Author: admin

A CNN Director who went on five Tinder dates with an undercover operative for Project Veritas was caught on hidden camera expressing frustration over a spate of black-on-Asian hate crimes, while the network was ‘trying to help BLM.’

“I was trying to do some research on the Asian hate, like the people [who] are getting attacked and whatnot. A bunch of black men have been attacking Asians. I’m like ‘What are you doing? Like, we [CNN] are trying to help BLM,” said Technical Director, Charlie Chester. “I haven’t seen anything about focusing on the color of people’s skin that aren’t white. They [CNN] just aren’t saying anything. You know what I mean?”

“The optics of that are not good,” Charlie continues. “These [are] little things that are enough to set back movements, because the far left will start to latch on and create stories like ‘criminalizing an entire people,’ you know, just easier headlines that way, I guess.”

At what point, say during the fourth Tinder date, does a guy start to question whether he’s actually going to get laid?

More via Project Veritas:

Chester said he attempted to learn about Asian hate crimes and found that Black-on-Asian crime was high, but decided to refrain from delving deeper into the topic because it does not help Black Lives Matters’ narrative.

“I was trying to do some research on the Asian hate, like the people [who] are getting attacked and whatnot. A bunch of black men have been attacking Asians. I’m like ‘What are you doing? Like, we [CNN] are trying to help BLM,’” he said.

Chester continued, “The optics of that are not good. These [are] little things that are enough to set back movements, because the far left will start to latch on and create stories like ‘criminalizing an entire people,’ you know, just easier headlines that way, I guess.”

Chester admitted to a Veritas journalist that CNN refuses to report on racial issues, unless it directly implicates white people.

“I haven’t seen anything about focusing on the color of people’s skin that aren’t white. They [CNN] just aren’t saying anything. You know what I mean?”

CNN has been covering the Black Lives Matter riots taking place in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota consistently during the last three days. Chester’s revelations bring into question whether or not the network is impartial on the issue of race.

The technical director also corroborated what he said in earlier #ExposeCNN installments about propaganda and manipulating the public.

“You can shape an entire people’s perception about anything [depending] on how you do it,” Chester said.

In many ways, David Einhorn’s Greenlight appears to be back to its “new normal” – in a letter sent to investors, Einhorn writes that Greenlight again underperformed the market and returned -0.1% in the first quarter, badly underperforming the 6.2% return for the S&P 500 index.

That said, even though as Einhorn writes Greenlight made only a handful of portfolio changes and essentially broke even, “a lot happened. In general, the investment environment – especially from mid-February through the end of the quarter – was favorable as value outperformed growth, and interest rates and inflation expectations rose.”

He then asks if the tide has finally turned from Growth to Value, noting that “after a very tough decade, we have only just begun a recovery as shown in this 45-year chart from Goldman Sachs research:”

Part of the shift from growth to value, Einhorn writes, may be coming from higher inflation and inflation expectations. As measured by the inflation swap market, 10-year inflation expectations fell from 2.9% in September 2012 to 0.8% in March 2020. The only significant intervening bounce came in 2016, when expectations jumped from 1.5% to 2.3% on expectations of a major stimulus deal from the Trump admin (which never materialized). It is hardly a coincidence that that was the only year in the last decade in which value outperformed growth, as the Greenlight head notes. Fast forward to now, when after bottoming in March 2020, inflation expectations have recovered to 2.5%. The trend became clearer in the middle of May, and value started outperforming growth then, and especially since the middle of February. Indeed, aince May 15, the value-heavy Greenlight returned 80% of the S&P 500 index with half the net exposure.

Einhorn is even more optimistic about the future when it comes to the “growth to value” rotation:

When the time comes, we will have to figure out how to perform better in deflationary periods. But for now, we believe inflation is only going one way – higher – and we are optimistic about our prospects. The wind is now at our backs. The economy is in full recovery mode. Household balance sheets are stronger than they have been in a long time and household income growth was up 13% in February compared to last year. And this is before the latest $1.9 trillion – with a “T” – pandemic relief stimulus. Corporate capital spending is booming. There are shortages and bottlenecks everywhere. Last month nearly one million jobs returned. There are signs of an emerging labor shortage.

As for the Fed, the Greenlight boss writes that “it fundamentally changed its framework last August. It no longer seems to care that monetary policy works with a lag. Actually, it has embraced an asymmetrical inflation policy: The Fed wants to be ahead of the curve on the downside to protect the stock market and corporate bondholders the economy. Behind the curve is fine on the way up no matter how frothy the stock market the recovery is. Now, it says it is only going to react to actual inflation that exceeds its 2% target for a period of time.”

The letter then goes on to muse how the Fed will know when it is blowing the next bubble, and to stop:

… the Fed has indicated that it believes any abnormally high inflation will be transitory. We wonder, how will the Fed know? Do price increases come with a label that says “transitory”? Our sense is that no matter how hot inflation gets in the coming months, the Fed will continue with zero interest rates and large-scale asset purchases. After all, the U.S. Treasury has a lot of debt to sell and it isn’t clear who, other than the Fed, can absorb the supply.

It’s not just Powell who is throwing caution to the wind: so are such mainstream econ “experts” as John Oliver:

The bipartisan idea that deficits don’t matter has even reached popular culture. John Oliver dedicated an entire episode of Last Week Tonight to browbeating anyone who is concerned about the growing national debt. His argument boiled down to: (1) nobody knows how much debt is too much; (2) we have a good need to spend money now; and (3) it won’t be a problem until inflation shows up, and we can deal with it then.

To this, Einhorn’s response is simple: “Though one can debate whether the official government statistics are contrived to avoid capturing inflation” – and as we have repeatedly noted, inflation is now decidedly a political measurement, one which has been gamed for decades to make it appears as low as possible “shortages and bottlenecks accompanied by rising demand can only be solved through increased capacity and higher prices. We have also reset the baseline income for non-working adults; it will take higher wages to bring those marginally attached to the labor force back to work.”

Concluding this part of the letter, Einhorn writes that while the Fed says it has the tools to fight inflation (and according to Bernanke can cut it in 15 minutes), “it remains to be seen if it will have the stomach to use them when the time comes. That is a discussion for another day. Right now, we remain positioned for rising inflation and inflation expectations.“

The Greenlight letter then goes on to lay out just how it plans to capture these rising inflation expectations, listing its top positions as follows, and how they performed in the frist quarter:

• Brighthouse Financial (BHF, +22%) benefitted from rising interest rates;
• Danimer Scientific (DNMR, +61%) began its life as a public company;
• Concentrix (CNXC, +52%) benefitted from strong demand and rising estimates;
• Resideo Technologies (REZI, +33%) was helped by the strong housing market;
• Change Healthcare (CHNG, +18%) agreed to be acquired by UnitedHealthcare;
• AerCap Holdings (AER, +29%) agreed to acquire GE Capital’s aircraft leasing business (GECAS) at a discount; and
• An undisclosed healthcare short (-41%) fell due to reduced government reimbursement for its product.

(incidentally, at quarter-end, Greenlight’s largest disclosed long positions were Atlas Air Worldwide, Brighthouse Financial, Change Healthcare, Danimer Scientific and Green Brick Partners, with a net average exposure of 118% long and 81% short).

Which is not to say that there were no glitches. One was underperformance by homebuilder and land-developer GRBK, the fund’s largest position (more on this in the full letter below). The other performance drag was – as usual- Greenlight’s short portfolio.

What follows next is a tour de force from Einhorn slamming all the ways the market is broken, and how the Reddit insanity of Q1 exposed it for all to see:

In late January, the market came to focus on companies with large short interests. Despite having a diversified portfolio, a number of our positions fell into this group and experienced sudden, sharp rises. We adjusted to the dynamic by reducing our exposure to single name shorts, both in number and sizing. To mitigate the potentially uncomfortable net long bias that would have resulted, we added macro hedges of market index and index option shorts. While we do not expect this to be a permanent change, we will evaluate and modify as we go. The performance of our short portfolio in 2020 and in early 2021 was unacceptable, so change is certainly needed. If we swing a little less hard, we should hit more balls. We have also revised our internal analyst incentive structure to fully emphasize alpha creation.

Much has been made of the short-squeezes in late January. In fact, Congress held hearings, where it called the leaders of Robinhood, Melvin Capital and Citadel and an individual investor who made a great call on GameStop (GME) to testify. We have a few thoughts about this to share.

First, it is very healthy for market participants to discuss and debate stocks. This is true both privately and publicly. There are rules about fraud and manipulation that need to be followed, but investors discussing why they think GME (or any other stock) should go up or down ought to be encouraged. There is no reason to drag anyone before Congress for making a stock pick.

Second, it is also fine to make bad stock picks. If a hedge fund takes a big position in a stock and is wrong, it loses money. Isn’t this how it is supposed to work?

Third, payment for order flow is just disguised commissions. We are in a world where consumers, especially young ones, expect internet services to be free, or at least free to them. A quote widely attributed to Richard Serra about commercial TV in 1973 says it best: “You’re not the customer; you’re the product.” If you want the broker to work for you, pay a commission.

Fourth, Robinhood suspended trading in certain stocks because it was undercapitalized. It is possible that it wasn’t following the regulatory requirements. A regulatory sanction is probably appropriate – but as we’ll discuss below, we won’t be holding our breath.

And the punchline: Einhorn slamming Chamath and Elon for pouring the “real jet fuel” on the GME squeeze:

Finally, we note that the real jet fuel on the GME squeeze came from Chamath Palihapitiya and Elon Musk, whose appearances on TV and Twitter, respectively, at a critical moment further destabilized the situation. Mr. Palihapitiya controls SoFi, which competes with Robinhood, and left us with the impression that by destabilizing GME he could harm a competitor. As for Mr. Musk, we are going to defend him, half-heartedly. If regulators wanted Elon Musk to stop manipulating stocks, they should have done so with more than a light slap on the wrist when they accused him of manipulating Tesla’s shares in 2018. The laws don’t apply to him and he can do whatever he wants.

Many who would never support defunding the police have supported – and for all intents and purposes have succeeded – in almost completely defanging, if not defunding, the regulators. For the most part, quasi-anarchy appears to rule in markets. Sure, Dr. Michael Burry, famed for his role in The Big Short, reportedly received a visit from the SEC after tweeting warnings about recent market trends – and decided to stop publicly speaking truth to power. But for the most part, there is no cop on the beat. It’s as if there are no financial fraud prosecutors; companies and managements that are emboldened enough to engage in malfeasance have little to fear.

Einhorn then concludes with three anecdotes to demonstrate his argument that this is not only an “anything goes” market where crime is rampant, but proving just how broken the market has become.

First, consider the investigation of Tether by the Office of the Attorney General of New York (OAG). As Einhorn explains, “tether is a cryptocurrency that is always worth a dollar (the value is “tethered” to the dollar). Tether is one of the largest cryptocurrencies with about $40 billion outstanding, yet it has not been audited or regulated in any serious manner. In theory, Tether is supposed to have $1 of cash backing every Tether issued. Except it didn’t, at least when it was investigated.” Incidentally, for anyone still confused, Tether is how the Chinese launder billions in domestic funds abroad and outside the Chinese firewall as we explained in December, although so far few have the desire to expose this reality. In any case, here is Einhorn’s lament:

The OAG conducted a two-year probe and found that Tether deceived clients and the market by overstating reserves and hiding approximately $850 million of losses around the globe. Tether and its sponsor, Bitfinex, “recklessly and unlawfully covered up massive financial losses to keep their scheme going and protect their bottom lines,” said the OAG. Further, “Tether’s claims that its virtual currency was fully backed by U.S. dollars at all times was a lie.”

Did the OAG shut down Tether? Did anyone get arrested or even lose their job? Was the regulatory infrastructure changed to make sure this doesn’t happen again? No, of course not. The OAG assessed an $18.5 million penalty and Tether agreed to discontinue “any trading activity with New Yorkers.” It was as if Bernie Madoff had been told to pay a small fine and stop ripping off New Yorkers, but to go ahead and have fun with the Palm Beach crowd.

Einhorn next focuses on some of the insane moves observed in pennystocks in Q1, focusing on a tiny deli owner in rural NJ:

Strange things happen to all kinds of stocks. Last year, on one day in June, the stocks of about a dozen bankrupt companies roughly doubled on enormous volume. Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported a boom in penny stocks.

Someone pointed us to Hometown International (HWIN), which owns a single deli in rural New Jersey. The deli had $21,772 in sales in 2019 and only $13,976 in 2020, as it was closed due to COVID from March to September. HWIN reached a market cap of $113 million on February 8. The largest shareholder is also the CEO/CFO/Treasurer and a Director, who also happens to be the wrestling coach of the high school next door to the deli. The pastrami must be amazing. Small investors who get sucked into these situations are likely to be harmed eventually, yet the regulators – who are supposed to be protecting investors – appear to be neither present nor curious.

We don’t find it at all surprising that Einhorn’s conclusion from his capital markets observations over the past quarter is identical to ours, when we discussed the insane stock moves that dominated much of January and February:

“From a traditional perspective, the market is fractured and possibly in the process of breaking completely.”

Einhorn’s full letter is below:

Four months ago, Eric Peters, CIO Of One River Asset Management, executed a $600 million purchase of bitcoin, then the largest public transaction to date, with the blessing of Brevan Howard’s Alan Howard (the firm recently acquired a 25% stake in One River Asset Management).

At the time, we noted that Howard was playing a number of supporting roles. In addition to investing in One River Digital’s funds, he’s also buying a stake in the business. A company he controls, Elwood Asset Management, is providing One River Digital with trading services, market analysis and technical support.

On a side note, another investor with One River Digital, Ruffer LLP – the fund that is the home of infamous VIX whale ’50-cent’ –  disclosed a 2.5% position in Bitcoin in one of its funds, describing it as “a small but potent insurance policy against the continuing devaluation of the world’s major currencies.”

In addition, two weeks ago, former SEC Chairman Jay Clayton confirmed he will advise One River Asset Management on cryptocurrencies.

So, with all that background, it is perhaps not entirely surprising that Bloomberg is reporting, according to a person with knowledge of the matter, that Brevan Howard Asset Management is preparing to start investing in digital assets.

The firm led by Aron Landy will begin by investing up to 1.5% of its $5.6 billion main hedge fund in digital assets.

Brevan Howard, best known for its macro trading prowess, is in expansion mode following a record year of gains.

Interestingly as Brevan Howard joins the likes of Paul Tudor Jones and Marc Lasry in the crypto-space among many others, we are reminded that One River’s Peters – with his links to Brevan Howard as detailed above – recently noted his preference for Ethereum, despite almost no one understanding what it is, now races toward becoming the foundation of a rearchitected global financial system.

…which may explain ETH’s recent dramatic outperformance of BTC…

We give Peters the last word:

“The hostile pundits, of course, see manias in all things digital. But throughout human history, not a single bubble ever burst when virtually no one understood what was going on. Rather, that was when the fun had only just begun.”

Trade accordingly.

Bank stocks slumped Thursday despite reporting huge beats on stellar trading revenues in Q1 (but mostly thanks to releasing billions loan loss reserves) and giving optimistic guidance.

In fact, Financials were the worst performing among the S&P 500 Index’s main sectors even after Bank of America and Citigroup joined JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs in reporting better-than-expected first-quarter trading revenue. BofA was among the biggest losers with a decline of as much as 4.2%, while Citigroup dropped by about 0.6%, erasing an earlier gain of 2.5%. Wells Fargo fell 1.9% and JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley were both down by less than 1%. Among regional banks US Bancorp and Truist Financial dropped after reporting earnings results.

Three reasons (or rather four) were cited as the catalyst of the swoon.

1. The first reason was the very sluggish loan growth (or rather, contraction), which was especially evident with Bank of America where deposits in the consumer banking unit soared by 25% to $924 billion (largely a result of $120BN in QE per month as we will show shortly), while loans fell 8% to $291 billion…

… which is also why the bank’s net interest income, tumbled 16% to $10.2 billion.

 

“Like all banks, BofA is waiting for loan growth, which was weak this quarter,” said Alison Williams, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst..

Additionally, customers have also been paying down holiday balances, with stimulus is contributing to paydowns. Needless to say, fewer loans is bad for banks who interest income comes form more loans being taken up by the broader public.

2. Bond yields tumbled across the curve, with the 10Y sliding 15bps this week alone and depressing band Net Interest Income, and pushing the KBW bank index 2.3% lower.

There were several reasons cited for the ongoing slide in yields despite the blockbuster economic data, one of which is that the market is now convinced that the Fed will indeed tolerate higher inflation and won’t tighten financial conditions for a long time as it has repeatedly said, although a much more likely reason for the sharp drop in yields is that as noted earlier, is that CTAs have been aggressively covering their short Treasury positions.

3. Value no longer. The third for the poor bank performance today was proposed by Bloomberg’s Heather Burke who says that following their impressive gains in Q1, banks have become expensive and results just weren’t good enough to justify their reputation as a value sector. In short, as we said earlier this week, banks – like so many other stocks – have been priced to (beyond) perfection going into earnings and no matter what they reported would be viewed as disappointing.

Consider this: while S&P 500 Banks’ 12-month fwd P/E at ~13 (nowhere near tech at ~27.6 or the S&P 500 at ~22.5), and has come come down from the recent 2020 peak of over 16, the P/E is a above the five-year average of ~11.8. Meanwhile, banks’ 12-month forward P/B, a metric some sector watchers prefer, at ~1.26 also sits above the ~1.12 average.

As Burke notes, while banks are nowhere near as frothy as, say tech, “their P/E ratios are being watched as a barometer of a post-pandemic economic and profit recovery. And, arguably, they’re being held to a high standard because of their dizzying run: banks are the best performing S&P 500 GICS 2 sector ytd after energy (another value play), both up over 20%.”

Burke concludes that as earnings season unfolds, this scrutiny can extend throughout the value sector. The S&P 500 Value index trades at a decent premium to its average P/E and it’s significantly trailed the growth index this month. Results can offer an easy reason to sell companies and sectors that got too hot too soon.

Authored by Paul Alexander via The American Institute for Economic Research,

To reject the creeping totalitarianism and dictatorship is the lifeblood of all freedom-loving individuals across the world. Those under despotic control yearn for freedom. We need only to look at the failing state of Hong Kong, where once freedom reigned and commerce enjoyed an unprecedented expansion of wealth and enviable quality of life, and now finds its democratic pursuits thwarted while it cowers under the dictates of Chinese Communism. 

CS Lewis said, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.” 

And it is with that in mind that we find ourselves both stunned and aghast concerning the fact that our Governments are even considering the issuance of what have become known as Covid-19 ‘vaccine passports.’ The very idea is anathema to our democratic principles and rights that are enshrined in the US Constitution as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights. The vaccine passports are being considered and/or introduced by various government bodies which will constrain the rights of citizens under the questionable guise of safety!

The Covid-19 pandemic era we face today has brought out the manifest nature of a government of bureaucrats and technocrats, who invoke safety and security of the public in a sly and unobtrusive manner to promote their agenda of surveillance and control. We have been struggling with unsound, unscientific, illogical, irrational, and specious societal lockdowns, shelter-in-place edicts, masking and mask mandates, and school closures. 

Businesses have been shuttered for good, homes lost, and many children and adults have engaged in heavy drug use to cope, self-harm, and even committed suicide. Deaths of despair are on the rise, while economic and related health injuries (many life-threatening and most life-altering), the crushing costs of the lockdowns have been extensive and some argue that the impacts will not be felt for months or years, but for the rest of the 21st century. Even at this point, were the lockdowns stopped instantaneously, we have locked in decades of suffering. 

Covid-19 vaccine passports, the latest insult in the unending stream of scientifically inapt actions as outlined above, is already driving extensive anguish and debate. These digital passports linked to one’s entire life experience with geolocated data and one’s personal medical information represents the latest intrusion and attack on our freedoms that have been put before the easily distracted populace. These passports are simply unjustifiable on any grounds, not the least of which is the fact that SARS CoV-2 is no more deadly on a population level than influenza. Ostensibly, the passports are designed to allow individuals to partake in everyday commerce and “life” with freedom. 

The same freedoms that each and every individual is entitled to under the Constitution and other bills of rights and freedoms in democratic societies by definition. And yet we now require a passport to exercise our ‘unalienable’ right? Absurd. While vaccine records were and still are a requirement for international travels where infectious diseases are common, this is as a safeguard for the traveler. But for citizens of the USA, and elsewhere, the requirement of a digital SARS CoV-2 injection passport has taken on a darker and sinister meaning. These passports are now being touted as a requirement for living a life within the country, our own country. This is simply a shattering idea. Public discourse is already available suggesting that one’s life could be essentially ‘shut down’ if one does not acquiesce to getting vaccinated in order to obtain a vaccine passport. Will these passports now constitute, as they have in the past under the governance of totalitarian regimes, the very currency for free existence? 

What are we about to do? There is even talk of immunity passports also known as ‘antibody passports’ with the concept of antibodies as a “declaration of immunity” or “golden passport” so as to return to routine work and travel. Yet, it is well known that insofar as immunity passports are concerned, antibody levels in people who’ve either had Covid-19, or have been vaccinated, wane after weeks to months. 

Hence even someone who should be completely eligible not only for a vaccine passport but in fact an ‘immunity’ passport would easily fail the tests required to obtain such a passport. We and others argue that such will drive the development of a heretofore unheard of (in the USA and Canada) caste system of the haves (have vaccine passports) and the have nots (don’t have vaccine passports). Liew stated “the introduction of immunity passports is beset with challenges, not least of which is the potential erosion of civil liberties, as travelers are stratified into the ‘immunoprivileged’ and the ‘immunodeprived.’ 

Experts have argued that the introduction of vaccine and/or immunization (antibody) passports must entail extensive debate that considers all of the moral, ethical and constitutional issues, including “a comprehensive assessment of benefits and harms, and what would least restrict individual liberties without significantly heightening the threat of Covid-19”. 

The ACLU has weighed in, sounding warnings that there are many harms that can arise with the introduction of vaccine passports, particularly the digitization of relevant information associated with the granting of those passports. The ACLU stated, “Given the enormous difficulty of creating a digital passport system, and the compromises and failures that are likely to happen along the way, we are wary about the side effects and long-term consequences it could have.” 

Perhaps Kofler has outlined the key troubling issues that include the unreliable nature of serological testing, the extent of erosion of privacy with monitoring, marginalized groups facing much more uneven scrutiny, unfair access, and the inevitable, societal stratification. 

The U.S. Government has stated that it will not invoke such a requirement as a Federal Standard, but it is clear that the government is not beyond giving tacit approval relating to the practical uses of such passports by businesses and all forms of commerce including travel. The government appears to be encouraging the private sector to force the requirement of vaccine passports as a mandate before an individual is able to utilize these corporate entity services. Even Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former head of the FDA (2017-2019) advocated for such passports by intimating that “digital proof would allow Americans to visit family in the hospital, not keep folks out of restaurants.” We consider Dr. Gottlieb’s recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal as being an egregiously harmful commentary that will lead to the coercion of the public into seeking and receiving questionably effective and still experimental vaccines, in order to obtain vaccine passports. This is nothing short of reckless. In this regard, Gottlieb has suggested that “passports would empower consumers by giving them more control over their own health information.” Does he not understand that we already have control over our own healthcare information and do not require oversight by ‘Big Brother?’ Indeed, we believe that even George Orwell would be dumbfounded by such an opinion. 

There are many unanswered questions, many troubling ethical and privacy concerns, especially since this type of digitized governmental oversight regarding our health has no precedent (and by the way, it won’t stop there; think about China’s social credit system!). A vaccine passport is unnecessary and unacceptably invasive and represents grave overreach in our opinion. We have already been subjected to vaccines that are causing adverse events and in some instances, deaths, as per the CDC’s own VAERS reporting system. These adverse events and deaths must be thoroughly investigated, and very rapidly, so that the public can get clarity on the risks (the validity of these reports) as the risk information has been held back from the public. 

Even if the vaccines eventually show themselves to be completely harmless, safe and effective, which we all pray for, it is wholly unethical to require proof of vaccination in the first place as a general principle, and even more so concerning the fact that as of this writing, all vaccinations for SARS-CoV-2 are still considered experimental!

What is even more jarring to our sense of liberty is the additional imposition of censorship of thoughts expressed on paper or social media, particularly of course thoughts that challenge the current narratives. It seems that corporate giants with multibillions of dollars in revenue gained from sharing individual user’s personal data are hard at work to bring the entire society under their umbrella, now including personal health data! Even though a private enterprise is in point of fact free to limit the use of its facilities to anyone, we hold that state governments can still, and are obliged to enact laws to prevent such private enterprise overreaches that are tantamount to mass discrimination, thus also making the vaccine passports discriminatory by their very nature. And as one would imagine, objections to so-called vaccine passports are also mounting in the United Kingdom, where freedom loving individuals are expressing their outrage via podcasts.

The airlines, such as United Airlines, are enthusiastically leaning towards the requirement of a vaccine passport prior to gaining entry to a flight. The cruise line industry , including governments such as Australia, Denmark and other European nations, are actively seeking such mandates as a means to ensure safety with such demands. But in reality this is pure theatre and safety is definitely unimportant insofar as their judgements are concerned. 

The folly of these requirements becomes very striking when one considers that we do not require vaccination passports for smallpox, influenzas, tuberculosis (TB; an emerging crisis regarding the development of multidrug resistant TB). Microsoft, meanwhile has developed an Excelsior Pass in New York that would ostensibly be used on a voluntary basis but has run into trouble with regard to reliability and implementation. Its use portends an extreme degree of surveillance of an individual’s freedom by a private enterprise and simultaneously allows the government to accumulate data for its own ‘potentially’ questionable goals. 

One wonders whether restaurants will monitor for such a passport from their patrons, a retail store for that matter, or a sporting facility. If such private mandates are allowed, there will of necessity exist two tiers of citizenry, those with and those without such passports. The latter will come under harder scrutiny for all transactional pursuits in their lives and might even be considered as “dissidents,” a societal classification that is generally applied to people who oppose a totalitarian regime. Imagine that! Someone can be accused of being a dissident, or even perhaps an insurrectionist if the person does not have a vaccine passport! The class warfare will then also include those vaccinated versus those unvaccinated added to the repertoire of rich and poor, white and black, privileged versus non-privileged, and other divisive nonsense employed to destroy a society and pit brother against brother, friend against friend, neighbor against neighbor.

The educational industry and other corporations are gearing up legal defenses against any resistance to the launch of vaccine passports. The challenge might come from the courts, as long as the judges have free will and use the Constitution as the founding document of liberty and freedom in the United States for informing and substantiating their decisions.

We suggest that developing countries will suffer the most, economically, from such mandates as lower income countries that do not have the vaccine in supply will be targeted by the developed nations and prohibited from visiting the wealthy countries that have the vaccines. The testing for immune status, pre- and post-travel will create another onerous demand on the traveling public and will have a devastating impact on the travel industry with an equally devastating effect on businesses that thrive as a result of a robust travel industry.

On one hand it seems that many world governments and global corporations are in favour of vaccine passports and yet, the World Health Organization does not support the Vaccine Passports for…now. “We as WHO are saying at this stage we would not like to see the vaccination passport as a requirement for entry or exit because we are not certain at this stage that the vaccine prevents transmission…” It is only a matter of time before international pressures from totalitarian governments before the WHO likely changes this opinion unfortunately.

There are several scientific reasons for arguing against the use of vaccine passports that go beyond the impact such actions will have on our human rights. We bring to the fore some thoughts regarding the vaccines. The vaccines as designed so far do not protect an individual by the provision of “sterilizing immunity.” By sterilizing immunity we mean that there is no further prospect of either getting infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus after a vaccination nor of passing along the virus to others. It has been suggested that the vaccines will limit the possibility of a (re)infection that might lead to hospitalization and even death. But for those who insist on ‘following the science,’ none of the vaccines have been shown in any way to reduce either hospitalization of death. 

On a related front though we point out that in some cases proof of vaccination is the norm. This could apply to individuals who must prove that they’ve been vaccinated against polio before going to a country where polio viral endemicity is for the safety of the individual and for the host country. The individual is deemed to be able to enter the country safely. This is decidedly not the case in the midst of a pandemic where the entire world has a circulating virus! 

In this regard, how does a vaccine passport help if the vaccine is impotent in protecting an individual from an infection and its furtherance through transmission, particularly when there is an ever-increasing font of mutant forms of, in our case, SARS-CoV-2 meaning that some vaccines are already being shown to be ineffective against certain variants/mutations? Such concepts are not reckless, but merely bring to fore the need to understand basic concepts of viral transmission in concert with important and in fact sacrosanct human liberties and freedoms. These outcomes have simply not been evaluated! 

In addition to the limitations discussed above, there are other sequelae as a consequence of the vaccination that we have alluded to in the past that need consideration. Using this information then to mandate a policy by the airline industry and other private commercial entities is duplicitous at best and discriminatory at worst. Such augury laced with the term “for the public good,” needs a reconciliation of sorts. The future envisioned seems to be more destined to benefit private corporations and their leaders as well as the government, and less to protect the individual. The term “public good” that is currently being bandied about is really tantamount to mere virtue signaling from across various disciplines and in our opinion has little to do with the public good. 

Several States in the United States have shown a resolve against the premise of the vaccine passports. These include Texas, Tennessee, Florida, Mississippi at present. But surely more will follow their lead as more information and resistance from the populace comes to bear. The public must be resolute and stand up and say NO. Under no conditions shall we accept this level of government or corporate control of our lives, particularly in light of the harms and lack of benefit! 

We raise this issue out of concern for the very basic freedoms we hold so dearly and the potential destruction that waits should this go forward. We urge strong urgent debate on this, but populations must act now as we debate, by standing up against any more draconian intrusions by their governments. The devastating pandemic response by governments and their often illogical, unscientific, unsound, and often absurd expert medical advisors (Task Forces) and television medical experts have left lives and societies in ruin. Children have suffered losses that some argue will never be recovered in their lifetimes. Vaccine passports promise to dwarf what we have witnessed across the last year due to the unintended consequences and collateral damage related to our ill-informed responses to SARS-CoV-2!

*  *  *

Contributing Authors

• Paul E Alexander MSc PhD, McMaster University and GUIDE Research Methods Group, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada elias98_99@yahoo.com

• Howard C. Tenenbaum DDS, Dip. Perio., PhD, FRCD(C) Centre for Advanced Dental Research and Care, Mount Sinai Hospital, and Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada howard.tenenbaum@sinaihealth.ca

• Dr. Parvez Dara, MD, MBA, daraparvez@gmail.com

Following rumors that discussion of a new GOP push to regulate big tech dominated a recent gathering of party leaders at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, a memo describing a broad new push to regulate big tech, entitled the “Big Tech Accountability Platform”, has leaked to CNBC and a handful of other media outlets on Thursday.

The platform aims to bring “much needed reform and oversight” to big tech – that is, firms earning more than $1 billion per year – and has been leaked to the press after being circulated among GOP staffers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

NEW: GOP lawmakers are circulating a memo of legislative options to rein in Big Tech following the CEO hearing last month:https://t.co/l8zM39aDCo

— Ylan Q. Mui (@ylanmui) April 15, 2021

Among the highlights:

•Target companies w/$1B+ revenue
•Carve out Big Tech from Sec. 230, especially if they use targeted behavioral advertising
•Require five-year “authorizations”
•Require appeals process

— Ylan Q. Mui (@ylanmui) April 15, 2021

Rs also want to expand protections for kids and enhance disclosures, with focus on mental health.

This was a surprising focus of GOP questioning at CEO hearing last month, when @cathymcmorris called social media platforms “her biggest fear” as a parent.

— Ylan Q. Mui (@ylanmui) April 15, 2021

Most critically, the memo – which is the first sign of a new GOP effort to take on big tech following the latest round of Congressional Hearings – calls for reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Measures discussed include scrapping its provisions entirely, or imposing a 5-year reauthorization period. It would also require social media companies responsible for moderating and “addressing” illegal drug sales, child exploitation, harassment, terrorism and counterfeit goods, with the risk of an FTC enforcement fine if they fail.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey

Though it’s merely an outline from which staffers will ideally craft a full-fledged bill, it also marks the first action from GOP after lawmakers interrogated the CEOs of Facebook, Google, and Twitter Inc in late March over misinformation on their platforms.

Among other measures, the memo calls for limiting the “right of exclusion” – that is, the ability of social media companies like Twitter and Facebook to ban users (with President Trump’s still-ongoing social media ban still in effect). The measure would classify these companies as “places of public accommodation”.

While the reform plan would make social media companies liable for content on their platforms, it also calls for plenty of wiggle room for big tech companies who do attempt to moderate users’ content.

When big tech does target users, the law would require tech firms to allow unhappy users the ability to easily appeal decisions made to censor them.

Moving to the subject of transparency, the plan would require Big Tech firmsto submit a detailed description of their content management policies to the FTC, including information about how they were developed, any changes to such policies, the processes for making content decisions, and a clear and timely appeals process for challenging content that is flagged, removed, or altered.

Cooperation with law enforcement would be made mandatory for the tech firms. Not only would the firms be responsible for creating easy to use resources for users to report potential safety threats, but the platforms would be made liable to report any criminal activity, or suspicions of criminal activity, to the company.

Readers can find the full memo below:

2021.04.15 Big Tech Memo Staff Legislative Concepts by Joseph Adinolfi Jr. on Scribd

Chip giant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. is now warning that the global chip shortage may extend into next year, following comments we had reported on in early April suggesting that prices would rise for the rest of 2021.

TSMC didn’t rule out the possibility of “overbooking or an inventory correction”, Bloomberg reported, but the chip giant said on its most recent conference call that “the shortage will continue throughout this year and may be extended into 2022 also.”

Recall, in early April we noted that semi chip prices were expected to rise through all of 2021. This month alone, suppliers like Japan’s top silicone producer, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. marked up prices between 10% and 20%, according to Caixin, who reported that growing input costs and supply disruptions could be tide that continues to push up prices. 

One Jiangsu diode manufacturer said it’s suppliers had raised prices five times since the second half of 2020. The hikes represented a total markup of between 30% and 40%, including a new 10% hike that came into effect last week. The same firm’s inventory was at “half their normal level”, Caixin reported.

Last week, we had noted that smartphone sales in China had risen in March by 67.7% despite the shortage. According to the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology, smartphone shipments were up 67.7% year over year for March. The huge comp was mostly helped along by last March’s lockdowns across most of Asia due to the pandemic – despite the shortage.

Days prior to that, we were writing how the automotive industry in China had also returned back to its pre-pandemic levels – despite the shortage. Recall, the China Passenger Car Association released auto sales numbers last Friday, indicating that sales are back to levels they were at two years ago, despite still being far below the country’s record set in March 2018. 

But we have written for the last couple months about how the semi shortage has wreaked chaos on the auto industry – and other industries – so far in 2021.

Just weeks ago we noted that Samsung was the latest to join the chorus of companies stating they were being negatively affected by the semi shortage. The company said the current crisis is “very serious” and that it “poses a slight problem” for the electronics company heading into the second quarter. The company continues to try and address supply issues, Reuters reported that CEO and mobile chief Koh Dong-jin said at Samsung’s recent annual general meeting.

Recently, we also wrote about how difficult it was becoming for U.S. companies to export chipmaking hardware to China due to trade restrictions. We also documented weeks ago how critical Taiwan would be in getting the semiconductor industry back up and running. We noted that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing was rushing to try and build new facilities through the Chinese New Year in order to meet demand. 

TSMC is one of the biggest suppliers of chips to company like Apple, Google and Qualcomm. As a result of a worldwide shortage in chips that was brought on due to the pandemic, they are now rushing to try and get a new factory in the southern Taiwanese city of Tainan built. Construction the new facility will take place throughout 2021, with completion expected in 2022. 

Earlier in 2021 we noted that the semi situation had been turning dire and was now being referred to as the “most serious shortage in years”.

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

The National Black Lives Matter organisation is threatening legal action against one of its own activists after he called for an independent investigation into how finances are being spent, following revelations concerning co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors’ property spending binge, and further money raking activities.

As we highlighted yesterday, Hawk Newsome, who heads up a Black Lives Matter group in Greater New York City, made the call for an investigation, telling the New York Post “If you go around calling yourself a socialist, you have to ask how much of her own personal money is going to charitable causes.”

Newsome said “black firms and black accountants” should conduct an audit on BLM Global Network Foundation to “find out where the money is going.”

“It’s really sad because it makes people doubt the validity of the movement and overlook the fact that it’s the people that carry this movement,” Newsome added.

After labelling the developments a “false and dangerous story” being pushed by “right wing forces” and “white supremacists”, it has now emerged that BLM is attempting to silence other black activists who are speaking out.

The Daily Caller sought comments from BLM, and the group claimed that Newsome “is not and has never been a part of the official Black Lives Matter organization, but continues to use BLM’s name even after sending him multiple cease and desist letters. Therefore, any mention of him as a leader is not factual.”

BLM’s communications arm further noted that “Only BLM chapters who adhere to BLM’s principles and code of ethics are permitted to use the BLM name.”

Responding to the comments, Newsome said:

“So the issue has become my affiliation and not the use of funds. Interesting.”

The Daily Caller report also notes that BLM does not own any rights to the name ‘Black Lives Matter’, that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office routinely rejects applications to trade mark the name, and that Newsome registered his own organization, Black Lives Matter Greater New York, as a business entity in December 2016.

“This movement belongs to the people,” Newsome commented, adding “It is for the people and by the people. It is the people that take to the streets and march in the name of BLM. No one has ownership of that. It is the equivalent of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. claiming ownership of the civil rights movement.”

When The Daily Caller presented these facts to the BLM spokesperson, the group began back peddling, noting “We are saying [Newsome] is not affiliated with BLM Global Network Foundation,”

“There may be individuals who include the words ‘Black Lives Matter’ in their organizational names, but they are not affiliated with BLMGNF. Does that make sense?” the spokesperson added.

The case continues to evolve, but it is clear that grassroots activists are now questioning the validity of those at the top of the BLM pyramid.

*  *  *

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

*  *  *

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.

Iran is warning that it doesn’t plan to let nuclear negotiations “drag on” and has threatened to cut talks short if they are “not constructive”. The fresh warning from Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi comes the same day Tehran has initiated its uranium enrichment process up to 60% purity as retaliation for Sunday’s Natanz nuclear facility sabotage attack, widely blamed on Israel. 

The country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei weighed in on this note with forceful words Wednesday, saying, “The talks shouldn’t become talks of attrition,” and that they “shouldn’t be in a way that parties drag on and prolong the talks. This is harmful to the country.” This is a signal to Washington that it’s running out of time for sanctions relief, which is Iran’s singular demand for even coming to the table for “direct” talks (interaction with the US team in Vienne is only happening “indirectly”). 

Of course one major concern looming large in the background is that so long as no agreement for the US to rejoin the JCPOA is reached (which for Iran means Washington dropping all sanctions), Israel is believed poised to continue its brazen and aggressive campaign to sabotage the deal, likely targeting more Iranian tankers or military vessels akin to last week’s Red Sea Israeli operation against the Saviz ship.

Indeed the more talks drag on the more likely a provocation between Israel and Iran is likely to “complicate” Vienna dealings and ultimately cancel out any progress made. As a case in point, Iran’s President Rouhani has issued a hugely inflammatory scenario on Thursday as yet the latest in an escalation of threatening rhetoric: 

Iran’s president said on Thursday that his country was capable of enriching uranium up to 90% “if we wanted to”, but it was not on Iran’s agenda, state TV reported.

Hassan Rouhani was responding to concerns by European countries over Tehran’s announcement it had started 60% uranium enrichment in light of an attack on its Natanz facility.

As a reminder 90% purity is precisely the level required to build a nuclear bomb. 

Rouhani is making threats today to scare U.S. into a quick return to #Iran JCPOA, warning Tehran can begin uranium enrichment at 90 percent even now, but it stands by its “pledge” not to build nuclear weapons. Khamenei has made similar statements in past.https://t.co/4sv72aroUI

— Jason Brodsky (@JasonMBrodsky) April 15, 2021

Despite the words which are sure to raise the alarm in Tel Aviv, possibly provoking more military action against Iranian facilities, Rouhani again reiterated the Islamic Republic’s official position that it’s not interested in pursuing nuclear weapons, but that it’s program is for peaceful energy purposes. 

“Therefore, the concerns raised by the US and Europe… and the perception that the 60% enrichment means moving towards 90%, is not true; It is wrong to think that we are paving the way for the production of atomic bombs,” Rouhani said Thursday.