The Israeli militarys bombing campaign inGazaused a previously undisclosed AI-powered database that at one stage identified 37‚000 potential targets based on their apparent links to Hamas‚ according to intelligence sources involved in the war.In addition to talking about their use of the AI system‚ called Lavender‚ the intelligence sources claim that Israeli military officials permitted large numbers of Palestinian civilians to be killed‚ particularly during the early weeks and...

For years‚ experts have warned about the dangers of using AI in warfare. Much of the coverage of their warnings has focused on the nightmare scenario ofTerminator-style autonomous weapons‚ but thats not the only dystopian possibility in the technologys battlefield deployment‚ as Israel has reportedly demonstrated in its war against Hamas in Gaza.The Israeli sister publications +972 and Local Call yesterdaypublisheda lengthy account of an AI-based system called Lavender‚...

Take a look back at this 2008 interview with the star when the HBO bloodsucking drama was just hitting the airwaves.

As each day passed without a verdict‚ Rebecca Lavrenz and her family were beginning to think that Rebecca just might make history. No D.C. jury had yet to acquit a Jan. 6 defendant. Late on Thursday‚ April 4‚ the third day of deliberation‚ those hopes were dashed. Rebecca was convicted on all four counts.RELATED from Jack Cashill: The Un-American Inequality of Jan. 6 JusticeRebecca Lavrenz is among the 10 women I profile in my forthcoming book‚ Ashli: The Untold Story of the Women of January 6. What attracted me to Rebeccas story is that she is a great-grandmother a praying great-grandmother‚ as she describes herself.On New Years Day 2021‚ Rebecca got a call from her son asking if she intended to attend the March to Save America rally in Washington. Knowing his mom refused to fly because of mandatory masking‚ he hinted: You know its only a 25-hour drive. You can make it in two days. Rebecca prayed about it and came to the conclusion: You know what‚ I think Gods telling me to go. And so she went‚ stopping in St. Louis for a single overnight stay.At approximately 2:43 p.m. on Jan. 6‚ Rebecca entered the Capitol through an open door on the more orderly east side of the Capitol. Said Rebecca‚ I felt that if those doors opened I was supposed to go through. After entering‚ engulfed in a crowd‚ she ascended the east stairs and headed toward the Rotunda. She didnt yell‚ didnt shout‚ spoke to one police officer about nothing memorable‚ and saw no violence or vandalism. Although no one told her to leave‚ at 2:51 p.m. she climbed down the stairs she had just ascended and exited the building.J. Edgar would be rolling over in his grave if he knew his beloved agents were tracking down great-grannies on misdemeanor charges‚ but thats apparently the FBIs new mission. On April 19‚ 2021‚ Patriots Day‚ the bureau came calling on Rebecca. Hearing a knock on the door of her semi-rural Colorado home‚ she opened it to find a male and a female agent who had come to investigate. Im sorry‚ said Rebecca‚ Im in the middle of baking a cake for my sons birthday. She asked if they could reschedule their visit. To her surprise‚ they agreed and returned on April 26 for a consensual interview.In the rush to round up insurrectionists‚ the FBI failed to devise a standard protocol for arresting suspects. One of the women I profile in Ashli‚ Dr. Simone Gold‚ got the full‚ 20-agent‚ battering ram treatment for a single misdemeanor. They arrested me‚ Gold told Tucker Carlson. They [yell]‚ Put your hands up‚ put your hands up‚ face the wall‚ face the wall; theyre screaming‚ Face the wall handcuffed‚ shackled‚ take me downtown‚ orange suit‚ strip search‚ holding cell‚ fluorescent lights it was terrible no phone call‚ no Miranda rights.In Golds Los Angeles‚ the neighbors would have applauded. In conservative Colorado Springs‚ a little more circumspection was in order. A few months after the interview‚ Rebecca heard back from the agents. They told her she had reason to be glad: She was only going to be charged with four misdemeanors. Glad? said Rebecca. I shouldnt be charged with anything. (READ MORE from Jack Cashill: George Floyd Revisited: Derek Chauvin Was Wrongfully Convicted)On March 25‚ 2024‚ Rebecca finally went to trial before Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui at the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. She was charged with the same four misdemeanors as were many‚ perhaps most‚ of the 1‚300 or so protestors arrested on Jan. 6: entering and remaining in a restricted building; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly conduct in a capitol building; parading‚ demonstrating‚ or picketing in a capitol.I attended the trial on May 26. By that time‚ the jury had been selected and seated. Eight of the 14‚ including two alternates‚ were white. Eight were female. As one of Rebeccas hard-boiled attorneys told me‚ The government strikes anyone who seems normal. The common denominator among them seemed to be boredom. When the prosecutors elicited from a squat‚ female Capitol Police officer that she feared for her life‚ the jurors looked nonplussed. Living in a city whose media are geared to please the 95 percent of its audience that voted against Donald Trump‚ they had heard it all before.I suspect‚ too‚ that Rebecca disappointed them. Human nature being what it is‚ they were likely hoping for some fire-breathing Proud Boy or Oath Keeper‚ a trophy perp whose conviction they could dine out on until Armageddon. Instead‚ they got the attractive‚ well-turned-out winner of the congeniality prize in the Miss Iowa contest a half century prior.That evening‚ Laura and her two daughters visited Freedom Corner‚ a secluded spot wedged between the D.C. jail and the Congressional Cemetery. At 7:30 each evening for the last 600 or so nights‚ protesters have gathered there to remind the Jan. 6 prisoners inside the jail that they have not been forgotten. If the protest group has a leader‚ it is Micki Witthoeft‚ the plain-spoken‚ no-nonsense mother of Ashli Babbitt‚ the U.S. Air Force veteran shot to death inside the Capitol on Jan. 6. At 9 p.m. the protesters joined the prisoners via telephone to sing The Star-Spangled Banner‚ patriotism at its purest and rawest. After the anthem‚ Rebecca and her daughters headed out to prepare for the next day.On Day 6‚ a Monday‚ Rebecca took to the witness stand in her own defense‚ wearing‚ says daughter Laura‚ her beautiful yellow dress and blue high heels. She remained on the stand throughout the morning and into the afternoon. This past week youve seen videos of what I look like on the outside‚ she told the jury‚ but now‚ I hope you get to see my heart. Under questioning from her attorney‚ Rebecca described how she accepted God into her life as a teenager‚ met her future husband in high school‚ married him when he came back from Vietnam‚ and gave birth to four children. She now has seven grandchildren and one great-grandchild.Rebecca Lavrenz and writer Jack Cashill (Jack Cashill/The American Spectator)Rebecca talked at some length about her affection for the U.S. Constitution and her felt need to stand up for it. At one point‚ her attorney showed an image of Rebecca facing the crowd‚ her back to the Capitol doors. When asked what she was thinking at the moment‚ Rebecca choked back her tears to say‚ I am standing here representing millions of other people who also love our country but couldnt be here with me.The three young prosecutors all thin‚ white‚ and bespectacled evoked Hannah Arendts immortal phrase the banality of evil. Arendt made that comment in reference to Nazi executioner-in-chief Adolf Eichmann. The prosecutors had not ascended to that level of evil‚ but in their untroubled eagerness to send a prayerful great-grandmother to prison‚ they seemed capable. When badgered‚ Rebecca retreated to her firmly held belief: It was my First Amendment Right to be seen and heard. I wanted my presence to be known.On Tuesday morning‚ Day 7‚ the jury received its instructions and began deliberating. At the end of the day‚ they still had not reached a verdict. This was encouraging. The jury took less than four hours to convict Guy Reffitt‚ the first Jan. 6 defendant to seek a trial by jury. Although Reffitt did not go into the Capitol‚ he was sentenced to more than seven years in prison for helping to ignite the crowd. His adolescent son turned him in. His wife Nicole attends the nightly vigil at Freedom Corner. She still wonders why the much more visible igniter of crowds‚ Ray Epps‚ received no jail time at all.On Wednesday‚ Day 8‚ the jury remained in deliberation for the entire day. This means someone on that jury is obviously fighting for me‚ Rebecca posted at days end‚ and to me that means God is making tremendous power available through the fervent‚ heartfelt‚ continued prayers of you‚ His saints. It seems likely that the other jurors finally wore that someone down. Sentencing to come.Jack Cashills newest book‚Ashli: The Untold Story of the Women of January 6‚ will be released this summer. On sale now is his bookUntenable: The True Story of White Ethnic Flight from Americas Cities.The post After Three Days of Deliberation‚ Jan. 6 Jury Convicts Great-Grandmother Rebecca Lavrenz appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

At this point there is nothing standing between us and fiscal collapse. The only question is when.In case you thought anybody in Washington was driving this thing‚ they are not.Its official: the Department of Treasury is now issuing debtat pandemic levels. Its worth noting the pandemic record was double the previous record‚ which had stood for 231 years.In raw numbers‚ the latest numbers for Q4 2023 show Treasury issued $7 trillion in new debt. For the entire year‚ it came to $23 trillion.This has bloated the Treasury market to $27 trillion up 60% since the pandemic. In other words‚ one third of Treasuries have fresh ink on them. And its up roughly sixfold since the 2008 crisis.Meaning if we hit another crash‚ it could be a lot bigger.Our fan-favorite Turbo Force Plus is now 40% off! See for yourself the delicious one-of-a-kind energy boost infowarriors CRAVE!Sending US Economy to DefaultsAt this point‚ federal debt is rising by $1 trillion every 90 days‚ and US government spending as a percent of GDP is at World War II levels.Given were not in a World War in theory nor are we in a pandemic‚ why so much debt?Easy: its buying growth.Or asBalaji Srinivasanputs it: The economy isnt real. Its propped up by debt. They will fake it till they break it.Even theWall Street Journal‚ which loves debt‚ is sounding the alarm‚ writing that rapid growth in debt often ends badly‚ and given the enormous size and alleged safety of the Treasury market any instability could be catastrophic.Why catastrophic? Because US Treasuries are treated like cash by everything from banks to pension funds to large corporations and individual 401ks. A Treasury is seen as cash that pays interest.This is false‚ of course: A Treasury is a promise from Uncle Sam to pay you back someday‚ perhaps 20 or 30 years in the future.Meaning that‚ unlike cash‚ any concerns investors might have about Uncle Sams ability or willingness to pay can crash Treasuries.If that happens it immediately sends the entire banking system‚ pension system‚ and hundreds of corporations into default.Trillions in Fake DebtIndeed‚ it could break the payments plumbing in the entire financial system you wouldnt be able to get money.If that sounds dire‚ recall that all of these are sustained by the gossamir thin belief that Uncle Sam will pay back every penny with interest.This is curious given that neither voters‚ who in theory run the government‚ nor Congress who actually does run the government seem to think the debt is real.You can actually try this at home: tell a voter that student loan bailouts will cost a trillion meaning $10‚000 out of their pocket. Or that another war will cost $30‚000 out of pocket. Most dont care. Because its not real.So the voters dont think its real. Congress doesnt think its real. But literally everything depends on the illusion that every penny of federal debt will be repaid in full‚ with interest.What could go wrong.ConclusionEvery fiscal trend is in the wrong direction.Were already at a $2 trillion deficit‚ it will soar by trillions when recession hits.And it will keep churning with Social Security‚ Medicare‚ and spending on everything from illegal immigrants to fresh wars.At this point there is nothing standing between us and fiscal collapse. The only question is when.Learn Why The Globalists Are Killing Their Own Monetary System

Conspiracy law has long been a boon for federal prosecutors and this is clearly also true for Jack Smith‚ the special counsel attempting to try Trump on three different conspiracy charges. Smithbacked up by countless voices in the legacy mediacontends that Trump is guilty of trying to unlawfully overturn the 2020 election.Last month‚ former president Donald Trump succeeded inindefinitely delayinghis trial on federal charges related to the January 6 riot at the US Capitol building. It is now unclear if or when he will stand trial for the federal crimes with which he was charged in August of last year.The charges are primarily conspiracy charges. Specifically‚Trump has been charged in federal courtwith one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States‚ one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding‚ one count of conspiracy against rights of voters‚ plus one count of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.The fact that Trump is being charged with these conspiracy charges tells us how flimsy the evidence is that he actually committed any of the acts in question. That is‚ had Trump actually defrauded the United States‚ or violated voting rights‚ you can sure that he would be charged with doing so.In lieu of charges forrealcrimes‚ Trump is charged with conspiracy to commit these crimes. That is‚ he is charged withsayingthings that could be construed as part of a plan to commit a crime at some point in the future. As with conspiracy crimes in general‚ whether or not the underlying crime ever took place is irrelevant in court. Conspiracy charges exist to create new ways for government prosecutors to indict people who havent actually committed the crime in question.Rather conspiracy crimes arethought crimesin which a person says or thinks things that prosecutors will pretend are criminal acts. In the real world‚ however‚ conspiracy to commit X is not X.Our fan-favorite Turbo Force Plus is now 40% off! See for yourself the delicious one-of-a-kind energy boost infowarriors CRAVE!Conspiracy versus Real CrimeConspiracy charges are commonplace in the federal legal system. The Congressional Research Service sums up the situation‚statingThe United States Code contains dozens of criminal conspiracy statutes. One outlaws conspiracy to commit any other federal crime. The others outlaw conspiracy to commit some specific form of misconduct‚ ranging from civil rights violations to drug trafficking. Conspiracy is a separate offense under most of these statutes‚ regardless of whether the conspiracy accomplishes its objective.This latter point is an important distinction. It is not necessary that the defendant charged with conspiracy harm anyone i.e.‚ that there be any actual victim. Indeed‚ conspiracy charges act as a way of charging individuals with crimes thatmightoccur‚ but have not.Moreover‚ it is not even necessary in all cases that a conspirator take any affirmative steps toward completion of the alleged conspiracy. While it is true that some federal conspiracy statutes require at least one conspirator to take some affirmative step in furtherance of the scheme. It is also the case that Many have no such explicit overt act requirement. Even in those cases where some affirmative step or overt act take place‚ it is not necessary that the act be illegal. The act could be publicly stating an opinion or making a phone call.Ina 2019 interview‚ Judge Andrew Napolitano highlighted some problems with conspiracy charges:If it were up to me‚ there would be no such thing as conspiracy crimes because they are thought crimes and word crimes. But‚ at the present time in our history and in fact‚ for all of our history‚ regrettably‚ an agreement to commit a felony‚ agreement by two or more people or two or more entities to commit a felony and a step in furtherance of that agreement‚ constitutes an independent crime. In the world of freedom‚ where you and I and people reading this live‚ conspiracy is a phony crime. For 600 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence‚ all accepted definitions of crime contained an element of harm. Today‚ crime is whatever the government says it is.As Napolitano correctly notes‚ the concept of conspiracy is relatively old in the common lawin some form or another. Yet‚ the use of the idea in expanding federal prosecutions has grown enormously since the founding era. The Congressional Research Services report continues:This is not to say that conspiracy was unknown in pre-colonial and colonial England‚ but simply that it was a faint shadow of the crime we now know. The patchwork reached a point where one commentator explained that there were few things left so doubtful in the criminal law‚ as the point at which a combination of several persons in a common object becomes illegal.That last sentence remains one of the most controversial aspects of conspiracy laws: at what point does talking and thinking about a crime becomes a criminal act? Legislators and the courts have never been able to provide any objective standard‚ and thus‚ prosecutors are afforded enormous leeway in stringing together a series of legal acts and claiming these constitute a conspiracy. The prosecutor merely need convince a grand jury that legal acts are really illegal. This is not difficult‚ as noted by Judge Solomon Wachtler when he cautioned that district attorneys could convince grand juries to indict a ham sandwich.Not surprisingly‚ people who are actually concerned about regimes abusing their power have long opposed conspiracy prosecutions.For example‚ Clarence Darrow wrote on conspiracy prosecutions in his 1932 biography‚ concluding It is a serious reflection on America that this wornout piece of tyranny‚ this dragnet for compassing the imprisonment and death of men whom the ruling class does not like‚ should find a home in our country.1Darrow was at least partly joined in this opinion several years earlier by Judge Learned Hand who in 1925describedconspiracy charges as that darling of the modern prosecutors nursery for the way it favors prosecutors over defendants.Crimes of Thought and Speech Vaguely DefinedIn the wake of the Vietnam War and the federal governments many attempts to prosecute antiwar protestors and activists for various crimes‚ many legal scholars took a closer look at the nature of conspiracy charges.2Many were skeptical that conspiracy charges are either necessary or beneficial.3Most alarming of all is the fact that the elastic and vague nature of conspiracy crimes means that‚ as Thomas Emerson puts it‚ the whole field of conspiracy law is filled with traps for the unwary and opportunities for the repressor.4One of the more famous cases of conspiracy prosecutions running amok was the 1968 prosecution and trial of American pediatrician and antiwar activist Benjamin Spock. Spock and four others werecharged with conspiring to aid‚ abet‚ and counsel draft resisters. That is‚ they were charged withsayingthings. Although prosecutors could never show the conspirators committed any illegal actsor were ever even in the same room togetherSpock and three of his co-conspirators were found guilty in federal court. The case was eventually set aside on appeal‚ but on a legal technicality. The federal legal doctrines underlying conspiracy charges were never in danger.Spock was able to avoid prison‚ but countless others have not been so lucky. Defendants who do not enjoy Spocks level of fame or wealth continue to find themselves locked in cages for saying things federal prosecutors dont like.The legal incoherence of the charges laid against Spockand against antiwar activists in generalwas covered in detail in Jessica Mitfords 1969 bookThe Trial of Dr. Spock‚ in which she writesThe law of conspiracy is so irrational‚ its implications so far removed from ordinary human experience or modes of thought‚ that like the Theory of Relativity it escapes just beyond the boundaries of the mind. One can dimly understand it while an expert is explaining it‚ but minutes later‚ it is not easy to tell it back. This elusive quality of conspiracy as a legal concept contributes to its deadliness as a prosecutors tool and compounds the difficulties of defending against it.5Mitford further draws upon Darrow to illustrates the absurdity of these prosecutions‚ pointing out that Darrow described conspiracy laws this way: if a boy steals a piece of candy‚ he is guilty of a misdemeanor. If two boystalk aboutstealing candy and do not‚ they are guilty of conspiracya felony.Again‚ we find that the foundation of conspiracy laws are thoughts and words‚ rather than any actual criminal acts. Or‚ as Abraham Goldstein put it in 1959: conspiracy doctrine comes closest to making a state of mind the occasion for preventive action against those who threaten society but who have come nowhere near carrying out the threat.6This ability to treat this state of mind as real crime means‚ in the words of Kevin Jon Heller:the government currently enjoys substantive and procedural advantages in conspiracy trials that are unparalleled anywhere else in the criminal law. Conspiracy convictions can be based on circumstantial evidence alone‚ and the government is allowed to introduce any evidence that even remotely tends to establish the conspiracy charged.7Conspiracy Prosecutions Are a Means of Quashing DissentConspiracy laws have long been used for a wide variety of alleged crimes‚ especially conspiracies related to federal drug crimes.However‚ as the Dr. Spock case makes clear‚ conspiracy prosecutions hare also a tool against those who protest government policies. More specifically‚ given that conspiracy crimes are essentially crimes of words and thoughts‚ conspiracy prosecutions have long been employed as a way of circumventing the First Amendment. As the editors of the Yale Law Journal put it in 1970: Throughout various periods of xenophobia‚ chauvinism‚ and collective paranoia in American history‚ conspiracy law has been one of the primary governmental tools employed to deter individuals from joining controversial political causes and groups.8Or‚ put another way‚ through conspiracy prosecutions‚ the government seeks to regulate associations whose primary activity is expression.9Naturally‚ citizens are more reluctant to engage in expressive activities with others that could later be characterized in court as some kind of conspiracy.Dr. Spock in 1969 was charged with allegedlysayingthings to othersi.e.‚ a type of associating with othersto supposedly encourage anti-conscription activists. Any strict interpretation of the First Amendmentwhich is thecorrecttype of interpretationwould tell us that this ought to be protected speech under the First Amendment. Federal courts‚ however‚ have long disagreed.Some advocates of conspiracy might claim that speech encouraging a specific crime ought not be protected. Yet‚ in real life conspiracy prosecutions‚ it is not easy to determine whether or not a conspirator is actually encouraging a specific crime. As David Filvaroff notes‚ the actual intent and effect of the speech is difficult to interpret. Thus‚ judgements about whether or not speech counts as protected speech is highly arbitrary:With a conspiracy to murder one faces a potential crime of finite proportion and of near unmistakable content. There is little‚ if any‚ risk that either the defendants themselves‚ or the court or jury‚ will mistake the criminality of what the defendants propose to do. The probability of such a mistake both by the alleged conspirators and by the trier of fact is very high‚ however‚ in the case of conspiracy to incite.10Plans to murder a specific person are quite different from idle talk and expressed opinions about what a person thinks ought to be done to oppose some government institution or law. Most of the time‚ however‚ it is difficult for a conspirator to guess how others will interpret his words and what concrete actions might take place as a result. Did the speakerintendfor his opinions to incite certain actions? To prove this‚ prosecutors often rely on little more than assertions and assumptions.Under these circumstances‚ innocent people can end up serving years in prison for expressing their views about what government agents or government institutions ought to do or stop doing.Trumps ConspiraciesConspiracy law has long been a boon for federal prosecutors and this is clearly also true for Jack Smith‚ the special counsel attempting to try Trump on three different conspiracy charges. Smithbacked up by countless voices in the legacy mediacontends that Trump is guilty of trying to unlawfully overturn the 2020 election. According tothe 45-page indictment‚ Trump engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty‚ fraud‚ and deceit. The indictment also claims he engaged in a conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede Congress on January 6. Trump also supposedly conspired against the right to vote.So‚ what did Trump do in carrying out these conspiracies? The indictment admits that its evidence constitutes nothing more than things Trumpsaid. According to Smith‚ the conspiracies were built on the widespread mistrust the Defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies. That is‚ Trump publicly expressed opinions that people were free to accept or reject.The indictment contains all the usual hallmarks of flimsy and questionable claims about criminal conspiracies. The indictment contends Trump acted together with co-conspirators although the so-called evidence shows no clear intent. Smith claims that Trumps incorrect statements about the election constituted knowingly spreading false information. How do we know that Trumpknewthese statements were false? Smith simply assumes this. Essentially‚ Smiths case is that Trump is guilty of conspiracy because he made a number of statementsmost of them public statements told out in the open to forward this secret conspiracythat were incorrect.To reasonable people who actually take the First Amendment seriously‚ this should be an open and shut case. The natural right to free speech includes the right to say things and express opinions about elections. This includes statements that are wrong. In free countries‚ citizens are free to claim that elections are corrupt. Case closed.The federal legal system is not so reasonable‚ however‚ and there is a good chance that Smith or some other prosecutor could convince a juryas has happened in so many other conspiracy cases against ordinary peoplethat thoughts and words are not protected by the First Amendment after all.Learn Why The Globalists Are Killing Their Own Monetary System

The years 2020-24 were times of one of the greatest head fakes in the history of government and central banking. TheNew York Timeshaspublisheda strange article by Justin Wolfers‚ an economist at the University of Michigan. The headline is that his economist brain makes him say with regard to inflation: Dont worry‚ be happy. The article gives the reader as much reason to trust economists as you do epidemiologists‚ which is to say not at all.The idea is that if both prices and income go up together‚ it all pans out in the wash. Yes‚ the article goes on for 1‚000 words to say that but thats its essence. The thought is that the 25 percent inflation weve experienced over the last 4 years really hasnt done any damage. Money is neutral to economic exchange and so is inflation.So just chill!Inflation is a lot scarier when you fear that todays price rises will permanently undermine your ability to make ends meet. Perhaps this explains why the recent moderate burst of inflation has created seemingly more anxiety than previous inflationary episodeswere in the midst of a macroeconomic anxiety attack.Now‚ on the face of it‚ this claim is notable because he nowhere claims that inflation does actual good‚ so perhaps that is a step in the right direction. If thats true‚ whats the point of printing up $5 trillion-plus in 2020 and following? No question that this is the direct cause of the loss in purchasing power of the dollar that weve experienced. If money is entirely neutral and inflation essentially irrelevant‚ the Fed should simply freeze the money stock if only to reduce anxiety.Winter Sun Plus is NOW 25% off! Boost your natural defenses with this powerful vitamin D3 and K formula!Of course the professor doesnt suggest that. This is for a reason. Inflation is a form of taxation and wealth redistribution from the poor and middle class to the rich and powerful. Without it‚ that pathway to wealth transfers would not happen.Lets see what the article overlooks about inflation in real life.First‚ every inflation comes with injection effects. Not all new money enters the economy at the same time. Some people get it earlier and thereby can spend it before its value starts to fall and fall. They are the winners from inflation. Its a giant subsidy to the ruling classes.Think about 2020 and early 2021. Millions of banked businesses and consumers‚ plus governments most especially‚ found themselves flush with new cash. Savings soared but so did spending on high-tech goods and delivering services to make the work-at-home economy function.Many institutions benefited: banks‚ governments‚ online learning platforms‚ online merchants like Amazon‚ streaming services‚ and so on. This was part of the Great Reset‚ to enrich digital enterprise over physical enterprise.This tendency for new money to affect different industries in different ways was uncovered by the Irish-English economist Richard Cantillon‚ writing even earlier than Adam Smith. He said that money is never neutral to economic exchanges but rather integral‚ so every increase in the supply of money has the effect of rewarding some at the expense of others.Second‚ you know whats not affected by the tendency of prices and wages to go up under inflation? Savings. Your money in the bank was not somehow adjusted further up by virtue of inflation. So Professor Wolfers entire analysis is blown up as a result: it simply does not pertain to any deferred consumption of the past.Savings is the basis of investment and thus future prosperity‚ so inflationary regimes always punish those who are frugal and reward those who live for today and save nothing. Indeed it is deeply punishing toward long-term thinking in general.Third‚ none of Wolfers thought accounts for the huge transition costs associated with accounting during inflationary bouts. Every business that runs on small margins in a competitive environment has to deal with balancing income versus expenses on large items and small. Accounting alone consumes vast amounts of operational attention in every business. If your costs are randomly going up for all inputs from labor to materials to just keeping the lights on‚ and each at different stages and in different ways‚ it becomes much easier to make mistakes.In addition‚ its easier said than done to pass the costs onto the consumer. The ability to do so always depends on the price elasticity of demand‚ which is a measure of just how trigger-happy consumers really are toward higher prices. How much will demand be affected by changing prices? There is no way to know in advance‚ which is why merchants end up testing and treading carefully with hidden fees and shrunken packages. Its all a matter of making the economy work.Companies facing less competition and larger profit margins are in a better position to achieve this than those like small businesses which cannot. Therefore the high costs of accounting transitions fall disproportionately on smaller businesses. Did you notice‚ for example‚ that liquor prices have not increased nearly as much as other prices? Thats because they were in a position to eat some of their large margins rather than risk reducing demand for their product. That was certainly not true of the corner grocer or the small restaurant.These are three reasons why this professors opinion born of models in which there are no transition costs‚ injection effects‚ or accounting uncertainties has nothing to do with the real world. And you know this‚ based on the experience of the last four years. It is an enormous source of frustration when intellectuals use their high-status positions to instruct the public on matters we know to be untrue.It is also an annoyance to cover up the terrible truths we know. The years 2020-24 were times of one of thegreatest head fakes in the history of government and central banking. They showered the world with seemingly free money only to take it all away and then some merely a year later and continuing to this day.And who won? Look around. Big government is bigger and so is tech and digital businesses in general‚ while the banks are flush with cash. That tells you all you need to know about who is winning and who is losing in the great inflation racket.Any economist telling you otherwise needs to let go of the unrealistic otherworld models and take a look at the reality on the ground. He might discover that members of the public are not irrational to be upset but rather entirely in touch with the truth about what has happened to us.Learn Why The Globalists Are Killing Their Own Monetary System

';If the Ashley Biden diary content is fake‚ why demand prison time?';The Department of Justice is seeking nearly a year-long sentence for the woman who stole the diary belonging to Joe Bidens daughter Ashley‚ in effect proving the veracity of the diary‚ in which she wrote her father took probably inappropriate showers with her at a young age. The New York Post reported Tuesday:Prosecutors for the US Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York had initially sought a sentence of six months of home confinement‚ followed by three years of supervised release‚ for Aimee Harris‚ who pleaded guilty in August of 2022 to conspiring to commit interstate transportation of stolen propertyin connection with the diary theft.The prosecution claims Harris has been attempting to delay sentencing by repeatedly postponing the hearing date‚ which they say should merit a tougher sentence.Through this pattern of behavior‚ the defendant has shown a complete disregard for the Courts orders and for the orderly administration of this judicial proceeding‚ US Attorney Damian Williams wrote in a court filing to District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.Winter Sun Plus is NOW 25% off! Boost your natural defenses with this powerful vitamin D3 and K formula!A sentence involving no period of incarceration would be wholly insufficient to reflect the gravity of the defendants conduct‚ including her apparent belief that she is above the law and that she need not comply with this Courts orders‚ prosecutors added.Harris and Robert Kurlander admitted involvement in a conspiracy to move stolen items from Florida‚ where Ashley Biden had resided‚ to New York‚ after which they sold the diary to Project Veritas ahead of the 2020 election.While Project Veritas did not publish the diarys contents (but got raided anyway)‚ National File did publish incendiary excerpts. Via National File:National File has already reported several revelations from the diary‚ including the fact that the author believes she was sexually molested as a child and shared probably not appropriateshowers with her father‚ the months of entries detailing the authorsstruggle with drug abuse‚the entries that detail the authorscrumbling marriage with multiple affairs‚ the entries showing thefamilys fearsof a potential scandal due to her brothers new home‚ and those that show adeep resentment for her fatherdue to his money‚ control‚ and emotional manipulation.Now‚ the prosecution of Harris appears to be vindictive and effectively re-affirms the diary was indeed real‚ in addition to corroborating accusations Joe Biden is a pedophile.BREAKING: DOJ confirms Ashley Bidens diary is real by prosecuting the person who stole it FACT: Joe Biden inappropriately showered with his underage daughter Ashley. Sick fck. Gunther Eagleman (@GuntherEagleman) April 4‚ 2024If the Ashley Biden diary content is fake‚ why demand prison time? pic.twitter.com/IaOBuoJIdJ Spitfire (@DogRightGirl) April 4‚ 2024So if the Ashley Biden diary is real‚ doesnt that mean we have a pedophile occupying the White House? Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) April 4‚ 2024Ashley Bidens diary wrote about inappropriate showers with Joe Biden and the FBI is going after the woman who exposed these pedophilic crimes instead of the pedophile who committed themThis is how you know we are in the end stages of the corrupt regimeThis is unsustainable https://t.co/nV8JDbjE4d DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) April 4‚ 2024This means the diary is real and what she said about Joe is real Thanks Biden';s DOJ for confirming. https://t.co/7hPNUZE3Bq Catturd (@catturd2) April 4‚ 2024The DOJ is demanding prison time for the person who discovered Ashley Bidens diary.Heres a reminder of what she wrote.Joe Biden showered with his daughter. pic.twitter.com/9QiGkdctlz Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) April 4‚ 2024By doing this‚ the DOJ confirms Ashley Biden';s diary was realAnd that creepy Joe Biden took inappropriate showers with his daughter. https://t.co/8OJdozw8If Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) April 4‚ 2024This is Aimee Harris. She found Ashley Bidens diary in a Florida beach home and felt morally obligated to make it public. NOW BIDENS DOJ IS SEEKING PRISON TIME AS PUNISHMENT AND PRETENDING SHE STOLE IT!In the diary‚ Ashley details how her father Joe Biden forced her to take pic.twitter.com/LxUB61CsJF Matt Wallace (@MattWallace888) April 4‚ 2024However‚ dont expect anyone in the lapdog legacy media to investigate or report on this important development.