American liberals are obsessed with finding ways to silence and censor their adversaries. Every week, if not every day, they have new targets they want de-platformed, banned, silenced, and otherwise prevented from speaking or being heard (by “liberals,” I mean the term of self-description used by the dominant wing of the Democratic Party).
Joe Rogan interviews Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on Aug. 6, 2019, roughly six months before he endorsed the Vermont independent for president.
For years, their preferred censorship tactic was to expand and distort the concept of “hate speech” to mean “views that make us uncomfortable,” and then demand that such “hateful” views be prohibited on that basis. For that reason, it is now common to hear Democrats assert, falsely, that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not protect “hate speech.” Their political culture has long inculcated them to believe that they can comfortably silence whatever views they arbitrarily place into this category without being guilty of censorship.
Constitutional illiteracy to the side, the “hate speech” framework for justifying censorship is now insufficient because liberals are eager to silence a much broader range of voices than those they can credibly accuse of being hateful. That is why the newest, and now most popular, censorship framework is to claim that their targets are guilty of spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation.” These terms, by design, have no clear or concise meaning. Like the term “terrorism,” it is their elasticity that makes them so useful.
When liberals’ favorite media outlets, from CNN and NBC to The New York Times and The Atlantic, spend four years disseminating one fabricated Russia story after the next — from the Kremlin hacking into Vermont’s heating system and Putin’s sexual blackmail over Trump to bounties on the heads of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, the Biden email archive being “Russian disinformation,” and a magical mystery weapon that injures American brains with cricket noises — none of that is “disinformation” that requires banishment. Nor are false claims that COVID’s origin has proven to be zoonotic rather than a lab leak, the vastly overstated claim that vaccines prevent transmission of COVID, or that Julian Assange stole classified documents and caused people to die. Corporate outlets beloved by liberals are free to spout serious falsehoods without being deemed guilty of disinformation, and, because of that, do so routinely.
This “disinformation” term is reserved for those who question liberal pieties, not for those devoted to affirming them. That is the real functional definition of “disinformation” and of its little cousin, “misinformation.” It is not possible to disagree with liberals or see the world differently than they see it. The only two choices are unthinking submission to their dogma or acting as an agent of “disinformation.” Dissent does not exist to them; any deviation from their worldview is inherently dangerous — to the point that it cannot be heard.
The data proving a deeply radical authoritarian strain in Trump-era Democratic Party politics is ample and have been extensively reported here. Democrats overwhelmingly trust and love the FBI and CIA. Polls show they overwhelmingly favor censorship of the internet not only by Big Tech oligarchs but also by the state. Leading Democratic Party politicians have repeatedly subpoenaed social media executives and explicitly threatened them with legal and regulatory reprisals if they do not censor more aggressively — a likely violation of the First Amendment given decades of case law ruling that state officials are barred from coercing private actors to censor for them, in ways the Constitution prohibits them from doing directly.
Given the climate prevailing in the American liberal faction, this authoritarianism is anything but surprising. For those who convince themselves that they are not battling mere political opponents with a different ideology but a fascist movement led by a Hitler-like figure bent on imposing totalitarianism — a core, defining belief of modern-day Democratic Party politics — it is virtually inevitable that they will embrace authoritarianism. When a political movement is subsumed by fear — the Orange Hitler will put you in camps and end democracy if he wins again — then it is not only expected but even rational to embrace authoritarian tactics including censorship to stave off this existential threat. Fear always breeds authoritarianism, which is why manipulating and stimulating that human instinct is the favorite tactic of political demagogues.
And when it comes to authoritarian tactics, censorship has become the liberals’ North Star. Every week brings news of a newly banished heretic. Liberals cheered the news last week that Google’s YouTube permanently banned the extremely popular video channel of conservative commentator Dan Bongino. His permanent ban was imposed for the crime of announcing that, moving forward, he would post all of his videos exclusively on the free speech video platform Rumble after he received a seven-day suspension from Google’s overlords for spreading supposed COVID “disinformation.” What was Bongino’s prohibited view that prompted that suspension? He claimed cloth masks do not work to stop the spread of COVID, a view shared by numerous experts and, at least in part, by the CDC. When Bongino disobeyed the seven-day suspension by using an alternative YouTube channel to announce his move to Rumble, liberals cheered Google’s permanent ban because the only thing liberals hate more than platforms that allow diverse views are people failing to obey rules imposed by corporate authorities.
It is not hyperbole to observe that there is now a concerted war on any platforms devoted to free discourse and which refuse to capitulate to the demands of Democratic politicians and liberal activists to censor. The spear of the attack are corporate media outlets, who demonize and try to render radioactive any platforms that allow free speech to flourish. When Rumble announced that a group of free speech advocates — including myself, former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, comedian Bridget Phetasy, former Sanders campaign videographer Matt Orfalea and journalist Zaid Jilani — would produce video content for Rumble, The Washington Post immediately published a hit piece, relying exclusively on a Google-and-Facebook-aligned so-called “disinformation expert” to malign Rumble as “one of the main platforms for conspiracy communities and far-right communities in the U.S. and around the world” and a place “where conspiracies thrive,” all caused by Rumble’s “allowing such videos to remain on the site unmoderated.” (The narrative about Rumble is particular bizarre since its Canadian founder and still-CEO, Chris Pavlovski created Rumble in 2013 with apolitical goals — to allow small content creators abandoned by YouTube to monetize their content — and is very far from an adherent to right-wing ideology).
The same attack was launched, and is still underway, against Substack, also for the crime of refusing to ban writers deemed by liberal corporate outlets and activists to be hateful and/or fonts of disinformation. After the first wave of liberal attacks on Substack failed — that script was that it is a place for anti-trans animus and harassment — The Post returned this week for round two, with a paint-by-numbers hit piece virtually identical to the one it published last year about Rumble. “Newsletter company Substack is making millions off anti-vaccine content, according to estimates,” blared the sub-headline. “Prominent figures known for spreading misinformation, such as [Joseph] Mercola, have flocked to Substack, podcasting platforms and a growing number of right-wing social media networks over the past year after getting kicked off or restricted on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube,” warned the Post. It is, evidently, extremely dangerous to society for voices to still be heard once Google decrees they should not be.
This Post attack on Substack predictably provoked expressions of Serious Concern from good and responsible liberals. That included Chelsea Clinton, who lamented that Substack is profiting off a “grift.” Apparently, this political heiress — who is one of the world’s richest individuals by virtue of winning the birth lottery of being born to rich and powerful parents, who in turn enriched themselves by cashing in on their political influence in exchange for $750,000 paychecks from Goldman Sachs for 45-minute speeches, and who herself somehow was showered with a $600,000 annual contract from NBC News despite no qualifications — believes she is in a position to accuse others of “grifting.” She also appears to believe that — despite welcoming convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell to her wedding to a hedge fund oligarch whose father was expelled from Congress after his conviction on thirty-one counts of felony fraud — she is entitled to decree who should and should not be allowed to have a writing platform:
This Post-manufactured narrative about Substack instantly metastasized throughout the liberal sect of media. “Anti-vaxxers making ‘at least $2.5m’ a year from publishing on Substack,” read the headline of The Guardian, the paper that in 2018 published the outright lie that Julian Assange met twice with Paul Manafort inside the Ecuadorian Embassy and refuses to this day to retract it (i.e., “disinformation”). Like The Post, the British paper cited one of the seemingly endless number of shady pro-censorship groups — this one calling itself the “Center for Countering Digital Hate” — to argue for greater censorship by Substack. “They could just say no,” said the group’s director, who has apparently convinced himself he should be able to dictate what views should and should not be aired: “This isn’t about freedom; this is about profiting from lies. . . . Substack should immediately stop profiting from medical misinformation that can seriously harm readers.”
The emerging campaign to pressure Spotify to remove Joe Rogan from its platform is perhaps the most illustrative episode yet of both the dynamics at play and the desperation of liberals to ban anyone off-key. It was only a matter of time before this effort really galvanized in earnest. Rogan has simply become too influential, with too large of an audience of young people, for the liberal establishment to tolerate his continuing to act up. Prior efforts to coerce, cajole, or manipulate Rogan to fall into line were abject failures. Shortly after The Wall Street Journal reportedin September, 2020 that Spotify employees were organizing to demand that some of Rogan’s shows be removed from the platform, Rogan invited Alex Jones onto his show: a rather strong statement that he was unwilling to obey decrees about who he could interview or what he could say.
On Tuesday, musician Neil Young demanded that Spotify either remove Rogan from its platform or cease featuring Young’s music, claiming Rogan spreads COVID disinformation. Spotify predictably sided with Rogan, their most popular podcaster in whose show they invested $100 million, by removing Young’s music and keeping Rogan. The pressure on Spotify mildly intensified on Friday when singer Joni Mitchell issued a similar demand. Allsortsofcensorship-madliberalscelebrated this effort to remove Rogan, then vowed to cancel their Spotify subscription in protest of Spotify’s refusal to capitulate for now; a hashtagurging the deletion of Spotify’s app trended for days. Many bizarrely urged that everyone buy music from Apple instead; apparently, handing over your cash to one of history’s largest and richest corporations, repeatedly linked to the use of slave labor, is the liberal version of subversive social justice.
Obviously, Spotify is not going to jettison one of their biggest audience draws over a couple of faded septuagenarians from the 1960s. But if a current major star follows suit, it is not difficult to imagine a snowball effect. The goal of liberals with this tactic is to take any disobedient platform and either force it into line or punish it by drenching it with such negative attacks that nobody who craves acceptance in the parlors of Decent Liberal Society will risk being associated with it. “Prince Harry was under pressure to cut ties with Spotify yesterday after the streaming giant was accused of promoting anti-vax content,” claimedThe Daily Mail which, reliable or otherwise, is a certain sign of things to come.
One could easily envision a tipping point being reached where a musician no longer makes an anti-Rogan statement by leaving the platform as Young and Mitchell just did, but instead will be accused of harboring pro-Rogan sentiments if they stay on Spotify. With the stock price of Spotify declining as these recent controversies around Rogan unfolded, a strategy in which Spotify is forced to choose between keeping Rogan or losing substantial musical star power could be more viable than it currently seems. “Spotify lost $4 billion in market value this week after rock icon Neil Young called out the company for allowing comedian Joe Rogan to use its service to spread misinformation about the COVID vaccine on his popular podcast, ‘The Joe Rogan Experience,’” is how The San Francisco Chronicle put it (that Spotify’s stock price dropped rather precipitously contemporaneously with this controversy is clear; less so is the causal connection, though it seems unlikely to be entire coincidental):
It is worth recalling that NBC News, in January, 2017, announced that it had hired Megyn Kelly away from Fox News with a $69 million contract. The network had big plans for Kelly, whose first show debuted in June of that year. But barely more than a year later, Kelly’s comments about blackface — in which she rhetorically wondered whether the notorious practice could be acceptable in the modern age with the right intent: such as a young white child paying homage to a beloved African-American sports or cultural figure on Halloween — so enraged liberals, both inside the now-liberal network and externally, that they demanded her firing. NBC decided it was worth firing Kelly — on whom they had placed so many hopes — and eating her enormous contract in order to assuage widespread liberal indignation. “The cancellation of the ex-Fox News host’s glossy morning show is a reminder that networks need to be more stringent when assessing the politics of their hirings,” proclaimedThe Guardian.
Democrats are not only the dominant political faction in Washington, controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, but liberals in particular are clearly the hegemonic culture force in key institutions: media, academia and Hollywood. That is why it is a mistake to assume that we are near the end of their orgy of censorship and de-platforming victories. It is far more likely that we are much closer to the beginning than the end. The power to silence others is intoxicating. Once one gets a taste of its power, they rarely stop on their own.
Indeed, it was once assumed that Silicon Valley giants steeped in the libertarian ethos of a free internet would be immune to demands to engage in political censorship (“content moderation” is the more palatable euphemism which liberal corporate media outlets prefer). But when the still-formidable megaphones of The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC News, CNN and the rest of the liberal media axis unite to accuse Big Tech executives of having blood on their hands and being responsible for the destruction of American democracy, that is still an effective enforcement mechanism. Billionaires are, like all humans, social and political animals and instinctively avoid ostracization and societal scorn.
Beyond the personal interest in avoiding vilification, corporate executives can be made to censor against their will and in violation of their political ideology out of self-interest. The corporate media still has the ability to render a company toxic, and the Democratic Party more now than ever has the power to abuse their lawmaking and regulatory powers to impose real punishment for disobedience, as it has repeatedly threatened to do. If Facebook or Spotify are deemed to be so toxic that no Good Liberals can use them without being attacked as complicit in fascism, white supremacy or anti-vax fanaticism, then that will severely limit, if not entirely sabotage, a company’s future viability.
The one bright spot in all this — and it is a significant one — is that liberals have become such extremists in their quest to silence all adversaries that they are generating their own backlash, based in disgust for their tyrannical fanaticism. In response to the Post attack, Substack issued a gloriously defiant statement re-affirming its commitment to guaranteeing free discourse. They also repudiated the hubristic belief that they are competent to act as arbiters of Truth and Falsity, Good and Bad. “Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse,” read the headline on the post from Substack’s founders. The body of their post reads like a free speech manifesto:
That’s why, as we face growing pressure to censor content published on Substack that to some seems dubious or objectionable, our answer remains the same: we make decisions based on principles not PR, we will defend free expression, and we will stick to our hands-off approach to content moderation. While we have content guidelines that allow us to protect the platform at the extremes, we will always view censorship as a last resort, because we believe open discourse is better for writers and better for society.
A lengthy Twitter thread from Substack’s Vice President of Communications, Lulu Cheng Meservey was similarly encouraging and assertive. “I’m proud of our decision to defend free expression, even when it’s hard,” she wrote, adding: “because: 1) We want a thriving ecosystem full of fresh and diverse ideas. That can’t happen without the freedom to experiment, or even to be wrong.” Regarding demands to de-platform those allegedly spreading COVID disinformation, she pointedly — and accurately — noted: “If everyone who has ever been wrong about this pandemic were silenced, there would be no one left talking about it at all.” And she, too, affirmed principles that every actual, genuine liberal — not the Nancy Pelosi kind — reflexively supports:
People already mistrust institutions, media, and each other. Knowing that dissenting views are being suppressed makes that mistrust worse. Withstanding scrutiny makes truths stronger, not weaker. We made a promise to writers that this is a place they can pursue what they find meaningful, without coddling or controlling. We promised we wouldn’t come between them and their audiences. And we intend to keep our side of the agreement for every writer that keeps theirs. to think for themselves. They tend not to be conformists, and they have the confidence and strength of conviction not to be threatened by views that disagree with them or even disgust them.
This is becoming increasingly rare.
The U.K.’s Royal Society, its national academy of scientists, this month echoed Substack’s view that censorship, beyond its moral dimensions and political dangers, is ineffective and breeds even more distrust in pronouncements by authorities. “Governments and social media platforms should not rely on content removal for combatting harmful scientific misinformation online.” “There is,” they concluded, “little evidence that calls for major platforms to remove offending content will limit scientific misinformation’s harms” and “such measures could even drive it to harder-to-address corners of the internet and exacerbate feelings of distrust in authorities.”
As both Rogan’s success and collapsing faith and interest in traditional corporate media outlets proves, there is a growing hunger for discourse that is liberated from the tight controls of liberal media corporations and their petulant, herd-like employees. That is why other platforms devoted to similar principles of free discourse, such as Rumble for videos and Callin for podcasts, continue to thrive. It is certain that those platforms will continue to be targeted by institutional liberalism as they grow and allow more dissidents and heretics to be heard. Time will tell if they, too, will resist these censorship pressures, but the combination of genuine conviction on the part of their founders and managers, combined with the clear market opportunities for free speech platforms and heterodox thinkers, provides ample ground for optimism.
None of this is to suggest that American liberals are the only political faction that succumbs to the strong temptations of censorships. Liberals often point to the growing fights over public school curricula and particularly the conservative campaign to exclude so-called Critical Race Theory from the public schools as proof that the American Right is also a pro-censorship faction. That is a poor example. Censorship is about what adults can hear, not what children are taught in public schools. Liberals crusaded for decades to have creationism banned from the public schools and largely succeeded, yet few would suggest this was an act of censorship. For the reason I just gave, I certainly would define it that way. Fights over what children should and should not be taught can have a censorship dimension but usually do not, precisely because limits and prohibitions in school curricula are inevitable.
In sum, censorship — once the province of the American Right during the heydey of the Moral Majority of the 1980s — now occurs in isolated instances in that faction. In modern-day American liberalism, however, censorship is a virtual religion. They simply cannot abide the idea that anyone who thinks differently or sees the world differently than they should be heard. That is why there is much more at stake in this campaign to have Rogan removed from Spotify than whether this extremely popular podcast host will continue to be heard there or on another platform. If liberals succeed in pressuring Spotify to abandon their most valuable commodity, it will mean nobody is safe from their petty-tyrant tactics. But if they fail, it can embolden other platforms to similarly defy these bullying tactics, keeping our discourse a bit more free for just awhile longer.
NOTE: Tonight at 7 pm EST, I will discuss the Rogan censorship campaign and the broader implications of the liberal fixation with censorship on my live Callin podcast. For now, live shows can be heard only with an iPhone and the Callin app — the app will be very shortly available on Androids for universal use — but all shows can be heard by everyone immediately after they are broadcast on the Callin website, here.
To support the independent journalism we are doing here, please subscribe, obtain a gift subscription for others and/or share the article
Russian President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with Chinese leader Xi Jinping during their meeting on the sidelines of a BRICS summit, in Brasilia, Brazil, Nov. 13, 2019. (Sputnik/Ramil Sitdikov/Kremlin via REUTERS)
Tensions are mounting throughout the world concerning the possibility of a war between Russia and Ukraine. One question that has experts on edge is what role China might play in such a conflict, and how such an event could set a dangerous precedent for China’s global ambitions—particularly in relation to Taiwan.
Russia has demanded that Ukraine never be allowed to join NATO. As of this week, it has amassed 130,000 troops at the eastern border of Ukraine to intimidate Western nations into disallowing Ukraine from ever joining the alliance and to pressure the global community away from further militarizing the region.
The Chinese leadership has joined in the effort, urging cool heads while also giving cover for Russia and its history of illegal expansion.
The regime’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke about the situation during a telephone call on Jan. 27. Wang used the call to tell Blinken to “stay calm” and warned the United States to stop creating “anti-China cliques.”
The interaction could signal a much-increased role for China as a diplomatic go-between for Russia and the rest of the world.
A Different World than 2014
Despite the temptation to compare the current crisis to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, experts say that the geopolitical and economic landscape is quite different in 2022.
Perhaps the most notable difference, they say, is that China will play a prominent, if not dominant, role in any potential conflict and its eventual resolution.
This state of affairs is in stark contrast to 2014 when, given the chance to support Russia’s claims to Crimea, the Chinese regime’s leadership demurred.
“China did not recognize the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea because it did not want to get implicated,” said Sam Kessler, a geopolitical analyst at North Star Support Group, a multinational risk management firm. “They didn’t condemn it either, which is important to know.”
“The Chinese delegation abstained twice when initiatives to officially condemn the [annexation] were introduced at the United Nations,” Kessler added.
There were multiple reasons for declining to recognize the Crimean Peninsula as Russian territory at the time, according to Giselle Jamison, associate professor of political science and international relations at St. Thomas University.
In the first, it interfered with plans for a deep-water port in Ukraine that China had invested in, Jamison told EpochTV’s “China Insider” program. In the second, China did not have the depth of economic ties with Russia that it has now.
In fact, the increasing interconnectedness of the Chinese and Russian economic spheres owes largely to the 2014 annexation, which Kessler said changed nearly everything about the U.S.-China-Russia trilateral relationship and its balance of power.
An instructor trains members of Ukraine’s Territorial Defense Forces, volunteer military units of the Armed Forces, in a city park in Kyiv, Ukraine, on Jan. 22, 2022. (Efrem Lukatsky/AP Photo)
“The sanctions imposed in 2014 enabled Moscow to abandon most of their Western economic interests and pivot to China and the rest of Asia,” Kessler said.
“This has streamlined significant economic, security, defense, political, and good neighbor agreements that previously had either been stalled or gradual processes.”
This interconnectedness means that China stands to lose much more to sanctions on Russia in 2022 than in 2014.
The potential knock-on effects of Russian sanctions on Chinese markets may thus necessitate that China’s communist leadership will engage heavily in the Ukraine crisis.
“A conflict between Russia and Ukraine would force Beijing to take a more solid stance than they did in 2014,” Kessler said.
“The current circumstances and diplomatic environment are more evolved and strained between all parties involved than they were in 2014. It would impact China both politically and economically because their strategic positioning is now more direct and transparent than it had been.”
Kessler’s comments were in line with the findings of a recent report on the issue by Christopher Miller, an assistant professor of international history at Tufts University, and co-director of the school’s Russia and Eurasia program.
“Because China is deeply intertwined with Russia in terms of trade and, to a lesser extent, finance, it would be unable to sit on the sidelines,” Miller wrote. “Beijing would either have to reject US sanctions and export controls, help enforce them, or do some mix of both.”
“Either way, China would be forced to choose.”
China is Key to Russian Success, or Failure
That power over the effectiveness of U.S. economic coercion methods is new territory for China and means that Beijing could make or break any attempt by the United States to punish Russia for its actions.
There are two key reasons, according to analysts, that indicate that Beijing would not support Western sanctions on Russia. The first is that its dependence on international trade with Russia has grown. The second is that its leadership is not incentivized to promote U.S. goals or ways of doing business.
Concerning the first, Russia currently imports and exports more goods with China than any other nation. Sanctions would majorly disrupt China’s state-owned firms and Russian-based corporations.
Specifically, Miller’s report warns that commodity markets for aluminum, nickel, copper, and palladium could be significantly disrupted, leading to price hikes which would further compound supply chain woes for critical technologies, to say nothing of energy supplies and other sectors.
Likewise, enforcing such measures would require China to go against its longstanding dedication to national sovereignty, by serving as an enforcer of the United States’ vision for a liberal international order, which is unlikely.
There is also a tertiary problem for Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders, according to Jamison, which is pride. Pride that would prevent the regime from promoting export controls that could be used to imply that China somehow needs U.S. permission to trade with whomever it wishes.
“This time, if the West carries through on its most severe threats, the impact on China could be profound, in terms of economics, but also in terms of reputation,” Miller wrote. “If China adheres to US sanctions against Russia, Beijing’s economic heft will seem less significant and America’s financial power will be enhanced,” Miller wrote.
“This raises the stakes for Beijing, which in a crisis might conclude it has no choice but to stand up to America’s extraterritorial sanction power. If so, Russia would find a valuable friend amid the crisis—and the West could find itself embroiled in a two-front financial war.”
The Russian army’s Iskander missile launchers take positions during drills in Russia, on Jan. 25, 2022. (Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP)
China Signaling Support for Russia
The Chinese regime, in fact, may gain influence if the United States attempts to leverage heavier sanctions on Russia, analysts note. This is due in no small part to the fact that Beijing has made leveraging loans a strategic priority for garnering influence worldwide.
If the United States sanctioned Russia, China could offer loans to cover the lost revenues, thereby simultaneously helping Russia to evade the heft of the sanctions while also increasing its own economic sway over Russia.
“China is very likely to not obey any Western sanctions that would be imposed on Russia since they already firmly opposed the ones placed on Iran,” Kessler said.
“If the West imposed more export controls and sanctions on Russia, then China could find ways to violate them while imposing blame on the West for having caused it,” Kessler added.
To that end, Chinese state-run media has already broken with the precedent of 2014, and suggested support for Russia. The Global Times, a hawkish CCP-controlled outlet, tweeted an editorial that said the crisis stemmed from NATO cannibalizing Russia’s strategic space.
In recent times, as the United States and its allies have taken an increasingly tough stance towards Beijing’s malign activities, China and Russia have grown closer. Putin is expected to visit China in February, and the two nations have implemented joint military drills on an unprecedented scale over the last year.
While China is key to Russian success, however, its communist leadership is not as altruistic as Russia might like to believe. And China’s slow shift into the leading role in the Sino-Russian relationship could carry its own price to pay for Russia.
“Chinese philosophy and politics, in my opinion, is a lot more long term and, in a way, [more] clever, than the abrupt nature of Putin,” Jamison said.
While Beijing is unlikely to directly aid in a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Jamison said, it would help Russia sidestep any punishments, and carefully calculate the United States’ response.
“China is watching,” Jamison said.
Ukraine: A Precedent for War with Taiwan?
The Russia-Ukraine crisis is something of a litmus test, then, for the viability of an alternative framework to the U.S.-led international order. It is an opportunity for CCP leadership to measure the effectiveness of authoritarian governance as a counter vision to the liberal-democratic ideals enshrined by the U.S.-led rules-based international order.
According to Miller, China will use the crisis in Ukraine to gauge the effectiveness of the United States in responding to regional issues throughout Eurasia, and determine what the corollary responses should be.
“The success or failure of U.S. efforts to impose meaningful costs on Russia if it escalates will be seen as a test of whether the U.S. could do something similar in Asia … Because of this, China will not see a new phase of war between Russia and Ukraine as a peripheral issue in its foreign policy, even though China has no core issues at stake in Ukraine itself,” Miller wrote.
In this way, Kessler said, China’s observations of the Ukraine crisis will inform how it proceeds in its ambition to unite Taiwan with the mainland.
“Russia and China are very likely engaged in observing every little move the West is making and testing them to see how it responds,” Kessler said.
“This will greatly impact China’s future decisions regarding Taiwan, especially since Xi Jinping is facing reelection,” he added, referring to the Chinese leader’s bid for an unprecedented third term in power to be determined at a twice-in-a-decade Communist Party Congress to be held this autumn.
China’s ambassador to the United States, Qin Gang, in an unusually direct statement, said in an interview on Jan. 27 that the United States would face “military conflict” over Taiwan if the island’s democratic government continued to seek independence from the regime’s communist government.
According to Kessler, what lessons the CCP ultimately derives from U.S. efforts to sanction Russia could have profound implications for the continued success of the United States in the Indo-Pacific and abroad, as CCP officials consider the ongoing tensions to a test of American power itself.
“Other than Ukraine, this could lead to future military and economic decisions relating to Taiwan as well,” Kessler said.
“The endgame for Russia and China is to very likely figure out the potency of Western commitment and resolve.”
71% Of Americans Believe ‘We Are Not Alone’ In The Universe
Do you think of “Life on Mars?” as not just a song by David Bowie but as a legitimate question? Is “I want to believe” not just another pop culture quote to you but a personal conviction? Then, as Statista’s Florian Zandt details below, you’re a part of the majority of people in the United States at least.
In a survey conducted by scientists at the transnational Outer Space Institute (OSI) at the University of British Columbia and the Angus Reid Forum USA, 71 percent of respondents claimed they believe in intelligent life in the Milky Way. As the chart shows, the hardline skeptics make up only a fraction of the representative sample surveyed.
While the OSI’s survey mainly revolved around militarization of space, satellite launches and orbital debris, it also included some more colorful questions. For example, 26 percent of respondents thought that current NASA missions were not ambitious enough and that humanity should aim to travel to Mars, while 30 percent saw the Moon as a viable target. Interestingly, 71 percent wouldn’t go on a trip to Mars when offered a one-way ticket.
When pressed further on life forms in space, 75 percent thought it was likely to detect living microorganisms in our solar system and 77 percent saw a high-to-medium probability of discovering living microorganisms in our galaxy.
The issue of satellite light pollution and debris in the Earth’s orbit has become more pressing in the last couple of years. According to ESA estimates, 30,000 pieces of debris are floating through orbit as of now, and Elon Musk’s company SpaceX has been launching more than 1,700 Starlink satellites over the course of two years. In 2022, Starlink satellites alone are likely to surpass the total number of 2,000 satellites in orbit in 2019.
If you’re unaware of the most recent 2nd amendment case in the supreme court, let me give you a quick refresher. NYSRPA v. Bruen deals with the “may-issue” scheme plaguing liberal states. Essentially the government decides whether you can carry a firearm based on specific criteria or an atypical need from the general population. Suspiciously missing from this criteria is “self-defense.”
Maryland has a scheme very similar to New York’s. The Machine Gun Nest is a Maryland-based company, and I grew up in Maryland. I recently received my concealed carry permit from Maryland State Police after submitting to an intensive background check which required me to prove (with tax forms, bank account statements, and more) that I was indeed a business owner. If I had merely said that I was a humble tax-paying, law-abiding citizen who was concerned about their safety on my evening walks through Baltimore city, I would have denied that permit.
See the issue here?
Well, so does the Supreme Court.
Oral Arguments for NYSRPA v. Bruen took place on Nov. 3rd, and afterward, it seemed like the majority of Justices were staunchly on the 2nd amendment side. We’ll have to wait until summer 2022 to get the verdict, but it appears that the State of New York has seen the future and has already started crafting legislation to render a concealed carry permit useless.
New York Bill A08684 is an apparent reaction to the almost certainty that the Supreme Court will rule New York’s permitting scheme as unconstitutional. The bill itself states that no firearms can be possessed anywhere on “public” transportation (including rideshares, trains, and taxis), in restaurants, or anywhere where 15 or more people are gathered.
While this bill may be depressing to read for the New Yorkers who are desperate for the ability to defend themselves, the evidence is clear that even the Government of New York seems to be confident that they’re going to lose NYSRPA v. Bruen.
What does this mean for the rest of the country? Well, it means the end of “may-issue” schemes, which means that all 50 states would switch to a shall-issue system. We saw a similar occurrence in 2017 when Washington DC lost in DC Circuit Court for the case Wrenn v. District of Columbia. If you want to carry a firearm in DC and complete the required training, you are guaranteed to receive a permit to carry a gun. Interestingly enough, DC Government did not appeal the case to the Supreme Court probably because they didn’t want an NYSRPA v. Bruen situation on their hands.
The firearms industry certainly is preparing for an explosion of concealed carry. We were at SHOT Show in Las Vegas and heard much talk about the case, especially from dealers and firearms instructors in more liberal states. In addition, many new products for 2022 are personal protection and carry focused, like Federal’s new 30 Super Carry, S&W’s new CSX handgun, and many more.
So, what should we expect?
Later this year, when the court announces their verdict, they also may decide to clear up a big problem in gun law right now. There’s only been a handful of 2nd Amendment cases that the Supreme Court has ruled on. Because of this, 2nd Amendment law isn’t exactly crystal clear to some courts. (How you could misinterpret “shall not be infringed is beyond me) The result of this uncertainty is that lower courts like the liberal-leaning 9th Circuit essentially rubber stamp unconstitutional gun control like assault weapon bans and more because the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly ruled on one way or another on an issue.
NYSRPA v. Bruen may serve as an excellent opportunity for the Supreme Court to clear up some bad lower court rulings.
At the very least, here in Maryland, we’re expecting an explosion in concealed carry permits. To give you an example of the disparity between a free state and a liberal state, Maryland and Indiana have similar populations. Still, the percentage of residents with carrying permits in Maryland is 0.4%, while Indiana is 18%. That’s a significant disparity, and this disparity has likely grown larger as the statistics on carry permits were last recorded in 2017. 2020 & 2021 saw a considerable rise in concealed carry permit applications at the rate of 10.5% growth in permit applications year over year.
Needless to say. We’re excited to be delivering some good news when it comes to gun law, but only time will tell what the Supreme Court has to say for NYSRPA v. Bruen. But if there’s any indication of victory, it’s when the blue state governments start to panic. That’s clear from the pending legislation in New York. So, we’re predicting a victory for the 2nd Amendment. The only thing yet to be shown is how far that victory will go.
NY Nurses Arrested After Selling $1.5 Million In Fake Vaccine Cards
Two New York nurses were busted after having made a reported $1.5 million selling fake Covid-19 vaccination cards.
Two Long Island nurses, 49-year-old Julie Devuono and 44-year-old Marissa Urraro, had forged vaccine cards between November 2021 and January 2022.
Law enforcement officers seized around $900,000 during a search of DeVuono’s home, and a ledger showing more than $1.5 million from the scheme, according to NBC4NY.
The #Suffolk County DA arrested two people including the owner of an Amityville pediatric office for selling fake Covid-19 vaccine cards. $220 for adults, $85 for children. Ledgers show they may have made $1.5 million dollars from this illegal scheme #NBC4NYpic.twitter.com/jm0bcOkCeX
“I hope this sends a message to others who are considering gaming the system that they will get caught and that we will enforce the law to the fullest extent,” said Suffolk County DA Raymond Tierney.
The pair reportedly charged between $220 and $440 for adults and $85 for children. After selling the cards, the women would then allegedly add the information to the NY State Immunization Information System (NYSIIS).
According to prosecutors, the pair – who worked at Wild Child Pediatric Healthcare in Amityville (owned by DeVuono) – forged vaccine cards for undercover detectives.
Taiwan’s 15-member athletic delegation, which includes athletes and coaches, will not take part in the opening or closing ceremonies of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, its Sports Ministry said on Friday.
“According to the event’s pandemic prevention and entry policy, flights have been adjusted and delayed, and not all could arrive in Beijing by the opening ceremony on Feb. 4,” the ministry said in a statement.
Taiwan flags can be seen at a square ahead of the national day celebration in Taoyuan, Taiwan, on Oct. 8, 2021. (Ann Wang/Reuters)
Only four Taiwanese athletes will compete in the Beijing Winter Olympics next month, including Huang Yu-ting in the women’s 500m, 1000m, and 1500m races, Lin Si Rong in the luge women’s single, Ho Ping-jui and Lee Wen-yi in the men’s and women’s slalom.
They will be traveling to the Games separately from the United States, Switzerland, and Taiwan, according to the Sports Ministry.
“Based on the protection of the athletes, high-standard pandemic prevention and control measures have been adopted to prevent any risk of infection; to accumulate combat strength, our delegation will not participate in the opening ceremony,” it stated.
The ministry further stated that because Taiwan’s team is small, athletes and team officials will return home after completing their events, skipping the closing ceremony as well.
Taiwan has also decided not to send any government officials to the Games, citing the limited number of athletes competing.
A senior Taiwan official claimed that Taiwan refused to send any delegation due to concern that Beijing could “downgrade” Taiwan’s status by putting its athletes alongside those from the Chinese “special administrative region” of Hong Kong at the opening ceremony.
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office on Wednesday referred to Taiwan’s team as “China, Taipei,” rather than the official designation “Chinese Taipei,” prompting Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council to rebuke China for using the wrong name.
Taiwan competes in most sporting events, including the Olympics, under the name “Chinese Taipei” at the request of Beijing, which regards democratically-ruled Taiwan as part of “one China” and inviolable Chinese territory.
Tensions between the self-ruled island Taiwan and the regime in Beijing have been escalating, with the most recent Chinese incursion involving 39 aircraft and a bomber. China claims Taiwan as part of its territory and has vowed to conquer the island by force if necessary.
Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council has also called on Beijing not to tamper with the tournament through “political factors.”
“We call on this year’s organizers to abide by the ‘Olympic Charter’ and not use political factors to interfere with the competition and suppress and belittle our side. Relevant government units will also be prepared to respond to various emergencies,” it stated, without elaborating.
Bacon Shortage? US Pork Supplies Tumble To 11-Year Low
Bacon lovers might be in for a sizzling surprise as pork supplies in cold storage tumble to an 11-year low as prices rise due to declining hog herds.
The latest United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) pork data in cold storage as of Dec. 1 was approximately 399 million pounds, a drop of 4.1% from a year ago and now at the lowest point since 2010.
“The drop came before the spreading omicron virus variant prompted slaughterhouses to slow down in recent weeks as more workers called in sick, further limiting meat production and likely keeping prices for the meat high,”Bloomberg explains.
Slumping cold storage has sent USDA bacon prices per pound (as of late December) to around $7.21, a record high and up 39% since the beginning of the virus pandemic.
More importantly, what this means is breakfast is becoming a lot more expensive for Americans as some of the highest inflation in four decades has wiped out their real wage gains.
Food prices are at the highest in a decade, from coffee to oranges to wheat, among other popular breakfast items. Americans are very concerned about inflation. High inflation has spurred discontent for the president, reflected in record low polling numbers ahead of the midterms.
Well, we are happy to report that a silver lining of the recent market crash, or as DB’s Jim Reid puts it, “one of the side effects of the hawkish pivot from the Fed in 2022, that continued this week” is that it could finally crack the facade of ESG and make January a catastrophic month for ESG investors; this is shown in Reid’s Chart of the Day which lays out the 1-month rolling difference between S&P 500 Energy sector returns and the NASDAQ.
Clearly this is a very crude measure of ESG under-performance but the nature of the US market means that ESG funds in the US market are very tech heavy.
A look the tables below (courtesy of DB’s Luke Templeman’s ESG monthly) reveals the largest holdings in the big US…
… and European ESG ETF funds.
Note the big European funds are far less tech exposed and also that overall some funds are buying into energy companies because of their environmental transition plans. So as the market develops, Reid notes that ESG is becoming increasingly nuanced and complicated.
Back to the Fed and this hawkish pivot has occurred at a point where the US Energy sector is up +18% YTD and the only positive performance of the 11 top level sectors within the S&P. With just a day to go in the month, could January mark the biggest divergence between this and the Nasdaq on record? The 30-day rolling difference in returns is within 2% of the highs seen since we have sector data from 1989 onwards.
And while ESG is (unfortunately) here to stay – especially since Wall Street collectively needs to periodically wash its conscience in hollow but expensive acts of virtue signaling which will mean much more money flows toward the three letters – January is proving that performance can be influenced by bigger picture themes.
Physical activity can do wonders for the body. Exercise can trim weight, chisel muscles, and strengthen the lower back, among many other benefits. Less overt, but no less consequential, physical activity can also buff up your brain. Science is increasingly revealing that the brains of those who regularly work out can look very different compared to the brains of people who don’t.
24 Hour Fitness Weighted Group Exercise Class (Photo: 24 Hour Fitness)
Changes can start to occur in adolescence. Reviewing the scientific literature in 2018, researchers from the University of Southern California found that for teens aged 15-18, regular exercisers tended to have larger hippocampal volumes as well as larger rostral middle frontal volumes compared to healthy matched control teenagers. The hippocampus is most commonly associated with memory and spatial navigation, while the rostral middle frontal gyrus has been linked to emotion regulation and working memory. Studies suggest that these structural changes translate to improved cognitive performance and better academic outcomes.
Exercise’s brain augmenting qualities extend into adulthood, even though the brain tends to be less ‘plastic’ (easily changed) as we get older. Rutgers University scientists beautifully demonstrated this in a study published early last year:
The researchers recruited older African Americans, all previously sedentary, to complete twenty weeks of twice-weekly cardio-dance exercise classes held at local churches and senior centers. As compared to the control group comprised of community members of similar age and background who did not exercise, those in the program showed significant improvements in dynamic brain connectivity (or “neural flexibility”) in their hippocampus and surrounding medial temporal lobe, as measured using resting-state functional MRI.
In another study, published in August 2019, scientists looked at 45 sets of adult identical twins, who, within their pair, all differed greatly in physical activity levels. “More active co-twins showed larger gray matter volumes in striatal, prefrontal, and hippocampal regions, and smaller gray matter volumes in the anterior cingulate area than less active co-twins,” the researchers found.
The scientists also probed the twins’ cognitive abilities.
“More physical activity may expedite preconscious processing of visual stimuli and, in somatosensory domain, improve selective attentional processing by dampening the strength of unattended deviant somatosensory signals,” they added.
The brain alterations do appear beneficial, but current twin studies are too small, and the participants too young, to find whether exercise-induced changes can actually reduce the risk of cognitive disorders or improve outcomes such as education or income.
Researchers have also tried exercise interventions on much older adults, even those with Alzheimer’s disease, to see if physical activity could repair their stricken brains. In 2016, a team of scientists recruited 68 older individuals with probable Alzheimer’s disease to determine whether moving more could help with their symptoms. Some subjects aerobically exercised for 150 minutes per week while others underwent a less rigorous control regimen of stretching and toning for 26 weeks. Compared to the control group, the aerobic exercise group improved more on the Disability Assessment for Dementia at the study’s conclusion. Boosts to cardiorespiratory fitness were also linked to improvements in memory and reduced atrophy of the hippocampus.
Working out also augments the brains of otherwise healthy older adults. Getting thirty minutes of physical activity each day does seem to preserve brain volumes in adults over age 70 compared to sedentary individuals, according to a study published in August of last year. Moreover, higher cardiorespiratory fitness was linked to lower levels of brain atrophy in the research.
One way exercise can induce changes in the brain is by increasing levels of the protein brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in the blood, which is linked to neurogenesis. More BDNF may mean more new neurons in the brain. Regular exercise also increases the growth of additional blood vessels in the brain and helps maintain current ones, leading to boosted blood flow for the oxygen-hungry organ. Lastly, physical activity seems to keep microglia in good working order. Microglia “constantly check the brain for potential threats from microbes or dying or damaged cells and clear any damage they find,” Áine Kelly, a Professor in Physiology at Trinity College Dublin wrote for The Conversation.
Regularly moving one’s body may be the closest thing there is to a health panacea, for both outside the skull and inside.
Opportunity Knocks: Ukraine Seeks US Money, Loans, Weapons While Downplaying ‘Russian Invasion’
At a moment Ukraine’s top defense leadership, as well as President Volodymyr Zelensky himself, is urging the Biden administration to calm its dangerous and hyped rhetoric regarding a possibly “imminent” Russian invasion of Ukraine (Kiev has said all week that all indicators suggest this just isn’t so), it seems the Zelensky government will at least use the occasion to get what it wants from Washington. Or, put another way, perhaps the quid pro quo now emerges after the Ukrainians long kept mum on the Biden family and Burisma scandal.
We could add that Kiev is now so openly pushing back against White House assessments as to the actual level of the ‘Russia threat’ on Ukraine’s borders, that it’s proving quite awkward and embarrassing for team Biden. As Northeastern University political science professor Max Abrahms put it this week (while generally addressing mainstream media and pundits), “You guys aren’t making a big enough deal of this weird dynamic that American leaders are more worried than Ukrainian leaders of Russia invading Ukraine. This needs to be explained.”
Now Axios is reporting in an exclusive: “The chairman of Ukraine’s parliament has sent a letter to eight U.S. senators outlining four specific requests for security assistance and sanctions that Kyiv believes will help deter a Russian invasion.”
Zelensky doubled down on his insistence that a Russian invasion is not “imminent,” as the US has repeatedly warned.
“I’m the President of Ukraine, I’m based here, and I think I know the details deeper than any other president,” Zelensky told reporters.https://t.co/XWs5NcspNH
Again, it appears the logic for Ukraine’s government is that it might as well make use of the tense situation, understanding full well the “threat” is hugely inflated, to get what it wants out of the US hawks. After all, the opportunity for US billions to pour in has never been hotter.
Thus far Biden has only prepared far-reaching anti-Russia sanctions only in the scenario of a Putin-ordered offensive into Ukraine. As Axios observes…
Like the Ukrainian government, Republicans are pushing for the bill to impose some sanctions now, before Russia invades.
But Ukraine’s intervention in yet another U.S. legislative fight is unlikely to please a Biden administration already frustrated with President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The awkward but advantageous quid pro quo is fast becoming apparent to many…
“Ukraine denies”
“We understand the difficult position President Zelensky is in and the pressure he’s under,” a White House official said Saturday. “But at the same time he’s downplaying the risk of invasion, he’s asking for hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons to defend against one.”
CNN’s White House correspondent Natasha Bertrand cited a top admin official who complained that Zelensky is contradicting Biden’s assessment of the Russia threat, “But at the same time” is busy “asking for hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons to defend against one.”
Here are the four specific requests in the new letter sent by Ukraine to the US administration, said to be approved by Zelensky’s himself, according to Axios sources:
“Expedited and higher-impact security assistance, including air defense, anti-ship and anti-armor capabilities, and flexible loans and financing mechanisms.”
“Immediate, mandatory sanctions” against the operator of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which the letter calls “no less an existential threat to Ukraine’s security and democracy than the Russian troops on our border.”
“A clear trigger” for sanctions based on Russia’s actions, with a lower threshold than what has been outlined in the current Democratic-sponsored legislation under consideration.
“Mandatory pre-trigger and post-trigger sanctions against all of Russia’s most significant financial institutions.”
The eight senators who were directly appealed to (all Russia hawks, it should be noted), are as follows: Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.)
Sen. Menendez, it should be noted, is pushing his “mother of all sanctions” bill as a threat to hold over Putin’s head.
Meanwhile…
I don’t think Zelensky needs to worry about the Russians – I think he needs to worry about the US overthrowing him for going against their narrative. https://t.co/Zn8oBkqyFm
This week, I had to opportunity to speak to one of my all time favorite podcasters, Tom Bodrovics from Palisades Gold Radio about my arguments from my latest article on inflation, called “Inflation Is The Kryptonite That Will End Our Decades-Long Monetary Policy Ponzi Scheme”.
The Age Of Censorship
First, on the podcast, I talk about how we live in an age where narratives can’t be questioned without you being considered a conspiracy theorist and how Substack is filling an important free market demand for uncensored content. I first touched on this when I started writing on Substack back in August of 2021 in this article called “Ending Social Media Censorship And The Meteoric Rise of Substack”.
On the podcast, I also point out that there are two narrative shifts occurring right now: Covid and inflation.
Inflation Marks An Impasse For the Fed
Regarding inflation, the Fed is at a fork in the road between popping the stock market bubble or allowing persistent inflation to brutalize the middle and lower class (or, as Jerome Powell put it this week, ‘some people are prone to suffer more’).
I tell Tom that the Fed is trapped, and unlike in the past, they don’t have a viable way out. In the past they were able to avoid inflation and the Fed was able to pretend to successfully engineer the appearance of monetary prosperity, I told Tom. Now, there is no way for the average person to ignore Fed policy with high inflation. The Fed is running out of excuses and room to wiggle.
“The Fed’s feet are being held to the fire in a way that has never occurred before…politicians aren’t going to be able to overpromise anymore, as reality takes hold. Inflation is now the number one political issue in the country,” I tell Tom.
I also tell Tom that crypto has brought financial understanding to a new generation who want to understand monetary policy. Despite my criticisms of crypto, namely that (1) many of its advocates are charlatans, (2) it is most certainly a risk asset and (3) we can never be certain a cataclysm in crypto won’t occur, it is helping a younger generation quickly understand the flawed nature of our existing system.
This, in turn, is a huge problem for the Fed because the new generation understands the Central Banking ponzi scheme.
A Hyperinflationary Mindset Is Right Around The Corner
I also tell Tom that we’re not far from a hyperinflationary mindset in the country and that our leaders, who believe they can micromanage the economy and are stunned when their actions don’t work, are terribly ignorant. I wrote about this months ago when President Biden shut down the nation’s oil pipeline projects and then mulled the high price of gas in the coming months.
Instead, Harris Kupperman in a recent interview with me told me that oil traders “will break the Fed” and will make Jerome Powell “cry uncle”. Kupperman thinks oil prices are going higher and simply cannot be stopped.
The Covid Pivot Is Next, And Beware Of The Great Reset
I also spoke to Tom about why I think capitalism and common sense are going to end vaccine mandates and intrusion into our lives – something I wrote about at length just hours ago.
Finally I talk about Klaus Schwab’s “Great Reset” idea. I note that a large amount of people are seeing the global elite’s future plans for a system that will strip us of civil liberties while enriching central planners. I tell Tom that I don’t believe globalists have a viable way out of the system as it stands today.
This runs hand-in-hand with Part 1 of an interview with George Gammon I did this week, where George reminded us that the global only care about “usurping control”.
The more educated people become to the system, the fewer options will be left for the elite, I tell Tom.
“We’re all just in different stages of waking up.”
You can listen to my entire interview with Palisades Gold Radio, for free, here:
If you are still not a Fringe Finance subscriber and would like to read any of the above content – and because I know many of you are coming over from PGR – I’d love to have you on board and can offer you 35% off your first year as a subscriber. This is the steepest discount I can reasonably offer and this coupon only lasts for the next few days: Get 35% off for 1 year
Less Than Half Of Americans Trust Business “To Do The Right Thing”
A strong level of trust with customers is going to prove hugely important for recovering businesses when the pandemic finally comes to an end (or at least progresses to a stage closer to normality). As Statista’s Martin Armstrong details below, a survey by Edelman Research polled 36,000 respondents in 28 countries about their trust in business to “do the right thing” in November 2021.
The research found that people in China, Indonesia and India have the highest trust at 84 percent, 81 percent and 79 percent, respectively.
The figure was far lower in the United States at 49 percent while it was lower still in Russia at just 34 percent. In all, eleven countries saw an increase in trust in business, while eleven recorded a decrease. Interestingly, business is trusted more than government in 23 out of the 28 countries surveyed. Average trust in business globally was 61 percent, compared to 52 percent in government.
Tech, pharma and car companies were the only organizations in 2021 with a net positive trustworthiness rating worldwide. 34, 31 and 27 percent of participants in the annual Ipsos Global Trustworthiness Monitor deemed these types of corporations to be deserving of their trust. As our chart shows, governments, media companies and social media corporations have the worst trust-to-mistrust ratio of all sectors.
The positive attitude towards pharmaceutical companies, which gained six percent on the results of 2018, can be explained with the handling of the coronavirus pandemic and the rapid and effective production of vaccines, although the decision to not lift patent restrictions on illness-preventing and potentially life-saving inoculations has come under scrutiny by activists and medical professionals over the past years. We wonder what will happen to this pharma cred now that vaccines are failing to live up to their promises?
The banking sector managed to gain even more ground with an increase of eight percent to a total of 28 percent deeming banks trustworthy, with 62 percent of Chinese respondents claiming banking organizations can be trusted. This is contrasted by 32 percent of respondents claiming to not trust banking companies, netting the sector fifth place when viewed through the lens of the most untrustworthy organization types. Mistrust in the media and social media companies has potentially been exacerbated by the coverage of the pandemic and, in the case of social media giant Meta, the scandal surrounding whistleblower Frances Haugen furthering calls for regulation of Big Tech due to its negative influence on its users.
It’s not just business, Statista’s Martin Armstrong took a look at the global levels of trust in government. When Joe Biden moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, one of his administration’s most important promises was to bolster trust in the American government and the healing of social divisions. Unfortunately, as his approval rating has collapse, along with distrust inside of government, the nation is more divided than ever though, and a new survey has found that a mere 39 percent of the U.S. public trusted the government in late 2021 – a 3 percentage point decrease on 2020.
The findings come from Edelman Research’s latest Trust Barometer which polled 36,000 people in 28 countries about their trust in various institutions in November 2021. The U.S. figure is far lower than many other countries, with trust in government in Canada and Australia standing at 53 percent and 52 percent, respectively. It is also slightly lower than the UK where the government’s Brexit strategy has proven highly controversial with public approval of the institution 42 percent in late 2021.
Some of the highest levels of trust in government were seen in Asia where 91 percent of Chinese respondents said they had trust, along with 82 percent of people polled in Saudi Arabia and 74 percent in India. The lowest rating was found in Argentina, where just 22 percent of respondents said they trusted their government there.
While the share of respondents mistrusting government and media might seem high, they have been largely consistent with minor swings over the years according to Ipsos experts. Since its initial run in 2018, the Ipsos Global Trustworthiness Monitor aims to dispel the idea that general trust in institutions and organizations is in crisis by surveying more than 20,000 adults in over 20 countries per year.
As talks on reviving the so-called Iranian nuclear deal enter a critical stage with the window of opportunity for a comprehensive agreement closing, oil markets are on edge once again about how the outcome of the ongoing negotiations would impact supply and demand balances later this year and early next year.
The Biden Administration launched in April 2021 indirect talks with Iran, via the partners in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), about a possible return of the United States and Iran to the deal. Talks have been struggling since the start. They were suspended for months until a new Iranian president and administration took office and were relaunched at the end of last year, with little progress made so far.
At the start of the talks in April, oil analysts first expected a legitimate return of Iranian oil to the market at some point in late 2021. As the negotiations dragged on and were suspended during the summer, the market pushed back the timeline for a return of Iranian barrels to 2022. This year, many analysts again pushed back that timeline to early 2023 if talks result in an agreement, considering that there would likely be a gap of six to nine months—and possibly more—before Iran starts to export oil without U.S. sanctions.
Whether a deal could be reached in the coming weeks and months would influence estimates of oil market balances because Iran could raise its oil exports by 1 million barrels per day (bpd) within the first year of no-sanction exports.
A full return to the deal and the removal of American sanctions would push oil prices lower as the surplus on the market would rise, upending current estimates. The longer the nuclear talks drag on, the longer it would take Iran to start ramping up its oil exports in case of an agreement.
However, there could be very little time left to reach a deal.
U.S. Secretary Antony Blinken warned earlier this month that the window of opportunity for a deal is closing.
“We have, I think, a few weeks left to see if we can get back to mutual compliance,” Secretary Blinken told NPR in an interview on January 13.
“This negotiation is urgent, and progress has not been fast enough. We continue to work in close partnership with our allies, but the negotiations are reaching a dangerous impasse,” British Foreign Secretary Elizabeth Truss told the UK Parliament on Tuesday.
“Iran must now choose whether it wants to conclude a deal or be responsible for the collapse of the JCPOA. If the JCPOA collapses, all options are on the table,” Truss added.
Earlier this week, Iran suggested that it may consider direct talks with the United States.
“If during the negotiation process we get to a point that reaching a good agreement with solid guarantees requires a level of talks with the US, we will not ignore that in our work schedule,” Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said, quoted by AFP.
U.S. State Department Spokesperson Ned Price said on Tuesday: “We do believe that it would be more productive to engage directly with Iran when it comes to JCPOA, when it comes to other issues.”
Still, progress is not being made, and the Western countries in the JCPOA and the United States are concerned that dragging on talks further would allow Iran to advance its nuclear-weapon activities.
If the ongoing talks in Vienna collapse, it would likely be very bullish for oil prices as it would not only tighten expected market balances for 2023 and 2024, but it could also additionally increase the tension in the Middle East with a renewed U.S.-Iran standoff.
“So much has changed since 2015,” Helima Croft, Global Head of Commodity Strategy at RBC Capital Markets, told Bloomberg.
“Iran is now a nuclear-threshold state. Would they be willing to relinquish that status? It’s not guaranteed,” Croft added, commenting on the possibility that talks could collapse.
The oil market will continue to keep a close eye on the talks, which seem like the wild card for prices later this year and next. Last week, Goldman Sachs said it was pushing its Iran ramp-up forecast to the second quarter of 2023 due to lack of progress in the negotiations, as it joined other Wall Street banks in predicting $100 oil as soon as this year.
Progressive Dems Distance Themselves As Biden Turns Radioactive
With his approval ratings atan all-time low…
…and before what’s setting up to be a midterm bloodbath, progressive Democrats don’t want any part of the blame for President Biden’s status as top Democrat non grata.
According to The Hill, progressives are “pushing back at the idea that they are to blame at all for President Biden’s dismal poll numbers, arguing the White House’s problems have more to do with it moving away from a progressive agenda.”
Key progressives think instead that Biden’s polls reflect a disillusionment among the base over his unwillingness to deliver on key issues ranging from voting ‘rights,’ to gun control, to healthcare and beyond.
“Biden’s popularity was high when he ran on a progressive agenda — and it dropped when he let corporate Democrats take the reins,” said Varshini Prakash, executive director of climate PAC The Sunrise Movement. “It shouldn’t be a surprise that voters are becoming impatient.“
…progressives argue Biden is playing into GOP hands by not fully embracing progressive priorities. They see the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill signed into law by Biden last fall as a lost opportunity that cut into their leverage for pressuring Manchin and Sinema on the Build Back Better legislation — which is also their top priority.
And they think a closer look at the polls shows that Biden’s real problems lie in a demoralized base — which they fear could also cost the party this fall.
“They’re standing in the way of the president’s promises, and it will be mostly their fault if Democrats lose Congress in November,” Prakash said of moderate Democrats. -The Hill
According to a Pew Research Center survey released on Wednesady, Biden’s approval rating now stands at 41% – plummeting from 59% last April.
Biden’s horrible polling comes after Democrats were unable to advance his ‘signature economic package’ – as moderate Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) oppose several aspects of the spending bill – from the overall cost, to a filibuster carve-out which would give Democrats virtually unlimited power to pass legislation. Moderates, meanwhile, have long argued that progressive Democrats are pulling Biden too far to the left, harming the party. Case-in-point, Sinema rejected proposals to hike taxes on corporations and wealthy households tacked onto the Build Back Better bill – while Manchin opposed further spending given inflation.
Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ)
Also under fire from moderate Democrats is White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain – who has been accused of being in lockstep with far-left elements of the party.
The Washington Postreported that some think Klain is too deferential toward Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Progressives held up a House vote on the infrastructure bill for months to try to move the Build Back Better bill forward.
Eventually, under pressure from Biden, they relented and voted for the infrastructure bill. That gave Biden a political victory, but it is one that hasn’t really showed up in the polls so far. -The Hill
According to Democratic operative Eddie Vale, the far-left isn’t to blame for Biden’s polling – as they’re the ones who ultimately bent the knee on Biden’s infrastructure bill.
“For the specific argument folks are currently having and the spate of stories going after Jayapal and Klain, blaming progressives doesn’t really make any sense because in the end they went along with the ‘pass infrastructure only’ strategy and almost all voted for both bills,” he said.
Another progressive, Camille Rivera of New Deal Strategies, said that “People are just really exhausted by moderate Democrats continuously eating their young,” adding “Conservative and moderate Democrats need to start taking responsibility for their own messaging.”
Whoever’s to blame, Democrats have a hard road ahead into this year’s midterm elections.
This week, my kind friend George Gammon from Rebel Capitalist took the time to answer a couple of exclusive Fringe Finance questions for me. George is one of my favorite economic commentators and has been a friend of mine, and my podcast, for years. I often describe his podcast as similar to mine, just more well thought out, more educational and more useful with less childish humor.
I thought this week would be a good time to tap into George’s head, given that the last time I spoke to George was well before the current market volatility. George prepared two, twenty minute-long exclusive videos for Fringe Finance to try and tackle a list of questions I had for him.
First, I asked George and his team how they were changing their outlook for investing heading into this volatility this year.
George responded: “All of us are really just trying to pay attention to what the Fed is doing. In order to answer economic questions, you’ve got to start by answering political questions. I don’t really like that because I don’t like politicians.”
“But unfortunately there’s a bigger cross current at play right now – and that’s what the Fed is going to do with monetary policy and maybe even what the government is going to do with fiscal policy. All our pros are fixated on what the Fed is going do right now,” he continued.
“You look at gold, you look at the dollar, you look at the 10 year, and I think everything revolves around trying to figure out if the Fed is going to go through what they say they’re going to do in 2022. Another interesting question is that inflation is kryptonite and a lot of talking heads think that if inflation comes down, it’ll buy them time. I don’t necessarily know if that’s true. Prices aren’t going back down to where they were in 2019. They might stop going up. They might go up at a lesser rate, but it doesn’t mean they’re going back down. The average voter knows this.”
I asked George what sectors he likes heading into 2022: “I think gold miners are interesting at these levels. I like things when they’re cheap and when they’re unloved. I don’t know if we’re seeing panic yet in the gold miners, but they’re definitely unloved. I think the Fed tightening is kind of baked into the price of miners. The market has taken the Fed seriously, therefore, if we see a dovish pivot, then I think miners could have a lot of upside.”
“There are some foreign markets I find interesting. For example, the UAE just came out and said they’re going to put up a 1,000 room casino. They’re not a bastion of freedom and liberty, but I’m looking for countries heading in the right direction. They’re looking to liberalize and move in a more free market direction. I think they have more tailwind than the U.S,” he said.
“Also I like that area because its a bit of a reprieve until the next crisis the global elite try and take advantage of. I think that’s most likely going to be climate change,” George continues.
“I’m not here to say whether [climate change] is real or not, but I am here to say the elites don’t care about the quality of the air, they don’t care about the temperatures rising 2 degrees, the only thing they care about is usurping power and control. They see 2020 and 2021 as a big win in terms of ‘Wow, look at what we were able to make people do!’ During the next crisis, we can add to the power we obtained from 2020 and 2021.”
Countries like Russia, Brazil and the UAE all push back on this agenda due to their dependance on oil. “They’ll be less likely to follow Klaus,” George says. “I’m putting them on a watchlist and paying close attention to them.”
George also talks about:
His take on why lower inflation may not stop the bleeding for markets
Why prices aren’t going back down to where they were in 2019
Why midterm elections bode poorly for the Democrats and why the Biden administration may try to distract the voter with war
Why gold miners and hotels in New York City are his favorite types of investments
Why the Covid pandemic is coming to an end
Why he doesn’t think vaccine passports and mandates will be permanent
Where the U.S. economy is heading compared to places like the U.A.E. or Dubai
That he thinks climate change will be the next crisis that the global elite take advantage of
Why price controls are coming
Finally, he also gives his thoughts on whether or not Powell will hold his nerve this year and taper as expected and his bull and bear case for gold. In the second part of the interview series, which will be released here this coming week, I ask George about YouTube and social media trying to censor him, the commentators and fund managers he reads and listens to and his take on how the government will navigate Covid this coming year.
All content is George Gammon’s opinion. I own physical silver, GLD, GDX, GDXJ, PAAS, PSLV and a number of other metals/miners/gold/silver equities as well as numerous companies with exposure to oil and uranium. Readers should assume George also has positions in all trends/equities/etc. mentioned in this interview – as do I. We will likely stand to benefit if prices of commodities rise and/or our prognostications come true. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. It is only a look into personal opinions and personal portfolios. Positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I get shit wrong a lot. I’m not a financial advisor, I hold no licenses or registrations and am not qualified to give advice on anything, let alone finance or medicine. Talk to your doctor, talk to your financial advisor or your therapist. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe.
Contrary To ESPN Reports, Tom Brady Is Not Retiring
Update (6:30pm ET): Shortly after it made Bloomberg’s top 4 news events of the day…
… just moments later we learn that the ESPN report about Tom Brady’s retirement that shook the world and was based on “anonymous source” was fake news, which in light of everything that has taken place in the past five years coming from “anonymous sources” is precisely what one should have expected.
Tom Brady called the Bucs late this afternoon to inform them he’s not even close to making a decision about retirement, according to a source.
Update (5:10pm): Despite reports that he is retiring, Tom Brady has told the Tampa Bay Buccaneers he hasn’t made up his mind, two people familiar with the details told The Associated Press.
ESPN first reported Brady’s retirement on Saturday, citing unidentified sources. Brady’s company posted a tweet indicating he’s retiring, and reaction came from around the world congratulating Brady on his career. But the tweet was later deleted, and Brady’s agent, Don Yee, said the 44-year-old quarterback would be the only person to accurately express his future.
Brady called Buccaneers general manager Jason Licht to say he has not made a decision, according to two people who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because of the private nature of the conversations.
After ESPN’s report, TB12sports Twitter account wrote: “7 Super Bowl Rings. 5 Super Bowl MVPs. 3 League MVP Awards. 22 Incredible Seasons. Thank you for it all, @TomBrady”, but as we noted earlier, that post was removed…
… and Yee released this statement: “I understand the advance speculation about Tom’s future. Without getting into the accuracy or inaccuracy of what’s being reported, Tom will be the only person to express his plans with complete accuracy. He knows the realities of the football business and planning calendar as well as anybody, so that should be soon.”
* * *
Update (420pm ET): In what may either be a historic troll or a fake news report for the ages, moments ago – with all main news services reporting Tom Brady’s retirement following an early EPSN report and subsequent confirmation from a now deleted tweet from Brady’s TB12 sport Twitter account…
… moments ago Tom Brady’s dad, Tom Brady Sr, told San Fran’s kron4news that his son is not retiring. Brady Sr. says an online publication started circulating an unsubstantiated rumor…
JUST IN: Tom Brady Sr. tells @kron4news that his son is not retiring. Brady Sr. says an online publication started circulating an unsubstantiated rumor. However a number of NFL insiders are now reporting it. @kron4news#TomBrady#NFL
… even though a number of NFL insiders are now reporting it, not to mention all the majors such as AP, Bloomberg, etc.
Furthermore, it now appears
* * *
Earlier: Tom Brady is retiring from the NFL after an unprecedented career in which he won seven Super Bowls and set numerous passing records, his company’s Twitter account said Saturday. ESPN first reported Brady’s retirement on Saturday, citing unidentified sources.
Tom Brady is retiring from football after 22 extraordinary seasons, multiple sources tell @JeffDarlington and me.
Brady’s TB12sports Twitter account wrote; “7 Super Bowl Rings. 5 Super Bowl MVPs. 3 League MVP Awards. 22 Incredible Seasons. Thank you for it all, @TomBrady”
The 44-year-old Brady goes out after leading the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to a Super Bowl title last season and NFC South championship this season. And, as stat freaks point out, Tom Brady has won 12.7% of all Super Bowls in history. He has also thrown more touchdown passes in his 40s (168) than in his 20s (147).
Brady led the NFL in yards passing (5,316), touchdowns (43), completions (485) and attempts (719), but the Buccaneers lost at home to the Los Angeles Rams last Sunday in the divisional round. As the AP notes, Brady had cited a desire to spend more time with his wife and children despite still playing at the top of his game.
Brady won six Super Bowls with the New England Patriots in 20 seasons playing for coach Bill Belichick. He joined the Buccaneers in 2020 and led them to the second Super Bowl title in franchise history.
Brady leaves the games as the career leader in yards passing (84,520) and TDs (624). He’s the only player to win more than five Super Bowls and was MVP of the game five times.
Widely considered the greatest quarterback to play the game, Brady won three NFL MVP awards, was a first-team All-Pro three times and was selected to the Pro Bowl 15 times. He was 243-73 in his career in the regular season and 35-12 in the playoffs.
Brady had an inauspicious start: as the AP reports, overlooked by every team coming out of Michigan, Brady was eventually selected by the Patriots in the sixth round of the 2000 NFL draft with the 199th overall pick. He replaced an injured Drew Bledsoe as the starter in 2001 and led New England to a Super Bowl victory over the heavily favored Rams that season.
Brady went on to lead the Patriots to Super Bowl victories over the Panthers following the 2003 season and Eagles after the 2004 season. No team has since repeated as champions. But New England wouldn’t win another one for a decade, twice losing to the New York Giants in the Super Bowl, including a 17-14 defeat.
Brady earned his fourth ring when the Patriots held off Seattle thanks to Malcolm Butler’s interception at the goal line in the Super Bowl after the 2014 season. Two years later, in the biggest Super Bowl comeback, he led the Patriots out of a 28-3 deficit in the third quarter against Atlanta to win in overtime. After losing to the Eagles and backup quarterback Nick Foles the following year, Brady got his sixth championship when New England shut down the Rams following the 2018 season.
He joined the Buccaneers in 2020 amid a pandemic, instilling a winning culture to a franchise that hadn’t won a playoff game in 18 years. With his old friend Rob Gronkowski joining him in Tampa, Brady helped the Buccaneers become the first team to play in a Super Bowl in its stadium. Naturally, Brady won again.
In recent years, Tom Brady emerged as one of the more prominent crypto-evangelists, taking an equity stake in cryptocurrency exchange platform FTX. He then fully embraced the cryptocurrency bandwagon, from his “laser eyes” tweet to his recent commercial for FTX; in September 2021 he even discussed about getting paid in tokens for carving up NFL defenses. Appearing on SiriusXM’s “Let’s Go” podcast with Jim Gray, Brady acknowledged that other NFL players have requested to be paid a portion of their salaries in crypto, and it’s a trend he would love to join:
“I’d love to request that to get paid in some crypto and, you know, to get paid in some Bitcoin or Ethereum or Solana tokens,” Brady said. “I think it’s an amazing thing that’s happening in the world with the way the world is becoming more digital. And these digital currencies, along with a lot of, if you look how the way the world is going, with all these different digital mediums and how they’re impacting currencies.”
It’s unclear if Brady plans on focusing more on his crypto cheerleading now that he will have much more free time or if, as some have speculated, he will turn toward politics. Or he may just pull a Michael Jordan…
The claim that the virus that causes COVID-19 definitely was not from a laboratory, put forth in a paper quietly shaped by Dr. Anthony Fauci that was cited by other scientists who called the lab idea a “conspiracy theory,” was “antithetical to science,” a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director says.
“The purpose of science is to have rigorous debate about different hypotheses. I’ve never really experienced in my life where there was private telephone calls among scientists that had a decision on what position they would take collectively, and to see that position then published in a scientific journal like Lancet, to say that individuals that thought like myself, had a different scientific hypothesis, somehow had to be put down and viewed as conspirators, this is really antithetical to science,” Dr. Robert Redfield, the agency’s head until Jan. 20, 2021, said during a Jan. 26 appearance on Fox News.
(L-R) Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, attend a briefing on the administration’s CCP virus response in the press briefing room of the White House in Washington on March 2, 2020. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Emails recently made public show that Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), played a key role in shaping a paper published by Nature in early 2020.
The authors, most of whom messaged repeatedly with Fauci, joined him on a teleconference shortly before the paper was published, and have since received millions from Fauci’s agency, claimed that their analyses “clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”
The Nature article was one of those cited by EcoHealth Alliance founder Peter Daszak and a separate group of scientists in an article later published in The Lancet. “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” wrote Daszak, whose group funneled money from Fauci’s agency to scientists in Wuhan, China, and the other authors.
Many experts later acknowledged there’s no clear evidence that the CCP virus has a natural origin, and some have said the bulk of the evidence points to it coming from the set of laboratories in Wuhan.
Redfield is one of them.
“I don’t think it’s biologically plausible that this virus emerged from a bat to some intermediate species into humans and became one of the most transmissible viruses that we know in human disease. This virus clearly had a detour and that detour was being educated how to infect human tissue in the laboratory. I think that’s the most plausible explanation,” he told Fox.
Dr. Francis Collins, Fauci’s boss when he was the head of the National Institutes of Health, and Fauci were trying to “protect science” by suppressing debate over the virus origins, Redfield posited. The problem is, “there’s very limited data” to support their position, he told Fox.
Asked if Fauci, who has been in his position since 1985, should be fired, Redfield demurred but said he did think Fauci should “reflect on this and then provide the science leadership that we need to move forward.”
“I have a lot of respect for him over the years. I think he needs to step back and not try to second guess and make things a way that he thinks the world can hear. We should just tell the truth,” Redfield said.
NIAID didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Redfield also said that he believes scientists will eventually solve the mystery of the origin of the virus.
With Trudeau In Hiding, CBC Suggests Putin Behind Truckers’ Freedom Convoy
Update (1500ET): While in a normal world this would be beyond satire and ridicule, it is perhaps of no surprise whatsoever that the blame for instigation of the “Freedom Convoy” is already being placed on so-called ‘Russian actors’…
“…given Canada’s support of Ukraine… I don’t know it it’s far-fetched to ask but there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows… perhaps even instigating it…”
A lot of strange coverage by the media on this thing but this one wins the prize.pic.twitter.com/bLauTjI9NG
As Brian Lilley writes at The Toronto Sun, “the media in this country is not acting as a neutral observer and conduit for news on this matter, most have decided the trucker convoy is the enemy and are treating it as such. Watch any of the news networks or, more importantly, read the Twitter accounts of supposedly objective journalists, or listen to the contempt in their voices as they ask questions to see that they have clearly taken sides.”
“Apparently, the journalists on Parliament Hill these days think their job is to hold the opposition and not the government to account. It also appears their job to support some protest movements and attack others based on the personal preferences of the journalists.”
The propaganda seems to have reached some, but not others…
In other news, while Trudeau hides in isolation, the Premier of Saskatchewan, a Canadian province that borders the US, calls for an end of the cross-border ban on unvaccinated truckers.
Today, trucker rallies are being held at many locations across the country, including on Parliament Hill in Ottawa and in various communities in Saskatchewan.
The world’s largest truck convoy rolled into Canada’s capital, Ottawa, late Friday night and continues today to stage a protest against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cross-border vaccine mandates (or as some call it: medical tyranny).
The so-called “Freedom Convoy” – coming from all corners of Canada and even the US, has been traveling all week and is leading the charge in a massive demonstration against government overreach. Truckers from around the world are uniting and staging protests of their own.
As Enrico Trigoso reports at The Epoch Times, Brian Von D, the administrator at “Convoy to DC 2022” announced that they will “join forces” to ride from California to Washington, adding that “America is next.”
“As [the Canadian convoy] moved from the west to the east, [the American truckers] have been filtering into this convoy, and it is absolutely massive. It is known worldwide, it is the largest thus far,” he said in a live video on Facebook.
He added that dates and planned routes would be released soon on a website and various social media platforms, and a GoFundMe page would only be released on their CONVOY TO DC 2022 Facebook page.
“We’re done with the mandates, were done with the government telling us what to do, we will continue and we will follow just like the rest of the world on these trucker protests, and they will be 100 percent legal, they will abide by the law.”
The Parliamentary Protective Service expects as many as 10,000 protesters this weekend in Ottawa, but that figure could be significantly higher. A day ago, we noted 50,000 trucks in a 70km (43.5 miles) long convoy are headed to the capital.
Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau called the convoy a “small fringe minority” of those who “do not represent the views of Canadians.” Judging by the pictures and videos so far, Trudeau is a liar, and a revolt is underway in the country. Corporate media and government have spent the better part of the week downplaying the convoy ( because they are scared).
On Friday, Trudeau told the Canadian Press that he was worried about the protest turning violent. Organizers of the event have told truckers and anyone else participating in the demonstration to remain peaceful.
CBC said Trudeau and his family left downtown Ottawa on Saturday morning (due to close contact with someone infected with COVID – although he tested negative and triple-jabbed) as the trucker convoy descended on the area. The local news said he left town due to security concerns.
OTTAWA – A “few” truckers with “unacceptable opinions” now lead the world in the fight to end discrimination and division.
The convoy is expected to bring parts of the metro area to a standstill and block roads in front of parliament until lawmakers repeal a vaccine mandate for truckers hauling freight across the border.
Despite Trudeau calling the protest “small,” Ottawa police chief Peter Sloly said they planned a “massive” demonstration on Friday.
New Jersey And New York Ranked ‘Worst States To Retire’
As a generation of baby boomers weighs where they should retire, one popular survey has just proclaimed New Jersey – home to Bruce Springsteen and open sewer that is the Jersey Shore – the worst state in America for retirees.
The Garden State ranks last, with Mississippi and New York rounding out the bottom three.
Unsurprisingly, the No. 1 factor in Jersey’s low ranking was was the fact that NJ and NY are the two least affordable states in the US to live in, according to the survey released Monday by personal-finance website WalletHub.
They both scored slightly higher in terms of quality of life and health-care. But in both cases cost is still a serious factor.
Once again, Florida was ranked the best state to retire. It ranked fourth for affordability and fifth for quality of life, although surprisingly – considering the state’s large population of seniors – health-care ranked 27.
Virginia, Colorado, Delaware and Minnesota rounded out the top five states to retire, with each of these states boasting high marks on affordability.
WalletHub, the authors of the survey, compared all 50 states on different categories from affordability, quality of life and healthcare. Then these categories were divided into 47 metrics including tax-friendliness, risk of social isolation, elderly friendly labor market, life expectancy and health-care facilities per capita.
All of this was condensed down into a scale of 100 possible points, with each state being assigned a unique ranking.
Bloomberg took the WalletHub rankings and imposed them on a map of the US:
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
Saving...
