Classy Dems: Michigan Democrat calls women ‘breeders’ in now-deleted post


Amazing what the Democrats are putting out there as candidates for the statehouses.

The Daily Caller’s investigative team picked up this one and it’s a lulu:

 Michigan state representative who secured the Democratic party’s nomination in the state’s 6th Congressional District on Tuesday used the word “breeder” in reference to straight women and referred to sexual partners as victims in posts on a now-deleted blog he contributed to from 2004 to 2007.

Michigan State Rep. Jon Hoadley narrowly won Tuesday’s Democratic primary to take on 17-term Republican Rep. Fred Upton. Hoadley stands to be Michigan’s first openly gay member of Congress if elected, and he’s been endorsed by California Sen. Kamala Harris, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which in July added his campaign to its “Red to Blue” program.

“Jen, Liz, and I made it to the straight bars. Glad I went…but my straight fix has been satisfied for a while. I’m not going to lie: breeder=weird/bad dancers. Disagree if you want—you’re just deluding yourself,” Hoadley wrote in a June 2005 post to his now-deleted LiveJournal blog.

Apparently, women are just breedstock animals and he’s some sort of higher being.

It’s a derisive term that comes from certain intolerant gay or homosexual subcultures, and like any intolerant culture, it degrades someone else. That’s “who he is” as the identity-politics lefties like to say, and what he says in private. That he’s deleted his posts in order to present some other picture does’t suggest much for him. What it suggests to us is that Democrats are having a hard time attracting quality people.

Here’s the other thing: Why did he delete it? Because he very much wants all those “white suburban women” votes against his Republican opponent. Dismissing them as “breeders” even if it was years ago, and even if he thought few would read such a post, or only fellow gay people with similar intolerance problems would read it, doesn’t cut it. We all heard him the first time, and his views of women are views of contempt.

What a disgusting guy. And here we have it, another Democrat for the masses, normalizing views that are absolutely abnormal in any other context.

Image credit: Screen shot from MLive, via shareable YouTube. Enhanced with FotoSketcher.

Amazing what the Democrats are putting out there as candidates for the statehouses.

The Daily Caller’s investigative team picked up this one and it’s a lulu:

 Michigan state representative who secured the Democratic party’s nomination in the state’s 6th Congressional District on Tuesday used the word “breeder” in reference to straight women and referred to sexual partners as victims in posts on a now-deleted blog he contributed to from 2004 to 2007.

Michigan State Rep. Jon Hoadley narrowly won Tuesday’s Democratic primary to take on 17-term Republican Rep. Fred Upton. Hoadley stands to be Michigan’s first openly gay member of Congress if elected, and he’s been endorsed by California Sen. Kamala Harris, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which in July added his campaign to its “Red to Blue” program.

“Jen, Liz, and I made it to the straight bars. Glad I went…but my straight fix has been satisfied for a while. I’m not going to lie: breeder=weird/bad dancers. Disagree if you want—you’re just deluding yourself,” Hoadley wrote in a June 2005 post to his now-deleted LiveJournal blog.

Apparently, women are just breedstock animals and he’s some sort of higher being.

It’s a derisive term that comes from certain intolerant gay or homosexual subcultures, and like any intolerant culture, it degrades someone else. That’s “who he is” as the identity-politics lefties like to say, and what he says in private. That he’s deleted his posts in order to present some other picture does’t suggest much for him. What it suggests to us is that Democrats are having a hard time attracting quality people.

Here’s the other thing: Why did he delete it? Because he very much wants all those “white suburban women” votes against his Republican opponent. Dismissing them as “breeders” even if it was years ago, and even if he thought few would read such a post, or only fellow gay people with similar intolerance problems would read it, doesn’t cut it. We all heard him the first time, and his views of women are views of contempt.

What a disgusting guy. And here we have it, another Democrat for the masses, normalizing views that are absolutely abnormal in any other context.

Image credit: Screen shot from MLive, via shareable YouTube. Enhanced with FotoSketcher.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

CBS Dragged Kicking and Screaming to Andrew Cuomo’s Nursing Home Nightmare

CBS This Morning has been covering for Andrew Cuomo for months, desperately hiding news about New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s disastrous policy of forcing nursing homes to take corona patients. On Wednesday, the program covered the story, but only as a way of bashing red state Florida for the system it set up. 
Reporter David Begnaud explained, “I don’t know if you know this, but here in the U.S. more than 40,000 nursing home residents are believed to have died from the coronavirus and 6,500 deaths happened in the state of New York. There are hearings being held in New York to address those deaths and the policies that may have led to some of them.” 
 
 
No, Mr. Begnaud. Viewers might not know. Because on May 18, CBS This Morning did a story on the “devastating toll” of COVID and never mentioned the decision by Cuomo. On June 25, the show did another story about nursing homes and corona. Again, no mention of the Democratic governor. . 
Begnaud reported on Wednesday: “Governor Andrew Cuomo and the Department of Health have been criticized for directing those facilities back in March to take in coronavirus patients to relieve stress on the hospitals. After backlash they added a requirement, that was in may, that hospitals could not discharge patients unless they tested negative.” 
He told viewers: “In New York, around 6,500 people are briefed to have died of the coronavirus  in nursing homes and long-term care facilities.” All of this, however, seemed to be a way of criticizing Florida for what seems like a similarly questionable decision: 
But after seeing what happened in New York, you have families now who have relatives here in Florida who are worried with the fact that the state of Florida is allowing nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients.
So now that Florida has problems, it’s okay to talk about New York’s disaster? In late July, ABC devoted 16 minutes to COVID, but had nothing on New York and Cuomo.     
CBS’s attempt at misdirection on the nursing home story was sponsored by Chase. Click on the link to let them know how you feel. 
A transcript of the segment is below. Click “expand” to read more. 
CBS This Morning
8/5/2020
7:30
TONY DOKOUPIL: Welcome back to CBS This Morning. There is growing concern about a spike in coronavirus cases at long-term care facilities like nursing homes where vulnerable elderly people are at a higher risk of death. In Florida, more than 5,800 people currently in long-term care facilities are COVID positive. Around 2,500 people have died. Last month, Florida’s Governor declared 23 long-term care facilities as COVID-19 isolation centers where patients are sent to recover. Our lead national correspondent David Begnaud is following this from Key Biscayne. Good morning. 
DAVID BEGNAUD:  Good morning. I don’t know if you know this, but here in the U.S. more than 40,000 nursing home residents are believed to have died from the coronavirus, and 6,500 deaths happened in the state of New York. There are hearings being held in New York to address those deaths and the policies that may have led to some of them. But after seeing what happened in New York, you have families now who have relatives here in Florida who are worried with the fact that the state of Florida is allowing nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients. 
DANIELLE COHEN (grandfather in FL nursing home): This is reckless. It is potentially lethal. 
BEGNAUD: Danielle Cohen is on a self-described crusade in the state of Florida to end a practice that she says is putting the state’s elderly, who live in nursing homes, in potential danger. 
COHEN: I don’t think that there should be a conscious decision to bring COVID into the building. 
BEGNAUD: : Cohen’s 98-year-old grandfather lives at the TARMAC  rehabilitation and health center in Broward county, that’s in southern Florida. It is one of 23 COVID isolation centers that have entered an arrangement with the state to house and treat patients. Four of those facilities are dedicated to only covid patients, while in the other 19, patients are supposed to be secluded from current residents. 
MARY MAYHEW (FL Agency for Health care Administration Secretary):  I certainly understand the concern that any family member would have, but I am equally committed to ensuring the safety of our residents in these facilities. 
BEGNAUD: Mary Mayhew leads Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration. They oversee all of the isolation centers in the state. How much do these facilities  receive money-wise from the state to take in these patients? 
MAYHEW: We are paying a rate for their vacant beds to make sure that those beds are available. And then we are paying them for anyone who is on medicaid, we are paying them a higher medicaid reimbursement rate. Otherwise, most of these individuals are Medicare. 
BEGNAUD: According to state data, the isolation centers receive around $325 a day per COVID patient. At Cohen’s grandfather’s facility, 21 COVID patients currently reside there. In a statent, TAMARAC said “it is providing excellent care,” adding that it follows all CDC guidelines and has a separate entrance and air flow and a designated team. 
COHEN: We all know what went down in New York just a few months before. Why are we tempting fate? 
BEGNAUD: In New York, around 6,500 people are briefed to have died of the coronavirus  in nursing homes and long-term care facilities. 
ANDREW CUOMO: They have to readmit COVID-positive residents, but only if they have the ability to provide the adequate level of care. 
BEGNAUD: Governor Andrew Cuomo and the department of health have been criticized for directing those facilities back in March to take in coronavirus patients to relieve stress on the hospitals. After backlash they added a requirement, that was in may, that hospitals could not discharge patients unless they tested negative. 
COHEN: My mission is to get justice for the seniors that died. 
BEGNAUD: Back in January, Vivian Zayas’ 78-year-old mother Anna began temporarily living at New York’s Our Lady of Consolation Nursing and Rehabilitative Care Center on Rhode Island. A former employee who asked to remain anonymous alleges that the facility took in COVID-positive patients in March and April. And in some cases, residents were allegedly exposed by being put in rooms with COVID-positive patients or through staff treating both. Anna died April 1st, just hours after being diagnosed with the virus. Zayas believes her mother was infect the by someone who     brought the virus into the facility. She is suing the nursing home. For everyone who will watch this story, what’s the takeaway? 
VIVIAN ZAYAS: If you can care for your parents at home, do so. 
BEGNAUD: At least 39 residents at Our Lady of Consolation  have died since March 1st. In a statement, the facility strongly denied any improper treatment and told us that it cannot comment on pending litigation or the care provided to any individual. But said it is dedicated to delivering high quality, compassionate care. New York’s Department of Public Health tells that based on the anonymous claim we told you about a moment ago from that former employee, they will be launching an investigation into the facility. They say any facility that does not isolate COVID patients from residents would be in violation of public health law. An adviser with the governor’s COVID task force also told us that based on self-reported data, the virus was already at that facility well before the March policy that required nursing homes to accept COVID patients. What’s your message to the people of Florida? 
Vivian ZAYAS: Don’t put COVID-19-positive patients in nursing homes. 
BEGNAUD: In Florida, Cohen’s grandfather, a World War II veteran, is now fighting coronavirus along with 43 other residents. He was diagnosed before the facility started accepting coronavirus patients. 
COHEN: I feel like there still are thousands of Floridians who are at risk from this policy, and someone needs to stand up for them. 

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Destroying Western Media’s “Swedish Public Health Disaster” Narrative In Two Simple Charts

Destroying Western Media’s "Swedish Public Health Disaster" Narrative In Two Simple Charts

Tyler Durden

Wed, 08/05/2020 – 05:00

Via SKWealthAcademy,

"In order to control public opinion of the masses, the ruling class should “regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments [soldiers’] bodies."

– Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928)

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

– Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928)

Recently, the Western media has made a point to publish a plethora of stories about the public health disaster of Sweden’s no lockdown policy in order to deliberately discredit, in the minds of most people, the only science-based approach to covid19 undertaken by any nation in the world.

Since the end of July, there have been a lot of completely false and misleading stories about the failures of Sweden’s no lockdown policy and Sweden officials’ choices to not tyrannically shut down businesses in Sweden, to only suggest that the elderly vulnerable population self-quarantine, and to allow for the complete normalization of life under the conditions. Of course, the criticisms of portraying life as completely normal in Sweden had some merit. The most normalized behavior occurred in Stockholm, and though no businesses were ordered to close, some more cautious, conservative business owners chose to shut down their cinemas and ski resorts chose to voluntarily close and GDP in Sweden is still forecast to shrink by 4%. Still a 4% annual shrinkage in GDP is 1000 times more preferable to the annual pace of a 32.9% drop in GDP forecast in America just this past quarter.

Furthermore, if the most human interaction is happening in Stockholm, the most densely populated city in Sweden with a central population of 1.5M and a metropolitan population of over 2.4M, then this fact would serve as stronger proof, not weaker proof, that their no-lockdown, normal life behavior approach was a resounding success. This logical, science-based and humanitarian approach starkly contrasted with the totalitarian, misanthropic ruling class’s approach to restrict the movements of everyone, including fully-abled healthy people with strong immune systems, and legislating mandated stay-at-home orders for large swaths of entire nations, orders which the United Nations claim may bring 260 million people to the verge of starvation by year’s end, which would make the State leaders responsible for an outcome, if it happens, guilty of genocide on a scale that would make Hitler, Mao, and Mussolini’s repugnant genocidal feats appear as child’s play.

In fact, in response to my legitimate claims that Sweden’s no-lockdown response was the only science-based response to covid 19 in the entire world, and also, non-coincidentally, the most successful response, I heard many Westerners attempt to rebut my arguments with counterclaims that were not the result of any research or intellect, but the consequence of obedient parroting of Western media headlines, that on the surface, seemed to dispute the science I had presented.  

In response to Sweden’s massive success rates with its no lockdown policy, the only State that dared stand up to the global banking cartel that was likely behind the global economic lockdown policy, the Western mass media deployed a pre-emptive counterstrike by literally releasing hundreds of articles about the grave “failure” of Sweden’s no lockdown policy and disseminating these articles to millions of websites online. So even though I debunked their false claims already in this article, since social media has reduced everyone’s attention span to small chunks of a few seconds at a time, with the exception of a handful for every million, I’ve created a couple of charts, drawing data from the sites of the US Centers for Disease Control and Folkhälsomyndigheten, the Public Health Agency of Sweden, to address this problem whereby the false Western mass media narrative about Sweden’s virus response will be destroyed in a glance.

In the top chart, when we compare the mortality rates of covid19 in Sweden v. the US, including all data until the end of July, the US’s mortality rate of covid 19 in the age group of less than 39 years of age was 0.58%, more than 1,230 times greater than the 0.00047% mortality rate of Sweden. Furthermore, in the age demographics of 40-59 and 59-69, the death rate in the US from covid19 versus Sweden was respectively 215 times and 211 times greater than Sweden.

In the bottom chart, I compared Sweden’s mortality rate for different age demographics compared to the US mortality rate for the common flu. For the comprehensive age group of all ages less than 60 years of age, the Swedish mortality rate of covid19 is less than 1/3rd of the American mortality rate for the common flu. Clearly, as can be easily observed in the bottom chart, the overall covid19 mortality rate for Sweden’s population was greatly skewed by nearly all covid19 deaths occurring in the above 70 year old demographic, with the majority of Sweden’s covid19 deaths occurring in those older than 80 and 90 years of age!

I created the above graphics, using official date of both the US Centers for Disease Control and and Folkhälsomyndigheten, the Public Health Agency of Sweden. The major disclaimer I have about the graphics I created is that the US lockdown response to covid19 that is hundreds to thousands times worse in result versus Sweden’s no lockdown, free and open society response is likely skewed a little higher than reality. This bias originates from the inaccurate reporting of covid deaths in America, as already four states, Washington, New York, Texas and Colorado, have admitted to many cases of falsely categorizing non-covid19 deaths, including even deaths from fatal transportation crashes and murders, as covid19 deaths. However, it is not my fault that US health agencies have reported wildly inflated covid19 deaths that make their management of the virus appear pathetic in comparison to Sweden’s chosen strategies of continuing to operate their nation as if covid19 was less dangerous than the common flu for healthy, working-age people, which their statistics have thus far validated. Secondly, the only other factor that introduces some slight margins of error in the above graphics is the fact that the data available for mortality rates among different demographics do not exactly match the population data also provided for these demographic groups to determine mortality rates. Thus I was required to make some extrapolations with the data to determine mortality rates of covid19 for the Swedish age demographics.

For example, the population data I used for the Swedish population split the demographic data into age brackets of 45-55, 55-65,and so on, that slightly differed from the age brackets of 40-49, 50-59, 60-69 and so on provided by the Public Health Agency of Sweden for the number of deaths from covid19. Therefore to determine the mortality rates for covid19 and the common flu, I was required to extrapolate the population data for age categories to match the age categories for the data provided regarding number of deaths. The methodology I used to estimate the Swedish population to arrive at mortality rates for each age group was a direct linear extrapolation.

For example, Sweden reported 1.282M citizens between the ages of 35 and 44, an age group of 10 years. Consequently, to estimate how many citizens were among those aged 35 to 39, I merely divided the number of the total citizens for that age group of 1.282M citizens in half to arrive at 641,000 citizens and then added this figure to the 4.448M Swedes that are 34 years of age or younger to arrive at a total population of 5.1M Swedes for the demographic of 0-39 years of age for my mortality rate calculations. Of course, if the number of 1.282M citizens is more heavily skewed in favor of the 35 to 39 year old group than the 40 to 44 year old group, than my total population of 0-39 years of age will yield a slightly higher mortality rate than reality. However, since all census data is based upon estimates from sampling a much smaller portion of the population, I assume that my own estimates of portions of the demographic categories to yield my mortality rates that were based on simple mathematical extrapolations should not introduce any significant margins of error that will distort the true message and reality contained within my two charts.

Despite this overwhelming scientific evidence of the Swedish approach as the most effective combined dual health and economic-based approach in the entire world, I was amazed at the volume of Western media lies and propaganda about Sweden’s approach being a horrific failure.

Western media in the US and the UK were all too eager to oblige in spreading complete lies and fabricated garbage by painting Sweden’s massive success as a complete failure by printing headlines that blared,

Sweden has nearly 10 times the number of COVID-19-related deaths than its Nordic neighbors”,  

“Sweden’s coronavirus death rate is nearly 6 times that of neighboring Norway and Finland”, 

“A Very Swedish Sort of Failure”,  and

“Sweden’s Coronavirus Experiment Has Well and Truly Failed.”

And just in case you’re not the type to watch the nightly news, the Western media flooded the internet with the same false narrative to ensure that everyone that heard about these stories and consequently searched for additional stories about Sweden’s no lockdown policy would receive plenty of confirmation about these false narratives.

The mission of these fake, non-science and non-mathematical based stories was to ensure that the maximum amount of people around the world remain completely unthinking, obedient slaves to State mandated, martial-law style lockdowns and stay-at-home orders, in which the consequent social isolation from others would not only produce devastating  financial and  psychological effects but also have the added bonus, for the ruling class, of producing a mental state among the global population extremely receptive to hate and fear.  Yesterday, I conducted a search on the Google Search engine for “the failure of Sweden’s coronavirus response”, and Google, as an apparatus of the parasitic ruling class, returned 52M results for this topic. 

And though a search for “the success of Swedens’ coronavirus response” returned 63.9M results, and one may see the results and perhaps think that for the first time in history, the Google search engine did not have an agenda in its search results, a quick glance at the titles of the articles on the entire first page quickly dispel such faith. The first articles for this search were titled,

“Has Sweden’s Controversial Covid19 Strategy Been Successful?”,

“Dramatic Drop in Deaths Doesn’t Mean Plan Worked”,

“Misinformation and De-Contextualization”, “Sweden’s Prime Minister Rejects Criticism”, and

“A Warning from Sweden’s Coronavirus Response”.

Although a few of these articles appear that they may focus on the positive aspects of Sweden’s response, they did not. Every single article focused on the slightly negative outcomes of their response, and completely ignored their much more heavily positive outcomes, whereby the results of this “positive” search were nearly indistinguishable from the results of the “negative” search about Sweden’s covid19 response.

In any event, the hypocritical Western media that blasted Sweden’s response as a complete failure for having six times the mortality rate of its neighbors in Finland and Norway, these faux journalists should have turned their propaganda lens inward to within domestic borders and blasted a covid19 death rate in the US in the under 40 year old population that was more than 1,230 times that of Sweden. If Sweden’s response was a disaster, how would you categorize a response that was worse by a factor of more than twelve-hundred times? A complete apocalypse? And why was this rate so much higher in the US than in Sweden? As I already stated,  it was so much higher because nearly no one died in Sweden who was under the age of 60 from this virus, so printing a headline that US deaths in the under 40 category were “apocalyptic” when compared to Sweden, though it would never happen in a million years, would still be a headline upon which I would heavily frown, as publishing such a headline would obviously only be done with the to deceive. Even though the data of mortality rates for the under 40-year old category would qualify as a comparison of apples to apples, in some instances, comparing apples to apples does not mean that such a comparison would not be deceitful.  Quoting statistics should not be used when one knows that their use will paint biased, misleading views of the actual situation, yet the mass media repeatedly engages in such deception with no qualms about doing so.

Likewise, the reason Sweden possessed a covid19 death rate six times higher than Finland and Norway was because

(1) Sweden’s elderly population was much greater than the elderly population  of either of those two nations; and

(2) As small as was Sweden’s mortality rates were for all age groups except the elderly, Finland and Norway’s mortality rates were even more minute.

Consequently, compare minute to minute statistics, a 6 times higher mortality rate is very easy to manufacture and can be extremely misleading.  For example if one country reports six deaths out of 100,000 and another country reports 36 deaths out of 100,000 and both nations have populations under 10 million people, reporting a mortality rate six times higher in the former nation versus the latter nation is truly misleading. Now if both nations had populations over 150M people and this were still the case, then it would be okay to report such a statistic as there would be much more truth in such a stat.

As is evident in the bottom chart, the bulk of deaths from coronavirus in Sweden happened in the over 70 year old demographic, but particularly in the over 80 year old category. If a nation has many more elderly citizens, percentage wise than another nation, then of course its overall mortality rate will be much higher, as its overall mortality rate will be greatly skewed by its large elderly population. This is why it would be fake science to extrapolate the high mortality rate of covid19 in Lombardy, a region with a high percentage of elderly, to the entire nation of Italy.

All of the Western media’s headlines about this particular set of data in Sweden in comparison to its neighboring nations was completely disingenuous and deliberately intended to mislead the American public about the “failure” of the Sweden no lockdown policy, that in reality, was among the most successful, if not the most successful, in the entire world. If you compared the mortality rate of Sweden to another Nation A in which only 5% of Nation’s A population was over 70 years of age with 90% of its population under 60, and then published headlines, “Sweden’s Covid19 Death Rate 3,000 Times Greater than Nation A”, you would not be a journalist interested in spreading truth but a spineless coward whose printed propaganda would be directly responsible for the extension of lockdowns that would likely cause many unnecessary deaths.

In the end, I’m astonished at how many people readily parrot the complete garbage implications contained within some of the misleading headlines I’ve stated above that appeared in Western media about Sweden’s virus response “failure” with not even a single minute of consideration if the headlines were really true or not.

In Edward Bernay’s 1925 book, Crystallizing Public Opinion, the person whom many consider as the father of US propaganda, stated,

“People accept the facts which come to them through existing channels. They like to hear new things in accustomed ways. They have neither the time nor the inclination to search for facts that are not readily available to them. The expert, therefore, must advise first upon the form of action desirable for his client and secondly must utilize the established mediums of communication, in order to present to the public a point of view. This is true whether it is that of a majority or minority, old or new personality, institution or group which desires to change by modification or intensification the store of knowledge and the opinion of the public.”

The most effective propaganda, which certainly the propaganda about this virus used to justify State leader mandates to lockdown economies around the world fall under, convinces the victims of the propaganda that they came to the conclusions contained within the propaganda on their own merit, and that they were not ordered to embrace such false beliefs. Bernays stated in 1925 that for propaganda to be effective, it has to fall under the category of information for which the public has “neither the time nor the inclination to search for facts” because the facts “are not readily available.” Quite sadly, this once staunch pillar of disseminating effective propaganda is not even necessary today given the century of brainwashing and dumbing down of society that has taken place since 1925. The data I complied above that would easily disprove all the lies in thousands of articles circulating around the world about the failure of Sweden’s no lockdown approach was readily available on the public website of Folkhälsomyndigheten, the Public Health Agency of Sweden. But today, most people do not want to spend even two minutes of time to vet information as wrong or true when the information to do so is readily available. Instead, society at large still prefers to have the parasitic ruling class think for them and tell them what to believe.

For this reason, I devoted an entire course in my skwealthacademy curriculum just to the development of critical think skills, and I will launch my course as soon as the parasitic world leaders life the global lockdown, of which I’ve been subjected for 134 days and counting, and allow me to return home. Of course, if you made it to the end of this article, you are not among that group, but that also makes you a rarity in today’s world.

*  *  *

To be informed off the release of this content, subscribe to my podcast channel here. Subscribe to my news site and free newsletter here. All skwealthacademy articles are always published first on my news site.

Support my news site by becoming a patreon by visiting this link.

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.zerohedge.com/fullrss2.xml

Oprah Coaches White People on How to Navigate ‘Unconscious’ Racism on Apple TV Show


Billionaire media mogul Oprah Winfrey advised white people on how to address “unconscious” racism and warned that “first-degree racism” is a phenomenon “in some parts of the country” in the latest episode of her Apple TV series The Oprah Conversation.

“Uncomfortable Conversations with a Black Man: Part 2,” the episode’s title, featured eight guests joining Oprah Winfrey and Emmanuel Acho, a former NFL linebacker, who created a YouTube channel of the same name. The guests — six women and two men — all described themselves as “white” except one Hispanic woman.

The guests asked various question regarding racial politics, including inquiries about how to broach the subject of “racial injustice” with black people, what words to excise from vernacular due to their presumably offensive connotations, and how to correct other white people for seemingly inappropriate behavior related to race.

Winfrey urged her guests to be strategic in combating “racial injustice” with white family members, friends, and peers.

“I think that’s so beautiful … talking to your white friends [and] meeting them where they are,” Winfrey said. “Once you just start educating yourself and you get woke … you should just meet people exactly where they are.”

Winfrey continued, “Even if you don’t know how to confront somebody, just to say, ‘I’m sorry, that language isn’t  appropriate for me. I’m sorry, what did you say? You can’t speak about somebody to me that way,’ so being able to not suddenly become the  radical that you are not, but in your heart being able to live out from the heart space that you’re in right now you’re opening up the aperture of your own understanding so to be able to just just just meet people where they are.”

The Oprah Conversation

In the previous episode, Winfrey described “whiteness” and “white privilege” as sociological phenomena benefiting all whites in a racial “caste system” in the U.S.

White people have a unique role in combating “racism,” maintained Winfrey in the latest episode. “You all are the ones who are going to be able to change the way your friends, your colleagues, your white family members begin to see racial injustice and racial inequities in this country. That’s where it happens. It’s going to happen at your kitchen table and in your living rooms and in your soccer games. That’s where it’s going to happen.”

Winfrey continued, “Your ability to have that influence wherever you are and to speak up wherever you are — to share your heart — I think that’s how we bring about change.”

The OWN boss also praised her guests as being committed to self-betterment.

“Your heart has been opened and deepened to the point where you say, ‘I want to be better,’” said Winfrey, lauding her guests. “Everybody who agreed to speak here today has done that [with] a willingness to say, ‘I’m not who I want to be, but who I want to be I know is someone who can be better than this moment.’”

Oprah Winfrey speaks during an event launching Apple tv+ at Apple headquarters on March 25, 2019, in Cupertino, California. (NOAH BERGER/AFP via Getty Images)

Acho described his political campaign as predicated on a view of “oppressed versus oppressor” without specifically identifying either category.

“Black people are currently dying at the hands of white people, and [they’re] getting away with it,” said Acho. “It’s not just that they’re dying. [Their killers] are getting away with it.”

Winfrey and Acho placed “racism” on a spectrum of severity, using various legal categories based on unlawful killings as an illustrative analogy. Children may “commit involuntary racism” if insufficiently educated, he warned.

“White people [are] not taught about racism,” Acho declared, “so white people end up incidentally committing racism. You have first-degree murder, that is premeditated. You have second-degree murder, heat of passion, but if you keep moving down the line, you have manslaughter [and] involuntary manslaughter.”

Acho continued

“While it is not the same thing as first-degree murder, it’s still an unlawful act that kills someone. In the same breath, there are degrees of racism. While we might not have first-degree racism, anymore, we still have third degree racism, which I draw the parallel to involuntary manslaughter. You’re not physically killing them, you may be emotionally killing them.”

“So your children may just end up committing involuntary racism if you don’t educate them as to the legalities — so to speak, if I can continue with my analogy — the legality, so to speak, of racism, and that is why it’s best to educate and to expose them to that,”  the NFL player said.

I think you do have first-degree racism, still [in America]. Ask that young man who was just caught in the park in Indianapolis, and they were trying to put a noose around him. Ask the woman who someone pulled a gun on her in the parking lot in Aurora, Michigan with her and her children,” Winfrey replied. “I think we don’t have [first-degree racism] to the degree [we used to],” she said, concluding with a warming of “first-degree racism” being a phenomenon “in some parts of the country.”

Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Four Months of Unprecedented Government Malfeasance


Heather Mac Donald
Manhattan Institute


Heather Mac DonaldHeather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She earned a B.A. from Yale University, an M.A. in English from Cambridge University, and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. She writes for several newspapers and periodicals, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The New Criterion, and Public Interest, and is the author of four books, including The War on Cops: How The New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe and The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture.


The following is adapted from a lecture delivered on June 18, 2020, for a Hillsdale College online symposium, “The Coronavirus and Public Policy.”

Over the last four months, Americans have lived through what is arguably the most consequential period of government malfeasance in U.S. history. Public officials’ overreaction to the novel coronavirus put American cities into a coma; those same officials’ passivity in the face of widespread rioting threatens to deliver the coup de grâce. Together, these back-to-back governmental failures will transform the American polity and cripple urban life for decades.

Before store windows started shattering in the name of racial justice, urban existence was already on life support, thanks to the coronavirus lockdowns. Small businesses—the restaurants and shops that are the lifeblood of cities—were shuttered, many for good, leaving desolate rows of “For Rent” signs on street after street in New York City and elsewhere. Americans huddled in their homes for months on end, believing that if they went outside, death awaited them.

This panic was occasioned by epidemiological models predicting wildly unlikely fatalities from the coronavirus.

On March 30, the infamous Imperial College London model predicted 2.2 million deaths in the U.S. by September 1, absent government action. That prediction was absurd on its face, given the dispersal of the U.S. population and the fact that China’s coronavirus death toll had already levelled off at a few thousand. The authors of that study soon revised it radically downwards.

Too late. It had already become the basis for the exercise of unprecedented government power. California was the first state to lock down its economy and confine its citizens to their homes; eventually almost every other state would follow suit, under enormous media pressure to do so.

Never before had public officials required millions of lawful businesses to shut their doors, throwing tens of millions of people out of work. They did so at the command of one particular group of experts—those in the medical and public health fields—who viewed their mandate as eliminating one particular health risk with every means put at their disposal.

If the politicians who followed their advice weighed a greater set of considerations, balancing the potential harm from the virus against the harm from the shutdowns, they showed no sign of it. Instead, governors and mayors started rolling out one emergency decree after another to terminate economic activity, seemingly heedless of the consequences.

The lockdown mandates employed mind-numbingly arbitrary distinctions. Wine stores and pot dispensaries were deemed “essential” and thus allowed to stay open; medical offices were required to close. Large grocery stores got the green light; small retail establishments with only a few customers each day were out of luck. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer notoriously used her red pen within megastores to bar the sale of seeds, gardening supplies, and paint.

It was already clear when these crushing mandates started pouring forth that shutting down every corner of the country was a reckless overreaction. By mid-March, two weeks before the Imperial College model was published, Italian health data showed that the coronavirus was terribly lethal to a very small subset of the population—the elderly infirm—and a minor health problem to nearly everyone else who was not already severely ill. The median age of coronavirus decedents in Italy was 80, and they died with a median of nearly three comorbidities, such as heart disease and diabetes. The lead author of the Imperial College model has admitted that up to two-thirds of all coronavirus fatalities would have died from their comorbidities by the end of 2020 anyway.

Three months later, this profile of coronavirus casualties still holds true. Public health interventions could have been targeted at that highly vulnerable population without forcing the American economy into a death spiral.

DISINFORMATION

By now it is impossible to attribute the media’s failure to publicize the facts about the coronavirus to mere oversight.

Every story that does not mention, preferably at the top, the vast overrepresentation of nursing home deaths in the coronavirus death count—above 50 percent in many countries and 80 percent in several of our states—is a story that is deliberately concealing the truth. Casual readers and viewers have been left with the false impression that everyone is equally at risk, and thus that draconian measures are justified.

The media have been equally uninterested in the scientific evidence regarding outdoor transmission. Coronavirus infections require what Japan calls the three Cs: confined spaces, crowded places, and close contact. The fleeting encounters on sidewalks and public parks that characterize much of city life simply do not result in transmission. And yet if you briskly approach someone on one of Manhattan’s broad and now empty sidewalks, the oncoming pedestrian may lunge into the street or press up against the closest wall in abject fear if you are not wearing a mask. You may be cursed at.

The public health establishment has been equally complicitous in creating this widespread ignorance. It has failed to stress at every opportunity that for the vast majority of the public, the coronavirus is at most an inconvenience. The public health experts did not disclose that outdoors was the safest place to be and that people should get out of their homes and into the fresh air.

Not coincidentally, the experts’ newfound power over nearly every aspect of American life was dependent on the maintenance of fear.

While the U.S. death toll from the coronavirus has been demographically circumscribed and lower than the previous flu pandemics of 1968, 1956, and 1918 when adjusted for population, the economic toll has cut across every sector of the country and every population group. Whole industries have seen their capital wiped out overnight.

Despite a better than expected employment report in early June, the long-term effects of the shutdowns and the continuing mandates to socially distance will prevent a full economic recovery for years to come. Forty-four million Americans are still out of work. Supply chains have been thrown into chaos. Fresh fruits and vegetables are being plowed under and livestock burned uneaten for lack of access to processing plants and markets. Small businessmen who have put their life savings into creating a service that customers want have seen their hard work go up in smoke. Without rent from their retail tenants, commercial landlords can’t pay their taxes. City budgets have been decimated. The additional $8 trillion in public debt taken on to try to substitute for the private economy will depress opportunity for generations.

And what has been the response to this economic carnage on the part of our ruling class? Branding strategies! Politicians have put cute names on what has been a taking of private property on an unprecedented scale. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo calls the state lockdowns “New York on Pause,” as if commerce can be indefinitely suspended and then magically resuscitated with the flick of a switch.

The politicians’ ignorance about the complexity of economic life was stunning, as was their hypocrisy. To a person, every elected official, every public health expert, and every media pundit who lectured Americans about the need to stay in indefinite lockdown had a secure (“essential”) job. Not one of them feared his employer would go bankrupt. Anyone who warned that the effects of the lockdowns would be more devastating than anything the coronavirus could inflict was accused of being a heartless capitalist who only cared about profits.

But to care about the economy is to care about human life, since the economy is how life is sustained. It is a source of meaning, as well as sustenance, binding humans to each other in a web of voluntary exchange. To its workers, every business is essential, and to many of its customers as well. Even judged by the narrowest possible definition of public health—lives lost—the toll from the lockdowns will exceed that of the virus, due to the cancellation of elective medical procedures, patients’ unnecessary fear of seeking medical treatment, and the psychological effects of unemployment.

In May, politicians started inviting a few scattered sectors of their state economies to reopen, with blue state governors and mayors being particularly parsimonious with their noblesse oblige. These blue state officials invoked “science” to justify yet another arbitrary set of guidelines to determine which businesses would be allowed to start up again and when. “Science,” we were told, dictated the timetable for reopening, based on rates of hospital bed vacancies and new infections.

In fact, the numerical benchmarks, enforced with draconian punctiliousness, seem to have been drawn out of a hat—they certainly had no evidence behind them. But even with official reopenings, many customers will be long reluctant to resume their normal habits of consumption and travel thanks to the uninterrupted fearmongering on the part of the media, the experts, and elected leaders.

Being fantastically risk averse is now a badge of honor, at least among the professional elites. A young tech columnist for The New York Times wrote an op-ed in May about cancelling a restaurant reservation in Missoula, Montana. Missoula County had been virus-free for weeks, and Montana’s case load had been negligible. Nevertheless, the columnist experienced a panic attack after booking a table, contemplating the allegedly lethal risk that awaited him in the reopened restaurant. Rather than being ashamed of his cowardice, the columnist was proud, he wrote, to have bailed out of his reservation in order to continue sheltering in place.

The absurd social distancing protocols make operating many businesses and much of city life virtually impossible. The six-foot rule is as arbitrary as the “metrics” for reopening. (The World Health Organization recommends three feet of social distance, and many countries have adopted that recommendation.) Keeping customers and employees six feet apart will render a city’s basic institutions unworkable, from restaurants to concert halls. The Metropolitan Opera has cancelled the first half of its 2020-2021 season while it figures out how to maintain social distancing among audience members and on the stage. Every other performing arts organization will face the same almost insuperable dilemma.

My 34-story apartment building in Manhattan, like many others, has imposed a one person per elevator ride rule, even though the elevator interiors are more than six feet across. I invite anyone who may also be waiting for an elevator to share my ride up; no one has ever accepted the offer, even though both I and my invitee are masked. Nor has anyone ever extended such an offer to me. Now translate this hysteria to Manhattan’s massive office towers. If New York City ever fully reopens, a similar social distancing rule for office elevators will lead to lines of workers around every midtown block each morning. As long as this fear lasts, city life is not possible.

FROM COLD WAR TO HOT

Then the cities started burning. What had been a cold war on the economy and civic life became a hot war.

Government officials, having shut down commerce due to unblemished ignorance of how markets work, now enabled the torching and looting of thousands of businesses due to the shirking of their most profound responsibility: protecting civil peace.

On Monday, May 25, a video of the horrific arrest and death of a black man suspected of passing a forged $20 bill in Minneapolis went viral. A police officer kept his knee on George Floyd’s neck for nearly nine minutes as Floyd begged for help breathing. Floyd was already handcuffed and thus posed a minimal risk. The officer ignored Floyd’s distress even as Floyd stopped talking or moving.

The officer’s behavior was grotesquely callous and contrary to sound tactics, and the officer will be prosecuted and punished under the law. His behavior was not, however, representative of the overwhelming majority of the ten million arrests that the police make each year. Indeed, there is no government agency more dedicated to the proposition that black lives matter than the police. Nevertheless, within 24 hours, the violence had begun.

On the night of Thursday, May 28, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey ordered the city’s Third Police Precinct evacuated as the forces of anarchy descended upon it for a third day in a row. The building was promptly torched, sending a powerful sign that society would not defend its most fundamental institutions of law and order.

Soon cities across the country became scenes of feral savagery. The human lust for violence, the sheer joy of plunder and destruction, were unleashed without check. Police officers were shot at, run over, slashed with knives, and clubbed; two current and former law enforcement officers were killed in cold blood. Police cruisers and station houses were firebombed; courthouses were trashed. Looters drove trucks through storefronts and emptied the stores’ contents into the back of these newly repurposed vehicles of civil war. ATMs were ripped out of walls; pharmacies plundered for drugs.

Blue state governors and mayors ordered law enforcement to stand down or use at most (in New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s words) a “light touch” with the rioters. By the time these progressive public leaders realized that something more forceful needed to be done, it was too late. The fire of sadism and hatred could not be contained, but would have to burn itself out. Belatedly imposed curfews were universally ignored: why should anyone obey an edict from a government that refused to protect human life and livelihoods?

Perversely, the rioting exhibited features of the coronavirus shutdowns in even more literal form. If before, businesses were boarded up due to bankruptcy, now they were boarded up to prevent further theft. Small businesses, lacking the resources to outlast the shutdowns, now saw the final depletion of their inventories. The fortress mentality in residential buildings from coronavirus hysteria was replaced by an actual fortress, as building managements hastily erected plywood barriers over lobby windows and doors. The hyped-up fear of going outside into allegedly virus-infected public spaces became a justified fear of leaving one’s fortress and being sacrificed to the mob. Shelter-in-place became a necessity, not a product of government overreach. The fall of night became a source of terror for ordinary citizens and business owners.

Previously, securely-employed public officials breezily dismissed their constituents’ anguish over unemployment and growing business failures. Now those same officials, safe behind their security details and publicly-owned mansions, foreswore the activation of the National Guard and military. None of those officials owned businesses, so they faced no loss either from economic quarantine or from physical rampage.

DOUBLE STANDARDS

One thing did change markedly between the coronavirus lockdowns and the riot lockdowns, however: elite wisdom regarding social distancing. The politicians, pundits, and health experts who had condescendingly rebuked business owners for reopening without official permission, who had banned funerals and church services of more than ten people, and who had heaped scorn on protesters who had gathered in state capitols to express their economic distress, suddenly became avid cheerleaders for screaming crowds numbering in the thousands.

Most remarkably, public officials overtly admitted to choosing the forms of assembly that would be allowed based on the content of the protesters’ speech. Mayor de Blasio explained that protests over “400 years of American racism” are not the same as a “store owner or the devout religious person who wants to go back to services.” While the store owner or worshipper may be “understandably aggrieved,” he conceded, their grievances must still be suppressed in the name of coronavirus safety. Not the grievances of the protesters and rioters, however. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy congratulated the Black Lives Matter activists and distinguished them from mere “nail salon” entrepreneurs protesting their ongoing business stasis. The two are in “different orbits,” Murphy said.

The politicians’ hypocrisy was a mere warm-up for that of the public health establishment. These were the people whose diktats had inspired the lockdowns and whose allegedly supreme knowledge of medical risk was allowed to cancel all other considerations in maintaining a functioning society. Nearly 1,200 of these same experts, including from the CDC, signed a public letter supporting the unsocially distanced protests on the grounds that “white supremacy is a lethal public health issue that predates and contributes to COVID-19.”

One could just as easily argue that a global depression, induced by the gratuitous crushing of trade and the hollowing out of capital, is a lethal public health issue of at least equal magnitude. But it turns out that public health is as much about politics as it is about science.

This shameless reversal should have torpedoed the lockdowns once and for all. If it turns out that mass gatherings were now not just allowable but to be encouraged, no rationale remained for preventing restaurants and stores from reopening. But instead, once media attention became a little less monomaniacally focused on the anti-police agitation, the familiar chorus rose up again, directed at everyone else: Stay socially distanced! Wear your outdoor masks! No gatherings of more than a few dozen! No entering “non-essential” stores! The same arbitrary “metrics” for business reopenings were still in place and still being enforced.

By now, the collapse of government legitimacy is complete. For three months, public officials abdicated their responsibility to balance the costs and benefits of any given policy. They put the future of hundreds of millions of Americans in the hands of a narrow set of experts who lack all awareness of the workings of economic and social systems, and whose “science” was built on the ever-shifting sand of speculative models and on extreme risk aversion regarding only one kind of risk.

The public officials who ceded their authority to the so-called experts were deaf to the pleas of law-abiding business owners who saw their life’s efforts snuffed out. They engineered the destruction of trillions of dollars of wealth, through thoroughly arbitrary decision making. And then they stood by as billions more dollars of work burned down. Public order and safety, equal treatment under the law, stability of expectations—all the prerequisites for robust investment have been decimated. The failure to quell the riots means that more are inevitable. Any future business faces possible destruction by another lockdown or by looting—which it will be is anyone’s guess.

***

The coronavirus lockdowns demonstrated our leaders’ ignorance of economic interdependence. After the riots, that ignorance has been shown to run far deeper. It is an ignorance about government’s most fundamental obligation: to safeguard life, liberty, and property. It is an ignorance about human nature and human striving.

Property and capital are not soulless abstractions, easily replaced by an insurance payout, as the rioters and their apologists maintain. (The Massachusetts Attorney General noted that burning is “how forests grow.”) Capital is accumulated effort and innovation, the sum of human achievement and imagination. Its creation is the aim of civilization. But civilization is everywhere and at all times vulnerable to the darkest human impulses. Government exists to rein in those impulses so that individual initiative can flourish. America’s Founders, schooled in a profound philosophical and literary tradition dating back to classical antiquity, understood the fragility of civil peace and the danger of the lustful, vengeful mob.

Our present leaders, the products of a politicized and failing education system, seem to know nothing of those truths. Pulling the country back from the abyss will require a recalling of our civilizational inheritance.

via Imprimis

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu

US Government And Yale Hold Trials On How Best To “Persuade” Americans To Take COVID-19 Vaccine

US Government And Yale Hold Trials On How Best To "Persuade" Americans To Take COVID-19 Vaccine

Tyler Durden

Wed, 08/05/2020 – 11:20

Authored by Joe Martino via Collective-Evolution.com,

IN BRIEF

  • The Facts: The US government and Yale University collaborate in a clinical trial to determine the best messaging to persuade Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

  • Reflect On: Why do people need to be persuaded? Is it possible they have a lack of trust in public health recommendations for good reason?

The US Federal government in collaboration with Yale University held clinical trials to determine what the best messaging would be to persuade Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine when it is ready. The news of this study does show an interest in finding the best way to persuade people into an ideal decision for the Federal government, and likely vaccine makers, and it also shows that a mandatory vaccine campaign may still be the plan B down the road, as opposed to plan A.

The official title of the trial is, “Persuasive Messages for COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: a Randomized Controlled Trial, Part 1.”

According to the brief summary for trial:

This study tests different messages about vaccinating against COVID-19 once the vaccine becomes available. Participants are randomized to 1 of 12 arms, with one control arm and one baseline arm. We will compare the reported willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine at 3 and 6 months of it becoming available between the 10 intervention arms to the 2 control arms.

Study participants are recruited online by Lucid, which matches census based sampling in online recruitment.

The study essentially looks at the best possible messaging that can be used on Americans, ranging from expressing vaccine benefits, to using messaging about economic impact, making someone feel guilty or embarrassed for not taking the vaccine, and so on.

The study looked at around 4000 participants aged 18 years and up, all of whom had to be US residents of course.

The various ‘arms’ used in the study when it came to messaging were as follows:

  • Other: Control message
  • Other: Baseline message
  • Other: Personal freedom message
  • Other: Economic freedom message
  • Other: Self-interest message
  • Other: Community interest message
  • Other: Economic benefit message
  • Other: Guilt message
  • Other: Embarrassment message
  • Other: Anger message
  • Other: Trust in science message
  • Other: Not bravery message

Interestingly, the study also looked at various social elements involved in vaccination, see below:

Primary Outcome Measures :

  1. Intention to get COVID-19 vaccine [ Time Frame: Immediately after intervention, in the same survey in which the intervention message is provided ]This is a self reported measure, immediately after the intervention message, of the likelihood of getting a COVID-19 vaccination within 3 months and then 6 months of it becoming available. During analysis, responses among those assigned to different intervention messages will be compared to those in the control group.

Secondary Outcome Measures :

  1. Vaccine confidence scale [ Time Frame: Immediately after intervention, in the same survey in which the intervention message is provided ]This is a validated scale. This scale will be used to assess the impact of the messages on vaccine confidence. (Outcome assessed only for the half of the sample that answers these items post-treatment)

  2. Persuade others item [ Time Frame: Immediately after intervention, in the same survey in which the intervention message is provided ]This is a measure of a willingness to persuade others to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

  3. Fear of those who have not been vaccinated [ Time Frame: Immediately after intervention, in the same survey in which the intervention message is provided ]This is a measure of a comfort with an unvaccinated individual visiting an elderly friend after a vaccine becomes available

  4. Social judgment of those who do not vaccinate [ Time Frame: Immediately after intervention, in the same survey in which the intervention message is provided ]This is a scale composed of 4 items measuring the trustworthiness, selfishness, likeableness, and competence of those who choose not to get vaccinated after a vaccine becomes available.

Why This Matters: As more credible information about vaccinations and their associated dangers circles the internet and informs people, their choice to not vaccinate in certain situations is increasing. As noted by The World Health Organization, even doctors are starting to question and have a lack of trust in vaccines. Because of all of this, I believe pharmaceutical companies now have to work harder to convince people to get vaccines so their profits can stay where they are at. We are seeing the power of free and open media. You can likely guess you would not see a story like this nor honest coverage about vaccines in mainstream media.

The Takeaway: Humanity is waking up to truths that have long been held hidden behind the lack of honest media and government. As we begin to understand what is truly going on behind the scenes, we are beginning to ask even deeper questions. Why have we not be told the full story? Why do we give up our power to those who do not have our best interests at heart? What role are they playing in the awakening of humanity? Who are we? Why are we truly here and why are we not thriving as a global society? What is truly holding us back?

These questions lead us inwards to explore the true nature of who we are. Do we really lack the solutions in our world to allow humanity to thrive? Or is it that human consciousness is suppressed and stuck in a story of separation? Raising human consciousness is the solution we’re looking for.

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.zerohedge.com/fullrss2.xml

Pollak: Withhold Congressional Pay Until They Pass Unemployment Benefits


President Donald Trump should instruct Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin to withhold the salaries of members of Congress until they can pass a bill determining the extension of federal unemployment benefits to millions of Americans.

The $600-per-week federal boost to unemployment benefits expired last week after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) failed to reach a deal with Republicans. Even the mainstream media are reporting that Pelosi and the Democrats are to blame for the lack of compromise.

Democrats are sticking to the HEROES Act — a $3 trillion, 1,815-page monstrosity passed by the Democrat-controlled House in May that includes a number of purely political provisions.

As Breitbart News reported at the time, the HEROES Act was so radical that it was opposed by moderate Democrats. It provides massive giveaways to the “green” energy industry; provides $10 million in pork to the National Endowment for the Arts; requires national mail-in voting and “ballot harvesting“; and lifts the cap on the SALT deduction — providing a massive tax cut for the rich in blue states. Democrats hope that Republicans will eventually be forced to accept the bill.

Republicans have proposed a $1 trillion alternative, focused more narrowly on immediate economic relief. They have also insisted on protecting employers from lawsuits related to coronavirus — a key concern for small businesses and non-profit organizations as they contemplate reopening. The GOP has also proposed reducing the additional federal unemployment aid from $600 per week to $200 per week, so workers have an incentive to seek new jobs rather than staying on relief.

There is room for compromise, as well as for a solution that helps state and local governments that are facing massive cash crunches — without bailing out profligate blue states like Illinois and California. But talks have been deadlocked.

Democrats even rejected a one-week extension at the $600 level. The result is that millions of Americans will experience a sudden drop in income. Pelosi is taking her sweet time: maybe there will be a deal this week, and maybe there won’t.

Evidently the politicians on Capitol Hill believe that the real deadline is November — that they can dawdle on renewing federal assistance and then blame the other side (i.e. Republicans) for the pain being experienced by American families, and for the sudden reduction in consumer spending that has, thus far, been keeping the economy afloat. There is only one way to force Congress — mainly Pelosi — to take action, and that is to withhold pay to members of Congress themselves.

The Constitution states: “The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.” Mnuchin should withhold their paychecks, on the argument that Congress is not actually providing a service.

Congress would sue, and would probably win, but the point would be made that politicians are unwilling to endure the hardship that they are, by their inaction, imposing on others.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His new book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Back the Blue Rally Organizers Give Officers $1,500 in Gift Cards


Organizers of a Back the Blue rally in Asheville, North Carolina, presented officers with gifts Monday to help boost morale.

“Let the police officers know that protect and serve us every day that their community loves them and there are so many people in the community that feel the same way,” said organizer Ed Brown, according to WLOS.

Local officers received numerous letters, posters, and $1,500 in gift cards, the outlet noted, adding that the gifts were collected by participants of the rally that took place Saturday in Buncombe County.

At the event that began in Swannanoa, organizers said its purpose was not political but to show support for officers in the Asheville Police Department, the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office, and the State Highway Patrol.

“I’m seeing that our law enforcement agencies are being demoralized,” Brown said, adding, “We can talk about defunding and all of this kind of stuff, but is it defunding or is it training and other kinds of things we can do for our local law enforcement?”

The Trump administration would increase funding for law enforcement and reject calls to defund the police, Vice President Mike Pence told host Alex Marlow on Tuesday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily.

Pence continued:

We’re not going to defund the police. We’re going to fund law enforcement. We’re going to back the blue, even while we work to improve public safety and improve the lives of all of the families in our cities, all of the minority families, African American, Hispanic American, and every family impacted by the scourge of violence that’s frankly gone on for too long in too many American cities.

In Tampa, Florida, over the weekend, volunteers painted a Back the Blue mural on the street in front of police headquarters, according to Breitbart News.

“This is a very visible, very big statement that says we are here. There are many of us,” said organizer Kelli Campbell whose group Back the Blue Florida helped with the artwork.

“We care about you. We care about you going out every day putting your life on the line for us. We support everything that you are doing, and that we know that the majority of law enforcement are good people,” she concluded.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com