The Lies We Are Being Told About The Coronavirus

The Lies We Are Being Told About The Coronavirus

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

Lies are a powerful form of magic; they can mislead large groups of people into making terrible errors, as well as cause them to be blind to the obvious. Lies make people hurt themselves while thinking they are helping themselves. It is a truly dark and horrific act of sorcery.

As the world stands at the edge of a global pandemic event, the people who are immune to the effects of lies have an opportunity to take action should the virus continue to expand beyond the borders of China. We have a small window of time, perhaps a couple of months, in which we can prepare ourselves for the fallout and ensure we are as protected as we can be. This means taking precautions to prevent viral transmission, increasing the strength of our own immune systems, prepping for the loss of supply lines and freight shipments to retailers, organizing family, friends and neighbors for mutual aid and security, as well as preparing for the inevitable government attempts at martial law.

Of course, a person cannot or will not take any of these measures as long as they believe that the virus is not a threat, or they think that the pandemic will have little effect on their daily lives. I have recently seen a discomforting level of propaganda and disinformation agents invading the media and discussion boards related to this issue. Whenever I see such an intense disinformation campaign surrounding an event, this tells me a couple of things:

1)  If they are trying to overtly downplay the seriousness of the event while lying about the facts involved, it tells me that the event is a legitimate threat and it will probably get worse as time passes.

2)  If they all push the same false narrative and talking points it tells me that this is an organized effort paid for by a larger party with extensive resources.

If the narrative glosses over or hides recently revealed evidence by claiming that the event is “all hype”, then it is designed to create inaction in the public – It is designed to make us apathetic, which means there is a concerted conspiracy to harm us. It is not just an attempt to hide the guilt of the people involved in creating the crisis.

So what are some of the most insidious lies being spread right now on the virus threat? Lets go through a quick list of those I’ve identified so far:

Lie #1: Deaths Caused By The Coronavirus Are Nothing Compared To The Death Rate Of The Average Flu…

This lie seems to be the most common being used to plant seeds of apathy in the public consciousness right now.  I have even heard people on the street regurgitate it verbatim as they try to convince themselves that all is well.  But even using official numbers, which are likely false and greatly reduced, the argument is simply wrong on every level.

There is a big difference between “number of deaths” and the actual “death rate” of a virus. The flu infects tens of millions of people annually around the world with deaths in the US numbering usually under 10,000. In the US in the 2019-2020 season so far, the flu infected over 9 million people resulting in 4800 deaths; meaning the death rate of the flu is minor compared to the number of sick.  Flu deaths are usually collated over the course of a year, yet people are already trying to compare death rates to the coronavirus, which has only been active for a few weeks.

Keep in mind also that the CDC has been called out for greatly inflating influenza death rates in order to push vaccine propaganda.  They consistently attach flu death numbers with pneumonia deaths; which I would point is is the exact OPPOSITE of what the Chinese are doing with the coronavirus numbers.

The coronavirus has been active for about a month in China, it has a hibernation of around two weeks, and, China has been lying extensively about the number of deaths associated with the disease by labeling most deaths due to pneumonia.  We truly have no idea what the potential death rate of this illness is. What we do know is that it behaves much like SARS, which had a death rate of around 11%.  According to official numbers the coronavirus transmits faster and has already killed more people in a few weeks than SARS did in over a year.

The notion that the virus only kills the elderly is also incorrect.  The two deaths now confirmed outside of China were both men in their 30’s and 40’s.

When considering the issue of viral death rate, we have to take into account the capacity of local medical facilities in handling patient load.  If hospitals are only handling a few cases at a time, then the patients will get better overall treatment and less deaths will occur.  But, if hospitals are overwhelmed with thousands of cases at a time, as is happening in China, then treatment quality will go down and many more people will die.  A minimal death rate outside of China today does not mean a minimal death rate tomorrow should the virus spread beyond hospital capacity.

With the flu, people can usually treat themselves with ease at home; the coronavirus is obviously much more dangerous.  No country in modern times has EVER quarantined over 50 million people in 16 cities because of the average flu. The comparison between the coronavirus and the flu is patently ridiculous. There is no comparison. The coronavirus is on another level entirely.

Lie #2: The Coronavirus Came From An Animal Market And The Claim It Is Engineered Is A “Conspiracy Theory”…

The phrase “conspiracy theory” is usually exploited as a way to dismiss facts and evidence without consideration on the basis that the official story is the only story that has any validity. In other words, the official story requires no justification because the authorities are infallible and always have our best interests at heart.

The problem is, governments and the mainstream media have been caught lying over and over again about issues far less important than a global pandemic, so I’m not sure why we should trust ANYTHING they say ever. There is considerable evidence that China has been lying incessantly about the number of sick and dead due to the coronavirus, including leaked accounts from medics and other people at ground zero in Wuhan.  These people are now being silenced by the Chinese government.  In fact, the Chinese government was suppressing coverage and information on the coronavirus from the very beginning of the contagion, which helped allow it to spread unchecked.

Now, social media companies are taking action to remove people who try to document the facts of the virus and its potential source in the name of “stopping fake news”.  Anyone who questions the official narrative is not only a “conspiracy theorist” but also a “danger” to the public.  This narrative is supported by US government officials:

“These lies can cause immediate and tangible harm to people, and the platforms must act to stop them from spreading,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) said in a statement to The Hill.  “It’s critical that Americans receive verified, trustworthy information about the coronavirus and heed the advice of our country’s public health officials as we learn more about its potential impact here at home…”

The facts are the facts, and if the facts suggest a conspiracy, then so be it.  Only 20 miles away from the market in question stands the LARGEST Level 4 Biohazard Lab in Asia, which studies directly into the world’s deadliest pathogens including SARS and coronavirus.  In 2017, experts warned that a virus could escape the labs in Wuhan because of lax containment standards.  To put this in perspective, it would be like an Ebola outbreak striking the city of Atlanta and then blamed on a food market only 20 miles from the CDC.  It looks suspicious…

Last year, Chinese researchers were dismissed from a Level 4 lab in Winnipeg, Canada without public explanation, but the same lab was exposed last year for sharing deadly virus samples with China, including Ebola and henipavirus.  One of the Chinese researchers work focus was the SARS virus.  Media and government attention in Canada at the time of the scandal was on concerns that the lab in Winnipeg was supplying viral samples that would be used in China’s biowarfare programs.

According to a paper published by virologists in India, the coronavirus genetic code also contains proteins that are exactly like those found in HIV. Interestingly, coronavirus patients have been shown to respond positively to drugs that are meant to treat HIV and AIDS carriers.  Through official pressure the paper has now been retracted and the authors have said they will “revise it”. But, the whole point of peer review is for the data to be examined by others in the field and then proven or disproven. If the data can be reproduced, then it needs to be taken seriously.

This is not what the CDC and other official institutions on disease study want. They seem intent on dismissing any information outright that suggests the coronavirus might have been made in a lab rather than in nature.

If true, the chances of coronavirus containing protein combinations identical to HIV in nature are astronomical, meaning, the virus was engineered.  If the virus is proven to be engineered, then this makes future narratives and propaganda harder to implement.  For example, it will be much harder to blame the pandemic on “global warming” if the virus was created by a bunch of guys in lab coats rather than in nature.

To repeat the facts, Wuhan is a hub for China’s largest biohazard labs and these labs are suspected by biological warfare experts of being involved in bioweapons testing.   Until there is more independent examination of the virus (the original strain before mutation), no one knows for certain what the source is.

The mainstream media has been very aggressive in denying any links to bioweaponry, claiming that there “is no evidence” linking Wuhan’s labs to the virus; yet, there is FAR MORE evidence of the involvement of the biohazard labs than there is evidence proving that the virus originated an animal market. They have simply decided that the animal market story is the tale they prefer, and so it has become the official story.

Lie #3: The Virus Won’t Have Any Effect On America

The general thrust of the mainstream view of the coronavirus has been to assert that the US will not be affected and that concerns are “overblown”.  The UN’s World Health Organization continues to refuse to take the event very seriously, and even Larry Kudlow, Trump’s Director of the National Economic Council, claims the damage to the US economy will be ‘minimal’.

Now, firstly I have to say I would take the economic analysis of a long time cocaine addict with a grain of salt.  This is the same guy who was wildly incorrect in all his calls on the housing bubble in 2005-2006, and yet he is now advising the White House on financial crisis events?  But lets set the incompetence of Kudlow aside for a moment and consider that perhaps he is just reading from a script prepared for him by others.  Certainly, there are a lot of people out there that would like to keep the public ignorant of the depth of the situation, and they will give all sorts of half-assed rationales as to why they lie.

For the Chinese authorities, the pandemic is an undeniable fact of life, but they will say their economy and global image required the truth to be “tempered” to prevent civil unrest and to stop investors pulling from their money out of Chinese markets en masse.

For US authorities who waited far too long to start shutting down flights from China carrying multiple infected, the claim will be that they had to lie to prevent general panic and market panic.

For the UN’s World Health Organization that lied about China “containment” and actually downplayed the danger of travel to China for a time while the virus was raging and human-to-human transmission was confirmed, I see no excuse really. Their behavior, and the behavior of the US and Chinese governments makes me suspect that they WANT the pandemic to spread.

As I write this the 11th confirmed case of coronavirus has been identified in the US with many more suspected cases still under observation. Obviously, the virus is here already, but the issue of how much it will affect Americans is being diminished or buried in an endless stream of propaganda.

Given enough time, a viral outbreak that spreads as fast as the coronavirus with a death rate of 5% or more is going to cause negative effects in every facet of the US economy.  But in our current window of the progression of the pandemic, I think it’s important to point out that even if the death rate is low in the US, there is no escaping the economic consequences attached to this event.

The US economy is interdependent with multiple nations, and is tightly connected to China. The greatest danger of globalism in terms of economics is that it forces national economies into losing the redundancies that protect them from systemic collapse. When one major economy goes down, it brings down all other economies with it.

Not only that, but the US financial structure is precariously unstable anyway, with record levels of national debt, consumer debt and corporate debt, not to mention steep declines in manufacturing and demand. The US sits atop one of the most massive economic bubbles of all time – The Everything Bubble, created by the Federal Reserve over ten years of stimulus measures, barely keeping the system alive in a state of zombification.

The bubble was always going to collapse. In fact, recent events in Fed repo markets suggest it was already collapsing. The coronavirus outbreak is a perfect cover event for this implosion.  To understand why a collapse event might be preferred by a certain minority of people within the elitist establishment, read my last article ‘How Viral Pandemic Benefits The Globalist Agenda’.

As I have argued for the past couple of years, all that is needed to bring down the US economy is one major trigger event. The idea that a global pandemic would not damage the American system already teetering on the edge of the abyss is simply absurd. This event has the capacity to cause crisis around the world, not just in China.

Lie #4:  The Virus Is Contained

You are going to hear this lie often in the next month or two.  I’ve heard it several times already from Chinese and US authorities in the past few weeks, and clearly their definition of the word “contained” must be different from mine.

China’s official sickness count and death toll rises exponentially by the day, and this is not accounting for the number of sick and dead they are hiding.  Over 50 million people are now in forced quarantine and martial law measures have been implemented.  Hong Kong’s hopes of containment have been dashed and officials now expect the outbreak to grow worse in the region.

Japan just announced that a man carrying the virus boarded a cruise liner and then departed, infecting at least ten people in the process and forcing the ship into quarantine for the next two weeks.

A woman in Santa Clara, California carrying the virus came back from China and had been in the US for around 10 DAYS before the illness was identified.  Meaning, every single person she came in contact with in that time is now a potential carrier, and for the next two weeks they won’t know they are contagious.  These are just a few examples of why it is foolish to write off this situation as “contained”; you cannot contain what you cannot identify.

The disinformation campaign seems designed to hide the true source of the virus, but also to keep the masses lethargic and inactive. We are meant to sit and wait while the virus and the potential economic catastrophe runs us over. Do not fall for the con; prepare accordingly, and never accept what lying governments and mainstream media outlets tell you as the whole truth.  It is better to take precautions you might not need than to be found very stupid and desperate down the road because the “experts” told you it was all hype.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.


Tyler Durden

Wed, 02/05/2020 – 18:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3bkIYqr Tyler Durden

Steve Cohen’s Bid To Buy The New York Mets Is On “Life Support”

Steve Cohen’s Bid To Buy The New York Mets Is On “Life Support”

Perhaps the Mets have seen their savoir pass them up yet again.

The baseball franchise, which for the better part of the last decade has been mired in misery and frustration, appears to no longer be the target of hedge fund billionaire Steve Cohen, who was reportedly previously in talks to buy the team.

Cohen’s $2.6 billion bid for the team is on “life support” according to the New York Post, who says that multiple sources are confirming Cohen is ending negotiations on a potential purchase of 80% of the franchise. Sources say Cohen is upset about the Wilpon family changing terms of their deal in the late stages of negotiating. 

“The parties are subject to confidentiality obligations, including a mutual non-disclosure agreement, and therefore cannot comment,” the Mets said on Tuesday. 

Cohen has kept quiet about the situation so far, as well. 

Prior to this week, the deal had looked as though it was progressing well. MLB commissioner Rob Manfred had said in December that he was satisfied with how talks were going, despite the sale being structured in what is being called a “unique” fashion.

The terms of the sale would leave Fred Wilpon as control person and CEO for five years, while Team COO Jeff Wilpon would also stay in his role for 5 years. After that period, both were expected to be removed from daily operations. The deal also didn’t include ownership of the Mets’ regional sports network, SNY.

The Wilpons apparently made a late stage push to keep control of the franchise beyond the 5 year window and there was also reportedly disagreement about the long-term status of SNY. 

Cohen, meanwhile, had already seemed content about moving to the life of a baseball owner. 

“If the deal goes through I expect that my roles at Point72 will not change. Period,” he wrote to his investors in December, easing their mind of potential implications of a deal consummating. Cohen also reportedly had plans for an opening day gala where he would be announced as owner. 

If Cohen’s deal falls through, it would mark the second time in less than 10 years that the Wilpons failed to sell a large stake to a local billionaire. In 2011, a deal with hedge fund manager David Einhorn also fell through after he accused the Wilpons of “bad faith” in the final stages of their deal. 


Tyler Durden

Wed, 02/05/2020 – 18:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2vS82EJ Tyler Durden

Romney Vote Motivated By ‘Bitterness And Jealousy’ According To Former Spokesman

Romney Vote Motivated By ‘Bitterness And Jealousy’ According To Former Spokesman

Mitt Romney’s decision to convict President Trump on the impeachment charge of abuse of power was “motivated by bitterness and jealousy,” according to former Romney spokesman Rick Gorka, who added that President Trump has “accomplished what he [Mitt] has failed to do multiple times.”

“These are the same people that hated Mitt in 2012 and they will hate him again when they are done with him,” Gorka added. “

It is sad to see that Mitt has not learned the lessons from 2012. Now he has betrayed his Party and millions of voters.”

While that’s a good theory, at least a few people have been passing around this Federalist article from September, 2019 which notes that Romney adviser Cofer Black worked with Hunter Biden on the board of Ukrainian energy giant Burisma.

According to web archives, top Mitt Romney adviser Joseph Cofer Black, who publicly goes by “Cofer Black,” joined Burisma’s board of directors while Hunter Biden was also serving on the board.

According to The New Yorker, Hunter joined Burisma’s board in April of 2014 and remained on it until he declined to renew his position this past May. Meanwhile, according to Burisma’s website, Black was appointed in February of 2017 and continues to serve on its board. The timelines would indicate that Black and Biden worked together at Burisma, and indeed, web archives from late 2017 show Black and Biden listed simultaneously on the board. –The Federalist

This picture may or may not sum up Romney’s utter contempt for Donald Trump:


Tyler Durden

Wed, 02/05/2020 – 18:05

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2H1cinP Tyler Durden

Wuhan Crematorium Inundated With Coronavirus-Infected Corpses

Wuhan Crematorium Inundated With Coronavirus-Infected Corpses

While it’s been reported in several outlets that Wuhan officials are shuttling bodies to crematoriums, questions remain over just how many corpses are being incinerated, stoking fears that the true extent of the outbreak is being concealed.

Twitter handle 曾錚 Jennifer Zeng posted the video on Tuesday, indicating that there are “Internal Videos From Crematories in Wuhan All corpses were packed in body bags and lined up, waiting for incineration. Yet the workers were singing Jackie Chan’s song at the Spring Festival Gala, “My country doesn’t seem sick at all.” 

The video is supposedly from a crematorium in Wuhan on Feb. 4, shows at least a dozen or more body bags waiting for incineration. 

Last Saturday, Radio Free Asia (RFA) tweeted a disturbing video detailing how those who died of coronavirus were loaded up on a bus and taken “directly to the crematorium.”

RFA said (in a translated tweet): “[Latest Situation of Wuhan Fifth Hospital] Some Wuhan citizens entered Wuhan Fifth Hospital on Feb. 1 and found many patients who died of pneumonia. The corpses were packed directly to the crematorium. Paramedics are busy rescuing the dying patient.”

DW News East Asia correspondent William Yang cited a report from the Chinese-language news outlet Initium, which said cremation facilities in Wuhan were receiving bodies directly from hospitals without proper identification and were excluded from the official record. 

As noted, the closet funeral home/ alleged crematorium is right down the street from Wuhan hospitals.

State-run Global Times tweeted last week that “victims should be cremated close by and immediately. Burials or transfer of the bodies not allowed. Funerals not allowed to avoid spread of the virus.”

And while it appears China has resorted to mass cremation of those who died of coronavirus in Wuhan, Taiwan Times reported Wednesday that China’s Tencent might have inadvertently released what is potentially the actual number of infections and deaths, which were astronomically higher than official figures.

And if the report is right, confirmed cases and deaths in China could be far closer to the catastrophic epidemic projections made by Jonathan Read.

On late Sunday evening, Tencent, on its webpage titled “Epidemic Situation Tracker”, showed confirmed cases of novel coronavirus (2019nCoV) in China as standing at 154,023, 10 times the official figure at the time. It listed the number of suspected cases as 79,808, four times the official figure.

And while the number of cured cases was only 269, well below the official number that day of 300, most ominously, the death toll listed was 24,589, vastly higher than the 300 officially listed that day.

The Daily Star reports that “thick fog” across the city could be the result of smoke from crematoriums burning coronavirus-infected bodies “24 hours a day”.

And now a major fire has possibly broken out across part of Wuhan, is this more evidence burning? 


Tyler Durden

Wed, 02/05/2020 – 17:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2S2wxYH Tyler Durden

Did Republicans Buy the Argument That Impeachment Requires a Crime?

To no one’s surprise, the Republican-controlled Senate voted today against removing President Donald Trump from office based on the articles of impeachment approved by the Democrat-controlled House in December. Many Republican senators have said that Trump’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine, even if “inappropriate,” did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But some have gone further by seeming to endorse the dangerous, ahistorical argument, advanced by Trump’s lawyers, that impeachment requires a criminal violation—or at least “criminal-like behavior,” as Alan Dershowitz put it while defending the president. Other Republican senators, meanwhile, have explicitly rejected that claim, which would preclude impeachment of presidents who violate the public trust without violating the law. Here is a rundown of relevant public statements by Republican senators.

Roy Blunt (R–Mo.)

“Alan Dershowitz said it was not [impeachable], and I don’t disagree with that,” Blunt told The Washington Post on January 28.

Mike Braun (R–Ind.)

“Let’s say it’s true, OK?” Braun said in a January 28 interview with the Post, referring to the allegations against Trump. “Dershowitz last night explained that if you’re looking at it from a constitutional point of view, that that is not something that is impeachable.”

Bill Cassidy (R–La.)

“The Constitution speaks of ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,'” Cassidy said on the Senate floor yesterday. “Because high crimes and misdemeanors are not specifically defined, it is reasonable to assume that the Framers meant for impeachment to occur only if a crime approached levels as severe as treason and bribery.”

Susan Collins (R–Maine)

“I do not believe that the conviction of a president requires a criminal act,” Collins said on the Senate floor yesterday.

John Cornyn (R–Texas)

“The Constitution says treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors,” Cornyn said on January 17. “But the House, in its wisdom, decided not even to charge the president with a crime.”

Ted Cruz (R–Texas)

“I think it is clear the House managers failed to meet their burden,” Cruz told reporters on January 28. “They failed to demonstrate an impeachable offense. They didn’t even so much as allege that the president committed a crime. The Constitution requires ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.'”

Josh Hawley (R–Mo.)

“Democrats impeach[ed] the President without alleging a single crime,” Hawley complained on Twitter in December.

Ron Johnson (R–Wis.)

“When you talk about treason and bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” Johnson told reporters on January 22, “it really implies there has to be some kind of crime based on current law.”

John Kennedy (R–La.)

“I think this case is going to come down to the president’s intent—his motive,” Kennedy said in November on Face the Nation. “Did he have a culpable state of mind?” He conceded that a quid pro quo of military aid for a Ukrainian investigation aimed at discrediting one of Trump’s leading political rivals, if proven, “probably” would be impeachable.

Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.)

“I do not subscribe to the legal theory that impeachment requires a violation of a criminal statute,” McConnell, the Senate majority leader, said on the Senate floor yesterday.

Rob Portman (R–Ohio)

“There may be circumstances where a crime isn’t necessary for a president to be impeached,” Portman said in a New York Times op-ed piece published today.

Mitt Romney (Utah)

Romney, the only Republican senator who voted to convict Trump (on the first article of impeachment, alleging abuse of power), clearly rejected Dershowitz’s theory. “The president did in fact pressure a foreign government to corrupt our election process,” Romney said in an interview with The Atlantic. “Corrupting an election process in a democratic republic is about as abusive and egregious an act against the Constitution—and one’s oath—that I can imagine. It’s what autocrats do.”

Marco Rubio (R–Fla.)

“I reject the argument that ‘Abuse of Power’ can never constitute grounds for removal unless a crime or a crime-like action is alleged,” Rubio wrote in a January 31 Medium post.

Pat Toomey (R–Pa.)

“As you watch these proceedings in the House,” Toomey said during a December 6 speech in New York, “there’s one question that keeps coming up in my mind. And that is, ‘Where is the crime?'” In a press release yesterday, however, Toomey implied that a crime might not be required for impeachment: “While there’s debate about the precise meaning of ‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ it’s clear that impeachable conduct must be comparable to the serious offenses of treason and bribery.”

Roger Wicker (R–Miss.)

“I basically am in agreement with the very scholarly approach that Mr. Dershowitz took that there’s no article there that’s grounds for impeachment and removal,” Wicker told CNN on January 28.

Some of these statements are ambiguous. It’s not clear, for example, whether Blunt, Braun, and Wicker accepted all of Dershowitz’s arguments, or exactly what point Cornyn and Hawley thought they were making by emphasizing that the articles of impeachment did not allege specific crimes. But Cruz and Johnson clearly are promoting the idea that a president can be impeached only if he violates a criminal law. That position may prove inconvenient the next time a Democrat occupies the White House.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2H04BOw
via IFTTT

Earth Is About To Enter A 30-Year “Mini Ice Age” As The Sun Hibernates, Scientist Warns

Earth Is About To Enter A 30-Year “Mini Ice Age” As The Sun Hibernates, Scientist Warns

Authored by Elias Marat via TheMindUnleashed.com,

A scientist has warned that Earth could be facing a mini ice age due to the Sun radiating less energy and heat toward our planet. According to the expert, this would mean that the planet would be plunged into a period of extreme winter and chilly cold storms during the next 30 years.

According to NASA, the Sun will reach its lowest activity in over two centuries in 2020. As a result of it going into a natural period of hibernation, Earth could see temperatures drop, resulting in food shortages on a global scale. The temperature could also drop by as much as one degree Celsius over a period of roughly 12 months—an incremental yet significant change in climate conditions that could have unpredictable results.

Valentina Zharkova, a professor at Northumbria University’s department of mathematics, physics, and electrical engineering, told the Sun that the period will be an expanded version of the solar minimums that naturally occur every 11 years. However, rather than lasting only a few years, the “Grand Solar Minimum” could last for up to 33 years.

The professor, who has published multiple scientific papers on the subject, said:

The Sun is approaching a hibernation period.

Less sunspots will be formed on the solar surface and thus less energy and radiation will be emitted towards the planets and the Earth.

The reduction in temperature will results in cold weathers on Earth, wet and cold summers, cold and wet winters.

We will possibly get big frosts as is happening now in Canada where they see [temperatures] of -50 C (-122 F).

But this is only the start of GSM, there is more to come in the next 33 years.”

The last Grand Solar Minimum known to have occurred was the Maunder Minimum, which lasted from 1645 to 1715. During that frigid 70-year period, temperatures plummeted across the globe and famous waterways in Europe including the Thames and Amsterdam canal completely froze over.

“We can only hope that the mini ice age will not be as severe as it was during the Maunder Minimum.

This would dramatically affect food harvests in middle latitudes, because the vegetables and fruits will not have enough time for harvesting.

So it could lead to a food deficit for people and animals, as we seen in the past couple of years when the snow in Spain and Greece in April and May demolished [their] veggie fields, and the UK had a deficit of broccoli, and other fruits and veggies.”

However, other experts believe that the cold period that occurred during the Maunder Minimum was also triggered by other factors including the gigantic plumes of ash spewed out in a series of volcanic eruptions.

Likewise, experts believe that climate change will ensure that the world remains in the grip of fast-heating planetary conditions regardless of any Grand Solar Minimums.

Professor Matthew Owens, a solar scientist at Reading University, told the Sun:

“The small reduction in the Sun’s energy associated with a solar minimum is vastly offset by effects caused by human activity, such as CO2 in the atmosphere… Thus there will probably be no detectable effect on global climate.”


Tyler Durden

Wed, 02/05/2020 – 17:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/373ONVw Tyler Durden

Mysterious Money Transfers Uncovered Between Jeffrey Epstein’s Estate And Secretive Bank

Mysterious Money Transfers Uncovered Between Jeffrey Epstein’s Estate And Secretive Bank

Estate records reveal that millions of dollars were transferred from the estate of the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and a secretive bank he established in the Virgin Islands six years ago, according to the New York Times.

The bank, Southern Country International, was one of the territory’s first international banking entities, and was only authorized to conduct business with offshore clients. The Times notes that its 2014 approval was unusual, given that Epstein was a convicted sex offender by that time.

After Epstein’s death last August in a Manhattan jail cell, $15.5 million was transferred to the bank from his estate in December. $2.6 million was then transferred back to the estate, leaving $12.9 million in the mysterious bank.

Two weeks later, all but $499,759 had vanished.

According to Virgin Islands magistrate judge, Carolyn Hernon-Purcell, “There’s no explanation” for why Southern Country would be receiving checks from the estate.

A lawyer for the estate responded that some of the payment had been made in error, but the judge was not satisfied with his response and asked him to follow up with a fuller accounting.

The checks — listed in the estate’s transactions for routine payments such as cable-TV bills and phone service for Mr. Epstein’s many properties — stand out. The list of payments were filed with Judge Hermon-Purcell, who is overseeing his $635 million estate, including the possible establishment of a compensation fund for his victims. –New York Times

The Times notes that during roughly the same period as Southern Country International bank was established, the Virgin Islands granted a lucrative tax break to a company owned by Epstein, Southern Trust, which was “developing sophisticated algorithms to mine DNA and financial databases,” according to the report.

Curiously, “The tax break came from the territory’s Economic Development Authority, which was approved by the territory’s former governor, John de Jongh Jr., while his wife, Cecile, worked for Mr. Epstein. Neither Ms. de Jongh nor her husband returned messages seeking comment,” the Times reports.

The tax break, granted in 2013, was a boon for Mr. Epstein. Southern Trust generated about $300 million in profit in six years, and he paid an effective tax rate of about 3.9 percent. The source of Southern Trust’s revenue is not clear; the bare-bones corporate filings made by the company in the Virgin Islands do not list any clients. –New York Times

Last month, Virgin Islands Attorney General Denise N. George sued Epstein’s estate, arguing that the deceased pedophile had tarnished the territory’s reputation. The lawsuit seeks to seize Epstein’s private islands and dissolve his shell companies she says were fronts for his sex-trafficking enterprise.

George claims that girls as young as 11 and 12 were brought to his private estate on Little Saint James (or simply ‘pedo island’) – where former President Bill Clinton and other high-profile guests reportedly vacationed, according to several Epstein accusers. Epstein kept a computerized database to track the availability and movements of his victims, according to the New York Times.

The suit seeks to intervene in the administration of Mr. Epstein’s will to safeguard assets for dozens of his victims, claiming the coexecutors may have a conflict of interest because they were officers in many of Mr. Epstein’s companies, including Southern Country and Southern Trust. The coexecutors, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, did not return requests for comment.

Epstein clearly used the Virgin Islands and his residence in the U.S. Virgin Islands at Little Saint James as a way to be able to conceal and to be able to expand his activity here,” said George.

And it looks like Epstein’s bank may have been part of that expansion. What his executors are doing with it now is anyone’s guess.


Tyler Durden

Wed, 02/05/2020 – 17:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2S55rA9 Tyler Durden

Did Republicans Buy the Argument That Impeachment Requires a Crime?

To no one’s surprise, the Republican-controlled Senate voted today against removing President Donald Trump from office based on the articles of impeachment approved by the Democrat-controlled House in December. Many Republican senators have said that Trump’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine, even if “inappropriate,” did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But some have gone further by seeming to endorse the dangerous, ahistorical argument, advanced by Trump’s lawyers, that impeachment requires a criminal violation—or at least “criminal-like behavior,” as Alan Dershowitz put it while defending the president. Other Republican senators, meanwhile, have explicitly rejected that claim, which would preclude impeachment of presidents who violate the public trust without violating the law. Here is a rundown of relevant public statements by Republican senators.

Roy Blunt (R–Mo.)

“Alan Dershowitz said it was not [impeachable], and I don’t disagree with that,” Blunt told The Washington Post on January 28.

Mike Braun (R–Ind.)

“Let’s say it’s true, OK?” Braun said in a January 28 interview with the Post, referring to the allegations against Trump. “Dershowitz last night explained that if you’re looking at it from a constitutional point of view, that that is not something that is impeachable.”

Bill Cassidy (R–La.)

“The Constitution speaks of ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,'” Cassidy said on the Senate floor yesterday. “Because high crimes and misdemeanors are not specifically defined, it is reasonable to assume that the Framers meant for impeachment to occur only if a crime approached levels as severe as treason and bribery.”

Susan Collins (R–Maine)

“I do not believe that the conviction of a president requires a criminal act,” Collins said on the Senate floor yesterday.

John Cornyn (R–Texas)

“The Constitution says treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors,” Cornyn said on January 17. “But the House, in its wisdom, decided not even to charge the president with a crime.”

Ted Cruz (R–Texas)

“I think it is clear the House managers failed to meet their burden,” Cruz told reporters on January 28. “They failed to demonstrate an impeachable offense. They didn’t even so much as allege that the president committed a crime. The Constitution requires ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.'”

Josh Hawley (R–Mo.)

“Democrats impeach[ed] the President without alleging a single crime,” Hawley complained on Twitter in December.

Ron Johnson (R–Wis.)

“When you talk about treason and bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” Johnson told reporters on January 22, “it really implies there has to be some kind of crime based on current law.”

John Kennedy (R–La.)

“I think this case is going to come down to the president’s intent—his motive,” Kennedy said in November on Face the Nation. “Did he have a culpable state of mind?” He conceded that a quid pro quo of military aid for a Ukrainian investigation aimed at discrediting one of Trump’s leading political rivals, if proven, “probably” would be impeachable.

Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.)

“I do not subscribe to the legal theory that impeachment requires a violation of a criminal statute,” McConnell, the Senate majority leader, said on the Senate floor yesterday.

Rob Portman (R–Ohio)

“There may be circumstances where a crime isn’t necessary for a president to be impeached,” Portman said in a New York Times op-ed piece published today.

Mitt Romney (Utah)

Romney, the only Republican senator who voted to convict Trump (on the first article of impeachment, alleging abuse of power), clearly rejected Dershowitz’s theory. “The president did in fact pressure a foreign government to corrupt our election process,” Romney said in an interview with The Atlantic. “Corrupting an election process in a democratic republic is about as abusive and egregious an act against the Constitution—and one’s oath—that I can imagine. It’s what autocrats do.”

Marco Rubio (R–Fla.)

“I reject the argument that ‘Abuse of Power’ can never constitute grounds for removal unless a crime or a crime-like action is alleged,” Rubio wrote in a January 31 Medium post.

Pat Toomey (R–Pa.)

“As you watch these proceedings in the House,” Toomey said during a December 6 speech in New York, “there’s one question that keeps coming up in my mind. And that is, ‘Where is the crime?'” In a press release yesterday, however, Toomey implied that a crime might not be required for impeachment: “While there’s debate about the precise meaning of ‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ it’s clear that impeachable conduct must be comparable to the serious offenses of treason and bribery.”

Roger Wicker (R–Miss.)

“I basically am in agreement with the very scholarly approach that Mr. Dershowitz took that there’s no article there that’s grounds for impeachment and removal,” Wicker told CNN on January 28.

Some of these statements are ambiguous. It’s not clear, for example, whether Blunt, Braun, and Wicker accepted all of Dershowitz’s arguments, or exactly what point Cornyn and Hawley thought they were making by emphasizing that the articles of impeachment did not allege specific crimes. But Cruz and Johnson clearly are promoting the idea that a president can be impeached only if he violates a criminal law. That position may prove inconvenient the next time a Democrat occupies the White House.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2H04BOw
via IFTTT

Podcast on the Blaine Amendments Case

For those who are interested, my colleague Marc DeGirolami and I have recorded a new episode for our Legal Spirits podcast series on last month’s oral argument in the Blaine Amendments case, Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue. The episode touches on a couple of issues that I didn’t address in my short VC post on the case last month, including the standing and mootness arguments that some of you mentioned in the comments. I don’t think those arguments will persuade a majority of the Justices, but Justice Kagan’s point about mootness (if that’s what it is) seems more powerful to me now than it did at first. Anyway, listeners can judge for themselves. Here’s the link.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2GZViOQ
via IFTTT