Rather Expose Them Christian News Blog

Deep state money supply: FTX, the collapsed crypto exchange, funded the “TOGETHER Trial” to discredit ivermectin

Image: Deep state money supply: FTX, the collapsed crypto exchange, funded the “TOGETHER Trial” to discredit ivermectin

BY ETHAN HUFF

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-11-15-ftx-crypto-funded-together-trial-discredit-ivermectin.html;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

(Natural News) Remember that infamous New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) study that declared ivermectin to be an ineffective remedy against the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19)? It turns out that the now-defunct cryptocurrency exchange FTX helped pay for it.

On May 16, the FTX Foundation issued a press release “proudly” announcing financial support for the “global expansion of the TOGETHER Trial,” as they called it, the lead investigators of which were awarded that very same day the prestigious Trial of the Year Award from the Society for Clinical Trials (SCT) in San Diego.

“Each year the SCT presents one award for a randomized clinical trial published the previous year that best exemplifies five key criteria including improvements to humankind and provides a basis for substantial and beneficial changes to health care,” the press release states.

“The TOGETHER Trial is the largest placebo-controlled COVID-19 trial and has, so far, evaluated 11 different treatments for COVID-19. On May 16, the TOGETHER trial receives the award and announces more than $18 million in funding and purchase commitments from the FTX Foundation that will enable the expansion of the trial from Brazil and Canada, to include experienced sites in South Africa, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Bahamas, Pakistan, Vietnam, and Ghana.”

The press release goes on to feature quotes from several lead investigators as well as employees at the FTX Foundation, all of whom celebrated and praised each other for this “achievement”. (Related: Other research out of Brazil found that ivermectin helps reduce the risk of covid death by 92 percent.)

Did FTX steal crypto investors’ money to fund corrupt studies like the TOGETHER Trial?

David Henderson of EconLog critiqued the FTX-funded anti-ivermectin study and found that “it is not nearly as conclusive and persuasive as the two doctors’ quotes and other media coverage would lead us to believe.”

It turns out trial participants actually did benefit from the use of ivermectin, which in many other countries is available as an over-the-counter medication similar to aspirin. Only in the United States and other heavily globalist-controlled countries is ivermectin prescription-only or not available at all due to political pressures.

Henderson explains that the study’s methodology was flawed because prospective patients who were sick with covid and actually wanted ivermectin shied away from it because of the 50-50 chance that they would end up with a placebo instead.

“Further, those who wanted ivermectin likely would have had a serious case of COVID; hence their desire for the drug,” he says. “Therefore, we can assume that the trial participants skewed toward those who considered themselves at low risk from the illness. This conflicts with the stated goal of the trial, which was to study high-risk patients.”

None of this ended up mattering, though, as the globalists behind the TOGETHER Trial produced the results they wanted. And the FTX Foundation is a big reason why that happened, as the organization presumably stole crypto investors’ money to supply the cash needed to make it happen.

Since we now know that FTX head Sam Bankman-Fried bilked investor cash to funnel it into Ukraine and ultimately the Biden regime and other Democrats, it is hardly a stretch to assume that the same criminality was used to fund this anti-ivermectin trial, and possibly other studies as well.

“Criminal charges need to be brought to those responsible for shutting down doctors from helping their patients during the pandemic,” wrote a commenter about the anti-ivermectin agenda and everyone behind it, including Bankman-Fried and his FTX scam.

More related news about the collapse of FTX and other criminality in the financial world can be found at Collapse.news.

Sources for this article include:

Yahoo.com

NaturalNews.com

EconLib.org

PayPal Stock Plummets After Telling Users It Will Fine Them for “Misinformation”~PayPal Did NOT Back Down, STILL Threatens $2,500 Fines for Promoting ‘Hate’ and ‘Intolerance’

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2022/10/10/paypal-did-not-back-down-still-threatens-2500-fines-for-promoting-hate-and-intolerance-n1635846

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

The story was shocking: As PJM’s Rick Moran stated Saturday, “The financial services company PayPal announced a controversial policy to deduct up to $2,500 from the accounts of users who spread ‘misinformation.’” But as the news of this astonishing plan circulated far and wide, PayPal experienced a swift backlash in the form of a blizzard of account cancellations, and quickly backed down, claiming that the announcement went out “in error” and adding: “PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy.” That’s terrific, or would be if it weren’t for the fact that PayPal’s current Acceptable Use Policy still threatens $2,500 fines per infraction for promoting “hate” and “intolerance” — language the Left regularly uses to characterize (and demonize) speech that is critical of its insane policies.

Eugene Volokh pointed out Sunday that PayPal’s Acceptable Use Policy, which was last updated on Sept. 20, 2021, warns the unfortunate PayPal user that “you must adhere to the terms of this Acceptable Use Policy,” or else: “Violation of this Acceptable Use Policy constitutes a violation of the PayPal User Agreement and may subject you to damages, including liquidated damages of $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation, which may be debited directly from your PayPal account(s) as outlined in the User Agreement (see ‘Restricted Activities and Holds’ section of the PayPal User Agreement).”

Click on that “Restricted Activities and Holds” section, and you’ll find a long list of “you must nots,” including the expected prohibitions of fraud, selling counterfeit goods, and the like. But included on the list of things you must not do is “Provide false, inaccurate or misleading information.” False, inaccurate, or misleading in the eyes of whom? Why, of PayPal’s Leftist hall monitors, of course, and no one else, including the person PayPal accuses: “If we believe that you’ve engaged in any of these activities, we may take a number of actions to protect PayPal, its customers and others at any time in our sole discretion.” No one else’s. You’ll have no appeal, no recourse, and no opportunity to present your side of the story.

And among the “Prohibited Activities” listed on the Acceptable Use Policy page, you’ll find forbidden “the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that are discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime.” No problem, eh? You have never engaged in or ever plan to engage in any promotion of hatred, violence, or intolerance, so you’re in the clear, right? Wrong. Leftists routinely accuse patriots of promoting hate: Wanting a secure southern border is promoting hate. Not wanting to see our schools become platforms for genuinely hateful and false race grievance propaganda is promoting hate. Disagreeing with the Leftist dogma that Islam is a religion of peace is promoting hate. Not believing that Jan. 6 was an insurrection or that Donald Trump is a traitorous Russian puppet is promoting hate.

Related: [UPDATED] Could PayPal Policy Allow Them to Deduct Up to $2,500 From Your Account for Spreading ‘Misinformation’?

And so what PayPal’s still-in-force Acceptable Use Policy is saying is that at PayPal’s sole discretion, it can decide to start fining wrong thinkers and taking thousands of dollars from your account for the sole reason that you don’t toe the Left’s political line. PayPal backed down on fining you for spreading “misinformation,” but few people seem to have noticed at all that it still threatens to fine you for “hate” and “intolerance.” Don’t like drag queens sexualizing primary school children? If a PayPal wonk decides that’s “intolerance,” you could be out $2,500, and remember, that’s just for one infraction alone. If you dare to express your dissent more than once, you could be into PayPal for tens of thousands of dollars.

Can they do this? Will they do this? That depends on who wins the game of judicial roulette. Will a case challenging this get heard by a judge appointed by Obama or Biden, or by one whom Trump appointed? PayPal’s Acceptable Use Policy is one indication of why Leftists are so avid to pack the Supreme Court and so incandescently enraged with Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Give the Left a Supreme Court majority, and the ruling will come that PayPal is a private company that need not be bound by First Amendment considerations, and is free to put political pressure on its users however it may wish to do so.

It’s certainly time to ditch PayPal. But make no mistake: PayPal is not alone in this. They’re just out front on it. Before too long, every one of the social media giants and financial services will have similar policies, unless there comes to be such a change in the American customer base that these massive corporations see that woke fascism simply isn’t profitable for them, as tens of thousands of people, or more, stop using their services. That part is up to us.

 

Louisiana pulls in its $800 million account from leftwing Blackrock FOR ITS ANTI-FOSSILE FUELS POSITION

Left-wing money managers are running trillions of dollars in public pension funds. They are using those funds to push their political agenda. One America's Neil W. McCabe spoke to the Treasurer of Louisiana to see how he's fighting back.

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/louisiana-divests-from-blackrock-over-esg-policies-that-would-destroy-louisianas-economy

Finger-Pointing Federal Reserve Admits They Can’t Tame Inflation, Blames Congress

BY STEPHEN GREEN

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2022/09/01/finger-pointing-federal-reserve-admits-they-cant-tame-inflation-blames-congress-n1625965;

Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

The Federal Reserve has some not-so-comforting inflation news for Americans: They can’t tame it, and it isn’t their fault.

The current “increase in inflation,” says a new report published by the Kansas City Federal Reserve, “could not have been averted by simply tightening monetary policy.”

The Fed was established in 1913 to promote economic stability by protecting the value of the dollar.

If they can’t do it, who can?

That’s where things get complicated, as you’ll see.

Skip this next excerpt if you like, because I’ll have a TL;DR version for you just below it.

The report, written by Leonardo Melosi of the Chicago Fed and John Hopkins economist Francesco Bianchi goes on to say:

Trend inflation is fully controlled by the monetary authority only when public debt can be successfully stabilized by credible future fiscal plans. When the fiscal authority is not perceived as fully responsible for covering the existing fiscal imbalances, the private sector expects that inflation will rise to ensure sustainability of national debt. As a result, a large fiscal imbalance combined with a weakening fiscal credibility may lead trend inflation to drift away from the long-run target chosen by the monetary authority.

Here’s the TL;DR: Inflation is raging because Congress is spending money we don’t have, is producing trillion-dollar deficits with no end in sight, and has no intention (much less an actual plan) of reining it in.

Michael Maharrey adds:

Make no mistake, the US government is spending far beyond its means. Although the budget deficit is shrinking as emergency pandemic spending programs wind down, the Biden administration continues to spend about half-a-trillion dollars every single month, piling onto the ever-ballooning deficit.

The current “plan” is that Congress will spend nearly 50% more than it will take in, month after month, year after year, and pretend that’s sustainable.

Meanwhile, our idiot POTUS puppet conjured up perhaps as much as another trillion dollars in transfer payments from the poorest Americans to the richest, cloaked as “college loan debt relief.”

Can he do that? Well, who’s there to stop him?

But back to inflation — and let’s forget about interest rates.

Here’s what that Federal Reserve paper doesn’t say: If Congress is the husband who’s drunk on spending, then the Fed is the codependent wife driving him safely home from the bar each night.

Congress could never get away with multi-trillion dollar deficits if they weren’t enabled by the mad money minters at the Federal Reserve.

Recommended: California Warns: Here Come the Blackouts, Don’t Charge Your Car

When Congress wanted to provide “relief” from the totally unnecessary COVID-19 lockdowns, Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari went on 60 Minutes to assure people that the Fed has basically an “infinite amount of cash.”

Two years later, you can still feel the “assurance” every time you buy groceries.

The point is, every time Congress wanted to spend a couple trillion dollars we didn’t have, there was the Fed to monetize it — IE, roll the digital printing presses 24/7.

Here’s the Fed’s balance sheet since 2000:

Federal Reserve Balance Sheet

When the Fed owns assets — the bank’s balance sheet — it’s because they bought it. Where does the Fed get the money to buy things?

They print it. Convenient for them, no?

Since March of 2020, the Fed has bought $5,000,000,000,000 worth of assets using funny money. They just injected craploads of new dollars into circulation, in no small part to cover Congress’ largess.

Cut. It. Out.

So long as the Fed can print money at will, there’s absolutely nothing to stop Congress from spending money we don’t have.

The fate of the world’s largest economy is in the hands of a codependent couple. One has no interest in the welfare of the country as a whole, and the other apparently has no interest in taking responsibility for its part in letting that happen.

Fed rate hike to unleash AVALANCHE of home foreclosures and market drops while still doing little to halt skyrocketing INFLATION

BY MIKE ADAMS

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-07-28-fed-rate-hike-to-unleash-avalanche-of-home-foreclosures-and-market-drops-while-still-doing-little-to-halt-skyrocketing-inflation.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) Yesterday the Fed hiked the interbank lending rate by 75 basis points (0.75%), which will lead to retail loan rates rising across the board. This is all part of the Fed’s attempt to reel in rising inflation, which the dishonest government claims is around 9% but the rest of the world already understands to be closer to 20%.

Thus, raising interest rates by 0.75% isn’t going to halt inflation. Prices of food, fuel, and consumer goods are going to continue to rise dramatically in the months ahead.

The rate raise, however, will cause sharp drops in the housing market, since housing is strongly dependent on mortgage loans which are highly sensitive to interest rates. Because home loans are often 30-year loans, even a small increase in loan rates can result in dramatic increases in monthly payments, pricing many people out of the homes they could afford just six months ago. The net effect will be falling home sales and decreasing values of real estate, combined with large increases in mortgage defaults.

Foreclosure starts are now up 440% year over year

According to DSnews.com’s reporting on the Black Knight Mortgage Monitor Report, our foreclosure “starts” (i.e. new foreclosures) have risen 440% from last year (June 2022 vs June 2021). July numbers aren’t yet reported, but it is near certain they will also show large increases in foreclosures.

Retail auto sales are down slightly, although much of that may be attributable to lack of supply rather than reduced demand. However, as interest rates rise, people are increasingly priced out of the automobiles they wish to purchase. As the UK Daily Mail reports, a shocking number of Americans are now paying $1,000 a month on a car loan payment:

– The percentage of people taking out new car loans and paying $1,000 in monthly payments has almost doubled from 7% to 12.7% over the last 12 months
– Average monthly payments on new car loans are at a record high of $686
– Used car market sees average monthly payments at $554, up 12% year-on-year
– Pandemic supply-chain problems are partly to blame with the shortage of new cars leading to price hikes on the forecourt
– Monthly interest payments also shot up after the Federal Reserve raised rates

Gold and silver will likely drop a bit more as people unload assets to meet margin calls in the stock market, but in the long run, precious metals look poised to skyrocket as the dollar’s real-world value plunges and inflation spirals out of control.

The Fed will likely soon stop raising rates and will start lowering them, indicating a total surrender to inflation and the eventual collapse of the fiat currency

It seems likely that this will be the last rate rise of 2022, or potentially the second to last. The Fed is already indicating they plan to start lowering rates in 2023, and many financial analysts believe the Fed will almost certainly accelerate that action in late 2022 as the economic carnage in the real estate industry becomes too messy to ignore.

Ultimately, the Fed will capitulate and abandon any real goal of tackling inflation. They will keep printing money and lowering interest rates while inflation spirals out of control, leading to an end game scenario where food and fuel prices lead to nationwide riots while the dollar collapses in real-world value.

On top of this, China, Russia, India, and other BRICS nations are rolling out a new global reserve currency that will make the petrodollar obsolete, immediately making global dollar dominance a thing of the past. This will cause dollars to come flooding back to America as other nations dump the hyperinflated dollar and embrace the commodities-backed, gold-backed, energy-backed BRICS reserve currency. Before long, America will be a collapsed Third World nation with mass homelessness, starvation, destitution, and lawlessness, with a collapsing fiat currency, a corrupt illegitimate government regime, and a captured corporate media that now sees its only job as covering up the crimes of the regime in power… the same regime that holds political prisoners in jail without due process, runs depopulation vaccine propaganda campaigns and purges the military of Christians and patriots so they can unleash the military against We the People in a domestic genocidal war. (That’s what is coming if we don’t change course…)

This is when you will thank God for the preparedness activities that you pursued in advance.

Get full details on all this and more in today’s Situation Update podcast via Brighteon.com:

Brighteon.com/1b2255e8-2905-4a98-9af3-1aab13358967

STOCKS, BONDS, CRYPTO and REAL ESTATE: The whole house of cards is coming down

BY MIKE ADAMS

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-06-15-stocks-bonds-crypto-real-estate-whole-house-of-cards-is-coming-down.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

 (Natural News) The Fed raised interest rates by 0.75% today (75 basis points), fulfilling their promise to attempt to reverse the runaway inflation that they caused in the first place by printing trillions of dollars and flooding the markets with cheap or nearly-free funds (zero percent interest rates, for example).

As of right now, America’s real estate bubble is now in the process of a catastrophic collapse. The stock market is collapsing and the crypto universe is absolutely imploding. “The crypto apocalypse is here,” writes Michael Snyder from End of the American Dream:

Over the last seven months, we have witnessed a cryptocurrency collapse that is so epic that it is truly difficult to put it into words… approximately two-thirds of the value of all cryptocurrencies has already been wiped out.  Some are calling this a “crash”, but the truth is that this is the sort of full-blown “collapse” that so many have been warning about for such a long time.  A lot of crypto investors are now deeply in the red, and the outlook for the months ahead is very bleak.

Meanwhile, the average stock portfolio is down 31% this year alone, and the downside still remaining now looks like a deep, ominous chasm of financial devastation that’s going to suck the vast majority of Americans into financial destitution.

You see, while everybody’s assets are plummeting, the prices of the things they need to buy keep skyrocketing.

Everything people own is going to collapse in value, while nearly everything people buy is going to double or triple in price.

The real estate bubble will now collapse, however, which may offer some relief for those trying to rent or purchase new homes. But for the tens of millions of people already locked into bubble-priced mortgages and rent contracts, the pain of paying too much won’t be easily reversed.

The truth is that most assets have been Ponzi schemes for many years or even decades. The stock market hasn’t operated from fiscal reality since the 1980s, and the fiat currency dollar has been living in a delusional fairy tale land since Nixon took it off the gold standard in 1971.

The real estate asset price explosion was just an expression of low-interest rates and cheap money, while the crypto universe was a grand social experiment that primarily served as a new generation’s “dot com bubble” where they ultimately learn an expensive (but valuable) lesson in the seduction and false promise of seemingly becoming wealthy without work. Too many crypto pioneers thought they could recreate the laws of economics by simply claiming absurd things that aren’t true, like “we don’t need intrinsic value, our token is backed by an algorithm.” That’s the crypto equivalent of the biological fantasy that claims “men can get pregnant,” which is why I call the crypto Ponzi schemes “financial transgenderism.”

See, what we’re all really beginning to experience in the world right now is a heavy dose of reality.

Learn more in today’s Situation Update:

Brighteon.com/e450a1bf-8a5e-433b-aed5-7839e4210c19

First JPMorgan’s Dimon, now Goldman Sachs’ Waldron: the world is about to get hit with an economic “hurricane”

BY ETHAN HUFF

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-06-05-jpmorgan-dimon-goldman-sachs-waldron-economic-hurricane.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) Another prominent banking executive, John Waldron of Goldman Sachs, is predicting major economic doom in the very near future.

At a recent investor meeting, Waldron echoed the sentiments of JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon concerning what Dimon called an “economic hurricane” that is about to make landfall.

Joking that he would avoid “using any weather analogies” as Dimon did, Waldron expressed similar fear about inflation, ever-changing monetary policy, and of course,  Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the latter being every Western influencer’s favorite scapegoat for what is now unfolding.

“This is among – if not the most – complex, dynamic environments I’ve ever seen in my career,” Waldron told investors. “The confluence of the number of shocks to the system to me is unprecedented.”

One of the harshest critics of the Federal Reserve in the banking world, Waldron says he expects that there will be “tougher economic times ahead” than even the current inflation and shortage crisis that we are all seeing and feeling.

“No question we are seeing a tougher capital markets environment,” he explained.

Concerning the merger market, Waldron says he expects a slowing from the current “resilient” levels.

“That’s going to start to roll over because you see demand destruction, CEOs get a little less confident,” Waldron explained. “That’s a reasonable expectation, but we’re watching that carefully as a signal.”

From mid-October to late April, global macro data seemed to be moving in a somewhat positive direction, which some saw as a possible turnaround. All of that changed suddenly, however, when the Citi Economic Surprise Index plummeted from over 50 just a few months ago to around 8.60 as of this writing.

Is the “everything” bubble about to burst?

For most of this nation’s history under the oppressive rule of private central banking (the Fed), inflation has technically always been a problem. It is just that it remained hidden because of fancy tricks and tools that were designed to keep the masses confused and distracted while the value of the dollar eroded.

The Fed’s little schemes – which are hardly little at all – are not foolproof, though. Every so often, the bubble inflates too much and they run out of hat tricks to keep it contained, resulting in a crash. We saw this most recently at the start of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) plandemic in 2020, and before that in 2008 with the housing market collapse.

They call these “bubbles,” and at various intervals, these bubbles seem to pop, the big guys are bailed out, and reinflation begins once again. The reality, though, is that the bubbles of the past never fully deflated, and the can of inflation was simply kicked down the road even further.

Currently, we are in the largest bubble of all – the everything bubble to end all bubbles. The crash that is soon to come will be monumental, and this time there is a strong chance that it will not recover.

This time, we are likely to see that ever-ominous “Great Reset” that World Economic Forum (WEF) head Klaus Schwab and others have been warning is soon to come. The current world order, which is mostly built on fiat, will crumble away, leaving a void to be filled by a new world order.

“Western governments have been able to hide inflation, allowing them to spend vast amounts of money,” wrote someone at Zero Hedge about how the fiat printing press aims to keep the house of cards standing, at least for a time.

“Wall Street was able to generate insane amounts of profit by cutting out U.S. labor. The unraveling of all this will be quite a spectacle.”

The latest financial news can be found at DebtBomb.news.

Sources include:

ZeroHedge.com

NaturalNews.com

GET READY: JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says “economic hurricane” is about to make landfall across America

Image: GET READY: JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says “economic hurricane” is about to make landfall across America

BY ETHAN HUFF

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-06-02-jpmorgan-dimon-economic-hurricane-landfall-america.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) The head of one of America’s largest and most influential financial institutions is warning that things are about to get really ugly, economically speaking.

Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan, just told a room full of analysts and investors that an “economic hurricane” is barreling straight towards the United States, and that his company is “bracing” for impact.

So-called “quantitative easing,” or QT, which is scheduled to begin this month, will ramp up to $95 billion a month in reduced bond holdings. There is also the ongoing war in Ukraine, which continues to drive up commodity prices.

Oil, Dimon warns, could hit $150 or even $175 a barrel. And food, as many of us well know, is becoming increasingly more expensive with each passing day.

“You’d better brace yourself,” Dimon warned his audience. “JPMorgan is bracing ourselves and we’re going to be very conservative with our balance sheet.”

“You know, I said there are storm clouds but I’m going to change it … it’s a hurricane,” he added, noting that while conditions might seem “fine” to some, there is no knowing for sure whether the coming hurricane is “a minor one or Superstorm Sandy.”

Central banks can no longer contain the runaway train

The end of the Federal Reserve’s cheap money era, as CNBC calls it, is rapidly coming to an end. This, among other factors, is said to be driving down stock prices in the tech sector.

Inflation is also hitting multi-decade highs, and this is on top of supply chain failures that really picked up during the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) plandemic.

It is believed by many that the economy is now entering a recession – or perhaps a depression – of epic proportions. The writing is clearly on the wall flashing collapse in huge letters, in other words, and Dimon is speaking up about it.

“Right now, it’s kind of sunny, things are doing fine, everyone thinks the Fed can handle this,” Dimon explained. “That hurricane is right out there, down the road, coming our way.”

“We’ve never had QT like this, so you’re looking at something you could be writing history books on for 50 years,” he added, noting that several aspects of the Fed’s quantitative easing programs have clearly “backfired,” one of them being negative interest rates, which he called a “huge mistake.”

At the same time, Dimon says that central banks “don’t have a choice because there’s too much liquidity in the system.”

“They have to remove some of the liquidity to stop the speculation, reduce home prices and stuff like that.” (Related: Remember early last year when the Federal Reserve’s entire payment system crashed due to an “operational error?”)

The war in Ukraine is only exacerbating a problem that has been stewing for years, but it could be the straw that finally breaks the camel’s back – and more than likely this is all by design as part of the controlled demolition of the old world order, which is necessary in order to usher in a new world order.

“Wars go bad,” Dimon said. “[They] go south in unintended consequences. We’re not taking the proper actions to protect Europe from what’s going to happen to oil in the short run.”

Last week during an investor conference, Dimon said the “storm clouds” could be dissipating. A week later, his whole tune changed to indicate that he was wrong: the storm clouds appear to be bigger, darker, and more ominous than most people are prepared to encounter once they finally arrive.

One thing JPMorgan is doing to try to batten down the hatches is to move its clients from a lower-quality deposits called “non-operating deposits” to money markets, as one example. Will it be enough, is the question?

As the economic hurricane arrives, we will keep you informed about the latest at

Collapse.news.

Sources for this article include:

CNBC.com

NaturalNews.com

Monkeypox just the latest engineered distraction as controlled demolition of human civilization accelerates

Monkeypox, a Misdirection Play: Dr. Malone Provides Insight to the Latest Developments

Monkeypox, a Misdirection Play: Dr. Malone Provides Insight to the Latest Developments

Bannon: "What is Monkeypox?"

Dr. Malone: "Misdirection play."

"... they already have stockpiled vaccines for smallpox. What they bought is more smallpox vaccines... The name of the product is called JYNNEOS... It is marketed by Bavarian Nordic in you all you have to do is search for package insert JYNNEOS and you'll pull up the package insert for the product and they will find that this is absolutely not a benign product just as with the old Dr. X product, which is somewhat safer than that I had experienced with that and this product when I was working for DOD. This has as one of the leading rare serious adverse events. Wait for it. cardiotoxicity myocarditis."

Economic Collapse is a Real Threat, Monkeypox is Not

Ed Dowd gives a warning of economic collapse and I cover information that exposes the Monkeypox scam. Don't let the media, which lies about everything, win this information battle.

Video Sources:
1) Ed Dowd thinks they will try to do another shutdown to interpose the next election.
https://rumble.com/v15khwn-ed-dowd-the-four-converging-forces-that-will-destroy-the-economy.html

2) Ed Dowd and Steve Bannon talk about The Four Converging Forces That Will Destroy the Economy
https://rumble.com/v15khwn-ed-dowd-the-four-converging-forces-that-will-destroy-the-economy.html

3) Info wars on the truth about Monkeypox
https://archives.infowars.com/watch/?video=62881e725ee58b13dbc7daf7

BY MIKE ADAMS

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-05-23-monkeypox-just-the-latest-engineered-distraction-controlled-demolition-human-civilization.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) Monkeypox, a very mild contagious disease that deserves no panic whatsoever, is reportedly spreading across the world among attendees of a gay pride gathering of 80,000 people in Gran Canaria.

As The Sun (UK) reports, “The Canaria Pride festival, held in the town of Maspalomas between May 5 and 15, has become a hotspot for the monkeypox outbreak, reports El País.”

It turns out that engaging in gay sex activities with thousands of strangers spreads disease. (Who knew?) Even the WHO now says monkeypox is spreading mainly through sexual contact among gay men.

Note that there isn’t a single corporate media outlet in the world that will admit such a fact. They cover up the filthy sexual habits and pretend that anal intercourse among multiple sex partners is perfectly normal, perhaps even preferred.

“Many known patients are gay men who were tested after going to STI clinics, the WHO said. Health chiefs warned gay and bisexual men to be on the lookout for new unexplained rashes,” adds The Sun. “Cases have now been detected in Israel, Norway, Australia, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Germany, France, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States, and Canada.”

But monkeypox presents virtually zero risk to the world. The media hysteria surrounding the topic is just the latest effort to try to spread fear and panic in order to push — you guessed it — the inevitable monkeypox vaccine that will be forced onto everyone if they can conjure up enough panic.

Anyone dumb enough to fall for this latest “outbreak” hysteria is dumber than a monkey, of course. Among primates on planet Earth, human beings are the only species dumb enough to poison their food supply with pesticides, mass murder their own offspring with widespread abortions, and inject themselves with genetically altering experimental “vaccines” that cause infertility and death. Even rats aren’t stupid enough to engage in those practices… it takes an obedient human progressive to be that stupid.

Only 10 weeks of wheat supply left in the world

As Insider.com reports, a food expert named Sara Menker, testifying before the United Nations, warned that there are only 10 weeks of wheat supply remaining in the world. Importantly, she also recognizes that it’s not merely “Putin’s fault.” From that story:

Sara Menker, the CEO of agriculture analytics firm Gro Intelligence, told the UN Security Council that the Russia-Ukraine war was not the cause of a food security crisis but “simply added fuel to a fire that was long burning.”

“It is important to note that the lowest grain inventory levels the world has ever seen are now occurring while access to fertilizers is highly constrained,” she said. “And drought in wheat-growing regions around the world is the most extreme it’s been in over 20 years. Similar inventory concerns also apply to corn and other grains.”

So what happens after the “wheat wars” hit a critical point of collapse? Food riots, of course. Upheaval, civil unrest, and revolution around the world. The lack of affordable food will push every nation across the world toward the boiling point. Some of those nations will see violent revolts. Others will see their governments fall (as is happening right now in Sri Lanka).

Understand that the oblivious masses still have no clue the food supply is collapsing. They think that grocery stores in November and December will be fully stocked. Oblivious Europeans think heating energy will be widely available, too. (They are wrong.) The expectations of supply currently held by the oblivious masses are catastrophically inaccurate and subject to radical, painful corrections as reality kicks in.

The situation isn’t going to be pretty.

Listen to more details on all this — including my “Shock the Monkey Pox” song intro — in today’s Situation Update podcast:

Brighteon.com/6b8e4e30-f2bf-4de6-855f-0642d27f4f35

____________________________________________________________________

 

Joe Biden Is the Equivalent of 9/11 for the American Economy

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2022/05/20/joe-biden-is-the-equivalent-of-9-11-for-the-american-economy-n1599568;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Joe Biden’s tumultuous year and a half of pretending to be president has seen the fall and rise of many things in the United States: gas prices, of course, are rising through the roof, along with prices on pretty much everything else. But for the stock market, it’s a different story altogether. Yahoo Finance reported Friday that U.S. stocks have just endured their longest losing streak since 2001; in other words, Joe Biden’s presidency has had an effect on the U.S. economy that is equivalent to 9/11.

This is not in any way to diminish the untold suffering that resulted from the attacks. Nearly 3,000 people were brutally murdered. There is no equivalent for that and no mitigation of its horror. The analogy between then and now is not in that but in the fact that the economy is suffering to a degree that we have not seen since the immediate aftermath of that terrible day.

According to Yahoo Finance, the major stock indexes were “heading for steep weekly losses as concerns over the resilience of corporate profits in the face of inflation resurged this week.” Luckily, Old Joe’s Commie pals threw us a lifeline: “the S&P 500 traded lower, erasing earlier gains after China’s central bank unexpectedly cut a benchmark interest rate to offer some relief to borrowers in the country still grappling with a widespread COVID-19 outbreak.”

Nonetheless, “the index dropped more than 1.5%, bringing it on an intraday basis lower by more than 20% from its recent record close from Jan. 3. If the losses hold through market close, the S&P 500 will have entered a bear market.” Well, of course, we will. That is as certain as Joe’s next teleprompter gaffe.

Meanwhile, the news from the other indexes was no better: “the Dow shed more than 400 points or 1.4%, and the Nasdaq dropped more than 2% during intraday trading. Treasury yields sank, with the yield on the benchmark 10-year note sinking to just above 2.8%, and U.S. crude oil prices edged up to more than $112 per barrel.” And this has been going on for a while: “the losses Friday for the major U.S. stock indexes extended a slide seen earlier this week. As of Thursday’s close, the S&P 500 was on track for a weekly loss of 5.4% — its biggest since January. And the index was also on track to post a seventh straight weekly loss or its longest losing streak since 2001. The Dow and Nasdaq paced toward weekly losses of 5% and 6.2%, respectively.”

The longest losing streak since 2001. What happened in 2001 that made stocks take a nosedive? According to CNN Money, that fateful year “began with a bang. The Nasdaq surged a record 14.17 percent on the second trading day of 2001 after the Federal Reserve surprised investors with a half-percentage point rate cut. That was the first of 11 attempts by central bankers to revive consumer and business spending. Stocks continued to rise in January only to tumble by April. They gained sharply through May before gradually declining through summer.”

But then came 9/11, and suddenly the economic picture was drastically different: “the Dow industrials fell more than 1,300 points in the first week after the markets reopened following the terror attacks, its worst week since the Great Depression. By Sept. 21, the major indexes had fallen to three-year lows. But less than 10 weeks later, the major indexes erased their post-Sept. 11 losses, vindicating investors who called for patriotic buying after the attack.”

Related: Key Bond Market Recession Indicator Flashing Red

Will the American economy similarly rebound now? It could, but there is no chance of such a recovery while Joe Biden and his henchmen have their knees on our collective economic windpipe. It is the Biden administration’s profligate spending, an uncontrolled increase of the money supply, and relentless commitment to green fantasies and socialist internationalism that have gotten us in this fix, and there is no end in sight.

Could the stock market recover? Sure, if Biden suddenly became an America-First president and focused on relieving the plight of the American people rather than the Ukrainian people and if he abandoned his schemes to destroy the economy chasing more green delusions and worked to restore the energy independence the nation had achieved during the Trump administration. But that’s about as likely as Old Joe reading a message off his teleprompter without saying something silly and/or incoherent.

The next milestone will be when the stock downturn becomes the worst since the Great Depression. Watch for that one soon. And then what will we see in America? Breadlines? Hoovervilles? Food riots? In Joe Biden’s America, during the presidency that Nancy Pelosi gushed was “perfect,” all this and more is in the offing. Old Joe Biden’s presidency will long be remembered for its many milestones, and wrecking the strongest economy on the planet will stand as one of the foremost.

THEY’RE CRASHING THE ECONOMY ON PURPOSE! – We Haven’t Seen This Since WW2!

Josh Sigurdson talks with Tim Picciotto, The Liberty Advisor about the shocking move to crash both the stock market and the economy on purpose in order to get us into the Great Reset agenda for a global technocratic cashless currency backed by the SDR at the IMF.
For the last two years, the establishment has worked hard to commit people to subservience and eugenics. Now we are witnessing the next part of the agenda. This will involve the destabilization of the global economy, supply chain, stock market, etc.
As Fauci, Birx, and Gates call for further restrictions, we're about to see a massive shift in the over-all narrative. And WW3 isn't out of the question either.

 

TWITTER’S POISON PILL Dinesh D’Souza Podcast

In this episode, Dinesh discusses how Twitter's board is using a "poison pill" strategy to stop Elon Musk and continue its censorship policies.  Dinesh asks who's going to blink first in the Ukraine war, the Russians, or the US? Dinesh discusses the future of the pro-life movement in a post-Roe America.  Dinesh examines the implications of China becoming the global defender of traditional values. Dinesh explores the remarkable meeting between Dante the pilgrim and a Roman poet named Statius.

 

Hannity: Elon Musk’s Twitter offer threatens the Left’s censorship agenda

Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan and OutKick founder Clay Travis weigh in on the Tesla CEO's fight for free speech.

Tucker: Elon Musk is putting everything on the line with Twitter

Elon Musk Just Destroyed Saudi Prince Over Twitter Purchase! 

WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL: FROM “SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION” TO “SECURITIES & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION”~Biden Illegally Births New Department Out Of Thin Air…& It’s Purpose Will Chill You To The Core!

SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce reacts to new proposal that public companies disclose climate risks

SEC

SEE:

https://www.theblaze.com/news/sec-proposes-new-climate-disclosure-rules

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/sec-to-float-mandatory-disclosure-of-climate-change-risks-emissions

SEC commissioner: We're putting climate risks on par with other risks

https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2022/33-11042.pdf (The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors

"We are Not the Securities and Environment Commission - At Least Not Yet"

Commissioner Hester Peirce

Commissioner Hester M. Peirce (SEE: https://www.sec.gov/biography/commissioner-hester-m-peirce)

March 21, 2022

Thank you, Chair Gensler.  Many people have awaited this day with eager anticipation.  I am not one of them.  Contrary to the hopes of the eager anticipators, the proposal will not bring consistency, comparability, and reliability to company climate disclosures.  The proposal, however, will undermine the existing regulatory framework that for many decades has undergirded consistent, comparable, and reliable company disclosures.  We cannot make such fundamental changes to our disclosure regime without harming investors, the economy, and this agency.  For that reason, I cannot support the proposal.

The proposal turns the disclosure regime on its head.  Current SEC disclosure mandates are intended to provide investors with an accurate picture of the company’s present and prospective performance through managers’ own eyes.  How are they thinking about the company?  What opportunities and risks do the board and managers see?  What are the material determinants of the company’s financial value?  The proposal, by contrast, tells corporate managers how regulators, doing the bidding of an array of non-investor stakeholders, expect them to run their companies.[1]  It identifies a set of risks and opportunities—some perhaps real, others clearly theoretical—that managers should be considering and even suggests specific ways to mitigate those risks.  It forces investors to view companies through the eyes of a vocal set of stakeholders, for whom a company’s climate reputation is of equal or greater importance than a company’s financial performance.

As you have already heard, the proposal covers a lot of territory.  It establishes a disclosure framework based, in large part, on the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”) Framework and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.  It requires disclosure of climate-related risks; climate-related effects on strategy, business model, and outlook; board and management oversight of climate-related issues; processes for identifying, assessing, and managing climate risks; plans for transition; financial statement metrics related to climate; greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions; and climate targets and goals.  It establishes a safe harbor for Scope 3 disclosures and an attestation requirement for large companies’ Scope 1 and 2 disclosures. 

Some elements are missing, however, from this action-packed 534 pages:

  • A credible rationale for such a prescriptive framework when our existing disclosure requirements already capture material risks relating to climate change;
  • A materiality limitation;
  • A compelling explanation of how the proposal will generate comparable, consistent, and reliable disclosures;
  • An adequate statutory basis for the proposal;
  • A reasonable estimate of costs to companies; and
  • An honest reckoning with the consequences to investors, the economy, and this agency.  

I will talk about each of these deficiencies in turn.  My statement is rather lengthy, so I will turn my video off as I speak; by one estimate, doing so will reduce the carbon footprint of my presentation on this platform by 96 percent.[2]

I. Existing rules already cover material climate risks.

Existing rules require companies to disclose material risks regardless of the source or cause of the risk.  These existing requirements, like most of our disclosure mandates, are principles-based and thus elicit tailored information from companies.  Rather than simply ticking off a preset checklist based on regulators’ prognostication of what should matter, companies have to think about what is financially material in their unique circumstances and disclose those matters to investors.  Financial statements and their accompanying disclosure documents are intended to present an objective picture of a company’s financial situation.

Even under our current rules, climate-related information could be responsive to a number of existing disclosure requirements.  For example, Item 303 of Regulation S-K, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations (“MD&A”) requires disclosure of “material events and uncertainties known to management that are reasonably likely to cause reported financial information not to be necessarily indicative of future operating results or of future financial condition.”[3]  Item 101 of Regulation S-K, Description of Business, requires a description of the registrant’s business, including each reportable segment.[4]  It specifically requires disclosure of the material effects that compliance with environmental regulations may have on capital expenditures.[5]  Item 103 of Regulation S-K, Legal Proceedings, requires a description of material pending legal proceedings, as well as administrative or judicial proceedings relating to the environment if certain conditions are met.[6]  Item 105 of Regulation S-K, Risk Factors, also could include climate-related risks under its broad requirement to discuss the “material factors that make an investment in the registrant or offering speculative or risky.”[7]  Securities Act Rule 408 and Exchange Act Rule 12b-20 require companies to disclose, in addition to the information that is subject to specific disclosure mandates, “such further material information, if any, as may be necessary to make the required statements, in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading.”[8]  Under these existing rules, companies already are disclosing matters such as the risk of wildfires to property, the risk of rising sea levels, the risk of rising temperatures, and the risk of climate-change legislation or regulation, when those risks are material the company’s financial situation.[9]  Similarly, issues like “[c]hanging demands of business partners” and “changing consumer . . . behavior” are certainly things all companies consider and disclose when they rise to the level of material risks. 

In 2010, the Commission issued guidance to help companies think about how to apply existing disclosure rules in the context of climate change.[10]  And, last year, the Division of Corporation Finance, in a sample disclosure review comment letter, among other things, underscored the need for companies to apply existing disclosure requirements to climate risks and opportunities, as set forth in the 2010 guidance.[11]  Since the 2010 guidance was issued, companies routinely disclose climate-related information in SEC filings under the current rules, and the Division of Corporation Finance has regularly evaluated such disclosures in filing reviews and issued comment letters only sparingly.[12]  The Division has taken a more aggressive posture in its review of climate-related disclosures in the past year; it has issued comment letters on the subject at an increased rate; sought enhanced disclosure on a variety of issues, including a number of topics that appear in the proposal; and demanded the underlying materiality analysis.  The companies’ responses are instructive: they generally have stated that the requested disclosures by SEC staff were largely immaterial and inappropriate for inclusion in SEC filings.  These recent exchanges reveal that for many companies—including large manufacturers, retailers, and even insurance companies—issues like climate-related physical damage, so-called transition risks related to conjectural climate regulation and potential legislation, and expenditures related to climate change are not material.[13]  Few of these exchanges resulted in agreements to provide enhanced disclosure, although one company—declaring that it “is providing this additional information not because it believes that such information is material” but out of the altruistic belief that “corporations should be good stewards of the environment”—assented to include more information in its proxy statement.[14] 

Instead of being a one-size-fits-all prescriptive framework, the existing rules are rooted in the materiality principle.  Depending on a company’s own facts and circumstances, existing disclosure requirements may pull in climate-related information.  Over the years, however, many companies, responding to calls from various constituencies, have provided substantial amounts of information outside of their required SEC filings.  For example, a lot of companies prepare sustainability reports and post them on their website.  Rather than being geared toward investors, these sustainability reports have a much larger target audience of non-investor stakeholders, whose primary concern is something other than company financial performance.  Because these reports are not directed toward investors, the information they contain is not limited to information that is material to the company’s financial value.  The Commission proposes today to require companies to pull into Commission filings much of this non-investor-oriented information that is either immaterial or keyed to a distended notion of materiality that seems to turn on an embellished guess at how the company affects the environment.

II. The proposed rule dispenses with materiality in some places and distorts it in others.

Some of the proposed disclosure requirements apply to all companies without a materiality qualifier, and others are governed by an expansive recasting of the materiality standard.  Both of these approaches to determining what information should be disclosed are problematic because they depart from the generally applicable,[15] time-tested materiality constraint on required disclosures.

Justice Thurgood Marshall described our existing materiality standard in TSC Industries v. Northway:[16] an item is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider the information important in deciding how to vote or make an investment decision.  The “reasonable investor” Justice Marshall referred to in TSC Industries is someone whose interest is in a financial return on an investment in the company making the disclosure.  Thus, there is a clear link between the materiality of information and its relevance to the financial return of an investment.[17] 

The Commission proposes to mandate a set of climate disclosures that will be mandatory for all companies without regard for materiality.  As I mentioned earlier, the comment letters that the Division of Corporation Finance issued over the past year foreshadowed this development.  The staff pressed companies to include in their SEC filings disclosures that they make in their sustainability reports, but many companies responded that the information was immaterial and therefore need not be included.[18]  The proposal would sweep in much of this information without any materiality nexus.  For example, the proposed rules require all companies to disclose all Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions, and the financial metrics do not have a materiality qualifier. 

The Commission justifies its disclosure mandates in part as a response to the needs of investors with diversified portfolios, who “do not necessarily consider risk and return of a particular security in isolation but also in terms of the security’s effect on the portfolio as a whole, which requires comparable data across registrants.”[19]  Not only does this justification depart from the Commission’s traditional company-specific approach to disclosure, but it suggests that it is appropriate for shareholders of the disclosing company to subsidize other investors’ portfolio analysis.  How could a company’s management possibly be expected to prepare disclosure to satisfy the informational demands of all the company’s investors, each with her own idiosyncratic portfolio?  The limiting principle of such an approach is unclear. 

Even where materiality thresholds exist, the proposal tweaks materiality.  The Commission obliquely admits that it is playing a little fast and loose with materiality, but assures us that the “materiality determination that a registrant would be required to make regarding climate-related risks under the proposed rules is similar to what is required when preparing the MD&A section in a registration statement or annual report.”[20]  Similarity is in the eye of the beholder, and so is materiality if it is decoupled from its financial context, as the proposal seeks to do—just try asking an investor in the company and a climate activist what each finds material about a company’s business.  You might not get the same answer.  The proposal, unlike a standard MD&A materiality determination, requires short-, medium-, and long-term assessments of materiality to account for “the dynamic nature of climate-related risks.”[21]  Moreover, the proposal would seek to get behind these materiality determinations by requiring disclosure of how the company “determines the materiality of climate-related risks, including how it assesses the potential size and scope of any identified climate-related risk.”[22]  As the proposal acknowledges, assessing the present materiality of potential consequences of ongoing and future climate change will be difficult but have no fear, “climate consulting firms are available to assist registrants in making this determination.”[23]  Score one for the climate industrial complex!

With respect to Scope 3 greenhouse gas emission[24] disclosures, the Commission also maintains the fiction that it is not departing from the materiality standard.  Under the proposal, a company, unless it is a smaller reporting company, would have to disclose Scope 3 emissions, but only if the company has set an emissions reduction target that includes Scope 3 emissions or if those emissions are material.  The materiality limitation is not especially helpful because the Commission suggests that such emissions generally are material[25] and admonishes companies that materiality doubts should “‘be resolved in favor of those the statute is designed to protect,’ namely investors.”[26]  That admonition does not work as the Supreme Court intended it when “investors” are redefined to mean “stakeholders,” for whom the cost of collecting and disclosing information is irrelevant.  The release offers without explicitly endorsing a possible quantitative metric (40% of a company’s total GHG emissions) at which Scope 3 emissions might well be material,[27] but then layers on a hazy qualitative test: “where Scope 3 represents a significant risk, is subject to significant regulatory focus, or ‘if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable [investor] would consider it important.’”[28]  The Commission also reminds companies that “[e]ven if the probability of an adverse consequence is relatively low, if the magnitude of loss or liability is high, then the information in question may still be material.”[29]  Further deterring omission of Scope 3 data, the release says, “it may be useful [for investors of companies that do omit Scope 3 emissions for lack of materiality] to understand the basis for that determination.”[30]  Likewise, if a company “determines that certain categories of Scope 3 emissions are material, [it] should consider disclosing why other categories are not material.”[31]  In sum, the Commission seems to presume materiality for Scope 3 emissions.

The Scope 3 materiality confusion stems in part from the fact that Scope 3 emissions reflect not the direct activities of the company making the disclosure, but the actions of the company’s suppliers and consumers.  As the proposal recognizes, “a registrant’s material Scope 3 emissions is a relatively new type of metric, based largely on third-party data, that we have not previously required.”[32]  A company’s Scope 3 emissions are based on what third parties do either in contributing to the company’s creation, processing, or transport of its products or when using and disposing of the company’s products.[33]  Admittedly, a company’s choices about things like what products to produce and which suppliers and distributors to use affect its Scope 3 numbers, but Scope 3 data is really about what other people do.  The reporting company’s long-term financial value is only tenuously at best connected to such third-party emissions.  Hence, the Commission’s distorted materiality analysis for Scope 3 disclosures departs significantly from the “reasonable investor” contemplated by Justice Marshall.

III. The proposal will not lead to comparable, consistent, and reliable disclosures.

The proposal optimistically posits that mandatory disclosure of reams of climate information will ensure that all companies disclose comparable, consistent, and reliable climate information in their SEC filings.  The proposal does not just demand information about the company making the disclosures; it also directs companies to speculate about the habits of their suppliers, customers, and employees; changing climate policies, regulations, and legislation; technological innovations and adaptations; and changing weather patterns.  Wanting to bring clarity in an area where there has been a lot of confusion and greenwashing is understandable, but the release mistakenly assumes that quantification can generate clarity even when the required data are, in large part, highly unreliable.  Requiring companies to put these faulty quantitative analyses in an official filing will further enhance their apparent reliability, while in fact leaving investors worse off, as Commission-mandated disclosures will lull them into thinking that they understand companies’ emissions better than they actually do.  

Another area where the proposal will mandate disclosure of information that appears useful but that likely will be entirely unreliable involves physical risks tied to climate change.  Establishing a causal link between physical phenomena occurring at a particular time and place and climate change is, at best, an exceedingly difficult task.  Disclosures on the physical risk side will require companies to select a climate model and adapt it to assess the effects of climate change on the specific physical locations of their operations, as well as on the locations of their suppliers and customers.  This undertaking is enormous.[34]  It will entail stacking speculation on assumptions.  It will require reliance on third parties and an array of experts who will employ their own assumptions, speculations, and models.  How could the results of such an exercise be reliable, let alone comparable across companies or even consistent over time within the same company?  Nevertheless, they will appear so to investors and stakeholders.

Required disclosures of so-called transition risks also present these challenges.  The proposal defines “transition risks” broadly as:

the actual or potential negative impacts on a registrant’s consolidated financial statements, business operations, or value chains attributable to regulatory, technological, and market changes to address the mitigation of, or adaptation to, climate-related risks, such as increased costs attributable to changes in law or policy, reduced market demand for carbon-intensive products leading to decreased prices or profits for such products, the devaluation or abandonment of assets, risk of legal liability and litigation defense costs, competitive pressures associated with the adoption of new technologies, reputational impacts (including those stemming from a registrant’s customers or business counterparties) that might trigger changes to market behavior, consumer preferences or behavior, and registrant behavior.[35]

Transition risk can derive from potential changes in markets, technology, law, or the more nebulous “policy,” which companies will have to analyze across multiple jurisdictions and all across their “value chains.”  These transition assessments are rooted in prophecies of coming governmental and market action, but experience teaches us that such prophecies often do not come to fruition.  Markets and technology are inherently unpredictable.  Domestic legislative efforts in this context have failed for decades,[36] and international agreements, like the Paris Accords, have seen the United States in and out and back in again.[37]  How could this proposal thus elicit comparable, consistent, and reliable disclosure on these topics?

IV. The Commission lacks authority to propose this rule.

This proposal exceeds the Commission’s statutory limits.  Congress gave us an important mission—protecting investors, facilitating capital formation, and fostering fair, orderly, and efficient markets—and granted us sufficient regulatory authority to achieve that mission.  Effective execution of that mission forms the basis for healthy capital markets and, in turn, a healthy economy.  Congress, however, did not give us plenary authority over the economy and did not authorize us to adopt rules that are not consistent with applicable constitutional limitations.  This proposal steps outside our statutory limits by using the disclosure framework to achieve objectives that are not ours to pursue and by pursuing those objectives by means of disclosure mandates that may not comport with First Amendment limitations on compelled speech.

All the disclosure mandates we adopt under authority granted to us by Congress are at the bottom compelled speech, and this one, in particular, prescribes specific content for the speech that it mandates.  The Supreme Court has made clear that corporations do enjoy protections under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, but also has concluded that the government is subject to lesser scrutiny—and therefore has greater leeway—when requiring companies to disclose “purely factual and uncontroversial information.”[38]  For this reason, our disclosure mandates are at their strongest when there is a clear and indisputable connection between the factual information to be disclosed and our three-part mission.

Attempting to establish that essential connection, the Commission points to “significant investor demand for information about how climate conditions may impact their investments.”[39]  Large asset managers—who are paid to invest other people’s money[40]—some institutional investors, and some retail investors have been vocal proponents of climate change disclosures.  But why are they asking?  If they are asking for information to help them assess the financial value of companies in which they are considering investing, this information may be material and is likely covered by existing disclosure rules.  But many calls for enhanced climate disclosure are motivated not by an interest in financial returns from an investment in a particular company, but by deep concerns about the climate or, sometimes, superficial concerns expressed to garner goodwill.[41] 

The fact that retail and institutional investors and asset managers have myriad motivations when making investment decisions and by extension therefore might want different categories of information necessarily means that we cannot adopt a disclosure regime that provides all information desired by all investors and asset managers.  Indeed, we have been cautioned against disclosure requirements so sweeping that they “simply . . . bury the shareholders in an avalanche of trivial information.”[42]  We have in the past achieved the necessary balance between mandating enough but not too much information by focusing on what information is material to an objectively reasonable investor in her capacity as an investor in the company supplying the information seeking a financial return on her investment in the company.

Focusing on information that is material to a company’s value proposition not only serves as a key mechanism to winnow out needless volumes of information but also keeps us from exceeding the bounds of our statutory authorization.  The further afield we are from financial materiality, the more probable it is that we have exceeded our statutory authority.  One commentator argues that the rationales relied on by the Commission here—that the “Commission has broad authority to promulgate disclosure requirements that are ‘necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors’”[43] or that “promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation”[44]—cannot justify disclosure mandates that lie outside the “subject-matter boundaries” Congress imposed on it.[45]  Indeed, in the rare instances when Congress has wanted us to go beyond those subject-matter boundaries, it has told us to do so.[46]  We do not have a clear directive from Congress, and we ought not wade blithely into decisions of such vast economic and political significance as those touched on by today’s proposal.

Other scholars similarly have raised serious and fundamental questions regarding our authority to mandate climate-related disclosures in the manner proposed here.  A proper understanding and application of our materiality standard is essential.  Professor Sean Griffith contends that First Amendment jurisprudence suggests that the SEC cannot compel disclosures of the type proposed today.  He proposes that to determine whether a particular mandated disclosure is uncontroversial, one should look to the degree that it is consistent with the language and objectives of the statute authorizing the mandate.  If there is a clear and logical connection between disclosing the information and achieving the objectives of the statute, then it likely is uncontroversial; however, if disclosing the information is unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the statutory objectives, then it likely is controversial.[47]  The objective of Congress’s instruction for us to regulate in the public interest and for the protection of investors is to protect investors in their pursuit of returns on their investments, not in other capacities.  For this reason, to qualify as uncontroversial and thereby stay within First Amendment bounds, our disclosure mandates must be limited to information that is material to the prospect of financial returns.  In Professor Griffith’s view, disclosures of information material to financial returns are uncontroversial because the quest for financial returns is the common goal that unites all investors.  Their other individualized goals—whether ameliorating climate change, encouraging better labor relations, pursuing better treatment of animals, protecting abortion rights or any other number of issues—are material for purposes of our disclosure regime only to the extent they relate to the financial value of the company. 

The Commission today proposes to require companies to disclose information that may not be material to them and recasts materiality to encompass information that investors want based on interests other than their financial interest in the company doing the disclosing.  We would do well to heed the admonition of the Supreme Court in a case involving the agency Congress charged with regulating the environment:

When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate “a significant portion of the American economy,” we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism.  We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast “economic and political significance.”[48]

V. The Commission underestimates the costs of the proposal.

Even if it were within our statutory authority, the proposal is expensive.  The Commission is sanguine about the costs of this endeavor because some companies are already making climate-related disclosures.  I look forward to seeing whether commenters agree with the Commission’s cost assessments.  Several aspects of the proposal could make implementation costlier than the Commission anticipates.

First, although the proposal is based in part on popular voluntary frameworks, those frameworks are neither universally used nor precisely followed.  For example, the proposal looks extensively to the framework developed by the TCFD because its popularity “may facilitate achieving this balance between eliciting better disclosure and limiting compliance costs.”[49]  Yet, a survey cited in the release suggests that U.S. companies pick and choose elements of the TCFD framework to follow and the majority do not adhere to key parts of the framework.[50]  These results suggest that using the TCFD framework as a basis for this rulemaking will not reduce costs substantially.  Moreover, for many companies, the TCFD-based disclosures will be new.  For these reasons, neither the data regarding predicted costs of complying with the TCFD as it was originally designed nor the data regarding costs to companies using bespoke versions of the TCFD are particularly instructive on the potential costs of complying with this proposal.

The Commission also ignores the distinction between voluntary disclosure in a sustainability report of selected items outlined in the TCFD and mandatory disclosure in SEC filings.  The former disclosure is subject neither to mandatory assurance[51] nor to the level of liability[52] or scrutiny that attaches to SEC filings.  I liken it to cooking.  When I “follow” a recipe, I pick and choose which aspects to follow based on how much time I have, how ambitious I am feeling, and which ingredients I have on hand.  If I were told that I had to prepare the same recipe in a Michelin-starred restaurant for a table of eminent food critics, my stress level would rise considerably, and I would have to outsource the job to a high-priced chef.  A similar rude awakening is in store for companies that have been asking for disclosure mandates, perhaps thinking that these mandates would simply require a little more than what they are already doing voluntarily (and, as importantly, make their competitors do the same): Under these proposals, they are going to be playing an entirely different game, at far higher stakes.  It is difficult to sympathize with the self-inflicted pain they are going to feel, but unfortunately, their shareholders, who, unlike corporate leadership, have not been clamoring for such disclosures, will foot the bill. 

Second, as hard as it will be for a company to be confident in its own climate-related information, a company may not even be able to get the information it needs to calculate Scope 3 emissions.  The company’s customers and suppliers may not track this information.  Even if its suppliers disclose their emissions information, a reporting company may not feel sufficiently confident in the information to include it in its SEC filings.  Many companies, therefore, will have to turn to third-party consultants to help them determine Scope 3 emissions.[53] 

The proposal recognizes the unprecedented nature of the Scope 3 disclosure framework in a couple of ways.  First, it exempts smaller reporting companies.[54]  Second, it provides a safe harbor for Scope 3 disclosures.[55]  The efficacy of this safe harbor turns on its terms, which, in the spirit of the rest of the proposal, are nebulous.  Specifically, the safe harbor covers Scope 3 statements unless they were “made or reaffirmed without a reasonable basis or [were] disclosed other than in good faith.”[56]  “Reasonable basis” seems clear enough in most cases, but is it in this case?  How is a company to determine which particular climate model or set of estimates constitutes a “reasonable basis” when different models and estimations lead to substantially different results?  And what catapults a statement that was made with a reasonable basis into the category of “other than in good faith”?  Is it bad faith if a company that gets wildly different numbers from two suppliers that appear to use similar processes for producing and transporting raw materials chooses to use the numbers that produce the lowest Scope 3 emissions?  Third, the proposal also recognizes the unreliability of Scope 3 data by excluding those data from the assurance requirement.  Realistically, nobody could credibly provide assurance for numbers that are inherently unreliable, and if nobody can credibly provide assurance, no investor is likely to find that these data provide a reasonable basis for making any investment decisions.  

Third, the assurance that companies do have to get likely will be expensive.  Accelerated filers and large accelerated filers will be required to include an attestation report on their Scope 1 and 2 emissions signed by an independent GHG emissions attestation provider, which will be required to provide limited assurance for the second fiscal year after the Scopes 1 and 2 emissions disclosure compliance date, and reasonable assurance starting for the fourth fiscal year after the relevant compliance date.[57]  Audit firms are likely to be the biggest winners, as they already have established assurance infrastructures and are familiar with SEC reporting and the proposed independence framework.  The attestation mandate could be a new sinecure for the biggest audit firms, reminiscent of the one given them by Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.[58] 

Companies also will incur audit costs in connection with a number of metrics proposed to be included in the notes to the financial statements.  The mandated financial statement metrics “would consist of disaggregated climate-related impacts on existing financial statement line items.”[59]  Requiring all companies[60] to include disaggregated, subject-specific metrics within the financial statements is unusual, fails to accommodate the diversity across companies, and reflects a disproportionate emphasis on climate.  Embedding a risk-specific disclosure requirement in the financial statements erodes the important status of financial statements as objective, economically sound representations of a company’s financial situation.  These numbers and the assumptions that underlie them will be invaluable for stakeholder groups looking to force companies to pour more money into climate-related expenditures, but their value to investors is unclear. 

VI. The proposed rule would hurt investors, the economy, and this agency.

Many have called for today’s proposal out of a deep concern about a warming climate and its effects on the planet, people, and the financial system.  It is important to remember, though, that noble intentions, once baked into complex regulatory plans, often have ignoble results.  This risk is considerably heightened when the regulatory complexity is designed to push capital allocation toward politically and socially favored ends,[61] and when the regulators designing the framework have no expertise in capital allocation, political and social insight, or the science used to justify these favored ends.  This proposal, developed under these circumstances, will hurt investors, the economy, and this agency. 

The proposal, if adopted, will have substantive effects on companies’ activities.  We are not only asking companies to tell us what they do but suggesting how they might do it.  The proposal uses disclosure mandates to direct board and managerial attention to climate issues.[62]  Other parts of the proposal offer even more direct substantive suggestions to companies about how they should run their businesses.  For example, the Commission suggests that a company could “mitigate the challenges of collecting the data required for Scope 3 disclosure” by “choosing to purchase from more GHG efficient producers,” or “producing products that are more energy-efficient or involve less GHG emissions when consumers use them, or by contracting with distributors that use shorter transportation routes.”[63]  And the proposal suggests options for companies pursuing climate-related opportunities as part of a transition plan, including low emission modes of transportation, renewable power, producing or using recycled products, setting goals to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and providing services related to the transition to a lower-carbon economy.[64]  Similarly, the proposal suggests ways companies can meet climate-related targets, including “a strategy to increase energy efficiency, transition to lower carbon products, purchase carbon offsets or [renewable energy credits], or engage in carbon removal and carbon storage.”[65]  With all due respect to my colleagues, society is in big trouble if we are looking to SEC lawyers, accountants, and economists to dictate how companies should address climate change. 

Executives, for their part, might not mind the new regime that elevates squishy climate metrics.  After all, how wonderful it will be for an executive who has failed to produce solid financial returns to be able to counter critics with a glowing report on climate transition—“Dear Shareholders, we fell far short of our earnings target this year, but you will be pleased to know that all in all it was a fantastic year since we made great progress on our climate transition plan.”  If the CEO’s compensation is tied to lower greenhouse gas emissions, she can forgo the focus on company financial value—so 20th century!—and spend her time following the proposal’s urging to convince suppliers to shift to electric transport fleets and customers to freeze their jeans instead of washing them.[66]

Who then might mind?  Investors.  And by investors, I mean real people who are saving for retirement and need to earn real financial—not psychic—returns on their money.  When executives focus less on financial metrics and more on other things, the financial performance of companies is likely to suffer.  Moreover, the proposal does not grapple with the potential that retail investors, who are essentially confined to the public markets, should expect to see lower returns over the long term.  The logical result of using the financial system as a tool in combatting climate change is to drive down returns on green investments.[67]  Companies that cannot get funding in the public markets will retreat to the private markets, where they will have to pay investors more for capital.  Higher returns will be reserved for the wealthy, to who the Commission has granted access to private markets.[68] 

Investors will not be the only ones to suffer from the diversion of attention from financial to climate objectives.  The whole economy, and all of the consumers and producers it sustains, could also be hurt.  First, the proposal is likely counterproductive to the important concerns around climate change.  Attempting to drive long-term capital flows to the right companies ex-ante is a fool’s errand because we simply do not know what effective climate solutions will emerge or from where.  Markets, if we let them work, are remarkably deft at solving problems of all sorts, even big problems like climate change,[69] but they do so in incremental and surprising ways that are driven by a combination of chance, opportunity, necessity, and human ingenuity.  The climate-change mitigating invention which right now may be rattling around in the head of a young girl in Cleveland, Ohio—the intellectual descendant of great Cleveland inventors like Garrett Morgan and Rollin Henry White[70]—is something of which we regulators cannot even dream.  Our limited job as securities regulators is to make sure that enterprising young women can get matched up with the funds necessary to bring their idea to life.  We make that match less likely if we write rules that implicitly prefer the technology we have identified as promising today over the technology of the future germinating in our young inventor’s dreams.  Second, the diversion of capital also will make the economy less effective at serving people’s other needs.  Insufficient capital will go to solving other important problems.  Third, contrary to the Commission’s reasoning,[71] driving more capital toward green investments as defined uniformly by financial regulators could fuel an asset bubble that could make the financial system more vulnerable rather than more resilient. 

Finally, our meddling with the incentives for capital allocation will harm this agency, which plays such an important role in the capital markets.  As discussed above, the proposal takes us outside of our statutory jurisdiction and expertise, which harms the agency’s integrity.  In addition, filling SEC filings with information that is inherently unreliable undercuts the credibility of the rest of the information in these important filings.[72]  Moreover, while the existence of anthropogenic climate change itself is not particularly contentious, how best to measure and solve the problem remains in dispute.  The Commission, which is not an expert in these matters, will be drawn into these disputes as it reviews, for example, the climate models and assumptions underlying companies’ metrics and disclosures about progress toward meeting climate targets.  This proposal could inspire future more socially and politically contentious disclosures, which would undermine the SEC’s reputation as an independent regulator.[73]  Meanwhile, we have other important work to do, and the climate initiative distracts us from it.[74]     

VII. Conclusion

We are here laying the cornerstone of a new disclosure framework that will eventually rival our existing securities disclosure framework in magnitude and cost and probably outpace it in complexity.  The building project upon which we are embarking will consume our attention and enrich many, as any massive building project does.  The placard at the door of this hulking green structure will trumpet our revised mission: “protection of stakeholders, facilitating the growth of the climate-industrial complex, and fostering unfair, disorderly, and inefficient markets.”  This new edifice will cast a long shadow on investors, the economy, and this agency.  Accordingly, I will vote no on laying the cornerstone.

If I were voting based on how hard the staff has worked to get this proposal out the door, however, I would support it.  I appreciate the long hours, extensive thought, and intense work that staff from all over the Commission—the Division of Corporation Finance, the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, the Office of General Counsel, and the Office of Chief Accountant, among others—poured into this rulemaking.  I also am grateful to the many commenters who responded to Commissioner Lee’s request for comment and for the even greater number of comments I expect we will receive in response to this proposal.  Your comments will inform my thinking about whether we should adopt climate disclosure rules and, if so, what they should look like.  In particular, I am interested in hearing if there are types of universally material climate information that are not being disclosed under our existing rules. 

 

One-on-One with Financial Expert David McAlvany on oil & gas prices~Rep. Mike Turner Torches Biden on Energy Crisis, Response to Ukraine

As the war in Ukraine rages on, the U.S. and Europe are placing harsh sanctions on Russia. This comes at a time when the U.S. economy is still trying to recover from the pandemic and inflation is at a 40 year high. One of the biggest economic stressors for Americans right now is skyrocketing oil and gas prices. The average price for a gallon of gas just hit a record $4.25. David McAlvany, CEO of the David McAlvany Financial Group, joined OAN's Alicia Summers to discuss.

Facebook’s $220 Billion Hit, a Landmark Event in Social Media History

Meta Platforms Is DOWN 26%

FACEBOOK IMPLODING! SUFFERS WORST DAY IN STOCK MARKET HISTORY!!!

★★★ PATRIOT PROFESSOR AT YOUR SERVICE! ★★★

DR. STEVE TURLEY: Facebook implodes, suffering the worst drop in value in the history of the stock market! In this video, we’re going to look at the nightmare selloff for Facebook, we’re going to see how media outlets are all saying this is but the beginning of the end of the tech giant, and stick with me to the very end of this video when I’ll reveal how Facebook is yet the latest example of the age-old adage: get woke, go broke; you are not going to want to miss this!

SEE: https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/facebook-meta-market-valuation-decline-users/2022/02/04/id/1055466;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

On Thursday, Facebook owner Meta Platforms Inc. (FB) went into an "epic, historic spiral" -- shearing $220 billion, or 20%, from its value and "hinting that the company's reign over online socializing might not last," The Washington Post reports.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has been able to steer the global social media colossus for the past 18 years through scandals, regulatory pressure, lawsuits, whistleblowers, and competitors.

The latest earnings report gives signs, that "Facebook's dream of connecting the whole world is dead."

Daily Log-Ins Stall

The most significant number in its quarterly earnings report, issued after-hours Wednesday, was that its flagship social network, known as Big Blue App internally, stalled just below 2 billion daily log-ins.

"The news that Facebook may have peaked in 2021 was only the most symbolic data point in a gloomy corporate earnings report that sent Meta's stock into an epic, historic spiral," the Post says. The downturn, shocking to many investors, also took the tech-heavy Nasdaq down 3% with it.

Meta blamed its disappointing results on Apple Inc.'s new advertising privacy crackdown that restricts companies' targeted ads on iPhones. However, the Post also pointed to Meta's difficulties monetizing its Instagram holding's short video product, Reels, to compete with China's TikTok giant.

In addition, Meta is spending tons of cash on Reality Labs to build the so-called virtual reality "metaverse."

Until now, Facebook has touted its daily active users' number with each earnings report. Certainly, garnering the loyalty of 2 billion people of the 7.753 people living on the earth is an "enormous, almost incomprehensible figure" -- and Facebook has proven through its ruthlessness that it is willing to expand and conquer the world at any cost, even at the expense of lives and users' sense of self-worth.

Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has gloated that it is his intention to connect the entire world.

Not Facebook's 'Myspace moment'

As the Post puts it, "This is not Facebook's 'Myspace moment.'"

Facebook is no longer Meta's prized holding. It is a legacy holding, the Post even goes so far to say -- and "Wednesday's earnings report showed that Facebook's ascent has stalled just about everywhere."

The Post bets that Meta will pivot to focus on Instagram and interconnectivity among its various platforms on both the front- and back-ends. It could create marketplaces among its platforms, for instance. It could also expand Internet access in places where Facebook is not ubiquitous, such as Africa and Latin America.

But the bottom line is that Zuckerberg may not be able to get the whole world on Facebook -- or any other platform -- for that matter.

Maybe it is an elusive challenge that no one, not even Zuckerberg, can ever surmount.

Brighteon: Covid-puking media attempts another “VARIANT” scarient propaganda push

Brighteon: NEW FAKE VARIANT TO ENSLAVE THE WORLD! Latest FEAR-BASED Lockdown Meant To Kill Us!

New COVID-19 variant sinks markets

The new COVID-19 variant in South Africa has investors rattled. Ed Butowsky analyzes the volatile situation - Via Newsmax's 'National Report.'

VAXING THE RICH: Morgan Stanley to banish unvaccinated staff and clients from its New York offices

Image: VAXING THE RICH: Morgan Stanley to banish unvaccinated staff and clients from its New York offices

BY ARSENIO TOLEDO

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-06-27-vaccine-mandate-wall-street-morgan-stanley-unvaccinated.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) The employees and clients of investment bank Morgan Stanley who have not been fully vaccinated against the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) will be barred from entering the bank’s offices in New York.

“Starting July 12 all employees, contingent workforce, clients and visitors will be required to attest to being fully vaccinated to access Morgan Stanley buildings in New York City and Westchester,” read an internal memo signed by Chief Human Resources Officer Mandell Crawley. The memo added that the vaccine mandate was put in place to speed up the process of reopening its offices.

Crawley said any employee, client or visitor of Morgan Stanley properties in New York will lose their privilege to access the building if they remain unvaccinated. He added that the “overwhelming majority of staff” have already reported getting vaccinated.

Before the release of this memo, Chief Executive Officer James Gorman warned its employees who were hesitant about returning to its buildings. “If you can go to a restaurant in New York City, you can come into the office and we want you in the office,” he said during a conference.

The company has already implemented “vaccine-only” workspaces in some of its divisions, including its wealth management and institutional securities divisions. These workspaces supposedly “enhanced collaboration and productivity.”

While Morgan Stanley is adding restrictions to unvaccinated staff, it is loosening its rules for those who have taken the COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccinated individuals no longer have to fill up the daily health check form if they want to go to work in the office. This requirement was dropped on Wednesday, June 23.

Many Wall Street firms have already mandated that their employees return to the office. Morgan Stanley has not done so yet, but Gorman said if the offices weren’t filled up by Labor Day in September, “then we’ll have a different kind of conversation.”

To check the vaccination status of its employees returning to the office early, Morgan Stanley uses the VaccineCheck system. This vaccine passport currently operates on an honor system, but the bank may later decide to require proof of vaccination status using it. (Related: OBEY: New York becomes first state to launch “vaccine passport” for coronavirus jab recipients.)

Other Wall Street firms setting their own vaccination policies

Wall Street banks like Morgan Stanley have been at the forefront of pushing to convince workers to return to the office. Its own vaccination policies are the strictest yet among these large banks.

As of press time, only one other Wall Street firm – BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager – has banned unvaccinated employees from entering its offices. Bank of America has made a similar policy. It will prioritize the return of vaccinated staff to its offices by early September. The bank said it will make arrangements for unvaccinated employees at a later time.

Earlier this month, Goldman Sachs made it mandatory for staff to disclose their vaccination status. It did not go so far as to ban unvaccinated employees from entering the building. But unvaccinated staff do have to wear masks and practice social distancing at all times. At JPMorgan Chase, disclosure of vaccine status is voluntary.

Back in December, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said companies have the power to bar employees from their workplaces if they refused to get vaccinated, so long as these corporations provide medical and religious exemptions.

In a survey conducted in May by advisory and risk management firm Willis Towers Watson, about 72 percent of employers said they will not require vaccinations to return to the workplace. Instead, many plan to follow Goldman Sachs’ policy of requiring unvaccinated staff to wear masks indoors.

Learn more about the vaccination policies being implemented by companies like Morgan Stanley at Pandemic.news.

Sources include:

SHTFPlan.com

FT.com

Bloomberg.com

Biden Courts Big Business as Wall Street Opposes Election Integrity

Biden Courts Big Business as Wall Street Opposes Election Integrity

BY LUIS MIGUEL

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/biden-courts-big-business-as-wall-street-opposes-election-integrity/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

As the Democrat Party has moved further left, so has Big Business, making for an unholy new alliance that poses a powerful threat to American freedoms.

President Joe Biden is reportedly aware of the falling out between the Republican Party and corporate America and is ready to work together with Wall Street to push socialist policies on the public both through government and the private sector.

“What President Biden realizes is that business is now ready to engage and they are an important voice at the table,” Valerie Jarrett, a former advisor to President Obama, told Politico. “Big business isn’t simply relying on Republicans to look out for their interests. They’re looking out for their own interests and getting more involved.”

Over recent years, the business community has increasingly become more politically active — and the bent of that activity has tended to sway left.

For example, PayPal canceled plans to build an operations center in North Carolina in 2016 owing to a state law prohibiting “transgender” individuals from using public restrooms opposite their biological sex. In 2018, Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods raised the age requirement for gun sales in response to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Many Americans are also concerned about left-wing bias at Big Tech corporations, which has led to the censoring, banning, demonetizing, and suppressing of predominantly conservative accounts.

Moreover, major companies have recently condemned efforts by Georgia and other states to make their election processes more secure, suggesting Republican lawmakers are simply reacting poorly to Biden’s defeat of Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

In fact, hundreds of corporations on Wednesday signed a letter denouncing legislation that restricts “any eligible voter from having an equal and fair opportunity to cast a ballot.”

The signatories of the letter include General Motors, Netflix, Starbucks, Amazon, BlackRock, Google, and Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett.

The statement itself was facilitated by former American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault and Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier, and came after companies such as Delta Air Lines, Coca-Cola, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, and Google had already spoken out against Georgia’s election-reform bill.

As Politico notes, the infamous Rothschild banking dynasty is involved in the effort to merge the Democrat Party’s socialism with Big Business’ financial power:

Last weekend, more than 100 business leaders held a rare online meeting to discuss what action they should take in the wake of similar voting bills being considered in states across the country. Lynn Forester de Rothschild, founder of the Coalition for Inclusive Capitalism and one of the three people who helped coordinate the meeting, urged Biden to be more vocal about his desire to work with business leaders.

“My inclination is to trust him to not be in the pockets of corporations at the expense of people and planet but he definitely wants to have a vibrant business community that takes care of our society,” she said in an interview.

Joining in the fight against Republican election-integrity bills are Wall Street firms and attorneys at some of the nation’s top law offices.

The New York Times reports that these firms are working with the Brennan Center for Justice, which is heavily funded by billionaire George Soros.

In 2019, the Brennan Center for Justice not only took money from Soros’s Open Society Foundations but from the Ford Foundation; Bank of America; the Tides Foundation; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; PayPal; JPMorgan Chase; Microsoft; PepsiCo; and Comcast NBCUniversal.

The center’s effort involves targeting state legislators in Georgia, Texas, New Hampshire, Florida, Michigan, and Arizona to stop “voter suppressive bills,” which includes legislation mandating ID to vote.

“I do think he has an appreciation of the role that corporate America can play in addressing what we would define as social, political and cultural issues — not the least because he understands consumer-facing businesses have an imperative to understand their market,” a Biden advisor said.

The GOP has traditionally been considered to be the party of Big Business, but this dynamic has changed, as Republican voters feel ever more disenchanted with the companies using their power to assault conservative principles.

Republicans are increasingly open to restrictions on corporations, especially on Silicon Valley firms.

Concerns about the power of such corporations have prompted proposals from some Republicans, such as Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who this week introduced his Trust-Busting for the Twenty-First Century Act to further empower federal regulators to break the monopolistic practices of Big Tech firms.

It appears that the GOP is no longer the party of Big Business. And corporate America is no longer a place for constitutionalists.

1 2