BREAKING: Texas Pulls $8.5 Billion Investment From BlackRock Over ESG Insanity
Texas State Board of Education Chairman Aaron Kinsey told Fox News on Tuesday the state will be terminating an $8.5 billion investment with globalist investment firm BlackRock due to its relentless promotion of ESG (environmental, social and governance) guidelines. Alex Jones breaks it all down!
BREAKING: Texas Pulls $8.5 Billion Investment From BlackRock Over ESG Insanity pic.twitter.com/jDzzzcW98L
— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) March 20, 2024
Watch: Landlord Organizes Protest to Publicly Shame Serial Squatter ‘Con Man’
A Washington landlord organized a protest against a serial squatter who’s taken up residence in his rental property after local authorities failed to take action.
Jaskaran Singh bought his $2 million rental property two years ago in a swanky neighborhood of Bellevue, Washington, and thought a man named Sang Kim was going to be an ideal tenant — until Kim allegedly started refusing to pay rent, which has continued for months.
“He’s not ready to pay. He’s exploiting the system basically,” Singh said, adding Kim cumulatively owes him $80,000.
Ladies and gentlemen, you are getting a glimpse of what society looks like when laws are not enforced. Neighbors in Bellevue may start resorting to vigilante justice. They are tired of serial squatter Sang Kim and it looked like some were about to go beyond peaceful protests. Who… pic.twitter.com/NlXbHAkd5M
— Jonathan Choe Journalist (Seattle) (@choeshow) March 17, 2024
“I have suffered an $80,000 loss. This should stop. This is a fight against injustice,” he said. “This is not what the American dream is. I need justice and I lost faith in the system.”
What a tremendous turnout in Bellevue to support mom & pop landlord Jaskaran Singh who’s dealing with serial squatter Sang Kim.
— Jonathan Choe Journalist (Seattle) (@choeshow) March 16, 2024
Singh says the Korean national has not paid rent for months and is costing him thousands of dollars. Meanwhile, the King County court backlog is… https://t.co/GyaaE30vKT pic.twitter.com/Rw9UQOGuUe
Neighbors who joined Singh’s protest could be heard chanting, “no pay, no stay.”
“We’re just tired of criminals getting away with stuff,” one protester said.
NEW: Seattle residents are publicly shaming serial squatter Sang Kim for squatting in a $2M property despite allegedly making $400k a year.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) March 20, 2024
Let’s make publicly shaming squatters a new trend.
According to the landlord, they are unable to get Kim out of their home who owes… pic.twitter.com/ExvcSCO7nP
Despite his refusal to pay rent, Kim is reportedly employed with a salary of $400,000, and is “doing barbecues, buying new cars, living in the best neighborhood and sending his kids to the best schools.”
“Whereas the poor landlords, they are doing multiple jobs to support the mortgage of his house. [Kim] has no shame and he does not care about society,” Singh added.
After months of refusing to pay, Singh filed a lawsuit to evict to the squatter, who is supported by leftist attorneys and pro-trespasser legislation passed by Democrats in the state.
Singh plans to protest every Saturday in front of his rental property until Kim is evicted.
Singh and journalist Jonathon Choe joined Fox News last week to explain that the King County authorities blaming their lack of action on an “eviction backlog” is just an scapegoat for their radical policies.
“They are simply exploiting the system, and I’m not getting justice. Justice is delayed. I would say justice is denied. The judges are not ready to listen to me, and this is not what the American dream is,” Singh said.
Bellevue mom & pop landlord Jaskaran Singh orchestrated a weekend protest to publicly shame serial squatter Sang Kim. Now Singh is turning up the pressure and going national with his story.
— Jonathan Choe Journalist (Seattle) (@choeshow) March 18, 2024
He’s also calling out King County District Court, King County Bar Association, Housing… pic.twitter.com/JJnbnQKdxW
“This King County Housing Justice Project, a nonprofit for the King County Bar Association, somehow convinces these judges to get continuances, and it keeps getting delayed, delayed and delayed,” he continued. “What I’ve uncovered is that that’s the tactic. That’s the entire play. That’s the standard for success. Meanwhile, these mom-and-pop landlords are missing out. They’re being completely demoralized.”
Singh said the the next hearing on the case will be held on April 5.
This comes as a homeowner in New York City was arrested on her own property for changing her locks in a bid to get a squatter out of her home.
Illegal aliens are also beginning to realize how to exploit squatter laws in the U.S., with a Venezuelan illegal alien TikToker calling on other illegals to invade uninhabited houses.
Ketanji Brown Jackson Defenestrates the First Amendment
At her confirmation hearings, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson claimed she lacked the expertise to define “woman.” Just two years later, she did not hesitate to redefine the First Amendment and free speech as she advocated for the regime to bulldoze our Constitutional liberties provided they offer sufficiently sanctimonious justifications.
At Monday’s oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, Jackson said her “biggest concern” was that the injunction, which prohibits the Biden Administration from colluding with Big Tech to censor Americans, may result in “the First Amendment hamstringing the Government.”
This, apparently, was of greater concern to Jackson than the revelations that the Intelligence Community held ongoing meetings with social media companies to coordinate censorship demands, that the White House explicitly demanded the censorship of journalists, and that the Department of Homeland Security was instrumental in manipulating citizens ahead of the 2020 presidential election.
But according to Jackson’s outlook, those facts may have actually been encouraging. She scolded counsel, “Some might say the Government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country.”
Jackson’s formulation inverts the structure of constitutional liberties. The Constitution does not limit the powers of citizens; it restrains our elected officials from tyrannical overreach. It is the law that “governs those who govern us,” as law professor Randy Barnett explains.
Impediments to state powers are not flaws in the system; they are the essence of the design. But Jackson offers no deference to these constitutional restraints. Instead, she explained, “I am really worried about…the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances.”
Of course, the First Amendment was designed for environments of threatening circumstances. American history offers no shortage of threats that could be justified to abridge our liberties – from Cholera and Yellow Fever to polio and Spanish flu; from the Red Coats and the XYZ Affair to the Red Army and the War on Terror; from conquering the west to defeating the Nazis.
The Framers understood the ineradicable threat that power poses to liberty, which is why they were unequivocal that the Government cannot “abridge” constitutionally protected speech, no matter the moral surety of the censors.
At times, the country has failed to live up to this promise, but those instances are rarely heralded. Jackson’s deference to emergencies or “threatening circumstances” is precisely the logic that the Court used to intern the Japanese and jail Eugene Debs. More recently, censors invoked that familiar paternalism to justify censorship of the origin of Covid and the veracity of Hunter Biden’s laptop.
But the Constitution demands a different path, as explained by Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga in response to Jackson. The choice between liberty and safety is a false binary. “The Government can’t just run rampant pressuring the platforms to censor private speech,” Aguinaga explained.
The Biden Administration can promote its interests, deliver its own speeches, and purchase its preferred PSAs. It cannot, however, use vapid slogans of paternalism to usurp the First Amendment.
Justice Alito appeared to see through the justifications for censorship in his questioning of Brian Fletcher, Biden’s Deputy Solicitor General. He asked:
“When I see that the White House and federal officials repeatedly say that Facebook and the federal government should be ‘partners,’ [or] ‘we are on the same team.’ [GOVERNMENT] Officials are demanding answers, ‘I want an answer. I want it right away.’ When they’re unhappy, they curse them out…The only reason why this is taking place is that the federal government has got Section 230 and antitrust in its pocket…And so it’s treating Facebook and these other platforms like their subordinate.Would you do that to the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, or any other big newspaper or wire service?”
Meanwhile, Jackson could not grasp the most basic tenets of the First Amendment or free speech. Instead, she fear-mongered with absurd questions of whether the State has a compelling interest in stopping teens from “jumping out of windows.”
In the process, Jackson revealed her intent to defenestrate the First Amendment alongside her fictitious adolescent victims. Her “biggest concern” is that the First Amendment may hinder the regime’s pursuit of power, just as it was designed to do.
Tyranny has long draped itself in cloaks of benevolent phrasing. The judiciary is meant to safeguard our liberties from aspiring tyrants, even if they espouse the socially fashionable shibboleths of the day. Jackson does not just abdicate that responsibility; she appears to abhor it. We must hope her peers on the Court retain their oath to the Constitution.
It was especially striking for many people listening to these arguments to become aware of the astonishing lack of sophistication on the part of some of these Justices, Jackson in particular, and others had their moments.
The sidewalks outside the court were filled with actual experts, people who have followed this case closely since its inception, victims of the censorship industrial complex, and people who have read every brief and scoured through the evidence.
These actual experts and dedicated citizens who know the facts inside and out stood on the sidewalks outside the case while the plaintiffs’ attorney scrambled within the time limits to introduce the topic, possibly for the first time, to these men and women who hold the future of freedom in their hands.
Unbeknownst to themselves, the Justices themselves are victims of the censorship industrial complex. They could themselves have been plaintiffs in this very case, since they too are consumers of information using technology. And yet, given their status and position, they had to pretend to be above it all, knowing what others do not know, though clearly they did not.
It was frustrating scene, to say the least.
Sadly, the oral arguments became bogged down in minutiae over plaintiff standing, the particular wording of this or that email, various farflung hypotheticals, and hand wringing over what will become of the influence of our overlords should the injunction take place. Lost in this thicket of confusion was the bigger trajectory: the clear ambition on the part of the administrative state to become the master curator of the Internet in order to disable the whole promise of a democratized communication technology and introduce full control of the public mind.
A clear-headed court would strike down the entire ambition. That will not happen, apparently. That said, perhaps it is a very good sign that at least, and after so many years of this deep-state meddling in information flows, the issue has finally gotten the attention of the highest court.
May this day become a catalyst for what is needed most of all: the formation of a hard-core of informed citizens who absolutely refuse to go along with the censorship no matter what.
Watch: Democratic Leaders Tell America That Illegal Aliens Come First
DOJ Mulling Plea Deal For Assange: WikiLeaks Founder Could Finally Walk Free
The Biden administration might be looking for a way to bring the 14-year long legal drama centered on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to an end. Britain’s High Court will at some point in the next weeks finally decide whether to extradite him to the United States, but a surprise breaking story from The Wall Street Journal says the US is exploring other alternatives.
The Wednesday WSJ report says, “The U.S. Justice Department is considering whether to allow Julian Assange to plead guilty to a reduced charge of mishandling classified information, according to people familiar with the matter, opening the possibility of a deal that would end a lengthy legal saga triggered by one of the biggest classified intelligence leaks in American history.”
Ever since Metropolitan Police officers were allowed into the Ecuadorian Embassy in London on April 11, 2019 – where he had been holed up for years, Assange has been in the legal fight of his life while incarcerated at Belmarsh prison. If he’s extradited he’ll likely spend life in prison at the infamous ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.
A plea deal means the whole crisis for him and his family could finally come to an acceptable and peaceful end after all of these years.
“Justice Department officials and Assange’s lawyers have had preliminary discussions in recent months about what a plea deal could look like, according to people familiar with the matter, a potential softening in a standoff filled with political and legal complexities,” according to details in the WSJ report. “The talks come as Assange has spent some five years behind bars and U.S. prosecutors face diminishing odds that he would serve much more time even if he were convicted stateside.”
In February of this year, Assange’s cause received a big boost when his native Australia issued formal request to the US and UK that charges against Julian Assange be dropped. The motion adopted by Australian parliament at that time emphasized “the importance of the UK and USA bringing the matter to a close so that Mr. Assange can return home to his family in Australia.”
Given Australia is a close US ally and member of the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence group, this was a huge win for Assange. It’s very possible that this act alone may have pushed the Biden administration to take a more conciliatory stance.
However, the US deep state is still without doubt seeking revenge after years of humiliation and tens of thousands of leaked documents revealed by WikiLeaks which exposed US state secrets and sometimes war crimes.
There are still many obstacles to overcome if such a plea deal were to ever become reality, and the clock is ticking, notes WSJ further:
The discussions remain in flux and the talks could fizzle. Any deal would require approval at the highest levels of the Justice Department. Barry Pollack, a lawyer for Assange, said he has been given no indication that the department will take a deal. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.
The report details, “If prosecutors allow Assange to plead to a U.S. charge of mishandling classified documents—something his lawyers have floated as a possibility—it would be a misdemeanor offense.”
Contact your representatives and urge them to sign Res. 934 today: “Regular journalistic activities are protected under the First Amendment, and that the United States ought to drop all charges against and attempts to extradite Julian Assange” https://t.co/WQHqkcdzip pic.twitter.com/p7FuBDy9Y6
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) March 20, 2024
And this would be the ideal outcome for Assange and his legal team: “Under such a deal, Assange potentially could enter that plea remotely, without setting foot in the U.S. The time he has spent behind bars in London would count toward any U.S. sentence and he would likely be free to leave prison shortly after any deal was concluded.”
Let’s hope that the celebratory day comes soon where Assange can actually walk out of Belmarsh a free man.
EXCLUSIVE: Reporters Expose Nationwide Illegal Immigrant Child Trafficking Operation
Muckraker journalists Anthony Rubin and Carlos Arellano join Alex Jones in studio to break down the massive child trafficking operation taking place at the southern border facilitated by the Biden regime.
Analyst: The Fed Needs More Unemployment
Analysts at PIMCO say that for the Fed to reach its goal of lowering inflation to 2%, we need fewer people to be employed. Reduced incentives to offer raises and bonuses and less spending from the “resilient” American consumer can help cool down inflationary pressure. But there’s an elephant in the room: Why do we let a handful of unelected central planners decide what’s best for markets (and human beings) to begin with?
Part of the problem is that “markets” are people, and part of the darkness of central banking is that to do the job at all, those people have to be reduced to numbers on a screen. Data in a spreadsheet. Lines on a graph. Central bankers also have to think that they are so all-knowing that they can adjust the levers of the economy to responsibly achieve goals within a system of near-infinite complexity. The human cost of this monetary policy hubris is almost ineffable in scope.
Reacting to the Fed’s report about inflation data earlier this month and what it means for unemployment numbers, PIMCO’s Tiffany Wilding said:
“(the report) should raise real questions about the extent to which inflation will move back to target absent some further easing in the labor market.”
But some analysts disagree. As Oxford’s Michael Saunders told the Financial Times about reducing inflation in the US and Eurozone, he thinks that the inflation targets can be met through the wonders of “immaculate disinflation,” where inflation is brought down and kept at the 2% level without a major uptick in the unemployment rate:
“Immaculate disinflation, whereby inflation returns sustainably to target without a significant rise in unemployment, has become the base case.”
The term “immaculate disinflation” powerfully exemplifies the supreme arrogance of central banking by cloaking them in the language of Christian divinity. But what is the “correct” level of employment anyway? “Maximum employment” is part of the Fed’s mandate, which makes it sound like central bankers want everyone to have a job. However, the reality of the doublespeak is very different.
The meaning of the “maximum employment” mandate is that the Fed wants the correct number of people to have jobs. Determining exactly what the “correct” number is in practical terms is a guessing game of central bank wizardry, but it basically boils down to whatever number the Fed thinks is necessary for achieving their 2% inflation goal.
However, the precise nuances driving the dynamics between inflation and unemployment are something that not even the Fed’s economists can agree on with any finality. The details of the inflation-unemployment tradeoff have been a long-standing debate in economics, with different sides taking different positions based on their endless self-referential analyses and Keynesian math, as seen earlier this month in this report from analysts at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Discussing the inflation-unemployment debate, which was reignited among economists and central bankers during the Covid-19 pandemic, they say:
“One camp argued that the surge in inflation was driven primarily by transitory factors, such as global supply chain disruptions and demand shifts, with little negative growth consequences of disinflation for the US economy. A more pessimistic view embraced by others envisioned a costlier disinflation process leading to a recession.”
This chart from the St. Louis Fed shows the drastic spike in unemployment that helped fuel the debate, along with innumerable other disruptions caused by the global response to the virus (providing endless academic fodder for economics researchers):
The Covid-19 Unemployment Spike
Whichever camp has the more accurate take, when it comes to pushing for lower employment rates to tame inflation that the Fed’s policies created, central banks punish human beings for the results of their own policies. And even at the 2% inflation target, the central bank is constantly reducing your future purchasing power to provide pseudo-infinite funding for an overstretched empire, or as Ron Paul aptly calls it, the Welfare Warfare State.
Regardless of whether the rate of inflation is 2%, 4%, or much higher, the common denominator is this: Central Banks are stealing your money.
MUST WATCH: Funeral Home Director John O’Looney Exposes The Secret COVID Holocaust