The ban comes in the name of crime prevention‚ but critics say it will harm ordinary citizens. The European Parliament has approved a directive that will severely limit the use of cash.  Under the directive‚ ostensibly aimed at curbing money laundering and the funding of terrorism‚ anonymous cash payments over €3‚000 will be banned in commercial transactions. In business transactions‚ cash payments over €10‚000 will be completely banned. Anonymous payments in cryptocurrencies will also be completely banned.  “Under the guise of combating money laundering‚ you are actually waging a war against cash which has protected our financial privacy since time immemorial‚” said German Pirate Party MEP Partick Breyer—one of the few opponents of the measure—during the plenary session.  “You want to force our finances into traceable and increasingly shaky banking systems that can block our cards and accounts at any time and introduce negative interest rates. We will live to regret it. I tell you: Anyone who tampers with cash is tampering with our financial freedom. And to us Pirates there is no doubt that the finances of honest citizens is none of your business&;#33; Hands off our cash‚ our digital currencies&;#33; We say no to this to this creeping financial disenfranchisement.”  The regulation has been debated since 2016‚ going through the usual long process of EU lawmaking. Parliament gave its final approval on April 25. It still needs to be approved by the European Council before becoming law. Survival Shield X-3 is BACK at the Infowars Store&;#33; Get 40% OFF on the next evolution in activated nascent iodine HERE According to its opponents‚ the rule is highly unpopular and will be ineffective in achieving its goal of preventing crime. Breyer points out that cryptocurrency is already traceable when necessary as it operates through a blockchain peer-to-peer computer network. He adds that law enforcement has already effectively traced and caught criminals committing financial crimes or laundering money from illegal activities through cryptocurrencies. He also notes that during the public consultation period on the directive‚ it proved highly unpopular among citizens in EU member states‚ with 90% of respondents weighing in against the measure‚ citing the use of cash as an essential personal freedom. Experts have also warned that it will do little to prevent crime while harming ordinary citizens‚ particularly the most vulnerable. “On the other hand‚ [cash payment limitations] may bring about higher transaction costs‚ undermined privacy‚ weakened trust to institutions‚ basic rights violations‚ bank-runs and bail-in regulations that place citizens’ savings at risk of devastating losses‚” Nikos Passas‚ Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Northeastern University‚ stated in a blog post.  “Expatriates’ options for developmentally vital remittances would be constrained‚ and fund flows to needy and fragile communities potentially disrupted or diverted to less monitorable channels.  “In addition‚ there may be monetary policy dysfunctions‚ losses for savers (negative interest rates)‚ and harm to legitimate cash industry interests. Moreover‚ these challenges will affect the most vulnerable parts of the population (elderly‚ migrants‚ unbanked‚ remittance recipients etc.).“ BREAKING: Alex Jones Responds To Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s Powerful Replacement Migration Speech

Stern joked with Weinstein that he could get actresses to perform sexual favours in exchange for movie roles In audio that resurfaced on Twitter last week‚ radio shock-jock Howard Stern asks Harvey Weinstein whether he had ever used his power to act like a “mogul” and procure sexual favours from actresses in exchange for movie roles. “I’ve got to figure at every starlet in Hollywood wanted to blow you‚” Stern says to disgraced movieman Weinstein. “Did you ever get to experience the‚ I’m going to say‚ mogul aspect&;#63; I mean‚ do a little coke—you know‚ hang out with‚ I don’t know‚ Julia Roberts‚ give you a hand job‚ something&;#63; You never got any of that&;#63;” “Howard‚” Weinstein responds‚ laughing. “As you know only too well‚ it doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t… I’ll tell you who it works that way for. It works that way for the actors.” But Stern is having none of it.Introducing Next Level Foundational Energy from Dr. Jones Naturals starting at 30% off&;#33; This cutting-edge dietary supplement is designed to elevate your energy levels and support your overall well-being. “C’mon‚ every girls knows that if she’s a competent actress‚ she could get on your good side. You could make her a star over-f***ing-night. Don’t tell me it doesn’t work.” “Howard‚ I wish… The movies are too expensive‚ the risks are too great. It doesn’t happen that way.” “You can’t walk into the room‚ pull your pants off and say‚ ‘Okay‚ honey‚ let’s talk business&;#63;’” Flashback to Howard Stern asking Harvey Weinstein why he hasn't used his power to sexually assault more women. pic.twitter.com/TLovVe0CJ1— MAZE (@mazemoore) April 26‚ 2024 In an appearance on Stern’s show last week‚ President Biden agreed to debate Trump. “I am somewhere‚” Biden responded when Stern asked if he will debate Trump. “I don’t know when. I’m happy to debate him.” “Everyone knows he doesn’t really mean it‚” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social on Friday. Trump then quipped that Biden should debate him at his rally in Michigan next week or even in New York City‚ where they both are Friday. Stern has previously said‚ on his show‚ that he doesn’t hate Donald Trump‚ but he “hates you for voting for him.” “I don’t want you here. I want to build a wall and throw you the f**k out.” He went on to suggest holding a large rally for Trump supporters so they can all get COVID-19 and “drop dead.” EMERGENCY WARNING: Deep State Officially Planning To Launch American Civil War

Restoring net neutrality rules under Title II reshapes the broadband industry‚ placing FCC oversight at the center of internet regulation. Presented as a way to secure the rights and welfare of internet consumers over the interests of broadband companies‚ the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has taken a decisive step. Once more‚ the reins of the broadband industry’s activities are in the hands of the FCC‚ a power takeover sanctioned by a recent 3-2 voting decision in favor of restoring net neutrality rules. This safeguard‚ which had been shelved during the Trump administration’s deregulatory romp‚ is back to ensure “fast‚ open‚ and fair” broadband access for all‚ according to FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel. This reinstatement does not merely resurrect old rules; it changes the broadband services landscape. Broadband is now being recategorized as “common carriers” as per Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Sharing the same scrutiny level as telephone networks and cable TV‚ broadband service providers are now prevented from arbitrarily blocking legal content or promoting their chosen online services through fast delivery speeds. However‚ the struggle for net neutrality‚ Lauren Rosenworcel suggests‚ is not purely about thwarting predatory practices from infamous broadband providers. Rather‚ it gives FCC investigators the power to peel back the industry’s fa&;ccedil;ade and examine how companies react‚ or don’t‚ to widespread network ailments such as outages. Interestingly‚ the notion of “net neutrality” was originally conceived not as a set of stringent rules‚ but as a foundational principle used by regulators to strike a balance between internet service providers’ monetary goals and consumer rights and welfare. It primarily highlights the importance that all internet content‚ regardless of origin‚ must receive equal treatment.Survival Shield X-3 is BACK at the Infowars Store&;#33; Get 40% OFF on the next evolution in activated nascent iodine HERE The fluctuating battle between net neutrality and deregulatory actions has seen periods of rapid switches in power. It was under the Obama administration‚ following an influential lawsuit from Verizon in 2011‚ that the broadband industry was reclassified as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. This set the stage for the 2015 Open Internet Order‚ a comprehensive set of new rules shaped by the net neutrality principle. “Title I” and” Title II” refer to classifications within the United States Communications Act that affect how the FCC regulates telecommunications and information services. Title I: This classification is for “information services‚” which are subject to relatively light regulation. The FCC has limited authority over these services‚ focusing primarily on promoting competition and innovation. Under Title I‚ companies have greater flexibility to develop and provide new services without extensive government oversight. Title II: This classification is for “telecommunications services‚” subject to stricter regulations akin to those for public utilities. Title II allows the FCC to impose more comprehensive rules regarding rates‚ practices‚ and service terms to ensure fair treatment and access. The aim is to maintain a level playing field and protect consumer interests‚ but it can also mean more government control and oversight. The win of the Obama administration‚ however‚ was short-lived. The then FCC chair and former Verizon lawyer‚ Ajit Pai‚ under the backing of the Trump administration‚ deemed them unnecessary. Pai made no bones about his views on the renewed efforts from the FCC‚ calling them a “complete waste of time.” But it’s not just the accusation of being a waste of time that is a criticism against the legislation. Criticisms of Net Neutrality: Political Pressure: The decision to classify broadband internet as a Title II service in 2015 came under significant political pressure‚ especially from the White House during the Obama administration. This move was seen as an unprecedented power grab that ignored the longstanding bipartisan consensus against heavy regulation of the internet. Net neutrality rules often involve regulatory frameworks that give government agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the authority to oversee and enforce compliance. Critics claim this level of control represents a government intrusion into private business operations‚ potentially leading to over-regulation. Potential for Future Regulations: Once government agencies gain regulatory control over a sector‚ there’s a concern that it might lead to additional‚ more intrusive regulations. This could eventually extend into areas such as content management‚ pricing‚ and business models‚ which could stifle industry innovation and competition. Centralized Decision-Making: The power to define and enforce net neutrality is concentrated in regulatory bodies‚ leading some to view it as centralizing control over the internet in the hands of a few regulators. This centralization is perceived as contrary to the decentralized nature of the internet. Lack of Congressional Authority: The argument is that Congress never explicitly granted the FCC authority to classify broadband as a Title II service. The shift from a Title I information service to a Title II telecommunications service was influenced by external pressure rather than legislative approval. Chevron Doctrine and Administrative Overreach: The Chevron doctrine‚ which allows administrative agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes‚ has been cited as a reason for the FCC’s overreach. The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA is highlighted as a significant check on this overreach‚ requiring agencies to have explicit congressional authorization for significant regulatory changes. Economic and Investment Impact: The classification of broadband as a Title II service could have a chilling effect on investment and innovation in broadband infrastructure. The uncertainty surrounding new regulations‚ potential taxes‚ and other regulatory aspects could deter investment in broadband networks. Impact on Market Competition: The statement suggests that the reclassification could ultimately strengthen the market power of big tech companies at the expense of smaller ISPs. This could reduce competition and innovation in the market. BREAKING: Alex Jones Responds To Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s Powerful Replacement Migration Speech

Liberal admits that illegal alien hoards are the new Democrat voter block. During his Sunday show‚ Alex Jones covered a video of a global-government liberal who admitted the illegal aliens are pouring in and will be used as a political tactic for electing Democrats. “The illegals‚ uhh yeah they’re coming here‚ they’re going to vote Democrat and we’re going to win‚” the leftist said. The illegal-alien promoter said ‘who cares’ that the border is wide open. “I believe that…nah uh no‚ no borders‚ one world government‚” he said. Don’t miss:URGENT&;#33; Keep Alex Jones in the fight against the NWO&;#33; Please pray &; contribute at DefendJones.com today&;#33; BREAKING: Alex Jones Responds To Eva Vlaardingerbroek’s Powerful Replacement Migration Speech

Infowars' host provides his analysis on the powerful speech given by conservative Dutch lawyer at CPAC Hungary. On his Sunday show‚ Alex Jones responded to a powerful speech at CPAC Hungary by Dutch political commentator and lawyer Eva Vlaardingerbroek about the state of Europe in the midst of replacement migration which aims to replace white people of the first world‚ which only make up 7 percent of the global population‚ with brown people of the third world. “The native white Christian population is being replaced at an ever-accelerating rate‚” Vlaardingerbroek said. Jones added many more examples of whites being removed from their own societies and explained what must be done about it. “We have to then secure the borders‚ secure the nations‚ reinvigorate ourselves to western culture‚ but not be sucked into the civil war they’re planning‚ that’s the destabilization factor‚” Jones said. Vlaardingerbroek concurred with Jones’ analysis.Survival Shield X-3 is BACK at the Infowars Store&;#33; Get 40% OFF on the next evolution in activated nascent iodine HERE Thank you‚ Alex&;#33; I very much agree with your analysis. https://t.co/eyMw6omDc0— Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) April 29‚ 2024 Don’t miss: EMERGENCY WARNING: Deep State Officially Planning To Launch American Civil War

It looks as if‚ despite the efforts of the Biden administration and its leftist arms in local governments to keep former president Donald Trump bogged down in legal warfare‚ the former president just keeps rising. According to a new CNN poll‚ although Trump has been stuck in a New York...