News

After bird flu was found cattle for the first time and one human diagnosis reported following contact with with an infected cow, experts are warning a pandemic “100 times worse” than COVID-19 could soon erupt. […]

The post Bird Flu Pandemic Could Be ‘100 Times Worse Than Covid’ Scientists Warn appeared first on The People’s Voice.

What does next year have in store for the world?

Scott Ritsema from Belt of Truth Ministries joins Brian Wilson to discuss his research on various projections for the year 2025.

---

Also, check out — REPORT: FDR’s Pearl Harbor Stand-Down EXPOSED

---

‘If the Ashley Biden diary content is fake, why demand prison time?’

The Department of Justice is seeking nearly a year-long sentence for the woman who stole the diary belonging to Joe Biden’s daughter Ashley, in effect proving the veracity of the diary, in which she wrote her father took “probably inappropriate” showers with her at a young age.

The New York Post reported Tuesday:

​​Prosecutors for the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York had initially sought a sentence of six months of home confinement, followed by three years of supervised release, for Aimee Harris, who pleaded guilty in August of 2022 to conspiring to commit interstate transportation of stolen property in connection with the diary theft. 

The prosecution claims Harris has been attempting to delay sentencing by repeatedly postponing the hearing date, which they say should merit a tougher sentence.

“Through this pattern of behavior, the defendant has shown a complete disregard for the Court’s orders and for the orderly administration of this judicial proceeding,” US Attorney Damian Williams wrote in a court filing to District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.

“A sentence involving no period of incarceration would be wholly insufficient to reflect the gravity of the defendant’s conduct, including her apparent belief that she is above the law and that she need not comply with this Court’s orders,” prosecutors added.

Harris and Robert Kurlander admitted involvement in a “conspiracy” to move stolen items from Florida, where Ashley Biden had resided, to New York, after which they sold the diary to Project Veritas ahead of the 2020 election.

While Project Veritas did not publish the diary’s contents (but got raided anyway), National File did publish incendiary excerpts.

Via National File:

National File has already reported several revelations from the diary, including the fact that the author believes she was sexually molested as a child and shared “probably not appropriate” showers with her father, the months of entries detailing the author’s struggle with drug abuse, the entries that detail the author’s crumbling marriage with multiple affairs, the entries showing the family’s fears of a potential scandal due to her brother’s new home, and those that show a deep resentment for her father due to his money, control, and emotional manipulation.

Now, the prosecution of Harris appears to be vindictive and effectively re-affirms the diary was indeed real, in addition to corroborating accusations Joe Biden is a pedophile.

However, don’t expect anyone in the lapdog legacy media to investigate or report on this important development.

---

---

Bill Gates is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of young African girls, according to the findings of a Danish government investigation which alleges the globalist billionaire destroyed their health with dangerous DTP […]

The post Bill Gates Killed ‘Millions of Children’ With DPT Vaccine, Danish Gov’t Study Finds appeared first on The People’s Voice.

Conspiracy law has long been a boon for federal prosecutors and this is clearly also true for Jack Smith, the special counsel attempting to try Trump on three different conspiracy charges. Smith—backed up by countless voices in the legacy media—contends that Trump is guilty of trying to unlawfully overturn the 2020 election.

Last month, former president Donald Trump succeeded in indefinitely delaying his trial on federal charges related to the January 6 riot at the US Capitol building. It is now unclear if or when he will stand trial for the federal crimes with which he was charged in August of last year.

The charges are primarily conspiracy charges. Specifically, Trump has been charged in federal court with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, one count of conspiracy against rights of voters, plus one count of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.

The fact that Trump is being charged with these conspiracy charges tells us how flimsy the evidence is that he actually committed any of the acts in question. That is, had Trump actually “defrauded the United States,” or violated voting rights, you can sure that he would be charged with doing so.

In lieu of charges for real crimes, Trump is charged with “conspiracy” to commit these crimes. That is, he is charged with saying things that could be construed as part of a plan to commit a crime at some point in the future. As with conspiracy crimes in general, whether or not the underlying crime ever took place is irrelevant in court. Conspiracy charges exist to create new ways for government prosecutors to indict people who haven’t actually committed the crime in question.

Rather conspiracy “crimes” are thought crimes in which a person says or thinks things that prosecutors will pretend are criminal acts. In the real world, however, “conspiracy to commit X” is not “X.”

Conspiracy versus Real Crime

Conspiracy charges are commonplace in the federal legal system. The Congressional Research Service sums up the situation, stating

The United States Code contains dozens of criminal conspiracy statutes. One … outlaws conspiracy to commit any other federal crime. The others outlaw conspiracy to commit some specific form of misconduct, ranging from civil rights violations to drug trafficking. Conspiracy is a separate offense under most of these statutes, regardless of whether the conspiracy accomplishes its objective.

This latter point is an important distinction. It is not necessary that the defendant charged with conspiracy harm anyone —i.e., that there be any actual victim. Indeed, conspiracy charges act as a way of charging individuals with crimes that might occur, but have not.

Moreover, it is not even necessary in all cases that a “conspirator” take any affirmative steps toward completion of the alleged conspiracy. While it is true that some federal conspiracy statutes “require at least one conspirator to take some affirmative step in furtherance of the scheme.” It is also the case that “Many have no such explicit overt act requirement.” Even in those cases where some “affirmative step” or overt act take place, it is not necessary that the act be illegal. The “act” could be publicly stating an opinion or making a phone call.

In a 2019 interview, Judge Andrew Napolitano highlighted some problems with conspiracy charges:

If it were up to me, there would be no such thing as conspiracy crimes because they are thought crimes and word crimes. But, at the present time in our history and in fact, for all of our history, regrettably, an agreement to commit a felony, agreement by two or more people or two or more entities to commit a felony and a step in furtherance of that agreement, constitutes an independent crime. … In the world of freedom, where you and I and people reading this live, conspiracy is a phony crime. For 600 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence, all accepted definitions of crime contained an element of harm. Today, crime is whatever the government says it is.

As Napolitano correctly notes, the concept of conspiracy is relatively old in the common law in some form or another. Yet, the use of the idea in expanding federal prosecutions has grown enormously since the founding era. The Congressional Research Service’s report continues:

This is not to say that conspiracy was unknown in pre-colonial and colonial England, but simply that it was a faint shadow of the crime we now know. … The patchwork reached a point where one commentator explained that there were “few things left so doubtful in the criminal law, as the point at which a combination of several persons in a common object becomes illegal.”

That last sentence remains one of the most controversial aspects of conspiracy laws: at what point does talking and thinking about a crime becomes a criminal act? Legislators and the courts have never been able to provide any objective standard, and thus, prosecutors are afforded enormous leeway in stringing together a series of legal acts and claiming these constitute a conspiracy. The prosecutor merely need convince a grand jury that legal acts are really illegal. This is not difficult, as noted by Judge Solomon Wachtler when he cautioned that district attorneys could convince grand juries to “indict a ham sandwich.”

Not surprisingly, people who are actually concerned about regimes abusing their power have long opposed conspiracy prosecutions.

For example, Clarence Darrow wrote on conspiracy prosecutions in his 1932 biography, concluding “It is a serious reflection on America that this wornout piece of tyranny, this dragnet for compassing the imprisonment and death of men whom the ruling class does not like, should find a home in our country.”1

Darrow was at least partly joined in this opinion several years earlier by Judge Learned Hand who in 1925 described conspiracy charges as “that darling of the modern prosecutor’s nursery” for the way it favors prosecutors over defendants.

Crimes of Thought and Speech Vaguely Defined

In the wake of the Vietnam War and the federal government’s many attempts to prosecute antiwar protestors and activists for various crimes, many legal scholars took a closer look at the nature of conspiracy charges.2 Many were skeptical that conspiracy charges are either necessary or beneficial.3 Most alarming of all is the fact that the elastic and vague nature of conspiracy “crimes” means that, as Thomas Emerson puts it, “the whole field of conspiracy law is filled with traps for the unwary and opportunities for the repressor.”4

One of the more famous cases of conspiracy prosecutions running amok was the 1968 prosecution and trial of American pediatrician and antiwar activist Benjamin Spock. Spock and four others were charged with conspiring to aid, abet, and counsel draft resisters. That is, they were charged with saying things. Although prosecutors could never show the “conspirators” committed any illegal acts—or were ever even in the same room together—Spock and three of his “co-conspirators” were found guilty in federal court. The case was eventually set aside on appeal, but on a legal technicality. The federal legal doctrines underlying conspiracy charges were never in danger.

Spock was able to avoid prison, but countless others have not been so lucky. Defendants who do not enjoy Spock’s level of fame or wealth continue to find themselves locked in cages for saying things federal prosecutors don’t like.

The legal incoherence of the charges laid against Spock—and against antiwar activists in general—was covered in detail in Jessica Mitford’s 1969 book The Trial of Dr. Spock, in which she writes

The law of conspiracy is so irrational, its implications so far removed from ordinary human experience or modes of thought, that like the Theory of Relativity it escapes just beyond the boundaries of the mind. One can dimly understand it while an expert is explaining it, but minutes later, it is not easy to tell it back. This elusive quality of conspiracy as a legal concept contributes to its deadliness as a prosecutor’s tool and compounds the difficulties of defending against it.5

Mitford further draws upon Darrow to illustrates the absurdity of these prosecutions, pointing out that Darrow described conspiracy laws this way: if a boy steals a piece of candy, he is guilty of a misdemeanor. If two boys talk about stealing candy and do not, they are guilty of conspiracy—a felony.

Again, we find that the foundation of conspiracy laws are thoughts and words, rather than any actual criminal acts. Or, as Abraham Goldstein put it in 1959: “conspiracy doctrine comes closest to making a state of mind the occasion for preventive action against those who threaten society but who have come nowhere near carrying out the threat.”6

This ability to treat this “state of mind” as real crime means, in the words of Kevin Jon Heller:

the government currently enjoys substantive and procedural advantages in conspiracy trials that are unparalleled anywhere else in the criminal law. Conspiracy convictions can be based on circumstantial evidence alone, and the government is allowed to introduce any evidence that “even remotely tends to establish the conspiracy charged.”7

Conspiracy Prosecutions Are a Means of Quashing Dissent

Conspiracy laws have long been used for a wide variety of alleged crimes, especially “conspiracies” related to federal drug crimes.

However, as the Dr. Spock case makes clear, conspiracy prosecutions hare also a tool against those who protest government policies. More specifically, given that conspiracy “crimes” are essentially crimes of words and thoughts, conspiracy prosecutions have long been employed as a way of circumventing the First Amendment. As the editors of the Yale Law Journal put it in 1970: “Throughout various periods of xenophobia, chauvinism, and collective paranoia in American history, conspiracy law has been one of the primary governmental tools employed to deter individuals from joining controversial political causes and groups.”8

Or, put another way, through conspiracy prosecutions, the “government seeks to regulate associations whose primary activity is expression.”9 Naturally, citizens are more reluctant to engage in expressive activities with others that could later be characterized in court as some kind of conspiracy.

Dr. Spock in 1969 was charged with allegedly saying things to others—i.e., a type of associating with others—to supposedly encourage anti-conscription activists. Any strict interpretation of the First Amendment—which is the correct type of interpretation—would tell us that this ought to be protected speech under the First Amendment. Federal courts, however, have long disagreed.

Some advocates of conspiracy might claim that speech encouraging a specific crime ought not be protected. Yet, in real life conspiracy prosecutions, it is not easy to determine whether or not a “conspirator” is actually encouraging a specific crime. As David Filvaroff notes, the actual intent and effect of the speech is difficult to interpret. Thus, judgements about whether or not speech counts as protected speech is highly arbitrary:

With a conspiracy to murder one faces a potential crime of finite proportion and of near unmistakable content. There is little, if any, risk that either the defendants themselves, or the court or jury, will mistake the criminality of what the defendants propose to do. The probability of such a mistake both by the alleged conspirators and by the trier of fact is very high, however, in the case of conspiracy to incite.10

Plans to murder a specific person are quite different from idle talk and expressed opinions about what a person thinks ought to be done to oppose some government institution or law. Most of the time, however, it is difficult for a “conspirator” to guess how others will interpret his words and what concrete actions might take place as a result. Did the speaker intend for his opinions to incite certain actions? To “prove” this, prosecutors often rely on little more than assertions and assumptions.

Under these circumstances, innocent people can end up serving years in prison for expressing their views about what government agents or government institutions ought to do or stop doing.

Trump’s “Conspiracies”

Conspiracy law has long been a boon for federal prosecutors and this is clearly also true for Jack Smith, the special counsel attempting to try Trump on three different conspiracy charges. Smith—backed up by countless voices in the legacy media—contends that Trump is guilty of trying to unlawfully overturn the 2020 election. According to the 45-page indictment, Trump engaged in a “conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit.” The indictment also claims he engaged in a “conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede” Congress on January 6. Trump also supposedly conspired “against the right to vote.”

So, what did Trump do in carrying out these conspiracies? The indictment admits that its evidence constitutes nothing more than things Trump said. According to Smith, the “conspiracies” were “built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies.” That is, Trump publicly expressed opinions that people were free to accept or reject.

The indictment contains all the usual hallmarks of flimsy and questionable claims about criminal conspiracies. The indictment contends Trump acted together with “co-conspirators” although the so-called evidence shows no clear intent. Smith claims that Trump’s incorrect statements about the election constituted “knowingly” spreading false information. How do we know that Trump knew these statements were false? Smith simply assumes this. Essentially, Smith’s case is that Trump is guilty of conspiracy because he made a number of statements—most of them public statements told out in the open to forward this “secret” conspiracy—that were incorrect.

To reasonable people who actually take the First Amendment seriously, this should be an open and shut case. The natural right to free speech includes the right to say things and express opinions about elections. This includes statements that are wrong. In free countries, citizens are free to claim that elections are corrupt. Case closed.

The federal legal system is not so reasonable, however, and there is a good chance that Smith or some other prosecutor could convince a jury—as has happened in so many other conspiracy cases against ordinary people—that thoughts and words are not protected by the First Amendment after all.

---

Learn Why The Globalists Are Killing Their Own Monetary System

---

The years 2020-24 were times of one of the greatest head fakes in the history of government and central banking.

The New York Times has published a strange article by Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Michigan. The headline is that his economist brain makes him say with regard to inflation: “Don’t worry, be happy.” The article gives the reader as much reason to trust economists as you do epidemiologists, which is to say not at all. 

The idea is that if both prices and income go up together, it all pans out in the wash. Yes, the article goes on for 1,000 words to say that but that’s its essence. The thought is that the 25 percent inflation we’ve experienced over the last 4 years really hasn’t done any damage. Money is neutral to economic exchange and so is inflation. 

So just chill! 

Inflation is a lot scarier when you fear that today’s price rises will permanently undermine your ability to make ends meet. Perhaps this explains why the recent moderate burst of inflation has created seemingly more anxiety than previous inflationary episodes…we’re in the midst of a macroeconomic anxiety attack.

Now, on the face of it, this claim is notable because he nowhere claims that inflation does actual good, so perhaps that is a step in the right direction. If that’s true, what’s the point of printing up $5 trillion-plus in 2020 and following? No question that this is the direct cause of the loss in purchasing power of the dollar that we’ve experienced. If money is entirely neutral and inflation essentially irrelevant, the Fed should simply freeze the money stock if only to reduce anxiety. 

Of course the professor doesn’t suggest that. This is for a reason. Inflation is a form of taxation and wealth redistribution from the poor and middle class to the rich and powerful. Without it, that pathway to wealth transfers would not happen. 

Let’s see what the article overlooks about inflation in real life. 

First, every inflation comes with injection effects. Not all new money enters the economy at the same time. Some people get it earlier and thereby can spend it before its value starts to fall and fall. They are the winners from inflation. It’s a giant subsidy to the ruling classes. 

Think about 2020 and early 2021. Millions of banked businesses and consumers, plus  governments most especially, found themselves flush with new cash. Savings soared but so did spending on high-tech goods and delivering services to make the work-at-home economy function. 

Many institutions benefited: banks, governments, online learning platforms, online merchants like Amazon, streaming services, and so on. This was part of the Great Reset, to enrich digital enterprise over physical enterprise. 

This tendency for new money to affect different industries in different ways was uncovered by the Irish-English economist Richard Cantillon, writing even earlier than Adam Smith. He said that money is never neutral to economic exchanges but rather integral, so every increase in the supply of money has the effect of rewarding some at the expense of others. 

Second, you know what’s not affected by the tendency of prices and wages to go up under inflation? Savings. Your money in the bank was not somehow adjusted further up by virtue of inflation. So Professor Wolfers’ entire analysis is blown up as a result: it simply does not pertain to any deferred consumption of the past. 

Savings is the basis of investment and thus future prosperity, so inflationary regimes always punish those who are frugal and reward those who live for today and save nothing. Indeed it is deeply punishing toward long-term thinking in general. 

Third, none of Wolfers’ thought accounts for the huge transition costs associated with accounting during inflationary bouts. Every business that runs on small margins in a competitive environment has to deal with balancing income versus expenses on large items and small. Accounting alone consumes vast amounts of operational attention in every business. If your costs are randomly going up for all inputs from labor to materials to just keeping the lights on, and each at different stages and in different ways, it becomes much easier to make mistakes. 

In addition, it’s easier said than done to “pass the costs onto the consumer.” The ability to do so always depends on the price elasticity of demand, which is a measure of just how trigger-happy consumers really are toward higher prices. How much will demand be affected by changing prices? There is no way to know in advance, which is why merchants end up testing and treading carefully with hidden fees and shrunken packages. It’s all a matter of making the economy work. 

Companies facing less competition and larger profit margins are in a better position to achieve this than those like small businesses which cannot. Therefore the high costs of accounting transitions fall disproportionately on smaller businesses. Did you notice, for example, that liquor prices have not increased nearly as much as other prices? That’s because they were in a position to eat some of their large margins rather than risk reducing demand for their product. That was certainly not true of the corner grocer or the small restaurant. 

These are three reasons why this professor’s opinion – born of models in which there are no transition costs, injection effects, or accounting uncertainties – has nothing to do with the real world. And you know this, based on the experience of the last four years. It is an enormous source of frustration when intellectuals use their high-status positions to instruct the public on matters we know to be untrue. 

It is also an annoyance to cover up the terrible truths we know. The years 2020-24 were times of one of the greatest head fakes in the history of government and central banking. They showered the world with seemingly free money only to take it all away and then some merely a year later and continuing to this day. 

And who won? Look around. Big government is bigger and so is tech and digital businesses in general, while the banks are flush with cash. That tells you all you need to know about who is winning and who is losing in the great inflation racket. 

Any economist telling you otherwise needs to let go of the unrealistic otherworld models and take a look at the reality on the ground. He might discover that members of the public are not irrational to be upset but rather entirely in touch with the truth about what has happened to us.

---

Learn Why The Globalists Are Killing Their Own Monetary System

---