post defines unarmed generously to include suspects beating an officer with his own gun or fleeing a car stop with a loaded semi-automatic pistol in their car. Those 9 allegedly unarmed black victims of fatal police shootings make up .1% of all black homicide victims, assuming that the 2019 black homicide count resembles that of 2018, when 7400 blacks were killed, more than all white and Hispanic homicide victims combined. .1% is not a large percentage, to say the least.

After I publicized the 2019 tally of unarmed black victims in early June, The Washington Post went back into its database to re-categorize as unarmed as many armed black victims of fatal police shootings as it possibly could. No new information spurred this reclassification, the database enclosed 6 months. Despite its best efforts, The Post came up with only six more black victims, previously deemed armed, now miraculously disarmed, to bring the total of unarmed black police victims in 2019 up to 15. That 15 represent .2% of all black homicide victims, still a drop in the bucket. So individual cases, including unarmed cases, do not support the Black Lives Matter narrative. The claim that the death of George Ford was a result of racism, rather than bad tactics and a generalized callousness, is pure supposition with no supporting evidence.

What did academic studies say about the question of systemic police bias?

Well I could site a 2019 paper from the prestigious proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences for the proposition that there was no racial disparity in police shootings once violent crime is taken into account. I will not do so, however. The authors retracted that study earlier this month because I had cited it verbatim in Congressional testimony and in several articles. Are you seeing a pattern here? The author is a professor at Michigan State University and a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Maryland had come under enormous pressure from the criminology profession to disavow their study, thanks to its entry into public consciousness on the wrong side of policing and racism questions. I received a personal email from the author’s asking me to cease and desist citing it even though the researchers stand by the paper's findings and methodology. I will honor their request which is more courtesy than they’ve showed me, having attributed to me a position that I’ve never taken to justify the retraction. At the end of the call today there will be an auction for the cause or study that you would like to cancel and I will promise to cite it in an article. Candidates may include, but are not limited to attacks on sis heteronormativity, the New York Times 1619 project, or op-ed’s calling for the removal of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC.

In any case, I am not particularly handicapped by the ban on the 2019 PNAS article. As it turns out, the authors forgot to retract another article of their’s from 2018 which reaches the identical conclusion, that violent crime, not race, determines police shootings. That 2018 study analyzed two years. of fatal police shootings, from 2015 and 2016. About 1050 whites and 500 blacks were killed by the police in those two years. Calculated against population ratios blacks were 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than whites. You will come across this 2.5 in the mainstream media as proof of police racism, but remember our rule, avoid population benchmarks when analyzing police activity, crime is the proper benchmark as the authors of the 2018 and now retracted 2019 studies well understood. When you compare fatal police shootings to homicide reports and arrests, the likelihood of being shot by an officer “flips completely”. Whites are about three times more likely to be fatally shot than Blacks once their homicide rates are taken into account. There is also no evidence of bias in fatal police shootings when benchmarked against overall violent crime rates. Other studies have reached the same conclusion. Harvard Economist Roland Fryer has found no racial discrimination in police shootings. Officers in 10 large cities and counties were more likely to shoot a suspect, without first being attacked, if the suspect was white than if when the suspect was black. An analysis by the Center for Policing Equity also concluded that whites were disadvantaged compared to blacks when it comes to lethal force. An economist at Maryland Specific Institute for Research and Evaluation concluded that if blacks are killed by police officers at a rate higher than their population numbers, it’s because of blacks higher rate of arrest, not their skin color, again a question of the benchmark. So a robust body of empirical work disproves the racism charge.

What about the counter evidence?

What little there is concerns non-lethal police force. That same Harvard economist, Roland Fryer, analyzed the forms that New York police officers fill out after stopping a suspect. Fryer found that blacks were 21% more likely than whites to have an officer use non-lethal force on them, such as an officer placing his hands on a suspect or drawing his weapon without using it. But Fryer’s study made some questionable assumptions. He categorized suspects as quote “perfectly compliant with an officer’s instructions” for example, based solely on the fact that the officer did not check out any boxes on the stop form regarding suspect behavior. The absence of a checkmark is not the same thing as an affirmative judgment of perfect compliance as Fryer himself acknowledged in an email to me.

Other studies suggest that blacks resist officer orders at a rate higher than whites, which would produce any disparities regarding officer use of non-lethal force. A 2005 paper by criminologists at the California State University randomly sampled 400 police reports from a Southern California Police Department’s 200 cases, excuse me, randomly sampled 400 police reports with Southern California Department that includes 200 cases where the suspect resisted, and 200 where the suspect complied. It found that resistance was more likely in high-crime areas, and as the inevitable corollary of this fact, that black suspects were more likely to resist arrest than white suspects. In fact, race was one of the most significant predictors of resistance, with black suspects being four times as likely to resist than whites. This finding accords with studies from 1995 and 2001, that officers who come into contact with non-white suspects are assaulted at a higher rate, and that most assaults on officers occur by suspects with criminal histories. Given the lack of racial disparities in police shootings, those who argue that officers use non-lethal force disproportionately against blacks, have the burden. With the current tidal wave of hatred crashing down upon the police further delegitimizing their authority, suspect resistance will increase the chance of officer use of force which is videotaped and stripped of the civilian behavior that preceded, it will trigger new waves of civil violence.

Let’s briefly review car stops, another enduing topic in the case against cops. Studies claiming bias in traffic stops, as usual, use the wrong benchmark, population. The relevant benchmark is the rate at which different groups break traffic and equipment laws. There was a short period in the early 2000s when it criminologists could still study such matters and keep his job, but that window quickly closed. Before it did, New Jersey and North Carolina speeding studies showed the blacks speed more. On the New Jersey Turnpike, for example, at twice the rate of whites a disparity that increases over 90 miles an hour. Any black cop will tell you that if he stops a black driver the first thing out of the driver’s mouth is, you only stop me because I’m black. The cop will respond, no I stopped you because you ran that red light and were driving 25 miles over the speed limit. I cannot comment on Senator Tim Scott’s much circulated claims that he has been groundlessly stopped while driving. To do so I would need to know the facts about each stop. We can stipulate, however, that law-abiding black men are more likely than white men to be stopped and questioned at some point in their lives because they meet a suspect description. That higher chance of being stopped is a result of the fact that one third of all black men have been convicted of a felony. With that large a proportion of criminal offenders in the broader population the chances are higher that an innocent black male will share some characteristic, make the car say or physical traits, with a suspect who is being sought by the police. That is a crime tax paid uniquely and tragically by law-abiding blacks. The solution to it is not to demonize the police, it is to lower black crime rates.

The charge that blacks are at daily risk of white supremacy extends beyond civilian interactions to civilian on civilian interactions. As LeBron James has tweeted, “We are literally haunted everyday, every time we step outside the comfort of our homes”. This too is a sentiment at odds with the data. In the universe of all interracial violence between blacks and whites, blacks commit 85.5% of that interracial violence, whites less than 15%. These numbers exclude homicide since they are based on victim self-reports, but adding homicide would not change the proportions. This black on white violence manifests itself in flash mobs whereby youth rampage through downtown business districts assaulting passers-by and looting stores, in wilding, in the knockout game and in the usual brutal armed robberies. Those Minnesotans with memories that have not been yet euthanized by the PC police may recall such attacks in Minneapolis in August 2019. In one, about a dozen people on the Target Field Plaza beat and kicked a man while ripping off his pants and shoes and stealing the contents of his pockets. They then jumped on the victim like a trampoline, hit him with planting pots and ran him over with a bike. In the second incident a man using a cell phone outside a downtown bar was kicked and punched by a group of youths until he was unconscious. The mob then stripped him of a phone, wallet keys, and cash. As of last September, Mayor Jacob Frye was calling for more police officers to try to quell a 50% jump in such a vicious robberies in downtown Minneapolis. That was then and now is now, of course, and today Mayor Fry has joined the movement to replace police officers with social workers.

Then there are the gratuitous assaults.

In New York City this summer, even before the riots, a 92 year old woman was slammed into a fire hydrant in Manhattan’s Gramercy Park hitting her head. a 78 year old woman was punched in the head in Brooklyn, and an 80 year old man was knocked to the ground dragged and robbed in the Bronx. If any of these victims have been black, these too would have been international scandals, given non-stop coverage by the world’s press as proof of America’s savage white supremacy. But just as we turn our eyes away from black on black crime, we are just as adamant about looking the other way when it comes to black on white crime. The press routinely admits the race of unapprehended crime suspects in it’s news coverage, a practice at odds with the public good, and has started foregoing mugshots of arrestees, since such descriptions and photos are said to give the public a mistaken impression of who commits most street crimes. Actually mugshots and suspect descriptions give an accurate sense of urban violence. This squeamishness about even acknowledging the reality of black crime is not consistent with an alleged regime of white supremacy. The narrative about police civilian violence is also the reverse of the truth. Black males make up about 40% of all cop killers though they are 6% of the population. A police officers is anywhere from 15 to 30 times more likely, depending on the year, to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. Expect such attacks to rise as the political establishment and the media fuel anti-cop hatred further.

Meanwhile, there is hardly a single aspect of the criminal justice system that has not been undone to avoid this disparate impact on blacks. Felonies are being reclassified as misdemeanors to lessen the number of blacks sent to prison. Prosecutors are declining to prosecute low-level offenses like public drinking, disorderly conduct, graffiti and turnstile jumping. Bail is being eliminated. Gang databases are being purged. Undercover police units that get illegal guns off the street have been disbanded. Because computers are allegedly as racist as people, valuable crime-fighting tools like facial recognition technology and analytical crime software are being mothballed. Universities and school districts are severing their ties with pariah police department’s. The chancellor of the University of California Los Angeles apologize profusely for allowing Los Angeles Police Department to use a university parking lot for a staging area during the local George Floyd riots. Such a practice threatens the school’s marginalized voices, the chancellor said, and would not be repeated. Officers are demoralized and despairing. In no other profession are you condemned as a racist by the country’s elites from the day you step on the job, a judgment that you cannot clear yourself of. Retirements are up nearly 75% in the New York police department since the George Floyd riots. In Minneapolis shell-shocked officers are filing for disability at record rates. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio recently canceled two future police academy classes as part of New York City’s defending movement. He needn’t have bothered. Those may be the last police classes the city can muster. Officers on the job are telling potential recruits to avoid it at all costs.

And now with shameless hypocrisy the anti-cop brigades are blaming the police for pulling back from precisely the types of enforcement that they so roundly condemn as racist. The Brooklyn Borough president and a city council member groused to the New York Times recently that the police had not responded to complaints about illegal dice games, loud music, and other public order infractions. Had the police take an action, of course, they would have lost more charges of racism. But people who live with street disorder understand that it is the breeding ground of violent crime. It is out of those rowdy gatherings of hundreds of youth on street corners that shootings often emerge. The law-abiding residents of high-crime community have been the initial victims in this growing wave of lawlessness. These are the people whom the pressed never seems to talk to. People like an elderly cancer amputee in the Mount Hope section of the Bronx who told me, please Jesus, send more police. The only time she felt safe to go down to a building’s lobby was when officers were there, because it was otherwise colonized by trespassing youth selling drugs and smoking weed. As long as you see the police, she said, everything’s a okay, you can come down and get your mail and talk to decent people. These are the people who, like vulnerable senior citizen, invariably beg for more police protection and can’t understand why the criminal justice system can’t keep the dealers off the streets and locked away. These good bourgeois citizens are of no interest to the activist press. The only people who listen to their pleas are the police. Nor do the black toddlers who have been gunned down in their bedrooms, front yards and parents cars, over the last month, carry any import to the Black Lives Matter movement. Since their assailants are of the wrong race and do not wear a badge. In Chicago, as of June 24th, 23 children under the age of 12 have been shot, four of them fatally. Overall 2,243 people have been shot in Chicago, as of July 25th. One person every 2 hours and 14 minutes. 395 of those shooting victims died. The Chicago Police had shot seven people, three fatally as of July 25th, virtual all armed and dangerous. That police toll represent .3% of all Chicago shooting victims. None of the children who have been shot this year in Chicago, or elsewhere, have been shot by a cop. The only thing that will slow this false narrative about police racism is if white children are to be gunned down in drive-by shootings. The allegedly anti-racist press ignores young black victims but goes into crisis mode when white children are shot as the reaction to those rare school shootings show. Cumulatively, there are several Newton Connecticuts every year in the black community. Only the police pay consistent attention.

It’s is not just lives at stake. This attack on law enforcement undermines our justice system and fundamental rights. If it continues we could descend into civil war. It is essential therefore to counter the lies about the police with the truth. And we must hope that reason still has a place in public discourse. Thank you for your attention and thank you to the Center for American Experiment for having me on today.

John Hinderaker: Thank you, Heather for that fantastic presentation
(read more)

2021
-12-16 i
DEPLORABLE REPUBLI-CRAT

MITCH IS BIDEN'S BITCH


2021-12-16 h
DEPLORABLE DEMOCRATS VIII

Heels Up Harris is even dumber than you think.

“There’s no sound or fume,” Kamala Harris remarks at an event highlighting the Biden administration’s obsession with electric vehicles.

“So… how do I know it’s actually working?” pic.twitter.com/qKvWp37KRH

— Jake Schneider (@jacobkschneider) December 13, 2021


2021-12-16 g
DEPLORABLE DEMOCRATS VII

Sources of Attitude of Lawlessness
  I. The people imitate the lawlessness of the elite.
 II. Violent melanin minority males are not kept in prison for the full term of their sentence.
III. Feral Negroes know they can get away with murder.
(I define a "feral Negro" as a low IQ, high-time-preference, lower-class black, born to a welfare sow, who grew up without a father and became a predator. If you chose to be offended by this term, what should I call these specimens of human garbage?)
IV. Juvenile offenders are not treated harshly.


Nancy Pelosi Has No Idea Where “Attitude of Lawlessness” in the Country is Coming From

“there is an attitude of lawlessness in our country that springs from I don’t know where … and we cannot have that lawlessness become the norm”

Nancy Pelosi has suddenly noticed that we’re having a little bit of a crime problem in the U.S. and she is just bewildered as to the possible cause.

It’s nice of the Speaker to finally notice reality, isn’t it?

Callie Patteson writes at the New York Post:

Pelosi slams ‘outrageous’ crime surge, won’t admit to liberal cause

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted an “attitude of lawlessness” across the country Wednesday, decrying a recent surge in smash-and-grab crimes – particularly in her hometown of San Francisco – but refusing to admit it stems from police funding cuts and bail reform measures pushed by left-wing lawmakers.

“It’s absolutely outrageous,” Pelosi (D-Calif.) said when asked about the crime spike. “Obviously, it cannot continue. But the fact [is] that there is an attitude of lawlessness in our country that springs from I don’t know where … and we cannot have that lawlessness become the norm.”

“It must be stopped, and it’s not just San Francisco,” Pelosi emphasized. “It’s in our entire country.”

The brazen group robberies have made national headlines for weeks. Last month, for example, around 80 people raided a San Francisco-area Nordstrom department store and drove off in two dozen cars with up to $200,000 in goods, police said.

Here’s the video:


It looks like Pelosi is trying to play catch-up with San Francisco Mayor London Breed who seems to have reached her breaking point on crime in her city.

From Yahoo News:

San Francisco Mayor London Breed announces plan to go after ‘bulls*** that has destroyed our city’

After months of viral videos showing deteriorating conditions on the streets of San Francisco, including smash-and-grab robberies and open-air drug use, the city’s mayor has moved to implement a new public safety approach to curb criminal behavior. Her move could signal a recognition by the Democratic establishment that crime may prove a potent issue in upcoming elections.

Speaking at City Hall on Tuesday, San Francisco Mayor London Breed lamented “all the bullshit that has destroyed our city,” including thefts at high-end stores like Louis Vuitton, rampant vehicle break-ins and a seeming flood of the potent drug fentanyl. All of it has been captured on video, making for regular Fox News segments and rising consternation among Democrats who see crime as a potential weakness in next year’s midterm elections.

“We are not a city where anything goes,” a shaken Breed said. “Our compassion should not be mistaken for weakness or indifference,” she added, in reference to the California city’s famous culture of tolerance.


It’s amazing that it has taken this long for liberal leaders to finally notice this problem.

In Nancy Pelosi’s case, it’s laughable. I don’t believe for a second that she is just noticing this now. She just feels she now has some political cover to mention it. (read more)

See also: Liberal Politicians Promise To Be Tough On Crime As Thefts, Shootings Increase

2021-12-16 f
DEPLORABLE DEMOCRATS VI

Nasty Pelosi is also delusional & demented

Nancy Pelosi Calls Joe Biden 'Perfect,' Says America 'Couldn't Be Better Served'

'Under the leadership of the great president of the United States, Joe Biden'

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems totally oblivious to Joe Biden's tanking poll numbers, claiming he is "just perfect."

Pelosi gushed over Biden during a Democratic National Committee holiday celebration.

"It's wonderful to be here with all of you, to celebrate the holidays and the historic progress Democrats are forging for the people."

"Under the leadership of the great president of the United States, Joe Biden."

"And Vice President Kamala Harris."

Pelosi praised her Democrat caucus, for "understanding our why.

"Our why is to lift up all American families and to be able to just fight in every zip code, and (DNC Chairman) Jamie Harrison is leading the way on that."

"And Mr. President, it is an honor and, of course, a pleasure to be here at this time of challenge, and with the coronavirus, the national insecurity for families, natural disasters."

"Our country could not be more, it could not be better served, than with this most experienced, capable hands than yours, President Biden."

"He's just perfect! The timing couldn't be better."

"And Madam Vice President, we're inspired by your work for the people as you continue to be a valuable partner to President Biden."


WATCH:


The House speaker told the crowd she would be brief because
"we have three bills on the floor tonight," including lifting the debt ceiling (so Congress can keep spending).

"I thank the president for his leadership in that regard," Pelosi said. (read more)

2021-12-16 e
DEPLORABLE DEMOCRATS V

Biden says the struggle is no longer about who gets to vote, it’s about “who gets to count the vote” pic.twitter.com/riZ0GFqsGf

— Jewish Deplorable (@TrumpJew2) December 15, 2021


2021-12-16 d
DEPLORABLE DEMOCRATS IV

BREAKING: January 6 Committee Admits It Doctored Text Message Between Meadows And Jordan
 
The House January 6 committee admitted on Wednesday that it doctored a text message from Jim Jordan to Mark Meadows, as was first reported by The Federalist.

Following reporting by The Federalist that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and his staff doctored a text message between Rep. Jim Jordan and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, the House Jan. 6 committee admitted over email that it did, in fact, doctor the text message.

As The Federalist reported on Wednesday morning, on Jan. 5, 2021, Jordan forwarded to Meadows a three-paragraph legal summary from attorney Joseph Schmitz, summarizing a four-page legal memorandum Schmitz had written regarding congressional certification of the 2020 presidential electoral vote count.

In a statement provided to The Federalist via email, a Democrat spokesman for the Jan. 6 committee confessed that the committee doctored the text message.

“The Select Committee on Monday created and provided Representative Schiff a graphic to use during the business meeting quoting from a text message from ‘a lawmaker’ to Mr. Meadows,” the spokesman wrote. “The graphic read, ‘On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.’”

“In the graphic, the period at the end of that sentence was added inadvertently,” the spokesman admitted. “The Select Committee is responsible for and regrets the error.”

The Jan. 6 committee spokesman did not explain how one could “inadvertently” cut a sentence in half and eliminate the final two paragraphs of a detailed legal summary, nor did he explain why Schiff attributed the content of the text to Jordan, “a lawmaker,” rather than to Schmitz, the attorney who wrote it.

As The Federalist reported on Wednesday morning, the original Jan. 5 text to Jordan was written by Washington attorney and former Department of Defense Inspector General Joseph Schmitz and included an attachment of a four-page draft Word document drafted by Schmitz that detailed Schmitz’s legal reasoning for suggesting that Pence had the constitutional authority to object to the certification of electoral votes submitted by a handful of states. The piece that Schmitz had sent to Jordan was published at the website everylegal.vote the next morning and even included the same “DISCUSSION DRAFT” heading and timestamp as the document that Schmitz sent to Jordan.

In his statement, Schiff erased the final two paragraphs and the final clause of the first paragraph of the text message before inserting punctuation that was never there, all without disclosing what he was doing. The graphic displayed by Schiff, which was doctored to look like an exact screenshot, was similarly doctored, as it contained content that was never in the original message and eliminated content that was.

“Good luck tomorrow!” Schmitz texted Jordan on the evening of Jan. 5, including the Word document as an attachment. Schmitz then texted to Jordan a three-paragraph summary of his Word document, which Schiff sliced and diced and then attributed to Jordan.

The Jan. 6 committee has been roundly criticized for refusing to allow any Republicans appointed by House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., to sit on the committee. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., banned McCarthy from appointing any Republican members and instead hand-picked her own troops to run the chamber’s inquisition. According to a source familiar with the matter, Schiff never bothered to contact Jordan to ask about the text or confirm its contents, authorship, and veracity.

Multiple lawmakers contacted by The Federalist mocked Schiff for peddling an obviously doctored text, and said anyone even remotely familiar with Jordan would know that he was forwarding an analysis without comment given that he rarely, if ever, sends texts that span more than a word or two.

“That’s just not Jim’s style,” one lawmaker close to Jordan told The Federalist. “Long, nerdy paragraphs might be my style, but that’s not Jim’s style at all.”

“Plus, you have to remember what was going on at that time,” the lawmaker noted. “People were sending around these law review articles and debates left and right because we had an interest in learning the facts and getting them right. And if it’s somehow seditious in this country to debate or share a law review article on Alexander Hamilton’s view on things, that’s not really a country I want to be a part of anymore.”

Another lawmaker close to Jordan laughed out loud when asked if Jordan would ever write out his own lengthy legal analyses via text.

“If he texts at all, it’s usually something like ‘yes’ or ‘call me,’” that colleague said.

“The idea that Jordan would sit down and punch out a long-winded legal argument via text is absurd,” one individual who regularly talks to Jordan told The Federalist. “That’s just not how he works.” (read more)

See also: During January 6 Hearing, Schiff Doctored Text Messages Between Mark Meadows And Rep. Jim Jordan

2021-12-16 c
DEPLORABLE DEMOCRATS III

Mark Meadows Lawsuit: Subpoenas Invalid Because Pelosi Constituted Select Committee In Violation of House Authorizing Resolution

“Speaker Pelosi failed to appoint members consistent with the authorizing resolution of the Select Committee… Thus, the Select Committee as it currently stands—and stood at the time it issued the subpoenas in question—has no authority to conduct business because it is not a duly constituted Select Committee. Chairman Thompson’s subpoenas are invalid and unenforceable.”

The “Select Committee” of Democrats and two “Republicans” to investigate the January 6 riot is an abuse of power but typical for how efficient Democrats are at weaponizing their congressional power.

Mark Meadows, former Trump Chief of Staff, has been held in contempt by the Democrat-controlled House for failing to turnover all documents subpoeanaed by the Committee, sending a referral for prosecution.

U.S. House votes 222-208 to hold former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in criminal contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena issued by the Jan. 6 committee.

The referral now heads to the Justice Department.

WATCH: https://t.co/vKC7CBa7G0 pic.twitter.com/m2yEX0KlrI

— CSPAN (@cspan) December 15, 2021

The politically corrupted DOJ likely will oblige under the unfit rule of Merrick Garland.

Meadows has turned over many documents, but is fighting the subpoena and has filed a Complaint in federal court in D.C. It’s a fascinating read.

Here are some key segments. It starts by noting that the Committee is seeking a wholesale fishing expedition through Meadow’s electronic communications – that’s what I mean by the Committee being an abuse of power.

1. Plaintiff, the Honorable Mark Meadows (“Mr. Meadows”), a private citizen who previously served as a Member of Congress and subsequently as Chief of Staff to the President of the United States, brings this complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate and prohibit the enforcement of two overly broad and unduly burdensome subpoenas from a select committee of the U.S. House of Representatives (the “Select Committee”) issued in whole or part without legal authority in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.

2. The Select Committee wrongly seeks to compel both Mr. Meadows and a third party telecommunications company to provide information to the Select Committee that the Committee lacks lawful authority to seek and to obtain. The Select Committee acts absent any valid legislative power and threatens to violate longstanding principles of executive privilege and immunity that are of constitutional origin and dimension. Without intervention by this Court, Mr. Meadows faces the harm of both being illegally coerced into violating the Constitution and having a third party involuntarily violate Mr. Meadows rights and the requirements of relevant laws governing records of electronic communications. Only this Court can prevent these grave harms.

3. For months, Mr. Meadows has consistently sought in good faith to pursue an accommodation with the Select Committee whereby it could obtain relevant, non-privileged information. While the Committee and Mr. Meadows engaged over a period of time in an effort to achieve such reasonable accommodation, the Select Committee adamantly refused to recognize the immunity of present and former senior White House aides from being compelled to appear before Congress and likewise refused to recognize a former president’s claims of Executive Privilege and instructions to Mr. Meadows to maintain such privilege claims in addressing the Select Committee’s inquiries.

4. The current President of the United States, through counsel, purported to waive the former president’s claims of privilege and immunity.

5. As a result, Mr. Meadows, a witness, has been put in the untenable position of choosing between conflicting privilege claims that are of constitutional origin and dimension and having to either risk enforcement of the subpoena issued to him, not merely by the House of Representatives, but through actions by the Executive and Judicial Branches, or, alternatively, unilaterally abandoning the former president’s claims of privileges and immunities. Thus, Mr. Meadows turns to the courts to say what the law is.

But it’s not just about overbreadth of the subpoena. Meadows challenges the validity of the committee as constituted by Pelosi.


Here’s the pertinent section from the Complaint:

A. The subpoenas are not validly issued by a duly authorized committee.

91. The composition of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol is governed by Section 2 of H. Res. 503. Section 2(a) states “Appointment Of Members.—The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.” H. Res. 503 117th Cong. (2021).

92. Speaker Pelosi has appointed only nine members to the Select Committee: seven Democrats and two Republicans. None of these members was appointed from the selection of five GOP congressman put forth by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

93. Authorized congressional committees have subpoena authority implied by Article I of the Constitution. McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927). The Select Committee, however, is not an authorized congressional committee because it fails to comport with its own authorizing resolution, House Resolution 503.

94. Congress’ failure to act in accordance with its own rules is judicially cognizable. Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109, 114 (1963). This is particularly significant where a person’s fundamental rights are involved.

95. Speaker Pelosi failed to appoint members consistent with the authorizing resolution of the Select Committee. Pelosi has appointed only nine members of Congress to serve on the Select Committee; whereas the authorizing resolution instructs the Speaker “shall” appoint thirteen members. H. Res. 503 § 2(a), 117th Cong. (2021).

96. Further, of those nine members Speaker Pelosi has appointed, none of them was appointed after consultation with the minority member, as is required by the authorizing resolution. H. Res. 503 § 2(a), 117th Cong. (2021).

97. Thus, the Select Committee as it currently stands—and stood at the time it issued the subpoenas in question—has no authority to conduct business because it is not a duly constituted Select Committee. Chairman Thompson’s subpoenas are invalid and unenforceable.

98. Chairman Thompson derives the authority to issue subpoenas solely from § 5(c)(6) of the Select Committee’s authorizing statute, but this authority is qualified, not absolute. The Select Committee chairman may not order the taking of depositions without consultation with the ranking minority member of the Select Committee.

99. As the Select Committee has no ranking minority member, Chairman Thompson failed to make the requisite consultation before issuing the subpoena that compelled Mr. Meadows to appear for a deposition. The ordering of Mr. Meadows’ deposition runs afoul of the Select Committee’s authorizing resolution, making it invalid and unenforceable.

There are other challenges raised in the lawsuit, including:

B. The subpoenas are not issued to further a valid legislative purpose.

C. The Select Committee seeks to use an excessively broad third-party subpoenas to
obtain personal cell phone data.

C. The Select Committee cannot obtain records under the Verizon Subpoena consistent
with the Stored Communications Act [my note: repeat lettering of “C” in original]

D. The subpoenas violate executive privilege.

E. The Select Committee violates longstanding testimonial immunity for senior advisors
to the President.

E. Compelled production under the Verizon Subpoena would violate the Fourth
Amendment.

F. Compelled production of cell phone data under the Verizon Subpoena would violate
the First Amendment.

As you can tell, the subpoena is a sweeping attempt to get Meadow’s electronic communications and phone records. This is a political attack. (read more)

See also: Mark Meadows’ Lawsuit Could End the January 6 Committee

2021-12-16 b
DEPLORABLE DEMOCRATS II

NBC News: Senate expected to shelve Build Back Better bill, moving forward aggressively now on voting rights

— Jesse Rodriguez (@JesseRodriguez) December 15, 2021


2021-12-16 a
DEPLORABLE DEMOCRATS I
(Devious Democrats who could not pass the Build Back Bolshevik boondoggle now want to pass the Bolshevik & Banana Republic Vote Fraud Act. With this proposed garbage legislation they are admitting they need massive fraud to win elections.)

For the People Act of 2021

Democrats introduce their first bill in the House: H.R.1 – The bill that will destroy America. Nationwide mail-in voting, banning restrictions on ballot harvesting, banning voter ID, criminal voters,DC Statehood roadwork, it’s all in here.

1) Internet-only registration with electronic signature submission.

“(a) Requiring Availability Of Internet For Online Registration.—Each State, acting through the chief State election official, shall ensure that the following services are available to the public at any time on the official public websites of the appropriate State and local election officials in the State, in the same manner and subject to the same terms and conditions as the services provided by voter registration agencies under section 7(a):

“(1) Online application for voter registration.


2) Banning the requirement to provide a full SSN for voter registration.

SEC. 1005. PROHIBITING STATE FROM REQUIRING APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE MORE THAN LAST 4 DIGITS OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. (a) Form Included With Application For Motor Vehicle Driver’s License.—Section 5(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20504(c)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting the following: “, and to the extent that the application requires the applicant to provide a Social Security number, may not require the applicant to provide more than the last 4 digits of such number;”.


3) Nationwide ‘Motor Voter’ registration.

Note that motor voter registration is how thousands of illegal became registered voters in California and Nevada.

(2) DEFINITION.—The term “automatic registration” means a system that registers an individual to vote in elections for Federal office in a State, if eligible, by electronically transferring the information necessary for registration from government agencies to election officials of the State so that, unless the individual affirmatively declines to be registered, the individual will be registered to vote in such elections.


4) 16 year olds required to be registered to vote.

(d) Treatment Of Individuals Under 18 Years Of Age.—A State may not refuse to treat an individual as an eligible individual for purposes of this part on the grounds that the individual is less than 18 years of age at the time a contributing agency receives information with respect to the individual, so long as the individual is at least 16 years of age at such time. Nothing in the previous sentence may be construed to require a State to permit an individual who is under 18 years of age at the time of an election for Federal office to vote in the election.


5) Nationwide same-day registration.

“(1) REGISTRATION.—Each State shall permit any eligible individual on the day of a Federal election and on any day when voting, including early voting, is permitted for a Federal election—

“(A) to register to vote in such election at the polling place using a form that meets the requirements under section 9(b) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (or, if the individual is already registered to vote, to revise any of the individual’s voter registration information); and

“(B) to cast a vote in such election.


6) Grants ($25M) for using minors in election activities.

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Election Assistance Commission (hereafter in this section referred to as the “Commission”) shall make grants to eligible States to enable such States to carry out a plan to increase the involvement of individuals under 18 years of age in public election activities in the State.


7) More children voters.

“(k) Acceptance Of Applications From Individuals Under 18 Years Of Age.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—A State may not refuse to accept or process an individual’s application to register to vote in elections for Federal office on the grounds that the individual is under 18 years of age at the time the individual submits the application, so long as the individual is at least 16 years of age at such time.


8) Prohibiting attempts to clean voter rolls of non-residents.

It’s this whole section, but in particular, this part below basically says nobody is allowed to request voter rolls to be cleaned up. ie: making it illegal to do what Tom Fitton was doing.

“(1) REQUIREMENTS FOR CHALLENGES.—No person, other than a State or local election official, shall submit a formal challenge to an individual’s eligibility to register to vote in an election for Federal office or to vote in an election for Federal office unless that challenge is supported by personal knowledge regarding the grounds for ineligibility which is—


9) Murderers and rapists can vote.

(1) NOTIFICATION.—On the date determined under paragraph (2), each State shall notify in writing any individual who has been convicted of a criminal offense under the law of that State that such individual has the right to vote in an election for Federal office pursuant to the Democracy Restoration Act of 2021 and may register to vote in any such election and provide such individual with any materials that are necessary to register to vote in any such election.


10) Mandatory early voting.

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Each State shall allow individuals to vote in an election for Federal office during an early voting period which occurs prior to the date of the election, in the same manner as voting is allowed on such date.


11) THE BIG ONE – NATIONWIDE VOTE BY MAIL, BAN ON BALLOT PROTECTION MEASURES, LEGALIZED LIMITLESS BALLOT HARVESTING.

“SEC. 307. PROMOTING ABILITY OF VOTERS TO VOTE BY MAIL.

“(a) Uniform Availability Of Absentee Voting To All Voters.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—If an individual in a State is eligible to cast a vote in an election for Federal office, the State may not impose any additional conditions or requirements on the eligibility of the individual to cast the vote in such election by absentee ballot by mail.

“(2) ADMINISTRATION OF VOTING BY MAIL.—

“(A) PROHIBITING IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT AS CONDITION OF OBTAINING BALLOT.—A State may not require an individual to provide any form of identification as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prevent a State from requiring a signature of the individual or similar affirmation as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot.

“(B) PROHIBITING REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE NOTARIZATION OR WITNESS SIGNATURE AS CONDITION OF OBTAINING OR CASTING BALLOT.—A State may not require notarization or witness signature or other formal authentication (other than voter attestation) as a condition of obtaining or casting an absentee ballot.

“(2) PERMITTING VOTERS TO DESIGNATE OTHER PERSON TO RETURN BALLOT.—The State—

“(A) shall permit a voter to designate any person to return a voted and sealed absentee ballot to the post office, a ballot drop-off location, tribally designated building, or election office so long as the person designated to return the ballot does not receive any form of compensation based on the number of ballots that the person has returned and no individual, group, or organization provides compensation on this basis; and

“(B) may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return to the post office, a ballot drop off location, tribally designated building, or election office.


12) Banning voter ID.

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (c), if a State has in effect a requirement that an individual present identification as a condition of receiving and casting a ballot in an election for Federal office, the State shall permit the individual to meet the requirement—

“(A) in the case of an individual who desires to vote in person, by presenting the appropriate State or local election official with a sworn written statement, signed by the individual under penalty of perjury, attesting to the individual’s identity and attesting that the individual is eligible to vote in the election; or


13) Roadwork for DC statehood and territory statehood.

The whole subtitle.

Subtitle C—Findings Relating To District Of Columbia Statehood

Subtitle D—Territorial Voting Rights


14) COMPLETE CONGRESSIONAL TAKEOVER OF REDISTRICTING.


Subtitle E—Redistricting Reform

(B) ENSURING DIVERSITY.—In appointing the 9 members pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), as well as in designating alternates pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) and in appointing alternates to fill vacancies pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4), the first members of the independent redistricting commission shall ensure that the membership is representative of the demographic groups (including racial, ethnic, economic, and gender) and geographic regions of the State, and provides racial, ethnic, and language minorities protected under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the development of the State’s redistricting plan.

SEC. 3201. NATIONAL STRATEGY TO PROTECT UNITED STATES DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS. (a) In General.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the Secretary, in consultation with the Chairman, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Education, the Director of National Intelligence, the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, and the heads of any other appropriate Federal agencies, shall issue a national strategy to protect against cyber attacks, influence operations, disinformation campaigns, and other activities that could undermine the security and integrity of United States democratic institutions.

(b) Considerations.—The national strategy required under subsection (a) shall include consideration of the following:

(1) The threat of a foreign state actor, foreign terrorist organization (as designated pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189)), or a domestic actor carrying out a cyber attack, influence operation, disinformation campaign, or other activity aimed at undermining the security and integrity of United States democratic institutions.

(3) Potential consequences, such as an erosion of public trust or an undermining of the rule of law, that could result from a successful cyber attack, influence operation, disinformation campaign, or other activity aimed at undermining the security and integrity of United States democratic institutions.
(read more)

See also: Kyrsten Sinema Wrecks Biden’s Hopes of Destroying Federal Election Integrity Laws; Democrats Panic

2021
-12-15 j
THE IVERMECTIN DECEPTION

$40 Million to Kill Ivermectin

That’s how much the Gates Foundation was willing to pay for ONE SINGLE STUDY that falsely badmouthed the successful early treatment of Covid-19 with Ivermectin:

Andrew Hill, PhD, is a senior visiting Research Fellow in Pharmacology at Liverpool University. He is also an advisor for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundation. As a researcher for the WHO evaluating ivermectin, Hill wielded enormous influence over international guidance for the drug’s use.

Hill had previously authored a analysis of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that found the drug overwhelmingly effective.

On Jan. 6 of 2021, Hill testified enthusiastically before the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidlelines Panel in support of ivermectin’s use. Within a month, however, Hill found himself in what he describes as a “tricky situation.” Under pressure from his funding sponsors, Hill then published an unfavorable study. Ironically, he used the same sources as in the original study. Only the conclusions had changed.

Shortly before he published, Dr. Tess Lawrie, Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, and one of the world’s leading medical research analysts, contacted Hill via Zoom and recorded the call (transcript below). Lawrie had learned of his new position and reached out to try to rectify the situation.

In a remarkable exchange, a transcript of which appears on pages 137 – 143 in Kennedy’s book, Hill admitted his manipulated study would likely delay the uptake of ivermectin in the UK and United States, but said he hoped his doing so would only set the lifesaving drug’s acceptance back by about “six weeks,” after which he was willing to give his support for its use.

Hill affirmed that the rate of death at that time was 15,000 people per day. At the 80 percent recovery rate using the drug, which Hill and Lawrie discussed earlier in the call, the number of preventable deaths incurred by such a delay would be staggering — as many as 504,000.

Lawrie was unable to persuade Hill, who instead of joining her team as lead author, went ahead and published his manipulated findings.

Four days before publication, Hill’s sponsor Unitaid gave the University of Liverpool, Hill’s employer $40 million.

The Gates Foundation is the primary private sponsor of Unitaid.

Unitaid warmly welcomes the extension of a long-term partnership with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with a new commitment of US$ 50 million, bringing the foundation’s total contribution to Unitaid to US$ 150 million since 2006.

Now, imagine how much more the Gates Foundation has paid for all the other anti-ivermectin propaganda in order to a) sell more vaccines and b) depopulate the planet. This is why you should NEVER trust the Fake Science, which is most corporate- and foundation-funded scientistry these days. (read more)

2021-12-15 i
THE VACCINE DECEPTION III

Forcing People Into COVID Vaccines Ignores Important Scientific Information
 
Now more than ever we need substantive debate about decisions that affect the health of hundreds of millions of people, including views counter to official positions.

The attacks on free speech and science are unrelenting. Academic publisher Elsevier’s suppression of an article documenting the myocarditis risk of the COVID-19 vaccines, with no excuse or pretext offered, is incredible enough. Viewed alongside Twitter’s censorship of the American Heart Association, YouTube’s suppression of a panel discussion of vaccine mandates on Capitol Hill, and the Orwellian call by National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins for critics of the government’s COVID-19 policies to be “brought to justice,” the trend is positively chilling.

Now more than ever, we need substantive debate about decisions that affect the health of hundreds of millions of people, including views counter to official positions. Instead, we have National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci’s absurd claim “I represent science” as proof of how one-dimensional our COVID-19 policymaking has become.

These are just a few examples of the wave of censorship that has accompanied COVID-19, uniting government bureaucracies with obedient news media, academia, scientific publishing, and powerful Big Tech companies. Above all, this concerted campaign suppresses all disagreement about topics including potential early treatments, the natural immunity of recovered individuals, and the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Differing viewpoints on these topics are swiftly labeled “disinformation,” but in fact represent principled dissent based on a large and growing body of scientific evidence.

Universal Vaccination Based on False Premise

In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, the censorship aims to stamp out any questions about a universal vaccination program that, it is now clear, was based on the false premise that low-risk individuals must get vaccinated to halt the spread of COVID-19 and end the pandemic. Almost a year into the global vaccination campaign – and starting long before omicron arrived – all the data stand in stark opposition to this belief.

Rapidly waning vaccine efficacy and COVID-19 surges in countries and regions with high vaccination rates – including Israel, the United Kingdom, Singapore, and now Europe, as well as high-vaccination U.S. states like Vermont – are evidence that vaccinated individuals can spread COVID-19 at rates comparable to the unvaccinated. Multiple studies have shown that viral load in vaccinated individuals with COVID-19 is the same as in the unvaccinated.

Most damning, reports regularly published by the British government show that for every age group from 30 years and up, vaccinated individuals are now actually more likely to test positive for COVID-19. In the case of the 40-59-year-old age group, in the latest report the rate is twice as high among the vaccinated.

Whether this is due to the physiological effects of the vaccines or to social factors – for example freer socializing by the vaccinated – the United Kingdom’s record-breaking surge across a mostly vaccinated population makes one thing clear: mass vaccination will not stop the pandemic. Similar surges fueled by breakthrough cases around the world tell the same story.

This is not disinformation but simply data, which everyone should be free to consider and discuss – even more so as it bears critically on the cost-benefit analysis individuals must make as they decide whether to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and subsequent boosters.

That’s because, whatever vaccine makers and government agencies may say, it is also clear that the COVID-19 vaccines are not without risks, which for some individuals extend to permanent life-altering injuries and even death. For individuals at high risk of severe COVID-19 disease, the risks posed by vaccines may make sense, but for low-risk individuals, such as the vast majority of children, adolescents, and young adults of child-bearing age, the calculation is very different.

Discussing Risks Is not Disinformation

Any discussion of vaccine-related injuries and mortality is immediately labeled disinformation because it necessarily relies on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), an imperfect legacy institution that allows anyone to file a report, conveniently enabling skeptics to dismiss the entire issue of vaccine risks as unfounded anecdote and fabrication. However, any responsible public health program should not take as its starting (and ending) point the assumption that the reports are all false, but instead consider the opposite: what if the numbers on VAERS are real – or even worse, represent substantial underreporting?

The numbers that we have are not reassuring. Since the COVID-19 vaccination program began last December, VAERS has recorded a total of more than 946,000 post-vaccination adverse events and almost 20,000 post-vaccination deaths. The largest daily death counts occurred within two days of vaccination, gradually subsiding with the length of time since the shot – a very strong temporal signal that there is a causal connection, not mere coincidence, behind these events.

The trend is corroborated by data from abroad: over the same period, the United Kingdom’s Yellow Card system, equivalent to VAERS, has recorded 400,000 individual reports of adverse events following COVID vaccination, including more than 1,800 deaths.

Possible Underreporting of Adverse Events and Deaths

Moreover, counter to those who dismiss VAERS data as inflated, historical data suggests that vaccine-related adverse events and deaths are in fact underreported by a large margin. The Lazarus Report, funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported,” and a 2015 study published in the scientific journal Vaccine acknowledged “known underreporting of adverse events to VAERS.”

A Centers for Disease Control study analyzing VAERS reports from 1991 to 2001 warned that adverse events may be underreported. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has admitted that it was incapable of tracking adverse events regarding the COVID-19 vaccines. In a letter to Pfizer dated August 23, 2021, the FDA stated, “the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain … is not sufficient to assess these serious risks.”

Why would doctors fail to report adverse events, including deaths, among recently vaccinated patients? Consider the fierce warnings issued by national medical organizations and state medical boards, threatening to strip any doctor who questions the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines of his license. If questioning vaccine safety can destroy your career and livelihood, would you create a permanent public record attaching your name and license number to a report doing precisely that?

Fatally Flawed Safety Reviews

Again, it is not spreading disinformation to take note of these figures, to ask what they mean, and to raise the possibility that the true extent of these events is underrepresented. But doesn’t all this imply that the safety review process established by the FDA and pharmaceutical companies for the COVID-19 vaccines may be fatally flawed?

In a word, yes. From the revelations of a whistleblower about the “poor practices” and “data integrity” issues at a Pfizer subcontractor involved in the safety trials, to Pfizer’s minimizing of catastrophic injuries as minor discomfort in the trial for the 12-15-year-old age group, to potential conflicts of interest on the FDA’s vaccine advisory committees, there are plenty of reasons to be gravely concerned about the integrity of the safety review process for the COVID-19 vaccines.

Just as pressing are these questions: how did the process become so badly broken, and why have all the traditional independent stewards of the public interest, including the news media and academia, remained silent in the face of so many glaring failures? More than that, why have they been complicit in the censorship silencing anyone who raises these issues?

Questioning the competence and integrity of government bureaucracies like the FDA doesn’t make someone a bad person or a spreader of disinformation. Government bureaucracies can be wrong, and historically the citizens of democracies have viewed it as not only their right but their duty to scrutinize public officials’ decisions. Dissent is an integral part of the sacred compact between government and governed that underpins a free society, and Americans allow the current regime of censorship to continue at their extreme peril. (read more)

2021-12-15 h
THE VACCINE DECEPTION II


2021-12-15 g
THE VARIANT DECEPTION I

Variants are falsely blamed for vaccine adverse effects,
are used for fear-mongering, are used to justify more tyranny
and are a ploy to increase "vaccination" rates.


Latest VAERS estimate: 388,000 Americans killed by the COVID vaccines
An independent derivation of the VAERS URF using the CMS death data leads to a URF of 44.64 which then leads to a 388K excess death estimate.

My estimate of the VAERS under-reporting factor (URF) at 41 was based on anaphylaxis rates reported in the Blumenthal paper published in JAMA.

I have argued that the anaphylaxis rate is an appropriate number to use to (under) estimate deaths because I believed that deaths would be less reported than anaphylaxis to VAERS for two reasons: 1) usually lacks the time proximity to vaccination, 2) the person seeing the death may not know the vaccination status of the victim and may not technically be required to report the death.

Some people have quibbled with that assumption, including my friend Professor John Ioannidis, who argued that there is no evidence that that is true and it could be the other way around. It’s a fair point and I told John it’s only an estimate and I’m happy to modify it when we have more data.

That day has arrived courtesy of Wayne at VAERS Analysis.

Wayne did a URF computation using death data in CMS. This overcomes any objections about the validity of using anaphylaxis rates as a proxy for death rates.

The VAERS URF he computed was 44.64.

This seems reasonable to me. It’s really not far from the 41 I calculated.

Also, Wayne subsequently looked at the numbers for 9 states. The average value was 40, not far from the 41 I calculated from anaphylaxis.

I had two team members (Albert Benavides and Jessica Rose) double check his numbers. No mistake.

Now, let’s see what that means.

As of Dec 14, 2021, there are 9,136 deaths reported into VAERS for domestic deaths (if you are using OpenVAERS, flip the switch at the top to see the US only deaths). If we subtract out more than twice the total number of deaths reported in any previous year (to be super conservative about estimating background deaths):

So our new best estimate of the number of “excess deaths” caused by the vaccine is 388,000. Because there isn’t a plausible mechanism of excess death other than the vaccine (certainly our “always vigilant” CDC has never suggested an alternate cause), the process of elimination leads us to conclude the obvious: that these excess deaths were, in fact, caused by the vaccine.

This shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone paying attention to the clinical trials.

For example, in the Pfizer trial, you were much more likely to die if you got the vaccine than if you got the placebo. They simply forgot to mention that in the abstract of the paper (and they were incapable of accurately counting the number of deaths in each group as well). In short, the vaccine is a killing machine.

As the clinical trial showed, it was more likely to kill you than to save you. America still refuses to actually acknowledge that fact.

388,000 dead Americans is simply stunning

Today, our best estimate of vaccine fatalities using the VAERS data is that the US Government is responsible for killing 388,000 formerly healthy Americans. For no reason or societal benefit. Under the guise of saving them.

And we’re not done yet. Those kids with myocarditis? Half of them could die in 5 years. We just don’t know. Prion diseases… we don’t know. Autoimmune diseases… we don’t know. Reproductive issues… unknown. Original antigenic sin? Possibly. You get the idea.

By contrast, the Vietnam War was a long, deadly struggle that took place from 1954 to 1975 between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. The U.S. National Archives shows that 58,220 U.S. soldiers perished over the 21 years. Here, we’ve killed more than 6 times as many people in a fraction of the time… just 11 months.

No one in mainstream media will dare talk about this. They won’t even ask the question. Not a single reporter.

Nobody in Congress will discuss it either. I tried to bring this information to the attention of Congressional staff, but they have ignored my requests.

Of course the FDA and CDC have no comment other than they “disagree” with me. They won’t say why. Wow. We have a discrepancy of 388,000 Americans dead and they won’t even say why I got it wrong.

I’m guessing that they can’t say why because I used their numbers (they maintain VAERS and CMS) and their methodology and there were no math errors. So they have to go with the “hand waving” argument that “we disagree” since they can’t go with facts, evidence, data, or methodology errors.

As for all the bogus arguments about VAERS and causality that are used by the “so-called fact-checkers” to attack my work, I thoroughly dismantle those in my 63-page article. That is why none of the people at the FDA or CDC are willing to talk on the record to me: because I know how to dismantle their bogus excuses for looking the other way. They won’t talk to any of my associates either. They just don’t want to hear it.

Let me know in the comments if you find an error.

Finally, I know some of you are still unconvinced by all the data including the stunning athlete data. I’m OK with that. I just have one request. Please consider sharing this article with your social network before you get your booster. OK? (read more)

2021-12-15 f
THE OMICRON DECEPTION VI

we are all being played

2021-12-15 e
THE OMICRON DECEPTION V

Ten OMICRON “variant” predictions for 2022 and beyond… globalist authoritarian playbook stripped naked

The omicron “variant” media hysteria is pure fiction. It’s nothing but a 1984-style Orwellian psychological terrorism operation that has been engineered to keep the populations of the world enslaved and obedient while terrorist governments carry out their global depopulation / genocide programs.

The evil genius of this narrative is that it requires no evidence whatsoever. Since no one can actually see a “variant” — and since no isolated omicron viral samples exist anywhere in the world for lab test confirmations — a coordinated mass media hysteria campaign simply implants human consciousness with the illusion of omicron, accompanied by extreme fear.

To date, only a few dozen in America have even been diagnosed with the variant, and no one has died from it anywhere on the planet. Yet thanks to mass media journo-terrorism, half of America is now freaking out over something that likely doesn’t exist at all. “Omicron” is almost certainly a coordinated fabrication.

Yet out of nowhere, the media has managed to program the population to lose their minds upon mention of the word, “mutations.” Although random mutations in genetic material take place literally millions of times each day in every human being’s own body, suddenly “mutations” are the scariest thing imaginable, according to the hyperventilating media. (Which is why I call omicron a “scariant,” not a variant.)

Over the last two years, globalists have confirmed that FEAR, not “science,” is their ultimate mechanism of control over humanity

Remember when we were all told in 2020 that if just 60 – 70% of the country agreed to take two shots, everything would return to normal and covid would be over? It was all a calculated lie from the start.

The lie promised freedom if people would just comply, but what it delivered was tyranny and fear… along with never-ending obedience to government-coerced vaccine compliance.

What 2020 and 2021 have now exhaustively proven to the globalists is that fear is their ultimate weapon against humanity. Through the use of coordinated fear, they can convince about half the population of the world to be injected with deadly spike protein gene therapy shots that will kill them over time. Conveniently, all those deaths can be blamed on something else — like cancer — thereby avoiding any blame being focused on the vaccines.

Why is there already a 29X increase in stillborn babies, by the way? As Steve Kirsch writes at Substack.com:

There is a 29X increase in the rate of stillborn babies in Waterloo, Ontario that started after vaccination program rolled out. All the mothers of the stillborn babies were vaccinated…

Yes, this is a big deal. But nobody is listening. Cardiac risk could go up 1,000X after vaccination and it wouldn’t matter. Nobody is listening.

As psychologists know very well, when fear is combined with sensory overload (i.e. too much news, too many voices, conflicting reports, etc.), people naturally default to anything that resembles authority. Their rational mind is completely shut down, and they can no longer engage in critical thinking. Once they are sufficiently pounded into relentless fear, the governments of the world herd them into vaccination centers for their obedient depopulation shots. With a page ripped right out of the Stanford prison experiment, they also transform obedient vax recipients into societal “prison guards” / enforcers who demand that everyone else be injected with the same concoction… or else.

This is why so many vaxxed people have turned into raging lunatics who try to force their death shots on everyone around them. (And just maybe, the vaccine prions are eating their brains, too, causing aggressive personality changes…)

Ten predictions for how omicron hysteria will be exploited by terrorist governments to accelerate their murderous genocide against humanity

Over the last several months, I have publicly predicted the release of a new, scarier bioweapon narrative. The coordinated mass media omicron freakout was easily predicted, and many of us across independent media are on the record predicting exactly this.

But what will they do next? That’s also very easy to see, since it all comes from the same playbook as covid. Omicron hysteria will be aggressively pushed and used in every way imaginable to achieve totalitarian control over the masses, who will then be lined up and taken to death camps for efficient extermination.

Here are my ten predictions for Omicron and 2022:

Prediction #1: Omicron variant hysteria will be used to reset everyone’s vaccine passports to zero, coercing people into a whole new round of vaccines for this new variant. Those stupid enough to go along with omicron variant vaccines will be signing up for a never-ending series of spike protein bioweapons injections, which will eventually kill them.

Prediction #2: Omicron hysteria will be exploited to justify aggressive vaccine mandates, demanding that this “new emergency” overrides all human rights, medical freedom and body autonomy.

Prediction #3: Although the omicron variant has so far only been found in fully vaccinated people, the lying corporate media will blame its origins on the unvaccinated.

Prediction #4: The omicron variant will be used as a cover story by the corporate media to try to explain away all the Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) deaths caused by covid vaccines. Even as vaccinated people die in large numbers, the media will blame the unvaccinated (see #3, above) and demand that unvaccinated people be completely locked down and denied access to society.

Prediction #5: Omicron hysteria will be used to attempt to criminalize dissent against vaccines, mandates, government “authority” or the covid criminals behind the gain-of-function research, such as Anthony Fauci. All such dissenting speech will be designated a “danger to society,” and those who utter such speech will be accused of killing people.

Prediction #6: Mass hysteria pushed by the journo-terrorist media will justify governors ordering more lockdowns, leading to more supply chain failures, product scarcity and price inflation.

Prediction #7: If the media can push the omicron hysteria with enough ferocity, it will be used to either cancel the 2022 mid-term elections or demand universal mail-in voting, citing the “extreme dangers” of anyone going out in public.

Prediction #8: Every economic failure caused by the incompetent, criminal Biden regime will be blamed on omicron. This imaginary “variant” instantly becomes the scapegoat for sky-high energy prices, supply shortages and empty grocery store shelves. The media will blame everything on omicron, and then they will blame omicron on the unvaccinated.

Prediction #9: At some point, either the omicron variant or the next one that’s unleashed will be used to justify door-to-door mandatory vaccines in America, along with the medical kidnapping of anyone who resists, taking them away to covid concentration camps for efficient extermination. (This practice has already begun in Australia, where the military is kidnapping indigenous people and taking them away to camps at gunpoint.)

Prediction #10: Omicron won’t be the last variant that’s used to evoke mass hysteria and multi-billion dollar government payouts to Big Pharma. This scamdemic will be repeated every year or so, in perpetuity, for as long as the people remain in fear and go along with it. (read more)

2021-12-15 d
THE OMICRON DECEPTION IV

manipulation

2021-12-15 c
THE OMICRON DECEPTION III

Still No Deaths From Omicron, And Americans Are Getting On With Their Lives

Americans are returning to normal despite the corporate media’s attempts to drum up alarm over the supposedly “highly transmissible” Omicron variant of COVID-19.

While corporate media outlets panicked and revived permanent pandemic narratives and talk of more lockdowns, a new poll from CBS News and YouGov found that of 1,731 people surveyed, 81 percent said they have not rearranged plans because of the Omicron variant or the hype surrounding it. In fact, a majority said they still plan to keep their normal holiday traditions and routines. Sixty-eight percent still plan to “gather with friends and family,” 64 percent said they will do their Christmas shopping in person, and 52 percent said they will eat in a restaurant.

Only 17 percent of those surveyed said they were “very concerned about Omicron,” while about 42 percent said they were not concerned at all about Omicron despite the initial media and bureaucracy-induced panic about it.

These Americans’ thoughts on Omicron are validated by the data. As it turns out, not one single COVID-19-related death in the U.S. from Dec. 1-8 was found to be caused by the Omicron variant. As of Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that of the 43 people infected with the Omicron strain of COVID, most cases manifested only mild symptoms such as “a cough, fatigue, and congestion or a runny nose.”

The CDC report also found that “one individual, who was vaccinated, required a brief hospital stay” and that a majority of cases, 79 percent, were in fully vaccinated individuals.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control’s measures of Omicron produced similar results in a report released Sunday.

“There have been no Omicron-related deaths reported thus far,” the European health agency claimed, noting that most cases of Omicron-related COVID presented as “either asymptomatic or mild.” (read more)

2021-12-15 b
THE OMICRON DECEPTION II

lying bastards variant

2021-12-15 a
THE OMICRON DECEPTION I

Omicron and Virology’s Alchemy

In our essay, “The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity,” Dr. John Bevan-Smith and I described the COVID-19 situation as being composed of “numerous preposterous claims”.  The recent announcement of the Omicron ‘variant’ is set to add another chapter to the book of preposterous claims.  A chapter concerning more of modern virology’s magical creations. 

Within days of the “discovery”, the new buzz-word ‘Omicron’ was being spread around the world. Once more, all sorts of claims were being made without any sound scientific evidence about not only what was happening, but what could be expected to happen next.  The variant was purported to have been detected in South Africa on 24 November 2021 and just two days later it was designated a “variant of concern” by the World Health Organisation’s Technical Advisory Group on Virus Evolution.   

We read that with regards to Omicron, “the WHO is concerned that the large number of mutations may reduce immunity in people who were previously infected and in vaccinated people.”  This timely claim seems to be a convenient explanation as, just a few weeks earlier, both Bill Gates and Dr. Antony Fauci admitted that the COVID “vaccines” don’t work as originally advertised.  However, the solution according to this duet is the same song and the lyrics predictably involve more vaccines.  

We are also informed that “no unusual symptoms have yet been associated with the variant and, as with other variants, some individuals are asymptomatic.”  This is disingenuous and is simply repeating the fact that by the WHO’s own definiton, a “COVID-19” case can be confirmed solely by a Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (i.e. a PCR “test”).  Additionally, a Cochrane Review concluded that with regards to COVID-19 “neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out disease.”  The whole “pandemic” is based on the fact that COVID-19 is not a definable clinical entity and thus any presentation, even if completely asymptomatic, can be classified as another case of the imaginary disease. 

The WHO’s paper “Enhancing Readiness for Omicron (B.1.1.529): Technical Brief and Priority Actions for Member States” is another example of the anti-science being used to sustain this fake pandemic.  They state that because there are 26-32 amino acid changes in the spike protein sequence there may be “S gene target failure” – in other words, the current PCR kits will not detect this sequence and they may only detect one or two of the other selected sequences.  Not surprisingly the PCR kit manufacturers, along with the WHO, suggest that this doesn’t necessarily mean the person is negative for COVID-19.  In fact, in this Orwellian sinkhole, they say the absence of the sequence could now be a marker for the Omicron variant.  This opens a door to manufacture more cases as a negative aspect of an alleged test for “COVID-19” can now mean that you are positive for “COVID-19” in their ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ game.

The Omicron variant is no different from the Delta variant or any other variant past or present in that none of them have been shown to exist in nature.  All of them are simply computer created “genomes” from unpurified specimens.  No Omicron variant virus was found because no virus was found.  Instead, variations in sequences are found which reflects both the inability of the process to be replicated as well as newly detected sequences in the environment which are claimed (without proof) to be viral in origin.  Thus it was no surprise that within days the Omicron invention was being “found” simultaneously all around the world. 

This fraudulent “detection” technique invites all sorts of explanations from the virologists and other commentators.  In a recent Science article, we see some examples of their analyses on the origins of Omicron:

“I assume this evolved not in South Africa, where a lot of sequencing is going on, but somewhere else in southern Africa during the winter wave.” – Christian Drosten, virologist

“I’m not sure there’s really anywhere in the world that is isolated enough for this sort of  virus to transmit for that length of time without it emerging in various places.” – Andrew Rambaut, evolutionary biologist

“It does make me wonder if other species out there can become chronically infected, which would potentially provide this sort of selective pressure over time” Aris Katzourakis, evolutionary biologist


Because of the flawed methodology involving simply detecting genetic sequences in the environment and declaring this constitutes evidence of a virus, any work of fiction is possible from these “experts”.  The reality is not once has a whole particle confirmed to be SARS-CoV-2 been found inside an individual.  Not once has such a particle been properly physically isolated with purification and shown to contain even one of the over 5 million “genomes” now posted on
GISAID.org Not once has such a particle been shown to be the causal agent of any disease.  Similarly for the spike protein alleged to belong to the virus for which the GISAID site includes a sophisticated 3D animation of its variants.

However, all of the computer models in the world don’t change the fact that the detected genetic sequences and proteins have never been shown to be part of a pathogenic virus.  Due to its ongoing failures to demonstrate that alleged viral particles are capable of causing disease in a living host, virology is becoming nothing more than computer simulations.  Omicron is the latest update in their virtual reality that is becoming increasingly disconnected from the natural world.

Not missing a chance to cash in on Omicron, Richard Hatchett, CEO of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), proclaimed that Omicron’s emergence had fulfilled predictions that transmission of the virus in areas with low vaccination rates would speed its evolution.  It is unclear what data Hatchett is referring to in order to make such “predictions”.  CEPI, his employer was launched in 2017 at the World Economic Forum and its major funders include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.  Its scientific advisory committee has executives from Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and the Takeda Pharmaceutical Company.  Not surprisingly these organisations are all suggesting that there’s only one solution to the “problem” and that’s more of their vaccines.           

The “vaccines” offer no solutions unless the goal is human experimentation with genetic vectors and transfers of wealth and control to globalist affiliated organisations.  Virology in its current iteration has resorted to alchemic thinking and should be shelved unless it can demonstrate a return to the scientific method.  If not, expect another “variant” and more fictional narratives to make an appearance in your news feed some time soon.  The safest way to protect yourself from Omicron is to ignore it altogether, along with the medical tyranny that promotes such illusions.  Like everything COVID-19, Omicron’s capacity to cause disease is limited by its ability to infect the minds of the susceptible with a fear-based narrative. (read more)

2021-12-14 e
FEDERAL RESERVE CREATES INFLATION V

Gold and Economic Freedom

by Alan Greenspan

An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense — perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire — that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.

In order to understand the source of their antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society.

Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.

The existence of such a commodity is a precondition of a division of labor economy. If men did not have some commodity of objective value which was generally acceptable as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms and forgo the inestimable advantages of specialization. If men had no means to store value, i.e., to save, neither long-range planning nor exchange would be possible.

What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. First, the medium of exchange should be durable. In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium, since all exchanges would occur only during and immediately after the harvest, leaving no value-surplus to store. But where store-of-value considerations are important, as they are in richer, more civilized societies, the medium of exchange must be a durable commodity, usually a metal. A metal is generally chosen because it is homogeneous and divisible: every unit is the same as every other and it can be blended or formed in any quantity. Precious jewels, for example, are neither homogeneous nor divisible. More important, the commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury. Human desires for luxuries are unlimited and, therefore, luxury goods are always in demand and will always be acceptable. Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations, but not in a prosperous society. Cigarettes ordinarily would not serve as money, but they did in post-World War II Europe where they were considered a luxury. The term "luxury good" implies scarcity and high unit value. Having a high unit value, such a good is easily portable; for instance, an ounce of gold is worth a half-ton of pig iron.

In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions. However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.

Whether the single medium is gold, silver, seashells, cattle, or tobacco is optional, depending on the context and development of a given economy. In fact, all have been employed, at various times, as media of exchange. Even in the present century, two major commodities, gold and silver, have been used as international media of exchange, with gold becoming the predominant one. Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has significant advantages over all other media of exchange. Since the beginning of World War I, it has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange. If all goods and services were to be paid for in gold, large payments would be difficult to execute and this would tend to limit the extent of a society's divisions of labor and specialization. Thus a logical extension of the creation of a medium of exchange is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into, gold.

A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus to create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy. Individual owners of gold are induced, by payments of interest, to deposit their gold in a bank (against which they can draw checks). But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, the banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits (which means that he holds claims to gold rather than gold as security of his deposits). But the amount of loans which he can afford to make is not arbitrary: he has to gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.

When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth. When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one — so long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital. Credit, interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the "easy money" country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.

A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World War I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.

But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline — argued economic interventionists — why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely — it was claimed — there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks ("paper reserves") could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.

When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates. The "Fed" succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market, triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's.

With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain's abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed "a mixed gold standard"; yet it is gold that took the blame.) But the opposition to the gold standard in any form — from a growing number of welfare-state advocates — was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.

Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which — through a complex series of steps — the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.

Published in Ayn Rand's "Objectivist" newsletter in 1966, and reprinted in her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, in 1967.

2021-12-14 d
FEDERAL RESERVE CREATES INFLATION IV

The Phillips Curve: Read the Fine Print

The Federal Reserve’s Dual Mandate is the Phillips Curve.

It’s not that the Fed is charged with the impossible task of reaching a state of 2% inflation and full employment; rather, the Fed is trying to obtain these two goals, believing (according to the Phillips Curve), these goals come as a trade-off needing to be managed.

Just two weeks ago, Chair Powell spoke of this on-going battle, like a never-ending tug of war between inflation and employment, as reported by Reuters:

We have to balance those two goals when they are in tension, as they are right now.

This tension, as described by Powell, is not just another Powell-ism, or something the head of America’s central bank said off the cuff in an interview. Instead, this idea of balancing inflation against employment has been a widely discussed phenomena in academia and by central bankers for several generations. The current CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a man who may be more powerful than Powell himself, co-authored a paper in 2014 explaining the trade-off, calling it the “divine coincidence of monetary policy,” whereby:

…the central bank can simultaneously stabilize both employment and inflation by altering a single policy instrument—the short-term nominal interest rate.

According to one of the current members of the inner circle at the Fed, just by changing interest rates, employment and inflation will simultaneously stabilize.

The above quotes are only two examples. But countless instances exist where economic planners discuss the necessity of balancing the two objectives, as if it’s a zero-sum game.

To best illustrate the juggling act, the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank explains the Phillips Curve, or the belief there is a trade-off between inflation and unemployment. (read more and see graphics)

2021-12-14 c
FEDERAL RESERVE CREATES INFLATION III

EUREKA, Someone Finally Points Out The Obvious

Finally!  Good grief, it’s been a long wait to see someone on the TV pointing out the obvious.

CNBC’s Steve Liesman points out what all the financial pundits keep ignoring.

The price of raw material at origination is still climbing…. which means the prices of intermediate manufacturing goods will keep climbing… which means the prices of finished goods (to wholesalers) will keep climbing…..  which means consumer prices will keep climbing.   WATCH

♦ Here’s the kicker.  The rate of raw material price increases are still higher than the rate of intermediate price increases, which are still higher than the rate of price increases in finished goods, which are still higher than the rate of price increases in consumer goods (retail).

As long as the rate of price increase for raw material, the very first step in the supply chain, remains higher than the rate of the price increase for the next step in the process, then you can guarantee future prices will go up.  It’s a simple and commonsense way to look forward when evaluating inflation.

If the stuff starts at a higher price (day one), the end product at day 90 will be at a higher price than today.  This is how you can tell that inflation is not slowing down.  The first sign of inflation easing is when the rate of inflation for raw material is lower than the rate of inflation in the next step. (read more)

2021-12-14 b
FEDERAL RESERVE CREATES INFLATION II

November Producer Prices Rise Record Breaking 9.6 Percent Year Over Year, Biggest Single Month in History, as Massive Inflation Builds Within The Supply Chain – Again, No Signs of Slowing Down

We said it was happening {Go Deep}, and it is.  Last month CTH put the preparation window at 60 days +/- depending on region.  That window is now around 30 days before the next spike in inflation shows up from cumulative costs snowballing throughout the supply chain. The “producer price index” is essentially the tracking of wholesale prices at three stages: Origination (commodity), Intermediate and Final.

The final product inflation rate in July (reported in August) was alarming at 7.8%. However, we warned it would get worse. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) then released stunning price data for October [DATA Here], showing an even more dramatic 8.6% price increase in final demand. More intense warnings shared.

Today, we get the November BLS Result [DATA Here], and unfortunately the results are showing what was expected.  The cumulative costs of massive increases in energy prices are building into the supply at an astonishing rate.  The November data shows a rate of wholesale final goods inflation at 9.6%, the largest single month comparative rate increase in history.

The bureau even went back and revised/increased the August price index from 7.8 to 8.4 percent, and revised/increased the October figure from 8.6 to 8.8 percent.  The average monthly price increase is almost a full percent… every month.  It looks like the BLS backward revisions are an attempt to smooth down the rate of increase.

(BLS) – “The Producer Price Index for final demand increased 0.8 percent in November, seasonally adjusted, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Final demand prices moved up 0.6 percent in each of the 3 prior months. (See table A.) On an unadjusted basis, the final demand index rose 9.6 percent for the 12 months ended in November, the largest advance since 12-month data were first calculated in November 2010.” (more)

[...]

When you see the wholesale level of prices almost double the increase in consumer level inflation rate, you can predict that consumer prices will likely go even higher.  Future finished goods, at a retail level, will carry the current wholesale price increase. (read more)

2021-12-14 a
FEDERAL RESERVE CREATES INFLATION I

American Institute for Economic Research]
AIER’s Everyday Price Index Posts Its 12th Consecutive Increase


The AIER [American Institute for Economic Research] Everyday Price Index posted its 12th consecutive monthly increase in November, rising 0.5 percent. The gain follows a 1.2 percent jump in October. From a year ago, the Everyday Price Index is up 9.3 percent, the fastest pace since September 2008.

Gains were again widespread with 17 of the 24 components making a positive contribution for the month. However, most of the changes were small for the month as just three categories accounted for all of the monthly gain. The positive contributions were led by motor fuel, up 2.8 percent for the month (and 58.0 percent for the year) and contributing 31 basis points to the monthly gain. Food away from home (a.k.a. restaurants) was the second-largest contributor to the increase in November, contributing 11 basis points to the gain while food at home (a.k.a. groceries) added 8 basis points.  Household fuels and utilities fell in November subtracting 1 basis point. Combined, food and energy categories have a weighting of 64.9 percent of the Everyday Price Index. Six other categories posted small declines in November.

The Everyday Price Index including apparel, a broader measure that includes clothing and shoes, rose 0.3 percent, also the 12th consecutive increase. Over the past year, the Everyday Price Index including apparel is up 9.0 percent, the fastest pace since August 2008. Apparel prices fell 1.6 percent on a not-seasonally-adjusted basis in November. Apparel prices tend to be volatile on a month-to-month basis. From a year ago, apparel prices are up 5.0 percent.

The Consumer Price Index, which includes everyday purchases as well as infrequently purchased, big-ticket items and contractually fixed items, also rose 0.5 percent on a not-seasonally-adjusted basis in November. Over the past year, the Consumer Price Index is up 6.8 percent, the fastest pace since June, 1982, but significantly less than the 9.3 percent rise in the EPI.

The Consumer Price Index excluding food and energy rose 0.4 percent for the month (not seasonally adjusted) while the 12-month change came in at 4.9 percent, the fastest since June 1991. The 12-month change in the core CPI was just 1.3 percent in February 2021 and 2.4 percent in February 2020, before the pandemic.

After seasonal adjustment, the CPI rose 0.8 percent in November while the core increased 0.5 percent for the month. Within the core, core goods prices were up 0.9 percent in November and are up 9.4 percent from a year ago while core services prices were up 0.4 percent for the month and are up 3.4 percent from a year ago.

Among the notable increases in the core goods category were used cars and trucks (up 2.5 percent and 31.4 percent from a year ago), new vehicles (up 1.1 percent and 11.1 percent from a year ago) and tobacco products (up 0.9 percent and 8.9 percent from a year ago).

Among core services, gainers include car and truck rentals (up 1.1 percent and 37.2 percent from a year ago) and lodging away from home (up 2.9 percent and 22.2 percent from a year ago). (read more)

See also: Will the Fed Do Enough to Bring Down Inflation?

See also:
Not Hyperinflation [YET] , but Plenty Bad Enough

______________________

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

______________________


2021 ARCHIVE

January 1 - 6

January 7 - 13

January 14 - 20

January 21 - 24

January 25 - 28

January 29 - 31

February 1 - 4

February 5 - 10

February 11 - 21

February 22 - 24

February 25 - 28
March 1 - 9

March 10 - 17

March 18 - 23

March 24 - 31
April 1 - 8

April 9 - 14

April 15 - 18

April 19 - 24

April 25 - 30

May 1 - 5

May 6 - 10

May 11 - 15

May 16 - 22

May 23 - 26

May 27 - 29

May 30 - 31
 
June 1 - 5

June 6 - 8

June 9 - 12

June 13 - 19

June 20 - 24

June 25 - 30
July 1 - 6

July 7 - 10

July 11 - 17

July 18 - 23

July 24 - 28

July 29 - 31
August 1 - 5

August 6 - 8

August 9 - 14

August 15 - 18

August 19 - 23

August 24 - 28

August 29 - 31
September 1 - 4

September 5 - 9

September 10 - 16

September 17 - 21

September 22 - 27

September 28 - 30

October 1 - 5

October 6 - 9

October 10 - 14

October 15 - 20

October 21 - 27

October 28 - 31

November 1 - 6

November 7 - 10

November 11 - 14

November 15 - 20

November 21 - 25

November 26 - 30
December 1 - 4

December 5 - 9

December 10 - 13

2020 ARCHIVE

January
February March
April 1 - 15

April 16- 30

May 1 - 15

May 16- 31
 
June 1 - 15

June 16- 30
July 1 - 15

July 16- 31
Aug 1 - 15

Aug 16 - 31
September 1 - 15

September 16 - 30
October 1 - 15

October 16 - 23

Ocober 24 - 31
November 1 - 8

November 9 - 15

November 16 - 21

November 22 - 30
December 1 - 7

December 8 - 12

December 13 - 16

December 17 - 20

December 21 - 27

December 28 - 31

-0-
...
 News and facts for those sick and tired of the National Propaganda Radio version of reality.


- Unlike all the legacy media, our editorial offices are not in Langley, Virginia.


- You won't catch us fiddling while Western Civilization burns.


-
Close the windows so you don't hear the mockingbird outside, grab a beer, and see what the hell is going on as we witness the controlled demolition of our society.


- The truth usually comes from one source. It comes quietly, with no heralds. Untruths come from multiple sources, in unison, and incessantly.


- The loudest partisans belong to the smallest parties. The media exaggerate their size and influence.


THE ARCHIVE PAGE
.
No Thanks
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 - 2021 - thenotimes.com - All Rights Reserved