iftttwall

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Award-winning journalist Alex Newman, author of the popular book “Deep State,” says there is a not-so-secret plan to destroy everything in America and everything it stands for. 

Newman contends it is the only way for evil globalists to have the tyrannical New World Order they dream of. 

The evil destroyers of freedom and liberty around the world will be talking about the demise of America at the globalist COP28 conference in Dubai, UAE this week.  Newman explains,

“This is all part of the agenda.  What we are watching now is the deliberate destruction of the American middle-class and the deliberate destruction of the American economy.  

Ultimately, if these evil doers get their way, it will result in the deliberate destruction of the United States of America.  We are talking about the controlled demolition of our economy, our military might and everything we hold dear.  This has been known at the highest levels of government for a long time…

During the Trump Administration, they had Rich Higgens on the National Security Counsel, and he put together the ‘Higgens Memo.’  People should read this.  

He talked about the global alliance of globalists, communists, socialists and Islamists who are all working in unison for the goal of destroying the United States of America.

This is not just as a nation, says Higgens, but even as an ideal. 

They want to shift global power over to China and over to the United Nations to gradually and then suddenly destroy the United States.  

They don’t just want to destroy this country, they also want to destroy the ideas and principles it is founded upon because it is simply not compatible with this one world system they want. 

George Soros told us what the New World Order was going to look like 10 years ago.  He told the Financial Times that China needed to own the New World Order in the same way the United States owns the current one.”

Newman says Donald Trump is not part of the New World Order, and he dismantled much of it during his Presidency. 

Newman says,

“Donald Trump is the first President in a century who did not go to this weird club of elitists such as Bohemian Grove.  He never went to Bilderberg.  He was never involved with the Council on Foreign Relations.  Trump did not participate in the Trilateral Commission.  He was not recruited in the ‘Scull and Bones’ at Yale like John Kerry, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. 

He was just not part of the club… Trump was not controlled by these people. 

They were able to manipulate him on some key things like the CV19 shots and the MCA, but ultimately, they did not feel like they could control him. 

He was an outsider.  This is why they are absolutely petrified of him coming back now.”

The news is not all bad as Newman says he is seeing a huge backlash from all sectors to the New World Order agenda.  Newman explains,

“There is an enormous backlash building.  Just go out and talk to regular people.  Turn off the boob tube, and this is not even propaganda, it is psychological terrorism. 

Turn it off and talk to real people…

What you will find is normal people who can’t tell you about the Bohemian Grove, the Council on Foreign Relations or the climate scam, but they can tell you ‘we are being lied to.’ 

Life is getting increasingly difficult.  My spouse and I are both working with two jobs, and we still can’t make ends meet.  We can’t pay the mortgage.  Food costs are going up.  They know that this is not normal. 

They know that we have a uniparty with Kevin McCarthy who showed up at the Bohemian Grove just before he was ousted as Speaker of the House. 

You have an incredible awareness from people that we are being looted, robbed, deceived and that our country is being betrayed. 

You don’t have to watch the fake media to be aware of all those things. 

I am encouraged by the awareness of people and the polling data that virtually nobody believes the media.”

There is much more in the 40-minute interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with hard-hitting journalist Alex Newman, founder of LibertySentinel.org and author of the book “Deep State” that explains it all for 12.02.23.

*  *  *

To Donate to USAWatchdog.com Click Here

Newman’s website is called LibertySentinel.org.  There is lots of free information and articles. For a copy of Alex Newman’s popular book “Deep State,” click here,

A petroleum tanker, part of a global “shadow fleet” of vessels, hauled upwards of a million barrels of Venezuelan oil and ran aground near Singapore. Blomberg reported that this incident occurred shortly after the tanker falsified its location to avoid detection.

The 23- year-old oil tanker, “Liberty,” was sailing under the Cameroon flag and ran aground on Sunday. An Indonesian navy spokesman said an investigation into Liberty is underway. 

Satellite research from TankerTrackers said the vessel was ‘spoofing’ its location in October, making it appear as if the ship was off the coast of West Africa while actually filling up on sanctioned oil in Venezuela. 

TankerTrackers said this is the second time a shadow fleet tanker has “run aground west of the Singapore Strait” in 14 months. 

For the 2nd time in 14 months, yet another Dark Fleet tanker has run aground west of the Singapore Strait. The vessel has been identified as LIBERTY (9207027).

According to our research, she’s laden with nearly a million barrels of Venezuelan fuel oil.https://t.co/JulhoMGgiK

— TankerTrackers.com, Inc. (@TankerTrackers) December 8, 2023

Bloomberg pointed out that hundreds of tankers are part of the shadow fleet that allows Venezuela, Iran, and Russia to ship their US-sanctioned crude and crude products around the world.

The International Maritime Organization recently warned about shadow fleets operating outside international regulation, usually with no insurance, calling it a “grave concern” to the environmental safety and welfare of crews and countries that reside on coastlines. 

The dangers posed by the dark fleet were realized earlier this year when a tanker called “Pablo,” which was thought to be transporting Iranian oil, caught fire off the coast of Malaysia. 

This could be the tip of the iceberg as the growth in the shadow fleet soars, mainly because the US has been on a sanctioning spree against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.  

Authored by Michael Matulef via BitcoinMagazine.com,

The nature of money is tragically one of the most unexamined and vital questions in modern society. Over the course of history, different monetary systems have risen and fallen as technology progressed and new forms of money emerged that were superior to what came before.

To help us understand money, we must examine the question: “who controls the ledger?” As we explore the technological history of money and its various incarnations, from informal social credit to commodity-backed systems, we can gain insight into how control over the monetary ledger impacts individual liberty, economic prosperity, and human flourishing.

In the Austrian tradition, figures like Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and many others have written extensively about the function of money. At its core, money enables indirect exchange as a medium to facilitate transactions. In small communities, social credit systems can adequately regulate resources through direct exchange. However, as these communities grow, indirect exchange through money becomes essential. Expanding the division of labor and specialization requires more complex economic calculations. The increasing sophistication of wants necessitates indirect transactions between distant parties. Most crucially, direct exchange relies on trust and familiarity between counterparties, which erodes with scale. Money arose to enable growing communities to reap the benefits of economic expansion through indirect exchange. Without sound money, rising productivity and specialization cannot be effectively coordinated. The Austrian tradition recognizes how critical the monetary framework is in an evolving economy.

Naturally, certain commodities are selected as monies within the market economy due to their optimal monetary properties as a monetary technology. Said differently, The most salable good, which has the lowest rate of declining marginal utility will be chosen to facilitate indirect trade. The primary monetary properties of scarcity, durability, portability, divisibility, fungibility, and verifiability give way to the salability of goods across time and space. Sea shells, beads, silver, and gold are all examples of different commodities that have historically been used as different mediums of exchange for their respective strengths in these monetary properties.

Lyn Alden, in her recent book, Broken Money: Why Our Financial System is Failing Us and How We Can Make it Better reexamines the question of what money is through her ledger theory of money. She writes:

“A ledger theory of money observes that most forms of exchange are improved by having a salable unit of account that can be held and transferred over both time and space, and that this unit of account implies the existence of a ledger, either literally or in the abstract. These monetary units and the ledger that defines them rely either on human administrators or on natural laws to maintain their stability across time and space.”

Through this lens, we can come to a better understanding of What Has Government Done to Our Money? The cumbersome nature of physical gold as a medium of exchange ultimately led to the adoption of paper currency, and eventually fiat money no longer backed by commodities. Storing, transporting, and verifying pure gold for transactions became increasingly impractical as economies grew and developed technologically. Gold’s weight and risk of theft made storage expensive. Assaying gold to verify purity was difficult for everyday commerce. And transporting adequate gold for large transactions was hazardous. Paper currency provided a lighter, more portable proxy for gold that was more practical for exchange. However, it still depended on central authorities securing adequate gold reserves to maintain convertibility. This constrained monetary policy, as the expansion of currency was limited by gold supplies. Over time, the constraints of gold convertibility frustrated governments and central banks. Suspending convertibility in 1971 allowed greater control over money supply and interest rates, providing more policy flexibility. But without commodity backing, fiat currency carries greater risks of inflation, hyperinflation, and other negative externalities. Alden continues:

“The technology of banking systems and paper banknotes in various denominations backed by gold improved gold’s effective divisibility. And then, in addition to exchanging paper, people could eventually “send” money over telecommunication lines to other parts of the world, using banks and their ledgers as custodial intermediaries. This was the gold standard – the backing of paper currencies and financial communication systems with gold.”

“For a gold-backed banking system, the only part of the ledger that individual users have control of is the precious metal coins that they retain in their own custody, and for that they rely on the properties of nature to maintain the integrity of the ledger. Once they surrender coins over to the banking system, they have begun to rely on a hierarchy of other people to control their money.”

In the context of Alden’s ledger theory, the supply of gold is controlled by nature and natural laws. Fiat, in contrast, is controlled by human administration and unequivocally by the State. This explanation is the simple answer to what the government has done to our money. The State has taken control of the monetary ledger away from natural law and used that power to facilitate its metastatic growth. Moreover, it has exerted this control as one of its exclusive monopoly privileges. As advocates for free markets, individual property rights, and the right to self-determination nothing is more imperative in our time than separating money from State. The great Friedrich A. Hayek, who advocated for the Denationalisation of Money, famously stated:

“I don’t believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can’t take it violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something that they can’t stop”

For the past 15 years, Bitcoin has emerged and continued to develop into a possible sly roundabout way that Hayek hypothesized. Initially and abstractly, Bitcoin was conceived of as a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. A decentralized ledger system utilizing cryptographic digital signatures to enforce the concept of perfect digital scarcity. Bitcoin, as a monetary unit, represents a digitally native bearer commodity asset, a truly revolutionary concept. In the context of Alden’s ledger theory of money, she writes:

“Gold has long been turned to as a form of defense and savings, but it’s not a useful transactional money in the digital age. The Bitcoin network presents a newer and faster alternative, where nobody can create bitcoin for free, and thus nobody has the power of seigniorage”

Bitcoin closes the speed gap between transactions and settlements. Ever since the invention and deployment of intercontinental telecommunication systems in the second half of the 19th century, transactions have been able to move around the world at the speed of light, while scarce, self-custodial bearer asset money (e.g., gold) could only be transported and verified at the speed of matter. This speed gap opened a massive arbitrage opportunity for banks and governments to use, because it gave them custodial monopolies over fast long-distance payments. Bitcoin represents the first significant way to settle scarce value at the speed of light.

While politics can impact how we interact with money locally and temporarily, it’s technology that impacts how we interact with money globally and permanently. As new technologies come into existence, certain types of ledgers become obsolete and go extinct while new types of ledgers are born and become necessary. That’s why new forms of money tend to be adopted everywhere rather than just locally. As the world became increasingly industrialized, gold won out over every other commodity. And then as the world became increasingly connected by telecommunication systems, fiat currencies displaced gold in every country. Now that digital scarcity and digital settlement exist as new forms of technology, there is an opening for a new monetary era yet again.”

Today Bitcoin’s usage is primarily that of a store of value asset. One possible explanation for this is Gresham’s Law, which states that when two forms of currency have equal face value, the one perceived as less valuable will circulate more widely while the more valuable one will be hoarded. This helps explain Bitcoin’s current role – its capped supply and volatile valuation make it “good money” for holding as an asset, while fiat currencies with less perceived worth remain the common medium of exchange. However, Bitcoin’s monetary status could evolve if adoption increases.

CONCLUSION:

Studying monetary history reveals that the evolution of money reflects advancements in technology. Societies have selected different monetary mediums based on the strength of their monetary properties – their salability across both time and space. Examining who controls the ledger for each monetary system also provides useful insight. Natural laws governed the ledger of commodities like gold. However, the advent of telecommunications enabled financial transactions to occur much faster than settling payments in physical gold. This highlighted the limitations of using physical gold as money in the modern digital era. As a result, societies adopted credit-based paper and digital monies with ledgers controlled by human administration rather than natural laws.

Unfortunately, over time, the State captured control of these ledgers, expanding its authority by manipulating fiat currencies, removing their tether from gold entirely.

To counter the unchecked growth of state power, we must return to sound money anchored to a reliable store of value, with a ledger that cannot be manipulated by the State.

Using physical gold as a medium of exchange is no longer practical in an increasingly digital world. Therefore, an inventive, censorship-resistant monetary alternative must be developed to separate control of money from the State. Over the past 15 years, Bitcoin’s globally distributed public ledger has proven a fascinating experiment in decentralized digital money.

Unlike traditional currencies, Bitcoin’s ledger is not controlled by any single entity. Rather, it relies on a network of individuals voluntarily running Bitcoin software to reach a consensus on the protocol. This decentralized approach allows the market to decide on the properties of the network and monetary units. Ultimately, the market will determine if Bitcoin is best suited as a medium of exchange for humanity in the digital world.

One question we should ask ourselves is this:

“What would it seem like if it did seem like a global, digital, sound, open, programmable money was monetizing from absolute zero?”

As was long anticipated, Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a formal announcement saying he’s seeking re-election in 2024 – a vote that will be held between March 15 and March 17, 2024. The winner will be inaugurated in early May. Assuming a Putin victory, it would be his fifth term as head of state, and this would put him in office until 2030, after already approaching nearly a quarter-century in power.

Interestingly, the Kremlin cast Putin’s declaration as part of “spontaneous” remarks which followed an award ceremony honoring war veterans…

🇷🇺 Putin responding to a Russian serviceman’s question about running in the election:

“I won’t hide the fact that I’ve had thoughts at different times. But right now, you are right. These are times when decisions must be made. I will run for the office of president.” pic.twitter.com/X0xkFD9Yp1

— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) December 8, 2023

“I won’t hide it from you — I had various thoughts about it over time, but now, you’re right, it’s necessary to make a decision,” Putin said in a video released following the event. “I will run for president of the Russian Federation.”

Russian state media is already previewing that newly annexed territories of the Donbas would vote in the election:

The Russian leader made his remarks at a ceremony where he awarded Hero of Russia medals to servicemen who had taken part in the special military operation against Ukraine. Hero of the Donetsk People’s Republic Artyom Zhoga, who was recently named speaker of the Russian federal subject’s parliament, asked if he would run in 2024 and he replied in the affirmative.

The footage from the ceremony shows Zhoga shaking hands with Putin and telling him that the entire Donbass would like him to participate in the election. “Thanks to your actions… we became free, we got the opportunity to choose… You are our president… We are your team, we need you, Russia needs you,” he said.

The legal path was paved for this expected fifth term when in 2020 the Russian population voted to overwhelmingly approve an overhaul to the national constitution. Assuming he would again win by a landslide, this means that 71-year old Putin could theoretically stay in power until even 2036 if he wanted to go that far (assuming two more back-to-back terms). He would be 83-years old that year.

In power since 2000, those prior changes to the law allow him to run for two more terms in the Kremlin once his current term ends in 2024. The law now in effect basically “resets” his number of terms already served, which considerably stretch all the way back to 2000 (excepting Dmitry Medvedev’s stint as president, 2008-2012). 

One early indicator of Putin’s intentions was on display all the way back in 2020, when he told reporters while discussing at that time the proposed constitutional changes, “I do not rule out the possibility of running for office, if this comes up in the Constitution. We’ll see.” He has also said at the time, “I have not decided anything for myself yet,” according to the prior state television interview statements.

Very likely, the Russian population will rally around desiring a ‘strong’ and ‘proven’ leader that can stand up to the West, and to Washington and NATO in particular, again especially given the proxy war nature of what’s happening in Ukraine, and given it remains clear that the Russian side is ‘winning’. But it remains that among some sectors, the war is unpopular given reports of a huge Russian death toll. The numbers of young men coming back either in coffins or severely maimed from war has certainly had an impact among many common Russian families.

It’s been many years since Putin actually had any significant challengers who had major name recognition in Russia (even during Medvedev’s rule, Putin was seen as the ‘real power’ while in the prime minister’s role). The West would chalk this up to the Kremlin oppressing or locking up any political rivals or oppositionists (like Navalny, who never actually polled very high regardless) – while many Russians would see in Putin national unity and strength. Following last summer’s Wagner armed rebellion, his power is consolidated now more than ever.

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The Senate on Thursday voted down a resolution that would have directed President Biden to withdraw all US troops from Syria, where US forces have come under frequent attack in response to President Biden’s support for Israel’s Gaza onslaught.

The bill failed in a vote of 13-84 and received support from seven Democrats, five Republicans, and one Independent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT). The resolution was introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who argued the US occupation of eastern Syria risks a major regional war.

“Keeping 900 US troops in Syria does nothing to advance American security. Rather, our intervention puts those servicemembers at grave risk by providing an enticing target for Iranian-backed militias,” Paul said.

“Our continued presence risks the United States getting dragged into yet another regional war in the Middle East without debate or a vote by the people’s representatives in Congress. Congress must cease abdicating its constitutional war powers to the executive branch,” he added.

Paul’s bill would have given the president 30 days to withdraw from Syria unless he was able to get authorization from Congress. The resolution received support from Robert Ford, who was the US ambassador to Syria from 2011 to 2014 when the US first threw its weight behind the regime change effort against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“We owe our soldiers serving there in harm’s way a serious debate about whether their mission is, in fact, achievable. Absent a debate and authorization of such a mission, our troops should be removed. Consideration of S.J. Res. 51 is an important opportunity for the Senate to take a step towards that necessary outcome,” Ford said.

The US has launched several rounds of airstrikes against Shia militias in Syria and Iraq in response to the rocket and drone attacks that have targeted US bases since October 17. The US bombings, which have killed dozens of militia members, have not deterred further attacks, and the region has turned into a powder keg.

The US maintains that its presence in eastern Syria is about fighting ISIS remnants, but the occupation is part of a broader campaign against Damascus and its allies, which includes Iran. The US maintains crippling economic sanctions on Syria that are designed to prevent the country’s reconstruction, and the area the US occupies is where most of Syria’s oil and gas fields are located.

Vivek Ramaswamy has seriously kicked the hornet’s nest – drawing harsh rebuke from MSM over his fiery debate performance on Wednesday, where he;

• Called Nikki Haley a ‘fascist’ for thinking “the government should identify every one of those individuals with an ID”

• Slammed Haley and Biden for being two of the last “neocons” supporting “pointless war” in Ukraine

• Fat shamed Chris Christie

• Said he was the “only candidate” who would raise questions regarding the Jan. 6 riot, Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11 and more

• Suggested the 2020 election was stolen

• Said that the “Great Replacement Theory is not some grand, right-wing conspiracy theory,” but rather a “basic statement of the Democratic Party’s platform” and that the 2020 was “stolen by Big Tech.”

Watch:

Vivek Ramaswamy calls out all three candidates for turning on Trump after using him for money and endorsements and then drops truth nukes 🔥

– J6 was an inside job
– The 2020 Election was stolen
– The Government lied about 9/11
– The “Great Replacement” is not a “Conspiracy… pic.twitter.com/AAWKSwn2oG

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) December 7, 2023

It was the “great replacement theory” that really got the hornets buzzing – with the NY Times writing that it was a “racist idea that minorities, sometimes manipulated by Jews, want to replace white Americans,” none of which Ramaswamy articulated.

The “great replacement theory” has been creeping into the conservative mainstream, popularized by hosts like Tucker Carlson, and has been referenced by several mass shooters. -NY Times

CNN host Van Jones got in on the feeding frenzy, calling Ramaswamy a “demagogue” for discussing said great replacement theory.

Van Jones was left “Shaking” after hearing Vivek speak at the debate.

Lmao🤣

pic.twitter.com/lRyM2RekSU

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) December 7, 2023

Except, Jones himself is a big fan of it, which Vivek fired back in Jones’ face with a 2021 video of the race hustler saying “The request from the racial justice left: we want the white majority to go from being a majority to being a minority and like it. That’s a tough request, and change is hard.”

Watch:

Yesterday, Van Jones called me a “demagogue” for discussing the Great Replacement Theory. Well, here are Van’s words in 2021: “The request from the racial justice left: we want the white majority to go from being a majority to being a minority and like it. That’s a tough request,… pic.twitter.com/yPRvJ2VCUa

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) December 8, 2023

The replies were priceless…

New York Times also covered this though. Are they also demagogues? https://t.co/eo5ioj7jaI

— The Rabbit Hole (@TheRabbitHole84) December 8, 2023

Typical left wing tactic: It’s not happening, but it’s good that it is happening, which it isn’t.

— Simon Isturiz (@Simon_Isturiz) December 8, 2023

Hey @VanJones68, you hypocritical sycophant. When are you going to issue your retraction for accusing Vivek of saying what you yourself said? Oh wait, you won’t. Because the racial justice left never ever admits it’s many, many faults and mistakes. You are a gaslighter…

— Drew (@304to956) December 8, 2023

The real reason why Van Jones was shaking is because Vivek was speaking TRUTH. pic.twitter.com/BadRZIi9Ke

— Briana V. Whatley (@briana_whatley) December 8, 2023

 

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

Do you believe the politicians in Washington or do you believe your own eyes? 

The politicians keep telling us that “inflation is low”, but everyone can see that everything sure does cost a lot more than it once did.  Our standard of living just keeps going down, and even JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is admitting that “inflation is hurting people”.  But how can inflation be “hurting people” if it is under control?  Of course the truth is that it isn’t under control.  If the official rate of inflation was still measured using the formula that was in place in 1980, it would be well into double digit territory right now.  Prices have been rising much faster than paychecks have, and that is putting an extraordinary amount of financial stress on the more than 60 percent of U.S. adults that currently live paycheck to paycheck.

Vox is a website that leans very far to the left, and even they are complaining about inflation.

In fact, a recent article posted on Vox boldly declared that life in 2023 “means being in a constant state of sticker shock”…

Life in 2023 means being in a constant state of sticker shock.

You walk out of the grocery store feeling like you’re not really sure what happened, but somehow, your normal fare ran you $50 more than you swear it should have. Did Diet Coke always cost that much? Or eggs? Maybe you’ve been putting off buying that new car in the hope prices go back to where they were pre-pandemic, but you’re starting to feel like the wait is awfully long. Or, the morning after a post-work happy hour, you’re left scratching your head. You swear you had two glasses of wine, but the size of your credit card receipt makes you wonder if it wasn’t four. “How expensive everything is today” is a top theme of conversation. The whole situation can be infuriating.

I don’t care for Vox much, but those two paragraphs are quite accurate.

Prices have reached absurd heights, and most of us really are “in a constant state of sticker shock” these days.

And the cold, hard numbers back this up.

According to a report from Republican members of the U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee, the typical household in this country “must spend an additional $11,434 annually” in order to have the same standard of living that it did when Joe Biden entered the White House…

The typical American household must spend an additional $11,434 annually just to maintain the same standard of living they enjoyed in January of 2021, right before inflation soared to 40-year highs, according to a recent analysis of government data.

So let me ask you a question.

Has your household income gone up by $11,434 a year since January 2021?

If you are like most Americans, your income has barely moved.

As I discussed last week, half of all American workers made less than $40,847.18 last year.

If you are one of those workers, life is not easy in 2023.

Even really basic things just cost so much at this point.  For example, a Big Mac value meal will now set you back 18 dollars in some parts of the country…

A Big Mac burger, a medium beverage, and a medium fry meal now costs 18 dollars in some locations, up $10 from 2018 when former President Donald Trump was president.

Visiting McDonald’s has become something that only wealthy people can afford to do on a regular basis.

Of course it isn’t just fast food that has become painfully expensive…

• A pound of ground beef now costs $5.23 on average, up from $3.89 in January 2020.

• Coffee is up some $2 a pound. Prices for fresh fruits and vegetables are nearly 14% higher.

• At one point, the price of a carton of eggs was triple its pre-pandemic price.

When I was growing up, my mother would feed us ground beef all the time.

Now it is considered to be a luxury item.

Let me give you another example of how inflation is killing us financially.

The cost of auto insurance and the cost of home insurance are both going through the roof…

The skyrocketing cost of auto and home insurance is increasingly weighing on cash-strapped Americans.

In 2022, the average price of both types of insurance saw its biggest spike in more than five years.

And this year rates are projected to grow by an even greater amount, according to analysis from S&P Global Market Intelligence. Within the first seven months, both had already jumped by double-digit amounts.

When you combine both expenses, the average American household is now spending over $3,700 a year…

According to the latest analysis from Forbes Advisor, the average cost of home insurance is $1,582 a year for a policy with $350,000 coverage. And typical motorist pays $2,150 a year for full coverage car insurance.

That means on car and home insurance alone a household can expect to spend more than $3,700 a year.

How can anyone afford that?

And don’t get me started on health insurance.

Our system is so broken that only those with lots of money can afford a decent health insurance policy that actually has adequate coverage.

Needless to say, Joe Biden doesn’t want to take the blame for any of this.  Last week, he was accusing large corporations of “price gouging”…

President Joe Biden delivered remarks from the White House on Monday to announce the new council’s creation. He touted the lower inflation rate and falling grocery prices but admonished American companies for, in his view, not going far enough.

“Let me be clear: To any corporation that has not brought their prices back down—even as inflation has come down, even as supply chains have been rebuilt—it’s time to stop the price gouging,” Biden warned, imploring them to “giv[e] the American consumer a break.”

Seriously?

Other liberals are actually blaming you for inflation…

People hate inflation, just not enough to spend less: This is one of the central tensions of today’s economy, in which things are going great yet everyone is miserable. And in some ways, Americans have nobody to blame but themselves.

No matter how high prices go, most of us still have to pay the bills and put food on the table.

So there is only so much that we can “cut back” on our spending.

However, one recent survey did find that approximately a quarter of the U.S. population has been engaged in “doom spending”…

Nearly all Americans, 96%, are concerned about the current state of the economy, according to a recent report by Intuit Credit Karma.

Still, more than a quarter are “doom spending,” or spending money despite economic and geopolitical concerns, the report found.

A lot of people figure that if everything is about to fall apart they may as well enjoy things while they still can.

But I think that a much wiser approach would be to use the resources that you have to get prepared for the tremendous chaos that is ahead of us.

Economic conditions are going to get a whole lot rougher from here.

So enjoy these relatively stable times while you still can, because they will not last indefinitely…

*  *  *

Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can check out his new Substack newsletter right here.

The US says it is in talks with regional allies to establish a joint naval task force to protect commercial vessels traversing the Red Sea, following several attacks on commercial ships and even the hijacking of one Israeli-linked ship.

The White House has said it’s in “active conversations” with allies about setting up such escorts. “We are in talks with other countries about a maritime task force of sorts involving the ships from partner nations alongside the United States in ensuring safe passage,” US national security advisor Jake Sullivan said earlier this week.

The US position is that even though Houthi rebels out of Yemen had “their finger on the trigger” – also after declaring war on Israel – it remains that the Shia Muslim group’s Iranian sponsors are ultimately responsible.

By the end of the week, fresh Bloomberg reporting confirmed the following on Friday:

The US has been consulting with Gulf allies about potential military action against Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels in response to their increasingly brazen attacks on ships in the Red Sea, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions.

The talks are at a preliminary stage and both the US and partners still favor diplomacy over direct confrontation, said the people, who asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. That said, the fact the discussions are taking place at all underscores how seriously the US takes the threat, the people added.

This follows several Pentagon officials complaining to US media outlets over the lack of response from President Biden over the increased attacks from the Houthis.

Defense leaders are said to be “frustrated” and handcuffed by US political leadership’s lack of action at a moment US warships are under direct threat in the region. Politico described the growing anger and pushback from the Pentagon this week as follows: 

Senior Biden administration officials agree that striking Houthis in Yemen is the wrong course of action for now, per three U.S. officials, even though some military officers have proposed more forceful responses to the militants’ attacks in the Red Sea.

There’s high-level consensus within the administration that it does not make sense for the U.S. military to respond directly to the Houthis, the officials said. Although the missile and drone attacks on three civilian vessels on Sunday drew a U.S. Navy warship into an hours-long firefight, U.S. intelligence officials have not determined that the warship was the target.

The Biden White House has further been accused of “downplaying” the threat:

Some current and former military officials were frustrated by the administration’s initial response to the Houthis’ Sunday attacks on the ships. The Houthis launched four drone and missile attacks on three ships; the destroyer USS Carney, responding to the distress calls, shot down three drones in its vicinity. Those current and former officials say the Iran-backed group’s increasingly aggressive behavior poses a significant risk to American forces in the region, and took issue with the administration’s public statements on Monday, which they say downplayed that threat.

The dissenters worry that lack of meaningful response could only embolden Iran-backed forces in the region, which also includes militia groups across Syria and Iraq, where Americans have also been coming under fire.

All of this serves to highlight that positioning Americans in the region – which includes the now years long occupation of Syria to put pressure on Assad – leaves troops incredibly vulnerable. Indeed Iran might see them as ‘easy targets’ – and with little to no strategic advance for Washington whatsoever.

Authored by Gary Bai via The Epoch Times,

Elon Musk asked the U.S. Supreme Court to undo a part of a deal he made with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that required vetting of his online posts, alleging that the deal violates his free speech rights, Mr. Musk’s lawyer, Ellyde Thompson, confirmed with The Epoch Times on Thursday.

The billionaire businessman asked the high court in a Dec. 7 petition to hear his appeal of a lower court’s decision in May that upheld a 2018 consent decree that he negotiated with the SEC, escalating a years-long feud between the industrialist and the powerful regulatory agency to the nation’s highest court.

The consent decree resulted from settlement negotiations of a 2018 lawsuit brought by the federal agency against Mr. Musk, which alleged that Mr. Musk made “false and misleading” statements to investors when he posted on Twitter (now X) in August of that year that he had “funding secured” to take private his electric car company, Tesla.

The terms of the consent decree, to which Mr. Musk agreed, stipulate that Mr. Musk steps down as the then-chairman of Tesla; Mr. Musk and Tesla each pay a civil penalty of $20 million; and that Mr. Musk obtain pre-approval from a securities lawyer before publishing written statements about Tesla or its shareholders.

In February 2019, the SEC alleged that Mr. Musk violated that deal when he posted on Twitter, “Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019,” and sought contempt sanctions, which included fines and potential imprisonment.

After a few court proceedings, the two parties resolved the contempt sanctions, but Mr. Musk sought to quash the SEC’s consent decree, arguing that the SEC had exploited the decree to “punish protected speech” because Mr. Musk is an “outspoken and much-followed critic of the government generally, and the SEC specifically.”

A Manhattan-based federal district court and later a federal appeals court both ruled in favor of the SEC, on the rationale that Mr. Musk could not revisit the speech-vetting deal because he previously agreed to the deal in the settlement with the SEC.

“Parties entering into consent decrees may voluntarily waive their First Amendment and other rights,” wrote a three-judge panel in the Manhattan-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in an August decision. “Had Musk wished to preserve his right to tweet without even limited internal oversight concerning certain Tesla-related topics, he had ‘the right to litigate and defend against the [SEC’s] charges’ or to negotiate a different agreement—but he chose not to do so.”

Mr. Musk’s Thursday filing takes issue with this point of law, contending that despite having agreed to the consent decree after negotiations with the SEC, the agency had no right to impose, as a condition of settling, a “gag rule” that they contend violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment constraints on governmental limits on free speech.

The petition asks the court to rule that “government settlements are not immune from constitutional scrutiny,” a decision Mr. Musk’s lawyer says would benefit “the hundreds of defendants who settle cases with the SEC each year” because they cannot afford to litigate.

The SEC consent decree “restricts Mr. Musk’s speech even when truthful and accurate,” Mr. Musk’s lawyers wrote in the petition to the Supreme Court. “It extends to speech not covered by the securities laws and with no relation to the conduct underlying the SEC’s civil action against Mr. Musk. And it chills Mr. Musk’s speech through the never-ending threat of contempt, fines, or even imprisonment for otherwise protected speech if not pre-approved to the SEC’s or a court’s satisfaction.”

The district and appeal courts’ ruling “squarely conflicts” with past U.S. Supreme Court decisions,” they added, “and it vests administrative agencies with intolerable power to coerce private parties into relinquishing their constitutional rights.”

Four of nine U.S. Supreme Court justices would need to agree to hear the case for it to advance to oral arguments.

Separately, the New Orleans-based Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to reconsider its March decision that Musk violated federal labor law by posting on Twitter in May 2018 that Tesla employees would lose stock options if they joined a union. The Fifth Circuit is set to hear arguments in the case in January 2024.

The SEC did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.

Reflecting on the now viral testimony from the various Ivy League presidents this week – variously refusing to condemn calls for genocide against Jews on campus – CNBC anchor Sara Eisen dared to go there with former New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial asking him what he made of their comments in light of the growing antisemitism on American campuses.

Morial claimed that he “did not see the testimony” but was careful immediately make it clear he is not an anti-semite and condemns all hate, adding the ubiquitous statement that “I believe in free speech, but free speech is not hate speech.”

Eisen was not done, asking:

“Given your experience with DEI departments, do you think that something has gone a little rotten in some of these programs at campuses… and whether they really are ‘all-inclusive’ when it comes to protecting diversity, equity, and inclusion?”

Morial snapped back that “I think that type of argument is a diversion.”

“It is scapegoating programs that have at their core the necessity to include all people,” and then he drops the narrative-hammer…

“…what has created all this is… Trumpism.”

Of course, how stupid of us all! It had to be Trump, as Morial then claimed the actions on January 6th and in Charlottesville have created this antisemitic ground-swell on campuses.

But, the CNBC anchor halted his diatribe earlier, asking pointedly”

“…then why can’t these DEI departments protect Jewish students on campuses right now and make them feel safe?”

Morial immediately exposed the reality of these virtue-signaling programs in one damning sentence:

“The responsibility to protect Jewish students is not with the DEI departments,” adding that it is on the board of trustees and leaders of universities before falling back to the old trope that “free speech is not hate speech.” (for multiple definitions of ‘hate’).

So, now you know – Jewish students should not count on the help of the departments set up to ensure the safety and inclusion of various religions (except Judaism), races, and nationalities (except Israelis).

Watch the full exchange below: