Oct 17

Today’s News 17th October 2020

  • Paul Craig Roberts: Life Within The Matrix Is Our Future
    Paul Craig Roberts: Life Within The Matrix Is Our Future

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 23:30

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    The question each of us needs to ask ourselves, and one another, is why do we get so much misinformation about Covid from public health authorities, political authorities, and press prostitutes?  We get a lot of misinformation from health practioners, because they get the bogus information from health authorities and from researchers associated with Big Pharma.  But why do health authorities themselves lie to us?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Take the issue of masks.  The masks being worn by the vast majority of the world population, including health care providers, cannot prevent the inhalation and exhalation of bacteria and viruses.  If a person wearing one of these masks is sick with a cold, flu, or Covid, the mask can prevent the person from sneezing and coughing on others, countertops, and fresh produce.  But the masks cannot prevent the wearer from breathing in and exhaling out Covid, which is airborn and aerosol spread.  The only people who should be wearing one of these masks are people who are out in public areas coughing and sneezing among other people.  To avoid the spread of the virus, infected people should stay at home.

    If the masks people are wearing protected against bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens, there would be no point in N95 and higher rated masks.  Medical authorities know this, so why are people told, indeed forced, to wear ineffectual masks?

    This is an especially troubling question when experts unaffiliated with Big Pharma tell us that wearing a mask is dangerous as it reduces oxygen intake and increases CO 2 intake. This expert tells us that wearing a mask causes brain damage that cannot be reversed. Why do health authorities want to stunt children’s development and increase dementia among the elderly? This doctor tells us that mask wearing is increasing bacterial pneumonias.

    Public health authorities know that the Covid death rate is greatly exaggerated.  Hospitals are economically incentivized to report all deaths as Covid deaths. The CDC itself let the cat out of the bag when it reported that among the 200,000 US Covid deaths, only 9,000 were due to Covid alone.  All others had in addition to Covid 2.6 fatal comorbidities. Deaths are concentrated in an elderly population with comorbidities, and those infected, if they were and it wasn’t a false positive, could as easily have died from seasonal flu.

    Perhaps without meaning to, the World Health Organization (WHO) seems to have confirmed that Covid is no more dangerous than flu.

    So, why do public health authorities withhold this information from political authorities and the public, and why do reporters not ferret it out?  The information exists.  It just isn’t reported.

    Public heath authorities also know that the number of Covid cases is vastly overstated, because the PCR test produces more false positives than correct positives.

    An international group of lawyers has concluded based on evidence provided in expert testimony that the Covid Pandemic is an orchestration that has served powerful interests at the expense of the public’s health. The doctors acknowledge that Covid itself is real, but the pandemic that has been built around it is not.

    It is possible that the courts are as corrupted as the media and democratic institutions, and that nothing will come of the lawyers’ efforts.  Nevertheless, neither Americans nor other peoples need to cling to their gullibility and behave as sheep programmed by “authorities” who are serving every interest but public health.

    As I have reported in previous columns, Covid is being used to serve many interests. 

    Among them, Covid is being used to complete the universal Police State by digitizing money.  Once electronic money takes the place of currency, checks, and coins, your financial privacy and your control over your money and wealth will disappear. The government will know every payment you make and receive, and your access to your own income and wealth can be curtailed at the whim of the government and those who control the digitized monetary system. There will be no way that you can accumulate cash reserves as protection against your dispossession.

    Private cryptocurrencies will be destroyed, and a black market fueled by gold and silver coins can be prevented by seizing gold and silver holdings.  The Great Liberal Hero Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to take gold out of Americans’ hands with the technology of the 1930s.  Today it would be a cinch.

    Authorities have many Americans terrified of Covid infection.  People scared out of their minds can’t wait for the unneeded and insufficiently tested vaccine. The HCQ/zinc cure works, but continues to be demonized by public health authorities in order to keep the market primed for a vaccine that contains elements we know not what.

    Over the course of our history we Americans have been deceived about many things for the sake of political agendas.  The length of the list depends on how far you want to go back.  Let’s just start with the 20 years of the 21st century—September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden and the Talliban, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, the endless lies about Gadaffi and Libya, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Russiagate, Impeachgate, Russian bounties to the Tallian to kill American soldiers, the lies about China, Somalia, and now the Covid Deception.

    Are Americans capable of learning?  How many lies do they have to be told before they begin to wonder?  It is not entirely their fault.  The explanations given them are controlled and aligned with their innate biases.  Super patriots, for example, love to have enemies to denounce, and you can hear rightwing talk radio denouncing China, Russia, and Iran daily.  The left loves to hear confirmation of their belief in the evil that is America.  The left has glorified in the rioting, looting, and destruction that resulted from press prostitutes withholding the fact that George Floyd died from an overdose of fentanyl.

    The younger generations have never been taught how to think.  Instead, they are taught what to think.  You see the result in the majority white presence in Antifa and Black Lives Matter.

    Throughout the Western world facts have given way to emotions. The concept of independent truth itself has been lost.  Truth is whatever serves the agenda. You can see this in Assange’s trial underway in a British court. The Judge and prosecutor have no interest in any evidence, only in delivering the result demanded by the agenda.

    Science itself is imperiled as there are only race and gender truths.  Media serves money and ideologies.  Universities and public schools are a great danger to the societies that host them.

    Public discourse and debate no longer exist.  Among Americans, violence is rising as the preferred way to settle disagreements.

    Truth-tellers, at first ostracized and shoved aside are now being criminalized with the help of the media.  The bought-and-paid-for Western media no longer expects to be free and will take no risk in behalf of the First Amendmant.  The Western media are helping to destroy the last Western journalist – Julian Assange.

    Without a media there is no accountable government and no democracy. Voting becomes impotent as in Stalinist Russia.  Voting is used to give legitimacy to whatever government those who rule have decided upon.

    Donald Trump will be the last American president who tried to put the people’s interest above those of the ruling elites.  Henceforth, all presidential candidates will understand that their political success depends only on being the best puppet for the Establishment.

  • Sign Of The Top? Porn Star Pitches 'Trading Seminar' – "It's The Right Time To Get Into Stocks"
    Sign Of The Top? Porn Star Pitches 'Trading Seminar' – "It's The Right Time To Get Into Stocks"

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 23:10

    It seems barely a week goes by that some new celebrity isn’t trying to cash in on the day-trading craze that’s recruited millions of retail traders into the market.

    Since the market melted down in March, millions of first-time traders guided by the principle that stocks only go up and every dip is merely an opportunity to buy more have downloaded Robinhood.

    Many have dived headlong into trading single stocks, futures and options, (only to be hit by last-minute calls to up their margin requirements or risk liquidation). Sometimes, these types of mistakes can be fatal.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Like with any trend, opportunists are struggling to cash in any way they can. And in the rush to appeal to the millennial cohort, these entrepreneurs are recruiting influencers/celebrities to pitch their trading courses purporting to show traders how to make millions trading penny stocks, or the latest trading ‘strategies’ that will ensure a massive speculative windfall.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Which is why we can’t help but comment on a recent post from porn star (excuse us, ex-porn star) Lana Rhoades, who apparently took to her Instagram account this week to pitch a series of trading classes from @Truetradinggroup.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “Don’t miss the seminar guys, it’s the right time to get into stocks,” Rhoades concludes.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In addition to still being one of the most searched stars on PornHub despite ‘retiring’ from porn a few years back, Rhoades’ popularity saw a bump this month thanks to an appearance on the popular Barstool Sports podcast “Call her Daddy”.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Of course, unlike Barstool’s Dave Portnoy, Rhoades’ approach to cashing in on the day trading frenzy will see her get paid no matter what.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Others joked that the venture was bound to end badly.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In contrast, another ex-porn star, Mia Khalifa, sent a viral tweet about the market back in March.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It might be time for her to give her manager a call and see what “collab” opportunities might be available.

  • What's Behind The WHO's Lockdown Mixed-Messaging
    What's Behind The WHO's Lockdown Mixed-Messaging

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 22:50

    Authored by Stacey Rudin via The American Institute for Economic Research,

    Last week, in a major departure from months of pro-lockdown messaging, Britain’s envoy to the WHO Dr. David Nabarro called for world leaders to stop locking down their countries and economies as a “primary method” of controlling COVID19.

    “I want to say it again: we in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr. Nabarro told The Spectator.

    “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.” Dr. Nabarro’s position aligns with the Great Barrington Declaration, of which he spoke favorably, in which 30,000 scientists and public health experts have joined in advocating an immediate return to normal life for those at low risk. Nabarro and the thousands of signees of the Declaration opine that this approach will minimize overall mortality and lessen the disproportionate burden of lockdowns on the working class and underprivileged.

    The day after Nabarro made his remarks, WHO director-general Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus flatly contradicted him, declaring that lifting lockdowns would be a recipe for “unnecessary infections, suffering and death.” Tedros claims that herd immunity can only be “safely” achieved through vaccination, a conclusion premised upon the frightening assumption that the development of a safe and effective vaccine is guaranteed, and the dubious premise that natural infections can be held back “as long as it takes” to prepare and distribute the vaccine. However, according to Tedros, there is no other way:

    “allowing a dangerous virus that we don’t fully understand to run free is simply unethical. It’s not an option.”

    It’s difficult to reconcile this stance with the data from states and nations which did not lock down for COVID19. For example, Swedish all-cause mortality is on average for 2020 — incredibly, the nation had higher per-capita mortality just five years ago, in a year in which there was no pandemic. This undeniable, easily-verifiable fact is shocking in light of the decimation of world economies on the premise of “stopping” a “highly deadly” pathogen. Far from “unethical,” allowing the virus to “run free” produced a much better result than tight lockdowns such as those imposed in Argentina and Peru — yet Tedros is ignoring this. The question is: why?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The China-Paved Path to WHO Director-General

    In 2017, Nabarro and Tedros competed for the WHO Director-General role. For the first time, the position was filled by a direct vote of the member-states, and not by the WHO executive board. Tedros’s candidacy was mired in several scandals. Ethiopians and concerned global citizens pleaded with the countries voting in the election to reject Tedros because he was a representative of a repressive political regime who had helped to build and maintain a surveillance state with a total lack of government transparency. Critics pointed out that Tedros was “comfortable with the secrecy of autocratic states”— a characteristic that could wreak havoc on the world if he assumed a position of power within the WHO.

    Tedros also received criticism for his role in covering up cholera epidemics while he was Ethiopia’s Health Minister from 2005 until 2012. Tedros summarily dismissed the complaint, raised by one of Nabarro’s advisers, likening it to James B. Comey’s reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server just days before the 2016 presidential election. He also attributed racial and elitist motives to his accuser, claiming “Dr. Nabarro’s backers have a ‘typical colonial mind-set aimed at winning at any cost and discrediting a candidate from a developing country.’”

    However, the undisputed facts depict a Health Minister who is doing one of two things: grossly neglecting cholera testing, or intentionally prioritizing his nation’s economy over protecting people from cholera. Tedros claimed that outbreaks of what he called “acute watery diarrhea” in 2006, 2009, and 2011 were not cholera, although he could not produce a test ruling out the deadly pathogen, and neighboring Somalia and Kenya disclosed cholera as the cause of their own simultaneous outbreaks. Tedros claimed that testing in his country was “too difficult,” but this was belied by the fact that outside experts were able to test and find the cholera bacteria in stool samples. Testing for cholera bacteria is simple and takes less than two days. It is hard to fathom why outside experts and other countries would be able to test while the Ethiopian government could not.

    Cholera can kill a person in as little as five hours. News of cholera outbreaks can have a quick and devastating impact on a country’s economy, so African nations sometimes fail to declare cholera emergencies even when they know for a fact that they have one. During the 2006 outbreak, for example, Ethiopia “did not share the results of lab tests since [the outbreak started]” because “it can mean some serious economic losses, especially in terms of international trade and tourism,” said Kebba O. Jaiteh, emergency officer in Ethiopia with the WHO.

    During earlier outbreaks of cholera in Ethiopia (or “acute watery diarrhea,” depending on who you believe), The Guardian and The Washington Post investigated and reported that Ethiopian officials “were pressuring aid agencies to avoid using the word ‘cholera’ and not to report the number of people affected.” Research by Human Rights Watch found that the Ethiopian government “was pressuring its health workers to avoid any mention of cholera, which could damage the country’s image and deter tourists.” Despite this accumulation of evidence, Tedros stood by his denial, preventing aid from being delivered to Ethiopia: the UN cannot act without permission and a declaration of an outbreak.

    Vaccines are also unavailable when a country fails to declare a cholera outbreak, so Tedros refused his countrymen this option even when their neighbors in Somalia and Kenya received it. This seems to have escaped the notice of Dr. Seth Berkley, CEO of Gavi, the vaccine alliance, who praised Tedros’s “commitment” to human health and vaccination: “Tedros’s commitment to immunization is clear . . . His work with Gavi as Ethiopia’s health minister helped boost the proportion of children reached by vaccines from less than half to more than two-thirds.” Other defenders of Tedros included former CDC director Tom Frieden, who was appointed by Barack Obama to head the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Frieden praised Tedros as “an excellent choice to lead the WHO,” and today vocally agrees with Tedros on lockdowns, masks, and social distancing.

    Tedros’s strongest and most important backer throughout these controversies was not an individual, but a government: China. As an opinion writer in the Indian press described it, “China propped Tedros.” American apathy in the public health arena had allowed China to “colonize” global health:

    “One reason that Tedros has gotten away with so much brazen cronyism is that America pays little to no attention to global public health, save pouring in money as a sugar daddy . . . China started a scheme for global health colonisation and won because America didn’t think it was important enough. The Chinese leveraged their investments across Africa to force the African Union to back Tedros, [and] also got Pakistan to withdraw its candidate who was opposing him, sources say . . . India’s diplomatic credentials helped in covering up Tedros’ shady past and the fact his main backer was a Communist dictatorship.”

    “I’ve Got Your Back, and You’ve Got Mine”: Tedros Backs the Chinese COVID19 “Supression” Strategy

    Fast-forward to the COVID19 epidemic. In early 2020, Tedros went to great lengths to congratulate China on its response to the “novel coronavirus.” On January 30, the WHO issued a statement effusively praising China’s response, highlighting the Chinese government’s “commitment to transparency” and efforts to “investigate” and “contain” the outbreak. The statement declares that China’s novel “lockdown” strategy — wherein dictator Xi Jinping welded people inside their apartments in the name of “disease control” — are “good not only for that country but also for the rest of the world.” Tedros followed this up with a tweet: “China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response.” During this time period, hundreds of thousands of social media posts later traced to China praised the lockdown, and criticized and ridiculed world leaders who failed to follow suit.

    The WHO’s resounding praise of China continued into February 2020, when it convened a “Global Research and Innovation Forum” on the novel coronavirus to study “the origin of the virus, natural history, transmission, diagnosis, infection prevention and control,” among other things. On February 24, the group’s Joint Mission held a press conference to report on its findings, during which it declared, “there is no question that China’s bold approach to the rapid spread of this new respiratory pathogen has changed the course of what was a rapidly-escalating and continues to be deadly epidemic.” The stated basis for this unequivocal declaration on the effectiveness of lockdowns was as follows:

    “And there’s a couple of other graphics . . . here’s the outbreak that happened in the whole country on the bottom. Here’s what the outbreak looked like outside of Hubei. Here are the areas of Hubei outside of Wuhan. And then the last one is Wuhan. And you can see this is a much flatter curve than the others. And that’s what happens when you have an aggressive action that changes the shape that you would expect from an infectious disease outbreak.

    This is extremely important for China, but it’s extremely important for the rest of the world, where this virus you’ve seen in the last few days is taking advantage to explode in certain settings. And it wasn’t easy because what I didn’t mention on this slide is every one of these lines represent a huge decision by policy makers and politicians in this country and leaders to actually change the shape with big measures such as, you know, the suspension of travel, the stay-at-home advisories, and other incredibly difficult measures; to make decisions about, but also to get a population to follow. And that’s why, again, the role of the individual here in China is so important as well.”

    The Joint Mission’s conclusion that China’s actions “worked” is a perfect depiction of the classic logical fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Latin for “it happened after, so it was caused by.” While it is indeed possible that a “more flat” curve in Wuhan could be attributed to government mandates, there are equal or greater possibilities: one, that testing protocols differed; two, that China simply witnessed the natural course of this “novel” pathogen. The latter is particularly likely since there was no baseline with which to compare the proffered epicurves.

    It should be obvious that the mere issuance of government mandates does not automatically mean they were effective — this is particularly true here, since the global scientific community had previously considered and rejected large-scale quarantines as a method for controlling epidemics. Respiratory viruses never spread evenly throughout countries, provinces, or states, so it was nothing short of reckless to conclude that the noted variance in spread — which again, could be nothing but a recording error due to testing aberrations — was due to anything but natural factors. It was criminal to summarily conclude on this evidence that the Chinese government’s draconian actions led to a “favorable outcome,” and then use that patentily illogical conclusion to sell lockdowns to the rest of the world. But that’s just what the WHO did.

    “China didn’t approach this new virus with an old strategy for one disease or another disease. It developed its own approach to a new disease and extraordinarily has turned around this disease with strategies most of the world didn’t think would work . . . What China has demonstrated is, you have to do this. If you do it, you can save lives and prevent thousands of cases of what is a very difficult disease.”

    The Joint Mission repeated this assertion — “lockdowns work, they can and do save lives” — in various ways throughout its press conference, recalling to mind the words of a famous propagandist named Joseph Goebbels: “repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.” Research shows that this illusion of truth effect “works just as strongly for known as for unknown items, suggesting that prior knowledge won’t prevent repetition from swaying our judgements of plausibility.” Our parents never heard of lockdown, and understood and accepted that humans sadly cannot “stop” a highly contagious infectious disease like the flu — even with a vaccine — yet suddenly most of the planet was behaving as if this were not only a reasonable mission, but something for which it was rational and desirable to sacrifice social lives, relationships, smiles, businesses, and educations in service of.

    At the helm of the WHO, Tedros undoubtedly played a key role in the creation of this perception. Thanks to the many individual worldwide lockdown experiments, we now know that he was dead wrong: no lockdown was ever needed to “flatten the curve” — in fact, lockdowns spiked the curve. No-lockdown Sweden’s epicurve was much flatter than many areas with tight lockdowns, including New York City, Italy, and Spain. While this may be adequately explained by Hanlon’s Razor, it is very interesting that the Joint Mission took great pains to protect China’s trade and travel interests despite advocating simultaneous lockdowns for other nations:

    “And this brings us to what I think is one of the most important recommendations we would make in respect to getting China fully back on its feet after this crisis. The world needs the experience and materials of China to be successful in battling this coronavirus disease. China has the most experience in the world with this disease, and it’s the only country to have turned around serious large-scale outbreaks. But if countries create barriers between themselves and China in terms of travel or trade, it is only going to compromise everyone’s ability to get this done. And those kinds of measures need to be anything that goes beyond what’s been recommended by the IHR committee, has got to be reassessed, because the risk from China is dropping, and what China has to add to the global response is rapidly rising.”

    The human rights community did not share this enthusiasm for China, its draconian lockdown, or its offer to “help” other nations contend with the virus. On February 2, The Guardian published an opinion piece by a human rights advocate outlining the lockdown’s serious human rights violations and opining that the WHO broke its own commitment to “human rights and health” by praising China. The WHO’s commitment reads in part:

    “Human rights are universal and inalienable. They apply equally, to all people, everywhere, without distinction. Human Rights standards — to food, health, education, to be free from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment — are also interrelated. The improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others. Likewise, the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others”

    To protect these “universal and inalienable” human rights during a public health emergency, international law requires that restrictions on human rights be based on legality, necessity, proportionality and grounded in evidence. Similarly, the Siracusa Principles — in which the United Nations outlines an overarching international covenant on civil and political rights — state that restrictions on rights and freedoms in the name of public health must be strictly necessary and the least intrusive available to reach their objective:

    “In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

    “Lockdown” goes far beyond these basic human rights boundaries. They are proven now to only damage societies — they even worsen COVID19 outcomes. When The Economist analyzed all recorded epidemics since 1960, it concluded that “democracies experience lower mortality rates for epidemic diseases than their non democratic counterparts.” This finding holds true at all levels of income.

    Tedros aligned himself not with democracies and their fundamental principles but with an autocratic dictatorship, the same dictatorship that helped him assume power within the WHO. Together, using logical fallacies and pseudo-science, they betrayed international law governing human rights, the WHO’s own stated principles, and committed crimes against humanity on a massive scale. Should we continue to listen to Tedros, or should we turn to Dr. Nabarro, another qualified expert who — like the thousands who signed the Great Barrington Declaration — urges a return to democratic norms as necessary to minimize human suffering?

    “Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never, ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer. Just look at what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world. Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year.” — Dr. David Nabarro

    It is no longer possible to ignore Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s long history with suppressive autocratic regimes, including China. Whatever the motivation behind his advocacy for continued lockdowns, the data invalidates his position unequivocally. Lockdowns do not save lives — lockdowns kill. The reign of tyranny must end, immediately and forever, with a full restoration of the rights and privileges of each individual citizen to choose what level of risk he or she will accept as a law-abiding member of a functioning, democratic society.

    WHO, what, where, and why? We don’t yet have all of the answers, but we do know that the WHO director-general is on the wrong side of the lockdown debate.

  • "Attempted Robbery" – Security Guard Assigned To Ballot Box Shot In Baltimore
    "Attempted Robbery" – Security Guard Assigned To Ballot Box Shot In Baltimore

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 22:30

    The virus pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented number of Americans voting by mail or using ballet drop boxes this election season. Some of these drop boxes, especially those in Baltimore City, are guarded by a private security force, considering the liberal-run metro area is a violent mess. 

    On Thursday, Baltimore City police confirmed a ballot box security guard was shot and wounded in Northeast Baltimore, reported local news WBAL-TV 11. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    City police said the incident occurred in the early morning hours on Thursday, outside the Achievement Academy in the 2200 block of Pinewood Ave. Officers found the 24-year-old security guard shot multiple times – was immediately taken to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Baltimore City Election Director Armstead Jones told The Baltimore Sun that the guard was contracted by a private security company operating on behalf of the Baltimore City Board of Elections to monitor the city’s ballot drop boxes.

    “After looking at video surveillance footage of the parking lot, detectives learned that armed subjects approached the victim’s vehicle and tried to open the car door,” police said in a statement.

    The statement continued, “the ballot box was not touched and did not appear at any time to be the focus of the gunmen.”

    Election officials said the guard was in serious but stable condition: 

    “Our thoughts are with the victim of this morning’s tragic shooting as well as his loved ones. We are actively cooperating with the authorities investigating this matter. Because this is an ongoing investigation…,” Maryland Elections tweeted. 

    While police do not believe the attempted robbery had anything to do with the ballot box, the incident’s timing is suspicious weeks before the presidential election. 

  • Pelosi, Barrett, & The False Face Of Modern Feminism
    Pelosi, Barrett, & The False Face Of Modern Feminism

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 22:10

    Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

    Something truly amazing happened this week in American politics. The false narratives of modern feminism collapsed completely as Judge Amy Coney Barrett waltzed through her confirmation hearing.

    But to make my point I first have to deal with Speaker of the House Nasty Nancy Pelosi’s appearance on CNN.

    While Barrett was dealing with the dementia of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Pelosi finally came face to face with strength in the unlikely form of Wolf Blitzer and lost complete control of his Situation Room.

    If you watch this entire sequence carefully you’ll note that Blitzer simply held to his point that she wouldn’t answer, why not pass some stimulus bill now and get something done, even if it’s perfect?

    Madame Speaker, you have a chance to alleviate suffering and you’re playing politics.

    We know what the answer is, because it would allow President Trump a victory on the eve of an election. We know Pelosi is a pure political animal (and her behavior here truly sinks to that level).

    But, that’s not what’s interesting, here.

    It is how transparent she is mad about not automatically being allowed to control the conversation to recite her talking points. She obviously feels entitled to the power of Wolf’s platform.

    Going Big, Going Home

    And she was not expecting this. When confronted with it she launches a personal attack which fails completely. In politics, the first rule is, “You never attack down.”

    Pelosi knows this, that’s why she uses her position as a woman to frame her attacks up against Trump the way she does, playing the girl card whenever she can. But on this issue she can’t attack Trump because Trump said…

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    And that’s when it all collapsed. This is THE fight of Pelosi’s career, not the impeachment. It is this stimulus bill because she’s held the entire country hostage over it to win an election after displacing and ruining the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

    She lost because she attacked down, at a TV talking head no less, not a political rival. You can see it on her face, as Speaker why should she have to justify herself to someone she considers ‘the help’ like Wolf Blitzer.

    I mean, for pity’s sake, who is actually lower on the DC political totem pole than Wolf Blitzer?

    And Pelosi ran up against him and shattered like brittle glass.

    And when I say shattered I mean atomized, not just for her but for all the crazy, out-of-control feminists she represents. Her carefully crafted facade of the strong-minded, independent woman who could stand toe-to-toe with a man evaporated in between heartbeats.

    Watch the video closely. You’ll know that moment when it happens.

    Easy Rider

    The reason Blitzer took her down so easily is because she’s never seriously challenged. People like Pelosi can put up the false face of strength and baldly lie because they’re given all the advantages before they ever walk onto the battlefield.

    Her reputation is a facade, carefully constructed by the people who control her.

    She has a job to do. She’s paid extremely well to do it. But she’s overplayed her hand multiple times against Trump and lost. And it seems CNN and the people who direct it decided it was time to cut bait and leave her twisting in the wind.

    The mere fact that Blitzer was told during this interview to go after her is your sign that something has fundamentally changed.

    The rats are leaving the sinking ship which has steered the good ship Corn Pop into the iceberg of the silent majority that have had more than enough of their inhumanity.

    Pelosi is the false face of female power, a pathetic excuse for a vaudeville whore, drunk on a fatuous ideology equal parts envy and disdain that has women bullying men into submission so they can validate their own soulless choices.

    Because in her twisted mind, without her and her awesome power of government, none of us would survive in the big bad world.

    And it came out in full when she had her, “You didn’t build that” moment, saying that she’s the one who feeds her constituents, implying that without her they wouldn’t eat.

    “… and we feed them,” she said multiple times. Really, Nancy? Without you we’d all just starve?

    Bitch, Please!

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Barrett Moment

    Juxtapose that with the other remarkable event this week.

    The moment when Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett after suffering through idiotic question after question from beta male and hysterical female Senators about her stance on abortion held up a blank notepad showing the world how well-prepared she was for the situation.

    She projected the kind of calm patience and competence that comes from inner strength. And she did it with only her knowledge of the law, her understanding her role as a jurist and the strength of purpose that comes from being a person of deep faith.

    Let’s put it this way, like Mike Pence the week before in his debate with Kamala Harris, Mrs. Barrett reflected awfully well on the man who selected her for the job, Donald Trump.

    In doing so she projected the exact opposite of what Pelosi did, respect for the hierarchy and the reason it exists — to do it’s best to serve the people who created it.

    Pelosi has spent the last two years trying to upend that hierarchy, to dominate Trump through lies and manipulation of rules, holding the entire country hostage to her truly reprehensible lust for power.

    Mrs. Barrett, on the other hand, is supposed to be this dinosaur who will set the court back a hundred years replacing the tyrant and mid-wit Ruth Bader Ginsburg while hysterical women cosplayed outside the Capitol in Handmaid’s Tale garb.

    But all she did was bring a quiet dignity back to what had become a circus in the fake world of social and television media. Wolf Blitzer did the same thing.

    Devil Take the Hindmost

    We’ve lost something vital in this election cycle, a sense of dignity and propriety thanks to a winner-take-all attitude that is an outgrowth of the insane power concentrated in the dystopic world of Washington D.C.

    We’re not likely to get it back anytime soon.

    But this week may have finally been a turning point after nearly eight months of literal insanity where people finally saw something that wasn’t a complete theater of the absurd, allowing jackals and flying monkeys to set the tone for our future.

    While I have misgivings about Mrs. Barrett’s potential as the kind of Supreme Court Justice I’d prefer to see on the court there can be no doubt that she knows her way around a job interview.

    And it was refreshing to she her hold her ground and not take any bait from the ridiculous lying simps and harpies grilling her.

    Pelosi, on the other hand, has been in her job for so long she can’t even conceive of not being entitled to imposing her will on everyone no matter the costs. And she’s so caught up in her own personal psychodrama she forgot she still has to interview for her job every two years.

    Politics is supposed to be the art of the possible, that’s usually a convenient excuse justifying surrender. Feminists thrive on male surrender.

    But Feminism collapses in the face of male competency. Real female power comes from giving men a reason to fight for them, a purpose for their struggle and sacrifice. No self-respecting man would lift a finger for a witch like Pelosi.

    Every man alive would walk through hell for a woman like Mrs. Barrett.

    That’s what changed this week. And what’s truly sad is that we should be thankful for it.

    *  *  *

    Join my Patreon to join the struggle against the Witches of K Street. Install the Brave Browser to spit in the eye of Big Tech’s Entitlement to your data.

  • Raytheon Unveils Next-Generation Battle Tank To Replace Bradley Fighting Vehicle
    Raytheon Unveils Next-Generation Battle Tank To Replace Bradley Fighting Vehicle

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 21:50

    Since becoming President, Donald Trump has pumped unprecedented amounts of taxpayers dollars into the military-industrial complex, showering defense companies with trillions of dollars to build the latest and greatest war machines. 

    From hypersonic missiles to fifth-generation fighter jets to new stealth bombers to new combat drones to advanced field rifles, the U.S. military is rapidly modernizing because of President Trump’s aggressive funding policies. 

    Flushed with cash, the Pentagon could select Raytheon Technologies/American Rheinmetall Vehicles’ Lynx Infantry Fighting Vehicle to replace the aging Bradley Fighting Vehicle, which first entered service in 1981. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Lynx will be Americanized for the Army’s Next-Generation Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, called OMFV. Brad Barnard, director of OMFV at Raytheon Missiles & Defense, was quoted in a Raytheon press release as saying the Lynx was “designed specifically for the battlefield of the future.” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Raytheon said the new tank would be outfitted with “advanced technologies such as a counter-unmanned aircraft system, anti-tank weaponry, active protection system and a sighting system that can see through smoke, rain, snow, and fog beyond enemy range.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “The vehicle will be faster, smarter, more agile, and more survivable than the Bradley Fighting Vehicle that I worked with,” said Pat McCormack, a former Bradley master gunner for the Army and now an employee at Raytheon. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Lynx includes an invisible missile shield around the vehicle that destroys all chemical energy anti-tank threats and other threats before reaching the vehicle. We noted this new advanced defense shield in 2018, called the TROPHY Active Protection System, which at that time, was being installed on M1 Abrams main battle tanks. 

    Video: Watch The Lynx In Action

    McCormack said the four-decade-old Bradleys would have trouble against new emerging threats on the modern battlefield. He noted with Lynx, the tank “employ revolutionary capabilities” that makes it one step ahead of the enemy.

    Not too long ago, Textron Systems, via its subsidiary Howe & Howe, released a statement saying it was set to deliver robot tanks to the Army.  

  • The Catch-22 of Woke Racism… And Other Absurdities
    The Catch-22 of Woke Racism… And Other Absurdities

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 21:30

    Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    Are you ready for this week’s absurdity? Here’s our Friday roll-up of the most ridiculous stories from around the world that are threats to your liberty, risks to your prosperity… and on occasion, inspiring poetic justice.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Catch-22 of Woke Racism

    Residential Assistants, or RAs, are college students who enforce rules in college dorms and act as a resource for younger students.

    During training, a university in Kentucky sent White RAs to a breakout session called, “White Accountability Space.”

    We’ve seen this sort of thing before, where colleges segregate students in the name of “safe spaces.”

    But this time, the White RAs were given a list of 41 “common racist behaviors and attitudes of white people.”

    And you wouldn’t believe some of the behaviors that apparently make you racist.

    For example, asking a person of color to repeat themselves is racist.

    If you believe there is a right way to do something, that is automatically racist because, according to the document, the “right way” really means the “white way.”

    The document cited plenty of other racist microaggressions, but among the most amazing were the impossible double-standards.

    Number 35 on the list, for example, says that aggressively confronting a racist White person is itself a racist tactic because it’s an attempt to distance yourself from racism.

    But number 39 says it is racist to “avoid confronting other whites on their racist attitudes and behaviors.”

    So, just to be clear, if you confront someone else for being racist, then you’re racist. But if you don’t confront them, then you’re also racist.

    Make sense?

    Of course not. But that’s woke logic for you.

    Click here to see the training document.

    *  *  *

    Dictionary changes definition of “preference” for Twitter mob

    For a long time, the terms “sexual orientation” and “sexual preference” have been used interchangeably without controversy.

    That all changed in an instant when Judge Amy Coney Barrett said “sexual preference” during her Supreme Court nomination Senate hearings.

    A few extra-woke Senators chastised Barrett, claiming the word “preference” implies that gay people choose their sexual orientation.

    Judge Barrett apologized and said that was not her intention.

    But the Twitter mob still exploded. In the bizarre parallel universe of Social Justice Warriors, “preference” immediately became an offensive term.

    And to help them make their case, Merriam-Webster changed their entry of the word “preference” in the dictionary to include a definition that it is “offensive”.

    Of course, the hypocrisy of the Twitter mob is never too far off. The liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, for example, used the term “sexual preference” as recently as 2017 without any controversy whatsoever.

    Something tells me they won’t be ripping down her statues anytime soon.

    Click here to read the full story.

    *  *  *

    You’ll See What Facebook and Twitter Want You to See

    You’ve probably heard by now that the New York Post ran a story this week which, to put it mildly, was very unflattering for a certain US Presidential candidate and his family.

    But the real issue is that social media tech giants like Facebook and Twitter squashed the story; both platforms tried to ban the New York Post article from being shared.

    Facebook limited distribution until it could be fact-checked, and Twitter completely blocked the URL from being shared.

    It’s a pretty sad state of affairs when the big technology companies, who are supposed to exist to facilitate free and open communication among users, have turned into totalitarian censors, deeming in their sole discretion what the truth is.

    They hold the same standard for Covid-related content; if you dare utter a word that doesn’t conform to guidelines published by the World Health Organization (i.e. the guys who are in the pockets of the Chinese Communist Party), then you’ll be censored or banned from their platforms.

    Twitter has at least acknowledged its stupidity and has committed to changing its censorship policy.

    Click here to read the full story.

    *  *  *

    More People Arrested for Marijuana than All Violent Crimes

    Since 1973, states have been decriminalizing marijuana. Since 1996 states have been legalizing medical cannabis.

    Now, 11 states have legalized recreational marijuana use, and 33 allow some sort of medical use of cannabis.

    Yet a just-released report from the federal government shows that, in 2019, more people were arrested for marijuana-related crimes than all violent crimes put together.

    According to the FBI uniform crime reports, almost 546,000 people were arrested in 2019 for cannabis related crimes. And 92% of those arrests were for simple possession– not selling, not growing, not driving under the influence–just having weed.

    Meanwhile, about 496,000 people were arrested for violent crimes in 2019.

    Click here to see the data.

    *  *  *

    On another note… We think gold could DOUBLE and silver could increase by up to 5 TIMES in the next few years. That’s why we published a new, 50-page long Ultimate Guide on Gold & Silver that you can download here.

  • Putin Wants "Clear Answer" From US On Nuclear Arms Treaty, Offers 1-Year Extension 
    Putin Wants "Clear Answer" From US On Nuclear Arms Treaty, Offers 1-Year Extension 

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 21:10

    At the start of this week it was widely reported that President Trump is seeking a last minute pre-election nuclear deal with Russia given the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) is set to expire by this upcoming February.

    Russia and the US have held recent talks for its five-year extension in Vienna and Helsinki within past weeks, but there’s little substantial progress despite optimistic statements by the US delegation. Russia has consistently pushed for an unconditional five-year extension of the treaty, but it appears Putin is now ready for some level of compromise.

    On Friday Putin informed the Russian Security Council of plans to push for an extension of at least one year without any preconditions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A prior G-20 summit where the two leaders met, via AP

    “I have a proposal to extend the existing treaty without preconditions for one year, at least,” he said according to TASS. “So that we could hold substantial talks on all parameters of the issues, regulated by treaties of this kind, so that we do not leave both our countries and all states of the world without such fundamental agreement as the New START,” he underscored.

    However, with the clock winding down on the last major arms control agreement between Moscow and Washington, after prior late Cold War era treaties like the INF and Open Skies faltered, Washington has so far remained firm it its position that it will only consider a short-term extension if a new agreement brings all nuclear warheads including those possessed by China into the framework.

    The Kremlin has previously called the US plan “absolutely unrealistic,” which brought talks to an impasse. But Putin is now pushing for “some kind of a clear answer” amid reports that Trump is eager to see a deal for the nuclear arms reduction treaty to continue.

    “Please, define our position to the American partners and in the near future attempt to receive from them some kind of a clear answer,” Putin said. “It would be extremely tragic, if the treaty ceases to exist, without being replaced with another fundamental document of this kind,” he added.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    August 2019 U.S. launch of a conventionally configured ground-launched cruise missile off California coast, DoD via AP.

    “For all these years, the New START worked, worked perfectly, performed its fundamental role of a limiter, curbing the arms race,” Putin underscored.

    Of course, included in Russia’s calculation is the US election. The Russians are likely quite happy to stall and wait things out a mere few weeks to see if Biden comes out on top, given the Democratic nominee has clearly indicated he’s ready to agree to the unconditional 5-year extension of the landmark nuclear arms reduction treaty.

  • Imagine If MSM Consistently Applied The Evidentiary Standards It's Applying To Hunter Biden's Emails
    Imagine If MSM Consistently Applied The Evidentiary Standards It's Applying To Hunter Biden's Emails

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 20:50

    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone,

    Mainstream media and social media platforms are actively blacking out an October surprise published by The New York Post which purports to show “smoking gun” emails from the laptop of Hunter Biden, son of Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Both Twitter and Facebook have censored the story on their platforms, the first time we’ve seen the powerful social media giants deplatform a mainstream news media article, both citing concerns about the origins of the emails and an uncertainty about the veracity of the claims.

    “Facebook was limiting distribution of the story while its outside fact-checkers reviewed the story’s claims, spokesman Andy Stone said,” reports NPR, adding that “Twitter said it decided to block the story because it couldn’t be sure about the origins of the emails.”

    Twitter claims it found the emails to be in violation of its policies banning content which contained private information and its rules against “hacked materials”, both of which would have forbidden all articles sharing the contents of the 2016 WikiLeaks drops if those rules had existed back then. As I warned could happen back in August, these rules have set the stage for the cross-platform censorship of a 2020 October surprise.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    There’s a good thread going around Twitter compiling posts that mainstream media reporters have been making in objection to the circulation of Hunter Biden’s emails alongside posts made by those same reporters promoting far more ridiculous and insubstantial allegations, like MSNBC’s virulent Russia conspiracy theorist Kyle Griffin saying nobody should link to the New York Post report because if they do they’ll be “amplifying disinformation”.

    A new Reason article discusses how the mass media are not just avoiding the story but actively discouraging it:

    On Wednesday, The New York Post published an attention-catching original report: “Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad.” In the previously unreleased email, which was allegedly sent on April 17, 2015, an executive with Burisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company, thanks Hunter Biden for “giving an opportunity” to meet Joe Biden, according to The NY Post.

    It’s a story that merits the attention of other journalists, political operatives, national security experts, and also the public at large—not least of all because there are serious questions about its accuracy, reliability, and sourcing. And yet many in the media are choosing not just to ignore the story, but to actively encourage others to suppress any discussion of it.

    Indeed, two mainstream reporters who acknowledged (and criticized) the Post‘s scoop—The New York Times‘ Maggie Haberman and Politico’s Jake Sherman—faced thunderous denunciation on Twitter from Democratic partisans simply for discussing the story. Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden accused Haberman of promoting disinformation, and New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg told Sherman that he was helping nefarious conservative activists “launder this bullshit into the news cycle.” Historian Kevin Kruse asked why they were “amplifying” the story.

    Indeed a scroll through today’s mainstream news reporting does appear to show some consensus among most news media that the topic of the emails should be avoided, with most MSM articles on the matter covering the after-effects of the New York Post release or explaining why readers should be dubious about its contents. A new Washington Post article titled “Hunter Biden’s alleged laptop: an explainer” takes great pains to outline how important it is to be very, very certain that this story is everything it purports to be before investing any credulity in it.

    “How do we know the email is authentic? We do not,” WaPo tells us. “The New York Post posted PDF print-outs of several emails allegedly from the laptop, but for the ‘smoking gun’ email, it shows only a photo made the day before the story was posted, according to Thomas Rid, author of Active Measures, a book on disinformation. ‘There is no header information, no metadata.’ The Washington Post has been unable to independently verify or authenticate these emails, as requests to make the laptop hard drive available for inspection have not been granted.”

    This would be the same Washington Post that has been circulating disinformation about Russia for years due to its disinterest in verifying information before reporting, and has alongside the rest of the mass media been promoting the narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 US election based solely on unproven assertions promoted by government agencies despite many gaping plot holes in that narrative. Where was the journalistic concern for seeing the data and inspecting the hard drives then?

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In and of itself there is no problem at all with mainstream news media applying high evidentiary standards to its reporting and making sure readers are aware when political manipulators could be pulling the wool over their eyes. In and of itself this would be a good thing. The problem is that all this emphasis on verification and truth only comes up when it is politically convenient for these plutocratic media outlets, because only favoring truth when it’s convenient is the same as lying constantly.

    Where were these high evidentiary standards when The Guardian reported without evidence and against all common sense that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange had been having secret meetings with Trump lackey Paul Manafort? That evidence never came out, because the story was ridiculous bullshit from the beginning, yet mass media outlets everywhere parroted it to their audiences like it was a fact. You can still post that bogus Guardian story on Twitter and Facebook to this very day without so much as a warning.

    Where were these high evidentiary standards when Politico published the idiotic, nonsensical story that Iran was plotting to assassinate the American ambassador to South Africa? The report sparked many news reports and Twitter threats from the president, but when it was dismissed by the South African government itself there was barely a whisper about it. You are still free to share this bogus Politico article anywhere online you like.

    Where were these high evidentiary standards when leaks by anonymous spooks dominated headlines for days with their evidence-free allegation that the Russian government had been paying Taliban-linked fighters bounties on western occupying forces? We now know that story was completely baseless and would have been dismissed by news reporters who were actually doing their due diligence, yet it’s still being cited as fact on Twitter by sitting US senators and in a recent vice presidential debate by Kamala Harris. If news reporters had spent anywhere near as much energy cautioning their audiences to be skeptical about this story and educating them about its plot holes as they’re spending on Hunter Biden’s emails, this would not be happening.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The problem is not that there are high evidentiary standards for Hunter Biden’s emails, the problem is that there are virtually no evidentiary standards when the plutocratic media want to sell the world on a narrative which benefits the establishment upon which the media-owning class has built its kingdom. News reports will be waved through on a vague assertion by some anonymous government operative if they are damaging to Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, Syria or any other US-targeted nation, and they are on a pretty much daily basis to greater or lesser degrees.

    If a news report facilitates the national security state, all journalistic protocol goes out the window and nobody knows the meaning of the word evidence. As soon as a report becomes inconvenient for a friend of the national security state like Joe Biden, suddenly strict evidentiary standards and warnings against potential disinformation are of paramount importance. This is the same as lying all the time.

    They lie because the mass media within the US-centralized empire are the propaganda engine for that empire. The drivers of empire understand that whoever controls the narrative controls the world, so they ensure that all points of narrative influence are tightly controlled by them.

    A world where all news stories are held to the same evidentiary standards as Hunter Biden’s emails are currently being held would be a world without empire. People would never consent to the insanity of imperialism and endless war if their consent wasn’t manufactured, and depriving them of the information that is inconvenient for that empire is essential in that manufacturing.

    *  *  *

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

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

  • Fall Enrollment Slides As Coronavirus Threatens Higher-Education Bubble
    Fall Enrollment Slides As Coronavirus Threatens Higher-Education Bubble

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 20:30

    For the last six years we have sounded louder and louder concerns that the higher-education bubble would eventually deflate. However, no one at the time anticipated that a virus-pandemic would be the pin that pops it all.

    Take, for example, the 2020 fall semester, the number of first-year undergraduate students are in freefall across the country, down 16%, when compared to 2019 fall semester, according to a new report by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (NSCRC). Overall undergraduate enrollment slid 4%  from this time last year, mostly because of the 13.7% drop in international students.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Naked Capitalism’s Yves Smith points out that virus-related enrollment declines are happening at a time when colleges and universities’ revenues were already slumping, potentially creating a perfect storm of campus closures. 

    “Empty seats are inflicting financial damage on colleges already reeling from the pandemic. Earlier this year, when the virus began spreading, many schools cleared their campuses of students and refunded housing costs. With enrollment warning, revenue from tuition, dormitories and dining halls is being hurt at a time when some institutions are posting low endowment returns,” Bloomberg said. 

    Jack Maguire, the founder of the enrollment-consulting firm Maguire Associates and former dean of admissions at Boston College, warned that “colleges are losing billions of dollars” as the virus continues to rage across the country. 

     “It may not be the end of it if this new wave hits and students are sent home again,” Maguire said. 

    NSCRC showed enrollment slumps were the most drastic at community colleges, down 9.4% overall, and 22.7% for first-year students. Undergraduate enrollment at four-year public colleges and universities fell 1.4% overall, and down 13.7% for first-year students. As for private nonprofit colleges, overall enrollment was down 2%, and -11.8% for first-year students.

    Despite undergraduate enrollment down across all types of institutions, private for-profit colleges recorded a 3% increase. 

    Nationwide, the Midwest experienced the steepest declines, sliding 5.7%. Bloomberg notes, “schools in the region have enrolled fewer students in the last several years, mainly because of demographic trends.”

    Regional Enrollment Percentage Change From Previous Fall Semester 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There was one arguably (are they merely staying in school rather than venture out into the ‘real’ world and face an ugly labor market) bright spot in the report – a 2.7% increase in graduate student enrollment – but, overall, the entire report is just more troubling news the higher education bubble that faces implosion. What this means is that financially weak colleges, those with the weakest balance sheets, will be the first to shutter operations. Not even state schools will be immune to the downturn as state and local taxes are set to plunge. 

    In September, Moody’s Investors Service downgraded the credit outlook for colleges and universities to negative. Disruptions in enrollment, declining international students, and a decline in research grants and contracts were some reasons Moody’s outlined for the downgrade. They noted international students account for about 5% of total college and university enrollment. 

    Growth Of Chinese Undergraduate Students In US Set To Reverse 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Inside Higher Ed, a trade publication, notes since 2016, that at least 20 private colleges have shuttered their campuses. The slump is set to pressure financially weak schools first but could result in large state schools to close regional campuses to cut costs. 

    Not too long ago, we pointed out how Green Mountain College, a private liberal arts college in Poultney, Vermont, went up for auction and eventually sold to the winning bid of $4.5 million. 

    To sum up, the great college bull market is over. At the start of the year, we cited Mauldin Economics, who said:

     “20% of colleges and universities will shut down or merge in the next ten years.”

    … and maybe the virus pandemic has accelerated the collapse of higher education. 

    One last thing: What happens to metro areas that were built primarily around colleges? Does the higher education bust trigger a domino effect in the economy? 

  • Time For A Real Change At The FBI
    Time For A Real Change At The FBI

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 20:10

    Authored by Marc Ruskin via The Epoch Times,

    Anyone harboring doubts as to the merely cosmetic changes made in leadership at the FBI can now put those doubts to rest. President Donald Trump received some poor advice when he came to select white-shoe attorney Chris Wray to replace James Comey as FBI director.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    An examination of Wray’s Sept. 17 testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee causes the jaw to drop in disbelief, even for grizzled veteran FBI agents inured to the bureau’s descent into the realm of a politicized instrument of the executive branch. Much of the testimony consisted of conclusory statements that appeared to reflect Democrat talking points, rather than independent determinations based on articulated facts.

    He categorized Russian intermeddling with the U.S. elections as the primary global menace, taking a position contrary to that of his boss, Attorney General William Barr, who stated publicly on CNN, when interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on Sept. 2, that China poses the greater threat to the legitimacy of the election.

    When queried as to whether Russia’s efforts favored either side, Wray stated that the Russian covert tactics sought to “denigrate Biden.”

    Wray’s unsupported statements regarding whom the Russians would prefer to see win the election shouldn’t be taken at face value. Traditionally, the Russians have sought to wreak havoc among all candidates and parties. Wray should be pressed to present the evidence supporting his statements, particularly as they appear absurd on their face, and contrary to the reasonable best interest of the Russians, who would stand to benefit from a weak president, one who has demonstrated a softness on economic sanctions while serving as vice president.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Curiously, on the subject of domestic terrorism, the director stated that “we look at Antifa as more of an ideology or movement than an organization.” The implication that they are mutually exclusive is left unexplained. More significantly, this more benign assessment of Antifa by the FBI would inevitably color the nature and scope of investigations into this non-organization, this ideology that dons uniforms, provides training in tactics, stockpiles weapons prior to riots, and is sufficiently well-funded to pay travel and subsistence to its operatives.

    Wray went on to say that the single largest category of domestic terrorism is that arising from white supremacist organizations.

    Again, he should be required to present the statistics, as notably the greatest degree of urban violence over the past several months hasn’t been the result of rioting by the Aryan Nations or the Ku Klux Klan. Not surprisingly, Democrat politicians, most notably Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and television commentators such as Fox’s Juan Williams, have picked up on the self-serving talking points provided by Wray, and are parroting back his conclusions, predictably expanding upon them by attributing the results to the entire FBI, rather than as the personal opinions of the director, which they appear to reflect.

    Misleading statements by Wray found themselves serving the Democratic Party cause in the first presidential debate on Oct. 29, not only with respect to the statements concerning white supremacist organizations, but additionally with regard to the controversy between absentee ballots and mail-in ballots.

    Despite the numerous ongoing FBI investigations into voter fraud arising from the use of mail-in ballots, Wray stated (as reported by The Washington Post’s Devlin Barrett) in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Sept. 24 that “we have not seen historically any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it’s by mail or otherwise.”

    Presumably, Wray’s perception of history doesn’t reach back to the Kennedy–Nixon election of 1960 and allegations of major voter fraud in then-Mayor Richard Daly’s Chicago.

    Regardless, the director’s statement is devoid of significance, as mail-in ballots have never been utilized on the currently contemplated scale, nationwide, as a significant component of a closely contested presidential election.

    What “we have seen historically” is of no consequence. What we may see—next month—is of historic significance, and warrants significant attention and the commitment of major resources by the FBI, under whose jurisdiction falls the safeguarding of free and fair elections.

    2 Cultures

    Behind the opaque curtains of the FBI, there exists two distinct cultures:

    1. Upper Management, centralized at FBIHQ, also known as the Hoover Building (JEH), and

    2. The Field, populated by the special agents who conduct the myriad investigations, domestically and abroad, often at great personal risk, to protect the nation and the Constitution.

    It’s the culture of the former, the directors, assistant directors, deputy assistant directors—the occupants of the JEH C-Suite—who have tarnished the reputation of the bureau and jeopardized its role as an independent and objective guardian of free society.

    Fortunately, field office management remains committed to addressing immediate law enforcement needs at the local level, filling the gaps left by local politicians, governors, mayors, and prosecutors who have redirected their energies in response to politicized calls for defunding and “reforming” the police.

    The special agent in charge of the New York FBI’s Criminal Division, Jacqueline Maguire, currently oversees an enhanced cooperative effort—uniting FBI field agents and New York Police Department task force officers to fight the city’s rapidly rising level of violent crime. Implementation of changes to New York State laws limiting the powers of state judges to set bail for violent offenders, along with New York City police budget cuts and the dismantling of the NYPD’s hugely successful plainclothes anti-crime units by Mayor Bill de Blasio, have resulted in dramatically increased criminal activity.

    The New York FBI, assisted by federal prosecutors, has responded by assuming jurisdiction when appropriate. Violent felons, arrested by NYPD/FBI investigators, and anticipating revolving door justice and a rapid release, are stunned to find themselves in federal court, facing substantial prison terms while awaiting trial at federal facilities. The Field has not, must not, and will not fail the American people.

    For this, a strong, independent, and neutral director is a sine qua non.

    One can’t begin to imagine former Directors Louis Freeh and William Webster bending to the will of a political authority with regard to affecting the conduct and outcome of an FBI investigation. Then, a shift occurred—commencing under the stewardship of Robert Mueller and accelerating under Comey—toward malleability in the face of political pressure and a concomitant loss of independence and integrity for the institution itself.

    The most significant issue that arises insofar as civil liberties are concerned, is what the future holds in store if the Biden-Harris ticket is elected. Just as the Obama administration had a compliant FBI under the direction of Comey, would a Biden administration have a compliant federal police under a President Biden?

    And what would the consequences be to the republic, with no independent watchdog to reign in official corruption, as the reputation, independence, and integrity of the bureau were to continue a downward spiral?

  • Taiwan Must Prepare To Deter Chinese Amphibious Landing: National Security Advisor O'Brien
    Taiwan Must Prepare To Deter Chinese Amphibious Landing: National Security Advisor O'Brien

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 19:50

    Days after China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) conducted large-scale joint amphibious landing drills on the Chinese coast, President Trump’s national security advisor has issued provocative statements Friday while speaking at an Aspen Institute event.

    Robert C. O’Brien, currently Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, urged Taiwan to pursue strategies for deterring a Chinese amphibious landing.

    “Taiwan needs to start looking at some asymmetric and anti-access area denial strategies” ultimately to deter a land invasion when the time comes, O’Brien stated.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The comments from such a high level Trump official reveal that the White House sees Beijing as fast approaching a hostile and war footing concerning the Taiwan issue.

    “China doesn’t have the military strength to take over Taiwan now, but perhaps could 5 years from now,” he added in the provocative comments which certainly won’t go unnoticed in Beijing.

    And further on China, responding to Stephen Hadley, former George W. Bush national security advisor, national security advisor O’Brien said, “I think what the president did with the tariffs is he finally woke up the Chinese…” and argued that the Trump administration has succeeded at “establishing alternate supply lines for rare earths” – though without giving details of precisely how or to what extent this has actually been achieved.  

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The subject of Taiwan in the course of the remote Aspen Institute discussion began with the following comments of O’Brien:

    “They’re bullying Taiwan, they’ve taken over Hong Kong lock, stock, and barrel… they’ve asserted rights to the South China Sea like it’s Lake Tahoe or something.”

    “I don’t think the Chinese probably at this point want or likely are prepared for an amphibious landing”… they have massive missiles, but if they strike “They’d lose everything they’re hope to gain and become a massive international pariah.”

    The comments are very timely also considering China at the start of this week kicked off massive amphibious landing drills which are meant to send a “message” to Taiwan over what state-run Global Times calls “rampant secessionist moves”.

    It also comes as Washington ramps up military weapons sales to the island, something which has come under repeat Chinese condemnation over violation of the ‘One China’ policy status quo.

  • "This Was A Kangaroo Court": LMU Students Impeach Latina Senator Over Conservative Views
    "This Was A Kangaroo Court": LMU Students Impeach Latina Senator Over Conservative Views

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 19:30

    Authored by Jonathan Turley,

    Loyola Marymount University student Stephanie Martinez is exactly what schools seek in admissions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    She is politically and social active. She has been involved in the school’s governance and community, including serving at the government senator for diversity and inclusion. She is also conservative.

    That last element proved unacceptable recently when fellow students impeached her after a three-hour proceeding because she expressed her opposition to illegal immigration on social media.

    While a few students protested, other students mocked the outcry and the coverage on sites like The College Fix. 

    One student is quoted on social media as saying “it’s a f***ing seat on a random student government senate. Why are these old white people so upset!?”

    The answer is something that is becoming less and less of a concern on campuses: free speech.

    We have seen other students recently subjected to similar actions by their student governments or by fellow editors on student newspapers.  Free speech is under attack across the country and polling shows a falling level of support for free speech among students. The actions taken against openly conservative or libertarian students is having its impact on both students and faculty who are self-censoring to avoid similar attacks.

    In this case, the student government is acting to counter Martinez’s views on immigration. In one of the offending postings, Martinez wrote:

    “The same people advocating for rights, equality, and better conditions for illegal aliens are the same one censoring freedom of speech (a right), defaming and initiating hostility for those Americans with divergent views! Sad!” 

    It proved a prophetic and ironic posting for Martinez.

    Fellow Diversity and Inclusion student Senator Camille Orozco cited such statements as the basis for impeachment under Article 8 in the student body bylaws as “conduct that severely damages the integrity or authority of ASLMU or the office held by the individual in question.” Orozco dismissed the obvious crackdown on free speech by declaring conclusorily that it is not about free speech but “conduct which has severely damaged the integrity, or authority of ASLMU or the office held by Senator Martinez.”

    But the “conduct” was the free speech. That is how easy it is to strip away any tolerance for opposing viewpoints. Orozco argued that the views of Martinez hurt the relationship of the student government with immigrant groups.

    The most glaring moment came when Director of Free Speech & Expression Robyn De Leon rose to speak. This is the person who is supposed to protect free speech and expression but spoke in favor of removing someone on the basis of her opposing viewpoints. 

    According to one article, De Leon said that Martinez is not protected for her “very alienating of unrepresented and marginalized communities” and cited her use of the term “illegal alien.”

    Putting aside the obvious hypocrisy in that position, De Leon ignores that federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have used the term “illegal alien.”

    What concerns me most is the apparent silence of the university.  Under the student government’s Constitution, no officer or member will be discriminated against based on their political affiliation. I do not know the specific views of Martinez on politics or immigration.  Indeed, I do not consider her specific viewpoints to be particularly relevant beyond the fact that such viewpoints are being used as the basis for adverse actions. She has a right to speak her mind on social media and a university should celebrate the diversity of such ideas as part of its intellectual mission. Yet, I could find no statement of the university denouncing any action that punishes a student or faculty member for their opposing viewpoints.  I can understand not wanting to interfere with student governance decisions but the university should not be a mere pedestrian to the abuse of a student for her political views. The university would clearly condemn any action if was deemed racist or offensive.  The denial of free speech would be of an equal concern for the university in guaranteeing a tolerant and open academic community.

    Martinez’s next course of action is to appeal the impeachment. If she loses, she will face a removal trial.  That is why the university must be clear as to its commitment to free speech.  Student governments are not an invitation to institute Robespierrean justice.

    The university needs to act to protect those who are being attacked for their dissenting views and to reaffirm the guarantee of free speech at Loyola Marymount University.

  • New Harvard Study Finds "Elevated Radiation" Levels Near Fracking Sites
    New Harvard Study Finds "Elevated Radiation" Levels Near Fracking Sites

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 19:10

    Fracking has been one of the keys to helping the U.S. achieve its energy independence and become the world’s largest oil and gas producer over the last ten years. But now, it looks like it may be coming with some unintended consequences, according to Reuters. 

    Researchers have found elevated radiation levels near U.S. hydraulic fracking drilling sites, according to a newly released study by Harvard researchers this week. The study looked at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s radiation monitor readings nationwide from 2011 to 2017.

    The study was published in Nature and found that areas within 12 miles downwind of 100 fracking wells had radiation levels that were about 7% above normal background levels. Readings can go “much higher” as you move closer to drill sites, the study reported. Radioactive particles can be inhaled and “increase the risk of lung cancer,” Reuters noted.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Petros Koutrakis, who led the study, said: “The increases are not extremely dangerous, but could raise certain health risks to people living nearby.”

    He also said that further study is needed: “Our hope is that once we understand the source more clearly, there will be engineering methods to control this.”

    He attributes the radiation to “naturally-occurring radioactive material” rising to the surface as a result of the drilling. 

    The study also found that the largest increases occurred in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio, where naturally occurring radioactive material is found in higher concentrations than other states. 

    It’s unclear whether or not this could become an election talking point with less than 3 weeks until the Presidential race. We already know where President Trump stands on fracking. If only Joe Biden and Kamala Harris could remember what, exactly their position is…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  • Pentagon School To Focus Half Its Curriculum On China, Esper Announces
    Pentagon School To Focus Half Its Curriculum On China, Esper Announces

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 18:50

    Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

    Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said on Thursday that he tasked a Pentagon-funded university to focus half of its curriculum on China. The move is a testament to the shift in the US military’s focus from terrorism to so-called “great power competition,” as outlined in the 2018 National Defense Strategy.

    “As part of our top-10 goal to focus the department on China, I directed the National Defense University to refocus its curriculum by dedicating 50 percent of the coursework to China by academic year 2021,” Esper said at an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    National Defense University (NDU) Faculty at Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington D.C.

    The National Defense University is a higher-learning facility run by the Pentagon that offers graduate programs mostly to members of the US military. “I also tasked the military services to make the People’s Liberation Army [China’s military] the pacing threat in our professional schools, programs and training,” the Pentagon chief said.

    Esper also warned of the threat China and Russia pose to US global hegemony. “Our strategic competitors China and Russia are attempting to erode our hard-earned gains,” he said.

    The former Raytheon lobbyist also touted a new plan to increase the fleet of the US Navy that Esper has dubbed “Battle Force 2045.” The plan calls for the Navy to have a 500 ship fleet by 2045. Currently, the US Navy has just under 300 battle-ready ships.

    The Pentagon released its annual report on China’s military in September. The report says China has the world’s largest navy and has “an overall battle force of approximately 350 ships and submarines.”

    Despite having more ships, China’s navy is vastly smaller than Washington’s in terms of tonnage. One example of this is the number of aircraft carriers each nation has, with the US having eleven aircraft carriers, while China only has two.

  • Daily Briefing – October 16, 2020
    Daily Briefing – October 16, 2020


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 18:40

    Senior editor, Ash Bennington, and managing editor, Ed Harrison, look forward to the relevant themes. Ed adds to David Rosenberg’’ recent comments that “organically, the economy is still in recession,” and he and Ash reflect on the recent success of Sweden’s pandemic shutdown response. They then put a week of bank earnings into context and analyze Warren Buffett selling the bulk of Berkshire Hathaway’s holdings in Wells Fargo. In the intro, Ash speaks to Real Vision editor, Jack Farley, about “priming” in the markets for distressed debt. For reference, the video Ed discusses at the beginning can be found here: https://exchange.realvision.com/post/the-breakdown-what-all-financial-c….

  • Mexico's Former Defense Minister Arrested On Drug Trafficking Charges By DEA
    Mexico's Former Defense Minister Arrested On Drug Trafficking Charges By DEA

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 18:30

    As a sign of just how the continuing US-Mexico “war on drugs” and by extension the war on cartels is going, no less than Mexico’s former top leader of the armed forces has been arrested.

    The country’s former defense minister, Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos, was taken into US custody after landing at Los Angeles International Airport on Thursday. The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had a warrant for his arrest – no doubt a huge shock to the high profile general given he was traveling with his family, presumably on vacation.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda, via NYT

    Mexico’s foreign secretary, Marcelo Ebrard, was the first to confirm via Twitter that the American ambassador to Mexico informed him of Cienfuegos’ detention.

    The charges are related to corruption and drug trafficking ties, including large-scale cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine distribution and conspiracy, as well as conspiracy to launder the narcotics proceeds through illicit banking transactions, according to the just released indictment.

    The charges were initially confirmed in statements by Mexico’s president on Friday: 

    The arrest of Mexico’s former defense minister by U.S. authorities shows that corruption is Mexico’s biggest problem, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said on Friday.

    “I always said that it wasn’t just a crisis, but a decadence that we were suffering from,” President López Obrador said in a press briefing. “It’s regrettable that a former defense minister is detained, accused of ties to drug trafficking.”

    The 72-year old general was defense minister under former President Enrique Peña Nieto from 2012 to 2018.

    The US embassy notified Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the high profile detention at LAX:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Mexico’s current president has controversially been a critic of longtime public calls to use the military to combat organized crime groups. Cynics might say it’s because he knew precisely the levels of corruption within top military ranks, and lack of accountability especially at the top of the command structure, as this latest DEA arrest demonstrates.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Gen. Cienfuegos is by far the highest ranking Mexican military official ever arrested on drug-related corruption charges.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Via AP/NPR: Former Mexican Defense Secretary Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos, right, with former U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis at the Pentagon in 2017.

    WSJ notes meanwhile that “In the late 1990s, another senior army leader, anti-drug czar Gen. Jesús Gutiérrez Rebollo, was arrested and sentenced to 40 years in jail for taking bribes from drug cartels. He died in 2013 in prison.”

    Should Gen. Cienfuegos eventually be tried, convicted and sentenced here in the US, it is likely he’ll serve out any potential prison time here rather than be returned to Mexico.

  • In Stunning Reversal, Twitter No Longer Blocking NY Post Biden Article
    In Stunning Reversal, Twitter No Longer Blocking NY Post Biden Article

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 18:22

    In a spectacular, and humiliating, reversal for Twitter which two days ago sparked an unprecedented scandal with its blatant pro-Democrat censorship and dissemination ban of the “bombshell” NY Post article confirming Joe Biden’s connections to both Ukraine and China, Twitter said it would no longer block the NY Post story about Hunter Biden.

    After the NYT first reported late on Friday that Twitter “began letting users share links to an unsubstantiated New York Post article about Hunter Biden that it had previously blocked from its service”, a spokesperson for the online publisher which wishes to retain its Section 230 protections to avoid being sued into oblivion overnight, confirmed to The Hill that users can now share links to the article in tweets and direct messages because “the once private information included is now widely available in the press and on other digital platforms.”

    The decision caps a three-day whirlwind for the company, which definitively exposed to the entire world the political bias of both Twitter and Youtbe.

    After initially blocking users – and in countless cases suspending and banning accounts, even those belonging to administration officials – a smattering of GOP lawmakers sent letters to Twitter and Facebook demanding and explanation; Sen. Ted Cruz said earlier that he would be happy to subpoena Mark Zuckerberg over what Cruz described as “transparent election interference” by America’s largest social media titans. Late on Friday, the Senate Commerce Committee issued subpoenas for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai of Google, and Jack Dorsey to appear virtually on Oct. 28 to discuss the reformation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects them from liability.

    Earlier in the week, Jack Dorsey offered a non-apology apology by saying he regretted the breakdown in communication as Twitter moved to suppress the story and punish those sharing it without offering any kind of explanation. This was followed on Thursday night by a statement from the company’s top legal and policy executive, Vijaya Gadde, who said that Twitter will no longer remove hacked content unless the content has been “directly shared by hackers or those acting in concert with them.” And said the company will “label Tweets to provide context instead of blocking links from being shared on Twitter.”

    Then on Friday morning, the CEO returned with another more thorough apology, where he acknowledged that the company was “wrong” to ‘straight up block the url’ or urls associated with the sensitive NY Post stories.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    And now, after unleashing an unprecedented censorship scandal by the social networks, Twitter has made a 180 and effectively admits that everything it did was wrong.

    Even the Joe Biden-endorsing NY Times wrote that “the rapid-fire changes have made Twitter and Facebook the butt of jokes and invigorated efforts to regulate them.”

    “Policies are a guide for action, but the platforms are not standing behind their policies,” said Joan Donovan, research director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School. “They are merely reacting to public pressure and therefore will be susceptible to politician influence for some time to come.”

    The irony, of course, is that thanks to Twitter’s catastrophic bumbling of “Huntergate“, everyone in the US now knows about Hunter Biden’s notebook and by implication, Joe Biden’s heretofore covert involvement. And while one would think that someone as sophisticated in manipulating and shaping public opinion as Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg would know all about the Streisand Effect, one would be wrong.

  • Federal Court Rebukes D.C. Mayor's Double-Standard On Church Services And BLM Protests
    Federal Court Rebukes D.C. Mayor's Double-Standard On Church Services And BLM Protests

    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/16/2020 – 18:10

    Authored by Tyler O’Neil via PJMedia.com,

    Last week, the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Capitol Hill Baptist Church (CHBC) can resume outdoor services despite Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser’s coronavirus restrictions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In his ruling, Judge Trevor McFadden implicitly rebuked Bowser for encouraging one type of gathering — Black Lives Matter protests — while cracking down on religious gatherings.

    “No matter how the protests were organized and planned, the District’s (and in particular, Mayor Bowser’s) support for at least some mass gatherings undermines its contention that it has a compelling interest in capping the number of attendees at the Church’s outdoor services,” McFadden wrote.

    Bowser’s COVID-19 restrictions prohibit church services with more than 100 people (originally they only allowed services with 10 people or fewer).CHBC, an 853-member church in D.C., requested permission to meet at the 45,000-plus-seat Robert F. Kennedy Stadium, which would give them ample room to social distance, but the city refused the church’s request. On September 22, CHBC filed a lawsuit and requested a temporary restraining order preventing Bowser from penalizing them for gathering.

    CHBC cited the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires the government to meet strict scrutiny when abridging religious liberty. This means the government must prove that it has a compelling state interest and that its restrictions are the “least restrictive means” of meeting that interest.

    The judge ruled that CHBC is likely to prevail in its lawsuit since Bowser’s double standard on the protests undercuts her claim to have a compelling state interest to prevent gatherings to slow the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.

    “Consider the District’s response to mass protests over the past year, which included thousands of citizens marching through the streets of the city, including along streets that the District closed specifically for that purpose,” McFadden noted.

    “And the Mayor appeared at one of the mass gatherings, ‘welcom[ing]’ hundreds if not thousands of protestors tightly packed into Black Lives Matter Plaza and announcing that it was ‘so wonderful to see everybody peacefully protesting, wearing [their] mask[s].’”

    The judge also noted that Bowser “christened ‘Black Lives Matter Plaza’ when ‘she directed the D.C. Department of Public Works to create a mural on 16th Street N.W., near the White House, to ‘honor the peaceful protesters from June 1, 2020 and send a message that District streets are a safe space for peaceful protestors.””

    Indeed, Bowser directed staff to paint “Black Lives Matter” on the road across from the White House in an act of state-sanctioned graffiti.

    “The Mayor’s apparent encouragement of these protests also implies that the District favors some gatherings (protests) over others (religious services),” McFadden argued.

    “When faced with similar facts in a First Amendment challenge, another court explained that high-profile government officials encouraging and participating in protests ‘sent a clear message that mass protests are deserving of preferential treatment,’” the judge added, citing Soos v. Cuomo (2020).

    In that case, the court noted that Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio “could have ‘been silent’ or ‘could have just as easily discouraged protests, short of condemning their message, in the name of public health,’” but they did not take either of these courses.

    “The District attempts to distinguish the risks posed by mass ‘protest marches’ from those posed by ‘worship services in which individuals stand in place for long periods of time,’ … but it marshaled no scientific evidence on this point,” McFadden argued. “In fact, the District’s brief explains that the protests did not trigger any spike in COVID-19 ‘outbreaks,’ undermining the notion that large gatherings are always exceptionally dangerous.”

    “With this ruling, our government is restoring equity by extending to religious gatherings the same protections that have been afforded other similar gatherings during this pandemic,” Justin Sok, a pastor at CHBC, said in a statement. “We trust that this will be a blessing not only to our congregation but to the rest of our neighbors in D.C.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “A church is not a building that can be opened or closed. A church is not an event to be watched. A church is a community that gathers regularly and we are thankful that such communities are once again being treated fairly by our government,” he added.

    Earlier this month, the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest supporting CHBC.

    “Although the precise legal tests may change based on the specific restriction at issue, the bottom line remains the same: there is no pandemic exception to the Constitution and our fundamental rights,” the DOJ lawyers declared [Emphasis added].

    “Individual rights set forth in the Constitution are always operative and restrain government action.”

Digest powered by RSS Digest