(Ken Silva, Headline USA) An 80-year-old veteran was reportedly defrauded out of $1.5 million of gold in a sophisticated scheme involving fake federal agents and phony sting operations.
According to Fox 13 in Tampa, one woman, Swetaben Patel, 42, was arrested Thursday for her participation in the scheme. “Police say there appear to be numerous people involved in this fraud scheme,” Fox 13 reported.
Police in Bradenton, Florida were first told of the scam by the 80-year-old vet—Fox 13 didn’t say in which branch he served—in April. The alleged incidents began in February, when the victim received a knock at his door from two people posing as federal agents, Fox13 reported, citing police documents.
“They stated they had a warrant for his arrest,” Det. Jim Curulla said. “The supervisor then proceeded to talk to the victim and said they thought he could do more good than being arrested.”
According to Fox13, the supervisor called that victim once or twice a day for the next month to gain his trust.
“They were saying he was going to help with social security fraud,” Curulla reportedly said. “That he was going to come up with some seed money and they were going to do a sting operation.”
The scammers allegedly conned the man into transferring a total of around $1.5 million of his retirement money in gold bars.
“The victim was retired military, so they played upon his experience in the military,” Curulla reportedly said. “They played upon his patriotism.”
The victim reportedly met the fake agents at several different locations for organized drop-offs of the gold bars. Investigators tracked one of the cars used at a drop-off to Patel, one of the alleged mules, who lived in Georgia, according to Fox13, which cited a police affidavit.
It appears as if Patel is a minor player in the fraud scheme. She reportedly told police she was picking up “bags” for a man she knew as “King.”
She reportedly told officers that one of her trips was to North Carolina to collect $25,000 from an elderly woman.
Patel reportedly faces one charge of grand theft of more than $100,000.
According to an FBI report released in April, scammers stole more than $3.4 billion from Americans aged 60 and older last year—and those are only the reported incidents.
Ulises Bohorquez (21), Andres Gomez-Izquiel (19) and Yohenry Brito (24) were given a plea deal by the DA’s office that would require them to serve a year in jail in exchange for pleading guilty to second-degree assault.
Two other illegals, Kelvin Servita-Arocha (19) and Wilson Juarez (21) were offered a separate deal to serve six months in prison in exchange for pleading guilty to obstructing a government administration.
Lastly, Yorman Reveron (24) was offered a deal to serve two years in prison in exchange for pleading guilty to second-degree assault.
The defendants’ attorneys have not yet accepted the respective plea deals, according to the New York Post.
The six immigrants were indicted following their shocking attack on two officers who tried to break up a rowdy crowd in Times Square on Jan. 27. Video footage showed the perpetrators kicking the cops in the head and repeatedly punching them before running away.
At least two of the accused, Juarez and Servita–Arocha, are allegedly members of the violent Venezuelan street gang Tren de Aragua.
One of the other suspects, Brito, was arrested once again last week—this time for petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property for allegedly trying to steal children’s clothing and “fragrances” from a Macy’s in Herald Square.
Even the leftist Manhattan judge who allowed Brito and the others to be released on bail after their initial arrest in January said she was “furious” the illegal ended up before her again.
“I am very tempted right now to put you in jail,” Judge Laura Ward told Brito in court.
“I am telling you right now, if I learn you are rearrested for anything at all between now and this case being finished, I will order a warrant and I will place bail so high, you will not get out,” she added.
(Ken Silva, Headline USA) U.S. District Judge Robert Bryan has dismissed a lawsuit challenging a new Washington law that allows children to receive sex changes without parental knowledge or consent.
Judge Bryan dismissed the lawsuit because he said the plaintiffs had no standing.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit included two Catholics who have a 14-year-old transgender child who identifies as a girl. Another couple has a teenage child who hid a previous gender identity switch from them while at a public school that “encouraged the transition.” That child has since de-transitioned and now identifies as a girl again.
However, “the Plaintiff parents fail to allege that the challenged laws actually injured them or will imminently injure them in a concrete and particularized manner. Their allegations rest on speculation and conjecture, which is insufficient to confer standing,” said Judge Bryan, an 89-year-old appointed by Ronald Reagan.
Judge Bryan dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs won’t be able to amend their complaint or re-file.
The law that was being challenged, SB 5999, was enacted last year in Washington. It stipulates that children who show up at youth or homeless shelters to receive “gender-affirming care,” which includes the mutilation of body parts and prescription of life-altering medication.
“In short, this statute allows shelters and homes to keep children at locations without their parents’ knowledge and refer those children for health interventions without their parents’ knowledge or approval,” said International Partners for Ethical Care, the group that filed the lawsuit.
“It does not require children to be returned on any particular timetable or under any particular conditions.”
The press secretary for Washington’s governor has disagreed with the lawsuit’s characterization of SB 5999, saying last year that it “appears to be based on the same basic falsehoods that anti-trans groups have been pushing since the law was proposed.”
However, the press secretary reportedly admitted that shelters, which typically have to notify parents if their children is there, now don’t have to follow that requirement if the child is seeking “abortion or gender-affirming care services.”
According to the DOJ, the two activists, Donald Zepeda and Holliday Adams, forced all northbound traffic to a halt for approximately thirty minutes until the U.S. Park Police arrived and arrested them.
As noted by the DOJ, the people in the trapped vehicles were incensed.
“The woman in the first car yelled and cursed at the protestors, threw water at them, laid on her car horn, and repeatedly told them to ‘get the fuck out of my way.’ She told the protestors that her son was in the hospital, threatened to run them over and at one point got in her car and inched it toward the protestors,” the DOJ said in its sentencing memorandum, filed on Wednesday.
“A man from a different car ripped away the sign that Defendant Adams and the unidentified protestor were holding and threw it to the side of the road, and then shoved Defendant Zepeda backwards. He also yelled at the protestors to ‘Move!’ and asked why they didn’t go down to the White House.”
Zepeda and Adams both pled guilty to one count of disorderly conduct. The DOJ is seeking a seven-day sentence for Adams and a 30-day sentence for Zepeda—the latter having a longer criminal record.
According to the DOJ’s memorandum, Zepeda has committed multiple crimes across the country over the past five years.
In 2019, for instance, he was convicted of breaking and entering private property and using a pair of bolt cutters to try and shut off an oil pipeline.
Most recently, he and a coconspirator allegedly secreted a balloon containing red powder into the National Archives Rotunda and used it to vandalize the display case of the U.S. Constitution. That offense allegedly took place on Feb. 14, the day after he was arrested for blocking traffic.
Two activists accused of throwing a red powder on the U.S. Constitution display case at the National Archives last month are now facing felony charges Donald Zepeda, 35, of Maryland, and Jackson Green, 27, of Utah, were charged with felony destruction of government property. pic.twitter.com/pXwGTh3C0F
“The cleanup costs exceeded $50,000 and the Rotunda was closed to the public for two days,” the DOJ said of that offense, which is still an open case.
The DOJ said previous, lighter sentences for Zepeda have not discouraged him from criminality.
“A sentence of thirty days of imprisonment and a $750 fine is also necessary in this case to generally deter others, particularly members of the Declare Emergency group, from intentionally blocking public roadways,” the DOJ said.
Months later, a coup took place. And now, the Pentagon is in the process of withdrawing U.S. troops from Niger after the African country’s new government ordered them to leave.
Apparently, the stunning change in U.S.-Niger relations was sparked by an insulting threat from Molly Phee, the State Department’s top official for African affairs.
Prime Minister Ali Mahaman Lamine Zeine revealed this fact in an interview with the Washington Post, which was published Tuesday.
According to Zeine, Phee threatened him from doing business with Russia and Iran.
“When she finished, I said, ‘Madame, I am going to summarize in two points what you have said,’” Zeine told the Post. “First, you have come here to threaten us in our country. That is unacceptable. And you have come here to tell us with whom we can have relationships, which is also unacceptable. And you have done it all with a condescending tone and a lack of respect.”
Zeine also expressed displeasure at the U.S. suspending its security support and counterterrorism activities when his new government took power last year.
“The Americans stayed on our soil, doing nothing while the terrorists killed people and burned towns,” Zeine said. “It is not a sign of friendship to come on our soil but let the terrorists attack us. We have seen what the United States will do to defend its allies, because we have seen Ukraine and Israel.”
In response to Zeine’s comments, an unnamed U.S. official reportedly disagreed with Zeine’s characterizations of his conversation with Phee.
“[Niger’s new government] was presented with a choice, not an ultimatum, about whether they wished to continue their partnership with us, respectful of our democratic values and national security interests,” the official told the Post.
“In the coming months, we will work with the CNSP to draw down U.S. forces in an orderly fashion and ultimately reposition them elsewhere, consistent with U.S. security interests,” added the official.
The Pentagon’s impending withdrawal from Niger stems from the country’s government declaring in March that the U.S. military presence there is “illegal.” In a letter published last month by the Post, an Army whistleblower accused Biden of endangering the troops’ lives by leaving them there against the wishes of the country’s new government.
The withdrawal means U.S. will presumably have to close its six-year-old, $110 million U.S. air base that was used for drone warfare.
There are certainly plenty of reasons to be optimistic if you’re a gold investor. But Rickards believes that we could see $27,000 an ounce gold by 2026.
How could that happen? It almost seems absurd, doesn’t it?
But Rickards insists he’s not just throwing that number out there to get attention or shock people. He says, “It’s not a guess; it’s the result of rigorous analysis.”
He arrives at this number by considering the price of gold if there was a monetary gold standard.
Rickards concedes that there is no appetite for a gold standard right now.
“They have no interest in a form of money they can’t control. It took about 60 years from 1914–1974 to drive gold out of the monetary system. No central banker wants to let it back in.”
But what if they don’t have a choice?
“What if confidence in command currencies collapses due to some combination of excessive money creation, competition from Bitcoin, extreme levels of dollar debt, a new financial crisis, war or natural disaster? In that case, central bankers may return to gold not because they want to, but because they must in order to restore order to the global monetary system.”
While it might not be likely, nothing in that scenario seems out of the question. And there certainly seems an appetite for a gold-backed currency to compete with the dollar in some circles. Officials in the BRICS block have floated the idea.
Rickards starts from the assumption this is a possibility and asks the question: what is the new dollar price of gold in a system in which dollars are freely exchangeable for gold at a fixed price?
Rickards points out that you can’t have a price that’s too high. If so, investors would sell gold for dollars and spend freely. If the price is too low, people will hoard gold. There is historical precedent for both scenarios.
Rickards said the goal would be to find the Goldilocks price by maintaining an equilibrium between dollars and gold.
“The U.S. is in an ideal position to do this by selling gold from U.S. Treasury reserves, about 8,100 metric tons (261.5 million troy ounces) or buying gold in the open market using freshly printed Fed money. The goal would be to maintain the dollar price of gold in a narrow range around the fixed price.”
And what is that price?
Rickards calculates it at $27,533 per ounce.
He uses the M1 money supply as the starting point and assumes a 40 percent gold backing for notes.
“Applying the 40% ratio to the $17.9 trillion money supply means that $7.2 trillion of gold is required. Applying the $7.2 trillion valuation to 261.5 million troy ounces yields a gold price of $27,533 per ounce.”
Would things play out this way? There is certainly no guarantee. But it isn’t outside of the realm of possibility.
Mike Maharrey is a journalist and market analyst for MoneyMetals.com with over a decade of experience in precious metals. He holds a BS in accounting from the University of Kentucky and a BA in journalism from the University of South Florida.
(Mike Maharrey, Money Metals News Service) The monthly rise in prices based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) came in slightly lower than projected, sending a wave of euphoria across the financial landscape.
The consensus is cooling inflation puts Federal Reserve interest rate cuts back on the table.
The Dow Jones, S&P 500, and the NASDAQ all hit record highs after the data came out on Wednesday. A CNN headline called the CPI report “encouraging” and an analyst from CIBC Private Wealth US told CNN the data “supports a Fed rate cut in the fall.” Yahoo Finance called it a “soft reading on consumer prices.”
It was great news, except it wasn’t.
When you look at the data objectively and in a broader context, it becomes clear the price inflation dragon the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government unleashed during the pandemic is alive and well. He might be resting, but he certainly isn’t dead.
The CPI Numbers
On an annual basis, prices rose 3.4 percent in April according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. That was down just a tick from the 3.5 percent reading last month and met expectations. To put it in a little broader context, the annual CPI print was 3.2 percent in February and 3.1 percent in November.
On a monthly basis, prices rose 0.3 percent. That was below the expectation of a 0.4 percent monthly increase and the primary source of the euphoria. But annualizing that monthly number gives you an annual price inflation rate of 3.6 percent, nowhere near the Fed’s mythical 2 percent target.
Prices have gone up 1.6 percent in the last five months alone, hardly a cause for celebration for those of us who have to pay those prices.
Excluding more volatile food and energy prices (as if anybody can exclude such things from their budgets) core CPI was up 0.3 percent in April, down a tick from the 0.4 percent read in February and March.
On an annual basis, core CPI was 3.6 percent.
Looking at the core CPI data over the last six months provides more context. It came in a 0.2 percent in October, 0.3 percent in November and December, 0.4 percent in January and February, and 0.3 percent in March. In fact, core CPI has been mired in this range since last July.
It’s important to note that none of these numbers are close to the Federal Reserve’s mythical 2 percent price inflation target. You can argue that the April numbers show a hint of cooling, but we’ve seen that before. Everybody was convinced prices were falling and inflation was beat late last summer.
Meanwhile, producer prices rose 0.5 percent in April, with prices for final demand services increasing by 0.6 percent and the index for final demand goods up 0.4 percent.
Producer prices are generally a leading indicator of price inflation because producers pass at least some of their rising costs on to consumers.
When you put all of the data in context and look at it with an objective eye, it’s pretty clear that price inflation remains sticky.
And keep in mind, inflation is worse than the government data suggest. The government revised the CPI formula in the 1990s so that it understates the actual rise in prices. Based on the formula used in the 1970s, CPI is closer to double the official numbers. So, if the BLS was using the old formula, we’re looking at CPI closer to 6 percent. And using an honest formula, it would probably be worse than that.
Digging deeper into the numbers, we find that rapidly new and used vehicle prices helped pull overall CPI lower. Used car and truck costs fell by 1.4 percent month on month. New car prices dropped by 0.4 percent.
Meanwhile, clothing costs spiked by 1.2 percent, service prices were up 0.4 percent, energy prices rose with gasoline up 2.7 percent, and shelter costs continued to climb at a 0.4 percent rate.
While prices continue to rise, workers are falling further behind. Average earnings fell 0.2 percent on the month as wages failed to keep up with rising prices.
It’s fair to speculate car prices are falling because people can’t afford to buy a vehicle with other prices still climbing quickly.
Put in context, the CPI report provided very little good news for people struggling with rising prices. The only real positive is that the monthly rise wasn’t quite as bad as expected, and we finally got an overall CPI report that wasn’t worse than projected.
Everybody is Desperate for Interest Rate Cuts
The mainstream seems to be reading the April CPI data through the lens of wishful thinking. That’s because everybody is desperate for rate cuts. That includes the central bankers at the Federal Reserve.
Everybody knows that this economy can’t function long-term in a higher interest rate environment. The economy is loaded up with debt and higher interest rates are a giant anchor.
Uncle Sam has shelled out $624.5 billion on interest payments so far in fiscal 2024. That’s a 35.7 percent increase over the same period in fiscal 2023. The federal government spent more on interest payments than it did on national defense or Medicare. The only category with higher spending was Social Security.
Debt service costs in the corporate and consumer sectors look equally problematic.
If the central bank was truly all-in on driving price inflation back to 2 percent, we’d be hearing about additional rate hikes – not pending rate cuts.
Make no mistake; 5.5 percent interest rates are high for an economy loaded up with debt. But they aren’t high in the face of a 6 percent-plus CPI (using the more honest 1970s formula).
Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve injected nearly $5 trillion of money created out of thin air during the pandemic. The U.S. government took a lot of that money in the form of “stimulus” and showered it on Americans who weren’t producing anything. That is the source of these rising prices. A few rate hikes and a modest reduction in the balance sheet weren’t nearly enough to unwind that massive monetary malfeasance – on top of the trillions in inflation they created during the Great Recession.
Nevertheless, mainstream optimism about rate cuts this fall isn’t entirely misplaced. The central bankers at the Fed will likely take any opening they can to move forward with cuts. This CPI report, along with retail sales data showing spending slowing could crack the door open enough to let them wiggle through even though price inflation clearly isn’t dead and buried.
Consider this: if the Fed is willing to consider rate cuts now, with inflation still sticky, what will the central bankers do when something breaks in the economy?
And it’s important to remember what rate cuts mean. It is a pivot back to inflationary policies that got us here in the first place.
In other words, the eulogy for inflation is premature.
Mike Maharrey is a journalist and market analyst for MoneyMetals.com with over a decade of experience in precious metals. He holds a BS in accounting from the University of Kentucky and a BA in journalism from the University of South Florida.
The resolution, named the “President Donald J. Trump Congressional Gold Medal Act,” was introduced by Luna on May 14, 2024, in which she and other Republicans called for awarding Trump a gold medal for “his exceptional leadership and dedication to strengthening America’s diplomatic relations during his presidency.”
“President Trump’s successes in foreign policy during his first term are none other than historic. Whether it was the Abraham Accords or peace with North Korea, America was respected as a nation and a global power under his presidency. I am introducing this bill to recognize his strong leadership and critical role in making the world a safer place. His legacy for the American people should always be remembered,” Luna told the Epoch Times.
Luna and other Republicans wrote in the resolution that “President Trump’s time in office ushered in profound changes to United States diplomatic relations with countries around the world.”
They also argued that Trump “made history” when he met with North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un on Nov. 8, 2016, adding that he “worked to resume stalled nuclear talks and expressed hope for peace between North and South Korea” by facilitating a meeting between the leaders of the two countries.
The resolution also cited Trump for hosting the signing of the Abraham Accords in September 2020, “establish[ing] historic diplomatic relations between Israel and its neighbors in the Middle East.”
Trump’s “greatest foreign policy achievement” was that “no wars were started while he was in office,” the resolution said, alluding to the war between Israel and Hamas that was triggered by the terrorist group on Oct. 7, 2023, with its attacks against Israeli citizens and the war between Russia and Ukraine.
The resolution also asked House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate President Pro Tempore Patty Murray, D–Wash., to “make appropriate arrangements for the presentation, on behalf of the Congress, of a gold medal of appropriate design, to President Donald J. Trump.”
(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) A Republican lawmaker in West Virginia lost his primary election after endorsing legislation that obligated American taxpayers to fund healthcare for illegal illegals.
Despite his tenure as a state lawmaker since 2013 and Senate leader since 2020, West Virginia Senate President Craig Blair failed to secure the support of his constituents for another term.
Blair has served in the House of Delegates since 2002 and, in addition to his role as the state Senate’s leader, he also holds the position of lieutenant governor.
Advancing to the general election is primary challenger Tom Willis, an attorney and self-described constitutional Christian conservative, as reported by Metro News.
Leading the campaign to oust Blair was Stand for Us PAC, a political group that committed $1 million to unseating incumbent lawmakers who did not oppose illegal immigration, according to Fox News.
“It’s simple: Craig Blair caved to the far-left on illegal immigration and turned his back on the people of West Virginia…and Stand for Us PAC held him accountable,” Katie Miller, the PAC’s chair, told Fox News.
She added that the PAC invested over $400,000 in defeating Blair, “with the majority of our resources going to informing the Senate President’s constituents about how he led the charge to strengthen a federal program that uses taxpayer dollars to subsidize health care for illegal immigrants.”
According to Fox News, Blair had supported legislation that effectively expanded a federal 340b program, which Republicans argue extends taxpayer-funded health benefits to illegal aliens.
Several U.S. senators are spearheading legislation to mandate a review of whether the program provides rebates to undocumented immigrants.
Among them are Sens. Bill Cassidy, M.D.; R-La.; Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; Roger Wicker, R-Miss.; Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss.; and John Barrasso, R-Wyo.
“Medicaid for migrants is a magnet for more illegal immigration,” wrote Cassidy. “This is terrible public policy for California citizens who depend on Medicaid, middle-class families paying taxes, and state debt.”
He added, “Taking care of the most vulnerable Americans should be our priority. Attempting to provide health care to everyone around the globe for free is not possible or feasible. Compassion that cannot be sustained is not compassion.”
(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., expressed regret on Wednesday that President Joe Biden had agreed to debate former President Donald Trump—months after initially declining to do so.
“I, myself, would never recommend going on stage with Donald Trump, but the president has decided that’s what he wants to do,” Pelosi told CNN reporter Manu Raju at the U.S. Capitol.
“I think the format he is suggesting is a good one,” she said, referring to the prerequisites outlined by the 81-year-old president for the debate.
Asked why not: “I think he was stalking Hillary Clinton, he wasn’t professional, he wasn’t presidential, he wasn’t meeting the dignity of the office.”
The debate is scheduled for June 27 and will be hosted by CNN. Its announcement may have surprised many as the Biden White House had avoided committing to debating his leading opponent for months.
When asked why she opposed the debates, Pelosi cited Trump’s dominance during the 2016 debates with twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
“I think he was stalking Hillary Clinton, he wasn’t professional,” she said, as reported by Raju. “He wasn’t presidential, he wasn’t meeting the dignity of the office.”
Instead, Pelosi proposed town hall meetings, allowing both candidates to present their ideas and policy proposals.
Many critics suggested that Biden’s reluctance to commit to the debate was due to his frequent gaffes and incoherent thoughts.
“Crooked Joe Biden is the WORST debater I have ever faced,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “He can’t put two sentences together! Crooked is also the WORST President in the history of the United States, by far.”
In the same post, Trump added, “I would strongly recommend more than two debates and, for excitement purposes, a very large venue, although Biden is supposedly afraid of crowds – That’s only because he doesn’t get them. Just tell me when, I’ll be there. ‘Let’s get ready to Rumble!!!’”
