Tag Archives: Cultural Marxism

May 16 2023

Devin Nunes Gives His First Assessment of Durham Report


May 15, 2023 | Sundance 

Appearing on Newsmax, former Republican Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), Devin Nunes, gives his first assessment of the Durham report as it was released mid-day Monday. {Direct Rumble Link}

Devin Nunes was one of the first people in congress to realize the FBI, DOJ and Obama-era intelligence community were conducting full surveillance of candidate Donald Trump in 2016.  Nunes statements in March 2017 preceded the counter offensive narrative launched by Senator Mark Warner in collaboration with then FBI Director James Comey. WATCH:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has reportedly invited John Durham to testify before the committee May 25th.

May 16 2023

Biden Nominates First Hispanic Woman to Fed Board – Who is She?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Central Banks Re-Posted May 16, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

The headlines praise Biden for nominating the first Latina woman to the Federal Reserve’s board. None of the current headlines list her qualifications, which is a given since this administration favors diversity over experience. I, for one, would like to know more about the people being placed in positions of power since their nationality has no relation to their responsibilities. Yet Sen. Robert Menendez (D, NJ) continually criticized the Fed for not having any Latino members. Let us look into Adriana Kugler, who may become very influential in the financial world.

Kugler, 53, was an executive director for the World Bank. She earned a Bachelor of Arts from McGill University in 1991, graduating with first-class honors in economics and political science. She was awarded her Ph.D. in Economics by the University of California at Berkeley in 1997. She worked as the chief economist for the Labor Department under Obama from September 2011 to January 2013 as well.

A recent article from the Wall Street Journal actually shines some light on Kugler and her policies. The picture they used of her was taken at a World Economic Forum event. She fought for the US government to provide families with $26,400 in funding during the pandemic and proposed three separate pilot programs to raise unemployment benefits. “For every one dollar that we put into the pockets of the unemployed working Americans, two dollars ripple throughout the economy, and it’s actually a win-win—it helps everybody,” she said. Well, that line is troublesome for obvious reasons since inflation should be the top priority for the Fed.

She is a proponent of closing the wage gap and eliminating income inequality. She penned an article about “income redistribution in the form of tax and transfer programs” to offer social insurance for the poor.

“Income redistribution in the form of tax and transfer programs provide social insurance and protection against many types of risks over a person’s lifetime and over his or her career that are not always provided through private insurance. Thus, social insurance in the form of transfer programs—such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program; Medicaid; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps; and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, more commonly referred to as WIC—allows individuals to make decisions that involve higher risk, while at the same time affording them greater mobility than they would otherwise undertake.”

She argues that America needs a “more progressive tax system” in addition to “transfer programs” to redistribute wealth. “[P]rogressive taxation and transfer to the poor is not only the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do,” the new Fed appointee stated.

The World Bank executive is also a big proponent of open immigration policies and climate change initiatives. “It is the biggest existential threat of our time, and I do believe that we need domestic action to go hand in hand with global leadership on climate change,” she claimed.

Biden has also elevated Philip Jefferson to be the Fed’s vice chair, making him the #2 guy at the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve is intended to be separate from the government, but Biden is installing people who openly hold partisan views regarding economics. Kugler supports Biden and the Build Back Better globalists in terms of her views on wealth redistribution, combining climate change with fiscal policy, government aid, increased social programs, and more. But hey, at least she is Hispanic and female.

May 16 2023

U.S. Virgin Islands Issues Subpoena to Elon Musk Questioning Connection to Jeffrey Epstein


May 15, 2023 | Sundance 

People have been gobsmacked by a seemingly 180° change in the ideological outlook of Twitter owner Elon Musk.  The hiring of Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) czar Linda Yaccarino as CEO caught everyone by surprise. {link} A Day later he conceded a free speech position to the government of Turkey, agreeing to silence the political opposition of Recep Erdogan. {link}  Perhaps some clarity can be found in a recent Bloomberg article:

Pay attention to DATES:

(Bloomberg) Elon Musk was issued a subpoena by the US Virgin Islands in its lawsuit accusing JPMorgan Chase & Co. of knowingly benefiting from Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking.

The US territory said in court papers it had reason to believe Epstein may have referred or attempted to refer Musk to JPMorgan as a client. Several other billionaires, including the Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, have also been issued subpoenas by the USVI.

The USVI on Monday asked the judge overseeing the case to authorize alternative means of serving the April 28 subpoena on Musk. The territory said it made good-faith efforts to obtain an address for Musk, including hiring private investigators, but had been unable to locate one. 

[…] The USVI subpoena seeks documents reflecting communications or meetings between Musk and JPMorgan or Musk and Epstein relating to the two men’s accounts at the bank. It also seeks from Musk any documents “regarding Epstein’s involvement in human trafficking” or concerning fees the Tesla CEO paid to Epstein or JPMorgan in connection with his accounts at the bank. (more) 

On April 18, 2023, Elon Musk meets Linda Yaccarino for the first time.

April 26, Elon Musk meets Chuck ‘six-ways-to-sunday’ Schumer.
“We talked about the future,” Musk told reporters after exiting the meeting that lasted about an hour. {link}

April 28, Attorney General of USVI triggers subpoena to Musk about Epstein.

First weeks of May, USVI investigators trying to serve Epstein subpoena on Musk.

May 12, Musk hires DEI advocate Linda Yaccarino as Twitter CEO.

A curious sequence of events that preceded Musk’s recent actions.

All probably just a coincidence.

However, Suspicious Cat remains, well, suspicious…

May 16 2023

John Durham Releases 316 Page Report About FBI, DOJ, Intelligence Community and U.S. Govt Targeting Donald Trump


May 15, 2023 | Sundance 

Special Counsel John Durham has released a highly anticipated 316-page report outlining corrupt U.S. activity during the targeting of presidential candidate, president elect, and subsequent President, Donald J Trump.

[FULL REPORT pdf HERE]

I have completed my first review of the report, and suffice to say the details within it are not new.  The majority of the reaction so far has been centered around how Special Counsel Durham is not prosecuting anyone for their corrupt conduct outlined within the report.  However, for the sake of this first review, I will draw attention to a few aspects you will likely not see discussed anywhere else.

Please note this detail found at the bottom of page 3 and top two lines of page #4:

[…] “The Office exercised its judgment regarding what to investigate but did not investigate every public report of an alleged violation of law in connection with the intelligence and law enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns.”

As perhaps the only person who tracked down and subsequently interviewed the investigators on the Durham team, and as a person who subsequently came away with a full understanding of how the silo operation inside this investigation was going to play out, I can reasonably assure you that notation and reference by team Durham is entirely directed to us.

That statement above tells us why none of the DC politicians who engaged in specific violations of law were criminally charged. This is part of the silo effect within government, which I will explain later.  As a good friend said, “Yeah great, but we don’t have badges.”  So, we went to the badges with the evidence, but the badges did not want to act upon the evidence, because it would have been, in their estimation, too damaging to the framework of our government.

First a positive note about the report.  Unlike all other reports of similar internal investigation, I will give the Durham team credit for not using the ‘executive summary’ of the report to cloud, positively shape or disguise the corruption outlined within the body of the report.  This is the first such report where the executive summary actually summarizes the scale of the corruption within the details.

Perhaps the parting message was considered, “If you are going to whitewash this s**t [ie entire govt operation], at least be intellectually honest with the American people, and not whitewash the investigation in the ‘executive summary’ of it.”  I’m pretty sure that was the exact parting phrase.  It was after that conversation [Aug 2020] when CTH then said, do not anticipate anything from Durham.  Bill Barr was the bondo, John Durham is the spray paint.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfdGltZWxpbmVfbGlzdCI6eyJidWNrZXQiOltdLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2ZvbGxvd2VyX2NvdW50X3N1bnNldCI6eyJidWNrZXQiOnRydWUsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9LCJ0ZndfdHdlZXRfZWRpdF9iYWNrZW5kIjp7ImJ1Y2tldCI6Im9uIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH0sInRmd19yZWZzcmNfc2Vzc2lvbiI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJvbiIsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9LCJ0ZndfZm9zbnJfc29mdF9pbnRlcnZlbnRpb25zX2VuYWJsZWQiOnsiYnVja2V0Ijoib24iLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X21peGVkX21lZGlhXzE1ODk3Ijp7ImJ1Y2tldCI6InRyZWF0bWVudCIsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9LCJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X3Nob3dfYmlyZHdhdGNoX3Bpdm90c19lbmFibGVkIjp7ImJ1Y2tldCI6Im9uIiwidmVyc2lvbiI6bnVsbH0sInRmd19kdXBsaWNhdGVfc2NyaWJlc190b19zZXR0aW5ncyI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJvbiIsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9LCJ0ZndfdXNlX3Byb2ZpbGVfaW1hZ2Vfc2hhcGVfZW5hYmxlZCI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJvbiIsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9LCJ0ZndfdmlkZW9faGxzX2R5bmFtaWNfbWFuaWZlc3RzXzE1MDgyIjp7ImJ1Y2tldCI6InRydWVfYml0cmF0ZSIsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9LCJ0ZndfbGVnYWN5X3RpbWVsaW5lX3N1bnNldCI6eyJidWNrZXQiOnRydWUsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9LCJ0ZndfdHdlZXRfZWRpdF9mcm9udGVuZCI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJvbiIsInZlcnNpb24iOm51bGx9fQ%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1293790806113955840&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2Fblog%2F2023%2F05%2F15%2Fjohn-durham-releases-316-page-report-about-fbi-doj-intelligence-community-and-u-s-govt-targeting-donald-trump%2F&sessionId=8c7c164b4308a5cd8478173bb30093abdc851a18&theme=light&widgetsVersion=aaf4084522e3a%3A1674595607486&width=500px

The “Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns” is a full uncovering of just how politically corrupt the DOJ, FBI and larger Intelligence Community were/are as it relates to the 2016 election.

Team Durham, while not indicting anyone for ancillary crimes – of which there are many – does lay naked the motives and intentions of the people at the top of the FBI, DOJ, CIA and ODNI. The full weight of government was weaponized against Donald Trump and the Durham report lays out all the details.

It is the background of this report that stands as the current motive for those same institutions to remove Donald Trump in 2023. Quite simply, they fear retaliation.

[…] “If this report and the outcome of the Special Counsel’s investigation leave some with the impression that injustices or misconduct have gone unaddressed, it is not because the Office concluded that no such injustices or misconduct occurred. It is, rather, because not every injustice or transgression amounts to a criminal offense, and criminal prosecutors are tasked exclusively with investigating and prosecuting violations of U.S. criminal laws. And even where prosecutors believe a crime occurred based on all of the facts and information they have gathered, it is their duty only to bring criminal charges when the evidence that the government reasonably believes is admissible in court proves the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Page #6]

Durham walks through the missing predicate that initiated the Trump-Russia investigation.  Essentially, as the Durham team noted, there was nothing ever to trigger the authority of the FBI to investigate Donald Trump or his campaign in the first place.

The Obama FBI and DOJ justified full physical and electronic surveillance of their political opposition, through false justifications manufactured by the FBI.  As Durham notes, “Our findings and conclusions regarding these and related questions are sobering.” Really, “sobering”?  Nice choice of understatement.

Everything was predicated on The Big Lie:

[…] As set forth in greater detail in Section IV.A.3 .b, before the initial receipt by FBI Headquarters of information from Australia on July 28, 2016 concerning comments reportedly made in a tavern on May 6, 2016 by George Papadopoulos, an unpaid foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, the government possessed no verified intelligence reflecting that Trump or the Trump campaign was involved in a conspiracy or collaborative relationship with officials of the Russian government. 

Indeed, based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the instant investigation, neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

[…] As set forth in greater detail in Section IV, the record in this matter reflects that upon receipt of unevaluated intelligence information from Australia, the FBI swiftly opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. In particular, at the direction of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok opened Crossfire Hurricane immediately. Strzok, at a minimum, had pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump. The matter was opened as a full investigation without ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information.

Further, the FBI did so without (i) any significant review of its own intelligence databases, (ii) collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence entities, (iii) interviews of witnesses essential to understand the raw information it had received or (iv) using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence.

Had it done so, again as set out in Sections IV.A.3.b and c, the FBI would have learned that their own experienced Russia analysts had no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials, nor were others in sensitive positions at the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of State aware of such evidence concerning the subject.

In addition, FBI records prepared by Strzok in February and March 2017 show that at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had no information in its holdings indicating that at any time during the campaign anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials.

The speed and manner in which the FBI opened and investigated Crossfire Hurricane during the presidential election season based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence also reflected a noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign. [Page 10]

I’ll have more on the substance of the report, as well as share the details of others following their review.  However, in the interim, it is important to understand how the investigative silos, created by DC administrators, impact the investigative outcomes as displayed in this report.

Former FBI Director James Comey is a criminal.  Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe is a criminal. Former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok is a criminal.  Current Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman, Senator Mark Warner, is a criminal.

Any criminal conduct that is discovered by a person who is not the direct victim of the criminal conduct does not penetrate the DC system.  Meaning, just because you can show criminal activity in Washington DC, that doesn’t mean anyone has a responsibility to investigate it.

If the criminal conduct is not identified by the investigators inside the DC system, the criminal conduct essentially does not exist – unless the evidence of criminal conduct in DC, is provided by a specific victim of the crime being reported.

There is a silo effect in place within the DC system that permits the investigative authorities to dismiss claims of institutional or administrative criminal conduct from outside entities, including ‘whistleblowers.’  The DOJ/FBI arbiters of what constitutes crime are the same DOJ/FBI arbiters in charge of protecting the institutional system.

If the DC system is threatened by the conduct of an outside entity, a crime may have been committed.  However, if an agent, operator, official or politician representing the DC system is the one threatening, there is no crime.  The justice system in DC is designed to protect itself.

Holding DC officials accountable for criminal conduct first requires the deconstruction of the silos that protect them.  Deconstructing those silos requires strategy and legislative willpower….

[ Support CTH Efforts Here ]

May 15 2023

Scalia & the Right to Secede


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law Re-Posted May 15, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Marty; There are those who say Scalia was wrong for he claimed the civil war was correct and he changed the meaning of the Second Amendment. You are the real constitutional scholar on these issues. Is there a right to secede by a state? Did Scalia really change the Second Amendment?

Thank you so much for your diverse background.

Kirk

ANSWER: As far as the question of the Civil War, Scalia answered a question for a movie and it was simply a letter and not a court decision that he rendered. Saying that question was decided by the Civil War and that the precedent was that there is no right to secede was not his opinion, but the established law of the Court. Scalia could not respond otherwise for that was in fact the law, right or wrong. The decision of the Court was not Scalia’s. The argument for secession is not nearly as clear-cut as people think. The Supreme Court in 1869 ruled that secession is illegal.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869 where Texas sought to recoup its bond losses. The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. Texas filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court under the Constitutional provision giving the Court original jurisdiction.

The court ruled that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union. The fact that it joined the Confederate States and was at the time under military rule. Therefore, they decided on the merits of the bond issue. That is where the Court held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States. Consequently, that meant that all the acts of the legislatures within the Confederate states were “absolutely null” and void. Hence, that decision was mandatory or the US would have to also honor the bonds of the Confederate States. That is why the 14th Amendment was passed stating that the Confederate states would not question the debt of the North, but there would be no compensation for the debt of the South.

Therefore, those who ridicule Scalia are just typical soap-box lawyers who pretend to know things they do not. Scalia’s response was correct for that was the precedent and we see that the same position is taken in Europe. Once you join, there is no divorce. We see the war in Ukraine is also over the secession of the Donbas. This was the difference between Lenin and Stalin. Lenin believed that the states could secede from the federation and Stalin said no way.

Scalia is correct. The power of the federal government will NEVER acknowledge any right of any state to secede. Scalia said that the Civil War decided that issue which is correct because any secession today would also have to be by force of arms – not in some court.

What people seem to wrongly think is that Justice Antonin Scalia made some ruling on this subject. Scalia was responding to a letter from a screenwriter working on a comedy dealing with secession in 2006. Scalia wrote he could not imagine such a case ever reaching the Supreme Court. Scalia wrote in 2006:

“I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be.  Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment?

But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.”

Scalia said that the last attempt at secession also established a clear precedent.

“If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.” 

Scalia is correct insofar as Texas v White established that there is no right to secede. However, there is no strict construction of the Constitution to support that. Many historians and legal experts also say the Civil War clearly established there is “no right” to secede. However, that was by force of arms – not law! Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution lists acts that states cannot undertake, and secession is not on that list. That was a decision that was biased and necessary at the time to prevent having to pay the debts of the South. The real question is when the United States breaks up, I seriously doubt that it will be a legal case asking permission. I personally believe that the Constitution does NOT prohibit secession. That is simply the self-interest of Washington and thus the only real right will be by force of arms. Anyone who claims otherwise is a toss-up between an idiot and a fool.

As far as Scalia’s decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER back in 2008, his strict construction came shining through. Many people who want to eliminate gun ownership argue that bearing arms was only for a militia that has been supplanted by a standing army and therefore the Second Amendment is no longer valid.

It was Scalia who shot that argument down. He held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the 2nd Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts, and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. That shows what I am talking about with strict construction. The liberal view would have said the right was tied to a militia exclusively. He wrote:

” We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. “

So I do not see where anyone can say that Scalia somehow rewrote the Second Amendment to deny gun rights. All things, including speech, have limits and regulations. It is not free speech to yell fire in a movie theater. Judge Amy Coney Barrett has vowed to follow Scalia. It was Apprendi v New Jersey, the decision championed by Justice Scalia was based upon strict construction. Before then, it was Judges deciding facts – not juries. The denial of a right to a jury trial was common practice in the United States. It was Scalia who change the Judiciary and defended the people. No other judge would protect citizens and finally, Scalia was able to convince others that this was a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Anyone who disparages Scalia must be a leftist who loves government power. Scalia had no problem ruling against the government.

When I got to the Supreme Court, they ordered the government to explain how they were keeping me in prison on civil contempt without a trial indefinitely when the law, 28 USC 1826, said the maximum sentence was 18 months. They were rolling it every 18 months. Only when the Supreme Court ordered the government to respond, then I was released and they told the court the case was “moot” for I was suddenly released. Without Scalia, I would probably have died in prison. He at least stood up for the law and 18 months was one-term, not indefinitely, where the NY judges protect the bankers. Trump will NEVER get a fair trial in NYC. From what I saw with others, nobody gets a fair trial in the Second Circuit or State court. When my case began, my lawyer, Richard Altman, said NYC practices law differently. Boy was that an understatement. Nobody should do business with any bank domiciled in NYC.

May 15 2023

Protect The Kids – Powerful Testimony by Democrat Shawn Thierry Texas Bill to Restrict Gender Modification in Children


May 14, 2023 | Sundance 

Texas State House Representative Shawn Thierry, D-Houston, joined with Republicans to support Senate Bill 14 which would restrict gender modification in children. As a Democrat from the Houston area, Mrs. Thierry came under blistering assault from organized alphabet activists in her decision to support the House version of the Texas bill.

Facing threats, ostracization, ridicule and direct personal attacks against her, Ms. Thierry stood against the rage of the mob and voted to support the bill. Explaining her position, Representative Thierry delivered eloquent and powerful remarks on the issue to the House chamber. WATCH:

.

At times it feels like we are living in a dystopian era well beyond the prescient writing of George Orwell.  Indeed, I think we can all feel the shift that has taken place as the battle between commonly accepted right and wrong has morphed into a spiritual battle between good and evil.

Joe Biden was installed as a one-term disposable Cloward-Piven opportunity for the most destructive elements of political activism.  Every left-wing fantasy operation is now enveloping the United States and tearing at the fabric of the nation.  In this era, any Democrat who stands up for moral values with an intent to protect the children becomes a mortal enemy to the tribe of wicked enterprise.  Shawn Thierry should be appreciated for taking a stand against the raging mob.

TEXAS – Texas is one step closer to banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors who live in the state.

On Friday, the Texas House of Representatives voted to preliminarily advance Senate Bill 14, a measure that would prohibit the administration of puberty blockers and hormone therapy to people under 18 years old who are transitioning.

Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress, told lawmakers from the House floor that he believes gender dysphoria should be treated with counseling rather than gender-affirming care.

“In contrast to experimental medicine and surgery, professional counseling and psychotherapy is a proven alternative that helps children overcome gender dysphoria,” he told lawmakers.

The legislation is one of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s priorities and has already passed the Senate.

Under the Senate version, minors currently on transition-related medical care would have to stop their treatment after the bill goes into effect in September.

The version passed Friday in the Texas House, however, would give transgender minors a period of time to wean off treatment.

Still, trangender-rights advocates say the legislation is hateful and will have a negative effect on the lives of transgender minors.

Sofia Sepulveda, the community engagement and advocacy manager with the LGBTQ advocacy group Equality Texas, said SB 14 is just one of many measures targeting people in the LGBTQ community.

“It feels like every other day there is legislation or there’s a hearing targeting the trans community,” Sepulveda told reporters Friday morning. “We are literally fighting for our lives.”  (read more)

The ideological leftists have gone totally nuts on this issue.

Their activism on the mutilation of children is evil.  These are not issues that can be debated in nuance and soft pastels.

Protect the children.

The mentally ill alphabet people are filled with psychosis.

Where is the Nashville mass murderer’s “Manifesto”?

May 13 2023

Disney Shareholder Dumpster Fire, Bud Light Disaster Spreads | MEitM #403


By Midnight’s Edge Posted ordinally on Rumble on May 12, 2023

May 12 2023

Can Socrates find new solutions to Crises?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Socrates Re-Posted May 12, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Allison Schrager at Bloomberg claimed that AI does a great job finding solutions based on existing rules and information. But it’s less suited for finding novel solutions to new problems. Somehow, this does not seem to apply to Socrates for there are no new problems anyway. Am I correct that Socrates will find new solutions?

GU

ANSWER: Yes, you are correct. However, Socrates has a database that is unprecedented and cost tens of millions of dollars to assemble. It can find solutions that are certainly not mainstream and may appear to be revolutionary but in fact, may have taken place even 2,000 years ago.

Socrates is NOT a Neutral Net. This is something I created from scratch. I put myself into this system. I had to teach Socrates how to analyze. I did not create some open AI and let it develop in some unknown manner. This is not Chat GPT where it is searching the net to come up with answers to what is the name of Lady GaGa’s dog.

Socrates has the largest financial database in the world. It has a money supply recreated from the coinage of thousands of years. It has correlated that with wars and plagues and it makes the connections. It has a database of 6,000 years which is unsurpassable. If I even tried to recreate this at today’s prices, it would be more than $1 billion.

Just on Forex Exchange, I had staff recording all the currencies back hundreds of years taking down quotes for all the world newspapers stored at the Royal Newspaper Library in London for years. Without that, we would never have been able to forecast that the pound would drop to par in 1985 when it was trading at $2.40.

What Socrates will do is it will test what attempts were made to solve crises in the past and what worked and what failed. Diocletian (284-305AD) imposed wage and price controls to try to stop inflation the same as Richard Nixon.

There was a major earthquake in Turkey that devastated the region. Emperor Tiberius issued coins to provide relief and suspended all taxes in the region to help rebuild. There have been so many different solutions that people today would never consider, but Socrates will.

May 12 2023

Here is a Larger Video of Socrates’ Solution


Armstrong Economics Blog/Socrates Re-Posted May 12, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

This was the Question asked:

Socrates, how do I solve a debt crisis without a default that is fair to both sides?

May 12 2023

Biden Administration: “Birthing Persons” or “Unpaid Caregivers” are Bad for the Economy


Armstrong Econo9mics Blog/WOKE Re-Posted May 12, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

Happy early Mother’s Day to the women in charge with shaping our society. The vital role of a mother, arguably the most important responsibility one can take on, has been dismissed in recent years as society changes drastically. The woke agenda feels that the word “mother” is offensive and wants to replace the term with “birthing persons.” I have not heard anyone refer to fathers as “inseminating persons,” as part of the woke agenda is to eliminate the importance of women in society. Economic conditions have made it nearly impossible for the average family to survive on one income. Yet, those who can and do choose to stay home deserve appreciation for the role they play in our society.

The Biden Administration recently took a jab at stay-at-home mothers, claiming they are hurting our economy. His administration supports sending “free” money to “hard-working families” as long as they are receiving some income tax revenue. The schools can raise our children according to their way of thinking.

“[M]any Americans — particularly women — stay out of the workforce to care for their families, making it hard for businesses to attract and retain a skilled workforce and for the economy to grow. A BCG brief forecasts losses of $290 billion each year in gross domestic product in 2030 and beyond if the U.S. fails to address the lack of affordable child care.”

The cited report from the BCG refers to parenting as “unpaid caregiving” as it lowers the number of taxable workers. Instead of staying home with your children or elderly relative, the government believes you should move into “paid caregiving.” “About 1.8 million critical-care jobs, including nursing assistants, home health aides and childcare workers, are open, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics,” the report noted. The report also noted that these jobs often have terrible pay and poor benefits. Furthermore, the study noted that 40% of caregivers have missed “more than five days of work over the last year simply because their paid-care support has fallen through.” Other countries will laugh at the US for that one. They also talk about implementing a “government-run childcare system that begins at birth.” That is sad prospect. Even dogs have an 8 to 10 week grace period before their puppies can be adopted, a luxury not provided to women living in the financial capital of the world.

Caretaking roles are only seen as essential is they benefit the government. It is almost impossible for one 40-hour salary to support a family comfortably. Preschools and childcare centers often cost more than the salary a parent would bring home. And they wonder why there is a steep decline in the birth rate. The nuclear family has no place in woke America. Whether you stay home or choose a career, a mother’s role is essential.

Ca