Today’s News 5th May 2023

• Why Turkey's May 14 Election Really Matters
  Why Turkey’s May 14 Election Really Matters

  Authored by Austin Bay via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Turkey’s May 14, 2023, national elections are critical, foremost for Turkish citizens. Their democracy is at stake.

  

  But that isn’t the only reason Turkish and European media call next week’s vote the most important in 100 years. The election, which pits the President Recep Tayyip Erdogan against the much more moderate Kemal Kilicdaroglu, also affects NATO solidarity, political stability in Eastern Europe, and the West’s ability to counter Iran, Russia, and China in the Middle East.

  Erdogan, who leads the moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP), advocates the “executive presidency” (authoritarian power and control vested in the president). Kilicdaroglu, head of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), is a moderate pro-parliamentary process candidate. He is backed by a six-party coalition committed to ending Erdogan’s reign of economic error, police intimidation, and, in the wake of the February earthquakes, destructive corruption.

  For Turks the 100-year mark has genuine significance. A century ago, in 1923, from the WWI ruins of the Ottoman Turk empire, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk established the secular Turkish Republic—a nonsectarian republic in an overwhelmingly Muslim nation.

  Ataturk was a true revolutionary. To state the grand historical case, he is the only man to successfully create a political system to modernize a culturally Islamic nation. Ataturk pursued economic modernization. He emancipated women and ended the Islamic Caliphate—both acts horrifying radical Islamists then and now. In 2001 Osama bin Laden was still condemning him.

  Turkey’s 21st-century democracy is Ataturk’s legacy.

  Erdogan, a man notoriously jealous of Ataturk, intentionally attacks and diminishes Turkey’s democratic institutions. Since 2003, when Erdogan became prime minister, year by year Turkey’s government has become less secular and more authoritarian as Erdogan forged his powerful executive.

  His record for jailing journalists and intimidating opponents is fact, not theory.

  He is also a threat to the integrity of NATO, which means he’s a threat to U.S. security. When he purchased the Russian-made S-400 air defense system, Erdogan put the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s technological edge at risk.

  When it serves him, Erdogan values NATO’s commitment to defend Turkey. In April 2012, after confrontations with Syrian troops, he suggested he might invoke NATO Article 5 if fire spilled across the border. However, his deliberately rogue behavior has damaged the alliance. He continues to oppose Swedish membership. As recently as January 2023, good rumor had it that active and retired NATO officials were so concerned about Erdogan’s unreliability that NATO ought to consider expelling Turkey.

  Kilicdaroglu says he will revive Turkey’s bid to join the European Union and support Sweden’s admission.

  Erdogan’s economic and political mismanagement may lead to his defeat.

  In 2002 Erdogan won his first national election on a platform to attack inflation, improve the economy, and fight corruption. In fall 2022 annual inflation hit 86 percent, a 24-year high.

  The February earthquakes were the worst natural disaster in the history of modern Turkey—the Feb. 6 quake might be the biggest in 2,000 years.

  In Turkey an estimated 280,000 buildings were either destroyed or suffered “structural compromise” so they must be abandoned. The number is a fact, not an opinion. In early April Turkey’s interior ministry raised the death toll to 50,399. Relief organizations reported around 1.5 million Turks who survived the earthquakes were still living in tents or other temporary facilities.

  Erdogan’s slow and poor response has made the earthquakes an election issue he cannot shake.

  Did cronyism hamper recovery? Turkey’s Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD, the agency tasked with handling the disaster) is run by a political appointee who has little emergency management experience.

  Government failure to enforce construction standards is definitely an issue. Some critics suspect corruption by national and local officials contributed to the disaster. Government “construction amnesties” allowed builders to ignore safety codes in areas where housing shortages existed. In 2018 Erdogan allowed one in the city of Kahramanmaras. In March 2019 he publicly touted new housing in Kahramanmaras as one of his administration’s major achievements.

  In February the quakes leveled the city.

  Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/05/2023 – 02:00

• Was The Tucker "Take Down" A Deep-State Hit?
  Was The Tucker “Take Down” A Deep-State Hit?

  Authored by Mike Whitney,

  “When honest people say what’s true … they become powerful…. That’s the iron-law of the universe, the truth prevails.”

  – Tucker Carlson

  

  Can we stop pretending that Tucker Carlson was fired because of the Dominion lawsuit? That’s a bunch of baloney. Carlson was fired because he used his prime-time platform to expose the crimes and illicit goings-on of the most powerful men, corporations and agencies in the world. That’s why he was fired, because he revealed the truth about big pharma’s toxic injections, Fauci’s deranged lockdowns, Brandon’s police-state surveillance, the expansive deep-state censorship program, CRT, BLM, ESG, George Floyd, drag-queen children’s hour, the oddball cult of trangenderism, Ukraine’s crummy dictator-president Zelensky and all the other pernicious inanities that are being used like a wrecking-ball on the nation’s moral and historical foundation. Tucker exposed them all.

  That’s why he was fired. It had nothing to do lawsuits or disgruntled employees whining about a “toxic work environment”. Nor did it have anything to do with ratings or money. This was a carefully-calculated, narrowly-supported targeted assassination of the man—who more than any other—had become a problem for the reprobate Mafia that runs the country and who is determined to silence or annihilate anyone who speaks out against them.

  So don’t be duped by articles in the MSM. They are there to misdirect and confuse, not to inform. Have confidence in what you’ve seen with your own eyes and know to be true. Tucker Carlson was a victim of a system that no longer tolerates free speech, even-handed criticism or any divergence from the official narrative. Who doesn’t know this already?

  

  How many readers remember the night that Tucker ran a segment on the JFK assassination? Here’s a short recap from an excellent article by Lew Rockwell:

  In a remarkable television broadcast on December 15, 2022, Tucker Carlson made an explosive charge. He pointed out that, contrary to law, the White House was refusing to release thousands of pages of documents about the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Carlson said that these documents proved CIA involvement in the assassination and that someone within the government who had looked at these documents made a direct statement to this effect.

  …. We spoke to someone who had access to these still hidden CIA documents, a person who was deeply familiar with what they contained. We asked this person directly, ‘Did the CIA have a hand in the murder of John F. Kennedy, an American President?’ And here’s the reply we received verbatim. Quote, ‘The answer is yes. I believe they were involved. It’s a whole different country from what we thought it was. It’s all fake.’ “Why Tucker Carlson had to be Purged”, Lew Rockwell

  So, after 60 years, someone finally had the courage to tell the truth on national television. That’s shocking.

  But how many people who saw that segment reacted the same way that I did? How many people said to themselves, “They’re not going to allow this to continue, they’re not going to let Carlson expose their crimes to the world. No way. Whatever it takes, they’re going to shut this guy up.”

  And that’s what they’ve done, they’ve shut him up.

  There are things you can’t say in America, and that is one of them. You cannot say the CIA killed John Kennedy even though the majority of people know that it’s true. Because it doesn’t matter if it’s true. Just like it doesn’t matter that it took place 60 years ago. You still can’t say it, because the people who own the media—and who sit on the boards of all the other global corporations—don’t like it when you criticize the organization that does their dirty work. They won’t allow that.

  This is the lesson of Julian Assange, which is: Do not reveal the crimes of elites and—if you do—you’re going to be crushed. Assange violated that rule and now faces a lifetime in solitary confinement. They’ve not only ruined his life, they’ve also trotted him out in front of the world media to make an example of him. And the message they’re trying to send is this: “Mess with us and we will fu** you over.” That is the message.

  Now it’s on to Tucker who is even more widely reviled for his nightly attacks on the same group of powerbrokers. What do you think they have in store for him?

  It’s hard to say, but they’re not going to pull their punches, that much is certain.

  

  It’s worth noting that, by some accounts, Carlson was not explicitly fired. Did you know that?

  According to former Fox host Megyn Kelly, Carlson is not free to negotiate with other potential employers because he’s still technically under contract with Fox. Check out this blurb from Red State website:

  There’s a report from 19FortyFive from John Rossamondo that Tucker Carlson texted them, “I’m still employed by Fox,” that he had not been fired. Now, we’re not seeing anyone else reporting on that, so we relate that report with that proviso. That report does, however, fit with what Kelly said. 19FortyFive also said Carlson did not explain the reasoning for the parting of ways, just as Kelly said.

  If this is all true, then, as Kelly says, Fox needs to let Carlson out of the contract as soon as possible, so his voice is freed to get about doing his job. But for the moment, it’s concerning, if it means he’s stopped from pursuing other opportunities and is effectively silenced.” (“Megyn Kelly Drops Important Info About Tucker Departure, Blog Reports Text From Tucker”, Red State)

  What Kelly seems to ignore is that “silencing” Carlson was the primary objective from the get-go. The fact that he is still under contract simply makes it easier for his enemies to control and censor him. Many readers have noticed that Carlson has not posted another video on his Twitter account since last week’s 2-minute blockbuster that raked in over 70 million views. That probably means that he’s been advised by his attorney that anything he produces will be construed as a violation of his contract with Fox. In other words, keeping Tucker on the payroll may be the most effective way to shut him up which is precisely what they want.

  On an entirely different topic: There seems to be widespread agreement that Rupert Murdoch was directly involved in Carlson’s removal. But—in my opinion—that seems very unlikely. Murdoch probably knew that the fallout from Carlson’s termination would be devastating for both ratings and the Fox brand. That’s why he (probably) avoided the decision for as long as possible. But try to imagine the enormous pressure he must have been under from his fellow oligarchs as well as the numerous deep-state agencies that have coalesced into—what Matt Taibbi calls—the “Censorship-Industrial Complex”. The billionaire globalists and their government assets despise Carlson and see his rational, laser-sharp analysis as a grave threat to their broader societal project. That is why they descended on Murdoch like a barrage of heat-seeking missiles forcing the dithering mogul to eventually throw in the towel. Once again—this is just my opinion—but I think it is much more likely that Murdoch “caved in” rather than threw his threw his prime-time superstar under the bus.

  

  There’s also another development that preceded the Tucker incident that might have had some bearing on the final outcome, that is, the giant private equity corporation Blackrock bought a sizable chunk of Fox just two months before Carlson was given his pink-slip. Here’s the scoop from an article at Nasdaq:

  Fintel reports that BlackRock has filed a 13G/A form with the SEC disclosing ownership of 45.74MM shares of Fox Corporation, Class A (FOXA). This represents 15.1% of the company.

  In their previous filing dated January 27, 2022 they reported 39.87MM shares and 12.40% of the company, an increase in shares of 14.75% and an increase in total ownership of 2.70% (calculated as current – previous percent ownership). BlackRock Increases Position in Fox Corporation, Nasdaq

  Let me see if I got this straight: ‘Liberal-leaning’ PE goliath Blackrock buys a 15% share of uber-conservative Fox News in early February, and 3 months later the network’s brightest star is given his “walking papers”. Doesn’t that sound a bit suspicious?

  Indeed, it does. Check out this short clip from an article by analyst Tom Loungo who helps to clarify what’s going on:

  This is symptomatic of Blackrock’s use of proxy to get what they want. Larry Fink, BLK CEO, is notorious for his antics in forcing heads of state and CEO’s to do his bidding while hiding behind the smokescreen of ‘I’m just a guy investing your hard-earned capital on your behalf for the good of humanity.’

  Now, this is some prime Grade AA Bullshit.

  Blackrock is Davos’ main arm-twisting subsidiary in the C-Suites of the S&P 500 as well as the Euro STOXXX 50 (link will need translation from German). He may as well change his first name to Don but there are some ethnic issues with this outside of Queens.” “Tucker, Blackrock and the SIFI Two-Step”, Lew Rockwell)

  I think Luongo is on to something here. Blackrock’s stake in Fox might have nothing to do Fox’s prospects for future profits. Instead, it might be a straightforward power-play aimed at eliminating America’s most persuasive critic of big pharma, corporate malfeasance and the tyrannical globalist agenda. At the very least, the proximity of Blackrock’s purchase should prompt a thorough investigation of the possible link between the giant Wall Street monoliths and outspoken critics of the system. But while an independent probe is certainly warranted, I’m not holding my breath.

  

  It’s not possible to understand what happened to Tucker Carlson without having some knowledge of the way things actually work. Fortunately, journalist Matt Taibbi has explained much of what is going on now through his work on the Twitter Files which shows how the concentration of wealth and influence has spawned an expansive information matrix that threatens to quash free speech while strengthening the power of the billionaire elites. Here’s a short excerpt from a piece by Taibbi:

  ….the story of the #TwitterFiles…. is “really the story of the collapse of public trust in experts and institutions, and how those experts struck back, by trying to pool their remaining influence into a political monopoly.”….

  #TwitterFiles reporters like Michael Shellenberger, and myself didn’t have much of a hint of what we were looking at until later in the project. That larger story was about a new type of political control mechanism that didn’t really exist ten years ago. In preparation for testimony before the House in March, Shellenberger gave it a name: the Censorship-Industrial Complex…..

  We didn’t understand at the time, but the third, fourth, and fifth installments of the #TwitterFiles… served as an introduction for all of us to the major components of a vast new public-private speech bureaucracy, one that appeared to have been founded in the United States, but was clearly global in scope…. a censorship industrial complex that…

  Combines established methods of psychological manipulation… with highly sophisticated tools from computer science, including artificial intelligence. The complex’s leaders are driven by the fear that the Internet and social media platforms empower populist, alternative, and fringe personalities and views, which they regard as destabilizing….

  The core concept is too much democracy and freedom leads to mischief, and since the desire for these things can’t be stamped out all at once but instead must be squashed in every person over and over and endlessly, the job requires a massive investment, and a gigantic bureaucracy to match.” “Report on the Censorship-Industrial Complex, Matt Taibbi, Racket News

  Bottom line: The merging of public and private power has already taken place and is expressed in the removal of any and all critics of the newly-minted system. In short, Tucker was not fired by Fox News management but by the new speech-policing behemoth that descended on Murdoch like a swarm of hornets coercing him to make a choice that he probably would not have made otherwise.

  A similar point is made by Patrick Lawrence in his recent review of Jacob Seigel’s A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century Here’s an excerpt from the author’s piece:

  In his last days in office, President Barack Obama made the decision to set the country on a new course”…(In) 2016, he signed into law the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act, which used the language of defending the homeland to launch an open-ended, offensive information war.”.….

  This was to be not merely a “whole-of-government” undertaking: It was “whole-of-society,” meaning all lines between the public and private sectors would be erased and control of the hearts and minds of every American was made the objective.

  Now we can understand how easily our public institutions enlisted in this good cause. These included Big Tech and the national security apparatus, of course, as well as law enforcement — the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation—the think tanks, the universities, the NGOs, and media. “The American press,” (Jacob) Siegel writes, “was hollowed out to the point that it could be worn like a hand puppet by the U.S. security agencies and party operatives.”

  There were also various self-proclaimed guardians of “internet freedom,” whose shared objective was to suppress all forms of dissent by making sure no such thing survived their efforts…..

  “Something monstrous is taking shape in America,” Siegel writes….

  “What is coming into being is a new form of government and social organization that is as different from mid-20th century liberal democracy as the early American republic was from the British monarchism that it grew out of and eventually supplanted. A state organized on the principle that it exists to protect the sovereign rights of individuals, is being replaced by a digital leviathan that wields power through opaque algorithms and the manipulation of digital swarms. It resembles the Chinese system of social credit and one-party state control, and yet that, too, misses the distinctively American and providential character of the control system.” The Most Powerful Demolition of Russiagate Yet”, Patrick Lawrence, Consortium News

  

  How do these excerpts help us to understand what happened to Tucker Carlson?

  If Carlson was fired by Murdoch for his alleged involvement in the Dominion settlement, that is entirely different then if he was the victim of an emerging speech-policing bureaucracy that is deeply entrenched in the government and which seeks to arbitrarily limit what opinions are permissible and not permissible. If the latter is true, then we can assume that Carlson’s termination has broader meaning for everyone living in the United States today. What it means is that a sprawling new system has been secretly assembled within the state that is explicitly designed to end free speech as we know it and extinguish the last glimmer of personal liberty in America.

  That’s why we need to know what people or organizations were behind the firing of Tucker Carlson.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/05/2023 – 00:00

• What Happened To All The Stretched Limousines?
  What Happened To All The Stretched Limousines?

  Several decades ago, limousines could be found in every major city. The luxury stretched vehicle ushered occupants to boardroom meetings, penthouses, nightclubs, and sporting events. But somewhere along the way, the limousine slowly and then rapidly disappeared from city streets in a world now dominated by black SUVs. 

  The stretched limousine dominated the luxury chauffeur service industry in the 1970s and 1980s. After multiple stock crashes, the first in 1987, the second in the early 2000s, and the third in 2008, the luxury mode of travel lost its lust with high net-wealth individuals.

  

  Slowly but surely, the town car became the vehicle of choice in the 2000s. Then the rich demanded Cadillac Escalade and Chevrolet Suburban, as well as Mercedes S classes, while demand for stretch limos plummeted. 

  Now chauffeur services are dominated by “black SUVs, buses and vans,” NYTimes explained. 

  “The limo business isn’t your father’s limo business anymore,” said Robert Alexander, president of the National Limousine Association (NLA). 

  According to NLA data, stretch limos represent about 1% of services offered by chauffeur services nationwide, down from 10% a decade ago. 

  “The stretch limo is — what’s the expression? — gone like the dodo bird,” Alexander said.

  As Alexander pointed out, another factor contributing to the near “extinction” of limousines was the emergence of ride-hailing platforms like Uber and Lyft over a decade ago. These platforms spurred a surge in demand for luxury SUV chauffeur services, further diminishing the stretched limo market.

  It’s clear the limo industry has taken a drastic turn in recent decades. And the next move the limo industry is making is into luxury Sprinter vans.

  Matthew Daus, a lawyer and a former commissioner and chairman of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, explained the limo industry has “muscled into the motor coach and the charter industry” after the pandemic. 

  Stretched limos are gone for now, but luxury chauffeur services are still thriving. It’s just the mode of transport has changed. And in a country where progressive policies have sparked a nationwide crime wave in major metro areas, no one in their right mind would dare drive around in a moving target. 

  Looking ahead, the proliferation of self-driving cars could also make professional chauffeurs extinct in the coming decades. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 23:40

• Is It A Good Thing For Ordinary Americans If The US Loses Reserve Currency Status?
  Is It A Good Thing For Ordinary Americans If The US Loses Reserve Currency Status?

  Authored by Ryan McMaken via the Mises Institute,

  Earlier this month, Larry Kudlow insisted that it is “it’s incumbent on the U.S. government, no matter who’s in power, to maintain the reserve currency status of the dollar.” Kudlow laments that a toppling of the dollar from that perch “seems to be the direction we’re going in.” 

  

  Kudlow’s remarks came a day after Donald Trump declared that China is trying to displace the U.S. Dollar [sic] as the NUMBER ONE CURRENCY” and that if this occurs, it would be the biggest defeat for our Country [sic] in its history.” 

  Neither Trump nor Kudlow actually explain why maintaining reserve currency status is so important. After all, it’s clear that it is not necessary for a country’s currency to be a reserve currency in order for that country to have a high standard of living and a high degree of economic freedom. We could simply look to Norway and Switzerland to see that. 

  What’s Good for the Government Isn’t Necessarily What’s Good for the People

  Trump and Kudlow seemingly can’t tell the difference between what is good for the US government, and what is good for the people.  The idea that global reserve currency status for the dollar is essential to “America” relies on the false notion that the interests of the US regime and the interests of ordinary taxpaying Americans are one and the same. These interests rarely coincide, however, and they certainly don’t when it comes to reserve currency status. This is especially the case when the dollar is unbacked by any commodity like gold, and is simply a floating fiat currency that can be inflated at the will of the regime at any time.

  That global reserve currency status benefits the regime itself is obvious. This status for the dollar does indeed allow the regime to more recklessly inflate the dollar and increase deficits. This enhances the US regime’s ability to bribe voters with enormous welfare programs and involve the US regime in a dazzling array of wars that have nothing to do with defending US territory. None of this, however, improves the standard of living of Americans who pay the bills. Even worse, when the dollar ceases to be the dominant reserve currency—an event that is inevitable—holders of dollars will see their purchasing power plummet. Yet, it not the end of reserve currency status that is to blame for the inflationist pain. Rather, the fault will lie with the decades of monetary and fiscal mismanagement made possible by the dollar’s status as global reserve currency. 

  To demand the regime continue to cling to global reserve currency status is to demand a continuation of the policies that have hollowed out the financial well-being of Americans for decades.

  Trump and Kudlow, however, are not troubled by this. For them, it appears that the supposed importance of reserve currency status is not about economic concerns, but is really a political project. This shouldn’t surprise us given many of the narratives surrounding the dollar’s status—which focus on China and Chinese geopolitical power as the main reason to fear a decline of the dollar. This isn’t about protecting your wealth or reining in government power. It’s about increasing US government power in the name of fighting the latest foreign “axis of evil.” 

  In fact, China’s currency, the yuan, doesn’t even pose a threat to the dollar. The yuan is a fifth-place also-ran in the currency race. So, for now, the dollar still reigns supreme, and being the regime whose currency enjoys global reserve status comes with many advantages.

  Why Reserve Currency Status Enhances State Power at the Expense of the Taxpayers

  The first advantage is reserve currency status brings a greater global demand for dollars. This means more of a global willingness to absorb dollars into foreign central banks and foreign bank accounts even as the dollar inflates and loses purchasing power. Ultimately, this means the US regime can hoodwink the voters into accepting more monetary inflation, more financial repression, and more debt for many years before domestic price inflation becomes a political problem for the regime. After all, even if the US central bank (the Federal Reserve) creates $8 trillion in new dollars in order to prop up US asset prices, much of the world will take those dollars out of US domestic markets, and this will reduce price inflation in the US—at least in the short term.

  A second advantage: the fact the dollar dominates in global trade transactions means more global demand for US debt. Or, as Reuters put it in 2019, the dollar is used “for at least half of international trade invoices—five times more than the United States’ share of world goods imports—fuelling demand for U.S. assets.” Those assets include US government debt. In fact, as Robert Murphy notes, this inflation-fueled demand for US assets will be “heavily tilted toward debt (rather than equity in growing companies).” This rush for US debt pushes down the interest rate at which the US government must pay on its enormous $30 trillion debt. 

  All in all, reserve status for the dollar means a lot more US government spending. This produces no net benefit since government spending in itself distorts the economy, drives up prices, and otherwise redistributes wealth according to political considerations, rather than according to the needs of consumers and entrepreneurs.

  None of this is good for the productive people in the US. For one, deficit spending—whether for elective wars or welfare programs—must always be paid for, either in the form of price inflation (i.e., the inflation tax), or in terms of future ordinary taxation. Moreover, reserve currency status creates political cover for the regime’s easy-money policies in the short term. That is, global demand for the dollar helps create the temporary impression that monetary inflation comes with few downsides. This, however, can only continue until the dollar’s reserve status ends or even significantly weakens. In the meantime, the world will have been flooded with dollars. 

  Reserve currency status, by politically fostering more deficit spending, also harms those parts of the private economy that depend on private investment. As deficit spending increases, the economy is flooded with ever larger amounts of government debt backed up by tax dollars. This attracts huge amounts of wealth to government Treasurys that otherwise would have gone into private-sector investments. 

  All this dollar profligacy has been neither necessary nor advisable, yet maintaining global reserve currency status can help regimes get away with this sort of thing for decades. 

  The Effects of Losing International Currency Power

  Often, discussion about the dollar’s reserve status creates a false dichotomy between total domination of the global monetary system on one hand and complete abandonment of the dollar on the other. A more likely scenario is that the dollar will weaken considerably but will remain among the most often used currencies. After all, even after the pound sterling lost its status as reserve currency in the 1930s, it did not disappear. 

  For example, let’s say the US dollar sinks to 40 percent of all foreign reserves and is only used in one-third of all international trade invoices—instead of one-half, as is now the case. This would not necessarily destroy the dollar or the US economy, but it would certainly constrain the US regime’s ability to pile on another trillion dollars worth of debt without the true costs of mounting debt becoming abundantly clear.  Perhaps more importantly, a world less awash in dollars will mean a world with less demand for US assets such as US government debt. That means higher interest rates for the US government and less of an ability to finance the welfare-warfare state by inflating the currency.

  Naturally, politicians and pundits such as Trump and Kudlow view any threat to this kind of state power as a bad thing. At this point, however, how we feel about it is irrelevant. It’s going to happen regardless of our feelings on the matter. The only way it doesn’t happen is if the US regime suddenly starts slashing deficits and government spending, embraces a strong dollar policy, and perhaps even anchors the dollar to a commodity like gold. None of those things is going to happen without first experiencing a wakeup call on the level of losing currency reserve status. The good news is such a wakeup call will weaken the US regime, potentially forcing policymakers to embrace a more sane fiscal and monetary policy.  

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 23:20

• After Bungling Sudan Crisis Response, Biden's Solution: More Sanctions
  After Bungling Sudan Crisis Response, Biden’s Solution: More Sanctions

  The Biden administration has come under intense criticism for its meager and flat-footed response to the Sudan crisis, now reaching three full weeks, and with over 550 people killed and thousands wounded. Each time a truce is declared, it is quickly broken with gunfire and shelling in and around Khartoum. Two Americans were reported killed near the start of the violence. Thousands of US citizens reportedly remain in the country.

  Biden’s solution? Sanction more stuff… “President Biden on Thursday called for an end to the violence among warring factions in Sudan and expanded his administration’s ability to sanction individuals who undermine peace and stability in the war-torn nation,” The Hill reports.

  

  Biden said in a statement, “The violence taking place in Sudan is a tragedy—and it is a betrayal of the Sudanese people’s clear demand for civilian government and a transition to democracy.”

  “I join the peace-loving people of Sudan and leaders around the world in calling for a durable ceasefire between the belligerent parties,” he continued. “This violence, which has already stolen the lives of hundreds of civilians and began during the holy month of Ramadan, is unconscionable.”

  He emphasized, the conflict “must end.” Biden said further: “Our diplomatic efforts to urge all parties to end the military conflict and allow unhindered humanitarian access continue, as do our efforts to assist those remaining Americans, including by providing them information on exit options.”

  The newly announced measures allow the US to expand sanctions on any individual or entity which is threatening the peace and stability of Sudan. The executive order authorizes potential sanctions on any Sudanese officials involved in “destabilizing the country and undermining the democratic transition.” We highly doubt either of the two rival generals locked in conflict will care – certainly the threat of sanctions will have no force with them. It will be no ‘deterrent’ to anything.

  The two generals now fighting over the capital had previously united in a 2021 coup to take shared control of the country. The battles pit the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) of General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo — who’s also known as Hemedti and has served as Burhan’s deputy head of state. 

  However, recent months have seen mounting tensions between the SAF and RSF, as the generals have clashing positions in negotiations for the establishment of civilian government, something the country’s been trying to achieve since a 2019 revolution overthrew the 30-year reign of President Omar al-Bashir. 

  Check out this timeline leading up to the current state of Sudan 👀 pic.twitter.com/ckMnJVL71s

  — VRosen (@vrosen11) April 24, 2023

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  There’s been a significant evacuation operation underway by many global countries since the outbreak of street to street fighting, including China which has even sent warships to take its nationals from Sudan’s Red Sea ports. The US State Department, however, has been accused of turning a blind eye.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 23:00

• Maria Bartiromo Responds To Ex-Fox News Producer’s Allegations
  Maria Bartiromo Responds To Ex-Fox News Producer’s Allegations

  Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo’s team issued a response after a former producer claimed that she used her personal connections with then-President Donald Trump to protect her status within the network.

  

  A former producer, Abby Grossberg, filed a lawsuit against Fox News and several others, including former host Tucker Carlson, for what she alleges was harassment and mistreatment during her time at the network. Since Fox News announced Carlson’s departure last week, Grossberg has conducted several interviews with news outlets and most recently with Time magazine, where she produced her latest allegations against the network and now Bartiromo.

  Grossberg, who had worked with Bartiromo before she joined Carlson’s team, claimed Fox News had an environment that was unfavorable to women while discussing Bartiromo. She made similar claims in her lawsuits against the network, filed in the U.S. Southern District of New York.

  “If they were marginalizing her, she could always say, ‘I can get the President of the United States on the phone,’” Grossberg claimed to Time magazine. “She had that power over Fox, and it protected her.”

  But Bartiromo responded by saying that her allegations were false. The Epoch Times has contacted Fox News for comment.

  “I have interviewed four American presidents and several international heads of state during my distinguished career and have had rapports with leading figures across the world,” Bartiromo’s team told news outlets Wednesday in response to Grossberg’s claims to Time magazine. “These allegations are absurd and patently false.”

  Fox News also told outlets that Grossberg’s comments were false. The spokesperson said Bartiromo—who worked at CNBC, CNN, and Fox for decades—”does not need to rely on any one person or organization as her contacts reach far and wide.”

  In another statement about Grossberg’s assertions, the network also told outlets that it “will vigorously defend Fox against all of her unmeritorious legal claims, which are riddled with false allegations against the network and our employees.”

  “Maria Bartiromo has cultivated an extensive list of contacts over the course of 30 years that enable her to connect with numerous sources spanning business and politics … across Republican and Democrats, CEOs to analysts worldwide,” Fox News also said.

  More Details

  Meanwhile, Grossberg became the subject of controversy last week when a lawyer representing her told The Spectator that she never actually met in person with Carlson when she worked for him. The lawyer suggested that because Carlson worked at his personal offices in Maine and Florida, a number of staffers didn’t meet with him personally.

  

  “Like many on the [‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’] staff, Abby never met Tucker Carlson in person because he taped the show from his personal studios in Maine and Florida, and he did not visit Fox’s NY HQ during her time there,” Kimberly A. Catala, a Grossberg attorney, told the news outlet.

  The Epoch Times reached her lawyers for comment and one responded by confirming that her comment to the news outlet was accurate, but accused The Spectator and other media outlets of taking them out of context. Her lawyers also said she frequently communicated with Carlson via text messages, phone, and email.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 22:40

• Restrictions On Ivermectin Dropped In Australia
  Restrictions On Ivermectin Dropped In Australia

  Authored by Jessie Zhang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Australian medical practitioners can now prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19 among other diseases under new rules confirmed by the nation’s therapeutic goods authority.

  

  The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) announced on May 3 that the prescribing of oral ivermectin will no longer be limited to specialists such as dermatologists, gastroenterologists, and infectious diseases specialists.

  The move—which takes effect from June 1, 2023—comes amid high rates of vaccination and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 in Australia and thus the use of ivermectin by individuals is unlikely to now compromise public health, the TGA said in a statement.

  Despite ivermectin being regularly administered in countries including India, Brazil, and Africa, TGA said that approved vaccines and treatments should still be the preferred choice due to most studies showing that ivermectin is not a useful medicine for COVID-19.

  

  “A large number of clinical studies have demonstrated ivermectin does not improve outcomes in patients with COVID-19,” the TGA statement said.

  “The National Covid Evidence Taskforce (NCET) and many similar bodies around the world, including the World Health Organization, strongly advises against the use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.”

  The Pharmacy Guild of Australia even wrote to the panel and advised against removing the Appendix D entry relating to ivermectin because they think that if the treatment is available, people may choose not to get vaccinated.

  However, after weighing all risks, the TGA concluded that restrictions should still be removed.

  “The risk of medical professionals prescribing ivermectin at higher doses, or for use against COVID-19, is low given the overwhelming evidence against ivermectin use for this indication,” TGA stated.

  Drug Banned Because It Was a Threat to Vaccination Uptake

  Australia banned general practitioners from prescribing ivermectin in Sep. 2021.

  “The concern was the likelihood that persons prescribed the drug for COVID-19 would believe themselves protected and would not get vaccinated, and would not seek the appropriate medical care if symptoms developed,” the notice of the final decision by TGA said.

  “This would pose a significant risk to the community through the spread of the disease as well as the risks to individuals using ivermectin for this purpose.”

  

  They said that ivermectin was being advocated for use in “unreliable social media posts,” increasing the risk of overdose and misuse.

  Additionally, they argued that there were national shortages, although little detail was provided about the supply issues in Australia or in other countries. India even reported an excess production capacity of 23 million units a month of ivermectin.

  Study Finds Ivermectin Kills COVID-19

  However, in a peer-reviewed study by Monash University in Australia, published in April 2020, it was demonstrated that ivermectin could eliminate SARS-Covid-19-2 in cells in 48 hours.

  The team, who have been researching ivermectin for over ten years with different viruses, discovered that a dose of ivermectin could stop the SARS-CoV-2 virus from growing in cells.

  “We found that even a single dose could essentially remove all viral RNA by 48 hours and that even at 24 hours, there was a really significant reduction in it,” senior research fellow and lead study author Kylie Wagstaff said.

  “Ivermectin is very widely used and seen as a safe drug,” Wagstaff said.

  

   The scientists said that the FDA-approved anti-parasitic drug has also been shown to be effective in vitro against a broad range of viruses, including HIV, Dengue, Influenza, and Zika virus.

  They started investigating whether it worked on the COVID-19 virus as soon as the pandemic was known to have started.

  However, the researchers announced a year later that they had paused their work due to insufficient sample size despite securing funding for clinical trials.

  “The low numbers of COVID cases in Australia in 2020 meant the planned trial in Australia had to be paused,” the Monash University laboratory said in an ivermectin research progress update in Aug. 2021.

  “The establishment of a trial depends on Australian and overseas circumstances and will be communicated when we are in a position to do so.”

  Industry Incentives Under Scrutiny

  Meanwhile, pharmaceutical authorities around the world are under growing scrutiny over the funding many receive from the industry itself, with an investigation revealing that half of their funding comes from the pharmaceutical industry—the industry they are supposed to be regulating.

  In a report, published in the British Journal of Medicine, it was discovered that the U.S. FDA receives 65 percent of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry, the MHRA (UK) receives 86 percent, and the Australian TGA receives 96 percent of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry.

  Additionally, award-winning investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi found in the report that the TGA approved 94 percent of all applications between 2020 to 2021.

  She filed for FOIA report to get disclosures on the TGA committee members who had conflicts of interest in their approval of the mRNA vaccines, but the TGA allegedly redacted the identity of these members, highlighting that it was personal information.

  

  The final decision to remove restrictions on ivermectin prescriptions followed an application to remove the rules, according to the process required under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.

  It also took into account advice from an independent advisory committee on the scheduling of medicines and two rounds of public consultations.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 22:00

• Visualizing The Assets & Liabilities Of US Banks
  Visualizing The Assets & Liabilities Of US Banks

  The U.S. banking sector has more than 4,000 FDIC-insured banks that play a crucial role in the country’s economy by securely storing deposits and providing credit in the form of loans.

  This infographic from Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte and Christina Kostandi visualizes all of the deposits, loans, and other assets and liabilities that make up the collective balance sheet of U.S banks using data from the Federal Reserve.

  With the spotlight on the banking sector after the collapses of Signature Bank, Silicon Valley Bank, and First Republic bank, understanding the assets and liabilities that make up banks’ balance sheets can give insight in how they operate and why they sometimes fail.

  

  Assets: The Building Blocks of Banks’ Business

  Assets are the foundation of a bank’s operations, serving as a base to provide loans and credit while also generating income.

  A healthy asset portfolio with a mix of loans along with long-dated and short-dated securities is essential for a bank’s financial stability, especially since assets not marked to market may have a lower value than expected if liquidated early.

  ℹ️ Mark-to-market means current market prices are being used to value an asset or liability on a balance sheet. If securities are not marked to market, their value could be different once liquidated.

  As of Q4 2022, U.S. banks generated an average interest income of 4.54% on all assets.

  Loans and Leases

  Loans and leases are the primary income-generating assets for banks, making up 53% of the assets held by U.S. banks.

  These include:

  • Real estate loans for residential and commercial properties (45% of all loans and leases)

  • Commercial and industrial loans for business operations (23% of all loans and leases)

  • Consumer loans for personal needs like credit cards and auto loans (15% of all loans and leases)

  • Various other kinds of credit (17% of all loans and leases)

  Securities

  Securities make up the next largest portion of U.S. banks’ assets (23%) at $5.2 trillion. Banks primarily invest in Treasury and agency securities, which are debt instruments issued by the U.S. government and its agencies.

  These securities can be categorized into three types:

  • Held-to-maturity (HTM) securities, which are held until they mature and provide a stable income stream

  • Available-for-sale (AFS) securities, which can be sold before maturity

  • Trading securities, held for short-term trading to profit from price fluctuations

  Along with Treasury and agency securities which make up the significant majority (80%) of U.S. banks’ securities, banks also invest in other securities which are non-government-issued debt instruments like corporate bonds, mortgage-backed securities, and asset-backed securities.

  Cash Assets

  Cash assets are a small but essential part of U.S. banks’ balance sheets, making up $3.1 trillion or 13% of all assets. Having enough cash assets ensures adequate liquidity needed to meet short-term obligations and regulatory requirements.

  Cash assets include physical currency held in bank vaults, pending collections, and cash balances in accounts with other banks.

  Liabilities: Banks’ Financial Obligations

  Liabilities represent the obligations banks must fulfill, including customer deposits and borrowings. Careful management of liabilities is essential to maintain liquidity, manage risk, and ensure a bank’s overall solvency.

  Deposits

  Deposits make up the largest portion of banks’ liabilities as they represent the money that customers entrust to these institutions. It’s important to note that the FDIC insures deposit accounts up to $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each type of account (like single accounts, joint accounts, and retirement accounts).

  There are two primary types of deposits, large time deposits and other deposits. Large time deposits are defined by the FDIC as time deposits exceeding $100,000, while other deposits include checking accounts, savings accounts, and smaller time deposits.

  U.S. banks had $17.18 trillion in overall deposits as of April 12th 2023, with other deposits accounting for 74% of the overall liabilities while large time deposits made up 9%.

  Borrowings

  After deposits, borrowings are the next largest liability on the balance sheet of U.S. banks, making up nearly 12% of all liabilities at $2.4 trillion.

  These include short-term borrowings from other banks or financial institutions such as Federal Funds and repurchase agreements, along with long-term borrowings like subordinated debt which ranks below other loans and securities in the event of a default.

  How Deposits, Rates, and Balance Sheets Affect Bank Failures

  Just like any other business, banks have to balance their finances to remain solvent; however, successful banking also relies heavily on the trust of depositors.

  While in other businesses an erosion of trust with customers might lead to breakdowns in future business deals and revenues, only in banking can a dissolution in customer trust swiftly turn into the immediate removal of deposits that backstop all revenue-generating opportunities.

  Although recent bank collapses aren’t solely due to depositors withdrawing funds, bank runs have played a significant role. Most recently, in First Republic’s case, depositors pulled out more than $101 billion in Q1 of 2023, which would’ve been more than 50% of their total deposits, had some of America’s largest banks not injected $30 billion in deposits on March 16th.

  It’s important to remember that the rapidly spreading fires of bank runs are initially sparked by poor asset management, which can sometimes be detected on banks’ balance sheets.

  A combination of excessive investment in long-dated held-to-maturity securities, one of the fastest rate hiking cycles in recent history, and many depositors fearing for and moving their uninsured deposits of over $250,000 has resulted in the worst year ever for bank failures in terms of total assets.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 21:40

• The Crime Of 'Talking To Tucker Carlson'
  The Crime Of ‘Talking To Tucker Carlson’

  Authored by Naomi Wolf via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The whole world is commenting on and speculating about the abrupt departure of former Fox commentator Tucker Carlson from that network.

  

  Addressing the current moment is not my intent. I have no idea what the “inside story” is on the events related to Fox’s or Carlson’s decisions. Mr. Carlson is wisely being deliberative regarding his physical presence and his messaging, and by next week the news cycle will have no doubt shifted in relation to this sudden exile, or self-exile; so there is little point in adding my own theories to the events of the present. (Though I suspect that the stern, mafioso-like public warnings of Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and others to the Murdochs, that they were making a mistake in tolerating Carlson’s airing of the first set of previously unseen January 6 videos, and that those who passed on the footage were playing a “treacherous game,” was a factor in at least some upheaval on the part of Fox’s leadership. I recognize a political threat of retribution when I hear one):

  What I want to do now is note, for the record, almost elegiacally, how important Mr. Carlson’s voice has been, in the evaluation of at least this dyed-in-the-wool old-school capital “L” Liberal.

  Mr. Carlson and I spent most of our careers not in alignment on anything; for decades, our places were adversarial on the public chess board. He had assumed that I was the caricature of a shrieking, irrational left-wing feminist—a view for which he has had the good grace publicly to apologize—and I, for my part, was ready to accept that he must be the boorish, sexist, racist, homophobic frat boy that the progressive news outlets I read, relentlessly insisted that he was. I almost never watched his show, so my preconceptions could flourish uncorrected.

  That said, I did find it odd that everyone around me in the “liberal elite” media hated him so violently—the way they hated President Trump; but that when I pressed for concrete reasons why, they could not provide them. When my liberal friends and loved ones would roll their eyes and spit out “Tucker Carlson,” as if that name itself was epithet enough, I would often pester: “What? Why? What did he actually say?” I never got a good answer. So even in the depth of the Left’s vilification of him—even as I was still on the Left myself—I was keeping, faintly, an open mind.

  Maybe this is because, in a limited way, I recognize where he comes from. We both come from some similar places. We both were raised in California in the 1970s (though I am six years older), a California that was very diverse and yet largely peaceful and hopeful, compared to the present; with reasonable newspapers and decent public education. It was a state drenched with sunshine and optimism; bright with discussion and with sensible plans for the future. California was the most meritocratic state in the Union, at that time. In spite of specific upheavals—the LGBTQ movement gaining force in the Bay Area, the women’s movement was fighting for access to reproductive rights, immigrant workers agitating for better conditions—we had no reason to believe that people of different races or political viewpoints or genders could not get along, or at least discuss their differences; we certainly would have found it racist to assume that immigrants or people of color could not succeed entirely on their own merits.

  The University of California system, unbroken at that time, an excellent nearly-free education, was almost majority nonwhite—selective, prestigious public high schools like the one I attended were majority nonwhite—so it was ridiculous to presume that people of color or immigrants could not thrive in our existing, even if imperfect, meritocracies. They were succeeding all around us.

  We both were sent from this early relaxed, hopeful formative background to the hothouses of rigorous, rigid, East Coast privilege—he to a prep school and then to Trinity College, I to Yale (and then Oxford). Maybe we both brought our West Coast skepticism of East Coast (and European) global elites’ nonsense and pretentiousness along with us.

  I was also never completely persuaded of his being the purported embodiment of pure evil, because I still had an impressionistic memory of him being around in the D.C. of the 1990s, in a time before such extreme caricatures as today’s keep both “sides” at daggers drawn.

  In the late 1990s, we shared a social milieu; though we were not friends, we were out and about in parallel circles in Washington, at a time in which his stint at The Weekly Standard and other conservative publications mirrored, fairly peaceably, compared with the present, my then-husband’s and my alliances with The New Republic and other left-wing publications.

  Social life was a Venn diagram in D.C. at that time, for pundits of all ages on both the left and the right. We all, in certain circles, dropped in to the same cocktail parties in Georgetown, huddled in the same bars in Dupont Circle, and enjoyed late-night feasts at the same hole-in-the-wall Ethiopian restaurants in Adams Morgan. Transpartisanship added frisson to social encounters, and partisanship was not yet the deadly tribalism it would later become. Sally Quinn, wife of the former executive editor of the Washington Post, the hostess who in the 1990s reigned supreme, would titillate the Clinton administration guests, at her gatherings in an antiques-filled, low-lit front room in Georgetown, with selective helpings of saucy Republican luminaries also present. The tension between commentators or apparatchiks from different “teams” made the conversation sparkle, and, to the high-spirited interlocutors of the two different parties, it made that third glass of Pinot Grigio pleasurably dangerous. It was a time when left and right could fence over Ms. Quinn’s old-school appetizers (never fish, not even cheese, and always candles, for the perfect party, as she later explained. “[Quinn] was giving a short history of the decline of Washington Establishment socializing, which she has long blamed for much of the entrenched partisan hostility that now dominates American politics. … Back then, she said, there was an easy, bipartisan commingling of ‘permanent Washington’ and elected officeholders.”).

  These adversaries by day would also inform one another by evening, while sparring at her events; they would make surprising, off-the-record alliances, and engage in productive off-the-record horse-trading. This behind-the-scenes, informal back and forth, was good for the country, and that was one reason that patriotic hostesses such as Ms. Quinn, I believe, facilitated it.

  Even brash newer hostesses—and at that time, the buzzy Arianna Huffington, equally glamorous, but arriving, with a flourish, from elsewhere, was one—had studied this art. She thus also assembled around herself, in her own salons, glittering representatives of both parties, so that nothing would be, darling, as she would say, boring.

  The show “Crossfire,” with its two civilized antagonists, was the allegory of the time. James Carville and Mary Matalin, with their sexy oppositional-ness, were the iconic couple of the moment. Point and counterpoint were still avidly followed then; direct, civil, well-informed debate was still considered valuable, illuminating, and a fascinating sport.

  I remember of D.C. in the 1990s as being what Mr. Carlson probably also remembers: a time and place for a young, ambitious intellectual, or a young, brash, public figure (as we both then were), in which a sincerity of inquiry, a seriousness of interrogation, and a regard for the verifiable truth, were all taken for granted as being what journalists and commentators were supposed to pursue.

  Whatever “side” we were on, we journalists and commentators all took pride in that mission. Truth existed. We would hunt it down, by God, and make our case for it.

  Journalists were supposed to challenge the State, and not take press releases from Presidents or White House spokespeople—or corporations for that matter—as Diktats. Arguments had to marshal evidence and to play fair.

  We assumed that this need that our profession was supposed to fulfill—for serious public inquiry, intense public debate—was the great indispensable thing in a Republic; we assumed that this basic underpinning of our roles as journalists would be seen by our society, our nation, as being valuable, forever; that the ethics of journalists and commentators in America would last forever; that these ethics would outlive us, as they had outlived President Jefferson.

  So I was not hugely surprised that in about March and April of 2021, when I was a Fellow at AIER in Great Barrington (home of the Great Barrington Declaration), and as I had started to raise questions about side effects women were experiencing with the mRNA vaccine—as well as raising questions about why our First and Fourth Amendment rights were being upended, why we were all being held under emergency law, why kids were being masked with little scientific evidence to support this abusive practice, and why pregnant women were being told the injections were safe when there was no data to back that claim up that I could find—that Mr. Carlson’s booker reached out to me.

  I appeared a few times on his show, to air my concerns.

  Right away the left-wing “watchdog” Media Matters—run by someone who had been a former acquaintance, even a friend, of ours in D.C., the former conservative who had turned Democrat, David Brock—went after me aggressively, with a systematic character assassination on Twitter and on the Media Matters website, engineered by CNN reporter Matt Gertz—a “journalist” who was actually funded to track and attack guests on Fox News: “Fox Keeps Hosting Pandemic Conspiracy Theorist Naomi Wolf.”

  In his hit piece, Mr. Gertz singled out the fact that I was warning about women who had received the mRNA vaccine having menstrual problems, and the fact that even women near vaccinated women were having menstrual problems. (This “shedding” via inhalation is confirmed in the Pfizer documents.)

  Gertz described multiple independent reports of menstrual problems from women as “purported reports”—a misogynist thing to do, mocking women’s eyewitness descriptions of their own symptoms, and one with a long history in medicine’s and Pharma’s crimes against women—and he shamefully singled out the (accurate) tweet of mine, that we now know via a lawsuit, the White House, the CDC, DHS, Twitter, and Facebook had illegally colluded to target and smear.

  So given the specificity of this one (accurate, important) tweet among thousands of mine, Matt Gertz may well have been acting as a henchman for these unlawfully colluding interests, to the eternal damage of what should have been his ethics as a journalist:

  

  This hit piece, calling me a “conspiracy theorist,” did a great deal to set the stage and provide the talking points for my later deplatforming at the hands of the White House working with Twitter and the CDC, and the subsequent reputational attack that spanned the globe and led to my wholesale ouster from legacy media and my former community on the Left.

  (It also consigned millions of women to damaged menses and infertility, by helping to silence this emerging discussion. Maternal deaths are up 40 percent now, due to compromises of women’s fertility post-mRNA injection. A million babies are missing in Europe. Great work, Mr. Gertz, Mr. Brock. You will take those harms, that you inflicted upon women and babies, to your graves.)

  But having appeared on Mr. Carlson’s show, to raise these and other real concerns, I also was peppered ceaselessly with nasty comments from my own “side.” Why? Because I had talked to Tucker Carlson. That was literally how they phrased my “crime.”

  This was the first real confrontation I had with the unreason and the cultlike thinking that were engulfing my “team.” I kept receiving messages, emails, DMs, and direct confrontations by phone, with friends and loved ones and even family members.

  How can you talk to Tucker Carlson??

  I noted with concern that they did not say that I was wrong, or that my assertions were baseless, or even that his assertions were baseless.

  They did not address the crimes against women and babies I was uncovering, and sharing with the assistance of Mr. Carlson’s platform—crimes about which all the men and women on the Left, who were supposed to be such feminists and advocates for women’s rights, were silent.

  My soon-to-be-former friends and colleagues simply reiterated again and again, as if it were self-evident, that I had discredited myself in some nameless but completely understood and permanent and unforgivable way, by talking to Tucker Carlson.

  (The only other major platform that was open to hearing what I was finding, was, of course, Steve Bannon’s WarRoom. I started to appear also on WarRoom, leading to another wave of appalled DMs and emails from my friends and loved ones, who by now were actively and rapidly distancing themselves from me. “How can you talk to Steve Bannon?”)

  So I had to face the alarming evidence that the Left now saw anyone “talking to” the opposition, as being magically, publicly, permanently contaminated and contaminating, in some weird anthropological way, and as now being utterly invalidated, and that they believed all of this in some pre-rational, Stone Age sort of belief matrix.

  They were treating me as though by my talking to Mr. Carlson and Mr. Bannon, no matter about what—no matter that the issues and evidence that I brought to these platforms and to these interlocutors were both true and important—I was burning my I-am-a-good-person membership club card, in some kind of public ritual of immolation, and that thus I would have to be exiled far from the progressive community and shamed away entirely from the warming of progressive campfires. “Unclean! Unclean!”

  Here is Mr. Ben Dixon, from the left, asserting that I must be not a feminist because I am “talking to Tucker Carlson” who “100 per cent is an anti-feminist.” He assails “this BS from Naomi Wolf and Tucker Carlson”—“BS”—in which I warned that we were heading into an un-American two-tier discrimination society based on vaccination status.

  Did that actually happen, as I warned? It did:

  We were attacked—I was attacked—for discussing things that came true.

  Did this happen, below? Was this true? We predicted in 2021 that authoritarian leaders would not relinquish emergency powers. It is now 2023, so: Yes.

  

  Should the Left have supported instead of mocked such a discussion? Even most of them must realize by now that the answer is: Yes.

  The reaction, though, of horror, from everyone I knew, at my crime of “talking to Tucker Carlson,” horrified me (as I often say, I will talk to anyone about the Constitution). The dismay of the Left in reaction to my “talking to Tucker Carlson” horrified me because talking to people with whom I don’t agree, is one of the main ways I have ever learned anything, or, I believe, that anyone has ever learned anything. And it horrified me also because I would have gladly brought my urgently important, indeed lifesaving information, to CNN and MSNBC, as usual—to all these self-proclaimed “feminists”—but they were having none of it.

  Above all it horrified me because the Left thus had departed from the post-Enlightenment metric of “is it true?” to return to a pre-rational metric of “is this within our tribe and according to our rituals and our cult?”

  And that I knew from my study of history how disastrously that kind of thinking ends.

  Well, by this time my husband was watching Mr. Carlson’s show. I observed myself experiencing waves of prejudice and of squirming anxiety as I also began to watch his show. To my distress, I found that many of his monologues made sense to me.

  They were not unreasonable, by and large, and they were not hate-filled; to the contrary.

  I had been told that he was racist. And indeed I recoiled at his signature giggle as he mocked the epithet: “Racist!” But as I actually forced myself to listen, sitting in my discomfort and programmed aversion, observing the reactions in myself (as the Buddhists urge one to do), I realized—he was not in fact a racist.

  Mr. Carlson was usually calling attention to the way identity politics was destroying our former ideal—shared by most of us California kids and teenagers in the 1970s—that we all were Americans first of all, deserving of equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. I realized as I listened that his stories about immigration were not anti-immigrant, as I had been told; but rather that he was calling attention to the security and social welfare threats to the nation posed by massive, unrestricted, unlawful immigration over an open Southern border, a view shared by many legal immigrants.

  I learned that he was not actually transphobic, as I had been told; but rather that he shone a light on the way that minors were being targeted by schools and the pharmaceutical industry, to undergo radical gender surgery before they were of age to make adult decisions.

  While I often still disagreed with him, I found that his reasoning was transparent—a rare thing these days—and that always he returned to that old-fashioned, common-sense basis for his conclusions: “this is simply true.” More often than not, he had a point.

  I was also noticing that as I scanned Twitter for what I saw as more and more evidence of flaws in the “narrative” about COVID and “lockdowns” that we were all being fed in the first half of 2021, and as I forwarded or posted these links showing primary-source evidence of fraud in the PCR tests, a lack of transparent datasets in the COVID dashboards, testimony from an OSHA expert about harms to children from masks, problems with The New York Times’ assertions about restaurant- and school-based infections and “asymptomatic spread,” and so on—evidence that I would later publish in my 2021 book “The Bodies of Others: COVID-19, The New Authoritarians and the War Against the Human”—that there was absolute silence now from my entire formerly robust and responsive network of legacy/progressive-media producers, editors, journalists, and bookers.

  Silence from the U.S. TV networks. Silence from The Washington Post. From The Guardian. Silence from NPR. Silence from the BBC, the Sunday Times of London, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, my reliable former outlets. Even silence from other overseas news outlets. All of these had, until 2020, been happy to respond to what I sent, to commission my writing, or to book me to appear to speak about the links I had forwarded or posted to their producers or editors.

  But Eldad Yaron, Mr. Carlson’s excellent producer, pretty much alone of the major outlets’ producers, did respond to the links I sent, even inviting more.

  So I was in the head-spinning position of realizing that these two men, Carlson and Bannon, both unwavering conservatives, both of whom I had been told represented Evil Incarnate, were the possessors of the only major platforms interested in the hard and fast evidence of the greatest crime in history and of the direct threat to our Republic, of which I was warning; and that every other news outlet, all on the liberal side, indeed around the world, was rushing headlong into the sea of lies, and gladly sailing upon it under a wind of falsehood and prevarication. So only they, along with a smattering of other smaller independent media, were able to bring their audiences a true picture of the appalling threats faced by their viewers and our Republic.

  Back to Mr. Carlson in the present, and why I appreciate him and hope his voice reappears on the national and global stage more assertively than before.

  I don’t know him personally—we have only met once, as far as I know—when my husband Brian O’Shea and I visited Carlson’s homey, Americana-crowded studio in a tiny town in rural Maine.

  But underneath all of what may be our policy differences, this is in my view why so many people have seen his reporting during the last three years as absolutely critical to our survival—and why so many Democrats and independents, including myself, whether secretly or not, watch and appreciate him as well:

  Carlson queries current madness from the same old-fashioned, deeply American premises that shaped me, and that shaped the last three remaining true Liberals, as well.

  He seems to be refusing to let go of an America that actually holds journalists to the practice of journalism. I share that outrage and that nostalgia. Many do. He seems to insist on not forgetting the America that saw everyone as equal based on “the content of their character.” I, many, share this pained memory of national unity around race even as we acknowledge that our nation’s racial history has had plenty of tragedy. He won’t let go of the memory of an America in which children were safe at school and parents decided what happened to their children. I, many, share this baseline value and are terrified that it is under attack. And he insists on patriotism, in a time of relentless propaganda and the bribery of elites that urges us all to drop national identities, cultures, borders, and even allegiances.

  This last quality especially makes him dangerous, as our nation is led entirely now by elite-captured traitors to our country.

  All of these resonances are deeply nostalgic—but they are also what must be saved and protected as memories and as part of our core belief system, if we are ever to regain our Republic—and our decency—in the future.

  So—Mr. Carlson—thank you for caring about women and babies, in your being among the first, along with Mr. Bannon, to give me a platform to raise a lifesaving alarm about threats to both. Thank you for your dogged nostalgia about a nation that is racially optimistic. Thanks for being willing to talk to those with whom you do not agree. Thanks for not giving up on religious liberty or the First Amendment. Thank you for insisting that truth matters.

  And thank you for not giving up on the best core ideals of this nation.

  We did not used to call the aggregate of all of those ideals, “conspiracy theories.”

  We used to call them, America.

  Originally published on the author’s Substack

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 21:20

• EV Deflation Arrives: Ford Slashes Prices On Its Mustang Mach-E, Following Tesla's Strategy
  EV Deflation Arrives: Ford Slashes Prices On Its Mustang Mach-E, Following Tesla’s Strategy

  It’s official: deflation in EVs looks to be upon us.

  Following in the footsteps of Tesla, which has aggressively slashed prices since the beginning of 2023, Ford is now lowering the starting prices of its Mustang Mach-E by thousands of dollars, according to a new report by CNBC. 

  Earlier this week the automaker said it would slash prices between $1,000 and $4,000 per vehicle, resulting in the starting price of new Mustang Mach-E’s to fall between $42,995 and $59,995. 

  Like Tesla, Ford had already announced some modest cuts, bringing down the price of the Mach-E by $600 to $5,900 in January. 

  We noted days ago that Tesla was starting to steady its pricing with its Model Y and Model X. Bloomberg reported Tuesday morning that Tesla’s main models were marked up $250 each, stating that the model prices are being raised both in the United States and China. The Model 3 is now priced at $40,240 in the US and 231,900 yuan in China, while the Model Y is now priced at $47,240 in the US and 263,900 yuan in China.

  

  The hikes are small compared to the cuts the company has put in place since the beginning of the year. We had just noted days ago that, due to aggressive price cuts, the Model Y was cheaper than the average new vehicle in the U.S. by $759. That’ll likely still be the case, despite the $250 hike. 

  As we noted last week, Morgan Stanley has also said it sees a ‘great productivity race’ that will benefit some sectors that have strong political support – like autos. 

  “Efforts in the US to re-, friend-, and near-shore critical industries have strong political support. But these initiatives narrow the geographical options for US multinationals, making cheap labor – particularly for skilled manufacturing – harder to find and exacerbating an underlying US economic challenge,” the bank wrote.

  “Similar historical conditions have pressed companies to focus on improving productivity through the development, diffusion, and integration of new technologies. We expect US companies to invest in infrastructure and new technologies, AI in particular, to boost productivity. Companies that rely on labor and lack substantial financial resources will likely be challenged by this dynamic.”

  Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas concluded last week: “Like other [automakers], Ford must decide what kind of EV strategy to pursue: Grow fast and burn cash or a more focused approach that prioritizes capital discipline.”

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 21:00

• California Democrats Push Bill To Mandate 'Gender Diversity' Books In Schools
  California Democrats Push Bill To Mandate ‘Gender Diversity’ Books In Schools

  Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

  Democrats in California are pushing legislation that would force every school in the state to stock books in their libraries that are centred around LGBTQ themes and “people of all gender expressions.”

  

  Democrat California assemblyman Corey Jackson, who has pushed the bill through committee to the full legislature, said the legislation “intends to combat the national Christian white supremacist movement, which is aimed to ban books.” 

  Jackson charged that “the radicalization of the Christian faith,” is being used “to achieve a political objective,” adding “We must meet this moment of history and make sure we are on the right side of it.”

  The Free Beacon reports that Jackson’s legislation would place a state board in charge of classroom and school library books and texts, with any school needing to get state approval before removing any material that is challenged as potentially inappropriate, with regards to race and gender.

  However, the bill does make exceptions for removing religious texts deemed to be “sectarian” or “denominational”.

  The report further notes that under the legislation, the state education board would be required to set curriculum guides for school districts that emphasize diversity. The guides be required to focus on “people of all gender expressions in all types of roles, races, cultures, and religions,” as well as representations of labor unions and “the entrepreneur.”

  Speaking out against the legislation, Lance Christensen, vice president of policy for the California Policy Center said “It’s shocking to have an author of a bill to make such inflammatory commentary on those who would oppose this bill in good faith.”

  Christensen added that opposing “radical indoctrination does not mean we are all white Christian nationalists” further charging that Democrats are conflating school text curation with book-banning.

  As we highlighted earlier this week, Chelsea Clinton appears to have taken on a new activism project, defending attempts to force kids as young as Kindergarten age to be exposed to such sexually explicit “LGBTQ+” material at school.

  Clinton tweeted a claim that Republicans are trying to “ban” books and that it is harmful to children to remove material with LGBTQ+ “themes”.

  Chelsea Clinton Comes Out In Favour Of Porn For School Kids

  As we have exhaustively covered, the truth is that no one is calling for the books to be banned, but many are calling for the books that contain pornographic images and even pedophilia themes, as well as unscientific statements about biological gender, to be removed from school libraries.

  A Twitter fact check of the Clinton tweet pointed out that the book shown in the tweet contains graphic sexually explicit material. Clinton was then treated to a stream of responses providing examples of some of the shocking material contained within the books.

  Twitter Fact Check Confirms Book Chelsea Clinton Promoted For Children Contains Graphic Sex Acts

  Related:

  • Report: School District In Maryland Makes LGBTQ Books Mandatory Reading
  • Report: Kindergarteners Forced To Read Trans Book For Biden Endorsed ‘Transgender Day Of Visibility’
  • Video: 11 Year Old Confronts Officials By Reading Shocking Gay Porn Book Found In School Library
  • Republicans Introduce Bill To Ban Porn Books In Schools
  • DeSantis Reveals Shocking Porn Books Being Removed From Florida Schools
  • Video: Mother Reads Shocking Porn Content From Books Given To Kids In NY Schools
  • Video: Mother Reads Shocking Gay Porn Material Found In Minnesota School Direct To Board Members
  • Wisconsin Parents Outraged After Finding ‘Queer’ Porn In Children’s School Library
  • Videos: Hundreds Of Parents Protest Gay Porn Books At School Meeting
  • Video: CBS News Report Frames Removal Of Gay Porn Books From Children’s Library As ‘Book Banning’

  *  *  *

  Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

  ALERT! In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

  We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here.

  Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

  Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 20:40

• Fentanyl Overdose Deaths Skyrocket 279% Since 2016 Amid Nationwide Drug Crisis
  Fentanyl Overdose Deaths Skyrocket 279% Since 2016 Amid Nationwide Drug Crisis

  Fentanyl is fueling the worst drug crisis in the history of the US. New federal data shows the rate of overdose deaths linked to the synthetic opioid has skyrocketed over the last five years. 

  According to a report released early Wednesday by the National Center for Health Statistics’ National Vital Statistics System, the rate of fentanyl-related overdose deaths jumped 279% between 2016 and 2021, rising from 5.7 per 100,000 to 21.6 per 100,000.

  

  “We are always hoping we won’t see a rise in fentanyl deaths, but this really highlights that this is continuing to be the public health problem,” Merianne Spencer, a co-author of the report and a researcher at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told ABC News.

  

  So far in the Biden years, a significant crisis has emerged at the southern border, which White House officials have seemingly overlooked. However, just recently, before the next presidential election cycle, White House officials have been more motivated to address the issues, such as sending 1,500 troops to the southern border. Meanwhile, illegal border crossings have reached unprecedented levels, coinciding with a nationwide surge in drug overdose deaths.

   

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 20:20

• Nashville Police Backpedal On Releasing Shooter’s Manifesto, Citing Pending Litigation
  Nashville Police Backpedal On Releasing Shooter’s Manifesto, Citing Pending Litigation

  Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (MNPD) has reversed course from a previous statement to The Epoch Times, when the agency said the so-called manifesto and writings of Nashville school shooter Audrey Hale would be released to the public soon.

  

  The department cited the advice of legal counsel amid litigation filed this week for those same documents to be released.

  The Epoch Times contacted MNPD on May 3, but officials would not comment, citing the pending litigation. The story regarding MNPD readying the documents for public release was published April 27.

  On May 1, the Tennessee Firearms Association (TFA) filed a lawsuit against MNPD over a previously denied public records request for the Hale documents to be released. The Epoch Times reached out to TFA regarding the new delay of the release of the documents.

  “Officially, no comment in my role as an attorney,” John Harris III, an attorney with Schulman Leroy & Bennett and the executive director of the Tennessee Firearms Association, said in an email to The Epoch Times.

  MNPD Statement

  An Epoch Times reporter based outside of Tennessee had their request for the same records denied because they were not a Tennessee resident. Another Epoch Times reporter located within Tennessee also received a denial letter from MNPD’s Central Records Division on April 19, citing the investigation still being open.

  

  “Your request is denied based on the following grounds,” the denial letter from MNPD stated. “The following … law prohibits the release of the requested records: Open Cases—Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and Tennessean v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville.”

  While MNPD declined to comment on the seeming change in direction from the previous interview with The Epoch Times, the department posted a brief statement on Twitter.

  “Covenant investigation update: Due to pending litigation filed this week, the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department has been advised by counsel to hold in abeyance the release of records related to the shooting at The Covenant School pending orders or direction of the court,” MNPD posted on Twitter.

  A further public records request for the autopsy of Audrey Hale by The Epoch Times was approved, pending the report being completed, with a timeline of “8–12 weeks from the date of death for case completion.”

  TFA’s Lawsuit

  TFA did not comment to The Epoch Times on the pending litigation, but Harris did release a comment to The Tennessean newspaper.

  “The (MNPD’s) denial failed to identify any underlying criminal proceeding, or even potential defendant, such that the requested materials would be a ‘case’ under Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Proceeding,” Harris said, according to The Tennessean.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 20:00

• Black Caucus Urges Senate Dems To Demolish Judiciary Nomination Tradition
  Black Caucus Urges Senate Dems To Demolish Judiciary Nomination Tradition

  The Congressional Black Caucus is turning up the heat on Senate Democrats, urging them to destroy a century-old upper-chamber tradition that allows individual senators to reject federal judiciary nominees who will preside in the senator’s state. 

  The Biden administration’s quest to fill federal benches with progressives has been stymied to a great extent by the Senate’s narrow majority, and by the ailing and failing Senator Dianne Feinstein’s lengthy time away from her critical seat on the judiciary committee. 

  On top of that, individual Republican senators have been making regular use of the nomination-blocking power granted to them under the Senate’s “blue slip” tradition. When a district or circuit court nominee is named, a blue piece of paper with the nominee’s name is given to the senators who represent the state in which that nominee would function as a federal judge. If the senator doesn’t send the slip to the Judiciary Committee, it’s understood the nominee doesn’t enjoy the senator’s approval and thus can’t advance to a committee nomination hearing. The slip can also be returned with negative comments. 

  The tradition has endured since at leaast 1917, according to a Congressional Research Service study. However, the Congressional Black Caucus thinks it’s time to kill blue slips: Politico reports that caucus members met with Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin last week and asked him to do away with blue slips.

  

  “I don’t know why anyone, let alone Senate Democrats, would hold up a Jim Crow practice,” said Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Rep. Steven Horsford (NV).  

  Crow implied that the blue slip tradition is killing black people. “It is literally about the fundamental survival of the people we represent,” Horsford claimed. “And we expressed that history, that context and that necessity to Chairman Durbin.”

  The caucus hasn’t always felt that way. In 2017, the Black Caucus urged then-Senate Judiciary chair Chuck Grassley to “uphold [the] longstanding ‘blue slip’ policy.” Doing away with blue slips, they argued, would “remove the last meaningful check on President Trump’s power to unilaterally pack the judiciary – would further politicize the courts, erode judicial diversity, and undermine public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to provide fair and impartial justice.”

  Time to end the blue slip requirement. Period. https://t.co/EsrRFB6s4J

  — Eric Holder (@EricHolder) May 4, 2023

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  In 2023, it’s not just congressional blacks who are looking to kill blue slips. On Wednesday, an alliance of progressive organizations urged Durbin to “reform or discontinue” the blue slip policy, decrying the fact that “39 of the 43 district court vacancies subject to Republican blue slips — 91% — still do not have nominees.”

  Their demands were sent in a letter. Its 33 signatory organizations included American Atheists, Climate Hawks Vote, Feminist Majority Foundation, Hip Hop Caucus, and National Center for Transgender Equality. 

  Durbin is hesitant to give in to pressure from the Black Caucus and progressive groups. Black Caucus senators Cory Booker and Raphael Warnock are likewise reluctant. Then again, according to Politico, Durbin doesn’t even have the unilateral power to stop the blue-slip tradition — doing so would require a revision of Senate rules. 

  Booker was especially interesting: He said he stopped several Trump nominees through the blue slip. And CBC urged Rs to keep it in 2017.

  He’s not ready to scrap it: “Anytime you tear up a Senate tradition, you should be really thoughtful about it.”

  — Burgess Everett (@burgessev) May 3, 2023

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 19:40

• Fox's Gutfeld Defends Tucker Carlson After Video Leaks Draw Backlash
  Fox’s Gutfeld Defends Tucker Carlson After Video Leaks Draw Backlash

  Authored by Gary Bai via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Fox’s late-night show host Greg Gutfeld has come to the defense of his former colleague Tucker Carlson after a series of leaked videos featuring Carlson’s backstage comments drew backlash from commentators.

  “Apparently everyone understands nonsense banter between segments except for hall monitor failures bitterly chronicling the lives of the far more successful,” Gutfeld, host of late-night comedy “The Greg Gutfeld Show,” wrote in a Twitter post on Tuesday.

  

  The comedy show anchor was responding to another post by Matthew Gertz, an employee of Media Matters for America, a left-leaning nonprofit.

  “NEW FOXLEAKS: Media Matters obtained three more behind-the-scenes videos featuring former Fox host Tucker Carlson’s creepy on-set comments,” Gertz wrote on Tuesday, referring to his article published on Media Matters, which included behind-the-scenes videos that show Carlson talking about his “postmenopausal fans” and making sexual references. The article writes that Carlson also said “nobody watches Fox Nation because the site sucks,” referring to Fox’s online streaming service.

  Gutfeld became the only public figure at Fox News who defended Carlson after Fox announced last Monday that it had parted ways with Carlson, whereas neither the media company nor Carlson has spoken about the incident.

  That wasn’t the first time Gutfeld had mentioned Carlson’s name since the former host departed from Fox. While Carlson’s name has virtually disappeared from the script of most Fox anchors, Gutfeld joked about it in on a segment of “The Five,” Fox’s top-rated opinion show, hours after Fox’s announcement last Monday.

  “And then so in 2024, it’ll be Susan Rice versus Tucker Carlson,” Gutfeld said near the end of the segment that focused on Biden’s reelection prospects. The round table did not respond to his comment.

  Carlson In the Spotlight, Again

  Carlson’s name took over the news cycle last week and reemerged this week when mainstream outlets published scoops of videos and text messages redacted in legal filings from a defamation case against Fox News that they said showed Carlson making inappropriate comments.

  A New York Times article published a text message that the outlet said Carlson sent to one of his producers on Jan. 7, 2021. The outlet wrote that the message shows Carlson commenting on an incident where supporters of former President Donald Trump beat a member of left-wing movement Antifa.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 19:20

• Cash-Strapped Millennials Turn To Thrift Stores For Wedding Attire
  Cash-Strapped Millennials Turn To Thrift Stores For Wedding Attire

  Millennials have experienced several decades of persistent economic instability. Many were children during the dot-com bubble’s collapse, entered college during the 2008 real estate meltdown, and have recently grappled with two years of negative real wage growth alongside the highest inflation rates in decades.

  Since the American dream has become too expensive for most millennials, such as marriage, starting a family, and purchasing a home — those who can achieve some form of the dream are purchasing thrift store wedding attire for the big day, The Wall Street Journal reported in an eye-opener piece titled “It’s OK to Spend $12.50 on a Wedding Dress Now.” 

  WSJ cites a new survey via wedding planning site Zola’s that reveals 27% of the brides in 2023 are willing to splurge on a wedding dress, down from 47% in 2022. 

  “As thrifted and fast-fashion dresses rise in popularity, they are shaking up an industry unaccustomed to much change,” the publication noted. 

  This emerging trend of thrift store wedding dresses might indicate millennials can’t afford traditional weddings and new attire. And this only makes sense. As we explained above, these youngsters have grown up in a turbulent era. Now the ones who can afford to get hitched must resort to cost-saving measures such as second-hand dresses. 

  It’s not just Zola’s survey finding out bride budgets have collapsed. David’s Bridal LLC, the largest wedding-attire chain in the country, filed for bankruptcy last month. The company wrote in its bankruptcy filing that an “increasing number of brides are opting for less traditional wedding attire, including thrift wedding dresses.”

  “This is the year of the ‘Bride on a Budget’ and we’re doing everything we can to meet her with her dream dress at every price point,” Chief Executive James Marcum wrote in an email to WSJ. 

  Meanwhile, sales of white cocktail and special-occasion dresses on ThredUp have jumped 23% in 2023 compared to the same period in 2019. Similarly, Poshmark Inc., another online second-hand retailer, reports a 35% year-over-year increase in sales for items labeled “wedding.”

  Some brides have even resorted to Goodwill wedding dresses. Renee Drake, a seamstress in Medina, Ohio, said her client found a $25 gown marked down to $12.50 at one thrift store. 

  

  This is just the latest evidence millennials are in a terrible financial state. Some might argue younger generations find weddings a giant waste of money, but we’ll assure you, if a youngster had the money to afford a lavish wedding, they certainly would. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 19:00

• 'Disgraceful': GOP Senators Accuse Dems of Threatening To Cut SCOTUS Security Funding Amid Ongoing Threats
  ‘Disgraceful’: GOP Senators Accuse Dems of Threatening To Cut SCOTUS Security Funding Amid Ongoing Threats

  Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,

  Two Republican Senators tore into their Democrat colleagues Tuesday, accusing them of threatening to cut $10 million in funding for Supreme Court security unless SCOTUS does what they want.

  

  Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) made the explosive accusations during yesterday’s Democrat-led “Supreme Court Ethics Reform” hearing.

  “The Left is willing to threaten the lives of the justices,” said Cruz. “This is disgraceful.”

  The fiery hearing was held amid a weeks-long media campaign accusing conservative justices of ethics violations and conflicts of interest.

  On March 31, fifteen Democrat Senators sent a letter to the to the top Republican and Democrat on a Senate subcommittee in charge of the Supreme Court budget. The Democrats proposed language to be attached to next year’s Supreme Court funding bill requiring the court to adopt a new ethical code with a monitor answerable to Congress to enforce it.

  “Congress has broad authority to compel the Supreme Court to institute these reforms, which would join other requirements already legislatively mandated,” the senators wrote. “And Congress’s appropriations power is one tool for achieving these changes.”

  The Democrats concluded their letter by threatening to withhold $10 million unless Chief Justice John Roberts notifies the Committee on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress that the Supreme Court has put into effect their “public code of ethics for justices of the Court.”

  Republicans argue that the Democrats’ plan to monitor SCOTUS is “unconstitutional” and would lead to political attacks on conservative Justices for intimidation purposes.

  The Supreme Court’s 2024 budget request included $4,028,000 in security funding from the Chips and Science Act and $5,897,000 in additional security funding. The protective activities request says: “This request would expand security activities conducted by Supreme Court Police to protect the Justices” and specifically cites the ongoing threats against the justices.

  “On-going threat assessments show evolving risks that require continuous protection,” the request continues. “Additional funding would provide for contract positions, eventually transitioning to full-time employees, that will augment capabilities of the Supreme Court police force and allow it to accomplish its protective mission.”

  Hawley rounded the above figures: “four plus six equals 10—$10 million of security funding that the court is specifically asking for this year in their budget request,” he said. “So in other words, the threat is: ‘We will deny you security unless you do what we want,’” the senator declared.

  “We had an assassin come to the home of Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh and try to murder him. We have had credible threats on the lives of other justices. And now members of this body say ‘We will deny you security for you, your families, your children, unless you do what we want,’” he added. “Extraordinary.”

  Josh Hawley 🔥 pic.twitter.com/O6wIR73dxP

  — Freedom Jobs Business (@OfficialFJBCoin) May 3, 2023

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “We had 15 Senate Democrats, including six members of this committee, send a letter to the appropriations committee threatening to cut off the funding for security at the Supreme Court,” said Cruz. “The left is willing to threaten the lives of the justices.”

  Cruz: “We had 15 Senate Democrats, including six members of this committee, send a letter to the appropriations committee threatening to cut off the funding for security at the Supreme Court. The left is willing to threaten the lives of the justices.” pic.twitter.com/ipvhAoU14l

  — Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) May 2, 2023

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Debra Heine is a conservative Catholic mom of six and longtime political pundit. She has written for several conservative news websites over the years, including Breitbart and PJ Media.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 18:40

• NYC Airports Hit First-Quarter Passenger Record
  NYC Airports Hit First-Quarter Passenger Record

  Despite widespread fears that an economic downturn and high airfare prices could derail consumers’ appetite for travel, new security checkpoint data across New York City airports soared to a record high in the first quarter. 

  The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said 32 million passengers passed through John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), Newark International Airport (EWR), and LaGuardia International Airport (LGA) last quarter — a record high, surpassing figures in the same period of 2019 by over one million. 

  Most of the travel surge was at EWR and LGA. Bloomberg explained the expansion at multiple airports in the region allowed for increased capacity:

  “Newark’s $2.7 billion Terminal A opened in January and LaGuardia’s $4 billion overhaul of its Delta Air Lines Inc., Terminal C, which was unveiled last year.” 

  Additionally, security checkpoint throughput data across all US airports has returned to pre-Covid levels. 

  

  Meanwhile, travelers searching for flights this spring and summer are paying some of the highest travel costs in years. 

  

  During Delta Air Lines’ first-quarter earnings call, President Glen Hauenstein remained optimistic about air travel this summer: 

  “[We] know there’s a lot of anxiety about domestic demand for the summer, but we don’t share that anxiety.” 

  Although Wall Street analysts have expressed concerns that mounting macroeconomic headwinds could negatively impact air travel demand, this has not yet materialized. A considerable amount of pent-up travel demand remains after people were confined to their homes by government lockdowns for a year during the pandemic. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 18:20

• The New Ugly Americans: VDH
  The New Ugly Americans: VDH

  Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness (emphasis ours),

  The old cultural imperialism was supposedly greedy corporatism like Disneyland, McDonald’s, and Starbucks sprouting up worldwide to supplant local competitors. 

  

  But these businesses spread because they appealed to free-will consumer demand abroad. They were not imposed top down. 

  The U.S. presence in Afghanistan collapsed in August 2021 amid the greatest American military humiliation in modern history. A billion-dollar new embassy was abandoned. Hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of new infrastructure at the huge Bagram Airbase was dumped. 

  We still do not know how many billions of dollars of sophisticated new weapons were left to the Taliban and now are making their way through global terrorists’ marts. 

  Yet, in our skedaddle, the LGBTQ flag still flew high from our new Kabul embassy.

  A George Floyd mural was prominent on city streets.

  And gender studies programs—to the tune of $787 million in American subsidies—were showcased at Kabul University, in one of the most conservative Islamic countries in the world.

  Rainbow flags and Black Lives Matter banners have hung from our embassy in South Korea. 

  Such partisan cultural activism is a diplomatic first.

  The woke Left has now weaponized the country’s diplomatic missions abroad to advance highly partisan and controversial agendas that can offend their hosts, and do not represent the majority of American voters at home.

  American foreign policy toward other nations seems now to hinge on their positions on the transgendered, LGBTQ acceptance, abortion, climate change, and an array of woke issues from using multiple pronouns on passports to showcasing transgendered ambassadors. 

  The Biden Administration in January 2022 stopped the EastMed pipeline. That joint effort of our allies Cyprus, Greece, and Israel sought to bring much needed clean-burning Mediterranean natural gas to southern Europe.

  Apparently, our diplomats felt it violated our own New Green Deal orthodoxies. So we imperialists interfered to destroy a vital project of our closest allies.

  The White House manifesto called the “National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality” offers a blueprint for how to massage nations abroad to accept our values that are increasingly at odds with much of the world’s.

  Do Americans really believe that embracing drag-queen shows at military bases, abortion to the moment of birth, transgendered men competing in women’s sports, and the promised effort to ban the internal combustion engine are effective ways to ensure good relations with the United States?

  No wonder the Biden Administration’s new cultural imperialism is proving disastrous for a variety of reasons.

  One, these imperialistic and chauvinistic agendas are pushed abroad at the very time the respect for the U.S. military is at an all-time low. It was humiliated in Afghanistan. It is now unable to recruit sufficient qualified soldiers. Its stocks of critical weapons are depleted.

  The Pentagon leadership of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, along with Joe Biden, do not radiate competence. 

  But they do exude woke pieties.

  While we offend Middle East oil exporters and Central Europeans, China allies with Russia and Iran. India and Turkey triangulate away from the United States. Sanctimonious hectoring while appearing weak is a bad combination.

  Two, these warped standards are incoherent. Is an abortion-on-demand, totalitarian China therefore an ally? How can we damn supposedly non-woke Saudi Arabia as we beg it pump more of its non-green oil before the 2022 midterms?

  Some of our most loyal allies are in Eastern Europe—Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Romania—have experienced traumatic histories on the front lines against Islamic Ottoman expansionism, czarist and Soviet aggression, and German Nazi bullying and invasion.

  They are democratic and pro-American. Yet they are now targeted by our woke imperialists because they remain steadfast as the most religious and traditional of our European allies.

  Yet these nations would be more likely to dispatch credible forces for NATO’s defense than many of our left-wing, woke, and militarily less capable Western European nations.

  Three, most of the 7.9 billion people in the world are not woke. They are aspiring to obtain a modicum of the luxury and affluence taken for granted in America.

  The rest of the planet worries whether it will have enough food, energy, security, and shelter to live one more day. For most, the incessant, woke virtue-signaling from affluent Americans comes across as the whiny bullying of pampered, self-righteous—and increasingly neurotic—imperialists.

  Four, traditionally the party that controls the State Department does not politically weaponize its embassies with wedge issues that have not won majority support among Americans. 

  Such abject politicalization rattles and alienates foreign nations. They do not want to be drawn into the American Left’s internal propaganda efforts that they know are bitterly controversial inside the United States.

  How odd that those on the Left who in the past decried “American imperialism” are now proving the greatest imperialists of all.

  About Victor Davis Hanson

  Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, a former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush. Hanson is also a farmer (growing raisin grapes on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author most recently of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, The Case for Trump and the recently released The Dying Citizen.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 05/04/2023 – 18:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest