Tag: finance

Soybean futures sold for around $11.69 per bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade yesterday, breaching a four-year high earlier this month. 

By comparison, CBoT soybean futures were trading around $9.40 per bushel when the U.S.-China Phase 1 trade deal was signed in mid-January. 

Moe Agostino, the chief commodity strategist with Farms.com Risk Management, said, “no one in the US thought we could even get to $10/bu, and now here we are (almost at $12/bu).” 

Agostino said bullish price action had been the result of two factors: increased trade and weather events. 

“It started with better-than-expected demand, particularly from China as they bought soybeans because they needed them as part of the Phase 1 trade deal,” he said.

Farms.com’s Diego Flammini said China, to date, had purchased a total of $23.6 billion in US farm products, or about 71% of its agriculture commitments specified in the trade deal. 

Soybean prices hold near $12 per bushel, which was also driven by adverse weather (storms and drought) in both the US and South America. This month, Brazil suspended tariffs on soybean imports from outside the country to ensure its domestic supplies were stable following strong demand. 

Agostino said if South America doesn’t receive adequate growing weather, it could mean prices move even higher.   

“Many in the trade see $12, but I think we are going to see $13 futures,” he said. “It could happen by the end of the year. If South America gets less-than-ideal moisture in the next month or so, it could happen very quickly.”

Reuters notes many Brazilian farmers sold their crops before CBoT soybean futures began to rise. A clear indication US farmers have turned hefty profits this year, capitalizing on elevated crop prices and exports to China. 

“For once it was the right thing … Usually the best opportunities to sell for fall are March through June but the world came to an end in March,” said Norway Center, South Dakota, farmer Jed Olbertson, referring to the sharp decline of commodity prices as the COVID-19 pandemic hit the western hemisphere.

Brazilian farmers told Reuters they missed the rally and sold too earlier, however, their growing season is opposite to North America. 

“I am one of the most regretful farmers,” said Cayron Giacomelli, a grower in Brazil’s top grain state Mato Grosso. “Nobody imagined, even in the best-case scenario, that we would have prices above 120 reais per bag for future delivery at this time of the year.”

Rising crop prices and increasing demand from China is great news for struggling US farmers who’ve seen their incomes decimated over the last decade.  

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

A law in Denmark that would have given authorities the power to forcibly inject people with a coronavirus vaccine has been abandoned after nine days of public protests.

The ‘epidemic law’ would have handed the Danish government the power to enact mandatory quarantine measures against anyone infected with a dangerous disease, but it was the part about vaccinations that caused the biggest uproar.

In Denmark, the national government proposed a new epidemic law which includes the right to conduct forced physical exams, mandate isolation, and allows police-directed physically coerced vaccination.

The people resisted.

The proposal was dropped.

Well done, Denmark. https://t.co/qHxn0QCf6e

— AJ Kay (@AJKayWriter) November 15, 2020

“The Danish Health Authority would be able to define groups of people who must be vaccinated in order to contain and eliminate a dangerous disease,” reports the Local.

“People who refuse the above can – in some situations – be coerced through physical detainment, with police allowed to assist.”

However, after nine straight days of protests against the new law, it has now been scrapped.

DENMARK: 9 days of protests over a new law that “would be able to define groups of people who must be vaccinated. People who refuse the above can be coerced through physical detainment, with police allowed to assist.”pic.twitter.com/LN0SBVKUE8

— Robin Monotti Graziadei (@robinmonotti) November 14, 2020

With a coronavirus vaccine within sight, governments across the world are mulling over what punitive measures to bring against those who refuse to take it.

Last week we highlighted how both Ticketmaster and airline companies are considering barring people from entering venues and flying if they cannot prove they have taken the vaccine.

So while public protests may be able to prevent authorities carrying out forced vaccinations, people who refuse to take the shot may find it virtually impossible to enjoy any kind of social life, use public transport, or even find employment.

*  *  *

New limited edition merch now available! Click here.

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

We all know we are already in the midst of Covid’s “second wave”. But the real question remains the same as it was 10 months ago – where are people catching the virus? There’s no doubt contact tracing, especially in the U.S., has been a monumental failure. The good news is that it means increased privacy for citizens. The bad news is that it will likely be used as a scapegoat to forego those privacies in the future – and that it’ll result in broad lockdowns. 

This was the question explored in a new WSJ article that sought to try and find out where the record amount of new cases are coming from across the globe. In Germany, for instance, authorities say they don’t know where 75% of people who test positive from the virus have gotten in. In Austria, that number is 77%. In Spain, the country was only able to identify 7% of cases. In France and Italy, that number is around 20%.

Here in the U.S., we only don’t have much more in the way of detail. In New York, for example, a senior adviser for public health estimates 10% of cases came from travel, 5% came from gatherings and 5% came from “institutional settings”.

The rest? We’ll, there really isn’t any visibility into where they came from.

Jay Varma, senior adviser for public health for NYC’s Mayor’s Office, said: “The vast majority of the remainder—somewhere probably around 50% or more—we don’t have a way to directly attribute their source of infection. And that’s a concern.”

While Asian nations interview about 10 people per case, for contact tracing purposes, the U.S., France and the U.K. generally only interview or identify fewer than four contacts per case. 

That data is then easily “skewed by statistical distortions”, according to Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. He said that cases in people’s homes are probably overlooked: “We may be putting too much emphasis on what we can trace…and not acting on the types of establishments that are very likely contributing but for which data isn’t as compelling.”

Cue the “we need access to your homes” government line. “Trust us – it’s for your own good,” they’ll say.

Restaurants, where diners are among strangers, also make contact tracing difficult. Only few European countries and U.S. states have required restaurants to take down contact information from their customers. In France, this requirement only started in early October. In Paris, local authorities said they “haven’t conducted a single investigation” using customer data. 

Falko Liecke, city councilor for health and youth in Berlin’s popular Neukölln district, said they have a problem contact tracing because people either can’t – or simply don’t want to – remember where they were at, when and with whom. It’s almost as if they don’t want the government infringing on what they do in their own private time – imagine that. 

German cities have asked people to keep a “contact diary” of those they are in contact with, in case they test positive. 

Contact tracing is made even tougher by the fact that the virus takes 10 days to show its symptoms – if it shows symptoms at all. Again, up to 40% of cases are estimated to be asymptomatic at this point. 

So, as government does best, the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater: new lockdowns are being implemented both overseas and here in the U.S., where an incoming Biden administration is toying with the idea of a 4-6 week total shutdown.

So much for 15 days to slow the spread back in March, huh?

And again, we’re sure this angle of not having visibility into contact tracing will result in new, Orwellian rules that’ll be “for everybody’s own good” at some point, despite the fact that we are just weeks out from having a vaccine in widespread distribution. 

Authored by Andrew Ash via The Gatestone Institute,

There was a time when the British were known for their stoicism, their ability to battle through hardship, no matter the odds. The so called ‘blitz spirit’ of eighty years ago, that saw the nation ‘pull together and carry on’, regardless of the Nazi bombardment of our cities, characterised a generation that had suffered two world wars yet could not be bowed.

During the Covid pandemic, however, this ‘blitz spirit’ has been noticeably absent. There has been certainly very little in the way of a nation pulling together; in its place, there has been just a lot of bickering, mud-slinging and name calling-among politicians, activists, and the increasingly fragmented populace.

Predictably, Covid-19 was quickly turned into a divisive political issue by many in the oppositional media. The assertion now — that anyone against face coverings, vaccines, or testing is assumed to be on the extreme right, while those obeying the safety rules, are on the left — is as simplistic as it is loopy. One might have imagined that a deadly pandemic would act as a great uniter, finally bringing an end to the squabbling that has characterised UK (and US) politics for the last few years. Instead, we have been baked in identity politicking, making an already turbulent time more turbulent than ever.

Some malcontents have taken their vitriol to new levels of malice, publicly hoping, for instance, that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson would not recover from the coronavirus. No pulling together there. No blitz spirit. No compassion. Just bitterness, feuding and ever-deepening separation.

The fertile, if airy, ‘soil’ of cyberspace has become the perfect breeding ground for radicals of every stripe to spread their doctrines of division amongst the young, politically ripe millennials during lockdown. Pitching everyone against everyone — left against right, young against old, black against white, women against men, trans (seemingly) against everyone — appears to be the aim. All of that successfully seems to be driving a wedge of seething resentment between communities.

It has become an almost daily occurrence to find news stories of parents being ‘called out’ by their newly politicised children for expressing on social media ‘wrong’, ‘unwoke’ views, or of people being fired for something they may or may not have said years ago. Anyone who openly dares to emphasise the ‘Great’ in ‘Great Britain’ is simply asking to be labelled a ‘racist’. For those naïve enough to believe in basic biology — that the anatomy of women and men are different – the gulag awaits you. If you dare to utter the unthinkable, that ‘all lives matter’, prepare to leave town.

Many agitators — unconcerned by either civility or tolerance — continue perpetuating the notion, developed by precocious two-year-olds, that if you shout for long enough, your wishes might be served up. This sense of entitlement has come to characterise a group whose younger demographic seem to have no comprehension of the horrors of a war — or indeed, of many authentic hardships — in their own relatively comfortable lives.

This lack of respect for, or understanding of, history, along with an apparent need to invent, import, or re-animate grievances from the past, then lead them to advocate inflicting what they decide is the appropriate revenge for a grievance on people who have had no part in causing it. Tolerance is to be expected only from others. For many ‘progressives’, there is no such thing as a two-way street. Agitators now seem to put their energy and focus into prioritising pet causes to which they feel everyone else ought to acquiesce. These might include men who have changed gender competing in female sports; defunding the police so that the most disadvantaged communities will be even further unable to protect themselves; expanding censorship in academia and Big Tech, or paying billions in taxpayer funds to other countries for promises to stop using fossil fuels at some far-off date and with no means of enforcement. Oh, and by the way, there is no debating anything. Just do what you are told.

While the Remainer-disruptors dragged out their opposition to Brexit as long as they could, seeing off two different prime ministers in the process, they may have relished their power. It was only after the Tories’ landslide victory in December 2019, that they finally let go of their dream of overturning Brexit – but not before having branded all those in favour of leaving the EU as bigoted xenophobes.

That slur is a particular slap in the face to the people of this patient nation. For decades, they have done their best to move in step with the creeping, ‘progressive’ times in which we live. The acceptance of a variety of often controversial societal changes, such as the ever encroaching desires of various sexual lobbies, ushered in under the banner of ‘human rights’, seems lost on the liberals, so intent are they on pushing their identity politics agenda. If this is how appreciation is shown for the British public’s quiet, respectful acceptance of often controversial, ‘tipping point’ changes within society, then no wonder much of the public may have decided that they have had enough of this new orthodoxy.

Although the coronavirus outbreak, with its restrictions of movement, briefly muted woke activism for a short time, it was not long before the extreme, activist milieu became restless. Until the death of George Floyd, a black American seemingly killed by a white policeman, these individuals had been busy berating figures on the right for not taking Covid-19 seriously enough. Suddenly, none of that mattered anymore. A frenzy of orchestrated Black Lives Matter protests erupted across Britain, despite the incident bearing absolutely no similarity to anything happening on Britain’s streets, and despite the relative anonymity of the BLM movement in Britain until that point.

Many in the media, nevertheless, made sure that the message was loud and clear: protesting against perceived racism — even if on another continent — was more important than any pandemic.

Thus, after months of being told we would be prosecuted for breaching the Covid rules, we then had to observe on television thousands of protestors, not just flouting the safety rules, but tearing down historical monuments — all off the back of a grievance that felt largely imported.

Even as the protests turned violent, no one was arrested. Up until this point, the government had made clear that any breach of lockdown rules would be met by the full force of the law — no caveats, no exceptions. Probably no one was happy about it, but still we complied — for the greater good.

Then, all of a sudden, chaos was erupting in towns and cities across the UK. There on the news, amidst the violence of civil unrest, not only were the lockdown rules being flouted, but, under the banner of Black Lives Matter, a raft of widespread anti-social behaviour was being tolerated. When the statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square was vandalised, the police, evidently held hostage to political correctness, stood by and watched as their role was publicly undermined by open disregard for the law.

The protestors’ dismissal of British heritage, a bid to ‘cancel’ history, appears a threat to the nation. We supposedly have nothing to be proud of. Our achievements have presumably been little more than the spoils of an evil, bigoted patriarchal system. These malcontents, by pledging allegiance to the Marxist architects of that narrative, not only insult the memory of those who have fought and died for the freedoms we now take for granted; they are also two-stepping towards totalitarianism.

While the rights of sexual and ethnic minorities appear to be immovably written in stone, the freedom to visit our families, the pub, or the library can be withdrawn by the state at a moment’s notice. Thousands of protestors marching through cities on the same day: no problem. Crowds flocking to the seaside on a summer day: the risk of arrest. One man’s freedom, it seems, has become another man’s cause for resentment.

So what will we be left with, as we try to reclaim our post-Covid lives in a not yet post-woke world? An increasing atmosphere of distrust and walking on eggshells. People are increasingly afraid to speak their minds. Even law enforcement is in a state of politically correct paralysis (here, here, here and here) .

While the UK was busy promoting multiculturalism and demoting choices such as Christianity, the nuclear family and a cultural heritage caringly assembled by people frequently written off as white and dead, we seem have failed to notice the societal divisions it has caused. According to reports, for example, about 19,000 of our children have been groomed and gang raped. The coronavirus pandemic, rather than bringing us together, has served to highlight divisions that are transforming the United Kingdom into something regressive, unevolved, and unrecognisable. Sadly, the United Kingdom is anything but united at this time.

Leaders in Turkey have expressed frustration in the past days over being cut out of talks that led to a Russia-brokered truce agreement in Nagorno-Karabakh, which crucially saw nearly 2,000 Russian peacekeeping troops deploy there over the weekend.

Turkey is seeking to set in motion plans for its own ‘peacekeeping’ force to deploy as a guarantor ensuring Azerbaijan’s gains as part of the deal are upheld. 

As part of the truce terms Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh must return the Armenian ethnic districts of Aghdam, Kalbajar and Lachin to Azerbaijan according to a timeline negotiated under the Russians, which has set Dec.1 as the date by which the districts are handed over.

Al Jazeera cites state media to report that “Turkey’s government has submitted a motion to parliament, seeking its approval to deploy peacekeepers to monitor a ceasefire agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia.”

Thus far amid ongoing talks with Moscow, it’s been agreed that Russia and Turkey can establish a joint monitoring center in Azerbaijan.

However, prior Russian Defense Ministry statements emphasized that Turkish troops would not be joining Russian forces on the ground. A bill is now going through Turkey’s parliament to approve the mandate:

The bill submitted to the parliament on Monday requests a one-year mandate to send Turkish peacekeepers, adding that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would determine the number of troops to be sent.

The motion says: “It has been assessed that for the Turkish Armed Forces personnel … to take part in the Joint Center which Turkey and Russia will form together, will be beneficial for the peace and welfare of the region’s people and is necessary from the point of our national interests,” according to state-run Anadolu Agency.

Nearly 1,960 Russian military personnel went to Nagorno-Karabakh Tuesday as peacekeeping troops for the recent Moscow-brokered peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan
Read more here: https://t.co/mmFJnnMYVN pic.twitter.com/prCxVvWyRT

— The Moscow Times (@MoscowTimes) November 13, 2020

The Russia-brokered peace deal signed last week between the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan at a moment Azerbaijan appeared to have the clear military upper-hand has been called by Azerbaijan’s president a clear “capitulation” by Yerevan. Baku has been hailing it as a ‘victory’ over Armenia. 

It’s come at a huge cost for the Armenian side in terms of losing possession of significant districts of the disputed territory following six weeks of fierce fighting that has left thousands dead and wounded.

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

A British MP faced backlash Monday after suggesting that employees in the UK should not be allowed to go to work unless they can prove that they have been vaccinated against COVID-19, when the shot becomes available.

“If vaccination works and if we’re confident it’s safe, and all indications so far are good, then I can certainly see the day when businesses say: ‘Look, you’ve got to return to the office and if you’re not vaccinated you’re not coming in,’” said Tom Tugendhat.

“And I can certainly see social venues asking for vaccination certificates,” Tugendhat added.

Far from being some extreme leftist politician, Tugendhat is a Conservative MP, he chairs the foreign affairs committee under Prime Minster Boris Johnson’s government.

Tugendhat also suggested that there are precedents for requiring vaccinations for foreign travel.

“I remember when I used to travel rather more than I do now – when you go into certain countries you had to show a yellow fever certificate and if you did not have a yellow fever certificate you weren’t allowed in the country and that was that,” said Tugendhat.

“There was no debates, no appeals and no further requests. And I can see a situation where yes, of course you’re free not to have the vaccine, but there are consequences,” he added.

Tugendhat also suggested that vaccine status could even be required to use public transport, saying “It would depend what the public services were, and who and when, so I wouldn’t want to start predicting.”

“But I do think that if things are shown to be safe then rejecting them when they have a wider effect on the whole of society is going to have consequences,” the MP added.

AN ORWELLIAN FUTURE
Tom Tugendhat, Conservative MP & Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, has stated he could “certainly see the day” when people are refused entry into pubs & restaurants, and they may not be allowed to return to their workplace until they’ve had the vaccine. pic.twitter.com/AWBlkK59Fy

— Jim Slater (@Dailybugle1898) November 15, 2020

Advocates for mandatory vaccination like @TomTugendhat always say that the vaccine is safe. What is safe? No vaccine can possibly be 100% safe.
Has the government indemnified the vaccine manufacturers against any liability for their vaccine prior to production I wonder? https://t.co/pvyPJ3r5HJ

— John Fisher (@thejohnfisher) November 17, 2020

I think you hope to ruin the lives of millions by locking us up forever…

Sticking us with needles and controlling our lives.

Never ends well for people like you.

— Barbarian Bureau (@BarbarianBureau) November 17, 2020

Make no mistake; this will be the next divide:

How to “encourage” people to take the vaccine, polls suggest at least 40% of the population will refuse
👇👇
Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat suggested anti-vaxers could be banned from workplaces and social venues until they get jabs

— Ajay Jagota 🏃‍♂️ (@ajayjagota) November 13, 2020

Tugendhat’s suggestion is just the latest in a string of indications that anyone who chooses not to be vaccinated will be effectively ostracised from society.

Airlines are likely to require passengers to sign up for a “health pass” which includes a digital certificate of vaccination against COVID-19 before allowing them to fly, according to a recent report.

The system would be similar in nature to that being considered by Ticketmaster, who it was revealed are considering making customers prove they’ve had the vaccine or a negative coronavirus test before allowing them to purchase tickets.

Ticketmaster later clarified that a final decision on such measures would be up to event organizers but that they were still mulling over the implementation of the system.

With Uber and other companies also beginning to refuse services to people who fail to comply with coronavirus restrictions, the “new normal” will likely create a lower caste of refusniks who are barred from traveling, any form of social life, and in the future even basic financial services.

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

The US Election is still a burning issue almost two weeks after the people went to the polls, and though the race has been called for Biden by every mainstream media outlet in the world, the recounts are ongoing and irregularities manifest.

Trump’s legal team, and many in the alternate media, are claiming the election was rigged. With one voice the mainstream media – and the entire political establishment – denounce these claims as “baseless”, and scream there is “no evidence”.

This is incorrect. There is plenty of evidence, both circumstantial and direct, which breaks down into six basic categories:

1. Precedent – It has happened before.

2. Motive – Deep State/Military dislike of Trump’s policies is widely known.

3. Foreknowledge – Establishment voices predicted this exact situation.

4. Opportunity – The voting system is highly susceptible to fraud.

5. Voting Irregularities – Known software “glitches” & irregularities in the reporting of the results.

6. Cover-up – Dishonesty in the reporting of the situation.

1. PRECEDENT

There is plenty of evidence that US elections have been rigged before.

Nobody is talking about it much, but US elections have been rigged before. Everyone is more than familiar with the 2000 election, which was called for Al Gore before Florida flipped to Bush and swung the election. The controversy over “hanging chads” and misplaced votes was all people talked about for weeks.

One noteworthy “error” with electronic voting machines, switched over 10000 votes from Gore to an obscure third-party candidate.

After weeks of legal battles, Gore eventually conceded. Within a year the “attacks” of 9/11 had happened, and the US was at war in Afghanistan and planning six more wars within 3 years.

More recently, it was revealed the DNC had gone out of its way to hand Hillary the presidential nomination over Sanders in 2016. Then in the 2020 primaries, despite embarrassingly lopsided losses in the first few primaries, Biden’s presidential campaign had a “miraculous turnaround”, thanks largely to irregularities in postal ballots in Ohio, Wisconsin and New Jersey.

This is evidence of precedent.

2. MOTIVE

The US Deep State has clear and publicly known motives for wanting to remove Trump from office.

It is no secret that many members of the US’s political establishment oppose Trump and Trump’s policies. This includes neo-con warmongers and chiefs of the military and intelligence agencies.

“The Resistance”, billed as some voice of the progressive alternative, boasted former members of George Bush’s cabinet as members.

The most strident opposition to Trump was on foreign policy – most specifically in the Middle East. Trump was committed to withdrawing from Syria, in direct opposition to the “Assad Must Go” crowd at the Pentagon and State Dept.

Just last week it was revealed that Department of Defense actually lied to Trump about their troop numbers in Syria, claiming to have pulled out almost everyone whilst they actually kept their covert war going.

Conversely, Biden has always been firmly in the establishment camp on Syria, and many warmongers are already predicting that Biden will want to “restore some dignity” to the Syrian people.

The US Deep State has carried out coups all around the world, many of them bloody and violent, in order to maintain Imperial ambitions and keep wars-for-profit going. They have every motive to want to remove Trump and put Biden in his place.

This is evidence of motive.

3. FOREKNOWLEDGE

Establishment voices have been predicting, and planning for, this exact situation for almost a year.

In January of this year – well before anyone could have predicted the effect the “pandemic” would have on the world – legal scholars were Wargaming the outcome of a disputed Presidential election based on postal ballots in Pennsylvania.

In August a group naming themselves the Transition Integrity Project published a document predicting a “disputed” election, that the counting would take much longer than usual and that it would not be certain who was President until January.

More generally, the outcome of the election was widely “predicted”, with multiple press outlets claiming there would be a “red mirage” and a “blue shift”. Meaning it would look like Trump would win, and then suddenly Biden would win at the last minute.

This is evidence of foreknowledge.

4. OPPORTUNITY

There is plenty of evidence that the US voting system is open to potential corruption.

Voting machines, for example, are owned and distributed by private companies. Many of which have political ties. An article in the Guardian, of all places, went into great detail about this just last year, when they were suggesting that Trump may have stolen the 2016 election.

Likewise, postal ballots are known to be susceptible to fraud. William Barr, the Attorney General, summed it up in a television interview in September, and written reports in 2007 and earlier this year, have gone into great detail about historical cases of postal vote fraud and possibilities of future occurrences.

This is evidence of opportunity.

5. VOTING IRREGULARITIES

There are plenty of irregularities in the results which suggest the possibility of something strange going on.

The story of the election by the numbers doesn’t really make logical sense. The turnout is said to be 72%, the highest in 120 years, and the first over 60% for over 50 years.

In the process Joe Biden, we are told, shattered Barack Obama’s popular vote record by almost 10 million votes.

Joe Biden?

This Joe Biden?

…got more votes than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?

Meanwhile Donald Trump increased his own popular vote by over 10 million, whilst increasing his vote share in almost every ethnic demographic, as well as with women and LGBT voters.

Making him the first incumbent president to increase his popular vote but still lose in over a century, and the only one since all 50 states were part of the union.

Even if you believe that narrative is possible, there’s more than enough evidence of voting irregularities to warrant at least questioning the result and investigating further.

In one Michigan county an error in the software configuration swung thousands of votes from Republican to Democrat and called a Congressional seat for the wrong party.

This error was only spotted because of the historically republican record of the county. In a more hotly disputed seat, this error could potentially never have been picked up.

Another Michigan county reported an error which switched 5,500 votes from Trump to Biden – a swing of 11,000 votes.

The software used in this county is used in 30 other states – including Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona and Pennsylvania, all of which were decided by less than 1% of the vote, and any two of which could swing the election to Trump.

In fact Dominion, the company which supplied the questionable voting software, was denied a contract by the state of Texas in 2019 when judges found there were “concerns” about “whether [it] is safe from fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation”.

A subsidiary of Dominion was kicked out of the Philippines for being too easy to hack.

This video clip appears to show CNN’s coverage switching over 19,000 votes from Trump to Biden in Pennsylvania.

The graphed results of both Michigan and Wisconsin show decidedly odd jumps in Biden’s vote.

The counting itself was also deeply suspect, with several states taking almost a week to count the last few percent of the vote, whilst managing to count over 90% of the vote on the first evening. In Wisconsin the National Guard were brought in to “transcribe” damaged ballots, whilst in Pennsylvania they were allowed to count postal votes with “no clear post mark”, fairly obviously

As Glen Greenwald wrote, the very fact the count was so arduous and complicated raises questions about the outcome.

6. THE COVER-UP

The media are engaging in lies and censorship.

To state there is “no evidence” of election rigging is a lie. There is plenty of evidence. Every news outlet, channel and website is singing from the same hymn sheet on this – even Fox News, so often Trump’s supposed favourite channel.

Even before the election, as discussed above, all the mainstream media were running articles defending mail-in ballots, and claiming that they are not historically weak to voter fraud. This is totally untrue, as anyone who cared to research the topic would tell you.

In fact many countries have incredibly rigid controls on postal voting for exactly that reason.

And then, after the election, social media companies and mainstream media outlets censor the President of the United States.

So, why are all the media telling the same lies? Why are people being denied a platform?

This is evidence of a cover-up.

*  *  *

Ask yourself:

• If, in 2016, some voting software used in 30 states had flipped 5500 from Hillary to Trump, and later been revealed to be financially tied to the Republican party, would that have been “just a glitch”, or evidence of cheating?

• If the Brexit referendum had swung violently to Leave after dumps of suspect postal ballots were permitted into the count by a judge who was a known Brexit supporter, would the media have kept quiet?

• If, in Russia, the media denied a platform to the opposition to accuse Putin of voter fraud, would that be “responsible media practice”, or evidence of bias and censorship?

We don’t know exactly what happened, or how the election was result was controlled, but as of right now the specifics do not matter.

The point is there is plenty of evidence suggesting something happened, more than enough to warrant asking rational questions and expecting reasonable answers.

Every time the media ignores the evidence, or censors those seeking it, they only display further that there must be some fire behind all of this smoke.

Today in “it’s starting to look a lot like a prison-state using Covid as the excuse” news…

Harrowing scenes are surfacing at the Peppers Adelaide medi-hotel in South Australia, where travelers who were already in a 14 day quarantine have been told that they have to undergo the 2 week process for a second time. 

This has resulted in guests screaming from their balconies to be released from the hotel, where some are being forced to stay despite testing negative for Covid, according to news.com.au. 

The standoff comes as the country tries to deal with a local cluster of cases that has more than doubled. More than 4000 people locally, who are considered “close contacts” have been quarantined, as a result. 

Professor Nicola Spurrier, Chief Health Officer, said: “These people have been advised to quarantine and they are being contacted on a daily basis for a symptom check. This is a huge amount of work, as you can imagine, to make sure that we are in regular contact with these people.”

The country has been able to identify 21 cases linked to one family cluster, which includes three young children and a baby. The state’s draconian measures are coming after reporting 18 new cases yesterday and 5 new cases today. Including the hotel, there are now 34 active cases, with 3 of which coming from a nursing home in Adelaide. 

The CEO of the Anglicare Brompton Aged Care Home in Adelaide called it his “worst nightmare”. So far, all residents at the home have tested negative and are being tested daily. 

The cluster was said to have started by a female cleaner working at Peppers, who then passed it to her family and two unrelated hotel security guards. It has triggered closures and isolation warnings across the area. 

Second possibly only to some Asian areas, Australia has done well in limiting the spread of Covid throughout the country.

With just 27,756 cases and 907 deaths throughout the course of the pandemic, the country has been helped along by its geography – and the overreaching measures, like these, it has taken to control and and trace the virus. 

Authored by Pat Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

Because of Donald Trump, Vice President Joe Biden thundered during the campaign, the U.S. “is more isolated in the world than we’ve ever been… America First has made America alone.”

Biden promised to repair relations with America’s allies. And he appears to have gone some distance to do so in the congratulatory phone call he received from Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga of Japan.

According to Suga, during the brief call, Biden said Article V of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty of 1960 covers the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, islands Japan controls but China claims as its own.

“President-elect Biden gave me a commitment that Article 5 of the US-Japan security treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands,” said a delighted Suga.

And what does Article V commit us to?

“Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger…”

Message: The U.S. will treat a Chinese attempt to take the Senkakus, tiny rocky outcroppings in the East China Sea, as an attack on the USA, and America will fight China to secure Japan’s right to keep the islands.

Biden has removed any ambiguity that may have existed and given Tokyo a U.S. war guarantee that covers the Senkakus.

The response of China’s foreign ministry was to angrily lay claim to the islands they call the Diaoyus as “inherently Chinese” and to dismiss the U.S.-Japan security treaty as a “product of the Cold War.”

This diplomatic clash comes as Henry Kissinger was warning the Bloomberg Economic Forum:

“America and China are now drifting increasingly toward confrontation, and they’re conducting their diplomacy in a confrontational way. … The danger is that some crisis will occur that will go beyond rhetoric into actual military conflict.”

Kissinger continued:

“Unless there is some basis for some cooperative action, the world will slide into a catastrophe comparable to World War I.”

World War I was the worst calamity in Western civilization — until the next war to which it led inexorably: World War II.

Last week, we also learned that during Chinese military exercises in August, the People’s Liberation Army fired two missiles thousands of kilometers from the mainland that struck a targeted merchant ship sailing in the South China Sea.

The missiles were the DF-21D and DF-26B.

Both missiles are known as “aircraft carrier killers.”

The U.S. routinely moves its carriers through these waters to underscore our contention that neither the South China Sea nor the Paracel and Spratly Islands within belong to China as Beijing claims.

Consistent with China’s toughening policies toward its neighbors, four members of the opposition in the Hong Kong legislature were ousted last week, which led to wholesale resignations that have left Hong Kong’s governing council under the total control of pro-Beijing hardliners.

The era of “one country, two systems” for Hong Kong, dating to the transfer of sovereignty by Great Britain, appears to be over. The dissidents and demonstrators who filled the streets just months ago appear to have been routed, and the city’s future looks less like the Hong Kong of yesterday than the Beijing of tomorrow.

These actions are consistent with the hard lines Beijing has taken on its “reeducation camps” for Uighurs in Xinjiang and its border dispute with India in the Himalayas.

While Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has lately sought to round up like-minded nations to stand up to China — Japan, Australia, India — there appears to be a reluctance, rooted in uncertainty as to whether Communist China or democratic America represents the future of Asia.

Trump’s “America First” policy asked the most basic of questions:

Are all these half-century old alliances, these commitments to go to war for Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines, as in Joe Biden’s estimation, assets to be nurtured and even expanded to cover more territories like the Senkakus? Or are they liabilities that could drag us into wars the American people do not want to fight?

While we reject China’s claim to all the reefs, rocks and islets in the South China Sea and her claim to the Senkakus in the East China Sea, should we be obligated to go to war over these tiny parcels of land, especially when their legitimate owners are unwilling to fight for them?

Biden repudiates an “America First” foreign policy that puts U.S. security, sovereignty, liberty and vital interests above the interests of any other nation.

But what is it, then, that Biden puts first?

Globalism. A New World Order. A Crusade for Global Democracy.

Been there, done that.

Sixty years ago when Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy faced off, the foreign policy debate was over whether the U.S. should fight Mao’s China to defend the tiny offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu.

Kennedy thought not. Kennedy won.

Trump is planning to continue hardline measures against China during his last weeks in office, right up until inauguration day on January 20.

National Security Council spokesman John Ullyot recently boasted to Axios, “Unless Beijing reverses course and becomes a responsible player on the global stage, future US presidents will find it politically suicidal to reverse President Trump’s historic actions.”

And now in his latest statements National security adviser Robert O’Brien has singled out Chinese telecommunications company Huawei as the “number one concern” for democracy moving forward.

“If you believe in democracy and you’re concerned about our elections, that’s the number one concern that we’ve got going forward and that all the democracies have is what China could do with that Huawei backbone in our countries,” O’Brien told The Hill in an exclusive interview. “It’s really quite scary.”

US defense officials along with the administration have long seen Huawei’s global 5G rollout as but a Trojan horse allowing Chinese intelligence and the PLA military backdoor access to whatever systems go online in host countries, particularly in the West. 

Indeed O’Brien underscored precisely that it could give the Chinese government “backdoors to pull up every bit of data in the world.” However, US critics would point out this is exactly the kind of data hegemony that the NSA has long sought and practiced, even sweeping up US domestic communications, according to the Snowden archive revelations in 2013.

Here’s more from the interview according to The Hill:

“What’s really turned especially the Europeans, but also many of the Asians, is the fact that their personal private data is going to be owned 100 percent by the Chinese Communist Party,” O’Brien said. 

“Think of what you could do with that from a microtargeting standpoint in an election,” he said. “If you know everybody, if you know their hopes, if you know their fears, if you know who’s having an affair, if you know who’s been diagnosed with cancer, if you know who’s having financial difficulties, if you know what someone’s dream vacation is. Think of taking all that information and then on a micro basis, being able to target that person, to blackmail them, to entice them, to attempt to influence them.”

Over the past years the US has not just blocked Huawei from US soil (along with other China-based tech companies believed linked to the PLA), but has pressured other countries to ban it as well.

Last week President Trump signed an executive order banning US investment in 31 Chinese companies that in some way has provided support to the Chinese military, whether through systems of logistical support.