venerdì 1 marzo 2024

To Track Government Spending You Have To Audit The Fed

 

The Only Real Way To Track Government Spending Is To Audit The Fed

230 S LaSalle Street, Chicago, Chicago Fed, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, September 2021
IMAGE CREDIT
AJAY_SURESH

The Federal Reserve’s ‘independence’ has become synonymous with ‘secrecy.’ It’s time to lift the veil.


RAND PAUL

Imagine a financial behemoth at the center of the biggest economy on the planet. It secretly pulls the strings of America’s fiscal destiny, and the consequences of its actions ripple through the lives of countless individuals, yet its inner workings are almost entirely unknown and not subject to any form of checks or balances. This is not the plot of a dystopian novel but the current reality of America’s Federal Reserve system.

Now is the time to bring this financial giant into the light. Auditing the Federal Reserve is a fiscal necessity and a congressional imperative. That is why I have reintroduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act as my first legislation of 2024.

In 2011, one of my first actions as a U.S. senator was to reveal the operations of this secret, unaccountable institution by introducing the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. This act, widely known as “Audit the Fed,” echoes a long-championed initiative spearheaded in the House of Representatives by my father, Congressman Ron Paul, R-Texas, and represents a crucial step toward accountability and fiscal sanity.

Year after year, I continue to fight for complete and persistent audits of the Federal Reserve. In 2023, I forced a vote on my Federal Reserve Transparency Act as an amendment to the Senate’s bloated spending bill. This initiative garnered the support of more than 40 senators across party lines. With several of my fellow senators as cosponsors, I recently reintroduced Audit the Fed once more as a standalone piece of legislation.

Though I have received criticism from both sides of the aisle arguing that Audit the Fed would compromise the Federal Reserve’s autonomy, transparency and oversight of every government institution is imperative and ought to be a bipartisan objective.

My efforts to oversee and shed light on our financial institutions have widespread grassroots support, including students, mothers, fathers, and American citizens who worry about our nation’s prosperity and how they will care for their families. The Fed’s relentless lending and bailout strategies cast doubts on our economic outlook and contribute to the shaky economic fundamentals this nation has had since the pandemic.

A startling statistic from the study “Facing Up to Food Insecurity” by Attest, a market research company, shows that a worrying 59.5 percent of Americans struggle just to buy food. An analysis of recent government figures from the Joint Economic Committee shows that the typical American family now needs an additional $11,434 per year to sustain the lifestyle they had in January 2021, right before inflation surged to the highest levels seen in 40 years. The inflationary consequences of the Fed’s actions are transforming basic needs into unattainable luxuries.

Supporting the Federal Reserve Transparency Act offers Congress an opportunity to rally around the Audit-the-Fed movement and show Americans that their hardships during our current economic crisis have not gone unnoticed.

While Congress was the body that established the Fed and assigned a portion of its monetary policy powers, “independence” has become synonymous with “secrecy.” Enacting Audit the Fed would finally deliver answers to the American people about how Washington is spending their money.

When the Dodd-Frank Act mandated a one-off audit of the Fed’s proceedings, the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) partial audit revealed that during the 2007 financial crisis, the Fed had lent more than $16 trillion to foreign and domestic banks. This audit excluded certain key considerations of the Fed’s decision-making process such as transactions with foreign banks or countries; deliberations, decisions, or actions on policy matters; transactions under the Federal Open Market Committee; and discussions and communications among Federal Reserve officers.

Fast forward to the 2020 pandemic, and the Fed added to our fiscal nightmare by printing billions of dollars out of thin air, providing big money to industry favorites, and adding nearly $5 trillion to its balance sheet, the largest in our history. Even the Fed itself admitted that “stimulus” throughout the pandemic was a key cause of the rampant inflation experienced by the American economy.

The Federal Reserve Transparency Act is designed to eliminate the obstacles that currently prevent the GAO from examining the Federal Reserve. The legislation advocates for Congress to have oversight over all the Federal Reserve’s activities, including its discussions, deliberations, and rationale behind monetary policy decisions.

With my reintroduction of Audit the Fed, Congress will have another opportunity to ensure the Federal Reserve’s operations are accountable and transparent.

The Fed’s persistent cycle of money printing and lending without any form of meaningful oversight may be the cause of many of our economic hardships, such as the struggle of many Americans to afford food.

The American people have a right to see behind the veil of secrecy at the Fed. I will continue to do what I can to lift that veil. I urge my fellow senators to join me.

venerdì 23 febbraio 2024

Largest COVID Vaccine Study Ever: What You’re Not Being Told

 CONTRIBUTORS

Largest COVID Vaccine Study Ever: What You’re Not Being Told

Someone is lying to you. Big time.

Published

  

on

 

This article originally appeared on Steve Kirsch’s Substack and was republished with permission.

Guest post by Steve Kirsch

Executive summary

new study of over 99 million vaccinated people has been highly promoted in the press with headlines like “Covid Vaccines Linked To Small Increase In Heart And Brain Disorders, Study Finds—But Risk From Infection Is Far Higher.”

I’m going to convince you that this is bullshit.

Results at a glance

A safe vaccine would be indistinguishable from a placebo. Does this look safe to you?

Quick summary of what the article would like you to believe

Here are the key points of the study which was funded by the CDC and HHS so no conflict of interest at all:

  1. They looked at the medical records of 99,068,901 vaccinated individuals.
  2. They compared observed vs. expected (“OE”) rates of “13 selected adverse events of special interest (AESI) across neurological, haematological, and cardiac outcomes.”
  3. They only looked for 42 days after the shots since everyone knows you can’t get adverse events after 42 days (I’m being sarcastic).
  4. They didn’t evaluate mortality due to the shot since everyone knows the vaccines are safe and didn’t kill anyone (I’m being sarcastic).
  5. They found clearly increased risk of the various AESI, but the end conclusion is that the risks after COVID infection are far higher, so people should take the shots. This is unbelievable. I don’t know a single cardiologist whose business dropped after the COVID vaccines rolled out. Do you?
  6. As usual, they aren’t allowed to share the data so you have to take their word for it.

The benefits of the COVID vaccine

There aren’t any I’m aware of.

JAMA paper inadvertently revealed that the flu vaccine and COVID vaccine don’t work at all.

Nobody has been able to explain away that result. Nobody. Ever. They just don’t want to talk about it.

Why take a vaccine if the benefit is not measurable? That VA study was the perfect proving ground. The signal should have been large. There was no signal for either the COVID or flu vaccine. It was a stunning paper.

I always love it when a paper inadvertently blows the whole narrative out of the water and the medical community is completely clueless as to its significance.

The risks of the vaccine

The paper selected just 13 AESIs to evaluate.

But did you know that the CDC has determined that there are over 500 AESIs that were more serious than myocarditisThey simply forgot to tell people that!

Here are the actual numbers from this excellent article by Josh Guetzkow:

After dropping the new COVID-era AEs, there are 503 AEs with PRRs larger than myocarditis (PRR=3.09) and 552 with PRRs larger than pericarditis (PRR=2.82).5 This means that 66.4% of the AEs had a bigger safety signal than myocarditis and 77.3% were larger than pericarditis. You can see what those were by using this Excel file provided by the CDC and sorting the 18+ tab by the 12/14-07/29 PRR column (Column E). Then just look at which AEs have PRRs larger than the ones for pericarditis and myocarditis.

At a minimum, they should have warned people about myocarditis and everything more serious than that. So you should have been handed a long list of serious adverse events before you got the shot.

They claim that risks for GBS, etc. are higher from the virus than from the vaccine

The paper claims that even though the risks were elevated, that multiple studies show the virus itself is more dangerous:

But even if that was true (which it isn’t), it doesn’t matter because, as I mentioned earlier, the vaccine doesn’t prevent you from getting COVID, so the vaccine is simply adding to the risk.

The reality that I see shows that the vaccine is way more dangerous than the virus ever was

I have huge difficulty believing that the virus is more dangerous than the vaccine. If that were true and the vaccine resulted in a net benefit, we’d be seeing cases of myocarditis DROP after the vaccines rolled out.

Where is the evidence for that?

I can’t find a single cardiologist whose myocarditis rates in kids went DOWN after the vaccines rolled out. Can you?

In a survey of 1,000 randomly selected Americans that was done by a professional market research firm, nearly half the deaths reported in the survey were ascribed to the vaccine, not to the virus. That’s a very serious safety signal. How could this study have missed it? Of course, no health authority is willing to run their own survey. They don’t really want to learn the truth.

Here’s what people actually observed in real-life, but these are just anecdotes of course:

As you can see, there is a huge disconnect here. Someone is lying to you. Big time.

Unfortunately, no pro-vax person will try to replicate this survey. They just don’t want to know for some reason.

The myocarditis risk is all over the place in the peer-reviewed literature

According to the peer-reviewed literature, myocarditis risk is elevated by 1.5 to 1.7X after a Pfizer shot, but if you got the virus, your risk of myocarditis is 11X higher if you are unvaxxed and 5X higher if you are vaxxed. So the claim in the literature is that the virus is more dangerous which is clearly at odds with the surveys above.

That same paper admitted if you are male <40, your risk of myocarditis is over 6X higher than after the virus for the 2nd dose of the Moderna shot. So if you are a male <40, vaccination makes no sense, especially since it’s all downside. But the CDC will never tell you that and the paper doesn’t make any distinction at all for different ages.

Let’s look at a paper authored by scientists at the New Zealand Ministry of Health entitled “Adverse Events Following the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) in Aotearoa New Zealand.” They found that the COVID vaccines are indistinguishable from placebo (no statistically significant results in 11 of the 12 AESIs studied), except that there was a safety signal for myo/pericarditis which was 25.6X higher than expected in the 5-19 age group after Dose 2.

A 25.6X higher rate of myocarditis in kids is an insane safety signal. What does our CDC do about it? They recommend everyone get the shot. And top universities like Harvard require the COVID shots if you want to attend classes there as a student (faculty and staff are exempted because that’s how “science” works).

It doesn’t add up

How can there be 770 adverse events that are generating CDC safety signals and these studies are claiming that the vaccines are safe? The New Zealand study is stunning… they only found myo/pericarditis was elevated; the other 11 events studied were insignificant.

Yet from Josh’s article:

  • The CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000).

It’s a federal crime to make a false VAERS report. There is no benefit to the reporter to make a false VAERS report. And it’s not like the CDC did any kind of VAERS awareness campaign either.

So if the vaccine is as safe as a placebo, how do they explain all the AEs?

Confused? Watch “THE UNSEEN CRISIS” and decide for yourself whether the vaccine is “safe”

This movie is superb. Many of my friends are in it. I’m in it too!

If you are an Epoch Times subscriber, you get to watch the movie for no extra charge. Just go to this link. If you aren’t logged in, you can see the 2 minute preview… I’m featured at the end with a great quote. Use the two buttons in the upper right to login (if you already have an account) or subscribe.

You can also check out the movie’s website: https://www.unseencrisis.com/

Try to get your family to watch it.

Someone is lying to you about the safety of the COVID vaccines. This movie can help you decide whether the 99 million patient study is telling you the truth or not.

This movie should be required watching for anyone thinking of getting the COVID vaccine. If you are going to have mandates (which are a bad idea in general), they should mandate people watch the film.

I don’t think anyone can watch the movie and then opt to get the COVID shot.

Summary

Read the paper. Watch the movie. Decide for yourself who is telling you the truth.

And remember: the data used in the study is NOT available to the public.

All my attempts at data transparency have been rejected. The health authorities have determined that you get better public health outcomes if you keep the public in the dark. So all my calls for data transparency fall on deaf ears. The best “ground truth” data we have is from the New Zealand data leak…and it clearly shows that the vaccine increases mortality. The critics acknowledge I’m right, but say that “it must be due to a confounder.” More on that coming up tomorrow.

venerdì 16 febbraio 2024

Jamie Dimon Is Desperate to Pin the Jeffrey Epstein Scandal on...

 

Jamie Dimon Is Desperate to Pin the Jeffrey Epstein Scandal on Jes Staley; Bloomberg News Is Carrying His Water — Again

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: February 16, 2024 ~

SOURCE

Jeffrey Epstein (left); Jamie Dimon (right).

Jeffrey Epstein (left); Jamie Dimon (right).

After hurling salacious allegations for months against Jes Staley in a federal lawsuit JPMorgan Chase had brought against its former executive, the bank decided last September to quietly settle the case without disclosing the terms.

The bank sued Staley after it had been sued by victims of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and after it had been sued in a separate lawsuit by the Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein owned a private island compound that was a frequent venue of Epstein’s sex trafficking of minors. Lawyers for the U.S. Virgin Islands charged that JPMorgan Chase had “actively participated in Epstein’s sex-trafficking venture from 2006 until 2019.” (Both cases were settled last year by the bank, with it paying a whopping $290 million to the victims and $75 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands.)

The bank’s lawsuit against Staley appeared to be a damage control effort to redirect the media’s attention to Staley and away from the man he reported to – Jamie Dimon, the Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase who has survived a breathtaking array of criminal charges against the bank while he has sat at its helm. (See JPMorgan’s Board Made Jamie Dimon a Billionaire as the Bank Rigged Markets, Laundered Money, and Admitted to Five Felony Counts.)

While evidence submitted to the court showed Staley was deeply involved with Epstein, the evidence is also overwhelming that more than a dozen other bank personnel, including top executives, facilitated Epstein’s ability to keep his sex trafficking of minors’ scheme alive.

Memorandum of Law filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands made the following points:

“Even if participation requires active engagement…there is no genuine dispute that JPMorgan actively participated in Epstein’s sex-trafficking venture from 2006 until 2019. The Court found allegations that the Bank allowed Epstein to use its accounts to send dozens of payments to then-known co-conspirators [redacted] provided excessive and unusual amounts of cash to Epstein; and structured cash withdrawals so that those withdrawals would not appear suspicious ‘went well beyond merely providing their usual [banking] services to Jeffrey Epstein and his affiliated entities’ and were sufficient to allege active engagement.”

The U.S. Virgin Islands alerted the court to the unfathomable sums of hard cash that Epstein was able to take from the accounts he maintained at JPMorgan Chase without the bank filing the legally mandated Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The U.S. Virgin Islands tallied up the hard cash dispersals as follows:

“Between September 2003 and November 2013, or approximately ten years, JPMorgan handled more than $5 million in outgoing cash transactions for Epstein — ignoring its own policy discouraging large cash withdrawals….”

The U.S. Virgin Islands’ attorneys cite to internal emails at JPMorgan Chase showing that employees at the bank were aware of Epstein’s “[c]ash withdrawals … made in amounts for $40,000 to $80,000 several times a month” while also being aware that Epstein paid his underage sexual assault victims in cash.

On August 25 of last year, JPMorgan Chase filed a document with the court as part of a discovery demand showing that, in addition to Staley, 14 of its executives, private bankers and other staff had made visits to Epstein’s private residences. One of those employees, Justin Nelson, visited Epstein’s residences more times than Staley. Nelson was at Epstein’s Manhattan mansion – a key location of the sex trafficking operation – 12 times and one time at Epstein’s Zorro Ranch in New Mexico – an additional location of the sex trafficking ring. That’s a total of 13 visits to the residence of a sex trafficker. Staley’s visits to Epstein’s residences tally up to 11, according to JPMorgan’s chart. (See pages 3, 4 and 5 at this link.) Eight of Nelson’s visits to Epstein’s residences occurred after 2013, the year that the bank claims it fired Epstein as a client. Disbursements from Epstein accounts were occurring long after 2013 according to court documents, raising questions about just when, or if, Epstein was terminated as a client from the Private Bank or the bank’s brokerage unit, J.P. Morgan Securities. Nelson was dually employed at both units.

Notwithstanding this hard evidence of JPMorgan Chase’s culpability in the Epstein saga, on February 7 of this year – months after the bank had quietly settled its case against Staley and the matter had disappeared from news headlines – Bloomberg News inexplicably decided to put Staley and Epstein back in its headlines. (Paywall.) In an article written by Harry Wilson, Ava Benny-Morrison, and Jason Leopold, one sentence jumps out. It reads: “The bank, which through Staley served Epstein as a client….”

The bank’s own chart, linked above in the ninth paragraph, shows that the following 14 individuals, in addition to Staley, were making visits to Epstein’s private residences while employed at the bank:

Paul Barrett (Managing Director, Private Bank); Mary Casey (Managing Director, Private Bank); John Duffy (CEO, Private Bank); Mary Erdoes (CEO, Asset & Wealth Management); David Frame (Global Chief Executive, Private Bank); Christopher French (Managing Director, Private Bank); Joanna Jagoda (Assistant General Counsel, Legal); Jeffrey Matusow (Managing Director, Private Bank); Thomas McGraw (Managing Director, Private Bank); Paul Morris (Banker, Private Bank); Justin Nelson (Managing Director, Private Bank); Carolyn Reers, Managing Director, Private Bank); James von Moltke (job title not provided by the bank).

If Dimon is fearful of Staley providing evidence against the bank in the Epstein matter to the criminal division of the U.S. Department of Justice, it would have an incentive to continue to undermine Staley’s credibility in the press.

What was JPMorgan Chase’s incentive to keep such a clearly dangerous man as Epstein as a client? The U.S. Virgin Islands makes a very credible case that the bank was getting lots of profits – both from trading in Epstein’s own accounts as well as his referrals of rich clients to the bank. It tells the court in one filing:

“In 2003, Epstein was, by double, the top revenue generator in the Private Bank, and the source of Google co-founder Sergey Brin (‘one of the largest [relationships] in the Private Bank, of +$4BN’), Glenn Dubin (billionaire founder of Highbridge), and many other ultra-wealthy clients and connections, which would come to include Bill Gates, Leon Black, Larry Summers, the Sultan of Dubai, Prince Andrew, Ehud Barak, Thomas Pritzker, Lord Peter Mandelson, and Prime Minister Netanyahu.”

And what would be the incentive for Bloomberg News to carry water for Jamie Dimon?

Michael Bloomberg, the former Mayor of New York, is the majority owner of the publishing and data terminal empire that has, for years, published flattering articles about Jamie Dimon. In 2016, Michael Bloomberg even co-authored an opinion piece with Dimon. The same year, the New York Post reported that JPMorgan Chase was the second largest customer of Bloomberg’s data terminal business with 10,000 leases of Bloomberg’s terminals. At the time, the terminals cost around $21,000 each per lease, per year, or approximately $210 million being forked over by JPMorgan Chase to Michael Bloomberg’s company annually. Bloomberg’s data terminals are the cash cow of the company.

During JPMorgan Chase’s London Whale scandal in 2012 and 2013, where the bank gambled with bank depositors’ money in its federally-insured bank by making exotic derivative trades in London and losing at least $6.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg was Mayor of New York City. Instead of condemning this outrageous risk-taking with federally-insured deposits, Mike Bloomberg was quoted in the Wall Street Journal calling Dimon “a very smart, honest, great executive,” adding “The controls failed. He’ll look at that and fix it.” That statement appeared in May of 2012. The five felony counts brought by the Justice Department and admitted to by the bank, followed from 2014 to 2020.

Related Article:

The Craziest Video You’ll Ever Watch on JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon


Post in evidenza

The Great Taking - The Movie

David Webb exposes the system Central Bankers have in place to take everything from everyone Webb takes us on a 50-year journey of how the C...