Saturday, October 3, 2020

To Dr. Scott Atlas: Walter Reed Doctors Are Endangering Trump’s Life



If media reports are correct, the president is receiving 2 experimental drugs: the antibody cocktail, Regeneron, and the antiviral, Remdesivir.

Aside from their individual adverse effects…


You know the adverse effects of Remdesivir, Scott. They’re more than worrisome. Acute kidney injury, for example. And this drug has only emergency authorization, and it’s explicitly for patients who are SEVERE COVID cases. Trump is not a severe case. What’s going on? Why are the Walter Reed doctors piling on?

The other drug, Regeneron, the antibody cocktail, synthesized versions of mouse and human antibodies, is still in clinical trials. There is NO authorization for its use.

In past trials of antibody drugs, highly increased infection has occurred. Very dangerous.

And pray these doctors don’t suddenly opt for a ventilator. They could do that, if Trump’s condition worsens, because of the effects of the DRUGS. They will call those effects “serious COVID decline.”

In a large New York study of COVID patients in Trump’s age group, 97 percent of the patients receiving ventilator treatment died. Ventilator treatment, as you know, involves heavy and prolonged sedation.

The president is in a very dangerous situation.

Every damn doctor who has any ethics at all should be screaming bloody murder right now. This is not supposition. Would you prescribe a patient not one, but two highly experimental drugs, each of which has very damaging effects? Would you prescribe them TOGETHER? EVER? Especially when the patient is not close to being seriously ill? Especially when the drugs’ combined effects have never been studied?


They’re going after the president as if he’s hanging on to life by a thread and they have to throw everything they’ve got at him.

Who is watching over the president’s life? Are these doctors trying to kill him?


Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.

The post To Dr. Scott Atlas: Walter Reed Doctors Are Endangering Trump’s Life appeared first on LewRockwell.


WHO official admits the Covid Infection Fatality Rate is 0.13% - the same as the seasonal flu

WHO official estimates 750 million people have been infected with Covid, the overwhelming majority of them asymptomatically.
With 1 million deaths worldwide, this puts the Infection Fatality Rate at 0.13% - exactly the same as the flu.

Herd Immunity is reached when around 15% of people have been infected - see Sweden and New York.
50 to 80% of people have a natural immunity or resistance from previous exposure to similar Coronaviruses like colds and flu.
Cross reactive T cells are an important factor in this immunity.

China with 1.4 billion people has gone for isolation and not Herd Immunity.
The only other exceptions to Herd Immunity are Australia and New Zealand, who are crucifying their economies and killing people from non Covid causes.

Death rates are declining because people are not being put on ventilators, which was a 90% death sentence, and the virus now seems to be less fierce than it was back in March and April.
The IFR is declining.
The IFR would be even lower if the WHO hadn't deliberately suppressed cheap and effective treatments and caused panic to push the "vaccine", which has needlessly killed hundreds of thousands of people around the world.

India's fatality rate is low because they are routinely using Hydroxychloroquine and Zinc.
India's new daily cases and new daily deaths have peaked and are now slowly declining.
They still have a way to go to achieve Herd Immunity.
Worldwide, new daily cases have plateaued and daily deaths have peaked and are now slowly declining.
Most of Europe, most of the US, most of South America, most of Africa, and large parts of Asia are at or near Herd Immunity and will reach Herd Immunity within 3 to 6 months if they are not already there.

What was all the panic about?
Why was the Global economy shut down, killing millions from non Covid causes?
In 6 months time it will all be over.

N.B. Mike Ryan is a totally corrupt Big Pharma and Bill Gates shill and is still trying to scaremonger the world about what is effectively now a non problem and would be even less of a problem if the WHO hadn't deliberately murdered hundreds of thousands of people by suppressing cheap and effective treatments, and causing massive poverty and killing what will be millions from starvation in the third world by scaremongering and encouraging disastrous lockdowns.

ALL of the senior members of the WHO and Bill Gates who controls them should be in jail for massive corruption and the mass murder of millions.


How Vaccine Makers Learned To Create Pseudo-Epidemics Like Covid-19. Why Covid-19 Will Never End



Hey, if the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic is a hoax as some claim, it would have to fool a lot of university-trained microbiologists.  But surprisingly this isn’t the first time modern medicine has been completely fooled by a pseudo epidemic.  Yes, the COVID-19 pandemic is fake, obviously much larger than the ones that preceded it, but totally fake.  How so, you ask?

Mike Hearn, posting clued the whole world in to how the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, now used to diagnose COVID-19 coronavirus infections, fooled three major medical centers into mistakenly believing they were being besieged by a whooping cough epidemic in the years 2004-2007.

Hearn’s report dated July 26, 2020 was entitled: Pseudo-Epidemics: Why COVID-19 Is Guaranteed To Never End.  Few people paid attention to Hearn’s report that likened what happened during suspected infectious disease outbreaks at three major medical centers in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Tennessee, to our modern-day COVID-19 calamity.

Post up an online claim that COVID-19 is a hoax and you will be subjected to massive ridicule.  Lay people who have amateurishly claimed COVID-19 is a hoax have reportedly died of this infectious lung disease.  Government propagandists parade testimonies of those who thought COVID-19 was a hoax until they were infected themselves.  But these patients really don’t know they had a COVID-19 infection, they were just told that.

But there really IS a COVID-19 coronavirus that is killing hundreds of thousands of humans on planet earth, right?  That’s what infection control officers thought when they were dealing with a lot coughing workers who obviously had something.

Well, a lot of people are dying of anything, ~8000 a day in the U.S., ~150,000/day  worldwide.  The question is, are they dying of COVID-19?

How do we know, after locking down entire populations inside their homes during winter cold and flu season that these excess death numbers aren’t a result of a lack of sunshine vitamin D rather than a corona cold virus?

If it is not COVID-19, what else could it be?

A Reuters Fact Checking team says in 92.8% of deaths COVID-19 was “found to be the underlying cause of death.”  But frankly, there is no study showing COVID-19 is singularly causal for death, at least not yet.

Strikingly, if prior pseudo-epidemics offer any lesson it is that the rate of false positive tests for COVID-19 approaches 100%!

Vaccine makers in search of a test

Back in 2007 a pseudo-epidemic broke out in a major medical center in the US.  Healthcare workers starting coughing.  It was believed to be whooping cough.  It was the forerunner of the COVID-19 pandemic currently in play around the globe.  From it, vaccine makers learned how to create false demand for their shots like Big Pharma learned how to use a cholesterol test to sell statin drugs.

The need for a quick test

The New York Times, in a report entitled “Faith In Quick Test Leads To Epidemic That Wasn’t,” reported on this pseudo epidemic in 2007.

In an attempt to get ahead of what appeared to be a fast-developing whooping cough (pertussis) outbreak at the Dartmouth Medical Center in New Hampshire, said the NY Times report, almost 1,000 healthcare workers were tested, some were prescribed an antibiotic, immunized against whooping cough, and furloughed from work while they awaited test results.

Based upon symptoms and a positive PCR test, 142 workers were informed they likely had an infectious disease – pertussis.  Over 4,500 people (72% of the medical staff) were vaccinated. The med-center-demic had been quelled.  Or so infection control officers thought.

But wait.  Of 134 suspect cases of pertussis, 98 had been identified as pertussis by PCR test and 36 by classic symptoms.  But two weeks later, NONE resulted in a positive culture in a lab dish.

The Centers for Disease Control was called in to assist.  Re-testing found only 1 case that showed a moderate level of anti-pertussis antibodies.

False alarm

Eight (8)-months after the alarm bell sounded that a whooping cough outbreak may be underway, an email was sent to all parties involved.  It was all a false alarm.  No one had pertussis.  The error rate using PCR testing was 100%!

Modern medicine knows of this problem with PCR testing

In the 2007 NY Times report Dr. Trish M Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Medical Center, said pseudo-epidemics happen all the time.  “It’s a problem.  We know it’s a problem.  My guess is that what happened at Dartmouth is going to become more common.”

Dr. Perl went on to say: “That leads to the question of why rely on them (PCR tests) at all.”

And here we are, thirteen years later with the world battling against a coronavirus outbreak confirmed by that same flawed PCR methodology.

Experts say, to quell the COVID-19 coronavirus and allow a safe reopening, 4.3 million tests per day will be required in the US alone.  Without the flawed tests, there are deaths, but no confirmed coronavirus-associated deaths.  Stop the tests and you stop the demic.

It’s a scam-demic.  It’s not like modern medicine didn’t know anything about pseudo epidemics.  It knew where to look to learn how to create one.  If 100% of the tests are “not positive,” then none of the deaths can be attributed to that particular virus.

So, what was it?

If it wasn’t pertussis, what was it?  Well, it could have been a massive seasonal vitamin D deficiency among healthcare workers who largely spend time indoors and don’t get enough sunshine, the primary source of vitamin D in humans.  Low vitamin D levels are associated with chronic cough.

It could have been low vitamin B12 levels, more frequent among vegans, that are also associated with chronic cough.

It could also have been exposure to arsenic in drinking water or via arsenic-laden weed killers that have entered the food chain, that can induce a chronic cough.

Up to 42% of chronic cough cases remain unexplained.  That’s because anti-vitamin/pro-drug modern medicine doesn’t explore these plausible origins.

The advice given is to get a DPT (diphtheria, pertussis/whooping cough, tetanus) shot.  Modern medicine isn’t in the vitamin business.

And according to Morbidity & Mortality Reports, a publication of the Centers for Disease Control, prior pseudo epidemics in 2004 and 2006 were also reported at medical centers in Massachusetts and Tennessee as well.

Time is of the essence

The problem is attempting to get ahead of a bacterial infection like this before it spreads throughout an entire medical center.  The standard way to confirm whooping cough is by culture growth in a lab dish, which takes time.  So, symptomology is initially used to make the diagnosis.  Slow culturing is 100% specific for the pertussis bacterium but only, at best, 56% sensitive.  Isolating pertussis and growing it in a lab dish may take 7-14 days.  The PCR Test is more rapid.

As MMWR reports, the PCR test was widely adopted in 1997 and while the percentage of whooping cough cases confirmed by PCR rose from 12% in 1997 to 44% in 2005, the percentage of cases confirmed by lab culture decreased from 52% in 1997 to 20% in 2005.  Thereafter the number of culture-confirmed cases remained stable.

The number of culture-confirmed and PCR-confirmed cases should have matched the PCR numbers.  They didn’t.  Anyone with a chronic cough, sore throat, sneezing, runny nose could be on a conveyor belt that can only come to one conclusion – you have whooping cough.

The MMWR report states: “Outbreaks described in this report illustrate the limitations of relying solely on PCR assays to confirm pertussis.”

And the MMWR report makes another admission.  Thousands of healthcare workers were immunized but “the effectiveness of vaccination in interrupting transmission of pertussis during an outbreak has not been established.”  There was no evidence vaccination would head off the whooping cough epidemic once it started.

Asymptomatic cases, you say

Today the public hears that many COVID-19 infected patients are asymptomatic.  Many never show a rise in antiviral antibodies.  That should cause health authorities to come to a conclusion there IS NO viral infection.  The CDC says: “Testing asymptomatic persons should be avoided as it increases the likelihood of obtaining falsely-positive results.” But the PCR test alone has somehow become the gold standard, no confirming symptoms needed.

Mike Hearn, referred to at the top of this report, writes: “Just an 8% false positive rate for COVID-19 in the USA would create a never-ending pseudo-epidemic of about 600 deaths per day being attributed to COVID-19, forever.

“Just an 8% false positive rate for COVID-19
in the USA would create a never-ending
pseudo-epidemic of about 600 deaths per day
being attributed to COVID-19, forever.”

More testing, more testing!

“With the assumption more testing is needed to quell this pandemic a suppression target of 4.3 million tests per day has been established, or around 344,000 new fake cases per day even if the virus has entirely disappeared… Given current definitions, COVID-19 will never end” says Hearn.

Hearn goes on to say: “Health is run by people who suffer no consequences from policy over-reactions.  Lockdown-induced job losses won’t affect them, as they work for government.  ‘One rule for them and another for us’ can’t be imagined.”

Circuitous reasoning

COVID-19 is the test.  The test is the disease.  With this circuitous reasoning, if you test positive for COVID-19 using the PCR test and you don’t have any symptoms, then you have an asymptomatic case of COVID-19.  You can’t NOT have the disease.

If you test positive for COVID-19 using the
PCR test and you don’t have any symptoms
then you have an asymptomatic case of COVID-19.  You can’t NOT have the disease.

Everybody who is being herded into testing will naively keep the planned-demic going.  Stop the testing and the pandemic vanishes.  Yes, ~8000 Americans die every day and many of them due to pneumonia, tuberculosis and other lung infections.  Yes, these deaths are horrid, drowning in your own lung fluid.  With a positive PCR test, these deaths will be attributed to COVID-19, just like the whooping cough cases mentioned above.

What about the money?

Congress set aside $25 billion for testing.  Hospitals believe that money is theirs.  All they have to do is check the right box on the death certificate to get it.  Hospitals are now lobbying for the disease to be diagnosed solely on symptoms to make sure their cash cow continues.

Mike Hearn says: “Public health England defines a COVID-19 death as anyone who has ever tested positive and then died, for any reason, at any time i.e. (the idea that) the UK being supposedly one of the worst hit countries in the world – –
is a statistical fantasy.”

What does the White House know?

President Trump must know something.  For unexplained reasons,   the Trump Administration plans to end funding for coronavirus testing.  The President can’t come out directly and say the whole COVID-19 pandemic is fake.  The scientific community would aggregately slaughter him.  The news media would feast on that.  On September 16 President Trump repeatedly said (34 times at one press conference) the virus will disappear.

The people have the control but they will remain under the deception of the misinformation networks via their propaganda-viewing screens, aka television, that is controlling the narratives.

What if nobody shows up for the tests?  In an irony, the masses are supposed to stay locked-down at home, but are allowed to come out of their caves for the test.

I suggest buying sunlamps after watching what authorities in Australia are doing to restrict freedom of movement of their population.  Dernit. UV-free “sun” lamps are being featured.  They don’t make any vitamin D.  Maybe get a UV-emitting light bulb (make sure you protect your eyes if you use these lamps and don’t over-do it).  For the sun-sensitive (e.g. red hair, fair skin), take 25 milligrams of beta carotene/day and your skin won’t burn or wrinkle.  Maybe vitamin D pills are a better idea.

The post How Vaccine Makers Learned To Create Pseudo-Epidemics Like Covid-19. Why Covid-19 Will Never End appeared first on LewRockwell.


Debate Extra — A Ghastly Spectacle



Ol’ White Joe Biden showed up last night after all, along with an executive officer of government known here as the Golden Golem of Greatness, a.k.a. President Donald Trump. Mr. Trump demonstrated that he is not a politician while Mr. Biden proved that a politician is exactly what he is… or was.

Mr. Trump went mad dog from the start, suggesting that either he was poorly prepared by his staff, or he was so pissed off after four years of unsporting (and likely illegal) harassment from the press, the elected opposition, and the permanent bureaucracy that he could not control his temper. It came off as un-presidential. That might turn out to be not the detriment it seemed — with conventional politics in such disfavor — but the spectacle was pretty hard to watch. Mr. Biden gave a fairly standard performance of a presidential candidate in a debate, but that’s all it was since he managed to contradict or renounce most of his party’s platform as well as his own previous policy utterances, such as whether or not he backed the “Green New Deal.”

And then there was “moderator” Mike Wallace who frequently flew to Mr. Biden’s rescue when the Democrat got into a jam. For instance, after introducing the issue of The New York Times’s sketchy reporting of the president’s taxes, Mr. Wallace halted any discussion of the Biden family’s awesome income stream from Ukraine, China, and Russia, amounting to many millions of dollars, during his terms as vice-president. Or when Mr. Biden denied that his son, Hunter, had been dishonorably discharged from the Navy for drug use.

If Mr. Biden was stoked on amphetamines, someone should have slipped half a milligram of Xanax into the president’s pre-debate diet Coke. Had Mr. Trump remained calm and self-possessed, there would have been a high probability of Mr. Biden simply talking himself into a muddle of verbal applesauce by the halfway mark. Instead, it was the president who was so keyed-up, he could barely articulate even easy debating points — the long-proven lie about his “fine people” remark around the Charlottesville Riot… the gross dereliction of Democratic Party mayors and governors who support and abet riot, looting, arson, and murder… Mr. Biden’s own confused pronouncements about further Covid-19 lock-downs and calling Mr. Trump’s February halt of Chinese air traffic “racist”… the president’s shut-down last week of the insane “critical race theory” trainings in government agencies and companies doing business with them… the arrant attempt to sow fraud and disorder with mail-in voting… and the practically breaking news of the Obama Team colluding with Hillary Clinton’s RussiaGate set-up from the start….The president blew those opportunities to be clear when Mr. Wallace was not stepping on him.

Few failed to notice that the tenor of the debate matched exactly the distempered public mood of the day. Mr. Trump’s wild swerves of choler are a match for actions like Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer’s peevish refusal to even meet with SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett or Woke Boston Univeristy Prof. Ibram X. Kendi’s psychotic lessons on How to Be an Antiracist (by persecuting white people) or the loosing of joint Antifa / BLM mobs on small businesses and private homes across America. These are considered normal and okay in these opening innings of the long emergency. Mr. Trump’s own bitter exasperation is of a piece with all that.

I have no idea how it will play with the voters. My own position remains as prior the debate: that the Democratic Party is an even greater threat to the country than a fiercely pissed off Donald Trump. It remains to be seen how many voters are equally pissed off at the Democratic Party as represented by its untoward candidate for president, Mr. Biden, the ghost of the Obama administration.

Reprinted with permission from

The post Debate Extra — A Ghastly Spectacle appeared first on LewRockwell.


Friday, October 2, 2020

Netflix's "Social Dilemma" Is Pure Deflection Because The Best Lies Always Contain Some Truth

Netflix's "Social Dilemma" Is Pure Deflection Because The Best Lies Always Contain Some Truth Tyler Durden Fri, 10/02/2020 - 21:00

Authored by Doug “Uncola” Lynn via,

This blogger sees Netflix in the same way “Godfather”, Vito Corleone, viewed his enemies.  In other words, I keep my books and blogs close, but television and movies closer.  This is because social narratives are the new religion.  As I’ve stated before in previous articles, I have a love-hate relationship with Netflix.  It offers a convenient and affordable access to an impressive library of film and documentaries – but not without its cultural bias.  It’s like anything else, buyer beware; or, rather, I simply slice off the meat and leave the bones when it comes to infotainment.

Sure, Netflix is the home of the Obamas and the Obama Administration’s former National Security Advisor, Susan Rice; so it’s no surprise why the company’s subscriber base is being programmed into Cultural Marxism, totalitarian Agenda 21 mandated Gaia worship and global taxation schemes. Netflix, by and large, programs people with Progressivism in the relative safety and comfort of their own homes. Yet, at the same time, I can cook up some homemade popcorn and conduct my research without spending $60 at the movie theater; back when there were movie theaters, of course.

In any event, I received a hat-tip from one of my progeny regarding a Netflix documentary entitled “The Social Dilemma” The company’s website identifies the production as a “documentary-drama hybrid” that “explores the dangerous human impact of social networking, with tech experts sounding the alarm on their own creations”.

The hybrid presentation included interviews of, mostly, techno whiz kids who designed software purposed to addict the masses to apps such as Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, et al, and paired to a background narrative of a young Caucasian boy being unintentionally politically radicalized by algorithms designed to increase the profits of technology corporations.

In the documentary segments, the experts and former tech firm employees discussed the negative societal impacts of their creations while acknowledging their good intentions.  For example, the co-inventor of the Facebook “Like” Button said he initially believed the widget would deliver more positivity into the universe; as opposed to increasing middle-school children’s social anxiety and despair.

In the film, the continuing fragmentation of America was attributed to separate groups of online users seeing different news feeds on their chosen online platforms.  The reasons for the diverse digital presentations were attributed to algorithms and, even, artificial intelligence, interpreting the data sets of online users and then prompting new clickbait meant to engage them for longer intervals –and all solely in the pursuit of profits.

In fact, when one tech expert-turned-whistleblower was asked to state his greatest fear regarding the ultimate outcome of the aberrant algorithms and errant A.I., he said:  “Civil war.” And, that is, fundamentally, the gist of “The Social Dilemma” (TSD):  The natural pursuit of profits by tech companies sowing a technological wind of which western societies are now reaping the whirlwind.

Or, stated another way, TSD is a whitewash for the surveillance state.

In truth, the globalist elite have long planned the demise of the northern hemisphere’s (formerly) capitalist/industrial societies so a cashless (Marxist) system can rise from the ashes.

And if 2020 vision has made anything clear it is this:  Free markets and the U.S. Constitution are gone baby gone.  They have, instead, been replaced by economic and social tyranny.   Yet, Netflix’s TSD would have us believe the fracturing of American society evolved as a result of Facebook’s news feeds and fake news.

Ironically, I received the following this week from someone who actually saw it on Facebook:

If you go to the southwest desert and catch 100 red fire ants as well as 100 large black ants and put them in a jar, at first, nothing will happen

However, if you violently shake the jar and dump them back on the ground the ants will fight until they eventually kill each other

The thing is, the red ants think the black ants are the enemy and vice versa, when in reality, the real enemy is the person who shook the jar

This is exactly what’s happening in society today:

Liberal vs Conservative

Black vs White

Pro Mask vs Anti Mask

The real question we need to be asking ourselves is who is shaking the jar and why??

Will ants behave as described in such circumstances?  Obviously, that’s not the point.  The point is who is actually fracturing the western societies today and why this is happening.   According to Netflix’s TSD, our current societal shaking is merely an inadvertent byproduct of deviant software tweaked to maximize the profits of tech companies.  Furthermore, according to the TSD tech “experts”, any other view of the societal “shaking” is the result of misguided faith in fake news and internet conspiracy theories.

Well, here’s a newsflash for the hi-tech whiz-kid whistleblowers:  If the plans were published by the globalists decades ago… and they’ve since come to pass, then the conspiracies were more than just theories.  And, certainly, fake news is defined by those promoting diverse media feeds on popular online platforms.  Except those fooled still don’t understand the deception – or that the manipulation was not naturally occurring in the pursuit of profit; it was always part of the plan.

Here are some other “issues” with the Netflix “docudrama”:

  • Most internet users are far more active, and less passively manipulated, than the TSD “experts” presume.

  • Those interviewed in the film claimed algorithms direct content as a means to reinforce existing worldviews when, in fact, the content and algorithms are designed to shape specific ideas and, even, entire belief systems.

  • TSD, via Netflix programming, seemingly, promotes leftist agendas and dog whistles like climate change and fake news. At the same time, the documentary delegitimized Pizzagate and skepticism of COVID-19 propaganda.  It is a fact that Pizzagate derived from actual e-mails released by Wikileaks and it’s true that widely disseminated COVID-19 agitprop has been debunked by respected medical professionals.

  • TSD identified Facebook as a primary facilitator of “fake news” and “conspiracies” like Pizzagate, Russian Facebook ads in the 2016 election, flat-earth theory, and COVID skepticism. Yet TSD completely ignored social media’s shameless propagation of the now-discredited Russian Collusion Hoax and the U.S. Democratic Party’s Ukrainian Impeachment gaslighting.

So why the blatant bias?  Because Netflix is programming, pure and simple.


Where Did Covid-19 Come From?


Guest Post by Paul Craig Roberts

Evidence indicates that it came from NIH funding of EcoHealth Alliance, an entity doing “gain-of-function” research in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  Many experts believe that the virus was created by that research and escaped from the Wuhan lab.

Gain-of-function research involves enhancing the pathogenicity and transmissibility of pathogens.  Many scientists are opposed to this research as it amounts in effect to bioweapons research.  The rationale for the research is that it enhances with pre-knowledge the ability to respond to some emerging pandemic.  In the case of the research at Wuhan, it might have caused one.

There are other explanations of the Covid pandemic, as it is called. Ron Unz based on circumstantial evidence makes a rational case that the US unleashed the virus on China from where it blew back on the US and the rest of the world.  Having watched Washington destroy in whole or part seven countries in the past 20 years, it is not difficult to believe that Washington would unleash Covid on China.  However, the fact that the NIH itself was financing the research in China is inconsistent with the US having created and unleashed the virus.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Alergy and Infectious Diseases, which is part of NIH, supports gain-of-function research.  Last April 28 Newsweek reported:

“Just last year [2019], the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases [NIAID], the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

“In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.

“Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.”

Dr. Joseph Mercola presents views of experts who are critical of the ongoing gain-of-function research in this article: .

Although it is difficult for those of us who are not experts to have a confident opinion, we should be aware that many experts are convinced that research funded by NIH gave us the Covid pandemic.

The question whether in effect gain-of-function research amounts to banned bioweapons research needs to be taken up by Congress, the UN, and governments around the world. Covid, largely from its mishandling by public authorities, has done a great deal of economic and other damage to many countries that is larger than the cost of the virus itself.

Scientists love to monkey around with things that probably should be left alone.  For example, humanity certainly does not need nuclear weapons.  Neither does it need weaponized coronaviruses.


Vaccine opposition online uniting around 'civil liberties' argument

Researchers found anti-vaccination discourse on Facebook increased in volume over the last decade, coalescing around the argument that refusing to vaccinate is a civil right Credit: Valerie Morgan/UMD Anti-vaccination discourse on Facebook increased in volume over the last decade, coalescing around


Breaking News: University of California Makes Tactical Retreat, Revises Executive Order

As you may know, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.


Vaccine refusers are health literate and believe they’re pro-science. But this just reinforces their view

Australians belonging to the vaccine refusal movement consider themselves a science advocacy group, according to a study published today. My colleagues and I found this group believes it lobbies for unbiased research against increasing industry interference.


James Grant: Why Market Risk Is Near The Highest In History


Famed market analyst and historian James Grant is no fan of the current policies of the US Federal Reserve:

Distortion in the cost of credit is the not-so-remote cause of the raging fires at which the Federal Reserve continues to train its gushing liquidity hoses. But the firemen are also the arsonists. It was the Fed’s suppression of borrowing costs, and its predictable willingness to cut short Wall Street’s occasional selling squalls, that compromised the U.S. economy’s financial integrity.

At age 74, having lived through a number of economic booms and busts as well as having authored numerous books on the history of financial markets, Jim sees the degree of speculation, overvaluation and malinvestment in today’s markets as about as bad as it’s ever been.

He lays much of the blame at the feet of the Fed and its global central bank brethren, who collectively through their intervention have suppressed interest rates to their lowest levels in all of recorded history:

History of interest rates

This has resulted in all sorts of unnatural distortions and deformations that are hollowing out our economy and social structure.

As Jim recently wrote:

Needing income, investors will take imprudent risks to get it. And if 2% invites trouble, zero percent almost demands it.

Not only do 0% interest rates act as “molasses” on growth by gumming the system up with zombie institutions and toxic malinvestment, but it imperils the social good.

Savers and investors, increasingly desperate for yield, are forced to accept worse and worse choices in attempt to stay afloat.

Under this regime, the rich benefit disproportionately at the expense of everyone else AND it creates a “hyperinflation in the cost of retirement”. This accelerating war on the 99% can not stand for much longer without serious consequences and repercussions.

We are thrilled Jim was gracious enough to come on the program this week. It was a huge honor to finally get to interview him (after years of attempt) and I can tell you firsthand, not only is he prodigiously smart, but he is ridiculously nice. A true class act.

But simply put, he’s one of the most respected market analysts and historians on the planet.

So when an expert like him warns that today’s markets are at one of the most dangerous levels of speculation in history, we all better be paying close attention:

Anyone interested in scheduling a free consultation and portfolio review with Mike Preston and John Llodra and their team at New Harbor Financial can do so by clicking here.

And if you’re one of the many readers brand new to Peak Prosperity over the past few months, we strongly urge you get your financial situation in order in parallel with your ongoing physical coronavirus preparations.

We recommend you do so in partnership with a professional financial advisor who understands the macro risks to the market that we discuss on this website. If you’ve already got one, great.

But if not, consider talking to the team at New Harbor. We’ve set up this ‘free consultation’ relationship with them to help folks exactly like you.

The post James Grant: Why Market Risk Is Near The Highest In History appeared first on Peak Prosperity.


Treasury reports rebut Biden's 'totally false' claims about Hunter's cash haul

Democratic presidential nominee Joseph R. Biden flatly denied at Tuesday night’s debate that his lawyer son took huge sums of money from corrupt oligarchs and Chinese communists during his vice presidency, but Treasury Department reports show that Hunter Biden did receive the money.


Davis: CIA Director Gina Haspel Is Blocking Declassification Of Remaining Russigate Documents

CIA Director Gina Haspel is personally blocking the declassification of documents detailing corruption at the highest levels of the intelligence community during the 2016 election, according to The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis.


What the actual F#@K?


Belarusian President Claims IMF & World Bank Offered him a Bribe to Impose COVID Restrictions

Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko said last month via Belarusian Telegraph Agency, BelTA., that World Bank and IMF offered him a bribe of $940 million USD in the form of “Covid Relief Aid.” In exchange for $940 million USD, the World Bank and IMF demanded that the President of Belarus:

• imposed “extreme lockdown on his people”
• force them to wear face masks
• impose very strict curfews
• impose a police state
• crash the economy

Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko REFUSED the offer and stated that he could not accept such an offer and would put his people above the needs of the IMF and World Bank. This is NOT a conspiracy. You may research this yourself. He actually said this!

Now IMF and World Bank are bailing out failing airlines with billions of dollars, and in exchange, they are FORCING airline CEOs to implement VERY STRICT POLICIES such as FORCED face masks covers on EVERYONE, including SMALL CHILDREN, whose health will suffer as a result of these policies.

And if it is true for Belarus, then it is true for the rest of the world! The IMF and World Bank want to crash every major economy with the intent of buying over every nation’s infrastructure at cents on the dollar!


NYTimes Admits WHO's Decision Not To Close Borders At Start Of Pandemic Was Based On "Politics", Not Science

NYTimes Admits WHO's Decision Not To Close Borders At Start Of Pandemic Was Based On "Politics", Not Science Tyler Durden Fri, 10/02/2020 - 05:00

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

The New York Times has published an article admitting what we told you 8 months ago – that the World Health Organization’s directive at the start of the coronavirus pandemic that countries shouldn’t close their borders was a decision based on “politics,” not science.

“The World Health Organization has long encouraged mass tourism and said closing borders wouldn’t stop the spread of Covid-19. A New York Times investigation found this policy was never based on science, but instead on politics and economics,” tweeted the NY Times with a link to an article detailing the issue.

The World Health Organization has long encouraged mass tourism and said closing borders wouldn’t stop the spread of Covid-19. A New York Times investigation found this policy was never based on science, but instead on politics and economics.

— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 30, 2020

As we reported back on January 31, the WHO repeatedly urged countries not to impose border controls, in part to avoid the “stigmatization” of Chinese people.

In other words, not being seen to be racist and preventing people’s feelings from being hurt was more important than stopping the spread of the pandemic.

Then in April, we documented how the WHO blocked doctors from urging countries to impose border controls to stop the spread of coronavirus.

“So the official meeting records say there was a divergence of views but they won’t actually go into detail about who was trying to block it. But there were doctors there who wanted to issue travel bans and the World Health Organization blocked it,” reported Sky News Australia.

The next month, scientists in Brazil also confirmed that the countries most affected by the coronavirus spread were the ones who continued to allow unrestricted travel across their borders.

A Mount Sinai study found that New York City’s record-high coronavirus cases and deaths were “predominantly” due to travel from Europe, meaning that many more lives could have been saved if borders had been closed down earlier.

Countries such as Russia that were pro-active in closing down their borders early recorded significantly fewer COVID-19 cases and deaths than other countries of a similar population size.

Despite its 144 million population, Russia recorded under 21,000 coronavirus deaths, compared to the UK, which has a population of 65 million yet recorded more than double that number of COVID deaths.

*  *  *

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.


Thursday, October 1, 2020

President declares emergency over Chinese control of rare-earth metals


Most consumers probably don't know anything about barite or gallium and their uses.

But President Trump does, which is why this week he issued an executive order declaring a national emergency over the supply lines of more than a dozen rare-earth elements for their critical functions in America's military and industry.

Barite is a key component in the hydraulic fracturing industry, from which the nation gets much of its energy.

And gallium-based semiconductors are used in cell phones. Another rare-earth element, graphite, is critical to high-performing batteries.

And China is a major player in the production of all of them.

The president cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the National Emergencies Act in signing the order.

"These critical minerals are necessary inputs for the products our military, national infrastructure, and economy depend on the most. Our country needs critical minerals to make airplanes, computers, cell phones, electricity generation and transmission systems, and advanced electronics. Though these minerals are indispensable to our country, we presently lack the capacity to produce them in processed form in the quantities we need," the president wrote.

"American producers depend on foreign countries to supply and process them. For 31 of the 35 critical minerals, the United States imports more than half of its annual consumption. The United States has no domestic production for 14 of the critical minerals and is completely dependent on imports to supply its demand."

He said the "dependence on the People’s Republic of China for multiple critical minerals is particularly concerning."

"The United States now imports 80 percent of its rare earth elements directly from China, with portions of the remainder indirectly sourced from China through other countries. In the 1980s, the United States produced more of these elements than any other country in the world, but China used aggressive economic practices to strategically flood the global market for rare earth elements and displace its competitors. Since gaining this advantage, China has exploited its position in the rare earth elements market by coercing industries that rely on these elements to locate their facilities, intellectual property, and technology in China."

Trump said the nation's security depends on its ability to function in times when an unfriendly foreign power might oppose its objectives.

"I therefore determine that our Nation’s undue reliance on critical minerals, in processed or unprocessed form, from foreign adversaries constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."

It's all part of his emphasis on "Buy American," he said, arguing a strong mining and processing industry is necessary for a "healthier and faster-growing economy for the United States."

His order first requires an assessment of the situation, with a report to follow.

Then, every six months a report is required on "the state of the threat posed by our nation's reliance on critical minerals … from foreign adversaries."

Previous administrations also have acknowledged the issue, but little has been done.

Emily de La Bruyer, co-founder of the strategic consulting company Horizon Advisory, said China "has been focused on rare earths for as long as [the industry] has existed. Chinese sources explicitly treat rare earths as tools of power – and coercion – in today's globalized industrial system."

There is no known substitute for many of the elements.


The post President declares emergency over Chinese control of rare-earth metals appeared first on WND.


American cyclist suspended from team over so-called 'divisive' tweet supporting Trump

An American professional cyclist was suspended from his team Thursday after showing support for President Trump in a seemingly benign social media tiff. Trek-Segafredo suspended Quinn Simmons for what the team called “divisive” comments on his personal Twitter account.


Can the Government Force Us To Eat Broccoli?



Shop all books by Judge Napolitano

“The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.”
— Justice William O. Douglas (1898-1980)

With President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — is back in the news. Barrett expressed constitutional misgivings about Obamacare 10 years ago when she was a professor at Notre Dame Law School, and some folks who oppose her nomination have argued that should she be confirmed in the next month, she should not hear the Nov. 10 arguments on Obamacare.

Wait a minute. Didn’t the Supreme Court already uphold Obamacare in 2012? Yes, it did. So why is the constitutionality of this legislation back before the Supreme Court?

Here is the backstory.

The ACA of 2010 marked the complete federal takeover of regulating health care delivery in America. It eliminated personal choices and mandated rules and regulations on almost all aspects of health care and health care insurance. It created a complex structure that, at the back end, directed the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars on health care and, at the front end, received health insurance premiums from or on behalf of every adult in America.

To assure that every adult obtained and paid for health care coverage, the ACA authorized the IRS to assess those who failed to have health insurance about $8,800 a year and use that money to purchase a bare-bones insurance policy for them.

The requirement of all adults to maintain health care coverage, and the power of the IRS to assess them if they don’t, is known as the individual mandate.

When the ACA was challenged in 2012, the challengers argued that Congress lacked the constitutional power to micromanage health care and to enforce the individual mandate. The feds argued that this was all “interstate commerce” and Congress’ reach in this area is broad and deep.

Yet, both the challengers and the government agreed that the IRS assessment was not a tax. The challengers argued that it was a penalty for failure to comply with a government regulation, and thus those not complying with the individual mandate were entitled to a hearing before they could be punished.

The government argued that the assessment was triggered by people choosing freely to have the feds purchase their insurance for them. The feds could not argue that this assessment was a tax because President Barack Obama had promised that his health care programs would not increase anyone’s taxes.

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the individual mandate was a tax and since, under big government constitutional jurisprudence, Congress can tax anything it wants, the ACA was constitutional.

This logic was deeply disconcerting to those of us who believe that the Constitution doesn’t unleash the federal government but restrains it. The Constitution was written to keep the government off our backs. Yet, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, along with his four liberal colleagues, that while Congress cannot order us to eat broccoli, it could tax us if we don’t. The same, he reasoned, is the case for maintaining health care insurance.

In 2017, Donald Trump became president and the Republicans retained control of Congress. During a massive reform of American tax law, Congress did away with the tax on those who fail to maintain health insurance by reducing it to zero. Then, 18 states challenged the ACA again, this time arguing that since there was no longer a tax associated with the ACA, and since the tax formerly associated with it was the only hook on which the Supreme Court hung its constitutional hat, the ACA was now unconstitutional.

A federal district court and the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed, and the lawyers representing the federal government filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. I wrote “the lawyers representing the federal government” because the Department of Justice, which defended the statute in the district court, withdrew from the case under Trump’s orders.

Then, the House of Representatives hired a team of private lawyers to defend the statute. This is very irregular. The presidential oath requires that the president “faithfully execute” his office. James Madison — who wrote the oath and many other parts of the Constitution — insisted on using the word “faithfully” because he anticipated the presidential temptation to enforce only statutes with which a president agrees. The word faithfully was intended to remind presidents of their oath of fidelity to the Constitution and all laws written pursuant to it, whether they agree with those laws or not.

Now, back to Judge Barrett.

When she questioned the chief justice’s logic about congressional taxation used to bootstrap a 2,700-page regulatory takeover of the delivery of health care, she did so in an academic setting designed to stimulate student understanding; she did not do so as a judge. Having taught law school for 16 years, I can tell you that professors of law often make provocative remarks just to see how students will analyze them. Their remarks are hardly a textual commitment to a legal position.

Yet, Barrett’s remarks were well-grounded, and Roberts’ broccoli example is telling. What is the effective difference between ordering me to eat broccoli and taxing me if I don’t? Nothing except a rejection of the Constitution as an instrument designed to preserve freedom — a design that rarely works that way today.]

Its original end was that the government leaves us alone. But that end is no longer in sight.

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

The post Can the Government Force Us To Eat Broccoli? appeared first on LewRockwell.


The Supreme Court and the Rules of the Game


The United States Constitution’s Article 2, Sec. 2, cl. 2, provides that the president of the United States “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” President Donald Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett as U.S. Supreme Court justice who will replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Barrett currently serves as United States Circuit judge of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 7th Circuit serves the Midwestern states of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.

It is now the Senate’s job to decide whether to confirm Barrett’s appointment as an associate justice on the Supreme Court. In thinking about the Senate’s criteria for making their decision, we might ask what is the role of a U.S. Supreme Court justice? A reasonable answer is to recognize that our Constitution represents our rules of the game. It dictates what is and is not permissible behavior by government and its citizens. Therefore, a Supreme Court justice has one job and one job only; namely, that of a referee.

A referee’s job, whether he is a football referee, baseball umpire or a Supreme Court justice, is to know the rules of the game and to ensure that those rules are evenly applied without bias. Do we want a referee or justice to allow empathy to influence their decisions? Let us answer this question using this year’s Super Bowl as an example.

The San Francisco 49ers have played in seven Super Bowls in their franchise history, winning five times. On the other hand, coming into the 2020 game, the Kansas City Chiefs had not won a Super Bowl title in 50 years. In anyone’s book, this is a gross disparity. Should the referees have the empathy to understand what it is like to be a perennial loser, not winning a Super Bowl in five decades? What would you think of a referee whose play calls were guided by empathy or pity? Suppose a referee, in the name of compensatory justice, stringently applied pass interference or roughing the passer violations against the San Francisco 49ers and less stringently against the Chiefs. Would you support a referee who refused to make offensive pass interference calls because he thought it was a silly rule? You would probably remind him that it is the league that makes the rules (football law), not referees.

Supreme Court justices should be umpires or referees, enforcing neutral rules. Here is a somewhat trivial example of a neutral rule from my youth; let us call it Mom’s Rule. On occasion, my sister and I would have lunch in my mother’s absence. Either my younger sister or I would have the job of dividing the last piece of cake or pie. Almost always an argument would ensue about the fairness of the cut. Those arguments ended when Mom came up with a rule: Whoever cuts the cake gives the other person the first choice of the piece to take. As if by magic or divine intervention, fairness emerged and arguments ended. No matter who did the cutting, there was an even division.

This is what our society needs — the kind of rules whereby you would be OK even if your worst enemy were in charge. Despite the high stakes of bitterly fought football contests, most games end peaceably, and the winners and losers are civil. It is indeed a miracle of sorts that players with conflicting interests can play a game, agree with the outcome and walk away as good sports. That “miracle” is that it is far easier to reach an understanding about the game’s rules than the game’s outcome. The same conflict-reducing principles should be a part of a civilized society.

The post The Supreme Court and the Rules of the Game appeared first on LewRockwell.


Wednesday, September 30, 2020

Civil War 2.0: “The Country Is Now Out Of Its Mind”


Authored by James Howard Kunstler via The Daily Reckoning,

America has a new manufactured crisis, ElectionGate, as if all the other troubles piling up like tropical depressions marching across the September seas were not enough.

America needs a constitutional crisis like a hole in the head, and that’s exactly what’s being engineered for the holiday season by the clever folks in the Democratic Party’s Lawfare auxiliary.

Here’s how it works:

  • The complicit newspapers and cable news channels publish polls showing Joe Biden leading in several swing states, even if it’s not true.
  • Facebook and Twitter amplify expectations of a Biden victory.
  • This sets the stage for a furor when it turns out that he loses on election night.
  • On cue, Antifa commences to riot all around the country. Meanwhile, a mighty harvest of mail-in votes pours into election districts utterly unequipped to validate them.
  • Lawfare cadres agitate in the contested states’ legislatures to send rogue elector slates to the electoral college. The dispute ends up in congress, which awaits a seating of newly-elected representatives on January 4, hopefully for Lawfare, mostly Democrats. Whoops…!
  • Turns out, the Dems lost their majority there too. Fighting in the streets ramps up and overwhelms hamstrung police forces in Democratic-run cities.
  • January 20 — Inauguration Day — rolls around, and the Dems ask the military to drag Trump out of the White House “with great dispatch!” as Mr. Biden himself put it so nicely back in the summer.

The U.S. military breaks into two factions. VoilĂ : Civil War Two.

You didn’t read that here first, of course. It’s been all over the web for weeks, since the Democratic Party-sponsored Transition Integrity Project (cough cough) ran their summer “war game,” intending to demonstrate that any Trump election victory would be evidence of treason and require correction by any means necessary, including sedition, which they’d already tried a few times in an organized way since 2016 (and botched).

The Democrats are crazy enough now to want this. They have driven themselves crazy for years with the death-wish of eradicating western civ (and themselves with it). There are many reasons for this phenomenon, mostly derived from Marxist theories of revolution, but my own explanation departs from that.

The matter was neatly laid out a year ago during the impeachment ploy: After the color revolution in Ukraine, 2014, Mr. Biden was designated not just as “point man” overseeing American interests in that sad-sack country, but specifically as a watchdog against the notorious deep corruption of Ukraine’s entire political ecosystem — as if, you understand, the internal workings of Ukraine’s politics was any of our business in the first place.

The evidence aired publicly last year suggests that Mr. Biden jumped head-first and whole-heartedly into the hog-trough of loose money there, netting his son Hunter and cohorts millions of dollars for no-show jobs on the board of natural gas company, Burisma.

And then, of course, Mr. Biden stupidly bragged on a recorded panel session at the Council on Foreign Relations about threatening to withhold U.S. aid money as a lever to induce Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko to fire a prosecutor looking into Burisma’s sketchy affairs.

Naturally, the Democratic Party impeachment crew accused Mr. Trump of doing exactly what Mr. Biden accomplished a few years earlier.

The impeachment fizzled, but the charges and the odor of the Biden-Burisma scandal lingered without resolution — all the while that Mr. Biden posed as a presidential candidate in the primaries.

This week, the Senate released a report detailing findings of their investigation into the Biden family’s exploits abroad. It didn’t look good.

Also implicated are the State Department officers in the Kiev embassy who pretended not to notice any of this, pointing also to their engagement in further shenanigans around the Trump-Clinton election of 2016 — a lot of that entwined in the Clinton-sponsored RussiaGate scheme.

Of course, the Senate was not so bold as to issue criminal referrals to the Justice Department.

If Mr. Biden actually shows up at this week’s debate, do you suppose that Mr. Trump will fail to bring up the subject?

Does this finally force Mr. Biden’s withdrawal from what has been the most hollow, illusory, and dispirited campaign ever seen at this level in U.S. political history?

All of which is to say that the Democratic Party has other things to worry about, besides who will replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.

That may be hard to believe, but it’s how things are now after four years of implacable, seditious perfidy from the party.

A week ago, all the talk centered around the Democrats’ election coup plan, as publicized stupidly by the so-called Transition Integrity Project. Nice try. What if all those mail-in ballots sent out recently have Joe Biden’s name on them and it turns out that he is no longer a candidate?

Hmmmm…. No doubt the recipients were so eager to fill them in and send them out that there’s no going back on that scam. Apparently, a Biden withdrawal was not one of the scenarios scrimmaged out in the Transition Integrity Project’s “war game.”

What then? A do-over?

Hence, panic in the swamp. Joe Biden’s misadventures, and his pitiful fate, are but the outer rainbands of the brewing storm.

There’s the threat of further and widespread riots, of course, but since when has insurrection proved to be a winning campaign strategy in a country not entirely gone to the dogs?

People who are not insane usually object to their businesses being torched and their homes invaded. At this point, after months of violent antics by criminal nihilists, one can even imagine Multnomah County, Oregon, turning Trumpwise.

The orgy of political hysteria, insane thinking and violence is a psychotic reaction to the collapsing techno-industrial economy — a feature of it, actually.

When all familiar social and economic arrangements are threatened, people go nuts. Interestingly, the craziness actually started in the colleges and universities where ideas (the products of thinking) are supposed to be the stock-in-trade.

The more pressing the practical matters of daily life became, the less intellectuals wanted to face them. So, they desperately generated a force-field of crazy counter-ideas to repel the threat, a curriculum of wishful thinking, childish utopian nostrums and exercises in boundary-smashing.

As all this moved out of the campuses (the graduation function), it infected every other corner of American endeavor, institutions, business, news media, sports, Hollywood, etc.

The country is now out of its mind… echoes of France, 1793… a rhyme, not a reprise.


Andrew Cuomo’s Report on Controversial Nursing Home Policy for COVID Patients Prompts More Controversy

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published. In defense of a controversial policy to send COVID-19 positive patients from hospitals into nursing homes, New York Gov.


Chief Science Officer for Pfizer Says Second Wave Was Faked on False-Positive COVID Tests, and that the “Pandemic Is Over”

In a stunning development, a former Chief Science Officer for the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer says “there is no science to suggest a second wave should happen.


Tuesday, September 29, 2020

So Much for Income Tax Privacy


How many times have we been told that the information we send to the Internal Revenue Service in our federal income tax returns is guaranteed to be kept confidential?

So much for that myth, as President Trump can now attest. The New York Times somehow secured a copy of Trump’s income tax returns and is excitedly telling the world what they contain.

One thing is for sure: If the president of the United States can’t keep his income tax returns private, no one else can either.

From the very start of Trump’s quest for the presidency, the mainstream press has been obsessed with getting its hands on his tax returns. And from the very start, Trump refused to disclose them, which he has every right to do.

Trump took the position that his tax returns were none of anyone’s business. And he was right. HIs tax returns fell within his right of personal privacy. If people chose not to vote for him because of his refusal to disclose his tax returns, so be it. That would be their right. But that possibility didn’t abrogate Trump’s right of privacy.

Obviously, Trump’s position did not prevent him from winning the presidency. HIs tax returns were just not that important to millions of people who voted for him.

The New York Times’ decision to disclose Trump’s income tax returns reminds us of what a horrific disaster the adoption of the federal income tax was. Just think: For more than 125 years, Americans lived without a federal income tax. Everyone was free to keep everything he earned and decide for himself what to do with it.

During that time, the editorial board and reporters for the New York Times and other mainstream papers were not having conniption fits over the refusal of presidential candidates to reveal their income tax returns because, well, there were no income tax returns, given that there was no federal income tax.

One of the big reasons the Framers favored indirect taxes over direct taxes was that indirect taxes didn’t have the enormous intrusiveness into privacy that comes with direct taxes. If the Framers had proposed a federal income tax in the Constitution, there is no possibility that our American ancestors would have approved the Constitution and the federal government. Don’t forget, after all, that under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the Constitution, the federal government had not been given the power to tax at all.

The Times and other mainstream papers are making a big deal out of Trump’s use of tax deductions and other tax-avoidance provisions of the massively thick IRS Code to avoid paying taxes. They are implying that he’s unpatriotic for not helping fund the welfare-warfare state that the income tax funds.

That’s ridiculous. It might be hypocritical given Trump’s ardent support for the welfare-welfare state but it’s certainly not unpatriotic to employ every tax avoidance provision in the book. After all, I’ll bet that the members of the Times’ editorial board and its big team of reporters and columnists do the same thing. They are just upset that they don’t do it as well as Trump.

I must say that I do find it ironic that while the mainstream press is celebrating the disclosure of Trump’s private tax returns, it is also failing to come to the defense of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, the men who disclosed the truth about the U.S. national security state to the world. In today’s topsy turvy world, it’s considered okay to violate the privacy of American citizens by publicly disclosing their income tax returns to the world. At the same time, it’s considered a grave crime to disclose the truth about the dark and sordid activities of the national security state that the income tax funds.

The best thing the American people could ever do is restore America’s founding principle of an income-tax free society and to repeal the dark and sordid welfare-welfare things that it funds.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.


U.S. intel referred Clinton campaign to FBI, alleging it concocted Russia collusion story



U.S. intelligence believed Clinton plot to "stir up a scandal" was a "means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server."


Yale Economist Warns Of Looming Dollar Collapse

Yale Economist Warns Of Looming Dollar Collapse Tyler Durden Tue, 09/29/2020 - 18:05


Peter Schiff has been warning about a looming dollar collapse. During an appearance on Fox Business in July, Peter said the dollar isn’t just going down, it’s going to crash.

“I think the dollar is going to keep drifting down until it collapses,” Peter said. 

“And this is going to usher in a real economic crisis in America, unlike something we’ve ever seen.

Peter is not alone. In a recent article published on, Yale economist Stephen Roach said he expects the dollar to plunge by as much as 35% next year.

Roach lists three factors he thinks will ultimately doom the dollar.

This reflects three considerations:

  1. the rapid deterioration in macroeconomic imbalances in the United States,

  2. the ascendancy of the euro and renminbi as alternatives, and

  3. the end of the aura of American exceptionalism that has given the dollar Teflon-like resilience for most of the post-World War II era.”

Roach called the confluence of an erosion in domestic savings and the current account deficit “nothing short of staggering.”

The national savings rate has entered negative territory for the first time since the 2008 financial crisis, coming in at -1% in the second quarter. According to Roach, a temporary surge in personal savings due to the pandemic and government stimulus checks has been more than outweighed by a record expansion in the federal budget deficit.

With the federal budget deficit exploding towards 16% of gross domestic product this financial year, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the savings plunge is only a hint of what lies ahead. This will trigger a collapse in the US current-account deficit. Lacking savings and wanting to invest and grow, the US must import surplus savings and run massive external deficits to attract foreign capital.”

A current account deficit occurs when the value of the goods and services a country imports exceeds the value of its exports. We’re already seeing signs of that the current-account deficit is widening. It came in at 3.5% of GDP in Q2 – the worst since the 4.3% deficit in the fourth quarter of 2008. Not only that, the quarter to quarter decline charted the largest deterioration since recordkeeping began in 1960.

Roach noted that the Federal Reserve will exacerbate the rapidly destabilizing savings and current-account imbalances with its zero percent interest rate policies and its “average 2% inflation” targeting.  In simple terms, the Fed is committed to holding interest rates low, even if inflation gets hot.

This new bias towards monetary accommodation effectively closes off an important option – upwards adjustments to interest rates – that has long tempered currency declines in most economies. By default, that puts even more pressure on the falling dollar as the escape valve from America’s rapidly deteriorating macroeconomic imbalances. In short, the vice is tightening on a still-overvalued dollar. Domestic savings are plunging as never before, and the current-account balance is following suit. Don’t expect the Fed, focused more on supporting equity and bond markets than on leaning against inflation, to save the day. The dollar’s decline has only just begun.”