Month: March 2023

Authored by Adam Andrzejewski via OpenTheBooks,

It’s the Washington, D.C. power couple that cost taxpayers nearly $1 million per year.

While Dr. Anthony Fauci gave the nation its pandemic public policy prescriptions, his wife, Dr. Christine Grady, the Chief Bioethicist at Fauci’s employer, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided the moral framework.

The Faucis are important to the center-left, because they represent the pinnacle moment of the administrative state – top-down public policy run by an elite group of government scientists.

Conversely, to the center-right, the Faucis represent “the fatal conceit of the elites.” As Noble Laureate economist Friedrich Hayek theorized, the elites are no match for billions of free people acting in their own best interests.

MEET THE FAUCIS

While Tony Fauci was the top paid federal bureaucrat and out-earned the U.S. President at $480,654 per year, Christine Grady, as the chief bioethicist at NIH out-earned the U.S. Vice President ($243,749). When adding 35-percent in benefits, the couple cost taxpayers an estimated nearly $1 million per year.

It’s difficult to know where Anthony Fauci ends and Christine Grady begins. Here’s how Tony Fauci described Grady’s influence on his public policy decisions:

“I’ve benefited greatly from this partnership of overlapping interest and common interest. So, a lot of the things that I do with regard to the development of vaccines, the development of therapies, being involved with outbreaks and pandemics, have ethical overtones to them. I can say that I am very blessed to be living with someone who is very likely, most people think, one of the most outstanding ethicists in the world. To have her in the house — you know, as a consultant on ethical issues—is pretty advantageous.”

So, the Faucis lived a conflict of interest at the breakfast table, the office, and back home around the dinner table. However, NIH has never acknowledged this.

In fact, NIH forced our organization to file two federal lawsuits with the public-interest law firm Judicial Watch as our lawyers to finally bring transparency to the Fauci/Grady job descriptions, conflict of interest documents, financial and ethics disclosures, contracts, and other documents.

Then, NIH slow-walked thousands of pages of production. Yet, no nepotism waivers were produced, no acknowledgement of conflicting interests, and no records documenting violations of federal ethics policy.

While Grady’s work during the pandemic was described as “invaluable” by then-NIH director Francis Collins, the general public knows little about her day-to-day responsibilities. 

An open records request for Grady’s job description reveals she, too, is meant to use her position to influence policy.

Advocating Lockdowns

Dr. Fauci knew that his “draconian policies” on social isolation and economic lockdowns would have “collateral negative consequences,” and admitted Christine Grady was a driving force behind his hardline approach.

In a November 2021 interview with the couple, Fauci said that he gained strength from his wife’s support saying, “background and her experience in really core ethical principles [helped] me to really feel much more comfortable in what I was saying.”

In the interview, Christine Grady described how she mind-mapped national policy with her husband:

“But we’ve had conversations about the sort of consequences of telling people to stay home and what it would do for the economy. And there were a lot of people in those days that, and still who said, it’s ruining the economy. It’s much more important to just keep things going and not worry about transmitting virus…I said, that one of the messages should be, how many lives are you willing to sacrifice? And that message would be pretty stark and pretty brutal, but that’s really what the trade-off was…And so we’ve had that kind of conversation over dinner more than once, actually.”

Fauci replied that these conversations “sharpened [his] resolve” to move forward with lockdown policies.

Social isolation was one of the individual sacrifices Grady and Fauci thought were necessary to make on behalf of “public health.”

Vaccine Development & Public Safety

Like her husband, Grady exclusively focused her attention and remarks on vaccine development rather than other potential ways to treat and combat the spread of COVID-19.

One major paper she co-authored in 2020 advocated for vaccines to be distributed under emergency use authorization (EUA), which is how the federal government ultimately proceeded.

In this paper, Grady’s advocacy for vaccines came with a troubling acknowledgement:

 “even with mandated safety monitoring after EUA distribution, it would be difficult or impossible to ascertain vaccine-induced adverse events.”

However, during most of her public presentations, she asserted that vaccines were developed in a fast, but “safe and rigorous” manner. Just one of many examples can be found here.

By November 2021, she said the risk of unknown long-term effects were “not zero” but that “there is a balance between benefiting the public health now versus waiting for all the information we might get.”

Despite these admissions, Grady often said she was “disturbed” by vaccine hesitancy, implying that safety concerns were somehow unreasonable.

Vaccine Mandates

Grady’s stance on vaccine mandates changed radically throughout the pandemic.

In June 2020, a presentation she gave suggested “immunity passports” could cause “discrimination without much overall gain.” A passport system would allow businesses to limit or deny access to those who remained unvaccinated.

Six months later, in January 2021, Grady said, “I do believe that healthcare providers, like everyone else, should have the choice” whether to take the vaccine or not.

But by early October 2021, Grady had decided the choice facing health care workers was a drastically different one: whether to get the vaccine or lose their jobs.

Later that month, she also flipped her position on vaccine passports. What once was a potential source of discrimination was recast as a way to access “social benefits” like restaurants and movie theaters.

It’s a disturbing way to describe Americans free association of movement.   

Grady went on to co-author a March 2022 report approving of social ostracization for the vaccine-hesitant and encouraging employers to pressure their workers:

“While some employers might understandably feel hesitant to pressure employees to get vaccinated, our analysis suggests that it is often ethically acceptable to inform, encourage, strongly encourage, incentivize, and subtly pressure unvaccinated people to benefit them, the organization, and other employees.”

In fewer than two years, Grady had completely altered her assessment of vaccine mandates and widespread restrictions on the behavior of unvaccinated Americans. Gone were concerns about discrimination and freedom of choice.

As Dr. Fauci pushed and pressured the public to get vaccinated for the sake of their neighbors and family members, Grady began considering it ethical to fire workers who did not comply.

Likewise, it became a “social benefit” to get a vaccine passport that would allow people to avoid government restrictions on their free movements.

Mask Mandates

While her husband advocated masking and double masking—even when “fully vaccinated”—Dr. Grady consistently backed his position.

In July 2020, during an InStyle interview, Grady answered questions about masking:

Interviewer: Let me ask you, Chris, as a bioethicist, what do you make of this moment we’re in, when even a mask has become more of a divisive issue?

Grady: Well, I would say that masks shouldn’t be divisive. It’s a relatively easy way to protect one’s self and others. And so for public health reasons, I think everybody should do it. From an ethical perspective there is always this tension between what you ask people to do that feels like a restriction of their liberty and what is required for public health. And in this case, it seems like a slam dunk. It’s not restricting liberty much, and it’s very helpful for public health.

Grady was consistent and in November 2021 spoke to the ethical balancing test of public safety versus individual freedom and never viewed mask wearing to be much of an infringement on individual rights:

“There’s a classic tension between public health, and individual interests and freedoms. Where there seems to be this conflict to the things that we do to protect the public health, and to protect the population for the common good. Sometimes they are perceived to be, and sometimes they do in small ways, infringe on people’s freedoms. There are principles of public health ethics that help you sort out the kinds of interventions that we should use: Things that are effective, that are proportional, where the benefits outweigh the risks that are necessary, that are least infringement possible, that are transparent, that we can publicly justify.

…What’s striking to me is that, the kinds of burdens that we’ve asked people to undertake, like putting on a mask, don’t really infringe on one’s freedoms very much. They’re low burden and they have an effect. They do protect the person who’s wearing the mask, as well as the people that are around them.”

A recent credible study on mask wearing during the pandemic argued there is no clear impact of masking on Covid-19 infection rates.

Patients Dying in Isolation

During the pandemic, Grady revealed a default preference for government control over individual rights and responsibilities. Grady was an early proponent of one of the most heinous pandemic polices: patients dying in isolation.

For example, while uncritically accepting dying in isolation as a fact of the pandemic, Grady’s primary solution was to expand funding for health care workers to have access to therapy and other resources to heal from their “moral distress.”

As early as April 2020 Grady said:  

“Because of visiting policies and fear of contagion sometimes when somebody is really sick their family cannot visit them, they can’t see them…the stress and the sadness and the isolation on families is and is going to be great.” 

In a November 2020 NIH presentation she called these “lonely” deaths “understandable:”  

“It’s a lonely kind of death, many institutions, understandably have visitor policies which either restrict the number of visitors to one or zero so sometimes people are dying without having their family nearby and that puts an additional burden on the healthcare staff.” 

In one co-authored paper urging healthcare workers to “temper these potentially dehumanizing scenarios with imaginative solutions that do not sacrifice compassion and equal respect on the altars of safety and efficiency.” 

She interrogates the tension between individual freedom and community safety in a book published April 26, 2022, as a co-author proposing a radical “solidarity model” for ethics in healthcare, stating that rather than emphasizing a respect for individuals to make decisions in their own interest:  

“We should recognize that there are times when solidarity takes precedence over individual liberties, and broadening our concept of “respect for persons” means uniting as a profession to protect all those who expect to receive care from nurses in whatever healthcare setting they find themselves.” 

She co-edited a section in the same book arguing this extends to dying in insolation: 

“The solidarity model may apply to restricted family visitation, which generated moral distress for nurses, particularly when patients died without loved ones present…”

CONCLUSION – GRADY AND THE NEXT PANDEMIC

As demonstrated by her own words, Grady’s record evinces an understanding of ethics that begs fundamental moral questions, regularly subordinates individuals beneath an amorphous “public health,” and relies on subtle but unacknowledged shifts to retain an alleged moral high ground.

While some of her observations early in the pandemic did show an interest in providing nuance to policymaking—questioning the usefulness of immunity passports and highlighting issues with long-term vaccine effects under a EUA rollout—this quickly gave way to conformity to broader political zeitgeist, painting pushback as ignorant, uncaring, and simply wrong.

By 2021 her public statements never suggested a limit to sacrifices the individual should ethically make on behalf of “public health,” from masking, to taking vaccines, to foregoing family gatherings even at the point of one’s own death.

Both Fauci and Grady made clear that they wish for ethicists like Grady to have more power and more influence over political decision-making.

As Grady remains the chief NIH bioethicist, Americans should ponder: does Grady’s philosophy advance what is “fair” and “just” in public health policy? What does her continued leadership mean for the future of American policy.

Taxpayers compensate Grady generously, and they’re owed full transparency about her role, responsibilities and influence – during the pandemic and into the future.

Note: We reached out to Dr. Christine Grady and NIH for comment. While acknowledging our requests, no statement or comment was received before publication.

ADDITIONAL READING

Dr. Anthony Fauci: The Highest Paid Employee In The Entire U.S. Federal Government Published January 21, 2021 | Forbes

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Little Known Biodefense Work. It’s How He Became The Highest Paid Federal Employee. Published October 20, 2021 | Forbes

No, Fauci’s Records Aren’t Available. Why Won’t NIH Immediately Release Them? Published January 12, 2022 | Forbes

Breaking: Fauci’s Net Worth Soared To $12.6 Million During The Pandemic – Up $5 Million (2019-2021). Published September 28, 2022 | OpenTheBooks.Substack.com

HISTORIC RELEASE: Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Official Work Calendar (November 2019 – March 2020) | Published October 20, 2022 | OpenTheBooks.Substack.com

ABOUT US

OpenTheBooks.com – We believe transparency is transformational. Using forensic auditing and open records, we hold government accountable.

In the years 2021 and 2022, we filed 100,000+ FOIA requests and successfully captured $19 trillion government expenditures: nearly all federal spending; 50 state checkbooks; and 25 million public employee salary and pension records from 50,000 public bodies across America.

Our works have been featured at the BBC, Good Morning America, ABC World News Tonight, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, C-SPAN, Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, NBC News, FOX News, Forbes, National Public Radio (NPR), Sinclair Broadcast Group, & many others.

Our organization accepts no government funding and was founded by CEO Adam Andrzejewski. Our federal oversight work was cited twice in the President’s Budget To Congress FY2021. Andrzejewski’s presentation, The Depth of the Swamp, at the Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar 2020 in Naples, Florida posted on YouTube received 3.8+ million views.

Leading science journal Nature admitted on Monday that their endorsement of Joe Biden in the 2020 US election harmed their credibility, trust in science, and made virtually no difference when it came to influencing voters one way or the other.

In 2020, Nature endorsed Joe Biden in the US presidential election. A survey finds that viewing the endorsement did not change people’s views of the candidates, but caused some to lose confidence in Nature and in US scientists generally https://t.co/lvrgXmsrl5

— nature (@Nature) March 20, 2023

According to a survey conducted in July and early August 2021, random Trump and Biden supporters were notified of Nature‘s endorsement, while a control group was given irrelevant information about the journal’s new website design.

As James Billot writes in The Post;

…the strength of reaction to the endorsement was particularly acute among Trump supporters, with treated participants (i.e. those who viewed the endorsement) scaling much higher on negative attitudes towards Nature‘s impartiality and knowledge. For Biden supporters, there was a marginal uptick in positive attitudes.

Besides reducing trust in Nature among Trump supporters, the endorsement also had a cascading effect on their attitudes towards science and scientists more generally. Trump supporters were less likely to report high levels of trust towards US scientists than Biden supporters after the endorsement, and the gap is larger for treated participants.

In addition, the shifts in trust in Nature resulted in lower demand for Covid-related information from the journal among Trump supporters. Results found that, at the height of the Delta variant surge in the US, the endorsement led to a -14.2 percentage point reduction in the frequency at which Trump supporters requested Nature articles, whereas the upswing for Biden supporters was negligible.

These results show that Nature’s endorsement had a hugely divisive effect on its readership. Treated Trump and Biden supporters became two to four times more polarised than the control participants on these stated measures of trust in Nature. Meanwhile, treated Trump supporters were 38% less likely than control Trump supporters to request stories from the publication’s website. What’s more, the endorsement had little effect on changing participants’ opinions about the two presidential candidates, rendering it ineffective.

*  *  *

I’m hard pressed to think of a better way to destroy the trust of (about half or more) of the public in our scientific institutions than to have these institutions openly display their political biases. https://t.co/L7lMV07fqr

— Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) March 21, 2023

 

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

What the Warring Elites don’t want us to realize is that a system of transparent competition in which no fiefdom is allowed to become dominant best serves the interests of society at large.

I’ve been writing about Warring Elites for a long time (since 2007). As I have often noted, historian Michael Grant identified profound political disunity in the ruling class as a key cause of the dissolution of the Roman Empire.

More recently, I’ve observed that Our Fragmentation Accelerates (December 20, 2019).

Eras of Warring Elites have two key dynamics. One is that the Elites’ interests diverge from those of the society as a whole. In expansive eras, the many competing interests within the Elite class find common ground in supporting the status quo, and relegate their turf squabbles to the private club rooms. On the whole, the shared interests of the Elite class align with society at large.

Since I see the global status quo as fundamentally neofeudal, we can say the interests of the Nobility and Peasantry overlap: each class benefits from political and social stability, economic expansion and broad-based distribution of prosperity.

In disintegrative eras, this integrative, shared dynamic breaks down and the interests of the Elite diverge from those of society at large. The competition between neofeudal camps in the Elite class breaks into open conflict, and the result is a profound political disunity of hardened camps fighting to protect their fiefdoms from any diminishment of wealth or power.

This leads not just to political fragmentation but to social fragmentation as the Elite fiefdoms wage a propaganda battle for the hearts and minds of the Technocrat Class and the Peasantry. The propaganda war is not just to establish the traditional us and them divisions in which we are good and they are evil, it’s also about cultivating The Plantation of the Mind so that all the neat rows of thoughts and emotions serve the interests of the Plantation Owners. I’ve discussed this for many years: Colonizing the Plantation of the Mind (August 25, 2010) and Social Media’s Plantation of the Mind (May 28, 2020).

Each neofeudal fiefdom hopes we’ve seen too many movies in which the line between Good and Evil is cartoonishly clear. Each Elite fiefdom seeks to mask its single-minded devotion to its own self-interest behind fine-sounding claims of noble ideals: a Multipolar World (in which we’re free to pillage the planet), Freedom of Speech (controlled by us, of course), Decentralized Finance (which just so happens to be owned and controlled by the few) and a vast spectrum of other cover stories for the enrichment of Elite fiefdoms at the expense of society at large.

With the emergence of AI Chatbots, each Warring Fiefdom now has the means to overwhelm the media with billions of automated messages about the good and noble and idealistic goals of our Fiefdom and how the evil Central State is scheming to limit our powers of predation (Central State, Bad, our Fiefdom, Good!) or some rabble of Peasantry threatens our extraction of wealth and our death-grip on power (Nobility-owned Fiefdom, Good, Peasantry, Bad!).

The core message is always the same: increasing our wealth, power, profits and control is good for you, too. You’ll all benefit if you help us secure our fiefdom from any threats.

The propaganda is designed to not just colonize our minds but eliminate any urge to ask cui bono, to whose benefit? The single-minded self-interest of each Elite fiefdom must be hidden lest the powerless lower classes start asking if the expansion of one fiefdom’s power and control actually benefits society at large or not.

In this no-holds-barred existential struggle for supremacy, Elite fiefdoms will tear down society to weaken any potential resistance. So national interest is cast as Evil, while Multipolar Wonderfulness is Good (now the whole world can finally sing happy songs around the campfire!), any regulatory restraints are Evil while the rigged “free market” is Good (let the “market” which we control choose winners and losers; hey, surprise, we won!). Every fiefdom should be free to pillage without restraint (“Ask your doctor about Euphorestra,” etc.).

In the Era of Warring Elites, Everything is Staged (October 22, 2020). The Elite fiefdoms don’t care if society and the economy fragment and collapse; they welcome the dissolution of national purpose, civic virtue and shared sacrifice as obstructions to their own limitless greed for more power and control.

In a weakened Nation-State, the fiefdoms will be free to pillage without restraint. If society is an obstruction, they will gladly tear it down with propaganda designed to fragment the Peasantry and undermine any entity which might have the power to restrain their limitless greed. (I discuss the essential roles of national purpose, civic virtue and shared sacrifice in my book Global Crisis, National Renewal.)

Before you buy into a slickly scripted depiction of what needs to be undermined to hasten its collapse, ask to whose benefit? Exactly who benefits from promoting the collapse of this or that? We already know the answer: the Elite fiefdoms who will be free to pillage once any source of resistance has been broken into pieces.

What the Warring Elites don’t want us to realize is that a system of transparent competition in which no fiefdom is allowed to become dominant best serves the interests of society at large. Before we tear everything down, ask who will rush to fill the power vacuum with their own self-serving agenda?

In the meantime, “Ask your doctor about Euphorestra.”

*  *  *

My new book is now available at a 10% discount ($8.95 ebook, $18 print): Self-Reliance in the 21st Century.  Read the first chapter for free (PDF)

Become a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Starbucks Workers United, representing thousands of baristas, tweeted early Wednesday morning that more than 100 Starbucks stores “are striking to demand an end to Starbucks’ illegal union-busting campaign.” 

BREAKING: Workers at over 100+
Starbucks stores across the country are striking to demand an end to Starbucks’ illegal union-busting campaign. While the company keeps a metaphorical ’empty chair’ for us in the boardroom, we’re demanding a real seat at the table! #StarbucksStrike

— Starbucks Workers United (@SBWorkersUnited) March 22, 2023

Bloomberg reported that the work stoppage involves stores in more than 40 US cities. The union has said Starbucks’ anti-union campaign against it violates the company’s own commitment to respect its employees’ rights. 

The fight between the union and Starbucks has intensified, with both parties alleging that the other is not bargaining in good faith.

The union represents about 3% of the coffee chain’s 9,300 US stores, though the unionization movement is expanding. 

Bloomberg added:

The work stoppage comes one day before Starbucks’s annual shareholder meeting, the first for new CEO Laxman Narasimhan, who officially took the reins from Howard Schultz this week. Investors including New York City pension funds have put forward a resolution this year urging the company to conduct a labor-rights audit, and Schultz is slated to be grilled by lawmakers at a US Senate committee hearing next week.

The union posted images of unionized baristas striking on Wednesday morning:

Good morning, strike morning! We are out on STRIKE with stores up and down I-71 for fair bargaining, better wages, all our tips, fair scheduling, and more!

Join Cleveland SBWU partners at Crocker Park and/or MayLee! pic.twitter.com/bzQcCszfFX

— cleveland starbucks organizers (@ClevelandSBWU) March 22, 2023

Day 2 of the #lausdstrike happens as Starbucks workers across Los Angeles County join workers on strike at over 100 locations nationwide.

From our stores, to our schools, to the state house, and beyond, the California labor movement. Won’t. Back. Down! https://t.co/LfiL59CkSa pic.twitter.com/wLiQguP5KV

— Fight for $15 LA (@Fightfor15LA) March 22, 2023

Starting the day with the @SBWorkersUnited A.M. #StarbucksStrike crew at 88 E. Broad. Store closed, no scabs! pic.twitter.com/JhLcdVPUKF

— Jeremy Baiman (@jeremybaiman) March 22, 2023

Oviedo Mitchell Hammock is ON STRIKE pic.twitter.com/0Nn9M1JTYm

— Labor Clay (@BlastOffBlastic) March 22, 2023

We out here! Arlington Courthouse & Merrifield, Falls Church, VA #Starbucks stores checking in! #StarbucksStrike #tobeapartner #onedaylonger #wunomatterwhat #wumarjb #sbwumarjb #1u pic.twitter.com/vkFvBzM0PP

— Workers United MARJB (@WorkersUnitedMA) March 22, 2023

It’s uncertain whether coffee lovers are closely following the battle between the union and Starbucks. Customers simply desire their daily dose of a vanilla latte, white chocolate mocha, or chai latte — and nothing more. 

Coinbase shares are tumbling after-hours, down almost 20% on the day, following its disclosure that it received a notice from the SEC formally declaring the securities regulator’s plans to bring an enforcement action against the largest US crypto exchange.

SEC Chair Gary Gensler has repeatedly said many of the tokens and products offered by crypto companies are securities and that the trading platforms need to register with his agency, and in a filing this afternoon, Coinbase said the so-called Wells notice regards aspects of its exchange as well as the staking service Coinbase Earn and Coinbase Wallet.

Bloomberg reports that representatives from Coinbase have met with the SEC more than 60 times over the last nine months to try to resolve the issues, but those talks haven’t been fruitful, according to a person familiar with the matter.

“We are prepared for this disappointing outcome and confident in the legality of our assets and services,” Paul Grewal, chief legal officer of Coinbase, said in a statement.

“If needed, we welcome a legal process to provide the clarity we have been advocating for and to demonstrate that the SEC simply has not been fair or reasonable when it comes to its engagement on digital assets.”

This isn’t the first time Coinbase has received a Wells notice.

The SEC warned the company in 2021 that it considered the company’s proposed “Lend” product, which would have allowed users to earn interest by lending out their crypto holdings, to be a security. The exchange later canceled the launch.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong took to Twitter to explain:

Today Coinbase received a Wells notice from the SEC focused on staking and asset listings.

A Wells notice typically precedes an enforcement action.

Two years ago the SEC reviewed our business in detail and approved Coinbase to go public. Our S1 clearly explained our asset listing process and included 57 references to staking.

Coinbase runs a rigorous asset review process and has rejected more than 90% of assets that have applied to be listed on the platform.

While we understand that this is all part of the journey to reforming our financial system, we are right on the law, confident in the facts, and welcome the opportunity for Coinbase (and by extension the broader crypto community) to get before a court.

We are proud to stand up for our customers and the industry in these moments.

Going forward the legal process will provide an open and public forum before an unbiased body where we will be able to make clear for all to see that the SEC simply has not been fair, reasonable, or even demonstrated a seriousness of purpose when it comes to its engagement on digital assets.

In the meantime, Coinbase will continue to do what we do best: build the most trusted products and services in order to advance our purpose of updating the financial system, and creating more economic freedom in the world.

We’re excited to work with all governments and regulators around the world who are focused on putting in place clear rules to regulate the crypto industry.

Additionally, Decrypt reports that earlier on Wednesday, Coinbase had notified users it will suspends Algorand staking rewards on March 29.

Last August, after the U.S. sanctioned Ethereum mixing service Tornado Cash and wallets that had used it, Armstrong said that if threatened by regulators, he would rather shut down Coinbase staking than censor transactions.

Armstrong concluded a subsequent blog post with a clear message to the regulators:

Tell us the rules and we will follow them. Give us an actual path to register, and we will register the parts of our business that need registering.

In the meantime, the U.S. cannot afford for regulators to continue to threaten the good actors in the crypto industry for doing the same legal and compliant things they’ve always done.

This unfair approach will only drive innovation, jobs, and the entire industry overseas. At our core, we are the very same company that we were on April 14, 2021 when we became a public company at the end of the lengthy process with the SEC itself. We remain confident in the legality of our assets and services, and if needed, we welcome a legal process to provide the clarity we have been advocating for and to demonstrate that the SEC simply has not been fair or reasonable when it comes to its engagement on digital assets.

In the meantime, Coinbase will continue to do what we do best: updating the financial system by building the most trusted products and services to advance our mission of creating more economic freedom and opportunity around the world.

The Wells Notice follows the SEC’s suing Tron founder Justin Sun (and a number of celebrities) on allegations the TRX and BT tokens are unregistered securities (among other charges).

Does anyone else see a very recent pattern, between Silvergate, Signature Bank, and now this – did Liz Warren lay down the law to bring a dragnet against crypto?

WAR ON CRYPTO https://t.co/Uk0r2J8tu9

— RYAN SΞAN ADAMS – rsa.eth 🏴🦇🔊 (@RyanSAdams) March 22, 2023

Who knows, maybe this could go to SCOTUS? Now that crypto has clearly become the Democrats’ latest boogeyman.

Just hours after we wrote about maniacal price cutting in the automotive industry in China, China’s auto industry association is urging automakers to “cool” the hype behind price cuts.

The statement was made in order to “ensure the stable development of the industry”, Automotive News Europe reported on Tuesday. 

The China Association of Automobile Manufacturers even went so far as to put out a message on its official WeChat account, stating that “A price war is not a long-term solution”. Instead “automakers should work harder on technology and branding,” it said. 

The consumer disagrees…

Recall we wrote earlier this week that most major automakers were slashing prices in China. The move is coming after lifting pandemic controls failed to spur significant demand in China, the Wall Street Journal reported this week. Ford and GM will be joined by BMW and Volkswagen in offering the discounts and promotions on EVs, the report says. 

Retail auto sales plunged the first two months of the year and automakers are facing additional challenges in trying to transition their business models to prioritize EVs over conventional internal combustion engine vehicles. 

Ford is offering $6,000 off its Mustang Mach-E, putting the standard version of its EV at just $31,000. Last month, only 84 of the vehicles were sold, compared to 1,500 sales in December. There was some pulling forward of demand due to the phasing out of subsidies heading into the new year, and Ford had also cut prices by about 9% in December. 

A spokesperson for Ford called it a “stock clearance”. 

Discounts at Volkswagen are ranging from around $2,200 to $7,300 a car. The cuts will affect 20 gas powered and electric models. Its electric ID series is seeing price cuts of almost $6,000. The company called the cuts “temporary promotions due to general reluctance among car buyers, the new emissions rule and discounts offered by competitors.”

Even more shocking is Citroën-maker Dongfeng Motor Group, who is offering a 40% discount on its C6 gas-powered sedan, now priced at $18,000. 

Kelvin Lau, an analyst at Daiwa Capital Markets, told the Journal that automakers are also trying to get rid of 500,000 vehicles collectively stored in their inventory, most of which are older vehicles that won’t meet new emissions standards.

David Zhang, a Shanghai-based independent automobile analyst, added: “Some car makers have been seeing very few sales. At this rate, the manufacturers’ production and dealership networks will collapse.”

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

The eNaira is Africa’s first central bank digital currency (CBDC).

Central bankers, academics, politicians, and an assortment of elites from over 100 countries hoping to launch their own CBDCs have closely followed the eNaira.

They used Nigeria—Africa’s largest country by population and size of its economy—as a trial balloon to test their nefarious plans to eliminate cash in North America, Europe, and beyond.

Are you concerned about CBDCs?

Then you should be paying attention to what is happening in Nigeria.

That’s because there’s an excellent chance your government will reach for the same playbook when they decide to impose CBDCs in your area—which could be soon.

CBDCs enable all sorts of horrible, totalitarian things.

They allow governments to track and control every penny you earn, save, and spend. They are a powerful tool for politicians to confiscate and redistribute wealth as they see fit.

CBDCs will also enable devious social engineering by allowing governments to punish and reward people in ways they previously couldn’t.

CBDCs are, without a doubt, an instrument of enslavement. They represent a quantum leap backward in human freedom.

Unfortunately, they’re coming soon…

Governments will probably mandate CBDCs as the “solution” when the next real or contrived crisis hits—which is likely not far off.

That’s why you must pay attention to what is happening in Nigeria. That way, you can know what to expect and take preventative action.

Here are the top five insights from the eNaira.

Insight #1: Don’t Take the Bait… Reject CBDC Incentives

In Nigeria, the government implemented discounts and other incentives to increase the adoption of eNaira.

In North America and Europe, expect the government to require CBDCs to receive welfare payments, a potential universal basic income, so-called “inflation relief checks,” or whatever the next cockamamie scheme is.

Think of these incentives like the cheese in a mousetrap.

Insight #2: Simultaneous Moves To Eliminate Cash

To help boost eNaira adoption, the Nigerian government announced a plan to remove the legal tender status of various high denomination bills, rendering them worthless.

According to the World Bank, over 55% of the adult population in Nigeria does not have a bank account and is dependent on physical cash.

The Nigerian government must have known phasing out cash would be a disaster for a majority of the population, but they plowed ahead anyways—so much for democracy.

When your government imposes a CBDC, expect simultaneous measures to force people out of cash, regardless of the costs.

Those measures could come in many flavors, but I would bet they would first look to phase out large denomination bills by removing their legal tender status.

We’re already seeing this happen…

For example, the EU has already phased out the 500 euro note.

The $100 bill is the largest in circulation in the US, but that wasn’t always the case. At one point, the US had $500, $1,000, $5,000, and even $10,000 bills.

The government eliminated these large bills in 1969 under the pretext of fighting the War on (Some) Drugs.

The $100 bill has been the largest ever since. But it has far less purchasing power than it did in 1969. Decades of rampant money printing have debased the dollar. Today, a $100 note buys less than $12 in 1969.

Even though the Federal Reserve has devalued the dollar by over 88% since 1969, it still refuses to issue notes larger than $100.

With CBDCs on the horizon, I think the US government will not only never issue another bill higher than $100 but will probably look to phase out the $100 bill under various pretexts.

Insight #3: Bank Restrictions

Most people think of the money they deposit into the bank as a personal asset they own.

But that’s not true.

Once you deposit money at the bank, it’s no longer your property. Instead, it’s the bank’s, and they can pretty much do whatever they want with it.

What you really own is the bank’s promise to pay you back. It’s an unsecured liability, which makes you technically and legally a creditor of the bank.

And since the banking system is intertwined with the government everywhere, it’s only prudent to expect governments to place more restrictions on bank accounts as CBDCs debut.

This is exactly what happened in Nigeria.

Cash withdrawal limits and debit card transaction restrictions were imposed, among other measures. In addition, capital controls made it challenging to send money out of the country.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see the forced conversion of bank deposits into the eNaira—at an unfavorable rate.

Here’s the bottom line. Expect all sorts of restrictions—and possible confiscations—to be imposed on bank accounts when a CBDC is released.

Insight #4: Rising Inflation

Amid the eNaira rollout, Nigeria is experiencing some of the highest inflation levels in its history.

This is not surprising. CBDCs make it even easier for the government to debase the currency.

So, it’s reasonable to expect more inflation when CBDCs come to town.

Insight #5: Social Unrest

In another predictable development, frustrated Nigerians took to the streets over the government’s actions to restrict cash and bank accounts. There was a violent scramble to exchange old notes before the government deemed them worthless. Riots broke out in several locations.

There’s an excellent chance the destructive restrictions imposed alongside CBDCs could create social unrest anywhere.

Conclusion

To summarize, here are the top five insights from Nigeria’s CBDC experience.

Insight #1: Don’t Take the Bait… Reject CBDC Incentives

Insight #2: Simultaneous Moves To Eliminate Cash

Insight #3: Bank Restrictions

Insight #4: Rising Inflation

Insight #5: Social Unrest

As CBDCs come to your neighborhood, you now know what to expect.

Governments will probably mandate CBDCs as the “solution” when the next real or contrived crisis hits – which is likely not far off.

There’s an excellent chance more inflation and financial chaos is coming soon.

Are you ready for it?

That’s why I just released an urgent PDF guide, “Survive and Thrive During the Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years.” Download this free report to discover the top 3 strategies you need to implement today to protect yourself and potentially come out ahead. With the global economy in turmoil and the threat of a “Great Reset” looming, this guide is a must-read. Click here to download it now.

The Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday unveiled fraud and unregistered securities charges against Tronix crypto founder and Grenadian diplomat Justin Sun, as well as separate charges against celebrity backers of his TRON and BitTorrent crypto assets – which included Soulja Boy, Lindsay Lohan and Jake Paul.

SEC Chair Gary Gensler said that Sun convinced investors to buy TRX and BTT by “orchestrating a promotional campaign in which he and his celebrity promoters hid the fact that the celebrities were paid for their tweet.”

According to the charges, Sun engaged in fraud by manipulating the trading of both tokens, which created the appearance of legitimate trading volume when it did not exist. Meanwhile, the unregistered ‘offer and sale’ charges are similar to those filed against Genesis, Gemini and Do Kwon’s Terraform Labs, CNBC reports.

“This case demonstrates again the high risk investors face when crypto asset securities are offered and sold without proper disclosure,” Gensler continued.

The celebrity backers promoted TRX and BTT on social media, and recruited others to join Tron-affiliated Discord and Telegram channels in what SEC enforcement chief Gurbir Grewal called part of an “age-old playbook to mislead and harm investors.”

“At the same time, Sun paid celebrities with millions of social media followers to tout the unregistered offerings, while specifically directing that they not disclose their compensation. This is the very conduct that the federal securities laws were designed to protect against regardless of the labels Sun and others used,” Grewal continued.

The eight celebrities and influencers were (via CNBC)

• actress Lindsay Lohan
• social-media personality Jake Paul
• musician DeAndre Cortez Way, also known as Soulja Boy
• musician Austin Mahone
• adult actress Michele Mason, known as Kendra Lust
• musician Miles Parks McCollum, known as Lil Yachty
• musician Shaffer Smith, also known as Ne-Yo
• musician Aliaune Thiam, also known as Akon

Everyone with the exception of Soulja Boy and Mahone agreed to a collective $400,000 payment in disgorgement, interest and penalties to settle the charges, which, were not an admittance or denial of guilt.

Authored by Kos Temenes via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A nationwide recall was issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The recall affects frozen strawberries that are potentially linked to a Hepatitis A outbreak and have been sold across various retailers.

According to the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC), a possible link was established after five cases related to an outbreak of Hepatitis A have been reported since March 13. In all cases, the affected individuals reportedly consumed frozen organic strawberries.

The reports of illnesses range from Nov. 24, 2022, to Dec. 17, 2022. Although no deaths have been reported, two people were hospitalized, according to the CDC.

The affected strawberries were distributed by California Splendor and Scenic Fruit Company of Gresham, Oregon, under various brand names in stores, including Costco, Aldi, KeHE, Vital Choice Seafood, and PCC Community Markets. A tropical fruit blend sold at Trader Joe’s is also subject to the recall.

Although the Hepatitis A virus (HAV) has not been detected on the products, the company and the FDA issued the recall as a precautionary measure following the reports to the CDC. Scenic Fruit Company and the FDA have cautioned consumers not to eat the strawberries if they have them in their freezer.

“Although Hepatitis A has not been detected on this product, out of an abundance of caution, consumers should stop consuming the product and return it to their local store for a refund. The company has ceased the production and distribution of the product as FDA and the company continue their investigation as to what caused the problem,” the FDA stated on its website. California Splendor and some of the other associated retailers also issued statements (pdf).

“California Splendor, Inc., in cooperation with the FDA, is voluntarily recalling select lot codes of this product due to an outbreak of Hepatitis A illnesses. Although Hepatitis A has not been detected in this product, out of an abundance of caution, consumers should stop consuming the food and return it to their local Costco for a full refund.”

“According to the latest information we have, there are no reported illnesses related to the recalled product. No other ALDI products are affected by this recall (pdf).”

“No illnesses have been reported to date, and all potentially affected product has been removed from sale and destroyed. If you purchased any Organic Tropical Fruit Blend, please do not eat it. We urge you to discard the product or return it to any Trader Joe’s for a full refund,” Trader Joe’s posted.

An investigation into the cause of the outbreak and how it could have contaminated the affected products is underway.

According to the FDA, the current outbreak may be linked to a previous recall by California Splendor in February. The company voluntarily recalled specific packs of 4-pound bags of Kirkland Signature Frozen Organic Whole Strawberries sold at Costco stores in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Hawaii.

The possible link was established as the current strain of Hepatitis and the previous strain are genetically identical, making the previously imported strawberries a likely source.

The expiry dates of the affected strawberries range from April 25, 2024, to Nov. 20, 2024, and were across multiple states:

• Simply Nature Organic Strawberries: 24 oz. size; UPC: 4099100256222; Best by date:  6/14/2024. Sold in Aldi stores in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
• Vital Choice Organic Strawberries: 16 oz. size; UPC: 834297005024; Best by date: 5/20/2024. Sold in Washington.
• Kirkland Signature Organic Strawberries: 4 lbs. size; UPC: 96619140404; Best by date:10/8/2024. They were sold in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
• Made With Organic Strawberries: 10 oz. size; UPC: 814343021390; Best by date: 11/20/2024. Sold in Illinois and Maryland.
• PCC Community Markets Organic Strawberries: 32 oz. size; UPC: 22827109469; Best by date: 10/29/2024. Sold in Washington.
• Trader Joe’s Organic Tropical Fruit Blend Pineapple, Bananas, Strawberries & Mango: 16 oz. size; UPC: 00511919; Best by dates: 04/25/24, 05/12/24, 05/23/24, 05/30/24, 06/07/24. Sold nationwide.

Hepatitis A is a contagious liver disease that results from exposure to the Hepatitis A virus. Symptoms can range from short-term and mild to severe, lasting several months. In some rare cases, those with pre-existing conditions or who are immune-compromised could experience liver failure.

According to the FDA, infection typically occurs within 15 to 50 days of ingesting contaminated food or water. Symptoms include fatigue, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, jaundice, dark urine, and pale stool.

Consumers may contact Scenic Fruit via email at customer.service@scenicfruit.com with any questions.