Arkansas Passes Legal Tender Act, Removes Taxes on Gold and Silver

Editor 1
-
0
Arkansas Passes Legal Tender Act, Removes Taxes on Gold and Silver

(Sound Money Defense League) Sound-money advocates are rejoicing as House Bill 1718, the Arkansas Legal Tender Act has become the law in the Natural State.

Backed by the Sound Money Defense League, Money Metals Exchange, and sound-money advocates and supporters throughout the state, HB 1718 reaffirms gold and silver as legal tender, as well as ends all taxes on purchase, sale or exchange of specie, including state capital-gains taxes.

The Arkansas Legal Tender Act, introduced by state Rep. Robin Lundstrum and state Sen. Jonathan Dismang, passed overwhelmingly out of the House by a vote of 82–8, passed unanimously out of the Senate with a 32-0 vote, and ultimately received Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s signature on April 11.

Specie is defined as “Coin having gold or silver content; or refined gold or silver bullion that is coined, stamped, or imprinted with its weight and purity; and valued primarily based on its metal content not its form.”

The measure continues, “Specie or legal tender shall not be characterized as personal property for taxation or regulatory purposes.”

To remove any doubt of the legislature’s intent, HB 1718 explicitly states, “the exchange of one type or form of legal tender for another type or form of legal tender shall not give rise to any tax liability,” and, “the purchase, sale, or exchange of any type or form of specie shall not give rise to any tax liability.”

This measure builds on momentum on sound money from previous Arkansas legislative sessions.

With strong support from the Sound Money Defense League and grassroots activists, Arkansas passed SB 336 in 2021, ending state sales taxes on purchases of gold and silver.

Now, with the passage of HB 1718, Arkansas becomes the 11th state also to end capital-gains taxes as applied to the sale of gold and silver (with some of those states simply having no income taxes in the first place).

Ending income/capital-gains taxes on precious metals sales is becoming more popular. Understandably so, considering that if taxpayers own gold or silver to protect themselves against the devaluation of America’s paper currency, thanks to the inflationary practices of the Federal Reserve, they frequently end up with a nominal “gain” when exchanging those metals back into dollars.

However, such gains are not necessarily real in terms of translating to an actual increase in purchasing power. This “gain” is often a nominal gain because of the slow but steady devaluation of the Federal Reserve note dollar. Yet, the government nevertheless assesses a tax.

Under HB 1718, the era of taxing gold and silver in Arkansas has come to an end.

In 2023, bills to restore sound, constitutional money have also been introduced in Alaska, Iowa, West Virginia, South Carolina, Missouri, Minnesota, Tennessee, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas, and more. These measures would end taxes on the metals, reaffirm gold and silver as money, establish in-state depositories, enable state treasurers to invest state funds in the metals.

“States all over the country are waking up to the precarious condition of America’s money,” said Jp Cortez, policy director of the Sound Money Defense League. “Arkansas is helping lead the way in defending and restoring sound money, as well as removing the disincentives for citizens to protect themselves from the inflation and financial turmoil that flows from the Federal Reserve System.”

Currently Arkansas is ranked 30th out of 50 in the 2023 Sound Money Index. Passage of this measure will increase the state’s ranking dramatically.

The Sound Money Defense League is a non-partisan public policy group working nationally to restore sound money at the state and federal level and publisher of the Sound Money Index.

Recently named “Best Overall” gold and silver dealer in the United States by Investopedia, Money Metals Exchange serves almost 500,000 customers nationwide. A family-owned Idaho business founded in 2010, it also operates Money Metals Depository for vaulting of gold and silver and Money Metals Capital Group, a collateral lending institution.

Pocahontas, Leftist Reps. Call on DOJ to Rescue ‘Batgirl’

Molly Bruns
-
0
Pocahontas, Leftist Reps. Call on DOJ to Rescue ‘Batgirl’

(Molly Bruns, Headline USA) Several Democrat lawmakers requested that Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice designate resources, money and manpower to investigating the sudden cancellation of the Batgirl movie.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washinton, Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas and Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island sent a formal letter to the attorney general and Jonathan Kanter, the DOJ’s antitrust chief, pleading with the officials to look into the alleged limitation of “consumer and worker choice” by Warner Bros Discovery, the Post Millennial reported.

“We respectfully urge the Justice Department to investigate the state of competition in affected labor and consumer markets,” the letter said, referring to the merger between Warner Bros and Discovery+. “[It] appears to have enabled Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) to adopt potentially anticompetitive practices that reduce consumer choice and harm workers in affected labor markets.”

Last year, Warner Bros—along with several other companies, such as CNN—merged with Discovery+, resulting in the cuts of many newly acquired projects. CNN+ and Batgirl both faced the chopping block.

The legislator’s letter mentioned the superhero flick specifically, along with several other shows the platform refused to re-license.

“Following the merger, WBD announced numerous labor-force reductions and product cancellations that would limit consumer and worker choice—cancelling several titles, including ‘Batgirl,’ which was deep into post-production, ‘Gordita Chronicles,’ ‘Demimonde,’ and ‘The Time Traveler’s Wife,'” the lawmakers wrote.

The letter continued, noting their concern for the “iconic” studio.

“WBD’s new ownership is hollowing out an iconic American studio,” the letter read. “After the merger was consummated, WBD cancelled many projects in various stages of development and removed content from its platforms. For example, WBD took 68 titles off HBO Max.”

WBD executives shelved the Batgirl film in August 2022 after a series of “disastrous” test screenings, so the studio made the executive decision to “cut its losses and run, for the sake of the brand’s future.”

Tranny-Peddling Anheuser–Busch CEO Previously Worked for CIA

Jacob Bruns
-
0
Tranny-Peddling Anheuser–Busch CEO Previously Worked for CIA

(Jacob Bruns, Headline USA) Current Anheuser–Busch CEO Brendan Whitworth worked for the Central Intelligence Agency prior to becoming chief of the the nation’s largest beer producer, King 5 News reported.

The discovery was sure to fuel conspiracies about the deep-state’s role in waging a culture-war bombardment of transgender mania, which has sowed deep divisions in a number of political arenas as many suspect a Marxist plot from within to undermine America’s core democratic values and traditions.

Whitworth, whose company has been embroiled in a massive scandal surrounding its recent promotion of transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney, spent years as an operations officer for the CIA’s counterterrorism center.

The big beer CEO was also in the U.S. Marine Corps prior to his time in the CIA.

He also attended the elitist Ivy League institution, Harvard University.

The former CIA operative recently released a statement titled “Our Responsibility to America,” regarding the Mulvaney situation, wherein he wrote that his job is to ensure “that every consumer feels proud of the beer we brew.”

“We never intended to be a part of a discussion that divides people,” he noted, failing to remark upon the fact that his vice president of marketing said that she planned to do something of this nature before it happened.

If it is to be a success, Bud Light must represent the “heart of revolution,” VP Alissa Gordon Heinerscheid said in a podcast episode prior to the Mulvaney scandal.

“What does evolve and elevate mean? It means inclusivity,” she said.

“It means shifting the tone,” she continued. “It means having a campaign that’s truly inclusive and feels lighter and brighter and different. And appeals to women and to men.”

In his message, Whitworth even emphasized his former military and intelligence record, noting that “my time serving this country taught me the importance of accountability and the values upon which America was founded: freedom, hard work and respect for one another.”

But, refusing to acknowledge the situation directly, the former intel operative committed himself to working “tirelessly” to bring great beers “to consumers across the nation.”

Rapper Who Allegedly Helped China Deliver Billions to Obama Launches Defense

Editor 1
-
0
Rapper Who Allegedly Helped China Deliver Billions to Obama Launches Defense

(Headline USA) A Fugees rapper on trial in a multimillion-dollar campaign finance and foreign influence case was trying to reinvent himself as he entered the political arena, not break any laws, defense attorneys said Monday.

Prakazrel “Pras” Michel is accused of acting as the middle man in a money-laundering scheme to disperse at least $30 billion from a China-linked oligarch to Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign by using American donors to conceal the source.

Michel became a best-selling, Grammy-winning artist with the 1990s hip-hop group the Fugees, but in the years after its breakup was looking for his next chapter, attorney David Kenner said as he began making the defense case.

Michel surrounded himself with people to help with his transition to politics and eventually entered the orbit of a wealthy Malaysian “playboy” but didn’t engage in “James Bond … cloak and dagger stuff,” he said.

“There was no agreement to do anything in an unlawful way,” Kenner said.

Michel is charged in political conspiracies under two different U.S. presidents. Federal prosecutors say he funneled money from the fugitive Malaysian financer through straw donors to Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.

He’s also accused of trying to squelch an investigation into the businessman and persuade then-President Donald Trump’s administration to return to China a “vocal critic of the government.”

The Justice Department says Michel conspired with Low Taek Jho, usually known as Jho Low. The fugitive financier is accused of masterminding a money laundering and bribery scheme that pilfered billions from the Malaysian state investment fund known as 1MDB. Low has maintained his innocence.

Looted money paid for jewelry and luxury art and helped finance Hollywood films like The Wolf of Wall Street. Actor Leonardo DiCaprio testified that Low had appeared to him to be a legitimate businessman and had mentioned wanting to donate to Obama’s campaign.

When Michel first met Low at a nightclub in 2006, the businessman “appeared and acted as though he had unlimited amounts of money,” Kenner said. Michel would later make money himself through his association with Low, but “making money, even if you consider it greedy, is not a crime.”

Prosecutors, on the other hand, say Low directed millions to Michel, who funneled the money to straw donors to give to the Obama reelection campaign in 2012. He later tried to lean on the donors to keep them from talking to investigators, prosecutors said.

In 2017, prosecutors say, the Grammy-winning rapper worked with a Republican “fixer” to try and shut down a U.S. investigation into Low and embezzlement from the Malaysian fund. He’s also accused of pushing the Trump administration to send a Chinese person who had fled to the U.S. back to China.

The defense says he tried to set up a meeting on that issue, but no one ever told him he should have registered as a foreign agent before doing so, Kenner said.

“What he was trying to do was go through the proper channels,” he said.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

China Calls U.S. Accusations of Secret Police Stations ‘Groundless’

Editor 1
-
0
China Calls U.S. Accusations of Secret Police Stations ‘Groundless’

(Headline USA) China denied all accusations of an overseas police presence, saying Tuesday that the United States was making “groundless accusations” after U.S. law enforcement arrested two men in New York for establishing a secret police station.

“The relevant claims have no factual basis, and there is no such thing as an overseas police station,” spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Wang Wenbin said Tuesday.

U.S. authorities arrested two men, identified as “Harry” Lu Jianwang, 61, and Chen Jinping, 59, both U.S. citizens, on Monday morning.

Under the direction of an official in China, the two men allegedly set up a station where they offered some basic services, such as helping Chinese citizens renew their Chinese driver’s licenses.

The station, however, also took on roles beyond ordinary bureaucracy, including locating Chinese dissidents living in the U.S., officials said.

The U.S. Justice Department also charged 34 officers in the Ministry of Public Security on Monday with creating and using thousands of fake social-media accounts on Twitter and other platforms to harass dissidents abroad.

Wang said China does not interfere in other countries’ sovereignty.

China has shown that it is willing to target its own citizens even after they have left China for various reasons, whether political or economic. The Associated Press has previously reported that a Chinese woman was detained in Dubai at a Chinese-run detention facility.

In recent years, Beijing has been running two separate campaigns to bring suspects wanted mostly for economic crimes back to China as part of an anti-corruption drive.

It has begun flexing its muscles abroad to bring people back home, whether through the use of extradition treaties or unofficial methods, such as putting coercive pressure on relatives back home in China.

“China firmly opposes the smear and political manipulation by the U.S., who maliciously fabricated the narrative of so-called cross-border suppression and blatantly prosecuted Chinese law enforcement officials,” Wang said.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

Court Throws out Berkeley’s Ban on Natural Gas

Editor 1
-
0
Court Throws out Berkeley’s Ban on Natural Gas

(Headline USA) A federal appeals court on Monday overturned Berkeley, California’s first-in-the-nation ban on natural gas in new construction, agreeing with restaurant owners who argued the city bypassed federal energy regulations when it approved the ordinance.

The measure, which took effect in 2020 to cheers from environmentalists, was intended to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses. With some exceptions, it banned new residential and commercial buildings from installing natural gas piping in favor of electrical lines.

A lawsuit by the California Restaurant Association claimed the regulation violated federal law that gives the U.S. government authority to set energy-efficiency standards for appliances such as stoves, furnaces and water heaters.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected a lower court judge’s decision two years ago that had upheld the Berkeley ordinance. In her 2021 decision, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said the city was not trying to regulate energy efficiency for appliances, only the fuel they used.

But Judge Patrick Bumatay wrote in the 3-0 Ninth Circuit ruling that a local ordinance that bans appliances such as gas stoves “impacts the quantity of energy” they consume, which is regulated by the federal government.

Jot Condie, president of the restaurant association, hailed the decision. Berkeley’s ban was “an overreaching measure beyond the scope of any city,” he said in a statement.

“Cities and states are not equipped to regulate the energy use or energy efficiency of appliances that businesses and homeowners have chosen; energy policy and conservation is an issue with national scope and national security implications,” Condie said.

Supporters of the ordinance said the decision would not affect a small number of other California cities that have promoted electrification in their building codes.

The ruling was expected to be appealed, according to a statement from a group of environmental advocates.

Matt Vespa, a senior attorney with the radical green-activist group Earthjustice, called the decision misguided.

“As we face a climate and air quality crisis from coast to coast, it is vital that cities and states maintain all legal pathways to protect public health, cut climate emissions and increase safety by addressing pollution from buildings, and we’ll continue to fight to ensure this authority is preserved,” Vespa said in a statement.

New York City has barred most new buildings from using natural gas within a few years. Most construction projects submitted for approval after 2027 would have to use something other than gas or oil—such as electricity—for heating, hot water and cooking.

Some federal lawmakers have called on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to address the potential health risks through regulation, such as requiring that gas stoves be sold with range hoods to improve ventilation or issuing mandatory performance standards for gas stoves to address the health effects of hazardous emissions.

But after facing considerable backlash once its plans became public, the Biden administration said earlier this year that there are no plans for a nationwide ban on gas stoves.

The California Restaurant Association argued the Berkeley ban could end up eroding the region’s reputation for fine and creative dining.

“Indeed, restaurants specializing in international foods so prized in the Bay Area will be unable to prepare many of their specialties without natural gas,” the lawsuit stated.

And while the ban applied only to some new construction, the association worried it could be the start of efforts to outlaw or restrict the use of natural gas in existing structures.

The trade group said such a move would harm restaurants that rely on gas “for cooking particular types of food, whether it be flame-seared meats, charred vegetables, or the use of intense heat from a flame under a wok,” according to the lawsuit.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

L.A. Mayor Wants $1.3B to House Homeless in Hotels

Editor 1
-
0
L.A. Mayor Wants $1.3B to House Homeless in Hotels

(Headline USA) Democratic Mayor Karen Bass, who was elected in November after promising to take on the city’s out-of-control homeless crisis, announced Monday she would recommend spending what she called a record $1.3 billion next year to get unhoused people into shelter and treatment programs.

The funding to be included in the mayor’s upcoming budget could be used in part to buy hotels or motels that would be converted to housing, while the city combs through its inventory of properties for those that could be used for sheltering homeless people.

The former congresswoman’s remarks, in an annual address to City Council on the state of the city, came roughly four months into her first term.

Bass added that the budget also would include funds for substance abuse treatment beds for the unhoused, but she did not specify how many. And her signature program, dubbed “Inside Safe”—which offers homeless people motel rooms and a path to permanent housing with services—has over 1,000 enrollees so far, she said.

Meanwhile, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has promised to deliver 500 units of temporary housing to the city, while the Biden administration has sent the city and county more than $200 million for homeless programs, she added.

“After years of frustration … we can see a clearer path to a new Los Angeles,” Bass said, speaking inside the ornate City Council chambers. And “we have finally dispelled the myth that people do not want to come inside. They do.”

However, Bass added that much work needed to be done. “I cannot declare that the state of our city is where it needs to be,” she said.

The city has expanded spending on homeless programs for years—then-Mayor Eric Garcetti signed a budget in 2021 with nearly $1 billion in homeless spending—but the unhoused population has continued to increase.

Bass’s challenge is in plain sight in just about any neighborhood: homeless people living in trash-strewn encampments or rusty RVs along streets, below underpasses and clustered around freeway exits.

About half the homeless population—totaling over 40,000 citywide—struggles with drug or alcohol addiction, and about a third have serious mental illnesses. Homeless deaths average five a day.

Some economists see a recession coming that could slash city tax revenue at a time when Bass is expanding homeless spending. A recent report from city Controller Kenneth Mejia outlined a series of other concerns, including the need to investment more in repairing crumbling streets and sidewalks and higher pension costs for retirees that “already consume fully 15% of the city’s general fund budget.”

Meanwhile, crime rates have been climbing, including for car thefts and shootings, while the police department has seen its staffing levels drop. Bass warned the number of police officers could drop below 9,000—a tally not seen since 2002.

Bass said her budget for the year that begins July 1 recommends hiring hundreds of officers, along with a recruitment campaign and incentives for new hires.

It also funnels new dollars into a team of social workers and clinical psychologists who could respond to emergency calls when a police officer is not required.

“We know safety goes far beyond lights and sirens,” she said.

Bass, the first black woman to serve as L.A.’s mayor, was on President Joe Biden’s short list for vice president. She anchored her campaign to getting homeless people off the streets and into shelters, reversing spiking crime rates and developing housing that working-class families can afford.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

Supreme Court Hears Mail Carrier’s Religious Tolerance Case

Editor 1
-
0
Supreme Court Hears Mail Carrier’s Religious Tolerance Case

(Headline USA) The Supreme Court is being asked to decide under what circumstances businesses must accommodate the needs of religious employees.

A case before the justices Tuesday involves a Christian mail carrier in rural Pennsylvania. He was told that as part of his job he’d need to start delivering Amazon.com packages on Sundays. He declined, saying his Sundays are for church and family.

U.S. Postal Service officials initially tried to get substitutes for the man’s shifts, but they couldn’t always. When he didn’t show, that meant more work for others. Ultimately, the man quit and sued for religious discrimination.

The case is the latest religious confrontation the high court has been asked to referee. That includes a ruling last year in which the court said a public high school football coach should be allowed to pray on the field after games.

Another case the court is weighing this term involves a Christian graphic artist who wants to create wedding websites but doesn’t want to serve gay couples.

A federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requires employers to accommodate employees’ religious practices unless doing so would be an “undue hardship” for the business. But a Supreme Court case from 1977, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, says employers can deny religious accommodations to employees when they impose “more than a de minimis cost” on the business.

Three current justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch—have said the court should reconsider the Hardison case.

The case currently before the court involves Gerald Groff, a former employee of the U.S. Postal Service in Pennsylvania’s Amish Country. For years, Groff was a fill-in mail carrier who worked on days when other mail carriers were off.

But when an Amazon.com contract with the Postal Service required carriers to start delivering packages on Sundays, Groff balked. Initially, to avoid the shifts, Groff transferred to a more rural post office not yet doing Sunday deliveries, but eventually that post office was required to do them too.

Whenever Groff was scheduled on a Sunday, another carrier had to work or his spot went unfilled. Officials said Groff’s absences created a tense environment and contributed to morale problems. It also meant other carriers had to deliver more Sunday mail than they otherwise would.

Groff resigned in 2019 rather than wait to be fired, he said, and then filed a religious discrimination lawsuit. Groff wants the Supreme Court to overrule the Hardison case and to say that employers must show “significant difficulty or expense” if they want to reject a religious accommodation.

Biden administration lawyers representing the Postal Service, however, say Hardison shouldn’t be overruled but instead clarified to make clear it gives substantial protection for religious observance.

The administration also says that—as in Groff’s case—when an employee requests a religious accommodation that negatively impacts other workers, that can be an undue hardship on the business.

The case is Groff v. DeJoy, 22-174.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

Gracia: The Biden Admin’s Shameless Misdirection on Border Security

Editor 1
-
0
Gracia: The Biden Admin’s Shameless Misdirection on Border Security

(Bianca Gracia, Headline USA contributor) The recent claims made by President Joe Biden on Twitter, stating that “MAGA House Republican proposals would slash funding for border security,” are nothing short of a desperate attempt to mislead the American public.

This falsehood, coming from an administration that has been responsible for the most significant border crisis in recent history, is a glaring example of political dishonesty.

Let’s set the record straight on who genuinely cares about border security: it is the Republicans, not the Democrats.

Over the past few years, the American people have witnessed the disastrous consequences of the Biden administration’s border policies. Record numbers of illegal aliens, including unaccompanied minors, have poured into our country, overwhelming our border facilities and stretching our resources to the breaking point.

This surge in illegal aliens has led to a significant increase in drug trafficking, human smuggling and violent crime, all of which have had a devastating impact on American communities.

In stark contrast to the Democrats’ lax approach to border security, Republicans have consistently advocated for the necessary resources, personnel and infrastructure to protect our nation’s borders.

Under the Trump administration, we witnessed a significant improvement in border security, thanks to measures such as the construction of the border wall, the Remain in Mexico policy and the enforcement of our immigration laws. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has done everything in its power to reverse these successes and undermine our nation’s security.

The current administration’s claims that Republicans would slash funding for border security are baseless and misleading. In reality, it is the Biden administration that has consistently sought to weaken our border security apparatus, slashing funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and proposing cuts to vital border security operations.

Furthermore, the administration has all but stopped the construction of the border wall, leaving vast stretches of our border wide open and vulnerable to infiltration by drug cartels, human traffickers and potential terrorists.

It is evident that the Democrats are engaging in a campaign of misinformation and misdirection in an attempt to deflect blame for the border crisis they have created. Instead of owning up to their failures and working to address the situation, they are choosing to point fingers at the very people who have been tirelessly advocating for a secure border and the enforcement of our immigration laws.

It is time for the American people to see through this charade and recognize the truth: The GOP has been, and always will be, the party of border security and law and order.

We must not allow the Biden administration’s deceitful tactics to distract us from their abysmal record on immigration and their blatant disregard for our nation’s security. Let’s not be swayed by the false narrative that the Biden administration is attempting to propagate.

The American people deserve better, and it is our responsibility to demand a government that upholds the rule of law, protects our borders and ensures the safety of its citizens. The GOP has proven time and again that it is committed to these principles, while the Democrats have demonstrated the opposite.

As we move forward, it is essential for all Americans to recognize the real champions of border security and stand with those who prioritize our nation’s safety and well-being.

By supporting Republicans and their unwavering commitment to securing our borders, we can work together to restore order, protect our communities, and preserve the integrity of our immigration system.

In the face of misleading claims and political games, let us remember the true defenders of a secure border and hold the Biden administration accountable for its disastrous policies. Our nation’s future depends on it.

It is crucial that we, as American citizens, remain vigilant and informed about the actions and policies of our elected officials. Misleading information has no place in our political discourse, and we must all do our part to demand transparency and honesty.

The Republican party has consistently shown its dedication to securing our borders and ensuring the safety of American citizens. Contrary to the baseless claims put forth by President Biden, it is the Democrats who have consistently undermined our border security and perpetuated the ongoing crisis.

The American people deserve better, and it is our collective responsibility to demand a government that prioritizes the rule of law and the well-being of its citizens.

Let us not be fooled by the deceitful tactics employed by the Biden administration. Instead, let us stand united in support of those who genuinely care about our nation’s security and the enforcement of our immigration laws.

By doing so, we can work together to address the border crisis, protect our communities, and ensure a safer and more prosperous future for all Americans.

Bianca Gracia is the co-founder and president of the Latinos for Trump Organization, and the founder and executive director of Latinos for America First PAC. She previously worked as Statewide Hispanic Engagement Director for the Republican Party of Texas and State Director for the Faith and Freedom Coalition. She is also President of Leaderes de la Comunidad, President of Americanos Conservative United, and was a former State Director and Advisor for Blexit Texas.

Editor’s Note: The above piece is an opinion piece. Although Headline USA does curate and edit them for style purposes, the views expressed in it do not necessarily represent those of the publication. Headline USA did not receive nor provide any compensation for the submission. 

Elon Musk Says He’ll Create ‘TruthGPT’ to Counter AI Bias

Editor 1
-
0
Elon Musk Says He’ll Create ‘TruthGPT’ to Counter AI Bias

(Headline USA) Billionaire Twitter owner Elon Musk is again sounding warning bells on the dangers of artificial intelligence to humanity—and announced his plans to counter the far-left bias of a popular chatbot with his own AI creation.

Musk told Fox News host Tucker Carlson in a segment aired Monday night that he plans to create an alternative to the popular AI chatbot ChatGPT that he is calling “TruthGPT,” which will be a “maximum truth-seeking AI that tries to understand the nature of the universe.”

The idea, Musk said, is that an AI that wants to understand humanity is less likely to destroy it.

Musk also said he’s worried that ChatGPT “is being trained to be politically correct.”

In the first of a two-part interview with Carlson, Musk also advocated for the regulation of artificial intelligence, saying he’s a “big fan.” He called AI “more dangerous” than cars or rockets and said it has the potential to destroy humanity.

Separately, Musk has incorporated a new business called X.AI Corp, according to a Nevada business filing. The website of the Nevada secretary of state’s office says the business was formed on March 9 and lists Musk as its director and his longtime adviser, Jared Birchall, as secretary.

Musk has for many years expressed strong opinions about artificial intelligence and has dismissed other tech leaders, including Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, for having what he has described as a “limited” understanding of the field.

Musk was an early investor in OpenAI—the startup behind ChatGPT—and co-chaired its board upon its 2015 founding as a nonprofit AI research lab. But Musk only lasted there for a few years, resigning from the board in early 2018 in a move that the San Francisco startup tied to Tesla’s work on building automated driving systems.

“As Tesla continues to become more focused on AI, this will eliminate a potential future conflict for Elon,” OpenAI said in a February 2018 blog post.

“I came up with the name and the concept,” Musk told Carlson, lamenting that OpenAI is now closely allied with Microsoft and is no longer a nonprofit.

Musk elaborated on his departure in 2019, saying it was also related to his need to focus on engineering problems at Tesla and some differences of opinion with OpenAI’s leaders. It was “just better to part ways on good terms,” he said.

“Tesla was competing for some of same people as OpenAI & I didn’t agree with some of what OpenAI team wanted to do,” Musk tweeted, without specifying.

But there have been questions surrounding the quality of Tesla’s AI systems. U.S. safety regulators last month announced an investigation into a fatal crash involving a Tesla suspected of using an automated driving system when it ran into a parked firetruck in California.

The firetruck probe is part of a larger investigation by the agency into multiple instances of Teslas using the automaker’s Autopilot system crashing into parked emergency vehicles that are tending to other crashes.

Since Musk outed himself as a red-pilled Republican convert, NHTSA has become more aggressive in pursuing safety problems with Teslas in the past year, announcing multiple recalls and investigations.

In the year after Musk resigned from the board, OpenAI was still far away from working on ChatGPT but publicly unveiled the first generation of its GPT system, on which ChatGPT is founded, and began a major shift to incorporate itself as a for-profit business.

By 2020, Musk was tweeting that “OpenAI should be more open” while noting that he had “no control & only very limited insight” into it.

At times, he has been complementary. In the days after the Nov. 30 release of ChatGPT, Musk tweeted to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman that it is “scary good” and complained that news media wasn’t widely covering it because “ChatGPT is not a far left cause.”

Since then, however, Musk has repeatedly highlighted examples that he says show left-wing bias or censorship.

Adapted from reporting by the Associated Press

1...2,0512,0522,053...3,892Page 2,052 of 3,892