A prominent Oxford epidemiologist has reportedly called for a more rapid exit from Britain’s lockdown, saying the coronavirus pandemic is “on its way out” of Britain after infecting as much as half the population.
Professor Sunetra Gupta says there would be a “strong possibility” that pubs, nightclubs and restaurants in Britain could reopen without serious risk from Covid-19.
The professor of theoretical epidemiology at the University of Oxford said the UK had most likely erred on the side of over-reaction in its handling of the crisis, suggesting imposing the lockdown itself was one such misstep.
Prof Gupta told unherd.com the Government had brought in the lockdown based on the worst-case scenario modelling of the Imperial College London.
In March, Imperial College’s workings suggested Covid-19 had a deaths-to-cases ratio of as high as 1.4%, reducing to 0.66% when allowing for undiagnosed cases.
Prof Gupta’s Oxford team produced a rival model, also in March, speculating as much as 50% of Britain’s population may have already been infected, and suggesting an infection fatality rate as low as 0.1%, which she says would be far lower now.
Asked for her updated ratio, Prof Gupta said the epidemic had “largely come and is on its way out in this country” and that the rate would be “definitely less than one in 1000 and probably closer to one in 10,000”, or between 0.1% and 0.01%.
Prof Gupta said the Government’s defence of the lockdown was that it was based on a plausible, “or at least a possible”, worst case scenario.
“The question is, should we act on a possible worst case scenario, given the costs of lockdown?
“It seems to me that given that the costs of lockdown are mounting, that case is becoming more and more fragile,” she said.
Prof Gupta called for a “more rapid exits from lockdown” based on factors such as “who is dying and what is happening to the death rates”.
She said it was feasible Britain could have fared better with the Covid-19 crisis by doing “nothing at all” or at least by concentrating on protecting the people most vulnerable to the disease.
“Remaining in a state of lockdown is extremely dangerous from the point of view of the vulnerability of the entire population to new pathogens,” she said.
“Effectively we used to live in a state approximating lockdown 100 years ago, and that was what created the conditions for the Spanish Flu to come in and kill 50m people.”
Whilst accepting it hard to prove on current evidence, Prof Gupta said there was a “strong possibility” the UK could return to normal without great risk.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2yFelgF Tyler Durden
Watch: Russian Jets In Another “Unsafe” Intercept Of US Spy Plane Near Syrian Airbase Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/28/2020 – 02:45
For the third time in a couple of months American and Russian aircraft entered a close, dangerous encounter over the Mediterranean near Russia’s Hmeimim Airbase in western Syria.
The Tuesday incident reportedly involved two Russian Su-35 jets which intercepted a US Navy reconnaissance aircraft over the eastern Mediterranean. The Pentagon blasted their actions as “unsafe”,”unprofessional” and “irresponsible”.
“For the third time in two months, Russian pilots flew in an unsafe and unprofessional manner while intercepting a US Navy P-8A Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft,” the Navy said of the provocative aerial encounter, which like prior recent intercepts was caught on video.
Via US Sixth Fleet
The US statement underscored the danger in “the Russian pilots taking close station on each wing of the P-8A simultaneously, restricting the P-8A’s ability to safely maneuver.”
Indeed photographs and video show that each Su-35 fighter just behind each wing of the airliner-size US recon plane. The Russian jets accompanied the aircraft for about 65 minutes, according to the statement.
It appears the Russian Air Force has drawn a ‘red line’ in not tolerating flights near its Hmeimim Airbase in western Syria.
Recall too that a mere two weeks ago the top US special envoy to region, James Jeffrey, openly declared “his job” was to make Syria a “quagmire” for the Russians.
Asked why the American public should tolerate US involvement in Syria, Special Envoy James Jeffrey points out the small US footprint in the fight against ISIS. “This isn’t Afghanistan. This isn’t Vietnam. This isn’t a quagmire. My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.”
No doubt, the Kremlin took note, putting their military even more on edge and on alert, suspicious of any level of US reconnaissance along Syria’s coastline.
Though the Syrian war has largely slipped from the headlines, the question of jihadi-control over Idlib province is still festering, and likely the Americans are closely monitoring Syrian Army and Russian moves on the area.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2yC13Bw Tyler Durden
A soon to be released international survey finds that when the COVID-19 virus finally burns itself out its biggest victim may be the very country that launched the pandemic – China.
Bluster, bullying, and propaganda launched by China’s leadership to subdue international criticism of their handling of COVID-19 is only stoking the anger among nations as diverse as the U.K., Germany and India, according to data revealed during a comprehensive poll conducted by the firm McLaughlin & Associates.
They may not embrace the White House on any given issue but when it comes to China, a large and significant number of those polled in this global COVID-19 survey would now support economic sanctions, confronting China’s strategy to achieve global dominance by controlling worldwide access to technology, pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, and more.
What can only be described as a diplomatic earthquake is the emerging political fault line along China’s southern border with India.
The McLaughlin poll found that a majority of voters in the world’s largest democracy, some 54%, believe China hid key COVID-19 details, resulting in more damage by the pandemic, and 78% believe China knowingly kept data from the international community.
And it gets worse for Beijing. As many as 85% of Indian voters believe China should be held accountable with 88% approving of an investigation of not just China but the World Health Organization (WHO) regarding what did they know and when did they know it.
More than three time zones away, in Germany, a significant majority, 69% of voters polled, say China has not been open or honest about COVID-19, and more than a third say there is little doubt China hid key details regarding its origins or spread. In the U.K. seven out of 10 voters, or 68%, say China kept data about the virus from the world.
In Germany, 61% of the voters believe China should be held accountable while in the U.K., 81% of those voters polled said the Chinese government should be held accountable with 20% of those United Kingdom respondents suggesting one response should be lawsuits by families impacted by COVID-19.
Some 26% proposed diplomatic actions, and 38% believe economic actions would be the best response.
When asked whether they would support changes in diplomatic and economic relations with China if it was revealed that that regime withheld information, more than half of the Germans polled, 54%, said yes.
A stunning 80% said their nation needs to end its dependence on China and 71% believe Germany should withdraw manufacturing investments. In the UK 74% of the respondents were prepared to change their relationship with China following COVID-19.
The only good news for a China intent on diminishing America’s role as a 21st century superpower is that a majority of those surveyed abroad believe China’s COVID-19 induced economic tremor has impacted America’s global leadership, a goal the Chinese dare not accomplish through military means, no matter how many additional nuclear weapons they seek to place in their growing arsenal.
That response reflects a tacit acknowledgment that China’s handling of the COVID-19 outbreak, whether deliberate or otherwise, has allowed it to win a public perception battle without firing a shot.
It also reveals what the White House already knows; this is a defining moment for China, its relationship with the United States, and those nations the Chinese intend to place under their economic thumb.
This poll will compel Beijing to consider a stark truth. Their offer of billions in health aid to those nations suffering from COVID-19, coupled with an extensive media/diplomatic blitz that threatens those brave enough to question their actions, is a complete failure.
In fact, the global survey documents a rising awareness of the existential threat from a China that has not only infected the world but seeks to hold the keys to the medical and economic remedies our world needs.
We will recover from COVID-19. Our nation has withstood far worse.
What America needs now is to hear these overseas voices of outrage over China’s treachery and respond with the bipartisan political will to confront the real danger: a regime that will use the chaos of COVID-19 to acclerate their strategy of dominating the 21st century as the world’s sole superpower.
* * *
The full poll results for the Kadish article on our European and Indian polls are found here.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2zFbbKh Tyler Durden
The world has lost a great economist. Alberto Alesina suddenly passed away from cardiac arrest while on a walk with his wife on May 23. He was 63. A prolific researcher, he will be missed in the coming years, as we must yet again debate the merits of austerity in the aftermath of COVID-19-inspired, all-out spending.
For the few last decades, Harvard University’s Alesina and his co-authors have dominated the field of research about the best way for governments to reduce their debt-to-GDP ratios. They produced dozens of high-quality academic articles, policy papers, and opinion pieces. This topic is incredibly important, as the governments of most industrialized countries are highly indebted, and a few are close to financial ruin.
Much of this research was recently compiled into a book Alesina co-authored with Carlo Favero and Francesco Giavazzi titled Austerity: When It Works and When It Doesn’t. In this book, Alesina and his co-authors carefully examine all sides of the issue. Data-rich and deeply economically informed, it provides solid guidelines for every policymaker who is serious about reversing the dangerous pattern of fiscal irresponsibility.
“Austerity” is a term used to describe government debt-reduction policies, yet the term can mean radically different things to different people.
For some, austerity means adopting debt-reduction packages made up mostly of tax increases. For others, it means packages that mainly consist of spending cuts. For yet another group, austerity means adopting a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. Confusion about this term’s specific meaning makes many debates over fiscal policy counterproductive.
Leaving purely political fights aside, Alesina studied two important questions. First, what types of austerity measures are the most successful at reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio? Second, what is austerity’s impact on economic growth?
Looking at thousands of fiscal measures adopted by 16 advanced economies since the late 1970s, Alesina and his co-authors found that fiscal adjustments are most likely to succeed at reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio if they focus on cutting spending rather than raising taxes. Fiscal-adjustment packages that feature smaller spending reductions and larger tax increases are unsuccessful. This finding, no matter how politically unpopular, is not controversial among economists who have studied the issue. This includes economists at the International Monetary Fund.
Another important finding pertains to the impact of different forms of austerity on short- and long-term economic growth. Austerity implemented only with tax hikes is deleterious to both short- and long-term growth. However, austerity based upon appropriate spending cuts promotes long-term economic growth.
These latter results are also, among economists, relatively noncontroversial. And if the spending cuts are implemented alongside other pro-growth reforms—such as market liberalization for goods and labor, readjustments of public-sector size and pay, and public-pension reform—they can minimize the short-term economic cost of budget cuts.
Moreover, if the economy contracts in the short-term as a result of spending cuts, the impact will be small and short-lived. This outcome is especially important in the case of highly regulated economies where governments spend about half or more of GDP. In contrast, austerity measures focused on raising taxes have a much more negative impact on growth.
Short-term growth after spending cuts is less likely today, in part because export-led growth is unlikely when most of the world’s economies are hurting. But that shouldn’t deter governments from doing the right thing, since the alternative—tax-based austerity—will not only fail to reduce debt burdens but also depress the economy both in the long and short term.
The biggest obstacle to sound fiscal policy, of course, is the fact that politicians think mostly about how their behavior will affect their election prospects. Unfortunately, Alesina finds that reforms are politically dangerous, especially those undertaken while the economy is slumping. It’s politically better to wait for good economic times, when electoral consequences of reforms are less severe. This finding is particularly saddening since we’ve just experienced a solid decade of economic expansion, during which time politicians of all stripes rejected fiscal discipline by piling on even more spending to an already big debt.
At a time when the United States, along with virtually every government, has undertaken massive amounts of new spending, the research of Alberto Alesina will be priceless in trying to help make the case for the right form of austerity. His voice in this debate will be sorely missed.
The world has lost a great economist. Alberto Alesina suddenly passed away from cardiac arrest while on a walk with his wife on May 23. He was 63. A prolific researcher, he will be missed in the coming years, as we must yet again debate the merits of austerity in the aftermath of COVID-19-inspired, all-out spending.
For the few last decades, Harvard University’s Alesina and his co-authors have dominated the field of research about the best way for governments to reduce their debt-to-GDP ratios. They produced dozens of high-quality academic articles, policy papers, and opinion pieces. This topic is incredibly important, as the governments of most industrialized countries are highly indebted, and a few are close to financial ruin.
Much of this research was recently compiled into a book Alesina co-authored with Carlo Favero and Francesco Giavazzi titled Austerity: When It Works and When It Doesn’t. In this book, Alesina and his co-authors carefully examine all sides of the issue. Data-rich and deeply economically informed, it provides solid guidelines for every policymaker who is serious about reversing the dangerous pattern of fiscal irresponsibility.
“Austerity” is a term used to describe government debt-reduction policies, yet the term can mean radically different things to different people.
For some, austerity means adopting debt-reduction packages made up mostly of tax increases. For others, it means packages that mainly consist of spending cuts. For yet another group, austerity means adopting a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. Confusion about this term’s specific meaning makes many debates over fiscal policy counterproductive.
Leaving purely political fights aside, Alesina studied two important questions. First, what types of austerity measures are the most successful at reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio? Second, what is austerity’s impact on economic growth?
Looking at thousands of fiscal measures adopted by 16 advanced economies since the late 1970s, Alesina and his co-authors found that fiscal adjustments are most likely to succeed at reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio if they focus on cutting spending rather than raising taxes. Fiscal-adjustment packages that feature smaller spending reductions and larger tax increases are unsuccessful. This finding, no matter how politically unpopular, is not controversial among economists who have studied the issue. This includes economists at the International Monetary Fund.
Another important finding pertains to the impact of different forms of austerity on short- and long-term economic growth. Austerity implemented only with tax hikes is deleterious to both short- and long-term growth. However, austerity based upon appropriate spending cuts promotes long-term economic growth.
These latter results are also, among economists, relatively noncontroversial. And if the spending cuts are implemented alongside other pro-growth reforms—such as market liberalization for goods and labor, readjustments of public-sector size and pay, and public-pension reform—they can minimize the short-term economic cost of budget cuts.
Moreover, if the economy contracts in the short-term as a result of spending cuts, the impact will be small and short-lived. This outcome is especially important in the case of highly regulated economies where governments spend about half or more of GDP. In contrast, austerity measures focused on raising taxes have a much more negative impact on growth.
Short-term growth after spending cuts is less likely today, in part because export-led growth is unlikely when most of the world’s economies are hurting. But that shouldn’t deter governments from doing the right thing, since the alternative—tax-based austerity—will not only fail to reduce debt burdens but also depress the economy both in the long and short term.
The biggest obstacle to sound fiscal policy, of course, is the fact that politicians think mostly about how their behavior will affect their election prospects. Unfortunately, Alesina finds that reforms are politically dangerous, especially those undertaken while the economy is slumping. It’s politically better to wait for good economic times, when electoral consequences of reforms are less severe. This finding is particularly saddening since we’ve just experienced a solid decade of economic expansion, during which time politicians of all stripes rejected fiscal discipline by piling on even more spending to an already big debt.
At a time when the United States, along with virtually every government, has undertaken massive amounts of new spending, the research of Alberto Alesina will be priceless in trying to help make the case for the right form of austerity. His voice in this debate will be sorely missed.
The world’s largest airline trade group has called for immunity passports, thermal screening, masks, and physical distancing to be a part of the industry’s strategy for returning to “normal” operations.
Under a section titled, “The passenger experience” and “Temporary biosecurity measures,” the IATA describes their vision of post-COVID-19 flights. The organization calls for contact tracing, a controversial method of tracking the civilian population to track the spread of COVID-19.
“We foresee the need to collect more detailed passenger contact information which can be used for tracing purposes,” the report states. “Where possible, the data should be collected in electronic form, and in advance of the passenger arriving at the airport including through eVisa and electronic travel authorization platforms.”
Interestingly, this call for pre-boarding check-in using “electronic travel authorization platforms” coincides with the recent announcement of the Covi-Pass and the Health Pass from Clear, both of which call for a digital ID system using biometrics and storing travel, health, and identification data.
Alexandre de Juniac, IATA’s CEO, told Arabian Industry that “a layered approach” combining multiple measures which are “globally implemented and mutually recognized by governments” are “the way forward for biosecurity.”
The IATA also calls for temperature screening at entry points to airport terminals. They envision the airline experience involving physical distancing of 3-6 feet throughout the airport. The group believes changes to the airport buildings to allow for physical distancing may be necessary. The IATA also recommended “face coverings” for passengers and protective equipment for airline and airport staff.
Although the organization acknowledged that there is not currently a fast reliable test for COVID-19, they believe that once an effective test is developed it could be applied on entry to the terminal. They call for this measure to be “incorporated into the passenger process as soon as an effective test, validated by the medical community, has been developed.”
On the topic of immunity passports — an idea discussed by Anthony Fauci, the World Health Organization, and Bill Gates — the IATA states that “immunity passports could play an important role in further facilitating the restart of air travel.” The organization believes that if a person is shown to have recovered from COVID-19 and developed immunity they will not need protective measures. Once medical evidence supports the possibility of immunity to COVID-19, IATA believes “it is essential that a recognized global standard be introduced, and that corresponding documents be made available electronically.”
Finally, the IATA believes a “general move towards greater use of touchless technology and biometrics should also be pursued.” Biometrics would include facial recognition, retina scanning, and/or thumbprints.
This vision painted by the IATA is one where those who choose to fly are faced with invasive security measures, surveillance, biometric tracking, immunity passports, temperature screenings, and generally, less human contact due to physical distancing and less communication with actual people. Of course, this push towards a digital ID which contains an individual’s personal identifying information, health records, and other personal data is part of an agenda which predates COVID-19. The “powers that wish they were” are taking every opportunity to expand their technocratic control grid and the panic caused by COVID-19 allows them to accelerate their plans at a rate not seen since the days after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The only thing stopping the roll out of this Technocratic State is the people of the world coming together, informing those who are in the dark, and unplugging from this control grid.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3gB3dmn Tyler Durden
‘Not A Global Police Force’: Pentagon To Brief Trump On Afghan Exit Before Election Timetable Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/27/2020 – 23:45
Multiple reports now indicate President Trump wants to pull all American troops out of Afghanistan by the November election, following a shaky historic ceasefire and truce deal with the Taliban, lately showing signs of actually holding, given a key prisoner swap successfully taking effect in the past days considered integral to the agreement.
Trump tweeted on the matter Wednesday morning, again invoking what made his foreign policy attractive on the 2016 campaign trail of rejecting the neocon idea of being the ‘globe’s police force’ – instead putting America first.
“We are acting as a police force, not the fighting force that we are, in Afghanistan. After 19 years, it is time for them to police their own Country,” the president said on Twitter.
We are acting as a police force, not the fighting force that we are, in Afghanistan. After 19 years, it is time for them to police their own Country. Bring our soldiers back home but closely watch what is going on and strike with a thunder like never before, if necessary!
Given his prior promises to his base and to the country, if Trump is to actually deliver on what past administrations have failed at (a final exit from the Afghan quagmire), it could give him a huge boost ahead of November.
He made similar comments the day prior, on Tuesday. “We’re there 19 years and, yeah, I think that’s enough… We can always go back if we want to,” he told a White House news conference. “We want to bring our soldiers back home,” he emphasized.
“We are not meant to be a police force, we’re meant to be a fighting force,” Trump said.
During the press conference he was asked whether the Thanksgiving holiday on Nov. 26 would be a suitable target. Trump responded: “No. I have no target. But as soon as (is) reasonable. Over a period of time but as soon as reasonable.”
AFP/Getty images
But The New York Times reports Trump could be eyeing an earlier, ambitious withdrawal date of at least beforeNovember 3rd, election day:
Senior military officials are set to brief President Trump in the coming days on options for pulling all American troops out of Afghanistan, with one possible timeline for withdrawing forces before the presidential election, according to officials with knowledge of the plans.
The proposal for a complete withdrawal by November reflects an understanding among military commanders that such a timeline may be Mr. Trump’s preferred option because it may help bolster his campaign.
But they plan to propose, and to advocate, a slower withdrawal schedule, officials said.
But of course, like with similar ‘timetables’ drawn up before, it will be much easier said than done, given the generals are already reportedly pushing the idea that a ‘quick’ exit would doom the shaky truce between the US, Taliban, and Afghan national government in Kabul.
Very likely, the same discussion could be happening once we reach the full twenty year anniversary of America’s longest — and frankly largely ‘forgotten’ war.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ZHEVRl Tyler Durden
President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order aimed at social media companies on Thursday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters Wednesday evening, a move that comes as the president and his allies have escalated their allegations that companies like Twitter and Facebook stifle GOP voices.
McEnany told reporters aboard Air Force One that the order is “pertaining to social media” but shared no additional details on what it will do. But the announcement revived fears within the online industry that the Trump administration will target a 24-year-old statute that protects the companies from lawsuits—an avenue that a growing number of Republican lawmakers have advocated in their bias allegations about Silicon Valley.
But the President of course has no power to revise statutes such as 47 U.S.C. § 230 by executive order. He can order his subordinates in the federal Executive Branch to apply laws in various ways, but § 230 is enforced in judicial proceedings (state and federal), not by federal prosecutors or other Executive Branch employees. Whether § 230 should be revised is an interesting question (I’m inclined to say that it’s on balance better than the alternatives), but it takes Congress to revise the work of a past Congress.
Now of course the President can talk about § 230, and can urge Congress to revise it; perhaps that’s all the “executive order” will say. But one doesn’t need an executive order for that.
Finally, the President could, I suppose, control how Executive Branch agencies use social media platforms, and an executive order would be a suitable too for that. But that would seem an odd things for him to do. I suppose we’ll learn tomorrow just what he has planned, but I am mystified.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZPvb7X
via IFTTT
President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order aimed at social media companies on Thursday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters Wednesday evening, a move that comes as the president and his allies have escalated their allegations that companies like Twitter and Facebook stifle GOP voices.
McEnany told reporters aboard Air Force One that the order is “pertaining to social media” but shared no additional details on what it will do. But the announcement revived fears within the online industry that the Trump administration will target a 24-year-old statute that protects the companies from lawsuits—an avenue that a growing number of Republican lawmakers have advocated in their bias allegations about Silicon Valley.
But the President of course has no power to revise statutes such as 47 U.S.C. § 230 by executive order. He can order his subordinates in the federal Executive Branch to apply laws in various ways, but § 230 is enforced in judicial proceedings (state and federal), not by federal prosecutors or other Executive Branch employees. Whether § 230 should be revised is an interesting question (I’m inclined to say that it’s on balance better than the alternatives), but it takes Congress to revise the work of a past Congress.
Now of course the President can talk about § 230, and can urge Congress to revise it; perhaps that’s all the “executive order” will say. But one doesn’t need an executive order for that.
Finally, the President could, I suppose, control how Executive Branch agencies use social media platforms, and an executive order would be a suitable too for that. But that would seem an odd things for him to do. I suppose we’ll learn tomorrow just what he has planned, but I am mystified.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZPvb7X
via IFTTT
The Democrat Party’s GOTV (Get Out the Vote) program relies on labor unions and the NGO sector. Those who organized these directly as this writer has, or those who have been on the receiving end of it, will understand how this zeal, backed by the force of law under the auspices of Contact Tracers/Compliance Officers, will change the electoral outcome.
Contact Tracers are Compliance Officers Backed by Police and Operating under Governor’s Orders
Contact Tracers are based on public sector workers in the area of public health, or NGO’s that rely on funding from DNC backed philanthropy and state budgets. They all rely on their relationship to the DNC to exist.
Among the first NGO’s to receive grants to carry out Contact Tracing work is PIH – Partners In Health. This group, funded by the Clinton Foundation, worked in Rwanda and Haiti. Chelsea Clinton sits on the governing board, and other prominent backers and allies include Rahm Emanuel, Epstein, and Gates.
An investigative report by Raul Diego for Mint Press gives a comprehensive outline of just how Contact Tracers as a type of Compliance Officers from PIH, will work. From his journalism, we see components of the program and how they are meant to dovetail as part of the coming 2020 electoral strategy.
Clinton tweeted in mid-May, urging other governors in the country to follow California governor Newsom’s order for mail-in ballots.
I hope other governors around the country follow @GavinNewsom’s lead. No voter should be forced to choose between their safety and exercising their civic duty this fall. https://t.co/kNkSQ5quw8
Contact tracers as part of the NGO Industrial Complex, as a private-charter variation of the public sector, only less accountable, will become a new layer of society invested in preserving their work by voting to maintain their budget.
Because Contact Tracers can enter the homes and because some voting polls may also be closed, we can see where Contact Tracers will ‘assist’ voters in their homes with their mail-in ballots. We can predict that in Democrat voting households there will be a disproportionate increase in ballots that actually wind up being counted.
While there has been focus on HR 6666 that adds financing for Contact Tracers, there are ways these can be financed (as they already are) anyway. The ‘bailouts’ at the end of March included massive provisions for the NGO sector dealing in areas of civil society ranging from immigration to public education and healthcare.
These were the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
At-home methods of electronic voting and mail-in that do away with exit-poll cross-checks, is the preferred general strategy the Democrat Party will use to steal the election.
Polls showing Biden ahead should be discounted prima facie, as these are the polls before that intentionally projected Hillary Clinton despite unpublished polls used by the campaigns to the contrary. Both campaigns had a clear understanding that Trump had a very strong chance of winning on that decisive night. This is why ‘insurance policies’ were openly discussed by team Clinton as the election approached.
The fake polls will be used to show that Biden had a strong chance of winning all along. That’s pertinent to the strategy to oust Trump by way of coup tactics.
The strategy to remove Trump is designed to work as follows:
Suppress voter turnout by Party identification. To limit voter turn-out by precinct based on party affiliation, and to increase voter turnout in other areas. The inclusion of Contact Tracers and the ‘Compliance Officer-like’ powers they will be granted in short-time for the election, will be among the game-changers.
Cancelling In-Person voting. Towards 1., for Contact Tracers to ‘quarantine’ likely Trump voters not as individual households but by ‘infected precinct’. The presence of the Covid-19 ‘disease’ in a precinct, will be determined by Contact Tracers’ data (from both apps and human agents). The governor will be able to declare that elections should be online, by mail, or using greatly limited polls. These Contact Tracers will be able to use ‘voluntary’ apps to narrow down alleged infection rates by block, neighborhood, precinct/county. That these apps aren’t ‘voluntary’ however is explained in this report.
Contact Tracers to Police In-Person Polls. To have Contact Tracers work as Compliance Officers under the governor’s instructions at polls, which will slow-down voting and suppress the vote, close polls early or limit exit polling in line with social distancing norms. As was done in the Democrat primaries, counter-intuitive decisions were made to close down polls to ‘limit exposure’. This had the effect of forcing would-be voters to travel greater distances, if they were still motivated, only to find long-lines. Some of these polls closed before those in line were able to vote. Those who maintained their right to vote, because they had been in line on time, were either told that due to the pandemic they did not have that right, or given provisional ballots – which are counted mostly just in the instance of a re-count.
Contact Tracers blur line between work and campaign visits. To have Contact Tracers work as GOTV ‘volunteers’ on off-hours and weekends, both on telephone and in person in door-knock efforts for the Biden campaign. Critical here is that in areas where movement is limited, Contact Tracers as essential workers will not have to abide by such limitations. Or, in their capacity as Contract Tracers, they will also leave election literature at locations they visit. This may seem illegal, but this is what NGO and union employees do regularly. This strategy simply increases the size of the army and having the advantage of the freedom of movement in what will prove to be a highly unusual election.
To give Republican households a health and safety visit on Election Day. To have Contact Tracers focus on Republican homes, and bog the family down on election day with a health and safety check which could also involve the terrifying visit by CPS and the possibility of a mandatory Covid-19 test and possibly children being removed from an infectious environment.
Weaponize the second wave of Coronavirus. To make sure that overall there is a ‘second wave’ of Coronavirus that is treated similarly as the ‘first wave’ which we have only now begun to emerge from. A Digital Trends article from April 11th depicts a Bill Gates ‘super-worried’ about a second wave of coronavirus’.
Governors declare State of Emergency. This can be done in such a way that, using Contact Tracers’ data, can decide which targeted parts of a state – by county – to shut down. Expect that universities, and colleges will be shut down. Bernie Sanders and the Squad will use their popularity among college students to promote an alternate reality. We will have many youth mobilized to work both in social media and as campaign workers. From this fertile soil of youth, we will find many new Contact Tracer job openings created as we approach November. This May 11th article shows that universities have already started offering Contact Tracing courses.
We can therefore expect the strategy to take shape by state this way – by comparing the Electoral College map of 2016…
to the breakdown of Dem and Rep governors by state in 2020.
The Center for Politics affirms the following points to consider:
“Following the 2019 elections, Republicans retain a narrow 26-24 edge in governorships.”
We should be looking at the governorships by state because of the authority they have in establishing the rules when there is a state of emergency.
The governors declare states of emergency. In addition, they claim other powers as well which have not been challenged yet in federal courts.
The precedent for cancelling primary elections or changing how general elections will be done ( e-voting from home or mail-in) – was already seen for New York and California respectively.
Those who may be thinking that states are opening up and that this is not a subject in play come November, have not understood the meaning of Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates that the coronavirus will return again this coming Fall.
As we have mentioned, the tracing apps that will make voter suppression through Contact Tracers using the coronavirus pretext more easy to pull-off are nominally voluntary, but does that mean citizens will really have a choice?
Voluntary Tracing May Not be Voluntary
People generally interact not with government who indeed may not ‘mandate’ the use of such an app, but rather revolve in dealings with private businesses.
What is voluntary for you will also voluntary for businesses to mandate for customers and employees to enter the premises. Most employees are at-will, and businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone.
This is already in effect the Jacinda Ardern dictatorship of New Zealand. NZ is proving to be an effective test ground which most closely mirrors the Wuhan protocols of covid-19 containment through Contact Tracing and movement suppression, except that unlike China, this is never-ending.
Unless there is tremendous pushback from Trump and his activist base, we should assume moving forward that by November 2020 when most U.S. citizens will have a Contact Tracing app on their smart phone, the election will be stolen. There are 251 million smart phone owners in the U.S.
What’s also voluntary? That your smart phone comes with an OS, and the OS makers (Android, iOS) can voluntarily place a contact tracer in the next update.
The Philosophical Problem
Whether one wants one side to win or the other isn’t as much a question of who behaves most fairly, but on what outcomes we wish to see. For those who want to see a Bourbonesque ‘restorationist’ move to Clinton-Bush-Obama-era ‘norms’, they will go for Biden. For those who see in Trump a type of Napoleonic ‘revolutionist’ against the Ancien Regime who contained and corralled the Jacobinist forces of Occupy into a new type of system, their option is clear.
We must End Quarantine, not create ‘Jobs’ in ‘Contact Tracing’
The grass-roots Republican efforts, tacitly endorsed by the Trump campaign, to mobilize against the quarantine, are a step in the right direction. In Michigan we saw an armed ‘militia’/open-carry grouping backed by over four thousand citizens who converged on the state capitol. In Wisconsin it resulted in mass protests and such pressure that the Supreme Court in that state was forced to reign in the caprice of an autocrat governor. In California we saw a mass mobilization of thousands demanding access to the beach, and more.
These moves for citizens to push against quarantine are popular and also radical. It is odd that the progressive left, some thinking themselves ‘revolutionaries’, only defer to the institutional power of the billionaire class like Bill Gates, and institutions like the WHO and the CDC. They ignore the tools available within their own Marxian analysis, that regulatory capture by big pharma, and sinister elites with misanthropist capital-accumulating platforms, should render these institutions illegitimate.
So here we find the amazing part – that those who wanted to restore the greatness of America are the revolutionists, and those who utilize the naiveté and rage of the revolutionary left are restorationists.
This coming election will be the most unusual in American history, and if the above outlined problems are not addressed, could result in a chain of extra-legal, extra-parliamentary grass-roots violence.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ZKVuw2 Tyler Durden
