The head of Russia’s Anti-Terrorism Center has warned that terrorists are intentionally trying to spread the coronavirus, using it as a form of bio-weapon.
Andrei Novikov, head of Russia’s Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), told Russian state news agency Tass that the terrorists are using the health crisis to further their own agendas.
“While governments are trying to ensure health security, focusing on protecting the lives and health of their people, recruiters of international terrorist groups are not just taking advantage of the difficult situation in order to recruit more ‘Jihad soldiers,’ they are calling on infected members to spread COVID-19 as wide as possible in public places, state agencies and so on,” Novikov said.
The anti-terror chief also noted that terrorists have been hampered by lockdowns and so are finding other ways of recruiting and spreading fear.
“As the population started moving into self-isolation and borders between countries were closing, the level of terrorist activity had somewhat decreased,” Novikov said.
“The reason is obvious – it became significantly more difficult for terrorists to move around, especially between countries, given that border control as well as disease control and prevention were heightened,” he continued.
Novikov further added that online “Media centers were activated which combine the spread of terrorist and extremist ideology and the recruitment of new members.”
He stated that anti-terror efforts are now focusing more on stopping the spread of misinformation designed to induce societal collapse.
“Above all, they are linked to mobilization technologies to ensure public safety, to thwart the spread of unreliable information and any attempts to wreak panic and social tension,” Novikov asserted.
Interestingly, Novikov also claimed that terrorists are using resentment against government imposed lockdowns, as well as a “declining quality of life” in countries hit hardest by the coronavirus, to entice new recruits.
“There is a common understanding that the objective “social fatigue” should be separated from the restrictions introduced and its artificial amplification in order to destabilize the constitutional structure,” Novikov stated.
Kerchove warned that a “massive amount of money that will be spent to address the economic, social, and healthcare consequences of the virus” should not be taken away from national security spending.
“We must prevent the one crisis ending up producing another,” he urged.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31uPg44 Tyler Durden
Mysterious Explosion Reported In Northern Tehran Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/30/2020 – 12:54
Just a day after Tehran called for President Trump’s arrest, a mysterious explosion has been reported in the northern part of the capital city, with unconfirmed sources on US social media claiming it might be tied with a strike on an Iranian weapons depot.
Iranian state news reported the explosion, and an ensuing fire. It’s unclear whether the fire has been brought under control.
Footage of the aftermath is circulating on social media.
Leftists have slammed Interpol over its decision to reject Iran’s call for Trump’s arrest, though the administration and its special envoy for Iran dismissed it as pure lunacy and just another cheap publicity stunt from the Middle East’s largest pariah state.
The international police org Interpol claims to be neutral, but just exposed itself as another biased tool of Western imperialist countries, by immediately rejecting Iran’s request for arresting Trump for blatant crimes.
Notably, the explosion occurred one hour after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that the end of an Iranian arms embargo would threaten world peace.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2CQtq0x Tyler Durden
Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided U.S. Postal Service v. Postal Regulatory Commission. In an opinion for the court, Judge Thomas Griffith resolved a dispute between these two agencies, holding that the PRC could order disclosure of certain financial data related to the sending of mail from foreign countries to the United States via Inbound Letter Post.
If you’re like me, this case may seem a little odd, because one federal agency is suing another. It’s federal government versus federal government, but not in the context of an interbranch dispute. I am aware of this happening before, as when the Tennessee Valley Authority challenged the Environmental Protection Agency, but should this really be a thing? Should not an intrabranch dispute be resolved within that branch? Apparently not if one is an independent agency.
Judge Neomi Rao apparently had a similar thought. She concurred in Judge Griffith’s holding, but also wrote a separate brief concurrence, which I reproduce below.
I join the court’s opinion in full. I write separately to note the constitutional quandary
raised by a federal court resolving a lawsuit between two Executive Branch agencies. On one side of this dispute, we have the United States Postal Service—”an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States.” 39 U.S.C. § 201. On the other, we have the Postal Regulatory Commission—”an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States.” Id. § 501. Litigating on behalf of the Commission, the Department of Justice has taken sides in a disagreement between two Executive Branch entities tasked with oversight and administration of the nation’s mails.
This litigation stands in tension with Article II of the Constitution, which vests all executive power in the President and assigns him the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. CONST. art. II, §§ 1, 3. “Moreover, because agencies involved in intra-Executive Branch disputes are not adverse to one another (rather, they are both subordinate parts of a single organization headed by one CEO), such disputes do not appear to constitute a case or controversy for purposes of Article III.” SEC v. FLRA, 568 F.3d 990, 997 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). The Constitution
creates a unitary executive and limits federal courts to deciding the rights of individuals in properly presented cases and controversies. The posture of this case thus presents constitutional questions about the power of an Article III court to resolve a purely Article II dispute. The fact that Congress specifically created federal court jurisdiction between the Postal Service and the Commission, see 39 U.S.C. § 3663, does not necessarily eliminate the constitutional concern because Congress cannot expand federal court jurisdiction beyond the Article III judicial power. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Fla., 517 U.S. 44, 65 (1996) (citing Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch
137 (1803)).
Our precedents are clear, however, that such disputes between “independent” agencies, such as the Postal Service and the Commission, are justiciable. See SEC v. FLRA, 568 F.3d at 997 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (collecting cases); see also USPS v. Postal Regulatory Comm’n, 886 F.3d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Therefore, I join the court’s well-reasoned opinion in this case.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2NGyDds
via IFTTT
Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided U.S. Postal Service v. Postal Regulatory Commission. In an opinion for the court, Judge Thomas Griffith resolved a dispute between these two agencies, holding that the PRC could order disclosure of certain financial data related to the sending of mail from foreign countries to the United States via Inbound Letter Post.
If you’re like me, this case may seem a little odd, because one federal agency is suing another. It’s federal government versus federal government, but not in the context of an interbranch dispute. I am aware of this happening before, as when the Tennessee Valley Authority challenged the Environmental Protection Agency, but should this really be a thing? Should not an intrabranch dispute be resolved within that branch? Apparently not if one is an independent agency.
Judge Neomi Rao apparently had a similar thought. She concurred in Judge Griffith’s holding, but also wrote a separate brief concurrence, which I reproduce below.
I join the court’s opinion in full. I write separately to note the constitutional quandary
raised by a federal court resolving a lawsuit between two Executive Branch agencies. On one side of this dispute, we have the United States Postal Service—”an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States.” 39 U.S.C. § 201. On the other, we have the Postal Regulatory Commission—”an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States.” Id. § 501. Litigating on behalf of the Commission, the Department of Justice has taken sides in a disagreement between two Executive Branch entities tasked with oversight and administration of the nation’s mails.
This litigation stands in tension with Article II of the Constitution, which vests all executive power in the President and assigns him the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. CONST. art. II, §§ 1, 3. “Moreover, because agencies involved in intra-Executive Branch disputes are not adverse to one another (rather, they are both subordinate parts of a single organization headed by one CEO), such disputes do not appear to constitute a case or controversy for purposes of Article III.” SEC v. FLRA, 568 F.3d 990, 997 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). The Constitution
creates a unitary executive and limits federal courts to deciding the rights of individuals in properly presented cases and controversies. The posture of this case thus presents constitutional questions about the power of an Article III court to resolve a purely Article II dispute. The fact that Congress specifically created federal court jurisdiction between the Postal Service and the Commission, see 39 U.S.C. § 3663, does not necessarily eliminate the constitutional concern because Congress cannot expand federal court jurisdiction beyond the Article III judicial power. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Fla., 517 U.S. 44, 65 (1996) (citing Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch
137 (1803)).
Our precedents are clear, however, that such disputes between “independent” agencies, such as the Postal Service and the Commission, are justiciable. See SEC v. FLRA, 568 F.3d at 997 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (collecting cases); see also USPS v. Postal Regulatory Comm’n, 886 F.3d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Therefore, I join the court’s well-reasoned opinion in this case.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2NGyDds
via IFTTT
In 2014, Florida deputies shot and killed Jerry Dwight Brown during a small-scale drug bust. Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco said the deputies fired after Brown refused several orders to comply. The State Attorney’s Office cleared the deputies of any wrongdoing due to Brown’s alleged noncompliance. But last week, the Tampa Bay Times released a video of the shooting that challenges the department’s official story.
Brown was shot and killed on July 1, 2014. The 41-year-old inadvertently sold illegal prescription pills to an undercover deputy with Pasco County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO). The sting was part of a monthslong investigation into Brown. After the undercover deputy motioned for fellow deputies to move in and arrest Brown, the department claimed that they repeatedly ordered Brown to show his hands and shot him after he made a sudden movement.
Brown died at a hospital following the shooting. The department found that he was unarmed during the interaction.
The day after the shooting, Nocco told10 Tampa Bay, “When we are ordering commands to show me your hands, when we are telling somebody they need to comply and they make motions that are not, and make our detectives feel their lives are being threatened you have a millisecond to make a decision.”
The sheriff’s office provided Reason with a redacted version of the video from the drug bust. In the video, an undercover deputy interacts with Brown outside of Big Ben’s Tires in Zephyrhills. He urges Brown to enter the vehicle to make the sale. A reluctant Brown does so, takes the pills out, and begins to count at the undercover deputy’s request.
Armed deputies then approach the car and the video skips 11 seconds. When the video picks up again, the deputies are pointing guns and surrounding the vehicle.
On Friday, almost exactly six years after the shooting, the Tampa Bay Timesreleased the redacted portion of the video.
Several deputies approach the side of the vehicle and begin to shout various commands at Brown. Brown tries to open the passenger door. The deputies shoot through the windshield and Brown screams. Fewer than five seconds pass from the moment the deputies issue their commands to the time the bullets puncture the windshield.
PCSO told Reason that the video, which they did not provide to the Tampa Bay Times—the paper obtained it independently—was released “in direct violation of a Florida State Statute that was in place at the time the video was recorded.” The older statuteto which the department is referring exempted recordings depicting the “killing of a person” from the public record. (The language in the statute was narrowed in 2016 to exempt recordings depicting the killing of a law enforcement officer on duty from the public record.)
The department also told Reason that they did not start using body cameras until 2015, and thus have no footage from the incident, nor are they able to provide an original copy of a press release regarding the 2014 incident.
Brown’s death sparked some protests in the area in 2014 but has otherwise flown under the radar, receiving little national attention.
In February, the department reached a $262,500 settlement with Brown’s widow but did not admit liability. In its report on the redacted video, the Tampa Bay Times said the deputies responsible for the killing are still employed by PCSO.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3gawfrN
via IFTTT
I’m inclined to support properly crafted three strikes laws, especially for cases like this; and the court seems to be quite right that the trial judge’s decision is unsound under the California three strikes law. On the other hand, I know that others think that such heavy recidivism enhancements are improper, and that five years would be a sound sentence for a crime such as this one, regardless of the defendant’s past criminal history. (Still others might think that five years is too long, given that the victim managed to prevent being physically injured.)
What do you think? Here are the facts and some of the reasoning from People v. Mayfield, decided last week by the California Court of Appeal (in an opinion by Justice William Bedsworth, joined by Justices Richard Fybel and David Thompson):
The members of this panel have enjoyed long careers in the practice of law. We’ve seen enough to make it difficult to shock us. But not, as it turns out, impossible.
Respondent Tyson Theodore Mayfield has an extensive criminal record that includes multiple acts of violence against racial minorities. In this case, he threatened to make a pregnant African-American woman “drop” her unborn baby while she was waiting at a bus station. As a third-strike defendant, respondent was facing a mandatory prison sentence of 25 years to life. However, the trial court [Judge Roger B. Robbins] dismissed one of his prior strike convictions in the interest of justice under Penal Code section 1385 and sentenced him to five years in prison.
The district attorney contends the dismissal constitutes an abuse of discretion, and we agree. Completely. Everything about respondent’s crime and his record shouts for application of the Three Strikes law….
Jasmine C. is an African-American woman who was eight months pregnant in September of 2018. That day, she was waiting at the Fullerton bus station for her boyfriend to pick her up when she heard respondent talking nearby. He was telling his two male companions how he hates “niggers” like Jasmine and “gets his kicks” by hurting pregnant black women. He also asked his cohorts if they wanted to see him go over to Jasmine and make her “drop her baby.”
Jasmine became frightened. Her anxiety increased even more when respondent walked over to her and said, “I don’t like pregnant niggers like you,” “I’m going to make sure you drop your baby.” Jasmine told respondent to stay away from her, but he continued to hurl racial epithets at her. Fearing for her safety, and the safety of her unborn baby, Jasmine took out her pepper spray and sprayed respondent with it.
In response, respondent grabbed Jasmine’s backpack and left the scene momentarily. He then came running back toward her with his fists balled up and told her, “You’re going to pay now, you nigger, I’m going to make sure you really drop this baby.”
By now, Jasmine was so terrified her body was shaking uncontrollably. She somehow managed to run to a nearby café and call the police before respondent was able to carry out his threat. Officers arrived a short time later and took him into custody.
He was charged with committing a hate crime by threatening Jasmine for the purpose of violating her constitutional rights and with the present ability to commit a violent injury or cause actual physical injury. The complaint also alleged one count each of making a criminal threat and petty theft. And it included a sentence enhancement allegation that the criminal threat constituted a hate crime.
In addition, the complaint alleged two prior strike convictions, two prior serious felony convictions and two prior prison terms. Those six recidivist enhancements were based on respondent’s convictions for assault with a deadly weapon in 2005 and mayhem in 2008….
All told, respondent was facing a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life in prison under the Three Strikes law, plus 13 years for the remaining enhancements. At his arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and over the course of the next several months, his preliminary hearing was continued several times to facilitate a plea bargain. During that period, respondent was unable to reach a plea agreement with the district attorney. However, the trial judge indicated he would be willing to strike one of respondent’s prior strike convictions and sentence him as a second-strike offender to five years in prison if he pleaded guilty to the charges.
The prosecution vehemently opposed this proposed disposition. On March 15, 2019, it filed a lengthy sentencing brief arguing the interests of justice did not support the trial judge’s indicated sentence. According to the brief, respondent was convicted of 18 offenses during the 20-year period leading up his current crimes in 2018[:] {1997: Driving under the influence; 2000: Driving with a suspended license; 2003: Battering a police office, resisting arrest and using illegal drugs; 2004: Petty theft and disorderly conduct; 2005: Assault with a deadly weapon; 2006: Failure to appear in court; 2007: Assault and battery; 2008: Mayhem and battery with serious bodily injury; 2016: Driving under the influence; 2017: Hate crime, assault, battery, and driving under the influence.} Eighteen—a remarkable number considering how much of those 20 years he spent in custody.
Most of these earlier convictions were for misdemeanors. However, in 2003, respondent was convicted of felony battery on a police officer, and in 2005, he suffered his first strike conviction for stabbing a man outside a liquor store. Respondent had no prior relationship with the man he stabbed. He just walked up to him, accused him of being a child rapist/murderer and slashed his face with a knife. Respondent received a two-year prison sentence for the attack. However, following his release from prison, he soon reoffended.
In 2006, respondent and a companion contacted a nonwhite couple at a gas station and asked them if they had any spare change. When the woman said no, respondent began making racist statements to her. Then he began punching the man in the face and did not relent until a bystander intervened. In the end, the man suffered a lacerated lip that required eight stitches and for a time hindered his ability to speak and eat. Respondent was convicted of battery with serious bodily injury and mayhem—his second strike conviction—and sentenced to nine years in prison.
That was in 2008. Following his release from prison, respondent was quickly convicted for drunk driving. And in 2017, one year before the instant case arose, he reoffended yet again. The victim in that case was a Turkish man with dark skin and dreadlocks. Respondent approached him outside a liquor store and asked for a light. When the man said he didn’t smoke, respondent called him a “fucking nigger” and began pounding him with his fists. The incident led to respondent being convicted of a felony hate crime, but the trial court inexplicably reduced the conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b) and sentenced him to a year in jail.
In addition to providing this information about respondent’s prior cases, the prosecution’s sentencing brief noted respondent has consistently violated the terms of his probation and parole throughout the years. The brief also reminded the court respondent presently had four misdemeanor cases pending against him that were unrelated to the present case. One of those cases was for punching a fellow inmate at the Orange County jail without provocation. Respondent boasted to jail authorities that he was not going to cease his violent behavior while in custody so long as he was forced to have contact with other inmates.
Given respondent’s violent and racist conduct over the past two decades, including his actions in the present case, the prosecution’s brief argued he was a threat to public safety and deserved to be incarcerated for an indeterminate life term pursuant to the Three Strikes law. Nevertheless, the trial judge stood by his indicated sentence of five years, which predictably prompted respondent to change his plea to guilty….
The trial judge exercised his discretion under section 1385, and struck respondent’s 2005 strike conviction in the interest of justice for the following reasons: 1) the circumstances surrounding the current offense “do not indicate a greater degree of danger to society[,]” 2) “[t]here was no injury to any person[,]” 3) “[t]here was no weapon used[,]” 4) respondent’s prior strike conviction is “14 years old and now remote in time,” and 5) respondent was pleading guilty at an early stage of the proceedings.
The judge sentenced respondent to a prison term of five years, representing the requisite double the two-year midterm on the criminal threats count, plus one year for the hate crime enhancement attendant to that count. In so doing, the judge not only struck respondent’s 2005 conviction for purposes of the Three Strikes law, he also struck all of the prior serious felony and prior prison term enhancements. Sentencing on the remaining two counts was stayed pending the completion of respondent’s five-year term. So a defendant with 38 years’ exposure who had been sentenced to 9 years for his previous felony, got 5 years for this one….
In reviewing this decision, we must keep in mind the Three Strikes law is designed to “punish repeat criminal offenders severely” and “drastically curtail a sentencing court’s ability to reduce the severity of a sentence by eliminating alternatives to prison incarceration[.]” To that end, the law mandates the imposition of a 25-year-to-life prison sentence in cases—such as this one—where the defendant is convicted of a serious or violent felony and has previously been convicted of two such felonies. In other words, “If, after having suffered two qualifying felony convictions, an offender commits a third qualifying felony, the Three Strikes law presumes he or she is incorrigible and requires a life sentence.
That doesn’t mean trial courts are powerless to deviate from the Three Strikes law. Under section 1385, the trial court is empowered to strike a prior strike conviction “in the furtherance of justice.” However, that great power should only be used in “extraordinary” circumstances, when the ends of justice demand it….
What … we find considerable here is that racism and misanthropy are motives that are not likely to diminish or disappear. A defendant who boasts about his fights with other inmates and has a long and depressing history of random violence is not likely to emerge from whatever portion of five years his sentence requires him to serve with a thoughtful and pacific approach to his fellow man….
Respondent was also given a tremendous break in 2017 when the court reduced his felony hate crime to a misdemeanor. This enabled him to avoid the imposition of a lengthy prison sentence at that time. {The record does not reflect how in the world that happened.} Yet, before the dust settled on that case, he went out and committed another hate crime, against Jasmine. His unrelenting criminal behavior since suffering his first strike conviction in 2005 demonstrates him to be an unchanged man, with a stubborn character and no discernible prospects for reform….
All of this convinces us the trial court abused its discretion in offering him a reduced sentence…. The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded to permit respondent to withdraw his guilty plea and plead anew.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2BozkFY
via IFTTT
Foreign groups that receive American funding to fight HIV and AIDS must still pledge to oppose sex work, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of the requirement. A similar requirement for U.S. nonprofits was struck down as unconstitutional in 2013.
In the recent case, United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., U.S. groups whose international affiliates must still abide by the rule sought to have it overturned, too, arguing that compelling anti-prostitution speech from these foreign affiliates was attributed to the American groups and therefore violated their First Amendment rights.
But in a 5-3 decision, the Court rejected their plea.
“In short, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the majority’s opinion. While anti-prostitution statements “may be incorrectly attributed to the American organizations,” these groups “are free to choose whether to affiliate with foreign organizations and are free to disclaim agreement with the foreign affiliates’ required statement of policy.”
Also siding in favor of the law were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case.
In a dissenting opinion, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor suggest that the court “asks the wrong question and gives the wrong answer. This case is not about the First Amendment rights of foreign organizations. It is about—and has always been about—the First Amendment rights of American organizations.”
“The last time this case came before us,” writes Breyer, “we held that the First Amendment forbids the Government from distorting their speech by requiring, as a condition of receiving federal funds, that they ‘pledge allegiance’ to a state-sponsored message. This time, the question is whether the American organizations enjoy that same constitutional protection against government-compelled distortion when they speak through clearly identified affiliates that have been incorporated overseas. The answer to that question, as I see it, is yes.”
“Just as compelling a clearly identified domestic affiliate to espouse a government message distorts respondents’ own protected speech, so too does compelling a
clearly identified foreign affiliate to espouse the same government message,” adds Breyer, rejecting the majority’s suggestion that American affiliates suffered no harm by simply contradicting the compelled messages put forth by foreign affiliates.
“When the Government demands as a condition of federal funding that their clearly identified affiliate ‘espouse a specific belief as its own,’ respondents may express a contrary view through some other corporate channel only on pain of appearing
hypocritical,” he writes. “Leveraging Congress’ Article I spending power to distort respondents’ protected speech in this way therefore violates respondents’ First Amendment rights—whatever else might be said about the affiliate’s own First
Amendment rights (or asserted lack thereof ).”
It’s easy to imagine the conservative justices in this case coming to the same conclusion as Breyer if the compelled speech were of a different variety.
Republicans have (rightfully) objected to, for instance, a California law compelling crisis pregnancy centers that oppose abortion to display messages about where women could get an abortion. Would that suddenly be OK if the California centers themselves were excluded but any international anti-abortion groups they partnered with to help pregnant women in need were still compelled to advertise abortion services?
It’s interesting to note that in 2018 when the Supreme Court decided that California’s compelled speech law was indeed unconstitutional, Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts all agreed with that assessment. Meanwhile, the three justices now opposing the prostitution pledge on First Amendment grounds—Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor—all said that California’s crisis pregnancy center speech law should be upheld.
Wouldn’t it be nice if our Supreme Court justices could maintain the same respect for free speech and the First Amendment regardless of what subject that speech was about?
For now, however, it looks like the only way to remedy America’s rule requiring groups to denounce prostitution is for Congress to once again take up the issue.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3g9G7ly
via IFTTT
If the elite really do intend to use COVID-19 to fundamentally transform our society, they are going to need to continue to find ways to make it sound a lot more scary than it really is. Over the past couple of weeks, we have been endlessly barraged with news stories that boldly declare that “the second wave” is here, and now we are being told that this coronavirus is “10 times more infectious” than it was when it first started spreading in China. And we are also being told that COVID-19 “causes infected human cells to sprout tentacles loaded with viral venom to help it spread around the body”. All of that definitely sounds quite frightening, and over the past couple of weeks a lot of people have really been freaking out as the number of confirmed cases has surged.
But it has become clear that this virus is not going to kill more than 50 million people like the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 to 1920 did.
So far, the death toll from this virus has surpassed half a million, and more will keep dying every day. However, we need to keep in mind that millions of people die from various diseases every single year. According to the WHO, the flu kills between 290,000 and 650,000 people each year, but we don’t shut down everything because of that.
Yes, COVID-19 is more serious than the flu. But there is absolutely no reason that it should be paralyzing our society at this point.
If millions upon millions of people were suddenly dropping dead all over the globe, avoiding this virus would be a matter of survival. That is not the scenario that we are currently facing, and we need people to understand that.
Someday a pandemic will come along which will be that serious, but as far as COVID-19 is concerned, fear of the virus has been even worse than the virus itself.
Sadly, the mainstream media continues to drum up more fear every chance they get. For example, the following is from a Washington Post article that discussed how a mutant form of COVID-19 has now become the dominant strain here in the U.S. and around the rest of the globe…
When the first coronavirus cases in Chicago appeared in January, they bore the same genetic signatures as a germ that emerged in China weeks before.
But as Egon Ozer, an infectious-disease specialist at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, examined the genetic structure of virus samples from local patients, he noticed something different.
A change in the virus was appearing again and again. This mutation, associated with outbreaks in Europe and New York, eventually took over the city. By May, it was found in 95 percent of all the genomes Ozer sequenced.
According to the Daily Mail, scientists are telling us that as a result of this mutation COVID-19 “appears to be approximately 10 times more infectious” than when it originally appeared…
A genetic mutation which scientists around the world have been picking up on for months appears to have caused this spike to be less likely to snap, and also to force the coronaviruses to produce more of them to make itself more infectious.
As a result the virus appears to be approximately 10 times more infectious than it was when it first jumped to humans in China at the end of the year, scientists say.
If I didn’t know better, I would definitely be deeply alarmed to read something like that.
“The worst is yet to come,” WHO’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said on a call with reporters from Geneva. “I’m sorry to say that. But with this kind of environment and condition, we fear the worst.”
We should all be able to agree that more people are going to get sick and more people are going to die.
Now that this virus has spread all over the planet, there is zero chance of containing it. Eventually, almost everyone will be exposed to this virus, and a lot of people will not be able to fight it off successfully.
But of course the same thing could be said about the flu. One of more strains of the flu will sweep across the world this year, and hundreds of thousands of people will die.
Yes, we will be facing a truly catastrophic pandemic at some point, but this is not it.
Unfortunately our mainstream media is only interested in pushing the “party line.” So the good news that millions more have been exposed while the fatality rate continues to decline – meaning the virus is getting weaker – is buried under hysterical false reporting of “new cases.”
Unfortunately many governors, including our own here in Texas, are incapable of resisting the endless lies of the mainstream media. They are putting Americans again through the nightmare of forced business closures, mandated face masks, and restrictions of Constitutional liberties based on false propaganda.
In Texas the “second wave” propaganda has gotten so bad that the leaders of the four major hospitals in Houston took the extraordinary step late last week of holding a joint press conference to clarify that the scare stories of Houston hospitals being overwhelmed with Covid cases are simply untrue. Dr. Marc Boom of Houston Methodist said the reporting on hospital capacity is misleading. He said, “quite frankly, we’re concerned that there is a level of alarm in the community that is unwarranted right now.”
The more the mainstream media keeps spreading unwarranted fear, the more people will be afraid of resuming their normal activities.
For example, one recent survey found that 64 percent of Americans are “uncomfortable” returning to church because of this pandemic…
The American Enterprise Institute conducted a poll of 3,504 Americans from late May to early June, asking them about their comfort levels on returning to church.
Among respondents, 64% said they were either “somewhat uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” with returning to in-person church services.
Needless to say, this pandemic also continues to paralyze economic activity, and we continue to see more than a million Americans file new claims for unemployment benefits every single week.
If our society cannot handle a pandemic that kills hundreds of thousands of people, what in the world is going to happen when a pandemic comes along that kills tens of millions?
The good news is that COVID-19 didn’t turn out to be as bad as some of the experts were originally projecting, but don’t allow that to lull you into a false sense of security.
This pandemic turned out to be mostly fear, but it is just a matter of time before a much more deadly bug hits us.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Bfxvez Tyler Durden
Watch Live: Powell & Mnuchin Explain To Congress How They Saved The ‘Economy’ Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/30/2020 – 12:20
The Treasury Secretary and Fed chair will discuss their approach to rescuing the economy at a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Tuesday.
We suspect the two will have somewhat different views of the way ahead with Mnuchin signaling confidence in the v-shaped recovery and Powell continuing to stress unprecedented uncertainty.
Both will likely agree that their efforts saved the ‘economy’ (and by economy, we mean the stock market)…
Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, and other members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today to discuss the extraordinary challenges our nation is facing and the steps we are taking to address them.
We meet as the pandemic continues to cause tremendous hardship, taking lives and livelihoods both at home and around the world. This is a global public health crisis, and we remain grateful to our health-care professionals for delivering the most important response, and to our essential workers who help us meet our daily needs. These dedicated people put themselves at risk day after day in service to others and to our country.
Beginning in March, the virus and the forceful measures taken to control its spread induced a sharp decline in economic activity and a surge in job losses. Indicators of spending and production plummeted in April, and the decline in real gross domestic product, or GDP, in the second quarter is likely to be the largest on record. The arrival of the pandemic gave rise to tremendous strains in some essential financial markets, impairing the flow of credit in the economy and threatening an even greater weakening of economic activity and loss of jobs.
The crisis was met by swift and forceful policy action across the government, including the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). This direct support is making a critical difference not just in helping families and businesses in a time of need, but also in limiting long-lasting damage to our economy.
As the economy reopens, incoming data are beginning to reflect a resumption of economic activity: Many businesses are opening their doors, hiring is picking up, and spending is increasing. Employment moved higher, and consumer spending rebounded strongly in May. We have entered an important new phase and have done so sooner than expected. While this bounceback in economic activity is welcome, it also presents new challenges—notably, the need to keep the virus in check.
While recent economic data offer some positive signs, we are keeping in mind that more than 20 million Americans have lost their jobs, and that the pain has not been evenly spread. The rise in joblessness has been especially severe for lower-wage workers, for women, and for African Americans and Hispanics. This reversal of economic fortune has caused a level of pain that is hard to capture in words as lives are upended amid great uncertainty about the future.
Output and employment remain far below their pre-pandemic levels. The path forward for the economy is extraordinarily uncertain and will depend in large part on our success in containing the virus.A full recovery is unlikely until people are confident that it is safe to reengage in a broad range of activities.
The path forward will also depend on the policy actions taken at all levels of government to provide relief and to support the recovery for as long as needed.
The Federal Reserve’s response to these extraordinary developments has been guided by our mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the American people as well as our role in fostering the stability of the financial system. Our actions and programs directly support the flow of credit to households, to businesses of all sizes, and to state and local governments. These programs benefit Main Street by providing financing where it is not otherwise available, helping employers to keep their workers, and allowing consumers to continue spending. In many cases, by serving as a backstop to key financial markets, the programs help increase the willingness of private lenders to extend credit and ease financial conditions for families and businesses across the country. The passage of the CARES Act by Congress was critical in enabling the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department to establish many of these lending programs. We are strongly committed to using these programs, as well as our other tools, to do what we can to provide stability, to ensure that the recovery will be as strong as possible, and to limit lasting damage to the economy.
In discussing the actions we have taken, I will begin with monetary policy. In March, we lowered our policy interest rate to near zero, and we expect to maintain interest rates at this level until we are confident that the economy has weathered recent events and is on track to achieve our maximum-employment and price-stability goals.
In addition to these steps, we took forceful measures in four areas: open market operations to restore market functioning; actions to improve liquidity conditions in short-term funding markets; programs, in coordination with the Treasury Department, to facilitate more directly the flow of credit to households, businesses, and state and local governments; and measures to encourage banks to use their substantial capital and liquidity buffers built up over the past decade to support the economy during this difficult time.
Let me now turn to our open market operations. As tensions and uncertainty rose in mid-March, investors moved rapidly toward cash and shorter-term government securities, and the markets for Treasury securities and agency mortgage-backed securities, or MBS, started to experience strains. These markets are critical to the overall functioning of the financial system and to the transmission of monetary policy to the broader economy. In response, the Federal Open Market Committee purchased Treasury securities and agency MBS in the amounts needed to support smooth market functioning. With these purchases, market conditions improved substantially, and in early April we began to gradually reduce our pace of purchases. To sustain smooth market functioning and thereby foster the effective transmission of monetary policy to broader financial conditions, we will increase our holdings of Treasury securities and agency MBS over the coming months at least at the current pace. We will closely monitor developments and are prepared to adjust our plans as appropriate to support our goals.
Amid the tensions and uncertainties of mid-March and as a more adverse outlook for the economy took hold, investors exhibited greater risk aversion and pulled away from longer-term and riskier assets as well as from some money market mutual funds. To help stabilize short-term funding markets, we lengthened the term and lowered the rate on discount window loans to depository institutions. The Board also established, with the approval of the Treasury Department, the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF) under our emergency lending authority in section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. Under the PDCF, the Federal Reserve provides loans against good collateral to primary dealers that are critical intermediaries in short-term funding markets. Similar to the large-scale purchases of Treasury securities and agency MBS that I mentioned earlier, this facility helps restore normal market functioning.
In addition, under section 13(3) and together with the Treasury Department, we set up the Commercial Paper Funding Facility, or CPFF, and the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility, or MMLF. Millions of Americans put their savings into these markets, and employers use them to secure short-term funding to meet payroll and support their operations. Both of these facilities have equity provided by the Treasury Department to protect the Federal Reserve from losses. After the announcement and implementation of these facilities, indicators of market functioning in commercial paper and other short-term funding markets improved substantially, and rapid outflows from prime and tax-exempt money market funds stopped.
In mid-March, offshore U.S. dollar funding markets also came under stress. In response, the Federal Reserve and several other central banks announced the expansion and enhancement of dollar liquidity swap lines. In addition, the Federal Reserve introduced a new temporary Treasury repurchase agreement facility for foreign monetary authorities. These actions helped stabilize global U.S. dollar funding markets, and they continue to support the smooth functioning of U.S. Treasury and other financial markets as well as U.S. economic conditions.
As it became clear the pandemic would significantly disrupt economies around the world, markets for longer-term debt also faced strains. The cost of borrowing rose sharply for those issuing corporate bonds, municipal debt, and asset-backed securities (ABS) backed by consumer and small business loans. In effect, creditworthy households, businesses, and state and local governments were unable to borrow at reasonable rates and other terms, which would have further reduced economic activity. In addition, small and medium-sized businesses that traditionally rely on bank lending faced large increases in their funding needs as measures taken to contain the spread of the virus forced them to temporarily close or limit operations, substantially curtailing revenues.
To support the longer-term financing that is critical to economic activity, the Federal Reserve, in cooperation with the Department of the Treasury and using equity provided for that purpose under the CARES Act, announced a number of emergency lending facilities under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. These facilities are designed to ensure that credit would flow to borrowers and thus support economic activity.
On March 23, the Board announced that it would support consumer and business lending by establishing the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF). The TALF is authorized to extend up to $100 billion in loans and is backed by $10 billion in CARES Act equity. This facility lends against top-rated securities backed by auto loans, credit card loans, other consumer and business loans, commercial mortgage-backed securities, and other assets. The TALF supports credit access by consumers and businesses and provides liquidity to the broader ABS market. The facility made its first loans on June 25, and, to date, has extended $252 million in loans to eligible borrowers. Since the TALF was announced, ABS spreads have contracted significantly. Thus, the facility might be used relatively little and mainly serve as a backstop, assuring lenders that they will have access to funding and giving them the confidence to make loans to households and businesses.
To support the credit needs of large employers, the Federal Reserve also established the Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF) and the Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF). These facilities primarily purchase bonds issued by U.S. companies that were investment grade on March 22, 2020. The two facilities have a combined purchase capacity of up to $750 billion and are backed by $75 billion in CARES Act equity. Final terms and operational details on the PMCCF were announced on June 29, and it stands ready to purchase newly issued corporate bonds and syndicated loans, serving as a backstop for businesses seeking to refinance their existing credit or obtain new funding. The SMCCF buys outstanding corporate bonds and shares in corporate bond exchange-traded funds (ETFs) to facilitate smooth functioning of the secondary market. The SMCCF complements the PMCCF, because improvements in secondary-market functioning associated with the SMCCF facilitate access by companies to bond and loan markets on reasonable terms. The SMCCF launched with ETF purchases on May 12. Earlier this month, the facility began gradually reducing purchases of ETFs as it started buying a broad and diversified portfolio of individual corporate bonds to more directly support smooth functioning and market liquidity in the secondary market. Purchase volumes are tied to market functioning and are currently at very low levels. The facility currently holds a total of about $10 billion in bonds and ETF shares.
Following the announcement of the two corporate credit facilities in late March, conditions in the corporate bond market improved significantly. Credit spreads on investment-grade bonds retraced much of the widening experienced in February and March, and issuance in the primary market rebounded strongly. In the secondary market, liquidity also improved, and by mid-April, flows out of mutual funds and ETFs specializing in corporate bonds reversed.
The Federal Reserve also launched the Main Street Lending Program, which is designed to provide loans to small and medium-sized businesses that were in good financial standing before the pandemic; such firms generally are dependent on bank lending for credit because they are too small to tap bond markets directly. Under the Main Street program, banks originate new loans or increase the size of existing loans to eligible businesses and sell loan participations to the Federal Reserve. The facility is backed by $75 billion in CARES Act equity and can purchase up to $600 billion in loan participations. The Federal Reserve has published all of the legal documents that borrowers and lenders will need to sign under the program and lender registration began on June 15. Loan participations will be purchased soon. Additionally, the Federal Reserve recently sought feedback on a proposal to expand the Main Street program to include loans made to small and medium-sized nonprofit organizations, such as hospitals and universities. Nonprofits provide vital services around the country, and the program would likewise offer them support.
While businesses in certain sectors that were particularly hard hit by the pandemic have reported continued difficulty in accessing credit, the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which draws from existing bank lines, has apparently met the immediate credit needs of many small businesses. In the months ahead, Main Street loans may prove a valuable resource for firms that were in sound financial condition prior to the pandemic.
To bolster the effectiveness of the Small Business Administration’s PPP, on April 16, the Federal Reserve launched the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility. The facility supplies liquidity to lenders backed by their PPP loans to small businesses and has the capacity to lend up to the full amount of the PPP. As of last week, the facility held over $65 billion in outstanding term loans to participating financial institutions. The most recent monthly survey from the National Federation of Independent Business released in May indicates that small businesses have been able to meet their funding needs in recent months largely due to the PPP.
To help state and local governments better manage cash flow pressures in order to continue to serve households and businesses in their communities, the Federal Reserve, together with the Treasury Department, established the Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF). The MLF is backed by $35 billion of CARES Act equity and has the capacity to purchase up to $500 billion of short-term debt directly from U.S. states, counties, cities, and certain multistate entities. The facility became operational on May 26, and, to date, the MLF has purchased $1.2 billion worth of short-term municipal debt. With the MLF and other facilities in place as a backstop to the private market, many parts of the municipal bond market have significantly recovered from the unprecedented stress experienced earlier this year. Municipal bond yields have declined considerably, issuance has been robust over the past two months, and market conditions have improved
The tools that the Federal Reserve is using under its 13(3) authority are for times of emergency, such as the ones we have been living through. When economic and financial conditions improve, we will put these tools back in the toolbox.
The final area where we took steps was in bank regulation. The Board made several adjustments, many temporary, to encourage banks to use their positions of strength to support households and businesses. Unlike the 2008 financial crisis, banks entered this period with substantial capital and liquidity buffers and improved risk-management and operational resiliency. As a result, they have been well positioned to cushion the financial shocks we are seeing. In contrast to the 2008 crisis when banks pulled back from lending and amplified the economic shock, in this crisis they have greatly expanded loans to customers and have helped support the economy.
The Federal Reserve has been entrusted with an important mission, and we have taken unprecedented steps in very rapid fashion over the past few months. In doing so, we embrace our responsibility to the American people to be as transparent as possible. With regard to the facilities backed by equity from the CARES Act, we have conducted broad outreach and sought public input that has been crucial in their development. For example, in response to comments received, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve have made a number of changes to expand the scope of the Main Street Lending Program to cover a broader range of borrowers and to increase the flexibility of loan terms. And we are now disclosing and will continue to disclose, on a monthly basis, names and details of participants in each facility; amounts borrowed and interest rate charged; and overall costs, revenues, and fees for each of these facilities.
We recognize that our actions are only part of a broader public-sector response. Congress’s passage of the CARES Act was critical in enabling the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department to establish many of the lending programs. The CARES Act and other legislation provide direct help to people, businesses, and communities. This direct support can make a critical difference not just in helping families and businesses in a time of need, but also in limiting long-lasting damage to our economy. We understand that the work of the Federal Reserve touches communities, families, and businesses across the country. Everything we do is in service to our public mission. We are committed to using our full range of tools to support the economy and to help assure that the recovery from this difficult period will be as robust as possible.
Thank you. I’d be happy to take your questions.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2YMIAMW Tyler Durden
Buried In All The Sensational “Russian Bounty” Headlines: Intel Chiefs Back White House Position Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/30/2020 – 12:01
A group of Congressional Democrats will be briefed at the White House Tuesday in response to ongoing accusations that Trump was made aware of but ignored what The New York Times described last Friday as a Russian military intelligence operation that sought to kill American troops in Afghanistan by issuing bounties to Taliban fighters.
This following a Monday briefing of at least seven Republican lawmakers, also as both Republican and Democratic leaders demand answers and full briefings from the CIA and Pentagon. Crucially it remains, however, that the White House and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have firmly rejected that the president was ever briefed.
On Saturday Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said in a statement that he had “confirmed that neither the President nor the Vice President were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting.”
CIA Director Gina Haspel with Trump, via AP.
And Trump said further in a Saturday night tweet: “Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or VP.”
A carefully worded and to be expected somewhat vague Monday evening statement from CIA Director Gina Haspel appeared to vindicate the White House’s assertion of lack of credible intelligence behind it. Essentially the CIA director seemed to reference the danger of “cherry-picking” from lower level unvetted raw information.
“When developing intelligence assessments, initial tactical reports often require additional collection and validation,” Haspel said.
“Leaks compromise and disrupt the critical interagency work to collect, assess, and ascribe culpability,” she added, strongly suggesting that indeed there was not enough to go on concerning the Russian bounty allegations for it to rise to the level of the commander-in-chief.
Translation from CIA director’s intelligence-speak: there is no confirmed intelligence to support the sensationalized story based on one initial report — which makes little sense — of Russians bribing Taliban to kill U.S. troops. https://t.co/rB5kERtsg0
A number of pundits took this as a clear denial that there was anything significant or worthy of briefing the president on regarding alleged “Russian bounties”— meaning it was likely deemed “chatter” or unsubstantiated rumor picked up either by US or British intelligence — and subsequently leaked to the press to revive the pretty much dead Russiagate narrative of some level of “Trump-Putin collusion”.
Still, Congress wants answers in what’s already indeed looking like a revived Russiagate scenario conveniently timed for the outrage machine to kick into full gear just ahead of the November election.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said: “If the reports are true, that the administration knew about this Russian operation and did nothing, they have broken the trust of those who serve and the commitment to their families to ensure their loved one’s safety,” according to The Hill. “It is imperative that the House Armed Services Committee receive detailed answers from the Department of Defense.”
The media just discovered that American troops have been dying in Afghanistan for 19 years because this week there’s an anti-Trump angle.
And of course newly minted “resistance hero” John Bolton, busy with a media blitz promoting his book, made statements to NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday stating his belief that the president was likely briefed on the matter. The former national security adviser called the Trump denial “remarkable” — enough to grab headlines.
But considering his careful, ambiguous remarks, it’s clear that belief is the operative word here:
“He can disown everything if no-one ever told him about it,” Bolton said… “It looks like just another day in the office at the Trump White House.”
Bolton said he didn’t know the quality of the intelligence on the Russian bounty plan, or the extent of it. And not all information that flows through the many U.S. intelligence agencies is passed on to the commander in chief, Bolton noted.
“There needs to be a filter of intelligence for any president, especially for this president,” he said.
“Active Russian aggression like that against American servicemen is a very, very serious matter,” Bolton added.
So at this point we are still merely at the level of “impossible to verify or confirm anything”, despite the major outlets behind the original story, namely the NY Times and Washington Post, claiming to have “confirmed” each other’s reporting.
* * *
Meanwhile, speaking of America’s longest war, does anyone at all of Capitol Hill remember this actual confirmed and exhaustively documented story?
Dubious spy-sourced #BountyGate story getting WAY more traction than WaPo’s bombshell Afghanistan Papers last December, exposing DC conspiracy of lies to keep their disastrous war going. That deeply-reported story vanished w/out consequences. https://t.co/i4uAsDC4Bt
