Month: May 2021

Moscow had some stinging words for Washington which were also hilariously ironic on Monday, as both Putin and Biden look ahead to their in-person summit set for June 16 in Geneva. Warning of “uncomfortable” signals to come, the Kremlin indicated that high on the agenda would be a range of human rights and free speech issues in the United States, particularly the “persecution” of those behind the January 6 Capitol riot by the Biden administration. 

The words appear Moscow’s ultimate trolling response to Biden remarks on Sunday wherein he vowed to confront Putin on egregious human rights abuses: “Of course, we will be ready to discuss everything, including problems that exist in the United States,” Lavrov told reporters Monday following Biden’s statements. According to AFP:

He said Russia was monitoring the “persecution” of those behind the January 6 riot at the US Capitol.

How an American reacts to something like this is a superb Rorschach Test to measure so many important attributes: https://t.co/lQyTry3VcF

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 31, 2021

Lavrov then sarcastically adopted the language and tone of US officials when they frequently lecture foreign adversaries around the world from Russia to Syria to China to Venezuela to Iran, or to any country the US doesn’t like. This included Lavrov talking about the US “opposition” and their “rights” while referencing the prior pro-Trump protests and unrest inundating the Capitol. 

Lavrov continued:

“A lot of interesting things are happening there,” he said, adding that Russia wanted to discuss “protection of opposition rights” in the United States.

The Biden administration has over the past two months heavily focused scathing criticism on the Alexei Navalny saga – frequently holding up the now jailed anti-Kremlin activist (stemming from a prior parole violation and embezzlement case) as leading the “democratic opposition” to Putin’s rule, despite before last August’s alleged ‘nerve agent poisoning’ ordeal not having much name recognition at all inside Russia. 

Here’s what Biden had said in his speech ahead of Memorial Day:

In a speech marking the Memorial Day holiday, Biden said: “I’m meeting with President Putin in a couple weeks in Geneva, making it clear we will not stand by and let him abuse those rights.”

He also said that the moment was right to show the world, and namely China, that the US was ready to lead again after four years of a largely inward-looking foreign policy under Donald Trump.

“It’s time to remind everybody who we are,” he said.

So it appears Russia is ready to punch bad just as hard with its own criticisms, focusing heavily on US double standards and hypocrisy (the Snowden and Assange situations topping the list lately).

The US has also of late focused heavy criticism on Belarus’ Lukeshenko and his apparently close relationship with Putin in the wake of the Ryanair incident. The Kremlin has dismissed the West’s reaction (which has included expanded sanctions against Belarus) as more “fits of hysteria” – with Putin days ago telling his Belarusian counterpart directly that this is nothing but the latest “emotional outburst” coming from the West. 

Local newspaper Yomiuri reveals Japanese authorities are mulling over expanding eligibility criteria, including a negative COVID-19 test or vaccination history, for fans before entering the Tokyo Olympics this summer. Once inside, spectators might be forbidden from eating, drinking, and cheering. 

Yomiuri said the government is considering that all spectators be required to show a negative COVID test within a week before attending the event that is set to run between July 23 and Aug. 8. 

Reuters quoted the government’s top spokesman Katsunobu Kato, who told reporters that he’s unaware of any decision on eligibility criteria. 

“To make the Games a success it’s necessary to take into account the feelings of the people,” Kato said, adding that organizers were planning to ensure measures were in place. 

In addition to those measures, wearing masks will be mandatory at all times inside each of the sporting venues. Authorities are considering a ban on eating and drinking at the venues to avoid the virus from spreading. Chaotic and loud cheering, hugging, and high-fiving may also be banned, according to Yomiuri. 

Expanding eligibility criteria to enter venues and restrictions within will only apply to Japanese fans because foreign fans and volunteers have been banned. This is a massive blow to the event because it already sold 900,000 tickets to overseas visitors. 

This all comes as the island country in East Asia extended a state of emergency covering major metro areas until June 20. Another wave of the virus pandemic has hit nine regions. 

Demands for Japan to cancel the Olympics have grown louder since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued a Level 4 Travel Health Notice for Japan due to the recent outbreak. There are restrictions in place affecting U.S. citizen entry into Japan. 

Questions swirl if the U.S. will send their athletes… 

Toshiaki Endo, vice president of the Tokyo Olympics, told Reuters that some fans could be allowed into venues. He suggested a total ban would be more assuring to prevent a widespread virus outbreak. 

People on social media are appalled by the proposed new restrictions. One Twitter user said: 

“If you can’t eat, cheer, or do high-fives, what’s the point in paying for a ticket and an expensive test?” 

The Olympics have already been canceled once, and the latest outbreak of infections threatens to cancel the event for the second time. 

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the announcement that the University of California will now join the “test-blind” movement and end the use of the SAT and ACT in its admissions decisions. Some have called for the change to increase diversity in the schools, particularly after California voters refused to change the long ban on affirmative action in education under state law.

Here is the column:

The Supreme Court will decide early next month whether to take a new case on the use of race in college admissions. For decades, the court has fractured on the issue and left an unintelligible morass. A challenge brought by Asian students at Harvard could bring clarity, including a possible rejection of the use of race as an admissions criterion.

However, the massive California university system has just taken an action that could make such challenges more difficult in the future. University of California President Janet Napolitano announced that the ten schools in the system will no longer base admissions on standardized tests — joining a “test-blind” admissions movement nationally.

Without standardized testing, it would be difficult to prove the weight given to race in admissions.

Advocates for greater diversity in admissions have long opposed the use of standardized tests as disfavoring minority applicants. Many have decried standardized testing as vehicles for white supremacy. Indeed, education officials like Alison Collins, vice president of the San Francisco Board of Education, have declared meritocracy itself to be racist.

Napolitano responded to such criticism with a Standardized Testing Task Force in 2019. Many people expected the task force to recommend the cessation of standardized testing. The task force did find that 59 percent of high school graduates were Latino, African-American or Native American but only 37 percent were admitted as UC freshman students. The Task Force did not find standardized testing to be unreliable or call for its abandonment, however.

Instead, its final report concluded that:

“At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, [University] GPA, and graduation.”

Not only that, it found:

“Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007 … Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines … In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority Students (URMs), who are first generation, or whose families are low-income.”

In other words, test scores remain the best indicator for continued performance in college.

That clearly was not the result Napolitano or some others wanted. So, she simply announced a cessation of the use of such scores in admissions. The system will go from two years of “optional” testing to a “test-blind” system until or unless it develops its own test.

Ending standardized testing will have a notable impact on legal challenges to the use of race in college admissions. Last November, Californians rejected a resolution to restore affirmative action in college admissions.

The Supreme Court has issued a series of 5-4 decisions that have ruled both for and against such race criteria admissions — but even justices supporting such systems have expressed reservations. The author of the 2003 majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, said she expected “that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” That 25 years is about up.

Reports indicate that significant differences remain on such scores, particularly for Asian students. The Harvard Crimson reported that “Asian-American applicants to Harvard earned an average SAT score of 726. White applicants earned an average score of 713, Native American and Native Hawaiian applicants an average score of 658, Hispanic American applicants a score of 650, and African American applicants a score of 622.” Yet, during that same period, “Asian-Americans saw the lowest acceptance rate of any racial group.”

In Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the litigants cite a study finding that Asian Americans needed SAT scores that were about 140 points higher than white students; the gap with admitted African American and Hispanic students is even greater.

The Supreme Court has allowed race to be considered in overall admission decisions, but has stressed that it cannot be used as a determinative or dominant factor. Judicial reviews, therefore, often focused on the objective standardized scores to deduce the weight given to race. Most of us agree that admissions should be based on a holistic review of applicants and not just their scores or GPA. This includes achieving greater demographic, socio-economic, racial and other forms of diversity. However, standardized scores remain highly valuable as objective comparisons of all applicants to guarantee a system based on meritocracy, including within such groups.

In the Harvard case, the scores are particularly important because the litigants allege that subjective factors were systemically used to disfavor them on issues such as likability and personality. While the lower courts ruled for Harvard, the trial judge did note that there may have been bias in favor of minority admissions and encouraged Harvard to deal with such “implicit bias” while monitoring “any significant race-related statistical disparities in the rating process.” But what if there are no “statistical disparities” because there are no objective statistics?

The elimination of scores has a pronounced impact on students. While it will likely allow for greater diversity in admissions, it also removes a way for students to distinguish themselves in actual testing of their knowledge of math, English and other subjects. Yes, there are other ways to distinguish themselves, like community service and high school projects. Yet, as found by the UC task force, these tests do have a predictive value on success. Indeed, at a time when the United States is losing ground on math and science, the elimination of such testing could undermine our competitive position in a global economy; countries like China demand high levels of objective performance in areas like math and science.

There is an alternative. Rather than eliminate standardized scores due to the disparity in performance of racial groups, we should focus on improving the performance of minority high school students in these areas.

Testing results reflect a continuing failure of our public schools. The top-spending public school districts are also some of the worst-performing districts. New York topped the per capita spending, at $24,040 per kid. Yet, according to a 2019 study, over half of New York City public school kids cannot handle basic math or English. On tests, Asian kids shows a 74.4 percent proficiency in math, with a 66.6 percent proficiency for whites, 33.2 percent proficiency for Hispanics and 28.2 percent proficiency for African Americans.

Instead of addressing the failure to educate kids in these communities, the push is to get rid of the testing itself.

The deficiencies will remain — but the ability to expose them will be gone.

Eliminating standardized scores will not erase true racial disparities in our educational system. Indeed, it may only exacerbate them.

Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has brought up a very interesting point regarding China’s unwillingness to share evidence with western investigators looking into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.

During a Sunday appearance on CBS News “Face the Nation,” Gottlieb noted that CCP scientists would have taken blood samples from three lab workers who were hospitalized with COVID-like symptoms in Dec. 2019 (one of whom’s wife likely died of the disease).

When asked if he believes whether the Chinese know where the pandemic came from, Gottlieb replied: “They would know the answer to the question because they would have blood samples from the workers in that lab.”

“And that’s the evidence that they haven’t made public,” he continued. “If, in fact, the blood samples show that a high prevalence of people in that lab have been exposed to this virus, that’s pretty definitive proof that this coursed through that lab. And they would also have the samples from the time that they were first drawn, which was the time when they had those illnesses. There’s no question that when they had an outbreak of an illness in that lab that they would have done routine blood sampling in that lab. That’s just normal controls in a lab of that quality. So they would have that information.“

1/x Critical evidence needed on Wuhan lab leak: “[The CCP] would have blood samples from the workers in that lab.”

“And that’s the evidence that they haven’t made public.”

“If, in fact, the blood samples show that a high prevalence of….”https://t.co/PUmCeprS4s

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 31, 2021

While China has denied that the three lab workers fell ill, the Daily Mail reported over the weekend that one Washington source said “US intelligence on the Wuhan researchers was collected in late 2019 in data-scraping from routine surveillance. It is thought to include tapped phone conversations, texts and emails.”

As the Daily Wire reports, Gottlieb also noted:

• “The ledger that suggests that this could have come out of a lab has continued to expand.”
• “And the side of the ledger that suggests that this could have come from a zoonotic source, come out of nature, really hasn’t budged, and if anything, you can argue that that side of the ledger has contracted because we’ve done an exhaustive search for the so-called intermediate host, the animal that could have been host to this virus before it spread to humans. We have not found such an animal. We’ve also fully disproven the market, the food market that was initially implicated in the original outbreak as the source of the outbreak. And so that side of the ledger probably has shrunken, and China could provide evidence that would be exculpatory here. They could provide the blood samples from those who worked in the lab in Wuhan. They’ve refused to do that. They could provide the source strain, some of the original strains. They’ve refused to do that. They [could] provide access to some of the early samples that we could sequence. They could provide an inventory of what was in the lab, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the lab that has been implicated in a potential lab leak. They have refused to do that.”
• “These kinds of lab leaks happen all the time, actually.”
• “In China, the last six known outbreaks of SARS-1 have been out of labs, including the last known outbreak, which was a pretty extensive outbreak that China initially wouldn’t disclose that it came out of lab. … it was only disclosed finally by some journalists who were able to trace that outbreak back to a laboratory.”

Watch:

TRANSCRIPT FROM CBS NEWS VIA THE DAILY WIRE:

JOHN DICKERSON: We go now to former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who sits on the board of Pfizer and joins us from Westport, Connecticut. He has just finished work on a book that will be out this fall titled: “Uncontrolled Spread: Why COVID-19 Crushed US and How We Can Defeat the Next Pandemic.” Good morning, Dr. Gottlieb.

DOCTOR SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Good morning.

JOHN DICKERSON: So usually when we’re together, we talk about the past and look towards the future, but this week, we’ve been talking a lot about the past. Why is it that there is now a conversation about how this pandemic started, and why is that important?

DR. GOTTLIEB: Well, look, I think the challenge is that the side of the ledger that suggests that this could have come out of a lab has continued to expand. And the side of the ledger that suggests that this could have come from a zoonotic source, come out of nature, really hasn’t budged. And if anything, you can argue that that side of the ledger has contracted because we’ve done an exhaustive search for the so-called intermediate host, the animal that could have been host to this virus before it spread to humans. We have not found such an animal. We’ve also fully disproven the market, the food market that was initially implicated in the original outbreak as the source of the outbreak. And so that side of the ledger probably has shrunken, and China could provide evidence that would be exculpatory here. They could provide the blood samples from those who worked in the lab in Wuhan. They’ve refused to do that. They could provide the source strain, some of the original strains. They’ve refused to do that. They [could] provide access to some of the early samples that we could sequence. They could provide an inventory of what was in the lab, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the lab that has been implicated in a potential lab leak. They have refused to do that. And we know that that lab was poorly constructed, had poor controls. That was reported at the time that it was first opened. We know the lab was engaging in very high-risk research, including infecting transgenic animals, animals with fully human immune systems. We know they were working with SARS-like viruses that have never been disclosed before. And now we have new evidence that some lab workers became infected right at the time that this virus was believed to be first introduced. That’s been publicly reported. So that side of the ledger has expanded. And I think that’s why there is renewed focus on this. In terms of your final question, why this is important, I think if we assess that there is a probability or a possibility that this came out of a lab, it’s going to affect how we respond to this. We’re going to need to focus on trying to get better controls in this sort of high-risk research going forward and get better controls over these BSL-4, these high security labs that conduct this research. Incidentally, China was not conducting this research in a BSL-4 lab. They were doing it in a lower security BSL-2 lab.

JOHN DICKERSON: So in terms of looking at this going forward, back to the title of your book, “How We Can Defeat the Next Pandemic,” your argument is it’s important to know how this started in this case because there is this specific lab. But there have been also other cases where security has been lax and there have been leaks. And so it’s important to figure out what happened here in order to kind of lock the doors tight, to keep it from happening again.

DR. GOTTLIEB: That’s right. These kinds of lab leaks happen all the time, actually. Even here in the United States, we’ve had mishaps. And in China, the last six known outbreaks of SARS-1 have been out of labs, including the last known outbreak, which was a pretty extensive outbreak that China initially wouldn’t disclose that it came out of lab. It was only for — it was only disclosed finally by some journalists who were able to trace that outbreak back to a laboratory. So it’s important to understand what the possibility is that this came out of a lab so we could focus more international attention on trying to get better inventories around these labs, what they’re doing, better security, make sure they’re properly built. We need to also look at public health through the lens of national security. This was an asymmetric harm to the United States. COVID hurt the U.S. a lot more than it hurt many other countries. And that’s another thing I talk about in the book, looking at these kinds of risks through the lens of national security, including getting our intelligence services more engaged in this mission. Traditionally, we’ve relied on international conventions and scientists working together, multilateral agreements to try to assess the risks and try to uncover these kinds of outbreaks. I think we also need to get better surveillance in place and use our tools of national security to help engage in that mission as well.

JOHN DICKERSON: If there were an answer to this question, would it help with any way in which we are covering and responding to the coronavirus now? In other words, dealing with variants or anything, is there a public health benefit to knowing this at this moment?

DR. GOTTLIEB: Not right now. I think what we know about the virus, we already know about the virus. And there’s nothing that we’re going to learn about the characteristics of the current virus by knowing its origin. Quite frankly, we’ve had enough experience with this virus to fully understand it. I think it informs how we go forward, and how we prepare ourselves against these threats in the future, and reduce these likelihoods. That’s where this becomes very important.

JOHN DICKERSON: And what about in the past? There was discussion of this very early in the response to the pandemic. People thought this might be one of the places it might have come from. If we had known for certain, which, it’s an open question whether we ever could have known. But if in the early days of the pandemic, we had known that it came from this lab, would that have changed in any way the response to the pandemic?

DR. GOTTLIEB: I’m not sure it would have affected how we responded to it. Once this became epidemic in China and once it escaped China, it was going to behave the way it behaved. I’m not sure there’s things we would have learned or gleaned by knowing that it came out of a lab and perhaps was manipulated or humanized in a lab. We could ascertain that this was pretty humanized by the time it started to spread in humans. Again, I think this is more of a question going forward. And we may never really determine with precision whether or not this came out of a lab. I think what we’re likely to end up with is an assessment, a probability, unless we get very lucky and we either find the intermediate host, we find a colony of civet cats or pangolins where this is epidemic and it could have first spilled over into humans, or we have a whistleblower in China or regime change, which we’re not going to have. I don’t know that we’re going to find out with certainty that this came out of a lab. I think we’re going to ultimately come up with an assessment and a probability on whether this came out of a lab versus a zoonotic source. And it’s going to take some more data to get a better overall assessment in terms of the probability that this could have come out of a lab. But we might get that information.

JOHN DICKERSON: Is it your view that the Chinese know the answer to this question?

DR. GOTTLEIB: They would know the answer to the question because they would have blood samples from the workers in that lab. And that’s the evidence that they haven’t made public. If, in fact, the blood samples show that a high prevalence of people in that lab have been exposed to this virus, that’s pretty definitive proof that this coursed through that lab. And they would also have the samples from the time that they were first drawn, which was the time when they had those illnesses. There’s no question that when they had an outbreak of an illness in that lab that they would have done routine blood sampling in that lab. That’s just normal controls in a lab of that quality. So they would have that information.

JOHN DICKERSON: All right, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, congratulations on finishing the book. Thanks again for being with us, as always.

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Different Types of Competition

With today being the US Memorial Day holiday to commemorate its fallen combat soldiers, it’s likely to be a quiet start to the week for markets. However, the US holiday provides a platform for some sober reflection on more contemporary forms of competition

First, a former PBOC official says the rapid rise in CNY against USD probably won’t last, and that the Chinese currency is “overbought”. That looks a further jaw-boning attempt to shift market expectations away from the idea that Beijing is going to allow CNY to keep appreciating. In short, this looks a form of ‘FX War’, a long-running source of tension between different economies, because they are a zero-sum game. Of course, current PBOC officials point out the initiator can be seen as the US, via its extraordinary monetary and fiscal policies.

Indeed, the SCMP flags “China calls for global action to stop big flows of pandemic-fuelled hot money”, as the vice-chair of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission calls for tougher international oversight to stop hot money flows, and for tougher “monitoring” of international capital flows. Yet outright controls would be needed to stop what happens in the US spreading elsewhere; and indeed within China there was a vow to crack down on “market manipulation”, a threat which has arguably led to a drop in commodity prices.

A key message here is that despite Western delight at post-virus re-opening and ludicrous levels of market liquidity, our global system is still no more stable, nor our global recovery more balanced and sustainable, than in the troubled past. A second implied message is this: with China now an economic giant, can both it and the US stimulate à outrance without bubbles and *global inflation* emerging? If not, this is again a zero-sum game. If the US goes the ultra-easy route, then China perhaps cannot: and obviously that has serious implications when both behemoths have a political growth imperative. Therefore, we also see the push-back on the FX front (ZH: as confirmed by today’s FX RRR hike, the first in 14 years).

Yet that is just one front where pushing may occur. In remarks last week, US President Biden stated:

• “In the coming weeks, my administration will take steps to combat these supply pressures, starting with the construction materials and transportation bottlenecks, and building off the work we’re doing on computer chips.” The latter involves cajoling firms to shift semiconductor production back to the US – will other sectors now follow?;

• “Three decades ago, the US was #1 –and some would argue #2– in the world for R&D spending –research and development– as a share of our economy. You know where we are now in the international competition? We’re #9. We must be #1 in the world to lead the world in the 21st century.  It’s a simple proposition.” Contrast that with the headline: “Chinese President Xi Jinping seeks to rally country’s scientists for ‘unprecedented’ contest”, which adds “promises to boost investment and free scientists from bureaucracy” and “Xi says country must seek breakthroughs in areas such as artificial intelligence and semiconductors as he warns of major battle between great powers.” But back to Biden;

• “Investment in high-growth industries like clean energy and electric vehicles – it’s not just we want to deal with the environment. We want to lead the world in exports of these new technologies instead of ceding the global market and job creation to the Chinese.” So the US wants to be less of a net importer, and to seize global market share back from China. Imagine what the FX implications are there for a world dependent on exporting to the US to earn USD; and

• “100% of our investment is going to be guided by one principle: Make it in America…I promise you, there’ll be no contract let to a foreign company or any of the product down the line…They’re going to find the job here in America, I promise you, or they’re not going to get the contracts.” Whether this is delivered or not, the overall rhetoric is completely zero-sum.

Meanwhile, as we search for a binary rather than analogue answer, within three months, the US intelligence services will release their conclusions as to the origins of Covid-19. This obviously has the potential to sour US-China relations well beyond financial markets. Indeed, the UK’s Daily Mail alleges a report will shortly be published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery which makes explosive related claims.

Even more worryingly, the editor of China’s The Global Times has argued: “As the US strategic containment of China has increasingly intensified, I would like to remind again that we have plenty of urgent tasks, but among the most important ones is to rapidly increase the number of commissioned nuclear warheads, and the DF-41s, the strategic missiles that are capable to strike long-range and have high-survivability, in the Chinese arsenal…We must be prepared for an intense showdown between China and the US…The number of China’s nuclear warheads must reach the quantity that makes US elites shiver should they entertain the idea of engaging in a military confrontation with China. On this basis, we can calmly and actively manage divergences with Washington to avoid a minor incident sparking a war.”

Perhaps against the backdrop of insanely destabilizing global liquidity, a MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) defense policy is ironically appropriate: and Vegetius (“Si via pacem, para bellum”) would certainly approve. However, Vegetius never said “Si vis pacem para commerciaque” – if you desire peace, prepare for free trade. Or joint-venture wealth-management services.

Which, shifting geography, leaves the EU in a pickle given it only knows how to do free trade. It certainly doesn’t know what to do with a Belarus whose President Lukashenko just had a bear-huggy visit to Russian President Putin, where he procured a USD500m loan, and who has threatened to “allow migrants and drugs to flood into western Europe if sanctions are imposed on his country following the forced landing of a Ryanair passenger plane.” History suggests this can sometimes be followed by an EU deal involving money transfers the other way. Yet a further Belarussian journalist was apparently seized late Sunday local time; and Belarus has launched criminal cases against the mayor of Riga and the Latvian foreign minister for “inciting ethnic hatred.” In short, we are watching to real time to find out what EU “open strategic autonomy” means in a world of zero-sum US-Chinese competition, and where even tiny Belarus can thumb its nose and make threats.

The EU’s mood will not be helped with the release of a report stating the Danish secret service helped the US spy on Germany’s Angela Merkel: so even friendly Europeans spy on each other. Imagine what those who aren’t such good friends do. Whisper it – but it might not just be all about free trade!

The owner of a Mendocino, California restaurant is penalizing customers who wear masks inside, according to NBC Bay Area.

“$5 FEE ADDED TO ORDERS PLACED WHILE WEARING A FACE MASK,” reads signs posted in the windows and at the register of Fiddleheads Cafe.

The fine print adds that anyone overheard bragging about having been vaccinated will be hit with another $5 charge.

“Customers either love it or hate it,” said owner Chris Castleman in an email to NBC Bay Area, who said the ‘fee’ is ultimately considered an ‘optional donation’ which goes to charities assisting victims of domestic abuse.

“There are people who refuse to pay it; I guess a $5 donation to charity is too much for them. Others have gladly paid it knowing that it goes to a good cause. I don’t force anyone to pay, I give them the freedom of choice, which seems to be a foreign concept in these parts of the country,” Castleman added.

This isn’t the first time Castleman has waded into the mask debate – posting signs in April which read: “THROW YOUR MASK(S) IN OUR TRASH BIN AND RECEIVE 50% OFF YOUR ORDER,” as well as “GET YOUR FREE COVID-19 VACCINE CARD HERE!” which was accompanied by a photocopy of what appeared to be a COVID-19 vaccination record.

According to the Press Democrat, Castleman temporarily closed the restaurant in June 2020 after receiving a $10,000 citation from county health officials for violating various health orders – such as employees not wearing appropriate face coverings or failure to post necessary signage regarding social distancing or proper hygiene.

“I’m not going to tell my employees to do anything,” Castleman said at the time. “That’s between them and the county. In general, the stance I have on all this is it’s about personal responsibility and personal choice. It’s not about me being a police officer.”

Castleman set up a still-active GoFundMe page last June to help keep his doors open, and has raised $6,500 of his 5,000 goal.

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

Over the weekend Senator Rand Paul and former CIA director and secretary of state Mike Pompeo both warned that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is still up and running, and that evidence points to involvement with the Chinese military in bioweapons research.

Appearing on Fox News, Paul told Jeanine Pirro that he is worried US funding is still being used by the lab to conduct biological warfare experiments.

“I’m very worried that this stuff still goes on and that the U.S. government’s been funding it,” Paul said, adding “We’ve got a lot of evidence pointing to this lab now,” as the origin of the virus outbreak.

Referring to the gain of function research with coronavirus that is known to have taken place in the lab, Paul warned “it’s making it more transmissible to humans and often times making it more deadly in humans.”

“…it’s making it more transmissible to humans and often times making it more deadly in humans.” – Senator @RandPaul with a message every American should hear about what may be happening inside the Wuhan Lab pic.twitter.com/xHPnlS91aO

— Jeanine Pirro (@JudgeJeanine) May 30, 2021

Last week, the Senate passed an amendment introduced by Paul that would permanently ban all funding of such research in China.

“We don’t know whether the pandemic started in a lab in Wuhan or evolved naturally,” said Paul in a statement.

It continues, “While many still deny funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, experts believe otherwise. The passage of my amendment ensures that this never happens in the future. No taxpayer money should have ever been used to fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan, and now we permanently have put it to a stop.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s involvement in the funding of the research was further brought under scrutiny this weekend, with alleged comments from 2012 being highlighted by The Australian.

Fauci reportedly stated that experimenting on contagious viruses was worth the risk of a laboratory accident, such as a global pandemic, writing that “the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”

Meanwhile, Mike Pompeo warned that the Wuhan lab is engaged in military activity alongside civilian research.

“What I can say for sure is this: we know that they were engaged in efforts connected to the People’s Liberation Army inside of that laboratory, so military activity being performed alongside what they claimed was just good old civilian research,” Pompeo said on “Fox & Friends Weekend.” 

“They refuse to tell us what it was, they refuse to describe the nature of either of those, they refused to allow access to the World Health Organization when it tried to get in there, Pompeo urged.”

He continued, “I’ve known since spring of last year, 2020, when I first spoke about this that there is enormous evidence that this escaped from that laboratory in Wuhan.”

“We know there were people who got sick there, scientists who got sick there, we know they were doing the gain of function research — essentially taking viruses and making them more contagious, potentially more lethal, this administration has to get after this,” the former CIA head asserted.

“That virology lab is still up and running. It’s still probably conducting the same kinds of research it was conducting that may have well led to this virus escaping from that laboratory,” Pompeo further emphasised.

“Only the Chinese Communist Party knows the answer, the world deserves the answers and they have to tell us, I hope there will be bipartisan push to demand and hold accountable,” Pompeo urged.

The weekend saw yet more research emerge backing the lab leak theory, as British oncology professor Angus Dalgleish and Norwegian virologist scientist Dr. Birger Sørensen prepared to present their discovery of ‘unique fingerprints’ in COVID-19 samples that they say could only have arisen from manipulation in a laboratory.

Their study claims that Chinese scientists created COVID-19 in the Wuhan lab, then tried to cover their tracks by reverse-engineering versions of the virus to make it look like it evolved naturally from bats.

The scientists have said that they have struggled to get their work published in the past year, being dismissed as ‘conspiracy theorists’ until US intelligence findings brought the lab leak possibility back into the spotlight recently.

British intelligence also weighed in on the matter this weekend, with sources telling the press that the leak theory is feasible.

Reports from a year ago noted that senior intelligence sources suggested that most of the 17 agencies in the US believed the coronavirus came from a Chinese lab.

Other agencies and Intelligence figures across the globe are seriously considering the possibility of the lab leak, and have also called for the Wuhan lab to be investigated.

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

*  *  *

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

North Korea has blasted what it’s calling a “hostile policy” in the wake of the Biden White House lifting restrictions on South Korea’s ballistic missile program, which is now authorized to develop missiles capable of traveling beyond prior limitations. 

During a May 21 US-South Korea summit the US side announced Seoul is now free to pursue missiles with unlimited ranges, but the statement out of a Pyongyang official said this will inevitably lead to an “acute and instable situation”, according to the Associated Press. Previously the US imposed a limit of a 500 mile range (800km) on the south’s missiles on concerns of a regional arms race. 

AP notes of the Monday statements of condemnation, however, that they come from an individual state media commentator – identified as Kim Myong Chol (said to have been a close associate of the late Kim Jong-il)- and not necessarily from a government entity itself.

“The termination step is a stark reminder of the U.S. hostile policy toward (North Korea) and its shameful double-dealing,” he said according to the official Korean Central News Agency. “It is engrossed in confrontation despite its lip-service to dialogue.”

“The U.S. is mistaken, however. It is a serious blunder for it to pressurize (North Korea) by creating asymmetric imbalance in and around the Korean Peninsula as this may lead to the acute and instable situation on the Korean Peninsula now technically at war,” the commentator added.

Kim further accused the US and South precisely of attempting to stoke an arms race in lifting the range restrictions on ballistic missiles, which the policy was designed to prevent. Monday’s reaction out of state media is the first significant response in the wake of the South Korean ballistic missile program policy change. 

North Korea’s state media criticized the recent termination of a pact between the United States and South Korea that capped the development of South Korea’s ballistic missiles, calling it a sign of Washington’s ‘shameful double-dealing’ https://t.co/6N23J1AZKG

— Reuters (@Reuters) May 31, 2021

All of this follows the Biden administration saying that it does not imagine any “grand bargain” on the horizon with Kim Jong Un – in contrast to the Trump administration’s ambitious pursuits involving historic face-to-face meetings with the North Korean leader.

Authored by James Poplar via AmericanThinker.com,

Often, we forget that Memorial Day  is a day not for merchandise sales and or the unofficial start of Summer.

But rather it is a day set aside to honor those brave men and women who have fallen in the performance of their military duties while serving in the United States armed forces. 

On this solemn day there will be cemeteries all across the nation where loved ones will pay their humble respects and quiet tribute to a father, mother, sister, or brother. The loss may be fresh, or it may only be a distant but still painful memory. When I visit Arlington National Cemetery, I often see the tokens (flowers, stones, and photos) of remembrance left behind by those still grieving their loss.

Many Americans since the Revolutionary War have selflessly laid down their lives so that others may live — a testament that freedom truly is not free and often comes indeed at a heavy price and sacrifice.

My families’ service goes back to Bunker Hill where we lost two fathers in combat — we hope they will be the last. Over the years, many of our young men and women were sent unprepared and ill equipped into combat by armchair politicians who have never served nor seen, smelled, or tasted the horror of war.

While on active duty I would frequently visit Walter Reed Hospital and see the human toll of war — men and women crippled and without limbs or mentally scarred for life, struggling to cope and make it to the next day.  It was never a pretty sight; many would turn away rather than face the reality of their pain and suffering. I pray their sacrifices will never be forgotten nor taken for granted.

On this day when we honor their sacrifice it is appropriate that we revisit the words to the American’s Creed passed as a resolution by the U.S. House of Representatives on April 3, 1918 as America was in the midst of the “War to End All Wars.”

“I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.”

Remember those who died in combat on this sacred day wearing  the uniform of this great nation, because without their sacrifice we would not have the freedom that many of us flippantly take for granted. Ensure they did not die in vain and honor their memory in your heart.

With at least 24 GOP-led states set to end federal unemployment assistance before they’re set to expire on Sept. 6, million of Americans are going to need to dust off those resumes and start helping reduce the massive job shortage after being paid to stay home for over a year.

The benefits set to lapse include not only the additional $300 weekly federal supplement, but programs for gig workers and others who typically don’t qualify for aid “(Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, or PUA) and for the long-term unemployed (Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation, or PEUC) in most cases,” according to CNBC, which has provided this handy guide to states set to end benefits, and when:

• June 12: Alaska, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri

• June 19: Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming

• June 26: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas

• June 27: Montana, Oklahoma, Utah

• July 3: Tennessee

• July 10: Arizona

 Several states are even offering financial incentives for people who find new jobs, including Arizona, Montana, New Hampshire and Oklahoma.

The programs are all set to last through Sept. 6 as part of the American Rescue Plan, however Republican governors say that enhanced benefits say they’re discouraging people from returning to work (while the left desperately claims the giant gulf between job openings and continuing claims is a skills or geographic mismatch).

“Employers are telling me one of the big reasons they cannot recruit and retain some workers is because those employees are receiving more on unemployment than they would while working,” said Idaho Gov. Brad Little (R) in a statement. “My decision is based on a fundamental conservative principle — we do not want people on unemployment. We want people working.“

As the Babylon Bee notes satirically, “Shocking Study Finds Paying People Not To Work Makes People Not Want To Work.”

According to JPMorgan, cutting benefits is “tied to politics, not economics,” adding that while benefits are likely causing some people to stay at home, it’s not a major factor in the unemployment rate.

A group of Democratic lawmakers, on the other hand, want pandemic stimulus to become Universal Basic Income.

Via Fall River Reporter:

Congressman Jimmy Gomez (CA-34) and Congresswoman Gwen Moore (WI-04) led five of their Ways and Means Committee colleagues in asking President Biden to include recurring direct payments and automatic unemployment insurance in his American Families Plan, according to a statement.

In response to the President’s support for automatically adjusting the length and amount of UI benefits unemployed workers received depending on economic conditions, the lawmakers are calling on the White House to back a plan that would issue recurring direct payments and unemployment insurance should a similar crisis hit our nation in the future. Recurring direct payments have broad, bipartisan support from both the general public and economic experts, and stimulus checks issued through the CARES Act, the year-end spending bill, and the American Rescue Plan Act, along with enhanced federal UI benefits, proved to be the most effective, but temporary, forms of direct relief during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The success of the American Rescue Plan, combined with direct financial assistance in the CARES Act and prior federal legislation, is evident in communities nationwide,” said Gomez. “But we can’t pretend that a $1,400 check will be enough to last a year, and we need to be prepared with a strengthened safety net should a similar economic crisis strike again.”

Who’s going to pay for that again?