Friday, May 7, 2021

GOP Chair Gives Update on Maricopa County Ballot Audit and Details of Push-back By AZ State Senate Against DOJ Intervention


Arizona GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward gives an update on the ongoing Maricopa County ballot audit.  As Ms. Ward notes, the Democrats and federal Dept. of Justice are attempting to intervene in the audit at the same time the Maricopa election officials are admitting they did not have custody of the equipment used to count ballots.

Things are starting to look very sketchy about the former vote in Arizona.  The Arizona team shares: “America’s Audit continues as it faces unprecedented threats from Democrats, Department of Justice and mainstream media. Fed interference not warranted nor welcome in Arizona. Here’s the latest news from Arizona Chairwoman Kelli Ward as she makes clear we will finish the audit.”


Additionally, the Maricopa Board of Supervisors held an emergency meeting today after the State Senate threatened legal action if the county did not provide the passwords to the internal systems used during the 2020 election.

The Veterans Memorial Coliseum CCTV system remains active [SEE HERE]  as a public security and integrity issue.

Additionally, THIS is the official page of the Arizona Senate Liaison for the Maricopa County Election audit. “Under the direction of The Honorable Ken Bennett, former Arizona Secretary of State, an audit is underway to ensure transparency and integrity in the Maricopa County, AZ 2020 election audit.”


"Biden" Sets His Sights on Destroying the Gun Industry

 

Article by Gabriella Hoffman in Townhall

 

"Biden" Sets His Sights on Destroying the Gun Industry

President Joe Biden has the firearms industry in his crosshairs. 

During his Rose Garden address last month, Biden reaffirmed his support for repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCCA) of 2005.  

“This is the only outfit that is exempt from being sued. If I get one thing on my list — (if) the Lord came down and said, 'Joe, you get one of these' — give me that one," Biden said. "Most people don’t realize, the only industry in America, billion-dollar industry, that can’t be sued, exempt from being sued, are gun manufacturers.” 

Biden’s hostility to this industry, however, isn’t new. 

As a U.S. Senator, he voted against the PLCAA. Biden’s campaign listed repeal of the law as a top priority, stating, “This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection.”

If Biden’s administration succeeds in doing away with PLCAA, it’ll incur massive problems for lawful commerce of firearms and undermine Second Amendment rights. 

What is the PLCAA?

The bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act became law on October 26, 2005. It passed the U.S. Senate 65-34 with four abstentions. In the House of Representatives, it passed 283-144 with six abstentions. 

The law prohibits “civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.”

Supporters argue repeal would undermine Second Amendment rights in this nation.

The CATO Institute explained exorbitant costs resulting from frivolous lawsuits pre-PLCAA ran “gun makers and sellers out of business” through “litigation-induced bankruptcy practices”—aimed directly at restricting constitutionally-protected gun rights. 

In contrast, the bill’s opponents support full repeal—claiming manufacturers intentionally make products that endanger lives.

Gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety believes the law “blocks legal responsibility for gun manufacturers that have failed to innovate and make guns safer.” Another gun rights foe, Giffords, claims it “shields the gun industry from nearly all civil liability for the dangers their products pose.”

Do Gun Manufacturers Enjoy Blanket Immunity Protections? Fake News

President Biden insists the firearms industry enjoys blanket protections against lawsuits. Legal experts disagree.

“Do gun manufacturers really have blanket immunity from lawsuits?  No, not even close,” wrote Williams Mullens, a Richmond, Virginia-based law firm.

“Under the act, firearm manufacturers and sellers are subject to liability for any product defects, such as when a firearm backfires or explodes in a user’s hand, and certain other violations of law, such as making illegal sales,” wrote Victor Schwartz, chairman of the Public Policy Group at Shook, Hardy & Bacon. “The act essentially treats firearm manufacturers and sellers like other makers and sellers by codifying bedrock principles of liability law.”

Schwartz expanded

The notion that only the firearms industry enjoys such protection is also incorrect. Several other industries that have been threatened with potentially crushing civil liability are protected by qualified civil immunity laws. For example, the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 bars lawsuits involving general aviation aircraft and products that are more than 18 years old, the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1998 bars lawsuits against suppliers of chemical components and raw materials used in medical devices, and the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2005 protects vaccine manufacturers from liability exposure in the event of a declared public health emergency.

Legal scholar Jonathan Turley similarly argued undoing the law would open the door to frivolous lawsuits. 

“The bill saved the industry some litigation costs, but the industry would have prevailed in such actions anyway if they were tried,” wrote Turley. “Product liability and tort actions against manufacturers have uniformly and correctly been rejected by the courts. Guns are lawful products, and holding companies liable for later misuse of such products is absurd. You might as well sue an axe manufacturer for the Lizzy Borden murders.”

The Industry Responds 

Firearms manufacturers and related trade associations are definitely on alert. 

BPI Outdoors CEO Nate Treadaway is very concerned about possible repeal of PLCAA, as it would undermine companies like his who engage in lawful commerce. BPI oversees CVA (a popular muzzleloader brand) and Bergara Rifles

“We've been actually watching it very carefully and talking through it,” Treadaway told Townhall.com in a phone interview. “If that law were to be revoked and we had that liability opened back up to us, I do think it would put a hamper on some of the innovation that we're seeing.” 

“I also think that it would cause prices to go up because people are going to be prepared to pay higher liability on frivolous cases,” he added. “It's one more tool of the opposition party to try to keep us from doing what we're lawfully allowed to do.”

National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the leading firearms industry trade association, agrees. 

“PLCAA does nothing more than codify tort law,” said Mark Oliva, NSSF’s director of public affairs. “The law simply prevents lawsuits against manufacturers for the criminal misuse by third party. It’s just like saying you can’t sue Ford for the deaths caused by drunk drivers.”

Oliva also warned, “Should PLCAA be repealed, it would have dramatic reverberations outside of the firearm industry.”

Conclusion

According to recent data, the firearms industry employs over 342,000 Americans and has a $63.5 billion economic impact.

How would killing off this industry do our country any good? It wouldn’t. 

Firearms industry workers are people too, Mr. President. Shame on you for defaming this economic sector and its hardworking, law-abiding employees.  

 https://townhall.com/columnists/gabriellahoffman/2021/05/07/biden-sets-his-sights-on-destroying-the-gun-industry-n2589090



Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Economist Explains Why True Cost of Biden’s Spending Plans Could Be $17.1 Trillion

 

Johns Hopkins Economist Explains Why True Cost of Biden’s Spending Plans Could Be $17.1 Trillion—3X Higher Than Advertised

We interviewed economics professor Steve Hanke to find out why he says the real cost could be as much as $119,000 per federal taxpayer.

In just his first 100 days, President Biden has rolled out ambitious spending plans meant to vastly increase federal funding for everything from infrastructure to jobs to families. The whopping $6 trillion price tagon these combined proposals has raised many eyebrows about how a nation more than $28 trillion in debt can afford such a splurge. 

But one prominent economist is warning that the true cost of Biden’s plans could be more than three times higher than advertised.

Steve Hanke is a Professor of Applied Economics at Johns Hopkins University and Director of the Troubled Currencies Project at the Cato Institute. In a new op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, he argues that the true cost of the president’s spending proposals is really closer to $17.1 trillion. (That’s roughly $119,000 per federal taxpayer!)

Why are the current price tags such vast underestimates? The Foundation for Economic Education interviewed Hanke to find out.

The economist started by pointing out that “The collection of taxes is not a costless exercise.”

“There are hidden costs associated with it,” Hanke said. “One isn’t even hidden, actually, it’s the financing of the federal government’s tax extraction operation, namely, the Internal Revenue Service. Then, in addition to that, there’s the hidden costs incurred by the taxpayer, literally to prepare their taxes and to adjust their economic activity to comply with the tax code.” 

Between the two, Hanke estimates these costs at 10 to 25 cents per dollar in tax revenue collected. Despite the assumption that underlies traditional spending legislation price tags, the economist noted that “a dollar doesn’t flow in frictionlessly to the federal government.” 

So it’s fair to assume that the surface-level price tag of spending proposals underestimates the true cost by 10 to 25 percent. Nowadays, that’s not a rounding error—it’s a difference in the hundreds of billions to trillions.

However, Hanke says that the hidden costs associated with taxation extend far beyond collection and compliance. He explained that there's an “excess burden,” what in economics would be called “deadweight loss,” associated with increases in taxation as well.

Sound complicated? It’s not.

“[It’s simply] the cost associated with all the distortions that taxes put into the economy,” Hanke explained. For example, higher income taxes discourage work. And higher taxes on business discourage investment. 

As Henry Hazlitt lucidly explained in Economics in One Lesson, “taxes inevitably affect the actions and incentives of those from whom they are taken.” He specified that “the larger the percentage of the national income taken by taxes the greater the deterrent to private production and employment.”

“[Such] distortions cause the economy to generate a lot less revenue and income than would otherwise be the case,” Hanke continued. The excess burden simply accounts for all these losses.

And it makes IRS expenses look like chump change. Hanke pointed out multiple studies showing the excess burden of taxation is between $2.65 and $3.00. “So, any new government expenditures you’ve got to multiple them by three to get the true cost.”

I asked the economist whether this holds true even if the spending is financed by federal debt or money-printing. He noted that ultimately it all leads to higher taxation, and pointed out that the Biden administration has repeatedly said it will offset its spending proposals with direct increases in taxation.

You might be wondering: Why is this the first I’m hearing of all this? Well, the nonpartisan institutions like the Congressional Budget Office commonly relied upon for cost estimates don’t factor in the excess burden of tax increases. They just use face-value “frictionless” revenue assumptions.

Why don’t these agencies take these crucial figures into account? Hanke answered that to do so would be “politically incendiary,” because if they did, very few spending proposals would ever pass a cost-benefit analysis. 

This oversight plays right into the hands of big-spending politicians. When the full costs are taken into account, Hanke says it’s “almost inconceivable” that President Biden’s spending proposals would be worth the expense. 


Composite Image By FEE | Image Credit Flickr, Pixabay, Atlas Network

'Out-of-control' Chinese rocket set to crash back to Earth at unknown location in hours

 

Remnants from a Chinese rocket are expected to fall back to Earth in an uncontrolled re-entry this weekend.

The rocket, called Long March 5B, was launched from Wenchang Space Launch Centre on 29 April to carry Tianhe - the first module of China's future space station - into orbit.

 

 The spacecraft contains what will become living quarters for three crew on the space station and was the first of 11 missions needed to complete the station.

 

 The US Defence Secretary said the rocket was being tracked but that there were no plans to shoot it down

 

 

The body of the rocket is circling Earth and is about to enter the lower atmosphere.

Its exact point of descent "cannot be pinpointed until within hours of its re-entry", which is projected to occur on Saturday.

The US said on Thursday it was tracking the path of the object from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California but that there were no plans to shoot it down.

"We're hopeful that it will land in a place where it won't harm anyone," US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin said.

 

 

Mr Austin also indirectly criticised China, he said: "There should be a requirement to operate in a safe and thoughtful mode and make sure that we take those kinds of things into consideration as we plan and conduct operations."

Harvard-based astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell said potentially dangerous debris will likely escape incineration after streaking through the atmosphere at hypersonic speed but in all likelihood would fall into the sea.

Mr McDowell did add that there was a chance that pieces could fall over land, like in May 2020, when pieces from another Chinese rocket came down over the Ivory Coast, damaging several buildings but leaving no one injured.

Mr McDowell also said most countries design spacecraft in such a way as to avoid large, uncontrolled re-entries.

"It makes the Chinese rocket designers look lazy that they didn't address this," he said, calling the failure to do so "negligent."

 

 

Based on its current orbit, the debris trail is likely to fall somewhere as far north as New York, Madrid or Beijing and as far south as southern Chile and New Zealand, Mr McDowell said.

Chinese state media have played down fears that the rocket could cause damage as a situation "not worth panicking about" and suggested it will fall somewhere in international waters.

The rocket launch is part of China's increasingly ambitious space programme, with Beijing planning at least 10 similar launches to carry equipment into orbit.

The space station will be complete by 2022, with China also planning to build a moon base in cooperation with Russia.

China is a late entrant in space exploration, only sending its first astronaut into space in 2003.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/out-of-control-chinese-rocket-set-to-crash-back-to-earth-at-unknown-location-in-hours-12299058 

 

 


 

 

 

 

While The Biden Administration Amps Up Cultural Marxism, Europe Is Pushing It Back

Do American policymakers have any idea what might happen if most of Europe someday considers American cultural influence to be more toxic than Chinese economic influence?


For anyone thinking the culture wars are bad in Britain and the United States, a couple of little incidents might help in a reappraisal. In France, a group of retired generals recently wrote an open letter signed by thousands of retired soldiers that warns of grave danger to the republic from the forces of division, critical race theory, and Islamism. The generals did not mince words as they warned the ruling betters against “procrastinating” else “tomorrow the civil war will put an end to this growing chaos.”

Elsewhere, Hungary is drafting a bill to give state-funded foundations complete control over the nation’s higher-education sector. Hungary and Poland have already mostly outlawed gender studies and other critical ideologies as anti-national, and are now consolidating conservative ideological foundations in the academy, which they have identified as the most subversive section of society. 

This particular bill, drafted by Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s party, says universities need to be nationalistic, as modern society requires a “re-thinking of the role of the state.” In short, this is a “long march through the institutions,” but in reverse, and by a conservative government.

The old continent is churning back to life and returning to form. The idea of “reaction” is complicated to explain with proper nuance, especially in America because it lacks a feudal past and throne and altar conservatism. But it is important in this context to understand just what is happening in Europe.

In an extremely important paper from 2018, Joseph Mackay and Christopher LaRoche asked a remarkable question: Why is there no “reactionary theory” of international relations, when most international relations are currently influenced by old-school political conservatism?

They defined “reaction” as a political phenomenon, a deep aversion to historical change. “Reactionaries,” they write, “neither embrace historical change nor reject the possibility of it. Instead, they understand deep historical transformations as both real and catastrophic. For reactionaries, the world was once better: a past political order, now lost, shows us retrospectively how politics should be ordered, but no longer is.” 

After three decades of liberal dogma, European conservatism, with its deep social conservative past, is returning to a more culturally reactionary root. At the same time, American universities are doubling down on critical race theory and other linked ideologies, especially feminism. This is a dangerous moment, as the more the Biden administration doubles down on promoting this idea abroad, the more it will continue to lose allies, which, while nominally democratic and western, have far stronger and more homogenous polities.

It is easy to dismiss disjointed news. But disjointed events indicate patterns. France is an especially interesting case. Throughout the Anglosphere, there is this entrenched idea that the younger people are, the more they will be left-wing, and therefore they should be allowed to vote, to consolidate a left-wing political hegemony.

In France, (and quite possibly in a majority of eastern and central Europe) this dynamic is in reverse. In France, the youth vote is increasingly turning not just conservative, but hard right.

France has created its own problems by mirroring America, most importantly with its own version of “forever war” and nation-building in Africa, which hollowed out state coffers. But the French government and intellectual class are also increasingly turning away from what they consider American imperialism, influenced by its critical race theory-laced academy. 

President Emmanuel Macron, a run-of-the-mill liberal technocrat, had to recently make concessions to the right by blaming the easiest of historic French targets, les Americains, for exporting woke theory that is ripping the fabric of French society. “Certain social science theories entirely imported from the United States,” Macron said recently, are fueling an existential crises in France as well as self-loathing and secessionism.

He added there’s a “battle to wage against an intellectual matrix from American universities.” This hint of anger, as in Hungary, is towards the subversive and anti-national academy.

Elsewhere, the return to an older form of reactionary conservatism is more direct. Consider this. In Hungary and Poland, there has been a resurgence in state power to channel the countries towards conservatism.

In Poland, nationalists have formed militias to guard statues and churches, especially from abortion advocates and criminals. In Hungary, the government has declared and made a law defining a family as only between a male and female, and are paying couples to have more children, which may have resulted in a slight birth rate increase. 

In Britain, the government has lately mandated free speech in universities at the risk of major fines and defunding; legislated laws to counter woke museums and tackle controversial art and statue removers; and has legislated tougher punishment and ten-year jail terms for those participating in mobs and statue and museum desecrators.

Do American policymakers, especially conservatives, have any idea what might happen if most of Europe someday considers American cultural influence to be more toxic than Chinese economic influence? The unification of Europe under American hegemony was a net benefit to U.S. influence across the world. That kind of influence is also easy to lose through repeated attempts to impose American cultural Marxism.

History teaches us that alliances take a long time to build, and only days to end. In an era when great power rivalry is returning, doubling down on critical race theory will result in an unsurpassable loss of influence.


Defending the Indefensible

The Ashli Babbitt killing may open the underlying question about the truth of the narrative by which an oligarchic regime 
has largely substituted its sovereignty for that of the voters. 


By precluding criminal proceedings against the unnamed officer who killed Ashli Babbitt as she tried to climb through a window into the House speakers’ lobby on January 6, the U.S. government meant to shield itself from embarrassment. Instead, its indefensible manipulation of the justice system further confirms the patent dishonesty of the narrative by which it tries to frighten potential critics. 

The Babbitt family’s $10 million lawsuit against the Capitol police and the officer who killed Ashli will force the government to defend an obviously indefensible act, and the even more indefensible attempted coverup thereof. Unless Babbitt’s attorneys and Republican elected officials prove to be extraordinarily stupid, the lawsuit will discredit the pseudo-security narrative our oligarchs are using to rule us. 

The hard facts are not in dispute. On January 6, Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old woman weighing around 110 pounds and carrying no weapon of any kind, tried to fit through a broken window. As she struggled to get through, an armed male officer, who was presumably much bigger and stronger, shot her in the neck and killed her.

The allegations surrounding those facts are irrelevant. It seems to be common knowledge that the officer who shot and killed her is black. That may embarrass some. But race is legally and morally irrelevant. And while it is certain that Babbitt meant to demonstrate her lack of faith in the 2020 election’s management, that, too, is irrelevant to the fact that she was killed while posing no physical threat to anyone or anything. Tendentious even more than irrelevant is speculation about to what extent her beliefs paralleled those of  “QAnon”—something that may or may not exist and that would be irrelevant to the facts if it.

An Incredible Defense

What did the government do with the fact that one of its big, strong, armed agents had killed a small, weak, unarmed woman who was not harming anyone? The statement by which the Justice Department sought to close the case reads: “[T]he investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber.” This assertion of justifiable homicide consists of trying to overwhelm the obvious lack of “reasonableness” by compounding two absences of evidence. Because there is nothing this stratagem would not justify, it does not work. No jury will buy that. 

Why this swiss-cheese defense? Because without it—and despite equally fraught attempts to establish the remote possibility that someone in the crowd might have had some ephemeral effect on the death of Capitol policeman Brian Sicknick—the government must admit that neither Babbitt nor countless others who trespassed on the Capitol on January 6 were making war on the U.S. Constitution, and hence that nothing justifies their making war against them—never mind stigmatizing conservative political opposition to the current administration. The government’s defense in the Babbitt case cannot survive “discovery” and a jury trial. 

Right off, the trial would leave no doubt about the wrongfulness of the officer’s decision to shoot Babbitt. Odds are the government will offer a generous settlement in exchange for silence. 

But as the government’s defense in the Babbitt case collapses, the regime-relevant question becomes inevitable. It is not whether Americans are subject to a multi-tier justice system. That has been undeniable for years. 

Rather, the question is nothing less than what the government and its associates in society are doing by pretending Babbitt and others posed a danger to what they call “our democracy”?  How? What democracy? What regime? What cause is served by the transparent lies, about Babbitt, Sicknick, and above all about hundreds of people whose actual offenses, if any, amount to trespassing but who are being held and maligned as if they are worse than murderers?

This is a political question, properly to be pursued by politicians who purport to represent the millions of Americans whose opposition the current administration and its allies are trying to suppress.

Separation of Narrative and Fact

The answer to this question proceeds from separating the “narrative”—i.e. the set of lies—that the regime has purveyed about what happened on January 6 from reality. From what did happen and did not happen.

That separation itself must begin by noting the narrative’s purveyors. The cast, it turns out, is identical with the list of those inside government (intelligence agencies, the Justice Department, assorted bureaucrats) as well as in what used to be called the “private sector” (media outlets, corporations, etc.) who acted jointly between 2015 and 2020 to forestall an electoral challenge to their growing power over our republic. These are the very people and institutions on behalf of which Time magazine published a valedictory, praising their interference in the 2020 election. In short, this was an operation by a set of oligarchs to excise permanently the opposition to their consolidation of power over that of American voters. The narrative—repeat, the set of lies—about January 6 means to cap off the earlier one.

The substance of the January 6 narrative, as well as the manner of its purveyance, parallels that of 2015-2020, namely: America’s loser class—ignorant clingers, racists, neanderthals, etc.—aroused by demagogy, threatened the integrity of “our democratic institutions.” Of “democracy” as in “voting?” No. Instead, they threatened the authority of precisely the bureaucrats, corporations, media, academics, et al., who run America’s institutions. Pretensions about voter sovereignty by these alleged dregs of society, their demands to use procedures to assert their role, was an attack on what oligarchs call “our democracy,” to be punished as a regime crime.

And that punishment is to be part of the warning to whomever might sympathize with them that failure to support earnestly what is now effectively an oligarchic regime will ruin them personally.

The Babbitt family’s lawsuit opens the underlying question about the truth of the narrative by which an oligarchic regime has largely substituted its sovereignty for that of the voters. That narrative’s forceful falsehood enables, among other things, one of the oligarchy’s components, Facebook, to decide in its own sovereign court whom it will and will not allow to communicate to a general audience about who did what to whom on January 6. 

If ever there was a frontal attack on the Constitution, of which the First Amendment’s safeguards of freedom of speech and of the press provide the bedrock, this is it. Any politician who claims to represent the republic’s remnants must begin by calling out the official narrative’s fraudulence for what it is: the oligarchy’s attack on our democracy.


Why do journalists keep repeating the same mistake?

The folly of single-source reporting and quiet retractions



A single mistake in journalism can be forgiven. Perhaps the story was based on faulty information from a bad source and rushed through without a thorough vetting — probably due to a desire to be first to report — and then transparently corrected for the audience. But if the same mistake is repeated, over and over again, by the same news outlets who have taken leave of their basic journalistic duties, then alternative motives have to be explored. Something nefarious on behalf of these organizations and their sources may be afoot.

Since Joe Biden’s election, there have been three major instances of journalists publishing a story, watching it trend for days on social media and be discussed on cable news, only for it to be partially or completely retracted later. Damage done. The latest case involved Rudy Giuliani allegedly being warned by FBI sources that he was briefed on being a target for Russian intelligence campaigns. Like other similar stories it followed a particular pattern — story breaks, other news outlets ‘confirm’ story with anonymous sources, story falls apart, outlets suffer reputational damage. NBC News, the Washington Post and the New York Times were the perpetrators this time (as they so often are).

Last month, Joe Biden’s State Department finally debunked a story which Biden’s campaign had promoted: that Russia had put bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan for the Taliban to collect. In March the Washington Post was forced to issue a massive correction to their January blockbuster story that President Trump had instructed the Georgia secretary of state to find election fraud. Several pundits and other reporters used this story as definitive proof Trump had committed a crime. Then magically, a recording of the call released months later contradicted the source quoted in the Post.


So why does this keep happening? More to the point, why does it only seem to happen when the targets of the stories are on the right side of the political aisle? As far as Trump and the media goes, the answer seems pretty obvious. But there is a larger problem at work here: the fundamental leaning on anonymous sources who burn journalists. Many of these sources come from within an intelligence apparatus that is not shy about its contempt for Trump or his past administration. When major outlets make repeated and biased mistakes, readers and viewers find it harder to ascertain what is fact from fiction. If you’re a reporter who doesn’t like being called ‘fake news’, you’ve got to be mad at people in your industry who rush out thinly sourced stories and frequently give your detractors grounds to use that term. Yet messing up stories in this fashion looks like more a feature than a bug with many mainstream news organizations, while also turning people like Rudy Giuliani, a man who clearly has not playing with a full deck for some time, into a martyr for the right and for the MAGAsphere.

The fact that the same error keeps being repeated also reveals an enormous and problematic confirmation bias on behalf of corporate media and their journalists. They believe something is good, so they ignore that it might be too good to be true, or to verify. Oftentimes they are on deadline against other outlets, which means they prioritize being first, instead of thorough and correct. Dean Baquet confirmed as much in a statement from the New York Times on the Giuliani story. The thinking from the press is: we don’t like Giuliani, therefore Giuliani must be guilty, therefore our sources telling us bad things about him must be honest.

As we’ve learned time and time again, these sources can rarely, if ever be trusted; in turn, we’ve become acclimated to the simple fact that journalists and the reputations of their once esteemed newspapers and networks, can no longer be trusted either.


New submarine threat: Top U.S. general says China pursuing Atlantic naval base

 

China is moving behind-the-scenes toward establishing a major naval port on the west coast of Africa that would host Chinese submarines and aircraft carriers capable of projecting Beijing‘s military power directly into the Atlantic, a top U.S. military official warned on Thursday.

The top commander for U.S. military operations in Africa said Chinese officials have been approaching countries stretching from Mauritania to south of Namibia in search of where to position the naval facility.

“They’re looking for a place where they can rearm and repair warships. That becomes militarily useful in conflict,” U.S. Gen. Stephen Townsend said in an interview with The Associated Press.

 

 

Gen. Townsend, who heads the Pentagon’s Africa Command, added that China‘s military is already close to establishing such a facility in Djibouti, which is situated more than 2,000 miles away in the Horn of Africa on the Indian Ocean side of the continent.

“Now they’re casting their gaze to the Atlantic coast and wanting to get such a base there,” the general said in the interview.

The comments caused a stir among China watchers in Washington, some of whom said the American public should awaken to a reality the Pentagon has been quietly warning about for the past several years: Authoritarian communist government-run China is emerging as a global military power.

“It’s just a matter of time before you have regular surface and subsurface Chinese naval vessels in the Atlantic,” Bradley Bowman, who heads the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told The Washington Times on Thursday.

“Americans need to know that’s coming and the question is what do we do between now and then to get ready,” Mr. Bowman said, adding that Gen. Townsend‘s warning should give U.S. policymakers pause as they debate defense spending priorities in the Biden era.

Thursday’s warning came roughly two weeks after the general sought to draw the attention of U.S. lawmakers to Beijing‘s expanding activities in Africa. 


China‘s “activities in Africa are outpacing those of the United States and our allies as they seek resources and markets to feed economic growth in China and leverage economic tools to increase their global reach and influence,” Gen. Townsend testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee April 22.

In prepared remarks, he noted that Beijing has pledged to deliver some $60 billion in infrastructure and development loans to an array of African countries in recent years. 

He also said the goal of Chinese military operations in Djibouti are to create a “platform to project power across the continent and its waters.”

Beijing built its first overseas naval base years ago in Djibouti and has been steadily increasing the base’s capacity. Gen. Townsend told The Associated Press that 2,000 military personnel positioned at the base. “They have arms and munitions for sure. They have armored combat vehicles,” he said. “We think they will soon be basing helicopters there to potentially include attack helicopters.”

The Djibouti operation is located only about 6 miles from the American Camp Lemonnier in the Horn of Africa, a U.S. Navy-led installation, which is home to roughly 3,400 U.S. Defense Department personnel.

 

 Beijing seeks to open additional bases, tying their commercial seaport investments in East, West and Southern Africa closely with involvement by Chinese military forces in order to further their geo-strategic interests,” Gen. Townsend told lawmakers.

His testimony and Thursday’s interview come against a backdrop in which U.S. military officials are increasingly shifting the Pentagon’s strategic focus from the counterterrorism wars of the last two decades to threats from great power adversaries like China and Russia. 

The Biden administration views China‘s rapidly expanding economic influence and military might as America’s primary long-term security challenge. Among President Biden’s initial foreign policy moves has been a scramble to solidify U.S.-Japan-Australia-India “Quad” cooperation aimed at countering China — building on former President Trump’s push for the four major democracies to align against the communist government in Beijing.

U.S. military commanders around the globe caution that Beijing is aggressively asserting economic influence over countries in Africa, South America and the Middle East, and is pursuing bases and footholds there. Beijing has already spent years building up bases in the disputed waters of the South China Sea and has been sending submarines and warships to far-flung China-financed ports in Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

 

 

In addition to those activities, officials have sought to underscore Beijing‘s focus on Africa. “The Chinese are outmaneuvering the U.S. in select countries in Africa,” Gen. Townsend told The Associated Press. “Port projects, economic endeavors, infrastructure and their agreements and contracts will lead to greater access in the future. They are hedging their bets and making big bets on Africa.”

Beijing was believed to be working toward establishing a Navy base in Tanzania on Africa’s eastern coast. But Gen. Townsend said it appears there’s been no decision on that yet, emphasizing that he’s more concerned with Africa’s Atlantic coastline. 

“The Atlantic coast concerns me greatly,” he told The Associated Press, pointing to the relatively shorter distance from Africa’s west coast to the U.S. In nautical miles, a base on Africa’s northern Atlantic coast could be substantially closer to the U.S. than military facilities in China are to America’s western coast.

Other U.S. officials have said Beijing is also eyeing locations for a port in the Gulf of Guinea in northwest Africa.

A 2020 Pentagon report said Beijing has likely considered adding military facilities to support its naval, air and ground forces in Angola, along the continent’s southwest. The report maintained the large amount of oil and liquefied natural gas imported to China from Africa and the Middle East has prioritized Beijing‘s focus on those regions.

 

 

An analysis published last week by the United States Institute of Peace said Africa has “not escaped [the] growing great power rivalry” between Washington and Beijing. “Countering China was the lodestar of the Trump administration’s Africa policy,” the analysis said. “While the Biden administration may be looking for general areas of cooperation with Beijing, its Africa policy will certainly reflect its overarching aim of challenging China.”

But the analysis also suggested Beijing‘s interests are more economic and diplomatic than security oriented. “China invests heavily in Africa because it sees a continent of abundant natural resources, including strategic minerals, and a growing, youthful population that offers significant commercial opportunities,” it said. ” In 2020, African countries accounted for seven of the world’s 10 fastest-growing economies. There are 54 African countries represented at the United Nations, which often vote as a block, making Africa an important force in multilateral diplomacy. China’s foreign policy seeks to legitimize the Chinese Communist Party at home by winning accolades and showing its clout worldwide, including in Africa.”

Mr. Bowman, meanwhile, told The Times on Thursday that U.S. policymakers would be wise view Beijing‘s economic investments anywhere in the world as precursors to Chinese military developments to follow over the years to come. 


“When we see China‘s economic projects in the Middle East or Africa or even in Europe for that matter, we have to assume that there is either now or will be a military component to that activity in the future,” he said, claiming Beijing is engaging in “debt-trap diplomacy.”

Others have argued the goal is to lure poorer nations into accepting infrastructure loans they cannot possibly pay back and then to forgive the loans in exchange for those country’s natural resources or for Chinese military access to strategically located ports and bases.

Chinese officials sharply reject such characterizations. But Mr. Bowman claimed that what Beijing is engaged in Africa and other corners of the world has begun to “look a lot like neocolonial and neoimperialist resource extraction.”

While U.S. critics often claim America engages in similar activities through direct foreign aid, World Bank and International Monetary Fund lending, Mr. Bowman said there is a stark difference. 

Beijing is not interested in creating independent and prosperous trading partners and co-equals. They are interested in creating dependents from whom they can extract resources and coerce national security advantages,” he said. “This is different from the U.S. approach to the world. I’m not saying America has a perfect history, but generally speaking, the United States wants stable and independent trading partners who control their own territory and don’t let it be used by terrorists to attack us.”

 

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/6/general-chinas-africa-outreach-poses-threat-from-a/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork 

 

 


 

WA State Will Allow Increased Capacity Section in Churches & Venues, But Only for Vaccinated People

Washington State Will Allow Increased Capacity Section in Churches and Venues, But Only for Vaccinated People – Proof of Vaccine Required

Comrades, the Washington State ministry of COVID compliance is going to join in other regional blue state totalitarians and create a tiered system of freedom for vaccinated and non-vaccinated citizens.   The out-of-control dictators are never going to give up the power they have taken under the auspices of COVID mitigation.

According to the latest rules from Washington State Governor Jay Inslee there will be two sections for spectator events and religious and faith based organizations (churches) that “allows facilities to increase capacity by adding sections for vaccinated attendees.” [UPDATE HERE]  “The change, which is effective immediately, outlines the guidelines for vaccinated sections at sporting events, graduations, religious services and other similar activities.”

WASHINGTON STATE – “Under the updated guidance the following are acceptable as proof of full vaccination: Vaccination card (which includes name of person vaccinated, type of vaccine provided and date last dose administered) OR a photo of a vaccination card as a separate document OR a photo of the attendee’s vaccine card stored on a phone or electronic device OR documentation of vaccination from a healthcare provider electronic health record or state Immunization Information System record. Self-reported vaccination records that are not verified by a health care provider cannot be accepted.” (link)

Welcome to your new COVID passport Washington citizens.  Do not leave home without your papers…

Note:  Exactly as Anticipated…