Activist Post

1. Biden’s So-Called ‘Oligarchs’

In his last address, Joe Biden offered a Parthian shot at "oligarchs" and the dangers these "billionaires" pose to the republic. At the same time, left-wing senators hammered Trump cabinet nominees on the grounds that they would be too complacent in the face of a supposed takeover of the country by Trump's "billionaires" and their "oligarchy."

Many things could be said about Biden's farewell address, but I will limit them to three.

First, Biden was attempting to copycat the warnings of outgoing president and iconic war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Some 64 years earlier—on January 17, 1961, the near day of Biden's "farewell address," a departing Eisenhower warned of a new "military-industrial complex" threat to the republic that had grown out of World War II and was cresting during the ongoing Cold War of the 1950s.

The fear, as Ike outlined it, was that a new small tech-corporate elite would sell the country on all sorts of expensive weapons and programs to ensure a near-permanent condition of hyper-military readiness and national insolvency.

This resulting "garrison state" would make the arms merchants and technocrats rich but also exhaust the U.S. treasury in the process. What would follow for the American people was a government octopus that demanded ever higher taxes while spending money in ways increasingly unknown or irrelevant to the public interest.

Eisenhower worried the grandees of the military-industrial complex—ex-generals revolving into defense contractor lobbyists and board members—would redefine the ancient laws of war and peace in terms of mumbo-jumbo techno-jargon. The resulting esoterica was designed to justify budget-busting defense expenditures, without enough care that the federal government would expand while the now overtaxed and overregulated citizen would be at their mercy.

Apparently, a departing Biden sought to graft his own "oligarchy" speech onto Eisenhower's earlier blueprint.

But Ike was speaking as a successful two-term president. And he was an iconic war hero, as the architect of the successful American role in defeating Hitler—from the beaches of Normandy to the occupation of the defeated German homeland.

The postwar president Eisenhower was worried about a new world in which new nuclear-tipped missiles threatened to turn any conventional war between superpowers into nuclear Armageddon. In other words, Americans listened to Eisenhower, given his probity, gravitas, and experience—and the dangers of the new corporate-government fusion. But they have no reason to listen to Biden.

Or to paraphrase a famous quip from 1988 Democratic vice presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen, "President Biden, you're no Dwight Eisenhower." Biden was removed by his own party insiders from the Democratic ticket before he did further damage to his party as he was finishing his failing one-term presidency. He left the country in shambles, at home with hyperinflation, 12 million illegal entries, a nonexistent border, spiking crime, and destroyed deterrence abroad. He humiliated the armed forces in Afghanistan, encouraging enemies that prompted two theater-wide wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Moreover, after swearing he would not pardon his own son as Hunter Biden faced numerous felony indictments and convictions, Biden did just that—thereby likely preventing further investigations into the entire corrupt Biden family.

Biden leaves office desperate to sabotage his successor, extending even to the pettiest detail, such as selling off critical steel panels essential to the construction of the border wall that he suspended. Again, Ike had credibility; not so with Biden.

Second, until November 2024, Biden had no problems with oligarchs.

In fact, he courted and used them. And they, in turn, eagerly donated lavishly to his agenda. Multibillionaire George Soros nearly wrecked the criminal justice system by pouring millions of dollars into big-city radical district attorney races to ensure the election of left-wing ideologues who would not arrest, indict, jail, convict or incarcerate thousands of dangerous violent felons—all in pursuit of bankrupt progressive ideas like "critical legal theory" and "critical race theory".

So happy was Biden with Soros's nihilistic multimillion-dollar work and his lavish contributions to Biden's two presidential runs that he awarded the Soros the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

In 2020, Meta/Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg did the bidding of the Biden campaign team by pouring $419 million into Biden-related PACs and voting groups to change voting laws and absorb the work of the registrars in key states. And on the eve of the last 2020 presidential debate, it was Facebook, under pressure from Biden lackeys, that began censoring accurate news stories about the incriminating Hunter Biden laptop, in hopes of arming Biden with a credible lie.

Biden also mumbled about "censorship" and the loss of "fact-checkers." But when the "oligarchs" who run Apple, Facebook, and Google decided to conspire to destroy upstart conservative social media platform Parler in 2021, Biden apparently thought it was wonderful. And, of course, he uttered not a peep of criticism of oligarchic-government strangulation of the market.

So why is Biden so worried about oligarchy?

The answer is as easy as it is insulting. "Oligarchs" like Elon Musk, David Sachs, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Andreesen all realized that Biden's ruthless team was leveraging their liberalism to use these "oligarchs" as illiberal megaphones for his own power and reelection.

When they understood that the new Democratic dream was to fuse their social media and high-tech companies with the government—but under the control of left-wing anticapitalism activists to help the obsequious and punish the free-thinking—they revolted. In other words, they realized that their freedom was endangered by the left and that the country under Biden was descending into cultural chaos.

Third, quite unlike Biden, Trump is leveraging support from "billionaires," many of whom have not donated to his campaign and were not previously his political supporters. His appeal to them is not, as alleged, to further the Trump one-term presidency in political terms.

Rather, Trump, in his brief four years, has enlisted "billionaires" like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, David Sachs, and Mark Andresen in the way that Franklin Roosevelt, in 1941-1942, reached out to his other party's millionaire captains of industry to fuel a Depression-era-recovering economy to produce the type and number of weapons to defeat Germany and Japan, who had a near decade head start. Roosevelt essentially gave these "oligarchs" and "multimillionaires" wide latitude to produce as much as they could to win the war.

The result was that shipbuilder and aluminum magnate Henry Kaiser began mass-producing historic Liberty and Freedom cargo ships in astronomical numbers to supply our troops overseas. The neo-socialist FDR even reached out to arch-paleoconservative Henry Ford. By 1949 Ford was building one B-24 heavy bomber per hour at his innovative and gargantuan Willow Run plant.

Roosevelt also created a "war production board," staffed by the arch-conservative capitalists—and in Biden's terms "oligarchs"—like Charles E. Wilson, the head of General Electric; William Murphy of Campbell Soup; Matthew Fox of Universal Pictures; and others, to create a national marriage of labor, capital, media, and advisors to radically reboot the nascent war effort.

The result by 1945 was that a once stagnant and virtually unarmed nation that was surprised at Pearl Harbor, in a short four years, built a navy larger than all the ships of the major combatants combined. America's capitalists eventually fueled a GDP larger than all our major allies and enemies together. By the end of the war, they were supplying much of the entire Allied effort with everything from aviation and trucks to fuel, radios, and rations.

Trump knows that the current multitrillion-dollar annual deficits and $36 trillion debt are unsustainable—while high taxes, Draconian regulation, and profligate spending are strangulating the economy. And Trump further realizes that our dilemma is the work of both political parties in Congress and past Democrat and Republican administrations.

Trump fears the rise of China that seeks to absorb Taiwan, coerce our friends in the Pacific like Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and steal our technology.

So, he further insists that in the future, the U.S. must master emerging technologies and services—such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, cyberwarfare, cryptocurrency, drones, emerging fuels like small nuclear plants, hydrogen, and mega-batteries, and deadly new weaponry from lasers to hypersonic missiles.

In that regard, he knows that the talent that created and mastered these technologies and new services are not greedy billionaires and "oligarchs," but, if enlisted in a common cause for their fellow citizens, could become the modern successors to Kaiser, Knudson, Ford, and Wilson.

Biden's hypocritical parting shot at "oligarchs" should be filed with his eleventh-hour crazy pardons, his final lies about pardoning his son, and the bizarre edict that unconstitutionally, as some dictator, he could pass a 28th Amendment by fiat: all the sad end of a sadder presidency.

The post Biden's So-Called 'Oligarchs' appeared first on Activist Post.

2. ICE Prepared for ‘Violent Situations’ During Trump Immigration Raids – Former Top Official

Federal authorities are primed to handle potential 'violent situations' if and when the Trump administration begins cracking down on illegal aliens across the U.S., according to a former high-ranking official. The Trump immigration raids are expected to commence soon.

Infiltration by international criminal networks during the Biden border invasion presents an increased risk of dangerous confrontations with law enforcement, particularly in areas with concentrations of hardened criminals.

"You have to train and be ready for the eventuality that there could be violent situation that needs to be dealt with," retired Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Field Office Director John Fabbricatore told Border Hawk. The Trump immigration raids could escalate such situations.

"You do look at it like a military operation in some aspects. You have an operational plan. You plan out stuff like that when you're going after a gang where you have a multi-page plan, where you're looking at the nearest trauma centers. You're looking at where the nearest jail is where you can drop these people off. You're looking at what happens if we do have a massive firefight. Who do we call in if we need more medical."

ICE Prepared for 'Violent Situations' During Trump Immigration Raids – Former Top Official

Federal authorities are primed to handle potential 'violent situations' if and when the Trump administration begins cracking down on illegal aliens across the U.S., according to a former… pic.twitter.com/Vz4DrBCzXw

— Border Hawk (@BorderHawkNews) January 17, 2025

The U.S. Air Force veteran explained that Special Response Teams (SRT) assigned to various federal agencies are packed with elite soldiers and SWAT officers with extensive experience executing high-risk missions requiring minimal collateral damage.

"There is a lot of operational and tactical planning that goes into these arrests. We have to be careful because we don't want to hurt civilians. We don't want ICE agents to get hurt. But it has to be done," Fabbricatore said. Trump immigration raids require such meticulous planning.

He acknowledged that enforcement actions will be easier to carry out in cities and states where local authorities are welcoming and cooperative, but asserted that sanctuary jurisdictions controlled by radical leftists will also need to be cleaned out for the benefit of citizens who are being victimized by illegal aliens.

"ICE wants the help because it does make the job easier and safer. It's safer for the whole community when the locals are actually helping out, but ICE has the authority to go in there and enforce immigration law," Fabbricatore asserted. The Trump immigration raids aim to address these issues.

"So maybe we plus-up initially using some agents from other federal agencies and use them in some of these blue areas… It's going to be a lot of work to get it done in the San Diegos, the Denvers, inner New York City, but it has to be done."

"We can no longer just stand by and say 'Well, it's difficult there. They don't want to help, so we're not going to bother with it.' Enough is enough, and I think President Trump feels that way. We're going to go in. We're going to do the hard work. And we're going to make America safe."

The post ICE Prepared for 'Violent Situations' During Trump Immigration Raids – Former Top Official appeared first on Activist Post.

3. The Story of Aspartame

Aspartame, the sweetener used as an ingredient in approximately 6,000 consumer foods and beverages sold worldwide has a dark history of controversy, political influence, and questionable science. Let's dive into the scandal that shaped one of the most consumed food additives in the world.

Discovered accidentally in 1965 by James Schlatter at G.D. Searle, aspartame was touted as a miracle low-calorie sweetener. But its approval process revealed troubling findings, including animal studies showing harmful effects.

The first big red flag? In 1977, 98 of 196 infant mice exposed to aspartame died during an FDA investigation. The findings, later published as the Bressler Report, highlighted severe data manipulation and negligence by Searle. The report was kept under seal by the FDA for 3 decades.

Searle's studies showed poor methodology to say the least.

Here are a few of the relevant findings summarized from various documents describing the FDA Task Force Report:

1. Excising masses (tumors) from live animals, in some cases without histologic examination of the masses, in others without reporting them to the FDA." (Schmidt 1976c, page 4 of US Senate 1976b) Searle's representatives, when caught and questioned about these actions, stated that "these masses were in the head and neck areas and prevented the animals from feeding.
2. "Failure to report to the FDA all internal tumors present in the experimental rats, e.g., polypsin the uterus, ovary neoplasms as well as other lesions."
3. Instead of performing autopsies on rhesus monkeys that suffered seizures after being fed aspartame, the company had financed a new monkey seizure study with a different methodology that showed no problems."
4. Reporting animals as unavailable for necropsy when, in fact, records indicate that the animals were available but Searle choose not to purchase them.
5. Animals which had died were sometimes recorded as being alive and vice versa. These include approximately 20 instances of animals reported as dead and then reported as having vital signs normal again at subsequent observation periods.
6. Selecting statistical procedures which used a total number of animals as the denominator when only a portion of the animals were examined, thus reducing the significance of adverse effects.
7. G.D. Searle told the FDA that 12 lots of DKP were manufactured and tested in one study, yet only seven batches were actually made. Significant deviations from the protocols of several studies were noted which may have compromised the value of these studies. In at least one study, the Aspartame 52 weeks monkey study, the protocol was written after the study had been initiated.
8. In each study investigated, poor practices, inaccuracies, and discrepancies were noted in the antemortem phases which could compromise the study.

This resulted in the FDA's Chief Counsel suggesting a grand jury investigation.

"The Food and Drug Administration has recommended to the Justice Department that a grand jury be convened in Illinois to investigate charges that a major drug firm, G. D. Searle & Company, has falsified data and reports submitted in connection with new drug applications."

So how did this substance that is obviously unsuitable for human consumption gain FDA approval?

Enter Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Secretary of Defense who was hired as the CEO by Searle in 1977. Rumsfeld promised to use his political influence to push aspartame through regulatory hurdles and boy did he keep his promise.

"When Searle was absorbed by Monsanto in 1985, Donald Rumsfeld reportedly received a $12 million bonus, pretty big money in those days. Also, while at Searle, Rumsfeld was awarded Outstanding CEO in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World"

The pivotal moment came in 1981 when at the time Rumsfeld was part of Ronald Reagan's transition team. After Reagan's inauguration, he replaced the FDA Commissioner with Arthur Hull Hayes Jr., who approved aspartame within months.

From the article:

"The sweetener, aspartame, is safe, FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. ruled after reviewing all the evidence, including the scientific panel's recommendation for more study in animals."

"Aspartame may be used, Dr. Hayes said, as a table-top sugar substitute, as a tablet or as an additive in cereals, drink mixes, instant coffee and tea, gelatins, puddings, fillings, dairy products and toppings."

The 1981 Article announcing its approval:

https://archive.is/lzlCm

This approval ignored the recommendations of an FDA Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI), which had concluded in 1980 that aspartame might cause brain tumors and should not be approved without further testing.

The FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross who is the man who originally discovered the shortcomings of Searle's studies told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors or brain cancer and that it violated the Delaney Amendment, which forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause cancer. Here is what Gross told a 1987 Senate Committee Hearing:

"… no amount of additional examinations of pathology material such as undertaken by the UAREP … [or] … new additional statistical analyses … and no judgmental evaluations or interpretations of any data arising from those studies can in any way rectify the basic problem …: in the absence of reasonable expectation that the experimental animals were administered the correct dosages of the test agent, any observational data carried out on those animals must be regarded as questionable or flawed. This is to say nothing of all the myriad of other problems involving the competence of those conducting such studies, and the [lack of] care they exercised in their execution. Once a study is carried out and the test animals are disposed of, all that remains are the number of tiny bits of tissue preserved from their organs for microscopic examination and the written records of observations made by those who actually carried out that study. While the tissues themselves can be examined by others long after the remains of those animals no longer exist, the reliability of the written records has already been found to be unacceptable in a great variety of ways. … Once a study is compromised in its executions, it is beyond salvation by anyone. Even with respect to those small portions of tissue preserved for microscopic examination for an indefinite period of time after any study is completed there are serious problems … there is little if any assurance that such samples of tissues as were preserved actually originate from the specific animals said … to have been their source … Furthermore, due to the unacceptably high rate of post-mortem autolysis, a great many such tissues were not collected at all from the experimental animals."

Key studies, E33 and E70, entitled SC-18862: Two Year Toxicity Study in the Rat: Final Report showed alarming results. Rats fed aspartame had higher rates of brain tumors compared to controls. Yet, these were brushed aside during the approval process.

Hayes even admitted, "I'm not prepared to say there is no risk from aspartame," but greenlit it anyway for dry foods in 1981. By 1983, he approved it for carbonated beverages too, opening the door to massive consumption.

Searle's lobbying power didn't stop there. Investigators found that multiple FDA officials involved in the approval later joined companies tied to aspartame production or lobbying—raising serious concerns about conflicts of interest.

Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. himself after resigning from the FDA in 1983, joined Burson-Marsteller, the public relations firm representing G.D. Searle, the company that developed aspartame.

Michael Friedman: Serving as FDA Deputy Commissioner, Friedman defended aspartame's safety during the 1990s. In 1999, he left the FDA to become a senior vice president at G.D. Searle.

Samuel Skinner whose nickname was "Sam the Hammer", while a U.S. Attorney Skinner was assigned to investigate G.D. Searle for alleged data falsification related to aspartame studies. During the investigation, he entered employment negotiations with Sidley & Austin, Searle's law firm, and subsequently withdrew from the case before joining the firm.

Sherwin Gardner: As FDA Deputy Commissioner, Gardner signed the initial approval for aspartame in 1974. He resigned from the FDA in 1979 to become Vice President of the Grocery Manufacturers of America, an industry group with members involved in aspartame's use.

Aspartame's breakdown in the body was another issue. It metabolizes into methanol, formaldehyde, and phenylalanine. Critics like Dr. Woodrow Monte warned about potential neurotoxicity and methanol poisoning.

"The consumption of aspartame sweetened soft drinks or other beverages in not limited by either the consumption of aspartame sweetened soft drinks or other beverages in not limited by either calories or Osmolality, and can equal the daily water loss of an individual (which for active people in a calories or Osmolality, and can equal the daily water loss of an individual (which for active people in a state like Arizona can exceed 5 liters). The resultant daily methanol intake might then rise to unprecedented levels. Methanol is a cumulative toxin and for some clinical manifestations it may be an unprecedented levels. Methanol is a cumulative toxins and for some clinical manifestations it may be a human-specific toxin."

In soft drinks, aspartame's instability leads to higher methanol release, especially when exposed to heat. Yet, these risks were downplayed by both regulators and manufacturers. Meanwhile, public opposition grew. Senator Howard Metzenbaum proposed the Aspartame Safety Act in 1985, which aimed to mandate clearer labeling and further studies. It failed due to industry lobbying.

Critics like neuroscientist Dr. John Olney also pointed to a spike in brain cancer rates since aspartame's approval, correlating it with its widespread use in soft drinks. However all of these warnings were not heeded and aspartame continue to be consumed daily by millions of Americans.

Aspartame consumption exploded in the U.S., peaking in the 1980s and 1990s. By 1987, 17M pounds were consumed annually, mostly in diet sodas. By 1983, aspartame had become a $336M industry for Searle. NutraSweet, its brand name, dominated the market, with Coca-Cola and Pepsi signing contracts to use it in diet sodas.

In 2021, the global aspartame market was valued at $375.5 million. It is projected to reach $1.86 billion by 2030.

Despite public health concerns, NutraSweet's marketing positioned aspartame as a safe, modern alternative to sugar. The FDA insisted it was safe for most consumers, dismissing calls for updated testing. 

Watch this creepy commercial that aired back then.

Today, critics argue that aspartame's safety evaluations rely too heavily on industry-funded studies. Independent research, like Dr. Soffritti's Ramazzini study, has linked it to cancers in animals.

Even the WHO recently classified aspartame as "possibly carcinogenic to humans." While regulatory agencies maintain it's safe at low doses, evidence mounts to the contrary and serious doubts about long-term effects persist.

The moral of the story? Don't consume this stuff, it can cause cancer and poison you and your family.

Finally here is a brief news story that aired on Fox5 years ago exposing Aspartame's troubling background. 

Ask yourself, if this was allowed with just one additive, how many others are there with a similar story? 

Hidden in plain sight, quietly contributing to the epidemic of autoimmune disease, cancers and general health problems the nation as a whole is suffering.

Sources:

1. The Bressler Report

Full Report:   
https://revolutionhealth.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Bressler-Report-on-Aspartame.pdf

2. NYT article:

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/04/08/archives/fda-urges-grand-jury-study-of-gd-searles-drug-reports.html

3. Rumsfeld Article

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581/amp

4. EFSA's toxicological assessment of aspartame: was it even-handedly trying to identify possible unreliable positives and unreliable negatives?

Full Study:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6628497

5. Aspartame Article

https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/a814bc16-5c18-…

6. 1995 The Cancer Letter

https://cdn.cancerhistoryproject.com/media/1999/06/10000000/TCL25-24.pdf

7. Samuel Skinner Article 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/12/23/samuel-k-skinner/ca89ca68-f518-406c-8324-8e1a75ba7515

8. Aspartame: Methanol & the Public Health

Full Study: https://shorturl.at/mSAMF

9. Aspartame Bill

https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/1557

10. Increasing Brain Tumor Rates: Is There a Link to Aspartame?

Full Study:

https://academic.oup.com/jnen/article-abstract/55/11/1115/2610500?redir…

11. Aspartame Market Research 

https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/aspartame-market-A11795

12. First experimental demonstration of the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered in the feed to Sprague-Dawley rats

Full Study:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16507461

The post The Story of Aspartame appeared first on Activist Post.

4. Are Executive Orders Constitutional?

QUESTION: You have been critical of an executive order by Biden. What will you say when Trump unleashes his flurry of executive dictated?

GV

ANSWER: The purposes of an executive order should be confined to running the government like any company CEO. Trump should withdraw the security clearance of all 51 people who falsely claimed the Hunter laptop was Russian propaganda. I believe that they are traitors to the country. I would fire each and everyone and strip them of all pensions. That would be a valid executive order, as would firing executive bureaucrats. The president is the CEO of the Executive Branch. He needs Congress's approval to install judges in the Judicial Branch. When orders are confined to personnel inside the Executive Branch, that is within his Constitutional Power.

What I disagree with are executive orders that circumvent Congress. Biden outlawed gas water heaters. That is a question for Congress – not an executive decision any more than sending in troops or allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles to target inside Russia. The Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war, not the president.

I will look at what Trump does, and my analysis will be eliminated on those lines. I disagree with FDR's executive orders to confiscate gold and silver. I think Congress should have decided that.

The major case issued by the Supreme Court striking down a president's executive order came about in 1952. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the court held struck down Executive Order 10340, issued by President Harry Truman, for seizing control of the steel manufacturers because of an anticipated union strike in the nation's steel mills during the Korean War. The court held that President Truman lacked the constitutional or statutory power to seize private property.

The court focused on the fact that the Executive Order was not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and thus, it could not sand Pp. 343 U. S. 585-589. Moreover, no statute expressly or impliedly authorized the President to take possession of this property as he did here.

Using this criterion, Biden's outlawing gas water heaters is arbitrary and absurd. It was unconstitutional, as many of his antics demonstrated that he assumed dictatorial power. Still, the Constitution never authorized such an exercise of power outside the administration of the Executive Branch. He has the Constitutional power to issue a pardon, but not pronounce someone guilty and imprison them without a trial in the Judiciary branch.

The post Are Executive Orders Constitutional? appeared first on Activist Post.

5. Can Trump Fix Our Broken Foreign Policy?

By the time most of you read this column, we will have a new US President. Donald J. Trump will be inaugurated for his second term today at 11:30 AM, Eastern time, and many Americans are hopeful that the disastrous foreign policy of the past four years under Biden will be improved. There is good news and bad news.

First the good news. It is no surprise that Trump's appointees to foreign policy and national security positions are to the person very hawkish on China. However Trump, as he often does, has defied conventional wisdom on what his China policy might be by not only inviting Chinese leader Xi Jinping to attend the inauguration, but actually picking up the telephone and having a conversation with his Chinese counterpart.

According to a read-out of the call, the two discussed "trade, fentanyl, TikTok, and other subjects" and agreed to remain in regular contact. Winston Churchill is often (inaccurately) credited with the phrase "jaw-jaw is better than war-war," but nonetheless it is an accurate statement. It is much better to engage even with "adversaries" than to refuse contact and add more sanctions. Those who prefer sanctions over communications are the true isolationists.

On TikTok, the popular application has credited Trump with preventing the Congressional ban from taking effect. If true, it is another good Trump move in favor of our Constitutional free speech guarantees.

Likewise with Russia, media reports suggest that holding a conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin will be among the first things Trump does as President. That is great news for all of humanity, as Biden's dangerous proxy war in Ukraine and refusal to communicate with the Russian president has brought us to the very edge of a once-unimaginable nuclear exchange. When the end of life on earth is at stake, it is reckless to ignore the possibility of de-escalation.

In the Middle East, incoming President Trump is being credited with securing a ceasefire in Gaza, an achievement the Biden Administration seemed incapable of or uninterested in seriously attempting for the past year. Does Trump deserve all the credit? We don't know. But we do know that thousands have been needlessly slaughtered while Biden dithered and sent more weapons. The wholesale destruction of Gaza with US bombs and financial support will be Biden's enduring legacy and a stain on everyone involved.

The bad news is that because of President Trump's decision to appoint the most hawkish advisors, he will be surrounded by individuals who will constantly encourage him to confront rather than disengage. For example, his special envoy on the Ukraine war has recently boxed Trump in on Iran by declaring a return to the failed "maximum pressure" campaign of his first Administration. The policy failed to achieve the desired results when first implemented and it will fail again if adopted again. Why? Iran has developed far more extensive trade ties outside the influence of the US government, for example among the BRICS countries. It is not possible to isolate Iran as it has been in the past. As with China and others, with Iran it would be far better to jaw-jaw than to war-war. Let's hope President Trump understands that.

We will no doubt see some disappointments in incoming President Trump's foreign policy, but there are solid reasons to be cautiously optimistic. Particularly when measured against his predecessor.

The post Can Trump Fix Our Broken Foreign Policy? appeared first on Activist Post.

6. Crypto’s Senate Ally Lummis Pushes Federal Agencies on Digital Assets Issues

What to know:

• Senator Cynthia Lummis, who has led the effort for a bitcoin U.S. strategic reserve, sent a letter to the office responsible for selling off Silk Road seizures that it should slow down on dumping bitcoin.
• Lummis also warned the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. not to jettison evidence of how it directed U.S. banks on crypto matters.

Republican U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis took aim at two federal agencies on behalf of the crypto industry this week, just days before the wide-reaching transition of the federal government when President-elect Donald Trump again takes office.

Lummis warned the U.S. Marshals Office to slow down its crypto asset sales and she cautioned officials at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. that anybody who gets rid of evidence about whether the agency directed banks to drop digital assets clients will be prosecuted, touching on two of the sector's most prominent issues.

Keeping the idea of a U.S. bitcoin reserve top-of-mind as a new Congress starts work and Trump returns to the White House next week, the Wyoming Republican sent a letter this week to the director of the U.S. Marshals Office cautioning that the department should slow down its process for liquidating the crypto assets seized in the Silk Road case. The sales of bitcoin (BTC), including current holdings of almost 70,000 bitcoin worth about $6.9 billion, are inappropriate, she argued, considering Trump's interest in a U.S. bitcoin strategic reserve.

"The Department continues to aggressively push forward with liquidation plans despite pending legal challenges, demonstrating an unusual urgency to dispose of these assets," Lummis wrote. "This rushed approach, occurring during the presidential transition period, directly contradicts the incoming administration's stated policy objectives regarding the establishment of a National Bitcoin Stockpile."

On its own, there's little authority the Marshals Office would have to change course from the predetermined liquidation plans already in motion, and it can't make decisions based on a hypothetical government stockpile. The president and Congress would have to move to formally establish a reserve and a process by which the U.S. could redirect seized or purchased tokens into that fund. 

Crypto markets also noted on Thursday the reports that Trump may be interested, too, in reserves of other, U.S.-based tokens. 

Lummis also sent a letter to the FDIC on Thursday, saying that agency insiders have reported that there's an internal effort to conceal evidence of what the crypto industry knows as Operation Chokepoint 2.0 — a campaign to sever digital assets activities from U.S. banking. She said any effort to keep such materials from scrutiny would be "illegal and unacceptable."

Read More: U.S. Regulator Told Banks to Avoid Crypto, Letters Obtained by Coinbase Reveal

A spokeswoman for the FDIC declined to comment on the letter.

The Senate Banking Committee has established a subcommittee focusing on digital assets this year, and Lummis is said to be leading it. She and Senator Tim Scott, the chairman of the full committee, will have a chance to run the panel's crypto agenda in this new session, though they'll be countered by its ranking Democrat, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. 

Scott issued a plan for the committee this week, including the crafting of a U.S. regulatory framework for digital assets. He said he'd "foster an open-minded environment for new, innovative financial technologies and digital asset products, like stablecoins, that promote financial inclusivity."

The post Crypto's Senate Ally Lummis Pushes Federal Agencies on Digital Assets Issues appeared first on Activist Post.

7. Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Pardoned by President Trump

The Silk Road founder in 2015 had been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

What to know:

• Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht has been freed as President Donald Trump signed a pardon.
• Trump made the announcement via a Truth Social post.

President Trump has followed through on one of his key campaign promises — at least for those in the crypto community — pardoning the sentence of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht.

"I just called the mother of Ross William Ulbricht to let her know that in honor of her and the Libertarian Movement, which supported me so strongly, it was my pleasure to have just signed a full and unconditional pardon of her son, Ross," Trump wrote on a Truth Social post.

The move assures an imminent release for Ulbricht, who in 2015 was convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise and distributing narcotics, along with a host of related crimes, via his operation of the darknet Silk Road marketplace. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Ulbricht's case has become a cause célèbre for many in the crypto community who note he did not himself sell drugs or other illegal items but instead operated a platform where others were allowed to transact.

Then-candidate Trump promised a "Day One" commutation of Ulbricht's sentence last May while addressing the Libertarian Party convention

The price of bitcoin (BTC) rose in the minutes following the news, possibly as the pardon, along with a flurry of executive orders over the past hours, signals the president's intention to follow through on campaign promises.

Another one of those promises was a far friendlier crypto regulatory stance, including the possibility of the creation of a strategic bitcoin reserve.

The post Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Pardoned by President Trump appeared first on Activist Post.

8. Go Figure: Walgreens CEO Admits Locking Up Merchandise Makes It Hard To Sell

What genius retail executive mind could have figured this one out – that locking up merchandise in stores actually makes its more difficult for honest, paying customers to get to, and buy what they want?

Walgreens – facing a significant drop in year-over-year earnings – just announced plans to close 450 more stores nationwide, according to Futurism/The Byte. These closures exhibit the broader challenges faced by Walgreens.

Efforts to curb "shrink" — losses from theft or fraud — included increased security measures, such as locking merchandise in containers requiring staff assistance at Walgreens.

However, these measures proved ineffective and counterproductive, frustrating customers.

CEO Tim Wentworth said on the company's earning's call: "It is a hand-to-hand combat battle still, unfortunately."

"But it does impact how sales work through the store because when you lock things up. For example, you don't sell as many of them. We've kind of proven that pretty conclusively," he continued about the challenges at Walgreens. 

The report says that Walgreens is struggling with rising prices, which are making it harder for consumers to afford products. The company faces challenges in its retail business due to inflation and higher interest rates, leading to more cost-conscious shopping and changes in purchasing habits.

In 2021, Walgreens faced backlash for closing five stores in San Francisco, citing "organized" shoplifting, though police records showed only 23 incidents between 2018 and 2021.

During a 2023 earnings call, Walgreens CFO James Kehoe admitted the company may have over-invested in security to address theft, acknowledging the company had perhaps exaggerated the problem. This suggests Walgreens has often used theft concerns as a cover for deeper issues within its retail operations.

The post Go Figure: Walgreens CEO Admits Locking Up Merchandise Makes It Hard To Sell appeared first on Activist Post.

9. Mike Pence is a gutless servant of the global Luciferian death cult who claims to be ‘pro-life’

ABC News and multiple other media outlets are reporting today that former Vice President Mike Pence, who did not endorse or support President-elect Donald Trump during the 2024 election cycle, has come out in opposition to Trump's choice of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Pence cited Kennedy's past support for abortion as the reason for his opposition. This, despite RFK Jr.'s recent pledge to continue the pro-life policies of Trump's first term, such as cutting off taxpayer funding to groups that finance abortion procedures, and ending the Biden policy of forcing pro-life healthcare providers to participate in abortions against their conscience.

According to pro-life Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, Kennedy "committed to me to reinstate President Trump's pro-life policies at HHS. He told me he believes there are far too many abortions in the US and that we cannot be the moral leader of the free world with abortion rates so high."

Yet, Pence said in a statement that choosing Kennedy is a departure from what he framed as the Trump-Pence administration's general opposition to abortion access.

Pence wrote:

"I believe the nomination of RFK Jr. to serve as Secretary of HHS is an abrupt departure from the pro-life record of our administration and should be deeply concerning to millions of Pro-Life Americans who have supported the Republican Party and our nominees for decades."

HERE'S MY TAKE on Mr. Pence:

This is all smoke and mirrors. I don't' believe Pence's rejection of RFK Jr. has anything to do with abortion or being pro life and here's why.

This is Pence being Pence. He's grandstanding. His rejection of Kennedy has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with the fact that Bobby Kennedy opposes everything that Pence stands for, with regard to pandemic lockdowns, forced masking and vaxing, allowing Big Pharma to have its way with deadly experimental treatments, and Big Agriculture to continue poisoning our food and water.

In short, Mike Pence is a creature of the establishment and the military-industrial-biosecurity complex that feeds the international beast system.

Pence has never pushed against the system in his entire political career. As governor of Indiana, when he was threatened with boycotts by those bringing big sporting events to his state, he caved and allowed the transgenderization of public bathrooms.

And, in point of fact, Pence's own record on issues of life is sketchy at best. Because being pro-life involves more than just being against abortion.

Pence supports the mRNA death shots. He supports giving unfettered legal protection to vaccine manufacturers even as more of their toxic vaccines are pumped into our children, nearly 100 injections by the time they reach the age of 18. That's why we are seeing so much autism and heart issues in children. How is that being pro-life?

Pence is also a neocon warmonger. He has over the years wholeheartedly supported using U.S. military power to intervene in foreign wars that have taken the lives of thousands of young men and women for absolutely no valid national security reason.

Did the war in Iraq make America safer?

Did the war in Afghanistan make us any safer?

How about the war in Ukraine? Has it made us more secure? Quite the opposite.

But these wars have killed a lot of people, including women and children and elderly civilians, not to mention thousands of Americans in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mike Pence is a hypocrite. In some ways, he's the Republican version of Jimmy Carter. He wears his Christianity on his sleeve but applies his Christian principles selectively.

Call me old school. But in my book, that's called a coward.

The fact that the corrupt corporate media outlets still run to Mike Pence to publish his irrelevant opinions should tell us everything about the man.

The post Mike Pence is a gutless servant of the global Luciferian death cult who claims to be 'pro-life' appeared first on Activist Post.

10. Achieving Peace in a Warmonger’s World

Peace on earth is a wish that gets extra emphasis this time of year. But in a world facing challenges like inflation, we're told to pray for it, wish for it, keep it forever in our minds. So why don't we have it?

The short answer is money. War is profitable to some. It's profitable enough that profiteers in private industries influence government, which stays home and orders others to do the fighting. War costs money. Where does the government get it? Visible taxes (income, corporate, and payroll) cover about two-thirds of government revenue. The rest comes from borrowing and inflation.

In the US, the central banking cartel known as the Fed stands ready to fund almost anything the government wants, especially wars. The Fed does this by creating money from nothing and buys government debt instruments, the accounting name for which is "assets." The destruction of the dollar is the residue from the "asset"-buying sprees of the Fed's Federal Open Market Committee, an operation which its members and most of the economics profession insist is necessary for a prosperous economy—and to keep the bad guys at bay in obscure places on the planet.

Government can't supply bombs to proxy warlords using tax money alone. Outlays in the hundreds of billions must be stolen surreptitiously, which is why government created a central bank and a bought-and-paid-for economics profession. No matter the propaganda spewed by its lapdog media, taxpayers will eventually make the connection between war and a cheaper dollar.

History and theory prove we don't need a committee cranking up the money supply to make the price of money more appealing, that on a free market increases in the money supply come about from the usual profit and loss forces. A miner brings money to the market as a hat maker brings hats, neither one violating anyone's property rights. But a committee such as the FOMC doesn't go mining à la the Seven Dwarfs to bring something people want to the market. That's way too restrictive. Far better to create the money as a child would while playing make believe.

The Fed—as the federally-certified monopoly counterfeiter—performs the child's magic. In doing so, it steals wealth. Nothing is exchanged for something.

Surely, I must be wrong

To suggest the economics profession supports a monopoly counterfeiting operation to run the economy is too ludicrous to accept. It would mean the government works against our interests. It would mean government is our enemy. There must be more to the story. There has to be.

Allow me to quote directly from a primary source, in this case one of the most controversial federal reserve chairmen in recent history. Ben Bernanke, chairman from 2006 to 2014, summa cum laude at Harvard, PhD at MIT, Time Person of the Year in 2009, awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Science in 2022, and now serving as an economist for the Brookings Institution and advisor for the financial services firm Citadel—made this speech before the National Economists Club in Washington, DC on November 21, 2002, which he entitled Making Sure "It" Doesn't Happen Here. You might want to read this passage twice, as it's so off-the-wall your inner economist might find it impossible to digest:

[T]he US government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of US dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the US government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.

"Of course," he continues, "the US government is not going to print money and distribute it willy-nilly…" He's right. The government—or the Fed as its assigned counterfeiter—ensures that "Willy" doesn't get the newly-printed money until much later, after it's circulated through the economy and put upward pressure on prices and downward pressure on Willy's real wages, sucking the purchasing power from his wallet. The first ones to get the new money benefit because it arrives immediately, too soon to affect price levels. Call them "the favored few." Call them "connected." Call it the government. Call this the Cantillon Effect, and see Jonathan Newman's graphical expression of the subterfuge in four charts.

The "It" in Bernanke's title refers to "the danger of deflation, or falling prices." Since deflation increases the purchasing power of the monetary unit, it's puzzling that an economist of Bernanke's stature would find that objectionable.

Moore's Law has been a deflationary phenomenon since it was first identified in 1965—thirty-seven years before Bernanke's speech—and has led to the proliferation of tech throughout the economy. Among other things, it has meant businesses and individuals can buy more for less—certainly a key indicator of prosperity. And he regards this as a danger?

But he later expands his definition of deflation to mean "a general decline in prices, with emphasis on the word 'general.'" Using his general understanding he says:

The sources of deflation are not a mystery. Deflation is in almost all cases a side effect of a collapse of aggregate demand—a drop in spending so severe that producers must cut prices on an ongoing basis in order to find buyers.

The economy-wide aggregates Bernanke describes are an instance of "credit expansion and its tampering with the free-market rate of interest," Rothbard explains. Projects thought to be profitable turn out not to match consumer demands. Thus, we see firms slashing prices to save themselves. The cure is not deficit spending, but to let the free market breathe, "to make most efficient use of the existing stock of capital."

Since an inflation-driven economy benefits debtors at the expense of creditors, but debtors will sleep better knowing Bernanke and his subsequent replacements are certified fiat-money inflationists making sure "It" never, ever happens here. For details, see the BLS inflation calculator.

Conclusion

Because deflation is considered a monetary failure, we get perpetual inflation instead, which is just what a belligerent government needs. Deflation in an economy using sound money is a natural result of competition and improved methods of production. The latter part of the 19th century, even with a government-controlled gold standard, blossomed in blessed deflation.

While no era of US history was free of conflicts, the period following Reconstruction—when the income tax and the Fed were yet to intrude on our lives, thus limiting government revenue—was one of the most peaceful ever. We should never feed an institution that thrives on war. End the Fed. End the income tax. Starve the beast.

The post Achieving Peace in a Warmonger's World appeared first on Activist Post.