Category U. S. WOKE Culture

Apr 23 2022

The Ivermectin Wars Intensify as States Want Access Over the Counter and a Medical Freedom March Commences This Weekend


TrialSite Staff | Quality Journalism Jan. 21, 2022

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.

Background

In a recent interview DR. PAUL MARIK | NEW HAMPSHIRE IVERMECTIN BILL – Good News | 45 | Data Matter (tvwfc.co.uk) with the conservative media platform America’s Voice Network, Marik shared his opinions on pending legislation, the importance of repurposed therapeutics, and who he thinks has been involved in the attack on ivermectin as an off-label treatment option.

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.

Just weeks after that meeting the NIH changes its ivermectin recommendation.

 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.

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

President Obama Emphasizes the Importance of the Public-Private Partnership Controlling and Labeling Information


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

April 21, 2022 | Sundance | 2 Comments

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.

This happened just yesterday, there are NO coincidences.

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 22 2022

CNN Subscriber Platform Will Shut Down April 30th


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

Keep in mind…. a more assertive, deliberate, strategic and determined MAGA movement is being noticed everywhere.  There are new combat rules in response to the leftist onslaught toward our children.  Cold anger has turned hot.  Some have called this ‘Dark MAGA‘!

Meanwhile…

Leftist favorite Netflix, is hemorrhaging users and just lost 30% of its value.  Spotify just refused to renew the leftist idols, the Obamas.  The ultra-leftist Disney Corp just lost their special district status in Orlando, and leftist Twitter is on the verge of a hostile ‘free speech’ takeover by Elon Musk.

The political culture wars are raging, Biden’s support amid the American people is collapsing even more, and Dark MAGA is not relenting.  Now this:

(SOURCE)

CNN spent $300 million to launch a subscriber-based platform that didn’t even survive a month:

“CNN+, the streaming service that was hyped as one of the most significant developments in the history of CNN, will shut down on April 30, just one month after it launched. CNN+ customers “will receive prorated refunds of subscription fees,” the company said.”

Apr 22 2022

Secretary Yellen Notes the Sanctions Against Russia Backfiring Against the EU Via Unsustainably Higher Prices


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

There comes a time when ideology runs headfirst into the monolith of unwavering reality.  Today, during a press briefing as a part of the IMF World Bank Meetings [TRANSCRIPT HERE], Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was forced to admit the sanctions against Russia have hurt the EU more than Vladimir Putin and the Russian economy.

Secretary Yellen was asked about the need for increased western government bans against Russian exports.

Yellen was faced with the discomfort of admitting the global market is still open to receiving Russian products, specifically oil and gas, and that banning the EU from receiving those products only drives the EU prices higher, which has already led to unsustainable inflation.

Key Segment:

…”Europe clearly needs to reduce its dependence on Russia with respect to energy. But we need to be careful when we think about a complete European ban on say oil imports. We want to harm Russia – that would clearly raise global oil prices would have a damaging impact on Europe and other parts of the world. And counterintuitively it could actually have very little negative impact on Russia because although Russia might export less, its price for its exports would go up.”

The EU is already experiencing massive energy price increases.  Yesterday, Germany announced manufacturing price increases of more than 30% following increased energy costs exceeding 80%.  The current western government sanctions against Russia are hitting the EU economy harder than they are hurting Russia as alternative customers (India, China) for Russian energy exports are still purchasing.

In essence, the EU has partly removed themselves as a customer, but the seller, Russia, is still selling; only now they are getting higher prices because the EU and U.S. are disrupting oil and energy production in an effort to chase their climate change goals.

Putin’s Ukraine timing, to coincide with the progressive west trying to limit oil/gas development, was perfect.   The citizens of the nations, who are participating in the sanctions against Russia, are seeing higher energy inflation.   Ultimately this is going to lead to massive food inflation and overlay the increased costs of farming production via fertilizer, and, well, support for more sanctions against Russia only makes things worse.

WASHINGTON – […] “Despite wide-ranging sanctions on the Russian government financial sector and the mass exodus of dozens of businesses, Russia has been able to limit the economic damage thanks to a steady stream of oil and gas revenue. But the U.S. has resisted pushing Europe to ban Russian energy imports despite growing pressure from lawmakers in both parties and the pleas of Ukrainian government officials.

“Proceeds from sales of oil and gas are an important source of income for Russia. It would be very useful to try to devise a way to reduce Russia’s proceeds from those sales,” Yellen said.

“That really is the proper objective of a ban. But if we could figure out a way to do that without harming the entire globe through higher energy prices, that would be ideal. And that’s a matter that we’re all trying to think through together,” she continued. (read more)

Apr 21 2022

Fannie Mae Forecasts “Modest Recession” in 2023


Armstrong Economics Blog/Economics Re-Posted Apr 21, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Fannie Mae forecasts a “modest recession in the latter half of 2023” and believes the house-buying frenzy will begin to cool in the US. The Federal Reserve’s hawkish direction to curb inflation has led the agency to believe that a “soft landing” for the US economy is unlikely.

“With the most recent inflation readings at levels not seen since the early 1980s and wage growth exceeding that which is consistent with a 2-percent inflation objective, we believe the odds of a soft landing are even lower. Returning to the Fed’s policy target, therefore, likely necessitates economic growth slowing sufficiently to lead to a rise in the unemployment rate, which would cool wage and price pressures.”

Naturally, they see mortgage rates rising. Home sales for 2022 are now predicted to decline 7.4% compared to their initial forecast of 4.1%, while sales in 2023 are expected to decrease by 9.7% (initial projection: 2.7% decline). Adjusted for inflation, Fannie Mae sees house price growth approaching 0% by the end of next year.

Mortgage credit is not a factor as it was during the Great Recession and the checks and balances are in place after the 2008 scare. New construction is also expected to help with the “eventual recovery” as there is a lower inventory relative to demographic demand. Mortgage rates are now hovering around 5% after rising 1.95 percentage points since the December low. A similar spike in mortgage rates occurred in 2013 and 2018 and led to a downturn in home sales.

Interestingly, Fannie Mae has specified that the coming “modest recession” is “COVID-driven” and even admitted that the business cycle is at play:

“We have previously posited that the current business cycle would likely be shorter than those of the past few decades. GDP growth surged in 2021 after the relaxation of many COVID restrictions – also supported by historic income transfers and monetary policy easing – which led to a swift recovery but also planted the seeds of inflation. Therefore, despite only two years having passed since the COVID-driven recession of 2020, the economy has already moved into what could be described as the mature stage of the business cycle. Specifically, the unemployment rate is below the “full employment” level, inflation is accelerating as growth slows, and the Federal Reserve is beginning to tighten policy. These conditions typically mark the beginning of the end of an economic expansion.”

Apr 21 2022

Global Digital Identity of Persons and Objects


Armstrong Economics Blog/AI Computers Re-Posted Apr 21, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Economic Forum (WEF) recently published a report that encourages the use of a global digital identity program for persons and objects. The report centers on global trade but is the first step toward introducing global AI tracking. Under the guise of COVID, the two organizations claim that trade can be streamlined with their TradeTech technology.

Their recent report, “The Promise of TradeTech: Policy Approaches to Harness Trade Digitalization,” states their next goal:

“End-to-end trade digitalization requires a global approach to digital identities of natural and legal persons as well as of physical and digital objects sending or receiving electronic information to avoid creating digital identity silos.”

The only reason to trace persons as if they were objects is control. They first attempted to control the masses using the pretense of a pandemic to implement digital vaccine passports, but now they need stronger backing. Schwab’s Great Reset infiltrated governments globally, and they are indeed making decisions to smolder the world economy — Bring Back Better.

Now that the global economy is on the decline, these organizations promise to improve the living standard with the caveat of accepting their version of Utopia and agreeing to be tracked as an object

Apr 21 2022

Does Zuckerberg Belong in Prison?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Apr 21, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

We cannot even donate $10,000 to a political candidate, but if you are Mark Zuckerberg, you can help to manipulate elections. He was able to prevent the break up of his company by pouring hundreds of millions into the election and then blamed Russia for buying advertisements on Facebook during the 2016 election. Mark Zuckerberg dumped more than $400 million into manipulating the 2020 presidential election where the money was typically funneled by Democratic operatives. These were often areas where there was voter canvassing in the get-out-the-vote effort for Biden.

The deep concern here is that the DOJ will NOT investigate Zuckerberg but when the Republicans get back in, Zuckerberg could find himself in prison for interfering in the election where the districts targeted were far too often voting in excess of the normal trend. It has been acknowledged already that private funds were distributed on a truly historical level. I, for one, will NEVER advertise anything on Facebook.

When a public company allows itself to be a political activist, which ONLY reflects the decisions of the board, as Disney is doing in its feud with Florida, then this is an abuse of its fiduciary duty to shareholders when the company is being usurped for personal political agendas. Another one is Salesforce pushing Schwab’s Great Reset.

These companies are violating the very principle of shareholder investment. If I went public and then used company money and policy for a personal objective or gain, that is considered fraud. Merely the fact that such an objective is politics makes no difference – it is using corporate funds for personal gain.

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