Documentary filmmaker Dan Farah appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast in November to promote his new documentary, The Age of Disclosure, and predicted that his film might force Trump to become the first world leader to confirm the existence of extraterrestrial life publicly.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens soon after the film comes out — the sitting president has to step to the microphone and say: humanity is not alone in the universe,” Farah told Rogan. “We have recovered technology of non-human origin. So have other nations. There is a high-stakes, secret cold war race to reverse engineer this technology. We need to win this race.” 

“I think Trump might be the only guy that’s willing to do something that crazy,” Rogan replied.

Well, now Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law, let it slip during an appearance on the New York Post’s Pod Force One podcast that Trump has a speech prepared confirming extraterrestrial life exists.

“Do you think that he’s about to make an announcement about UFOs?” host Miranda Devine asked.

“Because President Obama was just on a podcast talking about how he believes in UFOs and hinting that he saw something when he was president.”

“Well, I said this in my podcast, too,” Lara Trump began.

“What’s funny is we’ve kind of asked my father-in-law about this, ’cause we’re like, ‘Well, what do you know?’ ‘Cause, Miranda, we all wanna know about the UFOs, or we all wanna know what’s going on and he played a little coy with us. And so that, of course, led us to believe, Eric and I, were like, ‘Oh, my gosh, if he won’t even, like, fully tell us, maybe there’s more to it.’ And then I have just heard kind of around that… I think he’s actually said it, I think my father-in-law has actually said it, that there is some speech that he has that, I guess, at, at the right time, and I don’t know when the right time is, he’s gonna break out and, and talk about, and it has to do with maybe some sort of extraterrestrial life, so to speak.”

Lara Trump suggests that President Trump is ready to make an announcement to the world about the existence of aliens, with his script already prepared for the “right time.”

“He’s going to talk about maybe some sort of extraterrestrial life.”

“I don’t know when the right time… pic.twitter.com/D3Cp4zTjFV

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) February 18, 2026

The White House offered exactly the kind of answer you’d expect. 

“I’ll have to check in with our speech writing team,” White House Press Secretary Karoline said.

”That would be of great interest to me personally, and I’m sure all of you in this room and apparently former President Obama, too.”

A clip from Obama’s recent appearance on Brian Tyler Cohen’s podcast went viral over the weekend after he was asked point-blank whether aliens exist.

“They’re real, but I haven’t seen them, and they’re not being kept in … Area 51 … There’s no underground facility, unless there’s this enormous conspiracy and they hid it from the president of the United States,” Obama said. 

Barack Obama on aliens: “They’re real”

“But I haven’t seen them. They’re not being kept at Area 51. There’s no underground facility — unless there’s this enormous conspiracy and they hid it from the President of the United States.” pic.twitter.com/c6t0DYxewU

— UAP James (@UAPJames) February 14, 2026

By Sunday, Obama was on Instagram trying to walk it back.

“Statistically, the universe is so vast that the odds are good there’s life out there. But the distances between solar systems are so great that the chances aliens have visited us is low, and I saw no evidence during my presidency that extraterrestrials have made contact with us. Really!” Obama wrote.

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Barack Obama (@barackobama)

Washington’s relationship with UFOs — or, in the preferred bureaucratic phrasing, Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs) — has shifted considerably in recent years. A House hearing in July 2023 featured testimony from former military intelligence officer David Grusch, who told lawmakers under oath that he “was informed in the course of my official duties of a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse-engineering program to which I was denied access.” Grusch further alleged the government had retrieved what he called “non-human biologics” from recovered craft, citing accounts from dozens of witnesses he interviewed over four years.

The Pentagon, of course, pushed back. A March 2024 report rejected the core claims — no reverse-engineered alien spacecraft, no hidden extraterrestrial biological material, no off-world technology stashed in some classified warehouse. The agency stood by its denials even as lawmakers held classified briefings.

Lara Trump’s comment adds new intrigue to the discussion. Whether Trump eventually delivers that address — or whether this is one more piece of carefully managed intrigue from a president who has never met a story he didn’t know how to control — is a question that, for now, has no answer. But Trump sure does seem like the president who would do so.

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said on Feb. 17 that the state plans to take legal action against the Trump administration over the recent modifications to the childhood vaccine schedule.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Jan. 5, with backing from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., narrowed the number of vaccines routinely recommended by the childhood schedule.

Bonta told Reuters in an interview that he has mobilized his team to identify the necessary details for a possible complaint against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including jurisdictional and legal grounds for pursuing the lawsuit.

“I like the facts. I like science. I don’t want to give any airtime to his—I mean, just conspiracy [expletive],” Bonta told the news agency, referring to Kennedy’s stance on vaccines.

Bonta did not specify when the state might file or whether it would be a multistate filing. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who also spoke to Reuters, indicated that his state may join California in the filing.

The Epoch Times reached out to HHS for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

The CDC in January issued a revised childhood vaccine schedule that ended broad recommendations for vaccines against rotavirus, influenza, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A, and hepatitis B.

The agency said in a Jan. 5 memo that decisions for those vaccinations should instead be made through “shared clinical decision-making,” which involves discussion between parents and health care providers.

The changes were made after President Donald Trump directed the HHS and CDC to review U.S. vaccine schedules and compare them with those of peer countries. The president named three countries—Denmark, Japan, and Germany—that recommend fewer vaccines and fewer vaccine doses.

At the time, the White House said in a fact sheet that if the HHS and CDC determine that those practices from developed countries are better than U.S. recommendations, they are directed to update the U.S. core childhood vaccine schedule to align with such scientific evidence and best practices, while preserving access to existing vaccines for Americans.

“Practices like the hepatitis B vaccination at birth are standard in the United States, but uncommon in most developed countries, where it is typically only recommended for newborns of mothers who test positive for the infection,” the White House stated in December.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and other groups filed a lawsuit on Jan. 19 seeking to challenge the revised childhood vaccine schedule.

They argued that officials failed to adequately review relevant data or provide satisfactory explanations for the changes. A federal judge heard arguments on Feb. 13 and is considering whether to block the schedule update.

In January, HHS responded after executives of top vaccine companies took aim at the Trump administration in the wake of a series of actions on vaccines.

“Vaccine recommendations are based on the best available gold-standard scientific evidence and public health considerations, not corporate interests,” an HHS spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email on Jan. 28.

“Under this administration, HHS is not beholden to the pharmaceutical industry. Decisions are made through transparent processes with the sole aim of protecting the health of the American people. Protecting public health and restoring trust will continue to drive HHS’ vaccine policy.”

Zachary Stieber contributed to this report.

Whole Foods Market is shutting down its palm-scan payment system nationwide, removing the devices from more than 500 stores by June 3 after shoppers largely ignored them. The chain, owned by Amazon, had pitched the feature as a frictionless way to pay. Instead, it became an experiment few customers embraced, according to The Daily Mail.

The program, called Amazon One, allowed shoppers to link their Amazon accounts to a scan of their palm and check out with a wave of the hand. Amazon says it processes more than a million biometric authentications each month across locations where the service operates, but a spokesperson said weak adoption at Whole Foods drove the decision to discontinue it there.

In interviews at a Union Square store in Manhattan, none of the dozen customers surveyed had used the scanners. Several said they had never seen anyone else try. “I haven’t [used palm payment], and I haven’t seen anyone use it before,” said Priscilla Flete. After learning how the system worked, she added, “It’s a bit invasive.”

The Daily Mail writes that privacy worries were a common refrain. “I don’t want to give my biometric data to nobody,” said Santiago Tieguec, who questioned the need for the service given that “Nowadays we have our cards in our phones.” Nusrat Abdullah, who hadn’t heard of the feature before, said, “It might be convenient, but I think your information is sensitive… I don’t think paying with your hands is very safe.”

Others expressed outright distrust. Gavin McGinn said, “I wouldn’t trust them to have that kind of information about people, because who would they sell it to?” Brayden Stephenson, who once tested the scanner out of curiosity, was skeptical that data would truly disappear: “A lot of the time, ‘delete’ is just archive and sell off to somebody else.”

Amazon disputes those fears, saying biometric data is encrypted, stored securely in the cloud and not shared with third parties. The company added that once the rollout ends, all associated customer information—including palm data—will be permanently deleted.

Retail analysts say the technology’s retreat underscores a basic reality: contactless cards and mobile wallets are already fast and easy. Without a clear benefit, many shoppers saw little reason to trade more personal data for the same checkout experience. As Stephenson put it, “I already have a card. I’m not getting anything out of that.”

Last Thursday, The Atlantic published a heart-wrenching story about an 11-month-old child who died of measles. Written in the second person from the perspective of a mother whose two unvaccinated children fell ill with the disease, the story is rich with personal detail;

“You plant her on the couch with a blanket and put Bluey on the TV while she drifts in and out of sleep…” 

“While the kids are napping, you tap a list of your daughter’s symptoms into Google and find a slew of diseases that more or less match up…”

“Her cough wracks her whole body, rounding her delicate bird shoulders. She does not sleep well. And as you lift up her pajama top to check her rash one morning, you see that her breathing is labored, shadows pooling between her ribs when she sucks in air.” 

Turns out, NONE OF THAT HAPPENED. The Atlantic‘s Elizabeth Bruenig simply made it up, leading to mass confusion.

As Laura Hazard Owen of NiemanLab – who initially busted Bruenig – writes:

When I initially read Bruenig’s story, I was stunned: An Atlantic staff writer’s unvaccinated child had died of measles in the 2020s, and now she was writing about it? At the end of Bruenig’s piece, though, there’s an editor’s note: “This story is based on extensive reporting and interviews with physicians, including those who have cared directly for patients with measles.” That was the point when I sent a gift link to my mom group: “as far as I can tell this piece is fiction. What do we think about this choice? I am very conflicted!!!” My conflict stemmed from my concern that, though the piece was heavily researched, it was not a true story. I wondered if the key people whose minds might be changed by it — people who don’t vaccinate their kids — would brush it off as fiction, or fake.

Following the publication, two journalists reached out to Owen to let her know that they were similarly confused, as there “was not an editor’s note/disclaimer on the piece at all.” 

What’s more, The Atlantic’s own spokesperson told one of the journalists: “This is based on a mother’s real account,” – after which the outlet added a disclaimer. 

To +1 @laurahazardowen

I’ve also seen PDF of Atlantic piece on measles as first posted.

a/ Originally it had no editor’s note

b/ PR rep initially told reporter (in note I’ve seen) “this is based on a mother’s real account.”

If Atlantic was confused, why wouldn’t readers be? https://t.co/oWFlaktBWe

— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) February 19, 2026

The comments section at The Atlantic is full of similarly confused readers: 

To clarify – The Atlantic published a story about a child dying of measles.

Without notifying its readers the story was largely a work of fiction.

The only added an editor’s note after other journalists started asking them about it. https://t.co/cgWdlt0KjS

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) February 19, 2026

Of course, some Harvard douche who doesn’t disclose that his own work was mentioned in The Atlantic ‘immediately recognized the article as hypothetical.’ Great job Stuart! 

I don’t understand how anyone would have not immediately recognized the article as hypothetical — it’s in the second person! Obviously none of this has happened to me as the reader, so obviously it’s a way of storytelling.

— Stuart Buck (@stuartbuck1) February 19, 2026

Authored by Larry Sand via American Greatness,

Employees of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have been busy lately, working to fulfill their mandate to remove undocumented immigrants.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of ICE’s activities is its alleged presence in public schools across the nation.

But is ICE actually going into schools?

Absolutely not.

While there are a few reports of parents being detained at bus stops near schools and images of ICE agents tackling people on school grounds, they are not actually entering the schools.

Tricia McLaughlin, the Homeland Security Department’s assistant secretary for public affairs, explains that agents’ actions in and around schools are intended to protect children.

“ICE is not going to schools to arrest children—we are protecting children. Criminals are no longer able to hide in America’s schools to avoid arrest. The Trump administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement and instead trusts them to use common sense.”

McLaughlin adds, “An arrest might be made at school if a dangerous illegal alien felon were to flee into a school or a child sex offender is working as an employee. But this has not happened.”

Nonetheless, teachers are organizing their students to battle ICE.

As reported by Erika Sanzi, director of communications at Defending Education, teachers in Minnesota have been coordinating student protests on social media.

“There is nothing organic about these events, and despite claims to the contrary, they are almost never spontaneous expressions of student speech. They are basically field trips without the parent permission slip,” Sanzi said.

In Oregon, a video shows kindergarten students participating in a protest, and numerous schools nationwide have preemptively canceled classes so students could protest.

The teachers’ unions have also seized on ICE’s alleged misdeeds to indoctrinate students.

According to materials obtained by Defending Education, the United Teachers Los Angeles gave a presentation last year titled “Preparing for ICE at Your School” that urged its members to engage in political activism and suggested using school resources to thwart ICE operations.

The UTLA documents guide educators on how to resist the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration and urge parents and teachers to collaborate on resistance efforts. It is part of the union’s broader efforts to “build a comprehensive response to immigration enforcement.”

One slide shared with educators reads, “The fight is far from over. We need to keep fighting together!” Another slide titled “What can you do?” instructs educators on how to respond to ICE operations.

Ron Gochez, a teacher at Dr. Maya Angelou Community High School in Los Angeles, a winner of the California Teachers Association “Human Rights Award,” and a spokesman for Unión del Barrio, a Chicano Marxist revolutionary political organization, is at the forefront of the anti-ICE movement in L.A.

During a recent ICE protest in Los Angeles, Gochez told his compadres, “Don’t forget where you’re standing. This is South Central Los Angeles. They (ICE) are not the only ones with guns in this city. Don’t forget that. And I don’t say that because I’m calling for violence; I’m saying that because the people have every right to defend themselves against masked, unidentified gunmen. The people have every right to defend themselves.”

Revolutionary activities are hardly new to Gochez. In August 2024, a UTLA meeting focused on “How to be a teacher & an organizer… and NOT get fired,” during which Gochez outlined stealth methods for indoctrinating his students. He described transporting busloads of students to an anti-Israel rally during the school day without arousing suspicion.

“A lot of us that have been to those (protest) actions have brought our students. Now, I don’t take the students in my personal car,” Gochez said. Then, referring to the Los Angeles Unified School District, he explained, “I have members of our organization who are not LAUSD employees. They take those students, and I just happen to be at the same place and the same time with them.”

Not surprisingly, the National Education Association aligns with various revolutionary groups, including the Sunrise Movement, which is funded by several left-wing billionaires, including George Soros. The group began with a focus on environmental issues but is now dedicated to virtually every radical proposition imaginable, with a particular emphasis on brainwashing students and organizing within schools.

In January, the NEA, under the guise of protecting children, blasted out an anti-ICE message across various social media platforms, saying, “As thousands of ICE agents carry out aggressive enforcement in Minnesota, hundreds of teachers, counselors, parents, school staff, activists, and union leaders are organizing and showing up in powerful ways—from delivering groceries and schoolwork to organizing solidarity actions and mass protests calling for ICE to leave schools and neighborhoods.”

Pushback against the blatant propaganda is mounting, however.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott declared that protests should be considered unlawful. The state education agency has warned that it could impose sanctions and investigate schools that facilitate “inappropriate political activism.”

“Schools and staff who allow this behavior should be treated as co-conspirators and should not be immune for criminal behavior,” Abbott told reporters.

In Florida, the state’s Education Commissioner, Anastasios Kamoutsas, said schools have a responsibility to ensure that protests do not disrupt school operations and suggested that discipline would be warranted for staff who facilitate or encourage protests during classroom hours.

“We will not tolerate educators encouraging school protests and pushing their political views onto students, especially ones that disparage law enforcement,” Kamoutsas said on social media.

Some Indiana school leaders are also calling for discipline after hundreds of students walked out of class to protest, a move that Republican Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith criticized as unacceptable.

Many parents are unhappy with the protests. One outraged Washington mother, seen in a video, has informed school officials that she is withdrawing her daughter from the district after teachers encouraged students to walk out to protest ICE activities.

When children go off to school each day, teachers act in loco parentis. Unfortunately, these days, “loco” has a whole different meaning.

Oil prices pushed higher Thursday on worries that nuclear talks between US and Iran might not avert a new conflict that could threaten supplies.

“Oil is extending its gains, with Brent crude back above $70 a barrel… as fears of a military confrontation between the US and Iran rattled energy markets,” said Matt Britzman, senior equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown.

“Nuclear talks between the two sides appear to be going nowhere fast, and the geopolitical premium is clearly back in play,” he added.

On top of that, API reported an across the board draw in energy inventories.

“The failure to resolve core areas of contention continues to tip the scales in favor of another military confrontation,” RBC Capital Markets analysts including Helima Croft said in a note.

“The massive buildup of US military assets in the region as well as the recent Iranian naval exercise in the Strait of Hormuz seem to suggest that the launch sequence for a second military conflict has commenced.”

Will the official data confirm API’s draws and build (pun intended) on the geopolitical risk premia in crude prices…

API

• Crude -609k

• Cushing -1.4mm

• Gasoline -312k

• Distillates -1.6mm

DOE

• Crude -9.014mm – biggest draw since Sept 2025

• Cushing -1.095mm – biggest draw since Jun 2025

• Gasoline -3.21mm – biggest draw since Oct 2025

• Distillates -4.566mm

The official data confirmed API with inventory draws across the board. Crude saw its biggest destocking since September and Gasoline stocks fell for the first time since Nov7th…

Source: Bloomberg

US crude production extended its rebound from the storm slowdown…

Source: Bloomberg

WTI is trading near $67 after the official inventory data, extending gains…

Source: Bloomberg

“Geopolitical issues, above all Iran, are the key bullish factor in the oil market at the moment,” University of Texas-Austin energy analyst Ben Cahill tells Axios via email.

“Otherwise there’s not a whole lot of price support toward $70 [per barrel]. The slack in this market could embolden the White House,” he said.

Iran exports about 1.5 million barrels per day, mostly to China. But the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow sea passage next to Iran, is a choke point that handles a whopping one-fourth or so of the world’s maritime oil trade.

“For oil markets, the concern is clearly what action would mean not only for Iranian oil supply, but also broader Persian Gulf oil flows, given the risk of disruption to shipments through the Strait of Hormuz,” ING analysts said in a note on Wednesday.

Daan Struyven, Goldman Sachs co-head of global commodities research, told CNBC that he thinks the market sees tensions escalating further between the US and Iran, a likely catalyst for price hikes and longer-term volatility.

“Both prediction markets and oil markets are pricing some near-term moderate escalation as the base case,” he said.

Specifically, if tensions in the Strait were to curtail flows by 1 million barrels per day for an entire year, Struyven predicted that would justify an $8 per barrel price increase, a roughly 11% jump from Thursday’s price for Brent crude around $71.50. However, he also noted that fear among traders could push prices even higher, adding to the volatility in the market.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Crew of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Cutter Seneca seized more than $133.5 million worth of cocaine and offloaded the drugs at Port Everglades, Florida, the agency said in a Feb. 13 statement.

“80 percent of interdictions of U.S.-bound drugs occur at sea. This underscores the importance of maritime interdiction in combatting the flow of illegal narcotics and protecting American communities from this deadly threat,” USCG said.

In total, 17,700 pounds of cocaine were seized through the interdiction of four drug-transporting vessels in international waters of the Eastern Pacific Ocean.

One of the drug vessels was boarded by Seneca’s crew on Jan. 25, seizing 4,410 pounds of cocaine. On Jan. 31, crew members boarded three vessels, taking custody of 13,340 pounds of cocaine, the statement said.

The detection and monitoring of illegal drug transit by air and sea are conducted by the U.S. Southern Command’s Joint Interagency Task Force-South, based in Key West. Once it is determined that the vessel must be interdicted, the USCG takes control of the operation, boards the vessel, and apprehends it.

“I am extremely proud of the crew’s incredible performance and adaptability during this deployment,” said Capt. Lee Jones, commanding officer of Coast Guard Cutter Seneca.

“This deployment demonstrates our enhanced posture and continued success in the fight against narco-terrorism and transnational criminal organizations.

“The Coast Guard, in conjunction with our inter-agency and international partners, continues to patrol areas commonly associated with drug trafficking in the Eastern Pacific, denying smugglers access to maritime routes by which they move illicit drugs to our U.S. land and sea borders.”

According to the agency, the Coast Guard is accelerating its crackdown on drug trafficking in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in support of Operation Pacific Viper, aiming to protect the United States from the flow of illicit narcotics from South America.

Operation Pacific Viper, launched in early August last year, directs U.S. forces to the Eastern Pacific region to counter cartel and criminal groups, seeking to cut off drug and human smuggling before they hit U.S. shores.

In early December 2025, USCG said in a statement that it had seized more than 150,000 pounds of cocaine from the Eastern Pacific Ocean, which it said was enough to create more than “57 million potentially lethal doses.”

In a Feb. 14 statement, USCG announced the seizure of two vessels containing $5.6 million in illicit narcotics off Port Everglades. Authorities seized roughly 745 pounds of cocaine by interdicting two suspected drug trafficking vessels.

“The Coast Guard is in the business of saving lives, and every kilogram of these drugs kept off our streets represents lives saved,” said Lt. Justin Dadlani, commanding officer of Station Fort Lauderdale.

“I couldn’t be more proud of the professionalism of the crew and our continued partnerships with our partners with Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations.”

On Feb. 15, the agency announced that its Cutter Forrest Rednour had interdicted 14 suspected illegal immigrants aboard a vessel 18 miles from San Diego, with all of them claiming to be Mexican nationals.

Earlier on Jan. 27, the Coast Guard said they had interdicted three suspected illegal immigrants from Mexico in two vessels, seven miles off Imperial Beach, California.

On Jan. 21, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said the Coast Guard notified the agency of a suspicious vessel traveling toward Puerto Rico. Upon investigation, CBP agents found 12 migrants from Russia and Uzbekistan aboard. The interception took place on Jan. 13.

“This successful outcome highlights the strong partnerships between the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and all federal and local law enforcement partners in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands,” said Capt. Robert E. Stiles, Sector San Juan deputy.

“Our daily unified coordination, shared capabilities, and synchronized response efforts are instrumental to safeguarding our nation’s Caribbean maritime borders against illicit smuggling activities.”

Jeffrey Epstein was connected with several notable scientists – funding leading research centers, including Harvard, where he donated $9 million, and MIT’s Media Lab, which he gave at least $7.5 million (and funneled another $1.2 million to investments under the control of the lab’s former director, Joi Ito). He was connected to Stephen Hawking, Marvin Minsky, Steven Pinker and a host of other names. 

Now we learn that Epstein provided funding to a lab at UC San Diego after lifestyle guru Deepak Chopra introduced the financier to lab director Vilayanur Subramanian Ramachandran – a neuroscientist who was studying an “autistic savant who displays telepathy,“ according to the latest DOJ Epstein file dump. 

Chopra, a former UCSD family medicine and public health clinical professor, said in late October that he was just helping Epstein with insomnia by teaching him to meditate. “At my suggestion, he also visited Dr. V.S. Ramachandran’s lab at [the University of California San Diego] to learn about ongoing brain research,” he told CBS News in December. 

Ramachandran was conducting a study on an “autistic savant who displays telepathy,” according to UCSD’s The Guardian, citing a Sept. 25, 2017 email with the subject “Cost to study the autistic savant who displays telepathy,” in which he tells Chopra, “i don’t have a problem with my lab being funded by epstein … so long as theres no UC connection.” 

Ramanchandran further wrote that if Chopra’s “pal [Epstein] is serious about setting in motion a lab for the study of extraordinary brain potential … something like 500,000 to 3 million would get the administrators excited.”

A subsequent email from Epstein to his accountant, Richard Kahn, instructed Kahn to send $25,000 from Epstein’s private foundation, Gratitude America Ltd., to the University of California Board of Regents to fund Ramachandran’s research on savant syndrome. He asked it to be mailed to former psychology department director and current chief administrative officer, Peter Hinkley. 

Chopra later emailed Epstein on October 5, 2017 to provide an update on spending the day with Ramachandran to discuss the “pilot study of autistic savants.”

The 2017 emails weren’t the first Epstein-Ramachandran mention. On April 17, 2009, Epstein emailed someone whose name was redacted, replying to a list of “smart” and “out of the box” people to have over to his Florida home sometime in the future. Epstein included Ramachandran in this list, along with others who he described as “good friends of mine for years.” 

While there’s nothing we could find on the telepathic kid (maybe they sensed danger), Ramachandran did write an article in December 2006 where he says telepathy is “legitimately ignored, except by crackpots” because it’s difficult to replicate. He’s also mentioned a few times in this piece on life after death, ESP, and other phenomenon.

Authored by Alasdair Macleod via VonGreyerz.gold,

For years, bulls of gold and silver have complained about how derivatives have been used to suppress their prices. Their dreams of the practice ending could be coming true…

Introduction

If you think about it, there is a simple reason that derivatives for speculating or hedging gold is fatally flawed. It is because in nearly every nation’s common law, gold is money, and currencies are inferior credit, which is where payment risk actually lies. That the Western financial establishment is ignorant of this fact does not change the facts.

There is a good reason why this matters. Gold has lasted as legal money, and credit has been separately acknowledged to be deferred payment in money since Roman law. Since then, there have been many instances of governments denying these facts and promoting their currencies in the place of gold, which have always ended in their collapse.

In any price relationship involving a medium of exchange, there is an objective value and a subjective one. The objective value is always in the medium of exchange, and the subjective value is in the goods or services being exchanged. Put another way, the buyer and seller will both value money or its substitute the same, but the buyer values the goods or services more highly than the seller: otherwise, the exchange won’t take place. But if gold is the money, where does that leave a fiat currency?

Clearly, if the currency is not a credible gold substitute, then it should bear the subjective value relative to gold. That it is not regarded this way is partly due to government anti-gold propaganda, but mainly due to accounting in the government’s currency for tax purposes. Furthermore, while a gold standard is always defined as a currency being exchangeable for a given weight of gold, for convenience it is referred to as so many currency units per gramme or ounce. This gives the erroneous impression that gold is being priced in the subordinate currency.

This is as may be, but in the knowledge that a fiat currency always fails while gold as money never does, the recognition of this reality will eventually kill off any derivatives when fiat currencies collapse. And if some derivatives survive, it should then refer to fiat currencies in terms of gold-grammes, or better still, in a credible gold substitute instead if one exists. 

Gold derivatives should not exist in the first place, except perhaps for seasonal agricultural produce — the original function. It should be borne in mind in the context of this article.

The plan was to kill off gold as money 

Following the inflationary seventies, which almost destroyed the post-1971 dollar-based fiat currency system, there can be little doubt that the deep thinkers in the US Treasury thought long and hard as to how to drive inflation out of the economy while promoting the dollar to kill off gold as money. The solution chosen came in three distinct policies. 

• The first and most obvious was to reform the financial system so that the banks would wrest control of financial securities from the brokerage industry: this resulted in London’s big-bang, implemented by the Thatcher government in the mid-eighties at the US Treasury’s behest. A capital-starved securities industry would become turbocharged by bank finance, ensuring a perpetual bull market in financial asset values, including government debt, and ensuring everlasting demand for dollars.

• The second was to reform statistical calculation for key economic indicators, such as consumer price inflation and jobless figures, giving a measure of government control over them to create the illusion of currency stability. Not only was the indexation cost of pensions and welfare thereby contained, but interest rates were permitted to be lower than they would otherwise be. All economic statistics are produced by government agencies who control this information.

• The third was to sanction and encourage derivative markets to expand, and by doing so divert speculative demand from physical markets for gold. This was to prevent gold prices from being driven higher, threatening the status of the dollar as a medium of exchange. It was the basis of the massive expansion of gold trading on the LBMA, and of gold futures under the control of the large US banks, which would occasionally act as agents for the Exchange Stabilisation Fund.

In London, 44 million ounces were cleared daily in 1998 on the London Bullion Market, valued at approximately $13 billion at that time. Last December, 17 million ounces were cleared, but at higher prices, they were valued at $71 billion. It should be noted that outstanding forward commitments measured by their average duration in days are unrecorded multiples of daily settlement. 

The falling settlement numbers in London from 44 million to 17 million, while the value of the settlement rose 4.5 times, illustrates the problem paper markets now face. On Comex, which has the same problem, this is demonstrated by the gross and net short position of the Swaps category, which is comprised mainly of bullion bank traders:

Between 2010 and 2018, the average gross short position was $15bn, compared with $112bn today. And the net position averaged $7bn, compared with $90bn currently.

This particularly matters because physical gold is now being drained out of London and New York directly or indirectly by a combination of central bank and wider Asian demand. While London faces a developing liquidity crisis of available gold bullion, Comex has a position which is proving impossible to contain, let alone from drifting into ever higher liabilities for bullion bank traders. 

In both markets, higher prices require increasing fiat capital to sustain positions. This fact alone is bound to restrict these markets’ ability to trade in the numbers demanded of them.

Hope that demand for physical gold will diminish, allowing the bullion establishment to initiate a raid on bullish speculators, is proving to be whistling into the wind, a wind blowing with increasing strength driven by a mixture of geopolitics and increasing credit risk facing the fiat dollar. In short, gold derivative markets are drifting towards the rocks of a crisis.

This matters because gold is central to everything, more so than the illusory dollar. Gold as money in possession has no counterparty risk, while the fiat dollar with increasing counterparty risk is of uncertain future value. The central banks accumulating bullion, as well as other Asian entities and individuals, are being motivated to rid themselves of this dollar uncertainty, choosing not to encash them for other currencies which are ultimately tied to the dollar’s credibility but for gold. 

The relationship between dollars and gold has been a conundrum for many since the suspension of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971. The western financial establishment has lost all compass as to which is money and which is credit, with most actors not even aware of gold’s central importance.

To illustrate this importance, the chart below shows average values for a range of industrial metals priced in dollars and gold, followed by a chart of oil similarly priced.

Priced in dollars, commodity and energy prices have risen multiple times and with great volatility, while they have been remarkably steady priced in gold. The point being made is that the approaching problems in paper gold contracts will almost certainly be transmitted into higher dollar prices for commodities generally, as paper hedging in the form of derivatives diminishes. And the catalyst for an implosion of commodity and energy derivatives is gold.

Just as derivatives have suppressed gold and other commodity values from the 1980s onwards, their ending is set to unleash an explosion of physical replacement demand. The contraction of outstanding commodity derivatives will not be without accidents. Banks will face enormous write-offs, and doubtless some rescues will have to be arranged by the authorities. And there’s no guarantee that other derivative markets, such as interest rate swaps and fore,x will go unscathed because of the commonality of derivative counterparties.

The rise in values for gold and commodities generally is the same thing as a decline in the value of the dollar for the purpose of dealing in commodities. Foreign holders of dollars will be acutely aware of the consequences, dumping dollars increasingly to hoard commodities.

Looking at oil and base metal values, they are already relatively cheaply priced in gold. Or put the other way, being moderately expensive gold appears to have begun to discount a wider currency crisis, while these commodities have not yet. 

Forced by global markets, as opposed to those under the control of the US authorities, the wisdom of ancient Roman lawmakers in framing the origin of all their successor nations’ common law is being reaffirmed. The error being corrected today is the accumulation of fiat currency distortions of the last fifty-five years, which looks like it is coming to a financially violent end.

Shares of Airbus SE plunged as much as 8% in Paris trading after the aerospace and defense group guided to 870 commercial aircraft deliveries for 2026, well below the Bloomberg Consensus estimate of 896. Airbus blamed the softer outlook on the lack of reliable engine supplies for its A320 family of jets.

UBS analyst Tricia Wright said fourth-quarter results were in line, but the 2026 guidance was at the low end of expectations, and long-term production targets were downgraded.

“While the possibility of a long-term production rate target downgrade had been discussed by investors, 2026 guidance is also below the expectations of most investors we spoke to—880 deliveries, €7.5–8 billion EBIT, and €5–5.5 billion FCF,” said UBS analyst Ian Douglas-Pennant. The analyst reiterated his “buy” rating on Airbus.

The lower guidance was largely due to what CEO Guillaume Faury called a “significant” shortage of engines from Pratt & Whitney. He said this forced the planemaker into a mad dash to meet last year’s delivery target, which was ultimately lowered in the final weeks of the year.

“Pratt & Whitney’s failure to commit to the number of engines ordered by Airbus is negatively impacting this year’s guidance and the ramp-up trajectory,” Airbus wrote in a statement.

Here’s a snapshot of the 2026 full-year forecast (courtesy of Bloomberg):

• Sees commercial aircraft deliveries of about 870 planes; estimate 895.74 (Bloomberg Consensus)

• Sees adjusted EBIT of about €7.5 billion; estimate €8.19 billion

• Sees adjusted free cash flow of about €4.5 billion; estimate €5.68 billion

Goldman analyst Jeremy Elster commented on bearish technicals developing for the planemaker:

AIRBUS trading down -8%, breaking 200dma and breaching lows of recent range –

Feedback: guide came in at lower end – per comment yesterday; at €200 I would argue the shares are pricing in an €~8bn ebit guide. At closer to €190 we had more fully priced >€7.5bn. Feedback is mostly arguing to defend this as yet another Airbus “clearing event”, but it is clear that conviction is fragile in the currently rather volatile tape.

In the numbers: headline item is ’26 guide at 870 aircraft, ebit “around 7.5bn”, and cash flow “around 4.5bn”. Implied consensus downgrade is m to hsd. The company cite continued “failure to commit” from Pratt as holding up engine deliveries. The ramp-up guide is tweaked to now assume rate 70-75 by the end of 2027 (previously 75) and to stabilise at rate 75 “thereafter” (consensus has rates reaching this cadence only in ’29/30).

After the call – a few more reasons for optimism than is typical from Airbus. Key soundbites:

• “guidance does not reflect any concern on a per aircraft basis. the margins are healthy”.

• “FCF main impact is Spirit now being worse because of late deal close leading to spill over into ’26”

• Engines (the key topic) – “Pratt issues will mainly impact ’26 and to some extent ’27”. “we continue to pursue reaching rate 75 by end of next year, but due to uncertainty on engine volumes we changed the guide to 70-75″… “as we navigate the relationship with Pratt we want to preserve the possibility to have better news at a later stage”. 

Shares of Airbus in Paris tumbled as much as 8.1% following the downgraded full-year update on aircraft deliveries.

Elster noted, “Airbus looking technically fragile, despite an update that could / should have reassured…” 

Airbus deliveries in January fell to their lowest level since 2020, marking the weakest start to a year in at least a decade. By contrast, rival Boeing has continued to recover from yearslong 737 MAX crisis and recently posted its highest commercial aircraft deliveries since 2018.