An item from someone I know well and trust (at least on such matters): He was worried that with the jump in inflation, his adjustable mortgage rate will go up in coming years, so he refinanced his jumbo loan (a bit above $1.5M, pretty normal in the L.A. area) at a 30-year fixed 2.49% rate, with 1.375% in points.
That seemed like a pretty good rate, so I thought I’d mention it; the bank is Ally Bank. The one downside: The bank apparently required far more paperwork on each of his various other assets than he had ever had to submit for past loans (even though he has good credit and a fairly low loan-to-value ratio). So more hassle, but apparently a good deal otherwise.
Naturally, this post wasn’t paid for, asked for, or in any way incentivized by the bank or anyone else; I pass it along solely because I thought some readers might find it useful.
Yemen Conflict: Blowback Of Obama’s Botched Syria Policy
Submitted by Nauman Sadiq,
After Arab Spring protests erupted in the Middle East in 2011, toppling longtime dictators of the Arab World, including Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Yemenis also gathered in the capital’s squares demanding removal of Ali Abdullah Saleh.
Instead of conceding to protesters’ fervent demand of holding free and fair elections to ascertain democratic aspirations of demonstrators, however, the Obama administration adopted the convenient course of replacing Yemen’s longtime autocrat with a Saudi stooge Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi.
Having the reputation of a “wily Arabian fox” and being a Houthi himself, Ali Abdullah Saleh wasn’t the one to sit idly by and retire from politics in ignominy. He colluded with the Houthi rebels and incited them to take advantage of the chaos and political vacuum created after the revolution to come out of their northern Saada stronghold and occupy the capital Sanaa in September 2014. Meanwhile, while events were unfolding in Yemen in the aftermath of the Arab Spring movements, the Saudi-Iran conflict in the Middle East region was also exacerbating. Saudi Arabia, which was vying for power as the leader of Sunni bloc against the Shia-led Iran in the regional geopolitics, was staunchly against the invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration in 2003.
The Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein constituted a Sunni Arab bulwark against Iran’s meddling in the Arab World. But after Saddam was ousted from power in 2003 and subsequently when elections were held in Iraq which were swept by Shia-dominated parties, Iraq has now been led by a Shia-majority government that has become a steadfast regional ally of Iran. Consequently, Iran’s sphere of influence now extends all the way from territorially contiguous Iraq and Syria to Lebanon and the Mediterranean coast.
The Saudi royal family was resentful of Iran’s encroachment on the traditional Arab heartland. Therefore, when protests broke out against the Shia-led Syrian government in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011, the Gulf States along with their regional Sunni allies, Turkey and Jordan, and the Western patrons gradually militarized the protests to dismantle the Iranian resistance axis comprised of Iran, Syria and their Lebanon-based proxy, Hezbollah.
The decade-long conflict in Syria that gave birth to myriads of militant groups, including the Islamic State, and after the conflict spilled across the border into neighboring Iraq in early 2014 was directly responsible for the spate of Islamic State-inspired terror attacks in the West from 2015 to 2017.
Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in August 2011 to June 2014, when the Islamic State overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq, an informal pact existed between the Western powers, their regional Arab and Turk allies and jihadists of the Middle East against the Iranian resistance axis. In accordance with the pact, militants were trained and armed in the training camps located in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan to battle the Syrian government.
This arrangement of an informal pact between the Western powers and the jihadists of the Middle East against the Iran-allied forces worked well up to August 2014, when the Obama Administration made a volte-face on its previous regime change policy in Syria and began conducting air strikes against one group of militants battling the Syrian government, the Islamic State, after the latter overstepped its mandate in Syria and overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq from where the US had withdrawn its troops only a couple of years ago in December 2011.
After this reversal of policy in Syria by the Western powers and the subsequent Russian military intervention on the side of the Syrian government in September 2015, the momentum of jihadists’ expansion in Syria and Iraq stalled, and they felt that their Western patrons had committed a treachery against the jihadists’ cause, hence they were infuriated and rose up in arms to exact revenge for this betrayal.
10 years of war in Syria have reduced per capita consumption of state electricity to 15% of what it was.
Syria’s electricity crisis is, at base, financial. Sanctions prevent external investors & companies. Syria cannot purchase oil. Its own is in the hands of the US military. https://t.co/bcruAoGSaV
If we look at the chain of events, the timing of the spate of terror attacks against the West was critical: the Islamic State overran Mosul in June 2014, the Obama Administration began conducting airstrikes against the Islamic State’s targets in Iraq and Syria in August 2014, and after a lull of almost a decade since the Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005, respectively, the first such incident of terrorism occurred on the Western soil at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in January 2015, and then the Islamic State carried out the audacious November 2015 Paris attacks, the March 2016 Brussels bombings, the June 2016 truck-ramming incident in Nice, and three horrific terror attacks took place in the United Kingdom within a span of less than three months in 2017, and after that the Islamic State carried out the Barcelona attack in August 2017, and then another truck-ramming atrocity occurred in Lower Manhattan in October 2017 that was also claimed by the Islamic State.
More to the point, the dilemma that the jihadists and their regional backers faced in Syria was quite unique: in the wake of the false-flag Ghouta chemical weapons attacks in Damascus in August 2013, the stage was all set for yet another no-fly zone and “humanitarian intervention” a la Gaddafi’s Libya, as Obama had unequivocally stated that a chemical weapons attack by the Bashar al-Assad government was a “red line” for his administration.
The war hounds were waiting for a finishing blow and then-Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and former Saudi intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan were shuttling between the Western capitals to lobby for the military intervention. Francois Hollande, then the president of France, had already announced his intentions and David Cameron, then the prime minister of the UK, was also onboard.
Here it should be remembered that even during the Libyan intervention, the Obama administration’s policy was a bit ambivalent and France under the leadership of Nicolas Sarkozy, then the president of France, had taken the lead role. In Syria’s case, however, the British parliament forced David Cameron to seek a vote for military intervention in the House of Commons before committing the British troops and air force to Syria.
Taking cue from the British parliament, the US Congress also compelled Obama to seek approval before another ill-conceived military intervention, and since both the administrations lacked the requisite majority in their respective parliaments and the public opinion was also fiercely against another Middle Eastern war, therefore Obama and Cameron dropped their plans of enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria.
In the end, France was left alone as the only Western power still in favor of intervention; at that point, however, the seasoned Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov staged a diplomatic coup by announcing that the Syrian government was willing to ship its chemical weapons stockpiles out of Syria and subsequently the issue was amicably resolved.
Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf Arab states, the main beneficiaries of the proxy war against the Baathist government in Syria, however, had lost a golden opportunity to deal a fatal blow to their regional rivals.
To add insult to the injury, the Islamic State, one of the numerous militant outfits fighting in Syria, overstepped its mandate in Syria and overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq in 2014, from where the US troops had withdrawn only a couple of years ago in December 2011.
Additionally, when the graphic images and videos of Islamic State’s executions surfaced on the internet, the Obama administration was left with no other choice but to adopt some countermeasures to show that it was still sincere in pursuing Washington’s dubious “war on terror” policy; at the same time, however, it assured its Turkish, Jordanian and Gulf Arab allies that despite fighting a war against the maverick jihadist outfit, the Islamic State, the Western policy of training and arming the so-called “moderate” Syrian militants will continue apace and that Bashar al-Assad’s days were numbered, one way or the other.
Moreover, declaring the war against the Islamic State in August 2014 served another purpose too: in order to commit the US Air Force to Syria and Iraq, the Obama administration needed the approval of the US Congress which was not available, but by declaring a war against the Islamic State, which was a designated terrorist organization, the Obama administration availed itself of the war on terror provisions in the US laws and thus circumvented the US Congress.
But then Russia threw a spanner in the works of NATO and its regional Middle Eastern allies in September 2015 by its surreptitious military buildup in Latakia that was executed with an element of surprise unheard of since General Rommel, the Desert Fox.
When Russia deployed its forces and military hardware to Syria in September 2015, the militant proxies of Washington and its regional clients were on the verge of drawing a wedge between Damascus and the Alawite heartland of coastal Latakia, which could have led to the imminent downfall of the Bashar al-Assad government.
With the help of the Russian air power, the Syrian government has since reclaimed most of Syria’s territory from the insurgents, excluding Idlib in the northwest occupied by the Turkish-backed militants and Deir al-Zor and the Kurdish-held areas in the east, thus inflicting a humiliating defeat on Washington and its regional clients.
Therefore, although Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf States still toe Washington’s line in the region publicly, behind the scenes there is bitter resentment that the US let them down by making an about-face on the previous regime change policy in Syria and the subsequent declaration of war against one group of Sunni militants in Syria, the Islamic State. This change of policy by the US directly benefited the Iranian-led axis in the region.
Coming back to Yemen, after Ali Abdullah Saleh colluded with the Houthi rebels and incited them to take advantage of political vacuum created after the revolution to come out of their northern Saada stronghold and occupy the capital Sanaa in September 2014, meanwhile a change of guard took place in Riyadh as Saudi Arabia’s longtime ruler King Abdullah died and was replaced by King Salman in January 2015, while de facto control of the kingdom fell into hands of ambitious and belligerent Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman.
Already furious at the Obama administration for not enforcing its so-called “red line” by imposing a no-fly zone over Syria after the false-flag Ghouta chemical weapons attacks in Damascus in August 2013 and apprehensive of security threat posed to the kingdom from its southern border along Yemen by Houthi rebels under the influence of Iran, the crown prince immediately began a military and air warfare campaign against regional rivals with military assistance from the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and de facto ruler of UAE, Mohammad bin Zayed al-Nahyan, in March 2015.
Incomprehensible loss of life happening daily in Yemen. This mass suffering continues with the full blessing & backing of the Biden administration. https://t.co/K5BXcDojW6
Mindful of the botched policy it had pursued in Libya and Syria and aware of the catastrophe it had wrought in the Middle East region, the Obama administration had to yield to the dictates of Saudi Arabia and UAE by fully coordinating the Gulf-led military campaign in Yemen not only by providing intelligence, planning and logistical support but also by selling billions of dollars’ worth of arms and ammunition to the Gulf States during the conflict.
After the Democrats lost the presidential election in November 2016, the Yemen conflict has further escalated during four years of Trump presidency, who was on even friendlier terms with the Saudi royal family. In order to appreciate the nature of cordial relationship between the Trump family and the Gulf’s petro-monarchs, here are a few relevant excerpts from Bob Woodward’s book, Rage.
In an informal conversation with Woodward, Trump boasted that he protected Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman from congressional scrutiny after the brutal assassination of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi at Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018. “I saved his ass,” Trump said in 2018, according to the book. “I was able to get Congress to leave him alone. I was able to get them to stop.”
When Woodward pressed Trump if he believed the Saudi crown prince ordered the assassination himself, Trump responded: “He says very strongly that he didn’t do it. Bob, they spent $400 billion over a fairly short period of time,” Trump said.
“And you know, they’re in the Middle East. You know, they’re big. Because of their religious monuments, you know, they have the real power. They have the oil, but they also have the great monuments for religion. You know that, right? For that religion,” the president noted. “They wouldn’t last a week if we’re not there, and they know it,” he added.
Ackman Buys 3.1 Million Netflix Shares With $1.25 Billion Profit From Massive Treasury Short
A few days ago we pointed out that one of the event risks in a sliding market is distressed M&A in which cash-rich buyers scoop up beaten down assets, and of which we have already seen two examples: Microsoft’s acquisition of a deeply depressed Activision and more recently, last week’s acquisition of Kohl’s by a consortium of buyers.
Distressed M&A #2: Consortium Led by Acacia Research Bids Roughly $9 Billion for Kohl’s: WSJ
As the bid(en)less market crashes, cash-heavy buyers will scoop up deals
But it’s not just strategics that are finding good deals: financial buyers are also jumping in, as a tweet from Bill Ackman late on Wednesday showed. The billionaire investor behind Pershing Square took the novel path of announcing on twitter that he had purchased “purchased more than 3.1m shares of @netflix which makes us a top-20 holder.” Ackman, who also linked to a brief letter to investors laying out his thinking behind the purchase, said that “I have long admired Reed Hastings and the remarkable company he and his team have built. We are delighted that the market has presented us with this opportunity.”
We recently purchased more than 3.1m shares of @Netflix which makes us a top-20 holder. I have long admired Reed Hastings and the remarkable company he and his team have built. We are delighted that the market has presented us with this opportunity. https://t.co/BNx1EWUVGh
Pershing Square’s stake equals about 0.68% of the streaming giant, based on 455.8 million diluted shares outstanding at Dec. 31.
News of the purchase sent shares of Netflix 4% higher in after-hours trading following news of Pershing’s investment. But it has a long way to go to catch up to where it was just 4 weeks ago: the stock has plunged more than 40% in 2022 alone, and closed Wednesday at $359.70, compared with a high of $691.69 on Nov. 17.
The recent plunge in Netflix stock came after the company said last week that it expects to add a much smaller number of subscribers this quarter than it did a year ago as it contends with a crowded streaming marketplace and ongoing disruptions from the Covid-19 pandemic.
However, one man’s collapsing growth story is another man’s value investment, and that’s precisely what prompted Ackman to swoop in: “The opportunity to acquire Netflix at an attractive valuation emerged when investors reacted negatively to the recent quarter’s subscriber growth and management’s short-term guidance. Netflix’s substantial stock price decline was further exacerbated by recent market volatility” Ackman wrote in his letter to investors.
It is somewhat ironic that Ackman is now entering Netflix, as by doing so he once again crosses paths with his old Herbalife nemesis, Carl Icahn, whom he fought – and lost – last decade in an attempt to prove that Herbalife is a giant ponzi scheme, and where Icahn made billions. Well, it is the same Icahn who bought into Netflix almost exactly a decade ago at the urging of his son and planned to call for the company to explore a sale. But then Icahn met with CEO Reed Hastings, who arranged for a private showing of the soon-to-debut “House of Cards” drama starring Kevin Spacey, the streamer’s first original series. After seeing it and understanding Hastings’ vision, Icahn decided against the sale idea and abandoned his plans for activism. He cashed out in 2015 with a profit of about $2 billion, making it one of his best ever investments.
And now it’s Ackman’s turn to try to replicate Ichan’s success. Of course, for that to happen, NFLX stock would need to hit four digits.
But perhaps more remarkable is how Ackman funded his new position in NFLX.
Recall that for much of 2021 Wall Street was abuzz with reports that Ackman was building a major rates short (betting on higher yields). These reports culminated with Ackman’s presentation to the NY Fed, in which it urged the central bank to “begin hiking rates asap.” As we wrote at the time, “Bill Ackman, revealed on twitter that he “gave a presentation to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York last week to share our views on inflation and Fed policy. The bottom line: we think the Fed should taper immediately and begin raising rates as soon as possible.“
Ackman was not shy in revealing that he was obviously talking his book, stating that “we have put our money where our mouth is in hedging our exposure to an upward move in rates, as we believe that a rise in rates could negatively impact our long-only equity portfolio.”
In other words, Ackman is short rates, although it is unclear for now how large his exposure is.
We now have a pretty good idea of how large his exposure was: enough to make $1.25 billion in profit.
As Ackman writes in his Netflix letter, “in order to fund our purchase of Netflix, beginning on Friday and over the last few days, we unwound the substantial majority of our interest rate hedge generating proceeds of $1.25 billion. We retained interest rate swaptions that are currently out-of-the-money, and also purchased some additional longer-dated, out-of-the-money swaptions. The result of all of the above is that the notional size of our interest rate hedge has been reduced by 80%, the term of a substantial portion of the hedge we retain has been extended, and our dollar investment in hedges has been reduced by more than 90%.”
Amusingly, after making billions from bond CDS that blew up during the covid crash, Ackman has become rather sensitive to being accused of profiting from others’ pain (in this case the crash in stocks that will accompany a spike in the Fed Funds rate), Ackman added the following disclaimer:
Had we not sold the hedge, we could have likely realized more gains based on the increase in rates, largely today, since our sale.
But why did Ackman not hold on to his rate short – especially since his DV01 appears to be off the charts – if he has such a high conviction that rates are going even higher? Well, as he explains, “we believed the opportunity to invest in Netflix at current prices offered a more compelling risk/reward and likely greater, long-term profits for the funds.“
He then also gave the following explanation for why Pershing Square invests in such rate/swaption hedges:
We invest in hedges not to protect the funds from a short-term mark-to-market loss, but rather because they can become a large source of potential liquidity at precisely the time stocks become cheap. We invest in asymmetric hedges as they offer the opportunity for large gains without exposing the portfolio to meaningful losses in the event the potential risk does not transpire.
We invested in out-of-the-money interest rate swaptions in December 2020 and early 2021 because we believed that it was likely that the combination of aggressive fiscal policy, monetary policy, and the reopening of the economy due to vaccines would cause non-transitory inflation, which would require the Federal Reserve to raise rates. We believed that an unexpected rise in rates could cause a market correction. We viewed this outcome to be a likely one, yet the options we purchased implied that this scenario was very unlikely. Highly differentiated perspectives on future outcomes can yield attractive payoffs for investors, particularly when structured in an asymmetric format.
Said otherwise, Ackman is confident he will make more money going long Netflix today than keeping his rates short, or as he concludes his letter: “We are pleased to add Netflix to our portfolio. Many of our best investments have emerged when other investors whose time horizons are short term, discard great companies at prices that look extraordinarily attractive when one has a long-term horizon.”
The bigger question is now that Ackman has cashed the substantial majority of his big rate short, will the key thesis during the next marquee hedge fund idea dinner be to go long rates, especially as the US now appears to have a date with a recession, perhaps even before the midterms? Or view, is that going long rates here will end up bring much more profitable than continuing to press shorts, especially once it becomes abundantly clear to the market that the US is hiking rates right into a recession, if not an outright depression now that fiscal stimmies are history once the Democrats lose in November by an avalanche and now new fiscal stimulus will be conceivable until at least November 2024.
That said, the biggest question we have is when will that consummate financial value investor, Warren Buffett, who has long lamented the lack of bargains become the most prominent financial buyer of distressed growth (or value) opportunities. In a time when the Fed put has become the Fed call, that may be the catalyst to finally start buying.
A doctor who has been offering free telehealth services to COVID-19 patients during the pandemic says that early treatment for COVID-19 works, claiming that he has a 99.99 percent survival rate.
“We have a team of volunteer free doctors that donate their time to help treat these patients that come to us,” Dr. Ben Marble, the founder of myfreedoctor.com, an online medical consultation service, said at a roundtable discussion hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) on Jan. 24.
He added, “We deliver the early treatment protocols to them as early as we can, and we have a 99.99 percent survival rate. So, I believe myfreedoctor.com, the free volunteered doctors have settled the science on this—early treatment works, period!”
Marble was answering Johnson’s question about what people can do if they or their loved ones have COVID-19.
People can visit the website myfreedoctor.com, create an account, and fill out a patient intake form if the doctors are accepting new patients for that day. One of the doctors will then reach out in less than 24 hours. With a huge demand for their services, the physicians say they can only “accept a certain number of patients each day.”
Marble says that he and his small team of volunteer doctors prescribe [Dr. Peter] McCullough’s treatment protocol, which consists of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, prednisone, and other low-cost generic drugs. They also prescribe vitamins D and C, and zinc.
McCullough, a cardiologist, and epidemiologist, along with several physicians put together an early treatment protocol to provide outpatient care for COVID-19 patients. Their paper was published in The American Journal of Medicine in August 2020.
Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonologist and the President at the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, says that the public is not aware that there are doctors across the country who will provide telehealth and early treatment for COVID-19.
“On our website, we have a button, which says find a provider. We’ve tried to collect as many telehealth providers that treat all states in the country,” Kory said.
“We are trying to let that message be known because that message is being suppressed that this disease is treatable,” he added.
Kory also claims that there is corruption at the federal level in suppressing early treatment with repurposed cheap drugs and their availability and that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been “captured by the pharmaceutical industry.”
“The corruption is because they don’t want you to use off-label, repurposed generic medicines. It does not provide profit to the system,” Kory said, adding that, “you know what’s going on in this country right now, is that the CDC has been captured by the pharmaceutical industry.”
“They sent out a memo in August of 2021, they sent out a similar memo back in the spring 2020, telling the nation’s physicians and pharmacists not to use generic medicines.”
The Epoch Times has reached out to the CDC for comment.
Early treatments were and continue to be discouraged by the CDC, whose guidance since the beginning of the pandemic up until January 2022, only focused on people self-quarantining for 14 days, keeping hydrated, taking analgesics, and only seeking hospital care when they can’t breathe or turn blue. They also warned people to not take any medications not approved for COVID-19.
“People have been seriously harmed and even died after taking products not approved for use to treat or prevent COVID-19, even products approved or prescribed for other uses,” the CDC wrote on its potential treatments webpage.
The weblink provided for the alleged harmful product was related to a March 2020 health alert warning of a serious health effect from ingesting non-pharmaceutical chloroquine phosphate used to clean fish tanks. This alert came after an Arizona man and his wife took the non-pharmaceutical drug in an attempt to self-medicate for COVID-19.
For the past two years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has only authorized limited early outpatient treatments for COVID-19 that include monoclonal antibodies for high-risk patients and antiviral pills from Merck and Pfizer. However, the FDA on Jan. 24 announced it was limiting the use of Eli Lilly and Regeneron monoclonal antibodies only to patients “likely to have been infected with or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments.”
Johnson held the roundtable discussion to offer a different perspective on the response to the pandemic, including on “the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term.”
The discussion panel consisted of renowned health experts and scientists that included McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, and Dr. Paul Marik.
According to a press release, Johnson also invited over a dozen prominent figures involved in developing, promoting, and leading the pandemic response, including the CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky and White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Jeffrey Zients. All of the individuals declined to attend the forum.
The recent moves in the RV business suggest the industry may have reached a plateau following robust demand for more than 1.5 years. COVID has undoubtedly changed how Americans travel and vacation to desire national parks rather than crowded resorts and large metropolises.
According to the RV Industry Association’s (RVIA) survey of North American manufacturers of all-towable vehicles and motorhomes finished 2021 at a record 600,240 wholesale shipments, exceeding 504,599 shipments in 2017. Total RV shipments for 2021 jumped 39.5% over the 430,412 units shipped in 2020. Towable RVs, led by conventional travel trailers, ended 2021 up 39.6% compared with 544,028 wholesale shipments. Motorhomes were up 37.8% compared to 2020 with 56,212 units.
There was unprecedented demand for RVs last year as we speculated in early December, total sales for the year would surpass 600,000.
“While the demand for RVs has been amplified over the past two years, the pandemic also created several obstacles and challenges for our industry,” said RVIA President & CEO Craig Kirby.
However, if we dive more into the report and break down the numbers for December, there’s evidence the RV boom is perhaps stalling.
RVIA’s December 2021 total RV shipments data for the month was 40,347 units, a decrease of 0.1% compared to the 40,382 units shipped during December 2020. Towable RVs ended up 1.1% for the month with 36,908 wholesale shipments. Motorhomes were down 11.3%.
We question if December’s slump was seasonal or if demand for RVs is coming off a massive peak pulled forward by the pandemic. We won’t know this until the spring season comes around. If this is the peak, there’s a gigantic hangover ahead for the industry.
A hybrid car-airplane known as “AirCar” has been issued a certificate of airworthiness by the Slovakian civil aviation authority, potentially paving the way for the future of flying vehicles.
The dual-mode car-aircraft vehicle, which looks like a sports car, was created by a team of eight highly-skilled specialists at the Slovakian company Klein Vision, which was founded by Professor Stefan Klein.
Klein has devoted the last 20 years to making the flying car a reality.
It was awarded the certificate by the Slovak Transport Authority after successfully completing 70 hours of “rigorous flight testing compatible with European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) standards,” Klein Vision said in a statement (pdf).
Flight tests included over 200 takeoffs and landings and a full range of various flight and performance maneuvers that Klein Vision says demonstrated “astonishing static and dynamic stability in the aircraft mode.”
The takeoff and landing procedures were achieved even without the pilot having to touch the flight controls, the company said.
It took the team of specialists over 100,000 man hours to convert design drawings of the air vehicle into mathematical models and to then create the final two-seater 1,000-kilogram (2,200-pound) vehicle that is powered by a 1.6-liter BMW engine.
“AirCar certification opens the door for mass production of very efficient flying cars. It is official and the final confirmation of our ability to change mid-distance travel forever,” said Klein, who is also responsible for research projects in cooperation with brands such as Audi, Volkswagen, and BMW.
“Transportation Authority carefully monitored all stages of unique AirCar development from its start in 2017. The transportation safety is our highest priority. AirCar combines top innovations with safety measures in line with EASA standards. It defines a new category of a sports car and a reliable aircraft. Its certification was both a challenging and fascinating task,” said René Molnár, the director of the Civil Aviation Division (Transport Authority of Slovakia).
The company told CNN that it hopes to have the AirCar commercially available within 12 months, but a pilot’s license is required to drive the hybrid vehicle, meaning we won’t be seeing many of the flying cars anytime soon.
Anton Zajac, co-founder of Klein Vision, said that the vehicle can fly at a maximum operating altitude of 18,000 feet, and runs on “fuel that is sold at any gas station.”
After landing, it took the car less than three minutes to transform back into a sports car, which can reduce travel time by a factor of two.
Klein Vision has also completed tests of a powerful and lightweight “ADEPT” Airmotive aviation engine and finalized drawings and technical calculations for the upcoming monocoque model, which will have a variable pitch propeller that could reach speeds over 300 kph (186 mph) and a range of 1,000 kilometers (620 miles).
CCP Expels 1st Official For Being Too Rich & Corrupt As Xi Pushes “Common Prosperity” Crackdown
President Xi’s “Common Prosperity” crackdown has finally ensnared a CCP official who allegedly participated in the “disorderly expansion of capital” by taking bribes, abusing his official power, and other violations of his “official duties” – violations that happen to be not just common, but absolutely essential to the Chinese economy, where connections to the government often leads to economic power.
After cracking down on the country’s biggest tech firms, abolishing the private tutoring industry, limiting minors to just a few hours of video games a week and launching an incipient corruption campaign, many Chinese are still wondering how President Xi’s “Common Prosperity” drive will affect them. The President has taken pains to reassure them that money seized from “monopolists” and other economic abusers will be repurposed for the public good, particularly in China’s underdeveloped rural areas.
And like any of China’s previous “anti-corruption campaigns” (including the anti-corruption drive President Xi used to sideline his enemies early during his first term as China’s paramount leader), it’s inevitable that some heads belonging to senior Communists will roll.
Unfortunately (for the targets), it looks like the latest purge has already started.
Bloomberg on Wednesday reported that the first CCP apparatchik to be officially expelled from the Party during the current anti-corruption crackdown is none other than Zhou Jiangyong, the former party secretary of Hangzhou, the hometown of Alibaba. Zhou was implicated in a major corruption scandal besides Alibaba and Ant Group, which we reported on late last week.
Reports on the corrupt relationship claimed that bribes were paid by Alibaba to Zhou’s brother, who also appeared to benefit in other ways thanks to his connection to his brother.
China’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection released a statement about the official’s ouster on Wednesday:
“Zhou Jiangyong has lost his ideals and beliefs,” the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection said. “He covertly opposed central government plans, colluded with capital, supported the disorderly expansion of capital, engaged in superstitious activities and deliberately resisted probes.”
BBG claimed that Zhou’s ouster from the party marked the first citation of “disorderly capital” in a CCDI corruption case, according to a BBG document review. Zhou, who has reportedly been under investigation since August, was also accused of colluding with family members to receive huge bribes, according to the statement.
His case has been referred to prosecutors. Corruption cases are known to occasionally carry the death penalty in China.
Zhou wasn’t the only official expelled from the Party Wednesday over corruption allegations Wednesday: The CCDI also declared that He Xingxiang, a former vice president of China Development Bank, had been expelled from the Party for “serious” violations of the law, including the misuse of financial approval rights, which had created “major risks” and “huge losses” for the country.
The anti-graft authority had reportedly announced last week that it would crack down on “disorderly expansion of capital” when investigating corruption and “monopolistic” enterprises in the country. Efforts will be made to sever “the link between power and capital,” the CCDI said. “Show no mercy to those who engage in political gangs, small circles, and interest groups within the party, and strictly educate, manage and supervise young cadres.”
Hopefully, family members of China’s paramount leaders, many of whom have enjoyed an explosion of wealth thanks to their familial ties, aren’t too worried. After all, the CCP has expelled foreign reporters who have dared to report on the wealth held by members of President Xi’s family.
And when it’s not too late, some have seen tremendous success by sneaking medications prohibited by hospitals to patients, says Eduardo Balbona, an independent internist in Jacksonville.
He’s helped dozens of seriously ill patients recover using ivermectin and other drugs and supplements not officially approved in the treatment of COVID-19, he says.
Hospitals receive payments from the federal government for treating patients with COVID-19. But those payments are tied to their use of approved treatments only, as outlined in the CARES Act. When there’s nothing left to try under those protocols, families naturally research alternatives, Balbona says, often learning about treatments touted by independent physicians around the country.
Hoping to try anything that might work, families around the country have filed lawsuits asking judges to intervene.
In some cases, judges have ordered hospitals to allow the use of other treatments, such as ivermectin. Some of those seriously ill patients have recovered. In other cases, judges have sided with hospitals and declined the families’ requests to try.
Meanwhile, independent physicians like Balbona watch helplessly, feeling that when families ask, they should be allowed to try medications they believe can turn critically ill patients around. But independent doctors often have limited hospital privileges and may be banned from seeing their own patients in some hospitals.
That was the case recently for Balbona, who was contacted by a worried wife after she read in The Epoch Times about his involvement in another family’s lawsuit seeking to try his recommendations.
Based on what the woman told him, Balbona said he felt strongly her husband could recover if treated with the regimen he prescribes for seriously ill COVID-19 patients. The treatment protocol he follows, with slight modifications based on each patient’s needs, was developed by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.
“The husband was very ill,” Balbona said. “He’s in his 50s, a big strong guy. She called me desperate because they gave him remdesivir [in the hospital] and she made them stop it, and he started getting worse and worse. And his oxygen demand went up.”
By the time she called Balbona for help, her husband needed 60 liters of oxygen per minute. That’s too high to manage at home, even with rented medical equipment, Balbona said.
“If you can get them down to 40 or 50 [liters per minute] you can do high-flow oxygen at that level,” Balbona told The Epoch Times. “That’s a lot of oxygen.”
He said he promised he’d try if her husband improved enough to go home. And then he’d take over managing his care. Meanwhile, he said, he gave her prescriptions, so she could collect the medications she’d need at home. That was on a Friday.
He learned later that she’d filled the prescriptions, took the medications to the hospital, and gave them to her husband. By Tuesday, the man was discharged and fully following the protocol Balbona prescribed. A few days later, he was off the oxygen. Now, he’s recovering, Balbona said. But they’re afraid to share their good news publicly.
“The people who snuck in the ivermectin… they are scared to death,” Balbona said. “She is sure that the government is going to find out who she is” and possibly arrest her for giving medications not approved by the hospital.
He said she told him, “I did it. I knew it was wrong. I don’t know what the penalties are. What could they do to me?”
And that’s the real crime, Balbona believes.
In New Hampshire, lawmakers now are considering legislation that would make the state the first in the country to make Ivermectin available as an over-the-counter medicine, and sanction it as a protected treatment for COVID-19. Similar bills in three other states have failed.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Leah Cushman (R) is a registered nurse, who told The Epoch Times, “I have absolutely no doubt lives will be saved if human grade ivermectin was available to COVID patients.”
Two doctors testified about her proposed bill, warning the legislation could lead to dangerous side effects for people who use the drug. But Cushman believes she’ll have the votes to keep the bill moving toward becoming law.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19, though the drug is used in humans to treat a variety of conditions.
The FDA has not responded to a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) asking for details about any reports of side effects related to the use of ivermectin — formulations for animals and humans —to treat COVID-19. The agency also has not responded to a FOIA request for details about clinical trials and when the drug could reach the stage when its use under the Right To Try Act could be allowed.
Studies about the safety and efficacy of using ivermectin in the treatment for COVID-19 have led to all or part of 22 countries approving its use. But in the United States, doctors who rely on payments from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services aren’t allowed to use it.
When Balbona heard about the proposed legislation, he immediately called two state senators, and two attorneys who are patients, suggesting that they propose similar legislation in Florida. Florida lawmakers currently are in session in Tallahassee through March 11.
“If we can get legislation to say, ‘Let the doctor do what he thinks is best,’ I think that would be wonderful,” Balbona said. “If New Hampshire can do this, why can’t we?”
Apple CEO Tim Cook Wins Restraining Order Against ‘Deranged’ Stalker
Apparently, the fact that Apple CEO Tim Cook is openly gay hasn’t prevented him from being assiduously stalked by a deranged woman reportedly seeking to become his “roommate”.
The CEO once referred to by President Trump as “Tim Apple” has now been granted a temporary restraining order against a Virginia woman after his employer interceded on his behalf.
The woman, named Julia Lee Choi, is from McLean, Va. She reportedly sent messages to Cook saying she was “applying to be his roommate” and would be moving in, asking him to “empty the condo”. Fox News reported that the woman showed up at Cook’s home twice, and even sent him threatening photos of guns and bullets. Cook first became “aware” of her in October and November 2020, when she allegedly tweeted that she was Cook’s “wife” and claimed that the CEO was the father of her two twins.
Choi then allegedly drove across the US from Virginia to Palo Alto to visit Cook. Local cops towed her Porsche Macan after stopping her and finding out she had an expired license.
What’s perhaps more impressive is that she also created multiple fake organizations under Cook’s name, according to court documents.
She even sent Cook emails accusing the CEO of “abusing” her: “I have to take mental medicine because of you,” read an email she sent to Cook on Nov. 2, 2020.
An Apple security employee even wrote in the petition for the order that he had feared for his safety, along with that of his boss.
According to Bloomberg, the restraining order was issued Friday by the Santa Clara County Superior Court. It will expire March 29.
The order bars the woman from interacting with Cook and other Apple employees. She’s also barred from entering any of the company’s properties. The woman is also prohibited from buying guns and ammunition.
Appearing on Fox News Tuesday, Senator Rand Paul issued advice on what to do if you find yourself confronted by one of the dwindling numbers of mask wearing “lunatics” who continue to appeal for mass “collectivism”.
Host Jesse Watters asked Paul about a recent indecent in which two mask Karens attacked a man for not wearing one, and as he was black, kept yelling ‘Black lives Matter’ at him.
“These people clearly aren’t well,” Watters noted, adding “Large swaths of America are in a Covid cult.”
The host asked the Senator “As a medical professional, as a genteel Senator and a polite individual, Dr. Rand Paul, what would you recommend Americans do when they are confronted with these mask maniacs, when they are yelled at and screamed at and being recorded on their phone? How should they handle that in a respectful but normal way?”
“See, I would say bear spray but I’m afraid that will get me in trouble so I won’t say that,” Paul jokingly responded.
He followed up “I think you should back away and say, ‘Lady, you are crazy, leave me the hell alone,’ but you should not confront her.”
Paul continued, “You should not use violence. Back away and just say look, can you not find some other lunatic friends to hang around with?”
Watch:
Great conversation between @JesseBWatters and Sen. Rand Paul on mask mania:
“So really there’s no strong evidence that masks work … If anything the disease keeps going up when you have mask mandates. The masks really have had no influence on the pandemic.” pic.twitter.com/m4fpwydbiW
Paul also noted that “Really this is a difference between individualism and collectivism.”
“I have an opinion, but I’m not wanting to enforce it on anybody. I’m not telling you that you can’t wear a mask. I’m just saying don’t make me wear a mask when it doesn’t work,” the Senator urged.
“They don’t understand that, that we have a perspective, they have a perspective. But they want to force and ram their perspective down our throat through force. I mean, what kind of people are they? This has brought out the worst in people,” he further explained.
Paul also cited evidence from Florida, Sweden, and beyond that mask mandates “have had no influence on the pandemic” further noting that even CNN medical analyst Leana Wen recently labelled cloth masks “little more than facial decorations.”
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.
