Saturday, May 16, 2020

Return to ‘The Unheavenly City’


The late senator, statesman, sociologist, and New Yorker Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously observed that, “The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.” Moynihan balanced one truth with another, in part to show that neither side enjoyed a monopoly on wisdom. Had he offered these competing visions of politics and culture without describing one as “conservative” and the other as “liberal,” however, it would have admitted the possibility that one was more accurate than the other. And whether or not that is in fact the case matters—not merely for philosophical reasons but for political and social reasons, too.

In 1970, American political scientist Edward Banfield had explored this apparently innocuous question in a monograph entitled The Unheavenly City: The Nature and the Future of Our Urban Crisis. The book proved to be so divisive that a slightly revised version appeared just four years later entitled The Unheavenly City Revisited (the edition reviewed here), in which Banfield sought to address the complaints of his critics. Nevertheless, Banfield’s work drew great praise as well as opprobrium, and it has arguably dated better than the preferred theories of its critics. In 2008, Edward Glaeser, an urban affairs expert and professor of economics at Harvard, described it as “one of the most contentious, interesting, and insightful books ever written on urban policy.” On the 50th anniversary of its first edition, it deserves a reconsideration.

Banfield was a former New Dealer who had worked on anti-poverty projects for the Department of Agriculture during the 1930s and as an adviser to Republican presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan in the 1970s and ’80s. In 1958, he wrote The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, in which he examined the family-centric culture of an impoverished town in Southern Italy. Banfield subsequently became a renowned dissident scholar at Harvard, where he developed a reputation as a brilliant thinker and sharp critic of liberal shibboleths. The principle source of controversy provoked by The Unheavenly City, he wrote in …Revisited, is that my main points are deeply subversive of opinions and beliefs to which many highly intelligent and well-informed people are wedded, and without which the world would perhaps be unendurable for them.”

Written at the height of New York’s decline under the mayoralty of liberal reformer and Republican-cum-Democrat John Lindsay, the book’s preface warned that what followed would be provocative: “This book will probably strike many readers as the work of an ill-tempered and mean-spirited fellow,” Banfield explained, “but facts are facts, however, unpleasant, and they have to be faced unblinkingly by anyone who really wants to improve matters in the cities.” He then set forth an indictment of the New Deal/Great Society social services superstructure and a counterintuitive case that conditions had greatly improved in American cities despite the narrative that then prevailed of “urban crisis.”

Nomenclature, Banfield argued, is important, as is perspective and awareness of limitations. The problems comprising urban crisis—congestion, sprawl, commuting, suburban flight, and the decline of commercial activity—were really about “comfort, convenience, amenity, and business advantage, all of which are important.” But, he went on, “they do not affect either the essential welfare of individuals or what may be called the good health of society.” What is injurious to individual wellbeing and societal health is “crime, poverty, ignorance, and racial (and other) injustices.” These pathologies, though mitigated (some more than others), persist because, as a practical matter, there are no solutions to them—certainly none that a constitutional republic would countenance. In this view, Banfield found himself in the company of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, the Federalists, and Friedrich Hayek. All these thinkers shared what Banfield’s former student Thomas Sowell would later call the “constrained vision” of human affairs, that “sees the evils of the world as deriving from the limited and unhappy choices available, given the inherent moral and intellectual limitations of human beings.”

Edward C Banfield (1916–1999) Pic: Foundation for Constitutional Government

Banfield’s great public service was the examination of these limitations in the cultural context of the American class system. Traditionally (and presently), social class is defined by similarities in position, status, education, income, habits, and tastes. American sociologist Dennis Gilbert observed that those who concluded that “there is as much art as science in the study of social stratification” were “probably right” because “broader statements about the class system run up against inherent inconsistencies of social reality.” Characteristically, Banfield took an entirely different approach to the topic. To analyze “social problems from a policy standpoint,” he wrote, “the most promising principle seems to be that of psychological orientation toward the future.” As political scientist James Q. Wilson later explained in the introduction to Banfield’s book Political Influence: “The longer a person’s time-horizon, the greater his willingness to defer present pleasures for future benefits, the more convinced he is that his own behavior will determine what the future will bring, and so the higher his (or her) class position.”

Banfield divided American society into the upper class, the middle class, the working class, and the lower class. The upper class individual occupies the farthest end of the future-oriented spectrum; he conducts himself and his affairs with an eye toward his heirs and family name. He is reared in a milieu that “teaches the individual that he would be cheating himself if he allowed gratification of his impulses (for example, for sex or violence) to interfere with his provision for the future.” Less future-oriented, the middle class man plans to get ahead and does what is necessary to improve his lot in life and to ensure his children achieve more than he did. Not “heavily” invested in the future, the working class individual is generally unconcerned with self-improvement. Rather, he focuses his attention on job security, his immediate family, and inculcating his children with the ethos of manual labor: “neatness and cleanliness, honesty, obedience, and respect for external authority.”

Concerned primarily with the crime, injustice, and poverty that plagued American cities at the end of the 1960s, Banfield devoted considerable time to analyzing the lower class individual “at the present-oriented end of the scale” who “lives from moment to moment”:

If he has any awareness of a future, it is of something fixed, fated, beyond his control: things happen to him, he does not make them happen. Impulse governs his behavior, either because he cannot discipline himself to sacrifice a present for future satisfaction or because he has no sense of the future.

Moral agency is alien to him. He takes “no interest in his work,” if he works at all. He suffers from “a feeble, attenuated sense of self.” His relationships are devoid of trust, “aggressive yet dependent.” He often does not marry, resents authority, and nurses grievance. Lower class men frequently abandon any sense of responsibility for their offspring, leaving the mother (or her mother) to head the household. And this poverty of values is inter-generationally transmitted: “once children have passed babyhood they are likely to be neglected or abused, and at best they never know what to expect.” Deprived of a stable household and responsible father, the lower class teenager will likely “join a corner gang of other such boys and to learn from the gang the ‘tough’ style of the lower-class man.” Ultimately, these deleterious influences create a person predisposed to the degeneracies of the slum: “a game, a fight, a tense confrontation with the police; feeling that something exciting is about to happen is highly congenial to people who live for the present and for whom the present is often empty.”

From this analysis, Banfield concluded that the dysfunctional elements of city life are not the fault of external forces that demand amelioration by federal or local authorities, such as misallocated economic and material resources, political disenfranchisement, or race-based discrimination. Although he acknowledged the obvious existence of racism, he found that “overemphasis on prejudice” encourages people to define all “troubles in racial terms,” which leads to “the adoption of futile and even destructive policies and to the non-adaptation of others that might do great good.” To the extent there was an American urban crisis in 1970, Banfield perceived it to be a crisis of personal responsibility.

Today, Banfield’s description of the lower class—not to be confused with poor people but, rather, poor people who behave in a particular manner—would more properly be characterized as the underclass. Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal had already introduced this term in his 1963 book Challenge to Affluence, and it refers to a cohort that political and social scientist Charles Murray has studied extensively. David Green, a British think tanker who wrote the foreword to an essay Murray wrote about the British underclass, provided a succinct working definition of the present-oriented class: “Those distinguished by their undesirable behavior, including drug-taking, crime, illegitimacy, failure to hold down a job, truancy from school, and casual violence.”

Part of the controversy that engulfed the initial publication of The Unheavenly City was the charge that Banfield’s definition of the lower class was racist. In the …Revisited edition, Banfield took pains to correct ambiguities and re-emphasize that his focus was on orientation and behavior and that those intangibles respect no racial identity. In a thought experiment, Banfield asked the reader to consider what would happen if black Americans became white overnight (“New Whites”):

[I]t must be said that many New Whites would suffer indignities and humiliations not so different from those to which the Negro is now subject. The treatment that the lower class white receives is in many ways like that of the victim of racial prejudice—and a larger proportion of New Whites would be lower class. In one respect their new (class) status might be harder to bear than their former (racial) one; for the victim of race prejudice can take some comfort, however small, in the knowledge that he is being treated unjustly.

Much of what appears (especially to Negroes) as race prejudice is really class prejudice or, at any rate, class antipathy. Similarly, much of what appears (especially to whites) as “Negro” behavior is really lower class behavior. The lower class is relatively large among Negroes; it appears even larger than it is to those whites who fail to distinguish a Negro who exhibits outward signs—lack of skill, low income, slum housing, and so on—which in a white would mark him as lower class, from one whose culture is working, middle, or even upper class but whose opportunities have been limited by discrimination and whose income is low.

Writing in the late-’60s and early ’70s, Banfield focused on contemporary major cities and the underclass contingencies within them. He examined them as he found them and his analysis was unambiguously cultural, not racial. Indeed, Banfield surveyed lower class culture in a variety of ethnic groups, including 19th century Americans of English ancestry who “lived from hand to mouth, worked only when they had to, drank and fought prodigiously, felt no tie to the community, and left their women and children behind to fend for themselves or to be looked after at public expense once they have moved on.” Unassimilated Catholic immigrants from the “peasant cultures” of Europe, we learn, normalized “present-oriented” behavior, and in South Boston, in 1832, “‘to see anything like indigence or idleness,’ a visitor to New England from abroad wrote a few years later, ‘we must penetrate into the purlieus in the seaport towns, occupied by the Irish laboring population.’”

Banfield nevertheless anticipated that “some readers may suspect that when the author uses the words ‘lower class’ what he has in the back of his mind is ‘Negro.’” A dissident intellectual accustomed to accusation, Banfield responded matter-of-factly that there is:

…no arguing with a reader who is determined to mistake one’s meaning. All the author can do is repeat once more that there are lower-class people, as defined here, in all ethnic groups, including the Anglo-Saxon white Protestant one, and to point to the obvious fact that most Negroes are not improvident, do not live in squalor and violence, and therefore are plainly not lower class.

The “highly intelligent and well-informed” liberal academics and poverty bureaucrats, who found Banfield’s disquisition “deeply subversive” of an ideology to which they were wedded, were not especially concerned with whether or not its author was racist—the fair-minded reader will find that the text is as humane as it is honest. Banfield acknowledged without qualification the grotesque racial injustice to which black Americans had historically been subjected. His critics did resolve, however, that he had to be decisively discredited. After all, if policymakers were to accept Banfield’s assumptions about class, then many a professional social helper, petty central planner, welfare administrator, and non-profit organization would find themselves redundant. And as Upton Sinclair once remarked, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

Banfield was reluctant to offer policy prescriptions. In the book’s penultimate chapter entitled “What Can Be Done?” he argued that any measures that might address the pathologies of cities are neither feasible nor acceptable because “no one knows how to change the culture of any part of the population—the lower class or the upper, whites or Negroes, pupils or teachers, policemen or criminals.” By definition, then, some proposals would entail morally and constitutionally repugnant statist activities, “such as taking infants from their parents at birth” or incarcerating people “who in the opinion of a court are extremely likely to commit violent crimes.” Other solutions are impracticable, he wrote, because the essence of the problem invalidates the response: “giving lower class persons ‘really good’ jobs is not a feasible way of inducing them to change their style of life, because that very style of life makes it impossible to give them ‘really good’ jobs.” At bottom, all one can reasonably hope for is a time-horizon treatment best characterized as “benign neglect,” where the passage of time gradually improves the underclass worldview.

Today, however, one proposal stands out as remarkably prescient, and it no doubt influenced Banfield’s student James Q. Wilson, who went on to devise the “broken windows” theory of policing with George L. Kelling. To alleviate the harassment of law-abiding people who reside in lower-income communities and to control crime generally, Banfield advised city leaders to “intensify police patrols in high-crime areas; permit the police to ‘stop and frisk’ and to make misdemeanor arrests on probable cause.” The miracle of broken windows policing needs no defense among informed citizens, but Wilson’s debt to his former teacher surely informed this praise: “Edward Banfield’s life is an example of that old saying about a prophet without honor is his own country or at least in his own times.”

Banfield’s principle insights on the link between deferment of gratification and the attainment of a “normal” life are as relevant today as they were when The Unheavenly City was first published 50 years ago. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and his progressive fellow travelers in large cities have doubled down on a politics of intention against reality, where raising more taxes, expanding social programs, multicultural curricula, encumbering police, releasing recidivists, and shaming the productive is supposed to address underclass failure.

Other than a proactive and just law enforcement and prosecutorial regime to respond to crime and quality of life issues, social policy—no matter how well intended—cannot meaningfully address urban sickness where the motivations of the underclass are informed by “the existence of an outlook and style of life which is radically present-oriented and which therefore attaches no value to work, sacrifice, self-improvement, or service to family, friends, or community.” When what matters is now—right now—dispensing Mets tickets before a Rikers Island farewell, automatic recognizance release from arraignment, job training, increased wages, longer school days, domestic Marshall Plan fantasies, intersectional esteem exercises, and community policing are insufficient inducements to upright, morally dignified conduct conducive to future success.

The Unheavenly City leaves the reader in little doubt that only one of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s two “truths” is actually correct. Culture—the habits of mind, conduct, beliefs, and values—“determines the success of a society,” and that politics is far too limited an enterprise to change the deeply ingrained cultural orientation of those who comprise it. That is a lesson it is never too late to learn.


Craig Trainor is a criminal defense and civil rights attorney in New York City. His writing has appeared in National ReviewCity Journal, the Washington Examiner, the American Conservative, and the late Weekly Standard. You can follow him on Twitter @TrainorLaw.

Featured image: New York subway car, 1973 (US National Archives, Flickr).

The post Return to ‘The Unheavenly City’ appeared first on Quillette.


How Can Trump Still Win The Election?

Yesterday the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet lambasted Trump and called on Americans to not reelect him: The Trump administration's further erosion of the CDC will harm global cooperation in science and public health, as it is trying to...


TTAC Targeted in MASSIVE Cyber Attack

SECURITY ALERT: For the last 88 hours, TTAC has been subjected to a large-scale, extremely well-funded “distributed denial-of-service” (DDoS) cyber attack that caused intermittent outages of site availability.


Bill Gates – Philanthropist or Eugenicist?

Please share this article with all your friends and family! What do you really know about Bill Gates?


Current State of Emergency in California Invalid and Unlawful – Peggy Hall


Peggy Hall from a the Healthy American YouTube channel with only 800 subscribers has a video, that’s going viral, in which she explains how legally, public health welfare is managed by the most local authority, due to the many factors that simply make public health a local issue.

She says, “The reason why I mentioned that is because people are confused…about the role of the Federal Government in our health. The Federal Government does not have the legal authority to put forth orders and regulations related to individual states and localities.

“Now let me talk for a moment about the state I live in: California and the Governor declared a State of Emergency on March 4th. Today, as I recorded this message, it is May 6th. That is approximately 63 days going into our State of Emergency Declaration.

“What is the State of Emergency Declaration? The governor of any state cannot just declare a state of emergency because he or she feels like it. That is actually well-regulated by law and in California, we have something called the California Emergency Services Act. It was recently updated in 2015, so this law is recent and we have a section in that law that states – it’s section 8558-B – that states, ‘The Governor can only declare a State of Emergency under certain circumstances…

“A State of Emergency means the duly-proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the State caused by such conditions as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot drought, sudden or severe energy shortage, a plant- or animal infestation of disease or…warning about an earthquake or a volcano. Those are the only conditions under which the governor can declare a state of emergency…

“OK, so now we look at what is an ‘epidemic’? The…legal grounds for the governor of California to declare the state of emergency based on an epidemic.

“An epidemic is beyond the normal range…So, an epidemic means that there is a threat of disease or illness that is beyond the normal range of what we typically have. Now, in California the flu season runs from about October to April or May, alright? We’re at May 6th, so we’re very much at the end of a typical flu season. California has a population of 40 million people…In the typical flu season, which goes through May, there are approximately 6,000 flu-related deaths every year. I got this information from the State Department of Health.

“You can get the information from your State Department of Health because your State Department of Health is the repository of all of the data related to disease and illness and death and other data relating to the population. So, typically in California, 6,000 people die of flu-related illnesses every year. This year, with COVID, there have been 2,000 deaths…

“2,000 is one third the number of 6,000. 6,000 is three times 2,000. Therefore, in California – this might be different in your state – I’m speaking about California. In California, COVID is not an epidemic.

“I said that public health is local so let’s look at my local community I live in Orange County. 3.3 million people in Orange County. That’s also larger than many states…

“The typical number of flu-related deaths is approximately 600, in a flu season [that] we are just at the end of…

“We have had 38 COVID-related deaths. 38 COVID. Typical season, which ends now, 600 flu [deaths]. This is not an epidemic…

“COVID is not an epidemic in Orange County. COVID is not an epidemic in California.

“Your numbers may be different. Public health is a local issue, not a federal or national issue and certainly not a global issue.

“Local. This is in California. Very clearly…COVID is not an epidemic. Why does that matter? Because, according to California Law, the State of Emergency must be terminated at the earliest possible date and all of the orders and regulations that came from that State of Emergency are also terminated.

“So, in California, that means no more social distancing, no more stay at home, no more masks, no more schools closed, no more businesses closed, no more parks and beaches closed. It’s back to normal when the State of Emergency is terminated.

“Now, I know you’re hearing about these ‘phases’ and ‘steps’ and ‘we have to go slowly’ and ‘we have to take caution’ and so on and so forth. That’s not by law. Those might be good ideas but that needs to be done by the State Legislature, according to California Law and likely, according to the law in your state, as well – you can google it. You can research the Emergency Services Act in your state.

“So, I want to read to you from the Emergency Services Act in California. It says that the State of Emergency can only be called if the threat overwhelms the current resources of the State. Now, healthcare workers have been being laid off in California. Therefore, there is no threat to overwhelm the resources of the State.

“Therefore, the State of Emergency is invalid and unlawful. Furthermore, California State Law says that the State of Emergency has to be terminated at the earliest possible convenience. This is 63 days of stay-at-home, 63 days of the State of Emergency with no grounds.

“The grounds for the State of Emergency under California Law would be for an epidemic. There is no epidemic.

“And you might say, ‘Yeah but it worked. We stayed at home. It worked.’ That might be but there is no epidemic and according to law, we don’t have to stay home and according to law, the businesses don’t need to remain closed and according to law, the schools don’t need to remain closed and according to law, I don’t need to stand six feet away from you and according to law, I don’t need to wear a mask to go into a store.

“Now, you may want to do those things. You may prefer to stay home. You may prefer to stand six feet away from me. You may prefer to wear a mask. You may prefer to keep your business closed. I’m just explaining that according to law, those things are not lawful. They are invalid and unlawful…

“In California, 6,000 people died of the flu every year every flu season. Nothing changed. Why are we doing this?

“These are facts and the Law states that the State of Emergency must be terminated at the earliest possible date and all of the regulations that go with it at the earliest possible date. Furthermore, the Governor has no legal standing to extend the State of Emergency. Zero.

“He cannot declare another State of Emergency related to COVID. It is illegal and unlawful. Only the Legislature can extend the State of Emergency and they also need to terminate the State of Emergency, according to the Emergency Services Act, if the Governor takes control of food and medicine and healthcare, which he has, in terms of sending ventilators and personal protective equipment to other hospitals by law [and how some governors have banned the prescription of the only known cure for COVID-19]. The State of Emergency terminates after 60 days. This is day 63.

“I wrote and I called my state senator and also my assembly person to inquire about this and why the State Legislature has not convened, like we’ve seen in other states.

“It is not up to Trump to open California. It is not up to Trump to close California. The only time he would have that legal authority is if we are under Martial Law.

“Each state has the ability and the legal grounding to declare the State of Emergency and in the State of California, that state of emergency must be terminated at the earliest possible date and according to Section 8567-B of the California Emergency Services Act, whenever the State of Emergency has been terminated, the orders and regulations shall be of no further force or effect…

“If this concerns you, friends contact your Representatives and demand an answer for what they are doing.

“That’s why I wanted to share this public information with you. There are countless other states and legislative bodies that are ending or extending the State of Emergency and in California, it says the temporary suspension of any statute, ordinance, regulation or rule shall remain in effect until the order or regulation is rescinded by the Governor or when the Governor proclaims the Termination of a State of Emergency or for a period of 60 days, whichever occurs first. [As of May 6th,] we’re on day 63, friends. Just thought you wanted to know that.”

Alexandra Bruce

Contributed by Alexandra Bruce



Friday, May 15, 2020

New Zealand opens up, but religious services are effectively banned. Why?


There’s a joke going around in New Zealand, according to a report in Politico. God was spotted here. Someone asked, “What are you doing in Aotearoa, God?” “Working from home, bro!” said God. Such is the reputation our South Sea paradise has gained for its conquest of the evil coronavirus.

Not that God is getting any public credit for our achievements. Most of the kudos has gone to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her advisers, who collectively don’t seem to have much time for the Deity.

When gathering restrictions were relaxed this week, they decided that the faithful of various religions could not be trusted to worship in a safe way unless they were restricted to not more than 10 per service. Church leaders had been expecting a limit of 50, which would have been hard enough, but they were thrown a curveball on the day. Not very flattering to them.

What’s galling to many regular churchgoers is that cinemas, bars (if they serve food) and restaurants can take as many people as they can fit, in groups of up to 10, so long as rules about distancing, service and time limits are observed.

Churches (mosques, synagogues) may open their doors, while ensuring that hand sanitising and name tracing procedures are followed, but they have to keep individual visitors to 10 at a time. That is a leap forward from locked churches, but few pastors are going to provide running services for 9 people, or be able to organise their congregations to come in shifts, even if there are enough hours in the day. So effectively, worship services are banned.

Now, it is true that there is more to living one’s faith than communal worship. There’s daily prayer and service to others for a start. It is also true that online streaming of services has provided a much-needed spiritual connection to liturgical celebrations and one’s co-religionists. However, it is not true, as some politicians seem to think, that services delivered through a screen in your living room are just as good as being there.

Nor can serious worshippers be content that in some cases more people are tuning in to streamed services than usually attend live ones, though a couple of government MPs in a debate on emergency legislation to validate remaining restrictions on Tuesday cheerfully suggested we should be. That is good, but it is far from enough.

One problem with the authorities is their idea of what a church service involves. Some of them think it is all about “fellowship”, a folksy togetherness which drives people to hug and kiss one another before and after and possibly during the service. Some of that goes on, for sure, but it is neither essential nor uncontrollable.

Ever since we got wind of the coronavirus here, Catholics have been told not to even shake hands as a sign of peace to their neighbours during Mass. And after six or seven weeks of keeping two meters away from our neighbours in the park or from shoppers at the supermarket we are well primed for keeping to our own bubble in the church.

There’s a particular problem for Catholics in being kept away from the celebration of the Eucharist and Reconciliation (confession): these sacraments are occasions of personal encounter with Christ and special grace. Although God is not limited by these life-giving signs, their tangible nature is psychologically important as well as theologically necessary as the norm.

No wonder some Catholics have grown restless during the lockdown and indignant now, that, with the virus almost eliminated, there seems to be no good reason for delaying a return to communal worship – with spacing of family groups and other precautions. (The reception of holy Communion need involve only the well sanitised hands of the priest placing a host lightly in the hand of each communicant.)

In fact, the government has bowed to pressure to raise the number of people allowed at funerals from 10 to 50 – thanks largely to the Maori community for whom funeral rituals (tangi) are particularly important. Weddings, however, remain limited to 10. In the latter case the authorities perhaps can point to the fact that one of the first and largest clusters of coronavirus cases in the country came from a wedding. Among 15 other clusters none is linked to a church service.

Perhaps it hard for the secular establishment to see the value of religious worship to the economy, compared with shopping malls, restaurants and movie theatres. But people do not go to church just to feel good; they go in order to be good. And moral virtue is a great asset to society.

There is plenty of data showing the positive effects of religious faith. For example, people who worship regularly are more likely to get married and stay married, thus providing stable and happier homes for their children. Single parenthood and broken marriages cost countries like New Zealand a massive amount in housing and other social support. Faith is associated with better mental health and less substance abuse – both major problems in this country, and possibly getting worse under current conditions.

There are scoundrels and irresponsible people of all persuasions, including the various religious faiths; but societies rely on the social capital generated by religious people more than leaders tend to acknowledge. We need every tool in the box (as politicians are wont to say) in the economic crisis that threatens to overwhelm us, and allowing Christians and others the full benefit of their faith is one of those tools.

The post New Zealand opens up, but religious services are effectively banned. Why? appeared first on MercatorNet.


Plague of Corruption; Vaccine Contamination and Coverup


Dr Judy Mikovits, a high level researcher who worked in the government program to combat AIDS, discovered that the nation’s blood supply from healthy donors was contaminated with disease causing retroviruses from mice and monkeys and that the source was vaccines given to infants and young people. The vaccine industry and the government’s Center for Disease Control immediately launched a massive cover up to prevent the public from learning about it. Mikovits, however, told her superiors she would go public with her discovery. The next day, she was arrested and sent to prison – without a warrant or any charges of a crime. The press reported she illegally removed government documents from the laboratory. As you will see in this video, what she removed was her personal notebook (with a Mickey Mouse cover, no less) containing her handwritten summary of meetings, deadlines, and appointments. This was her personal property, and its contents did not violate professional ethics or agreements. The story was an attempt to demonize her in the public mind so no one would believe her. She was warned that, if she spoke to anyone about the contaminated vaccines, she would go back to prison – for life. Now, she has decided to speak out at all costs. All of this was orchestrated, she says, by Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of President Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force. Is Dr. Mikovits telling the truth? You have heard officialdom condemn her as a thief and a liar. Now hear her side of the story. This interview was conducted by Charlene Bollinger in May, 2020.

Source: The Truth about Vaccines

The post Plague of Corruption; Vaccine Contamination and Coverup appeared first on Red Pill University.


‘I Want You to Know the Truth’


Dr. Ivette Lozano, who’s had a Family Medicine practice for over 20 years in Dallas, Texas gives an impassioned testimony of her clinical experience and the remarkable effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in all of her patients versus the propaganda we are receiving from our Big Pharma-controlled state governors and Mainstream Media.

The opposition she has experienced by treating COVID-19 patients with a standard drug that is issued in the millions of doses to members of the US military every year is puzzling. Dr. Lozano strongly opposes the medical and media disinformation being fed to the general public and much of the so-called “science”.

Big Pharma is holding the planet hostage in order to exact a multi-trillion dollar vaccine toll on all of us useless eaters.

Seen here is the #OpenTexas Rally at Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas held last Saturday. The organizers held the rally to honor the actions of the Shelley Luther, owner of the Salon à la Mode in Dallas, Texas, who was sentenced to seven days in jail and a $7,000 fine for opening her salon despite the stay-at-home order from Gov. Greg Abbott and the state’s and county’s orders to close all so-called “non-essential” businesses.

The Rally honored her for standing up for her workers and to celebrate her release from prison. The Rally’s attendees were there to stand for their belief that people have a God-given right to work and provide for their families; that #AllBusinessesAreEssential; and that the government has unconstitutionally overstepped its legitimate authority and have deprived people of their God-given and constitutionally protected rights and liberties during the COVID-19 panic.

For more information about Dr. Lozano, go HERE.


Alexandra Bruce

Contributed by Alexandra Bruce



Declassified List Contradicts Samantha Power Unmasking Claims

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power testified to Congress in 2017 that she never sought to unmask records containing information about former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.


Thursday, May 14, 2020

Obamagate is not a conspiracy theory



Those sharing #Obamagate on Twitter would do best to avoid the hysterics we saw from Russian-collusion believers, but they have no reason to ignore the mounting evidence that suggests the Obama administration engaged in serious corruption.

Democrats and their allies, who like to pretend that President Barack Obama's only scandalous act was wearing a tan suit, are going spend the next few months gaslighting the public by focusing on the most feverish accusations against Obama. But the fact is that we already have more compelling evidence that the Obama administration engaged in misconduct than we ever did for opening the Russian-collusion investigation.

It is not conspiracy-mongering to note that the investigation into Donald Trump was predicated on an opposition-research document filled with fabulism and, most likely, Russian disinformation. We know the DOJ withheld contradictory evidence when it began spying on those in Trump's orbit. We have proof that many of the relevant FISA-warrant applications – almost every one of them, actually – were based on "fabricated" evidence or riddled with errors. We know that members of the Obama administration, who had no genuine role in counterintelligence operations, repeatedly unmasked Trump's allies. And we now know that, despite a dearth of evidence, the FBI railroaded Michael Flynn into a guilty plea so it could keep the investigation going.

What's more, the larger context only makes these facts more damning. By 2016, the Obama administration's intelligence community had normalized domestic spying. Obama's director of national intelligence, James Clapper, famously lied about snooping on American citizens to Congress. His CIA director, John Brennan, oversaw an agency that felt comfortable spying on the Senate, with at least five of his underlings breaking into congressional computer files. His attorney general, Eric Holder, invoked the Espionage Act to spy on a Fox News journalist, shopping his case to three judges until he found one who let him name the reporter as a co-conspirator. The Obama administration also spied on Associated Press reporters, which the news organization called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion." And though it's been long forgotten, Obama officials were caught monitoring the conversations of members of Congress who opposed the Iran nuclear deal.

What makes anyone believe these people wouldn't create a pretext to spy on the opposition party? If anyone does, they shouldn't, because, on top of everything else, we know that Barack Obama was keenly interested in the Russian-collusion investigation's progress.

In her very last hour in office, national security adviser Susan Rice wrote a self-preserving email to herself, noting that she'd attended a meeting with the president, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI Director James Comey and Vice President Joe Biden in which Obama stressed that everything in the investigation should proceed "by the book."

Did high-ranking Obama administration officials not always conduct such investigations "by the book"? It is curious that they would need to be specifically instructed to do so. It is also curious that the outgoing national security adviser, 15 minutes after Trump had been sworn in as president, would need to mention this meeting.

None of this means that Obama committed some specific easily defined crime; he almost assuredly did not. His staff is another story. In a healthy media environment, though, the mounting evidence of wrongdoing would spark an outpouring of journalistic curiosity.

"But," you might ask, "why does it matter, anymore?" Well, for one thing, many of the same characters central to all this apparent malfeasance now want to retake power in Washington. Biden is the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee. He's running as the heir to Obama's legacy, and he was at that meeting with Rice. He had denied even knowing anything about the FBI investigation into Flynn before being forced to correct himself after ABC's George Stephanopoulos pointed out that he was mentioned in Rice's email. It's completely legitimate to wonder what he knew about the investigation.

Skeptics like to point out that the Obama administration had no motive to engage in abuse because Democrats were sure they were going to win. Richard Nixon won 49 states in 1972. His cronies had no need to break into the DNC's offices and touch off Watergate. But as the FBI agents involved in the case noted, they wanted to have an "insurance policy" if the unthinkable happened.

In 2016, the unthinkable did happen, and we're still dealing with the fallout four years later. We don't know where this scandal will end up, but one doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder.


The post Obamagate is <I>not</I> a conspiracy theory appeared first on WND.


Senate measure to block FBI from viewing Americans' web-browsing history without warrant fails



The Senate rejected an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that would have prevented the government from accessing Americans' web browsing data without a warrant on Wednesday.

The amendment had already passed in the House with bipartisan support, but it needed 60 senators to approve it in order for it to pass in the Senate, Fox News reported.

Only 59 senators voted in favor of the amendment.

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Republican Sen. Steve Daines of Montana had proposed the amendment to limit the government's surveillance powers in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.

"Now that Americans have been asked to stay home and not move around ... they are more vulnerable to abusive surveillance than ever before," Wyden said.

"Now more than ever ... during this pandemic, Americans deserve assurances that the government isn't spying on them ... as they move around the internet."

Fifty-nine members of the Senate just voted in favor of my amendment to block warrantless government surveillance of Americans' browser history. It failed by just one vote. McConnell is that much closer to giving Bill Barr the green light to spy on Americans' private information.

— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) May 13, 2020

Prior to the vote, Daines tweeted that the government "shouldn't have access to Americans' extremely personal browser data & internet search history w/o a warrant."

"We need to get the government out of our phones & out of our lives."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced the measure to expand surveillance powers in the Department of Justice as part of the renewal of the 2001 Patriot Act, the Daily Beast reported.

"Common sense tells us this crisis demands more vigilance on other fronts of national security not less," the Kentucky Republican said in a statement.

The failed amendment brings the ability for the Department of Justice to view web browsing history without a warrant one step closer to becoming a law.

"When you talk about web browsing and searches, you're talking about some of the most sensitive, most personal, and most private details of Americans' lives," Wyden said in a statement to Business Insider.

"Every thought that can come into people's heads can be revealed in an internet search or a visit to a website."

Many activists and labor organizers have spoken out against the expansion and the renewal of the PATRIOT Act.

“Today the Senate made clear that the purpose of the PATRIOT Act is to spy on Americans, no warrants or due process necessary,” activist Dayton Young told Vice.

“Any lawmaker who votes to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act is voting against our constitutionally-protected freedoms, and there’s nothing patriotic about that.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Senate measure to block FBI from viewing Americans' web-browsing history without warrant fails appeared first on WND.


Why “Obamagate” Will Never Lead To Anything Of Significance


The word “Obamagate” was thrust into mainstream attention by the concerted efforts of Trump and his surrogates after new details on the early days of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation emerged. These details include Obama officials (including Joe Biden) requesting the unmasking of a conversation between Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the FBI’s then-counterintelligence director discussing trying to get Michael Flynn to lie during his interrogation about the Kislyak call, and the revelation that there was never any concrete evidence that Russia hacked the DNC.

These are important revelations that are worthy of mainstream attention, but like basically everything else in this stupid, stupid timeline this issue has instead been reduced to the stagnation of vapid partisan squabbling. Democrats and their allied media are finger wagging at Trump for using “conspiracy theories” to distract from his coronavirus failures, and “MAGA” pundits once again beating the tired old drum that this scandal is going to bring down major Deep State players and drain the swamp once and for all.

Ever since 2016 both of America’s mainstream political parties have been taking turns screaming at the top of their lungs that earth-shattering revelations are right around the corner which are about to obliterate the other party any minute now, and if you’re still buying into this show I highly recommend you also take up watching WWE, because you’ll definitely love it.

RAY McGOVERN: New House Documents Sow Further Doubt That Russia Hacked the DNC

 — @Consortiumnews

“By any normal standard, former FBI Director Comey would now be in serious legal trouble, as should [former Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, et al,” Ray McGovern wrote for Consortium News the other day. “Additional evidence of FBI misconduct under Comey seems to surface every week — whether the abuses of FISA, misconduct in the case against Gen. Michael Flynn, or misleading everyone about Russian hacking of the DNC. If I were attorney general, I would declare Comey a flight risk and take his passport. And I would do the same with Clapper and Brennan.”

Indeed, this would be the “normal standard”, yet it hasn’t happened. Neither Comey nor Clapper nor Brennan are in any legal trouble at all, nor will they be, nor will any other major player responsible for leading America on a crazy collusion wild goose chase which accomplished nothing but distracting from real issues and manufacturing consent for mountains of cold war escalations against Russia.

You will never see Obama or his administration officials brought down by “Obamagate” for the same reason Trump wasn’t brought down by the Mueller investigation: the swamp protects its own. Both Obama and Trump administrations are packed full of crooks and mass murderers who could and should be imprisoned for any number of offenses, but they won’t be, because that would require a prosecutorial body that is separate from the swamp of corruption with which both of America’s mainstream parties are inexorably interwoven. You cannot use the swamp to drain the swamp.

Do you know why Trump never made good on his campaign platform of locking up Hillary Clinton? Besides the fact that their entire conflict has always been fake, I mean? The Trump administration could easily have found grounds upon which to prosecute Clinton if they wanted to, but going after a loyal establishment swamp monster would have brought the wrath of the entire swamp down upon him. As soon as he had a political opponent in office, if not before, Trump would himself be facing criminal prosecution. By collaborating with the swamp you ensure your own protection, and by attacking it you ensure your destruction.

A fundamental point that many Russiagate-peddling left pundits -- including fake "adversarial" voices like @mehdirhasan -- cannot process in their minds, because doing so would threaten their club membership. Russiagate helps clarify where priorities really lie.

 — @aaronjmate

That’s why no serious attempt has ever been made to remove Trump from office; he’s been playing nice with existing power structures without challenging them in any meaningful way. Everyone who knew anything was aware that the Mueller collusion would never go anywhere, and anyone who could count Senate seats knew impeachment would fizzle. It was all kayfabe conflict so that Trump’s “opposition” could present the appearance of opposition without interfering in agendas they themselves support or prosecuting crimes of which they themselves are also guilty.

It’s also why Obama never had any intention of prosecuting Bush’s heinous war crimes, citing “a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards”. In reality Obama always understood that in order to play the “president” role (and enjoy its massive perks for the rest of his life), he’d need to collaborate with establishment power structures rather than upsetting them. He knew that if he were to go after Bush he’d ensure his own destruction; under “normal standards” prosecution is the only sane and normal response to war crimes, but in the Mutually Assured Destruction environment of establishment corruption, there are no normal standards.

I point this out because it’s painful to watch people on both sides continually getting their hopes up that the big KABOOM is right around the corner which will finally vindicate their worldview and punish their partisan rivals. It will not happen. Trump will not drain the swamp, and neither will Biden or whatever soulless swamp monster inhabits the White House next. You were lied to. It’s good to be aware of surveillance abuses, mass-scale psyops and media malpractice, but definitely abandon hope that any of this will lead to any major changes in the establishment itself.

If we want real change, it cannot and will not come from either of the two mainstream political factions whose primary job is preventing real change. It’s going to have to come from the people; we’re going to have to find a way to punch through the propaganda brainwashing, wake up to reality, and use the power of our numbers to force the changes which will benefit us past all the oligarchic safeguards that have been placed in front of us to prevent us from doing so.

This is a lot less pleasant than believing some magical hero in a white hat is going to ride in and do all our work for us and all we need to do is relax and “trust the plan”. It’s a lot less comfortable than expunging the fake two-party worldview from our minds which vast fortunes and years of conditioning have gone into manufacturing. But it is reality.


Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics onTwitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my books Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2



Biden Can’t Return Things To Normal, Because Trump Is A Normal US President. That’s The Problem.

“I am with Joe Biden all the way- let’s get this country back to where it was before the orange man started destroying it!!!”, reads a viral tweet by tennis legend Martina Navratilova that was going around recently.


New York Times Is Getting A Jump Start On Spreading COVID-19 "Anti-Vaxx" Hysteria

New York Times Is Getting A Jump Start On Spreading COVID-19 "Anti-Vaxx" Hysteria Tyler Durden Wed, 05/13/2020 - 23:45

The coronavirus vaccine is still - according to the most optimistic projections provided by Dr. Anthony Fauci - at least 18 months away (Dr. Fauci reaffirmed during yesterday's Senate testimony the expected timeline for a vaccine is 18-24 months, or longer). But the New York Times is getting a jump on stirring up the anti- 'anti-vax' hysteria that some of its most dedicated readers - super-uptight, Brooklyn-based, professional class, simps for former Deadspin staffers -  simply love to hate.

Anti-vaxxers inspire a singularly intense horror in the liberal imagination. While the NYT loves to pin the 'explosion' in the movement's popularity to 'far-right' hucksters, some of the worst outbreaks in recent years - for example: last year's measles outbreak - took hold in the ultra-orthodox Jewish communities of New York State and the surrounding area, not the communities of 'right-wing extremists' living in Idaho and other states in the west and south. However, like the old saying goes, "Nazis sell newspapers". NYT editors closely track which topics its readers love, and thinly sourced "news analysis" about the threat to society posed by the anti-vaccine movement in the age of COVID-19 is easy and cheap to produce.

In a Wednesday column written by popular author and magazine writer Kevin Roose, the paper dares to ask: "What if we get a Covid-19 vaccine and half the country refuses to take it?"

The viral popularity of "Plandemic", a factually dubious documentary about a former colleague of Dr. Fauci who clearly has an axe to grind against him, is alarming, Roose says, and certainly justifies such an extreme conclusion.

To this, we'd argue that repeatedly trying to delete the video to appease far-left tastemakers who are out of step with the American body politic only made viewers more eager to seek it out and watch. And as far as the risk of half the country refusing the vaccine, vaccination rates for MMR, a vaccine that is the subject of concentrated ire from the anti vaxxers, are still above 90% in the US.

Plus, if you and your loved ones get vaccinated, shouldn't you have nothing to worry about? (unless, of course, the vaccines prove ineffective with some/all patients, in which case we'd have a bigger problem to worry about).

But Roose cites three supporting pillars for his argument that the anti-vaxx movement has been "waiting" for COVID-19 like a panther in the tall grass, waiting to pounce and spread its anti-science maliciousness across the globe in an evil scheme to wipe out humanity, or whatever.

First: the fast-tracked approval process.

First, because of the pandemic’s urgency, any promising Covid-19 vaccine is likely to be fast-tracked through the testing and approval process. It may not go through years of clinical trials and careful studies of possible long-term side effects, the way other drugs do. That could create an opening for anti-vaccine activists to claim that it is untested and dangerous, and to spin reasonable concerns about the vaccine into widespread, unfounded fears about its safety.

According to the Milken Institute, more than 130 projects to find a vaccine are underway around the world. Though vaccines will receive expedited approval, any mass-produced vaccine will be subjected to intense, global scrutiny.

Second: The Bill Gates Foundation will inevitably be involved with distributing the vaccine.

Second, if a vaccine does emerge, there is a good chance that leading health organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or the World Health Organization will have a hand in producing or distributing it. If that’s the case, anti-vaccine activists, who have been crusading against these groups for years, will have plenty of material stockpiled to try to discredit them. They are already taking aim at Mr. Gates with baseless conspiracy theories claiming that he created and is trying to profit from the virus. These theories will be amplified, and the attempts to discredit leading virus research efforts will intensify as the vaccine nears.

That's probably true - but the Gates Foundation and WHO typically focus their efforts on developing economies that don't have the immense resources that the US has.

And third: if vaccination is required for air travel, school enrollment and other activities, the backlash might be intense.

Third, if and when a Covid-19 vaccine is approved for widespread use, people may be required to take it before being allowed to fly on certain airlines, attend certain schools or enter certain businesses. That’s a good idea, public health-wise, but it would play into some of the worst fears of the anti-vaccine movement.

Mandatory vaccination has been an especially potent talking point for anti-vaccine activists, some of whom have rebranded themselves “pro-choice” when it comes to vaccines. And years of battling states and school districts over mandatory vaccine policies have given them a playbook for creating a tangle of legal roadblocks and damaging publicity campaigns.

Most school districts already require students to receive a battery of vaccines, which is one reason vaccination rates are so high in the US. There's little reason to believe that things will be different here. After all, polls suggest that the majority of Americans are afraid of catching the virus and will take steps independent of the government to protect themselves and their families.

There will inevitably be those who refuse the vaccine because they're paranoid about the long-term consequences. And the reality is, even scientists admit that the only way to be certain about the long-term affects of any given vaccine or treatment is experience, especially if they live in a more rural setting. Is that really so wrong?

But the aggression on the part of public officials is already starting: In Washington, Gov. Jay Inslee warned Wednesday that COVID-test-refusers wouldn't be allowed into the state's grocery stores.

Of course, that's just the start, as restrictions on test-deniers will inevitably be expanded to vaccine-deniers.


Setting The Stage For Phase 2 As States Deploy National Guard For Contact Tracing


If you’ve tried to navigate to the FKTV website and you were met with a connection error message, please be patient and try again in 5 minutes.

The website has been under constant DDoS attack since the Declaration of Emergency on March 15th and the site gets knocked offline daily. The server was reconfigured 3 weeks ago to make it come back up in 5 minutes. So if you have an issue, please try again in just a few minutes. The site comes right back up after it’s been knocked down.


Legal developments have been so mind-blowing over the past 5 days, it’s like living inside a wind tunnel!

As you know, the DOJ dropped all charges against Gen Michael Flynn last Friday. On the same day, Barack Obama’s personal propagandist and original Russiagater, Michael Isikoff released an audio of a conference call with Obama and former members of his administration, in which he complained about the dismissal of Flynn’s case that, “there is no precedent…for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free” and “the rule of law was at risk”.

Except that Flynn was never charged with perjury. Now, however the judge in Flynn’s case appointed a retired judge to look into whether Flynn should be held in criminal contempt for perjury!

About this, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Victoria Toensing tweeted, “Let me get this straight…FBI threatened to prosecute his son if he did not plead guilty. Now Judge Sullivan wants him held in contempt for pleading guilty when he was not. Higher court should step in. Or there is no justice system.”

Meanwhile, Acting Director of National Intelligence, Ric Grenell released NSA documents, listing the names of 16 Obama Administration officials who requested to unmask the communications of (i.e., spy on) Gen Flynn between November 8, 2016 and January 31, 2017 – starting just after the presidential election and up to their very last days in office. Among those on the list are Samantha Power, James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey –  and, yes, Joe Biden, contrary to his claims of ignorance of the matter the previous day on national TV.

This led former Deputy National Security Advisor under Obama, Ben Rhodes to tweet, “The unconfirmed, acting DNI using his position to criminalize routine intelligence work to help re-elect the president and obscureRussian intervention in our democracy would normally be the scandal here…”

[OMG, still at it, with the Russiagating!!!]

Never mind that an acting DNI doesn’t need to be confirmed. Never mind that it isn’t “routine” for an outgoing administration to spy on an incoming administration. Never mind that the rule of law he feigns to care about was tossed out the window when the outgoing President directed his Justice Department and FBI to lay traps to sabotage the incoming President.

That these documents were publicly released suggests that there was no concern about their information tainting a jury pool. This means these people will not be prosecuted in Federal Court. Should they be prosecuted, it will be in military tribunals.

Meanwhile, Democrat governors and mayors continue to crush the livelihoods and health of their constituents, by extending stay-at-home orders unnecessarily. In lock step with Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates, the goalposts of their Agenda 2030 genocidal plan are slyly shifting from “flattening the curve” to “finding the cure”, with Los Angeles Mayor, Eric Garcetti now saying that life won’t return to normal until there is a cure.

On Wednesday. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo worked to suppress the known cure for coronavirus (and many other viruses) when he issued an executive order banning pharmacists from dispensing chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine unless written as prescribed for an “FDA-approved indication”. Their prescriptions in New York are now banned from experimental or prophylactic use, unless as part of a NY State COVID-19 clinical trial.

Perhaps scariest of all, is Washington Gov Jay Inslee, who has launched an aggressive contact tracing program, declaring that those who refuse to cooperate with contact tracers and/or refuse testing will not be allowed to leave their homes to purchase basic necessities such as groceries and/or prescriptions.

It is going to take pushback from the public to roll back these Unconstitutional hijinks, and that’s what we’re starting to see with Michigan Gov Gretchen Whitmer, who stripped the operating license of 77-year-old barber, Karl Manke after he opened his shop.

Six state troopers entered his shop to deliver a cease and desist order from that state’s attorney general, Dana Nessel. The case was then sent to the Circuit Court, who ruled against the Governor and AG, dismissing the idea that Manke was causing irreparable harm by being open. Circuit Court Judge Matthew Stewart also rejected their claims that Manke had committed at least two misdemeanors, otherwise, they would have had him arrested.

Shiawassee County Sheriff Brian BeGole issued a statement after receiving “many calls” from local residents and businesses on the matter and “especially since the Michigan Legislature did not extend the state of emergency beyond April 30 as required by law…I have decided, within my authority, that our office cannot and will not divert our primary resources and efforts towards enforcement of Governor Whitmer’s executive orders.”

Sheriffs in a few counties of Arizona and California have been doing the same.

On Wednesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down Gov. Tony Evers’ extension of his stay-at-home order. The ruling reopens the state, lifting caps on the size of gatherings, allowing people to travel as they please and allowing shuttered businesses to reopen, including bars and restaurants.

The court had found that Health secretary Andrea Palm, who issued the order did not have the authority to do so. Chief Justice Patience Roggensack wrote in the majority opinion, “Rule-making exists precisely to ensure that kind of controlling, subjective judgement asserted by one unelected official, Palm, is not imposed in Wisconsin.”

Keep these victories in mind while Spiro Skouras terrifies you in today’s video with what the vaccinators and the contact tracers will do to us if we don’t stop them with similar victories in ALL counties.

Alexandra Bruce

Contributed by Alexandra Bruce



Wednesday, May 13, 2020

"Don't Believe The Happy Talk" - Jim Rickards Warns "This Time 'Is' Different"

Stocks stumbled the last two days, at least partially on fears about a resurgence in coronavirus cases. South Korea, which did an excellent job containing the virus, has reported a new batch of cases. Japan and Singapore also reported new cases.


FBI 'Mistakenly' Releases 9/11 Bombshell In Court: Key Saudi Diplomat Who "Tasked" Hijackers Named

It's being called "a complete government cover-up of the Saudi involvement" according to 9/11 victims' families who are in a lengthy ongoing lawsuit seeking to expose Saudi involvement in 9/11 and US efforts to cover it up.


Trump slams unmasking of Flynn, disagrees with Fauci's testimony on reopening after coronavirus



'The unmasking is a massive thing,' Trump said.


Sorting Fact From Fiction Amid The Infodemic

As health officials and the public have worked hard to sort fact from fiction during an emerging and new health crisis, it has become clear that they — and we — do not always have accurate information at hand. There are three big reasons for this.


Surprise! CNN polls people on trusted news sources, and look who scores well


CNN's Wolf Blitzer

CNN likes to call itself the most trusted name in news. And now, the Cable News Network has conducted its own poll claiming that Americans actually do trust CNN.


Brian Stelter of CNN posted the results of the poll on Twitter, indicating more people trust CNN on coronavirus reporting than the Fox News Channel or President Trump.

Striking #'s about trusted sources...

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) May 12, 2020

Stelter's post was immediately lampooned on Twitter, with some responses including:

"You polled your own viewers and asked if they liked you? Wow. Thats some stunning journalism as usual."

"We conducted a poll and found that people trust us. Trust us."

"Wow. How sexist is CNN. Not including Dr. Birx?"

"Yet, Fox News averaged 2.1 mill viewers during the month of March as the coronavirus pandemic dominated the news cycle, while MSNBC averaged 1.3 mill and CNN averaged 1.2 mill. It was the 219th consecutive month that Fox News finished No. 1 among total day cable news viewers."

"I asked everybody if they liked me and they all said yes. 100% of the people like me. It's official. And striking."

"This is like asking your mom if she loves you. Of course she's going to say yes. The striking thing is CNN has not got 55% in their own poll."

"Let me get this right, CNN conducts a poll and determines they are the "Most Trusted" reporting source? Who writes this stuff? Comic genius!"

You guys are like these guys

— just_e-ssential✡✝🙏🏻 (@unfiltered_e) May 13, 2020

Live look at CNN saying CNN is the best.

— Kevin Brown (@_kb_33) May 12, 2020

Not all polls show the same results. A Morning Consult poll was posted by another Twitter user, revealing Fox News with a slight lead over CNN regarding coronavirus coverage.

CNN poll proves Americans love CNN.

Who'da think it?

Meanwhile, back in the real world -

— Billy Swagspeare 2020 (@bswagspeare) May 12, 2020

Learn astonishing Bible truth on a higher level than ever before with the Holy Spirit-filled books by Joe Kovacs

Follow Joe on Twitter @JoeKovacsNews


The post Surprise! CNN polls people on trusted news sources, and look who scores well appeared first on WND.


Robots Soon Will be at Your Door to Check Your Vaccine Status


It’s called contact tracing, and it’s for your own good – or so the story goes. We are told that those killer viruses are here to stay, and they will be getting worse as time goes by, so don’t even think about getting your normal life back. It’s sad, but liberty and privacy must be junked if we are going to save mankind. Initially, there will be swarms of people newly employed by the government, given badges, virus test kits, vaccine syringes, and guns, to visit our homes at least once per week to check our health status – and administer corrective measures, if necessary. Eventually, robots in the shape of humans and dogs will take over, and they will do a better job because they will have no pity for anyone who objects. In this presentation, you will learn in detail what is planned and see the amazing robots that already are in service. You are not going to like this video.


The post Robots Soon Will be at Your Door to Check Your Vaccine Status appeared first on Red Pill University.


How the COVID-19 Bailout Gave Wall Street a No-Lose Casino



While ordinary Americans face record unemployment and loss, the COVID-19 bailout has saved the very rich


Facebook's Evidence-Free 'False' Rating

As social media platforms rely ever more heavily on outside parties to arbitrate what is “true,” one prominent journalist’s recent experience with Facebook’s COVID-19 fact-checking efforts reminds us just how questionable -- and unaccountable -- the fact-checking landscape can be.


Tuesday, May 12, 2020

What the Pandemic Revealed: a Morally Bankrupt Culture

Monopolies, quasi-monopolies and cartels are inherently exploitive and thus evil.
What was "normal" for the past two decades was to turn a blind eye to the moral and financial bankruptcy of the American culture, the rot at the heart of its social, political and economic orders. The pandemic has shredded the putrid facade and revealed the rot, much to the dismay of the multitude of minions tasked with sanitizing the rot behind narratives promoting the normalization of predation, fraud and exploitation.
What's been absolutely verboten is to call legalized pillage and predation what they really are: evil. We've normalized exploitation and predation by the usual means: denial, legal justifications, making excuses for the predators and the system that defends predation, and by erasing the memory of a time when moral bankruptcy, predation and institutionalized fraud were not yet normalized.
People have always been self-absorbed and greedy, so goes the excuse; or, greed is good because that's the magic of the invisible hand at work.
By stripping fraud and predation of moral consequence, we've covered the putrid rot with a thoroughly modern amorality which we can summarize as anything goes and winner takes all. Monopoly, quasi-monopoly and cartels (i.e. Warren Buffett's entire portfolio) are presented as the natural order of things rather than an evil construct of predation and exploitation that benefits the few at the expense of the many.
Nothing outrages the apologists and the lackeys enriching themselves in the dens of thieves more than accusations of evil, or indeed, anything smacking of moral standards or judgments. Anything goes not just for individual choices, but for capital's choices as well, and so it's simply not PC to question the morality of capital's predations.
As for winner takes all, this legalized looting is presented as a form of economic Darwinism that is nothing but the healthy manifestation of a free market. This is the Devil's handiwork, of course, presenting legalized looting that only benefits the few as the inevitable result of open markets.
The greater the outrage of the technocrats and monopolists at being called what they are--evil--the greater the confirmation that the accusation is spot-on. The predators, looters and exploiters must strip away any moral assessment of their actions, as even the smallest shred of moral or karmic justice threatens their empires. And so economics has been reduced to bloodless quantifications of profits, costs and sales and obfuscatory mathematics designed to drain the risk of moral consequences from the parasitic pillage.
The greatest monopolist of early modern capitalism, John D. Rockefeller, struggled his entire life to reconcile his Christian values with the evils of his monopoly. He never fully succeeded, of course, ultimately using self-serving justifications of the "good" he'd done by stabilizing erratic markets and selling predictably priced oil products to the public (at prices fixed by his monopoly).
In effect, Rockefeller was praising the model of a public utility: an entity that is regulated to serve the public with essential products and services at a fair and stable price.
This is why I've proposed turning Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft, Amazon, et al. into public utilities via regulations that make it illegal to 1) collect users' data and 2) sell the data. Each quasi-monopoly should be broken into competing pieces that cannot buy other pieces or pieces of other quasi-monopolies, or buy back their own shares.
Monopolies and cartels are evil because they are exploitive by their very nature. This is why the political system imposed anti-trust legislation in the early 20th century. And this is why technocrat apologists spew endless sophistries aimed at persuading us that these Big Tech monopolies aren't actually monopolies and therefore anti-trust doesn't apply to them. Their frantic efforts only confirm the truth: Big Tech monopolies are in fact monopolies, and therefore they are evil.
Public utilities are ultimately accountable to voters and taxpayers. Predatory private monopolies are only accountable to their predatory, parasitic owners, a truth that their immense armies of technocrat apologists, lackeys and apparatchiks attempt to obscure.
Monopolies, quasi-monopolies and cartels are inherently exploitive and thus evil, and so everyone profiting from these evils is also evil. Yes, "shareholder value" derived from monopolies, quasi-monopolies and cartels is evil. No denial, no excuses. The karmic consequences-- let's call them moral dividends--are being readied for delivery. Professing ignorance or sainthood won't stop or even delay the delivery. The Devil is chuckling at your deliciously ironic (now long departed) slogan, "don't be evil."
Dear shareholders and monopolists: the banquet of consequences is being served. Don't choke on the cold serving of karma.
Money and Work Unchained $6.95 (Kindle), $15 (print) Read the first section for free (PDF).

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.
Thank you, Guy T. ($50), for your marvelously generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.
Thank you, Steven H. ($50), for your fabulously generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.
Go to my main site at for the full posts and archives.