Was The J6 "Insurrection" A Government-Sponsored Seditious Conspiracy?

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

Cold Case Heats Up

"[The current FBI] was competent at cracking the case; [Christopher Wray's] was competent at corruption and obstructing it."

- Mike Benz

Do you have any idea what tapestry of corruption and crime is attached to the little thread of the J6 / DNC / RNC pipe bomber suspect arrested yesterday by the FBI? Consider this: suspect Brian Cole, Jr., is alive and probably talking, unlike, say, Jeffrey Epstein and Thomas Matthew Crooks in other matters of public interest. Let’s hope he is under FBI protection in custody, lest something. . . say. . . happen to him.

Dressed for government work?

As of early this morning, the country knows next to nothing else about Cole and what he was up to the night of Jan. 5, 2021.

The FBI has not even said how he is employed. But his photo shows a young man dressed for office work. . . he lives in a nice house in the DC suburbs of Virginia. . .and you might infer that he is, possibly, a federal government worker. Oh, and the FBI was unable to catch him through the whole four years of “Joe Biden?”

You can suppose at this point that the story of that four-year botched investigation will be a way bigger thing than the pipe bomber’s little prank itself.

It probably leads to the story of wholesale corruption in Christopher Wray’s FBI, and even more consequentially, to the realization that the so-called J6, 2021 “insurrection” was a government op from top to bottom, aimed at eradicating Trump and Trumpism.

First, what was supposed to happen in a joint session of Congress that day?

Answer: certification of electoral college votes in the 2020 election. What else was liable to happen that day? Answer: under the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (3 U.S.C. §§ 5–6, 15–18) — as amended, and by the rules laid out in the U.S. Constitution (Article II and the 12th Amendment) — objections to several states’ slates of electors were expected to be entertained, triggering debate and possible rejection of those states’ electors on the basis that the votes were not “lawfully certified” (under 3 U.S.C. § 6), or not “regularly given” (meaning the vote was marred by fraud, corruption, or violence). Any state’s electoral votes could be rejected if both the House and Senate voted by simple majority, after up to two hours of separate debate.

At mid-day, objections meeting the written requirement (one House member + one Senator) were filed for Arizona and Pennsylvania. The objection to the Arizona vote (Rep. Paul Gosar + Sen. Ted Cruz) was the first scheduled to be debated shortly after 1:00 p.m. It was not allowed to happen. Instead, Congress evacuated the chamber. When Congress returned at 8:00 p.m., votes objecting to Arizona and Pennsylvania slates failed and no others were taken up. Senators who previously had committed to debating the votes of several other swing states demurred, citing the breach of demonstrators into the Capitol. The full tally concluded at 3:44 in the morning, Jan 7, “Joe Biden” and Kamala Harris were certified as winners of the 2020 election.

Here are some things to know about the pipe bomb subplot in the J-6 story.

Kamala Harris, vice president-elect, still a sitting Senator (CA), was not in the chamber for the certification process. She arrived at the DNC headquarters some blocks away from the Capitol by motorcade at 11:30 a.m. and stayed until she was evacuated from the DNC at 1:14 p.m. Couple of questions about that? 1) did she not want to be present in the chamber at the momentous instant that her election as veep was certified? 2) Did she not have a duty to be present for voting on any of the procedure? Weird, a little bit. She has never explained what she was doing at the DNC that day.

Kamala Harris was in the DNC building when the pipe bomb was discovered there, around 1:07 p.m. The pipe bomb at the RNC had been discovered some 20 minutes prior, and it was the discovery of that bomb, at 12:44 p.m. that prompted the evacuation of the joint House / Senate session in Congress, not any breach of the Capitol building, which did not occur until 2:13, p.m., more than an hour later.

Now, to the FBI response to all this.

They quickly collected tons of closed-circuit video of a suspect planting these pipe bombs. The footage they released showed the suspect at a one-frame-per-second recording rate which, as Mike Benz points out, is a hundred times slower than any common gas station closed circuit camera nowadays. The FBI also doctored the recordings, specifically blurring out the section of the suspect’s face at one angle captured by a CC camera about eight meters away. The rectangular blur patch over his eyes can be clearly seen. How’d that happen?

The FBI also managed to botch every other aspect of the investigation into the act that actually triggered the evacuation of Congress that day — which was (repeat) not the breach of the Capitol building but the pipe bombs. In the months afterward, FBI Director Wray took agents off the case. He had in place as chief of the FBI’s Washington office an assistant director named Steven D’Antuono who had been in charge previously, as Detroit field chief, of the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case in which at least 12 confidential informants and three FBI agents were involved in what looked like an entrapment scheme. D’Antuono had demonstrated considerable skill in constructing skeezy FBI ops when he was put in charge of the DC office. The agency managed to lose the chain-of-custody for much of the evidence in the case, including originals of the videos, cell phone records, communications records between Capitol police, DC metropolitan police, Secret Service, and the FBI, and more.

So, the pipe bomber has been a cold case lo these many years. And now we’re informed as of yesterday’s FBI / DOJ press conference, that the FBI under Director Patel cracked the case using only information and evidence already in the FBI files. So, get this: there must be a record of exactly which agents were on the pipe bomber case those four years under Christopher Wray. There must be a record of who, by name, was in charge of chains-of-custody for all that evidence. And there must be a record of the senior agents and deputy directors who oversaw all their activities, all the way up to Director Wray. Why would they not be subject to charges of obstruction of justice?

All of this is just the pipe bomber subplot of the J6 story. There remains the weird business with then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her failure to request national guard protection at the US Capitol that day. And there remains the question of how many agents, assets, and confidential informants the FBI had in-place at the Capitol on J6, 2021, including Antifa members, and which actions, including the breach inside the building, they instigated. Then there is the question of the House J6 committee, how it was constructed with the help of lawfare ninja Norm Eisen, and how it deliberately destroyed all the evidence it collected over the months of its existence.

Be prepared to learn how the J6 “insurrection” was a government-sponsored seditious conspiracy and then ponder who, by name, will be held responsible for it. That’s the tapestry that Brian Cole, Jr.’s little thread leads to.

Shout out to Mike Benz for his nearly four-hour discussion about the pipe bomber case on “X”.

Tyler Durden Fri, 12/05/2025 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/lCDSdsP
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/lCDSdsP
via IFTTT

Was The J6 "Insurrection" A Government-Sponsored Seditious Conspiracy?

A Newsom Nihilist Nomination?

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

As California Governor Gavin Newsom gears up to run for president, what in the world will he run on?

Californians know that Newsom will not boast, “I will do for America what I have done to California!”

Why not?

Count the reasons.

California’s astronomical gas prices and taxes remain the highest in the continental U.S.

Ditto the state’s trifecta of the highest electricity rates, the costliest home prices, and the fourth-highest home insurance costs.

California has the largest unfunded liability debt in the nation, approaching $270 billion.

The budget deficit each year usually ranges from $15 to $70 billion.

Such profligate spending and deficits explain why the state also has the highest income taxes and state sales tax rates in the nation.

Just 1% of California households pay 50% of the state income tax. And the fleeced are leaving in droves.

Newsom recently boasted that he extended Medi-Cal health insurance to thousands more illegal aliens.

So, no wonder Newsom next begged for a nearly $3 billion Medi-Cal federal bailout.

Half of the state’s 41 million residents are now on Medi-Cal. Some 50 percent of all births are Medi-Cal-provided—and growing.

California has a lot of other firsts among the 50 states:

• The largest population of illegal aliens.

• The largest number of homeless people.

• The largest number of people fleeing a state.

• The largest number (11 million) and percentage (27%) of foreign-born residents.

• The largest number of people living in poverty.

• The highest food prices in the continental U.S.

• The state’s infrastructure is usually rated near the bottom.

• California ranks among the five worst states in per capita violent crime.

Here are a few other observations about the current disaster that is Newsom’s California.

One, California is a naturally wealthy state. It is the third largest by area. It ranks seventh in the nation in oil reserves. No nation has more agricultural production or forested land acreage. So it’s hard to bankrupt California, but Newsom has managed.

Two, under prior governors Pat Brown, Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, and Pete Wilson, California used to be the best-run state in the country.

California once produced more oil than any other state except Texas.

Its now-moribund timber industry once used to be the third largest in the nation.

And its currently ossified mining and mineral industries were once among the top ten producers in the country.

Three, no state politician over the last three decades has been more responsible for California’s decline than Gavin Newsom: six years as governor, eight years as lieutenant governor, seven years as mayor of San Francisco, and seven years on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Four, California chose decline. In the last thirty years, it drove out somewhere between 18 and 20 million affluent and middle-class state residents, the largest state exodus in U.S. history.

Its open border welcomed in an influx of over 10 million illegal aliens.

Meanwhile, Silicon Valley’s $11 trillion in market capitalization created the wealthiest and the most left-wing out-of-touch elite in the United States.

The result was a medieval state of a few million elites, a mass of poor people, and a vanishing middle class.

Five, such influxes and exoduses, along with gerrymandering, have ensured a one-party state. There are no Republican statewide officeholders.

Democrats control all branches of government. Only 17% of its congressional delegation is Republican. So the Left proudly owns what California has become.

What, then, will Newsom run on?

• Certainly not high-speed rail—17 years, $15 billion, and not a foot of track laid.

• Certainly not a $500-million exploding solar battery plant.

• Certainly not illegally issuing 17,000 commercial truck driver’s licenses to non-resident illegal aliens with little or no English competency.

• Certainly not the horrific but preventable Pacific Palisades fire.

• And certainly not a now-closed $2-billion desert solar plant boondoggle.

Instead, Newsom will continue his he-man threats to Trump, like, “We’re going to punch this bully in the mouth.”

But will such bluster lower the state’s gas and power prices or reduce its sky-high taxes?

On social media and in podcasts, Newsom will continue his adolescent threats to federal officials like Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem while serving up his adolescent potty-mouth smears (e.g., “son of a b***h,” “god-d**n,” “f**k,” etc.).

But that profanity will not lower crime or house prices.

In other words, in the Democrat primaries, Newsom will try to out-crazy the violence, profanity, and extremism of the now-crazy Democrat socialists.

Newsom will rant nonstop about the evil Trump, but neither offer a word nor do a thing about his own responsibility for the collapse of a once great state.

Newsom will lecture on “affordability” without mentioning that he has created the most unaffordable state in the nation.

Will all this gobbledygook work?

It did in New York.

So, who knows?

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/04/2025 - 17:00
https://ift.tt/CNpK7rt
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/CNpK7rt
via IFTTT

A Newsom Nihilist Nomination?

"Rage Bait" May Be The Word Of The Year, But Free Speech Remains The Target

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

George Bernard Shaw famously observed that “England and America are two countries separated by the same language.” It appears, however, that this chasm has finally been overcome by the common dialect of rage. The new word of the year was announced this week by the Oxford University Press and it is tragically apt: “rage bait.”

First used in 2002, the new word is defined as “online content deliberately designed to elicit anger or outrage by being frustrating, provocative, or offensive, typically posted in order to increase traffic to or engagement with a particular web page or social media content.”

The choice is certainly apropos of what I called in my recent book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” Rage is a curious emotion. It is the ultimate release. It allows you to do things and say things that you would not otherwise do or say. That is why it is addictive and contagious.

Rage, however, can also be a license not just to rave but to regulate.

The key to rage is that it is entirely subjective and relative. If you agree with a speaker, it is righteous. If you disagree, it is dangerous.

That relativism was evident in Oxford’s own press release on the selection of the word. 

Casper Grathwohl, President of Oxford Languages, associated the term with “manipulation tactics we can be drawn into online.”

He slammed “internet culture” for “hijacking and influencing our emotions.”

Grathwohl warned that it is an extension of what is called “rage-farming… to manipulate reactions and to build anger and engagement over time by seeding content with rage bait, particularly in the form of deliberate misinformation of conspiracy theory-based material.”

If you listen carefully, you can almost hear the “here, here” grunts of the British censors.

Great Britain and other European countries have eviscerated free speech through criminalization and regulation for decades. The Internet is a particular obsession of the anti-free speech movement. The greatest single invention since the printing press, the Internet is a threat to countries and groups that want to control speech.

The new scourge is hidden “algorithms” that elevate certain postings. While liberals like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) have called for social media companies to use algorithms to encourage people to choose better books, the left accuses these companies of fueling divisions but creating forums for views that it considers “disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation.”

The difficulty is distinguishing content-based bias in algorithms (which is rightfully condemned) from systems that simply elevate more popular posts. If social media is merely favoring more popular speech, the problem with critics is not with the bait but their own failure to attract nibbles from those surfing the web.

The fact is that these companies profit from traffic and favor posts that customers are most interested in reading. That drives activists to distraction because they believe their views are healthier and superior for citizens to discuss.

These are really calls for “enlightened algorithms” to favor truth, as defined by governments and supporting experts. That is not “hijacking” but liberating; it is not “rage bait” but reasoned debate. It is that easy.

Any disliked image or view can be deemed rage bait. The same week that Oxford was choosing rage bait, there was another story of how free speech is in a free fall in the United Kingdom.

Jon Richelieu-Booth told the Yorkshire Post that he was arrested for posting a picture on the networking site LinkedIn of himself holding a shotgun at a friend’s homestead in Florida. West Yorkshire Police allegedly warned him about the post and told him to be “careful” about what he says online and “how it makes people feel.” He was later arrested and spent months in the criminal justice system before the case was dropped.

It is an all-too-familiar story for those of us who have documented the decline of free speech in the UK.

The British police have arrested people for silently praying in public and a man was convicted for “toxic ideologies,” literal thought crimes.

The Times of London reported that police are making around 12,000 arrests per year over online posts.

Rage rhetoric has been with us since humans first learned to speak. The danger of rage rhetoric is rarely the rhetoric itself. It is the use of rage rhetoric by the government and others to silence citizens.

It is easy to say that certain postings are “bait” for rage. It is more difficult to agree on what rage is. While the left will denounce statements of Donald Trump as rage bait, they rarely object to such rhetoric from Hillary Clinton or Jasmine Crockett. The same is often true on the right. Each side views its own postings as reasoned debate and the other side’s as rage bait.

No one is being “hijacked” on the Internet. They are choosing their sources, and many create siloes or echo chambers. It is a common feature of “an age of rage.”

Oxford is clearly correct in the selection of a word that captures the age. However, it also captures the use of rage to rationalize censorship by treating viewpoints as harmful lures for the unsuspecting, unwashed masses. That desire to regulate speech is also often driven by rage, but it is embraced as reason.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 12/04/2025 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/xjC3Z5J
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/xjC3Z5J
via IFTTT

"Rage Bait" May Be The Word Of The Year, But Free Speech Remains The Target

DOE's Hyperspeed Reactors

As the rate of data center development rises, more states should be following the Texas example, where each data center must have its own “behind the meter” onsite power generation. Instead, it appears data center development will continue to grossly outpace the rate of production for on-site electricity generation in most states.

To prevent skyrocketing electric bills, every state has to follow the Texas example: each data center must have its own "behind the meter" onsite power generation.

“We believe data centers should pay for the full cost of their power,” Dominion Energy spokesperson Aaron Ruby… https://t.co/0u1owTeAs8 pic.twitter.com/8W421s3rzV

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 23, 2025

With power demand surging, driven heavily by new AI data centers, more people are starting to realize the best means for addressing future demand will be through clean nuclear energy. Unfortunately, decades of atrophy currently afflict today’s nuclear industry, and nuclear engineers are in desperate need of a “nuclear iteration playground” to quickly develop their advanced reactor designs to the commercial stage.

And then there is the issue of where the US gets 300,000 engineers to build all this missing power supply by 2030 https://t.co/a18crhqZ4v pic.twitter.com/tinW8SHDwM

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 14, 2025

The current framework of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does not allow for efficient iteration of reactor design. The licensing process, which used to take several years and has recently been reduced to a comparatively shorter timeline, would need to be heavily repeated for changes to reactor and secondary systems, reopening reactor developers to lawfare attacks from anti-nuclear activists like the Sierra Club and Beyond Nuclear. This leads to the million dollar question: “How do we enable efficient nuclear reactor iteration?”

Enter the Department of Energy

The American nuclear renaissance isn’t talk. It’s action.

— Office of Nuclear Energy | US Department of Energy (@GovNuclear) September 23, 2025

Derived from the Executive Orders issued by President Trump on May 23, 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) launched the Reactor Pilot Program (RPP). Under this program, multiple companies were chosen to work with the DOE under an expedited licensing pathway to enable faster timelines to reach reactor construction, bringing reactor developers closer to the desired stage of design iteration to achieve economic and commercial scale at a faster pace.  The DOE also initiated the Fuel Line Pilot Program (FLPP) to rapidly progress technology within the nuclear fuel chain.

The primary goal of the RPP was to facilitate three new reactors achieving criticality by July 4, 2026, which was the specific directive given by the Executive Orders. The expedited path to actual steel in the ground is a massive secondary benefit. We recently highlighted one of the program's successes with Valar Atomics achieving cold criticality with Project NOVA.

The FLPP‘s biggest win to date came with the recent announcement of Oklo receiving approval for their Nuclear Safety Design Agreement (NSDA) for the Aurora Fuel Fabrication Facility, approved in just under two weeks.

Concern was expressed by many as to the amount of technical rigor applied to the NSDA review. How could the DOE review in two weeks what would’ve taken the NRC several months, or years? The answer we think others are missing lies in the six years of collaboration between Oklo and the DOE national laboratories. Oklo has been coordinating with Idaho National Laboratory (INL) on multiple projects, including their fuel fabrication facility and their fuel reprocessing technology, since 2019.  The DOE was able to use those two weeks to verify if there were any outstanding questions with the research and coordination that have occurred over those several years, instead of having to take several months or years to perform an independent review of data that had already been coordinated and verified by government laboratory scientists and staff (what the NRC would have to do).

Companies like Oklo will continue to enjoy benefits like these for the remainder of their time under the DOE. Eventually, they will also be able to utilize the recent addendum signed between the DOE and the NRC to very easily and rapidly transition their already approved Aurora reactor design to the NRC license review process for quick commercialization. 

Another under-discussed benefit to working with the federal government on federal land, is the lack of absolute nonsense that reactor developers no longer have to deal with.

• Oklo doesn't have to sit at a local town meeting and listen to grandma complain about how she doesn't want Chernobyl in her backyard
• Atomic Alchemy doesn't have to wait for state and local lawmakers to finish bickering and dragging their feet over changes to zoning laws
• Terrestrial Energy doesn't have to be subject to the weaponization of environmental regulations by the Sierra Club to force them to spend $900 million to protect salmon

The head of the UK nuclear regulatory taskforce says the country is...

"... spending £700m (~$900m) on systems to protect one salmon every ten years..."

... for the UK newest nuclear power plant. https://t.co/pfbL0uElGM

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) November 24, 2025

To a large extent, the federal government gets to do what it pleases on federal land. For now, it seems like the federal government is finally ready to give reactor developers what they have been in desperate need of – a nuclear iteration playground.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 16:40
https://ift.tt/RVbGxOC
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/RVbGxOC
via IFTTT

DOE's Hyperspeed Reactors

The AI Economy And The Public Risk Few Are Willing To Admit

Authored by Mark Keenan via GlobalResearch.ca,

Artificial intelligence is being sold as the technology that will “change everything.” Yet while a handful of firms are profiting enormously from the AI boom, the financial risk may already be shifting to the public. The louder the promises become, the quieter another possibility seems to be:

What if AI is not accelerating the global economy - but masking its slow down?

The headlines declare that AI is transforming medicine, education, logistics, finance, and culture. But when I speak with people in ordinary jobs, a different reality emerges: wages feel sluggish, job openings are tightening, and the loudest optimism often comes from sectors most financially invested in the AI narrative.

This raises an uncomfortable question: Has AI become a true engine of prosperity — or a financial life-support system?

The Mirage of Growth

Recent economic data suggests that a significant portion of U.S. GDP growth is being driven not by broad productivity, but by AI-related infrastructure spending — especially data centers.

A study from S&P Global found that in Q2 of 2025, data center construction alone added 0.5% to U.S. GDP. That is historic. But what happens if this spending slows? Are we witnessing genuine economic expansion — or merely a short-term stimulus disguised as innovation?

This pattern is not new. In Ireland in 2008 — before the housing collapse — construction boomed, GDP rose, and skepticism was treated as pessimism. The United States experienced something similar the same year: real estate appeared to be a pillar of prosperity — until it wasn’t. On paper, economies looked strong. In reality, fragility was already setting in.

Today, echoes of that optimism are returning — except this time, the bubble may be silicon, data, and expectation.

The Productivity Paradox

AI has been presented as a labor-saving miracle. But many businesses report a different experience: “work slop” — AI-generated content that looks polished yet must be painstakingly corrected by humans. Time is not saved — it is quietly relocated.

Studies reflect the same paradox:

• According to media coverage, MIT found that 95% of corporate AI pilot programs show no measurable ROI.

• MIT Sloan research indicates that AI adoption can lead to initial productivity losses — and that any potential gains depend on major organizational and human adaptation.

• Even McKinsey — one of AI’s greatest evangelists — warns that AI only produces value after major human and organizational change. “Piloting gen AI is easy, but creating value is hard.”

This suggests that AI has not removed human labor. It has hidden it — behind algorithms, interfaces, and automated output that still requires correction.

We are not replacing work. We may only be concealing it.

AI may appear efficient, but it operates strictly within the limits of its training data: it can replicate mistakes, miss what humans would notice, and often reinforce a consensus version of reality rather than reality itself. Once AI becomes an administrative layer — managing speech, research, hiring, and access to capital — it can become financially embedded into institutions, whether or not it produces measurable productivity.

As I explore in the book Staying Human in the Age of AI at that point, AI does not enhance judgment — it administers it. And then we should ask:

Is AI improving society — or merely managing and controlling it?

The Global Data Center Stampede — But Toward What?

McKinsey estimates that over $6.7 trillion  may be spent on AI and computing infrastructure by 2030 — a level of capital allocation typically seen in wartime. But what exactly is being built, and will it ever return value to ordinary people?

The United States is not the only nation embedding AI within its economic strategy. Similar trends are emerging globally:

• EU: funding AI infrastructure via public bonds

• China: integrating AI into its “national rejuvenation” strategy

• Singapore / UAE / Ireland: offering major tax incentives to build data-center zones

• BRICS: framing AI as a counterweight to Western digital dominance

AI may no longer be a neutral technology — it is becoming a strategic instrument shaped globally by national policy, geopolitical competition, and financial pressure. The question is no longer whether AI will shape national policy — but whether policy itself is already being reshaped in service of an AI orthodoxy.

Analysts warn that parts of the industry may already resemble a circular economy of expectations: cloud and chip companies invest in AI startups that then buy computing services from the very firms that fund them. Speculation becomes demand — and demand becomes proof of viability.

If this pattern repeats globally, AI may not represent a technological revolution — but a new public liability embedded into national strategies.

The Genesis Mission — And the Rise of State-Protected AI

A November 2025 U.S. executive order — internally referred to as the “Genesis Mission” — may institutionalize AI infrastructure by merging:

• federal supercomputers

• national-lab datasets

• taxpayer funding

• private-sector AI firms

into a unified national AI platform.

This does not guarantee bailouts — but it creates the conditions under which major AI firms may become “too big to fail”. Once AI is embedded into national strategy, failure becomes political.

We may be witnessing the transformation of AI from speculative investment into a publicly underwritten enterprise.

Under these conditions, any failure — technological, economic, or environmental — will not remain private. It will become a public cost.

Are we potentially witnessing a new socialisation of private risk and debt — similar to what occurred after the 2008 housing collapse in the United States, Ireland and elsewhere — with the burden once again transferred onto the public?

Who Carries the Risk?

The concern is not just the data boundaries of AI itself and the “consensus reality” it portrays — but where the financial risk may already be hiding.

Large retirement funds and passive index portfolios are now concentrated in AI-dependent giants such as Nvidia, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Tesla. On the debt side, data-center financing and private credit tied to AI infrastructure are quietly entering bond portfolios.

This means the AI boom is not simply an investment trend. It may already be embedded inside the retirement accounts of ordinary citizens — without their knowledge.

Across borders, governments risk repeating the same pattern: constructing AI infrastructure before proving that it benefits society.

Questions the Global Public Deserves Answers To

• Is AI transforming work — or creating new layers of hidden labor?

• Are data centers driving prosperity — or merely propping up GDP?

• Are citizens knowingly investing in AI — or being invested through passive portfolios?

• Is AI creating value — or simply absorbing public capital and subsidies?

When enough money, debt, and public credibility are tied to a technology, questioning it becomes difficult — and supporting it becomes mandatory.

Conclusion

As I wrote in the book Staying Human in the Age of AI, we should not allow AI to overshadow human thought. History reminds us that optimism is most dangerous when it becomes unquestioned. AI may still deliver genuine breakthroughs — but belief is currently moving faster than evidence.

If AI delivers value, perhaps this risk will be justified. If it does not — the cost will not fall on venture capital. It will fall on pensioners, savers, taxpayers, and future generations.

Now that AI is being treated as national infrastructure, its success or failure is no longer a private gamble. It has become a global public risk — and public risks always come with a public bill.

If we allow AI to define the future, we risk forgetting that the future is still ours to define.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/BTDrmN2
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/BTDrmN2
via IFTTT

The AI Economy And The Public Risk Few Are Willing To Admit

Top 5 Supreme Court Cases To Watch In December

Authored by Sam Dorman and Stacy Robinson via The Epoch Times,

The month of December is set to be a big one for the Supreme Court, which has scheduled oral arguments in hot-button issues such as President Donald Trump’s ability to fire people, campaign spending, and the death penalty.

Its eventual decisions are expected to better define Congress’s power, while creating potentially long-lasting impacts for Americans’ civil liberties.

Here is a breakdown of the cases.

1. Trump’s Ability to Fire Bureaucrats

For months, Trump has been asking the Supreme Court to block lower court orders halting his ability to remove high-level bureaucrats. While the justices have granted him tentative relief on their emergency docket, they’ve yet to fully weigh in on the president’s removal authority.

That’s expected to change after Dec. 8, when the Supreme Court is hearing oral argument over Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member Rebecca Slaughter.

In March, Slaughter received a letter in which Trump said her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent” with his administration’s priorities. Slaughter sued, alleging that Trump violated not only federal law but Supreme Court precedent as well.

With the FTC Act, Congress specified that presidents could fire people only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance”—none of which Trump identified in his letter to Slaughter.

Instead, he cited Article II of the Constitution, which vests the executive power within the president. Slaughter and a district court both disputed this argument on the basis of a nearly 90-year-old precedent called Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

In that case, a unanimous Supreme Court rejected President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s argument that the FTC Act intruded on his authority. In his majority opinion, Justice George Sutherland said that commissioners exercise “quasi-judicial” and “quasi-legislative” functions, and therefore can receive extra protection from Congress.

Trump is asking the Supreme Court to either overrule Humphrey’s Executor or hold that it doesn’t apply to Slaughter’s firing. He also wants the Supreme Court to say that lower courts lack authority to reinstate fired officers.

Slaughter, meanwhile, argues that Trump is misinterpreting his power under the Constitution and that Humphrey’s was settled law. According to the legal doctrine of stare decisis, judges should avoid overturning precedent unless it’s found to have several major flaws.

2. Pro-Life Donors

After the Supreme Court’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked, pro-life pregnancy centers faced a wave of pressure from politicians and activist groups.

Along with other attorneys general, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin accused pregnancy centers of misleading consumers. In attempting to investigate potential legal violations, Platkin subpoenaed a group of faith-based pregnancy centers collectively known as First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc.

First Choice has alleged that Platkin’s subpoena unconstitutionally chills its right to free speech and association by seeking information about its donors. The organization brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which allows private entities to sue governmental entities in federal court over violations of their civil rights.

What followed was a complicated trail of litigation that questioned state authority and ultimately, whether First Choice would ever be able to bring a challenge in federal court. The Supreme Court is expected to address those issues and others during oral argument on Dec. 2.

First Choice asked the Supreme Court to intervene after multiple federal courts said its case wasn’t “ripe” or ready for adjudication. At first, a district court said it wasn’t ripe because Platkin hadn’t attempted to enforce the subpoena. After Platkin did so in state court, the district court again said the case wasn’t ripe. Its reasoning was based on the idea that the state court had to first threaten contempt for not complying with the subpoena.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit eventually said that it wouldn’t force the district court to hear First Choice’s constitutional claims brought under Section 1983. Again, the case was described as unripe—this time because the appeals court said the state court was able to deal with First Choice’s constitutional claims.

First Choice told the Supreme Court this created a “Catch 22” due to a legal doctrine known as res judicata, which prevents the relitigation of an issue that was already decided by another court. “Once a state court adjudicates First Choice’s federal constitutional claims, res judicata will almost certainly bar First Choice from ever having those claims decided by a federal court,” the group said in briefing to the Supreme Court.

Platkin’s briefing to the Supreme Court has focused instead on whether First Choice had established that it faced a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights.

“Any risk that donors’ identities will be produced is speculative and remains wholly contingent on a future state-court order requiring production,” he said.

3. Campaign Spending Limits

The high court will soon hear a case that may impact the 2026 midterm elections by judging whether the First Amendment allows Congress to limit coordinated spending between political committees and candidates.

The case, known as National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) originated with Republicans, including then-Senate candidate J.D. Vance.

They focused on the Federal Election Campaign Act, which imposes a series of limits on political spending—including on individual contributions, expenditures by political parties, and coordination between both parties and candidates. That last category was the one Vance and the NRSC said violated their First Amendment rights, specifically because the FEC sought to enforce it in a way that would restrict their advertising activities.

Since the law’s passage in 1971, it has been updated with various provisions and the Supreme Court has wrestled with whether its limits violate the First Amendment. In doing so, it has attempted to balance interests in free speech with the federal government’s interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption.

In multiple cases, the court has clarified that the First Amendment allows Congress to limit individual contributions to candidates but not independent expenditures on things like ads that support the candidate. Political parties similarly can spend independently of the candidate but Congress can limit how those two coordinate expenditures.

In 2001, the Supreme Court said that that type of coordination opened a back door for individuals to use parties as middle men and circumvent limits on contributions.

That ruling was made in a case known as FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee and was cited by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit when it rejected Republicans’ lawsuit last year. During oral argument on Dec. 9, the Supreme Court is expected to address whether, as Republicans have suggested, it should overrule the 2001 decision.

It’s unclear how the court will rule and the only current justice who was on the court during the 2001 decision is Clarence Thomas, who dissented.

Rather than overturning the 2001 decision, the court could also say the Constitution protects the particular type of activity that Republicans are seeking to perform. Whereas the previous decision focused on a party’s ability to pay a candidate’s bills, Republican committees in the current case are seeking to run ads while getting input from candidates.

The case is a bit unusual because the FEC has joined Republicans in criticizing the 2001 decision, arguing that it didn’t apply to the current case. In the FEC’s place, Democratic committees intervened and argued that coordinated expenditures were “constitutionally equivalent” to contributions while posing a risk of quid pro quo corruption.

4. The Sidewalk Preacher’s Suit

Another case, Olivier v. City of Brandon, involves the First Amendment but in a less direct way. Under Section 1983, Americans can sue governments for violating their First Amendment right and other constitutionally protected rights.

During oral argument on Dec. 3, the high court is expected to hear arguments over how and when convicts can use that law.

The issue arose after Christian street preacher Gabriel Olivier was arrested in 2021 for protesting—including calling passersby names such as “Jezebel”—outside a concert venue. The content of his speech wasn’t so much an issue as where he spoke. The City of Brandon, Mississippi, said he violated its ordinance requiring protesters to carry out their demonstrations in a designated area.

Olivier pleaded no contest to the charges, was fined, and received a suspended sentence of 10 days. It wasn’t until after his sentencing, however, that he filed a civil suit under Section 1983, asking courts to declare that the city ordinance violated the First and 14th Amendments.

The suit was dismissed by lower courts because of a previous Supreme Court precedent, Heck v. Humphrey, which said plaintiffs cannot bring claims under Section 1983 if they “would necessarily imply the invalidity of a prior conviction.”

Olivier appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing he was not looking to overturn his previous conviction but just wanted protection from future prosecutions.

He also said his situation was different from the Heck case.

In that case, the defendant was imprisoned, and was able to bring a habeas petition challenging his detention. Olivier told the court that since he was not imprisoned, he was never able to bring a habeas challenge, which he said would have been the appropriate legal mechanism for challenging the ordinance’s constitutionality.

The city disagreed, stating that “the question in Heck cases is whether a civil judgment would undermine a prior criminal judgment, not whether someone is locked up or out of jail.”

5. IQ and the Death Penalty

Joseph Clifton Smith was sentenced to death for brutally murdering a man in 1997. But after a Supreme Court decision in 2002, Smith alleged that his death sentence was unconstitutional because he was mentally disabled.

That decision, in a case known as Atkins v. Virginia, held that executing a mentally disabled criminal was “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Smith’s case has led the Supreme Court to review how lower courts are supposed to weigh multiple IQ scores in order to determine if someone has an intellectual disability.

“Like most States, Alabama requires that offenders prove an IQ of 70 or less to satisfy the intellectual functioning prong of Atkins v. Virginia,” Alabama said in a petition to the court. “This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests.”

Although all five of Smith’s IQ scores were higher than 70, four were low enough that the margin of error made it possible that his actual score was lower than 70. A panel of appellate judges said that in order to use IQ to maintain the death penalty, the state had to have evidence strong enough to foreclose the possibility of his actual IQ being lower than 70.

Alabama and the Trump administration sought Supreme Court review, arguing that the appeals court was requiring too much and that courts should consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/02/2025 - 15:40
https://ift.tt/zA7SMUi
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/zA7SMUi
via IFTTT

Top 5 Supreme Court Cases To Watch In December

Did A German Court Just Shatter One Of The Biden Era's Biggest Lies

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Below is my column in The Hill on the latest development in the investigation of the environmental crimes committed in the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in the waters near Denmark and Sweden in 2022. The German court issued an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian in a move that could prove an embarrassment for not just Volodymyr Zelensky but Joe Biden. The truth is still unknown with allegations against both Russia and Ukraine. There are “false flags” flying on both sides that dismiss clues pointing to one country or the other. However, the Germans appear to be zeroing in on key Ukrainian figures.

It is often said that “the first casualty when war comes is truth.” A criminal warrant just issued in Germany shows that war continues to claim its victims. However, this warrant could prove to be as great an indictment not just of the government of Volodymyr Zelensky, but also of former President Joe Biden.

This week, a German court issued an arrest warrant for Ukrainian Serhii Kuznietsov, which may finally confirm what was long suspected: that Ukraine was responsible for the 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in the waters near Denmark and Sweden.

The Biden administration may have been given prior warning. It was allegedly told years ago by a Ukrainian whistleblower that a six-person team of Ukrainian special forces was planning to rent a boat, dive to the sea floor and blow up the Nord Stream project. The operation was reportedly led by Gen. Valerii Zaluzhnyi, commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces.

Nevertheless, after the attack, the Biden administration and many in the media fueled speculation that Russia had destroyed its own pipeline, despite evidence and logic to the contrary.

It was another convenient claim of a Russian false-flag operation that allowed the Biden administration to ignore the possibility that Ukraine had not only engaged in environmental crimes but had also knowingly lied to its allies.

For years, some of us have questioned the official account from the Biden administration about the available evidence of those responsible.

The suggestion of a Russian attack on a Russian pipeline never seemed logical.

However, the administration was funneling billions in support for Ukraine, funding that now exceeds an estimated $180 billion.

Having Ukraine sabotage pipelines to our allies would hardly be opportune when many were questioning the costs to U.S. citizens.

The Biden administration was not alone in running interference for Ukraine, as Zelensky denied responsibility despite mounting evidence to the contrary. When another alleged Ukrainian saboteur was found in Poland, a Polish court blocked the extradition to Germany and ordered his release. The reason? The judge did not base the decision on Ukrainian denials. Instead, he declared that the act had been committed in the name of a just war. (Poland remains the frontline against Russian aggression in Europe).

An Italian court did not engage in such rationalization. It ordered the extradition of Kuznietsov, believed to be a key figure in the conspiracy. The attack involved leasing a yacht in the German port of Rostock, using forged IDs and a screen of intermediaries. Kuznietsov insists that he was an army captain serving in Ukraine at the time.

If the investigators are correct, it was not just the Ukrainian government that was lying to us. Biden was also presumably informed by the intelligence agencies of this evidence. Yet Biden kept suggesting anyway that the Russians were covering up the truth. He told the public, “The Russians are pumping out disinformation and lies. We will work with our allies to get to the bottom [of precisely what happened] Just don’t listen to what Putin’s saying. What he’s saying we know is not true.”

Ironically, even if we were told about this evidence, the public might still have supported the commitment to Ukraine. After all, Ukraine is the victim of a horrendous invasion that has involved repeated charges of war crimes against the Russian forces. However, the public has a legitimate expectation that a country that is receiving billions in support will not engage in environmental attacks on our allies. These pipelines were in the economic zone of two NATO countries.

As the Germans work to find the truth, the question is whether the American public will ever be given transparency on our own government’s alleged complicity or knowledge. The public was asked to pump billions into a war while the administration allegedly covered up an attack by Ukraine on a Western pipeline — and then may have misled the public.

The public also has a right to know if the CIA was told in advance that this attack was coming and either gave tacit approval or said nothing to our allies.

While Johnson is often quoted on his 1929 line about truth in war, the line following was equally poignant: “this mode of propaganda whereby … people become war hungry in their patriotism and are lied into a desire to fight. We have seen it in the past; it will happen again in the future.”

It may have happened in the U.S., and truth was not the only casualty. The American people were treated as chumps who could not handle the truth.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/01/2025 - 17:00
https://ift.tt/fHl5BMq
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/fHl5BMq
via IFTTT

Did A German Court Just Shatter One Of The Biden Era's Biggest Lies

On The CIA's Color Revolution Against The Nation It's Supposed To Serve...

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

A Modest Proposal

“This isn’t just about Maduro. This is the final nail in the coffin for the CIA-black-budget narco pipeline that’s been running since the 80s.”

- The Ghost of Ezra on “X”

You must wonder: what exactly has CIA Director John Ratcliffe been doing over in Langley, VA, lo these many months since things changed bigly in Swamptopia? Does he wander the hallways of that giant black box howling ineffectually. . . sit barricaded in his office playing sudoku. . . or is he doing what needs to be done: methodically uncovering and disassembling the diabolical racketeering operation that the agency has become?

One thing for sure: you have heard next to squat coming out of his mouth all year. Mr. Ratcliffe is playing a close hand in a dangerous game and I tend to think that he is for-real. Very few Americans know what really goes on backstage at the CIA, but just say they try to whack the director — that would be checkmate on them. The agency would not survive the arrests of its personnel. And, anyway, Mr. Trump is moving swiftly now to shut down the engine of its nefarious activities.

The CIA, you understand, is the beating heart of the Deep State (a.k.a. the blob). The Democratic Party and the Never-Trump RINOs are its errand boys. And that is why a ten-year-long coup has been running to smash Trump and Trumpism. “Joe Biden” was a piece of furniture thrown out of the truck that the CIA was driving to escape the scene of the crime. “Joe Biden” was under threat of blackmail the whole four years he haunted the Oval Office, having run his own petty racketeering operation to keep his miserable, extended, sick family in beach houses.

CIA Headquarters, Langley, Va.

Mr. Trump is now striking at the apparatus of the CIA’s extra-constitutional power and influence: the election interference machinery that queers politics at home and abroad, and the drug cartel that furnishes the money to run CIA’s many black ops, finances the NGOs behind lawfare and gay-communist street action, and probably underlies many a congressional fortune. That is why the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier group is lurking offshore of Venezuela. That is why Venezuela’s airspace is shut-down, and why Nicolás Maduro is rumored to be fleeing to points unknown in his Gulfstream jet.

While you were carving your turkey, Mr. Trump was preparing to go medieval on Maduro’s $1.5-trillion Cartel del Sol operation, of which the Mexican cartels are mere subalterns, shoveling drugs into the demoralized US population ruined by the campaign that moved productive industry to China, and gainful employment with it.

Mr. Trump hinted that US forces are going into Caracas “very soon” — apparently to seize the Smartmatic servers, cartel drug ledgers, and other evidence of long-running turpitude, and you have to wonder how many someones out of Langley, with names, titles, and offices will turn up in the mix.

Mr. Ratcliffe must know who they are by now. Some of them have been at it since the cowboy days of Mena, Arkansas, back when Bill Clinton was governor and the cocaine planes from Colombia were landing day after day on that little backwater airstrip. The cartels had to switch to boats lately, and we see how that’s been working out. Is it not amazing that Democratic Party mouthpieces object to Mr. Trump blowing them up? They’d rather see another ten thousand unemployed citizens die of fentanyl poisoning in Meigs County, Ohio.

The blob’s errand boys (and girls) in Congress made their lame diversionary move on November 18 with the “Seditious Six” video, an attempt to stir-up mutiny in the military ranks. It backfired badly. It looks like the Dept of War is going to make an example of Senator Mark (“the astronaut”) Kelly, because he was the only veteran among the six who served long enough to qualify for mandatory re-enlistment — and, thus, be subject to military justice, outside the control of blob-run DC federal district judges like “Jeb” Boasberg.

The “Seditious Six” organizer, Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), an ex-CIA official, followed up on the mutiny video November 23 during an interview with ABC’s This Week show, saying she expected that national guard troops might soon shoot US citizens in “stressful situations.” Didn’t work out that way. Rather, three days later, a former CIA-run Afghani “refugee” drove all the way cross-country from Bellingham, WA, to shoot two national guard troops in their heads on a DC street the day before Thanksgiving. The CIA is supposed to track their assets. Who was tracking Rahmanullah Lakanwa? Maybe Elissa Slotkin can ask her old colleagues back in Langley and report back to the public.

Beneath all this surface huggermugger the ongoing coup against Trump and Trumpism still wriggles and rumbles. It looks like it’s going to blow now and spew debris all over the swamp.

If John Ratcliffe has the names of CIA officers who have practiced “color revolution” against our country, he must have passed them on to DNI Tulsi Gabbard and, in turn, the president.

Lincoln assassination plotters at the gallows, July, 1865

Mr. Trump might consider treating them the same way that President Andrew Johnson treated the cabal behind the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The eight defendants (minus John Wilkes Booth who was hunted down and shot in a Virginia barn) were tried by a nine-member military commission at the old DC arsenal. Four were hanged, three sentenced to life in prison, one to six years.

The CIA’s color revolution against the nation it’s supposed to serve is a much larger, farther-flung, sinister conspiracy than the plot to murder of Abe Lincoln.

There could be dozens, scores of CIA officials in Langley who know what has been going on there.

Maybe JFK was right back in 1963 when he said he wished to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/01/2025 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/zkGcNSm
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/zkGcNSm
via IFTTT

On The CIA's Color Revolution Against The Nation It's Supposed To Serve...

FDA's "Profound Revelation": COVID Shots Killed At Least 10 Children, Stronger Vax Rules Coming

The Food and Drug Administration's top overseer of vaccine policy on Friday told employees that at least 10 American children died "after and because of receiving" a Covid-19 vaccine. In a 3,000-word memorandum first reported by PBS, Dr. Vinay Prasad, director of the FDA's vaccine division, also committed to implementing changes to the FDA's evaluation of vaccine efficacy and safety, and encouraged dissenting employees to find a new job. 

“This is a profound revelation,” Prasad wrote. “For the first time, the US FDA will acknowledge that COVID-19 vaccines have killed American children.” Prasad said the conclusion about children dying from Covid-19 vaccines was reached after he and other FDA staffers undertook a multi-month, "detailed analysis of deaths voluntarily reported to the [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] system (VAERS)."

That effort focused on 96 deaths that occurred between 2021 and 2024, and said "no fewer" than 10 of them were caused by the vaccines. "If anything, this represents conservative coding, where vaccines are exculpated rather than indicted in cases of ambiguity. The real number is higher." He added,

"It is horrifying to consider that the US vaccine regulation, including our actions, may have harmed more children than we saved. This requires humility and introspection." 

A hematologist-oncologist and former Cal-San Francisco professor, Vinay Prasad is the nation's top vaccine regulator (Kristyna Wentz-Graff / OHSU)

Prasad slammed the coercive nature of policies that insisted on Covid shots for children: 

"Healthy young children who faced tremendously low risk of death were coerced, at the behest of the Biden administration, via school and work mandates, to receive a vaccine that could result in death. In many cases, such mandates were harmful. It is difficult to read cases where kids aged 7 to 16 may be dead as a result of covid vaccines ...

FDA has never requested the manufacturers demonstrate in randomized fashion that vaccinating children improves...outcomes. The available randomized data in children is deeply limited, and broadly negative for symptomatic infection, as discussed in prior ad-coms. Furthermore, COVID-19 was never highly lethal for children, and now MIS-c [Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children] has decreased drastically, and the harms, to kids, are comparable to many respiratory viruses for which we do not provide annual immunization." 

Prasad -- a hematologist-oncologist -- was among several outspoken critics of the Covid-19 regime that moved into key public health posts after Trump took office in January. Others include Robert F. Kennedy, Jr as Health and Human Services secretary, Dr. Marty Makary as FDA commissioner and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya as Director of the National Institutes of Health. 

“Vaccine deaths are a very small minority”
That’s what News Nation’s Elizabeth Vargas just told FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary…

His response left the studio silent.

Direct quotes from the interview:

- “Hundreds of thousands of Americans describe vaccine injury”

- “25%… pic.twitter.com/lPyQc7gqeS

— Camus (@newstart_2024) November 28, 2025

Friday's memorandum emphasizes that VAERS likely understates vaccine-triggered mortality: 

"When it comes to vaccine deaths, VAERS is passively reported. It requires a motivated person, often a doctor, to submit the information. The submission process is tedious and most people who start the form give up along the way. Many more deaths may be unreported." 

To minimize future vaccine-driven deaths, Prasad said the FDA "will take swift action regarding this new safety concern" and "will demand pre-market randomized trials assessing clinical endpoints for most new products." Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, Prasad repeatedly sounded alarms about public health interventions that were imposed without rigorous efforts to seek evidence of their risks and rewards. This has been a central theme in his body of work; he also authored a book, "Malignant: How Bad Policy and Bad Evidence Harm People with Cancer." 

Prasad said the FDA will also "revise the annual flu vaccine framework," which he called "an evidence-based catastrophe of low quality evidence." He also acknowledged that "[FDA has] not been focused on understanding the benefits and harms of giving multiple vaccines at the same time." He ended the memo by urging staffers who aren't comfortable with the new approach to resign:

"I remain open to vigorous discussions and debate on these topics, as I have always been. I am open minded to modifications or alterations...Some staff may not agree with these core principles and operating principles. Please submit your resignation letters to your supervisor and CC my deputy Katherine Szarama...for those who choose to remain...I look forward to working with you." 

Prasad's pointed statement about vaccine-caused deaths comes ahead of this week's meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine committee. The draft agenda for the meetings on Dec 4 and 5 includes FDA policy on giving hepatitis B vaccines to newborn babies, and the entire children's immunization schedule. The meetings are open to the public via live webcasts.  

It's noteworthy that major media outlets that obtained a copy of Prasad's memorandum have only provided short quotations from it, seemingly seeking to undercut Prasad's assault on the Covid regime those same outlets unquestioningly supported. You can read the entire 3,000-word memo at The Brownstone Institute, a site originally launched to scrutinize Covid policies. 

Dr. Robert Malone, a Covid vaccine critic with credentials in mRNA technology, hailed Prasad's memorandum as a historic milestone. "I am stunned, gobsmacked by his letter," he wrote at Malone News. "The significance and importance of this letter in the context of US and global vaccine policy cannot be overestimated. This is a revolution, the likes of which I never expected to see in my lifetime. The Washington Post called me a liar for stating what is now official FDA policy and truth." 

Of course, vaccines were just one of many public health policies of the Covid era that may have done far more harm than good. With a Pandora's box of policy side-effects that include impaired child development, learning loss, a surge in mental breakdowns, soaring juvenile suicide attempts, increased drug and alcohol abuse, increased domestic violence and higher drug overdoses, it's increasingly clear that, in its coercive, ham-handed approach to Covid-19, public health didn't err on the side of caution, but rather erred on the side of catastrophe. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/30/2025 - 18:05
https://ift.tt/VNA9v63
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/VNA9v63
via IFTTT

FDA's "Profound Revelation": COVID Shots Killed At Least 10 Children, Stronger Vax Rules Coming

Trump Pushes To Reopen California Coast To Offshore Drilling

Authored by Felicity Bradstock via OilPrice.com,

• A draft federal plan proposes six offshore lease sales along the California coast, reversing decades of restrictions introduced after the 1969 Santa Barbara spill.

• California Governor Gavin Newsom, coastal states, and environmental groups vow legal and political resistance, calling the plan dangerous and “dead on arrival.”

• The proposal also includes new leasing in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, likely sparking pushback from Florida Republicans and adding to nationwide opposition.

New oil and gas drilling could commence in California if President Donald Trump gets his way, as the U.S. federal government continues to support a “Drill, baby, drill” approach to fossil fuel production. 

In November, the Trump administration plans to allow new oil and gas drilling off the California coast, according to a draft plan shared with the Washington Post. This would be the first time in several decades that new exploration operations were permitted. The document outlines a plan for six offshore lease sales along the California coastline, as well as the expansion of drilling into the eastern Gulf of Mexico, between 2027 and 2030.

It is thought that the Interior Department could announce a formal proposal as early as this week. Any new drilling is expected to be centred around the Santa Barbara County region, where limited drilling is already taking place. 

A major oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969 prompted the government to bring an end to new leasing off the Pacific Coast, as well as limit existing drilling operations. Previous governments have continued to restrict drilling in the Californian waters, which extend three miles from the shoreline, due to concerns over beach pollution and the potential negative impact on tourism.

Pete Stauffer, the ocean protection manager of the Surfrider Foundation, stated, “Offshore drilling is highly unpopular across the country and will increase the likelihood of yet another destructive oil spill off our coasts. Surfrider Foundation’s chapter network will fight this proposal vigorously to protect all US coastlines from the unnecessary risks involved with new offshore drilling.”

The plan would also require Trump to approve new oil and gas leasing in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, a body of water that the President renamed the Gulf of America in January. This would likely lead to pushback from Republicans in Florida who have been opposed to new drilling since the Deepwater Horizon rig disaster of 2010. 

Meanwhile, in June, South Carolina governor Henry McMaster wrote a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in which he stated that South Carolina’s coastline was “one of the most pristine in the country, and offshore drilling is simply not in its best interest.”

Despite efforts by the Trump administration to open nearly all U.S. coastal waters to drilling earlier this year, the Interior Department ultimately decided to introduce a moratorium on drilling off Florida, Georgia and South Carolina through 2032 following pressure from Republicans in the southeast of the country.

The position of oil and gas companies on conducting drilling in California waters is not yet clear, although developing new projects in the state would require a significant investment in supporting infrastructure, compared to other already developed regions of the United States. Analysts do not expect oil and gas companies to have much interest in the area due to the lack of infrastructure, as well as the widespread regional opposition to new drilling.

During this month’s COP30 climate summit in Brazil, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, told reporters that any plan to carry out new drilling in the region would be “dead on arrival” in California. Newsom also said that the state would “absolutely” challenge the plan in court once it was finalised. This reflects his historic stance on new drilling. In June, Newsom addressed the Interior Department in a letter stressing California’s “continued opposition” to additional fossil fuel development.

Newsom, a long-time supporter of the U.S. green transition, attended the climate summit in Trump’s absence, after the Trump administration said that no high-level U.S. representatives would go to UN climate talks. During a ministerial meeting, Newsom said, "I’m very mindful that the Trump administration has abandoned any sense of duty, responsibility, or leadership as it relates to the issues that bring us all here together… It’s an abomination. It’s a disgrace."

In response to news of the anticipated drilling proposal, Newsom said that it was “remarkable” that Trump did not call for drilling near his Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago.

“He didn’t promote it off the coast of Florida,” stated Newsom. “That says everything about Donald Trump.”

In California, Texas-based oil company Sable Offshore has shown interest in reactivating three drilling rigs in federal waters off Santa Barbara that have sat unused since an oil spill in 2015. In May, Sable began producing oil at one of the rigs under an existing lease. However, following the move, California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, sued Sable Offshore, accusing the firm of illegally discharging waste into local waterways.

Although there has been no formal proposal for drilling in California, reports of plans for new exploration have prompted widespread pushback from state officials. The state governments of California, Florida and South Carolina have all shown opposition to new offshore oil exploration, meaning the federal government can expect a fight to get any new projects off the ground in those regions. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/30/2025 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/LEqu4xj
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/LEqu4xj
via IFTTT

Trump Pushes To Reopen California Coast To Offshore Drilling