Dennis Berube

First, stop watching CNN. I have to agree with Robert about the reliance of this forum on the MSM. To me, it is a grave mistake in analysis to view the MSM narratives about major political events as anything other than propaganda. This stance has been vindicated time and time again and shouldn't require an explanation. Additionally, I believe it is a mistake to view Trump as the sole fascist. American fascism cannot work on the German/Italian model with a strong leader. Here, it would have to be a puppet ruling with oligarchical support because corporate power is too strong to allow a leader that isn't in their pocket. This is already close to what we have had for a long time. Trump will be gone in a short time regardless of this election, but the laws, rights, and legal precedents that are produced/reduced in this era could possibly go on for quite awhile, especially with the frightening censorship and constant propaganda that the "left" has seemingly embraced. It may be the Trump forces getting hit today, but the target is far more fluid than the precedent/capability if gone unchecked. To further the point, the Patriot Act...

I personally do not believe the big media companies have any sense of patriotic duty and reject that notion wholeheartedly. The complete emotional rage against Trump and subsequent corporate "rally/censorship" around Joe seems very dangerous to me. Just about anything could be done now and as long as our media interprets it as somehow against Trump (or his supporters), the "left" will go along. This has already happened with freedom of speech, yet Biden didn't seem to have a problem with it and looks set to possibly install some of these nightmares in his government. Next, it could easily be that anyone who says anything against vaccines/lockdowns/masks/questioning CDC/WHO, is lumped in with Trump supporters to discredit them too. This is a slippery slope, and not a very democratic one at all.

Ron, I was fully aware of the official "covid death count" numbers prior to making my statement. There was no doubt about who the media was pushing for in my opinion. Russiagate alone would be conclusive of this but the election coverage was consistently biased and even censored. And just to pre-empt the inevitable on this forum, I did not support Trump. https://nypost.com/2020/11/03/big-tech-has-overwhelmingly-thrown-its-support-behind-joe-biden/ https://israelpalestinenews.org/hedges-taibbi-greenwald-discuss-anti-trump-censorship-reminiscent-of-dorothy-thompson/ Also, if the Eric Schmidt rumours in regard to being already approached by Biden are true, that is a very bad sign for any who know almost anything about him. For Robert level intrigue... https://aim4truth.org/2019/07/02/former-lover-exposes-eric-schmidt/

Ron, that quote worries me far more than reassures me of anything. The bipartisan/corporate media hatred of Trump could easily breed a Wag the Dog situation regarding any election fraud. It sure has worked convincingly regarding covid-19.

"If" that's true, then you missed the point Sandy. I have seen time based vote count charts that do appear to show this vertical Biden line accompanied by pictures of Trump increasing 0 and Biden going up 130k. It's believable that mail-in ballots might favor Biden, but it is absolutely laughable that 100% of 130,000 votes for anything would be for 1 person in any possible way. Having said that, I do not know if that actually occurred the way Robert (and others) have claimed.

Having just made it through this thread and the AARB interview summary with Prouty, I have to ask... Has anyone ever transcribed the audio? Certain passages of the summary seem a bit odd and it would be interesting to hear the full context of Prouty's responses. I do not see even the out of context summary as particularly damaging to Prouty. Here's an example of what I mean... Tape 1, Side 2; 32:47: Asked by Wray about the number of Secret Service agents that Prouty believes should have been in Dallas that day, according to procedure: (Very agitatedly) “See, we’re overdoing this. I went to Mexico City once, so I would know the business. I have no idea how they run their business. And the difference between Dallas and Mexico City... I don’t think you would have comparable units. No way... I shouldn’t be giving you anything that misleads you, because I only went to Mexico City with the senior man of that group, and stayed there a few days with him; but I went there for logistics purposes, not to learn all about the system. I can’t extrapolate that into a nationwide system, because I have never had any Secret Service [training]. What appalled me is the fact that the Secret Service was not in Dallas. That’s the point that’s important.” He had in fact seen the basics of presidential protection enough to have suspicions about something as obvious as open windows over a motorcade route. That the interviewers should be so hostile to the point of making Prouty agitated over the rather basic point he was making is a little odd to me. And if what Newman apparently said about Landsdale in Dallas is accurate, then it's too bad the AARB didn't follow up on this exact point. It seems like it may have yielded fruit. While a search of travel records from Lansdale’s office or his personnel file might verify or disprove this allegation, the small likelihood of successfully finding such records, as well as the relative unimportance of these records, the fact that finding them might not clarify much of anything, and the limited amount of time and resources the ARRB has remaining would indicate that these records are not worth our checking out. No action is recommended

? If you want to, click back to the start of the talk, its not edited at all Cliff, I just put a start time on the part relevant to our discussion. Your cherry picked quote from that article is fine, but that wasn't relevant to our counting discussion. Did you read that entire article already? Well done, it took me awhile to go through even a portion of the 72 references. But it is a clear view of our covid deaths are not counted the same way as we have counted since 2003.

Sure is Cliff. First, you made it sound like I said something I didn't. Secondly, here is exactly what Gates said. Also, please don't post Snopes anything, "fact-checkers" are modern form of censorship and again falls into the mainstream bucket. Just look at their "work" on the JFK case and 9/11. Similar to the Scientific American that you posted. If you read that article, they do their best to present one side of the issue, but even still they cannot close the door on the counting issue as they mentioned the Colorado reporting. Please read this much lengthier and more detailed article regarding the CDC counting change and other related issues. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/if-covid-fatalities-were-90-2-lower-how-would-you-feel-about-schools-reopening/

Thank you Ron for your reasonable reaction to this, many people have been programmed to respond rather violently to this issue. There is a Part A and Part B for death certificates, typically Part B is not counted for statistical reporting purposes. When someone has more than one health issue, it used to be the doctor's opinion as to what the primary cause was and he would list it in an order of his best guess. The change made it so if covid was part of the list of health issues a deceased patient had, it was automatically included in part A. Even if covid was suspected, it could be written in Part A. About two weeks ago the CDC released a report saying that 94% of "covid" deaths involved an average of 2.6 co-morbidity. It is possible to speculate therefore, that if the change had not occurred, we may not be talking about deaths in the same way, the people would still have died of course, but the listed reason would be different. The point is, this change guaranteed a large death count number. Within the last five years we had over 60k deaths from flu under the old counting system used since 2003. If they had made the change for flu reporting in 2017, we may have been talking about 200-400k deaths from flu, its not scientific in my opinion, but if you have a political agenda, those numbers might help you. In Massachusetts, where I live, there have only been 82 deaths from covid alone and about 9,000 overall. Considering the average age of death (in MA at least) is 82, and the average 82 year old has roughly 2.6 serious health issues besides covid, how many of those same people would die if they caught influenza under those conditions? The best source would be his website https://childrenshealthdefense.org/. Regarding vaccines, there is a big story that more and more people are waking up to. Big Pharma is massive and in many ways is similar to the military industrial complex. To be brief as possible, as I'm not sure this is the appropriate place for all of this, the vaccine manufacturers are immune from any type of lawsuit for their products. A law signed by Reagan in 1986 created a vaccine boom by 1989, the same year that the EPA identified as the "take off" year for neurological problems in children. The industry does not have to conduct real inert placebo testing in their products (the covid 19 vaccines being the one exception due to pressure brought by vaccine safety advocates and apparently Trump's agreement?). They will usually test another vaccine or adjuvant (toxin designed to stimulate immune response) as a placebo in order to then make their product appear safe, even though it most certainly isn't. There is much more to this story. You can see in the responses of others to my statement what the corporate Big Pharma lines are on this issues. They own major US media on this topic and during non-election years can form 70% of ad revenue for certain networks. By the way, the US is one of only 2 countries (1998 law change, New Zealand is the other) in the world that allow direct to consumer marketing of pharma drugs, AND THEY GET A TAX WRITE OFF FOR IT! Censorship has been happening on this issue for many years and now has taken more aggressive forms. Dr. Sanjay Gupta recently talked a Moderna vaccine volunteer into hiding his adverse reaction (he felt worse than at any other point in his life, passed out, his gf took him to the emergency room), he is essentially a paid agent of Big Pharma. RFK Jr and his team is currently suing Facebook, Merck, state governments and more and has the absolute best information on this topic that I have seen. I would highly recommend Andrew Wakefield's recent documentary, 1986: The Act if your interested in this topic. Wakefield was one of the first to statistically link certain vaccines to autism and paid a hell of a price for it (similar to Jim Garrison in some ways), but his research has been duplicated by others and is solid. Also, a CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson who was one of the lead authors of a CDC study that was designed to discredit Wakefield, came out in 2014 and said that the CDC manipulated data and did find a link, especially in young African American boys. He has still not been called to testify in front of Congress. Then there's the whole Simpsonwood conference where the industry knew the connection and buried it... For my Democrat-or-die friends, RBG was a vaccine safety advocate and voted against a 2015 decision that basically removed even the tort process from the vaccine manufactures and thus the discovery process as well. Sotomayor was the other dissenter on this horrible decision, Bruesewitz vs. Wyeth. Trump actually had RFK Jr and Del Bigtree (vaccine safety advocate) come into a room with Faucci and Offit. He almost set up a commission with RFK Jr on the issue but scrapped it for reasons I am still not aware of. Faucci is a Big Pharma guy through and through. The inventor of the widely used PCR test, Kary Mullis, railed against Faucci in the 90's and said his test should not be used for diagnostic purposes (as we do for covid). It must also be said that Trump was absolutely correct about Hydroxychloroquine. Many doctors have used it with much success against covid and the Lancet study used to largely ban its use was retracted and fraudulent. The WHO and Europe then conducted fraudulent studies of it (gave 4x the recommended dose, poisoning people, giving it far too late to be effective, etc..). Switzerland was using it, then banned it after Lancet, the deaths went up, then Lancet retracted, Switzerland removed the ban, deaths then dropped again. Many studies have proven it safe and effective when given in the right doses and given as early as possible after covid diagnosis. But the conflict of interests of the press and WHO (Gates Foundation is a huge funder and according to some WHO employees, nothing gets done without a Gates agent knowing or perhaps even approving) turned Hydroxychloroquine into a political identity and successfully thwarted that non-patented drug. They even censored a press conference held in Washington by a large group of doctors a few months ago regarding this issue. My state, MA, just recently mandated two vaccines, flu and Meningococcal, for kids to go to school. Among the 4-5 different flu shots out there right now, at least 2 of them still have mercury in them (which is how RFK Jr got involved in all of this, he was studying mercury emissions from coal and other polluters and the effect on the population). Vaccines only need to show an anti-body response to get FDA approval and they rarely test them for safety past two weeks. We now know there are different types of anti-bodies, some of which actually increase the infect ability of the patient, its called pathogenic priming and is very real. How many covid deaths had received the flu shot this year? I haven't seen any data on that at all, and I don't think we will. Again, the story is much bigger than the few tid bits here, but it is critical to understand during this "covid" crisis. There is definitely a movement among certain circles to vaccine everyone in the world without giving them an option, this would be unacceptable to free living people for many reasons. Not to mention, that coincides with what Gates said at a TED talk "If we are good about vaccination, we can REDUCE the world's population by 10-15% over the coming years". Nice guy right? In summary, if you find yourself quoting a mainstream media source for information regarding anything related to Big Pharma/vaccines, you should probably take a step back.

This is actually true and I do not think many people are aware of the changes coming from CDC this year that directed health professionals to change the way they count covid deaths and cases. In particular it has to do with changes to Part A of death certificates. In a nutshell, if this change didn't happen we could be potentially talking about far less deaths from covid than we currently are (on the order of 9k-20k total) There is no other way to say this, but covid has a political angle to it that has little to do with disciplined science. For those who are not aware of RFK Jr's work in this, it is must know material for these times in my opinion.

I believe the author was referring to the attempts after the Bay of Pigs, but his insinuation still does not hold water. The CIA briefed RFK but led him to believe it was just one attempt and never told him of anything else.

Jim, as bad as that is, the rest of the book is at least as bad. I'm trying to find time to write a long review for Amazon considering the book somehow is close to a 5 star rating. Among the other comical bits, he wrote that anyone who says JFK was pulling out of Vietnam has to contend with the fact that there were 16,000 "troops" there when he left. Not only does he not differentiate troops from advisers, but he never mentions NSAM 263 or the SEC-DEF conference. Another whopper was his treatment of the Drain memo. Rasenberger tries to say that a joint CIA/DOD action only meant that the CIA needed supplies and logistical support from DOD, not their actual tactical involvement. I could go on and on, somehow he never mentions the back channel at all or Operation 40 either. This allowed him to strongly imply that JFK approved the Castro assassination plots and also distance the Anti-Castro hatred of JFK. Regarding the assassination itself, I'll just quote him. "...but there is little doubt (as the author Gus Russo, among others, has established) that Oswald believed he was doing the Cubans a favor." I don't know how you ever wrote that 10 part series on Reclaiming History, infinite kudos for that. Larry, unfortunately I missed that program and it seems you have to be a paid member to access archived content. But I'm working my way through your blog and have ordered the book as well. Thank you.

Apparently Murphy also was rather close to Angleton as well, not that he was a direct player in this particular affair. From Washington Post obit from 1987..."He was said to have had an encyclopedic mind and a love for good whiskey and good conversation. For years, Mr. Murphy and the late James Jesus Angleton, the fabled former counterintelligence chief of the Central Intelligence Agency, shared a table at the Army & Navy Club in Washington where they discussed matters such as the British debacle at Gallipoli during World War I and Gen. Douglas MacArthur's tactics during the early months of the Korean War." https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1987/12/31/author-and-journalist-charles-murphy-dies/0c630636-8b51-4715-971d-3c64a75d5b99/ It makes me curious what Murphy wrote about the JFK assassination. I'm guessing Cuba did-it slanted material. Thanks for pointing that out Jim about Kirkpatrick. That's what really gets me about this whole cancelled air strike line that has become another one of those things that everyone believes without question, it never would have made any difference to the success of the operation. Considering Khrushchev's threat about not allowing entrance into Havana, it very possibly could have been much worse and a potential Missile Crisis type standoff with the Soviets if, somehow, against the odds they were able to establish a beachhead and somehow advance (presumably with overt US support at that point). This leads me to one of the worst paragraphs of Rasenberger's book. "The peculiar truth may be that the result Kennedy got was the very best he could have desired, despite the obvious distress the failure caused him. If he achieved this result accidentally, then he was lucky. If he achieved it intentionally-- if, that is, he sent the brigade into Cuba expecting, even wanting, it to fail--then he deserves a place as one of the most coldly calculating presidents in history. Whichever is true--and there is really no way to know for sure--John Kennedy, in the end, managed to have his cake and eat it, too." p395 To buttress this absurdity, this paragraph is preceded by a mention of Gunnar Myrdal talking to Walt Rostow saying how jfk would have been ruined at home if he called it off and ruined abroad if he engaged American forces. So by implication he committed himself to a failure. This book is awful. That is very interesting about Dulles not leaving the papers with JFK. Do you remember where you read that? It makes sense, didn't he give him a retracted report on the attempted Indonesia coup? I'm interested to see what Larry has dug up, but there doesn't seem to be any clear point where JFK actually approved D-Day strikes.

I agree Jim. On p303 it says JFK gave Bissell the go ahead for the Saturday strikes on 4/14, but not anything else. It seems that JFK was so hesitant about the whole thing that he was approving it in a piecemeal fashion. Larry, when/where did JFK specifically approve the D-Day strike? If it wasn't at the 4/12 meeting and he hadn't approved them on 4/14.... Jim's point about Cabell calling Rusk seems accurate to me. Rasenberger tried to say Cabell was calling Rusk for "confirmation" of "The air strikes that have been in place for weeks". There is no way there were approved air strikes in place for weeks and he must be referring to 3/15 which were beachhead only strikes with one caveat "b. An alternative way to handle this problem would be to make a few strafing runs against the Castro Air Force some days before the landing and apparently as an opposition act unrelated to any other military moves." (P128 kornbluh) Still, this alternative option is far from "in place" as Rasenberger says, certainly not approved on 3/15 or 4/12. Plus it refers to strikes "some days before" d-day and thus can't be related to that. It makes more sense that JFK never gave approval and Cabell knew it and as Jim said McNamara agrees. I look forward to reading your new work Larry, I didn't know about it. I'm probably not up to speed with the absolute latest on this admittedly. Here's one of Rasenberger's critical passages. He of course (it's a modern "cia is flawed but heroic" book) neglects to mention that JFK didn't approve the plan in the final briefing. p221 "In that single phrase --I'm not signed onto this-- John Kennedy distilled several essential problems with the plan to invade Cuba. First, the president's apparent belief that he had not already signed off on the April 17 air strikes betrays either a stunning failure by the CIA to have effectively communicated its plan to the president or an equally stunning failure by the president (and Rusk, among others) to comprehend the plan. The D-Day air strikes had been included in the preinvasion briefing papers for the final briefing on April 12.

Having just read Jim Rasenberger's "The Brilliant Disaster", I am diving (again) into the air strike mythology. The March 15 1961 "Revised Cuban Operation" document states clearly that air strikes will only be launched from an established beachhead, this supports the notion that there never was any approved d day air strikes. However, I noticed the April 12 1961 "Cuban Operation" memo (both docs from Kornbluh btw) states under section b, "The plans for air operations have been modified to provide for operations on a limited scale on D-2 and again on D-Day itself instead of placing reliance on a larger strike coordinated with the landings on D-Day." P129 Under the "Time Table" section of the document under the entry "D-Day" it lists " Main landings (night D-1 to D) - limited air strikes. Two B-26s and liaison plane land at seized air strip." Unless I'm not interpreting that correctly, it seems to imply two different air operations, the limited air strikes presumably not from a seized beachhead. Any other opinions on that? The last formal meeting JFK had with his BOP team was April 12. I assume the document was a result of that meeting but don't know. Does anyone know if JFK formally approved that D-Day air strike modification on April 12? Was the "only from the beachhead" language modified? The D-2 strikes could not have fit that language by definition but I can't seem to find that distinction made anywhere. In Jim D's Destiny Betrayed page 46, he details some of this and cites Schlesinger saying that JFK specifically said on April 16 that Nicaraguan air strike was not something he was "signed onto". This leads me to believe the April 12 modifications were not for a Nicaragua strike but for strikes within the beachhead as stated several times before, ie the March 15 memo that Jim cites. The 4/12 CIA memo makes no distinction between the D-2 and D-Day strikes in terms of where they will be conducted from. If the plan was to only use strikes from the beachhead, how do we explain the D-2 strikes from Nicaragua? Obviously, JFK knew that at least those air strikes would not be from a beachhead. It seems that in the rushed nature of the revised planning, this vital point was somehow never made clear and CIA expected JFK would fold to the requirements of what they thought they needed as Dulles and Bissell later admitted. Or, the CIA believed JFK knew the D-Day strikes were to be launched from Nicaragua and was then "surprised" when MacBundy told them no. Anyone have thoughts on this?

That's not fireproof logic there to say the least. John's work on Oswald is very complex and difficult to fully grasp but he has uncovered solid documented information to back a good amount of his work. It certainly cannot be satisfactorily explained away with such a straw man statement. Lifton on the other hand...

That only works if you have credibility. Unfortunately for Biden, if he says that (assuming he remembers it) he will be crushed on the race issue, probably will be anyway.

It must be said that some of these tests are questionable. The common pcr "test" was never meant to be used as a diagnostic tool, it was a manufacturing tool. You basically take a molecule and multiply it millions of times so you can take a look at what is there. Kary Mullis invented PCR and hated the way it ended up being used in regards to HIV/AIDS. He would probably feel the same about COVID. A recent peer reviewed paper out of China suggested up to 80% of pcr COVID tests were false positives. That paper was withdrawn and when asked why, a team member allegedly said something along the lines of "its complicated and political". http://aidswiki.net/index.php?title=Document:Farber_interviews_Mullis

Hear, hear! This is especially obvious with the democratic (and republican) non reaction to the real election interference by Israel. It is now and always was a veneer. Until Seth Rich's murder is solved at least...

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/fbi-documents-mention-israel-link-donald-trumps-campaign-2016 I think the conversation is changing from Russia to Israel. I haven't read about this in depth, but prima facie it is easier to swallow than Russagate and actually includes some very direct details. I assume a full Senate investigation into Israeli covert operations will be launched and aid temporarily halted with possible economic sanctions to follow.

Nice strawman there David. It completely neglects so much I have to wonder if your ignorant or purposefully wasting our time. Garrison and Stone, more than anyone, are responsible for presenting the "wider view" to the public. Garrison in particular is worthy of unending praise, the case would be nowhere without him. Fingering Clay Shaw 3-4 years after the hit is even more amazing today with all we know. The fact you discount this in comparison to your estimation of your own work's importance is telling. A 1960's trial of a planner or cut-out to the planners of the assassination isn't as important as your alteration theory in 1980? Jim DiEugenio's work on JFK's foreign policies and how they were changed is some of the most important work on this case as it really destroys the biggest argument for the MSM to control a "neutral" viewer, mainly that nothing changed between JFK and LBJ and therefore no motive for a "deep state" kill. Not all of it is his work either, but he isn't pushing a lifetime pet project, but he's collating and adding the best information in the case without a preconceived destination, to our benefit. Not to mention his excellent critical reviews of good and bad and his Garrison work... Compare that to a theory that the President's body was altered. Even if that is true (being nice here), it pales in historical importance to the above mentioned items. It certainly did not "casts doubt on the legitimacy of Johnson's accession to the Oval Office". That was done by Garrison long before 1980 and its overly self-indulgent to even say that. I'm sorry David, but when autopsy photos have been staged and so much other medical evidence has been proven questionable, what difference does it make if Allen Dulles himself altered JFK's body at this point in history? It was a covert operation and they did whatever they had to in terms of the technical side of things. Interesting? Maybe to some. Important in 2020? Hardly. Divisive and pushed by someone who lashes out whenever questioned? Harmful to the "movement" at best.

Agreed W. That is simply not a credible assertion for so many reasons. Mexico City alone is enough to make me laugh at this. Theories aside, Lifton's conduct in this thread has been embarrassing and weird. First, I am not too well versed (compared to most jfk researchers) in medical evidence in the JFK case, I decided long ago to largely neglect that area because the condition of the evidence is so bad as to support almost any theory one wishes. David's demeanor towards anyone who questions him is overly emotional and wild. In and of itself, that is discrediting in my view. Besides that, I don't see how anyone can believe all shots came from the front. The back wound went in at a downward angle and stopped a few inches in. How does that come from the front? The Bennet statement, the Tippit location, etc... maybe he changed his mind on this now, I don't know. The point is, I don't trust that Lifton actually uses the scientific method. If he discovered something that went against his theory, I suspect he would cover it up or else lose his imagined place in history. For someone who has spent their life on a very particular topic, I imagine that is a relatively normal human thing to do. Ron Bulmans post on page 7 provides good links if your looking for information that could be considered contrary to Lifton. I don't see Dylan's song as proof that he read and agrees with best evidence, and the attempt to insert oneself into culture in this way is off putting. These two paragraphs describe what this thread is about to me. Feeling proud is one thing, getting aggressive and slanderous points to something else. “I feel proud,” I replied, and I did (and still do). The late Pat Lambert, who played a major role in editing Best Evidence, used to say, “David, your work will seep slowly into the culture.” She didn’t have any prediction as to when that would occur, just the certainty that eventually it would. I hoped she was right. And maybe now it has, but in a way I would never have expected. Best Evidence was published in January 1981. After years of isolation, I was proud when it was selected Book of the Month Selection (Sept 1980, approx), was on the New York Times best-seller list (for about 3 months, starting in February 1981); and (to my considerable surprise), was briefly number 1 on the wire service lists (Feb - April, 1981).

I believe the particular chart (rock digital) Dylan is leading does not include streaming. In my experience, the casual music listener of the younger generation uses a streaming service exclusively. This chart is all about digital sales, not many millennials actually pay for individual music albums or songs. Last year Tool had all top 10 slots on the rock digital chart, impressive, but still an older group.

Thats awful, i hope he recovers. Along the lines if this thread, if you havent heard Prines cover of “Thats how Every Empire Falls”, I recommend it. Very moving version. ”There’s a slow train coming”

I would have to disagree on this point. The USPS is an American icon and is proof that we don't need privatization, its also necessary during a time when the public is staying at their house more than ever. The key issue with the USPS was a republican bill in 2006. As explained by Bloomberg.com (emphasis my own) "Then there is the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA), which some have taken to calling "the most insane law" ever passed by Congress. The law requires the Postal Service, which receives no taxpayer subsidies, to prefund its retirees' health benefits up to the year 2056. This is a $5 billion per year cost; it is a requirement that no other entity, private or public, has to make. If that doesn't meet the definition of insanity, I don't know what does. Without this obligation, the Post Office actually turns a profit. Some have called this a "manufactured crisis." It's also significant that lots of companies benefit from a burden that makes the USPS less competitive; these same companies might also would benefit from full USPS privatization, a goal that has been pushed by several conservative think tanks for years. Also, according to theHill, the big sticking point right now is increased funding for SNAP. If that is true, then the Republicans really are crazy. Those other provisions are somewhat important if this goes into November as well. Regardless, Trump has delayed his response to this crisis because of a fear of wall street/oligarch opinion. That is a fail and he should be fired. POTUS does not equal CEO. Relying on the "private sector" is an Austrian school wet dream. We should rely on the private sector for defense and save $750 billion a year in taxes. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/489272-pelosi-house-not-prepared-to-vote-remotely