Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

Two years ago, reports started appearing that compared the effects of lockdowns with post-traumatic stress disorder. As it turns out, one of the symptoms of PTSD is forgetting what happened. It’s an evolved trait that helps the human mind cope with terrible things. Our brains are good at blocking it out. I will explain the neuroscience behind this in a bit but first an anecdote from this morning.

I was speaking to the director of a childrens’ choir and he was speaking about an age gap in his singers. The lead singer just graduated high school, and the next oldest singer is 14, which creates huge problems for the choral competence. I hesitated to do it but I finally just observed that this 3-year gap fits exactly with the lockdown period, child masking, and Zoom school.

He began to speak about what it was like to train a choir on Zoom and then conduct masked singers outdoors on winter nights. He recalled the attacks and the difficulties, and then his voice trailed off.

“Actually I’ve blocked out that whole period of life from my memory. I won’t think about it anymore. Anyway, I need to circulate a bit here but good seeing you.”

That was that.

It got me curious about the relationship between selective memory and trauma. For a long time now I’ve noticed that when this subject comes up, the response is either to quickly change the subject, which is common, or dig deeper into what seems like a bit of catharsis. Some people have so much to share, so many painful memories, so much shock and abuse to report, that once they start they cannot stop talking.

This one comment from this one choir director got me suspecting that vast numbers of people might be trying to forget it all. This is how the political debates manage to pretend like this never happened, how the major media gets away with never bringing it up, and how people like Fauci still get high speaking fees, and so on. It’s not just that they are no-good liars; too often it’s because people really do want to forget.

This is how the number one most shared trauma of our lives is fading so fast into the national and global consciousness.

It’s a well-known feature of child or spousal abuse. The memories are so terrible and grim that the human mind develops the capacity for pretending like it never happened if only so that life functioning can continue. This is fine but actually the trauma is still there and feeds other forms of pathologies like substance abuse and attachment disorders and so on. The point of therapy is to come to terms with the reality itself in the process of healing.

Some years ago, a theory developed to explain this and it was tested on mice. I’m going to quote directly:

“Two amino acids, glutamate and GABA, are the yin and yang of the brain, directing its emotional tides and controlling whether nerve cells are excited or inhibited (calm). Under normal conditions the system is balanced. But when we are hyper-aroused and vigilant, glutamate surges. Glutamate is also the primary chemical that helps store memories in our neuronal networks in a way that they are easy to remember.

“GABA, on the other hand, calms us and helps us sleep, blocking the action of the excitable glutamate. The most commonly used tranquilizing drug, benzodiazepine, activates GABA receptors in our brains. There are two kinds of GABA receptors. One kind, synaptic GABA receptors, works in tandem with glutamate receptors to balance the excitation of the brain in response to external events such as stress.

“The other population, extra-synaptic GABA receptors, are independent agents. They ignore the peppy glutamate. Instead, their job is internally focused, adjusting brain waves and mental states according to the levels of internal chemicals, such as GABA, sex hormones and micro RNAs. Extra-synaptic GABA receptors change the brain’s state to make us aroused, sleepy, alert, sedated, inebriated or even psychotic. However, Northwestern scientists discovered another critical role; these receptors also help encode memories of a fear-inducing event and then store them away, hidden from consciousness.”

To test the theory, researchers infused the hippocampus of mice with gaboxadol, a drug that stimulates extra-synaptic GABA receptors. The mice were put in a box and given an electric shock. When the mice were returned to the same box the next day, they played with no memory of what happened the last time they were there. However, when scientists put the mice back on the drug and returned them to the box, they froze, fearfully anticipating another shock.

The lesson here is that “in response to traumatic stress, some individuals, instead of activating the glutamate system to store memories, activate the extra-synaptic GABA system and form inaccessible traumatic memories.”

Is this what has happened to humanity on a global scale, some kind of activation of our extra-synaptic GABA systems to permit the formation of huge barriers around our trauma to make our memory inaccessible? Perhaps.

At the time of Fauci’s strange deposition, I suspect that there was some brilliant madness behind the claim that he could not remember. He said it hundreds of times, again and again on every subject. It was strange, almost like he was training the rest of us to do the same, like some mad scientist modeling the correct way to think about what happened to us. In his view, we shouldn’t think about it at all.

We know we’ve been made the subject of some insane medical and political experiments. It’s perhaps also true that we’ve been made the subject of some malicious psychological experiments, like mice injected with drugs, put in a box, and then shocked. It’s like perhaps the ordering was different: we were put in a box, shocked, and then given drugs.

In any case, it all does indeed feel like PTSD, and it affected no population cohort as traumatically as it did the children. They are owed the truth about the trauma, however, and now. We must have honesty about this. The lies have to stop. We should not tolerate them at all. And the professional liars all need to be removed from their jobs immediately.

In our own lives, we really do need therapy that comes in the form of friendships, community, and physical fellowship with each other. Sadly, the people who need it the most are least likely to get it. I’m thinking of the many people who are still walking around masked up, fearing getting next to others, and otherwise hiding out in their homes in a sense of terror that something bad from the microbial kingdom is going to attack at any time.

The only people who benefit from our mass amnesia are the people who did this to us. We must remember. We must discuss. We must seek justice.

A woman who went berzerk and threw a bowl of hot food into the face of a Chipotle worker has been sentenced by a judge not only to a month in jail, but also two months working in a fast food job. 

Rosemary Hayne was caught on video screaming at Chipotle worker Emily Russell on September 5 of this year. She threw food at the worker’s face from close range and the 39-year-old mother of four subsequently pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault charges. 

Judge Timothy Gilligan in Parma, Ohio gave her “the choice of a 90-day jail sentence or a 30-day sentence on top of 60 days working in a fast food job,” according to a report from ABC News’ local affiliate. 

The judge commented about the hearing: “Every time you watch the video, it makes you more and more upset. I was thinking, ‘What else can I do rather than just have her sit in jail.'”

“You didn’t get your burrito bowl the way you like it, and this is how you respond?” he asked. 

Gilligan asked her at the hearing: “Do you want to walk in her shoes for two months and learn how people should treat people, or do you want to do your jail time?”

To which Hayne responded: “I’d like to walk in her shoes.”

Judge Gilligan, who has been on the bench for three decades, expressed his displeasure at frequently coming across such cases. He recalled a similar incident where a customer assaulted a McDonald’s employee over a missing cookie in a Happy Meal, resulting in a 90-day jail sentence for the assailant.

Chipotle, commenting on the case, emphasized their commitment to employee safety and expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision.

The victim, Russell, reported ongoing stress and trauma from the incident, leading her to quit her job at Chipotle and seek another position. She is considering counseling to cope with the aftermath of the attack. 

“Let’s give her the opportunity to not let this one day define the rest of her life,” Hayne’s attorney, Joseph O’Malley, commented to CNN. “I don’t see her as any greater risk than anyone who walks in off the street. I looked at it as someone who lost her cool.”

Russell concluded: “She’s going to get what she deserves. She didn’t get a slap on the wrist. She’s going to learn to work in fast food, and hopefully it will be good.”

Authored by Michael T. Klare via The Nation,

While experts warn about the risk of human extinction, the Department of Defense plows full speed ahead…

The recent boardroom drama over the leadership of OpenAI—the San Francisco–based tech startup behind the immensely popular ChatGPT computer program—has been described as a corporate power struggle, an ego-driven personality clash, and a strategic dispute over the release of more capable ChatGPT variants. It was all that and more, but at heart represented an unusually bitter fight between those company officials who favor unrestricted research on advanced forms of artificial intelligence (AI) and those who, fearing the potentially catastrophic outcomes of such endeavors, sought to slow the pace of AI development.

At approximately the same time as this epochal battle was getting under way, a similar struggle was unfolding at the United Nations in New York and government offices in Washington, D.C., over the development of autonomous weapons systems—drone ships, planes, and tanks operated by AI rather than humans. In this contest, a broad coalition of diplomats and human rights activists have sought to impose a legally binding ban on such devices—called “killer robots” by opponents—while officials at the Departments of State and Defense have argued for their rapid development.

At issue in both sets of disputes are competing views over the trustworthiness of advanced forms of AI, especially the “large language models” used in “generative AI” systems like ChatGPT. (Programs like these are called “generative” because they can create human-quality text or images based on a statistical analysis of data culled from the Internet). Those who favor the development and application of advanced AI—whether in the private sector or the military—claim that such systems can be developed safely; those who caution against such action, say it cannot, at least not without substantial safeguards.

Without going into the specifics of the OpenAI drama—which ended, for the time being, on November 21 with the appointment of new board members and the return of AI whiz Sam Altman as chief executive after being fired five days earlier—it is evident that the crisis was triggered by concerns among members of the original board of directors that Altman and his staff were veering too far in the direction of rapid AI development, despite pledges to exercise greater caution.

As Altman and many of his colleagues see things, humans technicians are on the verge of creating “general AI” or “superintelligence”—AI programs so powerful they can duplicate all aspects of human cognition and program themselves, making human programming unnecessary. Such systems, it is claimed, will be able to cure most human diseases and perform other beneficial miracles—but also, detractors warn, will eliminate most human jobs and may, eventually, choose to eliminate humans altogether.

“In terms of both potential upsides and downsides, superintelligence will be more powerful than other technologies humanity has had to contend with in the past,” Altman and his top lieutenants wrote in May. “We can have a dramatically more prosperous future; but we have to manage risk to get there.”

For Altman, as for many others in the AI field, that risk has an “existential” dimension, entailing the possible collapse of human civilization—and, at the extreme, human extinction. “I think if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong,” he told a Senate hearing on May 16. Altman also signed an open letter released by the Center for AI Safety on May 30 warning of the possible “risk of extinction from AI.” Mitigating that risk, the letter avowed, “should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks, such as pandemics and nuclear war.”

Nevertheless, Altman and other top AI officials believe that superintelligence can, and should be pursued, so long as adequate safeguards are installed along the way. “We believe that the benefits of the tools we have deployed so far vastly outweigh the risks, but ensuring their safety is vital to our work,” he told the Senate subcommittee on privacy, technology and the law.

Washington Promotes the “Responsible” Use of AI in Warfare

A similar calculus regarding the exploitation of advanced AI governs the outlook of senior officials at the Departments of State and Defense, who argue that artificial intelligence can and should be used to operate future weapons systems—so long as it is done so in a “responsible” manner.

“We cannot predict how AI technologies will evolve or what they might be capable of in a year or five years,” Amb. Bonnie Jenkins, under secretary of state for arms control and nonproliferation, declared at a Nov. 13 UN presentation. Nevertheless, she noted, the United States was determined to “put in place the necessary policies and to build the technical capacities to enable responsible development and use [of AI by the military], no matter the technological advancements.”

Jenkins was at the UN that day to unveil a “Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy,” a US-inspired call for voluntary restraints on the development and deployment of AI-enabled autonomous weapons. The declaration avows, among other things, that “States should ensure that the safety, security, and effectiveness of military AI capabilities are subject to appropriate and rigorous testing,” and that “States should implement appropriate safeguards to mitigate risks of failures in military AI capabilities, such as the ability to… deactivat[e] deployed systems, when such systems demonstrate unintended behavior.”

None of this, however, constitutes a legally binding obligation of states that sign the declaration; rather, it simply entails a promise to abide by a set of best practices, with no requirement to demonstrate compliance with those measures or risk of punishment if found to be in non-compliance.

Although several dozen countries—mostly close allies of the United States—have signed the declaration, many other nations, including Austria, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, and Spain, insist that voluntary compliance with a set of US-designed standards is insufficient to protect against the dangers posed by the deployment of AI-enabled weapons. Instead, they seek a legally binding instrument setting strict limits on the use of such systems or banning them altogether. For these actors, the risks of such weapons “going rogue,” and conducting unauthorized attacks on civilians, is simply too great to allow their use in combat.

“Humanity is about to cross a major threshold of profound importance when the decision over life and death is no longer taken by humans but made on the basis of pre-programmed algorithms. This raises fundamental ethical issues,” Amb. Alexander Kmentt, Austria’s chief negotiator for disarmament, arms control, and nonproliferation, told The Nation.

For years, Austria and a slew of Latin American countries have sought to impose a ban on such weapons under the aegis of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), a 1980 UN treaty that aims to restrict or prohibit weapons deemed to cause unnecessary suffering to combatants or to affect civilians indiscriminately. These countries, along with the International Committee of the Red Cross and other non-governmental organizations, claim that fully autonomous weapons fall under this category as they will prove incapable of distinguishing between combatants and civilians in the heat of battle, as required by international law. Although a majority of parties to the CCW appear to share this view and favor tough controls on autonomous weapons, decisions by signatory states is made by consensus and a handful of countries, including Israel, Russia, and the United States, have used their veto power to block adoption of any such measure. This, in turn, has led advocates of regulation to turn to the UN General Assembly—where decisions are made by majority vote rather than consensus—as an arena for future progress on the issue.

On October 12, for the first time ever, the General Assembly’s First Committee—responsible for peace, international security, and disarmament—addressed the dangers posed by autonomous weapons, voting by a wide majority—164 to 5 (with 8 abstentions)—to instruct the secretary-general to conduct a comprehensive study of the matter. The study, to be completed in time for the next session of the General Assembly (in fall 2024), is to examine the “challenges and concerns” such weapons raise “from humanitarian, legal, security, technological, and ethical perspectives and on the role of humans in the use of force.”

Although the UN measure does not impose any binding limitations on the development or use of autonomous weapons systems, it lays the groundwork for the future adoption of such measures, by identifying a range of concerns over their deployment and by insisting that the secretary-general, when conducting the required report, investigate those dangers in detail, including by seeking the views and expertise of scientists and civil society organizations.

“The objective is obviously to move forward on regulating autonomous weapons systems,” Ambassador Kmentt indicated. “The resolution makes it clear that the overwhelming majority of states want to address this issue with urgency.”

What will occur at next year’s General Assembly meeting cannot be foretold, but if Kmentt is right, we can expect a much more spirited international debate over the advisability of allowing the deployment of AI-enabled weapons systems—whether or not participants have agreed to the voluntary measures being championed by the United States.

At the Pentagon, It’s Full Speed Ahead

For officials at the Department of Defense, however, the matter is largely settled: the United States will proceed with the rapid development and deployment of numerous types of AI-enabled autonomous weapons systems. This was made evident on August 28, with the announcement of the “Replicator” initiative by Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks.

Noting that the United States must prepare for a possible war with China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), in the not-too-distant future, and that US forces cannot match the PLA’s weapons inventories on an item-by-item basis (tank-for-tank, ship-for-ship, etc.), Hicks argued that the US must be prepared to overcome China’s superiority in conventional measures of power—its military “mass”—by deploying “multitude thousands” of autonomous weapons.

“To stay ahead, we’re going to create a new state of the art—just as America has before—leveraging attritable [i.e., disposable], autonomous systems in all domains,” she told corporate executives at a National Defense Industrial Association meeting in Washington. “We’ll counter the PLA’s mass with mass of our own, but ours will be harder to plan for, harder to hit, harder to beat.”

In a follow-up speech, delivered on September 6, Hicks provided (slightly) more detail on what she called all-domain attritable autonomous (ADA2) weapons systems. “Imagine distributed pods of self-propelled ADA2 systems afloat…packed with sensors aplenty…. Imagine fleets of ground-based ADA2 systems delivering novel logistics support, scouting ahead to keep troops safe…. Imagine flocks of [aerial] ADA2 systems, flying at all sorts of altitudes, doing a range of missions, building on what we’ve seen in Ukraine.”

As per official guidance, Hicks assured her audience that all these systems “will be developed and fielded in line with our responsible and ethical approach to AI and autonomous systems.” But except for that one-line one nod to safety, all the emphasis in her talks was on smashing bureaucratic bottlenecks in order to speed the development and deployment of autonomous weapons. “If [these bottlenecks] aren’t tackled,” she declared on August 28, “our gears will still grind too slowly, and our innovation engines still won’t run at the speed and scale we need. And that, we cannot abide.”

And so, the powers that be—in both Silicon Valley and Washington—have made the decision to proceed with the development and utilization of even more advanced versions of artificial intelligence despite warnings from scientists and diplomats that the safety of these programs cannot be assured and that their misuse could have catastrophic consequences. Unless greater effort is made to slow these endeavors, we may well discover what those consequences might entail.

The Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party held its monthly meeting on Friday. According to the statement, policymakers want to stabilize the economy and boost growth with more fiscal measures in 2024. 

State-run media Xinhua News Agency reported Politburo, which includes the ruling Communist Party’s top 24 officials and chaired by President Xi Jinping, plans to ramp up fiscal policy “appropriately” amid the souring backdrop of a real estate crisis, increasing local government debt risks, slowing global growth, and rising tensions with the West. 

According to Bloomberg, the Politburo said monetary policy should be flexible, appropriate, targeted, and effective, with the previous wording “forceful” dropped from the statement. 

Economists who reviewed the statement said the change indicates Beijing might be less focused on a monetary cannon and instead utilize targeted tools. 

Xing Zhaopeng, a senior strategist at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group, said the statement indicates the size of interest rate cuts and bank reserve requirements might be smaller in 2024 compared to 2023. 

Goldman Sachs said, “The overall tone appears less dovish compared with the July Politburo meeting statement.”

“In particular, policymakers pledged to step up fiscal policy support “at an appropriate pace” in today’s readout, and vowed to enhance consistency in macro policies. These statements appear consistent with our expectation that fiscal policy will do the heavy lifting of supporting growth next year,” Goldman continued. 

They added: “Today’s readout mainly aims to provide the broad guidance of policy tone for next year. The CEWC may offer more discussion around fiscal, monetary, property and local government implicit debt resolution plans, in our view.” 

Here’s Goldman biggest takeaways from the Politburo meeting:

1. As the December Politburo meeting is the preparation meeting for the Central Economic Work Conference, today’s readout only aims to set the broad tone for policy stance, rather than offering detailed discussions on various policy measures for next year. The statement continued to send pro-growth signals, but appears less dovish compared with the July Politburo meeting statement.

• When assessing the recent economic developments, the authority shifted to a less cautious tone in today’s readout compared with the July Politburo meeting (Exhibit 1) by only highlighting the economic recovery this year after the end of pandemic. This is likely because Q3 real GDP growth picked up from 0.5%qoq in Q2 to 1.3% in Q3.
• Policymakers pledged to conduct “both countercyclical and cross-cycle policy adjustments” next year according to today’s statement, in comparison with only the “countercyclical policy adjustment” in the July statement. Specifically, the authority required stepping up fiscal policy easing “at an appropriate pace” and claim that prudent monetary policy should be precise and effective. Policymakers also vowed to enhance consistency in macro policies, and acknowledged the importance of managing expectations around economic growth. 
• The authority softened the tone on significant reforms by stating that economic policies should be supportive first before being reformative (“先立后破”). This phrase was previously used in 2021 when policymakers tried to correct for the aggressive decarbonization efforts which contributed to coal shortages and power outages in many parts of the country. 
• Besides the broad stance, the authority reiterated promoting technology and innovation, enhancing resilience and security of supply chains, pushing forward opening-up, and effectively containing and reducing risks. Policymakers will also better coordinate deepening supply-side reforms and expanding domestic demand, urbanization and rural revitalization, high-quality growth and high-level of security.

2. The December Politburo meeting statement continued to send pro-growth signals. The statement around fiscal policy is consistent with our expectation that fiscal policy easing will do the heavy lifting of supporting growth next year. However, the discussion around high-quality growth and emphasis of “appropriate pace of easing” imply policy support will likely still be measured rather than being aggressive. The CEWC, which will likely be held over the next few days, should offer more discussions around fiscal, monetary, property and local government implicit debt resolution plans.

Exhibit 1: The December Poliburo meeting continued to highlight measured policy easing

The key message from the meeting is that growth is crucial to policymakers. And the days policymakers flooded the system with credit are over as Moody’s Investors Service warned earlier this week that China risks a sovereign credit rating outlook downgrade. 

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Award-winning journalist Alex Newman, author of the popular book “Deep State,” says there is a not-so-secret plan to destroy everything in America and everything it stands for. 

Newman contends it is the only way for evil globalists to have the tyrannical New World Order they dream of. 

The evil destroyers of freedom and liberty around the world will be talking about the demise of America at the globalist COP28 conference in Dubai, UAE this week.  Newman explains,

“This is all part of the agenda.  What we are watching now is the deliberate destruction of the American middle-class and the deliberate destruction of the American economy.  

Ultimately, if these evil doers get their way, it will result in the deliberate destruction of the United States of America.  We are talking about the controlled demolition of our economy, our military might and everything we hold dear.  This has been known at the highest levels of government for a long time…

During the Trump Administration, they had Rich Higgens on the National Security Counsel, and he put together the ‘Higgens Memo.’  People should read this.  

He talked about the global alliance of globalists, communists, socialists and Islamists who are all working in unison for the goal of destroying the United States of America.

This is not just as a nation, says Higgens, but even as an ideal. 

They want to shift global power over to China and over to the United Nations to gradually and then suddenly destroy the United States.  

They don’t just want to destroy this country, they also want to destroy the ideas and principles it is founded upon because it is simply not compatible with this one world system they want. 

George Soros told us what the New World Order was going to look like 10 years ago.  He told the Financial Times that China needed to own the New World Order in the same way the United States owns the current one.”

Newman says Donald Trump is not part of the New World Order, and he dismantled much of it during his Presidency. 

Newman says,

“Donald Trump is the first President in a century who did not go to this weird club of elitists such as Bohemian Grove.  He never went to Bilderberg.  He was never involved with the Council on Foreign Relations.  Trump did not participate in the Trilateral Commission.  He was not recruited in the ‘Scull and Bones’ at Yale like John Kerry, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. 

He was just not part of the club… Trump was not controlled by these people. 

They were able to manipulate him on some key things like the CV19 shots and the MCA, but ultimately, they did not feel like they could control him. 

He was an outsider.  This is why they are absolutely petrified of him coming back now.”

The news is not all bad as Newman says he is seeing a huge backlash from all sectors to the New World Order agenda.  Newman explains,

“There is an enormous backlash building.  Just go out and talk to regular people.  Turn off the boob tube, and this is not even propaganda, it is psychological terrorism. 

Turn it off and talk to real people…

What you will find is normal people who can’t tell you about the Bohemian Grove, the Council on Foreign Relations or the climate scam, but they can tell you ‘we are being lied to.’ 

Life is getting increasingly difficult.  My spouse and I are both working with two jobs, and we still can’t make ends meet.  We can’t pay the mortgage.  Food costs are going up.  They know that this is not normal. 

They know that we have a uniparty with Kevin McCarthy who showed up at the Bohemian Grove just before he was ousted as Speaker of the House. 

You have an incredible awareness from people that we are being looted, robbed, deceived and that our country is being betrayed. 

You don’t have to watch the fake media to be aware of all those things. 

I am encouraged by the awareness of people and the polling data that virtually nobody believes the media.”

There is much more in the 40-minute interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with hard-hitting journalist Alex Newman, founder of LibertySentinel.org and author of the book “Deep State” that explains it all for 12.02.23.

*  *  *

To Donate to USAWatchdog.com Click Here

Newman’s website is called LibertySentinel.org.  There is lots of free information and articles. For a copy of Alex Newman’s popular book “Deep State,” click here,

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

Do you believe the politicians in Washington or do you believe your own eyes? 

The politicians keep telling us that “inflation is low”, but everyone can see that everything sure does cost a lot more than it once did.  Our standard of living just keeps going down, and even JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is admitting that “inflation is hurting people”.  But how can inflation be “hurting people” if it is under control?  Of course the truth is that it isn’t under control.  If the official rate of inflation was still measured using the formula that was in place in 1980, it would be well into double digit territory right now.  Prices have been rising much faster than paychecks have, and that is putting an extraordinary amount of financial stress on the more than 60 percent of U.S. adults that currently live paycheck to paycheck.

Vox is a website that leans very far to the left, and even they are complaining about inflation.

In fact, a recent article posted on Vox boldly declared that life in 2023 “means being in a constant state of sticker shock”…

Life in 2023 means being in a constant state of sticker shock.

You walk out of the grocery store feeling like you’re not really sure what happened, but somehow, your normal fare ran you $50 more than you swear it should have. Did Diet Coke always cost that much? Or eggs? Maybe you’ve been putting off buying that new car in the hope prices go back to where they were pre-pandemic, but you’re starting to feel like the wait is awfully long. Or, the morning after a post-work happy hour, you’re left scratching your head. You swear you had two glasses of wine, but the size of your credit card receipt makes you wonder if it wasn’t four. “How expensive everything is today” is a top theme of conversation. The whole situation can be infuriating.

I don’t care for Vox much, but those two paragraphs are quite accurate.

Prices have reached absurd heights, and most of us really are “in a constant state of sticker shock” these days.

And the cold, hard numbers back this up.

According to a report from Republican members of the U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee, the typical household in this country “must spend an additional $11,434 annually” in order to have the same standard of living that it did when Joe Biden entered the White House…

The typical American household must spend an additional $11,434 annually just to maintain the same standard of living they enjoyed in January of 2021, right before inflation soared to 40-year highs, according to a recent analysis of government data.

So let me ask you a question.

Has your household income gone up by $11,434 a year since January 2021?

If you are like most Americans, your income has barely moved.

As I discussed last week, half of all American workers made less than $40,847.18 last year.

If you are one of those workers, life is not easy in 2023.

Even really basic things just cost so much at this point.  For example, a Big Mac value meal will now set you back 18 dollars in some parts of the country…

A Big Mac burger, a medium beverage, and a medium fry meal now costs 18 dollars in some locations, up $10 from 2018 when former President Donald Trump was president.

Visiting McDonald’s has become something that only wealthy people can afford to do on a regular basis.

Of course it isn’t just fast food that has become painfully expensive…

• A pound of ground beef now costs $5.23 on average, up from $3.89 in January 2020.

• Coffee is up some $2 a pound. Prices for fresh fruits and vegetables are nearly 14% higher.

• At one point, the price of a carton of eggs was triple its pre-pandemic price.

When I was growing up, my mother would feed us ground beef all the time.

Now it is considered to be a luxury item.

Let me give you another example of how inflation is killing us financially.

The cost of auto insurance and the cost of home insurance are both going through the roof…

The skyrocketing cost of auto and home insurance is increasingly weighing on cash-strapped Americans.

In 2022, the average price of both types of insurance saw its biggest spike in more than five years.

And this year rates are projected to grow by an even greater amount, according to analysis from S&P Global Market Intelligence. Within the first seven months, both had already jumped by double-digit amounts.

When you combine both expenses, the average American household is now spending over $3,700 a year…

According to the latest analysis from Forbes Advisor, the average cost of home insurance is $1,582 a year for a policy with $350,000 coverage. And typical motorist pays $2,150 a year for full coverage car insurance.

That means on car and home insurance alone a household can expect to spend more than $3,700 a year.

How can anyone afford that?

And don’t get me started on health insurance.

Our system is so broken that only those with lots of money can afford a decent health insurance policy that actually has adequate coverage.

Needless to say, Joe Biden doesn’t want to take the blame for any of this.  Last week, he was accusing large corporations of “price gouging”…

President Joe Biden delivered remarks from the White House on Monday to announce the new council’s creation. He touted the lower inflation rate and falling grocery prices but admonished American companies for, in his view, not going far enough.

“Let me be clear: To any corporation that has not brought their prices back down—even as inflation has come down, even as supply chains have been rebuilt—it’s time to stop the price gouging,” Biden warned, imploring them to “giv[e] the American consumer a break.”

Seriously?

Other liberals are actually blaming you for inflation…

People hate inflation, just not enough to spend less: This is one of the central tensions of today’s economy, in which things are going great yet everyone is miserable. And in some ways, Americans have nobody to blame but themselves.

No matter how high prices go, most of us still have to pay the bills and put food on the table.

So there is only so much that we can “cut back” on our spending.

However, one recent survey did find that approximately a quarter of the U.S. population has been engaged in “doom spending”…

Nearly all Americans, 96%, are concerned about the current state of the economy, according to a recent report by Intuit Credit Karma.

Still, more than a quarter are “doom spending,” or spending money despite economic and geopolitical concerns, the report found.

A lot of people figure that if everything is about to fall apart they may as well enjoy things while they still can.

But I think that a much wiser approach would be to use the resources that you have to get prepared for the tremendous chaos that is ahead of us.

Economic conditions are going to get a whole lot rougher from here.

So enjoy these relatively stable times while you still can, because they will not last indefinitely…

*  *  *

Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can check out his new Substack newsletter right here.

The US says it is in talks with regional allies to establish a joint naval task force to protect commercial vessels traversing the Red Sea, following several attacks on commercial ships and even the hijacking of one Israeli-linked ship.

The White House has said it’s in “active conversations” with allies about setting up such escorts. “We are in talks with other countries about a maritime task force of sorts involving the ships from partner nations alongside the United States in ensuring safe passage,” US national security advisor Jake Sullivan said earlier this week.

The US position is that even though Houthi rebels out of Yemen had “their finger on the trigger” – also after declaring war on Israel – it remains that the Shia Muslim group’s Iranian sponsors are ultimately responsible.

By the end of the week, fresh Bloomberg reporting confirmed the following on Friday:

The US has been consulting with Gulf allies about potential military action against Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels in response to their increasingly brazen attacks on ships in the Red Sea, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions.

The talks are at a preliminary stage and both the US and partners still favor diplomacy over direct confrontation, said the people, who asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. That said, the fact the discussions are taking place at all underscores how seriously the US takes the threat, the people added.

This follows several Pentagon officials complaining to US media outlets over the lack of response from President Biden over the increased attacks from the Houthis.

Defense leaders are said to be “frustrated” and handcuffed by US political leadership’s lack of action at a moment US warships are under direct threat in the region. Politico described the growing anger and pushback from the Pentagon this week as follows: 

Senior Biden administration officials agree that striking Houthis in Yemen is the wrong course of action for now, per three U.S. officials, even though some military officers have proposed more forceful responses to the militants’ attacks in the Red Sea.

There’s high-level consensus within the administration that it does not make sense for the U.S. military to respond directly to the Houthis, the officials said. Although the missile and drone attacks on three civilian vessels on Sunday drew a U.S. Navy warship into an hours-long firefight, U.S. intelligence officials have not determined that the warship was the target.

The Biden White House has further been accused of “downplaying” the threat:

Some current and former military officials were frustrated by the administration’s initial response to the Houthis’ Sunday attacks on the ships. The Houthis launched four drone and missile attacks on three ships; the destroyer USS Carney, responding to the distress calls, shot down three drones in its vicinity. Those current and former officials say the Iran-backed group’s increasingly aggressive behavior poses a significant risk to American forces in the region, and took issue with the administration’s public statements on Monday, which they say downplayed that threat.

The dissenters worry that lack of meaningful response could only embolden Iran-backed forces in the region, which also includes militia groups across Syria and Iraq, where Americans have also been coming under fire.

All of this serves to highlight that positioning Americans in the region – which includes the now years long occupation of Syria to put pressure on Assad – leaves troops incredibly vulnerable. Indeed Iran might see them as ‘easy targets’ – and with little to no strategic advance for Washington whatsoever.

Authored by Gary Bai via The Epoch Times,

Elon Musk asked the U.S. Supreme Court to undo a part of a deal he made with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that required vetting of his online posts, alleging that the deal violates his free speech rights, Mr. Musk’s lawyer, Ellyde Thompson, confirmed with The Epoch Times on Thursday.

The billionaire businessman asked the high court in a Dec. 7 petition to hear his appeal of a lower court’s decision in May that upheld a 2018 consent decree that he negotiated with the SEC, escalating a years-long feud between the industrialist and the powerful regulatory agency to the nation’s highest court.

The consent decree resulted from settlement negotiations of a 2018 lawsuit brought by the federal agency against Mr. Musk, which alleged that Mr. Musk made “false and misleading” statements to investors when he posted on Twitter (now X) in August of that year that he had “funding secured” to take private his electric car company, Tesla.

The terms of the consent decree, to which Mr. Musk agreed, stipulate that Mr. Musk steps down as the then-chairman of Tesla; Mr. Musk and Tesla each pay a civil penalty of $20 million; and that Mr. Musk obtain pre-approval from a securities lawyer before publishing written statements about Tesla or its shareholders.

In February 2019, the SEC alleged that Mr. Musk violated that deal when he posted on Twitter, “Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019,” and sought contempt sanctions, which included fines and potential imprisonment.

After a few court proceedings, the two parties resolved the contempt sanctions, but Mr. Musk sought to quash the SEC’s consent decree, arguing that the SEC had exploited the decree to “punish protected speech” because Mr. Musk is an “outspoken and much-followed critic of the government generally, and the SEC specifically.”

A Manhattan-based federal district court and later a federal appeals court both ruled in favor of the SEC, on the rationale that Mr. Musk could not revisit the speech-vetting deal because he previously agreed to the deal in the settlement with the SEC.

“Parties entering into consent decrees may voluntarily waive their First Amendment and other rights,” wrote a three-judge panel in the Manhattan-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in an August decision. “Had Musk wished to preserve his right to tweet without even limited internal oversight concerning certain Tesla-related topics, he had ‘the right to litigate and defend against the [SEC’s] charges’ or to negotiate a different agreement—but he chose not to do so.”

Mr. Musk’s Thursday filing takes issue with this point of law, contending that despite having agreed to the consent decree after negotiations with the SEC, the agency had no right to impose, as a condition of settling, a “gag rule” that they contend violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment constraints on governmental limits on free speech.

The petition asks the court to rule that “government settlements are not immune from constitutional scrutiny,” a decision Mr. Musk’s lawyer says would benefit “the hundreds of defendants who settle cases with the SEC each year” because they cannot afford to litigate.

The SEC consent decree “restricts Mr. Musk’s speech even when truthful and accurate,” Mr. Musk’s lawyers wrote in the petition to the Supreme Court. “It extends to speech not covered by the securities laws and with no relation to the conduct underlying the SEC’s civil action against Mr. Musk. And it chills Mr. Musk’s speech through the never-ending threat of contempt, fines, or even imprisonment for otherwise protected speech if not pre-approved to the SEC’s or a court’s satisfaction.”

The district and appeal courts’ ruling “squarely conflicts” with past U.S. Supreme Court decisions,” they added, “and it vests administrative agencies with intolerable power to coerce private parties into relinquishing their constitutional rights.”

Four of nine U.S. Supreme Court justices would need to agree to hear the case for it to advance to oral arguments.

Separately, the New Orleans-based Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to reconsider its March decision that Musk violated federal labor law by posting on Twitter in May 2018 that Tesla employees would lose stock options if they joined a union. The Fifth Circuit is set to hear arguments in the case in January 2024.

The SEC did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.

Reflecting on the now viral testimony from the various Ivy League presidents this week – variously refusing to condemn calls for genocide against Jews on campus – CNBC anchor Sara Eisen dared to go there with former New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial asking him what he made of their comments in light of the growing antisemitism on American campuses.

Morial claimed that he “did not see the testimony” but was careful immediately make it clear he is not an anti-semite and condemns all hate, adding the ubiquitous statement that “I believe in free speech, but free speech is not hate speech.”

Eisen was not done, asking:

“Given your experience with DEI departments, do you think that something has gone a little rotten in some of these programs at campuses… and whether they really are ‘all-inclusive’ when it comes to protecting diversity, equity, and inclusion?”

Morial snapped back that “I think that type of argument is a diversion.”

“It is scapegoating programs that have at their core the necessity to include all people,” and then he drops the narrative-hammer…

“…what has created all this is… Trumpism.”

Of course, how stupid of us all! It had to be Trump, as Morial then claimed the actions on January 6th and in Charlottesville have created this antisemitic ground-swell on campuses.

But, the CNBC anchor halted his diatribe earlier, asking pointedly”

“…then why can’t these DEI departments protect Jewish students on campuses right now and make them feel safe?”

Morial immediately exposed the reality of these virtue-signaling programs in one damning sentence:

“The responsibility to protect Jewish students is not with the DEI departments,” adding that it is on the board of trustees and leaders of universities before falling back to the old trope that “free speech is not hate speech.” (for multiple definitions of ‘hate’).

So, now you know – Jewish students should not count on the help of the departments set up to ensure the safety and inclusion of various religions (except Judaism), races, and nationalities (except Israelis).

Watch the full exchange below:

Update(1710ET): The United States on Friday has vetoed an urgent Security Council draft resolution that would have demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. The resolution also called for the immediate, unconditional release of all hostages.

The United States was the lone “no”. Here’s a breakdown of the UNSC vote…

• In Favor: 13
• Against: 1 (US)
• Abstain: 1 (UK)

A UN press release stated, “The US vetoed a resolution put forward by the United Arab Emirates and backed by over 90 Member States. There were 13 votes in favor and the United Kingdom abstained.”

Meanwhile, at a moment it appears to be the US/Israel against the world on the question of humanitarian ceasefire…

This is Baghdad Bob and Sean Spicer level of self-delusion.

Kirby: “Name me one nation that is doing more to alleviate the pain and suffering of people in Gaza than the United States. You won’t succeed, it just won’t work!” pic.twitter.com/lHLOTG3UrU

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) December 7, 2023

Some brief updates via Al Jazeera:

• US vetoes UN Security Council resolution urging an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, hours after UN chief said “it is time to act”.
• Palestinian envoy to UN decries resolution’s failure as “disastrous”, says Israel’s continued war on Gaza will lead to more atrocities, killings and destruction.
• Palestinian Red Crescent says dozens of people killed in Israeli attacks on a house near a hospital in Khan Younis.
• At least 17,487 Palestinians killed in Gaza since October 7. In Israel, the revised official death toll stands at about 1,147.

* * *

With the 2024 election fast approaching and Democrat support for Israel’s war on Hamas waning, the Biden administration – which is also trying to sell Congress on handing $14.3 billion in aid to Israel – has been ratcheting up pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to minimize civilian casualties, recognize and work with the Palestinian Authority, resume peace talks, and commit to not reoccupying Gaza.

The chances of that happening are virtually nil, however, as Netanyahu’s government has made clear that Israel plans to destroy Hamas, retain an open-ended security presence in Gaza, impose a buffer zone to keep Palestinians away from the border, and never recognize the Palestinian Authority.

Despite the clear differences in vision for an endgame to this conflict, Israel knows the Biden administration is nothing more than a paper tiger in a dog mask, despite some 16,000 civilians reported dead by Gaza health authorities.

As the Washington Times notes;

But as the death toll in Gaza continues to rise, conditions deteriorate, and Biden enters an election year with significant portions of his Democratic base pushing for an end to Israel’s offensive, these differences are likely to grow in the absence of a clear endgame.

Shavit said that tensions could rise if the U.S. at some point concludes that Israel is dragging its feet or ignoring American demands. But for now, “the Americans want Israel to succeed,” he said.

Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator who is president of the U.S./Middle East Project, a policy institute that studies the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, said the Americans are unlikely to put their foot down.

He cited what he described as a tepid American response to heavy civilian casualties in southern Gaza as an indicator of what lies ahead.

“Israelis have a sense that their road to run is not endless, but they still feel they have lots of road to run,” he said.

As we noted over the weekend, Biden’s Defense Secretary, former Raytheon board member Lloyd Austin warned that Israel needs to be careful about civilian deaths.

“If you drive them into the arms of the enemy, you replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat,” he said. “So I have repeatedly made clear to Israel’s leaders that protecting civilians in Gaza is both a moral responsibility and a strategic imperative.”

And on Thursday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken issued a stern warning, that “civilian casualties remain too high and that Israel must step up its efforts to reduce them.”

Blinken has also called on Israel to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza.

On Wednesday, UN Secretary-General António Guterres invoked Article 99 of the UN charger, which allows him to raise to the Security Council’s attention “any issue that may aggravate existing threats to the maintenance of international peace and security.”

The letter to the 15-member council – the seventh in the UN’s 78-year history in which Article 99 has been invoked – urged the body to “press to avert a humanitarian catastrophe,” and unite in a call for a full humanitarian ceasefire.

I’ve just invoked Art.99 of the UN Charter – for the 1st time in my tenure as Secretary-General.

Facing a severe risk of collapse of the humanitarian system in Gaza, I urge the Council to help avert a humanitarian catastrophe & appeal for a humanitarian ceasefire to be declared. pic.twitter.com/pA0eRXZnFJ

— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) December 6, 2023

In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen flipped out – calling Guiterres’ tenure “a danger to world peace,” and that the call for ceasefire in Gaza amounted to supporting Hamas and their Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel.

Guterres’ tenure is a danger to world peace.
His request to activate Article 99 and the call for a cease fire in Gaza constitutes support of the Hamas terrorist organization and an endorsement of the murder of the elderly, the abduction of babies and the rape of women.
Anyone who…

— אלי כהן | Eli Cohen (@elicoh1) December 6, 2023

The Security Council was expected to hold an emergency meeting at 10AM ET on Friday in New York, after the UAE on Thursday submitted a draft resolution calling for an urgent humanitarian ceasefire which has the support of Arab and Islamic nations.

The UAE calls for a humanitarian ceasefire resolution to be adopted urgently and has just submitted a draft to the UNSC.

The situation in the Gaza Strip is catastrophic and close to irreversible. We cannot wait. The Council needs to act decisively to demand a humanitarian… https://t.co/mDr4c2F2FP

— UAE Mission to the UN (@UAEMissionToUN) December 6, 2023

Is ‘King Bibi‘ sacrificing Israel to save his political career?

As The Cradle noted on Tuesday, while Netanyahu faces international pressure from both allies and adversaries to rethink his strategy, he’s also trying to tamp down a domestic revolt withing his own Likud party – with reports circulating about deposing him through a Knesset vote of no confidence, after which another party member would be selected to lead the government.

Essentially, Netanyahu’s political survival strategy centers on portraying himself as the lone defender against shallow US rhetoric for a two-state solution. Attempting to sidestep responsibility for the occupation state’s failures, Netanyahu now faces a resurgent Benny Gantz in the opposition. Recent Israeli polls predict a significant shift among the wider public, favoring opposition and Arab parties over the current right-wing coalition. Per the polling, a new coalition could be expected to win 79 seats, compared to 41 seats for the parties of the current Likud-far-right government. 

Israel’s precarious political situation has Netanyahu resisting any solution, settlement, or exit that could lead to legal consequences for him. He undermines his party by threatening immediate elections post-war if Likud’s internal machinations against him don’t stop – having already refused to step down from his post. 

More worrisome yet is that despite Israel’s devastating past war experiences in Lebanon, Netanyahu may view a northern war as his only potential escape route – a way to reshuffle his political fortunes to avoid corruption charges and face his military failures. Why not play Russian roulette with Lebanon when the only other option is a long stretch in a prison cell?

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on the 2024 US election, and then there’s the matter of the $14.3 billion courtesy (though not by choice) of the US taxpayer.