Americans Are Sick of Arbitrary COVID-19 Restrictions

lockdown-protest-sign-Newscom

“I’m not sure we know what we’re doing,” San Mateo County Health Officer Scott Morrow recently confessed, referring to the myriad puzzling restrictions state and local governments have imposed in the name of fighting COVID-19. Morrow’s doubts are striking, because last spring he joined other San Francisco Bay Area officials in imposing the nation’s first lockdowns, which he still thinks were justified.

Morrow’s remarkable statement, which he posted on his department’s website earlier this month, shows that politicians and bureaucrats are still struggling to justify edicts that are often arbitrary and scientifically dubious. A year into the COVID-19 epidemic, many of them have yet to digest the dangers of carelessly exercising their public health powers.

Although research in other countries has shown that K-12 schools are not an important source of virus transmission, they remain closed in California and many other jurisdictions, largely because of resistance from teachers unions. “The adverse effects for some of our kids will likely last for generations,” Morrow warned.

Morrow, who has served as San Mateo County’s health officer since 1992, also criticized the stay-at-home order that California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued on December 3, which he said is “rife with inconsistencies.” Although the new restrictions will mean “more job loss, more hunger, more despair and desperation…and more death from causes other than COVID,” Morrow said, they were imposed without evidence that the activities they target are “major drivers of transmission.”

A conspicuous example is Newsom’s ban on outdoor restaurant dining, which applies in regions where the available ICU capacity drops below 15 percent. This month a Los Angeles County judge said such bans are “not grounded in science, evidence, or logic.”

California Health and Human Services Secretary Mark Ghaly has admitted the state ban was not based on evidence that outdoor dining plays a significant role in spreading COVID-19. Ghaly said the policy, a grave threat to businesses that were already barely surviving, is “not a comment on the relative safety of outdoor dining” but is instead aimed at discouraging Californians from leaving home.

Ghaly assumes that giving people fewer things to do outside their homes will push them toward safer behavior. But as Morrow noted, “these greater restrictions are likely to drive more activity indoors,” a “much riskier” setting.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham apparently did not consider that possibility when she imposed a two-week “pause” last month that shut down golf courses and state parks. Although many parks remain open in California, camping is banned in restricted regions, and the state says residents “should not travel significant distances for recreation.”

COVID-19 restrictions are equally capricious in other states. New York Gov. Cuomo last week banned indoor dining in New York City even though his own data showed that restaurants accounted for just 1.4 percent of infections, while Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz banned both indoor and outdoor dining at a time when 1.7 percent of cases were linked to restaurants.

Another Walz decree was so sweeping and invasive that even The New York Times, usually a big fan of COVID-19 restrictions, was taken aback. Walz “took the extraordinary step of banning people from different households from meeting indoors or outdoors, even though evidence has consistently shown the outdoors to be relatively safe,” the paper reported.

Cuomo’s eagerness to show he was doing something about the epidemic led him to impose onerous limits on “houses of worship,” a policy so blatantly discriminatory that it was overturned by the Supreme Court. Even when ill-advised COVID-19 restrictions don’t violate the Constitution, they provoke resentment and resistance, which undermine compliance with the sensible precautions that are crucial to containing the virus until vaccines are widely available.

“Just because one has the legal authority to do something doesn’t mean one has to use it, or that using it is the best course of action,” Morrow noted. “The power and authority to control this pandemic lies primarily in your hands, not mine.”

© Copyright 2020 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3nIywPf
via IFTTT

US Navy Patent Describes EM Drive For “Flying Triangle” Craft 

US Navy Patent Describes EM Drive For “Flying Triangle” Craft 

There is potential for conspiracy gold in a 2018 patent filed by aerospace engineer Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais, who works for the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, a research organization within the Navy that specializes in electromagnetic drives and superconductors. 

The patent (US10144532B2) describes “a craft using an inertial mass reduction device comprises of an inner resonant cavity wall, an outer resonant cavity, and microwave emitters. The electrically charged outer resonant cavity wall and the electrically insulated inner resonant cavity wall form a resonant cavity. The microwave emitters create high-frequency electromagnetic waves throughout the resonant cavity causing the resonant cavity to vibrate in an accelerated mode and create a local polarized vacuum outside the outer resonant cavity wall.” 

The shape of this plane is one that resembles a flying triangle. 

In August of 2019, The Drive filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the Navy to shed more light on the patent. While it’s still unknown if those requests have been answered, further investigation through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Public Patent Application Information Retrieval database revealed that superconductors and the electromagnetic field generator, may in fact, already be in operation in some manner.

If the technologies described in the patent are already operational, does this mean the Navy is building UFOs?

Tyler Durden
Tue, 12/22/2020 – 23:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/37Ihon7 Tyler Durden

The Top ‘Owners’ Of America’s President-Elect Joe Biden

The Top ‘Owners’ Of America’s President-Elect Joe Biden

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Some of the top owners of America’s President-Elect Joe Biden are entirely secret because a corrupt U.S. Supreme Court, in the infamous 2010 Citizens United case, encouraged not only corruption but corruption that’s entirely secret or “dark money.” 

However, most of the individuals who purchased Biden to become the U.S. President did so under the previously existing laws, which require public reporting of their donations.

Here, then, are the top ten publicly known donors to the Biden campaign, but these are all via some sort of Political Action Committee or PAC, and therefore most are in conjunction with other billionaires and centi-millionaires, instead of entirely solo donations:

Top Contributors, federal election data for Joe Biden, 2020 cycle

totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

  1. Bloomberg LP [Michael Bloomberg] $56,796,137

  2. Future Forward USA [largely Dustin Moskowitz] $29,917,229

  3. Priorities USA/Priorities USA Action [Hillary backers] $25,841,199

  4. Asana  [Moskowitz & Rosenstein] $21,937,902

  5. Sixteen Thirty Fund [dark money] $19,874,655

  6. Democracy PAC [George Soros] $19,000,000

  7. Senate Majority PAC [Democratic billionaires] $12,371,874

  8. American Bridge 21st Century [largely Soros] $10,260,573

  9. Paloma Partners [Donald Sussman] $9,016,248

  10. Euclidean Capital [James Simons] $7,006,805

Source: OpenSecrets

The 11th-largest (which will now be shown) happens to be not Democratic billionaires but Republican billionaires. However, Michael Bloomberg, the former Republican Mayor of NYC, was Biden’s largest donor, and therefore could also be considered to be a Republican donor to Biden’s campaign.

Defending Democracy Together [Republican billionaires] $6,776,862

In other words: the distinction between Republican billionaires and Democratic billionaires is no longer quite clear. Although the manicured PR for each of the two major Parties accentuates the ideological differences between the two, those differences have greatly decreased, except that on the U.S. Supreme Court the Republican ‘Justices’ are far-right (extremist conservatives) whereas the Democratic ‘Justices’ are centrist (liberals). None are, at all, progressives. Progressives don’t exist on that Court. The numbers and natures of that Court’s unanimous decisions make clear that no leftist jurist (progressive or otherwise) sits there. Whereas some billionaires are centrist and others are far-right, none are any sort of leftist. Nor does any leftist candidate for national political office receive any donation from any billionaire but only from poor and middle-class donors. Both of America’s Parties represent mainly the interests of billionaires, and this has been documented in the only scientific studies that have been done of the subject. America is an aristocracy not a democracy.

In addition to those and other donations that were made either entirely or mainly by particular billionaires, Biden’s campaign utilized “bundlers,” or well-connected wealthy individuals who invited other well-connected wealthy individuals to their private fund-raising parties for Biden’s campaign; and the list that the Biden campaign assembled of all its bundlers who raised at least $100,000 for the campaign will be presented here.

However, first will be noted the hostile reader-comments reactions when the early version of this list – which then was of bundlers who had raised at least $25,000 for the campaign – was made public at the Democratic Party website which is written and run by Taegan Goddard, “Political Wire,” which headlined on 27 December 2019, prior even to the earliest of all the state primaries and caucuses, “Biden Discloses His Bundlers”, and the 36 reader-comments there were overwhelmingly hostile, such as “Gee Taegan, could you make it seem any more suspicious and improper?” 

Those readers were angry that a Democratic Party news-site would publish an indication that their Party utilizes the same corrupt practices that the Republican billionaires’ Party does. They weren’t grateful for the non-partisan information they had just received, but wanted it not to have been made public. No other news-site did publish it — only Goddard’s site did.

And, when, at the end of all of the campaigns the Biden organization issued its legally obligatory final financial reports, on 1 November 2020, neither Goddard nor any other news-site published it: “Once burned, twice shy,” and Goddard didn’t want to get “burned” again.

*  *  *

On 27 November 2007, C-Span showed a Joe Biden Town Hall. A brief clip from that was posted online as “User Clip: Joe Biden 2007, Money in Politics”, and here’s my transcription from what I consider to be the most revealing (about Biden’s values) part of it:

Source: c-span.org

27 November 2007, Iowa Town Hall

(0:40-) “People who accept money [from lobbyists] aren’t bad people. But it’s human nature. You go out and bundle $250,000 for me, all legal, and then you call me after I am elected, and say “I would like to come and talk about something.” You didn’t buy me, but it’s human nature, you helped me. I’m going to say, “Sure, come on in.” … What it does mean, it means that the front of the line is always filled by people whose pockets are filled, people who are special interests. Most of you are no part of any special interest.”

He went on there to promise that if elected President he will change that, by campaigning constantly (AFTER winning the Presidency — not BEFORE) against the corrupt system which had made him President. He thinks that his audience will believe in the tooth-fairy, if only he tells them that the tooth-fairy exists and that he’s it. The deceptive irrelevant line from all of the corrupt candidates is the same: “I’m the most electable one!” But corrupt people constantly lie, and nobody is actually certain whom the “most electable” one is; but that’s really not even the question here. What the Democratic primaries are actually about isn’t about beating Trump. He’s not even a candidate in the Democratic primaries. They’re not about ‘beating Donald Trump’, but instead about whom the person will be that’s going to be running against Trump in the general election. The primaries won’t be selecting the next President. They will only narrow the field of contenders, to two. Which two? That’s the question here.

Of course, lots of Democrats think that any Democrat will be better than Trump. And lots of Republicans believe that Trump is better than any Democrat.

Biden was talking there regarding not the billionaires but the merely wealthy and well-connected individuals who had raised in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for him — each one of them.

The billionaires aren’t in “the front of the line,” nor even in any “line”; they are instead maybe visitors for private meetings with the President, or else on the phone with him, or else (if the matter is illegal) maybe sending one’s private agent to meet privately with that billionaire’s private agent. This is how the business of the U.S. Government — the business of America’s ‘democracy’ — is getting done, nowadays. My own guess is that the two biggest owners of Joe Biden now are Michael Bloomberg (representing mainly the financial industries or “Wall Street”) and Bernard Schwartz (representing mainly the military industries or “MIC”).

As for any mere voter, that person gets his or her ‘news’ from corporations that are owned by and/or serve the billionaires (such as Bloomberg or Schwartz or Bezos or Musk or etc.), and gets his or her views from that ‘news’, so is less than being a pawn on the American chessboard, where that aristocracy are  the ‘king’. The country is jointly controlled by the Republican billionaires and the Democratic billionaires.

A reasonable expectation would be that Biden will serve the billionaires, though his rhetoric will be phrased to be acceptable to the voters. So, that will be no basic change. America will remain an aristocracy, no democracy.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 12/22/2020 – 23:25

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

First Evidence of Microplastics Found In Human Placentas

First Evidence of Microplastics Found In Human Placentas

For the first time ever, microplastic particles were detected in the placentas of unborn babies, according to researchers who warn these “potentially harmful (plastic) particles is a matter of great concern.”

The study, published in the journal Environment International and titled “Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta,” found microplastics in four placentas of women who had pregnancies and births. 

Researchers noted microplastics were found on both the fetal and maternal sides of the placenta and in the membrane within which the fetus develops.

A dozen plastic particles were found in the four placentas, mostly 10 microns in size (0.01mm), meaning they were small enough to travel through the bloodstream and were analyzed to have come originally from packaging paints or polymers and personal care products.

“In total, 12 microplastic fragments (ranging from 5 to 10 μm in size), with spheric or irregular shape were found in 4 placentas (5 in the fetal side, 4 in the maternal side and 3 in the chorioamniotic membranes); all microplastics particles were characterized in terms of morphology and chemical composition. All of them were pigmented; three were identified as stained polypropylene a thermoplastic polymer, while for the other nine it was possible to identify only the pigments, which were all used for man-made coatings, paints, adhesives, plasters, finger paints, polymers and cosmetics and personal care products.”

Antonio Ragusa, director of obstetrics and gynecology at the San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli hospital in Rome who led the study, told The Guardian that “it’s like having a cyborg baby: no longer composed only of human cells, but a mixture of biological and inorganic entities.”

Researchers concluded: 

“Due to the crucial role of the placenta in supporting the fetus’ development and in acting as an interface with the external environment, the presence of potentially harmful plastic particles is a matter of great concern. Further studies need to be performed to assess if the presence of microplastics may trigger immune responses or may lead to the release of toxic contaminants, resulting in harm.”

In August 2019, high levels of microplastics were found in the Alps to the Arctic. Another report has shown these harmful plastics were turning up in human stool. 

What’s clear is that the world could have a plastic problem where babies are born pre-polluted. Still, more studies need to be conducted to prove nanoparticles of plastic are dangerous for humans. 

Tyler Durden
Tue, 12/22/2020 – 23:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3mN5cpb Tyler Durden

Google Chrome Now Blocks Insecure Downloads from Secure Websites. Many Court Website are Insecure.

Much like people, web sites can be insecure. Unlike people, you can easily determine whether a web site is insecure. In the address bar of your browser, you should see a lock icon next to “reason.com/volokh/”. Click that lock. A box will popup showing that the connection is secure. All responsible web sites have security certificates. These simple licenses tell users that information can be securely uploaded and downloaded.

SupremeCourt.gov, a responsible web site, is secure.

And most of federal courts of appeals are secure. The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits are secure.

Other courts of appeal are not secure. The Fifth Circuit is insecure.

The Seventh Circuit is also insecure.

And the Federal Circuit–the so-called tech court!–is not secure. No wonder the Supreme Court reverses them all the time!

Some state courts are also insecure. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Perhaps the independent state legislature can remedy this problem. (Kidding, kidding).

Regrettably, my home state is no better. Hackers can mess with Texas. We defended the Alamo. Certainly we can defend a web site.

Going forward, these insecure courts, and many others, should become secure. Why? The latest version of the Google Chrome browser is blocking downloads on a secure page to an insecure site. If I include a link to a PDF from any of these insecure sites, it would be blocked. Far worse, How Appealing (a secure site) can no longer link to PDFs on any of these insecure sites. Howard Bashman is a national treasure. I know judges routinely check his site. Now, Howard’s links will not work.

I stumbled this problem today by accident. I tried to download a recent Fifth Circuit opinion, but I couldn’t. But when I visited the Fifth Circuit’s site, I was able to download the opinion from the Opinions page. With all due respect, Court web sites should be secure. These certificates are not difficult to install. And the failure to fortify these sites will make it tougher for people to access the law.

I will report back in due course to see if these sites become secure. For now, there is an easy workaround: (1) Right click on the link, (2) click “Copy Link Address,” (3) paste that link into your address bar. The file will download since the request is not coming from a secured page.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3mEetQp
via IFTTT

Google Chrome Now Blocks Insecure Downloads from Secure Websites. Many Court Website are Insecure.

Much like people, web sites can be insecure. Unlike people, you can easily determine whether a web site is insecure. In the address bar of your browser, you should see a lock icon next to “reason.com/volokh/”. Click that lock. A box will popup showing that the connection is secure. All responsible web sites have security certificates. These simple licenses tell users that information can be securely uploaded and downloaded.

SupremeCourt.gov, a responsible web site, is secure.

And most of federal courts of appeals are secure. The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits are secure.

Other courts of appeal are not secure. The Fifth Circuit is insecure.

The Seventh Circuit is also insecure.

And the Federal Circuit–the so-called tech court!–is not secure. No wonder the Supreme Court reverses them all the time!

Some state courts are also insecure. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Perhaps the independent state legislature can remedy this problem. (Kidding, kidding).

Regrettably, my home state is no better. Hackers can mess with Texas. We defended the Alamo. Certainly we can defend a web site.

Going forward, these insecure courts, and many others, should become secure. Why? The latest version of the Google Chrome browser is blocking downloads on a secure page to an insecure site. If I include a link to a PDF from any of these insecure sites, it would be blocked. Far worse, How Appealing (a secure site) can no longer link to PDFs on any of these insecure sites. Howard Bashman is a national treasure. I know judges routinely check his site. Now, Howard’s links will not work.

I stumbled this problem today by accident. I tried to download a recent Fifth Circuit opinion, but I couldn’t. But when I visited the Fifth Circuit’s site, I was able to download the opinion from the Opinions page. With all due respect, Court web sites should be secure. These certificates are not difficult to install. And the failure to fortify these sites will make it tougher for people to access the law.

I will report back in due course to see if these sites become secure. For now, there is an easy workaround: (1) Right click on the link, (2) click “Copy Link Address,” (3) paste that link into your address bar. The file will download since the request is not coming from a secured page.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3mEetQp
via IFTTT

A Detailed List Of US Regime Change Policies Packed In With Pandemic Relief

A Detailed List Of US Regime Change Policies Packed In With Pandemic Relief

Authored by Alexander Rubinstein & Jeb Sprague via The GrayZone.com,

The longest piece of legislation in United States history, containing both a coronavirus relief package and the annual omnibus spending package, quickly passed through Congress on December 22, with little opposition. While technically separate bills, the omnibus and stimulus were debated and passed together, at the same time.

The massive piece of legislation – a staggering 5,593 pages in length – lays bare the priorities of the US government, prioritizing regime change in foreign nations and the imperatives of empire over the basic needs of Americans. In just a few hours, it passed through the House of Representatives by 359-53, and through the Senate by 92-6.

While the US public was forced to grovel for months for a $600 direct payment, the same piece of legislation pumps billions of dollars into “democracy programs” – US government code for regime-change operations via civil society NGOs – and foreign military assistance. The measly $600 survival checks pale in comparison to the massive foreign spending on regime change and titanic allocations to prop up US-friendly authoritarian militaries.

On so-called “Democracy Programs” alone, the legislation appropriates $2.417 billion, and $6.175 billion on the “Foreign Military Financing Program.” Another $112.9 million is appropriated for “International Military Education and Training.”

$6 billion more is allocated toward the domestic procurement of US Air Force missiles and US Navy weapons of war. This is in addition to the $740 billion defense bill passed earlier in December.

By contrast, the stimulus package comes at a value of $900 billion, with the largest portion devoted to business bailouts. The Federal News Network reports that the $1.4 trillion omnibus includes $671.5 billion allocated to “base defense spending,” with another $77 billion going to “overseas contingency operations.”

Stimulating regime change and intervening in the Global South

The legislation stipulates: “$300,000,000 shall be made available for a Countering Chinese Influence Fund to counter the malign influence of the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party and entities acting on their behalf globally.”

In Hong Kong, where CIA cutout the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has given financial support to activist groups leading riots that rocked the city for months on end, the United States is now devoting $3 million for local destabilization efforts, including “internet freedom,” activists’ legal fees, and “democracy programs.”

Similarly, the legislation devotes $8 million to NGOs for activities in Tibet or to support the Tibetan government-in-exile. It appears that, every fiscal year between 2021 and 2025, it allows for the additional appropriation of $8 million per year to support Tibetan communities in Tibet, as well as $6 million per year to support them in Nepal and India, and another $3 million per year for “Tibetan governance.”

The bill also allocates $3.3 million for the US government-backed media outlet Voice of America, and $4 million to the similarly operated Radio Free Asia every year between fiscal years 2021 and 2025, in order “to provide uncensored news and information in the Tibetan language to Tibetans, including Tibetans in Tibet.”

In perhaps the most bizarre appeal to a regime-change activist lobby, an entire section of the bill is devoted to defining US policy “regarding the succession or reincarnation of the Dalai Lama.”

The bill also directs the secretary of state to establish a US consulate in Tibet.

Meanwhile, aid to a number of countries is conditioned on their taking part in Washington’s economic aggression. For example, $85.5 million in assistance to Cambodia is contingent on it “taking effective steps” to enforce “international sanctions with respect to North Korea,” and “assert[ing] its sovereignty against interference by the People’s Republic of China.”

As for Latin America, the legislation stipulates that “not less than $33,000,000 shall be made available for democracy programs for Venezuela.” By contrast, the legislation appropriates $461.3 million for Colombia, a country which has seen massacre after massacre and scores of political assassinations — with more than 290 human rights activists killed in 2020 alone.

While 20 percent of the funds are not releasable until Colombia shows it is “taking effective steps to hold accountable perpetrators of gross violations of human rights in a manner consistent with international law,” given Washington’s record in the country, it will likely give the green light regardless of the facts on the ground.

Globally, $70 million is made available to support “internet freedom,” with an additional $2.5 million potentially available “to surge Internet freedom programs in closed societies.”

Meanwhile, a Ronald Reagan-inspired program aimed at expanding US influence and the “war on drugs” in the Caribbean, the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, is being given a $74.8 million injection.

In Zimbabwe, where former President Robert Mugabe passed away in 2017, the government is still not off the hook. The legislation states: “The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States executive director of each international financial institution to vote against any extension by the respective institution of any loan or grant to the Government of Zimbabwe.” This language is aimed at depriving the cash-strapped African nation of international relief.

$15 million is going toward “democracy programs” in South Sudan, while $60m is being repurposed away from the “Global War on Terrorism” and “made available for assistance for Sudan”.

In central Africa, $325 million is being earmarked for assistance to Congo, with some part of this appearing to be intermingled with “peacekeeping” operations.

The phantom Russian menace

With $453 million appropriated for assistance to Ukraine, $290 million for “countering Russia,” $173 million for NATO, and $132 million for NATO ally Georgia, the legislation comes close to appropriating a billion dollars toward new cold war policies against Moscow.

The rationale for this spending may be the re-emergence of an old menace; a hint buried more than 5,000 pages into the document states that it is US policy “to not recognize any incorporation of Belarus into a ‘Union State’ with Russia, since this so-called ‘Union State’ would be both an attempt to absorb Belarus and a step to reconstituting the totalitarian Soviet Union.”

In one striking example of how hell-bent the legislation’s authors are on regime change and confronting Russia, the following phrase appears verbatim nine times: “The Government of Belarus, led illegally by Alyaksandr Lukashenka.”

The legislation also demands a report from the director of national intelligence, the secretary of state, and the secretary of treasury that identifies all of Lukashenka’s assets and those of his family, plus “identification of the most significant senior foreign political figures in Belarus, as determined by their closeness to Alyaksandr Lukashenka.”

The insistence on such information seems aimed at fast-tracking a list of entities to impose sanctions, in an effort to destabilize the country and make it ripe for a takeover by the US- and EU-backed opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskay, whose name appears six times in the legislation.

Along with detailed attention on cyber activities in Belarus, the bill explains how US officials will put together a comprehensive strategy and cost estimate for carrying out various operations aimed at the country, one of which includes: “Expand independent radio, television, live stream, and social network broadcasting and communications in Belarus to provide news and information, particularly in the Belarusian language, that is credible, comprehensive, and accurate.”

Middle East madness

As the incoming administration of President-elect Joe Biden has promised not to condition aid to Israel in any circumstance, including potential annexation of the West Bank, Congress has rushed to pump the apartheid regime full of fresh cash.

Of the $6.1 billion appropriated for funding foreign militaries, a whopping $3.3 billion – more than half – “shall be available for grants only for Israel,” and must be “disbursed within 30 days of enactment of this Act.”

Additionally, it appears that $500 million is appropriated for “Israeli Cooperative Programs,” which includes weapons procurements.

While it is difficult to interpret different allocations and far-distanced portions of the legislation going to the same target, one thing is clear: loads of money has been appropriated to a far-away apartheid state, as Americans remain unprotected from rent-related water shutoffs under the legislation.

Meanwhile, any aid to the Palestinian Authority will be held up if its officials initiate or support any kind of investigation at the International Criminal Court (ICC) that seeks the prosecution of Israeli nationals for crimes against humanity.

In neighboring Syria, which has been constantly bombed by Israel since the outbreak of the foreign-backed proxy war against the country’s government, Congress has appropriated $40 million toward” non-lethal stabilization” – in other words, destabilization assistance.

While the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has largely been defeated, $710 million to counter the group remains “available until September 30, 2022”.

Iran, meanwhile, is mentioned 22 times in the legislation.

The ‘”Afghanistan Security Forces Fund” of $3 billion will “remain available until September 30, 2022,” and is geared toward the “security forces of Afghanistan, including the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, construction, and funding…”

The legislation also appropriates $250 million to reimburse the governments of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Oman on border security spending, with $150 million going to Jordan, a geostrategic lynchpin that shares a borders with Iraq, Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian West Bank.

Another $241.4 million of appropriations through the “Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs” will be made “available for assistance to Tunisia.”

Egypt’s military, notorious for its repressive crackdowns on dissent, is due to receive a colossal $1.3 billion, according to the guidelines established in the Camp David Accords.

While US citizens continue to suffer the economic fallout of haphazard government shutdowns that have been largely ineffective in dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, Congress poised passed a greatly reduced stimulus packaged alongside a massive handout to corporate America and its foreign client states.

Now it is up to the outgoing president – ironically notorious for his ‘America First’ rhetoric – to sign the legislation into law. Reports indicate he intends to do just that.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 12/22/2020 – 22:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3aD0w34 Tyler Durden

Trump’s Latest Round of Pardons Include George Papadopoulos, GOP Congressmen, Blackwater Guards

TrumpPardons_1161x653

Two men convicted as a result of the investigation of President Donald Trump’s staff ties to Russia, a Republican congressman convicted of misusing campaign funds, and four Blackwater security guards convicted of murder for the deaths of 17 Iraqis in Baghdad are among the 20 people granted some form of clemency by Trump this evening.

In addition, some lesser-known people convicted of drug crimes or smaller incidences of fraud were granted mercy by the president. Weldon Angelos, who became a cause celebre demonstrating the harshness of federal mandatory minimums, was granted a full pardon this evening. Angelos was sentenced to 55 years in prison for three marijuana deals. He was freed in 2016 due to the mercy of a prosecutor who had second thoughts about all the charges piled against the man.

Pardoning Angelos, along with some other lesser-known folks is a genuine good for criminal justice. Unfortunately, Trump’s dollops of mercy here will be overshadowed by some of the other very polticized pardons.

Trump pardoned two more people who gotten caught up in the Russia probe of Trump’s campaign in Robert Mueller’s special investigation, George Papadopoulos and Alex van der Zwaan. The two men, much like Michael Flynn, had been convicted of lying to FBI agents during the course of the investigation. And much like Flynn, they were not charged with any additional crimes. Both have already served their time (14 days for Papadopoulos, and 30 days for van der Zwaan, who was also subsequently deported).

Trump pardoned former California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter. Hunter was convicted in March and sentenced to 11 months in prison for misusing hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funds for personal purposes, including trips, parties, and entertainment.

Two other Republican politicians also received mercy from Trump. Former Rep. Chris Collins of New York, who pleaded guilty of insider trading in 2019 and was sentenced to 26 months in prison, has been given a full pardon. Former Texas Rep. Steve Stockman, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2018 for misusing charitable and political donations for personal use, wasn’t pardoned, but Trump commuted the remainder of his sentence.

Beyond that crop of purely political clemency gestures, Trump also fully pardoned four men, Nicholas Slatten, Paul Slough, Evan Liberty, and Dustin Heard, who were all convicted of various murder and manslaughter charges for the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square in Baghdad while serving as private contracted guards with Blackwater. In the pardon announcement, the White House justified the pardons because:

On appeal, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that additional evidence should have been presented at Mr. Slatten’s trial. Further, prosecutors recently disclosed—more than 10 years after the incident—that the lead Iraqi investigator, who prosecutors relied heavily on to verify that there were no insurgent victims and to collect evidence, may have had ties to insurgent groups himself.

Meanwhile this very same administration is setting modern records executing prisoners convicted of murder, even as their defense attorneys make complaints that courts and juries weren’t given the full picture of their crimes. Just two weeks ago Trump’s Department of Justice executed Brandon Bernard, even though five jurors who sentenced him to death and a prosecutor who worked on the case had come forward to say they had changed their minds.

The White House letter explaining these pardons lists who pushed the president for mercy, and very frequently it’s the support of Trump allies in Congress or even in his own administration who have pushed for these pardons.

This doesn’t necessarily make them bad and wrong—we should all take a dim view of the any federal conviction whose sole charges are lying to the FBI—but the list of commutations shows a president who is not terribly interested in mercy for anybody outside of his orbit. Trump ultimately has a poor record of commutations and pardons (though he has just improved on it). The New York Times notes, “A tabulation by the Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith found that of the 45 pardons or commutations that Mr. Trump had granted up until Tuesday, 88 percent aided someone with a personal tie to the president or furthered his political aims.”

Tonight added more pardons and commutations to those with ties to Trump, as well as to those without.

Surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden was not on tonight’s list, but we know several lawmakers in Trump’s orbit are trying to convince him. And, of course, there are many, many more people behind bars who are in situations like Angelos. Let’s hope Trump’s mercy extends to them as well.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37FJrnc
via IFTTT

Trump Threatens to Sink COVID-19 Relief Bill Unless Congress Cuts Wasteful Spending, Spends More on $2,000 Stimulus Checks

Trump-election-fraud-speech-12-2-20

COVID-19 relief might now be in jeopardy following a late night rant from President Donald Trump, who demanded that Congress cut wasteful spending from its $2.3 trillion spending package while also approving additional spending: $2,000 stimulus checks for all Americans.

“The bill they are now planning to send back to my desk is much different than anticipated,” said Trump in his remarks Tuesday evening. “It truly is a disgrace.”

The 5,000-page, $2.3 trillion legislative package passed by Congress on Monday included two different bills: a $1.4 trillion omnibus spending bill and the $900 billion dedicated to pandemic relief.

“It’s called the COVID relief but it has almost nothing to do with COVID,” said Trump, referring to the two bills interchangeably.

Of particular concern to the president were a number of admittedly dubious appropriations for foreign aid, scientific research, and federal facilities in the omnibus spending bill.

“This bill contains $85.5 million for assistance to Cambodia, $134 million to Burma, $1.3 billion for Egypt and the Egyptian military, which will go out and buy almost exclusively Russian military equipment,” said Trump. “$40 million for the Kennedy Center which is not even open for business. $1 billion for the Smithsonian, and an additional $154 million for the National Gallery of Art. Likewise, these facilities are essentially not open.”

In total, Trump explicitly named some $4 billion in spending he considered wasteful.

“Despite all this wasteful spending and much more, the $900 billion package provides hard-working taxpayers with only $600 each in relief payments and not enough money is given to small businesses and in particular restaurants,” said Trump, possibly referencing the exclusion of the $120 billion RESTAURANTS Act from the coronavirus relief bill.

The president said Congress should get rid of of a two-year sunset on a tax deduction for business meals included in the package, increase stimulus checks from $600 to $2,000 per person, and cut some of the aforementioned wasteful spending.

“I’m also asking Congress to immediately get rid of the wasteful and unnecessary items from this legislation, and send me a suitable bill or else the next administration will have to delivery a COVID relief package and maybe that next administration will be me,” said Trump, referencing his apparent belief that he might somehow stay in office despite, you know, losing the election.

Trump’s support for $2,000 stimulus checks is not new. The Washington Post reports that his advisors talked him out of that demand at the last minute, lest he endanger the entire relief package.

To be sure, the president’s broadsides against a spending deal that includes lots of money for “lobbyists, foreign countries, and special interests” is certainly welcome, and, frankly, on target. The president was also right to criticize the rushed legislative process that sent this special interest-laden spending package to his desk.

The trouble is that the conditions Trump outlined for supporting relief legislation would make the bill much worse. Middle-class Americans do not need an additional $2,000 in federal support. A $900 billion relief bill that includes generous, targeted benefits—including expanded unemployment benefits, relief for renters, and boosted food stamp spending—doesn’t need more spending on universal programs that will mainly benefit Americans who are currently receiving a paycheck.

The $1,200 stimulus checks included in the CARES Act cost taxpayers roughly $300 billion. Upping stimulus checks to $2,000, from the current $600 amount, would tack on roughly $350 billion to the coronavirus relief bill’s costs. In exchange, Trump is demanding to cut some $4 billion or so in frivolous spending.

One need not be a deficit hawk to understand that that math doesn’t add up.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3mG07ix
via IFTTT

One Bank Asked Its Clients Where Bitcoin Will End 2021: Here’s What They Said

One Bank Asked Its Clients Where Bitcoin Will End 2021: Here’s What They Said

As Deutsche Bank’s chief credit strateigst, Jim Reid, writes, “central banks have driven us here and in turn have also driven Bitcoin to the spectacular year.”

It’s also why in an addendum to his latest monthly survey, Reid explicitly asked Deutsche Bank’s clients around the globe where they thought bitcoin would end 2021.

Here are the answers: a vast majority think it goes higher with only 27% thinking under $20,000 in 12 months. 41% think between $20-49,999 in various buckets with 12% thinking over $100,000.

On an average basis, survey respondents think it will be over $40,000 by then, nearly double current levels.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 12/22/2020 – 22:25

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