VIDEO: Trump Responds to New York Real Estate Bond Being Lowered
Former President Donald Trump gave his retort to the seemingly insurmountable bond price being lowered in the property crime case against him, a move that prevents all his assets from being stripped of him by his political opposition during the middle of a heated election year.
“So what they do is they do election interference, which is court cases and let’s try and tie him up and let’s take as much of his money as possible,” Trump said.
The case is based upon the allegation that decades ago, the New York real estate tycoon overvalued his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, despite the lending-party appraisers at the time of the loan agreeing on the valuation, and the mortgage writer being made whole, a victimless situation.
“He values Mar-a-Lago at $18 million and people say it’s worth 50 to 100 times that much, the biggest experts in the business,” Trump said. “So he ought to be looked at and [Letitia] James ought to be looked at.”
The former president said that New York Attorney General Letitia James acts as the puppet master of the judge in this case.
Don’t miss:
Investigative Journalist Reports Live From Palestinian Genocide In Gaza
JPMorgan to Launch Biometric Payment System as Next Step in Orwellian Financial Surveillance
JPMorgan has announced that it will be launching a biometric payment system next year, helping it keep up with other major financial corporations like MasterCard and Visa.
The country’s biggest bank will be using PopID for the project, a technology that uses facial recognition and other methods to verify the identity of an individual.
Pilot projects are already underway, with one of the first trials taking place at the Formula 1 race in Miami. More trials are planned for this year, with a broad rollout expected to follow next year.
According to JPMorgan, this approach will be safer and quicker than traditional methods of authentication and will work in e-commerce as well as in-person checkouts. By incorporating biometrics into checkout, shoppers will not have to take the time to enter e-mail addresses for digital receipts or phone numbers to receive loyalty points, for example.
For stores, the bank is promising better customer loyalty and greater turnover, as well as a centralized place for accessing transactions. Although the system will be offered to all businesses, the bank is particularly pushing quick-service restaurants, convenience stores, grocery stores and event venues to embrace the technology.
The main benefit to JPMorgan is obvious: the opportunity to amass a treasure trove of biometric data. They will also be selling merchants tablets for processing the payments and collecting transaction processing fees. However, businesses will also have the option of supplying their own device; the bank says that a checkout counter simply needs a tablet with a camera that can take a picture of a shopper’s face to process the payment.
Users who are not afraid of sharing their biometric data with JPMorgan can enroll in the program and verify their identity using biometrics before they will be able to use this payment method at self-service machines and checkouts. They will have the option to use a palm, fingerprint, or face scan to complete their checkout.
In their announcement of the new system, JPMorgan noted that forecasts by Goode Intelligence indicate that biometric payments will reach 3 billion global users in the next two years and $5.8 trillion in value.
Many people are understandably hesitant to use this type of technology, and JPMorgan has assured customers it will be using best practices related to consent, privacy, data minimization and transparency. The executive director of biometrics and identity solutions at the bank, Prashant Sharma, said: “There is a perceived sensitivity towards biometrics. We feel that it is also our job to continue to create that confidence.”
JPMorgan also believes that as this approach enjoys greater adoption across a range of businesses, consumer confidence should increase.
Experts warn consumers about the dangers of biometrics
However, some experts have warned that the technology is not quite as secure as it may sound. Although it is true that a person’s face or palm cannot go missing the way that a credit card might, artificial intelligence technology is growing increasingly sophisticated and can be used even by those without much technological knowledge to make fake versions of an individual’s handprint, face, or voice to trick these payment systems. There is also the possibility that the databases where people’s biometric data is being stored could be hacked.
Once your biometric data has been stolen, you have very little recourse. While credit cards can be replaced, replacing your palm or face isn’t really an option.
People’s biometric data is some of the most sensitive data that exists, and it is crucial to protect it at all costs. Although banks and stores have a lot to gain by convincing people to embrace this technology, consumers have everything to lose.
Investigative Journalist Reports Live From Palestinian Genocide In Gaza
Why Did Obama Arrive In London For ‘Unannounced’ Visit With The UK PM?
Former US president Barack Obama made a surprise visit to Downing Street for tea and talks with UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week. Obama smiled and waved at photographers before he entered No 10 on […]
The post Why Did Obama Arrive In London For ‘Unannounced’ Visit With The UK PM? appeared first on The People’s Voice.
If Republicans Succeed at Banning TikTok, You Can Say Goodbye to Infowars And Brighteon Too
Conservative lawmakers are utterly embarrassing themselves by trying to ban TikTok while also claiming to support free speech and the First Amendment.
Republicans’ goal is to simply put a stop to TikTok, and no other social media platform, because the social media app is Chinese (fact check: TikTok’s CEO is Shou Zi Chew, a Singaporean). However, it is not that simple, and the right is learning this in real-time while also making a complete fool of itself.
Legislation called the RESTRICT Act, short for the “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act” – yikes that’s a mouthful – would allow the Secretary of Commerce to blacklist any tech product, service, or company linked to a “national adversary,” in this case China, as decided by the secretary.
So, what exactly is a “foreign threat?” That is a good question. And how would the secretary mitigate it in the context of a platform like TikTok? That is another good question. The answer to both of these questions is the same: whatever the Secretary of Commerce arbitrarily decides.
The RESTRICT act, which is ostensibly being put in place to ban TikTok, is actually a Trojan horse for full government surveillance—and a total end to your right to privacy. pic.twitter.com/07wogYzQ1H
— Catch Up (@CatchUpFeed) March 28, 2023
RESTRICT Act, the PATRIOT Act for the internet
The obvious problem with the RESTRICT Act is its subjectively broad-reaching definitions for things like “foreign threat” and “mitigation.” Just about anything could, in some stretch of the imagination, be dubbed a foreign threat and targeted as such for elimination.
This means that not just TikTok but all sorts of other platforms, including Infowars and Brighteon, could find themselves being targeted for elimination based on the “foreign threat” concept.
As Greg Price explained on X, the RESTRICT Act is basically just the PATRIOT Act, for those who lived through 9/11, but for the internet.
“It gives the government the ability to go after anyone they deem as a national security risk at which point they can access everything from their computer to video games to their Ring light,” Price warns.
“Believe it or not, it gets even worse: If you [sic] find you in violation, they can put you in jail for 20 years, fine you $1M, and seize your property … They can also deem any foreign government an adversary without informing congress [sic] and everything they do is not subjected to FOIA.”
In other words, Republicans in Congress are trying to pass what amounts to a Stasi Act right here in the United States because they simply cannot stand the fact that TikTok is allowed to exist and be used in this country.
What is worse, the Biden regime is in full agreement with the proposition of a RESTRICT Act, stating that it is “very in favor” of its passage. This just goes to show that right and left are just two wings on the same bird.
“Republicans, mindlessly seeking a big win against China and tech, now that both are popular punching bags, nearly sleepwalked into passing a disastrous law,” warns Revolver.
“The RESTRICT Act is a classic D.C. ploy. Savvy operators, exploiting the right’s well-intentioned desire to combat China, offered them a temporary victory to lure them into a permanent long-term calamity.”
Neither side of the political aisle can be trusted anymore to protect our free speech rights. Find out more at FirstAmendment.news.
Investigative Journalist Reports Live From Palestinian Genocide In Gaza
German Doctor Refuses to Treat AfD Politician
A doctor in the German state of Baden-Württemberg refuses to treat one of his patients because he is a local politician in the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
The doctor’s decision was reportedly sparked when he saw a photo in the local newspaper of the politician, Heiko Nüßner, at an event for his party’s city association in Lahr. Based on this photo, the doctor told him to find a new practice due to their “clearly different political views.”
Nüßner, who previously served as a Christian Democrat (CDU) politician for 26 years, told Bild newspaper that he was “very surprised by this reaction, as he had never spoken to the doctor about his politics. He described the interaction with the general practitioner as “very undemocratic.”
The AfD politician said, “I was disappointed with the CDU because of its euro and migration policy as well as its exit from nuclear energy. For me, the AfD is the ‘new CDU’ and by no means right-wing extremist.”
The AfD politician suffered an accident three years ago that he left him confined to a wheelchair. When he asked the doctor for a prescription at the beginning of March, he was denied treatment. Nüßner shared a copy of the email exchange shared between him and the doctor, whose name was not disclosed by Nüßner or Bild.
The doctor has responded to Bild, saying that the photo of the politician was only the “icing on the cake.”
“I had already found the patient very unpleasant beforehand, with his demanding and pushy nature,” he said. According to medical ethicists, denying treatment based on “unpleasant” attitudes or because you do not agree with the politics of your patient does not meet medical standards. However, for patients who represent a threat or a major disturbance to a medical practice, doctors are permitted to deny care, but only if there is no immediate medical threat.
The doctor claimed however that the medication requested by Nüßner was “not vital.”
According to the Bild interview with the doctor, he did want to support any “undemocratic tendencies,” as the AfD is being monitored for extremism by the Office of the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), a powerful domestic spy agency.
He said if the AfD politician needed acute care, he would treat him and anyone else “regardless of their ideology.”
In 2021, AfD candidate Andrea Zürcher also had her general practicioner cancel her care, also in the state of Baden-Württemberg. In Zürcher’s case, the doctor also learned about her political activity from a photo in a local newspaper.
“He said that the relationship of trust had been destroyed as a result and that he could no longer give 100 percent in my treatment,” the woman said, who suffer from a chronic illness.
A third of Germans say they would consider voting for the Alternative for Germany, and a majority of Germans — at least in some polls — say they could support a government coalition that includes the AfD. However, there is still a sizeable share of the population adamantly opposed to the party. In the case of doctors, refusal of treatment is considered a serious ethical quandary. Such cases may increase political polarization in Germany.
Investigative Journalist Reports Live From Palestinian Genocide In Gaza
Genocide Joe: White House Supported Israel Despite Knowing They Were Indiscriminately Bombing Civilians in Gaza
State Department insiders have long been frustrated with President Joe Biden’s support for Israel and its actions in Gaza following the Hamas massacre last October, and although the commander-in-chief has recently started to be more critical of Israel, a new report shows that Biden has known for a long time that they were bombing indiscriminately in Gaza.
According to a report from the Washington Post, the White House has known since the end of October that Israel was regularly conducting bombing campaigns against civilian targets in Gaza, even as he publicly and quite steadfastly defended the Jewish state’s military actions.
Multiple sources confirmed to the outlet that top foreign policy officials told the White House that “Israel was regularly bombing buildings without solid intelligence that they were legitimate military targets” in an Oct. 27 meeting.
The day of the meeting, White House National Security Council Spokesman John Kirby said the United States was not going to draw any “red lines” on Israel’s military response. Just two weeks earlier, Biden had visited Israel and said that they would not be alone “as long as the United States stands”.
In the meeting, officials also cautioned that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not have a clear plan for eradicating Hamas. One source told the Washington Post that they couldn’t see how the Israelis would be able to pull off what they said they planned to do.
Now that this meeting has come to light, it is even more difficult to understand why Biden was so eager to offer his unwavering support for Israel for so long. He has defended Israel at every opportunity, even as Netanyahu went against America’s wishes on issues ranging from letting aid into Gaza for civilians to accepting the possibility of a Palestinian state in the future.
When Israel repeatedly bombed a Gaza refugee camp in November, the president did not criticize them, and their decision to bomb the biggest hospital in Gaza, Al Shifa, received public backing from the White House.
At the time, Kirby told reporters: “We have information that confirms that Hamas is using that particular hospital for a command-and-control mode. That is a war crime.”
The IDF raided Al Shifa a few hours later, causing the hospital’s operations to collapse and leading to the death of more than 40 patients, including four premature babies. This drew condemnation from numerous human rights groups and the World Health Organization.
On Jan. 14, Biden made himself look even worse by issuing a statement expressing his sorrow and sympathy on the 100th day of captivity for the remaining Israeli hostages in Gaza while failing to mention the Palestinian death toll, which was upwards of 20,000 at the time.
Biden’s recent change of attitude toward Israel is too little, too late
It is only recently that Biden has started to backtrack to some degree. One recent issue that is a big sticking point is Netanyahu’s declaration that Israel is planning to invade the city of Rafah in southern Gaza. With 1.5 million displaced Palestinians currently sheltering there, the stakes are extremely high.
On Monday, March 18, Biden told Netanyahu over the phone that surging into Rafah would be a big mistake, while National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters that Biden insisted that Israel send a team to Washington for consultations on more acceptable strategies.
The Washington Post reported that many Biden allies have privately admitted the president’s stance on Israel has caused considerable harm to his reputation on a national and international scale and may prove to be one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes of his presidency.
Investigative Journalist Reports Live From Palestinian Genocide In Gaza