The Daily Wire reported that, even though the Emmy Award-winning HBO series starring Julia Louis-Dreyfus ended in 2019, many clips have been circulating since Biden’s announcement, with people comparing the fictional character Selina Meyer to Harris.
On July 22, 2024, the series’ viewership increased by 353% compared to the day before. On July 21, 2024, Biden announced he was dropping out. Viewers watched 2.2 million minutes of the series on MAX the day after the announcement. The day before that, it was only 486,000 total minutes.
Last year, Harris mentioned the show during an interview with Stephen Colbert, claiming that there are “bits of [the show] that are actually quite accurate” and saying she was a fan of Louis-Dreyfus.
“[Biden] is really a true partner, and he understands that job. He’s an extraordinary leader and I wish people could see what I see because there’s only one person who sits behind that Resolute Desk. And the decisions that person has to make are the decisions that nobody else in the country can make. And he’s an extraordinary leader. He really is,” she said.
The show’s creator, Armando Iannucci, responded earlier this week to fans who pointed out similarities between the comedy series and current politics.
“Let’s remind ourselves that #Veep has already written a fictional version of this script… Kamala *inherits* the actual presidency. Then runs. The electoral college is tied. The [House] vote is tied, [which] means the Senate has to choose the tie-breaking candidate. And that ends up with… JD Vance as POTUS (Nb this is DRAMA …),” one of the fans wrote.
Iannucci responded to the comment by pointing out that the show is fictional.
“Don’t forget we made all that up, though,” he said, adding in another of his comments that we are still “working on the ending.”
The news source reported that, in the show, the president resigns, leaving Meyer to ascend the office herself and later launch her campaign.
(Headline USA) The Senate will consider legislation this week that aims to protect children from dangerous online content, moving forward with what could become the first sweeping new regulation of the tech industry in decades.
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, R-N.Y., announced Tuesday that he will bring the bipartisan bill up in the Senate, with hopes of passing it before the chamber leaves for its August recess. The legislation had stalled for months even as more than two-thirds of the Senate signed on to support it and families of children who have suffered online bullying and harm advocated for its passage.
Schumer said on the Senate floor that the bill is “personal” for him after meeting in recent months with parents of children who died by suicide after they were harassed online, targeted by predators, or had their information stolen.
The parent advocates say social media and other tech companies need to do more to try to help prevent trauma endured by children and teenagers who inevitably spend a lot of their time online.
“Social media has helped hundreds of millions of people connect in new ways over the last two decades,” Schumer said. “But there are also new and sometimes serious health risks that come along with those benefits. We cannot set these risks aside. On this issue, we desperately need to catch up.”
The online safety bill, which the Senate will consider along with a separate bill to update child online privacy laws, would be the first major tech regulation package to move in years. While there has long been bipartisan support for the idea that the biggest technology companies should face more government scrutiny, there has been little consensus on how it should be done.
Congress passed legislation earlier this year that would force Chinese-owned social media company TikTok to sell or face a ban, but that law only targets one company.
The bill’s prospects in the House are so far unclear. But if it passes the Senate with an overwhelming bipartisan vote—as it is expected to—advocates hope it will put pressure on House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to bring it up before the November election or the end of the session in January.
The child safety bill came together as Blumenthal and Blackburn have worked together and with advocacy groups for several years on compromise legislation that is designed to hold companies more responsible for what children see online while also ensuring that Congress does not go too far in regulating what individuals post.
The legislation would create what is called a “duty of care”—a legal term that requires companies to take reasonable steps to prevent harm on online platforms minors will likely use.
The companies would be required to mitigate and even prevent harms to children, including bullying and violence, the promotion of suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, sexual exploitation, and advertisements for illegal products such as narcotics, tobacco, or alcohol.
To achieve that goal, social media platforms would have to provide minors with options to protect their information, disable addictive product features, and opt out of personalized algorithmic recommendations. They would also be required to limit other users from communicating with children and limit features that “increase, sustain, or extend the use” of the platform—such as autoplay for videos or platform rewards.
In general, online platforms would have to default to the safest settings possible for accounts they believe belong to minors. The idea, Blumenthal and Blackburn have said, is for the platforms to be “safe by design.”
The senators have worked closely with the parents of children who have died by suicide after cyberbullying or otherwise been harmed by social media, including dangerous social media challenges, extortion attempts, eating disorders, and drug deals.
Schumer appeared with some of them Tuesday at a tearful news conference, choking up a bit himself as some of the mothers held up photos of their children.
Maurine Molak, the mother of a 16-year-old who died by suicide after “months of relentless and threatening cyberbullying,” said at the news conference that she believes the bill can save lives. She urged every senator to vote for it.
“Anyone who believes that children’s well-being and safety should come before big tech’s greed ought to put their mark on this historic legislation,” Molak said.
Some tech companies, like Microsoft, X and Snapchat, are supporting the bill. Opponents, however, fear it would violate the First Amendment and harm vulnerable kids who wouldn’t be able to access information on LGBT issues or abortion—although the bill has been revised to address many of those concerns, and major LGBT groups have decided to support the proposed legislation.
With 70 senators already backing the legislation, it is almost certain to pass overwhelmingly. Still, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican who strongly opposes government regulation of any kind, has pushed back against the bill, making it harder for Schumer to pass it quickly through the Senate.
Without an agreement to speed up the process from all 100 senators, the bill may not come up for a final vote until next week.
Along with the online safety bill, the Senate will also consider bipartisan online privacy legislation by Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Bill Cassidy, R-La. That bill would update current law that prohibits online companies from collecting personal information from users under 13 by raising the age to 17.
The bill would also ban targeted advertising to users under 17 and allow teens or guardians to delete a minor’s personal information.
(Jacob Bruns, Headline USA) In a recent interview with Wired, former COVID czar Anthony Fauci implied that the reelection of former President Donald Trump—or other any iconoclastic figure on the Right who questioned the divine wisdom of institutional authority and collectivist groupthink—would be a greater threat to civilization than the next global pandemic.
Levy began by asking Fauci about his relation with Trump during the early days of the spread of COVID.
According to Fauci, working under Trump made it difficult to keep one’s “integrity intact” since Trump “did not listen” to people like him or Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator.
Fauci divulged that he had “a complicated relationship” with Trump, who, for whatever reason, did not ever fire Fauci, despite his allegedly dictatorial ways.
But, delving deeper into his own political views, Fauci suggested that some Americans had what he perceived to be illegitimate—and possibly fascistic—political opinions because they did not submit entirely to his COVID mandates.
This took place, according to Fauci, because Trump became president by “saying things that were egregiously untrue, but accepted by tens of millions of his followers.”
This “ominous sign,” this “normalization of untruths,” for Fauci, caused people to doubt the science, and ultimately ignore his suggested protocols, from vaccinations to masking to social distancing.
Responding to Levy’s question as to what causes him to “lose sleep,” the virologist initially stayed within his wheelhouse, arguing it would be another pandemic (even though the last one—which some believe he may have helped cause—made him a very wealthy and important man by most accounts).
“[W]hen Covid came, that was my worst nightmare,” he claimed.
“My worst nightmare now is similar, that we could have another respiratory-borne highly transmissible virus that spreads rapidly throughout the world,” he added. “And as a degree of morbidity and mortality, that still is my major concern.”
However, Levy pointed out that in his book Fauci said he was “more disturbed by the crisis of truth in the country” than the public health concern.
After citing Trump as the source of those alleged untruths, Fauci said he agreed that democracy was “on a precipice”—despite having earlier complained about the lack of compliance with his authoritarian mandates.
“You have to nurture democracy,” he philosophized.
“If you let this craziness go about, it will erode the foundations of democracy,” he continued. “So I don’t think democracy is a given automatic, you need to protect it. You need to nurture it. If you don’t do that, you might lose it.”
Ultimately, Fauci suggested, the rise of Trump, enabled by his supporters, bore similarities to the rise of Adolf Hitler.
“Once there is a doubt about what is really true and not true, the social order erodes,” he said.
“… Something similar happened in Europe in the 1930s, when absolute lies were said about people and about populations. The next thing you know, you had Nazis doing absolutely unbelievable things.”
Despite his unhinged rant against his former boss, Fauci insistend on maintaining his nonpartisan stance when pressed by Levy to reveal whom he would be voting for in the upcoming election.
“I don’t talk politics,” Fauci claimed, “but you can figure out if you’re listening.”
(Ken Silva, Headline USA) President Joe Biden said in a recent speech that the infamous gallows built on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, 2021, were “erected to hang Vice President Mike Pence.”
That’s a strong claim coming from the sitting—at least for now—leader of the free world. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., asked FBI Director Chris Wray about Biden’s claim during a Wednesday congressional hearing, and Wray surprisingly debunked the president’s false characterization of the “gallows.”
Biden recently alleged that "gallows" erected on January 6th were intended to assassinate Vice President Mike Pence.
“I’m not aware of any physical gallows … It might have been a replica or symbol,” Wray told Massie.
The congressman agreed: “It looks like a prop. The construction doesn’t look like it would lend itself to hanging somebody. If the president were correct, that would be a very serious allegation.”
Massie asked Wray whether anyone has been arrested or even identified as the builder of the gallows. He also asked whether the gallows builders were FBI informants.
Wray said he had no knowledge of informants being involved, and that he didn’t know whether the gallows-makers have been arrested—but the answer is almost certainly no. As Headline USA reported in February, the FBI still doesn’t know who built the gallows.
“Three years later, the FBI still has no suspects. Additionally, the Select Committee on January 6th seemingly did not review the USCP CCTV footage to identify the culprits behind the gallows, or if they did, they never released information about when the gallows were built and who built them—which can all be seen on CCTV footage from early in the morning on January 6,” Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., stated said in a February press release.
According to Loudermilk, the gallows builders arrived at approximately 6:30 a.m. on January 6, 2021, in a white full-size van parked north of Constitution Avenue. There, three passengers unloaded a large bundle of lumber with wheels.
After unloading, the group walked the bundle across Constitution Avenue and onto the grass at Union Square, according to Loudermilk. They were then joined by two more people arriving by cab at the corner of 1st and C Streets NW, Loudermilk said.
Between 6:30 a.m. and 7:15 a.m., the group constructed the platform and two main pillars of the gallows, only leaving off the crossbeam, he said. During this time, the apparent group leader along with one other person, left the group and walked down 3rd Street, heading north. They returned a few minutes later with coffee, and the entire group left the scene, according to Loudermilk.
“Despite the leader’s distinctive clothing—he was wearing a long trench coat, long white scarf, fedora-type hat, and walking with a cane—he has never been identified publicly,” he said.
“At approximately 1:00 p.m., the group of five returned to the scene and the presumed leader, now wearing a baseball cap, installed the final crossbeam and added the noose made of bright orange rope. Shortly after construction was complete, all five men left the grounds.”
Loudermilk noted that the construction of the gallows violated the Capitol Police Guidelines for Conducting an event on United States Capitol Grounds, which prohibit temporary structures from being built on Capitol grounds. He asked why Capitol Police allowed the gallows to remain intact throughout the morning of Jan. 6.
“It is inconceivable that a gallows could be constructed on U.S. Capitol property and left up all day,” he said.
“These men arrived early in the morning, several hours before the rally even started or anyone had gathered, to construct the gallows platform, yet this structure was allowed to stay intact for all to see. These actions raise more serious and troubling questions. Why didn’t the U.S. Capitol Police take down the gallows once it was seen on Capitol property, and why have the individuals never been identified?”
(Ken Silva, Headline USA) A whistleblower has disclosed that the Secret Service declined an offer from local police to use their drones for aerial surveillance before the deadly July 13 Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.
The whistleblower’s disclosure followed Wednesday’s congressional hearing with FBI Director Chris Wray, who confirmed reports that the alleged shooter, Thomas Crooks, flew a drone over the Trump rally site hours before the event.
“We have recovered a drone the shooter appeared to use. It was recovered in his vehicle with the controller. Additionally, we’ve uncovered that around 3:50 p.m., on the day of the shooting, that the shooter was flying the drone around the area. Not over the stage, but about 200 yards away from that—we think, but don’t know,” Wray said.
The revelation that Crooks used a drone to plan his assassination attempt prompted questions about why the Secret Service didn’t have its own drones, or at least counter-drone technology. And on Thursday, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., added to those questions when he revealed his whistleblower’s information that the Secret Service turned down drones from local police.
🚨🚨 NEW – Whistleblower tells me local law enforcement partners & suppliers offered drones to Secret Service BEFORE the rally – but Secret Service declined pic.twitter.com/UM0jfrMc9z
“Why was the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) not using its own drones? According to one whistleblower, the night before the rally, U.S. Secret Service repeatedly denied offers from a local law enforcement partner to utilize drone technology to secure the rally,” Hawley said in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
“This means that the technology was both available to USSS and able to be deployed to secure the site. Secret Service said no.”
According to Hawley, his whistleblower further alleged that after the Secret Service changed its mind after the shooting, and asked law enforcement to deploy the drone to surveil the aftermath of the attack.
“It is hard to understand why USSS would decline to use drones when they were offered, particularly given the fact USSS permitted the shooter to overfly the rally area with his own drone mere hours before event,” Hawley added.
“The failure to deploy drone technology is all the more concerning since, according to the whistleblower, the drones USSS was offered had the capability not only to identify active shooters but also to help neutralize them.”
Since the Secret Service is housed within the DHS, Hawley asked Mayorkas to provide all and communications concerning the availability or use of drones at the July 13, 2024 rally in Butler. He also demanded that Mayorkas testify before his committee.
To date, DHS has yet to provide Congress any records about the Trump shooting, according to lawmakers.
(Headline USA) The Defense Department will review the Medals of Honor that were given to 20 U.S. soldiers for their actions in the 1890 battle at Wounded Knee to make sure their conduct merits such an honorable award.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered the review by a special panel of experts after consultation with the White House and the Department of the Interior.
Congress recommended such a review in the 2022 defense bill, reflecting a push by some lawmakers to rescind the awards for those who participated in the massacre on South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Indian Reservation near Wounded Knee Creek.
An estimated 250 Native Americans, including women and children, were killed in the fight and at least another 100 were wounded.
Medals of Honor were given to 20 soldiers from the 7th Cavalry Regiment, and their awards cite a range of actions including bravery, efforts to rescue fellow troops, and actions to “dislodge Sioux Indians” who were concealed in a ravine.
Native American groups, advocates, state lawmakers from South Dakota, and a number of Congress members have called for officials to revoke the awards. Congress apologized in 1990 to the descendants of those killed at Wounded Knee but did not revoke the medals.
In a memo signed last week, Austin said the panel will review each award “to ensure no soldier was recognized for conduct that did not merit recognition” and if their conduct demonstrated any disqualifying actions. Those could include rape or murder of a prisoner or attacking a non-combatant or someone who had surrendered.
Austin said Army Secretary Christine Wormuth must provide the historical records and documentation for the awards for each soldier to the panel by Friday. The panel must provide a written report no later than Oct. 15, recommending that each award be either revoked or retained.
The standards for awarding the Medal of Honor have evolved over time, but the review will evaluate the 20 soldiers’ actions based on the rules in place at the time. Austin said the panel of five experts can consider the context of the overall incident to assess each soldier’s actions.
The dispute continues a long history of contentious relations between the tribes in South Dakota and the government dating to the 1800s. The Wounded Knee massacre was the deadliest, as federal troops shot and killed Lakota men, women, and children during a campaign to stop a religious practice known as the Ghost Dance.
(Elias Irizarry, Headline USA)FBI Director Chris Way expressed doubt about whether former President Donald Trump was shot on July 14, claiming that he may have been struck by shrapnel instead, at a Congressional hearing on July 24.
Wray met with the House Judiciary Committee to update Congressmen on the investigation into the assassination attempt on Trump by Thomas Matthew Crooks that killed one and left several injured. In the hearing, Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., asked Wray how close the bullet came to delivering a fatal blow to Trump.
“My understanding is that it [the bullet], or some shrapnel, is what grazed his ear, so I don’t know if I have the answer to that,” Wray answered.
Wray repeated the theory when Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked Wray if they had been able to account for all eight bullets, including the one that struck Trump.
“As I said, with respect to former President Trump, there’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear,” Wray answered, hinting that glass from the teleprompter may have pierced Trump’s ear instead.
FBI Director Wray starts a conspiracy theory by saying that Trump may not have been shot! WTF is wrong with him! He should be fired!
— Bad Kitty Unleashed 🦁 (@pepesgrandma) July 25, 2024
Trump’s former White House physician, Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, released a doctor’s note following the shooting confirming that Trump had been shot in the ear by a bullet.
Jackson immediately blasted the remarks by Wray, calling it “absolutely irresponsible” and “politically motivated.”
“What little credibility he may have left is GONE after recklessly suggesting Trump might not have been hit from a bullet,” Jackson wrote on his Twitter/X page. “IT WAS A BULLET — I’VE SEEN THE WOUND!”
ABSOLUTELY IRRESPONSIBLE for Chris Wray to make such a statement as Director of the FBI.
Another POLITICALLY MOTIVATED move by the man that has repeatedly weaponized his office to tear down President Trump.
It didn’t take long for left-wing outlets to capitalize off the theory pushed by Wray, with Newsweek writing an article titled ‘Donald Trump might not have been shot after all.’
Donald Trump Jr. took to X to denounce the article by Newsweek, writing, “Newsweek might be the most embarrassing “news organization” in the entire country. They constantly publish BS, but this is next level Trump derangement. They should be ashamed of themselves!!!”
This is really covering some ground, but @Newsweek might be the most embarrassing "news organization" in the entire country. They constantly publish BS, but this is next level Trump derangement. They should be ashamed of themselves!!! pic.twitter.com/ggjWWPCU7S
One user by the name of Brick_Suit, even commented on the article with a picture he took from the aftermath of the shooting, showing the teleprompters which left-wing outlets have said were the origin of the shrapnel they claimed struck Trump’s ear instead of a bullet.
Hey Newsweek! I was standing in the front row. Here's the photo I took of the teleprompters. See any damage? Get rekt you clowns. pic.twitter.com/ZrKftdkh39
In the hearing, Wray also admitted that FBI officials had lamented the fact that Trump had not been killed in the assassination attempt.
“In 2015 and 2016 top FBI officials infamously texted about their insurance policy to make sure Trump was never elected or inaugurated as president,” said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas. “Have any FBI agents texted, emailed, or expressed disappointment that Trump survived the assassination attempt?”
“There have been at least two instances, I think, or one instance, of an individual who posted something that I consider outrageous, and, totally inappropriate, and unacceptable, and that individual has been referred to our inspection division,” responded Wray.
WOW! Wray Says There Were At Least Two Instances Where FBI Officials Expressed Disappointment That Trump Survived Assassination Attempt | The Gateway Pundit
And we are supposed to believe that Trump would-be assassin Thomas Crooks acted alone?
(Chris Powell, Money Metals News Service) In the July 18 edition of GoldNewsletter, editor and publisher Brien Lundin wrote about the failure of silver prices to keep up with gold prices. “I’m not the kind of conspiracy buff that many of my friends in the industry are,” Lundin wrote, “but it’s hard to look at silver and not see some hidden hands at work (especially considering who holds so much of the metal in both physical and paper forms while acting as custodian for the biggest silver exchange-traded fund).”
Of course, Lundin meant investment bank JPMorgan Chase and silver ETF SLV.
Why anyone would invest in silver or the other precious and monetary metals with JPMorgan Chase can be explained only by ignorance.
In the last decade, the bank has pleaded guilty to five felonies and has paid more than a billion dollars in government fines and civil lawsuit settlements, including a fine of $920 million for manipulation of the monetary metals markets by some of its traders:
But silver market manipulation long has been bigger than even JPMorgan Chase.
Indeed, silver price suppression has been U.S. government policy since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Coinage Act of 1965, which removed silver from the country’s money.
Signing the act into law, Johnson proclaimed: “If anybody has any idea of hoarding our silver coins, let me say this. Treasury has a lot of silver on hand, and it can be and it will be used to keep the price of silver in line with its value in our present silver coin. There will be no profit in holding them out of circulation for the value of their silver content”:
It’s not known how long the U.S. government’s strategic silver inventory lasted after 1965 and how much was used for executing the price-suppression policy Johnson proclaimed, but eventually, collectors and investors did exactly what the president warned would bring them no profit. They removed the silver coins from circulation and hoarded them as the steady inflation of the U.S. dollar made them worth far more than their face value.
JPMorgan Chase Bank long has been a primary dealer in U.S. government securities and has been particularly close to the U.S. Treasury Department, so when SLV was launched in 2006 and the bank became custodian of the fund’s silver, suspicion of government involvement with the bank and the ETF was fairly aroused. (The bank now is also the custodian of the metal of the major gold ETF, GLD, prompting more fair suspicion.)
After SLV was founded, complaints that JPMorgan Chase was manipulating the silver market grew loud enough that the bank felt obliged to answer them publicly.
First, the bank’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, said the bank had no interest of its own in the monetary metals and traded them only for clients. Then in 2012 the head of the bank’s commodity desk, Blythe Masters, went on CNBC to emphasize this denial, particularly in regard to silver.
“There’s been a tremendous amount of speculation, particularly in the blogosphere, on this topic,” Masters told the CNBC reporter. “I think the challenge is that it represents a misunderstanding of the nature of our business. … Our business is a client-driven business where we execute on behalf of clients to achieve their financial and risk-management objectives. … We have offsetting positions. We have no stake in whether prices rise or decline.”
But since CNBC is a mainstream financial news organization, its reporter failed to put the critical follow-up question to Masters: Do JPMorgan Chase’s clients trading silver and other monetary or precious metals include governments, particularly the U.S. government, directly or indirectly?
The answer to that question was provided inadvertently 10 years later, and barely noticed by mainstream financial news organizations, during the trial of the JPMorgan Chase traders charged with and convicted of “spoofing” the monetary metals futures markets. In the very last paragraph of its July 31 report about the trial, Bloomberg News reported:
“Another set of important clients were central banks, which trade gold for their reserves and are among the biggest players in the bullion market. At least 10 central banks held their metal in vaults run by JPMorgan in 2010, according to documents disclosed in court”:
A mechanism for governments to use for surreptitious manipulation of the monetary metals futures markets was already in place at CME Group, operator of all the major futures exchanges in the United States. It is called the Central Bank Incentive Program, whereby CME Group exchanges provide volume trading discounts to governments, central banks, and international organizations for trading all futures contracts on CME Group’s exchanges.
CME Group’s master statement to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission says: “The customer base of our derivatives exchanges includes professional traders, financial institutions, institutional and individual investors, major corporations, manufacturers, producers, governments, and central banks”:
So there remain some compelling questions in the monetary metals sector.
— Would Western governments and particularly the U.S. government have worked so hard for so long to control the price of gold, as documented by GATA here —
— while leaving the other major monetary metal, silver, alone?
After all, for many years the world might have sensed monetary debasement almost as readily from a rising silver price as from a rising gold price, even if these days, with inflation sending most important prices soaring, it’s hard not to sense monetary debasement nearly everywhere one looks, except maybe, as Lundin notes, when one looks at silver.
— Why do all the major bullion banks seem to trade gold and silver the same way at the same time? It sure looks like collusion. If it is collusion, it would violate anti-trust law in the United States, United Kingdom, and other Western countries — unless, of course, the bullion banks are simply executing government trades and thus giving camouflage to government intervention.
The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 authorizes the U.S. Treasury Department, through its Exchange Stabilization Fund, to intervene secretly in any market in the world:
That intervention like this is going on has been essentially confirmed by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which repeatedly has refused to answer not just for GATA but even for a U.S. representative whether the commission has jurisdiction over manipulative futures trading undertaken by or at the behest of the U.S. government or whether such manipulation is legal:
— By amassing a big hoard of silver “for clients” and serving as custodian of the silver ETF SLV, has JPMorgan Chase in effect reconstituted the U.S. government’s strategic silver reserve for interventional purposes?
— What exactly goes on every day on the trading desk at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York? What markets are being traded there by the U.S. government, how are they being traded, and why? Is the desk trading more than the government bonds it reports trading? Why can’t the public be allowed to observe this trading?
— Is the Bank for International Settlements trading the monetary metals for the U.S. government, directly or through intermediaries?
In 2005 the head of the BIS’ monetary and economic department, William R. White, told a conference at BIS headquarters in Switzerland that a primary purpose of cooperation among central banks is “the provision of international credits and joint efforts to influence asset prices (especially gold and foreign exchange) in circumstances where this might be thought useful”:
The United States is a member of the BIS and White’s “asset prices” easily could cover the prices of the other traditional monetary metal, silver.
Gold Newsletter’s Lundin is right that it’s hard not to suspect that “hidden hands” are at work against the silver price just as they have been against gold. Or at least it’s hard not to suspect that “hidden hands” are at work as long as you’re not part of a mainstream financial news organization or an executive of the typically oblivious silver-mining company.
Chris Powell is a political columnist and former managing editor at the Journal Inquirer, a daily newspaper in Manchester, Connecticut, USA, where he has worked since graduating from high school in 1967. His column is published in newspapers throughout Connecticut. He is also secretary/treasurer of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc., (GATA) which he co-founded in 1999 to expose and oppose the rigging of the gold market by Western central banks and their investment bank agents.
(Elias Irizarry, Headline USA) CHARLOTTE, N.C.—The last time former President Donald Trump had a major campaign security incident was in 2016, when a protester falsely yelled “gun” at a rally in Reno, Nevada.
Conservative activists and politicians have criticized the Secret Service’s response to the attack, including a request from the agency that the Trump campaign cease all outdoor rallies.
An NBC News report on Wednesday, citing two anonymous sources within the Trump campaign, said the three-time GOP presidential nominee planned to comply.
Now the Secret Service says the answer is to stop outdoor rallies?
The answer is to give the American people the FACTS about what really happened – and start protecting the President pic.twitter.com/8LGRxqtdOj
One campaign volunteer at the North Carolina rally, which took place inside Charlotte’s Bojangles Coliseum, told Headline USA he had volunteered at dozens of rallies in this campaign cycle alone. However, he said he had personally noticed that security had gotten too relaxed.
That sentiment was shared by a security guard, who argued that while nothing changed in the major instructions of guarding the rallies, the level of professionalism and alertness that the campaign had started with returned following the Butler security breach.
Security measures in Charlotte—which marked the first rally since President Joe Biden withdrew from the race and only the second since the assassination attempt—had notably increased.
Cars that parked in the main lot were subject to sweeping, with a drive-through Secret Service tent set up at the entrance of the stadium.
When cars came through, they were instructed to exit the vehicle and open their hood and trunks to be searched by officers, as well as bomb-sniffing dogs.
Additionally, dump trucks filled with sand surrounded the entrances of the arena to prevent any would-be car bombers from breaching the perimeter.
The increase in security for Trump himself was also visible. Where the former president, in previous rallies, had been accompanied by an entourage of up to five agents, he was now accompanied by more than 12 agents, including some fully equipped with tactical gear and rifles.
Whether it was because of the beefed-up measures or despite the terrorist threat posed by Crooks, rallygoers remained undeterred and determined to show their support for Trump.
“The security seems on point today, and everybody seems like they’re in good spirits and excited to be here,” said Nikki Nunley, a precinct organization chair for the Mecklenburg County GOP.
The capacity crowd—which left many waiting outside, hoping to get in—had broken the coliseum’s record for attendance, Trump said during his speech, citing the venue’s owner.
Chelsea Walsh, former chair of the Henderson County GOP, said it was her first rally of the campaign season, and while a few family members had expressed their concern, most of the reactions she received were jealousy and encouragement.
“I have text messages from family telling me to be safe and to be careful—but, you know, I’m not going to live in fear,” Walsh told Headline USA.
“The amount of text messages I’ve received, on the contrary, saying ‘I wish I could do that,’ ‘I wish I could be there,’ ‘You’re so brave…,’ she continued. “It’s just been really nice to be here as a community, and I don’t think any of us have felt unsafe at all.”
As he did during his acceptance speech at the GOP convention in Milwaukee last week, Trump marveled at the loyalty that rallygoers such as the “Front-Row Joes” showed in staying put.
“They were sitting on the front row and things were happening that weren’t too nice, right?” Trump said.
“… But they were there, and they didn’t move—you know, amazing, nobody moved,” he continued. “When a bullet goes off—it’s a freak thing—but a bullet goes off, crowds always run. They run—they call it a stampede. Nobody ran. And we had 55,000 people. Nobody ran.”
Many agreed that the sense of community and support provided by the rallies made volunteers and guests feel safe and secure.
“I feel like everybody’s unified,” said Erin LeCroy, a volunteer from Union County, N.C. “That everybody who comes to these rallies are the type of people that want to be with each other—and I think that sense of community makes me feel safe at a rally like this.”
Clarification: A Twitter community note released after this report disputed the posts used as sources, saying that in photos from the Associated Press, the time on Biden’s watch corresponded to the time of the live broadcast. An earlier version of this article incorrectly listed the time of the live broadcast as 6 p.m. It was at 8 p.m. ET.
(Ben Sellers, Headline USA) A speech broadcast Wednesday from the White House Resolution Desk appeared to show Joe Biden explaining his decision to drop out of the 2024 presidential race.
It was an unremarkable speech given the context in which it was delivered, with the entire world recognizing that Biden’s failures had compelled fellow Democrats to force him out of office in the least “democratic” way possible.
President Biden: My record merits a second term, so I’m not seeking a second term and instead installing a candidate who wasn’t elected because “nothing can come in the way of saving democracy.” 🤡 pic.twitter.com/kObO1oQG1S
“It’s been the honor of my life to serve as your president,” said the speech, according to a transcript provided by the Biden campaign’s official communications bureau, the Associated Press. “But in the defense of democracy, which is at stake, I think it’s more important than any title.”
Slipping back into their familiar pattern of parroting Biden’s remarks without question or scrutiny, the leftist press saw little reason to call out the bogus claims, further underscoring their ongoing lack of credibility.
Indeed, many have redoubled those efforts to push blatantly false narratives that will help elevate deeply unpopular Vice President Kamala Harris, who was endorsed by someone using Biden’s X account on Sunday, shortly after the announcement that he was withdrawing from the race.
Democrats now hope to nominate Harris within a week, once again staving off any serious challenges, as they did with Biden himself, by changing their own bylaws to allow for an early online process ahead of their late August convention.
Such was the case on Monday as many reliable news sources reported that Biden, who had not been seen publicly in roughly a week, might be critically ill or even dead.
Biden’s speech was seen, in some regards, as a sort of “proof of life” if nothing else, making the case that despite his withdrawal from the race he was still “cogent” enough to lead the nation for the remaining six months of his term.
Not all are convinced that he succeeded in that aspect.
PARTY IN RIO?
Eagle-eyed Twitter users claimed that—assuming the event was live—Biden’s watch was not set to Eastern Standard Time, even though he supposedly had spent the past week convalescing at home in Wilmington, Delaware.
His watch wasn’t on the right time during his “live” speech.
Presumably, the president has not been in a different time zone since his emergency return trip last week from Las Vegas—under circumstances that remain highly suspicious. And it is unclear from his public schedule.
Biden’s decision to congregate around a large group of people maskless and without social distancing, while seeming to display no symptoms of COVID-19 raises additional questions, given that it was the reason cited for clearing his schedule just a week ago. No information has been made available on when the 81-year-old last tested positive for the deadly virus.
IMPOSTER COMPLEX
The unusual circumstances, in the wake of reports about Biden having suffered a serious medical emergency, have only given legs to rumors that the White House may have used a Biden body double to deliver the speech.
After Joe Biden surrendered last night during his "live" speech, he was greeted by some people outside the White House, where he appeared much taller than usual.
Pay attention to the difference in his weight when he walked side by side with Jill Biden compared to other pictures… pic.twitter.com/0Edm1w1kbo
Evidence suggesting the use of a Biden body double has long circulated, even well before the reported medical emergency last week that forced Biden off the campaign trail for good.
The real Joe Biden was executed several years ago. We have been seeing a body double/mask for his presidency. Just google images of him. Not the same person! pic.twitter.com/2WRCzllEyB
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who spent decades as a Washington, D.C.-based political pundit, agreed that the transformation was notable even for those who knew him personally.
“Well, I knew the guy, that’s not Biden, that’s not the guy I remember,” Carlson said during a recent interview segment with investigative journalist Catherine Herridge. “If I was a conspiracy nut, I would think he was a body double, because it’s that different.”
Tucker on Biden being DIFFERENT. 😂
"Well, I knew the guy, that's not Biden, that's not the guy I remember. If I was a conspiracy nut, I would think he was a body double, because it's that different."
Notwithstanding the fact that it would mean an imposter is continuing to run the country for the next six months with virtually no accountability whatsoever and no attention focused in his direction, Biden’s true identity and whereabouts for the past week may, to some extent, seem a moot point in light of his withdrawal from the presidential race.
As satire site the Babylon Bee noted prior to his reappearance, “US citizens had upgraded their interest in Biden’s whereabouts and safety to ‘modestly concerned'” in light of the fact that most think he has been absent for the bulk—if not the entirety—of his presidency.
Nonetheless, the persistent and increasingly brazen gaslighting efforts that the White House has undertaken may also extend to the Kamala Harris campaign.
Having learned nothing from the figurative bullet they dodged in nearly having Biden as their candidate (not to be confused with the literal one that Republicans dodged in nearly losing former President Donald Trump as theirs), mainstream media attempted on Wednesday to memory hole the well-documented evidence that Biden had appointed Harris to be his “border czar.”
Journalists were calling Kamala the border czar until like five minutes ago. Don't let the media gaslight you. pic.twitter.com/oveoFcBn4G
Additionally, some supposedly reputable press, including a Pulitzer Prize winner, were attempting to claim that Trump was “afraid to debate a woman”—despite the fact that he previously debated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign that he went on to win.
Meanwhile, only one group on the Left, Black Lives Matter, appeared to have come out criticizing the DNC over the fact that it had effectively anointed Harris as its nominee without any sort of a primary process.
“A 24-hour process of talking to party bosses is not democratic, nor is it a process Democrats should be proud of,” the group said in a statement. “We do not live in a dictatorship. Delegates are not oligarchs.”
In the grand scheme of things, the success of the Biden coup and subsequent bait-and-switch may make its suspected use of an imposter president seem trivial by comparison.
Meanwhile, Trump and his supporters attempted to keep things in perspective, pointing out that Biden’s concession speech on Wednesday, even though forced by Democrats threatening to invoke the 25th Amendment, was ultimately an early victory for Republicans.
This is a photo of Donald Trump defeating Joe Biden forever 📸
End of story.
Anyone telling you Biden is ‘honorable’ or ‘brave’ for this moment is lying. This is pure humiliation. Weak, coward Biden won’t even *enter* the arena with Trump. Too scared. So he runs. Quits.
Despite the Left’s alarming level of comfort in bending the rules of democracy to their breaking point—and even attempting to warp reality itself to their own political devices—the Democrats’ desperation and vulnerability remains on full display.
