Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 9, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:47:05

20200409_Thu_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The British are coming!
	The British are coming!
	You are about to leave Markham on the big stage.
	America first.
	Good evening and welcome back to another edition of American Countdown.
	As we stay a minute to midnight in these collapse of the Constitutional Republic and our public economy.
	Today we ask another question.
	Resolved.
	Whether or not the Democrat hijacking of the public policy of the presidency by its allies in the Public Health Administration, those connected to both the Clintons and Bill Gates, endangers not only the president's re-election, but endangers our future of our public economy and our constitutional republic.
	Let us look at that in further detail.
	For example, just yesterday, Paul Sperry, a reporter for RealClearPolitics and other places who's exposed a lot of matters related to Spygate and other things, reported the following.
	Breaking FEC records show that the husband of State Department Dr. Deborah Birx, who we've already documented by the way as detailed connections to the Gates Foundation, family members that work at the Gates Foundation, longtime personal and political affiliation with the Gates
	that her husband is a Democrat who gave at least $8,100 to Hillary Victory Fund and Hillary for America in 2015 and 2016, and served as Deputy Assistant and Director of Advance for President Bill Clinton.
	So here the key person giving advice to President Trump about why he has to shut down the economy, why he has to not resist the shutdown of civil liberties by Democratic politicians across the country, That same public official has deep family ties and financial ties of various kinds to either Bill Gates and or Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.
	That's who's advising the President.
	Have they deliberately hijacked the public policy of our country concerning both our constitutional liberties and our public economy due to their own political interests adverse to the President of the United States?
	Another headline from Paul Sperry and his investigative reporting looking at political records, financial contribution records, financial expenditure records.
	You can find with the Federal Election Commission if you know how to dig into the data.
	You can also find it places like OpenSecrets.org and other organizations.
	But the mainstream media has not been reporting this.
	What else did he find?
	The two officials heading President Trump's medical response to the COVID-19 outbreak, Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx, are tied to the Clintons, to their Democratic activist spouses, raising suspicions of political bias and their friction with the President on handling the crisis.
	Indeed, Paul Sperry further reports, breaking news, FEC records show that the wife of Anthony Fauci Who's clashed with President Trump, but who has effectively co-opted our national public policy over the last several weeks, is a Democrat who donated at least $1,200 for Hillary for America and the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016 to help facilitate Trump's defeat.
	And Dr. Fauci, of course, has previously written emails and public commentary praising Hillary Clinton.
	And he too has tight ties with Bill Gates.
	And both Bill Gates and Melinda Gates have made harsh public criticisms and commentary about President Trump.
	Now what's happening in the public opinion surveys and polls as we look at the economy's continued collapse, as we see the decline of our constitutional liberties in the country, whether the real objective and the real ends and the real aim of both the press and maybe people like Fauci and Birx
	is actually occurring, which is polls show Americans are souring on President Trump, including Trump's 2016 voters are starting to turn against him for the first time in his presidency.
	This is what happens when the economy collapses.
	This is what happens when Trump's Trump card, the economic recovery of extraordinary scale and scope, disappears overnight at the will and the urge of these Democratic allies in the White House that control our public health power positions and now have effectively controlled and dictated our policies over disappears overnight at the will and the urge of these Democratic allies in the White House that control our public health power positions and now have effectively controlled and dictated our policies over
	This all is happening while in fact what's happening around the world is that the models are proving false.
	The models of doom and gloom are proven untrue.
	If you had been watching this channel, watching other shows on this channel, following me on social media or others, these headlines would not be a surprise to you.
	What we were predicting over a month ago, Is that the models were greatly exaggerating and overstating the risk and the exposure risk of this disease, that it was a disease to take very seriously, an infection to take very seriously, to prepare for accordingly, but not justification to shut down our economy, not justification to give up in two weeks what it took two centuries to build in our constitutional liberties.
	But instead, we should be skeptical of any doom and gloom models that project and forecast millions dead in months or hundreds of thousands dead in weeks, as Birx and Fauci themselves were preaching just a week or two ago.
	We should be skeptical of those reports because they're based on bad input.
	A model is only as good as the data that enters into it.
	As Scott Adams, the famed comic for Dilbert and writer on mindset in a wide range of topics and subjects, talked about over a year ago, the best effectiveness to judge a filter is to look at its predictive power.
	Well, these models have no predictive power aside from being badly wrong.
	They have greatly exaggerated and overstated the number of hospitalizations, greatly overstated and exaggerated the number of ICU units needed, greatly overstated and exaggerated the number of ventilators needed, greatly overexaggerated and overstated the numbers of people who would be infected and how many deaths would occur from that infection.
	That's what the headlines are repeatedly today, but while the mainstream press and Fauci and others continue to spin a tale about how the models work, even when the models clearly did not work.
	Let's look at some of the counter evidence today.
	An article headlined, these are the first lessons of the Heinsberg study, which did a study of all the people in the particular region in Germany to see who had the disease.
	And what did they find?
	Well, let's look at chart number two.
	What they found was that conclusions, people under 65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death, even in the hotbeds of the pandemic, and deaths for people under 65 years without underlying predisposing conditions are remarkably uncommon.
	Strategies focusing specifically on protecting the high-risk elderly should be considered in managing the pandemic rather than mass shutdowns and mass house arrests.
	If we take a look at chart number four, we see that one of the primary states that was pushing these pandemic panic models, Ohio, turned out to be extraordinarily wrong.
	So the if we look at the chart on chart number four, we'll see where the the projections are showed this just exponential endless growth rate in the actual number of daily new cases is just flat lined at the very bottom.
	That the actual number is less than 18% of what was projected.
	And this is what was projected with the shutdown in place.
	They were saying this is what would have happened with the shutdown.
	They're saying without it, it was going to be 10 times worse.
	Well, now we know that even with it, they were 10 times wrong.
	That's the kind of ratio they're off and that the models falsely estimated the risk exposure to states like Ohio and the United States across the board.
	We'll look at another chart with Ohio, and it's chart number five.
	And if we look at the bottom half of that chart, it shows the growth rate in the number of confirmed cases in Ohio.
	What's fascinating about this chart is how it mirrors charts that I and other people were predicting more than five weeks ago was going to happen.
	And this was based on the study of a Nobel laureate winner, Israeli scientist, who simply broke down the data within China.
	And he figured out that if you dug into the data, what you would find is that there's this sort of drop off on the growth rate, no matter what mitigation tactics are taken that are consistent with the historical rate of virus growth.
	It finds the most vulnerable people early, the most susceptible, it attacks them vociferously, and then it quickly runs out of people to attack.
	And the rates dropped.
	So they start off at 50% a day.
	Then they go down to about a third a day.
	Then they go down to about 25% a day.
	And then down to about 15.
	Then down to about 8.
	Then down to about 5.
	So using that, we projected what was going to happen in Wuhan.
	We projected what was going to happen and did happen on the Diamond Princess.
	Projected what was going to happen in Iran.
	Predicted what was going to happen in Europe and Italy.
	Predicted what was going to happen here in the United States.
	Well, let's just look at Ohio.
	We look at that bottom part of the chart, it starts out at almost over 40% growth rate, then drops down to about 25 to 30%, then drops down to about 15%, then dropped down to about 8%, and now it's in the single digits.
	No matter what protocols you used as a governing agency, this virus has had the same pattern of declining growth everywhere it's been.
	Iran never shut down its economy, achieved the same outcome.
	Taiwan never shut down their economy, achieved a comparable, yeah actually better outcome.
	Japan waited a long time to do any kind of shutdown, achieved a comparable outcome.
	Singapore only partially shut down and didn't do that until a long period of time later, still had a comparable slowdown in the death rate.
	With states within the United States that have had no shutdown have seen the same declining rate of growth as those states that have imposed a shutdown regardless of the timing of when they did any kind of shutdown and regardless of whether they even did any kind of shutdown.
	We're seeing the same outcomes in Sweden and in Holland and other parts of Europe as well.
	Let's look at chart number six.
	Another example of what they call the Delta, the gap.
	Between the projected rate and the actual rate in Ohio, and you see here by ICU beds, by daily new cases, by hospitalizations, by death rates, they were off by anywhere from 57 to 82 percent.
	Which is to say they either got it wrong by more than double or they got it wrong by more than five-fold.
	If we look at my home state of Tennessee in chart number seven, we'll see what the projection was in terms of what they thought was going to happen, which was this continuous growth that was going to go up endlessly exponentially.
	And the actual growth rate has been almost completely flat.
	The Tennessee governor was widely criticized because he refused to issue a shutdown until late.
	We go to chart number nine.
	We will see from Arizona that the hospital activity is reaching a record low.
	In fact, it did reach a record low today for this time period.
	The hospitals did all of this activity in preparation for this massive influx of COVID-19 patients.
	That influx never happened.
	The ICU influx never happened to have any sort of overcapacity problem at any of these hospitals.
	The same with the number of hospital beds in general.
	And instead, what they effectively did is foreclose the use of the hospital and sort of scare people off from using the hospital who probably should and need be using the hospital.
	We'll get to that later.
	But the hospital rates ended up being under capacity, not over capacity, contrary to the model's predictions and forecast.
	A useful chart that we've shown a couple of times on this show is chart number eight.
	And what this does is this tracks the how much people are really not are actually honoring a shutdown or not and not going out.
	And what it shows is varying rates across a wide range of countries.
	And what stands out is the countries that have the biggest shutdown, France, Italy and Spain.
	That's where there's massive declines of people going out and about.
	Those countries are having the worst reactions and outcomes to the pandemic.
	By contrast, countries that have done almost no shutdown at all, like Sweden, to a substantial degree, Hong Kong has not shut down to a great degree.
	Germany has not shut down to a great degree during this time period.
	All of these countries are experiencing some of the best outcomes.
	So this is further evidence, irrefutable evidence, that in fact the shutdown was not only not necessary to achieve the decline in the death rate and the hospitalization rate and the severe debilitating illness rate from this virus, but in fact may have been counterproductive.
	By what we're seeing.
	The places that did the harshest, strongest shutdowns are seeing the worst possible outcomes.
	Whereas the places that did the lowest level of shutdown are seeing some of the best actual outcomes in response to this pandemic.
	One person who's taken a lot of heat for all of this is former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson.
	You can track him online.
	Fox Today did a headline story.
	Meet the former New York Times reporter who is challenging the coronavirus narrative.
	He's had the wherewithal and the courage to join a few of us, like Jordan Schachtel and others, willing to, like Sean Davis at The Federalist, willing to challenge the establishment narrative, the gatekeeper institutionalized narrative, as Eric Weinstein or Peter Thiel might call it.
	And the article goes into detail about how, in fact, how right he's consistently been.
	His questions, his criticism, his skepticism, his following the data and simply reporting on that data has shown repeatedly how, in fact, this scare factor that the public and the press and the politicians have tried to impose has been false, that the models have been exaggerated, that this shutdown was unnecessary and maybe even counterproductive.
	As they talk about it outside of New York, there has been no health care system crisis other than the crisis caused by shutting down the economy.
	Most of the hospitals are empty, not over full around the country.
	Only a few hotspots are facing problems, just like during severe flu season, a few hospitals will usually face problems.
	There has been a drop in cases seen in various states that came long before those states imposed any kind of lockdown or the lockdown could have had any impact.
	Remember, when you see this data out there that says, oh, you know, let's look at when the lockdown went down and see how the rate went down afterwards.
	What's misleading about that is two things.
	First, the models presumed that lockdown's existence and its data was based on the effectiveness of the lockdown.
	So when they got it wrong by a ratio of 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, that was a ratio, that was an error made even with assuming the effectiveness of the lockdown.
	Secondly, the lockdown cannot affect Certain levels of infection rate.
	So for example, a lockdown cannot have a positive effect on the infection rate prior to the time the lockdown was even imposed.
	And definitely prior to the time there was wide-scale public compliance with the lockdown because sometimes there was a lag.
	Different states, different parts of the country, different countries have imposed a lockdown of different sizes and scale at different points in time.
	Some haven't even imposed it at all.
	And so in this particular case, we know that there's often five or six days after a person gets infected, often five or six days before they ever get disease, they begin to show symptoms.
	Then often another five to six days before those symptoms ever get severe, enough for them to go to the hospital.
	Then as long as 15 to 20 days before they may pass away or be able to recover in an ICU unit.
	So when we're looking at those ICU data, we're looking at the death data, we're looking at the hospitalization data, we were looking at what they thought the infection rate already was prior to the shutdown.
	That's why it's so significant that their numbers were so far off.
	They were predicting that they couldn't really do anything about the people already infected.
	They were thinking that they could simply reduce the spread rate so they could reduce the rate of infection a month from now, the rate of disease six weeks from now, the rate of death eight weeks from now.
	That's why it's important to understand these models assumptions was that there was a certain amount of contagion already within the community, that it had a certain rate of hospitalization, a certain rate of needing ventilators, a certain rate of needing ICU beds, intensive care unit beds, a certain rate of needing hospital care at all in the first place, a certain rate of needing hospital care at all in the first place, and a certain If It was that rate.
	They got the contagion rate wrong.
	They got the transmission rate wrong.
	They got the hospitalization rate wrong.
	They got the ICU rate wrong.
	They got the ventilator rate wrong.
	And they got the mortality rate wrong.
	They got it all wrong.
	They're anyone trying to justify the models on the grounds that the models succeeded somehow in achieving the outcome simply don't know what went into those models or they're just flat-out lying to you like many members of the press are.
	People like Chris Hayes and MSNBC is lying to you right now.
	Indeed, these kind of issues, this is not the only context in which these issues have been raised.
	A lot of this is very reminiscent of climate change hysteria.
	That's why people like Bjorn Lundberg, who's a skeptic of the severe apocalyptic climate change models, and he himself was an environmentalist, still is an environmentalist, but came to question The climate change apocalyptic models when he started seeing that their data didn't back them up and their forecasts kept not coming true.
	To go back to Scott Adams principle, the best way to judge the accuracy of a filter of looking at the world is its predictive power.
	If models are constantly, consistently, continuously wrong, then their predictive power tells you to judge them skeptically and harshly.
	As was written by Julie Kelly in American Greatness, she compares and analogizes what's been happening in this moral panic, this pandemic panic, this panic-demic hysteria to the hockey sticks that the predictions, if you remember, Al Gore, we were supposed to all be basically underwater by now, depending on where we're located.
	Beach property is supposed to be useless.
	Earthquakes and hurricanes and tornadoes are supposed to be daily routines.
	All of the other nightmare scenarios that he predicted and forecast did not come about, but disproportionately.
	Prediction after prediction after prediction, failed after failed after failed.
	That was a sign that this was nothing more than a pretext, a premise, for a power grab.
	It was not a sincere scientific effort to protect the world.
	That was also evident in the fact that the people with real wealth and real power in the world who claim to be big environmentalists were not acting like that in their economic investments or real estate choices.
	We have someone like Barack Obama saying this could be a real disaster and he's going to go buy a $10 million property in the Hamptons right next to the beach.
	So that's supposedly going to be underwater in 20 years.
	Does he really believe that?
	Or is that just a pretext to seize power in the same way these models were a pretext to not only seize power but shut down the economy and potentially harm President Trump's reelection effort?
	We should increasingly ask whether or not this public policy hijacking that has occurred by the Clinton-allied, Gates-allied public health officials like Birx and Fauci, whether or not this was really coup part three.
	After Coup Part 1 with Russiagate, Coup Part 2 with impeachment, is Coup Part 3 the pandemic response, the policy response, converting this pandemic into a panacdemic that shut down the economy and removed Trump's trump card and now endangers his re-election and endangers our economic prospects and civil liberties moving forward?
	By contrast, let's look at a country that has refused and rejected this panacdemic model of response to this pandemic, and that is Sweden.
	As is a article, actually the National Review finally proved itself useful for a change, which has often not been the case in the post-William F. Buckley days.
	The headline is, Has Sweden Found the Right Solution to the Coronavirus?
	And what they go through and point out is several things.
	That it's the rest of the world that is doing a public experiment on quarantines, because as the article notes, and as the Director of the European Centre for International Political Economy in Brussels concedes, this is the first time that the Western world has quarantined healthy people Rather than just quarantining the sick and the vulnerable and those who pose a risk.
	It is the rest of the world that is doing a untested mechanism of handling a public health crisis.
	Not Sweden, which is doing what's just been consistently done over the many decades and many centuries.
	Like we all did in the 1918, 1919, 1920.
	Was debating an economist today who was unaware that the quarantines that went into place in 1918, 1919, and 1920 did not involve the closure of any businesses, did not involve the shutdown of civil society.
	In fact, unemployment declined during the time period that those quarantines were in place because those quarantines only went to mass gatherings, only went to school closures, and otherwise simply quarantined the sick or those suspected of being sick.
	Nobody else was quarantined.
	There was no mass house arrest.
	There was no mass public economy shutdown.
	There was no arresting people for playing t-ball in their backyard with their daughter, as happened yesterday.
	There was no arresting people for paddle boarding in Malibu, as happened several days ago.
	There was no arresting of people for doing public protests in a public place.
	As happened in North Carolina several days ago.
	There was no arrest of pastors for simply holding religious services, as now has happened in multiple counties, in multiple cities, in multiple states.
	None of that occurred.
	This is all novel.
	This is all new.
	And Sweden, which is simply following the regular test?
	Well, what's happening in this live test to contrast what the rest of the Western world is doing?
	Well, according to data, the ICU units are declining and are way below projections as well in Sweden.
	So even though Sweden did not do any of this lockdown, and as the data shows from Google, they've been out and about just on a regular basis like they were before.
	And what's happened?
	All they did is limit mass gatherings and things like that.
	But restaurants open, bars open, businesses open.
	Everything else normal.
	What's happened in Sweden?
	It's also a very urban population.
	A large part of Sweden is in Stockholm.
	I've been there.
	It's a beautiful place.
	Great food.
	And interesting and a very independent culture going back to its Viking heritage.
	And you see folks out and about right there in Sweden today on a daily basis.
	And what are they experiencing?
	They're experiencing the same or even greater rate of decline in the hospitalization rate, the ICU rate, the mortality rate, the ventilator rate, the infection rate as the rest of the Western world.
	So it turns out that in fact their shutdown was utterly unnecessary and that is proven empirically in the example not only of states within the United States and the timing of when shutdowns happened and the fact that the models were wrong because they even included the shutdown presumed its accuracy within its data.
	It is shown by the example, the counter example of Sweden.
	And prior to that, Taiwan and Japan and Hong Kong and Singapore had shown that in different stages in their own ways.
	But this is a Western European society, very much like Norway, like Finland, like France, like the UK, and to a certain degree like the United States, maybe even a little more urban than the United States is.
	And yet they are not experiencing anything like the dramatic models predicted.
	And they did so, they achieved the same benefits as the United States has done, but without doing any public shutdown, without doing any economic shutdown, without doing any degree of depriving people of their core civil liberties.
	So they are the ultimate counterexample.
	As people have noted, of course, the press continues to get basic facts wrong.
	So another version of Chuck Todd who got basic details wrong concerning the models and how his alarmist tendencies have done more harm than good.
	This also contrasts, while people are talking now, the models came out today and said, well, you know, we did say 200,000 dead within a couple of weeks.
	Then we went down to 100,000.
	Then we went down to 80,000.
	And then we said over the course of the whole disease, it's only going to be 60,000.
	And today they came out and said, well, maybe actually it's only going to be 30,000 over the course of the whole disease.
	Let's just contrast that to the 2018 flu, the CDC data, and what did the CDC show?
	The CDC estimated that there were at least 60,000 deaths from all ages from the flu in just 2018, mostly over a very compressed time period in January and February.
	So how is it we didn't shut down the public economy then?
	We didn't shut down civil society then?
	So why in the world are we shutting it down when the models themselves admit that we face less than half that risk over a longer time period now?
	It makes no sense.
	By contrast, let's look at what's happening to the economy.
	To give you an example of where net worth is, if it was measured in gold, according to the Fed, you can see people's net worth has actually been functionally declining ever since 2000.
	It's taken a rise during Trump's era, but now is starting to collapse as he loses the benefit of it.
	There's additional articles in Bloomberg today talking about how the hedge fund geniuses have failed again.
	It goes into detail about how there's massive turbulence in the markets.
	There's all kinds of volatility like we haven't seen before or usually are only seen in times of economic collapse.
	The Federal Reserve balance sheet has gone up two trillion dollars in just the last six weeks.
	That's a 50% increase in the amount of money the Fed has put on its balance sheet.
	Basically, that means it's money it's printing.
	The reports show various spreads and leverage that is filtering through the entire economy.
	In fact, when we come back in the bottom half of the hour, we'll be talking with Kim Gritz.
	Kim Gritz is the Chief Financial Officer for Social Media Analytics, has a background in derivatives and financial markets, and understanding the role of public psychology and civil society in that context.
	And we'll be discussing with her what the economic implications and ramifications of this may be, what the implications and ramifications of the Fed's policies may be, what the implications, I don't think, most Americans still don't even fully understand or appreciate the scale and scope of what the Fed is doing, what they're doing in terms of bailing out foreign economies, what they're dealing in terms of currencies.
	So we'll be discussing with her some of those issues as we have headlines today.
	Like Mexico agrees to join OPEC's output cut after originally objecting and saying they weren't going to do so.
	While on the flip side, we're having things like Walmart and Costco and other big box stores are being banned from selling non-essential products in the United States.
	China is chasing foreign capital to deal with its own virus shutdown related issues from earlier in the year.
	Saudi Arabia and Russia agreed to a historic production deal because of the oil's impact in the context of the virus driven economic impact.
	The World Trade Organization says that trade may dip to in the biggest degree since World War Two.
	That's what's happening economically.
	Well, initial jobless claims were released today, and they rose another 6.6 million.
	This is 10 times the original record.
	It's the same as the record set last week, but 10 times more than the record set any time before that.
	Then there's additional articles recognizing that in fact the health effects of a recession or depression from this set of public policies could be worse than the pandemic as people start to remember that shutting down the economy hurts public health.
	Indeed, an article from Medscape and Health Landscape today That up to half of doctors are shutting down their medical practices.
	So when we come back, we'll talk to Kim.
	We'll go into detail about what some of the economic issues and risks that we face, what some of the remedies may be, and what the future may hold.
	So come back after the break and we'll be happy to continue with American Countdown.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	In just a minute, we're going to do an interview with Kim Gitz.
	She's the chief financial officer for social media analytics, has a bachelor in science from Indiana University, a master's in business administration from the prestigious University of Chicago, has backgrounds as a credit analyst, which is going to be particularly appropriate in the coming economic era in this post-pandemic economy. which is going to be particularly appropriate in the coming Background in derivatives, has done consulting and other work for J.P. Morgan, the Bank of Montreal, the Bank of Chicago, First Chicago Continental Bank.
	But currently, she's a financial officer at Social Market Analytics, which really combines the background of quantifying social media data and to provide actionable market intel for financial market investors.
	And as this economy has certain core issues that raise questions, it also has issues that go to the psychology, both of the public marketplace and of the private financial investors.
	You can follow her on Twitter at Twitter.com, Kim Gitz, and it's K-I-M-G-I-T-S-1.
	Or you can go to the Social Market Analytics site, which is just socialmarketanalytics.com.
	And I recommended someone that I have followed for some time in this unique economic environment.
	Let's do a little bit of the more economic background information so you understand the context for this conversation for folks.
	Here's one, an article from the New York Times, where have all the heart attacks gone?
	And what they're talking about is people are not getting necessary medical care because of the decline in the public economy triggering a collapse in hospital care's availability in what's happened.
	You can't have a good public health care system without a strong public economy.
	Just go to any third world country and ask yourself if that's the hospital you want to get emergency services from.
	Another article, coronavirus, health effects of the recession could be worse than the pandemic.
	Fed Chair Powell says the U.S.
	economy deteriorating with alarming speed, despite all the different four-letter agencies he has to salvage us, apparently.
	The legacy of this crisis is the mountains of debt and leverage, something that I think the ordinary individual, and sometimes I doubt some of our politicians, fully understand and appreciate what the status of the corporate debt market is in the modern age.
	We have almost 17 million Americans out of work and that's despite a SBA package that was meant to keep people on payrolls even when those companies were effectively shut down.
	So that real number without those bailouts is even higher.
	The world faces a new Great Depression according to Yahoo News, as the virus toll mounts.
	More importantly, it's not so much the virus that's killing our economy at this stage, it's the public policy response to the virus and underlying issues.
	If we were to analogize this to a COVID-19 patient, The economy had some comorbidity conditions, some underlying pre-existing conditions that are being exposed by the policy response to this pandemic.
	The Fed is seizing control of the entire U.S.
	bond market, according to Yahoo Finance.
	We also have farmers dumping milk, breaking eggs, just as we have vegetables being rotted due to the restaurant closings that have taken place across the country.
	In Uganda, mothers and laborers die.
	Why?
	Because they can't get access to the hospitals that they need to because of the response to the pandemic in that country.
	Various people are predicting that small businesses will be absolutely devastated by the COVID-19 crisis.
	In my hometown of Chattanooga, Tennessee, Volkswagen, one of the great factories that brought new jobs to that public economy, furloughs the entire workforce due to the public policy response.
	So, Kim, thanks for joining us tonight.
	Hi, how are you?
	Very good.
	The first sort of general question is, it's been striking to me that even people that I thought were financially sophisticated, people that have ties to the people that work in the White House, the assumptions are that the economy will just have a V-shaped rebound, that no matter how long the shutdown lasts, we'll just stick the keys in the car, turn it on, and it's like it was sitting in the driveway for a couple of weeks, it will work all together.
	How realistic is that expectation?
	I don't see it happening.
	And that's as a small business, the person who runs the finances for a small business.
	In talking with my fellow small business owners, people who manage finances at small business CFOs, it's going to be very hard to get the consumer, this is a consumer driven economy, and it's going to be hard to change the behavior and get that consumer back up and running like that.
	It just doesn't happen.
	Yeah, and I look at this as the 30s, right?
	And our grandparents and how they would hoard and how they would, you know, keep dollars squirreled away in pockets and stuff like that, right?
	And we're seeing behaviors like that.
	I do not see a consumer who does not have any savings going forward and spending 100% of their paycheck and not being prepared for the next wave of this.
	So I don't see Any V-shaped return to where we were.
	How much does it get worse the longer this goes on?
	A lot.
	Exponentially.
	I mean, this every week that goes by, you can take trillions out of the GDP.
	It's ugly quickly, as we can see in the unemployment numbers.
	I said this a while back.
	The real exponential problem here is unemployment.
	And at some point, we have to look at the ramifications Deathwise, all this unemployment and what that does to people who weren't financially prepared for something like this going into it.
	I think because one of the things that intrigued me about the entire, like the whole nature of your company, is the way in which psychology and confidence has such a critical role.
	Like I was discussing with someone a couple of weeks ago about what really went on in the Depression, because they threw so many different public policies at it, and yet none of them seemed to work, other than, you know, war, unfortunately, in terms of bringing us out.
	And they all came back to, it comes back to confidence.
	Like the thing with your company is about the psychological role is an essential role and it's sort of interdependence with what's taking place in terms of public policy.
	It really is.
	When people say we're not trading on fundamentals, we are not.
	We aren't even trading on sentiment of stocks anymore.
	We are trading on what's the Fed going to do?
	What's happening with the virus?
	Where are the virus counts right now?
	And that's truly market psychology.
	We take textual data and parse it into computational streams of data, but that's the fundamental of it.
	We look at the sentiment and the psychology behind the mass market.
	Exactly.
	It's fascinating to me that I think to some degree what's happened with the Fed, and I think most Americans, because there's not a lot of public discussion outside of people that really follow the financial markets, at the scale and scope of Fed activity.
	And it may even be necessary Fed activity, it may be beneficial Fed activity, but one of the points that you've made is that there isn't a lot of transparency as to what's taking place here.
	Could you explain to people in a sort of basic sense what's happening, what the Fed is doing?
	Well, it gets a little complicated.
	When we talk about printing money, the money machine go brr, it isn't really like that yet.
	Now, it can be.
	We could get to the point where the Treasury, who's responsible for that, actually does print money, but that's not what we typically do.
	We typically do something called QE, and that's the equivalent of the Fed printing money.
	And when they do that, they have to buy something.
	So in the past, they've bought their own treasuries to get the dollars out the door.
	And that's the view of printing.
	Well, now they're looking at buying a lot more stuff because they want to get more dollars out the door.
	So to get more dollars out the door, you have to buy a lot more stuff.
	And so what can the Fed buy?
	Well, legally, they're not supposed to buy a whole lot of this stuff.
	But now they're looking at setting up SPVs as a workaround.
	And this goes to transparency that you're talking about.
	We're starting to get into a really slippery slope of what's the Fed supposed to be doing?
	And if they're not able to do that, and I get there's a timeliness issue around this, but we need to start talking as a country.
	I have my own views, but so do other people, and they're very valid, and we need to have that discussion publicly.
	Should the Fed be buying high-yield bonds?
	Should the Fed be buying Uh, equities.
	If the Fed, if our government starts buying the stock of companies, that's communism.
	I mean, there's no easy way around that conversation.
	You know, the government, it's nationalizing our, our public public companies.
	So at some point now, if they don't buy, you know, that's if they buy all the stock or the controlling interest in the stock or avoiding majority, et cetera.
	Um, but, I have a really big problem with the Fed owning equity because I don't think that our government has a role in nationalizing behind-the-scenes big industries.
	And I think that's what people haven't appreciated the scale of.
	Because in the past, the Fed has done this sort of indirectly.
	In other words, they'll do things with their primary dealers, primary dealers will maybe put some collateral on their sheets, but it's not the Feds actually going into the equity markets, going directly into the municipal bond markets, going directly into the corporate bond markets, and just buying straight up.
	I mean, at one point, given what they, now that they've said it's going to be QE or quantitative easing to infinity and beyond, effectively, there's no limit on it, I guess, anymore.
	That's one aspect of it.
	And the second aspect of it is that consequence that you're talking about.
	That one of the consequences and some of the risks of this Fed bailout program is a political risk.
	That the Fed could own large shares of large parts of the economy, whichever ones they choose.
	The Fed could own everybody's mortgage.
	I mean, the scale of what could happen here and this really isn't being publicly discussed and debated much that I've seen.
	It isn't.
	There are a few people.
	Danielle DeMartino Booth is all over this.
	There are a few people who are as upset as I am at what it really means.
	If we come to this conclusion as a nation that this is the right path to go, and we have an exit plan for this, but at this point in time, we need to get the money in the hands as quickly as possible.
	There are other alternatives.
	We're in a bad spot.
	We have kicked that can down the road so far that we have bad choices now.
	It's figuring out which is the lesser of the evils out of this path.
	So none of these are going to be great.
	Everybody's going to hate them all.
	But the can has reached the end of the road.
	So we have to kind of come up with a solution.
	One of the solutions out there, I like it.
	I think it's reasonable, is Getting the Treasury to print money.
	And that can be... We're going to have to fund this somehow.
	We have two choices to get out of our mess of this massive multi-trillions in debt nationally.
	Corporate debt, individual debt, national debt.
	It's all a huge pile and we can't pay it back.
	So we either have to inflate our way out of it and that would look like printing money.
	QE, if we do it through the Fed, if we print money through the Fed, they're going to be buying equities and minibonds.
	They're going to own all our localities that, you know, when the federal government owns your local state, it's no longer a state-run country.
	So, you know, we got big questions here that we need to start asking.
	Is the Fed the appropriate institution to be doing this?
	And if they're not, how does that look?
	So, that's inflating the debt.
	Inflating the debt with the Treasury could look something along the lines of this trillion dollar coin.
	I don't have a, no political party affiliation here.
	Everybody has their own views on this.
	We just need good ideas and we need to discuss them.
	That would entail, it's a workaround, but it allows the Treasury to step in.
	It allows direct payments to individuals.
	It looks more like a helicopter drop.
	But the impact is really more direct to the individual.
	And if we're going to correct this massive unemployment problem, we have to go more direct to the individual in my view.
	The deflationary impact of 16.6 million people out of jobs, not having income coming in, not being able to pay rent, not being able to buy food.
	I can't under emphasize the magnitude of that problem right this moment.
	We have to do something.
	The choices are all bad.
	The last choice would be, write it all off.
	Write the debt off.
	You know, forgive it all.
	Just jubilee it.
	You know, bankruptcy.
	New Code of Bankruptcy that says, guess what?
	Get out of jail free.
	That's the other thing.
	Well, there are big problems with that too.
	But these are the questions that we have to be honest with ourselves about.
	And we need to come to a conclusion on what we need to do.
	The can can't be kicked any farther.
	Yeah, I think that particularly is that there's both political consequences and different policy ramifications of whatever choice is made, and that not much of this is really being discussed in the public arena outside of certain locations.
	You're not going to see it on CNN on a nightly basis.
	Never!
	You're not going to see it in Congress.
	You're not going to see it in a wide range of places.
	Because one of the things you pointed out, aside from the Fed being able to own corporations and the Fed being able to own your personal mortgage, the Fed, by getting into the municipal debt market, Which is basically just cities, counties, and states.
	I mean, we saw from the San Diego pension crisis and bond market years ago, that creates a wide range of issues.
	I mean, they featured in a show in Billions, where basically you can go in and now the Fed owns your local government and gets to dictate to your local government what their policies are.
	And I don't think anyone's discussing whether somebody in any town in America wants the Fed to own their city or own their county.
	And I think the other aspect about that is, as you mentioned, we have these difficult choices.
	If we're going to keep the Fed out of it, then it has to be a different actor taking the initiative.
	And it has to be more direct transfers rather than indirect transfers.
	And everybody's got to be prepared for the consequence.
	Because I think the other big question is, how do we avoid The inflationary impact of if we go direct to people, whether through the Fed indirectly or through people directly, and we just, you know, basically we push a lot of money out there where demand goes up, but we still have a supply shock going on.
	Right.
	So this is, I call this kind of threading the needle.
	This is a really hard, hard problem.
	And, you know, it, to some extent the, the, the boat's off the dock.
	It is somewhat late.
	I don't know if it's too late, but it would have been better to have had this conversation in 2018 than now, when we knew at the end of 2018 what was happening.
	We knew this was coming.
	We could have done something then, and it would have looked a lot cleaner.
	I mean, frankly, we've known about this for decades, but it would have helped to have a little bit more lag time.
	What's being discussed now is a disorderly Resolution to the problem.
	And that's really where we're headed.
	If we had our leadership, and this is such a huge if, because our leadership, and when I say leadership, I mean both political parties, come together.
	Now imagine what that means right now.
	It's going to be, it's not where we are as a nation.
	We're very divided.
	If we had some consensus around this and it looked feasible immediately, and that would look to me like we need to start bringing Manufacturing back and this all does tie into it.
	There's This is a I call it a complex system and that's exactly what it is.
	It's a complex system.
	So, you know if we can start getting manufacturing back if we can get stabilization in that sector of the economy to kind of De-consumer eyes, you know to take over where our deconsumeration is happening, right?
	We've got a collapse in Um, spending at retail at all levels at restaurants, you know, it's just gone and we need to have something to offset that.
	The problem is it takes time to get a manufacturing business off the ground.
	I mean, three years is aggressive.
	Is it impossible?
	No, it's not impossible.
	It just takes a massive will.
	It takes like a John Kennedy moment where we're going to put a man on the moon and we're going to do this and all of our leaders are committed to it.
	That's a big stretch from, you know, the Pelosi-Trump meeting of minds.
	I don't know how we'd get there.
	But that's what we need.
	We really need something to offset this massive collapse in demand and the consumer that will likely never fully recover from this.
	Exactly, it's got to be like the mass industrialization, re-industrialize the country, do a big massive infrastructure project, find some match for the supply shock, demand gap that is going to just occur from the psychological impact.
	I mean there were surveys today where psychologists were talking about in a wide range of contexts and they weren't even looking at it directly in the economic context.
	When in a consumer driven economy, consumer confidence is critical.
	1920s, we have a confidence boom.
	1930s, we have a confidence collapse.
	And then that, more almost than anything, when they really dug into the economic data, explained almost everything that happened in both the 20s and the 30s, more so than the market manipulation and other sort of sin goats that were offered as sacrifices for what took place.
	It really just went down to confidence of the ordinary person.
	And once they quit having confidence, Grandma kept the dollars under the bed.
	And once that happened, jobs went away, new manufacturing.
	Exactly.
	And that's going to happen again.
	I mean, they're already talking about cash hoarding going up, people saving already.
	And I don't know how any ordinary person wouldn't do that.
	You have to.
	Exactly.
	You just went through a scenario where you have $400 on average in your savings for the ordinary American.
	We're not like, I mean, Japan went through 20 years of malaise, the lost decades, but at least they had a high savings rate they could fall back on.
	We do not.
	Our corporations don't have big cash reserves.
	Our governments are running massive deficits and individuals are in debt.
	So, you know, one interesting point there about the grandma hiding cash in her mattress, that's exactly what's happening.
	And it looks, you know, in economic speak, as the collapse of money velocity, right?
	Which is just a plug, but it's a real phenomena.
	And I really want to point out how important it is that people are hoarding cash, because if we start printing cash, it's only going to replace the hoarded cash.
	You know, we don't have enough cash circulating in the economy right now.
	And this is another part of threading the needle, right?
	We have a massive deflationary shock, and we have to address that.
	So, it is valid.
	Some kind of printing money to help the individuals who are destitute?
	Yeah, that's a real possibility.
	Is it my favorite idea in the world?
	Not really, but you know, we might not have a lot of other choices.
	Is deflation risk immediate?
	Probably not.
	Well, it's a lot of cut off your leg to save your life.
	You know, neither strategy looks pretty.
	One's going to leave you disabled, but one might leave you dead.
	But the other aspect of this I want to get into is you were talking about today was, and I think a lot of people really don't have much grasp.
	I didn't even have much grasp of it until I really dug into it as it related to the last couple of weeks.
	In terms of the economic impact was the dollar-denominated debt held around the world, the various currency swaps that are taking place, while other foreign governments are bailing out their own domestic corporations against our U.S.
	corporations, potentially, in the competitive market space.
	But at the same time, there's nowhere near enough dollars in currency to match the number of dollars that are in dollar-denominated debt around the world, which started happening over the last, well, it's always been a problem, but it accelerated over the last 10 years.
	To where we might have different pressures from different places that's going to make this, you know, threading two needles and three needles to deal with it.
	It is.
	Could you talk about that?
	That's exactly right.
	It is one of the most complex problems I've ever seen.
	You're right.
	Threading three needles at once is the perfect analogy.
	It's going to be really, really hard.
	Is it impossible?
	No, but it's going to be tricky.
	It's going to require very high skill levels from our leadership.
	And the thing that really worries me about the swap lines is we are bailing out other countries that overly indebted themselves in U.S.
	dollars.
	It's the unwind of globalization.
	So globalization is a complex system, but essentially a lot of everything, everything runs off of the U.S.
	dollar.
	I could be, you know, someone in Pakistan trading with someone in India and we would transact in dollars because that is the only way to do business.
	There's nothing else out there.
	You can't use gold.
	Neither party will accept anything else.
	It's the only trusted means of exchange in this world.
	Period.
	So a number of and this is what we call original sin.
	A lot of countries issue debt in US dollars.
	Because that's all they can do.
	They need the dollars to trade, and they can't issue debt in their own currency.
	Where it becomes a problem is when their debt levels get out of control.
	And a lot of that, it links into globalization because they're funding foreign direct investment, they're building factories, they're doing things overseas, right?
	As that unwinds, that's where things start getting really tricky.
	And we're seeing a, Unruly unwind of globalization right now.
	Whereas if we act quickly, if we act with skill, it can be a orderly unwind of globalization and maybe not even a full unwind.
	Maybe it's a partial unwind.
	These are all the things that we need to really be talking about at the leadership level.
	I do believe those conversations are happening at the highest levels of, you know, in the international realm.
	I don't know that anybody at those levels has a conclusive answer of what they want, except the best position possible for themselves.
	So people paying the price are us.
	And it's going to be extraordinary to watch.
	When we come back right after the break, we'll have one follow-up question for Kim, and then we'll take your questions.
	You can call in for the jury section of the show at 877-789-2539.
	That's 877-789-2539.
	at 877-789-2539.
	That's 877-789-2539.
	Or international, dial your area code, 512-646-1776.
	We'll have one more question for Kim when we come back, and that question will be, what can we expect in the near short term?
	Are there reasons for optimism, or are there reasons to look for going on vacation to some Caribbean island very soon?
	We'll be right back.
	Welcome back to American Countdown, the word of American.
	We're here with Kim Gitts.
	You can follow her on Twitter at Kim Gitts, G-I-T-T-S-1.
	She's the Chief Financial Officer for SocialMarketAnalytics.com.
	It's a great business and tracking the unique psychology of what we're going to be dealing with in this extraordinary environment.
	So sort of two questions.
	One is sort of a predictive one and the other is a prescriptive one.
	From a predictive position, what do you think is going to happen over the next 30 days or so?
	I don't think there's going to be a full public debate or dialogue.
	I think it's going to be more in smaller sectors of the world where we're going to be debating.
	I don't think CNN tomorrow is going to say, by the way, should we bail out Deutsche Bank this week?
	I don't think they're going to get there.
	But what do you think in terms of will the policymakers, particularly at the various central banks, Will they come to a clear conclusion or are they just going to sort of gamble and experiment and try to sort of feel their way through?
	I think it could.
	I think the can is going to be picked as far as it can.
	You know, and it's really sad because as many problems as we're having here, this is happening globally, right?
	So my prognosis near term is not good.
	Central banks are going to do what they do, which is just QE.
	As much of it as they can.
	To try and stop the bleeding as quickly as they can.
	And it's really about getting the money in the hands of people that need it most.
	And that's not the best way to necessarily do that.
	It can be, but you know, there are great ideas out there, but they take a lot of time because of the paperwork involved.
	That's the issue.
	You know, we're a small business.
	We've looked in all these programs as well, and it just takes time to implement them.
	And some companies do fine with that.
	You like to have time.
	Others have, you know, a week.
	I've talked to people that have two weeks left before they are going to be closing their doors.
	And, you know, so timing is really critical here and everywhere.
	But, you know, having said that, while I'm pretty grim near term, like weeks, longer term I'm actually very optimistic.
	So, you know, but that would look more like 18 months out.
	The U.S.
	is definitely going to be the beneficiary of This global unwind.
	So I always try to maintain the optimism and this will ultimately be very, very beneficial for the US, but it will be a painful ride to get there.
	It won't happen immediately.
	We aren't ready.
	We don't have these factories being built right now.
	It's been very slow going, but it needs to be accelerated.
	The rest of the world, it's going to be very ugly.
	I mean, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela.
	These countries are, you know, what we saw in Venezuela, we're going to see happen globally with emerging markets.
	It's already happening.
	Lebanon defaulted.
	I mean, Argentina's defaulted, de facto.
	That's the beginning.
	These dominoes are going to fall.
	It's not a question now.
	It is too late.
	There is no saving them.
	So we are going to see yet another emerging market crisis.
	And that is really sad because there probably could have been avoided had People really come to the table and understood their position.
	None of this is secret to anybody.
	I think everybody's just trying to get the best deal they can.
	But it's really time to make that deal, globally.
	And I'll be really honest, the U.S.
	is definitely in the strongest position here because we have the global reserve currency.
	We will set the rules.
	And then from a prescriptive perspective, there's really been a sort of a, unfortunately, a almost universal response in the West that has more mirrored the Chinese model in terms of an authoritarian response to this pandemic from a public policy reaction.
	Yeah, and whereas, you know, Sweden and a few countries have pushed back on that and had a more individualistic response.
	Let ordinary people make their own decisions, give them information so they can have informed decisions as they go about it.
	But let them decide what they're going to do, not have a dictatorial, authoritarian approach that not only leads people to sort of doubt it and second-guess it, but often backfires in the long run, particularly if you care about constitutional liberties and civil liberties.
	What do you think should happen?
	Should we see more of the authoritarian response, or do we need our political leaders to start looking at this from a non-authoritarian, individualistic perspective?
	You know, it's such an interesting dynamic to me, because if you look at what our company does, you can understand we really look at the wisdom of the masses.
	And I firmly believe this.
	There's so much value in getting a very wide array and diverse group of opinions.
	To come to a conclusion on what's really happening.
	It's just critical.
	And that's democracy.
	And that's what it looks like.
	It's ugly.
	It's messy.
	It's not timely.
	But it's absolutely the right way to go.
	Authoritarianism to me is an extremely slippery slope.
	It's very hard to undo once you've started down that path.
	And so once you've given up freedoms, it's really hard to get them back.
	Look at how hard it was to just get civil rights amendments to our Constitution.
	These things don't happen.
	It's extremely difficult.
	So giving up freedoms?
	I'm very wary, very wary of.
	Does that mean there's not a place for some central planning in terms of infrastructure, in terms of logistics, and how we've managed infrastructure development going forward?
	No, that's just common sense.
	But taking away basic rights?
	I mean, I refer to cities as self-herded sheep, because That's what they're becoming.
	If you can't walk outside, if you can't buy groceries, this is just, it's insane.
	This is the stuff of a science fiction novel, and people are accepting it, and they're not batting an eye.
	It's been terrifying.
	There's no doubt there's a certain dystopian vision, and hopefully there'll be some progress.
	I think ultimately we'll require pushback from the ordinary person against this in some meaningful manner, whether it's legal action or political action, to sort of wake up the political classes that this is a high-risk endeavor, that there's a big difference between centralized planning and centralized power, and that there's a way- Exactly.
	Exactly.
	We can separate- That's exactly it.
	Exactly.
	See, exactly.
	And that's what we need.
	We need the former fine, the latter not so good.
	That's why we're the United States of America, not the United Soviet Socialist Republics.
	But yeah, absolutely.
	Thanks, Kim, for coming on.
	Appreciate you taking your time and contributing to it.
	Everybody, you can follow her.
	You'll find information you're not going to see at CNN or MSNBC or even, God bless it, the New York Times or even the Wall Street Journal.
	Somewhere you can find it sometimes in the journal, but it's usually like A7 rather than A1.
	The information from her at twitter.com at Kim Gitz, that's G-I-T-Z-1.
	Her company that she's the chief financial officer over is socialmarketanalytics.com.
	We appreciate it.
	Thanks for coming on.
	It's been a pleasure.
	Thank you.
	Absolutely.
	So everybody can call in the over the next bottom half of the hour and you have the number come in and call in sort of with one ideally with one minute of a question or within a minute so that we can give you the most meaningful answer that that number is eight seven seven 7-8-9-2-5-3-9.
	That's 8-7-7-7-8-9-2-5-3-9.
	If you're calling internationally you can use the area code and dial 5-1-2, your country code first, then 5-1-2-6-4-6-17-76.
	7-8-9-2-5-3-9.
	You're calling internationally.
	You can use the area code and dial 512, your country code first, then 512-646-1776.
	That's 512-646-1776.
	As to those civil liberties that Kim was talking about being wrongfully sacrificed in the name of centralized power when all we need is some logistics of centralized planning, here's a headline today.
	Lockdown.
	The police are days away from checking your shopping trolleys.
	That's right.
	They're going to be checking what you do when you exit the shopping, your grocery store.
	Make sure you don't have any non-essential goods in there or you don't have too many of your rationed essential goods.
	The Texas governor is being sued over what issue?
	Surely the civil rights lawyers are lobbying and coming together to go to the legislature, go to the courts or state courts or the federal courts to assert civil liberties and civil rights.
	No, that's not what they're doing.
	They want to make sure people can get bail and get out easier from prison and jail simply over fear of the virus.
	Then we have the executive order from the dear governor of Michigan, who fancies herself the next vice president of the United States and a potential nominee for Joe Biden, who was pleased to learn today that he's the potential Democratic presidential nominee, since he forgot he was actually running for president.
	The executive order from Michigan is extraordinarily expansive in its scope.
	Now, this order must be construed broadly to prohibit in-person work, unless that work is, according to the governor, necessary to sustain or protect life.
	You can take a guess that she has a very limited definition of what that contours, but of course, everybody who's in politics, that's essential, according to the governor of Michigan.
	Not only that, she is banning all private gatherings and public gatherings unless you're part of the same household.
	So unless you're part of a single household, you cannot even get together with your aunt, your uncle, your friends, anybody at your home or at their home.
	In fact, now it can be considered a crime to simply go to your friend's house.
	To go to your client's house.
	To simply go to a relative's house.
	Because the only people allowed to gather anywhere, anyplace, anytime in Michigan right now are those who are part of the same household.
	That's how crazy it's got in Michigan.
	And by the way, Michigan is not experiencing an epidemic.
	There's been a continuing decline in the growth rate.
	According to even the modelers, the manic mindset modelers who are doom and gloomers, even according to them, Michigan is already past its peak.
	And yet she's imposing broader and more expansive restrictions.
	Then we have this headline, a 250 year old U.S.
	Easter tradition is going to be silenced because of the policy response to the pandemic.
	Another headline, Walmart, Costco and Target are being banned from selling quote-unquote non-essential items in more parts of the United States just like we forecast last week was going to occur.
	Another article from the Miami Herald that is talking about the virus but within the storyline is Walmart, Target and Costco stores are now being barred and banned from selling non-essential items according to whatever the government labels non-essential.
	Here's another headline.
	Box stores are limiting sales only to essential items in many parts of the country.
	You think that won't apply to online goods?
	Well, guess again.
	Amazon bans shipment of non-essential goods.
	What's being listed as essential?
	Well, outside the context of essential, in many places and locations, includes things like supplement products.
	There's more declines in the dairy industry due to the collapse of the restaurant industry.
	The dietary supplement trade associations and other health supplement trade associations are having to beg to make sure that they can stay open and stay available to sell their products to their business.
	Indeed, that is as good a reason as any to go to our sponsor's site, InfoWarsStore.com, where you can still today buy products that are available to you, including supplements, including a wide range of things from humidifiers, to things that are good for your home, to things that are good for your skin, to things that are good for your health.
	Indeed, in that particular context, consider this headline.
	Not only are they talking about shutting down the ability for you to even get these supplements, even prohibiting the sale of them online, prohibiting the mailing of them, prohibiting the receipt of them, which is why you want to get them now before that kind of thing comes into place.
	But take a look at this headline.
	Depleting stocks.
	Longer delivery time.
	Companies are struggling to meet vitamin C supply due to the pandemic disruption.
	Similarly with vitamin D. So there's a wide range of products you can get at Infowarsstore.com that includes things like vitamin C, vitamin D, things that you would normally get from a wide range of other places, but now you can't because you're not even allowed to go outside and enjoy the sun.
	So if you want to get them now is the time to get them.
	Not only are they available for you, InfoWars store recognizes the economic difficulties people are facing, so they're offering deep discounts on them while supplies last.
	But there's two issues with the supply.
	One is some of these supplies are being sold out.
	The second is that these supplies may not be available if governments start to prohibit them.
	And we have every reason to believe they're going to by what's happening right now and by what we have witnessed it over the last several weeks.
	So please go to support our sponsor who makes this show available in the first place and do something that's simply good for your own health while you're still allowed to do so legally in the United States.
	In the vitamin D context, by the way, when they talk about various flus and other issues, this is an article from Cambridge University Press, Epidemic Influenza and Vitamin D. They were trying to understand the seasonal role of the flu.
	Why is it seasonal?
	Why does it happen more in winter than summer?
	And as we reported yesterday, there are surveys and studies out there that show humidity is a potentially impacting factor.
	So humidifiers can be beneficial.
	Air filters can be wise to have during this time period.
	But in addition, vitamin D may be part of the cause.
	According to this survey, activated vitamin D has profound effects on human immunity.
	Indeed, most importantly, it dramatically stimulates the expression of potent antimicrobial peptides, which exist in neutrophils, monokytes, natural killer cells.
	And I'm going to try to pronunciate epithelial cells, lining the respiratory tract where they play a major role in protecting the lung from infection.
	Ultraviolet radiation reduces the incidence of viral respiratory infections, as does cod liver oil, which contains vitamin D.
	So, and this goes back, you know, the wisdom of the seasons is something that you've always, you've often heard of the Hippocratic Oath.
	Well, that comes from Hippocrates.
	That comes from Hippocrates.
	I'm mispronouncing his name.
	But the great Greek medical doctor who explained that whoever wishes to investigate medicine Must first understand the seasons of the year.
	So this has been a medical idea, medical concept, medical structure known for centuries.
	And so again, while you have the chance to do so, go to infowarsstore.com and get products that benefit you as they keep this show alive and can help you protect your own health and your own well-being in this extraordinary time.
	It looks like some folks are calling in.
	Let's see.
	Let's go to Robert in Texas.
	How you doing, Robert?
	Hey, how are you?
	All right.
	Hey, my question is for you.
	I just got off the phone with a former SEAL.
	Our sons all train together, do everything.
	And what I've noticed is, and I think the psychological part of this all,
	is the older guys let's say late 30s up to 50s maybe even 60s that have kids that are young that are training we've always taught them to be alpha males but at the same time we have this is the conversation I was having with the seal the same time we've taught them to hide under the bed what I respect about the MMA fighters especially here in the jiu-jitsu guys is they're still training
	And at the same time, they're doing stuff.
	They're running stairs.
	I'll just leave it at that.
	At stadiums, jumping fences, doing it all.
	But when I see guys that are famous, that are scared to even come out and do anything in a garage, it scares me.
	And I'm really sad about it.
	I'm about ready to blast names, but I'm not going to do that.
	But do you see the fear in the psychological that's just happened here?
	It's all hunkered down.
	Oh, no doubt about it.
	I mean, the governments feast off of fear.
	That's why Benjamin Franklin wisely and sagely said, long ago, anybody who sacrifices liberty for security will end up with neither, and likely deserves neither.
	The fear is the feast, is the means, is the mechanism, is the method by which the politicians and the state can seize power.
	And now they've come up with a fear that's more powerful than anyone they've come up with before.
	Before it was fear of crime to get you to sacrifice some of your civil or constitutional liberties.
	Fear of a foreign enemy to get you to sacrifice either your or your neighbor's constitutional rights and liberties.
	A fear of communism, fear of some ideology to get you to sacrifice some degree of your freedoms or liberties.
	A fear of terrorism to get you to sacrifice your freedoms or liberties.
	But it turns out none of them were as successful as simply fear of a virus, which is invisible, which is an infection, which can happen to anyone, any place, anytime, anywhere, which can be your neighbor, can be a stranger, can be a family member, can be a friend.
	It's converted an entire country to where the mayor of Los Angeles can go out and tell people it's no longer the case that snitches get stitches, it's now the case that snitches get riches.
	That's the approach by giving rewards to people willing and eager to do so.
	Simply to satiate this madness that fear creates, and hysteria creates, and what they call a moral panic creates.
	And that's what we're witnessing all across the country.
	And the power of it, even when empirical evidence and their own individual experience tells them that this is not really that degree of a threat.
	83% of Americans, according to recent surveys, don't even know of anyone who has the virus.
	Even fewer know anyone who was seriously hospitalized from the virus.
	Even fewer than that know anyone who has died from the virus.
	More of them know people that have died from heart disease, or from cancer, or have died from liver disease, or have died from smoking, or have died from something else, even the flu, than of anyone who's died of COVID-19.
	And yet they've allowed the fear of it.
	The terror of it, to dominate, control, possess their minds, almost like an exorcism of its own kind, is what our country needs from this fear that has possessed and consumed the soul of this country to such a degree that it would sacrifice two centuries of constitutional liberty in two days.
	There's no doubt that fear is a driving force.
	Indeed, it reminds me of in this sort of Orwellian world in which we live and reside.
	Let's sort of take a look back at what Orwell predicted back in 1948 when he wrote 1984, when he forecast and foreshadowed how the world could come possessed with fear and hysteria and control in this mindset.
	And it's sort of the purpose of war, the role of power, freedom and reality.
	First, let's look at the clip number one.
	A serious delusion.
	Photographs about which you've had hallucinations.
	Which you believed you held in your hand.
	They never existed.
	Say what you're about to say, Winston.
	They exist.
	and In memory.
	I remember.
	You remember.
	I do not remember.
	Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston.
	It needs an act of self-destruction.
	An effort of the will.
	Do you remember writing in your diary, freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four.
	How many fingers am I holding up, Wilson?
	Four.
	And if the party says there are not four, but five, then how many?
	I...
	Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!
	That's no use.
	You're lying.
	How many fingers, please?
	Four.
	Four.
	What else can I say?
	Five.
	Anything you like.
	Only please stop it.
	Stop the pain.
	How can I help it?
	How can I help what I see under my eyes?
	Two makes more.
	Send Andrew Instant.
	Sometimes they're five.
	Sometimes they're three.
	Sometimes they're all of them at once.
	Neither the past nor the present nor the future exists in its own right, mister.
	Thank you.
	Reality is in the human mind.
	Not in the individual mind.
	Which makes mistakes and soon perishes.
	But in the mind of the party, which is collective and immortal.
	Again.
	How many fingers, Winston?
	Four.
	Four.
	I suppose there are four.
	I'm trying to see five.
	I wish me good.
	Which do you wish?
	To persuade me that you can see five, or really to see them?
	Really to see them.
	Again?
	How many wins?
	I don't know.
	Yes indeed.
	2 plus 2 equals 5.
	If the government tells you it's 5, if the state tells you it's 5, if the party tells you it's 5.
	Just like if the models tell you there's going to be a bunch of people who are going to be dead unless you do what they tell you.
	That's the way in which we currently live and reside in the United States of America.
	Where 90% of Americans are effectively under mass house arrest.
	And if you think you can contravene it, Well, then just look at the father who got arrested for playing, basically just for playing in his backyard or playing with his daughter, playing a little t-ball, or talk to the people who tried to protest in public who ended up arrested, or the pastor who simply held a church service.
	In case we have any doubt about that, we have reminders constantly from our press and our politicians.
	Let's look at clip number four.
	Today, we went over what was allowed under Governor Whitmer's stay-at-home order.
	Yesterday was the first full day where it was in effect, but there are still so many questions about what could happen if you don't follow the order.
	Well, now we know that Michigan State Police are considering certain punitive measures to keep people inside.
	News 8's Dana White is live in Grand Rapids with the punishment you could face for violating Governor's orders.
	Casey, the state police say that they're going to increase their visibility on the road so that they're able to respond to situations quickly.
	According to our media partners at 9 and 10 News, the stay-at-home order will be enforced as needed and violators could face a 90-day misdemeanor and a $500 fine.
	Their main goal is to stop the spread of the virus.
	Senate Derek Carroll says we are committed to mitigating the spread of the COVID-19 virus and keeping the public safe.
	And he adds, we're working together to coordinate efforts throughout the state to mitigate this and return Michigan back to normal as soon as possible.
	And the state police say the best way to stop the spread of the virus is to just stay home.
	Reporting live in Grand Rapids this morning, Dana White, News 8.
	Truth is what we tell you it is.
	But don't worry, we're always doing this for a good purpose.
	Which reminds me of another scene from 1984 on the purpose of war and the role of power.
	Let's look at clip number two.
	In accordance with the principles of double thinking, it does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, victory is not possible.
	The war is not meant to be won.
	The essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor.
	A hierarchy of society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance.
	In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation.
	The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects.
	And its object is not victory over Eurasia or East Asia.
	but to keep the very structure of society intact.
	Julia, are you awake?
	Julia, there is truth and there is untruth. - Okay.
	To be in a minority of one doesn't make you mad.
	Julia, my love, I understand how.
	I don't understand why.
	Indeed, to be a minority of one does not make you mad.
	Sometimes, truth necessarily requires that in opposing untruth.
	Even if the state has a constant need to keep you in fear in order to keep their control.
	Come back in the second half of the hour.
	We'll take more of your calls, answer more of your inquiries, and discuss more of the answer to 1984 is still a little more 1776.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	As we're going to be going to your calls here in just a second.
	A reminder of the sort of country we're living in right now, this dystopia, where you have the Queen saying, having her comments in the middle of Tropical Square in London, and there's nobody there, and the Queen just saying, don't worry, we'll be together with our friends and family soon.
	Just something out of another scene from another film from another era.
	And we even have now people simply try to go down to their public transit locations and see that the seats are roped off and they can't even use the water and they're shutting down utilities at your local bus stop.
	Let's take a look at clip number 11 for what's happening today in America.
	Hi, my name is Brian Brock.
	I'm in Clearwater, Florida.
	And I'm at the bus terminal and it's right next to all the Scientology stuff.
	But this is the craziness of this terminal.
	Every seat is covered in caution tape.
	Everywhere.
	It's a public facility.
	Means we have access to all of it.
	This is the water fountain.
	No one is currently allowed to use the water fountain at a public facility.
	We the people, for the people, by the people, create this government.
	We are in charge.
	This is unconstitutional.
	It needs to be corrected.
	Period.
	Find me a constitutional lawyer that will protect our rights.
	Thank you.
	And why is it important to take action now to try to remediate this sort of thing?
	Because things like house arrest, things like shutting down access to public utilities and public water supply, those kind of steps that were taken in various neighborhoods and communities in the past did not end well.
	And it was because people did not take enough action at the time those preliminary steps were taken that we got to see moral horrors as portrayed in the movie Schindler's List.
	Let's look at clip number nine.
	Today is history. Today is history.
	Today is history.
	Don't believe it can happen in America?
	Well, I didn't think the things that are happening right now in America could happen in America.
	Let's go to some of your calls and your inquiries.
	Let's go to Jefferson in Virginia.
	Hey, Mr. Barnes.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	Absolutely.
	Thank you, sir.
	Don't you think the way out of this mess is that we all take the antibody test and then we prove we've had the disease so they can't give us a vaccine?
	They can't make us take a vaccine for a disease we've already beaten.
	What is interesting is the lack of interest in doing that kind of study and testing.
	It's already happening in Iceland.
	It's already happening in Germany.
	And it may be because they don't like the results.
	It may be because it undermines a sort of forced vaccination agenda.
	It may be because it's counter their shutdown of the economy and their suspension of civil liberties that they want.
	There's no question it's one of the remedies they could have at least offered to people.
	And those give people that choice instead of what we currently face.
	And the fact that they have not tells you their agenda is something other than your public health.
	And I think that is, I mean, that is a potential remedy.
	I think it is a potential solution.
	At least it should be on the table for people to choose.
	And the fact that they're not being given that choice raises serious questions about the motivation and intention of some of our public health officials.
	Thanks, Jefferson, for calling.
	Let's go to Lyon in Kentucky.
	Yes, sir.
	I just wanted to talk to you about the maximum of law.
	I want to read you one that says, no prescription or statutory limit runs against the right of blood.
	Why are we not using the maximum law like we should?
	So then the natural effect, there's a lot of old legal traditions that exist, a lot of ancient liberties that are supposed to be provided for and protected in the First Amendment to the U.S.
	Constitution, in the Tenth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, supposed to be preserved and protected.
	The rights of the people that were preserved by ancient tradition were continued to be protected by various provisions of the Constitution, even if not explicitly or expressly stated.
	Unfortunately, the practical reality is the same difficult political reality we talked about last night with Viva Frye, which is that the political environment of our courts were ultimately governed, not by law, but by men.
	By men and women in robes.
	They ultimately determine whether or not what the other politicians do is something that they're going to stop and use their power to stop.
	So until the courts exercise that power, To preclude the executive branch, the legislative branch, or any other aspect of government from acting inappropriately, then effectively we're stuck with sort of like what Native American tribes and Indian tribes were stuck with in the late 1800s, where they would have their treaty and they could waive their treaty as the cavalry came in, didn't sort of answer the bullets.
	So in the end we are dependent upon the courts taking correct action and they ultimately are dependent upon the public taking meaningful action.
	The public being meaningfully engaged and informed.
	The public making sure that they put pressure on the politicians through all legal constitutional means to make sure that those people acted in accord with our ancient liberties or our constitutional remedies.
	So that's the sort of the long and short of that.
	Thanks for calling in.
	Hope that provided some meaningful answer.
	And then let's go to Bart in Georgia.
	Hey, Robert.
	It's an honor to talk to you.
	You know, I was going to talk about the travel restrictions in Georgia, but I got something better.
	Martial law is now in the Philippines, and I got some American friends that are still there.
	And that's our future real soon.
	I mean, there's no doubt that's a serious and severe risk.
	President Duarte has made comments from the get-go about how he's going to shoot people if they don't obey his curfew or his other orders.
	He's someone who has been compared to Trump, but it's really been an inapt comparison because whereas Trump has consistently Refuse the national lockdown.
	Refuse the effort to stop travel between states.
	Explicitly said the Constitution is here for a reason and he respects it.
	While the left, no less, has been screaming for him to seize this sort of dictatorial power, he has continually refused to do it.
	But what we've witnessed in the Philippines, what we're witnessing in parts of India, parts of Africa and other countries, where people are being beat up, people are being shot at, people are being threatened in a wide range of ways.
	These sort of natural excesses that happen when you unleash police power without limits on the local populace.
	You let the sociopaths within the military or police structure, you let them loose and you don't allow those that are trying to restrain or respect.
	constitutional rights and restrain the actions of wayward politicians from being able to do anything.
	You've had a lot of sheriffs and other police officials say they don't want to enforce this, they have questions about it, they have doubts about it.
	You have a lot of good, conscientious police officers, but they are getting pushback from their superiors and their more politically-minded and oriented individuals.
	And we have, in effect, de facto medical martial law in the country.
	Well, the only thing we don't have is military martial law in the country.
	But we have some politicians who are acting like they are the sole king or queen, like the governor of Michigan is, like the governor of California is, effectively in their expansive, extraordinary use of powers, even while the pretext for that continues to fall apart.
	In places like Michigan, where they've already passed their purported peak.
	In places like California, where the disaster that they predicted never came true.
	They're still asserting more and more and more intrusions and impositions on constitutional liberty to the degree that people are not even going to be able to go to church on Easter Sunday.
	In some cases, they can't even go to the parking lot and listen to it on the radio together.
	That's what some politicians are threatening them if they do anything about.
	That's the kind of environment we live in.
	The kind of environment that currently exists.
	And the only way to resist that, to push back on that, is to do what we can within the constitutional and legal abilities that we have.
	Whether that's filing suit, whether that's reasonable acts of civil disobedience, whatever it may be.
	It reminds me of the film Casablanca.
	Where what happens is they have letters of transit.
	These letters of transit are key to being able to escape the oppressive Nazi regime that has influence there in the local political apparatus.
	And they come to Rick, which is Humphrey Bogart's character, in his little cafe.
	And there he's just trying to stay out of it all.
	Just be a sort of an escape place for everybody dealing with all of it.
	But when he's faced with the moral horror of what he witnesses, he feels obligated to take moral action.
	And in that moment becomes a different person, and in that process starts to be changed the world by his soul actions in that context.
	That's the point and purpose and theme of the film.
	Let's take a look at this in video clip number eight.
	How's Lady Luck treating you?
	Oh, too bad.
	We'll finally move there.
	Monsieur Rick?
	Yes?
	Could I speak to you for just a moment, please?
	Why don't you get in here?
	You're underage.
	I came with Captain Reno.
	I should have known.
	My husband is with me, too.
	He is?
	Well, Captain Reno's getting broad-minded.
	Sit down.
	Do you have a drink?
	Of course not.
	Do you mind if I do?
	No.
	Mr. Rick, what kind of a man is Captain Reno?
	Oh, he's just like any other man, only more so.
	No, I mean...
	Is he trustworthy?
	Is his word?
	Oh, just a minute.
	Who told you to ask me that?
	He did.
	Captain Raynaldi.
	I thought so.
	Where's your husband?
	At the roulette table.
	Trying to win enough for our exit visas.
	Oh, of course he's losing.
	How long have you been married?
	Eight weeks.
	We come from Bulgaria.
	Oh, things are very bad there, monsieur.
	A devil has the people by the throat.
	So, Jan and I, we... we did not want our children to grow up in such a country.
	And so you decided to go to America?
	Yes.
	But we have not much money and... traveling is so expensive and difficult.
	It was much more than we thought to get here.
	And then Captain Renault sees us.
	And he is so kind, he wants to help us.
	Yes, I'll bet.
	He tells me he can give us an exit visa.
	But... but we have no money.
	Does he know that?
	Oh, yes.
	And he's still willing to give you a visa?
	Yes, monsieur.
	And you want to know?
	Will he keep his word?
	He always has.
	Oh.
	Monsieur, you are a man.
	If someone loved you very much, so that your happiness was the only thing that she wanted in the world, but she did a bad thing to make certain of it, could you forgive her?
	Nobody ever loved me that much.
	And he never knew.
	And the girl kept this bad thing locked in her heart.
	That would be all right, wouldn't it?
	Do you want my advice?
	Oh, yes, please.
	Go back to Bulgaria.
	Oh, but if you knew what it means to us to leave Europe to get to America.
	Oh, but if he aren't, you'd find out.
	He's such a boy.
	In many ways, I... I'm so much older than he is.
	Yes, well, everybody in Casablanca has problems.
	Yours may work out.
	You'll excuse me.
	Thank you, monsieur.
	Marquons les Jeux, mesdames et messieurs.
	Les Jeux sont faits.
	La partie continue.
	Mesdames et messieurs, marquons les Jeux.
	Les Jeux sont faits.
	Marquons les Jeux.
	Les Jeux sont faits.
	Le huit en plein.
	A l'expo.
	Do you wish to place another bet, sir?
	No, no, I guess not.
	Have you tried 22 tonight?
	I said 22.
	22. - Leave it there.
	Don't come back.
	Are you sure this place is honest?
	Honest?
	As honest as the days long.
	How are we doing tonight?
	On fait, rien ne va plus.
	Un, deux, deux, noir, père et pas.
	Cash it in and don't come back.
	Rien ne va plus, monsieur.
	Silly.
	Are you sure this place is honest?
	Honest?
	As honest as the days long.
	Rien ne va plus.
	How are we doing tonight?
	Well, a couple of thousand less than I thought there would be.
	Rien ne va plus.
	Trente-quatre, vous ferez part!
	Monsieur Rick.
	Just a lucky guy.
	Mr. Rich, may I get you a cup of coffee?
	No, thanks, Karl.
	Mr. Rich.
	Captain Renault, may I... I'm not here, please.
	Come to my office in the morning.
	We'll do everything business-like.
	We'll be there at six.
	I'll be there at ten.
	I'm very happy for both of you.
	Still, it's very strange that you won.
	Well, maybe not so strange.
	I'll see you in the morning.
	Thank you so much, Captain Rayneau.
	Boss, you've done a beautiful thing.
	Who are you crazy Russian?
	I'm a wreckage.
	Small, simple acts of resistance are the key in this sort of causal chain that can change even this simple acts of resistance are the key in this sort of causal chain that can change even this kind of oppressive regime that we face today in the United States with a complete suspension of and the complete shutdown of our economy.
	Something that is being pushed and propagated by public health officials like Birx and Fauci, who have long-standing ties not only within sort of the deep state part of the public health apparatus, within the administrative state with their long-standing public governmental roles, where their principle and primary loyalty is to the service of the state more than it is to the service of the public or the service of the president.
	But it also goes further than that, goes beyond that.
	Just as their family and others and close to them have friendly associations and financial ties to the Clintons and ties to Bill Gates, leads to further reasons to second guess and question the choices that they've made.
	Is it any coincidence that they embraced These radical models that forecast doom and gloom to such a degree that they tried to panic the president into changing public policy and embracing the national shutdown that most states have effectively enforced upon us through their Democratic governors and mayors.
	Is it any coincidence that they happen to be connected to Bill Gates, be part of his foundations or associated with them or in support of them or pushed by them, sometimes on the board, sometimes in other groups that are affiliated or associated with him?
	When Bill Gates's obsession with overpopulation has led to his concern about global poverty and his desire for public vaccinations derives From his family lifelong held obsession with diminishing population in particularly in poor countries in Africa and Asia.
	That leads to his desire to have a chip in every finger and a needle in every arm when it comes to forced compulsory required vaccinations just as he pushes various forms of birth control including abortion and Planned Parenthood's plans.
	Is it any coincidence then that Fauci and Birx, with the ties they have to Bill Gates, embraced the same agenda and the same models pushed by the very people that Bill Gates either employed, financed, funded, or was a patron of, either politically, financially, or both?
	Is it a coincidence that someone out of Washington, like Murray, that his models end up taking over and dominating the public discussion, public debate, and public dialogue about this?
	And that even when those models, even when he doesn't have any prior record of any real success in predicting and forecasting viruses like this, even when this model is proven wrong almost every single day, Because he continues to adjust the models, make a new prediction for the next day, incorporating the recent data, and he's wrong again.
	And then he's wrong again.
	And then he's wrong again.
	He's been wrong about almost everything.
	About the rate of contagion, that's the rate to which the infection would be transmitted to others.
	The rate to which people that got the infection would end up showing symptomatic disease.
	The rate of those people Who would end up needing hospitalization care, in particular medical care that would require they be in a hospital bed for a period of time.
	Also got wrong the degree to which that percentage of the population would in turn need intensive care unit beds.
	And got wrong again the degree to which that portion would need ventilator care.
	And then got wrong again the number of people within that category who would have a death or mortality rate.
	So even while they're busy sort of trying to change the numbers on the mortality rate by inflating it, there are announcements today out of Ohio that they're going to declare anybody who dies with COVID-19 as having died from COVID-19.
	And even though they're withholding a lot of the mortality rate, all cause death data, So that we can make a meaningful comparison about the degree to which we're experiencing a higher mortality rate than is expected during this time of year and period of time.
	They are busy inflating the numbers wherever and whenever they can with even financial incentives from the federal government, from the public health apparatus, who is now going to incentivize hospitals to claim COVID-19 related cause deaths because they'll get a higher reimbursement rate.
	If they're able to do so, particularly for those who are uninsured, whereas normally they would only get a Medicaid substantially discounted reimbursement rate for the care provided, now they'll get a inflated Medicare rate of reimbursement if they identify the death as being from COVID-19.
	So their best guarantee is to always claim COVID-19.
	And now various medical health authorities are giving them the green light to do so, even if it doesn't meet the standards for medical or legal cause.
	So is it any surprise that all of this is happening by people whose oath, by people whose obligation has been to the administrative deep state with deep and direct ties to both the Clintons and Bill Gates?
	President Trump is the only thing that can stop this.
	The only thing that can reverse this.
	The only thing that can restore our constitutional republic and our public economy.
	He must act.
	He must act fast.
	For all of our benefits.

▲