Posted originally on Nov 8, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
A new report by Oxfam, “Climate Finance Unchecked,” has determined that the World Bank has $41 billion in unaccounted funds that were destined to fight climate change.
This figure represents 40% of all disbursed climate funds by the World Bank. Oxfam’s audit revealed that between 2017 and 2023, between $24 billion and $41 billion simply went unaccounted for and there is absolutely no record of where the money went. No one knows how the money was used as there is no paper trail revealing where the money went.
“The Bank is quick to brag about its climate finance billions —but these numbers are based on what it plans to spend, not on what it actually spends once a project gets rolling,” said Kate Donald, Head of Oxfam International’s Washington D.C. Office. “This is like asking your doctor to assess your diet only by looking at your grocery list, without ever checking what actually ends up in your fridge.”
The World Bank is a leader in climate finance, controlling 52% of the total flow from all multilateral banks combined. World Bank President Ajay Banga announced in December that the bank achieved 35% of its financing three years ahead of schedule. He then set a new target of 45% by 2025. The bank later said in September that it achieved 44% of climate financing to the tune of $42.6 billion. “We’re putting our ambition in overdrive,” Banga said.
The bank acknowledged that it was difficult to keep track of its 800 climate financing projects but offered no insight into the missing funds. “It is clear that no one — including the Bank — has any real idea of how many billions of dollars are going to which climate actions,” the Oxfam report said.
Yet, climate activists are demanding $5 trillion in ANNUAL financing for the Global South to pay toward climate debt. Where did the $41 billion go? That large of a sum simply cannot be lost in a mere paperwork or oversight error. The climate change agenda has become a slush fund for the elite who will continue to fund this agenda without taking any responsibility for where the funds go or if they’re actually altering the climate in any meaningful way.
Posted originally on Nov 6, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
Germany is the first real casualty of Trump’s victory. Europe is also turning to the right, rejecting the same losing leftist policy spouted out by Harris. Chancellor Olaf Scholz just fired Finance Minister Christian Lindner, putting at risk the collapse of the German ruling coalition between the SPD and the Greens after three years. There have been differences in the budget and economic policy positions between the two factions. Lindner’s departure could lead to the FDP exiting the coalition.
Lindner of the FDP issued a paper that outlined his vision to revive the German economy. However, it argued against both fundamental positions of the SPD and the Green party. Hence, the German Finance Minister Christian Lindner has realized that the solutions undermine the socialist and green agendas. His paper provided a practical attempt to analyze Germany’s problems facing Germany. However, it argues that they have been unable to agree upon a 2025 budget, which still had a funding gap of several billion euros and was still being negotiated. The deadline for the budget was set for later this month.
Posted originally on the CTH on November 1, 2024 | Sundance
On January 17, 2017, just three days before President-Trump was sworn into office, outgoing President Obama had a secret conference call with progressive media allies.
Again, this is three days before Trump took office, when the Obama White House and Intelligence Community were intentionally pushing the Trump-Russia conspiracy story into the media in an effort to disrupt President Trump’s transition to power. President Obama is essentially asking his progressive allies to help defend his administration. Part of the 20-page transcript is below:
Barack Obama– […] “I think the Russia thing is a problem. And it’s of a piece with this broader lack of transparency. It is hard to know what conversations the President-elect may be having offline with business leaders in other countries who are also connected to leaders of other countries. And I’m not saying there’s anything I know for a fact or can prove, but it does mean that — here’s the one thing you guys have been able to know unequivocally during the last eight years, and that is that whether you disagree with me on policy or not, there was never a time in which my relationship with a foreign entity might shade how I viewed an issue. And that’s — I don’t know a precedent for that exactly.
Now, the good news there, I will say, is just that there’s a lot of career folks here who care about that stuff, and not just in the intelligence agencies. I think in our military, in our State Department. And I think that to the extent that things start getting weird, I think you will see surfacing objections, some through whistleblowers and some through others. And so I think there is some policing mechanism there, but that’s unprecedented.
And then the final thing that I’m most worried about is just preserving the democratic process so that in two years, four years, six years, if people are dissatisfied, that dissatisfaction expresses itself. So Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department and what’s happening with the voting rights division and the civil rights division, and — those basic process issues that allow for the democratic process to work. I’d include in that, by the way, press. I think you guys are all on top of how disconcerting — you guys complain about us — (laughter) — but let me just tell you, I think — we actually respected you guys and cared about trying to explain ourselves to you in a way that I think is just going to be different.
On balance, that leads to me to say I think that four years is okay. Take on some water, but we can kind of bail fast enough to be okay. Eight years would be a problem. I would be concerned about a sustained period in which some of these norms have broken down and started to corrode.
Q Could you talk a bit more about the Russia thing? Because it sounds like you, who knows more than we do from what you’ve seen, and is genuinely —
THE PRESIDENT: And can say less. (Laughter.) This is one area I’ve got to be careful about. But, look, I mean, I think based on what you guys have, I think it’s — and I’m not just talking about the most recent report or the hacking. I mean, there are longstanding business relationships there. They’re not classified. I think there’s been some good reporting on them, it’s just they never got much attention. He’s been doing business in Russia for a long time. Penthouse apartments in New York are sold to folks — let me put it this way. If there’s a Russian who can afford a $10-million, or a $15- or a $20- or a $30-million penthouse in Manhattan, or is a major investor in Florida, I think it’s fair to say Mr. Putin knows that person, because I don’t think they’re getting $10 million or $30 million or $50 million out of Russia without Mr. Putin saying that’s okay.
Q Could you talk about two things? One is, the damage he could do to our standing in the world through that. I mean, just this interview he gave the other day, and what you’re worried about there. And then the other side — and you sat down with him. I found the way in which he screamed at Jim Acosta just really chilling. If you just look at the face in a kind an authoritarian or autocratic, whatever word you want to use, personality — would you, on those two?
THE PRESIDENT: On the latter issue, EJ, you saw what I saw. I don’t think I need to elaborate on that.
Q But you sat down with him privately. I’m curious about —
THE PRESIDENT: Privately, that’s not — his interactions with me are very different than they are with the public, or, for that matter, interactions with Barack Obama, the distant figure. He’s very polite to me, and has not stopped being so. I think where he sees a vulnerability he goes after it and he takes advantage of it.
And the fact of the matter is, is that the media is not credible in the public eye right now. You have a bigger problem with a breakdown in institutional credibility that he exploits, at least for his base, and is sufficient for his purposes. Which means that — the one piece of advice I’d give this table is: Focus. I think if you’re jumping after every insult or terrible thing or bit of rudeness that he’s doing and just chasing that, I think there’s a little bit of a three-card Monte there that you have to be careful about. I think you have to focus on a couple of things that are really important and just stay on them and drive them home. And that’s hard to do in this news environment, and it’s hard to do with somebody who, I think, purposely generates outrage both to stir up his base but also to distract and to — so you just have to stay focused and unintimidated, because that’s how you confront, I think, a certain personality type.
But in terms of the world — look, rather than pick at one or two different things — number one, I don’t think he’s particularly isolationist — or I don’t think he’s particularly interventionist. I’m less worried than some that he initiates a war. I think that he could stumble into stuff just due to a lack of an infrastructure and sort of a coherent vision. But I think his basic view — his formative view of foreign policy is shaped by his interactions with Malaysian developers and Saudi princes, and I think his view is, I’m going to go around the world making deals and maybe suing people. (Laughter.) But it’s not, let me launch big wars that tie me up. And that’s not what his base is looking from him anyway. I mean, it is not true that he initially opposed the war in Iraq. It is true that during the campaign he was not projecting a hawkish foreign policy, other than bombing the heck out of terrorists. And we’ll see what that means, but I don’t think he’s looking to get into these big foreign adventures.
I think the bigger problem is nobody fully appreciates — and even I didn’t appreciate until I took this office — and when I say “nobody,” I mean the left as well as the right — the degree to which we really underwrite the world order. And I think sometimes from the left, that’s viewed as imperialism or sort of an extension of a global capitalism or what have you. The truth of the matter, though, is, if I’m at a G20 meeting, if we don’t initiate a conversation around human rights or women’s rights, or LGBT rights, or climate change, or open government, or anti-corruption initiatives, whatever cause you believe in, it doesn’t happen. Almost everything — every multilateral initiative function, norm, policy that is out there — it’s underwritten by us. We have some allies, primarily Europe, Canada, and some of our Asia allies.
But what I worry about most is, there is a war right now of ideas, more than any hot war, and it is between Putinism — which, by the way, is subscribed to, at some level, by Erdogan or Netanyahu or Duterte and Trump — and a vision of a liberal market-based democracy that has all kinds of flaws and is subject to all kinds of legitimate criticism, but on the other hand is sort of responsible for most of the human progress we’ve seen over the last 50, 75 years.
And if what you see in Europe — illiberalism winning out, the liberal order there being chipped away — and the United States is not there as a bulwark, which I think it will not be, then what you’re going to start seeing is, in a G20 or a G7, something like a human rights agenda is just not going to even be — it won’t be even on the docket, it won’t be talked about. And you’ll start seeing — what the Russians, what the Chinese do in those meetings is that they essentially look out for their own interests. They sit back, they wait to see what kind of consensus we’re building globally, they see if sometimes they can make sure their equities are protected, but they don’t initiate.
If we’re not there initiating ourselves, then everybody goes into their own sort of nationalist, mercantilist corners, and it will be a meaner, tougher world, and the prospects for conflict that arise will be greater. I think the weakening of Europe, if not the splintering of Europe, will have significant effects for us because, you may recall, but the last time Europe was not unified, it did not go well. So I’m worried about Europe.
There are a lot of bad impulses in Europe if — you know, Europe, even before the election, these guys will remember when we were, like, in Hanover and stuff, and you just got this sense of, you know, like the Yeats poem — the best lacked all conviction and the worst were full of passion and intensity, and everybody on their heels, and unable to articulate or defend the fact that the European Union has produced the wealthiest, most peaceful, most prosperous, highest living standards in the history of mankind, and prior to that, 60 million people ended up being killed around the world because they couldn’t get along.
So you’d think that we’d have the better argument here, but you didn’t get a sense of that. Everybody was defensive, and I worry about that. Seeing Merkel for the last time when I was in Berlin was haunting. She looked very alarmed.
Q What can you share with us about what foreign leaders, like Merkel and others, have expressed to you about what happened here in this election and what’s happening internationally generally since November 8th?
THE PRESIDENT: I think they share the concerns that I just described. But it’s hard for them to figure out how to mobilize without us. This is what I mean — I mean, I’ll be honest, I do get frustrated sometimes with like the Greenwalds of the world. There are legitimate arguments to be made about various things we do, but overall we have been a relatively benign influence and a ballast, and have tried to create spaces — sometimes there’s hypocrisy and I’m dealing with the Saudis while they’re doing all kinds of stuff, or we’re looking away when there’s a Chinese dissident in jail. All legitimate concerns. How we prosecute the war against terrorism, even under my watch. And you can challenge our drone policy, although I would argue that the arguments were much more salient in the first two years of my administration — much less salient today.
You can talk about surveillance, and I would argue once again that Snowden identified some problems that had to do with technology outpacing the legal architecture. Since that time, the modifications we’ve made overall I think have been fairly sensible.
But even if you don’t agree with those things, if we’re not there making the arguments — and even under Bush, those arguments were made. I mean, you know, they screwed up royally with Iraq, but they cared about stuff like freedom of religion or genital mutilation. I mean, there was a State Department that would express concern about these things, and push and prod and much less NATO, which you kind of would think, well, that’s sort of a basic, let’s keep that thing going, that’s worked okay.
So I think the fear is a combination of poor policy articulation or just silence on the part of the administration, a lack of observance ourselves of basic norms. So, I mean, we started this thing called the Open Government Partnership that’s gotten 75 countries around the world doing all kinds of things that we’ve been poking and prodding them to do for a long time. It’s been really successful making sure that people know what their budgets are and how they can hold their elected officials accountable, and we’re doing it in Africa, in Asia, et cetera. And now, if we get a President who doesn’t release his tax returns, who’s doing business with a bunch of folks, then everybody looks and says, well, what are you talking about? They don’t even have to, like, dismantle that program, it’s just — our example counts too.
Q Mr. President, can I ask you to go to kind of a dark place for a second in terms of —
THE PRESIDENT: I was feeling pretty dark. (Laughter.) I don’t know how much — where do you want me to go exactly?
Q I can bring us lower, trust me.
Q The John McCain line, everything is terrible before it goes completely black. (Laughter.)
Q I know that you feel that there’s a lot you can’t say on the Russia story, but just even speaking hypothetically, if there were somebody with the powers of U.S. President who Russia felt like they could give orders to, that Russia felt like they had something on them, what’s your worst-case scenario? What’s the worry there in terms of the kind of damage that could be done?
And also domestically, with a truly malign actor, if he’s, way worse than we all think he might be, and he wanted to use the powers of the U.S. government to cause — to advance his own interests and cause other people harm that he saw as his enemies, are there breaks out there that you see? What are the places where you worry the most in terms of damage being done?
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, on the foreign policy, the hypothetical is just — I can’t answer that because I’ll let you guys spin yourselves.
What I would simply say would be that any time you have a foreign actors who, for whatever reason, has ex parte influence over the President of the United States, meaning that the American people can’t see that influence because it’s not happening in a bilateral meeting and subject to negotiations or reporting — any time that happens, that’s a problem. And I’ll let you speculate on where that could go.
Domestically, I think I’ve mentioned to Greg the place that I worry the most about. I mean, I think that the dangers I would see would be — and we saw some hints of this in my predecessor — if you politicize law enforcement, the attorney general’s office, U.S. attorneys, FBI, prosecutorial functions, IRS audits, that’s the place that I worry the most about. And the reason is because if you start seeing the government engaging in some of those behaviors and you start getting a chilling effect, then looking at history I don’t know that we’re so special that you don’t start getting self-censorship, which in some ways is worse, or at least becomes the precursor.
We have enough institutional breaks right now to prevent just outright — I mean, you would not, even with a Supreme Court appointment of his coming up, Justice Roberts would not uphold the President of the United States explicitly punishing the Washington Post for writing something. I mean, the First Amendment — there’s certain things that you can’t get away with.
But what you can do — it’s been interesting watching sort of a handful of tweets, and then suddenly companies are all like, oh, we’re going to bring back jobs, even if it’s all phony and bullshit. What that shows is the power of people thinking, you know what, I might get in trouble, I might get punished. And it’s one thing if that’s just verbal. But if folks start feeling as if the law enforcement mechanisms we have in place are not straight, they’ll play it straight. That’s dangerous, just because the immense power — one of the frustrations I’ve had over the course of eight years is the degree to which people have, I think in the popular imagination and certainly among the left, this idea of Big Brother and spying and reading emails and writing emails — and that’s captured everybody’s imaginations.
But I will tell you, the real power that’s scary is just basic law enforcement. If the FBI comes and questions you and says it wants your stuff, and the Justice Department starts investigating you and is investigating you for long periods of time, even if you have nothing to hide, even if you’ve got lawyers, that’s a scary piece of business, and it will linger for long periods of time.” …. (Much More Continues after Page, 10)
Posted originally on Oct 5, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Marty, it appears that the September panic was on the upside, and it also appears to be a turning point. It looks like it may be a high in the Dow and Gold on a closing basis. I must say, it’s far easier to see now that this election may be the last. Does making a panic to the upside and a high dovetail into a war scenario you have been warning about for the election?
Kerry
ANSWER: I laid out the risks in gold on the private blog. Yes, the Panic was to the upside (see Glossary), and you are correct; this does not bode well for the near future. A Panic to the Downside would have provided a buying opportunity in October, but this pattern is sending up a red flare. A Panic to the Upside is a clear warning that the pattern unfolding is very serious, and it indeed includes the high probability of major civil unrest that will hurt domestic markets as nobody will accept the outcome. The problem we have is what I warned about throughout this year. There remains a risk that our Neocons fear a Trump victory and are pushing for war before the Election.
Israel attacked a Russian airbase under the pretense that Iran dropped off supplies there for Hezbolla. Our office in UAE has reported that Russia has warned all Russians to get out of Israel ASAP. Meanwhile, Russia is turning up the heat in Expanding in Ukraine. Zelensky sent a force to invade Russia in hopes that they would attack anything in NATO to claim Russia was the aggressor. Putin is not stupid.
Zelensky’s Victory Plan is to use long-range missiles to wage a full-scale war on Russia to destroy as much as possible prior to a NATO invasion. I have warned that Putin must reverse his position and take this war seriously as a NATO invasion or be overthrown by the Russian hardline Neocons. Our model targeted October for this, so we have just seen Putin reject peace negotiations. He has been forced to see reality. He has authorized glid bombs launched from aircraft, but he may also use the Father of All Bonds, which is the largest non-nuclear weapon that has the impact of a small nuke.
Our office in the UAE is reporting that while Israel attacked the Russian airbase, it seems like the people of Syria are split on whether they like Assad or not. The Kurds are against Hezbollah/Iran/Russia and were quite happy Israel took out Nazrellah. Iranian Khomani spoke to unite the Muslims against Israel. Our staff there commented that it seems like it’s going to kick off when Israel attacks Iran.
It’s a holiday in Israel this weekend, so it is normal to go quiet. However, Biden did respond to a question if attacking Iran’s energy facility is likely. He said he was in discussion with Israel, thereby confirming that the US is involved strategically. That was not very smart. That statement confirms to the Arab world that the American Neocons are involved.
The other side of this same coin is that Iran could also shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which would send energy prices sky-high in the West using oil as a weapon, as was the case during the 1970s. It was October 7th, 1973 when Iraq nationalized the holdings of the two U.S. oil companies operating in the Arab nation, Exxon and Mobil. They did so to show support for Egypt and Syria in their war against Israel.
This was 51 years ago. Our models show that Crude is likely to press higher, but it will be in 2025 when we see the annual level become a grave issue. We may see a crisis in energy by March 2025 becoming obvious.
Panic Cycle – Normally, a Panic Cycle is something that will exceed the previous high and penetrate the previous low. It will traditionally take out both previous session events. However, it can also be just an extreme move in one direction, which is often indicated by opening above the previous high or below the previous session low.
Posted originally on Sep 25, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
Over 130 nations are attempting to create a digital currency as we move toward a cashless society. I recently explained how Australiais prioritizing a wholesale CBDC with a retail one to follow. The Bank of Canada recently shelved plans to create a digital Loonie, but rest assured this is a mere pause as the world will move to digitalization.
“The Bank has undertaken significant research towards understanding the implications of a retail central bank digital currency, including exploring the implications of a digital dollar on the economy and financial system, and the technological approaches to providing a digital form of public money that is secure and accessible,” the bank said in an email statement. The fact of the matter is that Canada simply could not determine how to execute a digital Loonie properly. The bank will now focus on “evolving” its payment system.
One aspect most nations are facing is that it would be easier, seamless even, if every developed nation agreed to go digital. But, more on that later.
The Bank of Canada released “The Role of Public Money in the Digital Age”in July 2024 to discuss the importance of creating a digital currency to “uniform money.” The central bank identified the following risks:
“Over that horizon, three interrelated and overlapping trends pose risks to the monetary system. First, the overall digitalization of the economy and financial system is increasing demand for digital payments. Second, due to the first trend and other conditions, use of cash has been declining at the point of sale for many years. The third trend is the emergence and proliferation of private cryptocurrencies and digital assets, including foreign CBDCs. These trends pose risks to the monetary system through three mechanisms: • increased potential that fragmentation of the monetary system could create inefficiencies • increased ability of issuers of private forms of money to exert market power • increased difficulty implementing timely and adequate regulation due to the rapid pace of change”
Unlike Australia, Canada sought to tackle retail immediately and stated cash was “no longer a viable payment option.”
The central bank recognized their legal right to have a monopoly over the money supply and noted that cryptocurrencies were threatening their overall power. Central banks DO NOT want people to use crypto as an alternative to their currency and will do everything to prevent it from happening. “When different forms of money (including alternative units of account) compete in a jurisdiction, users need to monitor both risks and exchange rates, and the resulting frictions provide scope for the issuers of these alternative forms of money to exert market power. Ultimately, these frictions and abuse of market power reduce the efficiency of the economy,” the report stated.
Now the central bank recognized it could not simply cancel the currency without public backlash. They fear that the public will use alternative payment methods, and so the plan was to slowly phase out physical money. “We do not suggest a “CBDC alone” approach. On the contrary, in the status quo policy, the availability of retail public money interplays with the evolution of the regulatory components of the monetary system to ensure their continued effectiveness.”
As I have stated countless times, money is whatever someone is willing to accept as payment, be it gold or seashells, as in ancient times. The public at large is not ready to accept a CBDC if they are presented with a choice. If Canada were to implement a digital Loonie, it would run the risk of people using other currencies or crypto to complete transactions.
The bank said it will continue monitoring GLOBAL retail CBDC progress as all financial institutions await the moment when they can align their activities. This is why we see a heightened need for biometric data and digital identifications, which will one day tie into your financial accounts and you simply will not have a choice in digital or physical currency if paying on the grid.
Governments will become increasingly tyrannical as we move towards 2032 and the end of this private wave. The globalists’ ideal monetary system would entail one universal currency, similar to what the International Monetary Fund has been developing for years. Canada, an IMF member, has decided to await future global developments, but do not mistake this pause for a ceasefire in the war on cash.
Posted originally on Sep 25, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: You have said that this border crisis has been brought on to rig the 2024 election. How will this play out for the election?
SC
ANSWER: I do not see this ending well at all. It is one more ploy that will have society pleading for digital ID as the solution to this crisis. They will pitch the idea that had we had digital ID, this crisis would never have taken place. Europe is already planning this same biometric-digital ID. You have hospitals wanting to scan your palm and Amazon saying you can buy with just your palm being scanned.
This immigration crisis is clearly twofold. The Democrats instigated it, just as I have said that I encountered when trying to negotiate with Australia on behalf of Hong Kong. They are in a declining bear market, making lower highs and lower lows. They will collapse just as the Federalists did because they preach a big centralized government that always fails.
That is what instigated the border crisis. Then you have the Deep State, which is paranoid like Joseph Stalin, and they want to track absolutely everyone, and that extends to the political beliefs and economic condition. Just as in 9/11, they love crises because they always use them to expand their power. As I have said, I know that the first World Trade Center terrorists drew the Twin Towers on the wall of their cell with planes going into them. They knew the plot and let it happen if they had not helped it along.
The very day before Russia crossed the border, they had Zelensky stand up and publicly state that Ukraine was going to rearm itself with nuclear weapons. He knew Russia was on the border and wanted to make sure they invaded.
Zelensky admitted to the Washington Post that he knew when Russia would invade. He had that intelligence from the USA. His comment about seeking nuclear weapons the day before was to make sure Putin took the bait to start this entire war. He knew and was told to make sure Putin crossed the border.
The Border Crisis was instigated on the very first day Biden took office. This was to flood the country to influence the 2024 election. The Deep State did not organize this. However, they have seen the opportunity as they did with 911. The solution to the election crisis and the illegal aliens will be accelerated when we have domestic terrorism that they will blame on Chinese illegals, some 40,000 so far, who are here to destroy the USA. They have deliberately allowed terrorists into the country, and they will use this for war against China and to lock us down, as COVID was the dress rehearsal.
To be patriotic, you will surrender and agree to a Biometric Digital ID so they can filter out the terrorists. You will beg for the Biometric Digital ID; they always benefit from a good crisis. Those in the bowels of DC are paranoid like Stalin. They fear losing power, and everyone is a potential threat – We the People.
The media does not wish to reveal why Pelosi delayed the National Guard on January 6th. They were concerned that most people in the National Guard were Trump supporters and feared they might be allowing a Trump army to take Washington, DC. Some Guardsmen were asked who they voted for. Simply put, the National Guard only shows up to D.C. when they’ve been invited, and the Capitol Police did not extend that invitation until after the breach, according to a source with knowledge of the process, who was not authorized to speak about it on the record according to the Military News.
Pelosi ordered the fence to be put up again in 2021 because there was a protest in support of the January 6th protesters. The government is terrified of the people, and they know that their policies are creating tremendous discord that will unfold in the form of more civil unrest. This will most likely reach a boiling point regardless of who wins the election.
The damage that took place by the LEFT when Trump was inaugurated is an example of what we should expect. In fact, the City of Washington was sued by business owners because the police just let them do as they liked. The City had to pay $1.6 million is damages.
They intend to restrict traveling inside Europe, and Americans will need a Visa as of January 1st, 2025 to even visit, killing their tourist trade. The EU is frightened about revolution. They are well aware of the 1848 Revolution that swept Europe. It began in Sicily and engulfed all the countries, even overthrowing the French government. Their solution is to prevent people from traveling to cut off any possible widespread revolution. They will use climate change, and you will have a “carbon footprint,” and they will determine if you have traveled too much for the year.
They will do the same in the USA, all to retain power because they are scared to death of We the People. Most airline stocks peaked in 2020. Why? Most are showing high volatility by 2026. The markets are picking up this trend in airlines of many countries.
Governments are pushing the public to switch to smart vehicles to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but there is also a second motive – surveillance.
This September, Ford filed a new patent to eavesdrop on riders. They plan to share this information with third-parties to personalize the advertisements riders hear. Ford will also take the driver’s destination into consideration to determine location-specific advertisements and suggestions. The technology will factor in the weather, traffic, and all external sensors to fine tune when and what to market to passengers.
Advertisements are perhaps the least ominous use of voice data based on the plans that these car manufacturers have. Car insurance rates in the United States spiked 26% in the past year, which is partly due to car manufacturers sharing ride data with insurance companies. Even older cars with basic features like OnStar have tracking devices that report your driving behavior to the manufacturers who share your data with insurance companies and, ultimately, the government. LexisNexis, which tracks drivers’ behaviors and compiles risk profiles, has been sharing individual data with General Motors, who passes that information along to the insurance companies. General Motors.
One driver demanded that LexisNexis send him his personal report, which was a 258-page document containing every trip he or his wife took in his vehicle over a six-month period. LexisNexis said that this data will be used “for insurers to use as one factor of many to create more personalized insurance coverage.” They even reported small issues such as hard breaking and rapid acceleration, according to the report. “I don’t know the definition of hard brake. My passenger’s head isn’t hitting the dash,” an unnamed Cadillac driver enrolled in the OnStar Smart Driver subscription service told reporters.
“Cars have microphones and people have all kinds of sensitive conversations in them. Cars have cameras that face inward and outward,” a researcher with Mozilla Foundation told the Los Angeles Times. In fact, 19 automakers in 2023 admitted that they have the ability to sell your personal data without notice. Law enforcement may subpoena these records as well.
Ford claims that the patent was submitted, but they do not necessarily plan to use the technology. “Submitting patent applications is a normal part of any strong business as the process protects new ideas and helps us build a robust portfolio of intellectual property. The ideas described within a patent application should not be viewed as an indication of our business or product plans. No matter what the patent application outlines, we will always put the customer first in the decision-making behind the development and marketing of new products and services,” Ford said in a statement released to MotorTrend.
Now, the US Department of Transportation is permitted to mandate that certain manufacturers provide them with vehicle data. Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Edward Markey of Massachusetts testified that all vehicles in the United States with a GPS or emergency call system are collecting travel data that car manufacturers have remote access to via the computer chips. The computer chips are compiling data on vehicle speed, movement, travel, and even using exterior sensors and cameras to record the vehicle’s location.
All of this violates the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause. These car manufacturers are surpassing what anyone would consider a reasonable expectation of privacy. Governments, third-party advertisement companies, and insurance companies all have warrantless access to personal data, and drivers are largely unaware they are being spied on. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits the government to have backdoor access to this data.
The aforementioned senators’ concerns fell on deaf ears at the Federal Trade Commission. The Department of Transportation clearly is not listed within the US Constitution. People are already experiencing stiff consequences from autos sharing data with the sharp uptick in insurance rates. Our freedom of movement is under attack. Our data has become more valuable than gold. The legal implications fall under a grey area as the Founding Fathers never expected their newly created government to turn against their own citizens.
Posted originally on Aug 16, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: How can you say that Trump is above the law and should have immunity?
GH
ANSWER: That is a very nice argument put out by Chuck Schumer, who distorts the law for political gain. In Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 129 S. Ct. 855 (2009), the Supreme Court held that when the prosecutor’s administrative functions are so closely related to the trial process, they are also protected by the prosecutor’s absolute immunity. Id. at 864-65 (focusing not on how the information was delivered, but instead on how it is maintained)
Chuck Schumer makes it sound like Trump is the only one with immunity. He is an outright liar and is only fueling civil unrest. Prosecutors and judges are ABSOLUTELY IMMUNED, but somehow the President has none? Schumer claims nobody should be above the law. Well, let’s start with the Judges and prosecutors or those in Congress. He wants to tear apart the Supreme Court to manipulate the law for his political agenda. The tyranny this man supports is what the American Revolution was all about.
When the history of this period is written, Schumer will go down as a major factor in destroying the United States and his role in fostering civil unrest.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 