No Longer Feeling Hypnotized - All Of Our Reasons Were A Lie...,

commondreams  |  There are many reasons for Russia's invasion. Some concern politics, history, culture, and territory—including preventing NATO expansion. Not often mentioned, however, is that this small country has 5% of the earth's natural and mineral resources, including coal, oil, natural gas (2nd most in Europe), lithium (for batteries), iron ore (for industry), titanium (20% of proven world reserves, for aerospace) and gallium (2nd most in world, for electronics). Ukraine is also incredibly rich agriculturally—1st in Europe in arable land and 25% of the world's volume of black soil —capable of meeting the food needs of 600 million people. 

This is more than a political war. It's a resource war. 

Immense resources translate to immense wealth—and power. Russia wants control over them. So do western nations and transnational corporations—including energy, mining, and agricultural companies. U.S. military contractors—Raytheon and Lockheed Martin corporations—are telling their investors the tensions are good for business, while General Dynamics corporation boasts that past such disputes have expanded their bottom line. 

The U.S. has committed more than $3 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since 2014, including $350 million worth of weapons recently authorized by President Biden. Lobbying and political campaign contributions by the weapons industry will surely be a factor in continuing the flow of arms. To the degree that energy, mining, and agricultural corporations believe they can eventually grab a piece of Ukrainian resources, they too will use their never-intended First Amendment corporate constitutional rights to press Congress for more funding.

Shockingly, some past U.S. funding to Ukraine appears to have ended up training the Azov Batalion, a neo-nazi militia group that's incorporated into the Ukrainian National Guard. Those in Congress proposing more military funding don't seem concerned about this prospect.

Wars are not only, in general, profitable to weapons makers and corporations that directly benefit from occupations and any eventual access to raw materials and cheap labor. Justification for a "permanent war economy" (which best describes our national economic policy) also greatly benefits other corporations. 

Financial corporations (part of the largest single sector of campaign contributions to federal candidates and parties) profit from war. They facilitate the selling of U.S. Treasury debt bonds to foreign nations (since most military spending increases the nation's debt). They also provide loans internationally to rebuild war-torn nations and domestically to communities (via purchasing municipal bonds with high yields) to fill the gap of declining public funding. Past and current military spending equals 48% of all spent federal tax dollars. 

Relatedly, federal spending priorities favoring militarism over funding to states and communities have placed greater pressure on them to provide basic human and community needs—from programs addressing poverty, health care, education, hunger, homelessness, the environment and physical infrastructure. Privatization/corporatization of public assets—roads, water/sewer systems, utilities, prisons, schools, airports, rail/bus services, medical services—is increasingly the result, much to the delight of slews of corporate entities more than willing to monetize and profit from what formerly had been publicly funded public services. 

Smedley Butler, a retired U.S. Marine Corp Major General, gave a speech in 1935 entitled "War is a Racket." In it, he said, "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps...I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism…"

In The West's Calculus Ukrainians Don't Count...,

ianwalsh |   There’s a lot of nonsense going around including talk of Russia losing the war because less than 5 days into the war, they haven’t conquered Ukraine.

The German blitz of Poland took 5 weeks. The conquest of France 6 weeks, and people were astonished. Ukraine is the largest country in Europe except for Russia istself

The sources I respect say that Russia is taking losses, but the war is not in question and they are advancing about as fast as the US did into Iraq. Russia will win the war, though they may take more damage than they expected (but since we have no idea what they expected, who knows.) Ukraine is a modern equipped army: it isn’t Iraq with obsolete equipment, or Libya or Afghanistan.

The question is not whether Russia wins the war, it is who wins the peace.

What the US and Europe want is to turn Ukraine into a guerilla quagmire, like Afghanistan in the 80s, or Iraq and Afghanistan were for the US.

What Russia wants is to turn Ukraine into a guaranteed neutral state and withdraw its troops out of the country, minus Donbas and Luhansk.

The good result for the Ukraine, which most Westerners don’t seem to get, is what the Russians want. Austria was neutral in the Cold War and that was not horrid. A multi-year guerilla campaign will devastate Ukraine in ways that will take generations to recover from, because if the Russians have to fight an insurgency, they will be utterly brutal, as they were (successfully) in Chechnya.

Moralist yapping about right to choose is off the board. The only good result for Ukraine and Ukrainians is a negotiated settlement. The West egged them on and left them to swing, as the smart people said they would.

Freedom Is Dangerous - (Ironically Under The Guardian's Old Comment Is Free Banner)

theguardian |  “Freedom” protests similar in form and simultaneously nebulous in broadly anti-vax/anti-mandate political goals have materialised in Britain, France and New Zealand. A convoy claiming to originate from across Europe is making its way towards Brussels. An ongoing gathering that locals alternately describe as “Spring Break for QAnon” or “Camp Covid” is encamped outside Australian Parliament House in Canberra.

Across these countries, protestors appear as a wild herd of “sovcit”, anti-vaxxer, QAnonner and more nefarious fellow travellers, alongside some more ordinary people. Sometimes it’s hard to tell whether social media content about these events has been gathered by extremism monitors, or comedians.

Participants unwilling to be injected with a free vaccine safely used on hundreds of millions of people further advise each other that drinking one’s own wee is curative and somehow “camel urine deals with cancer”. Monitors observe attendees costumed as paramedics, pilots and deceased Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. Someone really wears a tinfoil hat.

In New Zealand, the monitors themselves hijacked the Telegram and Zello channels the protestors use to organise. They’ve sown chaos and crammed the convoy’s Spotify playlist with songs like Redneck Piece of White Trash, Why Don’t You Get a Job and Dumb Fuck.

In Canada, protestors have used their vehicles to blockade entire Ottawa neighbourhoods, erecting jumping castles and even saunas. Participants stiffly stage ceremonies to anoint one another faux powers of police. Amid the carnival of crank it all reads like character-based black comedy … but this investment in a parallel reality is not satire. It’s not performance. It’s complete. It’s terrifying.

Wherever this “freedom movement” manifests, a similar cast of characters emerges. Light-in-the-eyes zealots holler conspiracy theories. Grifters solicit to camera like a roll of tabloid clickbait. Burly, closed-mouth types appear to be handling secretive logistics. Around them are impassioned, often inarticulate – and poorly-costumed – clowns.

Don’t let the ridiculousness distract from the threat.

I spent a year undercover in the broadly QAnon movement researching a book; I understand well why democratic citizens may struggle to take seriously the crossed streams of alien lizard aficionados, drink-your-own-wee health enthusiasts and those people who believe democrats eat children’s faces. Even while besieged in his capital and struggling to contain the protests, Canadian PM Justin Trudeau hasn’t yet called in the army; he’s made the point that in more than 80%-vaxxed Canada, those protesting vaccine mandates are indeed a “fringe” – the truckers aren’t backed by their unions, more than 90% of their industry is vaccinated. The tomfoolery in Canberra could not be considered a representative movement of Australians either. Like New Zealanders and the Europeans, we’re a country with a high vaccination rate too.

 

Secret Money, Cross Border Insurgents, Oh My....,

thestar  |  Canadian intelligence and policing has not kept up with the “clear and present danger” represented by these well-funded groups of angry young men.

The most alarming revelation, though, is the large hole that has been blown in our walls of protection against foreign influence in Canadian political life. Conservative hysteria pre-pandemic about American environmental foundations’ funding of green groups here turned out to simply be that — hysteria.

In Alberta, the Kenney government spent millions of public dollars trying to find the secret bank accounts and found pennies. Conservatives’ reactions to the revelation that the militant truckers have access to millions of American dollars — with the promise of millions more from international neo-fascist allies — will be interesting. This flood of cash is a genuine threat to the sovereignty of Canadian democracy.

A chilling incident unfolded before my eyes this week, as I drove by the truckers’ Ottawa compound. Suddenly, two large black SUVs swept past me and turned into the protest command centre. They had New York state plates. Interestingly, they had no insignia, no flags and no slogans anywhere; they wanted to be invisible. It was an almost cinematic moment, with the bad guys surfacing at the scene of the crime.

We now need to reconsider how we prevent the flow of secret money from the U.S. into the hands of Canadian militants — or worse, from there into the war chests of the People’s Party of Canada, or even Conservative candidates. Our current election finance laws were not written to deal with this type of interference. Neither do we have the investigatory or prosecution expertise to track it being washed through third parties.

The successful blockade of three of the nation’s important north-south trucking corridors is ominous. How do we harden our ability to prevent this? Unless this ends soon with fines and even prison sentences, it sets a damaging precedent. That owners of heavy equipment or RVs can blockade a bridge, highway or an entire city is unacceptable in a democracy. Now that heavy tow truck owners have caved to the truckers’ threats, there is literally no one to remove the insurgents.

Former defence minister David Pratte eloquently summed up the inevitable end to this impasse, declaring that Ottawa has every right to use the military. He aptly observed that “when there is no one else to turn to, the military are there as a disciplined, well-trained and professional body to take orders under strict rules of engagement and get a job done. The Ottawa occupation should be treated as a national emergency. If allowed to continue, it will breed disrespect for the law … It will encourage others who abuse the constitutionally protected right to protest and who weaponize the concept of freedom.”

 

American Truckers Too Broke, Disorganized, And Beaten Down To Attempt A Freedom Convoy

foxnews  |  Multiple Capitol Hill sources tell Fox News they are unaware of any plan for truckers to duplicate anything in Washington. Still, Fox is told there have been conversations about what would happen if 18-wheelers and other rigs paralyzed the Capitol.

Don’t call C.W. McCall and Rubber Duck just yet.

For starters, the U.S. Capitol Police have prohibited large trucks from creeping anywhere near the Capitol complex since just after 9/11. There has been increased surveillance around the Capitol for potential "truck bombs" and other threats after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Police routinely divert or pull over trucks that roll onto prohibited streets.

Of course, you can’t really pull over every truck if a convoy of trucks rolled toward Capitol Hill. That was the problem on Jan. 6. The Capitol Police didn’t have the wherewithal to quell thousands of protesters.

That said, there is historic precedent for an over-the-road, over-the-top, motorized demonstration in Washington.

Farmers routinely began jamming up traffic in Washington, D.C., to protest farm prices in the late 1970s. In the winter of 1978, thousands of farmers rode their tractors to Washington, snarling traffic on I-66 in Virginia. Tractors putted along at 15 mph.

A confrontation between seven farmers and police prompted seven arrests. A group of farmers set off on foot, marching along Pennsylvania Avenue. Choruses of "Let’s go get ‘em out" of jail echoed through the D.C. streets.

The farmers then unloaded goats to graze on the Capitol grounds. Officials declared that the farmers created a "monstrous rush-hour traffic jam." The tactics of the farmers were so aggressive that the stunt turned off lawmakers to their plight.

The Washington Post characterized the farmers as "growing more militant" in their approach. Farmers stormed out of a meeting with House Agriculture Committee Chairman and future House Speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash. Foley told them he favored legislation to help boost prices for agricultural commodities - couldn’t guarantee a bill would turn higher profits for farmers. 

Undaunted, the caravans of tractors returned to Washington in January 1979.

Thousands of farmers lumbered down I-270 and the Beltway toward the heart of the city, driving tractors, combines and hauling everything from planters to balers. Capitol Police brought in extra officers to deal with the farmers and barred their agricultural implements from the Capitol grounds.

 

GoFundme Was Gonna Just Steal Donations To The Anti-Vax Mandate Protestors

medium |  The update we issued earlier (below) enabled all donors to get a refund and outlined a plan to distribute remaining funds to verified charities selected by the Freedom Convoy organizers. However, due to donor feedback, we are simplifying the process. We will automatically refund all contributions directly — donors do not need to submit a request. You can expect to see your refund within 7–10 business days.

GoFundMe Statement on the Freedom Convoy 2022 Fundraiser (2/4/2022)

• GoFundMe supports peaceful protests and we believe that was the intention of the Freedom Convoy 2022 fundraiser when it was first created.
• We now have evidence from law enforcement that the previously peaceful demonstration has become an occupation, with police reports of violence and other unlawful activity.

To ensure GoFundMe remains a trusted platform, we work with local authorities to ensure we have a detailed, factual understanding of events taking place on the ground. Following a review of relevant facts and multiple discussions with local law enforcement and city officials, this fundraiser is now in violation of our Terms of Service (Term 8, which prohibits the promotion of violence and harassment) and has been removed from the platform.

Organizers provided a clear distribution plan for the initial $1M that was released earlier this week and confirmed funds would be used only for participants who traveled to Ottawa to participate in a peaceful protest. Given how this situation has evolved, no further funds will be directly distributed to the Freedom Convoy organizers — we will work with organizers to send all remaining funds to credible and established charities chosen by the Freedom Convoy 2022 organizers and verified by GoFundMe.

All donors may submit a request for a full refund until February 19th, 2022 using this dedicated refund form.

SitRep: Where You Worrisome Pissant Are - Right About Now...,

off-guardian |   I am afraid I am not all that excited about the current hoopla regarding our apparent victory over the mainstream narrative. I simply don’t believe it entirely.

We’ve made a run, so to speak, maybe have gotten too rowdy, too powerful, and we are being given a bit of slack so we don’t break the line.

This run is not being executed only by the folks on our side of the fence, but by the sheep as well. We are ALL tired, we are all ready to get out of this mess and call it a day.

It seems like a sensible tactic on their part—to let out a little line, but still keeping us hooked and apparently still in their control.

All this euphoria about us finally winning the battle and that the narrative is finally crumbling indicates to me that we may be getting lost in the weeds of apparent success and the hook and line is still, in reality, firmly embedded in our flesh, only to suddenly reel us in again, after a dizzying and disorienting taste of freedom. I don’t like it.

Most everyone is familiar with the 1950’s Harvard experiment conducted by a rather soulless Curt Richter. Rats were placed in a tank where they had to frantically tread water to survive. Typically they lasted only 15 minutes or so before giving up, sinking, and subsequently drowning.

A second set of experiments showed that if the rats were saved right before their demise, dried off and given a little respite, and then again returned to the tank of water, they could tread, and stay alive, for up to 60 hours.

They called this the “hope experiment,” which is relevant to the current happenings.

To maintain the narrative, people must maintain some sort of hope. When we are about to throw in the towel we are given a little slack in the line, and when the pressure hits again—with a new variant, a new virus, or, in a radical right turn, a nuclear war threat — we can sustain our loyalty, and ultimate compliance, believing we will not drown but will be saved at the last minute by our surrogate parents and archetypal “protectors.”

These tactics work in different ways with the masses on opposing sides of the fence. The sheep need the slack when they are about to throw in the towel of compliance. The rest of us are not about to throw in the towel, but are about to gain greater potential of harm to the narrative—they respond to both situations with the same tactic, but with different results depending on where you sit in this whole mess.

Houston Eviction Courts Back To Pre-Pandemic Levels

houstonpublicmedia |  The state rent relief program is out of money. The national eviction moratorium ended months ago. Pandemic unemployment benefits in Texas expired over the summer. While the pandemic isn’t over, most of the state’s court safety regulations have ended or are set to expire soon.

That means more eviction filings and, in some areas, crowded courtrooms that make it near impossible to stay safely distant indoors: So far this month, more than 4,600 eviction cases have been filed in Harris County as the omicron variant led to climbing case counts and hospitalizations.

During the week of Jan. 10, more than 2,033 cases were filed in Harris County, compared to 693 cases filed during the same period last year, according to Jeff Reichman, principal at the consulting firm January Advisors.

“That’s almost three times as many cases filed this January as there were last January,” Reichman said. “We’re really on trend with pre-pandemic numbers.”

In 2020, 2,180 cases were filed during the same time period.

Earlier this month, during the week of Jan. 10, more than 2,033 cases were filed in Harris County compared to 693 cases filed last year, Reichman said. During the same week of 2020, 2,180 cases were filed.

The increase in eviction cases is hitting some courts more than others: Just as some neighborhoods have far more evictions, certain courts take on far more cases.

Last Tuesday, Harris County Judge Lincoln Goodwin’s court scheduled 275 evictions to be heard on the same day — half of them at 9 a.m. and the other half at 1 p.m.

Every seat in the courtroom was taken. A line stretched down the hallway and into the parking lot. The judge and court staff weren’t wearing masks.

Eric Kwartler, an attorney with South Texas College of Law, said he feels at risk of getting COVID-19 when he’s there representing renters.

“Do I feel safe? No. I never do,” Kwartler said. “I never feel safe when I go into an environment like that.”

The court has cut back on virtual hearings, Kwartler added, only allowing virtual hearings for those who submit proof of a positive COVID test.

“I had a client cough on me at one point and then tell the court that his wife was at home with COVID,” Kwartler said.

Monkeys? Really!?! - Y'all Jes Phoning Shit In Now....,

dailymail |   A woman who stopped to help after a truck carrying 100 lab monkeys crashed in Pennsylvania fears she's caught an illness after one of the macaques hissed in her face, leaving her with pink eye symptoms.

Michelle Fallon, from Danville near Scranton, was driving directly behind the vehicle when it crashed, throwing animal crates all over the highway and smashing some to pieces.  Three of the macaques escaped and went on the run, but all have since been captured and humanely euthanized. All of the other monkeys - who'd arrived in the US from Mauritius that morning, and were en route to a lab, have been accounted for.

Fallon has now had a rabies shot, and wrote about the symptoms she has since suffered on Facebook - and also told PA Homepage that she'd developed symptoms of pink eye - an inflammation or infection of the eye ball. 

She said: 'I was close to the monkeys, I touched the crates, I walked through their feces so I was very close. So I called (a helpline) to inquire, you know, was I safe?

'Because the monkey did hiss at me and there were feces around, and I did have an open cut, they just want to be precautious.' 

Fallon said she got out to help both the driver and the animals in their cages, initially believing them to be cats. When she approached and put her hand on the cage, she says the monkey hissed at her.

The day following the accident, Fallon suddenly developed a cough and pink eye, which became so bad that she had to visit the emergency room at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville.  Fist tap Dale.

Greed Made America A Poor Country

eand.co  |  It is impossible — flatly impossible — for the average American to make ends meet. I can tell you that as an economist, one of the only really good ones America’s ever had. Americans grew poor because their economy failed them. But a poor society can’t afford many things. Things which matter. Like democracy, truth, reason, goodness, decency.

Societies faced with sudden descents into poverty implode into authoritarianism, just the way America is. Greed broke America in this larger, truer sense.

But Americans don’t really understand it yet, I think, just how extreme and out of control greed really is in America — and how, paradoxically, it left society poor. Too poor to afford to even be a functioning country or democracy anymore, in the end, and so America’s just imploding now.

Let’s do a little math first, to prove the point that it’s impossible to make ends meet, and then I’ll teach you a little bit about how what’s normal in America is completely and totally abnormal in the rest of the entire world, more or less.

The median American income is about $35K. That is what millions of Americans earn. For a “household,” meaning in economic statistics, a family of four, it rises to about $60K.

It is impossible, and I mean impossible, to live on that level income. That is a median income more suited to a poor country than a rich one. But let’s prove it.

Rent? The average rent for an apartment was $1124 in 2021. That’s $14,000. That’s half of the average person’s income eaten up by rent alone. Now we have…all the other expenses of life. Let’s start with the other big one in America: healthcare. The average cost for a family paying for healthcare was almost exactly the same: $1152. Bang. Another $14K. That’s the average American’s entire income gone, on just rent and healthcare.

But maybe you object — my employer pays for my healthcare. Or maybe I don’t even want healthcare (LOL, you mean you can’t afford it, I get it, we’ll come back to that). Sure — it’s not going to make much difference in the end. The average American spends about $1200 “out-of-pocket” even if they’re insured by their employer — let’s call it $1500, because that’s surely an underestimate. That leaves us with maybe about 14K of income per year for the average person — and we still haven’t gotten to most bills.

You need a car in America, to get much of anywhere. You need insurance for it. The average monthly car payment is $600. Let’s call insurance another $100. That’s $700…a month. Or $8400 per year. Suddenly, we’re left with about $5K to cover everything else you need in life.

Water, electricity, gas to put in the car. Internet. A mobile phone. The average water bill’s around $100 per month — bang, another $1200 gone — and now we’re down to just about $3800. Internet and a phone? Call them another $100 per month. Now we’re down to $2600. Electricity? Another $100 per month. Now we’re down to just $1400. Average annual cost of gas to put in that car? It’s about $1100.

Now you’ve got just $300 left.

But you still have to feed and clothe yourself. Your kids. Pay for random stuff like maybe a toy here and there, a treat. I’m sure I’ve left plenty of stuff out that isn’t remotely a luxury — like paying off student loans.

The point I’m trying to make should be crystal clear by now — not least because you’re probably living it. Making ends meet in America is flatly impossible. It cannot be done. My lovely wife’s income is so low that it doesn’t even cover her expenses — car, travel, a hotel every now and then because she’s asked to work overtime regularly.

The economic effect of all this is somewhere between a joke and an embarassment. I’m subsidising this world-famous billion dollar institution which pays its “administrators” millions, because my wife isn’t even paid enough to cover her basic living expenses. Think of how ridiculous that is. The reason those administrators earn millions is because I’m effectively paying them to employ my wife — after they get a cut of overcharging Americans for operations and medicine. But this story isn’t personal — it’s social. Those economics — people can’t make ends meet — are absolutely fatal for a society.

Does Mickey D's Still Cook Its Fries In Tallow?

krcgtv  |  A St. Louis woman is jailed after she shot a worker at McDonald’s after a dispute over a discount for french fries, St. Louis County authorities said Friday.

Terika Clay, 30, was charged Thursday with first-degree assault and armed criminal action. She was being held on a $150,00 cash-only bond.

Clay was in a drive-through at a McDonald’s in the St. Louis suburb of Normandy on Wednesday when she argued with an employee over not getting a discount on her fries, according to a probable cause statement from a Normandy detective.

The argument continued when the employee went outside for a smoke break, and Clay struck the employee with her gun and shot her, police said.

The shooting was captured on video, which led to Clay’s arrest, the St. Louis County Prosecutor’s office said in a news release.

The victim’s condition was not immediately available Friday.

Online court records don’t list an attorney for Clay.

You Mess With The Kang's Money, You Pay With Your Life!!!

jsonline  |  Last week, the robbery suspect, Antoine Z. Edwards, was charged with felony murder and intentionally contributing to the delinquency of a child with death as a consequence — another felony.

Edwards and his own 16-year-old daughter, who is described as Harris-Brazell’s best friend, told police they coordinated with Harris-Brazell to stage the robbery in order to steal money, according to the criminal complaint.

The document showed no additional evidence Harris-Brazell conspired with the two on the staged robbery, and her family has argued she had no reason to steal money.

Ellis was not in on the staged robbery and fired at the suspect after seeing him leaning into a drive-thru window and waving a gun around in the direction of Harris-Brazell.

Edwards and his daughter did not tell police it was part of the plan for Edwards to lean into the window. Edwards said he did so because Harris-Brazell, who was working the drive-thru register, did not immediately hand over the cash, court documents said.

The incident occurred the evening of Jan. 2, shortly after the restaurant closed.

Ellis and Edwards are in Milwaukee County jail. As of Thursday morning, Ellis did not have a first court appearance scheduled. Edwards’ cash bail was set at $100,000 on Sunday.

According to court records:

Surveillance camera footage shows that as Harris-Brazell alerted other coworkers to the robbery, a manager at the restaurant called out to Ellis, who usually carried a gun with him to work.

Ellis peered around a door into the drive-thru window area as the robbery suspect waived a gun around. From about 20 feet away, Ellis pressed his body against the door and fired one-handed from around the corner of the door.

Harris-Brazell stood in between Ellis and the suspect. She suffered gunshot wounds to her chest.

 

 

Don't Be Stingy With That Dipping Sauce!!!

news4sanantonio |  An argument over barbecue sauce left a teenager in intensive care after being shot in the head at a Wendy's drive-thru.

Now that teenager looks to be out of the woods and is recovering after the horrible ordeal. 

Brian Durham Jr., 16, was rushed to a hospital on Jan. 13 after a dispute in which he was reportedly not involved escalated into gunfire, according to FOX 10 in Phoenix.

The teenage employee at Wendy's in Phoenix was in critical condition after being shot in the head while working the drive-thru.

"The customer reportedly walked up to the drive-thru window, pulled out a handgun and fired into the drive-thru window hitting the victim working inside the store," said Sgt. Vincent Cole of the Phoenix Police Department.

The shooter ran off after the incident, but police were able to apprehend him later. He was identified Theotis Polk, 27, according to FOX 10 in Phoenix.

Durham Jr.’s father, Brian Durham Sr., said the incident started when the customer complained the restaurant did not have barbecue sauce, FOX 10 reported.

"My son just stayed quiet and had the guy’s change in his hand," Durham Sr. told the news outlet. "[He] just stayed quiet while the other two was in confrontation."

According to FOX 10, the bullet didn't hit Brian's brain, which helped minimize the potential long-term damage.

 

Linking "Cannabis" To "Medical" Put Your Dumb Asses To Sleep...,

themarshallproject |  “Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence” is an intensively researched and passionate dissent from the now prevailing view that marijuana is relatively harmless. The book is a “bullhorn” (his word) for scientists and physicians whose research has, he argues, been drowned out by the triumphal cheers of the marijuana lobby.

He exchanged emails with TMP’s Bill Keller.

The Marshall Project: Alex, you’re really swimming against the tide. Both public opinion and the law have moved dramatically in favor of marijuana, and you’re arguing that pot is connected to psychosis and violent crime. Before we get to your evidence, what drew you to this subject?

Alex Berenson: My wife Jacqueline is a forensic psychiatrist. She evaluates the criminally mentally ill. She told me that nearly all her patients had used marijuana heavily, many at the times of their crimes. At first I didn't really believe her—stupidly—but she encouraged me to evaluate the evidence myself. And the more I read, the more I realized she was right. Marijuana drives a surprising amount of psychosis, and psychosis—besides being a terrible burden for sufferers and their families—is a shockingly high risk for violent crime.

TMP: Last I checked, 33 states and the District of Columbia had legalized marijuana specifically for medicinal purposes. Doctors are apparently prescribing pot for pain, Parkinson’s, PTSD, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and most recently some forms of autism. Pot has been held out as an answer to the opioid crisis—pain relief without the risk of a lethal overdose. Are you saying all these politicians and doctors are deluded?

AB: This question fundamentally misunderstands medical marijuana. The confusion is not surprising, as the cannabis advocacy community has done everything possible to confuse the way medical legalization works in practice. Marijuana is not "prescribed" for anything. It can't be, because the FDA has never approved it to treat any disease, and there is little evidence that smoked cannabis or THC extracts help any of the diseases you mention, except pain. Physicians "authorize" its use, usually after very short visits by patients who have come to them specifically to receive an authorization card. By far the most common conditions for which medical marijuana is authorized are pain and self-reported psychiatric conditions such as anxiety and insomnia, not diseases such as Parkinson's.

After receiving an authorization card, "patients" can then buy as much marijuana as they like for a year for any reason they choose. Nearly all were recreational users before they became "patients." And there is no difference between medical and recreational marijuana. They are the same drug. Further, the vast majority of physicians will not write authorizations, at least according to the states that keep track of physician authorizations. A tiny number of doctors—so-called "pot doctors"—write nearly all of them.

In other words, in nearly all cases, medical legalization is simply a backdoor way to protect recreational users from arrest. This has been a terrible mistake, mainly because it has further confused the public about marijuana's relative risks and benefits.

TMP: Your other—perhaps more contentious—conclusion is that marijuana may contribute to increases in violent crime. As you know, establishing causal links between crime rates and, well, anything, is extremely tricky. What convinced you that pot is a culprit?

AB: Psychosis is a known factor for violent crime. People with schizophrenia commit violent crime at rates far higher than healthy people - their homicide rates are about 20 times as high. Worse, they commit most of that crime while they are under the influence. Since cannabis causes paranoia—not even advocates dispute that fact—and psychosis, it is not surprising that it would drive violent crime. And in fact there are a number of good studies showing that users have significantly higher violence rates than non-users. Further, in researching the book, I found many, many cases where the causation appeared clear. In some cases it was as simple and obvious as, this person—with no history of violence—smoked, became psychotic, and committed a homicide.

TMP: You write that you don’t believe people should go to prison for using marijuana. How should the law deal with pot? Should it be regulated? Should it carry a warning label?

Cannabis Use Produces Persistent Cognitive Impairments

neurosciencenews |  Summary: Cannabis use leads to cognitive impairments that extend beyond the period of intoxication.

Source: Society for the Study of Addiction

A systematic review published today in the scientific journal Addiction has found that cannabis use leads to acute cognitive impairments that may continue beyond the period of intoxication.

This Canadian-led meta-review (review of reviews) merged the findings of 10 meta-analyses representing more than 43,000 participants.

The study found that cannabis intoxication leads to small to moderate cognitive impairments in areas including:

• making decisions,
• suppressing inappropriate responses,
• learning through reading and listening,
• the ability to remember what one reads or hears, and
• the time needed to complete a mental task.

“Our study enabled us to highlight several areas of cognition impaired by cannabis use, including problems concentrating and difficulties remembering and learning, which may have considerable impact on users’ daily lives,” said the study’s co-author Dr. Alexandre Dumais, Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Université de Montréal.

“Cannabis use in youth may consequently lead to reduced educational attainment, and, in adults, to poor work performance and dangerous driving. These consequences may be worse in regular and heavy users.”

Cannabis is the third most consumed psychoactive substance in the world (after alcohol and nicotine) and adolescents as well as young adults have the highest rates of cannabis use. 

Recent global changes in the legalization of cannabis suggest that public perceptions of its safety and acceptability are on the rise.

 

Public Opinion Has Zero-Impact On U.S. Law

upworthy |  Their study took data from nearly 2,000 public-opinion surveys and compared what the people wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America has essentially no impact at all.

Put another way, and I'll just quote the Princeton study directly here:

“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

Really think about that for a second.

If you've ever felt like your opinion doesn't matter and that the government doesn't really care what you think, well … you're right.

But, of course, there's a catch.

...unless you're an "economic elite."

If there's one thing that still reliably gets politicians' attention, it's money. While the opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America have a "statistically non-significant impact," Gilens and Page found that economic elites, business interests, and people who can afford lobbyists still carry major influence.

How could it be that our government, designed to function as a representative democracy, is only good at representing such a small fraction of the population? Just follow the money.

Why? Because purchasing political influence is 100% legal.

For example: Let's say a big bank wants a law that would force taxpayers to bail them out again if they repeat the exact same reckless behavior that crashed the global economy in 2008.

It's perfectly legal for our bank to hire a team of lobbyists whose entire job is to make sure the government gives the bank what it wants. Then, those lobbyists can track down members of Congress who regulate banks and help raise a ton of money for their re-election campaigns. Its also perfectly legal for those lobbyists to offer those same politicians million-dollar jobs at their lobbying firms.

Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-Kansas), shown speaking at an event in 2012, recently attached language originally drafted by lobbyists for CitiGroup to a financial services appropriations bill. Members of Congress who voted "yes" on the bill received, on average, 2.8 times more money from the PACs of CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase than members who voted "no." Image by Information Technology Innovation Foundation/Flickr.

They can also literally write the language of this new bailout law themselves, then hand it off to the politicians they just buttered up with campaign money and lucrative job offers. And it's perfectly legal for those politicians to sneak the lobbyist-written language through Congress at the last second.

If that example sounds oddly specific, that's because it happened in December 2014. And it happens all the time, on almost every single issue, with politicians of both parties.

Federal Prosecutors Steered Clear Of 3rd Parties In Epstein's Orbit

miamiherald |  Maxwell was once a fixture on the New York social scene who possessed a Rolodex of names and direct phone numbers to former presidents, world leaders, billionaires and celebrities. She was also for years Epstein’s girlfriend and, according to testimony, managed his household in Palm Beach and other locales where the multimillionaire maintained estates. 

At least two women have claimed that they were trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell to powerful and wealthy men, including Prince Andrew, former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell and former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Federal prosecutors purposefully seemed to steer the case around the potential minefield of identifying figures they referred to as “third parties” who were in Epstein’s orbit. All the men have denied the allegations.

David Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor, said the verdict shows that prosecutors were right not to focus on these other figures. “The government’s decision to streamline their case was the right choice,” he said. 

Like Epstein, Maxwell hired a team of defense lawyers who filed a flurry of legal motions focused on undermining the credibility of the accusers and portraying them as prostitutes. “Depending on the age of the accusers during the time frame of the conspiracy, consent may be an appropriate and viable defense,’’ Maxwell’s attorneys said in one motion, noting that in Florida at the time the crimes were allegedly committed, “individuals under the age of 18 could be charged with commission of the crime of prostitution.” 

Michael Reiter, the former Palm Beach police chief who oversaw the earlier 2005-08 case against Epstein, said the verdict should send a message to everyone in the criminal justice system.

“In 2005, early in our investigation, the Palm Beach Police Department recognized the importance of stopping Jeffrey Epstein and bringing him to justice. The department never bent to the power and influence brought to bear against us.,” Reiter said. 

“Now that the courts have spoken, I hope and pray that the professionals in our justice system learn from this case. Law school professors should teach this case in legal ethics courses as an example of how not to treat victims of sex crimes and as a forewarning to prosecutors on how they can be influenced to fail in their duties to both victims and the public.” 

Maxwell’s verdict comes three years after the publication of “Perversion of Justice,” a Miami Herald investigation that told in vivid detail how Epstein and his team of high-profile attorneys manipulated the criminal justice system more than a decade earlier allowing him to escape federal prosecution. It told the stories of the girls, now women, and how they were coping years after their encounters with Epstein. Despite the fact that the FBI had evidence he sexually abused at least 34 girls, Epstein served just 13 months in the Palm Beach county jail on charges that he solicited one minor.

Are Cartels Taking Over Small Town America?

westernjournal  |  While most documentaries now are either about serial killers or social justice movements, the Daily Caller’s “Cartelville, USA” brings fresh investigative journalism to the table.

The film, clocking in at a brief but impactful 36 minutes, features reporter Jorge Ventura as he delves into a troubling trend in the high desert of Los Angeles County: illegal cannabis farms.

Ventura was the perfect person to produce and narrate the documentary, as he is one of the few journalists who have covered the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border on location.

Ventura uses his own experience growing up in Palmdale, California, to explain that many families move to the desert to get out of the hustle and bustle of Los Angeles. Now, they’re starting to flee what used to be their sanctuary.

Using testimonies from local residents and law enforcement, the documentary reveals how cartels are buying up poor-quality houses with vast amounts of land in order to start pot farms without proper state licensing.

Property prices in the area have skyrocketed, ruining the region’s reputation for being more affordable. The high desert is now overrun by criminal enterprises wasting precious resources, including water, with no regard for the communities around them.

These cartels staff their operations with migrants smuggled across the southern border, many of whom are working as indentured servants.

Ventura does a fantastic job drawing distinctions between the people running the farms and the ones laboring on them.

He tells a far more nuanced story about the average person coming across the border than the hyper-partisan narrative coming from both sides of the aisle.

 

 

This Plandemic Will Be Over When We Tell You (Uselessly Eating Muggles) It's Over

apnews |  How will the world decide when the pandemic is over?

There’s no clear-cut definition for when a pandemic starts and ends, and how much of a threat a global outbreak is posing can vary by country.

“It’s somewhat a subjective judgment because it’s not just about the number of cases. It’s about severity and it’s about impact,” says Dr. Michael Ryan, the World Health Organization’s emergencies chief.

In January 2020, WHO designated the virus a global health crisis “of international concern.” A couple months later in March, the United Nations health agency described the outbreak as a “pandemic,” reflecting the fact that the virus had spread to nearly every continent and numerous other health officials were saying it could be described as such.

The pandemic may be widely considered over when WHO decides the virus is no longer an emergency of international concern, a designation its expert committee has been reassessing every three months. But when the most acute phases of the crisis ease within countries could vary.

Unvaxxed Uselessly-Eating Muggles Should Be Stripped Of Healthcare Insurance

off-guardian  |  Illinois Representative Jonathan Carroll wants to push through a change to the state’s insurance law that would mean health insurers no longer have to cover unvaccinated people who get Covid, forcing people to pay their medical bills out of pocket.

The Democrat lawmaker told the Chicago Sun-Times:

I think it’s time that we say ‘You choose not to get vaccinated, then you’re also going to assume the risk that if you do catch COVID, and you get sick, the responsibility is on you,’”

The potential corruption and abuse of such a rule should be obvious to anyone familiar with just how mendacious insurance companies can be.

In all likelihood insurance companies will simply demand a negative Covid test before paying anything, and if you test positive, no matter what you were treated for, you will be called a “covid case” and forced to pay out of pocket.

The bill could, essentially, wipe all health insurance off the books for unvaccinated people.

The vaccinated should take no comfort from this, because their vaccinated status is entirely temporary, and subject to rules that could change on a whim.

Any “double jabbed” who misses a booster, or got a brand of vaccine that was subsequently unapproved or discontinued, or wasn’t updated for the latest variant, could suddenly find themselves one of the “unvaccinated” underclass.

Of course, once it applies to vaccination status it can apply to other things. You travelled to the wrong place, or you didn’t wear a mask, you “associated with known anti-vaxxers”.

And, even more concerning, is the potentially slippery slope this starts us down. Unvaccinated don’t get health insurance. Neither do smokers who get lung cancer. Or overweight people who get diabetes. And so on and so on.

The potential good news is that putting this law on the books would require a lot of legal workarounds, including violating or changing the Affordable Care Act, which outlaws removing insurance coverage from someone based on a new medical diagnosis or test result.