Federal Reserve Governor Michael Barr is urging banks to begin collecting behavioral and biometric data from customers to combat deepfake digital content created through ID. These deepfakes are capable of replicating a person’s identity, which “has the potential to supercharge identity fraud,” Barr warned.
“In the past, a skilled forger could pass a bad check by replicating a person’s signature. Now, advances in AI can do much more damage by replicating a person’s entire identity,” Barr said of deepfakes, which have the “potential to supercharge identity fraud.”
“[We] should take steps to lessen the impact of attacks by making successful breaches less likely, while making each attack more resource-intensive for the attacker,” Barr insists, believing that regulators should implement their own AI tools to “enhance our ability to monitor and detect patterns of fraudulent activity at regulated institutions in real time,” he said. This could help provide early warnings to affected institutions and broader industry participants, as well as to protect our own systems.”
Enabling multi-factor authentication and monitoring abnormal payments is a first step, but Barr and others believe that banks must begin to collect their customer’s biometric data. “To the extent deepfakes increase, bank identity verification processes should evolve in kind to include AI-powered advances such as facial recognition, voice analysis, and behavioral biometrics to detect potential deepfakes,” Barr noted.
Barr would like banks to begin sharing data to combat fraud. Deepfake attacks have been on the rise, with one in 10 companies reporting an attack according to a 2024 Business.com survey. Yet, will our data be safer in the hands of regulators?
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) fell victim to a cyber attack after discovering that hackers had been accessing their emails for over a year. Hackers found their way into an admin account, permitting them to access internal communications of over 100 banking regulators. Former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen had her own computer hacked by Chinese state-sponsored actors who used a third-party vendor to access sensitive, unclassified documents.
Regulators have been unable to protect themselves, but they believe that they can protect us if we continue to share our valuable data. All freedoms are relinquished in the name of protection.
The State Dept. Global Engagement Center was the epicenter of the Dept of State operation to control speech on social media platforms. Following revelations from within the Twitter Files, and facing increasing scrutiny, the GEC operation was shut down – but the remnants of the operation remained active within the State Dept.
The terms “disinformation, misinformation and malinformation” were weaponized by the State Dept to define speech against their interests and block, deplatform and remove any voices, including in the U.S., they determined were against the interests of the U.S. government. The COVID-19 and vaccine narrative were both examples of speech targeted by the GEC and later the Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference office (R-FIMI).
Today, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Acting Undersecretary of Public Diplomacy, Darren Beattie, delivered notice to congress the speech and platform control operation has been shut down. Secretary Rubio sat down with Mike Benz to discuss [Transcript Here].
.
Secretary Rubio continues to surprise many, me included. It started when Rubio publicly said, the Ukraine conflict was a U.S. proxy war against Russia. “It’s been very clear from the beginning that President Trump views this as a protracted, stalemated conflict,” Rubio said. “And frankly, it’s a proxy war between nuclear powers, the United States helping Ukraine, and Russia.” [link]
Considering that Rubio previously called for NATO intervention in Ukraine, and considering that Rubio voted to limit the ability of the President to withdraw from NATO policy, the recent remarks by Secretary of State Rubio were shockingly the opposite of his prior stances.
Saying the USA is in a proxy war with Russia, via Ukraine, is not something Marco Rubio can retreat from.
Two days ago, specifically because of my granular research, I was asked this question about Rubio. “What are the odds this is really Rubio?”
Look, I don’t know what happened and would love to ask him some details to get answers; but Rubio’s statements are so far out there against the Deepest part of the Deep State, there is no retreat for the former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Rubio said publicly the Ukraine conflict was a USA proxy war against Russia. For obvious reasons the MSM essentially buried that statement fast; but it’s not something he can ever retreat from, nor does it look like he would want to.
Either Rubio has some pre-approved ability to criticize the darkest elements of the DC Deep State, and this is some rather intense operation to position himself as a stealth agent of the CIA for future benefit, or Rubio really believes what he is saying now and is a changed person.
I’m still undecided, because there are some IC facets at play (even today) that I am still not comfortable writing about, yet.
That said, where do these statements put Rubio in the dynamic of MAGA foreign policy? Right at the tippy top of the spear against the deadliest elements of the U.S. Intelligence Apparatus.
The United States Secretary of State told the world, the biggest conflict zone in the past 20 years is the result of Ukraine being a USA proxy war against Russia.
Put everything else aside for the moment and realize, with that statement the guy just wiped out every Deep State affiliation he ever carried. He cannot enter that camp ever again. Rubio “burned the boat” and carried his weapon into battle for Trump.
The question is, did Rubio burn his boat knowing there is another one beyond the horizon waiting to come in and pick him up later? He really is playing the role of a dragon slayer for President Trump right now.
♦ Suspicious Cat says, if Benz, who can play the piano like a Red Sparrow, is an affiliate of a domestic CIA team, then this whole thing is an op. However, if Benz is a genuine independent voice against the interests of the control system, then Rubio -who touched the flame of the SSCI- might have reversed his worldview.
If legit, this Rubio shift is akin to a leopard changing to zebra stripes; crazy, super rare. He was a 99-0 Senate confirmation vote.
We need to keep watching, closely.
Today White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt will hold a press briefing from the Brady press room in the White House with a special guest. The anticipated start time is 4:30pm ET. Livestream Links Below:
.
.
There is much speculation about Germany withdrawing its gold holdings from the United States. We have seen this occur in recent history. In the 1960s, French President Charles de Gaulle began challenging the U.S. dominance in the global monetary system. Gold typically flows where capital feels safe, but in this case, France repatriated its gold from the US due to political tensions.
In 1965, French President Charles de Gaulle withdrew his ministers from the Council of the EU, thereby constituting a de facto veto over all decisions, which became known as the “Empty Chair Crisis.” Several issues regarding European political integration led to the Empty Chair Crisis. There was a push at that time to create the quasi-federalization of Europe. De Gaulle believed that national governments should move towards integration. Still, he did not agree with the Commission’s attempt to create some new super-central state or a federalized Europe, extending powers of the EU beyond national borders as we have today, which Margaret Thatcher also opposed.
President Charles de Gaulle has proposed the Fouchet Plan was a plan back in 1961 to create a new grand design for Europe. Charles de Gaulle wanted to develop a three-power directorate, consisting of France, Britain and the United States. The idea was to form a new ‘Union of States’, as an alternative to the European Communities (EC). De Gaulle feared a loss of French national influence in the EC as there was a drive to federalize Europe back then.
After the failure of the Fouchet Plan and De Gaulle’s veto of the United Kingdom’s application for EC membership, the Commission attempted to move towards integration by proposing an idea that would combine the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the European Parliament, and Commission. De Gaulle supported the creation of the CAP and favored its enactment. However, he disagreed with the Parliament’s new role, the Commission’s strength, the shift towards federalization and a central state, and the budget proposals for financing the CAP. De Gaulle made it a condition that majority voting with a right to veto must exist if France was to participate in the EC. When de Gaulle was denied a more intergovernmental Commission or voting and veto rights, the French representative left the Council of Ministers thereby creating the Empty Chair Crisis.
The Luxembourg Accord was an agreement reached in January 1966 to resolve the “Empty Chair Crisis,” which had caused a stalemate within the European Economic Community. Then on June 21, 1966, de Gaulle withdrew France in a shocking move, taking its troops from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This decision, led by French president Charles de Gaulle, complicated relations between the U.S. and Europe amidst clashing American and Communist spheres of influence. Though France remained politically in NATO, its actions cast doubt on the organization’s future as a counter to Soviet military power and control back then.
From 1963 to 1966, France secretly implemented Operation Vide-Gousset to repatriate 3,313 tons of gold reserves from the Bank of England and the New York Federal Reserve. It took over 44 boat trips and 129 flights to export the gold back to the Banque de France. Since France converted its dollar holdings into gold, the French made out well when the dollar fell during the Bretton Woods period and lost 96% of its value against gold. France then withdrew from the London Gold Pool in 1966 after recovering its gold holdings to force the US to endure heavier losses.
France’s actions caused a gold run with nations eagerly reducing their holdings at the New York Fed. West Germany reclaimed 1,200 tons of gold. Switzerland increased gold purchases from both the US and UK, but did so more discreetly than France to avoid political upheaval. By 1971, before the gold window closed, the United Kingdom requested $3 billion in gold conversions from the US. This may have been the final move that pushed Nixon to act. The Netherlands and Belgium also began exporting gold holdings from the US at this time.
US gold stock fell from $22.7 billion in 1950 to $12 billion by 1971. On August 15, 1971, President Nixon closed the gold window, ending the convertibility of the dollar into gold. The 1971 closing of the gold window by Nixon cut the link to gold, ending Bretton Woods.
“The speculators have been waging an all-out war on the American dollar,” Nixon declared, and to “protect the dollar from the attacks of the international money speculators” would take “bold action.”
“I have directed [Treasury] Secretary Connolly to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold.”
France’s actions were a catalyst to the inevitable decision to close the gold window, but not the sole cause. Yet, as we are seeing today, the primary reason that nations would like to withdraw their holdings comes down to politics. Charles de Gaulle said that the dollar was “monumentally over-privileged” and moved to hurt the USD. The incoming German government is now looking to withdraw their holdings from the US solely due to their distaste for America.
Regarding the recently released Russiagate files. Again, emphasizing that process matters, let me explain how and why we are being purposefully misled, even with Trump ‘allies’ in control of various govt agencies (silos).
Using the reference of the James Wolfe storyline, let me outline how process matters and how you can tell when the process is being used to coverup corrupt activity in Washington DC.
Former Senate Intelligence Community Security Chief, James Wolfe, leaked the Carter Page FISA application to journalist Ali Watkins. We know from the DOJ indictment of James Wolfe [SEE HERE], a very specific set of evidence and key dates that was assembled against him.
James Wolfe was nailed for lying to FBI investigators about his leaks to Ali Watkins on December 15, 2017. That is the date of the second interview with Wolfe. During the third interview a few days later, Wolfe was shown the evidence against him, and he admitted his lies. However, his indictment was not unsealed until June 7, 2018.
Key Dates: Busted for guilt December 15, 2017. Indicted June 7, 2018.
♦ The evidence against Wolfe included text messages between Senate Intel Vice-Chairman Mark Warner, and the lawyer for Oleg Deripaska, an attorney named Adam Waldman. The text messages were made public on Feb 8, 2018, [SOURCE] four months before Wolfe was indicted.
♦ The evidence against Wolfe included text messages between Wolfe and journalist Ali Watkins. Ms Watkins was notified of her phone records being seized by FBI investigators on February 13, 2018, [SOURCE] again four months before Wolfe was indicted.
Why was this evidence, all of which would have been useful at trial, purposefully released by the Mueller investigation who was in charge of everything related to Russiagate at the time.
Shortly after James Wolfe was indicted, the Title-1 FISA application he leaked was then released to the public under the auspices of a FOIA request. Wolfe indicted June 7, 2018, the FISA application released publicly July 21, 2018 [SOURCE].
RIGHT QUESTION: Why was the evidence against James Wolfe being released to the public between the time the case was made (Dec ’17) and the time the indictment was unsealed (June ’18)? Why wasn’t the evidence held until criminal trial processes began?
ANSWER: In hindsight we discover the Mueller team were in charge of the timeline because the Russiagate investigation superseded all other Main Justice outcomes and consequences. The Mueller team were protecting the participants (Ali Watkins, Mark Warner, James Wolfe etc.), who all knew they were being investigated as a result of the Wolfe leak.
All of these players, including the media who received the FISA application from the Wolfe leak, knew they were tangentially and directly connected to the Wolfe investigation. After Wolfe made his admission (December ’17), all of the collateral players knew they were at risk.
The FBI was notifying all stakeholders of the Wolfe admission, and Mueller’s team was helping to mitigate the consequences to those stakeholders. How? With controlled public releases of information.
Each of the corrupt actors had weeks, some even months, to hire lawyers, obfuscate the evidence of their involvement and formulate their defenses. That’s why the information was being “released.”
The biggest single example of controlling damage and public opinion through the selective release of information was also the most brutally obvious, the July 21, 2018, release of the Carter Page FISA itself.
This was a Top-Secret Compartmented Intelligence document (TSCI). Directly related to a national security matter, and directly related to an ongoing investigation, and directly a component of the largest leak of top-secret classified information in decades.
The FISA itself was the easiest of all documents for the DOJ, FBI and National Security Apparatus to keep hidden from public view. There was no court in America who would have ordered it to be released. Quite simply, there was no reason for the DOJ to even consider releasing it; yet they did.
The Title-1 FISA application was released by Main Justice under the ridiculous justification of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) release. Name me another TSCI document in the history of the Intelligence Community, that has ever been released under a FOIA (either before, or since); there simply isn’t another example. Yet in the rush to review it, no one ever drew attention to this brutally obvious point.
The FISA was released shortly after James Wolfe was indicted, because everyone in the background network of the James Wolfe indictment, mainly the DOJ under Mueller team control, was operating to control information adverse to their interests. The public release watered down the jaw-dropping leak itself.
[SOURCE]
Why visit this example again? Because we are seeing a repeat of this pattern in the recently released Russiagate files.
If DC can frame negative information as politically motivated, DC can then avoid the unlawful and illegal activity underneath the information. That is exactly what is happening, and that is why process is important.
If the bad actors in the silos want to remove the concern about illegal activity, they control release the information framing it as political in nature.
After previously saying her number one concern about President Trump’s tariff program was Beijing dumping all their excess products into the EU at a discount, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announces she is coordinating the tariff response with China.
Apparently, the EU recognizes the ideological alignment of support from Canada just isn’t going to be enough to pressure President Trump and retain leverage into the U.S. market. This is quite a remarkable admission from von der Leyen all things considered. [STATEMENT]
President von der Leyen held today a phone call with Premier Li Qiang to discuss the state of EU-China relations, as 2025 marks the 50th anniversary of diplomatic ties.
The two leaders held a constructive discussion during which they took stock of bilateral and global issues.
The President underscored the vital importance of stability and predictability for the global economy. In response to the widespread disruption caused by the US tariffs, President von der Leyen stressed the responsibility of Europe and China, as two of world’s largest markets, to support a strong reformed trading system, free, fair and founded on a level playing field.
The President called for a negotiated resolution to the current situation, emphasising the need to avoid further escalation.
President von der Leyen emphasised China’s critical role in addressing possible trade diversion caused by tariffs, especially in sectors already affected by global overcapacity. The leaders discussed setting up a mechanism for tracking possible trade diversion and ensuring any developments are duly addressed. (more)
In the 2017 – 2019 version of the same dynamic, the EU was slow to realize the Trump impact to the Chinese economy would lead to less industrial purchases from Beijing. This dynamic pushed the EU toward recession. In 2025 von der Leyen is trying to proactively mitigate that outcome.
This coordination of response between Brussels and Beijing is happening simultaneous to the Chinese central bank beginning a rapid devaluation of their currency. Direct subsidies and currency manipulation are the first two approaches taken by any economy dependent on access to the U.S. market.
The difference this time is the scale of the tariffs President Trump is delivering. There’s no way to subsidize and lower currency value at a rate significant enough to mitigate a near 50% tariff impact across all sectors. China and the EU will subsidize and devalue, but they cannot repeat their prior defensive programs to this scale.
The key takeaway from this public admission by the EU President is to note how consequential the tariffs are to their parasitic endeavors.
The EU is directly working with Beijing against American interests.
Let that alignment settle in for a few moments.
The response from the EU is exactly what we would expect to see from the end of the 80-year-old Marshal Plan.
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyden has three big concerns with the new trade/tariff reset. I strongly suggest everyone to read the EU concerns slowly to fully absorb decades of hypocrisy now surfacing:
#1 The EU will not be able to compete for U.S. market share with 20% general tariffs and 25% auto tariffs.
#2 The EU must deploy countermeasures against the risk of losing industrial capacity and manufacturing to the United States.
And #3 The EU must defend itself against China dumping cheap products into the EU now rejected by the USA.
von der Leyen is concerned mostly about the extremely valuable U.S. consumer being leveraged by President Trump, essentially blocking exploitation from EU and Asia. The EU will not tolerate losing access to the most valuable customers in the world, Americans.
Showcasing the mindset, Ursula von der Leyen vows to take all action needed to retain U.S. customers, even if those customers no longer want her products. The USA will allow Europe access, or there will be hell to pay. I must say this is quite funny.
(Via Politico) […] Von der Leyen said Trump’s tariffs would have dire consequences for consumers and businesses that have prospered through trade with the United States since World War Two.
[…] The EU chief executive said the bloc would ready countermeasures against Trump’s latest tariff broadside, in addition to a €26 billion package responding to tariffs he has already imposed on steel and aluminum. At the same time, she vowed, Brussels will work to protect the industries most exposed.
“We are already finalizing the first package of countermeasures in response to tariffs on steel, and we are now preparing for further countermeasures to protect our interests and our businesses if negotiations fail,” von der Leyen said from Samarkand, Uzbekistan, where she was attending a summit.
“We will also be watching closely what indirect effects these tariffs could have. Because we cannot absorb global overcut capacity, nor will we accept dumping on our markets,” von der Leyen said, as the bloc braces for a flood of cheaper exports coming from China and elsewhere that will be shut out of the U.S. market. (read more)
As noted by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, all of the global trade partners would do themselves a favor if they did not react emotionally with increased countervailing duties.
The currently outlined U.S. reciprocal tariffs represent a ceiling amount levied. The goal is to lower the tariffs to zero by eliminating all trade barriers. If the EU raises their baseline tariffs, the only thing that happens is the U.S. side increases at the same proportion. The higher von der Leyen goes in her tariffs, the higher the U.S. countervailing duty applies.
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!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
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
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 
