Category Big Tech -Vs- MAGA

Apr 25 2022

Sunday Talks, Maria Bartiromo Interviews Ratcliffe About Durham


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 24, 2022 | Sundance

In the discussions surrounding John Durham’s investigation, eventually conversations end up sounding like Charlie Brown’s teacher.  Blah, blah, blah, – blah, bla, blah blah. This interview is a case study. However, in the interest of fairness for those retaining hope that John Durham is going to deliver accountability, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe whips up a batch of hopium.

Video prompted to 09:40 where the subject of the latest court filings by John Durham surfaces.  Ratcliffe is optimistic that John Durham intends to charge more characters from the Clinton group with a “conspiracy to commit fraud” against the government.  WATCH

.

Apr 25 2022

Dinesh D’Souza Releases Expanded Preview Trailer for 2000 Mules, The Ballot Harvesting Story of the 2020 Election


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 24, 2022 | Sundance

Dinesh D’Souza has released an expanded trailer for the upcoming release: “Here’s the official trailer for “2000 Mules.” It’s the movie we’ve all been waiting for. Please share! And go to 2000Mules.com to buy your ticket to see the movie in its premiere week.”

The movie documentary showing how the 2020 election was manipulated through the use of mail in ballots will be released in select theaters May 2nd and May 4th, virtual premier May 7th and released on-line May 8th.  WATCH:

.

Apr 23 2022

The BMJ: Evidence Based Medicine has Been Corrupted by “Corporate Interests, Failed Regulation, and the Commercialization of Academia”


Posted originally on TrialSite by Staff originally on April 21, 2022

A March 16 opinion piece in The BMJ raises some serious questions about what they call, “The illusion of evidence based medicine.” Authors Jon Jureidini and Leemon B. McHenry posit that the prominence of evidence-based medicine constituted a paradigm shift, meant to give a solid foundation in science for our medical care system. But the validity of the paradigm depends of accurate data from clinical trials, and most of these are conducted by the pharma industry and then published under the name of “senior academics.” Public release of what had been confidential pharma industry documents gives the medical world key insights into the level to which pharma-sponsored trials are mischaracterized. Getting a bit philosophical, The BMJ argues that critical rationalism is key for both the integrity of science and the role of science, “in an open, democratic society.” But this ideal is under threat by corporate power, a world in which, “financial interests trump the common good.” The dominance of massive pharma firms involves some competition, but all these players are united in working to expand the general pharma market. And while what the authors call, “free market champions” have embraced privatization, “the unintended, long-term consequences for medicine have been severe.”

Medical Schools Take Neo-Liberal Approach

Knowledge and data ownership hamper progress in science due to the fact that the pharma industry tends to suppress negative trial outcomes, not report adverse events, and not share their raw data with the research community. To quote The BMJ, “Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.” And duty to shareholders’ “hierarchical power structures” prioritizes both product loyalty and public relations over integrity. Further, while our fancier universities face influence from their endowments, “they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society.” And facing reduced government funding, these schools have taken the, “neo-liberal market approach,” seeking out pharma funding, with strings attached.

Doctors as “Product Champions”

And thus, science departments at a broad swath of our universities can be seen as “instruments of industry.” When you combine firm-level control of the research agenda and the “ghosting writing of medical journal articles and continuing medical education,” scholars can transform into promotors of commercial products. Further, media reports of “industry-academe partnerships[s]” add to a general mistrust of our academic institutions that betrays the very vision of an open society. And what The BMJ calls the “corporate university” itself undermines the idea of academic leadership. Where once deans were folks with “distinguished contributions to their disciplines,” now they are more of fundraisers/academic managers who must show their “profitability” and ability to attract corporate sponsorship. And medical academia’s stars, who tend to be opinion leaders, advance their careers via industry opportunities. These folks are hired based largely on their influence on the “prescribing habits” of other doctors. The opinion leaders are also often well-paid by pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus in the context of presenting results of pharma industry trials. And instead of being “independent, disinterested scientists,” they can become “product champions,” in the parlance of marketing executives.

Reforms Called For

Proposals for reform can include, “liberation of regulators from drug company funding; taxation imposed on pharmaceutical companies to allow public funding of independent trials; and, perhaps most importantly, anonymized individual patient level trial data posted, along with study protocols, on suitably accessible websites so that third parties, self-nominated or commissioned by health technology agencies, could rigorously evaluate the methodology and trial results.” For readers seeking more information, the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 7.1.4 sets out that organization’s policies on conflicts of interest in industry-funded research.

A March 16 opinion piece in The BMJ raises some serious questions about what they call, “The illusion of evidence based medicine.” Authors Jon Jureidini and Leemon B. McHenry posit that the prominence of evidence-based medicine constituted a paradigm shift, meant to give a solid foundation in science for our medical care system. But the validity of the paradigm depends of accurate data from clinical trials, and most of these are conducted by the pharma industry and then published under the name of “senior academics.” Public release of what had been confidential pharma industry documents gives the medical world key insights into the level to which pharma-sponsored trials are mischaracterized. Getting a bit philosophical, The BMJ argues that critical rationalism is key for both the integrity of science and the role of science, “in an open, democratic society.” But this ideal is under threat by corporate power, a world in which, “financial interests trump the common good.” The dominance of massive pharma firms involves some competition, but all these players are united in working to expand the general pharma market. And while what the authors call, “free market champions” have embraced privatization, “the unintended, long-term consequences for medicine have been severe.”

Medical Schools Take Neo-Liberal Approach

Apr 23 2022

Top Pentagon Official Resigns Over Threat of Technological Warfare


Armstrong Economics Blog/War Re-Posted Apr 22, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Chief Architect Preston Dunlap resigned from his role at the Pentagon, citing the threat of technological warfare. “The System is generally set up to pull everyone and every idea down to the status quo,” he said. “Driving changes requires defying gravity,” Dunlap stated in his recent eight-page letter. His plan of action “to fight the beast of bureaucracy” are as follows: “1) shock the system, 2) Flip the Acquisition Script, 3) Just Delivery Already, and 4) Slay the Valley of Death and Scale.”

This now former top Pentagon employee believes that the US has already lost the technological war with China, and that the nation has been too preoccupied with competing against each other rather than overseas “adversaries.” Dunlap’s ominous letter focuses on more than just his Pentagon colleagues. China’s private tech sector has surpassed that of the United States’ military. “These are accessible to anyone with resources and academics and capabilities, and so our adversaries or potential adversaries are able to have access to that technology, not only inside their own economies, but because of the benefit of our free and open society, which is a great thing,” he stated.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has long been criticized for failing to advance technologically. In the DoD’s report Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China”  from 2021, they admitted that China is aiming to become the leading “intelligentized” [sic] military in the world:

“The PRC has continued its aggressive, top-level push to master advanced technologies and become a global innovation superpower. The PRC seeks to dominate technologies associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution; this push directly supports the PLA’s ambitious modernization efforts and its goal of becoming a “world-class” military capable of “intelligentized” warfare.”

In terms of “technologies associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” this goes along with what has been indicated long ago – the next world war will not be fought with guns. China has a goal of achieving “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” by 2049, but our models indicate that may happen a few years earlier.

Apr 23 2022

Disney Loses Special Privileges


Armstrong Economics Blog/North America Re-Posted Apr 22, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Disney lost its battle in the Florida House after legislation was passed to remove its special district permissions. The Reedy Creek Improvement District was etched out in 1967, which permitted Disney to operate independently from government. Disney has gone toe-to-toe on numerous political issues with Florida in recent years, but its opposition to the Parental Right in Education (liberally termed “don’t say gay”) was the final straw.

The legislation will go into effect on June 1, 2023. Disney will now be required to pay all its taxes to Orange and Osceola counties rather than splitting it between the two and the Reedy Creek Improvement District. A second bill has been opened that repeals Disney’s big-tech law privileges by making it vulnerable to lawsuits if it censors information.

It appears that Disney executives discredited the threats made by DeSantis and thought their 55-year untouchable reign would continue. There have been calls in recent days to replace CEO Rob Chapek. Disney shares have fallen 30% in the past year, despite the S&P rising. The company’s attempt at inclusivity has alienated a portion of its clientele, and it would be wise for them to back away.

Apr 22 2022

These are the Twitter board members fighting Elon Musk’s takeover bid


Posted originally by New York Post  on Rumble on April 21, 2022

These are the Twitter board members fighting Elon Musk’s takeover bid

Apr 22 2022

Elon Musk Unveils Financial Bid for $46 Billion Deal to Purchase Twitter, Through the Board or Directly to Shareholders


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 21, 2022 | Sundance

There is still doubt if Elon Musk really does want to purchase the Twitter social media platform.  However, Musk himself seems to be putting a lot of his own credibility on the line as he announces the construct of his $46 billion purchase proposal.

It looks like Musk has created a second alternative to the purchase if the Twitter board of directors refuses the original offer.  Within the secondary construct, a tender offer, Musk would be able to bypass the board and go directly to shareholders.

(YAHOO) – Elon Musk has secured commitments for $46.5bn (£35.5bn) that would allow him to bypass Twitter’s (TWTR) board and go directly to the social media company’s shareholders with his takeover bid.

Musk said he would personally provide $21bn of equity for the deal with another $12.5bn coming from margin loans, according to paperwork filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday.

Banks, including Morgan Stanley, have agreed to provide another $13bn in debt secured against Twitter itself, according to the filing.

Musk has not yet determined if he will make a tender offer for Twitter or whether he will take other steps to further the proposal, the filing states.

Tender offers involve making a bid to purchase some or all shares of a company directly from its shareholders. (read more)

There are two ways to buy a publicly traded company. The simplest and most common is a board-approved merger. Talks start in secret, the two sides haggle and then arrive at a deal. Shareholders get to vote, and it is an all-or-nothing affair. Typically with a simple majority, the buyer walks away with the entire company. If the vote fails, the buyer goes away empty-handed.

A tender offer instead makes a direct appeal to shareholders to sell—or tender—their shares at a specific price. It can be used in friendly deals, but its real value is to hostile bidders when the target company’s board won’t engage. Tender offers simply go around them.

And they aren’t all or nothing. A buyer can bid for, say, just enough shares to cross 50%, thus seizing control. From there it could replace intransigent board members with friendlier ones, though in practice, it rarely gets that far. If a tender offer looks likely to succeed, reluctant boards tend to capitulate and negotiate a deal.

Mr. Musk would, with some regulatory paperwork, announce the offer at a specific price. The offer has to remain on the table for at least 20 days.

Those documents would lay out the number of shares he is soliciting. If Mr. Musk, who owns more than 9% of Twitter, takes a bare-bones approach, he would seek another 41% or so.

Meanwhile, Twitter would have 10 days to make its own recommendation to shareholders regarding the tender offer—in this case, presumably that it doesn’t accept it.

If not enough shares are tendered, Mr. Musk could cancel the offer or amend the terms.

The New York Post has details on the ideological opposition:

[…] “After backing out of an agreement to take a seat on the board, Musk is threatening to cut board salaries to zero, a move he says will save the company nearly $3 million a year. Each non-employee board member earned $225,000 in stock in 2021, according to Twitter’s public filings. Directors, with the exception of Dorsey and his co-founder, CEO Parang Agrawal, also received $12,500 in cash, plus extra fees, ranging from $2,500 to $7,500, for serving on various board committees.

So who are these Twitter board members fighting Musk’s hostile bid? Twitter — which has come under fire for censorship, in part for banning the New York Post’s coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop — is filled with a motley mix of tech vets, retail gurus, academics, philanthropists and former government officials.” (read more)

Do you remember that weird dynamic when President Trump was dealing with North Korea and Kim Jong-un while at the same time having to pretend publicly that Beijing (Chairman Xi Jinping) wasn’t in control of Chairman Kim?   There are some similarities here with Elon Musk.

Musk likely has some of the best tech people in the world working for him and advising him.  He has to know that Twitter is only operationally viable insofar as the twitter simultaneous user processing systems remain on the backbone of U.S. government big data architecture.  Twitter most definitely is not financially stable as a business without govt data-processing subsidy; it’s just too costly and the Twitter service is free for most users.

If you accept that Musk is well aware of the cost issue, then he has to have some plan to deal with it – via at least a vision down the road where Twitter is financially viable – or, he’s going to end up needing the same data processing subsidy from the govt, which would inevitably maintain the same ideological underpinning he is trying to remove.

Assuming Musk is legit in his motives, his only leverage in this game of pretend and conquest, is knowing both the provider (govt) and recipient of the subsidy (Jack) do not want the full scope of the public-private partnership exposed.

I have no idea how this is going to end, but we can all see the Deep State is going bananas.

Apr 21 2022

Former Intel Officials Want Efforts to Break Up Big Tech Stopped – Data Control and Retention of Social Media Partnership Is a National Security Imperative


Posted Originally on the conservative tree house on April 20, 2022 | Sundance

Put this in the tab labeled ‘conclusive proof of prior suspicions.’

Former Obama era intelligence officials, those who helped construct, organize and assemble the public-private partnership between intelligence data networks and supported social media companies, have written a letter to congress warning that any effort to break up Big Tech (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google, Microsoft, etc.) would be catastrophic for the national security system they have created.

[READ LETTER HERE]

Citing the information control mechanisms they assembled, vis-a-vis the ability of social media networks to control and approve what is available for the public to read and review, the intelligence officials declare that any effort to break up the private side of the intel/tech partnership will only result in less ability of the intelligence apparatus to control public opinion.

They willfully admit that open and uncensored information is adverse to the interests of the intelligence state and therefore too dangerous to permit.   They specifically argue, if the modern system created by the partnership between the U.S. government and Big Tech is not retained, the national security of the United States is compromised.  Let that sink in for a moment.

One of their reference citations revolves around Ukraine and the Russia narrative:

“U.S. technology platforms have given the world the chance to see the real story of the Russian military’s horrific human rights abuses in Ukraine, including the atrocities committed in Bucha, and the incredible bravery of the Ukrainian people who continue to stand their ground. Social media platforms are filled with messages of support for Ukraine and fundraising campaigns to help Ukrainian refugees.” (Paragraph 2, Letter)

Keep in mind the “Bucha” narrative is widely disputed by people who have reviewed the western government/media evidence.

There is equal evidence the Bucha narrative was a western intelligence operation, created to give a false impression and generate public support for advanced military operations in Ukraine.

Seeing this public relations effort using the Bucha story as evidence to support their goal of keeping Big Tech isolated from legislative review, only lends more credence to suspicions the Bucha events were a U.S. led intelligence operation (false flag).

Glenn Greenwald has a good take on the granular details behind their letter:

[…] This is where these former intelligence and national security officials come in. While these former CIA, Homeland Security and Pentagon operatives have little sway in the Senate Judiciary and House Antitrust Committees, they command great loyalty from Congressional national security committees.  Those committees, created to exert oversight of the U.S. intelligence and military agencies, are notoriously captive to the U.S. National Security State.

The ostensible purpose of this new letter is to insist that Big Tech monopoly power is vital to U.S. national security — because it is necessary for them to censor “disinformation” from the internet, especially now with the grave Russian threat reflected by the war in Ukraine — and they thus demand that the anti-Big-Tech bills first be reviewed not only by the Judiciary and Antitrust Committees, but also the national security committees where they wield power and influence”… (read more)

Of course, the Fourth Branch of Government would want to get the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence involved.  The SSCI created all of the mechanisms to facilitate the existence of the Fourth Branch of Government.  However, I would take the issue deeper…. and ask readers to see what really worries the intelligence apparatus about the potential breakup of Big Tech.

These are the intelligence people who constructed the model for Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop.

This public-private partnership between the cyber division of the intelligence apparatus and Big Tech social media is where the free coffee comes from.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and even Google itself, are financially and operationally dependent on the scale of the data processing system that is run by the U.S. government.  The capacity of each of the big social media companies to exist, operate and be financially viable, is dependent on the backbone of interconnected data networking, and massive data processing.

The scale of simultaneous user data-processing is not financially viable without the U.S government subsidizing it.  That’s the free coffee that cannot be duplicated in the private sector by any competing social media company.  That’s the cost and scale system behind the partnership that permits Big Tech to operate.   Ultimately, this is what the intelligence apparatus needs to keep hidden from the American (and global) public.

The biggest of the Big DATA processing is done through a public-private collaboration between Big Tech and Big Government/Intel.

Any private sector entity who attempts to create, or duplicate the scale of social media runs into this cost issue.  It is just too expensive to operate a competing coffee shop without the free coffee.   That’s why the coffee providers are lined up against Elon Musk’s attempt to buy Twitter.

The ramifications of the public discovering Facebook and Twitter social media are only possible with subsidy from government tech architecture are massive.  Essentially, the U.S. government is in control of our social media networking.  That’s the bigger story behind this letter.

These officials are trying to preserve the surveillance system they created.

The public-private partnership is a system for surveillance of the American people through technology.

BACKGROUND – The volume of metadata captured by the NSA has always been a problem because of the filters needed to make the targeting useful. There is a lot of noise in collecting all data that makes the parts you really want to identify more difficult to capture. This admission, along with the admission of collaboration from 2021, puts a social media filtration system in the metadata that circumvents any privacy protections for individuals.

Previously, the Intelligence Branch worked around the constitutional and unlawful search issue by using resources that were not in the United States. A domestic U.S. agency, working on behalf of the U.S. government, cannot listen on your calls without a warrant. However, if the U.S. agency sub-contracts to say a Canadian group, or foreign ally, the privacy invasion is no longer legally restricted by U.S. law.

What was announced in June 2021 was an admission of a relationship with Big Tech along with open intent to define their domestic political opposition as extremists.

July 26, 2021, (Reuters) – A counterterrorism organization formed by some of the biggest U.S. tech companies including Facebook (FB.O) and Microsoft (MSFT.O) is significantly expanding the types of extremist content shared between firms in a key database, aiming to crack down on material from white supremacists and far-right militias, the group told Reuters.

Until now, the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism’s (GIFCT) database has focused on videos and images from terrorist groups on a United Nations list and so has largely consisted of content from Islamist extremist organizations such as Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Over the next few months, the group will add attacker manifestos – often shared by sympathizers after white supremacist violence – and other publications and links flagged by U.N. initiative Tech Against Terrorism. It will use lists from intelligence-sharing group Five Eyes, adding URLs and PDFs from more groups, including the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters and neo-Nazis.

The firms, which include Twitter (TWTR.N) and Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) YouTube, share “hashes,” unique numerical representations of original pieces of content that have been removed from their services. Other platforms use these to identify the same content on their own sites in order to review or remove it. (read more)

The influence of the Intelligence Branch now reaches into our lives, our personal lives through their efforts in social media.

In the decades before 9/11/01 the intelligence apparatus intersected with government, influenced government, and undoubtedly controlled many institutions with it.  Back then, the legislative oversight function was weak and growing weaker, but it still existed and could have been used to keep the IC in check. However, after the events of 9/11/01, the short-sighted legislative reactions opened the door to allow the surveillance state to weaponize.

After the Patriot Act was triggered, not coincidentally only six weeks after 9/11, a slow and dangerous fuse was lit that ends with the intelligence apparatus being granted a massive amount of power. The problem with assembled power is always what happens when a Machiavellian network takes control over that power and begins the process to weaponize the tools for their own malicious benefit. That is exactly what the installation of Barack Obama was all about.

The Obama era intelligence team took pre-assembled intelligence weapons we should never have allowed to be created and turned those weapons into tools for radical, political and fundamental change.  The target was the essential fabric of our nation. Ultimately, this corrupt political process gave power to create the Fourth Branch of Government, the Intelligence Branch.  From that perspective, the fundamental change was successful.

…It’s all Connected Folks, SEE HERE

[…] “The vision was first outlined in the Intelligence Community Information Technology Enterprise plan championed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and IC Chief Information Officer Al Tarasiuk almost three years ago.” … “It is difficult to underestimate the cloud contract’s importance. In a recent public appearance, CIA Chief Information Officer Douglas Wolfe called it “one of the most important technology procurements in recent history,” with ramifications far outside the realm of technology.” (READ MORE)

One job…. “take the preexisting system and retool it so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum.”

References:

Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop – HERE

The Fourth Branch of Government – HERE

Apr 20 2022

Biden Distributing Another $800 Million to Ukraine, Still Nothing for U.S. Border Crisis


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 19, 2022 | sundance 

According to multiple media outlets [CNN here – Reuters here] Joe Biden is sending another $800 million in weapons to Ukraine.  This is the third delivery of U.S. military hardware bringing the total weapons deliveries to $3.4 billion since late February.  Congress has allocated $14 billion for the laundry operation, which *may* include authorization for much of this current distribution.

In the last several days the Russian military have been posting on their ground reports, about the capture of many millions in U.S. weapons as the Russian army moves more forcefully and methodically to secure the Eastern Ukraine Donbas region.

While western media talks about an ongoing battle for the Russia-Ukraine city of Mariupol, the reality is the remaining Ukraine regiment in the city is now located in a steel factory where they took civilians to provide cover.  The Russians have given them a deadline to surrender.

At this point Mariupol is a western media talking point, a created Alamo narrative, about to disappear.

(VIA CNN) – The US is prepping another $800 million military assistance package for Ukraine, according to three senior administration officials and two sources familiar with the planning.

Details of the latest package are still being privately discussed and could change, but earlier Tuesday, President Joe Biden said the US plans to send more artillery to Ukraine.

Upon arrival in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Biden was asked by reporters on the tarmac if he plans to send more artillery to Ukraine. Biden told reporters, “Yes,” before boarding his motorcade. (read more)

The logistic problem for the NATO alliance (mostly being run by covert – not so covert – U.S. forces on the ground in Ukraine) is how to get heavy weapons from Western Ukraine to the battleground in Eastern Ukraine, without having them intercepted or destroyed by Russian air forces en route.

The Russians are essentially playing whac-a-mole with U.S. weapons convoys along the route.

Apr 20 2022

Biden Administration Unsure if They Will Challenge Court Ruling Overturning Federal Mask Mandate


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 19, 2022 | sundance

Obviously, the office of White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain is urgently contacting pollsters to measure how the base of the party would feel if the administration did not challenge the federal court ruling that overturned the federal mask mandate for transportation.

The far-left is on its heels after a Tampa judge overturned the CDC’s legal framework for the mask mandate rule, and the TSA changed their guidance.  Most of the Biden support base, the Covidians, define themselves through the virtue signaling of wearing a mask. However, all of the airlines quickly abandoned rules for masks during travel, and the overwhelming majority of Americans cheered.

Now, the Biden DOJ finds themselves in a hot political place.  Biden is stuck between the mentally and emotionally unstable Covidians (10%) and the normal Americans (90%).  If the DOJ doesn’t challenge the ruling, the Covidians will be even more mad. [Psaki Transcript Here]

(WASHINGTON DC) – […]  White House press secretary Jen Psaki, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route to New Hampshire, said the Justice Department was still reviewing the ruling and noted that these reviews typically take a few days. She pointed out that the CDC had said previously it needed 15 days to evaluate public health data related to the mask mandate.

“Public health decisions shouldn’t be made by the courts. They should be made by public health experts,” Ms. Psaki said.

Republicans and some Democrats praised Monday’s ruling by the judge, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, a Republican. “It’s about time,” said Rep. Sam Graves, the top Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “This hypocritical and overreaching mandate was never about health or science.” (read more)

Arriving in New Hampshire today, Biden was asked what should travelers do about wearing masks?   Biden said, “It’s up to them”.