Exposé Reveals Shadowy Left-Wing Network Works To Censor, Deplatform Conservatives

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

‘Disinformation’ trackers are on a mission to blacklist and defund conservative news sites, costing them thousands of dollars in ad revenue.


Left-wing “disinformation” tracking groups are working to blacklist and defund conservative news sites, costing them thousands of dollars in ad revenue, according to an exclusive report by The Washington Examiner.

Affiliates of the U.K.-based Global Disinformation Index (GDI) have raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars producing secretive lists of non-leftist news sites for large corporations to boycott. Corporate brands seek out ad companies to help promote their products online, and these ad companies are contracting with these “disinformation” tracking entities to tell them which websites they should avoid advertising on.

Such third-party entities blacklist conservative news sites that have resisted some of the false narratives and propaganda put forth by corporate media. The shadowy network of tracking groups labels the content on these independent news sites as disinformation so brands will not offer ads on their sites. The goal is to financially hurt independent publications and ultimately prevent them from disseminating content, the report explains.

While GDI claims to be nonpartisan, its leadership includes leftist activists, according to the report. Its advisory panel is also full of activists aligned with the left, including Meta’s — Facebook’s parent company — global lead for threat intelligence Ben Nimmo, The Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum, and University of Washington Professor Franziska Roesner. Applebaum is known for pushing the Russia-collusion hoax as well as participating in the coordinated operation to suppress facts about the Biden family business. She later defended her support of that operation as not a big deal.

According to The Washington Examiner:

GDI’s mission is to “remove the financial incentive” to create “disinformation,” and its “core output” is a secretive “dynamic exclusion list” that rates news outlets based on their alleged disinformation “risk” factor, according to its website. There are at least 2,000 websites on this exclusion list, which has “had a significant impact on the advertising revenue that has gone to those sites,” [GDI CEO Clare] Melford said on a March 2022 podcast episode hosted by the Safety Tech Innovation Network, a British government-backed group.

GDI’s exclusion list of what it claimed were the “riskiest” and “worst” peddlers of what it called “disinformation” include media outlets known for their exhaustive and well-sourced reporting in opposition to information operations put out through corporate media. These information operations include the unsubstantiated claims that respected Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was a secret serial gang rapist, the completely debunked Russia-collusion hoax, and the poorly designed and implemented public health response to the Covid pandemic.

The list includes The Federalist, The American Spectator, Newsmax, The American Conservative, One America News, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, RealClearPolitics, Reason, and the New York Post.

According to its website, GDI justifies this exclusion list by asserting without evidence that each of these 10 outlets “displayed some degree of cherry-picking facts, omitting relevant information, making unsubstantiated claims, and/or using logical fallacies. Many of the sites that regularly posted this kind of misleading, biased content also used sensational language to elicit an emotional response from the reader.”

In contrast, GDI also ranked what it claimed were the 10 “least risky” news outlets, which include some of the most politically biased outlets in journalism today: NPR, ProPublica, the Associated Press, Insider, The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, Buzzfeed News, HuffPost, and The Wall Street Journal. GDI claimed that each of these publications — most of which were well known for pushing the false Russia-collusion hoax, the false Kavanaugh rape smears, as well as routinely pushing Democrat talking points — show “minimal bias” and a lack of “sensational language” in their reporting.

There is no mention of the fact that most — if not all — of these outlets published many election-meddling false claims that the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story was “Russian disinformation” or spent the four years of the Trump presidency using loaded and “sensational language to elicit an emotional response from the reader” — that Donald Trump was a threat to democracy, an illegitimate president, and a toady for Russia.

Instead, publications with strong institutional legitimacy and award-winning journalism, such as The New York Post, whose reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop was finally vindicated, and RealClearPolitics, known for publishing rigorously reported articles on pressing issues of the day, were labeled as “high risk” to potential readers.

GDI isn’t the only group that blacklists independent news sites to deprive them of ad revenue, however. The Examiner also highlights DoubleVerify and Integral Ad Science, which flag what they claim are problematic news sites and their alleged disinformation to steer clients away from offering ads on those sites.

“The implementation of ad revenue crushing sentinels like Newsguard, Global Disinformation Index, and the like has completely crippled the potential of alternative news sources to compete on an even economic playing field with approved media outlets like CNN and the New York Times,” Mike Benz, ex-deputy assistant for internal communications and information policy at the Department of State told the Examiner.

This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

Daily Wire Reporter Suspended From Twitter Over Story About Trans ‘Day Of Vengeance’ Scheduled For Same Week As Nashville Shooting

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Luke Rosiak, an investigative reporter for The Daily Wire, was suspended from Twitter on Tuesday after he posted a link to a story about activists scheduling a transgender “Day of Vengeance” the same week of the shooting at a Christian elementary school in Nashville, Tennessee.

Police said that a 28-year-old woman who identified as a transgender man killed three 9-year-old children and three adults at The Covenant School, which is associated with the conservative evangelical Covenant Presbyterian Church. Authorities revealed that the shooter, whom The Daily Wire will not name in accordance with company policy, executed a “targeted attack” and left behind a “manifesto.”

Rosiak noted on Monday that the suspected shooter executed her attack days before the Trans Radical Activist Network called for a “Day of Vengeance” on Saturday, April 1. Twitter removed a post from Rosiak linking to an article he wrote earlier this month about the activists.

“The shooting of a Christian school by a transgender comes the same week that activists scheduled a ‘Trans Day of Vengeance,’ with the group also raising money for firearms training,” Rosiak had said in the tweet.

Rosiak, who said he has been on Twitter for 13 years but has “never had a single strike,” received an alert indicating that the tweet violated “rules against violent speech” and stating that the social media platform does not permit users to “share abusive content, harass someone, or encourage other people to do so.”

He was told that he must delete the original post to regain access to his account; he appealed the decision, observing that he was not “advocating for violence” but rather “stating a fact and noting disapprovingly” that others had been calling for violence. Trans Radical Activist Network indeed retains its account on Twitter.

“The activists, which describe their ‘Day of Vengeance’ alongside references to Molotov cocktails and specifically mentioned Tennessee, advertised this event on Twitter itself, and their accounts have not been banned,” Rosiak told The Daily Wire in reaction to his suspension. “Are trans activists mass-reporting factual tweets to prevent the public from learning about their actions, and does Elon Musk’s system allow organized groups of leftists to game it that way?”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who called on federal officials to investigate whether the Nashville massacre was a hate crime against Christians, had retweeted the post from Rosiak. “This kind of hateful rhetoric, ‘genocide’ and ‘day of vengeance,’ must be condemned,” the lawmaker said. “The hate crime massacre in Nashville exposes where rhetoric like this can lead.”…..


Continue reading this article at Daily Wire.

Six Army Bases to be Renamed from Original Confederate Names

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

The dates have been revealed for when six United States Army bases will officially have their names changed due to a far-left campaign to rename any installations bearing Confederate names.

According to Axios, the six bases in question are: Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Pickett, Virginia; Fort Rucker, Alabama; Fort Lee, Virginia; Fort Benning, Georgia; and Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The name changes come after Joe Biden created a federal Naming Commission, for the sole purpose of changing names of federal facilities, monuments, parks, and other territories that were originally named for Confederate figures; the campaign has been widely criticized as an effort to erase American history in the name of political correctness and “woke” racial justice politics.

Several of the forts’ new names are based on diversity-pick figures in the Army. Fort Hood, originally named for Confederate General John Bell Hood, will be renamed Fort Cavazos on May 9th, after the first Latino four-star general and first Latino brigadier general, Richard Cavazos. Similarly, Fort Lee, originally named for the renowned General Robert E. Lee, will be renamed Fort Gregg-Adams on April 27th; the name is an amalgamation of 36-year Lt. Gen. Arthur Gregg and Lt. Col. Charity Adams, the first black officer in the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps in World War II.

Fort Pickett, originally named for General George Pickett, was changed to Fort Barfoot on Friday. On April 10th, Fort Rucker will be changed to Fort Novosel, after originally being named for Colonel Edmund Winchester Rucker. On May 11th, Fort Benning’s name will be changed to Fort Moore; it was originally named after General Henry L. Benning.

Fort Bragg, arguably the most famous of the forts in question due to its long history of training Special Forces, named for General Braxton Bragg, will be officially renamed on June 2nd to Fort Liberty; as such, it is the base with a new name that is not based on any one particular person.

Three other bases bearing Confederate names are also being targeted for renaming, but official dates have not yet been set. These bases are Fort Gordon in Georgia, Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia, and Fort Polk in Louisiana.

This article was published by American Greatness and is reproduced with permission.

Money and Inflation Are Still Related

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

There is perhaps no empirical regularity among economic phenomena that is based on so much evidence, for so wide a range of circumstances,” Milton Friedman observed in 1989, “as the connection between substantial changes in the quantity of money and in the level of prices.” And yet, despite the wide body of work alluded to by Friedman, most monetary policymakers and economists believe that there is no information to be gained by looking at monetary aggregates. This widespread belief has resulted in governments’ not estimating monetary aggregates, or else estimating them for a much narrower set of series than in prior years. Monetary aggregates make no appearance in many econometric models of the economy, and are rarely if ever brought up in the briefings for Federal Open Market Committee meetings.

This widespread belief that monetary aggregates are uninformative is incorrect.
Figure 1. Excess Money Growth and Inflation in 108 countries, 2008-2022.

Figure 1 shows the excess growth rate of money measured by M2 and the inflation rate across 108 countries for 2008 to 2022. M2 is a monetary aggregate that estimates the funds available to buy goods and services. It includes currency, checking accounts, and savings accounts that are close substitutes for currency and checking accounts. The excess growth rate of money is the growth rate of M2, less the growth rate of real income, as measured by GDP. The growth rate of income subtracts the non-inflationary growth of the goods and services available. If the growth rate of money and the growth rate of income were equal, then the inflation rate would be roughly zero. Growth of money in excess of income growth fuels inflation.

The positive relationship between the inflation rate and excess money growth over these 14 years is obvious. A linear relationship with a coefficient of one between inflation and excess money growth is an implication of some theories relating inflation and excess money growth. The correlation of inflation and excess money growth is 0.92. The slope of a line relating inflation and excess money growth is 0.95, when estimated by a regression of inflation on excess money growth.

While not one, 0.95 is not all that far from one. Figure 1 shows a line with the one-for-one relationship and another with the slope of 0.95. They are not all that far apart. Most of the countries in Figure 1 have lower inflation than implied by the excess money growth. This means that the demand for money in these countries increased even more than is implied by the growth rate of real income alone. It does not mean there is no relationship between money growth and inflation.
Figure 2. Excess Money Growth and Inflation in Countries with less than 30 Percent Inflation, 2008-2022.

An often remarked aspect of Figure 1 is that the correlation may just reflect the high-inflation countries and the relationship for the low-inflation countries is far less evident. Figure 2 shows the relationship between excess money growth and inflation for countries with average inflation less than 30 percentage points per year. The relation is not as clear, but the correlation between excess money growth and inflation is 0.75. While this correlation of 0.75 is less than a correlation of 0.92 for all the countries, it is hardly trivial.

The slope of the regression line has a larger difference. Comparing the two figures, it is clear that the regression line in Figure 2 deviates from the slope equal to one by more. The slope of the line is 0.85, which is farther from one than 0.95 but also far from zero. And zero is the number implied by an assertion that the information content of monetary aggregates is zero.

The data in Figure 2 are averaged over fourteen years of growth. The fourteen years is the result of data availability. But while the relationship between excess money growth and inflation is evident over longer periods of time, it is not particularly evident for short periods of time. For the data in Figure 1, the correlation of the annual growth rates of excess money and inflation is 0.69, quite a bit less than the 0.95 with the fourteen years of averaged data. For the countries with lower inflation in Figure 2, the correlation is 0.23, again quite a bit lower than the 0.85 with averaged data.

These correlations show two things:

The relationship is weaker for countries with lower inflation than higher inflation; and
The relationship is weaker over shorter time periods.

There is a common explanation for both of these observations. Over shorter periods of time and in countries with relatively low inflation, Mark Fisher and Gerald Dwyer have shown that inflation which is more persistent than money growth can explain both. Inflation is quite persistent as a general rule and money growth less so.

Is the information content of money growth zero? Unequivocally, the answer is no.

Why does this matter?

M2 in 2020 and 2021 increased by the largest percentages in the last 60 years. To the surprise of the Federal Reserve (although not everyone), inflation resulted. Not all countries have increased the money stock to the same extent. Japan and Switzerland have not had outsized increases in the money stock and have not had higher inflation. Monetary policymakers and economists in the United States and some other countries would have done better if they had not ignored money growth.

This article was published by American Institute for Economic Research and is reproduced with permission.

WaPo Writer Agrees Transgender Killer Reacted Against Christian Brainwashing

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

In the wake of the tragic shooting today that left three nine-year-olds and three school employees murdered, a sick Twitter user took to the platform to claim that, while murder is wrong, the shooter was just reacting to cruel indoctrination. You see, the murderer was a 28-year-old “transgender” woman named Audrey Hale who claimed the pronouns “he/him.” Furthermore, the targeted elementary school, Covenant School, is a private Christian institution, in a state (Tennessee) that restricts transgender surgery for minors and drag shows.

And a Washington Post contributor (Mike Wise) apparently praised the assessment that the school suffering from the tragedy was pushing “religious indoctrination.” One wonders if these freaky leftists would have had the same interpretation if the targeted school had been Muslim (Islam of course also condemns transgenderism)? Or if the shooting had happened in California?

About as inappropriate a response as Joe Biden cracking jokes about ice cream before speaking on the shooting.

Wise is already using the shooting to call for more gun confiscation, even though more than 90% of mass shootings occur in gun free zones and, as of 2019, “43 percent of criminals had bought their firearms on the black market, 6 percent acquired them via theft, and 10 percent made a retail purchase.” All of which is to say that Wise is completely delusional about “gun control” making mass shootings less likely. (Also, as a side comment on Wise’s post, the number of school shootings in the listed countries is deceptive about the countries’ safety; Afghanistan, for instance, is in the grip of the terrorist Taliban and China’s government is committing mass genocide).

You can also find Wise’s profile at the Post.

And it seems transgenders have been threatening violence in reaction to Tennessee’s anti-LGBTQ policies.

PJ Media reported:

“Nashville Chief of Police John Drake has since confirmed at a press conference that Hale identified as transgender. She was a biological female who identified as a man. Police also confirmed that Hale was a former student at the school and that she had a manifesto…The victims have been identified as Evelyn Dieckhaus, Hallie Scruggs, and William Kinney, all 9 years old; Cynthia Peak, age 61; Katherine Koonce, age 60; and; Mike Hill, age 61. Katherine Koonce was the head of The Covenant School.”

The fact that Wise and the other Twitter user immediately began bashing the victims and defending the murderess is not surprising, because leftists typically sympathize with the victimizer rather than the victim; but it is disgusting. Three young children and three adults have been tragically killed. It’s not a situation that should be exploited for shallow, woke virtue-signaling.

This article was published by Pro Deo et Libertate and is reproduced with permission.

A Reckoning May Be Coming for Universities on Foreign Funding

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

The sword of Damocles hanging over much of what the new GOP-led House is planning to investigate in any number of coming hearings – everything from COVID origins to tech/government collusion – is the influence of the Communist Party of China.

And why wouldn’t it be? Now that President Biden’s entanglements with China via his troubled son Hunter have been all-but confirmed, and Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian Premier Vladimir Putin are toasting to a stronger alliance between the two countries, the GOP House is behaving like it knows it has a lot of clean up to do before the 2024 election. If the U.S. hopes to maintain some sense of sovereignty, that is.

One theater of battle in the newly-revealed economic and propaganda war between the West and the Communist East (we may not have accepted we’re at war, but we were) has been in education, with the influence of socialist and outright communist philosophy floating through schools – not as debatable philosophies but as pedagogy and curriculum — from the university on down.

Which made recent news that the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Biden Center may have benefited from a massive increase in foreign funding to the university – with most of the $61 million it received following the Penn Biden Center’s opening in 2017 coming from China – that much more eyebrow-raising.

But credit to the new House because they are attempting to address the alleged corruption in a way that gets at the heart of it: by using the power of the purse granted to them by the Constitution.

To that end, the House Ways and Means Committee, led by Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO), has recently written a letter to the University of Pennsylvania reminding them that their committee – the oldest in the federal government and deriving “a large share of its jurisdiction from Article I, Section VII of the U.S. Constitution” – has “jurisdiction over the taxation of endowments and [to] raise concerns about revelations that the Penn endowment, which also appears to fund the Penn Biden Center, has known investments in adversarial entities.

Oh my.

Our understanding is that the Penn Biden Center is an entity operating under the umbrella of the University of Pennsylvania and receives all its funding through the University. In fact, the Penn Biden Center’s mission statement includes the following: “The Penn Biden Center does not accept any contributions or gifts.”

President Biden was paid approximately $900,000 over approximately two years according to public reporting and his public tax returns while the Center also paid other employees. Presumably, if these funds were not coming from contributions or gifts, these funds had to come from the University.

Public reports have also raised questions about foreign direct investment in the University of Pennsylvania and the relationship between those investments and the creation of the Penn Biden Center. The timing of the Center’s creation along with the reported increase in foreign investment appears to coincide with members of President Biden’s family seeking business opportunities in China.

Specifically, the letter requests that UPenn provide documentation about the legal relationship between itself and the Biden-named think tank, and opens up the possibility of examining whether the university had been investing in Chinese companies that were on any of the federal government’s (USG) adversarial entities lists stemming from a 2022 letter they received asking for information.

The University of Pennsylvania’s June 23, 2022, response to Representative Murphy’s letter noted that the University’s endowment does in fact hold investments in three entities on the USG Lists. Based on the most recently available public data, which indicates that UPenn’s endowment holdings are valued at approximately $20.7 billion, the percentage invested in listed entities equals a value of approximately $3.3 million. In addition, the University’s June 23, 2022, response did not indicate any plans to divest, nor did it identify the entities that held such investments.

It’s been slowly coming to light over the last several years that U.S. universities – supposed protectors of the values undergirding a liberal society and free speech – have been “massively” underreporting foreign funding. The House GOP is apparently poised to look at that trend – and to determine if that underreporting is tied to a concurrent trend toward enrichment of university endowments that are then used to invest in companies that work toward the demise of those same liberal values. Good luck and Godspeed to them in their work.

This article was published by Capital Research Center and is reproduced with permission.

Black Lives Matter Activists Executed A Shocking $83 Billion Shakedown Of American Corporations

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots of 2020 were the largest and most successful shakedown in American history. These “mostly peaceful protests” — which burned more than 200 American cities and wreaked more than $2 billion in damages — achieved more than anyone could have predicted: changes in laws, private sector policies, and perhaps most importantly, a historic transfer of wealth to racial and leftwing causes. As a result, American corporations gave or pledged more than $83 billion to either BLM or BLM-related causes.

We created a database tracking contributions and pledges made to the BLM movement and related causes, which we define as organizations and initiatives that advance one or more aspects of BLM’s agenda, and which were made in the wake of the BLM riots of 2020. To date, our data spans more than 400 companies and $83 billion in pledges and contributions.

The famed consulting firm McKinsey and Company thinks the number is far larger. They calculated that from May 2020 to October 2022 companies pledged about $340 billion “to racial equity, specifically for Black Americans after the murder of George Floyd in May 2020.” Our number is conservative by comparison. But unlike McKinsey, we provide details about the pledges and contributions of specific companies.

We are surprised at some of the incredulity in our calculations. So too is BLM, which suggests that objections to wealth transfers of this scale are rooted in “white supremacy,” and “a pathology that Black organizations don’t deserve to be funded.”

BLM called for reparations. In a sense, they succeeded, as these reparations were paid out to BLM itself (approximately $122 million) and to its vast NGO archipelago and other racialized causes and schemes under various names.

While the money was given or pledged in different ways, it was unmistakable for so-called “racial justice.” Sometimes this meant cash transfers to partners of BLM, like the Color of Change, the NAACP, the Equal Justice Initiative, and the ACLU.

Sometimes it meant cash or pledges to other “reparative” initiatives including race-based, discriminatory hiring programs; race-based, sub-prime lending; race-based scholarships; and partisan voter initiatives. Sometimes it meant Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which are the polite versions of BLM calibrated to middle-class, middle-management tastes. The DEI ideology disagrees with BLM in few ways, if any.

DEI and BLM share one mission: to punish white America, through different means. The latter through riots and pressure campaigns, the former through preferential hiring and promotion of members of protected groups. Both aim to redistribute honor, privileges, and money to black Americans. Both are extorting special privileges and money by using white guilt.

Moreover, both are attempting to do so by cultural revolution, and both stand openly against meritocracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech, and individual rights. Correctly understood, DEI is an expression of BLM’s broader agenda.

We already know the exorbitant amount of money given or pledged by large banks like JPMorgan ($30 billion), Bank of America ($18 billion), and Silicon Valley Bank ($70 million) in the wake of the 2020 BLM riots to subsidized and sub-prime race-based lending, race-based investment targeting, supply chain diversity initiatives, and nonprofits advancing racial justice.

But BLM was so effective that even seemingly middle-America companies shelled out big. For example, Cargill, the Minnesota-based food producer, launched its “Black Farmer Equity Initiative,” a redistributive program that attributes declining numbers of black farmers to “the legacy of systemic racism” and seeks to “dismantle Anti-Black racism” and “operationalize equity across the food and agriculture system.” Cargill pledged $11 billion to the initiative through 2030.

Kroger, a ubiquitous neighborhood grocery chain, spent at least $13 million to advance racial division, including $5 million toward its “Framework for Action: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” initiative and a $500,000 contribution to LISC’s Black Economic Development Fund, a discriminatory investment fund that promotes BLM. Kroger also partnered with the discriminatory, race-based hiring platform OneTen, which aims to “hire, promote, and advance one million Black individuals who do not have a four-year degree into family-sustaining careers over the next ten years.”

Caterpillar, the producer of heavy equipment, donated $500,000 each to the NAACP and the Equal Justice Initiative. It too partnered with OneTen.  John Deere donated $1 million to the NAACP, again, an official partner of BLM.

Defense contractors, traditionally neutral and dedicated to keeping America safe, also submitted to BLM’s demands. Northrop Grumman donated $1 million to the NAACP and an additional $1 million to organizations promoting social justice as part of an employee charitable gift matching program. It also partnered with OneTen.

Raytheon pledged $25 million over five years to “advance racial justice, empowerment, and career readiness in underserved communities.” The commitment includes donations to the NAACP, Equal Justice Initiative, and National Urban League; community outreach; public policy lobbying; and a supplier diversity initiative.

Boeing pledged a minimum of $25 million by 2023 toward racial “equity” and “social justice.” In 2020, it contributed $15.6 million to organizations addressing “racial inequity,” including $1 million to the Equal Justice Initiative.

The list goes on, and should be further explored by journalists in order to understand the full extent of the shakedown. By caving to BLM, American companies not only became the tools of radicals but also laid the groundwork for future violence and extortion.

This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

Democrat Barney Frank Was Board Member at Collapsed Signature Bank

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Democrat former Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) was a member of the board at the collapsed Signature Bank.

As Slay News reported, New York-based Signature was shut down by regulators on Sunday [March 12] in the wake of the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) collapse on Friday [March 10].

Now it has emerged that the former Democrat congressman, author of the 2010 Dodd-Frank bill, was a board member at the imploded bank.

In a joint statement on Sunday, the U.S. Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced the plan to manage the fallout of SVB’s collapse as well as the demise of Signature Bank.

“Today we are taking decisive actions to protect the U.S. economy by strengthening public confidence in our banking system,” the joint statement read.

“This step will ensure that the U.S. banking system continues to perform its vital roles of protecting deposits and providing access to credit to households and businesses in a manner that promotes strong and sustainable economic growth.”

“We are also announcing a similar systemic risk exception for Signature Bank, New York, New York, which was closed today by its state chartering authority,” it added.

“All depositors of this institution will be made whole.

“As with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, no losses will be borne by the taxpayer.”

SVB collapsed last Friday after depositors rushed to withdraw money in fear of its impending fall.

It was the 16th largest bank in the country its implosion marked the second-largest U.S. bank collapse in history.

According to Fox Business, Signature Bank became “popular among crypto companies” and provided “deposit services for its clients’ digital assets but did not make loans collateralized by them.”

Prior to the SVB collapse, Signature said it had been trying to limit such deposits.

The bank promised that it was in a “well-diversified financial position” and had “limited digital-asset related deposit balances in the wake of industry developments.”

“We want to make it clear again that Signature Bank is a well-diversified, full-service commercial bank with more than two decades of history and solid performance serving middle market businesses,” Joseph J. DePaolo, Signature Bank Co-founder and Chief Executive Officer said in a statement.

“We have built a strong reputation serving commercial clients through nine business lines and reached in excess of $100 billion in assets by continually executing our single-point-of-contact, relationship-based model where banking teams are capable of meeting all client needs,” he added.

Frank, who sat on Signature Bank’s board, strongly supported legislation in 2018 that curtailed some of the regulations that his own law Dodd-Frank put in place…..


Continue reading this article at Slay News.

Torture, Sterilization, and Brainwashing: Uyghur Camp Survivors Testify to Congress

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Sterilization, electric shock torture, and brainwashing are hallmarks of the Chinese Communist Party’s treatment of the Uyghur people, according to prison camp survivors.” Survivors of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) concentration camps for Uyghur Muslims testified to Congress this week. You won’t see much coverage of the horrendous crimes detailed in this hearing in the mainstream media, because the CCP has infiltrated our institutions. But these people’s stories need to be told. And all those US companies and politicians who want to compromise with China—they are complicit in this horror.

The CCP is the greatest mass murderer of all time, at a staggering 500 million deaths and counting. But of course that 500 million, as massive a number as it is, only represents a fraction of the number of people abused and oppressed by the CCP. The Uyghur testimony to Congress highlighted that.

“[The Daily Signal, March 23] Gulbahar Haitiwaji and Qelbinur Sidik witnessed firsthand the realities of Chinese concentration camps where Uyghur Muslims are held and tortured…Haitiwaji is Uyghur and lived and worked in China before moving to France. At the end of 2016, she was called back to China for an issue that she was told regarded her retirement pension. Upon returning to China, Haitiwaji was arrested and sent to a “reeducation” camp.

‘First they shackled my feet and then they detained [me],’ Haitiwaji said. ‘The woman’s condition in the detention centers are horrible. All women are shackled and our language… we are all prohibited to speak.’

Haitiwaji, author of ‘How I Survived a Chinese ‘Reeducation’ Camp: A Uyghur Woman’s Story,’ said she and the other women in the prison were interrogated and tortured.

‘The rooms we were kept in had bunk beds, a bucket to serve as a toilet, and cameras panning the room,’ Haitiwaji said in her written testimony. ‘There was no mattress, no toilet paper, no sheets, nowhere to wash.’

Every day, Haitiwaji underwent 11 hours of Chinese language education…’There are four types of torturing methods,’ Sidik said. ‘One is electric button, electric helmet, electric glove, and a tiger chair.’”

The next time Bill Gates, Elon Musk, or a Biden official says something pro-China, keep this in mind. Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC) obtained revelatory documentation on the Uyghur genocide last year. In one 2017 document, a CCP official said, “If he was handcuffed, could he run away? No, he would be unable to, wouldn’t he? Shoot him dead if he run a few steps. You see, in such a situation, if they run, just kill them. There will be no problem, because we have already authorized this a long time ago.” Yet where was the explosion of outrage from the self-righteous US media and politicians?

Sidik, another testifier to Congress, is Uzbek, and she served as an instructor in the “reeducation” camps starting in 2017, when she was assigned to a “new teaching position”—helping “re-educate” Uyghurs in a concentration camp.

“‘For each meal they eat one Chinese bun and water, and even going for toilet is monitored,’ Sidik, speaking through a translator, said of her students, adding that within the six months she was there, ‘none of them had any shower.’

Sidik said her students would be called from her classroom for interrogation. Because the interrogation rooms were located near the classrooms, she would hear ‘horrible screaming sound from torture.’

‘There are four types of torturing methods,’ Sidik said. ‘One is electric button, electric helmet, electric glove, and a tiger chair.’

Every Monday, Sidik recalls that female prisoners were given an unknown medicine. ‘After they take that, those medicines [then] the period will stop,’ she said. ‘Even some woman who were breastfeeding the babies, the breast milk will stop after taking that medicine.’”

By the way, isn’t it interesting that one of the side effects of the Covid-19 vaccines is said to be damaging women’s fertility—and at least one of the major Covid vaccines, Pfizer-BioNTech’s, is manufactured by a CCP-owned company? Is the US government and Big Pharma importing CCP forced sterilization? After all, in the 20th century, there were many thousands of women forcibly sterilized with the sanction of the US government during the eugenics craze, so it’s hardly unprecedented.

“Sidik said in her written testimony that while working at an all women ‘center,’ that sometimes, when the women ‘would come to class, I could tell [by] how they walked with difficulty or were sobbing that they had been sexually abused.’

The police working in the camps were ‘raping women but also inserting batons, even electric ones, into their private parts and even men’s rectums,’ Sidik said.”

The CCP is a completely evil entity and it has to be destroyed, before it destroys the Uyghurs—and America too.

This article was published by Pro Deo et Libertate and is reproduced with permission.

Is ‘Wokeism’ to Blame for Silicon Valley Bank’s Demise? No and Yes

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Within days of Silicon Valley Bank’s swift and shocking collapse, a narrative formed that “wokeism” lay at the heart of the California bank’s sudden demise. It began with a Fox News appearance by Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus.

“I feel bad for all of these people that lost all their money in this woke bank,” Marcus told host Neil Cavuto. “You know, it was more distressing to hear that the bank officials sold off their stock before this happened.”

Similar criticism followed from rank-and-files members of the GOP, including House Oversight chairman James Comer, who decried SVB’s “ESG-type policy and investing.”

The charges prompted an avalanche of media responses attempting to debunk claims that “wokeness” had anything to do with the collapse of SVB or the distress of other financial institutions, such as Signature Bank.

“There’s no evidence that SVB’s sustainable investing or diversity initiatives contributed to its collapse,” Washington Post business and tech reporter Julian Mark wrote.

“No, diversity did not cause Silicon Valley Bank’s Collapse,” the New York Times assured readers in a headline.

What Is ‘Woke’?

Woke is a surprisingly tricky term to define—just ask Bethany Mandel who recently went viral when she froze on TV after being asked to define it—in part because it means different things to different people.

What’s clear is that “wokeness” is intertwined with the concept of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), an idea broadly defined as a “framework that seeks to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially in the workplace, including populations who have historically been under-represented or subject to discrimination.”

Treating all people fairly isn’t a particularly controversial or revolutionary idea, but critics of “wokeness” complain that DEI initiatives go beyond the fair and equal treatment of individuals, giving preferred treatment to historically marginalized groups. Moreover, there’s a concern that corporate DEI initiatives are emphasizing social causes over sound business practices and maximizing shareholder value.

For example, SVB famously pledged to provide at least $5 billion “in sustainable finance and carbon neutral operations to support a healthier planet.” The bank—which is currently in bankruptcy proceedings—also donated $73 million to Black Lives Matter and similar social justice causes.

Meanwhile, video has emerged of Signature Bank Chairman Scott Shay, whose bank was recently shut down by regulators, offering a lengthy tutorial on the proper usage of gender-neutral pronouns.

Even proponents of DEI initiatives would likely concede these are “woke” practices. But did the “woke” lectures and programs have anything to do with the collapse of SVB and Signature Bank, both of which unfairly (and dangerously) received bailouts from the federal government?

‘A Negligent Board of Directors’

Many astute financial experts brush off claims that “wokeism” caused the reckoning facing SVB, rightly pointing out that macroeconomic factors triggered financial chaos across the world. (The Swiss bank Credit Suisse also had to be rescued, and there’s little evidence its collapse was related to wokeism.)

In the United States, rising interest rates resulted in far less borrowing, particularly for tech startups, which are the primary clients of banks like SVB. Meanwhile, SVB had loaded up on (seemingly low risk) Treasury bonds, which saw their value plummet when the Federal Reserve began sharply raising interest rates to combat rampant inflation. Barron’s reports that more than half of SVB’s $211 billion in financial assets were composed of these struggling securities at the end of 2022.

Many contend that more oversight could have prevented the collapse of SVB and other banks. This claim might have some merit, but it also ignores that regulators themselves were asleep at the switch during SVB’s collapse.

“Traditional prudential regulation should have caught this,” said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) during a recent Senate hearing. “Where were the regulators?”

It’s a fair question, and one members of both parties are asking. Banks are supposed to undergo stress tests and similar oversight to prevent the kind of exposure that wrecked SVB. Why that didn’t happen is a question we’ll likely hear answered during congressional hearings, but it might have something to do with the fact that SVB’s CEO also sat on the board of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, which had regulatory oversight.

Regulatory failure, however, should not overshadow the bank’s own internal failures, which are obvious even to those without investment banking experience. Why was SVB’s portfolio not more diversified? Why did the bank expose itself to so much risk and hang on to its plummeting Treasury securities so long? Why were so many loans extended to subprime borrowers?

These are, frankly, rookie mistakes.

“The combination of a negligent board of directors @SVB with idiot management is the potent cocktail that led to a disastrous outcome,” investor and Shark Tank host Kevin O’Leary observed on Twitter in the wake of SVB’s collapse.

O’Leary is not wrong, but he didn’t point out why SVB’s board was negligent.

It turns out that SVB’s board of directors was rather thin on investment banking experience and heavy on political connections. (To be fair, there’s also a sound economic incentive to appoint board members with political clout.) One member of the board—Tom King, who joined the board in September 2022—had extensive experience in the industry, but others have relatively little or none.

This is one of the dangers of “wokeism” and social justice theory. These value systems are explicitly hostile to concepts like individual merit. Baked into the ideology is the temptation to hire people based on factors—race, gender, ideology, etc.—other than the value they can bring to an organization; to ignore profit and shareholders, and instead serve greater social causes.

If you doubt this, consider this 2021 interview with SVB board member Elizabeth ‘Busy’ Burr. In the interview, Burr spurns focusing on “numbers.” The words value and shareholder don’t even appear. Her focus is equity, inclusion, and the “tide of racism and white supremacy” in America. Months after the interview, the Carrot CCO joined the SVB board. (Burr, unlike other board members, did actually spend several years in the investment banking space, working for Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse First Boston, according to SVB.)

To be clear, no one denies that macroeconomic factors—particularly the Federal Reserve’s massive money pumping and interest rate schemes—played a central role in the demise of SVB. But don’t discount the impact corporate wokeism had in creating a culture that emphasized DEI initiatives and goals over creating value, earning profit, and providing proper oversight of a company managing billions of dollars.

We’re constantly being told that capitalism needs to be fixed. That it needs to be more responsible. That it must focus more on “environmental” and “social” concerns. That it must include more external “stakeholders.”

The collapse of SVB, which was preventable, shows that these efforts to “reform” capitalism may very well be what destroys it. (The fact that federal authorities quickly stepped in to protect parties from the consequences of their decisions shows that to some extent it already has.)

Moreover, basic economics offers yet another clue.

Resources, we know, are finite. Each comes with an “opportunity cost,” which means that every single service or resource—including time—comes at the expense of something else.

It’s worth pointing out that SVB had a DEI executive, but, astonishingly, it had no chief risk officer. This is a big deal.

Opportunity cost shows us the funds used to hire that diversity executive could have been used instead to hire a risk officer. Indeed, every single dollar the bank spent on diversity and inclusion and other “woke” programs and initiatives could have been spent on other resources, including risk officers and stress tests that could have helped SVB identify solvency problems and limit exposure to the macroeconomic factors that precipitated its collapse.

“Wokeism” may not have been the primary factor for SVB’s collapse, but basic economics shows it did play a role, big or small.

This article was published by FEE, Foundation for Economic Education and is reproduced with permission.