Menu Icon

Debt Rattle March 26 2025

Mar 262025
 
 March 26, 2025  Posted by at 11:03 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  26 Responses »


Georges Seurat A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte 1884

 

• Trump’s Appeals Are Piling Up For The Supreme Court (Whedon)
• Ted Cruz On Judicial Overreach From District Judges (Downs)
• Nationwide Injunctions Pit Executive Versus Judicial Authority (ET)
• Even Bill Barr Thinks the Judges are Out of Line (Spencer)
• Trump Eyes Two-Stage Tariffs On April 2 To ‘Strengthen Legal Framework’ (ZH)
• The Atlantic’s Signal Story Is Quickly Falling Apart (Vespa)
• Disdain For Europe In US Signal Chat Horrifies EU (BBC)
• Europe Backs Off Tariffs, But … (Lyman)
• EU Could Slap Meta With €1 Billion Fine, Trump Vows To Retaliate (RMX)
• EU ‘Contradicting’ US On Ukraine – Lavrov (RT)
• White House Reveals Details Of US-Russia Talks In Riyadh (RT)
• Zelensky Announces Push To Enlist Younger Men (RT)
• US ‘Thinking About’ Easing Russia Sanctions – Trump (RT)
• Trump Hails ‘Progress’ On Ukraine (RT)

 

 

 

 

Manufacturing

Elon

Alina

DOGE

DeSantis

Signal

Bondi

 

 

I have argued this for the past two years: Failure to make peace now and threats of expanding NATO after the war will result in Russia seizing its historical territories from Kharkov to Odessa.
– If Ukraine had not been robbed of its neutrality in 2014, then there would not have been any territorial claims. Even in 2022, the Istanbul peace agreement was solely focused on neutrality. We need to end this war now and end NATO expansionism

 

 

 

 

“District courts have issued more universal injunctions and TROs [Temporary Restraining Orders] during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden Administration..”

• Trump’s Appeals Are Piling Up For The Supreme Court (Whedon)

The Trump administration’s latest legal showdown with James Boasberg, chief judge of the federal district court for the District of Columbia, over the deportation of Venezuelan gang members threatens to dump yet another judicial injunction on the plate of the Supreme Court. It adds yet more pressure on the justices to rule on the scope of lower court authority and interaction with the Executive Branch. Nationwide injunctions have become increasingly common in recent years. An April 2024 Harvard Law Review study found that 96 were issued from the presidency of George W. Bush to the date of publication. Overall, 86.5% of those were issued by judges appointed by members of the opposing party. Trump’s first term saw 64 injunctions while Biden only faced 14. Less than 65 days into this term, judges have imposed at least 15 such injunctions on the Trump administration in its first two months alone.

The administration has so far faced dozens of lawsuits, mostly over Trump’s executive orders and the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Most of the injunctions so far have come from judges on either the Maryland or District of Columbia courts, although the injunctions purport to be in effect nationwide. The breadth of such injunctions is sure to be raised to the Supreme Court at some point in the near future. Trump is currently fighting to freeze federal funding, deport foreign gang members, fire thousands of federal workers, reinterpret birthright citizenship and to achieve a host of other objectives. Boasberg’s case involves Trump’s invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and has led to heated exchanges in the courtroom over the administration’s responsiveness to the judge’s orders. The administration on Tuesday invoked state secrets privilege when declining to provide further information on the deportation of the gang members requested by Boasberg.

“This is a case about the President’s plenary authority, derived from Article II and the mandate of the electorate, and reinforced by longstanding statute, to remove from the homeland designated terrorists participating in a state-sponsored invasion of, and predatory incursion into, the United States,” the government wrote to the court. “The Court has all of the facts it needs to address the compliance issues before it. Further intrusions on the Executive Branch would present dangerous and wholly unwarranted separation-of-powers harms with respect to diplomatic and national security concerns that the Court lacks competence to address.” The appeals process is ongoing at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which held oral arguments on Monday. That body has yet to issue a decision, but an unfavorable one is sure to result in an appeal by the administration to the Supreme Court.

When urging the Supreme Court to intervene, the Trump administration has highlighted the potential burdens on the top bench should nationwide injunctions become normalized and the court faces an influx of emergency appeals. The Supreme Court traditionally hears roughly 100-150 cases per year of the more than 7,000 cases seeking their intervention. The Supreme Court hears cases on a system of “certiorari,” under which a case cannot, as a matter of right, be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Any party seeking to appeal to the Supreme Court from a lower court decision must file a writ of certiorari.

“District courts have issued more universal injunctions and TROs [Temporary Restraining Orders] during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden Administration,” acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote while asking the court to address injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship order. “That sharp rise in universal injunctions stops the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions, and threatens to swamp this Court’s emergency docket.”

Read more …

“..Cruz did speak to examples he’s more hopeful about, which provide hope for the future. Such remedies include, as the senator sees it, “sunshine, drawing attention to it.”

• Ted Cruz On Judicial Overreach From District Judges (Downs)

The judicial overreach from district judges constantly ruling against the Trump administration and whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will get involved has certainly been in the news lately, as Townhall. It’s gotten to such a level that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) weighed in with his Monday episode of “The Verdict,” the podcast co-hosted with Ben Ferguson. In discussing the newsworthy topic, Cruz issued several key reminders about these judges, as Ferguson asked for a “remedy” and a “strategy to fight back,” reminding that “it’s very frustrating,” especially those who voted for President Donald Trump’s agenda, which a majority of Americans support,

As Cruz reminded in response, “to be clear,” the judges “were in every single case, elected by no one.” For every one of these judges, they were appointed by the president and then confirmed by the U.S. Senate, with Cruz stressing that “no federal judge is elected.” For unelected judges, there is a few examples of checks and balances. There’s impeachment, with Republican congressmen bringing forth plans to do just that, though Cruz was not optimistic about such an option. “Impeachment, unfortunately, is not going to be effective against this abuse of power,” Cruz shared, explaining how it’s the similar process as impeaching an executive officer. While it only takes a majority in the House to impeach a judge, which could happen, “impeaching, however, it is not removing the judge,” Cruz reminded. “It is the equivalent of bringing charges. It is the equivalent of indicting, like a grand jury indicts, which is to bring criminal charges against someone, impeaching is the same thing.”

Even if Republicans in the House were to unify, however, “the chances that any of these judges would be removed for issuing these nationwide injunctions are 0.00 percent,” Cruz made clear. In the Senate, Cruz reminded, you need two-thirds to convict and remove the person in office, in this case a federal judge. “Now, we do not have 67 Republicans in the Senate. We only have 53 that means we would need at least 14 Democrats, and that’s assuming every Republican stood together. The chances of 14 Democrats voting to convict any of these radical left-wing judges for issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump are zero; and understand why. The Democrats in the Senate hate Trump,” he said, going on to add how these Democrats, so full of hatred against Trump, reacted to his address before a joint session of Congress earlier this month.

“These are the same people that sat there and refused to applaud for the president, refused to applaud for the mothers of women raped and murdered by illegal immigrant criminals. These are the same Democrats that refused to applaud for a 13-year-old kid fighting to overcome brain cancer.”Further, Democrats are actually quite supportive of these judges and what they’re doing. Arguably the most prominent example was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) with his comments last week. Democrats, Cruz reminded, are “cheering on these injunctions,” as “they want more lawlessness, and so impeachment is not going to be effective.” Cruz also spoke further about the power of Congress beyond impeaching judges, which has no chance of resulting in removal. “Now, secondly, another remedy is that Congress can restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and Congress has broad authority to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts,” the senator added.

“Actually, Congress could abolish the district courts. There’s nothing in the Constitution that creates district courts. The only court created in the Constitution is the Supreme Court of the United States, and Congress created the lower courts, the district courts and the courts of appeals to process the volume of cases. But Congress has broad authority to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but again, to exercise that authority in the Senate, you would have to overcome the filibuster, which means you would need 60 votes. We have 53 Republicans. The chances of any Senate Democrats voting to limit the jurisdiction of federal judges issued a nationwide injunction? If it’s not zero, it’s damn close to zero. So those remedies are quite limited,” the senator highlighted, speaking of that example.However, Cruz did speak to examples he’s more hopeful about, which provide hope for the future. Such remedies include, as the senator sees it, “sunshine, drawing attention to it.”

Read more …

“..“only this court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable.”

• Nationwide Injunctions Pit Executive Versus Judicial Authority (ET)

President Donald Trump’s agenda has been slowed by a long list of orders issued by federal judges against his policies. Those orders include many that are nationwide in scope. Dubbed nationwide or universal injunctions, they are considered extraordinary because they allow a single judge to block national policies. Nationwide orders have increasingly been used by judges in recent years, prompting pushback from presidential administrations. Trump recently denounced their use and asked the Supreme Court to intervene. “Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country!” the president said in a March 20 post on Truth Social. “These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings.”

Judges have defended the broad scope of the injunctions, saying they’re necessary to avoid purported harms resulting from executive action. Critics, meanwhile, argue that courts are exceeding their authority, even as lawyers “shop” for favorable judges who are likely to agree with their policy preferences. While the Supreme Court has yet to address this issue, it could have the final say, as challenges to Trump’s actions make their way up the appeals process. According to a study by the Harvard Law Review, the number of universal orders has increased in recent years. Most come from judges appointed by a president from the opposing party to the one in the White House. The trend, the study said, has been fueled by “judge shopping,” where plaintiffs strategically file lawsuits before judges they view as more favorable to their case.

Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama saw six and 12 universal injunctions, respectively, during their terms. That number increased to 64 during Trump’s first term—59 of which came from a judge appointed by a president of the opposing party. President Joe Biden, meanwhile, saw a slightly higher number than Obama with 14—all of them coming from judges appointed by a president of the opposing party. Judges have defended the nationwide scope of their rulings. “The reason the Executive Orders are unconstitutional—namely that, at minimum, they violate the separation of powers—are applicable to jurisdictions throughout the country,” U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson said in February while blocking Trump’s order on so-called gender-affirming care.

“The necessity of a nationwide injunction is underscored by the fact that hospitals all over the country could lose access to all federal funding if they continue to provide gender-affirming medical care.” In issuing a preliminary injunction on Trump’s birthright citizenship order, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said in February that a geographically limited injunction would be “ineffective” as plaintiff states would have to pay for the children of illegal immigrants who travel from other states. Trump attempted to combat what he said to be “abuses of the legal system and the federal court” with an order on March 22 that directed the attorney general to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States.”

Experts have pointed to Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship as one that’s likely to reach the Supreme Court. Given a recent filing by the Trump administration, it could prompt a broader ruling about nationwide injunctions. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris has asked the Supreme Court to say “enough is enough.” She filed a petition asking the court to review three nationwide preliminary injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship order.
“Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current Administration,” Harris said. She noted that the number of universal injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued against the current administration has already outpaced the first three years of the Biden administration. She argued that “only this court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable.”

Read more …

“..we have this phenomena of nation-wide injunctions where the lowest level judge, district judges, try to bind the entire nation and bind the president in their initial decision. That is not what we have meant by the judicial power under our Constitution.”

• Even Bill Barr Thinks the Judges are Out of Line (Spencer)

When you’ve lost Bill Barr, you really don’t have a case. Even Bill Barr, who was Donald Trump’s attorney general from Feb. 2019 to Dec. 2020 but had a bitter falling-out with him, thinks that the activist far-left judges who are blocking Trump’s efforts to deport criminal migrants are going too far. This is significant because Barr is not only no friend of Trump; he is, indeed, a pillar of the old Republican establishment that hates everything about Orange Man Bad. And the way he has spoken about Trump would make you think that he was having cocktails with Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff every evening.

Trump, Barr said in June 2023, is like a “defiant 9-year-old kid who is always pushing the glass toward the edge of the table defying his parents to stop him from doing it. He’s a very petty individual who will always put his interests ahead of the country’s. But our country can’t be a therapy session for a troubled man like this.” Yes, the guy who said that thinks that the judges are going too far. Trump and Barr first fell out over Barr’s claim that the 2020 presidential election was entirely on the up-and-up. Then Barr backed Jack Smith’s bogus legal persecution of Trump over supposedly mishandling classified documents. Affecting a pompous, above-it-all, more-in-sadness-than-in-anger pose,

Barr wrote: “For the sake of the country, our party, and a basic respect for the truth, it is time that Republicans come to grips with the hard truths about President Trump’s conduct and its implications.” And just as he somehow missed all the evidence that something was very much amiss with the 2020 election, Barr also missed the unmistakable indications that the Biden regime had weaponized the justice system to discredit and destroy its principal opponent. Barr insisted that “Trump’s indictment is not the result of unfair government persecution. This is a situation entirely of his own making. The effort to present Trump as a victim in the Mar-a-Lago document affair is cynical political propaganda.”

Barr based his claim, however, upon his negative assessment of Trump’s character more than on the facts of the case: “This is not a circumstance where he’s the victim or this is government overreach. He provoked this whole problem himself. Yes, he’s been the victim of unfair witch hunts in the past, but that doesn’t obviate the fact that he’s also a fundamentally flawed person who engages in reckless conduct that leads to situations, calamitous situations, like this, which are very disruptive and hurt any political cause he’s associated with.”

Since he has this low an opinion of Trump, Barr would not have surprised anyone if he started touting the wisdom and courage of the leftist judges for blocking the whims of this “defiant 9-year-old kid.” Instead, however, Barr said: “There’s a pattern whereby these district court judges are trying to usurp the responsibility of the president in the national security area. The president is absolutely right to be frustrated and concerned about the way the courts are handling this.” Well, blow me down. This is Bill Barr talking?

Barr went even farther, saying: “The Constitution gives the president the power to make the judgments about how we deal with foreign nationals when we are animated by national security concerns. It’s his call, not a district court judge’s call.” Barr even explained how the judges are abusing the power of the judiciary: “Even where it’s appropriate for the court to play its traditional role of safeguarding the liberties of American citizens, we have this phenomena of nation-wide injunctions where the lowest level judge, district judges, try to bind the entire nation and bind the president in their initial decision. That is not what we have meant by the judicial power under our Constitution.”

Indeed. Or as Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan put it in 2022: “It can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through normal process.” It will be interesting to see if Kagan votes that way once this comes to the Supreme Court. Said Barr: “If they [the U.S. Supreme Court] finally stand up and decide a case instead of hanging back from these decisions, I think it’ll come out the right way. I think most of the justices appreciate how absurd this is.”

Read more …

Trump wants to hear from countries what they think is fair. They won’t tell him. He wants to make a deal. They don’t know how that works.

• Trump Eyes Two-Stage Tariffs On April 2 To ‘Strengthen Legal Framework’ (ZH)

As April 2nd approaches – the day President Donald Trump is set to roll out a global tariff regime, the Financial Times reports that Trump is now considering ‘a two-step approach,’ which would split tariffs into two stages; targeted emergency tariffs now to raise money for planned tax cuts, and more after his administration has completed probes into trading partners to provide a more robust legal framework to deploy “reciprocal” tariffs (we charge them the same percentage they’re charging us). Basically while Trump and Lutnick want to go full bore now, US trade representative Jamieson Greer (a lawyer who worked for Trump’s first trade chief Robert Lighthizer), insisted they pump the brakes in order to legally justify sweeping tariffs. The dual-track strategy is poised for a high-profile unveiling on April 2, a date Trump has branded “Liberation Day,” spurring a flurry of diplomatic activity as allies seek exemptions.

Among proposals his team has been discussing is a plan to launch so-called Section 301 investigations into trading partners, while simultaneously using rarely invoked emergency powers to apply immediate tariffs in the interim. -FT Speaking Monday, Trump vowed “substantial” tariffs on U.S. trading partners, though he also suggested the possibility of selective leniency. “They’ve charged us so much that I’m embarrassed to charge them what they’ve charged us,” Trump said – hours after announcing new tariffs on buyers of Venezuelan oil, including China. “But it’ll be substantial.” According to the Financial Times, officials close to the matter say the administration is eyeing an immediate deployment of tariffs using emergency authorities such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), or Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 – a provision that permits duties of up to 50% on foreign goods on trading partners.

One more obscure route, now considered a long shot, involves Section 122 of the 1974 Act, which permits temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days – a stopgap measure that may not deliver the revenue or optics the former president is seeking. Lawyers and people familiar with the plans also told FT that Trump could immediately slap tariffs on vehicle imports on April 2, reviving a national security study into the global auto industry from his first term. On Monday, Trump said tariffs on cars could be announced “over the next few days.” The debate within the Trump team has at times split along functional lines. The two main points of contact have also differed in their approaches, say people familiar with the discussions. While commerce secretary Howard Lutnick has served as the administration’s chief negotiator, he has lambasted trading partners over their trade surpluses and tax policies, before demanding “a deal”.

US trade representative Jamieson Greer, a lawyer who previously worked for Trump’s first-term trade chief Bob Lighthizer, has increasingly asserted himself as the legal planner, seeking to create a durable blueprint for the president’s drive to reorder global trade. -FT. Greer has notably advocated for launching investigations into trading partners before applying tariffs, according to people familiar with his thinking. This would rely on tested trade law, but could delay tariffs by up to six months. White House spokesperson Kush Desai said the final details of the reciprocal tariff plan remain under wraps, but emphasized internal alignment on the broader goal: “Although the final reciprocal tariff plan for April 2 has yet to be unveiled by President Trump, every member of the Trump administration is aligned on finally leveling the playing field for American industries and workers.”

Read more …

Hard to follow even. This is what we call “convoluted”?

• The Atlantic’s Signal Story Is Quickly Falling Apart (Vespa)

So, what the hell is this story now? It’s a warning that perhaps more administrative due diligence should be applied when creating these group chats on encrypted and secure messenger apps. Still, while alarming at first, the hubbub is dying down quickly. This story in The Atlantic that secret war plans were disclosed to known anti-Trump fake news writer Jeffrey Goldberg, who was accidentally added to the group, is falling apart faster than a skiff made of paper.

Was it an unforced error by the Trump team? One hundred percent—they’re no angels here, but no classified information was disclosed. There were no war plans. We have a bunch of top officials speaking candidly and in generalities about anti-Houthi operations. These were unclassified discussions, and Signal is an approved app. Biden’s people used it. It was already downloaded on the devices of the principals involved. CIA Director John Ratcliffe was on those chats—no classified information was disclosed.

So, it’s a nothing burger on the primary charge that this administration disclosed secret war plans to a journalist. That kills the narrative when the CIA director says nothing harmful was disclosed, and Ratcliffe is respected on both sides of the aisle. That’s three significant stories this publication has tried to trip up the administration, only to do faceplants.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe confirmed that according to CIA record management, Signal is approved for “work use.” Let’s set this record straight. Here is the truth about Signal:
-In 2016, the DNC instructed all staffers to exclusively use Signal to talk crap about Trump because it was encrypted.
-In 2017, Signal was approved by the sergeant at arms of the U.S. Senate and staff. -The use of common amongst the security community.
-Cybersecurity firm iVerify’s Rocky Cole has also stated the app has “stellar reputation and is widely used and trusted in the security community”.
-Even Edward Snowden has said that he uses Signal due to its strong encryption services.

Losers and suckers in 2020 was a lie. Trump liking Nazi generals was a lie. And now, classified information being leaked on Signal has blown up in their faces. It was for sure the liberal media’s attempt to avenge the Hillary Clinton emails fiasco from 2016, which makes no sense because it was the liberal media who covered that story extensively; that wasn’t primarily a conservative media thing. The New York Times, believe it or not, had some of the most damning articles about that and the slush fund politics at the Clinton Foundation.

The Atlantic tried to drive a wedge into Trump’s inner circle. They aimed and missed again. This story died in less than 24 hours, disintegrating so fast that all the theatrics and talking points the Democrats had prepared looked out of date and unhinged. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) got all twisted up, bellowing about things that Ratcliffe never said at today’s hearing.

Meanwhile, we might have some palace intrigue: someone is talking to Politico about National Security Adviser Michael Waltz’s status, who looked like a dead man walking a few hours ago. Now, if this leaker is found, no doubt that person should be fired, not Waltz. Whatever happens, happens, but after we’ve all had a drink or two and simmered down, this is another bombshell that quickly collapsed because it’s the fake news doing its work again.

Trump responds:

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1904613271249830207?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1904613271249830207%7Ctwgr%5E430d286571e97f4efa82650f8d45c839b9c928ed%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Fmattvespa%2F2025%2F03%2F25%2Fcia-director-ratcliffe-blows-up-secret-war-plans-narrative-n2654467

***

Last Note: Again, Hillary Clinton can shut her face, along with the rest of the political class who think this is some major scandal. Most people in DC use Signal, too. Hillary Clinton did all official State Department business through an unsecured server, which was not approved, and if she had asked, it wouldn’t have been permitted, per the inspector general at the time:

Read more …

Was it leaked just to see the EU’s reaction?

• Disdain For Europe In US Signal Chat Horrifies EU (BBC)

“Horrific to see in black and white. But hardly surprising,” is how a top European diplomat reacted to what comes across as deep, heartfelt disdain for European allies, revealed late on Monday, European time, in an online group chat between top US security officials. Seemingly by accident, Atlantic magazine editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was also invited to the chat, which discussed planned strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen aimed at unblocking trade routes on the Suez Canal. He subsequently made the frank exchange public. In the chat, Vice-President JD Vance notes that only 3% of US trade runs through the canal, as opposed to 40% of European trade, after which he and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth complain of European “free-loading”. The monumental security breach is causing a ruckus at home, with Democrats calling for Hegseth’s resignation as a result.

Across the pond – aka the Atlantic – Europe’s leaders and policy-makers felt “sick to their stomach”, as an EU official put it to me. Officials quoted here are speaking on condition of anonymity in order to comment freely on what are volatile times in US-European relations. You won’t see comments in the public domain, so as not to rock the transatlantic boat any further. Vance first stunned European officials with his speech at last month’s Security Conference in Munich condemning the continent for having misplaced values such as protecting abortion clinics and censoring speech in the media and online. “The enemy from within,” he called it. Monday’s Signal chat strikes at the heart of a slew of tensions, discomfort and plain old fear in Europe right now, that the Trump administration can no longer be relied on as the continent’s greatest ally. At a time when Europe is facing off against a resurgent Russia.

Western Europe has looked to the US to have its back in terms of security and defence since World War Two. But it is precisely that fact that so riles the Trump administration and has cemented Europe in its mind as “freeloaders”. While the US commits 3.7% of its colossal GDP to defence, it’s taken the majority of European partners in the transatlantic defence alliance Nato until recently to cough up even 2% of GDP. Some, like big economies Spain and Italy, aren’t even there yet, though they say they plan to be soon. Europe relies heavily on the US, amongst other things, for intelligence, for aerial defence capabilities and for its nuclear umbrella.With the phasing out of conscription in most European countries, the continent also relies on the around 100,000 battle-ready US troops stationed in Europe to help act as a deterrent against potential aggressors.

Europeans have focused more on investing in welfare and social services than defence – collective or otherwise – since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Why on earth should the US pick up the slack, asks the Trump administration. On the leaked group chat, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz laments the state of Europe’s naval forces. “It will have to be the United States that reopens these [Suez] shipping lanes.” The chat then debates how to ensure that Europe remunerates the US for its actions. “If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return,” states a message from someone called SM – presumed to be deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller. Europe is now loudly and publicly discussing spending a lot more on its own defence – hoping to keep Donald Trump onside and an aggressive Russia at bay after Ukraine.

But Trump’s irritation with Europe is nothing new. He displayed his displeasure during his first term in office: furious about Europe’s low defence spending; incandescent over the EU’s trade surplus with the US. The United States had been long been taken for a ride and that must stop, seemed to be his sentiment. Imposing trade tariffs was one of Trump’s first responses. Then as now. Earlier this month, when Trump threatened eye-watering 200% tariffs on European alcohol in an ongoing trade tit-for-tat, he lambasted the EU as “abusive” and “hostile” for allegedly taking advantage of the US at any opportunity. Coinciding uncomfortably with the leaked Signal chat and its Euro-bashing, the EU’s trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic, along with the head of cabinet of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, arrived in Washington on Tuesday hoping to launch a charm offensive to try to stave off a new tariff onslaught.

Read more …

“We will spend more on defense and we will spend it better,” von der Leyen said.”

• Europe Backs Off Tariffs, But … (Lyman)

In the first face off of what could turn into an all-out trade war between the U.S. and the European Union, the Europeans blinked first. European economies are already feeling the impacts of the 25% levy on global imports of steel and aluminum that went into force March 12. The European Union vowed to retaliate with around $30 billion worth of targeted tariffs on U.S. goods including a 50-percent markup on Bourbon and other American whiskey, starting April 1. Further EU taxes were set to start two weeks later. In response, Trump said the strategy was “nasty,” and he threatened a 200% markup on prices for European alcohol in the U.S. Then, this week, Europe struck back by delaying the April 1 tariffs until at least April 15. The reason, according to European Union trade spokesman Olof Gill, is to give time for “a constructive dialogue with the U.S. in order to seek a solution that avoids unnecessary harm to both economies.”

Wine producing countries were particularly worried about the 200-percent tariff threat and so it was no surprise that the implementation of the measures was reportedly pushed by France, Italy and Spain – not coincidentally, the three European countries that sell the most wine in the U.S. market. The decision on tariffs came during an unusually high-profile meeting of the European council of leaders Thursday and Friday in Brussels and in the days after, scores of analysts were almost unanimous that a trade war would hurt Europe more than the U.S. The European leaders did take more decisive stands in other areas related to the policies of the two-month-old Trump administration. That includes reiterating support for Ukraine and sending an additional $1 billion to help the country in its war against Russia.

That is a stance that has not changed despite the unexpectedly harsh welcome for Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House last month. Leaders also agreed to “intensify” the process toward Ukraine becoming a European Union member state. Despite Russia President Vladimir Putin’s intense opposition to that, they elected not to consider unfreezing $50 billion in Russian financial assets immobilized last year. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also said she opposed the proposed U.S. ceasefire plan for Ukraine, arguing that such a move would only allow Russia to “regroup” before launching new attacks. Probably most notably, the European states agreed to dramatically increase defense spending and to coordinate their security initiatives as the 27-nation bloc looks for ways to flex its geopolitical muscles even as the U.S. withdraws security guarantees Europe has enjoyed since the end of World War II.

“We will spend more on defense and we will spend it better,” von der Leyen said. “We have no choice.” Apart from Europe’s at least temporary retreat on tariff policies and its renewed support for Ukraine under Zelensky and opposition to Putin’s Russia, the big takeaway from the Council of Europe meeting may be the difficult position some European leaders find themselves in as they seek to straddle the growing U.S.-Europe divide. The best example of that may be Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, who supported Trump’s first term even when she was part of Italy’s political opposition (she had a prominent spot at CPAC in 2019, for example). As prime minister, she made a surprise trip to meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in January, more than two weeks before Trump’s inauguration (Trump called her “a fantastic woman”). The bond between Trump and Meloni had media calling the 48-year-old Italian Europe’s “Trump Whisperer.”

But Meloni is also committed to European priorities that sometimes clash with White House priorities. That includes strong support for the Ukrainian cause, a willingness to criticize Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, and the recognition that the cash-strapped Italian government cannot afford to spend dramatically more on its military (the country is under the NATO target of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense) and that any disruption of trade would hit Italy harder than it would most European economies. That has put Meloni, likely Trump’s most important ally in Europe, in a tough spot, as France’s Le Monde (and many others) reported, leaving the Rome native “trapped in an awkward position on European defense and the trans-Atlantic crisis.”

Read more …

“These heavy fines appear to have two purposes: to force businesses to follow European standards and to tax American companies in Europe..”

• EU Could Slap Meta With €1 Billion Fine, Trump Vows To Retaliate (RMX)

The European Union could fine Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta (Facebook, Instagram) €1 billion or more for violating antitrust rules, in response to President Donald Trump’s sanctions against EU companies. The European Commission (EC), the EU’s antitrust watchdog, is expected to conclude that Meta does not comply with the Digital Markets Act, sources close to the situation said. The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) comes into force in 2023 and applies strict competition rules to Meta and six other internet moguls. The regulator’s focus is on data processing and business activity. According to Post sources, the fines could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars at the minimum and as high as $1 billion after the EC’s decision. The EU investigation into the parent company of Facebook and Instagram is expected to be concluded this week, with the commission’s enforcement measures to be announced immediately, the people said.

According to the sources, EU officials are expected to call on Meta to comply with the rules and inform the company of what changes it needs to make to comply. In addition, Apple is also in the EU commission’s crosshairs and could be fined this week or next week. Interestingly, earlier this month, Reuters reported that Apple and Meta were likely to get away with “modest fines” for violating the DMA. Theresa Ribera, the EU’s antitrust chief, had previously said that a decision on enforcement actions against both companies would be made in March. Now, that view appears to have changed. In addition to Meta and Apple, the companies considered “gatekeepers” under the DMA include Google’s Alphabet, Amazon, Booking.com, TikTok’s ByteDance and Microsoft. These are the so-called Big Tech companies.

EU regulators and other supporters say the law prevents tech giants from using anti-competitive behavior, such as abusing their market power, to squeeze out smaller rivals. The law allows Big Tech companies to be fined up to 10 percent of their global revenue for repeated violations, with the penalty going up to 20 percent of revenue. The EU launched an investigation into Meta in June last year over its “pay or opt-in” model that restricted customers. In practice, this meant that users either paid to opt out of ads on Instagram and Facebook or were given them without asking. The problem was that those who didn’t pay also agreed to Meta using their data to target ads. The EU commission said the company had failed to offer a third option. Meta argued that the EU commission had consistently used conditions to comply with the rule that went beyond the law.

In June of last year, Apple became the first company to be charged with violating the DMA, allegedly for preventing rival app developers from easily diverting customers to services outside the App Store. The EU last week again warned Apple that it must open up its iPhone operating system to app developers, just as it has done with Android. The problem with Google’s Alphabet is that it treats its in-house (i.e., its own) services “more favorably.” Amidst sharp criticism from big tech, the law has increasingly drawn the ire of President Trump, who has vowed to impose retaliatory tariffs to level the playing field. Trump issued a memo last month warning that his administration would consider countermeasures.

President Trump will not allow foreign governments to siphon off America’s tax base for their own benefit, the White House said at the time. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has specifically asked EU officials for information on how the bloc plans to enforce the Digital Markets Act. Jordan noted that six of the seven “gatekeepers” covered by the law are American-owned. “These heavy fines appear to have two purposes: to force businesses to follow European standards and to tax American companies in Europe,” Jordan said in his letter.

Read more …

“He also dismissed EU leaders’ proposals to deploy Western ‘peacekeepers’ to Ukraine, calling them “dreamers” who are “proving their complete political irrelevance with each passing day.”

• EU ‘Contradicting’ US On Ukraine – Lavrov (RT)

The approach taken by EU leaders on the Ukraine conflict directly contradicts the position of US President Donald Trump, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. In an interview with Russia’s Channel 1 on Tuesday, Lavrov said the bloc’s continued push for Ukraine’s NATO membership is the result of former US President Joe Biden’s decision to push the EU towards a confrontation with Russia. As a result, the EU is grappling with “an enormous number” of social and economic problems, which “probably partly explains why they are so fervently not giving up on Ukraine” and are calling for more military aid to the country, Lavrov said.

“In other words, they are in direct contradiction to the Trump administration,” he added, noting that the US president, along with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, had “made it clear that preliminary talks are underway on the parameters of the final settlement [of the conflict] and that NATO should be off the table.”

Ukraine has long sought NATO membership as a security guarantee for ending the conflict with Russia. Moscow, however, has cited Kiev’s NATO ambitions as one of the key causes of the conflict and has called for Ukraine’s neutrality as a foundation for any peace deal. sLavrov said Biden made “a colossal mistake” by refusing to engage with Russia and instead insisting that Ukraine join the military bloc, “thereby creating an unacceptable threat for us.” He also dismissed EU leaders’ proposals to deploy Western ‘peacekeepers’ to Ukraine, calling them “dreamers” who are “proving their complete political irrelevance with each passing day.”

Earlier this month, the UK and France signaled an openness to sending a military contingent to Ukraine once a ceasefire is reached. Moscow has described the plan as a pretext for deploying NATO troops in the country, warning that this could lead to a direct war between the military bloc and Russia. Lavrov has likened EU rearmament plans and calls to contain and defeat Russia to past military campaigns by Napoleon and Hitler, who had similar goals. “We’ve been through all this before,” he said. The diplomat’s comments come a day after senior Russian and US officials held 12-hour talks in Saudi Arabia aimed at resolving certain technical issues. Details of the negotiations are expected to be released later on Tuesday.

Read more …

“The United States and Russia have agreed to ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea..”

• White House Reveals Details Of US-Russia Talks In Riyadh (RT)

The White House has released a short statement on the US-Russia negotiations in Saudi Arabia, shedding some light on the more than 12-hour talks held on Monday. The “bilateral technical-level talks” focused on the situation in the Black Sea, as well as the agreement to halt strikes on “energy facilities of Russia and Ukraine” proposed by US President Donald Trump, the White House said on Tuesday. “The United States and Russia have agreed to ensure safe navigation, eliminate the use of force, and prevent the use of commercial vessels for military purposes in the Black Sea,” the statement reads.

The US has also pledged to “help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions,” according to the White House. Both Moscow and Washington remain committed to “working toward achieving a durable and lasting peace” to end the Ukraine conflict, it added. Earlier in the day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed that the negotiations explored the possibility of reviving the defunct Black Sea Grain Initiative, originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye. The deal envisioned the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural exports in exchange for the West lifting restrictions on Russian grain and fertilizer trade. Moscow declined to renew the deal in 2023, citing the West’s failure to meet its obligations.

To renew the deal, Moscow needs firm guarantees from the US, which can “only result from a direct order issued by Washington to [Ukraine’s Vladimir] Zelensky and his team,” Lavrov explained, pointing to Kiev’s habit of breaking promises. Russia’s position now “is simple: We cannot take anyone’s word at face value,” he said in an interview with Channel 1. “We need the clearest, most specific, verifiable, working guarantees and mechanisms [to revive the deal],” Lavrov stated. “We want the grain and fertilizer market to be predictable so that no one tries to kick us out of this market.”

Read more …

“The Defense Ministry is promoting the offer by showing how much recruits can buy with the money – equating it to 15,625 cheeseburgers or 185 years of Netflix subscriptions.”

• Zelensky Announces Push To Enlist Younger Men (RT)

Ukraine must enlist more young men into its armed forces, as a number of units face a pressing need for reinforcements, according to Vladimir Zelensky. In a regular news briefing on Monday, Zelensky announced that the military leadership had approved an expansion of recruitment targeting citizens aged 18 to 24. While mandatory conscription applies to men over 24, the government is trying to encourage younger individuals to volunteer by offering an array of incentives. “I visited the front on Saturday. There is a demand from specific brigades, and we will be responding positively to it. There will be more brigades employing young specialists,” Zelensky stated. “This initiative will extend to the National Guard and border guard units, as all effective defense forces should be given every opportunity to enhance their capabilities.”

Under a recruitment campaign launched in February, young adults are promised 1 million hryvnia ($24,000) for a year of military service, as well as free dental care and the option to leave Ukraine after fulfilling their contract – an option not available to regular fighting-age men. The Defense Ministry is promoting the offer by showing how much recruits can buy with the money – equating it to 15,625 cheeseburgers or 185 years of Netflix subscriptions. Critics have condemned the ad campaign as demeaning to potential recruits. Last year, Zelensky reduced the minimum conscription age from 27 to 25, but refrained from further adjustments, citing concerns over the economic and demographic impact.

Western supporters have urged Kiev to enlist younger men, saying the aging Ukrainian army is struggling to fight effectively. Ukraine is intensifying its mobilization efforts as the US attempts to mediate a resolution to the conflict with Russia, leveraging Kiev’s reliance on foreign aid. Washington has convinced both sides to agree to a moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure. After several attacks, however, Moscow has accused Kiev of not honoring its obligation and has threatened to pull out of the 30-day partial ceasefire. Over the past few days, US officials met separately with Ukrainian and Russian delegations in Saudi Arabia to explore the potential resumption of the Black Sea Initiative, aimed at facilitating maritime exports.

Read more …

“Russia needs ironclad guarantees from the US, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said, arguing that only a “direct order” from Washington could compel Kiev to observe any agreement.”

• US ‘Thinking About’ Easing Russia Sanctions – Trump (RT)

Moscow and Washington have committed to advancing the Black Sea Initiative as a step toward settling the Ukraine conflict, although according to the Kremlin, the deal will take effect only after the US lifts a number of sanctions hampering Russia’s trade and freedom of navigation. Both the Kremlin and the White House stated on Tuesday that, as part of the agreement, the US “will help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions.” Moscow’s statement further noted that the deal envisages lifting restrictions on Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions involved in the international trade of food and fertilizers, as well as removing sanctions on Russian-flagged vessels, port services, and the supply of agricultural machinery and related goods to Russia.

The White House did not provide details, but President Donald Trump confirmed that his administration is indeed considering lifting some of the sanctions against Moscow. “They will be looking at them, and we’re thinking about all of them right now. There are about five or six conditions. We’re looking at all of them,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky lashed out at Washington later in the day, accusing the US of discussing the issue of sanctions with the Russian delegation without properly briefing Kiev on the matter. “We did not agree to this so that it would be in a joint document. We believe that this is a weakening of positions and a weakening of sanctions,” he claimed.

The US and Russia agreed to revive the defunct Black Sea Grain Initiative following 12-hour talks focused on the Ukraine conflict, held on Monday in Saudi Arabia by expert groups from both countries. The agreement, originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye, envisioned the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural products in exchange for the West lifting sanctions on Russian grain and fertilizer exports. Moscow eventually refused to extend the deal, citing the West’s failure to uphold its obligations. Now, Russia needs ironclad guarantees from the US, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said, arguing that only a “direct order” from Washington could compel Kiev to observe any agreement.

Read more …

Why it couldn’t be done in one day.

• Trump Hails ‘Progress’ On Ukraine (RT)

US President Donald Trump has hailed the outcome of Washington’s negotiations with delegations from Moscow and Kiev as a significant step forward in resolving the Ukraine conflict. Following separate talks in Saudi Arabia this week, both Kiev and Moscow expressed readiness to observe President Trump’s proposed agreement to mutually halt strikes on energy facilities, as well as to revive the defunct Black Sea Initiative – aimed at preventing the use of force and ensuring commercial vessels are not used for military purposes. “We’ve made a lot of progress on two fronts,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday, explaining that he was referring to “Russia, Ukraine, and also the Middle East.” “We’ll see what happens. We’re in deep discussions with Russia and Ukraine, and I would say it’s going well,” the US president said.

Trump declined to disclose further details about the contacts in Riyadh but acknowledged that his administration officials are “thinking” about lifting some sanctions against Moscow to facilitate progress on the Black Sea Initiative. In response, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky accused Washington of “weakening” its position and sanctions pressure. Earlier in the day, the Kremlin released a comprehensive list of energy facilities subject to the 30-day US-brokered truce, including oil and gas processing and storage sites, pumping stations, pipelines, electricity production and distribution infrastructure, nuclear power plants, and hydroelectric dam facilities.

The suspension of strikes was originally proposed by Trump during a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week. The Russian leader agreed and immediately ordered the military to halt attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. According to the Russian military, it had to intercept and destroy seven kamikaze drones that were already en route to targets in Ukraine. While Zelensky publicly backed the ceasefire initiative, Kiev violated the truce almost immediately, according to Moscow, with multiple energy facilities in Russia reportedly targeted by Ukrainian drones over the past week. An international oil consortium – including US firms Chevron and ExxonMobil – also condemned the attacks on its vital energy infrastructure in Russia’s Krasnodar Region.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Lab coat
https://twitter.com/MustangMan_TX/status/1904219626952688089

 

 

Phantom

 

 

Peanuts

 

 

Shanahan

 

 

Transform

 

 

Snoopy

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle November 2 2022

Nov 022022
 
 November 2, 2022  Posted by at 8:33 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  70 Responses »


Balthus Girl at a window 1957

 

• Pentagon Confirms US Boots Are On The Ground In Ukraine (ZH)
• Outrage Ensues After The Atlantic Suggests ‘Amnesty’ For Pandemic Authoritarians (ZH)
• We Need Covid Accountability, Not Amnesty (QTR)
• New World Order: The West Will Have To Live Within Its Means (Karaganov)
• Zelensky ‘Nullified’ Grain Shipping Deal – Russian Duma Speaker (RT)
• There Will Be No Deal – Zelensky Broke The Rules! (Milacic)
• Russia Offers Alternative To Ukraine ‘Grain Deal’ (RT)
• Russia Demands Black Sea Corridor Guarantees From Ukraine (RT)
• Russia Responds To Kiev’s Nuclear Plant ‘Hypocrisy’ (RT)
• Blue Checkers Revolt Over Musk’s Threatened Monthly Charge (Turley)
• UK Households Face ‘Very, Very Hard’ Winter – National Grid (RT)
• Cockamamie Story (Kunstler)
• The Tale of Two Greedy Landlords (Catte Black)
• Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy (Springer)
• Fatal Flaw: 42% False Discovery Rate for SARS-CoV-2 nonQ-RT-PCR Test (PR)

 

 

 

 

 

 

GW

 

 

 

 

 

 

“..this is the start of perhaps inevitable ‘mission creep’..”

• Pentagon Confirms US Boots Are On The Ground In Ukraine (ZH)

Two bombshell reports by the Associated Press and Washington Post Monday and Tuesday have confirmed that the United States has boots on the ground in the Ukraine conflict. Crucially, these troops are performing tasks separate from mere embassy security. The American troops are said to be performing “inspections” of US weapon caches after last week the State Department and Pentagon unveiled a new plan to track US-supplied weapons in efforts to implement accountability for the billions of dollars worth of arms and ammunition transferred to Ukrainian forces since near the start of the war eight months ago.

“A small number of U.S. military forces inside Ukraine have recently begun doing onsite inspections to ensure that Ukrainian troops are properly accounting for the Western-provided weapons they receive, a senior U.S. defense official told Pentagon reporters Monday,” the AP/WaPo reporting revealed. A Pentagon briefing confirmed this “small” contingency of troops has been advised to not do inspections “close” to the front lines of fighting: The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to provide a military update, would not say where the inspections are taking place or how close to the battlefronts the U.S. troops are getting. The official said U.S. personnel can’t do inspections “close to the front lines,” but said they are going where security conditions allow.

There have already been “several inspections” overseen by U.S. Defense attache and a US Office of Defense Cooperation team based out of the Ukrainian capital. The report underscores that “U.S. President Joe Biden has ruled out any combat role for U.S. forces inside Ukraine.” However, what’s clear is that despite the White House’s ruling out of “combat” troops, this is the start of perhaps inevitable ‘mission creep’ – as has been seen in other conflict zones (such as Syria). If US troops are doing inspections of Ukrainian arms and ammo, and presumably Russia is currently targeting any and all Ukrainian military bases, this puts American troops and assets in Russia’s crosshairs, greatly increasing the possibility that the US and Russia could stumble into a direct shooting war.

Read more …

“Hey I’m sorry we scared the hell out of you & lied for years & persecuted & censored anyone who disagreed but there was an election going on & we really wanted to beat Donald Trump so it was important to radically politicize the science even if it destroyed your children’s lives.”

• Outrage Ensues After The Atlantic Suggests ‘Amnesty’ For Pandemic Authoritarians (ZH)

The Atlantic has come under fire for suggesting that all the terrible pandemic-era decisions over lockdowns, school closures, masking, and punishing an entire class of people who questioned the efficacy and wisdom of taking a rushed, experimental vaccine – for a virus with a 99% survival rate in most, should all be water under the bridge. “We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID,” writes Brown Professor Emily Oster – a huge lockdown proponent, who now pleads from mercy from the once-shunned. “Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward,” she continues. Except, they weren’t “in the dark” about Covid.


There were numerous sources pointing out the actual science that ran contrary to the mandate claims, and they were deliberately silenced by a vast media campaign. Evidence suggests that media platforms worked in tandem with Big Tech, the CDC and the Biden Administration. It was not a simple matter of overreaction, there was collusion to remove all counter-information. Nice try, Emily. As the Daily Sceptic’s Michael P. Senger puts it: “There’s a lot wrong here. First, no, you don’t get to advocate policies that do extraordinary harm to others, against their wishes, then say, “We didn’t know any better at the time!” Ignorance doesn’t work as an excuse when the policies involved abrogating your fellow citizens’ rights under an indefinite state of emergency, while censoring and cancelling those who weren’t as ignorant. The inevitable result would be a society in which ignorance and obedience to the opinion of the mob would be the only safe position.”

And look at that ratio: In one epic Twitter thread, Claremont Institute Senior Fellow Matthew J. Peterson (@docMJP) excoriates Oster’s entire premise; “Hey—sorry you lost your job b/c of the vax that doesn’t work and your grandmother died alone and you couldn’t have a funeral and your brother’s business was needlessly destroyed and your kids have weird heart problems—but let’s just admit we were all wrong and call a truce, eh? It’s too bad we shut the entire economy down & took on tyrannical powers that have never been used before in this country—looking back, you should have been able to go to church and use public parks while we let people riot in the streets—but it was a confusing time for everyone.

Hey I’m sorry we scared the hell out of you & lied for years & persecuted & censored anyone who disagreed but there was an election going on & we really wanted to beat Donald Trump so it was important to radically politicize the science even if it destroyed your children’s lives. OK, yes we said unvaccinated people should die & not get healthcare while never questioning Big Pharma once but we are compassionate people which is why even though we shut down the entire economy we also bankrupted the nation & caused inflation. You’re welcome! Let’s be friends.”As QTR’s Fringe Finance notes, Oster’s plea for the decency that her ilk failed to offer up to most Americans during the throws of the pandemic comes at a point where the Covid narrative has been all but lost by the Democrats and the mainstream media.

There have been several recent large wins for the unvaccinated who had the constitution and backbone to stand up for themselves throughout a year of being constantly berated and ferociously scorned as second class citizens.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1587148452055629826

Read more …

Starting with Emily Oster and the Atlantic..

• We Need Covid Accountability, Not Amnesty (QTR)

And now Emily Oster has the gall to write a ho-hum style piece calling for “amnesty” with nary a worthy apology to be seen? Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice to see any common sense making its way through the cracks. I support the apologies to the unvaccinated and the court rulings because I think they are just. I haven’t been gloating about them because I’m over the topic in general and because I’m simply ready to move on and not dwell on it. But the same hubris and arrogance that caused all of this poor decision-making to begin with is still dripping off of The Atlantic’s latest “mea culpa”, which makes an attempt to rewrite history and trivializes the trauma many endured. “Some of these choices turned out better than others,” the article casually writes at one point.

At another point, like an alcoholic who can’t stop himself from taking another swig from the bottle, it begrudgingly has to make a perfunctory and obligatory reference to “misinformation”: We have to put these fights aside and declare a pandemic amnesty. We can leave out the willful purveyors of actual misinformation while forgiving the hard calls that people had no choice but to make with imperfect knowledge. Instead of an apology, we are left with this kumbaya moment: The standard saying is that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. But dwelling on the mistakes of history can lead to a repetitive doom loop as well. Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward.


The Atlantic article can lead me to only one conclusion: many of the left simply don’t know how to apologize. After all, it wasn’t enough to tell honest people that they were wrong during the course of the pandemic for decisions that turned out to be right, The Atlantic now wants to tell them they’re wrong again if they don’t forgive those who made their lives hell over the last two years. A little tip for The Atlantic: next time, write a piece focused on apologizing instead of issuing orders about exactly how, when and why people should be forgiving you. In case you didn’t notice, it was trying to micromanage other peoples’ lives that got you in this mess in the first place. Talk to us when you offer up accountability, not amnesty.

Read more …

Professor Sergey Karaganov, honorary chairman of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and academic supervisor at the School of International Economics and Foreign Affairs Higher School of Economics (HSE) in Moscow

• New World Order: The West Will Have To Live Within Its Means (Karaganov)

We are living in a dangerous period, on the brink of a full-fledged third world war that could end humanity’s existence. But if Russia wins, which is more than likely, and the hostilities do not escalate into a full-blown nuclear conflict, we should not look at the coming decades as a time of dangerous chaos (as most in the West are saying). We have been living in this period for a long time. It will be, if we choose a world of constructive creation and the attainment of freedom, justice and dignity by peoples and nations. The old system of institutions and regimes has already collapsed (freedom of trade and respect for private property). Meanwhile, institutions like the WTO, the World Bank the IMF, the OSCE and the EU are, I am afraid, reaching their last years.

New bodies are beginning to emerge to which the future belongs. They are the SCO, ASEAN+, the Organisation of African Unity and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). The Asian Development Bank is already lending many times more than the World Bank. Not all new institutions will survive, and let us hope that a number of them will survive, especially in the UN system, which urgently needs reform to primarily represent the Global Majority in the secretariat, rather than the West. The main thing is to prevent a losing West from stalling history or derailing it through a world war. Not only Global Majority countries, but Western countries can live quite happily in this world.

The West will simply lose the opportunity to plunder the rest of the planet and it will have to shrink a bit. They will have to live within their means. I am afraid that this new world taking shape now will be created beyond my intellectual or physical life. But my young colleagues and certainly their children will see it. But this beautiful vision has to be fought for, first of all by preventing a third world war, because of the attempted revenge of the West. Again, it was in Europe that the first two world wars were unleashed. Russia is now fighting, among other things, to ensure that the prerequisites for a third are not ripe. But conflicts will occur in an era of rapid change. So the struggle for peace should be one of the main themes of our intellectual community and the world at large.

Read more …

Wonder how this will end.

• Zelensky ‘Nullified’ Grain Shipping Deal – Russian Duma Speaker (RT)

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has rendered the internationally brokered grain shipping agreement void by using the safe passage in the Black Sea to strike Russian warships, Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the State Duma, the lower house of Russia’s parliament, said. Moscow claims that Kiev dispatched attack drones via the route designated for grain vessels. “The resumption of the grain deal is impossible as long as the safe corridor is being used for terrorist attacks,” Volodin wrote on his Telegram channel on Tuesday. “With his actions, Zelensky has nullified all of the agreements that were brokered by Türkiye and the UN. ”The senior legislator said the use of the safe corridor for the attack on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is “unacceptable” and that the grain agreement “cannot exist on the old terms.”

Under the deal struck in July, the sides agreed to unblock the export of grain and other agricultural products from Ukrainian ports. Ukraine, a major producer, is among the vital suppliers of wheat, corn, and barley. On Saturday, Moscow accused Kiev of sending aerial and seaborne drones to strike warships in the city of Sevastopol in Crimea, which hosts a naval base. A minesweeper was damaged in the raid, according to the Russian Defense Ministry. The ministry claimed that the drones moved along the corridor set up for grain ships, and that one device may have been launched from a civilian vessel hired to transport grain. Moscow also said that a British Navy unit masterminded the attack. London has dismissed the accusation. Russia subsequently announced the closure of the corridor on Monday.

Zelensky accused Russia of blackmail and “deliberately exacerbating the food crisis.” Speaking to reporters on Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that only 3-5% of grain that had been shipped through the safe corridor went to poorer countries. The UN, however, reported last month that 27% of the ships went to “low and lower-middle income countries” such as Egypt, Kenya, and Bangladesh. It said that 26% went to “upper-middle income countries” such as Türkiye and China, while 47% went to “high-income”nations such as Spain and Italy.

Read more …

“Western insurance companies, despite official permission, refused to insure cargoes of food and fertilizers from Russian ports under various pretexts.”

• There Will Be No Deal – Zelensky Broke The Rules! (Milacic)

Just a few hours after the attack by sea “drones” on the ships of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in the early morning of October 29, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced the suspension of the “grain deal” – an agreement that had been in force since July 22 of this year. The fact that Russian military claims that naval drones have passed through the territory included in the “grain deal”, where there is no Russian fleet – it only made that decision stronger! The “grain deal” allowed Kyiv to freely export grain from the Black Sea ports under the auspices of the UN, in exchange for some easing of sanctions against Russian exports of grain and fertilizers. Formally, this agreement was strictly humanitarian and its sole purpose was to provide grain to the countries of Africa and Southeast Asia, dependent on food imports.

During the passage of the Bosporus, ships traveling from Ukraine and back were examined by UN inspectors to exclude the possible import and export of prohibited goods. But the Kremlin did not receive its benefit from the deal … Ukraine, having unblocked the export of grain by sea, at the same time was able to unload land communications and receive a significant income from the export of agricultural products. In addition, its Western partners were once again able to resell Ukrainian grain, which, with the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine, rose significantly in price. But Russia continued to face difficulties in securing the export of its grain. Western insurance companies, despite official permission, refused to insure cargoes of food and fertilizers from Russian ports under various pretexts.

At the same time, information was increasingly appearing in the media that American and European authorities were putting significant pressure on insurers. Naturally, Moscow was more and more dissatisfied with the terms of the deal concluded before November 19 and doubted the possibility of its extension. The attack on Sevastopol gave the Kremlin a great trump card – the deal was instantly suspended, although the Russian fleet did not suffer significant damage. The military response of Russia also followed very quickly, the communications center and the base of the special forces of the Ukrainian fleet in Ochakiv were destroyed. However, both the attack on the Russian base and the actual breach of the deal with Russian exports are just the tip of the iceberg.

Read more …

“Currently, Russia is “not ready to say” what conditions would have to be met for it to resume its participation in the deal.”

• Russia Offers Alternative To Ukraine ‘Grain Deal’ (RT)

Russia is ready to provide poorer grain-importing nations with supplies from its own stocks to replace Ukrainian exports, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov told journalists on Monday. Earlier, Russia suspended its participation in the so-called “grain deal” with Ukraine following an attack on its navy base in Sevastopol. “We can guarantee the Russian side’s readiness to compensate for the missing [grain export] volumes from its own stocks,” Peskov said. Earlier, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov said Moscow would continue to support African nations despite halting its compliance with the pact. The Kremlin spokesman also said only a tiny portion of all Ukrainian agricultural products exported under the deal were destined for the poorest nations anyway, while “not-so-poor nations located in Europe got the rest.”

Moscow also believes that the grain deal between Russia and Ukraine, which was reached in Istanbul with UN and Turkish mediation, is now in limbo for security reasons. “The deal could hardly be implemented when Russia says it cannot guarantee maritime security in the designated waters” of the Black Sea, Peskov said, adding that the implementation of the agreement is now “much more risky, dangerous and not guaranteed.” The Kremlin has not said the deal is dead altogether, however. Moscow is “still in contact” with other parties, including the UN and Türkiye, Peskov said. Currently, Russia is “not ready to say” what conditions would have to be met for it to resume its participation in the deal.

Under the agreement reached in July, Russia provided a secure “grain corridor” through the Black Sea waters to facilitate the exportation of Ukrainian agricultural products. The agreement was praised as critical for easing the global food crisis and helping the world’s poorest nations to avoid starvation. Last week’s decision by Russia to halt its compliance with the deal caused a grain price surge. Moscow suspended its participation in the deal last week after a massive drone attack on its naval base in the Crimean port city of Sevastopol. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the naval drones launched as part of the attack used the grain corridor to reach their targets and one of them may even have been launched from a civilian vessel supposedly chartered to ship Ukrainian grain.

Read more …

“Moscow is now ready to supply African nations with “large volumes” of grain and fertilizers out of its own stocks for free..”

• Russia Demands Black Sea Corridor Guarantees From Ukraine (RT)

Kiev should provide “real guarantees” that it would not use the Black Sea corridor created as part of an Istanbul grain deal in its military activities, Russian President Vladimir Putin told Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a phone conversation on Tuesday. The two were discussing the circumstances that could convince Moscow to return to its own commitments under the agreement. Russia indefinitely suspended its participation in the deal last week following a massive drone attack on its naval base in the Crimean port city of Sevastopol. Some of the naval drones launched by Kiev allegedly used the Black Sea grain corridor’s security zone to close in on their targets, according to the Russian military.

“It is necessary to conduct a detailed investigation of … this incident, as well as to get real guarantees from Kiev that it would rigorously abide by the Istanbul agreements, including the non-use of the humanitarian corridor for military purposes,” the Russian president said, according to the Kremlin’s press release. Russia would only consider re-opening this corridor if that happened, Putin added. He also pointed out that the part of the deal that involved lifting restrictions on Russia’s own agricultural and fertilizer exports had never been implemented. The corridor was touted as a way to secure food supplies to the neediest nations as a matter of priority. But this goal has not been reached in the three months since the agreement was established, Putin noted. “Moscow is now ready to supply African nations with “large volumes” of grain and fertilizers out of its own stocks for free, the president confirmed.

The Russian military closed the Black Sea grain corridor on Monday, arguing that its security could not be guaranteed while Kiev used it for military purposes. Moscow had previously blamed Ukraine and UK Navy specialists for the attack on Sevastopol. London has dismissed the accusation. The Russian Defense Ministry said that the corridor would stay closed at least until all the circumstances of the attack were established. Russia has also repeatedly said that it has not left the deal entirely but only suspended its own commitments under the agreement. In the wake of Moscow’s decision, the UN insisted that “food must flow” regardless of the circumstances. Civilian vessels “can never be a military target or held hostage,” the UN coordinator for the Black Sea grain initiative, Amir Abdulla, said.

Read more …

“Ukrainian troops are shelling the region almost on a daily basis, threatening the lives and safety of people, but they keep silent about it, while expressing concerns about the fish..”

• Russia Responds To Kiev’s Nuclear Plant ‘Hypocrisy’ (RT)

Kiev’s accusations that Moscow is responsible for an alleged environmental disaster at the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant sound hypocritical, given that Ukraine has been constantly targeting the facility, Vladimir Rogov, a member of the administration of Russia’s Zaporozhye Region, said on Tuesday. His statement comes after the Ukrainian state-owned operator, Energoatom, claimed that Russian actions had led to a massive die-off of fish in the facility’s cooling pond.Rogov denounced Kiev’s accusations as the “wildest hypocrisy that knows no bounds.” “Ukrainian troops are shelling the region almost on a daily basis, threatening the lives and safety of people, but they keep silent about it, while expressing concerns about the fish,” he told RIA Novosti.

Moreover, he noted that the plant’s energy units had been shut down precisely because Kiev’s forces have been constantly targeting the area around the facility. On Monday, Ukraine’s Energoatom said that the shutdown of the plant’s energy units had resulted in a decrease in the water temperature in the cooling pond, which led to “mass fish death.” The fish had been “performing a sanitary function” by destroying the green algae and cleaning the cooling tubes of the turbine condenser, it said. However, Ukraine had gone to great lengths to paralyze the plant’s operations and prevent it from coming online again, according to Rogov.

The Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, which is Europe’s largest, has been under Russian control since March. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin officially placed the facility under Moscow’s management. The Russian leader signed the relevant order as Moscow was finalizing the accession of Zaporozhye and Kherson Regions, as well as the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, to Russia following referendums that overwhelmingly supported the move. Russia has on numerous occasions accused Ukraine of shelling the Zaporozhye facility, warning that the attacks could lead to a nuclear disaster. Kiev has denied the allegations, blaming Russia for the shelling instead.

Read more …

“Musk is looking for ways to reduce the dependency on advertisers and many of us would support that effort.”

• Blue Checkers Revolt Over Musk’s Threatened Monthly Charge (Turley)

As a regular MSNBC pundit is calling for Elon Musk to be stripped of his citizenship for trying to reintroduce free speech protections to Twitter, the new owner is outraging blue checkers by suggesting a monthly charge for verified users. Figures like CNBC’s Jim Cramer declared: “I’m not paying them anything. They should pay me.” Some of us would be willing to pay an added monthly fee to support a true free speech alternative on social media if Musk keeps his word. Of course, for full disclosure, I would first have to get a blue check to get charged for a blue check. I have been barred from being verified for years by Twitter despite being a columnist for newspapers like USA Today and the Hill as well as a legal analyst for CBS, NBC, BBC, and now Fox over the last two decades.

I have been ranked in the top five law professors on Twitter, but I was still turned me down over a dozen times under multiple categories. I have previously joked about the bar on verification and I am not sure how much the blue check honestly does for individuals. Indeed, there are some advantages. I can presumably deny prior statements since they were made by an entirely unverified person using my name for over a decade. Yet, as a long-time critic of Twitter’s censorship system, there has been a long curiosity over the denial. Musk has indicated that he is now looking into such concerns and there may be greater transparency in the weeks to come. However, Musk is looking for ways to reduce the dependency on advertisers and many of us would support that effort.

Recently, General Motors suspended advertising on Twitter until it can evaluate the implications of Musk’s new policies. Some of us immediately criticized the action by GM over the move. The company had no problem with supporting Twitter when it was running one of the largest censorship systems in history — or supporting TikTok (which is Chinese owned and has been denounced for state control and access to data). Twitter has been denounced for years for its bias against conservative and dissenting voices, including presumably many GM customers on the right. None of that was a concern for GM but the pledge to restore free speech to Twitter warrants a suspension.

Read more …

“..rolling blackouts could happen during “those deepest darkest evenings in January and February..”

• UK Households Face ‘Very, Very Hard’ Winter – National Grid (RT)

Many British households will struggle to pay energy bills this winter that could be double what they are accustomed to despite a government price cap, the National Grid’s CEO, John Pettigrew, has warned. In an interview with the Financial Times on Tuesday, he said he was “under no illusions” and that Brits would find the upcoming winter “financially very, very hard.” “Even with the [taxpayer-funded] price cap this is a doubling-up of what people are used to paying for their energy bills,” Pettigrew said, adding: “Therefore, inevitably there are going to be people who are going to struggle.” The British government has capped the unit cost of energy until April, meaning that an average household would pay about £2,500 ($2,885) over a year on average.

But last winter the equivalent amount was £1,277 ($1,474). Each household will also receive a £400 rebate on utility bills with additional means-tested payments through Social Security benefits. However, that will still be unable to make up the difference given the soaring energy prices. Pettigrew said the National Grid was working on a number of emergency plans to protect the UK against a shortfall of energy from Europe. Earlier, the grid operator’s boss warned that the country could face power cuts on “really cold” evenings this winter due to Europe’s continuing energy squeeze. He said that rolling blackouts could happen during “those deepest darkest evenings in January and February,” likely between 4pm to 7pm.


Such measures were “unlikely,” according to Pettigrew, who warned, however, that there were potential scenarios where Britain’s power generators would fail to secure sufficient supplies from Europe. Normally, during the coldest months and extreme weather events, the UK imports gas and electricity from continental Europe for its gas-fired power plants. However, this year European countries are themselves facing a severe energy crisis exacerbated by anti-Russian sanctions and a sharp decrease in Russian energy supplies.

Read more …

Top spot for craziest story.

• Cockamamie Story (Kunstler)

So far, police have not disclosed how DePape journeyed from Berkeley to Pacific Heights at 2:00 o’clock in the morning, about fourteen miles. Did he walk from Berkeley across the Bay Bridge and then halfway across town? Mr. DePape is apparently also known to the police as a gay hustler, that is, a person who sells sex for money. Unless I’m mistaken, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) has a detective department — experienced men and women who go around the city seeking clues, evidence, and testimony in order to make sense of perplexing crimes — and then solve them! Shall we assume they are on-the-job? Now, Paul Pelosi, 82, who made a $300-million fortune running a car service (also shrewd investments in real estate and the stock market), has been in quite a bit of trouble this year.

On May 28, 2022, he was arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in Napa (near a vineyard estate he owns with Nancy) when his 2021 Porsche crashed into a 2014 Jeep driven by one “John Doe” (as the police identified him). KGO-TV, ABC’s affiliate in the San Francisco area, said that there was a second person in the Porsche with Pelosi at the time of the accident. He has never been identified. In August, Mr. Pelosi was sentenced to five days in jail, a fine of roughly $7,000, a three-month drinking-and-driving course, eight hours of public service, and having an “interlock” device installed on his car that would require him to blow into an alcohol sensor before the engine can ignite. By any chance, were the Napa Police or the County Court contacted in the matter at some point by the US Capitol Police or the FBI? We may never know.

If David DePape didn’t walk fourteen miles from Berkeley to Pacific Heights, or take a cab (expensive), how did he get there? Here’s a theory: he rode the BART subway from Berkeley to the Church Street and Mission station in the city, a five-minute walk to the Castro, San Francisco’s fabled gay district. Sometime before 2:00 a.m. closing time, he met up in a bar there with Paul Pelosi, who drove DePape to the Pelosi house in a car not equipped with an interlock device. That is to say, David DePape was let into the house by Mr. Pelosi. The police and the news media have theorized that DePape broke into the place by smashing a glass door in back. Uh-huh…. Ask yourself: would there not be an alarm system at least on all the ground floor windows and doors in the house? Would there not be security cameras on the back side of the house — the side that burglars might prefer, if they could get over the wall?

Would the Speaker of the House, with a discretionary budget on top of a $300-million fortune, and in a time of epic political rancor, not have a team of security guards in place at her private home? Initial news media chatter had both DePape and Paul Pelosi dressed in their underwear, struggling over a hammer which turned out to belong to Mr. Pelosi. Not until the police entered the house did DePape wrest the hammer from Mr. Pelosi and commence to brain him with it. What does the arrest report actually say about the two men’s state-of-dress? It is not public information. How and why were the police just watching until DePape assaulted Mr. Pelosi — who was hospitalized afterward and had surgery on his cracked skull? (Uh, how did a blow that literally broke his skull not kill the elderly Mr. Pelosi?)

Read more …

“what would we do without the Banker to guide us!?”

• The Tale of Two Greedy Landlords (Catte Black)

Once upon a time in a land far away and in a time of plenty there were two rich and prosperous Landlords who each owned large and spacious adjoining buildings wherein many people lived. The apartments were warm and comfortable and every week there was a market where grain was brought from Landlord B’s land and fruit and meat and vegetables from Landlord A’s. While wood from Landlord B’s copses kept the Communal Woodpile stocked with seasoned logs. Everyone was happy. The Landlords were both friends with a Banker. The Banker was richer than both the Landlords combined and in fact he owned their houses and their land and watched carefully what they did with them. And one day he invited them to a sumptuous dinner at his house and said “things could be better”.

“How could things be better, friend Banker?” asked Landlord B, “there is food in our granaries and money in our coffers, and everyone is happy”. “Your people are charged too little for too much luxury. They expect fuel for their stoves and food in their markets, and are never grateful enough to you for your kindness.” The two Landlords looked at each other and realized this might be true, for they rarely disagreed with the Banker. “Yes,” said Landlord A, sadly shaking his head, “our people are feckless children that never give enough thanks for our largesse, but alas, what can we do?”. “They need to be taught their place”, the Banker said. “They need to pay a proper price for what you provide and learn to be grateful. You should triple the price of food from your farms and fuel from the Communal Wood Pile”.

The two Landlords looked at each other in apprehension. They were greedy and liked the sound of this very much, but they were also cowards. “But”, said Landlord B, “but if we do that they may just become annoyed and might refuse to pay or break our windows or our bones and then we will be worse off not better!” This was true. And caused the Landlords to shake their heads regretfully. But the Banker was cleverer than either of them. He merely smiled. “They are children”, he said, “and children require stories in order to learn about life’s harsh truths. So, you will tell them a story”. The two Landlords looked at him, but did not understand.

“You will tell them there is a new and terrible plague which has broken the Supply Chain and consequently fuel and food are three times more expensive!” “But…but there is no new and terrible plague”, stammered Landlord A. “Of course there is”, smiled the Banker, “why else would hundreds of people be dying?” “But hundreds of people are not dying”, stammered Landlord B. “Of course they are,” smiled the Banker, “how could they not when there is a new and terrible plague?” They looked at him for a long time before gradual understanding dawned, and their puzzled frowns turned to smiles. “Of course!” they said in unison, “what would we do without the Banker to guide us!?”

Read more …

Pierre Kory, MD MPA @PierreKory:

A high quality Sociology journal finally publishes the truth about what happened in Medical Science during Covid.
Phenomenal paper.
Cue censorship by mass media and social media.
Hope Chief Twit starts making changes fast.

• Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy (Springer)

Abstract: The emergence of COVID-19 has led to numerous controversies over COVID-related knowledge and policy. To counter the perceived threat from doctors and scientists who challenge the official position of governmental and intergovernmental health authorities, some supporters of this orthodoxy have moved to censor those who promote dissenting views. The aim of the present study is to explore the experiences and responses of highly accomplished doctors and research scientists from different countries who have been targets of suppression and/or censorship following their publications and statements in relation to COVID-19 that challenge official views.


Our findings point to the central role played by media organizations, and especially by information technology companies, in attempting to stifle debate over COVID-19 policy and measures. In the effort to silence alternative voices, widespread use was made not only of censorship, but of tactics of suppression that damaged the reputations and careers of dissenting doctors and scientists, regardless of their academic or medical status and regardless of their stature prior to expressing a contrary position. In place of open and fair discussion, censorship and suppression of scientific dissent has deleterious and far-reaching implications for medicine, science, and public health.

Read more …

Ouch.

• Fatal Flaw: 42% False Discovery Rate for SARS-CoV-2 nonQ-RT-PCR Test (PR)

We have just published a new study that shows that nonQ-RT-PCR (non-quantitative RT-PCR testing as used to diagnose COVID-19 from 2020 to the present day suffers a flaw that ultimately draws into question all of what has been reported on COVID-19 by official channels, including the results of COVID-19. Specifically, assuming a 5% prevalence rate, the high false discovery rate (42%) of the use of nonQ-RT-PCR means


1. For every 50 true positives out of 1,000, a total of 86 people with or without SARS-CoV-2 infection or residual fragments will be reported. Of these, 36 of these will be false positives.
2. For every 50 true positives, 86 people without SARS-CoV-2 infection or residual fragments will be have to be isolated/quarantined. Of these, 36 will not be infected.
3. For every 50 true positives that are tested and found positive in-hospital, 86 people with or without SARS-CoV-2 infection or residual fragments will be told that they “have COVID-19”. If the 36 false positive patients are hospitalized with other COVID-19 patients, they will likely then contract a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
4. The number of “cases” via positive PCR has been overstated by a factor of 72% (the original post read “80:1” assuming a prevalence of 5%).
5. This is true for generic case reporting up until May 2021 when CDC decided to reduce the PCR cycle threshold value (Ct) for the vaccinated to less than 27, leaving the unvaccinated rate biased by high false discovery rate of arbitrarily high Ct, biasing all reported rates in these two groups favoring cases in the unvaccinated from that point on.
6. This +72% bias is true in any clinical trial or any study that used arbitrarily high Ct values, INCLUDING THE VACCINE STUDIES. As a direct result of this fatal flaw, combined with CDC’s gaff “PCR+ = COVID-19″? There are no credible COVID-19 vaccine trial data.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

Rogan list

 

 

 

 

Malone

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in virustime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 9 2020

Sep 092020
 
 September 9, 2020  Posted by at 9:29 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  23 Responses »


Pablo Picasso The Dream 1932

 

• Assange Legal Team Focuses On US Torture And War Crimes (Gosztola)
• Politics and Violence Go Hand in Hand (Knapp)
• Scott Adams: Trump Is The Most Successful Stand-Up Comic Ever (RCP)
• Biden Loses His Florida Lead As Latino Voters Shift To Trump (Week)
• Docs Show Former Officials “In Real Trouble” In Durham Probe – Meadows (ET)
• Vindman, Not Whistleblower, Was Driving Force Behind Impeachment (Fed.)
• On-the-Record Sources, Paper Trail Rebut Anonymous Atlantic Claims (JTN)
• AstraZeneca COVID19 Vaccine Trial Put On Hold Due To Adverse Reaction (STAT)
• England To Ban Gatherings Of More Than 6 People As Coronavirus Cases Spike (AP)
• Britons Scrambling To Get Back Home From Greek Islands On UK Red List (K.)
• Netherlands Puts All Greek Islands On Orange Travel List (K.)
• 35 Migrants In Moria Found Positive For Coronavirus (K.)
• 1,000s Flee Fire At Moria Migrant Camp On Virus Lockdown In Greece (K.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CNN’s Zucker wanted to give Trump a show

 

 

“Lewis insisted the U.S. government only charged Assange with documents that revealed the names of informants..”

Assange personally redacted out 10,000 names in one night after the journalists at the Guardian etc. refused to do it. He’s the only one who cared.

• Assange Legal Team Focuses On US Torture And War Crimes (Gosztola)

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s legal team spent the second morning of a major extradition hearing focusing a magistrate court judge’s attention on United States torture and war crimes that Assange helped to expose. Defense attorney Mark Summers called Clive Stafford Smith, a human rights attorney who has represented prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, to the witness stand. He was asked about human rights cases he pursued, which were bolstered by revelations in documents WikiLeaks published. For example, Stafford Smith told Judge Vanessa Baraitser that U.S. State Department cables helped those impacted by U.S. drone killings in Pakistan. It contributed to “court findings that US drone strikes are criminal offenses and that criminal proceedings should be initiated against senior U.S. officials involved in such strikes.”

A high court in Pakistan ruled “drone strikes carried out by the CIA and U.S. authorities were a ‘blatant violation of basic human rights’ including ‘a blatant breach of the absolute right to life’ and ‘a war crime,’” Stafford Smith declared in a statement to the court. Due to the decision, drone strikes that caused many “innocent deaths” stopped “very rapidly.” None were reported in 2019. The defense had Stafford Smith testify in order to persuade the court that Assange “disclosed U.S. involvement in criminal activity.” Specifically, these were “public interest disclosures” of war crimes and torture. Some of the publications are currently the subject of a criminal investigation into the CIA that is before the International Criminal Court (ICC). In other words, the prosecution against Assange is retaliation for bringing increased scrutiny to U.S. actions throughout the world.

But James Lewis, the lawyer representing the Crown Prosecution Authority on behalf of the U.S. government, was irritated by the defense’s focus on documents that exposed torture and war crimes. Lewis insisted the U.S. government only charged Assange with documents that revealed the names of informants, and none of the materials Stafford Smith was asked about mattered in the extradition case. [..]

Read more …

Word. But not sure I would say Power Corrupts. I think the people seeking power are already mentally corrupted.

• Politics and Violence Go Hand in Hand (Knapp)

“[W]e currently have an inferno of political violence to which the president of the United States adds fuel,” Jennifer Rubin thunders from her bully pulpit at the Washington Post. “[I]t is time for bipartisan voices, local and state leaders, police and other first responders, civic and religious leaders, and all responsible media outlets to try to quench the flames of violence.” Rubin is no lone voice in the wilderness. As America’s latest long hot summer drags into autumn, politicians and pundits are getting louder and more shrill in their denunciations of political violence. Considering the sources, those denunciations smack of hypocrisy. In another Post column published the very same day as her rant against political violence, Rubin tells us US Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) should be “revered and thanked for her courage and service to the country.”

Duckworth lost her legs co-piloting a helicopter during the US occupation of Iraq. That is, engaging in unambiguously political violence on behalf of the US government. Rubin denounces political violence out of one side of her mouth while lionizing it out of the other. Politics as we know it today is entirely based on violence and the threat of violence. That’s most obvious in the case of war, in which governments settle their political conflicts by sending forth their armed servants in large numbers to murder one another (and anyone else with the bad luck to get in the way), but don’t be fooled: Every government edict, at home and abroad, is backed by the credible threat of violence.

According to the Declaration of Independence, government exists to protect our rights. It may only legitimately use force to do so, and to bring to justice those who violate those rights. If government accomplished that mission and went no further, it might be an acceptable, even worthwhile institution. But it doesn’t accomplish that mission very well, and it inevitably turns the inch it’s given into miles. Why? Because the problem with power, as Lord Acton noted, is that it corrupts. Governments, and those who run and rely on them, always turn from the task of protecting our rights to increasing their power. At the far, not always visible, end of every government demand — a speed limit, a tax code, a drug prohibition, what have you — stand men and women with guns, waiting to cage or kill you for non-compliance or defiance.

As for democracy, as currently practiced it’s merely a contest to see who gives armed enforcers their marching orders. America’s two “major” political parties don’t want to end political violence; they merely want control of those they deem its “legitimate” combatants. The present conflagration — marches in the streets, clashes between protesters and police, cities on fire — shouldn’t surprise us. Sometimes the state’s victims fight back. And then the state pours on even more force, because that’s its nature. It’s a cycle that can only be broken by abolishing the state itself. Which means that only anarchists enjoy moral standing to denounce political violence.

Read more …

“We’ve decided to call all our rallies peaceful protests.”

 

 

Scott has his own way of looking at things. Is he that far off here?

• Scott Adams: Trump Is The Most Successful Stand-Up Comic Ever (RCP)

During Monday morning’s “Coffee With Scott Adams” podcast, the comedian and ‘Dilbert’ creator again discussed Joe Biden’s repeated references to what Adams calls the “fine people in Charlottesville” race hoax. Last week, Adams extensively explained how a simple edited video has convinced tens of millions of people that President Trump ever praised members of hate groups after the deadly clash in Charlottesville 2017. This week, he compared the “fine people” hoax to the newest outrage about the president, The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg’s “anonymous source” alleging that the president insulted those buried in an American war cemetery during a visit to France in 2018.

According to Adams, the common thread between why so many people believe these claims to be true without any evidence (or even in the face of counterevidence) could be that they simply have no sense of humor. People hate the president so much because they literally can’t recognize the difference between an off-color joke and violent hate speech. Adams described a conversation he had on Twitter with an actress who said she believed the claims in Goldberg’s article because of the joke Trump made in 2015 about John McCain not being a war hero because he was “captured.” “This is typical Trump, he is a dumb, hate-filled liar and misogynist!” Scott’s Twitter correspondent said. “When I saw that I commented back [that] Trump told a Chris Rock joke about McCain because Chris Rock actually did that same joke before Trump did,” Adams replied.

“And then I said, you literally want to overthrow the government because you don’t recognize a joke. That’s actually what happened, this is someone who wants to get rid of Trump at any cost in part because she doesn’t recognize a joke. So, I said maybe the problem’s on your end.” She responded: “B.S. Circus with Trump’s trained Monkeys defending his stupidities. What’s wrong with you people? Who cares if Chris Rock made a joke?” “See where this is going?” Scott asked, holding back a laugh. “She has now acknowledged that the president told a joke. She did not know until I explained it that it was a joke. So now she has to change her objection from being a horrible thing he said, to ‘Yeah, it was a joke but it was still horrible, and here’s why.'” She responded: “A president must know better than to say something like that! There are better things to quote as president, how do you fall for this crap?”

“Now, she also said earlier that Trump had no sense of humor, therefore it couldn’t be a joke. To which I pointed out that he is the most successful stand-up comedian in the history of humanity. His rallies with gigantic audiences are literally stand-up comedy. He does it to entertain. He literally says funny things and his audience laughs. And they go because he will say funny things that will make them laugh. He’s literally the most successful stand-up comedian in the history of civilization if you look at the numbers of people who go in person,” Adams revealed. “You have to admit the reason the crowd is so big is because he brings entertainment and humor.”

Chris Rock

Read more …

Uh-oh.

• Biden Loses His Florida Lead As Latino Voters Shift To Trump (Week)

The sun may be setting on Democrats’ hopes of picking up Florida. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has seemingly lost his advantage over President Trump in the crucial swing state of Florida, an NBC News/Marist poll released Tuesday found. A lot of that shift seemingly stems from Florida’s Latino voters, who have gone from resoundingly supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016 to actually tipping in Trump’s favor this time around, the poll showed. Less than two months before election day, Biden and Trump are tied in Florida with 48 percent support among likely Florida voters. Biden had previously pulled as much as a 13-point lead over Trump in Florida. That dip comes as a majority of Latino respondents say they’re voting for Trump over Biden, 50-46 percent; Latino voters went for Clinton 62-35 in 2016.


A poll from the Miami Herald and Bendixen & Amandi International backed up NBC News’ findings, at least in Miami-Dade County. Biden still has a strong advantage, 55-38 percent, in the heavily Democratic part of the state, the Tuesday poll found. But it’s not the best news considering Clinton won that county by 30 points in 2016 and still lost the state by 1.2 points. In addition, the Miami Herald poll found Trump and Biden are splitting Hispanic voters, 47-46, though there’s a larger margin of error among that smaller subset. NBC News/Marist surveyed 766 likely Florida voters from Aug. 31–Sept. 6, with a 4.5 percentage point margin of error. The Miami Herald poll surveyed 500 likely Miami-Dade voters from Sept. 1–4, with a margin of error of 4.4 points.

Read more …

Wonder if the Durham report will ever come out.

• Docs Show Former Officials “In Real Trouble” In Durham Probe – Meadows (ET)

Newly reviewed documents show that former FBI agent Peter Strzok and other officials involved in the counter-intelligence probe against Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign are in trouble, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said. U.S. Attorney John Durham is reviewing the origins of that investigation and landed his first guilty plea last month. While he doesn’t have visibility into the timeline of Durham’s probe, Meadows said he’s reviewed additional documents that “say that a number of the players, the Peter Strzoks, the Andy McCabes, the James Comeys – and even others in the administration previously – are in real trouble because of their willingness to participate in an unlawful act.”

“And I use the word unlawful at best, it broke all kinds of protocols and at worst people should go to jail as I mentioned previously,” Meadows said during a virtual appearance on Fox Business’ “Mornings With Maria” on Monday. Strzok, McCabe, and Comey are former high-level FBI officials. Strzok, best known for exchanging biased text messages about Trump with an FBI lawyer he was having an affair with, was fired by FBI officials in 2018. The former agent sat down for an interview with CBS that ran over the weekend. He insisted that the counter-intelligence probe, dubbed Crossfire Hurricane, was opened on a legitimate basis. Meadows said it was easy for Strzok to make claims when not under oath.

“In all of his interview, I can tell you this: It’s not backed up by the facts. It’s not backed up by documents that I’ve seen. And ultimately his house of cards will come falling down,” Meadows said. The facts that have come out show that officials treated Trump “very differently, in an inappropriate way, and they must be held accountable,” he added. Durham’s criminal investigation is being kept under tight wraps, prompting much speculation about when another development will come, or even if any other people will be charged. Trey Gowdy, a Fox News contributor who used to serve in the House of Representatives, said over the weekend that there’s concern that Durham “is dragging his feet.” Durham, he said, “is going to access documents that the FBI never shared with Congress and he’ll write the definitive accounting of what happened.”

“Whether or not there’ll be more indictments or not, I don’t know and I like to assume that there will not be,” he said, adding: “That puts me in a small minority, but I’m assuming that the Clinesmith indictment will be the only one.” Kevin Clinesmith recently pleaded guilty to altering an email to say Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser, was not a CIA asset when the CIA had said the exact opposite. The altered email was used to obtain spy warrants against Page, enabling the FBI to conduct surveillance against Page and people he was linked to in the future and past. Meadows, meanwhile, said Trump supports the declassification of all documents, along with full transparency. “He has nothing to hide,” he said.

Read more …

New book. Vindman was the whistleblower, but nobody knew it. That allowed him to be a witness – twice.

• Vindman, Not Whistleblower, Was Driving Force Behind Impeachment (Fed.)

The most interesting thing about Byron York’s exhaustively reported and richly detailed new impeachment book, “Obsession: Inside the Washington Establishment’s Never-Ending War on Trump,” is that the whistleblower who filed the official complaint that got impeachment rolling isn’t ever identified. It turns out that the heated discussion over the whistleblower, who was previously identified by Real Clear Investigations as the CIA’s Eric Ciaramella, was a diversion from allowing the American people to understand who was the actual instigator of the failed effort to oust President Donald Trump from office.

Rather than being a witness who independently supported the claims of the whistleblower, the National Security Council’s Lt. Col Alex Vindman was the driving force behind the entire operation, according to the book’s interviews with key figures in the impeachment probe and other evidence. The whistleblower’s information came directly from Vindman, investigators determined. “Vindman was the person on the call who went to the whistleblower after the call, to give the whistleblower the information he needed to file his complaint,” said Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y. “For all intents and purposes, Vindman is the whistleblower here, but he was able to get somebody else to do his dirty work for him,” explained one senior congressional aide.

[..] In his complaint, the whistleblower claimed “multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call” described to him the contents of the conversation. It is unclear if he was sourcing his knowledge just to multiple Vindmans or any other White House officials. The description of the call appeared to come from the White House’s rough transcript, which Vindman helped prepare. It repeated Vindman’s unique interpretation of the call as seeking foreign interference in a campaign. It mentioned that lawyers had been informed, and Vindman had done just that. The complaint also included information from public news reports.

At first Schiff publicly promised that the whistleblower would testify and that any attempt by the White House to thwart that would be fought vigorously. But then news broke that Schiff’s office had worked with the whistleblower prior to him filing his complaint. Schiff switched his stance to refusing to allow the whistleblower to testify. What’s more, he refused to allow any investigation into how the Ukraine investigation began. [..] Vindman repeatedly said that he viewed Trump’s phone call with Zelensky as “wrong,” but he was unable to articulate precisely why. He expressed frustration that the elected president was pushing a foreign policy at odds from the “interagency consensus” of the bureaucracy that he felt should control foreign policy.

Read more …

I count 15. That does not include Bolton. But it doesn’t matter, the story is out there, it’s doing its damage, and who cares if it’s true? Because what are the odds the Atlantic will be sued over it?

• On-the-Record Sources, Paper Trail Rebut Anonymous Atlantic Claims (JTN)

Trump advisor Derek Lyons: “I was with the President the morning after the scheduled visit. He was extremely disappointed that arrangements could not be made to get him to the site and that the trip had been canceled. I have worked for the President for his entire administration. One of my responsibilities is working with him on the many letters he signs to the families of our nation’s fallen heroes. In all my time at the White House, I have never heard him utter a disparaging remark, of any kind, about our troops. In my view, he holds the brave men and women of our armed forces in the highest regard.”

U.S. Ambassador to France and Monaco Jamie McCourt: “In my presence, POTUS has NEVER denigrated any member of the U.S. military or anyone in service to our country. And he certainly did not that day, either. Let me add, he was devastated to not be able to go to the cemetery at Belleau Wood. In fact, the next day, he attended and spoke at the ceremony in Suresnes in the pouring rain.” Trump Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino: “I was with POTUS in France, with Sarah, and have been at his side throughout it all. Complete lies by ‘anonymous sources’…” Trump Senior Advisor Stephen Miller: “The President deeply wanted to attend the memorial event in question and was deeply displeased by the bad weather call.” Former presidential advisor Johnny DeStefano: “I was on this trip. The Atlantic bit is not true. Period.”

Former Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Walsh: “I can attest to the fact that there was a bad weather call in France and that the helicopters were unable to safely make the flight. Overall, the President’s support and respect for our American troops, past and present, is unquestionable.” Former White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders: “I was actually there and one of the people part of the discussion — this never happened.” Former Deputy Chief of Staff Zach Fuentes: “I did not hear POTUS call anyone losers when I told him about the weather.” Maj. General (Ret.) William Matz: “No one has done more for our veterans than President Trump, and he enjoys a relationship of mutual affection and honor with those who wear and have worn the uniform of the United States military and their families. Those who know President Trump know that the anonymous smears peddled by The Atlantic have no basis in fact or reality, and do a terrible disservice to journalism and to our veterans, living and deceased.”

Secretary Of Defense Mark Esper: “President Trump has the highest respect and admiration for our nation’s military members, veterans and families. That is why he has fought for greater pay and more funding for our armed forces.” Secretary Of State Mike Pompeo: “I’ve been with this president now for coming on four years. I’ve never heard the president use the language that assertively is said in that article.” Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie: Denied ever hearing President Trump make such remarks: “Absolutely not.” Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato: Denied the Atlantic’s story.

Lt. General and National Security Advisor to Vice President Pence Keith Kellogg: “The Atlantic story is completely false. Absolutely lacks merit. I’ve been by the President’s side. He has always shown the highest respect to our active duty troops and veterans with utmost respect paid to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice and those wounded in battle.” Former Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney: “I never heard the President disparage our war dead or wounded. In fact, the exact opposite is true. I was with him at the 75th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion in Normandy. As we flew over the beaches by helicopter he was outwardly in awe of the accomplishments of the Allied Forces, and the sacrifices they paid.”

Read more …

So surprised.

• AstraZeneca Covid19 Vaccine Trial Put On Hold Due To Adverse Reaction (STAT)

A large, Phase 3 study testing a Covid-19 vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford at dozens of sites across the U.S. has been put on hold due to a suspected serious adverse reaction in a participant in the United Kingdom. A spokesperson for AstraZeneca, a frontrunner in the race for a Covid-19 vaccine, said in a statement that the company’s “standard review process triggered a pause to vaccination to allow review of safety data.” In a follow-up statement, AstraZeneca said it initiated the study hold. The nature of the adverse reaction and when it happened were not immediately known, though the participant is expected to recover, according to an individual familiar with the matter.


The spokesperson described the pause as “a routine action which has to happen whenever there is a potentially unexplained illness in one of the trials, while it is investigated, ensuring we maintain the integrity of the trials.” The spokesperson also said that the company is “working to expedite the review of the single event to minimize any potential impact on the trial timeline.” An individual familiar with the development said researchers had been told the hold was placed on the trial out of “an abundance of caution.” A second individual familiar with the matter, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said the finding is having an impact on other AstraZeneca vaccine trials underway — as well as on the clinical trials being conducted by other vaccine manufacturers.

Read more …

Boy, what a mess that country is. I can see the experts brainstorming for hours: 5, no 7, how about 8? Raise your hand for 6!

• England To Ban Gatherings Of More Than 6 People As Coronavirus Cases Spike (AP)

Britain’s government is banning gatherings of more than six people in England, as officials try to keep a lid on daily new coronavirus infections after a sharp spike across the U.K. that has been largely blamed on party-going young adults disregarding social distancing rules. Downing Street said urgent action was needed after the number of daily laboratory-confirmed positive cases hit nearly 3,000 on Sunday. The figure dipped Tuesday to 2,460. Officials said that starting Monday, the legal limit on all social gatherings in England will be reduced from the current 30 people to six. The new law applies both indoors and outdoors, including private homes, restaurants and parks. Failure to comply could result in a 100-pound ($130) fine.

Weddings, school, funerals and organized team sports are exempt, and larger gatherings will also be allowed if the household or “support bubble” is larger than six. Government ministers and scientists took to the airways to urge Britons not to let down their guard. “We’ve been able to relax a bit over the summer … but these latest figures really show us that much as people might like to say ‘Oh well, it’s gone away’ — this hasn’t gone away,” said Dr. Jonathan Van-Tam, the government’s deputy chief medical officer. He said while the rise in infections is “much more marked” among people between 17 and 21, he was concerned about a “more general and creeping geographic trend” across the U.K. “People have relaxed too much,” he said. “Now is the time for us to re-engage and realize that this is a continuing threat.”

[..] Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative government has faced strong criticism for its mixed messages since it started easing the coronavirus lockdown in late spring. It spent much of the summer encouraging people to eat out to help the hard-pressed hospitality sector and is now urging workers to return to their offices to help hard-hit businesses in city centers. John Edmunds, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said cases are rising, though “not spectacularly,” but he’s worried about what will happen following the reopening of schools and universities. “There are big movements afoot in the country and these will inevitably accelerate transmission,” he told Sky News. “I’m not sure we have to go back to work when we can work from home.”

The government has also been criticized for testing problems, prompting an apology from Sarah-Jane Marsh, director for the National Health Service’s Test and Trace program. “All of our testing sites have capacity, which is why they don’t look overcrowded. It’s our laboratory processing that is the critical pinch point,” she said. “We are doing all we can to expand quickly.” “The testing team work on this 18 hours a day, seven days a week,” she said.

Read more …

60,000 people told from one day to the next that they must quarantine when they return home. Good for the airlines: ticket prices triple. Bad for the airlines: tons of cancellations.

• Britons Scrambling To Get Back Home From Greek Islands On UK Red List (K.)

Some 60,000 Britons are scrambling to get back home from seven Greek islands that were recently added to the UK’s quarantine list, before restrictions take effect at 4 a.m. on Wednesday, the Daily Mail reported on Tuesday. According to the British newspaper, holidaymakers were blindsided by the announcement on Monday by UK Transport Secretary Grant Shapps that the Greek islands of Crete, Lesvos, Mykonos, Santorini, Serifos, Tinos and Zakynthos have been put on the government’s red list of destinations from which arrivals would have to spend 14 days in quarantine once returning to the UK.


The measure was announced in response to a spike in coronavirus infections, particularly in Crete, Mykonos and Zakynthos. “I don’t understand it because if anything it seems safer here than in the UK. It’s been very quiet, there’s barely anyone on the beaches, all the staff wear masks and there are hand-sanitizers on every table,” Julie Frew, who is holidaying on Crete, told the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail also said that holidaymakers have seen ticket prices for return flights almost treble since the measure was announced.

Read more …

The Brits do 7 islands, the Dutch do them all, including many that have never had one case.

But what’s even funnier: it’s the UK and Holland that have large outbreaks, Greece is nothing compared to that. And now they want to claim that their outbreaks come from Greece?

• Netherlands Puts All Greek Islands On Orange Travel List (K.)

The Dutch government has placed Greece’s islands on its orange list of destinations approved for essential travel only, just a day after Britain said that people returning from seven Greek holiday islands would be quarantined for two weeks after arrival to check for symptoms of coronavirus. According to the directive, citizens of The Netherlands are “strongly discouraged” from traveling to the Greek islands and those who do will be subjected to 10 days of self-isolation on their return. The Foreign Ministry directive also advises that while citizens planning to travel to mainland Greece and the Peloponnese recreationally should not cancel their plans, they should exercise caution and abide by health safety regulations.

Read more …

Well, they don’t have to worry about infections in the camp anymore, because it burned down. See below

• 35 Migrants In Moria Found Positive For Coronavirus (K.)

A total of 35 migrants and refugees living in the Moria identification and registration centre on the island of Lesvos have been infected with the novel coronavirus, the Migration Ministry said in a press release on Tuesday, announcing the completion of the checks. The ministry said health teams from the National Organization of Public Health (EODY) conducted a total of 2,000 tests, of which 100 were done on employees and 1,900 on residents. Those infected have been transferred to a separate section of the camp, according to official procedure. Only one of the 35 patients has so far shown any symptoms of the illness, the ministry said. The overcrowded identification and registration centre has been placed on lockdown since last Wednesday (Sept. 2) after a 40-year-old Somalian national tested positive for the virus. During this time, residents are not allowed to enter of exit the camp.

Read more …

It’s all gone, the entire camp.

I know there are fires in California., but this is such a human tragedy, visited upon people who already were at the bottom of every ladder you can imagine.

What the EU going to do? Finance a new extra-secure camp? Moria was emant for 3,000 people But still in 2020 there were 15,000 or so living there.

“Some 12,500 people were living at the Moria camp” [..] now “more than 12,000 migrants being guarded by police on a highway..”

• 1,000s Flee Fire At Moria Migrant Camp On Virus Lockdown In Greece (K.)

Thousands of migrants fled a camp under COVID-19 lockdown after multiple fires gutted much of the site on the Greek island of Lesvos, authorities said early Wednesday. Some 12,500 people were living at the Moria camp and the surrounding area, where additional restrictions have been imposed over the past week after a Somali resident tested positive for the coronavirus. “The fire spread inside and outside of the camp and has destroyed it … There are more than 12,000 migrants being guarded by police on a highway,” Stratos Kytelis, mayor of the island’s main town, Mylinene, told private Skai radio. “It is a very difficult situation because some of those who are outside will include people who are positive (for the coronavirus).” There were no reports of injuries.


The fires broke out overnight, police and fire officials on the island told The Associated Press, adding the cause of the blazes, as well as the full extent of the damage, remained unclear. They did not confirm local reports that the fires had been set deliberately in protest at the lockdown measures but said firefighters had “met resistance” from some camp residents. Health authorities on Tuesday said 35 people had been confirmed infected with the virus so far after a major testing drive was ordered at the overcrowded facility. They were being kept in isolation at a separate site that was not affected by the fire, officials said. Early Wednesday, riot police were deployed along the highway that connects the camp to Mytilene, some 5 kilometers (3 miles) to the south.

Moria fire

https://twitter.com/i/status/1303554698083995650

Read more …

 

 

We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, your support is now an integral part of the process.

Thank you for your ongoing support.

 

 

A comprehensive list from Professor Mark Feldstein, witness who testified on Day 1 of Assange hearing about frequency of published leaks in journalism. The list includes over 20 examples from 1844-2018.

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in virustime.

 

Debt Rattle September 8 2020

Sep 082020
 
 September 8, 2020  Posted by at 9:57 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  17 Responses »


Todd Webb Rue des Plantes, Paris 1950

 

• Vitamin D Reduces risk of ICU Admission 97% – Study (Covid.US.org)
• Rubberhose Cryptography And The Idea Behind WikiKeaks (Niraj Lal)
• Julian Assange Re-Arrested Over 18 New Allegations (Sky)
• Julian Assange Lays Out His Case Against US Extradition
• Media Freedom? Which MSM Journalist Opposes the Torture of Assange? (Murray)
• Tommy Robinson Appeals to President Donald Trump: “Free Julian Assange!“ (GP)
• Trump and The Press Destroyed The Public’s Ability To Judge Scandals (Turley)
• The Ghost in the Machine (Jim Kunstler)

 

 

Lots of Assange stories today, can’t be helped. Read them and you will understand much more much better of what’s happening.

I thought Trump’s remarks vs military brass were interesting, but couldn’t find a decent write-up of them. There’s video though.

 

 

Global new cases below 200,000. Lowest since July 13. US new cases lowest since June 14. But much of Europe appears to have a genuine second wave.

 

 

 

 

 

Trump on MIC
https://twitter.com/i/status/1303026442435993603

Trump press conference 2

 

 

Hope you got yours. And zinc. Note: you can take your vitamin D supplement in a once-a-week dosage, instead of daily.

• Vitamin D Reduces risk of ICU Admission 97% – Study (Covid.US.org)

This is a peer-reviewed, randomized, controlled study of hospitalized Covid-19 patients. So it is an “RCT”. [Correction: no placebo was used. The intervention group received calcifediol and the control group did not. Both groups received BAT, best available treatment.] This is the type of study that the press and various online critics demand. Some persons unwisely reject all other types of studies, which is not reasonable or scientific. But this is the type of study we’ve been waiting for, to confirm the other 20 studies here. The study took place in a university hospital setting: Reina Sofia University Hospital, in Cordoba, Spain. The 76 patients were all hospitalized for confirmed cases of Covid-19. So these are not the mild to moderate, stay-at-home types of patients. The intervention group was 50 patients and the control group was 26 patients.

The intervention group received calcifediol, which is a type of vitamin D found in the blood. It is not the usual type of vitamin D found in supplements. Calcifediol is also known as 25(OH)D or 25-hydroxyvitamin D. The reason for giving this type of vitamin D is that the usual supplement type takes about 7 days to turn into calcifediol, so by giving patients calcifediol itself, you get the good effects without having to wait 7 or so days [per Wikipedia]. The dosage of calcifediol converts to IU (international units at a ratio of 200 to 1). So 10 micrograms of calcifediol is 2000 IU of vitamin D, whereas 10 micrograms of vitamin D3 is 400 IU (a 40:1 ratio).

The dosage given to the patients, in IUs, was:
Day one: 106,400 IU of vitamin D
Day three: 53,200 IU
Day seven: 53,200 IU
Once-a-week thereafter: 53,200 IU

This is equivalent to about 30,000 IU per day for the first week, and 7,600 IU per day thereafter. Yes, you can take your vitamin D supplement in a once-a-week dosage, instead of daily. The results were astounding (and highly statistically significant). “Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission (50%)”. Would you rather have a 50% risk of needing ICU care, or a 2% risk? Almost all hospitalized Covid-19 patients who die, die in the ICU. That is where the most severe cases are sent. So this study shows that vitamin D reduces the severity of Covid-19.

In the statistically adjusted results, vitamin D reduced the odds of ICU admission by 97%. The RR (risk reduction) for ICU admission in hospitalized Covid-19 patients was 0.03 as compared to the control, which is given the value of 1.00. The odds of Covid-19 patients in general, as compared to hospitalized Covid-19 patients, needing ICU care would be even lower, as you would first need to be hospitalized to enter that risk ratio, and vitamin D has been shown by other studies to reduce risk of hospitalization. So taking a vitamin D supplement has tremendous benefits.

Read more …

Great piece -long- on the origins of what became WikiLeaks.

• Rubberhose Cryptography And The Idea Behind WikiKeaks (Niraj Lal)

“There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle, there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy.” — Joseph Pulitzer

The last dinner that Julian Assange had in relative freedom, 18 June 2012, was takeaway pizza and cheap red wine with a couple of the Wikileaks team and myself in a small flat in London, discussing possible trajectories of American politics for the coming decade. The next morning he walked into the Ecuadorian Embassy to claim political asylum; he hasn’t seen sunlight unguarded since. I first met Julian in the Redmond Barry Physics Lecture Theatre ten years earlier, in 2002, on our first day at the University of Melbourne. The lecturer, the affable Professor Geoff Opat with curly hair and thick-rimmed glasses, in that first hour transformed the topic of ‘units’ — of length, time, and mass — into the powerful concept of ‘dimensional analysis’, a method of answering physics problems simply by determining the underlying units involved. It was a technique later applied to understanding structural opposition to government transparency.


The Melbourne University 1st year Advanced Physics Class, 2002. Photo: Niraj Lal

Julian took two other subjects in addition to physics that first semester of 2002 — Advanced Maths and a first-year philosophy course titled “Critical Thinking — the Art of Reasoning”. We shared all three classes, but it was during a lunchtime discussion after the philosophy course, sitting on the sandstone steps of Melbourne Uni’s Old Quad, that I first heard him speak about the application of critical thinking to political questions. He was working on a project he called ‘Rubberhose Cryptography’ — a method to allow anyone with valuable digital information to have “plausible deniability” of not having it if someone was standing behind them with a length of thick rubber hose. Julian asked the question: if a journalist with leaked information stored on a USB thumb drive was being interrogated about its contents by a foreign intelligence agency, is there a way that cryptography could enable the journalist to not surrender it?

Even if the intelligence agency were using a thick rubber hose to beat it out of them? The answer, of course, is that agencies have varied means of extracting information that are almost always successful given enough time; rubber hoses are only a crude initial measure before more persuasive techniques can be employed. But Julian found that cryptography can have a role in supporting resistance. Rubberhose Cryptography formed the kernel of TrueCrypt — a program where folders on a drive can be protected by a password, but where the folders are themselves able to contain hidden folders which are only revealed by another password — but where (and here’s the kicker) there isn’t a way of determining whether all folders have been uncovered.

Such a program allows the possibility of “plausible deniability” — where a journalist could reveal one password to a small portion of sensitive information with it being plausible (and unverifiable) that that was all she had to reveal (even if the folder were hiding much larger amounts of sensitive information). Rubberhose and subsequently Truecrypt formed the basis of On-The-Fly-Encryption programs that are used by intelligence communities around the world to this day.

[..] In 2004 Julian competed in the inaugural Australian National Physics Competition held at the ANU, where I was now studying. He stayed with me with his girlfriend at the time, a mathematics PhD student at the ANU, and he mentioned that in addition to physics and maths, he was learning neuroscience and the emerging empirical analytical tools being applied to explore the physiological underpinnings of consciousness, as well as exploring practical examples of cryptography for journalism. In 2005 I received a broadcast email from him outlining the idea behind Wikileaks. It was clear even then that a revolutionary idea had been born.


Julian Assange on the Woomera Missile Test Area, South Australia, 2002. Photo: Niraj Lal

Read more …

The old charges weren’t going anywhere, so he’s presented with new ones right as he enters the court. That means neither he nor his lawyers, whom he’s not talked to for 6 months, can prepare any defense.

• Julian Assange Re-Arrested Over 18 New Allegations (Sky)

Julian Assange has failed to get new allegations against him thrown out as he battles extradition to the US. The WikiLeaks founder, 49, appeared at the Old Bailey in London after being held for months on remand at high-security Belmarsh Prison. He was re-arrested in the court’s cells on Monday over new charges contained in a US indictment. It details a further 18 charges, lodged in June, which accuse him of plotting to hack computers and obtain and disclose national defence information. They allege that he conspired with army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a scrambled password, known as “hash”, to a classified US defence department computer. The charges also offer further details of alleged hacking plotters that Assange and his WikiLeaks colleagues are said to have recruited. The 49-year-old spoke only to state he “does not consent to extradition” and confirm his name. [..]


His lawyer, Mark Summers QC, said the “fresh allegations at the 11th hour” were brought without warning or explanation, which meant they had no time to prepare a response. He highlighted the difficulties Assange faced in speaking to his lawyers in the midst of ongoing restrictions. “It would be an impossible task for the defence to deal with these fresh allegations in any meaningful way in the time that has been afforded to them, and that time is a matter of weeks in respect of which we are provided absolutely no explanation for the late arrival of these matters.” He added: “What is happening is abnormal, unfair and liable to create injustice if allowed to continue.” But District Judge Vanessa Baraitser rejected the defence’s bid to “excise” the allegations, saying: “These are issues which must take place in the context of considering the extradition request and not before it.”

Jennifer Robinson

Read more …

The risk of suicide is palpable.

• Julian Assange Lays Out His Case Against US Extradition

Fifteen long months have passed since Julian Assange was physically pulled out of London’s Ecuadorean embassy and taken to the United Kingdom’s Belmarsh prison. There, he’s since awaited an even grimmer prospect: Extradition to the US to face charges of a criminal hacking conspiracy and violations of the Espionage Act. Now his lawyers have laid out a preview of their full case against that extradition—from the argument that the charges pose an unprecedented threat to press freedom to what his doctors describe as evidence that Assange is at high risk of self-harm if he ends up incarcerated in America.

Ahead of Assange’s extradition hearing, which began in London today and is expected to last for several weeks, both prosecutors and the WikiLeaks founder’s defense lawyers submitted “skeleton arguments” to the court that lay out in new detail the central arguments they plan to make in Assange’s extradition case. The defense document in particular reveals Assange’s most complete response yet to the US indictments against him, expanding on an opening statement his attorneys released in February and including snippets of still-unpublished written testimony from a long list of witnesses, from free speech advocates and media scholars to four doctors who have assessed Assange’s mental health.

Assange’s lawyers point to what they describe as flaws in the US indictment against their client and the political nature of the prosecution. The document also includes the warnings of psychiatrists who have diagnosed Assange with Asperger’s, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, all of which they say could lead him to harm himself if he’s extradited into the American judicial system. “I think they have a lot of ammunition,” says Tor Ekeland, a well-known hacker defense attorney who has followed Assange’s case and helped to successfully defend British hacker Lauri Love from extradition in 2018. “The most salient things for me are the freedom of speech and the right to publish information that is critical to the public’s ability to understand and evaluate what the government is doing in their name.”

On top of those free speech arguments, the newest details in the defense’s argument serve as evidence of Assange’s declining mental health. Michael Kopelman, a psychiatrist who interviewed Assange several times last year, testified that he observed in Assange signs of suicidal risk including “loss of sleep, loss of weight, a sense of pre-occupation and helplessness as a result of threats to his life, the concealment of a razor blade as a means to self-harm and obsessive ruminations on ways of killing himself.” He writes at one point that Assange expressed having suicidal thoughts “hundreds” of times a day, and that multiple potential suicide implements were confiscated from Assange in prison.

The defense goes on to quote Kopelman pointing out that the WikiLeaks founder has shown signs of preparing for the end of his life, such as seeking Catholic absolution and creating a will. “I reiterate again that I am as certain as a psychiatrist ever can be that, in the event of imminent extradition, Mr. Assange would indeed find a way to commit suicide,” Kopelman writes. Sondra Crosby, another psychiatrist who saw Assange during his time in the Ecuadorean embassy adds, “It is my strong medical opinion that extradition of Mr. Assange to the United States will further damage his current fragile state of health and very likely cause his death. This opinion is not given lightly.”

A third psychiatrist diagnosed Assange with Asperger’s syndrome, noting that the condition would make it more difficult for him to manage life in a US prison. But the prosecutors counter that yet another doctor who interviewed Assange twice while in prison came to the conclusion that he was not a significant suicide risk. The prosecution writes that “neither mental health problems, nor Asperger syndrome prevented Assange’s solicitation of, and orchestration of, the leaking of materials from the highest levels of government and state agencies, apparently on a global scale.”

Read more …

Craig Murray somehow made it into the courtroom. Scores of others couldn’t even follow proceedings on a TV screen. 40 observers, invited just days before, were told the invitations were a “mistake”. The UK does NOT have a justice system.

• Media Freedom? Which MSM Journalist Opposes the Torture of Assange? (Murray)

Julian Assange has been a light in this darkness. Wikileaks have opened a window into the secret world of war crime, murder and corruption that underlies so much of the governance we live under throughout the “free” world. Coming in the wake of the public realisation that we had been blatantly lied into the destruction of Iraq, there was a time when it seemed Assange would lead us into a new age where whistleblowers, citizen journalists and a democratic internet would revolutionise public information, with the billionaire stranglehold shattered. That seems less hopeful today, as the internet world itself corporatised. Julian is in jail and continuing today is an extradition hearing that has been one long abuse of process.

The appalling conditions of solitary confinement in which he has been kept in the high security Belmarsh Prison, with no access to his legal team or a working computer, to his papers or to his mail, have taken a huge toll on his physical and mental health. The UN Special Representative has declared he is subject to torture. A media which is up in arms about the very dubious attack on Navalny, has no emotion for state torture victim Assange other than contempt. It is constantly asked by Julian’s supporters why the media do not see the assault on a publisher and journalist as a threat to themselves. The answer is that the state and corporate media are confident in their firm alliance with the powers that be. They have no intention of challenging the status quo; their protection from those kicking Assange lies in joining in with the kicking.

I hope to be in court today, and throughout the extradition hearing. The public gallery of 80 has been reduced to 9 “due to Covid”. 5 seats are reserved for Julian’s family and friends, and I have one of these today, but not guaranteed beyond that. There are just 4 seats for the general public. Journalists and NGO’s will be following the hearing online – but only “approved” journalists and NGO’s, selected by the Orwelian Ministry of Justice. I had dinner last night with Assange supporters from a number of registered NGO’s, not one of which had been “approved”. I had applied myself as a representative of Hope Over Fear, and was turned down. It is the same story for those who applied for online access as journalists. Only the officially “approved” will be allowed to watch.

This is supposed to be a public hearing, to which in normal times anybody should be able to walk in off the street into the large public gallery, and anyone with a press card into the press gallery. What is the justification for the political selection of those permitted to watch? An extraordinary online system has been set up, with the state favoured observers given online “rooms” in which only the identified individual will be allowed. Even with approved organisations, it is not the case that an organisation will have a login anyone can use, not even one at a time. Only specifically nominated individuals have to login before proceedings start, and if their connection breaks at any point they will not be readmitted that day.

Given these restrictions, I was very conscious I may need to queue from 5am tomorrow, to get one of the 4 public places, if I drop off the family list. So I went this morning at 6am to the Old Bailey to check out the queue and work out the system. The first six people in the queue were all people who, entirely off their own bat, without my knowledge and with no coordination between them, had arrived while London slept just to reserve a place for me. I was swept up by their goodness, their trust in me and by their sheer humanitarian concern about Julian and the whole miscarriage of justice. I chatted cheerily with them for a while, then came back to write this, but just got round the corner when I burst into floods of tears, overwhelmed by all this kindness.

Read more …

Tommy Robinson -yeah, that one- is of the few people Assange has had contact with while in Belmarsh.

• Tommy Robinson Appeals to President Donald Trump: “Free Julian Assange!“ (GP)

British patriotic activist Tommy Robinson has issued a dramatic appeal to President Donald Trump on the eve of Julian Assange‘s extradition hearing, which begins on Monday in Old Bailey Central Criminal Court in London. German politician and frequent Gateway Pundit interview partner Petr Bystron (AfD foreign policy speaker) traveled to the UK Friday ahead of the Assange hearing and interviewed Tommy Robinson outside Belmarsh prison, the same maximum security prison where Robinson was held last year on trumped-up charges of “disturbing the peace” for reporting on a “Grooming Gang” mass rape trial. “Between when I was brought into this prison and left this prison I only saw one other person: Julian Assange”, Robinson said.

“I spent three months in total isolation, seeing no one. I know the damaging effect that had on me for just three months. Julian Assange has been here over a year.” Belmarsh is the UK’s top Maximum Security Prison, where only the highest level of murderers and terrorists are usually held. Islam critic Robinson, who has survived several attempts on his life by Muslims while in prison on various trumped-up misdemeanors such as mortgage fraud or immigration violations, was kept in solitary confinement for his own safety: “I was totally separated. I had my own wing. I had an exercise yard, where I could walk around for 30 minutes a day. And Julian Assange’s window was there, so we could talk.” Assange was on the health care wing at the time, where he wasn’t allowed to exercise, or to do the things other prisoners are, Robinson said.

His mental state had suffered, according to Robinson: “We had good discussions, but after speaking to staff and shouting, I saw how his mental health has deteriorated. He was a mess. A total mess. Breakdown, crying. But that’s totally to be expected. I only spent three months in total isolation. Isolation may sound easy, but they know it’s not. It’s a medical fact that solitary confinement is mental torture.” Robinson pointed out Julian Assange is being held without charges, on extradition to the US only: “This man’s committed no violence. He’s not in here for a violent crime. He’s not even proven to have committed a crime. He spent over a year. I hate to think of the long-lasting effect his sentence would have had on that man. He wouldn’t be a human if he hadn’t already been broken.”

Tommy Robinson and Petr Bystron directed a dramatic appeal to President Donald Trump: “I watched what happened to his case and I expected Donald Trump to pardon him,” Robinson said. “I think a lot of people expected it. Free Julian Assange!” Bystron agreed: “This is an appeal to Donald Trump. Free Julian Assange!” Tommy called Assange “a political prisoner” in a UK jail: “What has happened to him in that prison is not right. It’s mental torture. And he’s been forgotten.” [..] “I know the amount of mail he must receive – the prison guards told me he has his own room for the support he gets,” Robinson said. “But it’s no good getting support when you’re locked in a cell. He saw no way out. That’s what he was saying. They don’t ever want him to see daylight again.”

Read more …

I like Turley, it’s good to see the law laid out, but he overextends himself hugely here. Like he’s afraid to criticize the Atlantic’s story. There are now 10 named(!) sources who were present and say Trump never made those remarks.

• Trump and The Press Destroyed The Public’s Ability To Judge Scandals (Turley)

Trump has reached a point where there is nothing that most of us would rule out in terms of shocking or offensive statements. He often refers to people as “losers” and allegedly once said that of those who fought in Vietnam instead of getting a deferment or medical exclusion, as he did. If an article included such an alleged statement by either President Bush, it would have been dismissed instantly as ridiculous. Over the past three years Trump has made himself vulnerable to such allegations, due to his history of outrageous remarks. Yet the same is true of the media. Three years ago, a story of this kind would have been devastating for any president — but the media has rendered itself as unbelievable as the subject of its current ire.

While denouncing Trump as a pathological liar, the media has been pathologically biased. Polls consistently show the media racing Trump to the bottom on trustworthiness. Most of the media now feeds a steady diet of unrelentingly negative stories to a shrinking audience of true believers. As a result, the media has hit a historic low, with less than half of the populace finding it credible. Some polls show that the only group deemed less trustworthy than Trump is the media. The Knight Foundation has found that three-fourths of the public believe the media is too biased; some 54 percent believe reporters regularly misrepresent facts, and 28 percent believe reporters make things up entirely. There is a reason for this view of bias: It’s true. Many journalists do not attempt to hide their anti-Trump agendas.

In the age of “echo-journalism,” it is even viewed as an essential commitment on some networks. False stories about Trump or Trump aides have been published regularly, only to be quietly withdrawn or “corrected” after the news cycle has run. Indeed, as reporters pummeled the White House with angry questions over the Atlantic story, a press conference held by Democratic nominee Joe Biden was the very image of deference and decorum. Reporters seemed to go out of their way to confirm months of criticism over the softball treatment given to Biden. Atlantic staff writer Edward Isaac Dovere asked Biden: “When you hear these remarks — ‘suckers,’ ‘losers,’ recoiling from amputees — what does it tell you about President Trump’s soul and the life he leads?”

There was a time when a statement in a major publication was taken as true. My children, however, have no such presumption about any news source. Even more disturbing, neither do I these days. The Atlantic article embodies the discomfort with movement journalism. It has been the repository of all things anti-Trump, with such articles as “Donald Trump, the Most Unmanly President” and “Donald Trump is a Broken Man.” Past claims in the Atlantic on the Trump campaign, like former Attorney General Jeff Sessions colluding with Russians, were debunked by the special counsel investigation. In an age of echo chamber journalism, The Atlantic is deafening.

[..] The real story this week is not whether Trump or The Atlantic are lying but why either possibility is viewed as equally plausible. The public is left with an incredible tale told by two equally noncredible sources. That is the real story — and a truly sad one.

WH campaign director on Atlantic story

Read more …

“..it will bring on a years’ long quasi civil war sure to finish off the institutions of a federal republic and also whatever remains of the US economy.”

• The Ghost in the Machine (Jim Kunstler)

The abiding mystery of the 2020 election is how come the Democratic Party, wishing so zealously to win back power, took pains to nominate a candidate weaker than the ghost of Millard Fillmore. Resorting to Occam’s Razor, one might have to conclude that Joe Biden was simply the best they had — a surefire case for the party’s necessary extinction. The Labor Day starting-gun kicks off the high campaign season and Ol’ White Joe wobbles forth from his lair under a rock somewhere to dazzle audiences of six or eight sympathetic journos posed in “social distancing” formation while the party’s Antifa and BLM shock troops soften up voters elsewhere across the land with vote-winning riots, arson, and looting. There’s a recipe for political success!

You have to wonder how the claque of DC deep state players behind this fiasco could come up with a game-plan so stupidly inept… but there it is! Apparently, they’re laying further plans now to bum-rush Ol’ Joe into the White House by main force with a “color revolution” — that is, an orchestrated fake popular revolt as in the Ukraine Maidan regime change operation of 2014. In fact, as Revolver News reports, the same wrecking crew of US State Department officials, intel spooks, contract insurrectionists, and George Soros-sponsored NGO intriguers is behind the US 2020 “Transition Integrity Project” aimed at launching a US post-election coup against Mr. Trump, no matter how the election actually goes.

The plan was all over the web wires this holiday weekend. Everybody knows exactly what to expect now: a November 3 Trump election victory followed by a king-tide of post-election write-in votes for Ol’ Joe… a long, drawn-out, and surely inconclusive battle trying to validate scores of millions of postmarks and signatures… and a skein of Lawfare-managed shenanigans conducted in battleground state legislatures to change-out electoral college slates. And any objections by Mr. Trump and his party will be labeled as Putin-backed fascist treason. Will that result in Mr. Biden actually gliding into the oval office? No, it will bring on a years’ long quasi civil war sure to finish off the institutions of a federal republic and also whatever remains of the US economy.

Read more …

 

 

We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, your support is now an integral part of the process.

Thank you for your ongoing support.

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in virustime.

 

Debt Rattle September 6 2020

Sep 062020
 
 September 6, 2020  Posted by at 9:54 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  9 Responses »


Vincenzo Camuccini La Morte Di Cesare 1804

 

• Trump and Biden Could Face Dramatic Post-Election Battle (Yoo)
• Russia COVID19 Vaccine Effective Against Any Dose Of Virus (RT)
• Total COVID19 Deaths Projected To Double In US, Triple in World By Jan. 1 (R.)
• PCR Tests ‘Could Be Picking Up Dead Coronavirus’ (BBC)
• Italian Mayor Wants Penalties For Wearing A Face Mask When Unnecessary (RT)
• New Media Propaganda Tool: Use “Confirmed” to Mean its Opposite (Greenwald)
• The Stunning Synergy of The Atlantic’s Anonymous Attack on Trump (Pollak)
• Strzok Joins Weissmann, Doubts NYT story on FBI’s Trump-Russia Inquiry (WE)
• The Fed’s New Policy Won’t Get Inflation (Roberts)
• Majority Of US Young Adults Live With Parents For The 1st Time In 80 Years (Pew)

 

 

We’re full speed ahead into absolute election mayhem, and nobody’s even thinking of pulling the brakes. Throw in a second and third corona wave, more lockdowns, more riots.

 

 

Today’s numbers gain in importance because of a model (see below) that predicts that before January 1, US total deaths will more than double to 410,000, and the world’s will triple to 2.8 million. A bold prediction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suggest you read this well. You’ll understand how this really works, and come away thinking you don’t understand a thing.

• Trump and Biden Could Face Dramatic Post-Election Battle (Yoo)

The Constitution requires the winner of the presidential election to garner a majority of the 538 votes in the Electoral College. Hillary Clinton won about 3 million more popular votes than Trump four years ago, but Trump won a clear Electoral College majority of 306-232. But if the election is close this year — as many prognosticators predict — and a few battleground states fail to report their votes on time, then neither President Trump nor former Vice President Biden might be able to assemble the required 270 electoral votes needed to become president. If such a stalemate occurs, a constitutional fail-safe would throw the election into the House of Representatives. Our nation barely avoided that outcome 20 years ago and has only used it twice in our history.

But even though the House will likely remain under Democratic control after the election, the Constitution’s process for resolving disputed elections should still bode well for Trump’s reelection. How could control of the White House end up in the domain of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.? It depends on the decisions made 230 years ago. America’s founders rejected the idea that Congress should pick the president, which they believed would rob the chief executive of independence, responsibility and energy. They wanted the American people to have the primary hand in choosing the president. But the founders wanted the choice mediated through the states, because they also feared direct democracy.

In a compromise that binds us still, the founders allowed state legislatures to pick electors for the president, based on their number of senators and members of the House combined. The state-based organization of the Electoral College and its slight advantage for states with small populations (which receive two extra Electoral College votes no matter their population, since every state has two senators) underscore the founders’ desire to give federalism a say in the choice of the president. The founders went further in designing their constitutional backup. They realized that the Electoral College might yield no majority winner. They expected that regions might support their favorite sons instead.

In Article II of the Constitution, as modified by the 12th Amendment, the framers established that if no one won a majority of Electoral College votes, the House would pick the president from the top three vote-getters. But Pelosi and the Democrats — assuming that they hold onto their majority in the House — still won’t pick the president. Rather than allowing a simple majority vote in the House to select the president, the Constitution requires that the House choose the president by voting as state delegations. That means that California (represented by 53 House members) and Delaware (represented by 1 House member) would each get a single vote to pick the president. Once again, the founders decided to amplify the voice of the states in the presidential selection process, rather than defaulting to pure democracy.

And that is how Trump could win the presidency again. If the Electoral College votes yield no majority winner Dec. 14, the Constitution sends the vote to the House. Thanks to Republican advantages among the states, rather than the cities, the current balance of state delegations in the House favors Republicans, with 26 delegations controlled by Republicans and 23 controlled by Democrats (Pennsylvania is tied). If today’s House chose the president by voting by state delegations, Trump would win. But there is one more twist. The 20th Amendment to the Constitution seats a new Congress on Jan. 3, but does not begin the term of a new president until noon on Jan. 20. That means the new House chosen in the November election, rather than the current House, would choose the president if neither Trump nor Biden wins an Electoral College majority.

Even though Republicans currently have a majority of House delegations, Democrats have narrowed the gap. After the 2016 elections, Republicans had held a 32-17 advantage in House delegations. If Democrats can win one more congressional seat in Pennsylvania and then flip one more delegation, they could achieve a 25-25 tie in the House in January. Under this scenario, the election would require political bargaining of the most extreme kind for the House to resolve a disputed presidential election. But suppose the House can’t agree, which could well be likely given the polarization of our politics. The Constitution even provides for this. If the House splits 25-25 between Trump and Biden, then the 20th Amendment elevates the vice president-elect to the presidency. Under the 20th Amendment, when the Electoral College fails, the Senate chooses the vice president.

But unlike the House procedure, the senators each have an individual vote, meaning that under the current balance in the upper chamber, 53 Republicans would choose Mike Pence to effectively become the next president. But one-third of the seats in the Senate will be filled in the November election, meaning control of the chamber could flip to the Democrats. Under this scenario, Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., could wind up as our next president and make history as the first woman to hold the office in American history. All of this is as complicated as it sounds. Election Day could be just the start of a new phase in a prolonged fight for control of the White House, rather than the conclusion of a long campaign.

Read more …

Vaccination to start as early as October. What if it is a huge success, what will the west do?

• Russia COVID19 Vaccine Effective Against Any Dose Of Virus (RT)

The leader of the team behind Sputnik V said on Friday that the immune response documented among volunteers taking the world’s first registered coronavirus vaccine is sufficient to fight any level of Covid-19 infection. Alexander Gintsburg, head of Moscow’s Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology, was speaking on the same day that The Lancet reported on trials confirming that every patient who received the vaccine had developed antibodies without any significant side-effects. The British publication, one of the oldest and best-respected medical journals in the world, confirmed that the Sputnik V vaccine had successfully produced antibodies in all 76 participants in early-stage trials.


“The vaccine’s immune response documented currently among volunteers is enough to counter any dose of Covid-19 that you could imagine,” Gintsburg said. Meanwhile, Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin has revealed that post-registration clinical trials of Sputnik V in the capital could last from two to six months. He also confirmed that mass vaccination is likely to start in late 2020 or early 2021. “Some batches will arrive as early as this year,” he told Russia’s Channel One TV in an interview shown on Saturday. “There’s every likelihood that they will be used to vaccinate risk groups. These are healthcare, education, trade, the housing and utilities sectors, law enforcement agencies and some others – perhaps journalists.”

Read more …

We need more models than just this one. But scary it is.

• Total COVID19 Deaths Projected To Double In US, Triple in World By Jan. 1 (R.)

U.S. deaths from the coronavirus will reach 410,000 by the end of the year, more than double the current death toll, and deaths could soar to 3,000 per day in December, the University of Washington’s health institute forecast on Friday. Deaths could be reduced by 30% if more Americans wore face masks as epidemiologists have advised, but mask-wearing is declining, the university’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation said. The U.S. death rate projected by the IHME model, which has been cited by the White House Coronavirus Task Force, would more than triple the current death rate of some 850 per day.


“We expect the daily death rate in the United States, because of seasonality and declining vigilance of the public, to reach nearly 3,000 a day in December,” the institute, which bills itself as an independent research center, said in an update of its periodic forecasts. “Cumulative deaths expected by January 1 are 410,000; this is 225,000 deaths from now until the end of the year,” the institute said. It previously projected 317,697 deaths by Dec. 1. The model’s outlook for the world was even more dire, with deaths projected to triple to 2.8 million by Jan. 1, 2021.

Read more …

Why have we been focusing on PCR as much as we have? It is so far from perfect it’s not funny anymore.

• PCR Tests ‘Could Be Picking Up Dead Coronavirus’ (BBC)

The main test used to diagnose coronavirus is so sensitive it could be picking up fragments of dead virus from old infections, scientists say. Most people are infectious only for about a week, but could test positive weeks afterwards. Researchers say this could be leading to an over-estimate of the current scale of the pandemic. But some experts say it is uncertain how a reliable test can be produced that doesn’t risk missing cases. Prof Carl Heneghan, one of the study’s authors, said instead of giving a “yes/no” result based on whether any virus is detected, tests should have a cut-off point so that very small amounts of virus do not trigger a positive result. He believes the detection of traces of old virus could partly explain why the number of cases is rising while hospital admissions remain stable.

[..] The PCR swab test – the standard diagnostic method – uses chemicals to amplify the virus’s genetic material so that it can be studied. Your test sample has to go through a number of “cycles” in the lab before enough virus is recovered. Just how many can indicate how much of the virus is there – whether it’s tiny fragments or lots of whole virus. This in turn appears to be linked to how likely the virus is to be infectious – tests that have to go through more cycles are less likely to reproduce when cultured in the lab. But when you take a coronavirus test, you get a “yes” or “no” answer. There is no indication of how much virus was in the sample, or how likely it is to be an active infection.

A person shedding a large amount of active virus, and a person with leftover fragments from an infection that’s already been cleared, would receive the same – positive – test result. But Prof Heneghan, the academic who spotted a quirk in how deaths were being recorded, which led Public Health England to reform its system, says evidence suggests coronavirus “infectivity appears to decline after about a week”. He added that while it would not be possible to check every test to see whether there was active virus, the likelihood of false positive results could be reduced if scientists could work out where the cut-off point should be. This could prevent people being given a positive result based on an old infection.

And Prof Heneghan said that would stop people quarantining or being contact-traced unnecessarily, and give a better understanding of the current scale of the pandemic. Public Health England agreed viral cultures were a useful way of assessing the results of coronavirus tests and said it had recently undertaken analysis along these lines. It said it was working with labs to reduce the risk of false positives, including looking at where the “cycle threshold”, or cut-off point, should be set. But it said there were many different test kits in use, with different thresholds and ways of being read, which made providing a range of cut-off points difficult.

Read more …

Hear hear. It’s important to avoid unneeded pressure. Already, renewed lockdowns lead to a lot of protest. As predicted: you need to get the first one right, or trouble’s on the way.

• Italian Mayor Wants Penalties For Wearing A Face Mask When Unnecessary (RT)

These days, going out without wearing a face mask is considered poor form – and, in some places, an offense. But the mayor of an Italian town says fines should be slapped on those wearing a mask in an “inappropriate” situation. In the same way global health authorities insist masks contain the spread of coronavirus, Vittorio Sgarbi, the mayor of Sutri, is confident his unorthodox initiative will help stem the spread of “pandemic-related hysteria,” as he put it, according to the TASS news agency. The lingering Covid-19 pandemic has so far infected close to 275,000 people in Italy and killed more than 35,500 – almost seven times the entire population of Sutri. Yet, for Sgarbi, mandatory mask-wearing should have its limits, particularly when public safety is at stake.


Sgarbi, who is also a renowned art historian, cultural commentator, and television personality, told TASS he had issued a decree – yet to be approved by the Italian government – calling for imposition of a fine for wearing a mask in a situation when it’s not needed. “My decree has been issued under the current terrorism prevention laws,” he told the Russian media outlet. The legislation in question says people shouldn’t have their faces covered in a public place. Breaching this law can result in a one or two-year prison sentence or a fine of up to €2,000 (around $2,365). Sgarbi made it clear that anyone breaking his ban wouldn’t incur such a harsh penalty, but that people should wear a mask only when the occasion requires. “Wearing a mask at dinner is absurd,” he clarified. The mayor is no stranger to going against the mainstream. Ahead of the pandemic, he reportedly dismissed coronavirus as “a flu” and ridiculed those raising concerns about the looming crisis. He later made a formal apology when the death toll surged.

Read more …

The story stinks.

• New Media Propaganda Tool: Use “Confirmed” to Mean its Opposite (Greenwald)

It seems the same misleading tactic is now driving the supremely dumb but all-consuming news cycle centered on whether President Trump, as first reported by the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, made disparaging comments about The Troops. Goldberg claims that “four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day” — whom the magazine refuses to name because they fear “angry tweets” — told him that Trump made these comments. Trump, as well as former aides who were present that day (including Sarah Huckabee Sanders and John Bolton), deny that the report is accurate. So we have anonymous sources making claims on one side, and Trump and former aides (including Bolton, now a harsh Trump critic) insisting that the story is inaccurate.

Beyond deciding whether or not to believe Goldberg’s story based on what best advances one’s political interests, how can one resolve the factual dispute? If other media outlets could confirm the original claims from Goldberg, that would obviously be a significant advancement of the story. Other media outlets — including Associated Press and Fox News — now claim that they did exactly that: “confirmed” the Atlantic story. But if one looks at what they actually did, at what this “confirmation” consists of, it is the opposite of what that word would mean, or should mean, in any minimally responsible sense. AP, for instance, merely claims that “a senior Defense Department official with firsthand knowledge of events and a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer who was told about Trump’s comments confirmed some of the remarks to The Associated Press,” while Fox merely said “a former senior Trump administration official who was in France traveling with the president in November 2018 did confirm other details surrounding that trip.”

In other words, all that likely happened is that the same sources who claimed to Jeffrey Goldberg, with no evidence, that Trump said this went to other outlets and repeated the same claims — the same tactic that enabled MSNBC and CBS to claim they had “confirmed” the fundamentally false CNN story about Trump Jr. receiving advanced access to the WikiLeaks archive. Or perhaps it was different sources aligned with those original sources and sharing their agenda who repeated these claims. Given that none of the sources making these claims have the courage to identify themselves, due to their fear of mean tweets, it is impossible to know. But whatever happened, neither AP nor Fox obtained anything resembling “confirmation.”

They just heard the same assertions that Goldberg heard, likely from the same circles if not the same people, and are now abusing the term “confirmation” to mean “unproven assertions” or “unverifiable claims” (indeed, Fox now says that “two sources who were on the trip in question with Trump refuted the main thesis of The Atlantic’s reporting”). It should go without saying that none of this means that Trump did not utter these remarks or ones similar to them. He has made public statements in the past that are at least in the same universe as the ones reported by the Atlantic, and it is quite believable that he would have said something like this (though the absolute last person who should be trusted with anything, particularly interpreting claims from anonymous sources, is Jeffrey Goldberg, who has risen to one of the most important perches in journalism despite (or, more accurately because of) one of the most disgraceful and damaging records of spreading disinformation in service of the Pentagon and intelligence community’s agenda).

Read more …

An across the board set-up. And yes, there will be more.

• The Stunning Synergy of The Atlantic’s Anonymous Attack on Trump (Pollak)

The Atlantic published a story Thursday evening that claimed President Donald Trump called the fallen American soldiers in a World War I cemetery “suckers” and “losers” in 2018. The author, Jeffrey Goldberg, cited four anonymous sources. Nearly a dozen current and former Trump administration officials disputed the story. One, notably, was John Bolton, the former national security adviser who says he will not vote for Trump. “I was there,” he said, and “I didn’t hear that.” Other claims in The Atlantic story are refuted by documentary evidence. The article claims, for instance, that Trump refused to visit the cemetery because the rain would ruin his hair. Bolton’s tell-all book said otherwise; so do official documents.

What is more interesting than the details of the story is how it was produced, and how it was rolled out. It has the appearance of a well-coordinated, well-executed campaign of disinformation, utilizing the full toolbox available to the Democratic Party. The article was published Thursday evening. By Friday morning, a left-wing group called Vote Vets had not only produced an ad based on the article, but had aired it on Morning Joe — MSNBC’s early-morning flagship news and opinion show. Meanwhile, the article spread across social media like a brush fire in a derecho. It trended at the top of Twitter; it was shared widely on Facebook, all without any of the “fact checks” that typically accompany disputed news reports on such platforms.

The Biden campaign issued a statement Thursday night — “If the revelations in today’s Atlantic article are true” — and held a press call Friday morning. The call featured, among others, Khizr Khan — the Gold Star father who attacked Trump in 2016. A short time later, Biden himself held a press briefing on the U.S. economy. Though he was expected to discuss the August jobs report — which came in better than expected, at 1.4 million jobs added — he led with an angry tirade about the article. At the end of his presentation, Biden turned to his campaign staff, who chose which reporters would be allowed to ask questions, and in what order. The first question went to Edward-Isaac Dovere, who writes for — surprise! — The Atlantic.

Dovere asked, “When you hear these remarks — ‘suckers,’ ‘losers,’ recoiling from amputees — what does it tell you about President Trump’s soul, and the life he leads?” It was a setup for Biden to attack Trump over The Atlantic allegations again. None of the other questions asked were challenging in any way; all appeared to be setup questions for Biden to attack Trump or to clarify some lingering problem — whether he had been tested for coronavirus (yes), where his running mate was (busy). No one asked Biden whether it was appropriate to attack Trump based on an unconfirmed report. No one even asked Biden about his economic policies.

What we witnessed Thursday night into Friday morning was the deployment of the Death Star — the full Democrat-media complex on display, coordinating journalists, outside political organizations, tech platforms, and unnamed military sources. It may be no coincidence that retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal — who was fired, ironically, because he had disparaged President Barack Obama and Biden — now advises a firm using military technology to help Democrats produce propaganda. It took weapons-grade skill to produce a story that, while unprovable, had the ring of truth to those eager to believe it (it “resonates,” said NBC’s Peter Alexander, whether it was true or not) and to make it the dominant story of the news cycle — on a day when the jobs market rebounded and Trump brokered a historic deal between Israel and Muslim-majority Kosovo.

Goldberg — the unofficial stenographer of the Obama White House — was just a vehicle. The real story is much bigger. The same machine that created and promoted The Atlantic piece will be sure to produce others.

Read more …

He doubts Rosenstein frustrated the inquiry. Strzok has a book out, you’ll hear a lot about it soon. It argues there were tons of reasons for the inquiry.

• Strzok Joins Weissmann, Doubts NYT story on FBI’s Trump-Russia Inquiry (WE)

Controversial FBI agent Peter Strzok cast further doubt on a New York Times story that claimed the Justice Department secretly blocked special counsel Robert Mueller’s team from conducting a Trump-Russia counterintelligence investigation without informing the FBI. Strzok, who was a key member in the FBI’s investigation into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s improper private email server and Crossfire Hurricane’s Trump-Russia inquiry, said he “didn’t feel such a limitation” during his time on Mueller’s team when asked about a piece by New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt, whose article was adapted from his new book, Donald Trump v. The United States: Inside the Struggle to Stop a President.

Mueller’s “pitbull,” Andrew Weissmann, also cast doubt on the story a few days ago, and Mueller’s report and testimony also seem to contradict some claims made by the New York Times. “The Justice Department secretly took steps in 2017 to narrow the investigation into Russian election interference and any links to the Trump campaign, according to former law enforcement officials, keeping investigators from completing an examination of President Trump’s decades-long personal and business ties to Russia,” the New York Times reported on Sunday, adding the FBI opened the counterintelligence investigation in May 2017, but “within days,” former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “curtailed the investigation without telling the bureau, all but ensuring it would go nowhere.”

Anne Applebaum of the Atlantic asked Strzok during an interview published Friday about the report, which she said, “suggests that the Justice Department secretly took steps in 2017 to narrow the investigation, precisely so that it would not touch on the president’s long-standing relationship with Russia.” Strzok cast doubt on that. “During the time I worked at the Special Counsel’s Office, I didn’t feel such a limitation,” Strzok replied. “When I discussed this with Mueller and others, it was agreed that FBI personnel attached to the Special Counsel’s Office would do the counterintelligence work, which necessarily included the president. But that’s an extraordinarily complex task, one of the most difficult counterintelligence investigations in the FBI’s history.”

Strzok added that “perhaps the FBI is somehow carrying out a comprehensive survey, with the full involvement of the CIA and NSA and the entire U.S. intelligence community” but said he worried that the inquiry “largely died on the vine.” Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team when numerous anti-Trump texts he’d exchanged with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was having an affair, were unearthed, and he was fired in 2018. Strzok is currently suing the Justice Department. Weissmann also said the New York Times was wrong about its FBI counterintelligence story, tweeting, “NYT story today is wrong re: alleged secret DOJ order prohibiting a counterintelligence investigation by Mueller, ‘without telling the bureau.’ Dozens of FBI agents/analysts were embedded in Special Counsel’s Office and we were never told to keep anything from them.”

Read more …

Lance Roberts lists 5 reasons why, I picked my per peeve: monetary velocity. That alone does the trick.

• 5 Reasons The Fed’s New Policy Won’t Get Inflation (Roberts)

What the Federal Reserve has failed to grasp is that monetary policy is “deflationary” when “debt” is required to fund it. How do we know this? Monetary velocity tells the story. What is “monetary velocity?” “The velocity of money is important for measuring the rate at which money in circulation is used for purchasing goods and services. Velocity is useful in gauging the health and vitality of the economy. High money velocity is usually associated with a healthy, expanding economy. Low money velocity is usually associated with recessions and contractions.” – Investopedia. With each monetary policy intervention, the velocity of money has slowed along with the breadth and strength of economic activity.

However, it isn’t just the expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet which is undermining the strength of the economy. It is also the ongoing suppression of interest rates to try and stimulate economic activity. In 2000, the Fed “crossed the Rubicon,” whereby lowering interest rates did not stimulate economic activity. Instead, the “debt burden” detracted from it.

To illustrate the last point, we can compare monetary velocity to the deficit. To no surprise, monetary velocity increases when the deficit reverses to a surplus. Such allows revenues to move into productive investments rather than debt service. The problem for the Fed is the misunderstanding of the derivation of organic economic inflation.

[..] in order to generate “real inflation,” economic growth must be strong enough to support employment that exceeds the rate of population growth. That employment must ALSO be productive (manufacturing based) employment which leads to higher wages. (Service jobs are deflationary as they go to the lower cost of labor.) Higher wages lead to increased consumption which allows producers to increase prices (inflation) over time. This has not been the case for nearly 40-years as technology continues to reduce the demand for labor by increasing productivity. This is the “dark side” of technology that no one wants to talk about. However, this cannot be achieved in an economy saddled by $75 Trillion in debt which diverts income from consumption to debt service. This is why “monetary velocity” began to decline as total debt passed the point of being “productive” to become “destructive.”

Read more …

Virus, income and a few shut dorms.

• Majority Of US Young Adults Live With Parents For The 1st Time In 80 Years (Pew)

In July, 52% of young adults resided with one or both of their parents, up from 47% in February, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of monthly Census Bureau data. The number living with parents grew to 26.6 million, an increase of 2.6 million from February. The number and share of young adults living with their parents grew across the board for all major racial and ethnic groups, men and women, and metropolitan and rural residents, as well as in all four main census regions. Growth was sharpest for the youngest adults (ages 18 to 24) and for White young adults. The share of young adults living with their parents is higher than in any previous measurement (based on current surveys and decennial censuses).

Before 2020, the highest measured value was in the 1940 census at the end of the Great Depression, when 48% of young adults lived with their parents. The peak may have been higher during the worst of the Great Depression in the 1930s, but there is no data for that period. The share of young adults living with parents declined in the 1950 and 1960 censuses before rising again. The monthly share in the Current Population Survey has been above 50% since April of this year, reaching and maintaining this level for the first time since CPS data on young adults’ living arrangements became available in 1976.


Young adults have been particularly hard hit by this year’s pandemic and economic downturn, and have been more likely to move than other age groups, according to a Pew Research Center survey. About one-in-ten young adults (9%) say they relocated temporarily or permanently due to the coronavirus outbreak, and about the same share (10%) had somebody move into their household. Among all adults who moved due to the pandemic, 23% said the most important reason was because their college campus had closed, and 18% said it was due to job loss or other financial reasons.

Read more …

 

 

We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, your support is now an integral part of the process.

Thank you for your ongoing support.

 

 

Gettysburg Address. All of 272 words.

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in virustime.