BET Founder Robert Johnson: Joe Biden ‘Should Spend the Rest of His Campaign Apologizing to Every Black Person He Meets’

Article by David Ng in "Breitbart":

BET co-founder Robert Johnson has condemned Joe Biden for claiming that black people aren’t really black if they don’t vote for him.

“VP Biden’s statement today represents the arrogant and out-of-touch attitude of a paternalistic white candidate who has the audacity to tell Black people, the descendants of slaves, that they are not Black unless they vote for him,” Johnson said in a statement obtained by Fox News’s Bret Baier.

“This proves unequivocally that the Democratic nominee believes that Black people owe him their vote without question; even though, we as Black people know it is exactly the opposite.  He should spend the rest of his campaign apologizing to every Black person he meets.”

Bret Baier ✔ @BretBaier

Statement by Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television & RLJ Companies.
“VP Biden’s statement today represents the, arrogant and out-of-touch attitude of a paternalistic white candidate who has the audacity to tell Black people, the descendants of slaves,1/2

Bret Baier ✔ @BretBaier

2/2 Statement by Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television “that they are not Black unless they vote for him. This proves unequivocally that the Democratic nominee believes that Black people owe him their vote without question; even though,1/3

Bret Baier ✔ @BretBaier

Statement by Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television and The RLJ Companies. “we as Black people know it is exactly the opposite. He should spend the rest of his campaign apologizing to every Black person he meets.”

Robert Johnson is the co-founder of Black Entertainment Television, which was acquired by Viacom in 2001. The cable channel is the biggest TV network dedicated to black audiences.  Johnson currently heads the asset management firm RLJ Companies.

Joe Biden made the inflammatory remark Friday during an interview on The Breakfast Club radio show.

“If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black,” Biden told host Charlamagne. Biden’s remark wasn’t in response to any question, but to the host’s statement: “It’s a long way until November, we’ve got more questions.”

The presidential candidate’s comment has drawn swift rebuke from black conservatives, including Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC). Prominent black cultural figures including Sean “Diddy” Combs have also questioned Biden’s comment.

But a campaign spokeswoman said that Biden’s remark was intended to be in jest.

“Vice President Biden spent his career fighting alongside and for the African American community. He won his party’s nomination by earning every vote and meeting people where they are and that’s exactly what he intends to do this November,” spokeswoman Symone Sanders wrote on social media.

“The comments made at the end of the Breakfast Club interview were in jest, but let’s be clear about what the VP was saying: he was making the distinction that he would put his record with the African American community up against Trump’s any day. Period,” she tweeted.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/22/bet-founder-robert-johnson-joe-biden-should-spend-the-rest-of-his-campaign-apologizing-to-every-black-person-he-meets/

NAACP Responds to Joe Biden Comments: We Never Endorsed Him, Or Anyone

Article by Joel B. Pollack in "Breitbart":

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) responded Friday evening to comments earlier in the day by former Vice President Joe Biden, who claimed — falsely — that the NAACP had endorsed him.

In an interview with host Charlemagne tha God on The Breakfast Club with New York’s Power 105.1 FM, Biden said: “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” He went on to defend his record on issues relevant to the black community, claiming: “The NAACP has endorsed me every time I’ve run.”

In response, Derrick Johnson, president and CEO of the NAACP, issued a statement:

Yesterday [sic], former Vice President Joe Biden made a comment about the NAACP’s endorsement. We want to clarify that the NAACP is a non-partisan organization and does not endorse candidates for political office at any level. Persons affiliated with the NAACP at the national, state, and local levels are free to make candidate endorsements in a personal capacity, but they do not reflect support by the NAACP as an organization. The NAACP has one mission and that is fighting for and advancing our Black communities towards an equitable reality. Our primary focus at this moment is to ensure that our communities that have been victims of domestic terrorism and disproportionately impacted by this pandemic have the opportunity to cast their powerful vote come November.

Biden owes his candidacy to the African American vote, which he won by a wide margin in the South Carolina primary on Feb. 29.
The NAACP, more than a century old, is the country’s most prominent civil rights organization.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/05/22/naacp-responds-to-joe-biden-comments-we-never-endorsed-him-or-anyone/ 

Fraud? Ilhan Omar drops Minnesota FoodShare ‘fundraiser’ after group’s director asks about the money

It seemed like such a noble cause. If only the cause itself knew the freshman Congresswoman was doing it.

by JD Rucker

 

 May 8, 2020

 

in Democrats, Election 2020, Guns and Crime, News

Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) may be involved in another questionable campaign finance practice. She has already been accused of multiple indiscretions that have kept her campaign in the spotlight, and not in a good way. But this latest one seems to be extra hideous as it involves potentially funneling money away from a local charity.

Her campaign set up an ActBlue fundraising page titled “Step up to help feed Minnesota’s students and families!” On Facebook and Twitter, she made the following claim to promote the fundraiser:

“As Minnesotans struggle with hunger, I’m partnering with @MNFoodShare and other local groups that pack and deliver meals to students and families. Chip in $5 today to power their efforts to keep our communities fed! #GivingTuesdayNow #GiveAtHomeMN”

There are a few problems with this claim, not the least of which is the fact that the Executive Director of GMCC, which administers Minnesota FoodShare, had no idea what Omar was referring to nor where the money was going. By definition, “partnering” generally requires both entities to be aware of the partnership. Minnesota FoodShare became aware of the so-called partnership days after the posts went up and the donations started coming into Omar’s campaign fundraising portal, but they didn’t hear anything about it from Omar’s campaign.

As David Steinberg at PJ Media noted, Omar deleted the initial Tweet after GMCC Executive Director Adrienne Dorn replied, “I am the Executive Director of GMCC – Minnesota FoodShare is our program. Ilhan Omar had nothing to do with this project. I do not know where this money is going to.”

The Facebook post has been deleted as well.

There are two more interesting aspects to her posts. ActBlue is the Democrats’ campaign fundraising platform. While it’s possible Omar was going to accept the money and then donate it to Minnesota FoodShare’s platform, which is powered by MoonClerk, doing so incurs additional fees unnecessarily. She could have just linked directly to their donation platform.

The bigger point of interest is in the wording of Omar’s post. She says “I’m partnering…” and “Chip in $5 to power their efforts…” rather than asking people to donate to the food bank itself. It’s very clever campaign doublespeak that may or may not be legal, but it’s definitely unethical if this was, indeed, simply a campaign fundraising ploy.

Unless every penny donated through her campaign finance portal during the time period in question is given to the Minnesota FoodShare immediately, the campaign may have committed campaign finance violations. An argument can be made that she technically wasn’t asking people to donate to the food bank, but the intended understanding of her posts was to assume that donations would go directly to Minnesota FoodShare.

This doesn’t pass the smell test and seems like a fraud prima facie.

https://noqreport.com/2020/05/08/fraud-ilhan-omar-drops-minnesota-foodshare-fundraiser-after-groups-director-asks-about-the-money/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/05/sociopath-crooked-ilhan-omar-just-got-caught-raising-money-minnesota-food-store-pocketing-cash/

Michigan Barber Wins in Court Against Gov. Whitmer: 'Health Department Failed to Show Threat'

 
Article by Megan Fox in "PJMedia":

Karl Manke, the 77-year-old folk-hero barber who stood up against the empress governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, has been vindicated in court. A judge ruled on Thursday that the health department failed to show that Manke’s business cutting hair was a specific threat to public health.

Manke faced incredible harassment, including police intimidation and losing his license. Not even that stopped him. The Washington Times reported Manke’s reaction.

Manke, 77, has received at least two tickets for violating Whitmer’s orders, and his barber license was suspended last week. Nonetheless, he said he’s still cutting hair – “Oh, heavens yes” – including the hair of a squirming 2-year-old Thursday.
“Listen, I’ve been in this business for 59 years. She wants to come cut my hands off, that’s another story,” Manke said in an interview, referring to the governor.

Michiganders watched the barber fight for his livelihood online

Earlier, a judge held a hearing via video conference on the Whitmer administration’s request for an injunction to close the shop. More than 400 people watched online as the state argued that Manke was violating health department orders.
“People can’t simply say, ‘I don’t agree’ and do whatever they want,” Assistant Attorney General Joseph Potchen said. “It’s not how our legal system works.”

It seems that the sheriff’s decision not to arrest Manke hurt the state’s case that he was a threat to public health. When the order to arrest him went out, the sheriff refused to comply because militia members were blocking the entrance of the barbershop and said they would resist any attempt to arrest Manke. Sheriff Brian BeGole made a statement to the press that PJ Media reported.

Sheriff Brian BeGole also issued a statement Monday saying he would not enforce the Attorney General’s order to shut down the shop. “With limited resources, staffing and facilities, our priority focus will be on enforcing duly passed laws for the protection of Shiawassee County citizens,” BeGole wrote. “I have decided, within my authority, that our office cannot and will not divert our primary resources and efforts towards enforcement of Governor Whitmer’s executive orders.”

BeGole made the wise choice to leave it alone and that choice had an impact on the ruling, as reported in the Washington Times.

But Stewart said photos and an affidavit from Michigan’s chief medical executive weren’t enough to show that hair cutting and the shop conditions would contribute to the spread of the coronavirus and COVID-19.
“That’s not enough to tip the scales, no matter how great the public emergency,” said Stewart, who nonetheless called it a “close call.”
He repeatedly noted that authorities could have arrested Manke if they believed his shop was a steady danger.

Manke’s attorney wisely pressed the government to prove that the barbershop was contributing to the spread of coronavirus, as the burden of proof rests with the state to show evidence of the public health threat. They could not.
 

“You can’t just argue COVID is awful, it’s killing people. Who disputes that?” Manke’s attorney, Dave Kallman, said later. “They have to show the barbershop is spreading the virus. The judge saw it clearly.”
While Manke’s case was in court, Whitmer lifted restrictions on more parts of Michigan’s economy, although barber shops and hair salons weren’t included.
With his outspoken, gregarious style, Manke has become a hero to some people. He cut hair for free Wednesday during a protest at the Capitol.

Manke is a hero. He stood against unlawful and unreasonable orders issued by an out-of-control and power-hungry governor and he won. This is what every business owner should do right now.

Open your business, stand up for your rights, and hire a great lawyer to defend you if the government tries to stop you. Have you figured out yet that what they are doing is indefensible?

 https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2020/05/22/michigan-barber-wins-in-court-against-gov-whitmer-health-department-failed-to-show-threat-n417195

 

 

 

Hudson: A Deplorable Moment for Every Black American in This Country

 

Article written by Jerome Hudson in "Breitbart":

Joe Biden saying, “You ain’t black” if you’re on the fence about voting for him over President Donald Trump is beyond insulting. Am I insulted? Hell yes. Am I surprised? Hell no.

I’ve been called a coon “with bad African blood” because my skin is black, and I’ve never, nor would I ever, vote for a Democrat. And why the hell would I? The Democratic Party was founded in the 1820s in part to preserve chattel slavery in America. After the Civil War, pro-slavery zealots in the Democratic Party became pro-segregation barbarians who brutalized, terrorized, and lynched those of my parents and grandparents’ generation if they even thought about voting for a Republican. 

Today, there’s no shortage of Democrats who oppose school choice, despite the fact that school choice measures have been beneficial to and, thus, widely supported by black and Hispanic parents in states like Alabama, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Tennessee. Today, the line of pro-abortion Democrats could stretch from the earth to the moon and back, despite the fact that in some cases, more black babies are aborted in one year than are born alive. Those same pro-abortion Democrats shriek, endlessly, about how black lives matter but are silent when hundreds of thousands of black lives are ended in the womb. Today, there are Democratic governors like Gavin Newsom in California and Andrew Cuomo in New York who work tirelessly to disarm black gun owners in their respective states while simultaneously letting criminals free from prison in response to the Chinese coronavirus. 

As far as the Democratic Party has historically been concerned, black people are property or political props. Meanwhile, President Trump celebrated record low black unemployment in January on Martin Luther King, Jr. day. Trump has also allocated more money to historically black colleges and universities than any other president in U.S. history.

Biden spokeswoman Symone Sanders said the former vice president’s remarks were made “in jest.” Biden later admitted he made a mistake, saying “I shouldn’t have been such a wise guy. After saying it, Biden’s smile looked about as forced and fake as the dentures it revealed. But if Joe Biden questioning the blackness of America’s roughly 17 million black voters was said “in jest,” then why would a Biden spokesperson need to tell us it was a joke? The Internet sure doesn’t think it’s funny. Responses range from rage to disgust.

“Well, the dummies aren’t even smart enough to understand my humor,” Team Biden logic goes. “So let’s just tell them it was a joke. Our allies in the media know what to do from here.” Again, this is what the Democratic Party has always been.

The Democrats’ last presidential nominee called millions of Americans supporting Trump “deplorable” and “irredeemable.” Hillary Clinton didn’t apologize for saying that. She even later cracked jokes about those comments at an Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. The elite media circled the wagons. But in the end, Hillary paid a political price. Trump thumped her just a month later.

Clinton’s Deplorable Moment set her White House hopes on fire. But will Biden’s?

If you’re black and you’re not offended by Joe Biden questioning your blackness if you don’t support him, would you be offended if President Trump said the same thing? If yes, why? We all know there’s a double standard at play here. Okay. But if Trump said,“You ain’t black if you don’t vote for me over Biden,” it would almost certainly end his chances at reelection. But Biden saying the same thing wouldn’t? Again, why wouldn’t Biden whitesplaining blackness implode his presidential campaign? I really don’t care if it does. But why would one man be given a pass and the other castigated out of contention?

If Joe Biden said, “You ain’t Jewish” if you vote for Trump, would that not be deemed antisemitic? A deathblow to Biden’s candidacy? The logical conclusion here is gross. Joe Biden may well be given a pass for this racist remark (said “in jest”) because he’s a Democrat. If that’s true — as it often is in similar instances — and Biden is given a pass, what does that say about how black voters are viewed and valued in the eye of those doing the forgiving?

Republican Sen. Tim Scott is black and offended by Biden’s remarks. Is Barack Obama? What about Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) or Stacey Abrams? Both women are black and are rumored to be on Biden’s shortlist vice president. If they’re not, why not?

Biden’s comments came just one day after the media ran wild with a Quinnipiac poll showing how 81 percent of black Americans said they would vote for Biden, while only three percent would vote for Trump if the election were held today. “I come from a state that is the eighth largest black population in America, the eighth largest. I get 96 percent of that vote for the last 40 years. … That’s how I get elected, every single time,” he said.

With that kind of entitlement and years of lopsided support from black Americans, is it really all that surprising, then, that Joe Biden would think and then say in front of a national audience something so racist?

This is, however, the same man who spent last summer defending and then apologizing for his record of working with segregationist senators in the 1970s.

Joe Biden let the mask slip in the most incredible way. What a disgusting and despicable display of racial superiority, dominion, and ownership over an entire group of Americans.

One thing’s for certain: “This is a big fucking deal”:

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/05/22/deplorable-moment-every-black-american-this-country/

Jake Tapper Calls Obamagate ‘Crackpot Conspiracy Theory.’

Here’s 10 Times He Promoted 

The Trump-Russia Conspiracy

Tapper believes Obamagate is a conspiracy theory, but he was perfectly happy to promote real conspiracy theories like the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Chrissy Clark reporting for The Federalist

On CNN’s “State of the Union,” host Jake Tapper called the Obamagate revelations a “crackpot conspiracy theory” during an interview with Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson.

“Your work is being cited as evidence for this crackpot conspiracy theory. Does that bother you?” Tapper asked Johnson.

“Well again, you keep calling it a ‘crackpot conspiracy theory,’ I’m just trying to find out what happened,” Johnson said.

The media and Barack Obama have called Obamagate and the case drop against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn a threat to justice and democracy. These are the same individuals claiming the probe into Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia was legitimate. After years of pointless investigations, we know it was not.

Newly released documents prove that Obamagate is not some “crackpot conspiracy theory,” as John Davidson at the Federalist eloquently put it, it’s the biggest political scandal of our time.

While Tapper believes Obamagate is a conspiracy theory, he was perfectly happy to promote a real conspiracy theory for four years; that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.

Here are 10 times Tapper happily promoted left-wing conspiracy theories over the years:

1. Tapper Says Trump Worked With Russians To Get Elected (2016)

During a 2016 interview with then-Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., Tapper suggested — before having any investigative knowledge on the subject — that the Russians worked with the Trump administration to win the 2016 election. Tapper attacked McCain in a line of questioning, implying McCain being partisan even as he was a Republican who spoke out against Trump for alleged Russian interference.

“If a Democrat were in the same position as Donald Trump right now. The Democrat had been helped, arguably, by the Russians interfering. If the Democrat had never criticized Vladimir Putin if a Democrat had appointed someone to be his Secretary of State who had received a friendship of Russia award don’t you think you’d be much more critical of that President-elect then you’re being of Donald Trump?” Tapper asked.

McCain was a vocal critic of President Trump’s and bashed Trump when he spoke hyperbolically in favor of Russians.

2. Tapper Claims GOP Believe In Trump-Russia Collusion (2017)

In November 2017, Tapper promoted a poll that claimed 74 percent of Republicans believed in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. This poll was conducted by none other than CNN and the question asked to subjects was whether they believed there was any form of interference between Russia and the 2016 election. These statistics Tapper cites include Americans who believe in any range of Russian interference from “limited” to “widespread.”

“83 percent of the American people believe there was either limited or widespread coordination between [Trump and Russia]. What’s even more shocking though 74 percent of Republicans, according to this poll, think that there was either limited or widespread coordination,” Tapper said.

We know there was interference by the Russians in the 2016 election, most Americans know this fact. However, there is no information to confirm that Trump colluded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election as Tapper would like to suggest.

3. Tapper Tells Us Trump Tower Meeting Was Incriminating (2017)

During a December 2017 panel with CNN’s Jim Sciutto and known “liberal hack” Manu Raju, Tapper suggested the Trump Tower meeting between a Russian official and Donald Trump Jr. would be incriminating as undisclosed emails show there was a follow-up after the Trump Tower meeting.

“Team Trump attempted to downplay, at first they lied about what the meeting was about, then they claimed nothing happened at all at the meeting,” Tapper said. “CNN has learned there were follow-up communications… ones that Congressional investigators are exploring to determine whether there was more to that June 9th, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower that has been disclosed.”

We now know when the meeting took place, two Russian nationals walked in and proceeded to talk to Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and others about how Americans could once again adopt Russian children if the Magnitsky Act were repealed. The real collusion between Russia is between the Democrats, intelligence agencies, and corporate media hacks like Tapper.

4. Democrats & Tapper: Trump Is A “Russian Asset”

On May 22, 2018, Tapper invited Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., to explain why Trump is a Russian asset.

Tapper read a tweet from Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., in which she said: “Republicans in Congress cannot continue to turn a blind eye towards the very real possibility that Vladimir Putin has compromised our commander in chief and turned him, and perhaps without his knowledge, into a Russian asset.”

Tapper and Moulton continued to banter about the president being a Russian asset with the headline “Dem Senator: “Real Possibility” Trump Could Be Russian Asset” flashing across the screen.

5. Swalwell And Tapper Blame Midterms Results On Russians (2018)

On another May, 2018 edition of “State of the Union” Tapper and Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., claimed Trump was green-lighting Russian interference in the 2018 midterms by holding a diplomatic meeting with Vladimir Putin in either the U.S. or Russia. Before the 2018 midterm elections happened, Tapper and Democratic allies were blaming the results on Russian interference at the behest of President Trump. Swalwell also insinuated Trump was a Russian asset.

“What does it say to you that while Russia continues to attack the United States, whether Claire McCaskill or U.S. grids, that President Trump is willing to have this meeting whether it’s Putin coming to the White House or him going to Moscow?” Tapper asked Swalwell.

“It sends a green light to the Russians. They believe that the President is more aligned with them than he is with us. And, if they believe that, they’re going to keep doing it,” Swalwell said.

Yet again, Tapper is pushing the narrative that Trump is in bed with the Russian government to uproot another election.

6. Tapper: Rand Paul Is Also A Russian Asset (2018)

In November 2018, days after the midterm elections, Tapper tried to push the false narrative that Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was in collusion with the Russian government as well.

Throughout 2018, Paul made the case for renewing dialogue between the United States and Russia. Rand argued it was necessary to address the adversarial competition between the two nations that hold approximately 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.

CNN tried to push the narrative that Trump was recruiting Paul to join the collusion team to work with Russia.

“We’re told by White House sources that President Trump was doing in effect a favor for Rand Paul. Rand Paul was in Moscow, he wanted to meet with the Russian President and President Trump,” Scuitto said on “The Lead with Jake Tapper.”

While CNN did not mention this, the letter and diplomatic efforts put forth by Paul were to lower the chances of a nuclear war, not to gallivant around Russia with the Kremlin.

7. Tapper Hosts Lying Adam Schiff (2018)

In December 2018, Tapper had on Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., to push the theory that Russian collusion with the Trump campaign never stopped and continued throughout the transition from President-elect to President. Schiff dubbed the collusion a “concerted effort” between the Russians and Trump.

“We do know the Russians throughout the campaign were making outreach to the [Trump] campaign, they continued that during the transition, including some of they had talked to during the campaign and obviously, even after that point,” Schiff said. “This is part of a concerted Russian influence operation that never stopped.”

For two years, Schiff pushed this narrative across cable news networks and late-night talk shows, promising there was existence of “damning evidence” between Russia and Trump. In March 2019, Attorney General William Barr clarified that the special counsel’s investigation into the Russia collusion hoax found there was no collusion involving Trump. Yet, Schiff and Tapper pushed this narrative to their large following for years.

8. Tapper Says Trump Makes ‘False Claims’ On Russia Probe (2019)

In his opening monologue to “The Lead” on May 14, 2019, Tapper said Trump was making “false claims” that the Russia probe was created to attack and spy on the Trump campaign.

“Barr is leading [the effort to investigate the CIA, FBI, and DNI over the origins of the 2016 Russia probe] along with U.S. Attorney John Durham in Connecticut. Now, President Trump has of course refereed to the law enforcement investigation into Russia election interference as an attempted coup,” Tapper said. “Now the president is hoping for evidence to bolster this false claim.”

At that point we knew there was a concerted effort between FBI agents to stop Donald Trump’s election as President. We now know the Obama administration weaponized surveillance laws to target President Trump’s team and many of the Russian collusion “bombshells” were big bags of nothing used to create a narrative against the Trump administration.

The investigations led by Barr helped uncover that Trump was correct that this looked like a coup. Tapper was wrong, there was significant evidence to bolster most of Trump’s claims. IG report after IG report found the FBI, James Comey, the DNC, the Obama administration, and more played a role in actively sabotaging the Trump administration.

9. Still Pushing The Debunked Russia Collusion Hoax (2019)

In June of 2019, Tapper hosted Senate Democrats who were still pushing the Trump-Russia collusion theory, even after their baseless theories were debunked. Tapper hosted Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., who claimed the Trump White House was actively inviting the Russian government into the Oval Office.

“Sitting in the oval office, the President of the United States basically inviting foreign powers to intervene in our elections,” Warner said. This conversation came after Warner introduced a bill requiring candidates to notify the FBI if they are contacted by a foreign agent. The bill explicitly targeted the Trump administration, despite foreign interference in the Clinton campaign as well.

10. The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming! (2020)

After four years, Tapper hasn’t slowed down from promoting the “crackpot” conspiracy theory that Trump and Russia are in cahoots to steal another election. The New York Times, among other mainstream media outlets like CNN, are warning that the Russians will interfere to get Donald Trump re-elected in 2020.

This is a cop-out for the mainstream media’s inability to understand why their elitist messaging does not resonate with average American voters. Alleged “journalists” like Tapper will continue to push the conspiracy that Trump is in bed with the Russians, despite underreporting Obamagate — the real political scandal from the 2016 election.

Why Didn’t the 1958 and 1918 Pandemic Destroy...

Ryan McMaken for Mises Institute

Why Didn't the 1958 and 1918 Pandemics Destroy the Economy? Hint: It's the Lockdowns

Media pundits and politicians are now in the habit of claiming it was the pandemic itself that has caused unemployment to skyrocket and economic growth to plummet. The claim is that sick and dying workers, fearful consumers, and disrupted supply chains would cause economic chaos. Some have even claimed that economic shutdowns actually help the economy, because it is claimed allowing the spread of the disease will itself destroy employment and economic growth.

Leaving aside the fact there's no evidence lockdowns actually work, we can nonetheless look to past pandemics—where coercive government interventions were at most sporadic—we should see immense economic damage.  Specifically, we can look to the the pandemic of 1957-58, which was more deadly than the COVID-19 pandemic has been so far. We can also look to the 1918-19 pandemic. Yet, we will see that neither produced economic damage on a scale we now see as a result of the government mandated lockdowns. This thoroughly undermines the claims that the lockdowns are only a minor factor in economic destruction, and that the virus itself is the real culprit.

Economic Reactions in 1957–58, and in 1918–19

The CDC estimates that as of May 18 this year approximately ninety thousand Americans have died of COVID-19. Adjusted for population size, that comes out to a mortality rate of 272 per million.

This is (so far) less than half the mortality rate for the 1957–58 flu pandemic. In that pandemic, it is estimated that as many as 116,000 Americans died. Yet, the US population was much smaller then, totaling only 175 million. Adjusted for population size, mortality as a result of the "Asian flu" pandemic of 1957–58 was more than 660 per million.

That's the equivalent of 220,000 deaths in the United States today.

Yet, Americans in 1957 did not respond by shutting down commerce, forcing people into "lockdown," or driving unemployment up to Depression-era levels. In fact, reports show that Americans took little action beyond the usual measures involved in trying to slow the spread of disease: hand washing, staying home when ill, etc.

Although the virus does appear to have been a factor in the 1958 recession, the economic effects were miniscule compared to what the US now faces from the reaction to the COVID-19 virus. This suggests that most of the economic damage now being experienced by workers and households in the US is more a product of the policy reaction to the virus than to the virus itself.

The pandemic of 1957–58 was a serious and deadly problem for many. As cases of the Asian flu began to spread, it became clear to many scientists and other observers that there was something different and deadly about this flu. Indeed, according to D.A. Henderson, et al in "Public Health and Medical Responses to the 1957–58 Influenza Pandemic, "Humans under 65 possessed no immunity to this H2N2 strain."1 This meant that the "highest attack rates were in school-age children through young adults up to 35 or 40 years of age." Total deaths due to the flu over this period range from 70,000 to 116,000. This is cause for concern, to say the least. With younger Americans, many of them in prime working age, susceptible to the disease, one could anticipate significant costs in terms of economic growth and health.

What was the policy reaction to this? Henderson et al. continue:

The 1957–58 pandemic was such a rapidly spreading disease that it became quickly apparent to U.S. health officials that efforts to stop or slow its spread were futile. Thus, no efforts were made to quarantine individuals or groups, and a deliberate decision was made not to cancel or postpone large meetings such as conferences, church gatherings, or athletic events for the purpose of reducing transmission. No attempt was made to limit travel or to otherwise screen travelers. Emphasis was placed on providing medical care to those who were afflicted and on sustaining the continued functioning of community and health services….there were no reports that major events were canceled or postponed except for high school and college football games, which were often delayed because of the number of players afflicted.

In 1957–58, there was concern over the availability of medical services. But the emphasis then was on increasing medical services rather than state-enforced quarantines and "social distancing" measures. Nor did a vaccine offer an easy way out:

Health officers had hopes that significant supplies of vaccine might become available in due time, and special efforts were made to speed the production of vaccine, but the quantities that became available were too late to affect the impact of the epidemic.

Schools and workplaces were affected by absent students and workers, but absenteeism at schools was a larger factor, with some schools even closed for short periods as a result of so many missing students. Absenteeism did not rise to the level of causing shortages:

Available data on industrial absenteeism indicate that the rates were low and that there was no interruption of essential services or production. The overall impact on GDP was negligible and likely within the range of normal economic variation.

Overall, the economy declined by approximately 2 percent during both the first and second quarter of 1958, but this could not all be attributed to the effects of the virus. Unemployment at the time also surged, peaking at 7.5 percent during July 1958. Economic growth was positive again, however, by the fourth quarter of 1958 and had soared to over 9 percent growth in 1959. Unemployment had fallen to 5 percent by June of 1959.

But the overall economic impact of the virus itself was hardly disastrous. Henderson, et al conclude:

Despite the large numbers of cases, the 1957 outbreak did not appear to have a significant impact on the U.S. economy. For example, a Congressional Budget Office estimate found that a pandemic the scale of which occurred in 1957 would reduce real GDP by approximately 1% ‘‘but probably would not cause a recession and might not be distinguishable from the normal variation in economic activity.’’

The 1918–19 pandemic, which caused an astounding ten times as many deaths per million as the 1957–58 pandemic, also failed to produce economic disaster. Although the US entered the 1918–19 pandemic in poor economic shape thanks to the Great War, according to economists Efraim Benmelech and Carola Frydman,

The Spanish flu left almost no discernible mark on the aggregate US economy….According to some estimates, real gross national product actually grew in 1919, albeit by a modest 1% (Romer 1988). In new work, Velde (2020) shows that most indicators of aggregate economic activity suffered modestly, and those that did decline more significantly right after the influenza outbreak, like industrial output, recovered within months.

Nor can the pandemic be blamed for the 1921 recession, because "by then the decline in output had all to do with a collapse in commodity prices when post-war European production finally recovered."

How Do Pandemics Affect Economic Growth?

Not surprisingly, then, we find relatively mild estimates in a 2009 World Bank report estimating the economic consequences of new pandemics. The authors concluded that moderate and severe pandemics would lead to GDP declines of 2–5 percent. Or, as a 2009 Reuters report summarized it:

If we get hit with something like the 1957 Asian flu, say goodbye to 2 percent of GDP. Something as bad as the 1918–19 Spanish flu would cut the world’s economic output by 4.8 percent and cost more than $3 trillion.

Not even a 1918-sized pandemic was expected to produce the sort of economic carnage we now see from COVID-19.

The Reaction in 2020

Needless to say, the economy today appears to be in far worse shape in the wake of the 2020 pandemic than in the days following the 1957–58 outbreak, or even in 1919.

As of April 2020, the unemployment rate has ballooned to 14.4 percent, the highest rate recorded since the Great Depression. The Atlanta Federal Reserve, meanwhile, forecasts a drop in GDP of more than 40 percent. More mild estimates suggest drops of 8 to 15 percent. If the milder predictions prove true, then the current downtown is "only" the worst since the Great Depression. If the Atlanta Fed is right, then we're in an unprecedented economic disaster.

The World Bank's estimates of even a "severe" pandemic, which predicted a GDP drop of around 5 percent, don't even come close to the estimates for the 2020 collapse. And why should they? The World Bank report didn't anticipate the global economic shutdown imposed on billions of human beings by the world's regimes. Thus, the bank's estimates assumed that economic losses would be limited to absenteeism, disrupted trade and travel, and declining demand due directly to disease or fear of disease.

So why the enormous difference in economic effects? The answer almost certainly lies in the fact that governments in 2020—unlike in any other period in American history—engaged in widespread business closures, "stay-at-home" orders, and other state-mandated and state-enforced actions that led to widespread layoffs and plummeting economic output.

Defenders of government-coerced "lockdowns" have insisted that fear of the virus would have destroyed the economy even without lockdowns, but there is no historical precedent for this claim, and no current evidence to support it. Although some survey data has been proffered to suggest that more than 60 percent of Americans say they plan to comply with stay-at-home orders, this merely tells us how people make plans when threatened with fines, police harassment, and other coercive measures.

In reality, the experience of the 1957–58 pandemic—or even the 1918–19 pandemic—gives us no reason to believe that joblessness should be increasing at unprecedented rates and that GDP would collapse by catastrophic levels. In a modern industrialized economy, that sort of economic damage is only achievable through government intervention, such as socialist coups, wars, and forced economic shutdowns in the name of combating disease.

The cost in terms of human life will be significant. One study contends that the current economic downturn could lead to seventy-five thousand "deaths of despair." This is not shocking, however, since the fatal effects of unemployment and economic decline have been known for decades.

Defenders of lockdowns will likely continue to claim that "we have no choice" but to continue lockdowns for long periods of time. At the very least, many claim that the lockdowns until now have been "worth it." Yet the efficacy of lockdowns remains an open question, and has hardly been proven. Meanwhile, the world faces the worst economic disaster experienced in centuries. It didn't have to be this way.

• 1. Henderson, et al note that the fact that some older Americans apparently had some immunity was due to exposure to a similar strain of the virus during the late nineteenth century. Nonetheless, the over-65 demographic still made up 60 percent of all deaths from the Asian flu.
• 
  

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for the Mises Wire and The Austrian, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.

President Trump orders reopening churches

Wuhan Flu Lockdowns Are Teaching Local Police To Manhandle Citizens

The constitutional mettle of the coronavirus-era power grabs will be a well-worn case study in the decades to come.

Kristin Tate writing at The Federalist

Times of crisis show us the underlying character of those involved. We see it in our politicians, scrambling for face time with major networks, or signing into existence sweeping emergency powers.

The constitutional mettle of the coronavirus-era power grabs will be a well-worn case study in the decades to come. For the average American, the actual intrusion of government—especially law enforcement—power over the last two months has exceeded anything related to even the PATRIOT Act. The orders given to police by state and local officials, and the often rigid enforcement of them, have moved perceptions of not only the lockdowns but also of the commitment to average citizens.

It’s not just police agencies becoming drunk with power—municipal officials are doing the same. Los Angeles is cutting off power and water to “non-essential” businesses that stay open during the stay at home orders.

However, many of the most blatant examples of petty tyranny come to us via law enforcement. The militarization of police departments, coupled with COVID fears, risk a de facto violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of military tactics to enforce domestic laws. Training and equipment acquired through millions in federal and state funding, under the guise of fighting drugs or terrorism, are now being used in a war against Americans’ constitutional rights.

Even if the means justify the ends, the use of armored police with black rifles to enforce a “suspension” of rights is nearly unprecedented and goes well beyond the original promise to “bend the curve.” The most glaring example came last week, when a West Odessa, Texas restaurant opened its doors and the Ector County Sheriff’s Department responded by raiding the restaurant with its SWAT team. Even worse, the officers utilized an MRAP armored vehicle, of Iraq War fame.

Such incidents are not isolated, and they often fly in direct contradiction to the First Amendment. Take, for example, eight pro-life protesters getting arrested for violating stay-at-home orders in North Carolina. Or a paddle boarder getting arrested for taking to the ocean in California.

Or worshippers at a drive-in church service being handed $500 citations in Mississippi. Or a bystander getting tackled to the ground and arrested by a plainclothes New York Police Department officer while witnessing an arrest. Or a father being handcuffed for playing ball with his daughter in a Colorado park. Or the NYPD detaining a mother after her daughter was seen not wearing a mask on the subway.

At the same time, some jurisdictions are using the crisis as a means of fostering lawlessness. A multitude of criminals have been released due to fears that they could contract the virus in the close confines of prison—16,000 in all. And with most court proceedings on hiatus, there is precious little that officers and prosecutors can do to act against serious crime.

The effects have been dire. In Colorado, an inmate serving for felony robbery was released, only to murder a woman two weeks later. More than 100 inmates from New York City’s Rikers prison have already been re-arrested, driving a 43 percent surge in burglaries in the city in April. The shift from punishing serious crime towards freedom of movement violations has created substantial strain on law enforcement, which is manifesting in different ways.

Even within its ranks, police departments are punishing dissent. Perhaps the most famous example is of Greg Anderson, an officer of the Port of Seattle. His viral video calling restrictions unconstitutional led to the department placing him on leave. Not far away, Snohomish County Sheriff Adam Fortney faces a recall challenge for declaring on Facebook that he will not enforce Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s stay-at-home order.

There is some hope that the federal government may step in to stop many of the worst excesses. In the North Carolina pro-life arrests, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz spoke out against the chilling of the protesters’ First Amendment rights. In the Mississippi example, the Justice Department took the side of the church-goers. Even Attorney General Bill Barr stated that current stay-at-home orders are veering perilously close to “house arrest.”

However, the feds still pump tens of millions annually into police equipment funding—and not just for cruisers and Glocks, but also for surplus military equipment and training to transform Barney Fife into someone far less friendly and far less constitutionally sound.

Law enforcement deserves our respect. This includes the dignity afforded by disagreeing with heavy-handed policies intended more to enforce the letter of executive orders (not even the law), rather than the spirit behind them.

As long as many states flirt with the idea of a post-Bill of Rights future, the same officers we depend on now to keep the peace have a distinct choice. Their oaths include fidelity to their instructions, but far more importantly a pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Our system of laws prohibits Reserve Powers for a reason. Even during a crisis, many officers and police departments will soon find that there is no moral or legal defense behind simply “following orders.”