ZeroHedge News
Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Scientists with close ties to China and the U.S. government is now saying that risky experiments he proposed—which some experts believe could have led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2—may have been done, deviating from earlier statements.
Another scientist involved in the proposal also says he doesn’t know if the work was done.
“To the very best of my knowledge ... the work hasn’t been done,” Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, told a congressional panel this week.
Mr. Daszak, however, admitted that he doesn’t know whether scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China have done the proposed experiments.
“Do you know if the WIV started this work?” he was asked during a U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing in Washington.
“No,” Mr. Daszak replied.
“Then you can’t say that the work was not done,” Mitch Benzine, the staff director for the panel, said.
“There is no evidence of the work being done. There is no evidence that WIV started it,” Mr. Daszak said.
Has he ever asked Shi Zhengli, a top scientist at the WIV, whether she carried out the proposal?
“No,” Mr. Daszak acknowledged.
The proposal in question, dubbed Project DEFUSE, was submitted in 2018 to the U.S. government as EcoHealth and its partners, including WIV, sought to take viruses from bats, reverse engineer them, and add features. Some outside scientists say the proposed work could have led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) declined to fund the proposal, expressing concerns that adding features to coronaviruses could create a dangerous virus.
After the proposal was leaked to the public in 2021, Mr. Daszak and EcoHealth have said definitively that the proposed experiments never took place.
“The DARPA proposal was not funded. Therefore, the work was not done. Simple,” Mr. Daszak told The Intercept in 2022.
“The proposed research was never done,” EcoHealth added in a recent statement.
Ralph Baric, a University of North Carolina virologist who was also listed in the DEFUSE proposal, also said in newly disclosed testimony that he did not know whether the proposed experiments were conducted.
“Certainly not by my group,” Mr. Baric told the subcommittee. “I don’t know what China did.”
Mr. Baric and Ms. Shi have created chimeras, or combination viruses, among other work together.
“There was no evidence that they were doing this kind of work,” Mr. Baric said. “Well, there was evidence that they were building chimeras using WIV1 as a backbone, so they were doing some discovery work about the functions of spike genes of zoonotic strains that they discovered later on, but I don’t know if they did any of the engineering or anything.”
WIV1 is a bat coronavirus that was found in China.
Mr. Baric also claimed he had forgotten about DEFUSE so he didn’t discuss it while meeting with Dr. Anthony Fauci, a top U.S. government official, on Feb. 12, 2020.
Mr. Daszak said Wednesday that DARPA later returned to EcoHealth “to try and fund portions” of DEFUSE, but no lawmakers pressed him on that disclosure.
‘They’ve Always Been Truthful’
EcoHealth separately for years funneled grant money from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to Wuhan researchers, including money that funded experiments that increased the virulence of a bat coronavirus.
Asked how his group verified information about those experiments, Mr. Daszak acknowledged it relied on statements from the WIV. “I have no other way to verify,” he said.
The scientists in Wuhan “have always been honest with us,” he added later. “They’ve always been truthful. There’s never any untoward, underhand things going on. I have no reason to think that they were under pressure to lie. There’s no indication of that.”
After the pandemic started, WIV researchers refused to hand over laboratory notebooks and other files to EcoHealth after the U.S. government asked for the records, resulting in the government debarring WIV from receiving U.S. grant money.
“Nearly two years have passed since the NIH first requested that WIV provide the requested information and materials, and yet WIV has still failed to do so,” a debarment official wrote to Ms. Shi.
In comments on a draft of the DEFUSE proposal, Mr. Daszak said that some of the work would be done at the Wuhan lab.
“If we win this contract, I do not propose that all of this work will necessarily be conducted by Ralph, but I do want to stress the US side of this proposal so that DARPA are comfortable with our team,” Mr. Daszak wrote in one comment. “Once we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, and I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan as well.”
Mr. Daszak told Mr. Baric in a May 27, 2021, email released by the subcommittee that Ms. Zhengli said culturing of animal viruses was being done under biosafety level two conditions, or one level below that applied in many other countries.
“We checked with Zhengli, who let us know that she used ‘BSL-2 with negative pressure and appropriate PPE.’ I also know that they are stricter now on SADS-CoV... ever since you showed it was able to infect human airway epithelial cells,” he wrote.
Mr. Baric responded by saying Mr. Daszak was “being told a bunch of [expletive].”
“BSL-2 w[ith] negative pressure, give me a break,” he wrote, adding later, “You believe this was appropriate containment, if you want but don’t expect me to believe it. Moreover, don’t insult my intelligence by trying to feed me this load of [expletive].”
The 2024 World Press Freedom Index, compiled by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), was released today. This year, the agency highlights a “worrying decline in support and respect for media autonomy and an increase in pressure from the state or other political actors.” This is based on the fact that, of the five indicators used to compile the ranking, it is the political indicator that has fallen most, with a global average decline of 7.6 points.
Out of the 180 countries and territories analyzed, some 138 places had a majority of their respondents say that political actors in their countries were involved in disinformation or propaganda campaigns. This involvement was described as “systematic” in 31 countries.
The report writers also highlight the lack of political will on an international level to enforce protection of journalists, with particular reference to the war in Gaza, which has been marked by a record number of violations against journalists and the media since October 2023. According to the report, more than 100 Palestinian reporters have now been killed by the Israel Defence Forces, including at least 22 in the course of carrying out their journalistic activities.
Taking a look at wider trends, this chart, via Statista's Anna Fleck, shows that 36 countries were listed in the worst category in the index - where there exists a “very serious” situation of the press.
You will find more infographics at Statista
49 countries fall under the “difficult” category and 50 in the “problematic" group, while 45 have either a “satisfactory” or “good” situation. Norway is once more at the top of the list, ranking in first place for the eighth year running, followed by Denmark and Sweden.
The final trio, considered the most repressive countries for the press, are Afghanistan (position 178), Syria (179) and Eritrea (180). The report states: “The last two countries have become lawless zones for the media, with a record number of journalists detained, missing or held hostage.”
The United States ranked 55th in 2024, having dropped ten positions. RSF notes that the country is experiencing growing distrust in the media, partly driven by antagonism from political officials, while there have also been cases of local law enforcement having raided newsrooms.
Reporters Without Borders have compiled the index annually since 2002. The agency devised a new methodology in 2021 with the help of a panel of experts from the media and academic world. This year, 180 countries and territories were analyzed based on five indicators covering political context, legal framework, economic context, sociocultural context and safety.
Authored by George Citroner via The Epoch Times,
One of the world’s favorite brews may hold the key to keeping muscles strong and healthy as we age.
According to recent research, a natural compound found in coffee could be the secret weapon against age-related muscle loss.
The Muscle-Preserving Molecule
Mitochondria, the powerhouses of our cells, play a crucial role in muscle health. An issue linked to sarcopenia, the age-related loss of muscle mass and strength, is that these cellular components generate less energy as we get older. Compounding this problem, levels of the crucial substance NAD+ (which stands for nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide), a coenzyme that helps cells regenerate and protects them from damage, also decline with age.
Researchers already know that NAD+ levels can be boosted using various dietary precursors, including the essential amino acid L-tryptophan and different forms of vitamin B3, such as nicotinic acid, nicotinamide, nicotinamide riboside, and nicotinamide mononucleotide.
In a recent study published in Nature Metabolism, scientists investigated whether an alkaline compound called trigonelline could help reverse these age-related changes in muscle health.
The researchers analyzed trigonelline levels in the blood of mice and worms and found that high levels of the substance were positively associated with muscle strength and function.
Conversely, low trigonelline levels were linked to sarcopenia, the typical loss of muscle size and strength that occurs with aging.
Trigonelline Promoted Healthy Longevity
Trigonelline is structurally related to vitamin B3 and is produced naturally in the body, in addition to being found in certain foods.
“We discovered that older people with low endogenous levels of trigonelline in their blood lose more muscle mass and strength during aging,” Katharina Fischer, research and development and scientific communications manager at Nestle Research in Switzerland, where the study was conducted, told The Epoch Times. “We also discovered that trigonelline is a precursor to NAD.”
Providing trigonelline promoted longevity in test animals by activating cellular energy production in mitochondria and increasing muscle strength and function during aging, according to Ms. Fischer.
These findings open new opportunities to test the clinical efficacy of increasing trigonelline consumption through food products or supplements to improve muscle health, she noted.
Foods That Contain Trigonelline
Trigonelline is an alkaloid compound found in various plant sources. While it may not be as well-known as some other beneficial plant compounds, trigonelline is present in a variety of dietary sources. About 5 percent of the niacin we consume is converted into trigonelline.
Coffee Beans
Trigonelline is more abundant in coffee beans than in any other food source, and it contributes to coffee’s characteristic bitterness. However, during the roasting process, trigonelline partly breaks down to form nicotinic acid (niacin or vitamin B3), another nutrient with significant health benefits.
Fenugreek Seeds
Fenugreek, a plant commonly used in Indian and Middle Eastern cuisines, contains about 35 percent alkaloids, with trigonelline being the primary one in the seeds.
Other Foods
Trigonelline can be found in a variety of other foods, including barley, cantaloupe, corn, onions, peas, soybeans, and tomatoes.
You can also obtain trigonelline by eating fish, mussels, and crustaceans.
Never Too Late to Address Age-Related Muscle Loss: Expert
It’s natural to lose muscle mass as we age.
“Sarcopenia can occur due to a myriad of factors, such as immobility, lack of proper nutrition, obesity, and lack of physical activity,” Macie Smith, a licensed gerontology social worker, told The Epoch Times. “Since the senior population tends to be more sedentary, you’ll see it show up more prevalently in persons over the age of 65, but the process can begin as early as 30–40 years of age.”
However, while we cannot prevent aging, we can reduce muscle mass loss caused by it.
This can be done through proper exercise; a balanced, nutritional diet; and managing any underlying health conditions.
“It’s never too late to build and strengthen muscle to counter the effects of sarcopenia,” Ms. Smith said. “You can always develop a new exercise regimen that will allow you to become active and to maintain the active lifestyle.”
How much do you trust the government, and its various institutions?
It’s likely that your level of confidence probably depends on a wide range of factors, such as perceived competency, historical context, economic performance, accountability, social cohesion, and transparency.
And for these same reasons, trust levels in government institutions also change all the time, even in the world’s most developed countries: the G7.
Confidence in Government by G7 Countries (2006-2023)
This chart, via Visual Capitaist's Nick Routley, looks at the changes in trust in government institutions between the years 2006 and 2023, based on data from a multi-country Gallup poll.
Specifically, this dataset aggregates confidence in multiple national institutions, including the military, the judicial system, the national government, and the integrity of the electoral system.
What’s interesting here is that in the G7, a group of the world’s most developed economies, there is only one country bucking the general trend: the United States.
Across most G7 countries, confidence in institutions has either improved or stayed the same between 2006 and 2023. The largest percentage point (p.p.) increases occur in Italy and Japan, which saw +13 p.p. and +11 p.p. increases in trust over the time period.
In the U.S., however, confidence in government institutions has fallen by 13 p.p. over the years. What happened?
Key Figures on U.S. Trust in Institutions
In 2006, the U.S. was tied with the UK as having the highest confidence in government institutions, at 63%.
But here’s where the scores stand in 2023, across various institutions:
Based on this data, it’s clear that the U.S. lags behind in three key indicators: confidence in the national government, confidence in the justice system, and confidence in fair elections. It ranked in last place for each indicator in the G7.
One other data point that stands out: despite leading the world in military spending, the U.S. is only the third most confident in its military in the G7. It lags behind France (86%) and the United Kingdom (83%).
Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
People who received more than one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to contract COVID-19, according to a new study.
An analysis of data from Cleveland Clinic employees found that people who received two or more doses were at higher risk of COVID-19, Dr. Nabin Shrestha and his co-authors reported.
The risk of contracting COVID-19 was 1.5 times higher for those who received two doses, 1.95 times higher for those who received three doses, and 2.5 times higher for those who received three or more doses, the researchers found. The higher risk was compared to people who received zero or one dose of a vaccine.
Even after adjusting for variables, the elevated risk remained.
“The exact reason for this finding is not clear. It is possible that this may be related to the fact that vaccine-induced immunity is weaker and less durable than natural immunity. So, although somewhat protective in the short term, vaccination may increase risk of future infection,” the researchers said in the paper, which was released as a preprint.
Dr. Robert Malone, a vaccine researcher who was not involved in the paper, told The Epoch Times that the paper served as “another acknowledgment that the products are not effective or are at very low effectiveness and are contributing to negative effectiveness [down the line].”
He noted that the researchers did not study vaccine safety among the employee population. The COVID-19 vaccines can cause a number of side effects, including fatal heart inflammation, according to the literature and death records.
Earlier studies and data have also suggested that people with more vaccine doses are more susceptible to COVID-19 infection, including previous papers from the Cleveland Clinic scientists and a study from Iceland.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has repeatedly declined requests to comment on outside research, recommends virtually all people aged 6 months and older receive one of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines, regardless of how many shots they’ve received, although a meeting later in May is set to discuss whether to update the vaccine formulations to improve protection.
CDC scientists said in a paper published in February in the agency’s weekly report that the latest version of the vaccines, a monovalent targeting the XBB.1.5 subvariant, provided 49 percent effectiveness between 60 and 119 days later when the JN.1 virus strain was dominant. Supplementary data, however, showed that people aged 50 and older who received the previous bivalent version were more susceptible to symptomatic infection.
Authors disclosed no conflicts of interest and acknowledged at least five limitations, including how they used a proxy for infection with JN.1.
Another study, released ahead of peer review in April, estimated the effectiveness of Pfizer’s updated vaccine as 32 percent against hospitalization from late 2023 through early 2024. The research was conducted by scientists from multiple institutions, including the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Pfizer, many authors reported conflicts of interest, and some of the funding came from Pfizer.
People’s immune systems being trained to react to older virus strains at the expense of protection against newer variants is one theory for why the vaccinated might be more prone to infection.
“Multiple vaccine doses may have the effect of antibody-dependent enhancement or ‘original antigenic sin,’ which increase the infection response disproportionally to antibodies generated from the first vaccine dose, rather than from the current vaccine or the current infection, making the antibody response less effective,” Dr. Harvey Risch, professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Epoch Times in an email after reviewing the paper.
Dr. Shrestha, who did not respond to a request for comment, and the Cleveland Clinic researchers aimed to analyze the effectiveness of the XBB.1.5 shots against JN.1, which displaced XBB.1.5 before the end of 2023.
To do so, they analyzed the incidence of COVID-19 among Cleveland Clinic employees from Dec. 31, 2023, to April 22, 2024.
Among approximately 47,500 employees included in the study, 838 tested positive for COVID-19 during that period.
Unadjusted data showed no difference between people who received one of the updated shots and people who didn’t, but after adjusting for age and other factors, the researchers estimated the shots provided 23 percent effectiveness against infection.
Federal and global guidelines consider vaccines ineffective if they provide under 50 percent shielding.
The number of severe illnesses among the study population was too small to estimate effectiveness against severe illness, the researchers said.
Listed limitations included the inability to separate symptomatic and asymptomatic infections. No conflicts of interest were reported and authors said they received no funding.
The green new deal and switch to "alternative' energy looks like it's going exactly as planned: costing the taxpayer trillions of dollars and generally pissing everybody off.
That was the case with a number of solar panel owners who are now finding it difficult to get their panels serviced, according to WBAL TV.
Solar panel installation is touted as offering benefits like reduced energy costs, environmental friendliness, and significant rebates. However, many homeowners have discovered a concerning issue within the industry: addressing technical problems can be exceedingly challenging -- if not outright impossible.
Those interviewed shared experiences with various solar providers, each facing prolonged unresolved issues.
Tom Lucas, who installed solar panels in 2018, initially saw higher electricity production. Yet, by 2022, 20% of his system failed, leading to considerable losses. Despite having a 25-year warranty from Invaleon Solar Technologies, the issue remains unaddressed.
Lucas commented: "I've been totally ghosted. All I want is a working system. To me, even though I'm generating some electricity, it's not right."
Lucas added: "They're a sales-oriented company. All solar companies are. They want to sell the next job. They want to get that installed and move on to the next sale. They're not service-oriented."
Steve Pilotte, an early solar adopter, has experienced ongoing problems since 2009. His current provider, Sunrun, has been unresponsive in fixing an inverter issue that started in 2020, despite multiple technician visits.
"Once again, in 2022, I followed up with them. And then 2023. And January 2024. I'm totally lost. I've never experienced a situation like this in my life."
Mike Rice, who leases from Spruce Power, saw his electricity costs drop significantly until 2023 when his meter malfunctioned. Despite the fault, Spruce has not compensated him for the energy lost during peak production times.
"No one called me to tell me my system is out. Not even credits. I'd just take credits so I can offset my future bills, but they won't do that," Rice said.
"I think they're more interested in putting solar up than repairing it," he concluded.
Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Attorneys general representing half of the country on May 1 sued President Joe Biden’s administration over a new rule requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including private sales.
Lawsuits in Florida, Texas, and Arkansas are asking the courts to block a rule from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that redefines “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms.
Under the new rule, almost every transfer of firearm ownership would require at least one party to have a Federal Firearms License and perform a criminal background check, including private sales.
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland signed the new rule on April 10, and it goes into effect on May 10.
According to the 466-page rule, the only requirement for determining whether a person is engaged in the business of selling guns is whether the person is trading to “predominately earn a profit.” Previously, the defining characteristic was whether the dealer worked to earn a “livelihood.”
The new definition is in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), signed into law on June 25, 2022.
In the Florida case, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
According to the lawsuit Ms. Moody filed on May 1, the act was passed to balance gun owners’ rights against public safety concerns.
In the filing, Ms. Moody wrote that the BSCA’s sponsors assured voters that the law clarified that dealers were only those who earned their livelihood from selling guns. Ms. Moody claims that President Biden is stretching the language of the act to fit his political agenda.
“Sensing an opportunity, the Biden Administration now seeks to exploit the minor changes to federal law enacted in the BSCA to implement President Biden’s preferred policies by executive fiat,” Ms. Moody wrote.
The other two lawsuits—filed in the Northern District of Texas and Eastern District of Arkansas—also decry the change as an unconstitutional infringement on Americans’ Second Amendment rights and an illegal attempt to circumvent the U.S. Congress and enact “universal background checks.”
President Biden has called for expanding the criminal background check requirement since his election in 2020.
Each suit asks its respective court to block the rule’s enforcement and find that it violates the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedures Act.
ATF spokesperson Kristina Mastropasqua said the agency had no comment on the lawsuits.
The White House did not respond to requests from The Epoch Times for comment on this story.
The attorneys general say they are defending their constituents’ rights.
“This lawsuit is just the latest instance of me and my colleagues in other states having to remind the President that he must follow the law,” Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin wrote in a press release on May 1.
Mr. Griffin joined Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach in the largest suit, representing 21 states. They say the new rule completely reverses decades of legal precedence that protected the right of private parties to buy, sell, or trade firearms without government intrusion.
“Defendants’ claim of authority to implement this scheme dramatically upends both our constitutional traditions and the federal firearms licensing regime Congress designed,” the lawsuit states.
In addition to Kansas and Arkansas, the plaintiffs in the Arkansas lawsuit include Iowa, Montana, Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Private citizens Phillip Journey, Allen Black, Donald Maxey, and the Chisholm Trail Antique Gun Association joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs.
They are suing Mr. Garland, ATF Director Steven Dettelbach, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the ATF.
“This rule is blatantly unconstitutional. We are suing to defend the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,” Mr. Kobach wrote in a press release on his state website.
In Texas, four states, four Second Amendment Advocacy groups, and one individual are challenging the rule in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Amarillo.
That lawsuit was filed on May 1 by the states of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Utah, along with Gun Owners of America Inc., the Gun Owners’ Foundation, the Tennessee Firearms Association, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Jefferey W. Tormey.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a press release calling the new rule an affront to the Constitution.
“Yet again, Joe Biden is weaponizing the federal bureaucracy to rip up the Constitution and destroy our citizens’ Second Amendment rights,” Mr. Paxton’s statement reads.
Gun Owners of America Eric Pratt said allowing the rule to stand would send a dangerous message to other government agencies. In the press release, Mr. Pratt wrote that the rule must be struck down entirely.
“Anything less would further encourage this tyrannical administration to continue weaponizing vague statutes into policies that are meant to further harass and intimidate gun owners and dealers at every turn.”
In a recent development, a House Committee subpoena has forced the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to reveal details of its parole program designed to allow entry for thousands of individuals from several nations.
The program, established in October 2022, was initially tailored to facilitate entry for Venezuelans who had American sponsors and passed a vetting process. However, the scope of the program rapidly expanded, encompassing individuals from Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua as well - eventually flying illegal aliens to more than 45 cities across the United States.
According to the DHS documents, between January and August 2023, the parole program allowed over 200,000 individuals to enter the United States. While the program did not cover the cost of flights for these individuals, it permitted them to enter the country and make travel arrangements independently. Among the program's participants, Florida emerged as a leading destination, with around 80% of the 200,000 choosing to settle in cities such as Miami, Tampa, and Fort Lauderdale. Other prominent destinations included New York, California, Texas, Nevada, and Georgia.
DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas defended the program, stating that it provided "a safe and orderly way to reach the United States" and asserting, though without presenting specific evidence, that the program "resulted in a reduction in numbers of those nationalities." Mayorkas also highlighted its global relevance, noting its role in addressing "the unprecedented level of migration throughout our hemisphere" and suggesting that other countries might see it as a model to manage irregular migration.
That said, the documents revealed that at least 1.6 million applications were still pending as of October 2023. The program currently admits approximately 30,000 individuals per month, granting them work permits and authorizing them to live in the country for two years.
Congressman Mark Green (R-Tenn.), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, expressed strong criticism of the program, stating, "These documents expose the egregious lengths Secretary Mayorkas will go to ensure inadmissible aliens reach every corner of the country, from Orlando and Atlanta to Las Vegas and San Francisco." Green labeled the parole program "an unlawful sleight of hand" aimed at concealing the worsening border crisis from the American public.
In response to perceived poor handling of the border crisis, Mayorkas faced impeachment by the House of Representatives in February. This marked the second impeachment of a Cabinet secretary in U.S. history, and the first in nearly 150 years. However, the Senate's Democratic majority ultimately voted to end the trial without proceeding to a vote on conviction or acquittal, following repeated delays.
The disclosure of the DHS parole program documents has reignited debate over U.S. immigration policy and the handling of migration at the southern border, reflecting persistent tensions on these issues at both the national and international levels.
Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Former President Donald Trump docketed a brief to support his motion to dismiss the classified documents indictment against him in Florida, citing “selective and vindictive prosecution” on Thursday.
The 43-page filing contends that special counsel Jack Smith’s case against the former president “has been motivated by improper political animus.”
It cites “targeted leaks and public statements” by President Joe Biden, “urging others to prosecute President Trump.” This refers to a New York Times report from April 2, 2022, reporting that President Biden told his “inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted.”
President Trump’s lawyers contend that the article amounted to presidential pressure on Attorney General Merrick Garland to “act ... more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action.”
The motion details a series of events to support the former president’s arguments of a concerted effort by the Biden administration and federal agencies to target him.
It points to statements from officials at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which is responsible for the preservation of presidential records, that the Biden administration’s “current business” was investigating the 45th president. Among other events, it cites a text message from a NARA official dated Feb. 9, 2022, stating that the classified documents have “consumed all of our discussions” with the Biden White House.
“There is evidence of vindictive political animosity focused on election interference in these proceedings, which is part of the reason why the Special Counsel’s Office is wrong in the claim that President Trump ‘does not contend that the Special Counsel himself was motivated by improper considerations,’” President Trump’s lawyers argue.
Smith Refutes Trump’s Claims
In a March 7 filing, Mr. Smith argues against President Trump’s claims that the prosecution team, influenced by political bias, is selectively targeting him for prosecution.
Prosecutors from the special counsel’s office argue that the former president hadn’t identified anyone in his motion who was engaging in similar conduct without being prosecuted and failed to provide evidence that his indictment was solely retaliatory.
“Trump contends ... that he has been subject to selective and vindictive prosecution,” the prosecution wrote. “But he has not identified anyone who has engaged in a remotely similar battery of criminal conduct and not been prosecuted as a result.
“He has likewise failed to provide any evidence that his indictment was brought solely to retaliate against him for exercising his legal rights, rather than because he flagrantly and repeatedly broke the law,” the prosecution continued.
Meanwhile, President Trump’s legal team has given Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, a list of other former government officials who they say engaged in similar alleged misconduct, including the mishandling of classified information.
Among them are President Biden, former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, and the FBI’s former director James Comey.
However, with respect to the alleged misconduct of these officials, President Trump’s team asserted in a February motion that “no one in the government lifted a finger” to prosecute them.
“Collectively, this history of non-prosecution and leniency for similarly situated individuals and others strongly supports President Trump’s motion based on intolerable and unconstitutional selective and vindictive prosecution,” the motion reads.
President Trump’s lawyers argued again on Thursday that, on its face, these specific comparators are enough to establish a case of selective and vindictive prosecution.
The former president’s legal team asked the judge for further investigation through discovery and a hearing to examine the allegations of selective prosecution.
Trump ‘The Exception’
Special counsel Robert Hurr declined to press charges against President Biden in February, despite finding evidence that he retained and disclosed highly classified materials when he was a private citizen.
According to Mr. Hur’s report from February, there is no precedent for prosecuting former presidents or vice presidents for mishandling classified documents from their own administrations, with one exception.
“The exception is President Trump,” the February motion reads.
“The basis is his politics and status as President Biden’s chief political rival,” the motion continues. “Thus, this case reflects the type of selective and vindictive prosecution that cannot be tolerated. Accordingly, further discovery and a hearing are necessary, and the Superseding Indictment must be dismissed.”
President Trump’s legal team cited Mr. Hur’s report in a bid to exonerate him from charges. On the other hand, the prosecution claims that the former president was the only one who participated in a “multifaceted scheme of deception and obstruction” to prevent the safe return of those documents.
The former president argues that the special counsel’s office is trying to influence the general election by pursuing “two lawless prosecutions,” which have been initiated at the urging of the Biden administration.
“[T]he Special Counsel’s Office seeks to ‘become a de facto campaign voice for the Democrats in the general election,’ and Jack Smith is ‘probably less concerned now with whether a Trump conviction will survive appeal than with whether Trump can be convicted ahead of the November 2024 election,’” the February motions reads.
“No sitting President has ever successfully pressed for the prosecution of a former President, and his chief political rival, the way that President Biden did—proudly and publicly—in 2022,” President Trump’s lawyers contend. “NARA has never targeted a former President in the way that the agency targeted President Trump. No law enforcement body has ever raided a former President’s home. DOJ has never even used civil remedies against a former President.”
President Trump’s defense had previously sought to have the case thrown out based on the Presidential Records Act (PRA), but Judge Cannon rejected this argument on April 4.
Mr. Smith had indicted President Trump and aide Walt Nauta in June 2023, alleging mishandling of over 300 classified documents. The charges against the former president include 31 counts of violating the Espionage Act, along with various other counts related to obstruction of justice, withholding documents, and making false statements.
The Epoch Times contacted Mr. Smith’s office for comment.
A lawyer who was involved in negotiations between former President Donald Trump and two women denied that payments made to them constituted "hush-money," and instead used the word "consideration."
Keith Davidson, who negotiated deals with both Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) and model Karen McDougal, disputed Manhattan prosecutor Joshua Steinglass's language during a May 2 court appearance.
"It wasn’t a ‘payout’ and it wasn’t ‘hush money.’ It was consideration in a civil settlement," said Davidson.
"Would you use the phrase hush money to describe the money that was paid to your client by Donald Trump?" Steinglass shot back.
"I would never use that word," Davidson replied.
When asked what he would call it, he said it was a "Consideration," comparing it to a contract in which one pays to have one's lawn mowed.
Trump attorney Emil Bove pressed Mr. Davidson on his understanding of extortion law, grilling him about previous instances in which he solicited money to suppress embarrassing stories, including one involving wrestler Hulk Hogan.
Mr. Bove suggested to the witness that by the time he negotiated the payments for Ms. McDougal and Ms. Clifford, he would have been “pretty well versed in coming right up to the line without committing extortion.”
“I had familiarized myself with the law,” Mr. Davison replied. -Epoch Times
Davidson also told Steinglass that he worked out the "consideration" deal with former Trump attorney Michael Cohen just days before the 2016 election, but that Trump never signed it.
Avenatti pipes up from prison
Trying to reclaim his 15 minutes of fame from prison, former Trump foe and Stormy Daniels' ex-attorney Michael Avenatti posted on X that Davidson is a liar - and had in fact tried to extort Trump.
"Keith Davidson is lying," claimed Avenatti. "After I confronted her w/ her own text msgs, Daniels admitted to me in early 2019 that she & Davidson had extorted Trump in Oct. 2016 – it was a shakedown."
Keith Davidson is lying. After I confronted her w/ her own text msgs, Daniels admitted to me in early 2019 that she & Davidson had extorted Trump in Oct. 2016 - it was a shakedown. This was one of the many reasons I fired her as a client in Feb. 2019
— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) May 2, 2024
Last month, Trump publicly thanked Avenatti "for revealing the truth about two sleaze bags who have, with their lies and misrepresentations, cost our Country dearly!," referring to the gag orders placed on Trump in his Manhattan trial.
Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,
A major intellectual revelation from my youth came from reading Murray Rothbard’s “What Has Government Done to Our Money?” (1963). He includes a passing opinion that private markets are perfectly capable of producing money with no help from government. Under a sweeping monetary reform, private mints could compete in offering this good with full associated services. There is no need for any government intervention here.
It was the kind of claim that, at some point in one’s life, causes the jaw to hit the floor. Investigating this assertion more, I came to see that there was a large literature on the topic. Historically, money originated in the market economy itself, a naturally evolving institution that met the needs of trade. Whatever good was generally valued by everyone, and was as capable of being divided into consistent units with a stable value, could be deployed as money, with no need for government to do anything but watch.
But of course history has not panned out that way. Every government has a strong incentive to monopolize the good called money because this is how they can tax their citizens, reward the most compliant industries, cultivate close relationships with bankers, and inflate the currency at will through a variety of methods depending on the technology of the time.
We can of course imagine primitive tribes or pre-colonial native populations using rocks and shells, but is there a modern case where private coinage became normalized? In a major but often overlooked work of historical scholarship, economist George Selgin has written the most extensive treatment of the private coinage industry in the UK at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
His book “Good Money” is beautifully produced with color photographs of some of the most alluring coins you will ever see. The historical narrative is endlessly fascinating. At the dawn of the factory system, the Royal Mint didn’t care in the slightest bit about small denomination coins of silver and copper to enable small businessmen to pay their workers. The Royal Mint only produced large denominations in gold for big business doing big trade deals.
Frustrated with the inability to pay workers, the entire period from 1700 through 1813 saw the evolution of a sophisticated industry focused on coinage. Old button factories were converted to producing coins of various weights and sizes based on copper and silver. They were used to pay workers and accepted widely by merchants.
The system worked just fine and it could have continued forever. The new industry alleviated the coin shortage and yielded healthy competition among many producers of new money. It was all made to be inflation resistant and verifiable according to standard weights and measures. This was a full industry of private coinage, in operation in one of the most advanced and industrious societies in the world at the time.
Sadly, the Royal Mint eventually became upset about this. Driven by the eternal need of government to control the money in its realm, Parliament passed a series of acts in 1812–1813 to cartelize the function of the mint and make the Royal Mint the only legal producer. The entire industry was destroyed very quickly. So from this one case, we can see that the monopolization of money is not an outgrowth of market forces but imposed by government. It has always been this way.
The digital age birthed new attempts to privatize money, stemming from a very real problem of financial verification (revealed in the 2008 financial crisis) and using money without the need for intermediaries. The result was Bitcoin, which was born in January 2010. It grew in sophistication and value over the course of the year. In the following seven years, adoption exploded and incentivized the creation of new private methods of settling transactions and accepting credit cards. It was a solid competitor to nationalized money.
As in 1813, governments did not much like it. The code of Bitcoin itself was deliberately throttled to prevent the new private money from scaling, prompting a fork in the transaction chain and the birth of general chaos in the industry, even as Bitcoin itself kept growing in value. Government responded by taking control of the on-ramps, the off-ramps, all exchanges, and then put heavy taxation and reporting requirements on all dealings. Right now, the crackdown is full-on, with websites and wallets being shut down and top investors investigated and even subject to criminal trials.
As in 19th century Britain, we see here another tragic case of government intervention strangling a wonderful new industry in the interest of maintaining a monopoly on power, the first condition of which is always to control the money of the realm.
I think back to my own shock at the discovery that free enterprise was fully capable of managing money as a good. It had never occurred to me because it had always been otherwise. And yet, if you think about it, there are all sorts of conditions in which market forces invent money as a method of moving beyond primitive barter arrangements.
Every prison has its own form of money. It used to be cigarettes but now is more commonly canned fish or some other valued good. The only reason this is not common in society at large is that governments do not want it this way.
A feature of government management in modern times has been periodic reforms that always end in making the system worse. We had a government-backed gold standard in the late 19th century that was compromised by a fixed price relationship between gold and silver that was unsustainable. Then we got the Federal Reserve in 1913, with the promise that it would control inflation even as it took off soon after the Fed accommodated the need for war funding.
In 1933, we got another reform that devalued the currency from the center, changing the definition of a dollar from 1/20 an ounce of gold to 1/35 an ounce. That massive devaluation was accompanied by a nationwide gold confiscation that included criminal penalties and jail time for noncompliance. At the close of World War II, a new system called Bretton Woods forbid domestic conversion and only allowed gold for international exchange. This was completely unsustainable because every nation has different fiscal and monetary policies so of course the value of money could not be frozen in place. This led to the end of the gold standard completely in 1971–73, resulting in a disastrous inflation bout.
No question that the next great monetary reform will be to globalize a central bank digital currency with track-and-trace capability and the power to turn money on and off on political whim. In order to make this possible, government now needs to eliminate all the competition, just as they did in 1813.
None of this mucking around with the money is in the public interest. It is in the government’s interest and also its industrial partners in banking and finance. A full denationalization of money is the fix for the whole problem but getting there from here will require dislodging the government of its penchant for controlling the economic forces of the whole realm. It’s an age-old problem and perhaps the greatest challenge of all ages.
California’s government bet that they knew better than the free market. And now millions are paying the price...
The story begins in 1919, when the city of Berkley, California instituted legislation setting aside districts that would only allow the construction of single-family housing. The idea spread, and soon much of California’s urban areas had adopted the zoning policy. Today, approximately 40% of the total land in Los Angeles is set aside for single-family homes, while only 11% is reserved for multi-family residences.
In 2021, a bill was signed which was intended to end single-family zoning in California. But politics is rarely that simple. The decision was met with widespread protests and an LA County Court recently declared the law unconstitutional, preventing its passing in 5 Southern California cities. While many celebrated the ruling, the decision has perpetuated California’s housing crisis.
The logic behind the original legislation was to preserve the “charm” of California’s neighborhoods. In the eyes of policymakers, multi-family residences such as apartment complexes or duplexes would sully the white-picket fence aesthetic which they saw as a staple of Californian life. While this may appear like a harmless notion, this idealism came with devastating consequences.
The problem with this policy is apparent to those with an understanding of supply and demand. By preventing high-capacity residences from being built, the supply of housing has been artificially constrained by the legislation. Even as demand rises for increased housing, companies cannot produce the necessary residences to meet the desire. When demand rises while supply remains fixed, prices will surge. And that’s exactly what happened.
California has the second highest home prices of any state, behind only Hawaii. Housing costs have increased by 10.1% in the past year, while the number of homes sold has decreased by 6.9%. As of March 2024, the average price of a house in LA is a staggering $974,000. In San Francisco, that figure is 1.29 million.
These soaring rates have heavily affected the citizenry. California has the 4th highest homelessness per capita rate among U.S. states. Over 180,000 Californians are homeless, which is almost a third of the nation’s entire homeless population.
While the cause of some homelessness is self-inflicted, studies have found a direct correlation between the cost of housing and rates of homelessness. With the second-highest housing costs of any state, it’s safe to say daunting housing prices are at least partially to blame for a vast number of California’s displaced citizens.
Another consequence of the legislation is an increase in class inequality. California has the fourth-most unequal income distribution of any state. The zoning law contributes to this problem by acting as a gatekeeper that excludes low-income families from better neighborhoods, sacrificing equality for community “quality.” Accompanied by the state’s stringent school choice laws, many citizens are left attending lower-caliber schools in worse neighborhoods. This harms future career opportunities and feeds the vicious generational cycle of poverty.
These issues are all either caused or exacerbated by the single-family zoning legislation which has constrained the state’s housing market for decades. The directive prevents the construction of apartment complexes, or other housing structures which would cater to a larger constituency, keeping prices too high for many to afford. From 1919 to the present, politicians have continued to turn a blind eye to single-family zoning’s detrimental effects in the pursuit of the perceived good of protecting neighborhoods.
The Fundamental Problem with Government Intervention
Government intervention always leads to unintended consequences. It’s a tale as old as government. But why does it so often result in disaster?
There’s a fatal flaw at the root of all bureaucratic intervention: a lack of information. In any centralized decision, there is an incalculable amount of pertinent decentralized information that is not available to governmental bodies.
In the absence of intervention, this information is communicated through prices. Even though all of the information will never be understood by the same person at once, we’re still able to coordinate our plans to reach a productive end. That’s the beauty of the price system. You may have no idea that a cocoa farm in Ghana had a poor yield, but you will buy less cocoa when it costs more than usual. A series of complex events can all be boiled down to a simple price hike.
Government intervention is the wrench in the works. No centralized body can know all of the variables in a given situation. While protecting Californian neighborhoods sounds good, it is a gross simplification of the actual issues at play. Restricting the supply of housing leads to a bevy of consequences, including skyrocketing prices, rampant homelessness, and pervasive inequality. The pursuit of a solution in the absence of information usually ends up hurting more people than it helps.
Economics is often regarded as a dismal science reserved for bookworms and professors. But for the homeless who are struggling to survive because of market-hampering governmental policies, economics is about life and death. When the government intervenes in the market system because it “knows best,” it far too often doesn’t, and innocent people pay the price. It’s up to us to hold our leaders accountable for the consequences of their actions and to help those harmed by their political arrogance.
By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com
Australian Retirement Trust, which manages $183 billion (AUS$280 billion) of retirement savings, is placing thermal coal on its exclusion list as of July 1, as it looks to have a net-zero emissions portfolio by 2050.
Thermal coal includes the mining of lignite, bituminous, anthracite, and steam coal and its sale to external parties, the second-largest Australian pension fund said in updates to its product offering.
The fund will be screening its investments and exclude direct investments in coal companies that have 10% of revenue from coal (estimated or reported) in the most recent year of financial reporting.
“As a global investor, Australian Retirement Trust is committed to achieving a net zero greenhouse gas emissions investment portfolio by 2050,” the fund said in a statement carried by Reuters.
However, it applies exclusions in limited circumstances “in accordance with members’ best financial interest.”
For coal investments, exclusions will apply for pooled derivative products, which may have indirect exposure to companies involved in the mining of thermal coal. Exclusions will also be made for companies deriving revenue from metallurgical coal used in the production of steel, coal mined for internal power generation, intra-company sales of mined thermal coal, revenue from coal trading, and royalty income for companies not involved in thermal coal extraction operations.
Climate change is the single largest motivation of investment institutions to decide to exclude companies from their portfolios, a so-called ‘exclusion tracker’ showed last year.
Investors have become increasingly wary of investing in ‘sin industries’, which for many now include fossil fuel companies alongside the weapons and tobacco sectors.
Pension funds and other institutional investors in Europe have already excluded some major oil and gas companies from their portfolios, while some European banks have scaled back financing for fossil fuel projects.
Not all investors are dumping fossil fuels—some believe that owning stocks could help them influence decisions at oil and gas firms regarding emissions reductions.
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 3, 2024
Watch Live on X, YouTube and Rumble.
ZeroHedge is partnering with Crypto Banter to bring together four top minds to debate one of the most combustible topics of the day: gold or bitcoin?
In the anti-crypto corner is the man whose name is synonymous with “gold”, infamous crypto bear Peter Schiff. Alongside Schiff will be “Dr. Doom”, renowned economist Nouriel Roubini.
Arguing in favor of crypto will be Anthony Scaramucci - wealth manager with over $10 billion in AUM - as well as day-one crypto veteran Erik Voorhees, founder of ShapeShift and torch-bearer for the asset class’s libertarian roots.
The debate will be moderated by Ran Neuner, founder and host of Crypto Banter, one of the largest digital asset news channels on YouTube.
ZeroHedge would also like to thank our sponsors for this debate: Preserve Gold and BITLAYER — “Layer 2. The future of Bitcoin.” Whether you’re a fan of gold or Bitcoin, you probably see the wisdom in diversifying away from U.S. dollars. Do so by visiting their websites and checking out their products. ZeroHedge Goldbugs can access a special offer from Preserve Gold by texting “ZERO” to 50505.
And so, without further ado, let's get ready to rumble.
America First Legal revealed documents on Thursday from its lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), showcasing emails from Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine and indicating that the Biden Administration has engaged privately with "gender affirming care providers" from states that have outlawed these practices, pledging federal support to counteract such state laws.
In particular, Levine expressed significant concern for the LGBTI+ community in Idaho, emphasizing ongoing efforts to challenge these state measures nationally, the site pointed out. The documents were acquired through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request concerning Levine’s correspondence about pediatric transgender clinics.
Previously, in March 2023, Levine stated that the federal backing for transitioning children was comprehensive, even at presidential levels, and framed any opposition as politically motivated. The newly revealed records elaborate on the administration's covert operations with advocates to push this agenda.
THERE IT IS.
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) May 2, 2024
America First Legal (@America1stLegal) has uncovered documents proving the Biden administration coordinated with radical activists to find ways around state laws to g*oom children to become "transgend*r."
"New internal docs obtained through our lawsuit against HHS… pic.twitter.com/UOfhiskOsE
One notable communication from June 2022 involves HHS Regional Director Ingrid Ulrey discussing an Idaho meeting about impending legislation aimed at prohibiting certain medical treatments for minors. Ulrey's message to Levine highlighted her empathy for Idaho's LGBTQ community, particularly in light of legislative efforts she described as harmful.
Among other things, the report noted that in her memo, Ulrey highlighted concerns about the impact of Idaho's proposed law on "Gender Affirming Care" (GAC), including a doctor shortage and the high costs of such treatments without insurance subsidies.
She noted that only one provider was offering GAC to a significant state prison population, with a few others too intimidated to attend a meeting or preferring to stay under the radar. Ulrey also relayed that the care providers had specific definitions of GAC, controversially suggesting the removal of parental consent requirements, which could include requiring consent from just one parent or both if divorced. This approach appears to be advocated by a high-ranking HHS official following discussions with these providers.
Ulrey's discussions with "gender-affirming care providers" led to a disturbing proposal to simplify legal barriers, including reducing parental consent requirements for such treatments, according to America First Legal.
Following these meetings, a high-ranking HHS official advocated for the removal of parental consent as part of the definition of "gender-affirming care."
The meeting's summary called for federal intervention to override state laws restricting such care, with suggestions for using Medicaid to mandate coverage across all states and queries about providing such care in prisons, indicating a push to extend "gender-affirming care" despite local restrictions.
The summary also reflected provider concerns about parental rights obstructing children's access to these treatments. On June 5, 2022, Assistant Secretary Levine expressed ongoing support for the LGBTI+ community in Idaho, promising to continue advocacy efforts nationally.
Further details emerged from a June 2022 roundtable in Anchorage, Alaska, where discussions focused on integrating mental health counselors in schools amidst concerns about parental opposition. A local clinic, Identity, Inc., was noted for providing non-surgical gender-affirming care, with surgical treatments sought outside Alaska. The report also mentioned potential local legislation in Anchorage impacting transgender individuals' participation in school sports, signaling continued legislative challenges for the transgender community.
America First Legal Senior Advisor Ian Prior commented: “The Biden Administration is leveraging the full power of the federal government to engage in an anti-science war on reality, with America’s children as the collateral damage. While European nations are drastically pulling back on these dangerous experiments and a number of states are legislating against them, the Biden Administration is plowing full steam ahead in its goal of redefining the foundations of biology, from the doctors’ offices to the athletic fields. This comes even as the United States Supreme Court has held that states have a right to enact such legislation. The Biden Administration is supporting crimes against humanity, and America First Legal will continue to fight back until these dangerous practices end.”
You can read the full trove of emails here.
Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Approximately half of the health care workers in a Polish study were found to be averse to taking COVID-19 booster shots, with one of the reasons for this hesitancy being their negative experiences with previous vaccinations.
The peer-reviewed study, published in the Vaccines journal on April 29, examined factors underlying “hesitancy to receive COVID-19 booster vaccine doses” among health care workers (HCW) in Poland. Almost 50 percent of the participants were identified as being wary of the boosters. “Our study found that 42 percent of the HCWs were hesitant about the second booster dose, while 7 percent reported no intent to get vaccinated with any additional doses.”
“As reasons for not vaccinating, participants most frequently highlighted lack of time, negative experiences with previous vaccinations, and immunity conferred by past infections.”
The study involved 69 healthcare workers composed of nurses, midwives, physicians, other health associate professionals, and administrative staff.
At the time of enrollment, 47 had a history of lab-confirmed COVID-19 infection and 31 had at least one comorbidity, a situation where a person suffers from more than one disease or medical condition at the same time.
Over 92 percent of study participants received at least one vaccine booster, with 50.73 percent getting two doses. Five out of the 69 HCWs did not take any boosters.
“Booster hesitancy among health professionals (physicians, nurses, and midwives) was lower than among administrative staff and others. Almost 79 percent of the physicians had received two COVID-19 vaccine booster doses. However, apart from physicians, about half of the HCWs from each occupation group were hesitant about the second booster dose.”
“The highest number of HCWs without any vaccine boosters was observed among administration personnel.”
HCWs in the age groups of 31-40 and 41-50 were found to be the most skeptical about taking the second booster shot. Thirty-four out of the 69 HCWs provided reasons for their COVID-19 booster vaccine hesitancy.
Two of the health care workers who did not take booster shots said their decision was based on their personal experience with the vaccines.
“They reported negative experiences with past COVID-19 vaccination and stated that the natural immunity developed after SARS-CoV-2 infection could protect them against COVID-19, which, overall, does not pose serious health risks,” the study said.
“Responses from HCWs who received only one COVID-19 booster dose can be categorized into two themes: (i) influences arising from personal perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine and disease prevention and (ii) issues directly related to vaccination and its safety.”
Six health care workers reported suffering negative adverse effects after previously taking COVID shots. Four had safety concerns about the vaccines.
In an earlier study conducted by the researchers, COVID-19 antibody levels among HCWs after receiving the mandatory primary vaccine series were found to have decreased by around 90 to 95 percent within seven months of vaccination. However, “none of the HCWs contracted COVID-19,” it said.
The current study was funded by the Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry Polish Academy of Sciences. The authors of the study reported no conflicts of interest.
Vaccine Concerns, Harms
Other studies have also explored vaccine hesitancy among health care workers. A March 2023 study that looked at HCWs from Cameroon and Nigeria found that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was “high and broadly determined by the perceived risk of COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines on personal health, mistrust in COVID-19 vaccines, and uncertainty about colleagues’ vaccine acceptability.”
An April 2022 study found that “a concern for vaccine side effects” and “the belief that the vaccines are inadequately studied” were some of the key reasons for vaccine hesitancy among health care workers.
A May 2022 analysis at BMJ Global Health warned that indulging in policies like mandatory vaccination “may cause more harm than good.”
“Current mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good,” it said.
“Current policies may lead to a widening of health and economic inequalities, detrimental long-term impacts on trust in government and scientific institutions, and reduce the uptake of future public health measures, including COVID-19 vaccines as well as routine immunizations.”
The analysis recommended that vaccines should only be mandated “sparingly and carefully to uphold ethical norms and trust in institutions.”
During Sen. Ron Johnson’s (R-Wis.) roundtable discussion on COVID-19 vaccines on Feb. 26, researcher Raphael Lataster, associate lecturer at the University of Sydney, claimed that data from Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials exaggerated the efficacy of the shots.
The data exaggeration could make an ineffective vaccine have a perceived effectiveness of up to 48 percent, he stated.
Meanwhile, a Jan. 27 narrative review found that repeated COVID-19 vaccination may end up boosting the likelihood of experiencing COVID-19 infections and other pathologies. Taking multiple vaccine doses could trigger higher levels of IgG4 antibodies and impair activating white blood cells that protect a person from infections and cancers.
“While booster doses have been recommended to enhance and extend immunity, especially in the face of emerging variants, this recommendation is not based on proven efficacy, and the side effects have been neglected,” the paper said.
In an interview with EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program last year, clinical pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole said that DNA contamination in some of the COVID-19 vaccines could be behind an increase in cancers. He pointed to “turbo cancers,” referring to the phenomenon of cancer symptoms arising faster.
“Now I’m seeing the solid tissue cancers at rates I’ve never seen ... Patients that were stable, or cancer-free for one, two, five, ten years and their cancer’s back, it’s back with a vengeance and it’s not responding to the traditional therapies,” he said.
Authored by John Seiler via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
So much for California’s mandate that “all new passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs sold in California will be zero-emission vehicles by 2035,” according to the California Air Resources Board. It imposed the mandate at the request of Gov. Gavin Newsom.
On April 24, Ford reported it lost $132,000 for each of its 10,000 electric vehicles sold in the first quarter of 2024, according to CNN. The sales were down 20 percent from the first quarter of 2023 and would “drag down earnings for the company overall.”
The losses include “hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford. Those investments are years away from paying off.” Ford is the only major carmaker breaking out EV numbers by themselves. But other marques likely suffer similar losses.
Californians bought 1.78 million new vehicles in 2023, reported the California New Car Dealers Association. Multiply that number by $132,000 and you get $235 billion. That would bankrupt every car manufacturer, meaning they just would pull out of selling anything in the state.
The California government would have to set up socialist, government-owned companies to make the cars, like the infamous Yugo. Dubbed “the worst car in history,” it was sold in America in the 1980s and was made by the communist Yugoslav government just before the country itself broke up in 1991.
Battery Problems
The Epoch Times also reported that same day, April 24, “Ford Recalling More Than 55,000 SUVs and Trucks in Canada Over Battery Issues.” The Transport Canada notice read, “A sudden loss of power to the wheels or a vehicle that doesn’t restart after a start-stop event could increase the risk of a crash. Additionally, hazard lamps that don’t work could make the vehicle less visible and increase the risk of a crash.”
Also, most of Canada gets really cold in the winter. “The effects of cold weather on car batteries start to become pronounced when the temperature drops below freezing for an extended period,” explained United Tire & Service. “At a temperature of 32 degrees Fahrenheit, your battery will lose about 30 percent of its power. Your battery will continue to get weaker as the temperatures get colder. In fact, your battery will lose about 60 percent of its power at 0 degrees Fahrenheit.”
In Montreal, the average low temperature in January is 10 degrees Fahrenheit. In Edmonton it’s 8 degrees.
Most of California enjoys the balmiest weather on earth. But in January 2023, the temperature around Bridgeport, near Yosemite National Park, dropped to minus 27 degrees. In such areas, EVs are almost completely useless except for rich people in the summer.
Cheap Electric Cars?
But isn’t Tesla working on cheaper models, not just the expensive ones? Aren’t they figuring out what Ford couldn’t? “Exclusive: Tesla scraps low-cost car plans amid fierce Chinese EV competition,” headlined Reuters on April 5.
However, on April 24 Yahoo Finance headlined, “Tesla stock surges as EV maker will ‘accelerate’ the launch of cheaper cars. Tesla had previously said it would focus on its robotaxi product after paring back plans for a lower-cost car.”
Who knows what’s going on with mercurial Tesla CEO Elon Musk? But I would never count him out.
So what about those cheap cars financed by communist China? In February, the Biden administration announced it would investigate Chinese “smart” cars, which like your cell phone—probably also made in China—scoop up increasing amounts of data about your life.
“China is determined to dominate the future of the auto market, including by using unfair practices,’' President Joe Biden said. “China’s policies could flood our market with its vehicles, posing risks to our national security. I’m not going to let that happen on my watch.’’
On April 11, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) called for banning Chinese EVs as “an existential threat to the American auto industry. Ohio knows all too well how China illegally subsidizes its companies, putting our workers out of jobs and undermining entire industries, from steel to solar manufacturing. We cannot allow China to bring its government-backed cheating to the American auto industry.”
So far no action has been taken. But presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump in March promised he would impose a 100 percent tariff on Chinese cars, EV or otherwise, built in Mexico.
No CO2 Threat
Meanwhile, the carbon monoxide emitted by gas and diesel engines is being shown not to cause global warming. Reported No Tricks Zone, “Three Polish physicists have focused their attention on this saturation principle as it applies to CO2 in three recently published papers (Kubicki et al., 2024, 2022, and 2020). Their latest (Kubicki et al., 2024), published in Applications in Engineering Science, summarizes the experimental evidence from their 2020 and 2022 publications substantiating the conclusion that ‘as a result of saturation processes, emitted CO2 does not directly cause an increase in global temperature.’
“The authors are concerned about the recent push to rely on modeling and assumptions about CO2’s capacity to drive changes in global temperature rather than observational evidence. They point out the current CO2-is-the-climate-control-knob zeitgeist is no more than a hypothesis.”
The scientists themselves wrote: “This unequivocally suggests that the officially presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact.”
As I have written several times in The Epoch Times, the CO2 from California vehicles is minuscule compared to the massive spewing from coal plants still being built in massive numbers in communist China. See from March 25, “‘Green Innovation’ Study Shows California CO2 Policies Mainly Help China.”
Conclusion: EV Mandates Are a Delusion
California’s 100 percent zero-emission vehicle mandate by 2035 is a tailpipe dream. It’s pushed by ambitious politicians like Mr. Newsom and financed by billionaire environmentalists like Bill Gates. It has no basis in reality.
At some point in a couple of years, a coalition will form to get rid of these mandates, as well as President Biden’s national goal of more than half of all vehicles sold being EVs by 2030. Auto dealers, especially in California, will work with automakers and the Democratic-aligned United Auto Workers union to push the mandates further into the future, say 2045. Later, the date will be pushed to 2055, and so on.
Mr. Newsom’s term as governor ends in January 2027. President Biden, if reelected, must leave in January 2029. California’s term limits also mandate a maximum of 12 years in the Legislature.
Today’s politicians will be gone soon enough, their green battery dreams wafted away like the thick exhaust from a classic 1957 Chevy.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Colleges and universities are witnessing a coordinated push to spark a new movement resembling Black Lives Matter ahead of the summer months. This time, it's under the guise of defending Palestine while embedding Marxist ideologies, such as quite literally calling for a 'revolution' to usher in 'a socialist reconstruction of the USA.'
An extremist on the mic says: "There’s only one solution, intifada revolution. We must have a revolution so we can have a socialist reconstruction of the USA."
— A Man Of Memes (@RickyDoggin) April 30, 2024
This isn’t just about Israel/Palestine. It's an attempt of the Marxist takeover of America. Our colleges have become… pic.twitter.com/2IEqRyuorB
Once again, George Soros and his Open Society Foundation are funding Marxist chaos across campuses, with Soros-funded Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) having organized them. These professional agitators are trained to rise up for revolution.
Biden has sparked a wildfire. pic.twitter.com/YXbHCKONcm
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) April 25, 2024
So, not enough college students? These radical groups had to import 'outsiders'.
Recall that the son of pro-chaos billionaire Soros, Alex, visited the White House over a dozen times for meetings since 2021.
Meanwhile, Axios reports Democrats are in full-blown 'panic mode' behind the scenes as campus takeovers by extremists of their own party produce terrible optics ahead of the presidential election in November.
"The longer they continue, and the worse that they get, the worse it's going to be for the election overall," one House Democrat said.
The House Democrat warned that school chaos will only "bring out [the public's] most conservative side."
What's clear is that campus protesters are becoming a political liability for Biden and Democrats. That's because Americans aren't falling this time for the fake BLM-style protests. Many folks are realizing just how artificial these protests have become.
One X user asked: "Is it about Free Palestine? or Attack on Capitalism?"
They outlined the four main goals of Marxists stoking campus chaos:
- Gain Power
- Destabilize the System
- ATTACK CAPITALISM!
- Usher in their Marxist Utopia
Is it really about Free Palestine? or Attack on Capitalism?
— gala gauthier (@Eclipsiay) April 27, 2024
The FOUR goals of the Socialist are...
1. Gain Power
2. Destabilize the System
3. ATTACK CAPITALISM!
4. Usher in their Marxist Utopia pic.twitter.com/VhD8xhlg9w
X user Western Lensman might want to update his list...
A Warning to America: 25 Ways the US is Being Destroyed | Explained in Under 2 Minutes pic.twitter.com/qwmBO8DmMt
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) April 22, 2024
Let's remind readers that right before the campus uprisings, there was a surge in Maxists, masquerading as pro-Palestinian protesters, attempting to shut down the nation's critical infrastructure, including bridges, highways, and airport terminals. We asked at the time, "Who are these pro-Palestinian protesters? And who are they being funded by?"
Shutting down critical infrastructure and causing chaos on campuses has nothing to do with helping poor Palestinians, just like burning down businesses and police stations during the Black Lives Matter riots had nothing to do with helping working poor blacks. These movements are hijacked by Marxists, with one intention only: crash the US economy and abolish capitalism.
Besides Soros, could it also be the Saudis, Qataris, and dark Middle Eastern monies that plowed money into Ivy League schools to prop up radical leftists with one common goal? That goal could be to destroy America from within.
After all, America's enemies don't even need to fire a shot when woke Harvard University staff can allow the film screening of "How to Blow Up A Pipeline" to students.
Harvard is promoting domestic ecoterrorism.
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 25, 2024
This is disgraceful. https://t.co/1bB8fpbuzn
The Marxist takeover of America is happening through colleges that have become indoctrination camps for the youth.
Yet the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies are turning a blind eye to this chaos. They're more focused on going after President Biden's political opponents.
However, out of all this chaos this week, there was a glimmer of hope as fraternities at universities stood up to protect Old Glory.
The most notable were the boys at Pi Kappa Phi at UNC - who protected Old Glory from protesters. The boys turned around and raised $500,000 on GoFundMe to throw an epic rager for their heroic patriotic duties.
Frats across the nation got the memo...
They, too, must defend against Marxism.
A small group of Palestine protestors just showed up at University of Mississippi.
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) May 2, 2024
Frat boys came out and drowned out the protesting with Star Spangled Banner. pic.twitter.com/ADYMAxQb8t
University of Mississippi frat boys faced off with Free Palestine protestors today.
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) May 2, 2024
The images speak for themselves. pic.twitter.com/4mPsR9MUiu
ASU FRAT BOYS
— 👑 🇺🇸 0HOUR 🇺🇸👑 (@0HOUR) April 27, 2024
ROLLED UP LAST NIGHT
SPOONKED SOME FREE PALESTINE CAMPS
LIBERATED THE CAMPUS IN 10 MINUTES
SALUTE
WE WANT TO BUY ALL FRAT MALES WHO LIBERATE CAMPUSES BEER
TO BATTLE!!!
TAKE YOUR SCHOOLS BACK! pic.twitter.com/EjafWn7YMs
🔴 Frat Brother Shares Patriotic Message After Protecting American Flag From Pro-Palestine Protestorshttps://t.co/krgR1RMihR
— Resist the Mainstream (@ResisttheMS) May 2, 2024
Frat boys are more patriotic than the president of the United States
— YachtMoney (@yat023) May 3, 2024
I stand with anyone who hoists the American flag over the flag of “Palestine” or the pride flag https://t.co/Lqil68kTvJ
NOW- ‘Taking Back America’- Patriotic frat boys with Trump flags turn up to rally at Ole Miss, overshadowing the far-left Palestine protest on the university’s campus pic.twitter.com/LHpHO2y0Os
— Overton (@OvertonLive) May 2, 2024
Let’s see what the frat boys can do at the southern border.
Authored by Boyan Radoykov via The Epoch Times,
Disinformation is all about power, and because of the harmful and far-reaching influence that disinformation exerts, it cannot achieve much without power.
As a tool for shaping public perceptions, disinformation can be used by authoritarian regimes and democracies alike. The dissemination of false information is not a new practice in human history. However, over the last few decades, it has become professionalized and has taken on exorbitant proportions at both national and international levels.
The Origins of Disinformation
Disinformation can be understood as misleading information, intentionally produced and deliberately disseminated, to mislead public opinion, harm a target group, or advance political or ideological objectives.
The term disinformation is a translation of the Russian дезинформация (dezinformatsiya). On Jan. 11, 1923, the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union decided to create a Department of Disinformation. Its mission was “to mislead real or potential adversaries about the true intentions” of the USSR. From then on, disinformation became a tactic of Soviet political warfare known as “active measures,” a crucial element of Soviet intelligence strategy involving falsification, subversion, and media manipulation.
During the Cold War, from 1945 to 1989, this tactic was used by numerous intelligence agencies. The expression “disinformation of the masses” came into increasing use in the 1960s and became widespread in the 1980s. Former Soviet bloc intelligence officer Ladislav Bittman, the first disinformation professional to defect to the West, observed in this regard that ”The interpretation [of the term] is slightly distorted because public opinion is only one of the potential targets. Many disinformation games are designed only to manipulate the decision-making elite, and receive no publicity.”
With its creation in July 1947, the CIA was given two main missions: to prevent surprise foreign attacks against the United States and to hinder the advance of Soviet communism in Europe and Third World countries. During the four decades of the Cold War, the CIA was also at the forefront of U.S. counter-propaganda and disinformation.
The Soviet Union’s successful test of a nuclear weapon in 1949 caught the United States off guard and led to the advent of the two nuclear powers clashing on the world stage in an international atmosphere of extreme tension, fear, and uncertainty. In 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower received a top-secret report from a commission chaired by retired Gen. James H. Doolittle, which concluded: “If the United States is to survive, long-standing American concepts of ‘fair play’ must be reconsidered. We must develop effective espionage and counterespionage services and must learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies by more clever, more sophisticated and more effective methods than those used against us. It may become necessary that the American people be acquainted with, understand and support this fundamentally repugnant philosophy.” Of course, “repugnant” philosophy includes subversion through disinformation.
Although the United States had high expertise in this field, it did not react much to the disinformation that was sent its way until 1980, when a false document claimed that Washington supported apartheid in South Africa. Later on, they also took offense at Operation Denver, a Soviet disinformation campaign aimed at having the world believe that the United States had intentionally created HIV/AIDS.
In the United States, the intellectual influence of Edward Bernays is at the root of institutional political propaganda and opinion manipulation. A double nephew of Sigmund Freud, he worked as a press agent for Italian tenor Enrico Caruso and for the Ballets Russes. He took part, alongside President Woodrow Wilson, in the Creel Commission (1917), which helped turn American public opinion in favor of going to war. His wife and business partner, Doris Fleischman, advised him to avoid using the overused term “propaganda.” Instead, she coined the term “public relations” to replace it, a term still in use today.
China and Its Digital Authoritarianism
In China, deception, lies, and the rewriting of history are disinformation techniques used by the Chinese Communist Party, according to tactics learned in the Soviet Union in the 1950s. Today, the CCP has a sophisticated arsenal of disinformation on all fronts. Its main objectives are to turn public opinion upside down, interfere in foreign political circles, influence elections, discredit its opponents, and hide its own intentions and priorities.
In September 2021, the French Institute for Strategic Research at the École Militaire published a report on China’s influence operations, which warned: “For a long time, it could be said that China, unlike Russia, sought to be loved rather than feared; that it wanted to seduce, to project a positive image of itself in the world, to arouse admiration. Beijing has not given up on seduction ... but, at the same time, Beijing is increasingly taking on the role of infiltrator and coercer: its influence operations have become considerably tougher in recent years, and its methods increasingly resemble those employed by Moscow.”
On Sept. 28, 2023, the U.S. government published a report in which it accused China of seeking to “reshape the global information landscape” through a vast network specialized in disinformation. “[China’s] global information manipulation is not simply a matter of public diplomacy—but a challenge to the integrity of the global information space.” This “manipulation” encompasses “propaganda, disinformation, and censorship.”
“Unchecked, [China’s] efforts will reshape the global information landscape, creating biases and gaps that could even lead nations to make decisions that subordinate their economic and security interests to Beijing’s,” according to the report.
According to the U.S. State Department, China spends billions of dollars every year on these “foreign information manipulation” operations. At the same time, Beijing suppresses critical information that runs counter to its rhetoric on politically sensitive subjects. The report goes on to state that China manipulates information by resorting to “digital authoritarianism,” exploiting international and UN organizations and controlling Chinese-language media abroad.
When Disinformation Becomes Military Doctrine
In some countries, policymakers may turn to their national history to justify the implementation of certain regulations on information. German politicians, for example, frequently refer to the Nazi past or that of the communist Stasi to justify the regulations they want to put in place. Yet these historical comparisons don’t always hold water. The Nazis, for example, did not come to power because they controlled the then-new technology of radio. Rather, once in power, they used the state control on radio stations that the previous Weimar governments had put in place—in the hope of saving democracy—to their own benefit. This decision by the Weimar governments had the perverse effect of enabling the Nazis to control radio much more quickly than with newspapers.
Disinformation is mainly orchestrated by government agencies. In the post-Soviet era, and with the advent of the information society, when the media and social networks became a central relay for the dissemination of fake news, disinformation evolved to become a fundamental tactic in the military doctrine of powerful countries. In the early 2000s, the European Union and NATO realized that the problem of Russian disinformation was such that they had to set up special units to process and debunk mass-produced false information.
The Methods and Processes of Disinformation
There are four main methods of spreading disinformation: selective censorship, manipulation of search indexes, hacking and dissemination of fraudulently obtained data, and amplification of disinformation through excessive sharing.
By way of example, disinformation activities involve the following processes:
-
The creation of fabricated characters or websites with networks of fake experts who disseminate supposedly reliable references.
-
The creation of “deep-fakes” and synthetic media through photos, videos, and audio clips that have been digitally manipulated or entirely fabricated to deceive the public. Today’s artificial intelligence (AI) tools can make synthetic content almost impossible to detect or distinguish from reality.
-
The development or amplification of conspiracy theories, which attempt to explain important events through the secret actions of powerful actors acting in the shadows. Conspiracy theories aim not only to influence people’s understanding of events, but also their behavior and worldview.
-
Astroturfing and inundation of information environments. At the root of disinformation campaigns are huge quantities of similar content, published from fabricated sources or accounts. This practice, called astroturfing, creates the impression of widespread support or opposition to a message while concealing its true origin. A similar tactic, inundation, involves spamming social media posts and comment sections with the aim of shaping a narrative or stifling opposing viewpoints. In recent years, the use of troll factories to spread misleading information on social networks has gained momentum.
-
Exploiting alternative social media platforms to reinforce beliefs in a disinformation narrative. Disinformation actors take advantage of platforms offering fewer protections for users and fewer options for detecting and removing inauthentic content and accounts.
-
Amplification of information gaps, when there isn’t enough credible information to answer a specific search. Misinformation leaders can exploit these gaps by generating their own content and feeding the search.
-
Manipulating unsuspecting protagonists. Disinformation facilitators target high-profile individuals and organizations to corroborate their stories. Targets are often not even aware that they are repeating a disinformation actor’s narrative, or that this narrative is intended to influence or manipulate public opinion.
-
Dissemination of targeted content: The instigators of disinformation produce customized influential content likely to resonate with a specific audience, based on its worldview, beliefs, and interests. It’s a long-term tactic that involves disseminating targeted content over time to build trust and credibility with the target audience, making it easier to manipulate them.
A Race Against Time to Protect the Younger Generation
In the early 2000s, most publications about the internet hailed its unprecedented potential for development. Only a few years later, commentators, analysts, and policymakers began to worry that the internet, and social media platforms in particular, posed new threats to democracy, global governance, and the integrity of information.
Since then, the world has become increasingly interconnected and interdependent, and the opportunities for misinformation have become almost limitless. With more than 5.5 billion internet users and more than 8.58 billion mobile subscriptions worldwide by 2022, compared to a global population of 7.95 billion at mid-year, the great paradox is that the rise of information technology has created a much more conducive, even thriving, environment for misinformation, and that the development of AI is leading to even worse and more rampant misinformation.
Some experts agree that while online misinformation and propaganda are widespread, it is difficult to determine the extent to which this misinformation has an impact on the public’s political attitudes and, consequently, on political outcomes. Other data have shown that disinformation campaigns rarely succeed in changing the policies of targeted states, but it would be irresponsible to believe that misinformation has little impact. If that were the case, major countries would have abandoned the practice long ago. The opposite is true. With the gradual increase in the foolishness of ruling elites and the rise of new technologies, the policy of destabilization through disinformation has a bright future ahead of it. The risks and stakes remain enormous, and the erosion of public trust in institutions and the media is deeply significant in this regard.
The fight against disinformation must go beyond simplistic solutions such as shutting down Facebook or X (formerly Twitter) accounts, publicly denouncing the actions of one’s adversary, or containing false information through technical means. And it is certainly not enough to focus on measures such as fact-checking or media education to help individuals master and consume information; the average person carries little weight in the face of government disinformation machines.
It would therefore be preferable to address the political and economic operating conditions of the structures that facilitate the spread of disinformation, such as large technology companies, the state actors involved, the media, and other information systems.
Of course, the human factor must remain at the center of leaders’ concerns in the face of growing state and media disinformation. The price of educating young people will always be less than the price of their ignorance.
Yahya Saree, spokesperson for the Iranian-backed Houthi terror group, declared in a televised speech to supporters at a Friday rally in Al-Sabeen Square, Sana, that they intend to target Israel-linked ships in the eastern Mediterranean. The risk of conflict spilling over from the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden remains high.
"We will target any ship heading to Israeli ports in the Mediterranean, in any area we are able to reach," Saree said.
Given that the eastern Mediterranean is 1,900 kilometers (1,180 miles) from Yemen, this may indicate that the conflict area is broadening, triggering a new escalation of the multi-month war.
Fernando Ferreira, energy analyst at Rapidan Energy Group, noted:
"The Houthi nuisance continues, but they are at the limit of their ability to cause disruptions. The real risk of escalation comes from Israeli retaliation on IRGC officers/assets helping the Houthis."
This comes as Houthis have attacked dozens of Western and Israel-linked commercial vessels and military ships across the southern Red Sea, Bab al-Mandab Strait, Gulf of Aden, and even the Strait of Hormuz since last November. The group claims these maritime attacks are in solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza.
Saree warned if the Israel Defense Forces launched an attack on the southern Gaza city of Rafah, where hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are sheltering from the seven-month-long war. They would've no other choice but to impose sanctions on all ships of the companies that are supplying Israel and entering Israeli ports.
What's clear—and the West won't like it—is that the Houthis appear to be expanding their attack coverage as numerous maritime chokepoints in the region are under constant threat.
We pointed out Thursday that Operation Prosperity Guardian, the US-led maritime coalition launched by the Biden administration earlier this year, has been largely a failure.
Maritime traffic data from Bloomberg shows not one single LNG vessel with destinations to Europe and the US was transiting the Red Sea for fear of being attacked by Houthi drones and missiles.
Conflict spillover risks are mounting in the Middle East. Yet the war risk premium in Brent crude has been subsiding in recent weeks.
By Jeffrey Jones at Gallup
For the third year in a row, the percentage of Americans naming inflation or the high cost of living as the most important financial problem facing their family has reached a new high.
The 41% naming the issue this year is up slightly from 35% a year ago and 32% in 2022. Before 2022, the highest percentage mentioning inflation was 18% in 2008. Inflation has been named by less than 10% in most other readings since the question was first asked in 2005.
The latest results are from Gallup’s annual Economy and Personal Finance poll, conducted April 1-22.
Gallup has asked Americans at least annually since 2005 to name, without prompting, the top financial problem facing their family. Inflation has topped the list for the past three years. The cost of owning or renting a home ranks second this year at 14%, a new high for that issue.
Other significant problems Americans identify include having too much debt (8%), healthcare costs (7%), lack of money or low wages (7%), and energy costs or gas prices (6%).
Over the past 19 years, healthcare costs and lack of money or low wages have frequently ranked near the top of the list, while the cost of energy or gas has done so at times of elevated gas prices, as in 2005, 2006 and 2008.
Inflation Named Most Often by All Subgroups
Inflation is named the most important financial problem by all key societal subgroups but garners higher mentions from certain age, income and political groups.
- 46% of older Americans (those aged 50 and older) mention inflation, in contrast with 36% of younger Americans (those under 50).
- Inflation is a more top-of-mind concern for middle-income (46%) and upper-income Americans (41% of those with an annual household income of $100,000 or more) than for lower-income Americans (31% of those with a household income of less than $40,000).
- 56% of Republicans, compared with 39% of independents and 26% of Democrats, name the issue as the most important financial problem facing their family.
Younger and lower-income Americans may be less likely to name inflation than their counterparts because other immediate financial concerns are more pressing for them. For example, 21% of adults under age 50 say housing or rental costs are their top concern, compared with 8% of those aged 50 and older.
Lower-income Americans are more inclined than upper-income and middle-income Americans to say personal debt, healthcare costs, lack of money and job loss are the top concerns facing their family.
Retirement, Medical Emergencies Also Worrisome
A separate question in the survey asks Americans to say how much they worry about each of eight specific personal financial matters. Inflation is not one of those issues, but its influence is apparent in the heightened percentage who worry about not being able to maintain their standard of living. Fifty-five percent are very or moderately worried about maintaining their living standards, the third straight year a majority has done so after being below that level from 2017 through 2021.
Since the question was first asked in 2001, an average of 47% of U.S. adults, including a high of 58% in 2011, have worried about being able to maintain their standard of living.
Maintaining one’s standard of living ranks as one of the three economic matters Americans worry most about, along with not having enough for retirement and being unable to pay medical bills in the event of a serious illness or accident. The latter two issues have consistently ranked first or second each year in Gallup polling dating back to 2001.
Less than half of U.S. adults worry about the five other financial matters, including normal medical costs, normal monthly bills, housing costs, paying for their children’s college and making minimum payments on credit cards.
Compared with last year, there have been slight declines in the percentages worried about medical costs for a serious illness or accident (from 60% to 56%) and not having enough money for retirement (from 66% to 59%). Both issues are now closer to their historical averages after being slightly above them last year. For the other six financial matters, the percentages worried about them are essentially unchanged from a year ago.
As would be expected, those with a lower household income worry more than those with greater resources about nearly all of these financial matters. The one exception is affording college for a child, which shows no meaningful differences by income. Across the eight financial matters, an average of 60% of lower-income Americans express worry, compared with 47% of middle-income and 31% of upper-income Americans.
Majorities of lower-income adults worry about six of the eight financial matters, compared with three issues for middle-income adults and only one for those in upper-income households.
The greatest disparity in worry on any single issue between income groups is being able to pay one’s normal monthly bills, which concerns 67% of lower-income adults but only 21% of upper-income adults.
Ratings of Personal Finances Remain Subdued
Forty-six percent of Americans rate their personal finances as excellent or good, similar to what Gallup has measured the past two years but a worse evaluation than in 2017 through 2021. Meanwhile, 36% describe their finances as “only fair,” while 17% rate them as “poor.”
Americans’ ratings of their personal financial situation were worse than now between 2009 and 2012, as the U.S. was coming out of the Great Recession and unemployment was high. During those years, an average of 42% of Americans rated their personal finances positively.
All income groups remain less positive about their financial situation now compared with 2021. Currently, 72% of upper-income, 42% of middle-income and 25% of lower-income Americans rate their situation as excellent or good.
Another question in the survey finds 62% of Americans saying they have enough money to live comfortably, similar to the 64% recorded last year but down from 2022 (67%) and 2021 (72%). Gallup has only had one lower reading on this question since 2002 -- 60% in 2012. The high point was 75% in 2002, the first year the question was asked.
Eighty-three percent of upper-income, 62% of middle-income and 37% of lower-income adults say they have enough to live comfortably, with similar declines in each group since 2021.
Americans Slightly More Optimistic Their Financial Situation Is Improving
There has been a slight increase in the percentage of Americans who say their financial situation is getting better -- 43% say this, up from 37% in both 2022 and 2023. The current figure is still significantly below the 52% measured in 2021.
At the same time, 47% say their financial situation is getting worse, up by 17 percentage points since 2021.
A slim majority of upper-income Americans, 52%, believe their financial situation is improving, as do 43% of middle-income and 34% of lower-income Americans.
Bottom Line
Inflation continues to be an issue for Americans and is likely why less than half are positive about their financial situation. In addition to being named the most important financial problem facing their family, inflation also ranks as one of the domestic problems Americans worry most about. The issue trails only immigration, the government and the economy in general when Americans are asked to name the most important problem facing the country.
The U.S. inflation rate has declined significantly since its peak in 2022, but that has done little to alter Americans’ perceptions of their finances. This could reflect the cumulative effect of higher prices for the past few years and the fact that inflation has remained above the lower rates in the U.S. between 2012 and 2020. The latest government reports suggest inflation may be increasing again. That news persuaded the Federal Reserve to delay interest rate cuts it was expected to make this year.
The issue also stands to be a key election issue, and renewed inflation would hamper President Joe Biden’s chances of reelection.
Money market funds added $23.6BN in assets last week, pushing the total funds under management back above $6 Trillion - still well off the highs (as some tax-related withdrawals remain lost)...
Source: Bloomberg
Both retail and institutional funds saw inflows last week...
Source: Bloomberg
Amid all the talk of tapering, The Fed's balance sheet plunged $40BN last week to its lowest since Jan 2021 (with QT continuing at around $35BN)...
Source: Bloomberg
The Fed's now-expired Bank Bailout fund (BTFP) saw a small decrease of just $1.375BN - inching closer to erasing all the arb-driven surge in demand for the facility, but leaving a whopping $12BN left out there filling holes in bank balance sheets...
Source: Bloomberg
And after last week's almost unprecedented outflows, total bank deposits (seasonally-adjusted) rose by a huge $129BN to $17.58TN - that was the biggest rise in deposits since March 2021...
Source: Bloomberg
But, by the magical power of Federal Reserve 'science', on a non-seasonally-adjusted basis, total bank deposits dropped $24BN...
Source: Bloomberg
Excluding foreign deposits, the picture was just as farcical with seasonally-adjusted domestic deposits rising $126BN (Large banks +$111BN - biggest since April 2020, Small banks +$15BN), while non-seasonally-adjusted domestic deposits tumbled $36.7BN (Large banks -$7.2BN, Small banks -$29.5BN)...
Source: Bloomberg
Don't try to make sense of the fact that the so-called seasonally-adjusted levels are more noisy than the unadjusted... ... it's PhD-based 'science' stuff, you'd never understand!
For the third week in a row, total loan volumes rose (by $5.8BN) with large bank volumes rising $4.2BN and small bank volumes rising $1.6BN
Source: Bloomberg
Finally, bank reserves at The Fed continues to contract, while US equity market cap remains dramatically decoupled...
Source: Bloomberg
Is Powell's acquiescence to a bigger, sooner 'QT taper' (in the face of not-under-control inflation) to soften the blow when this crocodile mouth snaps shut.
Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,
Nostalgia For The Mind
“Resentful childless harpies unconsciously longing for domination. Why else worship at the altar of Hamas? Why else would it be so overwhelmingly female?”
- Dr. Jordan Peterson
Wasn’t it cute how the youngsters who “occupied” Columbia U’s Hamilton Hall - and were busy smashing things up inside - demanded restaurant-grade meals sent in to avert “starvation and dehydration” amongst their dauntless ranks? You could imagine a colossal mommy breast with three hundred nipples descending from the sky over upper Manhattan to nourish them back to action. “Feed me. . . !”
It turns out, actually, that at least half the troops inside were not students at all, but rather semi-pro activists paid up to $7,000 each by George Soros’s Open Society Institute and other overtly insurrection-themed orgs, so you’d think that the troops could afford to load-up their ever-ready backpacks with Cliff bars and bottles of Smart Water. The order-in food and beverage gambit suggests we should understand that this is not so much politics as the acting out of a game — which is exactly what you might expect of people who spend more time on video screens than in the real world — in which something like a half-time intermission for refreshments is de rigueur.
Alas, they were not obliged with Doordash servings of Alitcha (“Ensemble of potatoes, carrots, collard greens, and cabbage baked in turmeric,” $22.30) from the nearby Massawa Ethiopian bistro, or Firecracker Chicken from Junzi Kitchen over on Broadway and 113th Street. And then, when the cops came to roust them out into the big buses now used as paddy-wagons for such events, the occupiers were heard to whine, “I have finals and I need to go home!” You’ve got to wonder how they’ll make out when “Joe Biden” drafts their ass to go fight the Russians out on the Ukrainian buzzard flats, about which the White House is just now sending out early signals.
It has been observed that a clear majority of the pro-Hamas activists are young women — which makes sense considering that they are the largest demographic evincing mental illness on America’s social landscape these days. Thus, they are marching in support of a sect that specializes in the rape, mutilation, and murder of young women like themselves, or at least treats them as chattels, hidden under black bag-like garments. The group psychology on display has more occult angles than any movie by the Wachowski sisters.
Among the marching Columbia students who are not paid outside activists, a few are apparently Jewish, such as spokesperson Johanna King-Slutzky (actual name, hat-tip Alex Berenson, who ID’d her), the winsome creature who complained about the lack of order-in meals at Hamilton Hall. Another observer on “X” who styles himself @J9_ATX identified the syndrome in play as “oppression envy,” among women seeking compensatory validation for occupying such a privileged niche on Planet Earth as a cushy Ivy League college — featuring international cuisine stations in the dining halls — while their third world sisters trudge through the burning sands of Al-Kufra carrying water-jugs on their heads as they dodge the odious “wind scorpions” of the region.
Higher Ed in the USA was already chugging down the suicide track before this spring’s eruption of pro-Hamas fury. The college loan racket (government-backed) had the perverse effect of pumping up tuition costs beyond what even many pretty well-off families could afford, while loading up young people with life-wrecking obligations (debt which “Joe Biden is now shifting onto the creditors, US tax-payers). Decades of DEI have filled the faculties with incompetents and assorted malcontents teaching fantasy curricula with no real-life value, and burdened the schools with cadres of overpaid diversity busybodies and thought-police. Diversity college presidents are very publicly failing to cope. The whole rotten train is going off the rails.
I’m not at all sanguine that the society we are becoming will need this vast infrastructure for babysitting young adults who could otherwise make themselves useful and productive on-the-ground in lines of work that actually keep civilized life going. This is too self-evident now to belabor, though there is an awful lot of confusion about what kind of society we might become.
I doubt that it is to be the utopia of robots, A-I, and non-stop sexual titillation that the techno-narcissists dream of. Rather, it will be a society struggling to keep too much complex stuff running with insufficient energy resources and capital — that is, a society falling apart, losing knowledge, technical know-how, comfort, and convenience while having a hard time feeding itself.
The campus Hamas zealots ironically (and tragically) represent exactly the sort of rough medievalism that the citizens of Western Civ countries would be chary of sliding into. You’d have to sadly conclude that many young people really can’t take much more Modernity, and are now pretty avid to opt out of it, even as they gaze into the magic, glowing pixels of their iPhone screens.
* * *
Support his blog by visiting Jim’s Patreon Page or Substack
The markets took on a Dickensian dimension this week as while "it was the worst of times (for economic data), it was the best of times (for stocks)"...
The US Macro Surprise Index continued its serial disappointment plunge into the red - the weakest since Feb 2023 (not helped at all by today's payrolls miss)...
Source: Bloomberg
With growth data plunging while inflation data soared...
Source: Bloomberg
Bad news was good news though as the market only had eyes for Powell's big taper and the buyback bonanza (from AAPL and the rest), and today's NFP Goldilocks results (175k vs. 240k expected) as wage softness helps to ease inflation fears.
Small Caps leading the bunch amid a big short-squeeze and S&P lagging (but all green on the week)...
All the majors rallied up to their 50DMAs but were unable to breakout...
Nasdaq performed well with MAG7 stocks wildly choppy, but overall pushing back up towards record highs...
Source: Bloomberg
'Most Shorted' stocks suffered the biggest squeeze in two months (and biggest two-week squeeze since Jan 2023)...
Source: Bloomberg
Of particular note was Utes outperforming (while energy lagged) as the 'Next AI Trade' goes mainstream. Financials were also red on the week...
Source: Bloomberg
Bonds were also bid all week with yields down 12-20bps as the short-end outperformed...
Source: Bloomberg
And 2Y yields at 5.00% were thoroughly rejected as yields plunged today back below pre-CPI spike levels..
Source: Bloomberg
The dollar dropped this week, erasing almost all of the post-CPI gains...
Source: Bloomberg
Gold prices were lower on the week (second week in a row), despite the weak dollar and 'easing' by The Fed...
Source: Bloomberg
Despite a decent bounce back today, bitcoin was down on the week, testing back up to $62,000...
Source: Bloomberg
...after an ugly week of aggregate net outflows from BTC ETFs...
Source: Bloomberg
Oil prices plunged this week - down all five days for the worst in three months - back to near two-month lows...
Source: Bloomberg
And finally, rate-cut expectations have surged this week with 2024 now pricing in two full cuts and 2025 three more cuts...
Source: Bloomberg
Is this what Powell wanted? To ease financial conditions again!?
US diplomats and the Pentagon have been in retreat from the West African nation of Niger, while also scrambling to maintain some influence there, following the junta seizing power in a coup in July 2023. Niger's military toppled the US-friendly government of President Mohamed Bazoum, who was taken hostage.
Among the first orders of the junta was to tell US troops in the country to pack up their stuff and get out. The US is commonly estimated to have had 1,100 troops in the country. At the same time the junta is displaying its warmer relations with Russia and its forces, declaring an alliance with 'anti-imperialist' nations. French troops have already exited the country.
On Friday there are widespread reports that Russian troops have actually entered American military bases, with US troops in the process exiting, but some still present. This is said to already be happening at Air Base 101 in Niamey, the capital city.
Amazingly, there's some degree of logistical overlap as the Russians pour in and Pentagon personnel are being pressured out:
A senior U.S. defense official told Reuters that the Russian forces are not mingling with the American troops at the base, but were instead using a separate hangar.
The official described the situation as being “not great” but “manageable” in the short-term. Sources similarly told CNN that the Russians and Americans are not operating in the same part of the base, but one said “it is not that big of an area.”
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has sought to downplay the bizarre situation in statements issued from Hawaii.
"The Russians are in a separate compound and don’t have access to U.S. forces or access to our equipment," Austin said. "I’m always focused on the safety and protection of our troops... But right now, I don’t see a significant issue here in terms of our force protection."
Perhaps the rival troops will become drinking buddies and seek to heal the 'new Cold War 2.0'?...
Amid the pressure from the ruling Junta, and failed efforts to reverse course, the Pentagon has now committed to leaving Niger, but has not issued a timeline on a full withdrawal.
The Russians and heavy equipment, which included at least one air defense battery, began arriving in Niger in greater numbers starting last month, state media reported at the time. There's a likelihood that private military firm Wagner is also present in the country.
Starting last year Washington has moved to restrict what military aid it can give to the country. In short, Washington is on the way out and Moscow is moving in. There are fears this could be happening in other parts of Africa as well, impacting US AFRICOM's operations.
🇷🇺🇳🇪🇲🇱🇧🇫 In the capital of Niger the flags of Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso and Russia are flying.
— dana (@dana916) May 3, 2024
This was done to celebrate the ties of friendship and cooperation that bind Niger with its closest allies.
Two Majors pic.twitter.com/A55vxMWHWE
Since the ouster of President Bazoum by military generals, the Biden administration has been scrambling to find influence also as junta has cemented with two neighboring countries also 'unfriendly' to the West: Mali and Burkina Faso, also led by juntas. Among the first major acts that Niger’s post-coup government did was to expel France's some 1,500 troops - all of which finally left in December.
American officials have been especially worried about the major drone base only recently built at a cost of $110 million called Air Base 201, which was crucial for Pentagon drone surveillance operations over the region. Likely it will now have to be shuttered, but without doubt US diplomats are busy begging Niger's post-coup military to allow it to remain.