59.6 F
Chicago
Monday, August 24, 2026
Home Blog Page 3497

Xi Tells Kissinger ‘Stability’ With US Still Possible, But Relations At ‘Crossroads’

Xi Tells Kissinger ‘Stability’ With US Still Possible, But Relations At ‘Crossroads’

This week former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger met with China’s defense minister, Li Shangfu. Subsequently the State Department sought to emphasize the 100-year old famed statesman is in Beijing in the capacity of a private citizen, not on behalf of the US government; however, clearly important signaling and “messaging” is being conveyed. On Thursday, Kissinger met with Chinese President Xi Jinping – with the latter expressing hope that ‘stable’ relations with Washington can be restored.

US-China relations have recently hit a low-point, amid increasing targeted tit-for-tat export curbs especially related to tech trade, in a spiral that goes back to the February Chinese ‘spy balloon’ shootdown over the US east coast. Kissinger during the visit has been hailed as a “friend” of China, and he reportedly encouraged cooperation, presenting a positive message akin what Janet Yellen said in her official recent visit. 

Via AP

“The United States and China should eliminate misunderstandings, coexist peacefully and avoid confrontation. History and practice have continually proved that neither the United States nor China can afford to treat the other as an adversary,” Kissinger said.

The foreign ministry has heaped praise on Kissinger, saying as follows in a press conference Thursday: 

Referring to Kissinger’s role in initiating China-U.S. relations while serving as national security adviser during the Nixon administration, Wang said he had played an “irreplaceable role in enhancing mutual understanding between the two countries.”

“The U.S. policy toward China requires the diplomatic wisdom like that of Kissinger and political courage like Nixon’s,” Wang said, according to the Foreign Ministry. Kissinger also served as secretary of state under Nixon.

The Thursday Kissinger-Xi meeting saw the Chinese president strike an optimistic tone:

“China and the United States are once again at the crossroads of where to go, and the two sides need to make new decisions,” Xi said, according to a statement released by the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

“Looking into the future, China and the United States can achieve joint success and prosperity,” Xi said.

As for Li the day prior, he blamed “some people in the U.S.” for failing to meet China halfway. Defense Minister Li is himself under Washington sanctions at the moment, which is something Beijing has demanded to be dropped before relations can significantly improve.

“History and practice have repeatedly proved that neither the US nor China can afford to treat the other as an adversary,” a Chinese readout cited Kissinger as saying further. According to more from Li’s words in the Chinese readout

He urged the US to make the “correct strategic judgment” and said he hoped Beijing and Washington could still work together to promote “healthy and stable development” of the relationship between the countries and their militaries.

Wang, during his meeting with Kissinger, relayed a message that reflects Beijing’s concerns over American policy toward it: “Trying to transform China is impossible, and blocking and containing China is even more impossible,” he said, according to China’s readout.

Also this week John Kerry, Biden’s special presidential envoy for climate, was in Beijing for climate talks. Like other high level meetings between top US and Chinese officials, the climate talks appear to have yielded no fruit. Kerry said in a wrap-up press conference Wednesday that the meetings failed to produce any significant climate agreement, after “frank” discussions.

“We came to Beijing in order to unstick what has been stuck for almost a year, and that’s the in-person dialogue between the United States and China,” Kerry said.

“We had very frank conversations, but we came here to break new ground, which we think is important at this stage, and it is clear that we are going to need a little more work to be able to complete that task, which we still believe, both of us, is doable,” he continued.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/20/2023 – 13:25

Kennedy Inspiring A Different Kind Of Crossover Voting Movement, Voters Say

Kennedy Inspiring A Different Kind Of Crossover Voting Movement, Voters Say

Authored by Alice Giordano via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is inspiring a crossover voting movement among Republicans similar to those seen in past presidential primaries but with a twist.

Democratic Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. speaks at the NALEO Presidential Forum in New York City on July 14, 2023. (Chung I Ho/The Epoch Times)

Janice Foster, currently a registered Republican in Lexington, Kentucky, told The Epoch Times she is registering Democrat to vote in the primaries not because she sees RFK Jr. as an easier candidate for her party to beat in general elections, but because she sees him as a better candidate for America than President Joe Biden.

“I’d rather Kennedy than Biden,” said Mrs. Foster, “I’d rather sacrifice my vote for a Republican than not do my part to make sure he doesn’t get back into office.”

In crossover voting, which can only occur in states with open primaries, electors switch parties to vote in the opposing primary usually in an effort to put their weakest candidate on the ballot and then switch votes for their original party’s candidate in general elections.

There are currently 20 states with open primaries or semi-open primaries. They include South Carolina, Texas, Georgia, Indiana, Virginia, Ohio, and Illinois.

Semi-open primaries allow unaffiliated voters to participate in the party primary of their choice without affiliating with the party.

President Joe Biden (L) and First Lady Jill Biden (R) arrive at the White House South Lawn in Washington on May 30, 2023. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)

There are also several states like New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York that have semi-closed primaries, which allows unaffiliated voters to vote in either primary, but they must register with that party on the day of primary voting.

Registered Republican Erin Fortin, a native of Maine where lawmakers passed legislation last year making the state’s primary semi-open, told The Epoch Times, she is “closing her eyes” and switching back to being a Democrat voter because she too wants to help foster Mr. Kennedy’s chances of beating Mr. Biden for the nomination.

For me, the primaries are now more about protecting America against the worst candidate from the other party than trying to promote the weaker one for party gain purposes,” said Mrs. Fortin, who said she was a lifelong registered Democrat until the pandemic.

There have been several major attempts in modern politics to use crossover voting by one party to put a weaker candidate on the opposing party ticket to bolster the chances of winning for their party in the race for the presidency.

The two most prominent ones were dubbed Operation Chaos with the first one led by conservative talk show giant Rush Limbaugh, who has since died.

Mr. Limbaugh launched the crossover campaign in an effort to hand a win to Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama under the idea she couldn’t beat GOP contender Sen. John McCain.

Despite Mr. Limbaugh’s efforts, Obama won the primary and the White House.

The second was led by Tea Party Republicans in South Carolina in 2020 with Mr. Biden as the ultimate target.

According to an article by The Greenville News, the Greenville Republican Party called on supporters to pick Democrat contender Sen. Bernie Sanders and “vote for the worst Democrat.”

The scheme didn’t work. Biden not only overwhelmingly won South Carolina’s Democrat primary but went on to win the presidency.

Sen. Sanders eventually dropped out of the race after losing in several primaries.

A similar crossover campaign had been hatched by Democrats in South Carolina and Michigan two decades earlier in 2000 in the contest between Sen. McCain and George W. Bush.

Hundreds of Democrats in both states registered as Republicans in an effort to give Sen. McCain the party nomination under the idea that he would be easier to defeat by their party candidate Al Gore.

That crossover effort too failed and Bush went on to become president.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/20/2023 – 13:05

YouTube Is Pulling ‘Sound Of Freedom’ Interviews, Reviews

YouTube Is Pulling ‘Sound Of Freedom’ Interviews, Reviews

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

YouTube appears to be removing content featuring or even merely reviewing the movie ‘Sound Of Freedom’ for ‘violating community guidelines’ as censorship of the anti-child trafficking movie continues.

Former Navy SEAL and CIA Contractor Shawn Ryan posted screenshots of the backend of his YouTube account, showing that a 2 and a half minute preview video of an upcoming interview with the film’s star Jim Caviezel has been removed.

YouTube has also declared the content titled ‘Actor Jim Caviezel Unveils Dark Truths Behind The Trafficking Of Children’ as ‘Ineligible’ for monetization.

This doesn’t seem to be a one off.

Commentator Luke Rudkowski has also had a strike against his account for posting a review of the film, and has been prevented from uploading any more content.

What is this all about?

As we highlighted last week, Tim Ballard, the real life former government agent who the film is based on, has accused the media of “running interference for pedophiles and human traffickers.”

“Why would you want to lie to push an agenda whose goal is to have children be in captivity? It’s kind of sick,” Ballard urged.

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/20/2023 – 12:15

EU Ditches Idea To Cap Power Firms’ Revenues

EU Ditches Idea To Cap Power Firms’ Revenues

Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

An idea to cap the revenues of electricity generators in case energy prices surge again failed to win support at the European Parliament’s Industry, Research, and Energy Committee on Wednesday as the committee agreed on texts to reform the EU’s electricity market.

In their amendments to the draft legislation, MEPs from the committee supported proposals to make the EU’s electricity market more stable, affordable, and sustainable, but did not include an earlier idea to cap the revenues of electricity generators.

In May, Nicolas Gonzalez Casares—the European Parliament’s lead negotiator on the reform proposed by the European Commission earlier this year – proposed that the reform of the EU’s electricity market cap the extraordinary profits that power-generating companies reap when energy prices spike in a crisis. A cap that would have recovered 90% of any revenue over $202 (180 euros) per megawatt-hour (MWh). The cap would have included producers of electricity from wind, solar, and nuclear power, as well as coal.

However, the European Parliament’s energy committee didn’t support this proposal.

The industry has strongly opposed such ideas. Following today’s vote at the Parliament’s committee, Naomi Chevillard, Head of Regulatory Affairs at SolarPower Europe, said,

“Today we breathe a sigh of relief as MEPs have decided to not make market revenue caps a structural feature of the electricity market.”

“They have recognised the hugely negative impact of the caps on renewable energy growth – resulting in a contraction of the Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) market by 21% in 2022 due to regulatory uncertainty,” Chevillard added.

Earlier this month, the European Parliament reached a broad agreement on the proposed electricity market reform, designed to prevent a repeat of last year’s energy crisis. 

The proposal has now passed to the Council and the European Parliament for debate and negotiation, with the market reform expected to be voted on later this year. The European Parliament is set to vote on the reform in September, before final negotiations with EU member states in the autumn.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/20/2023 – 05:00

MI6 Chief Warns Of Chinese ‘Data Traps’ – Says UK Using AI To Disrupt Russian Weapons Flow

MI6 Chief Warns Of Chinese ‘Data Traps’ – Says UK Using AI To Disrupt Russian Weapons Flow

The head of Britain’s MI6 intelligence service, Richard Moore, delivered a rare public speech in Prague on Wednesday, where he warned that China has been striking deals with other countries which allow Beijing to capture data on foreign citizens and national projects.

MI6 chief Richard Moore

Countries which agree to those deals with Beijing risk ensnaring themselves “in a data trap” that left them vulnerable to manipulation.

“When China was selling COVID vaccines around the world, it often ensured that recipient countries would have to share their vaccination datasets with Beijing. That is exactly the kind of condition in any deal which should ring alarm bells,” said Moore, who noted that MI6 now commits more resources to China issues than anywhere else in a reflection of China’s “increasing global significance,” as well as the “crucial need to understand both the intent and capability of the Chinese government.”

In the UK’s most recent integrated review of China’s foreign, defense and security policies, Beijing was described as posing “an epoch-defining challenge to the type of international order we want to see, both in terms of security and values,” The Record reports.

“Where there are attempts by the Chinese Communist Party to coerce or create dependencies, we will work closely with others to push back against them,” states the review.

According to Moore, China has an advantage over the UK in terms of the “sheer scale” of their ability to provide the “colossal volumes of data” required to train machine learning tools.

“China has added to its immense datasets at home by hoovering up others abroad, and the Chinese authorities are not hugely troubled by questions of personal privacy, or individual data security. They’re focused on controlling information and preventing inconvenient truths from being revealed,” said Moore.

Meanwhile, MI6 is using artificial intelligence “to augment, but not replace, their own judgement about how people might act in various situations,” said Moore, who cited the use of bulk data “to identify and disrupt the flow of weapons to Russia for use against Ukraine.”

AI is going to make information infinitely more accessible, and some have asked whether it will put intelligence services like mine out of business, in fact, the opposite is likely to be true,” said Moore. “As AI trawls the ocean of open source, there will be ever greater value in landing, with a well-cast fly, the secrets that lie beyond the reach of its net.

Human agents in the right places are “never just passive collectors of information,” but can be tasked and directed and unlike machine learning tools “can identify new questions we didn’t know to ask.”

It could be possible that AI “begins to overtake some aspects of human cognition,” said Moore, and that digital tools could predict some aspects of human behavior better than humans can. “But there will always be an extraordinary bond that allows one person genuinely to confide in another, united by a sense of common humanity and purpose.

“However, swift and all encompassing the advance of AI, some relationships are going to stay uniquely stubbornly human. And those relationships are at the heart of my service, because my agency is dedicated to preserving human agency.” -The Record

According to Moore, MI6 will likely have more responsibility for collecting intelligence on how hostile nations are using AI “in damaging reckless and unethical ways,” and that UK citizens can only be protected if the agency understands that threat.

That said, the intelligence chief noted that it was “absolutely necessary to engage with China. For the simple reason that not a single international problem of any importance can be addressed if we do not.”

He also said that while we can’t exactly predict how AI will affect humanity, “we can strike out in a spirit of optimism with a willingness to cooperate… China’s draft AI regulations emphasize the importance of veracity, accuracy, objectivity, and diversity. I can only say we agree. Let’s make those fine words a reality, not a slogan.”

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/20/2023 – 04:15

UK Looks To Boost Energy Security With Small Modular Nuclear Reactors

UK Looks To Boost Energy Security With Small Modular Nuclear Reactors

Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

  • The UK has launched a competition for small modular reactor technology and created a new nuclear body.

  • The focus on small nuclear reactors is part of the country’s efforts to produce more zero-emission energy domestically.

  • As well as backing SMRs, the UK remains committed to traditional nuclear projects including Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C.

This week saw the UK launch a competition for small modular reactor (SMR) technology and created a new nuclear body, Great British Nuclear, in a bid to provide more zero-emission energy from locally-developed sources.

Great British Nuclear (GBN) is expected to drive the rapid expansion of new nuclear power plants in the UK, to boost UK energy security, reduce dependence on fossil fuel imports, create more affordable power, and grow the economy.  

The nuclear industry is estimated to generate around $7.9 billion (£6 billion) for the UK economy, the government says. 

As of today, companies can register their interest with GBN to participate in a competition to secure funding support to develop their SMR technology, which could result in billions of pounds of public and private sector investment in small modular reactor projects in the UK.

SMRs are considered to be the future of nuclear power technology because they are smaller than conventional reactors and can be manufactured in factories, making nuclear power stations cheaper and faster to build.

In the UK, Rolls-Royce has been developing SMR technology, which, the company says, can deliver cost-competitive and scalable net-zero power for multiple applications – from grid and industrial electricity production to hydrogen and synthetic fuel manufacturing.

While backing SMR technology, the UK is not giving up on conventional nuclear reactors and remains committed to the mega projects of Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C. The government will work with GBN to consider the potential role of further large gigawatt-scale nuclear power plants in the UK energy mix, the government said today.

Last year, the UK decided to revitalize its nuclear energy industry to secure more zero-emission power generated in the country. Under the British Energy Security Strategy, the UK has an ambition to deploy up to 24 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear power by 2050, around 25% of the projected 2050 electricity demand in the country.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/20/2023 – 03:30

“Disgraceful” Coutts ‘De-Banked’ Nigel Farage Because Of His Conservative Views, Internal Dossier Reveals

“Disgraceful” Coutts ‘De-Banked’ Nigel Farage Because Of His Conservative Views, Internal Dossier Reveals

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Nigel Farage had his bank accounts shut down with the high-net-worth bank Coutts after officials decided the former conservative politician’s views did not align with the bank’s values, it has emerged.

The former UKIP and Brexit Party leader went public last month with the difficulties he was having in opening a U.K. bank account after Coutts, an institution he had been banking with for almost a decade, inexplicably closed his accounts and several other banks refused his applications to open a new one.

Coutts briefed the BBC and the Financial Times following the public accusation by Farage that the decision to close his accounts had been politically motivated, insisting that Mr. Farage had fallen below the financial threshold required to be a customer of the private bank. The move led to criticism of Coutts for revealing personal financial information about one of its former clients and raised ethical questions about the institution’s conduct.

New evidence obtained by Farage now contradicts the initial response provided by the bank.

In a 40-page dossier Mr. Farage acquired via a subject access request, Coutts made it clear that his conservative views were problematic for the bank, citing Brexit no fewer than 86 times, and his support of Donald Trump who is mentioned 39 times.

The minutes of a meeting of Coutts’ wealth reputational risk committee held on Nov. 17 last year stated that Mr. Farage is “seen as xenophobic and racist. He is considered to be a disingenuous grifter. Being associated with Nigel Farage presents a material and ongoing reputational risk to the bank.”

The bank does not state who “sees” Mr. Farage in this fashion, or why this individual or social group holds weight in a decision on whether or not to provide a British citizen with a U.K. bank account. It should be noted that Mr. Farage has won elections in Britain as the leader of a political party, namely the European parliamentary elections with the Brexit Party in 2017, and wields considerable public support.

Executives at the bank agreed that Farage, because of his political views, should be “de-banked.”

Writing for the Telegraph, Farge called the “Stasi-style surveillance report” shocking.

“Monthly press checks were made on me. My social media accounts were monitored. Anything considered ‘problematic’ was recorded. I was being watched,” he wrote.

“This report is proof that any Coutts customer who holds even vaguely conservative views should be treated with disdain.”

Farage explained that the dossier also reported on his friendship with Novak Djokovic who was publicly shunned after refusing to take the Covid-19 vaccine, and his retweeting of a Ricky Gervais joke about leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a position it should be noted that has been advocated by Home Secretary Suella Braverman on multiple occasions, albeit not as official government policy.

“The most extraordinary comments of all are the areas of the report talking about me ‘not aligning with their views’ and suggesting I must be barred because I do not support the diversity, policies and ‘purpose’ of Coutts, as though Britain is a political regime and I am a dissident,” Farage added.

He warned that anyone else deemed unpalatable by the establishment could be next, and said that “if this situation is left unchecked, we will sleepwalk towards a China-style social credit system in which only those with the ‘correct’ views are allowed to fully participate in society.”

Politicians have commented on the scandal following the publication by Farage of Coutt’s communications, including Energy Security Grant Shapps, who suggested on Wednesday that new legislation may need to be introduced to combat banks acting above their station and delving into politics.

“I think it’s absolutely disgraceful. I don’t have to agree with everything Nigel Farage says to recognize that free speech is a very, very important part of our domestic life,” he said.

”People shouldn’t have their banks closed because of their political or any other view, and banks shouldn’t be refusing to open accounts on that basis as well. And yet there’s a very, very long-running problem in this country where banks are misapplying the guidance and rules and not just closing accounts but refusing to open them in the first place. That shouldn’t be the case,” he added.

Economic Secretary to the Treasury Andrew Griffith also expressed “serious concern” over banks closing accounts based on customers’ political views, and Home Secretary Suella Braverman described the development as “sinister” and urged banks to have a “major rethink” of woke policies.

Later on Wednesday, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak tweeted: “This is wrong. No one should be barred from using basic services for their political views. Free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy.”

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/20/2023 – 02:45

The Media And Ukraine War Coverage: Where Truth Takes A Holiday

The Media And Ukraine War Coverage: Where Truth Takes A Holiday

Authored by Connor O’Keefe via The Mises Institute,

As Ukrainian forces continue their much-hyped counteroffensive to take back contested territories in the country’s eastern and southern regions, we’re faced with conflicting coverage of the campaign.

Many reports say Ukraine’s forces are struggling to break through the minefields fortifying Russia’s lines. And many admit that even the sudden and dramatic Wagner Group mutiny did not appear to hand Ukraine much of an advantage on the front.

Days ago, in a move that looks like damage control, Ukraine’s defense secretary even announced that Kyiv would no longer measure success in recaptured territory but would instead just aim to destroy as much Russian military infrastructure as possible.

Still, according to some Western journalists, this is all part of Ukraine’s plan.

They’re just testing Russian resistance to find weak spots so they can better allocate resources during the next phase of the counteroffensive. And that’s when the big gains will take place. Maybe that’s true, but still, other coverage about Ukraine’s losses would have you think the counteroffensive has been a horrific disaster.

Much like the wider war, how you see this counteroffensive playing out depends almost entirely on where you get your news. That is not an accident. As citizens of the wealthiest country whose government controls the most military hardware in the world, it’s important to remember that all coverage of this war ought to be viewed with some baseline degree of skepticism. This is because numerous parties—in both governments and the media outlets themselves—are working hard to bend the American public’s perception of the war to their benefit.

That is, of course, nothing new. In 1941—the last time a European war threatened to go global—the British sent an intelligence officer named William Stephenson to the United States and tasked him with running an information operation to turn American public opinion away from noninterventionism.

The main approach Stephenson’s stories team used was secretly planting carefully crafted—and sometimes outright fake—stories in the biggest American newspapers and magazines. These stories were specifically designed to portray British forces as having more than enough courage to take on the Germans but lacking sufficient resources, regardless of how accurate that depiction was at any given time.

It was a specific tone that the United Kingdom’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) believed had the best chance of convincing the American public to support joining the fight. Since then, every group that the American political establishment wants to support militarily gets presented to the American people in a similar fashion—from the Mujahideen to the Syrian Kurds to the current Ukrainian regime.

Though we may not know about the prevalence of covert information operations for some time, a pair of stories published last month offer a window into some more overt efforts to shape our perception of the war in Ukraine. First, Thomas Gibbons-Neff, a Ukraine correspondent for the New York Times, wrote a viral story detailing how Ukrainian press officers and some Western journalists have tried to downplay, justify, or cover up the use of Nazi symbols by Ukrainian soldiers.

One specific passage tells of Western photojournalists asking their subjects to remove patches with Nazi emblems before taking photos. By doing so, these journalists crossed the line from documenting their subjects to staging them.

On the same day, former New York Times media columnist Ben Smith published an article reporting that many Western journalists have grown frustrated with how the Ukrainian government uses access and accreditation to shape war coverage. For example, the Ukrainian military threatened to revoke a photojournalist’s credentials after he took pictures of conscripted soldiers in a trench without the presence or permission of a military press officer.

In another example, an NBC News crew traveled to Crimea to interview residents about the war. After reporting that most people they talked to preferred that Crimea belonged to Russia, the Ukrainian government revoked NBC’s credentials and confined their in-country crew to a hotel.

Smith even brings up Thomas Gibbons-Neff from above, who had his access and credentials revoked after reporting on Ukraine’s use of banned cluster munitions. There’s no question that, at least to some extent, the continual threat of a loss of access affects everyone reporting over there in an official capacity.

This is not a new or unusual technique. The US government used similar tactics to help shape the narrative of its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most professional journalists struggle endlessly to find sources. So, by granting extensive access that can always be revoked, governments can run an effective carrot-and-stick ploy to control media coverage.

Our views of war are warped by design. Sure, the Russian regime is mounting a similar effort to control how the Russian people view the war, but it would be absurd to say that the Kremlin holds an influence over the American public that’s even comparable to the US or Ukrainian governments.

Despite what the media, the government, or your middle school civics teacher wants you to think, you don’t need to frantically keep up with the hourly developments in Eastern Europe to be a good citizen. But if you choose to follow this war, understand which parties have a hand in delivering whatever information you’re consuming because not everyone is trying to tell you the truth.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/20/2023 – 02:00

Journalists Attacking The Film ‘Sound Of Freedom’ Should Have Their Hard Drives Investigated

Journalists Attacking The Film ‘Sound Of Freedom’ Should Have Their Hard Drives Investigated

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

I recently went to see the movie Sound Of Freedom with the expectation of a moderate level of political commentary or religious pontificating, given the rabid and widespread attacks on the film by the leftist media. All I knew going in was that the indie production was about child trafficking and that the mainstream media HATES IT. After the film was over, my first thought was that it was an excellent story about a very dark and difficult issue. My second thought was – “What the hell was all the fuss about? There’s not a single political moment in the entire movie!”

The media war on the low budget flick is so bizarre given this fact that I am immediately suspicious of their intentions. Not one political message, not one momentary critique of the political left, not one moment where MAGA or Trump or “Q-Anon” is mentioned, not one “conspiracy theory.” So why all the hate?

Before reading this review any further I highly recommend you check out some of the hatchet job articles published about Sound Of Freedom to get a sense of what I’m talking about – examples are here, here, here and here.

The first thing you’ll probably notice is that the majority of these vitriolic diatribes use the exact same talking points – They suggest that The Sound Of Freedom is based in conspiracy theory, far-right extremism and that it is funded by a subversive network of “Q-Anon adjacent” conservatives. Some journalists have even attacked the veracity of the film’s true story – the career of DHS agent Tim Ballard, who operated covertly to take down child sex traffickers in Central America.

The Guardian asserts:

Caviezel stars as special agent Tim Ballard, a Homeland Security Investigations operative who really did work for the state busting up child-trafficking rings for more a decade. (Or so he claims – the DHS can neither confirm nor deny the real Ballard’s employment history.) Even if he did not literally have the face of Christ, Ballard would still exude an angelic aura as he gently hoists dirty-faced moppets out of peril with the gravely uttered catchphrase: “God’s children are not for sale.”

Rolling Stone fumes:

Ballard, Caviezel, and others of their ilk had primed the public to accept Sound of Freedom as a documentary rather than delusion by fomenting moral panic for years over this grossly exaggerated “epidemic” of child sex-trafficking, much of it funneling people into conspiracist rabbit holes and QAnon communities. In short, I was at the movies with people who were there to see their worst fears confirmed.”

Perhaps Rolling Stone has never heard of Epstein’s Island? Why are they pretending like this global criminal enterprise is not a thing?

These reviews are dripping with venom, though a simple investigation into Tim Ballard reveals endless evidence that he did in fact quit his job at DHS to operate in Central America to stop child trafficking rings. And the sting that is the core of the film on an island Ballard set up as a trap to capture an entire network of pedophiles as well as save 120 kids? Yeah, that was real, too.

In fact, there’s a documentary about Tim Ballard’s successful sting called ‘Triple Take’ and the Sound Of Freedom movie includes real life arrest footage from that event. There is no question that almost every detail in Sound Of Freedom is real. Any media outlet that says otherwise is lying, and the fact that they are attempting to sow seeds of doubt about the legitimacy of Tim Ballard based on politics is villainous.

One interesting part of the the film that is NOT accurate was the depiction of a Latin billionaire funding Tim Ballard’s efforts. In reality, Ballard says that it was primarily conservative host Glenn Beck that raised money for his operations that led to the rescue of hundreds of children. Why Glenn Beck was not mentioned in the final cut of the film is hard to say, but Ballard’s connection to Beck might partly explain the media’s fury over the movie. How DARE these conservative men save children from sex slavery, right? It makes conservatives look like (GASP!) good guys.

But there’s something more going on here than mere envy on the part of leftist journalists. The campaign against the movie is far too coordinated and far too expansive (global). It is as if these people are interconnected and they all agreed together to try to subvert the film, or they were all ORDERED to subvert the film.

This kind of behavior suggests a personal stake in creating conditions for failure; it makes it seem like these journalists want to sabotage the movie because of its premise and message. Why would someone want to sabotage a movie which exposes child trafficking and pedophiles? Could it be that we need to check the hard drives of some of these establishment media writers and producers?

I think it’s important to note that such people have been criminally prosecuted for child sex abuse in the past. For example, long time CNN producer John Griffin was recently arrested and convicted of child rape, using online apps to connect with mothers willing to sell their children to him for thousands of dollars so he could abuse them at his Vermont vacation home.

Last year the FBI raided the home of renowned ABC News producer James Gordon Meek and arrested him on charges of transporting child pornography. Rolling Stone Magazine was later accused of trying to cover up the reason for the arrest with selective editing and omission. Rolling Stone is now one of the main outlets attacking Sound Of Freedom.

Maybe the movie makes these journalists angry because it exposes one of their favorite hobbies?

I’m a long time film buff and I can say with some authority that as a movie, Sound Of Freedom is well made and well executed. The overall acting is effective including Jim Caviezel’s portrayal of Tim Ballard, the child performances are amazing, the editing is excellent and the cinematography is top notch. The film is good all around; it reminds me of one my favorite movies of all time, a criminal procedural directed by Akira Kurosawa called ‘High And Low’ (also known as ‘Heaven And Hell’ in Japan) about police investigating a child kidnapping.

My only complaint is that I felt they should have shown Tim Ballard with his family a little more, so that when he makes the decision to go to Columbia and risk his life, the choice carries more weight.  Other than that, Sound Of Freedom is one of the best dramas I have seen in a long time, and at no point did I feel “preached at.” I can’t say the same for most Hollywood films the past several years, which are replete with non-stop leftist propaganda.

The depiction of the process of child trafficking is very uncomfortable, but it’s meant to be. I rarely squirm in my chair with discomfort or get angry at characters on a screen, but every time there was a scene with a pedophile all I could think was “That guy needs to go in a wood chipper.” That’s good film making.

So again, there are few if any valid criticisms to make about the production itself and the story is largely accurate. Why are leftist journalists raging against this movie? I think because it sheds light on the fact that pedophilia is not only about isolated cases of loners stalking school playgrounds, it’s an international industry worth billions upon billions of dollars, and there are very rich and powerful people involved in that industry (including people in mainstream journalism).

They don’t want people to consider the pervasive nature of this criminal underworld. They want people passive and unaware. For some reason, they want people to assume that child slavery is a conspiracy theory.

Another issue to consider is that the political left has been aggressively targeting children with sexualization for the past several years, primarily through the imposition of trans ideology. They are turning the sexualization of minors into an activist movement. Children as young as kindergarten are being indoctrinated with “gender identity” propaganda and HIGHLY pornographic books (with pornographic images) posing as educational LGBT content are being planted in public schools. We all know what the end game of this movement is – The normalization of pedophilia.

Leftists may be consciously or unconsciously hostile to Sound Of Freedom because when they see the organized networks of child groomers on the big screen, they see themselves.

To conclude: Go see this movie. The media attacks are clearly designed to dissuade people from watching it based on political bias. Check it out and you’ll realize quickly that all their claims are false. Furthermore, you’ll start to wonder aloud why they hate the film? The saying “Methinks thou dost protest too much…” comes to mind, as such journalists reveal their propensity for evil.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/19/2023 – 23:55

DC Awards Convicted Felon With Contract For ‘Bogus’ EV Tech

DC Awards Convicted Felon With Contract For ‘Bogus’ EV Tech

Self-described inventor (and convicted felon) Lawrence Hardge received a $680,000 contract from the District of Columbia for a small device that he claims increases the range of electric vehicles. 

Local media outlet WUSA9 was the first to shine the spotlight on the shady EV deal DC’s Department of Public Works recently made with Hardge to outfit 40 Chevrolet Bolt EVs with the Energy Management Module (EEM) device. 

Hardge claims the device can increase any EV battery’s driving range and efficiency by more than 60%. Electrical engineers from the University of Maryland say that’s ‘practically impossible.’ 

“There’s not technologies that I’m aware of that can really boost that same battery pack to significantly more than 200-mile range,” said Paul Albertus, an associate director of the Maryland Energy Innovation Institute.

Albertus said, “There’s a variety of limitations just from basic chemical theory. There’s only so much energy you can store for the materials that you put into a battery.”

WUSA contacted General Motors, maker of the Bolts, and asked if they knew of the EEM device. 

“We have not been involved in this project and are not aware of this specific technology,” General Motors wrote in a statement. 

DC awarded Hardge a $680,000 contract for the device that UMD experts say is ‘bogus.’ 

Hardge was convicted of selling unregistered securities from his home state of Mississippi two decades ago. He served five years in prison and tried to expunge his criminal record in 2021. 

According to a Jackson Advocate article in 2022, Hardge claimed that he “had been notified by the University of Michigan, which is located only 35 miles from Hardge Global Manufacturing offices in Farmington Hills, Michigan, that he is being prepped for a possible Nobel Prize nomination by the university.”

“I interviewed with the University of Michigan last year,” he said in the article. “I spent about eight hours with them. They wanted to nominate me for a Nobel Prize. They thought I was the perfect candidate.”

WUSA spoke with a University of Michigan spokesperson who said, “We’ve checked with colleagues who would be most likely to be familiar with Mr. Hardge (Office of Research, College of Engineering, Communications) and no one is familiar with him.”

Depending on how this plays out, this could be a future episode on CNBC’s American Greed. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/19/2023 – 23:35