A Big!
Thank You Baker.
sauce
Current
"Perfect Storm…Not Of Our Doing" - Fauci-Led Biden Team Suddenly Stunned By Virus Surge Created By Fauci-Led Trump Team
by Tyler Durden - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2021 - 20:25
Even before President Biden was officially sworn in, corporate American was already rearing to have his back. Earlier this week, Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel told the press that his company was on track to produce 100MM COVID vaccine doses by the end of Biden's first 100 days, as expected, while a top Amazon exec sent Biden a letter asking if there was anything Amazon could do to help with the vaccine rollout (meanwhile, a "logistical hiccup" by McKesson forced the rescheduling of 23K injections).
Did we not need assistance two weeks ago? https://t.co/3oZb378mae
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) January 20, 2021
Now, after Wall Street already declared "the beginning of the end" of the COVID pandemic, Bloomberg News is pitching in with a little CYA, publishing a report claiming Biden's Dr. Fauci led White House COVID team is now seeing that the outlook for the US pandemic is worse than they had believed…presumably because the Trump COVID team (also led by Dr. Fauci) kept them in the dark.
The Biden team, Bloomberg says, is "increasingly worried the coronavirus pandemic is spiraling out of control - imperiling his promise to contain the outbreak - as cases and deaths mount, vaccinations lag and a more-transmissible strain emerges in the US."
The way the editors framed the issue, they made it sound as if any potential surge in cases later in the year - for whatever reason, even something totally unforeseen like more viral mutations (the other day, brazilian media warned of a new hyper-infectious strain emerging in the Amazon) - would be President Trump's fault, not Biden's and the Democrats.
As they learned more about the federal response to the pandemic, Biden’s transition team grew alarmed at a lack of coordination with states, the people said. Biden himself has warned of a “dark winter” and has flatly said the pandemic will worsen before it improves.
The stakes are escalating. U.S. hospitalizations are at near-record levels, and daily cases and deaths have doubled since Election Day on Nov. 3. While blame has fallen on the Trump administration for its failure to develop a national testing or vaccination strategy or encourage widespread mask-wearing, Biden’s team - which keeps adding new experts - now inherits the job of containing the pandemic.
On Thursday, Biden will sign executive actions to “move aggressively to change the course of the Covid-19 crisis and safely re-open schools and businesses, including by taking action to mitigate spread through expanding testing, protecting workers, and establishing clear public health standards,” according to a memo by Ron Klain, the White House chief of staff. After taking office on Wednesday, one of Biden’s first acts was expected to be an order requiring face masks on federal property.
But why does Bloomberg feel the need to engage in this type of defensive cover? Well, presumably because some of the "experts" (who perhaps have been afraid to speak up and question the official narrative on masks, lockdowns and vaccines) truly are concerned that none of the palliatives actually work - though they probably wouldn't tell you that if you asked them
But the risk of explosive new strains, including a UK variant known as B.1.1.7, threatens to upend it all and leave Biden at the end of his first 100 days with a pandemic that has worsened, instead of improved. There’s concern among his team that the scope of the problem he’s inherited is far worse than anticipated, posing a political risk to Biden’s White House.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/perfect-stormnot-our-doing-fauci-led-biden-team-suddenly-stunned-virus-surge-created
(continued 1)
(2)
The most alarming developments have come over the past month. Some Biden advisers, who asked not to be identified discussing internal conversations, said it isn’t vaccine logistics that worry them most, but the new strain of the virus, which is more contagious. The US already has a perilously high baseline caseload - about 230,000 new infections a day, of late - that could quickly become unmanageable as the mutant strain takes hold.
"This administration is inheriting such a horrible problem, not of their making," said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota and a member of the coronavirus advisory board for Biden’s transition. "This is a perfect storm."
Some twitter users apparently saw through Bloomberg's CYA operation on behalf of the new administration, and mocked it accordingly.
But . . . but I was told we just needed a President with a "(D)" after his name and the whole problem would be SOLVED INSTANTLY!!!!!
— Sleep Is For Wusses Ego (@MyAlteredEgo) January 20, 2021
I thought his mask mandate was going to save the day?!?
— Mike Wilson (@wagon_hunter) January 20, 2021
With the excuses on day 1! wow
— Divo Crockett (@Divo_Crockett) January 20, 2021
Meanwhile, earlier today, a top Israeli health official announced that the Pfizer vaccine, which the country has used to carry out one of the most comprehensive vaccination programs in the world, is only 50% effective, roughly half the 95% that the "Phase 3 trial data" suggested.
Even with Israel apparently well on its way to herd immunity (or so they say) the country has moved to extend its lockdown once again, this time until the end of the month. Like the Biden White House scientists reportedly told Bloomberg, their biggest fear is that the mutations - which these same experts said just months ago showed no evidence of being a problem - will make the virus more deadly, more infectious, or more difficult to contain with the vaccines, as we continue to head into a future full of unknowns.
But just remember…whatever happens over the next year…it's still Donald Trump's fault.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/perfect-stormnot-our-doing-fauci-led-biden-team-suddenly-stunned-virus-surge-created
MSM Calls For "New Definition Of Free Speech"
by Tyler Durden - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2021 - 19:45
Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,
Part of the main duty of OffGuardian is to troll through the masses of media output and try and pick up patterns. Sometimes the patterns are subtle, a gentle urging behind the paragraphs. Sometimes they’re more like a sledgehammer to the face.
This has been face-hammer week. In fact, it’s been a face-hammer year.
From “flatten the curve” to “the new normal” to “the great reset”, it’s not been hard to spot the messaging going on since the start of the “pandemic”. And that distinct lack of disguise has carried over into other topics, too.
They also agree that maybe…it shouldn’t be. Maybe “free speech” is too dangerous in our modern era, and needs a “new definition”.
That’s what Ian Dunt writing in Politics.co.uk thinks, anyway, arguing it’s time to have a “grown-up debate” about free speech.
The Financial Times agrees, asking about the “limits of free-speech in the internet era”.
Thomas Edsall, in the New York Times, wonders aloud if Trump’s “lies” have made free speech a “threat to democracy”.
The Conversation, a UK-based journal often at the cutting edge of the truly terrifying ideas, has three different articles about redefining or limiting free speech, all published within 4 days of each other.
There’s Free speech is not guaranteed if it harms others, a drab piece of dishonest apologia which argues Trump wasn’t silenced, because he could make a speech which the media would cover…without also mentioning that the media has, en masse, literally refused to broadcast several of Trump’s speeches in the last couple of months.
The conclusion could have been written by an algorithm analysing The Guardian’s twitter feed:
the suggestion Trump has been censored is simply wrong. It misleads the public into believing all “free speech” claims have equal merit. They do not. We must work to ensure harmful speech is regulated in order to ensure broad participation in the public discourse that is essential to our lives — and to our democracy.
We pointed out, a few days ago, the sudden over-use of the phrase “domestic terrorism” preparing us for what is, almost certainly, going to be a truly horrendous piece of new legislation once Biden is in office.
Well, the buzz-phrase doing the rounds in the wake of Donald Trump being banned from the internet is “the new definition of free speech”…and variations on that theme.
Firstly, and papers on both sides of the Atlantic want to be very clear about this, Donald Trump being banned simultaneously from every major social network is not in any way inhibiting his free speech.
Indeed none of the tens of thousands of people banned from twitter et al. have had their free speech infringed either. Neither have any of the proprietors – or users – of the Parler app which the tech giants bullied out of existence.
Free Speech is totally intact no matter how many people are banned or deplatformed, the media all agree on that (even the allegedly pro-free speech think tanks).
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/msm-calls-new-definition-free-speech
Antifa Attacks Democrat HQ in Portland — Wants Revenge, Not Biden
by Bob Price - 20 Jan 2021
''Antifa marched through the streets of Portland, Oregon, on Inauguration Day carrying a sign saying “We don’t want Biden — We want revenge!''
A video tweeted by New York Times journalist Mike Baker whose a group of Antifa protesters marching down a Portland street with a sign bearing anti-police and anti-Biden messages.
“We don’t want Biden,” one sign reads. “We want revenge!” The sign says they want revenge for “police murders, imperialist wars, and fascist massacres.”
A tweet by Portland Tribune reporter Zane Sparling shows a sign reading, “We are ungovernable.”
The Antifa crew continued their march and ransacked the Portland Democratic Party headquarters.
Another video tweeted by Townhall.com journalist Julio Rosas shows Antifa wearing black bloc and carrying umbrellas smashing the windows of the Democrat’s offices and spraypainting graffiti on the building.
“Fk Biden,” one of the messages stated. Another spelled the new president’s name wrong but said, “Fk Bided {sic}, stillfascost {sic}.”
Rosas said Antifa quickly fled the scene when police arrived.
Baker tweeted that he received criticism for calling the crowd “left-wing.” He clarified, calling the crowd a “mix of racial-justice, anti-fascist, anarchist, youth liberation, etc.”
KOIN6 reporter Jennifer Dowling tweeted another video portraying the destruction at the Democrats’ office building.
She tweeted another video showing Portland police placing a person under arrest.
https://www.breitbart.com/law-and-order/2021/01/20/antifa-attacks-democrat-hq-in-portland-wants-revenge-not-biden/
Wearing a Mask, Joe Biden Signs Executive Order Mandating Masks on Federal Property
by Charlie Spiering - 20 Jan 2021
''President Joe Biden signed an executive order on Wednesday to mandate that all individuals in the United States wear masks on federal property.''
“It’s requiring as I’ve said all along, wherever I have authority, mandating that masks be worn and social distancing be kept on federal property, on interstate commerce, et cetera,” he said, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday evening after he was inaugurated.
The executive order on masks was the first of his presidency, as he has championed them as a critical way to save lives during the coronavirus pandemic.
The president wore a mask as he sat at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office and signed several executive orders to roll back some of former President Donald Trump’s executive actions.
The order directs all federal agencies to comply with the Centers for Disease Control on guidance for mask-wearing and social distancing on federal lands. It also directs all federal employees and contractors to wear masks.
Biden does not have the authority to sign a federal mask mandate but has urged all states to follow his lead.
“These are all starting points,” Biden said.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/01/20/wearing-a-mask-joe-biden-signs-executive-order-mandating-masks-on-federal-property/
President Biden is the CinC of the military.
Biden Can Now Launch The Nukes And Unleash World War III Whenever He Feels Like It
by Tyler Durden - Wednesday, Jan 20, 2021 - 23:45
Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,
During the Trump administration, I pointed to a problem with the American presidential system: ''it provides presidents with essentially unchecked power when it comes to launching a nuclear holocaust.'' Presidents can initiate nuclear war whenever they like. They need not be acting in a defensive capacity. This should strike any sane person as a rather insane policy, and as a huge hole in the so-called checks and balances on which the US political system is allegedly premised.
Because of the Washington Beltway hysteria over Trump, the Congress—possibly for the first time—considered measures to rein in the president in this regard. It's a shame it required Trump Derangement Syndrome to make this an issue, but we should take what we can get when it comes to admitting some of the grave threats to common sensical governance that plague the American national security state.
Naturally, these lukewarm attempts at reform failed, likely because the Pentagon was surely opposed to them. While the president's power is essentially unrestrained in this manner, the loosey goosey approach to controlling launching power also empowers the Pentagon. Surely, the Pentagon's generals wanted to make sure they can have a big role in launching WWIII on a whim as well.
Moreover, Trump supporters opposed the idea as well. When I published the 2020 article on the problem of unchecked presidential power in this regard, I was savaged by Trump supporters in social media for allegedly being a "never Trumper" and failing to understand that the power of the president must never be limited in any way, lest it get in the way of Trump "owning the libs." Now that Trump is an ex-president, however, both Washington and the hero-worshipping Trump backers will completely forget about the issue. As far as Washington is concerned, the nuke codes are now being controlled by one of their own. And few Trump supporters ever cared about limiting presidential power, anyway.
So, the power to incinerate a billion or more human beings over morning coffee remains in the power of the president.This morning, Biden supporters on Twitter were ecstatic over the video of the nuclear "football"—the device which enables the president to launch the nukes—was handed over to Biden:
Football incoming. pic.twitter.com/Ww4wz1GbIE
— Mike DeBonis (@mikedebonis) January 20, 2021
But this should be little comfort to anyone who's paying attention, especially given the launch codes are now under the thumb of a man who may not even know what year it is.
But regardless of who is president, the fact is the only thing that stands between a president and his launching of nuclear missiles is his own moral compass. Anyone who isn't hopelessly naĂŻve about politicians and political institutions will find this deeply disturbing.
A Brief History of the Nuclear Launch Process
But why has there been no significant effort to develop some sort of check or veto to this process? Part of this lies in the fact the US military establishment maintains a posture very much in favor of erring on the side of aggression rather than restraint. In the early days of the nuclear-armed Cold War, there were essentially no safeguards in place. A man claiming to be the president, if he had access to the right people, could theoretically call for a nuclear strike, and there was no set way of remotely verifying his identity.
A more robust process was put in place by President Kennedy:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-can-now-launch-nukes-and-unleash-world-war-iii-whenever-he-feels-it
(1 of 3)
(2 of 3)
Although its origins remain highly classified, the Football can be traced back to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Privately, John F. Kennedy believed that nuclear weapons were, as he put it, “only good for deterring.” He also felt it was “insane that two men, sitting on opposite sides of the world, should be able to decide to bring an end to civilization.” Horrified by the doctrine known as MAD (mutually assured destruction), JFK ordered locks to be placed on nuclear weapons and demanded alternatives to the “all or nothing” nuclear war plan.
Kennedy began asking questions about how a nuclear strike might actually take place, and specifically asked:
"What would I say to the Joint War Room to launch an immediate nuclear strike?"
"How would the person who received my instructions verify them?"
Kennedy felt that it was important to ensure that only the president—whose identity could somehow be verified—could authorize a strike.
According to some critics of the Pentagon, however, the military was committed to making it easy to launch the missiles. The Air Force has even been accused of using "00000000" as a code that could enable the launch of a nuclear missile. According to Foreign Policy:
Bruce Blair, a nuclear security expert and former launch officer…[and] now a scholar and author at Princeton University, first raised the idea in a piece published in 2004. He accused the Air Force of circumventing President John F. Kennedy’s 1962 order to install extra security codes to safeguard against accidental or unauthorized launch by putting them in place, but making them painfully simple to the missile launch officers who manned underground bunkers. Doing so, Blair said, effectively eliminated the codes’ usefulness.
Blair contends this easy-code protocol persisted for at least a decade, including the period when he was a launch officer.
For its part, the Air Force denies using the specific code "00000000." Nonetheless, the prolaunch posture of the Pentagon has long been evident. As noted by Jeffrey Lewis at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies:
Bruce is correct about the major historical narrative at stake – the United States Air Force, particularly Strategic Air Command, generally resisted the introduction of technical safeguards out of concerns that such measures might make it more difficult to use the weapons in the event of a conflict….Like many other practices of the period…the Air Force’s emphasis on readiness at the expense of safety at that time seems, admittedly with the benefit of hindsight, unwise in the extreme.
Other potential sources of human error or sabotage have surfaced over the years as well.
Military personnel close to President Clinton have claimed that he misplaced the so-called biscuit, the card on which nuclear launch codes are printed. Presidents have often carried them in a coat pocket. But they can be misplaced. According to one of the men who carried the football:
"[Clinton] thought he just placed them upstairs," Patterson recalled. "We called upstairs, we started a search around the White House for the codes, and he finally confessed that he in fact misplaced them. He couldn't recall when he had last seen them."
Other cases have reputedly occurred. President Carter allegedly "left his biscuit in a suit that got sent to the dry cleaners."
One instance that has been confirmed, however, is when Ronald Reagan's codes were left discarded and unattended following his attempted assassination:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-can-now-launch-nukes-and-unleash-world-war-iii-whenever-he-feels-it
(3 of 3)
During the chaos that followed the shooting, the military aide was separated from the president, and did not accompany him to the George Washington University hospital. In the moments before Reagan was wheeled into the operating theater, he was stripped of his clothes and other possessions. The Biscuit was later found abandoned, unceremoniously dumped in a hospital plastic bag.
While mere loss of the biscuit does not trigger any sort of launch, it is not difficult to predict how access to the codes could be abused by someone else in a chaotic wartime situation. Scholars have suggested several potential problems with verification and authorization.
''For example, what if a president refused to launch missiles in opposition to the emphatic urgings of his subordinates? Could he then be incapacitated by his subordinates and his launch codes used under the authorization of another person?''
It is unknown how this would play out. According to Ron Rosenbaum in How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III,
the whole question of nuclear command authority, and of who takes control of that authority if the president is killed in a nuclear attack, has frustrated experts and politicians for decades. Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar has called the confusing succession problem "a disaster waiting to happen."
This suggests problems whether a president is killed, thought to be killed, or is unreachable for a period. If the vice president assumes office and the original president later resurfaces, who then controls the nuclear weapons? Conspirators could also attempt to actively wrest control of launch authorization from presidents through deception. This could include having the president declared incapacitated for reasons of insanity under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. But Rosenbaum writes:
By then we'd be in coup territory, or inside an episode of 24. And what is sanity or insanity? What if the president refuses to carry out the deterrent threat of genocidal retaliation once it's failed to deter a strike on us? Can those around him force the president to give them the Gold Codes and in effect give the launch order? Who determines who is sane and who is insane?
This strategy, of course, could be used by either side: a prolaunch vice president might ally with a secretary of defense to declare an antilaunch president mentally incompetent. Or, anti-launch underlings could seek to declare the president insane so as to prevent a launch.
Either way, its clear that this is uncharted territory and well outside the bounds of any orderly process of checks and balances on executive power.
Problems extend down the chain of command as well. In 1973, launch officer Major Harold Hering asked his superiors for clarification on how he could know if the president giving the order was sane. The military brass had no answer. Instead, Hering was forced out of the Air Force. Although the military likes to claim personnel are required only to follow legal orders—i.e., not planet-destroying orders issued by insane people—all that really mattered was that Hering be willing to launch missiles without question.
The fact of the matter is that there is ''no'' way to confirm a president has consulted any facts on the necessity of nuclear war, or that the president is in his (or her) right mind when ordering a nuclear strike.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-can-now-launch-nukes-and-unleash-world-war-iii-whenever-he-feels-it
Alright frens
It's sack time
g'nite