Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” shares some of the best motivational moments and prescient warnings from Jordan Peterson’s previous appearances on this special “best of” episode. In addition to accurate warnings about Bill C-16 and vaccination regret, Jordan discusses his Cathy Newman interview with Ben Shapiro, what everyone’s first agenda should always be, how to not fall prey to envy, the psychological profiles of liberals versus conservatives, and much more!
Is the state of US news driving you crazy? Does the coverage of political news rarely seem “fair and balanced”? Serious discussions on US politics is vital to having a healthy democracy. No matter what political party you belong to, we need to be able to hear a variety of political perspectives. Whether you majored in political science or just want to have a deeper understanding of the issues you’ll want to check out this playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEbhOtC9klbCr0iN2ANJbaV477B0eSpc6
Looking for smart and honest conversations about current events, political news and the culture war? Want to increase your critical thinking by listening to different perspectives on a variety of topics? If so, then you’re in the right place because on The Rubin Report Dave Rubin engages the ideas of some of society’s most interesting thought leaders, authors, politicians and comedians. The Rubin Report is the largest talk show about free speech and big ideas on YouTube. Dave allows his guests to speak their minds and his audience to think for themselves. New videos every week.
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.”
TrialSite recently shared that a handful of states have proposed bills to ensure ivermectin is available to treat COVID-19 via a legitimate physician’s prescription. Those states include Indiana, Kansas, and New Hampshire. Recently, a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin, Dr. Paul Marik, one of the co-founders of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), discussed the pending New Hampshire ivermectin legislation with conservative news platform, America’s Voice Network.
Marik, board certified in Internal Medicine, Critical Care Medicine, Neurocritical Care, and Nutrition Science, is a key opinion leader who has worked in numerous hospitals and health systems from South Africa, UK, and of course, the United States where he is most recently affiliated with Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) as well as other medical institutions. Not a stranger to controversy, or for that matter, pushing the comfort boundaries of the medical establishment, Marik isn’t a lightweight, with over 400 peer-reviewed journal articles, 50 book chapters, and author credits for four critical care books.
Recently, he filed a lawsuit against his hospital over the institution’s ban on various therapies including ivermectin, which happens to be a core therapy in his and his colleagues MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19. He and colleagues such as Dr. Pierre Kory experienced what they declare is censorship, as key journals had reviewed and accepted manuscripts, such as with the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, only to see the approvals retracted. Physicians such as those affiliated with the FLCCC represent prominent figures at this weekend’s medical freedom march.
The alternative media reporter, Heather Mullins, shared that New Hampshire’s bill is now “sponsored” and must still “go through some hurdles to get passed,” but if done so will “essentially make ivermectin available over the counter.” According to the TrialSite report, the proposed bill would authorize access at the pharmacy via a “standing order” which generally indicates authorization for nurses, pharmacists, and other appropriately credentialed health care professionals that if directed by state law, empowers the direct care and admonition of a vaccine or therapy (in this case ivermectin) based on an approved medical doctor-based approved protocol.
TrialSite didn’t report that Paul Marik testified for the proposed bill in New Hampshire. Mullins reports that Marik and other front-line physicians have been on the record that if ivermectin had been allowed for use as an early at-home prophylactic treatment targeting COVID-19, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved.
The Interview
Prior to the testimony in New Hampshire, Dr. Marik shared that 3.7 billion doses of ivermectin have been administered around the world, “changing the face of parasitic diseases on this planet.” Marik declared that ivermectin “is probably the second most important drug ever invented” [the drug’s inventors did win a Nobel Prize and the drug is on the World Health Organization Essential Drug List].
Declaring that the drug is cheap, safe, and “highly effective against SARS-CoV-2, and if used more widely this drug could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.”
Referring to its use in many other countries, the critical care physician went on the record that it’s a “lifesaving drug.”
Why the pushback against ivermectin? Marik, now somewhat liberated given he isn’t dependent on his employer Sentara, let loose declaring, “There are multiple reasons, and this is probably generated by Big Pharma, government, and big corporations who don’t like cheap repurposed drugs.” He continued, “So this is a war on cheap, repurposed drugs.” Emphasizing the goals of ivermectin’s adversaries, Marik stated, “They want you to use expensive designer drugs which in fact don’t work.”
In clarifying his understanding of the New Hampshire bill, Marik declared it is proposing to make ivermectin available over the counter [again via standing order] and according to the critical care doctor, it makes sense given the drug’s safety profile— “the drug is safer than Tylenol,” stated Marik. Repeating again the drug’s safety profile makes it safer than Tylenol, he went on the record “People should be given access to this drug in order to prevent and treat COVID.”
Marik espoused the critical FLCCC view that early treatment for COVID-19 absolutely represents a critical care strategy: simply waiting at home for a symptomatic phase, prompting a trip to the hospital raises significant danger for severe disease and worse.
The Controversy
According to Heather Mullins’ report, there has been a coordinated effort to censor the robust data pointing to at least some ivermectin-based efficacy around the world. Ivermectin study watchers often point to the website which tracks all ivermectin studies in a clean, orderly series of tables and graphs. While the majority of the 75 completed studies point to positive data points, the mainstream media and medical establishments in North America, Europe, and Australia have limited the number of studies within the research portfolio that they even acknowledge to just a handful. The others? These studies are dismissed because of bad quality.
A couple of prominent studies showed no benefit, yet, at least one of them became surrounded with controversy and allegations among some industry watchers of conflict of interest. TrialSite notes this hasn’t been proven, and one study in Egypt that was part of a couple of meta-analysis studies turned out to have manipulated data. Yet even with the questionable Egyptian study, TrialSite’s Sonia Elijah’s investigation raised some disturbing questions in “How Ivermectin became a Target for the Fraud Detectives.”
TrialSite has chronicled ivermectin studies all over the world, including the ICON study done in Broward County early on during the pandemic. Of course, this study wasn’t a randomized controlled trial, thus limiting its impact. Interviews with the head of the largest hospital in the Dominican Republic as well as a well-respected investigator in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and interactions with doctors in Nigeria, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and India found positive data points. TrialSite even sponsored an objective documentary in Peru, one of the first nations to accept the use of the drug for the novel coronavirus.
After numerous interviews, study write-ups, and real-world observations, the case for ivermectin should be taken seriously. The U.S. National Institute of Health is financing an ivermectin-based study called ACTIV-6, while the University of Minnesota led one of the largest ongoing ivermectin studies called COVID-OUT.
The drug does have a proven safety profile at doses currently approved for parasitic indications. However, claims that higher dosages are just as safe as Tylenol might be a stretch—rather that claim would be associated with currently approved indications. Yet, it’s not a stretch to declare the drug is generally safe if taken off-label under the guidance of a licensed, competent physician.
The FDA’s behavior during this pandemic in association with ivermectin has been questionable, to say the least. Issuing warnings to the public not to use the animal variety of the drug, they emphasized that for the human version, it should be used only in clinical trials. TrialSite’s Sonia Elijah’s piece on obtaining FDA emails suggested the possibility of some form of disinformation campaign emanating from the world’s most respected food and drug regulatory body—an activity, if true, is beneath this organization.
FDA letters to medical and pharmacy boards and medical societies have led to considerable pressure on doctors employed by health systems and pharmacies not to allow ivermectin prescriptions off-label for COVID-19. In addition to a survey substantiating this trend, TrialSite chronicles plenty of instances evidencing efforts to block access. The TrialSite survey evidenced the effectiveness of an ongoing purge.
While there has been much controversy following the drug, Marik, Kory, and others actually visited the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel to discuss the evidence of efficacy against SARS-Cov-2 in early 2021.
from use only in clinical trials to the following recommendation:
There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.
Yet if the drug is generally safe and a licensed physician along with an appropriately consenting patient agree to an off-label regimen, why would this vary from other standard off-label use cases that no one makes a fuss about? What is it about COVID? TrialSite has observed based on the severity and intensity of the pandemic, more federal involvement, and intervention in healthcare. Concerns of ivermectin took off when government, industry, and regulators discovered that prescriptions skyrocketed from 3,000 per week pre-pandemic to nearly 90,000 per week during the second year of the pandemic.
TrialSite recently reported on a study led by a University of Michigan doctor showing that at least $130 million in insurance claims for the drug treating COVID-19 in 2021—that figure is probably more than double when counting all the cash-based prescriptions.
Call to Action: What are your thoughts? Is the federal government simply trying to protect people by blocking access to ivermectin or is this part of some regulatory capture movement? Does this mean industry’s interest supersedes patients? Perhaps, the truth is more nuanced. While this TrialSite fact check on the fact checkers (Ivermectin) could be updated, its core arguments are sound.
TrialSite recently shared that a handful of states have proposed bills to ensure ivermectin is available to treat COVID-19 via a legitimate physician’s prescription. Those states include Indiana, Kansas, and New Hampshire. Recently, a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin, Dr. Paul Marik, one of the co-founders of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), discussed the pending New Hampshire ivermectin legislation with conservative news platform, America’s Voice Network.
Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks about Joe Biden’s approval ratings collapse, Bill Maher telling Joe Rogan what might make him vote Republican, Airlines CEOs pushing back against the airline mask mandate, and Jen Psaki’s mean comment about Peter Doocy. First, Dave discusses how inflation is fueling Biden’s low approval rating as it collapses to new lows. NBC News’ Chuck Todd reveals a very bad sign for the Democratic party as Biden’s ratings have fallen the most among Gen Z. Meanwhile, Biden advisors like Dr. Ashish Jha remains focused on ensuring that the pandemic will never end. Next, Bill Maher told Joe Rogan that what might tip him over to voting Republican is the amount of political corruption and political graft. He points to the corruption of COVID spending and wonders why Build Back Better would be any different. Is Bill finally turning Republican? Next, airline CEOs like Delta’s Ed Bastian are pushing back against Biden’s flight mask mandates. Following the ruling of a U.S. district court judge on Monday, the Biden administration announced that the Transportation Security Administration will no longer enforce the federal mandate requiring masks in all U.S. airports and on board aircraft. Delta was quick to tell its employees and customers that masks are now optional for everyone on Delta flights. Finally, press secretary Jen Psaki was asked for real thoughts on Fox News’ Peter Doocy to which she gave a surprisingly mean response.
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.
Disney lost its battle in the Florida House after legislation was passed to remove its special district permissions. The Reedy Creek Improvement Districtwas 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.
Lindsey Graham is at it again. He is one of the leading Neocons who has supported the Ukrainian Neonatzis and the war against Russians. Now he pulled off a surprise visit to Taiwan playing the very same game promising US support for a war against China should they invade. This came precisely during the week of April 18th which our computer warned would be an important geopolitical event. This insanity is just beyond belief.
I have no explanation why Graham is so intent on creating World War III. He is forcing China and Russia to combine forces and our model shows that this new alliance will not be alone. Much of the Middle East will join for they see Israel and in bed with the USA and the Zelensky is playing the Jewish Hero. This has divided the Middle East and while Europe is pledging an oil embargo against Russia, my sources in the Middle East are saying they WILL NOT fill the gap for Europe.
Shanghai lockdown will have a profound impact further creating shortages that will push inflation higher. This may recall being the objective given the obstinance of the US policy toward Russia. Shanghai officials said they would lift the lockdown only in batches once virus transmission outside quarantined areas was stamped out. There is no massive wave of deaths and it could very well prove to be a new strategy to combat American sanctions.
In the background of politics and government interests, there has been a visible shadow discussion barely visible behind the opaque glass door. Today, that door opened, and Barack Obama stepped out and delivered a speech. Now we get significant clarity on the movements CTH has been warning about.
It absolutely does not come as a coincidence that former President Obama delivered THAT speech today about misinformation and disinformation amid the intelligence community effort to control information and social media. The timing tells a story, specifically the timing just a day after former Obama administration intelligence officials wrote a letter {SEE HERE} warning about efforts to break up the information control by Big Tech and Social Media.
The intelligence apparatus does not want the public-private partnership between government and big tech social media, that they created during Obama’s term, interfered with. President Obama steps forth to put an exclamation point in place by saying the public-private partnership must control information. WATCH:
I cannot emphasize enough, how close this collective demand is to a similar construct in Orwell’s 1984 prediction of “The Ministry of Truth.” Indeed, if you follow the need for government control to its logical conclusion, these demands by the U.S. administrative state architects are identical.
I also pray readers can see this for what it is. THIS is exactly what CTH was warning about when the shadows were moving feverously in the past several weeks {GO DEEP}. The catchphrases “disinformation”, “misinformation” and “malinformation” are being specifically cited by President Obama in that speech. Where did that lingo come from? THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY {SEE HERE}
Of all the critical issues we must understand, share and keep focus on, the issues surrounding the free flow of information are the most critical.
Free speech, social media platforming, user bans, censorship, demonetization, financial targeting of Canadian truckers, Elon Musk attempting to purchase Twitter, our ability to communicate, the culture war, the digital identity issue; heck, even you being able to read this, all of it surrounds the central component of information.
This is the big war. Controlling, labeling, emphasizing, downplaying, removing, information; everything else is downstream from this fight.
While President Obama talks about the dangers of misinformation and disinformation, it was only a week ago when the White House officially admitted to creating misinformation, disinformation and malinformation as part of their strategic campaign against Russia in Ukraine. NBC news gleefully embraced the strategy {SEE HERE}.
The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has an official agency mission {SEE HERE} to “help the American people understand the scope and scale of Mal, Dis, and Misinformation activities,” and Google/DuckDuckGo/Big Tech have officially aligned with both U.S. government interests, promising to target, remove and penalize any entity engaged in Mal, Dis and Misinformation activities.
Putting aside the creation of lies, to advance a strategic geopolitical objective, the bigger admission in the U.S. government statements is that much of the information coming to the American public – from them – is manufactured, false, fabricated and wrong.
Simultaneous to this admission of manufactured lies, the platforms of Big Tech and social media are saying they will target, remove and block any content that contradicts the official government position.
In the case of Google, the dominating search engine for information over the internet, they state it is an infraction against their policy to espouse a claim “that contradicts official government records.” Yet, the U.S. government is officially admitting the information they are creating for the government records, is self-admittedly false….. and now in comes DuckDuckGo with the assist.
Not wanting to overinflate the CTH position, but this now admitted reality is exactly why we have taken the following position.
…”There is no such thing as “disinformation” or “misinformation”. There is only information you accept and information you do not accept. You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”…
There are only two elements within the public discussion of information, truth and not truth.
In an era filled with “fact-checkers” and institutional guardians at the gates of Big Tech, let me explain exactly why it is important not to accept the speech rules of the guards.
When you accept the terms “disinformation”, “misinformation” or the newest lingo, “malinformation,” you are beginning to categorize truth and lies in various shades. You are merging black and white, right and wrong, into various shades of grey.
When your mind works in the grey zone, you are, by direct and factual consequence, saying there is a problem. You are correct, however, this is where people may make a mistake. That problem is supposed to be there.
It is not a solution to the problem to try and remove the grey simply because it takes too much work to separate the white pixels from the black ones. You were born with a gift, the greatest gift a loving God could provide. You were born with a brain and set of natural instincts that are tools to do this pixel separation, use them.
If you define the grey work as a problem you cannot solve on your own, you open the door for others to solve that problem for you. You begin to abdicate the work, and that’s when trouble can enter. The sliding scale of Pinocchios is one of the most familiar yet goofy outcomes.
Put more clearly, when you accept the terminology “disinformation”, you accept a problem. The problem is then the tool by which authorities will step in to make judgements. Speech, in its most consequential form, is then qualified by others to whom you have sub-contracted your thinking.
When you willingly sub-contract information filters to others, you have lost connection with the raw information. CTH was founded upon the belief that truth has no agenda, nor does it care about you, your feelings, or your opinion of it. It just sits there, empirically existing as evidence of information in its most pure form.
The search for truth, in all things, is the mission objective of this assembly. Often, we don’t like the truth; often, the truth is bitter, cold, challenging and even painful to accept. However, the truth doesn’t care. Information in its most raw form is ambivalent to your opinion. If you struggle to accept these things, that’s when you need grey. The New York Times is not called the “grey lady” accidentally.
Personally, I am an absorber of information – perhaps on a scale that is unusual. But I do not discount information from any form until I can put context to it and see if the information makes sense given all the variables present. When something doesn’t feel right, it’s almost always because it isn’t right.
Often, I find myself struggling in the grey and complex. It is not unusual to spend days researching, digging, clarifying a situation, only to discover the path to finding the truth is in another direction entirely. Erasing everything and starting over is frustrating, but it is genuinely the only approach that works; and often finding truth is supposed to be difficult, that’s why it is rewarding.
In the digital information age, we are bombarded with information. It is easy to be overwhelmed and need to find something or someone who has better skills at separating the black grains from the white ones. All opinions in this quest should be considered; thus, it is important to allow the free flow of information.
I am not necessarily a speech absolutist. There is some language that needs to be constrained if we are to participate in a respectful society, with grandma’s rules and knowing the audience. The CTH has guidelines for comments for this exact reason. However, those constraints need to be based on a set of inherent values. When it comes to information it is important to draw a distinction from speech.
There needs to be an open venue for all information. Unfortunately, when we begin to apply labels or categorization to information, there’s an opportunity for information to be manipulated – even weaponized. Saul Alinsky spent decades pondering the best techniques to weaponize information and speech. Alinsky’s intentions, in the endeavor to change society by changing how language and information was used, were not good. He devoted his completed rulebook book to Lucifer.
Be careful about anyone saying we need to label or categorize information in order to control or remove speech from the discussion.
You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a God-given brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.
Unfortunately, the collectively aligned group of U.S. Govt, the Intelligence Community and now Big Tech, are saying they will put every roadblock they can muster in your way as you attempt to navigate through the misinformation they control.
Team Obama built the system, and now Team Obama are defending the system.
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.
[…] “After backing out of an agreement to take a seaton 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.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 