Vigilant News

Eternal Vigilance is the price of liberty.

Justin Deschamps

Joe Biden Admits in Bazaar Gaffe “I … have cancer”, Blames Oil Industry, Says He’ll “announce executive actions” Soon

By ,

SOMERSET, MASSACHUSETTS — Joe Biden, while addressing a crowd about the alleged climate crisis, seems to have admitted he has cancer.

Biden spoke about the need for clean energy and the job opportunities it could realize when the strange cancer comment was uttered.

Take a listen.

“That’s why I and so damn many other people I grew up with have cancer and why for the longest time Delaware had the highest cancer rate in the nation,” Biden said.

Newsweek reports that Biden has undergone treatments for Melanoma.

‘Mohs surgery, which the president underwent multiple times, is an effective way for treating the two most common types of skin cancer. The procedure allows medical professionals to remove thin layers of cancer-containing skin while minimizing damage to surrounding healthy tissue, according to the Mayo Clinic.’

The allusions to the oil industry and cancer might not be unfounded.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a World Health Organization, published a meta-analysis in April 2021, showing:

“The review identified petroleum industry work as being associated with an increased risk of mesothelioma, skin melanoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the prostate and urinary bladder, and a decreased risk of cancers of the oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, and pancreas. Offshore petroleum work was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer and leukaemia in stratified analysis. Residential proximity to petroleum facilities was associated with an increased risk of childhood leukaemia.”

This could to be an attempt to attack the oil industry so that green energy agendas and ESG policies can be pushed to the public.

Recently, Sen. Joe Manchin announced unless inflation shows a decline next month, he won’t vote for a bill addressing climate change. In response, climate activists, Sens. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., held a press conference, exploring other options, such as asking Biden to declare a “climate emergency.”

Earlier today, Biden, or his PR team, posted this tweet on the official POTUS Twitter account.

“My message today is loud and clear: Since Congress is not acting on the climate emergency, I will.

And in the coming weeks my Administration will begin to announce executive actions to combat this emergency.”

This statement suggests that some side-stepping of Congress, through an executive order, is forthcoming.

Trump Reveals in NY Mag Interview: “I’ve already made that decision,” about 2024 Presidential Bid

By ,

In a recent NY Mag interview, released earlier today, President Donald Trump partially revealed his plans for 2024. The important bits of that interview is presented below.

Related New 40-Year Record High Inflation, 9.1%—The Real Number is Much Worse

Before reviewing Trump’s comments about his 2024 run, it’s prudent to frame who did this interview.

The NY Mag is owned by Vox Media, which received an equity investment from NBCUniversal, which is owned by Comcast Corporation, which The Vanguard Group and BlackRock Fund Advisors each have stakes in. This daisy-chain oligopolistic ownership is typical in today’s increasingly unipolar world—where the illusion of competition is only skin deep. The agenda of this cohorts of media organizations appears clear—attack anything that counters the globalist narrative.

Given this, if there is one man that is seen as a clear and present threat, it’s Donald J. Trump.

The liberal new world order behind the shadowy asset managers that own shares in MSNBC, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, CNN, Fox—The Vanguard Group inc and BlackRock Fund Advisors—are at it again with another smear piece designed to reinforce the momentum of smear laid down over the past six years.

In the all too familier style of the liberal media since Trump walked down the escalator in 2016, The Intelligencer opened the piece by reminding their audience: “Trump was impeached twice, lost the 2020 election by 7,052,770 votes, is entangled in investigations by federal prosecutors (over the Capitol insurrection and over the mishandling of classified White House documents and over election interference) and the District of Columbia attorney general (over financial fraud at the Presidential Inaugural Committee) and the Manhattan district attorney (over financial fraud at the Trump Organization) and the New York State attorney general (over financial fraud at the Trump Organization) and the Westchester County district attorney (over financial fraud at the Trump Organization) and the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney (over criminal election interference in Georgia) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (over rules violations in plans to take his social-media company public through a SPAC) and the House Select Committee on January 6 (whose hearings are the runaway TV-ratings hit of the summer), yet on Monday, July 11, he was in a fantastic mood.”

The piece is heavy-handed on opinion, with liberal heaps of TDS pervading almost every sentence.

Trump’s statements about 2024 are as follows.

“Look,” Trump said, “I feel very confident that, if I decide to run, I’ll win.”

Trump continues, “Well, in my own mind, I’ve already made that decision, so nothing factors in anymore. In my own mind, I’ve already made that decision.”

In the usual style of the yet-to-be recognized two-time US presidential race winner, Trump hinted at a lot without saying anything definitive—a master of hype.

“I would say my big decision will be whether I go before or after,” he said.

“You understand what that means?” Trump said to the NY Mag reporter.

The reporter, asking for clarity about what Trump was talking about, said “mid-terms.” At this point, Trump appeared to confirm the implication of the question, saying, “Do I go before or after? That will be my big decision.”

Trump then talks about polls, suggesting that if he didn’t run, it would influence other candidates to consider throwing their hats in the race.

“I just think that there are certain assets to before,” he said. “Let people know. I think a lot of people would not even run if I did that because, if you look at the polls, they don’t even register. Most of these people. And I think that you would actually have a backlash against them if they ran. People want me to run.”

Trump said he didn’t feel intimidated by Ron Desantis before he was cut off by the NY Mag reporter

“I don’t feel that,” he said, “I endorsed Ron, he was at 3, and as soon as I endorsed him, he went to first place, he was not gonna win, then —”

The reporter seems to ask Trump if he’s talking about competition for 2024.

“Yeah, no, I meant when he ran for governor, as you know, he was running and then he came to me for an endorsement because he was not, you know, he was at 3 percent.”

Trump continued about Desantis, “the race was over, and I think Ron knows that better than anybody. We have a good relationship, and, uhh, there may be some others soon, but that’s okay.”

At the end of the day, the NY Mag interview didn’t offer a lot more clarity, it merely confirmed what almost everyone believes—Trump will run in 2024.

The liberal media is so desperate to cut down Trump, that they recently said that they have no strategy for dealing with him in 2024.

Mark Leibovich said, an Americal journalist, told Meet The Press “Look we have no plan for this, except sitting around hoping [Trump] dies.”

Related NBC’s Panelists Wish for Donald Trump’s Death On-air “We Have No Plan for This, Except Sitting Around Hoping He Dies.

 

Recall that Iran published a video depicting Trump’s assassination at the beginning of this year.

And of course, the J6 un-select committee is working overtime—and failing—to destroy Trump’s reputation.

If these signs are any indication, Trump and America Firsters will win by landslides in their respective elections.

Featured Image

New 40-Year Record High Inflation, 9.1%—The Real Number is Much Worse

By ,

The latest economic figures released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics confirm what everyone’s been feeling in their wallets—record high inflation.

Released earlier today, the consumer price index (CPI) came in at 9.1%. The CPI measures a carefully selected basket of goods and services—the official method for measuring inflation. This is the single largest increase since 1981.

Inflation refers to the average increase of products within an economy, which indicates the loss of purchasing power. For instance, if a gallon of milk cost $8 last year, rising to $8.80, this means that the cost has remained essentially the same—but the value of the dollar has dropped by 10%.

What Prices Increased the Most?

Inflation hit the energy and food sectors most sharply, with unleaded gas prices peaking at a national average of $5 per gallon.

Removing food and energy reduces the rate to 5.9%, confirming that these sectors have risen the most.

While gas prices sharply increased by nearly 50% from last year, the price at the pump has leveled off for the most part since early June, in part due to crude oil price leveling out, falling below their $126 mid-May peak to $96 as of July.

Nevertheless, price discovery for most of the economy remains on the high side.

“The concept of price discovery—determining the fair price of a particular good or service based on supply and demand—is a primary function of every public market, from ancient souks to auction houses.”

Everyone is uncertain how far inflation will go—especially since it’s approaching the mid-70s record highs, whether a small business or a transactional conglomerate. Prices will likely continue to rise as supply chains continue to crumble, supplies decrease due to global trade upset from Ukraine and Western-bloc sanctions, and gouging by oligopolies continues, per the norm.

Price Gouging and Collusion

In simple terms, big businesses pay market analysts to forecast costs and profit changes, advising higher prices even if the impact of inflation hasn’t hit their bottom line. As a result, this triggers inflation across the economy, as large portions of the technology sector are in cahoots with each other, called oligopolies.

While most people believe businesses compete, the increasingly obvious reality is that collusion is more the norm. Why else would most retail and tech prices seem to go up at once in response to a crisis like the Ukraine conflict?

As Wall Street Journal Reporter Dion Rabouin notes in an NPR interview from April of this year,

“Inflation sort of disguises these price increases. When prices for everything around you are rising, it’s much easier for companies to raise their prices and not experience that consumer blowback.”

True Inflation Much Worse

As bad as things appear with 9.1% inflation, it’s a lot worse.

A campaign to suppress real inflation started in the 80s as a response to increasing liability obligations for social security beneficiaries.

In the 1970s, before the calculation methods changed, inflation spiked to nearly 15%.

But, strangely, after changes were implemented, the volatility of inflation was reduced.

30a Chart 1: Inflation as Measured by CPI 600×600

According to Investopedia,

“Originally, the CPI was determined by comparing the price of a fixed basket of goods and services spanning two different periods. In this case, the CPI was a cost of goods index (COGI). However, over time, the U.S. Congress embraced the view that the CPI should reflect changes in the cost to maintain a constant standard of living. Consequently, the CPI has evolved into a cost of living index (COLI).

Over the years, the methodology used to calculate the CPI has undergone numerous revisions. According to the BLS, the changes removed biases that caused the CPI to overstate the inflation rate. The new methodology takes into account changes in the quality of goods and substitution. Substitution, the change in purchases by consumers in response to price changes, changes the relative weighting of the goods in the basket. The overall result tends to be a lower CPI. However, critics view the methodological changes and the switch from a COGI to a COLI as a purposeful manipulation that allows the U.S. government to report a lower CPI.”

This issue is quickly summarized in a Dirty Money video entitled Why the Official US Inflation Rate is a LIE.

Why the Official US Inflation Rate is a LIE
0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

John Williams, a maverick economist, reveals the true inflation numbers on his site Shadowstats.com.

According to Williams’ charts, a more accurate inflation figure is about 17%—nearly double the adjusted mainstream number of 9.1%.

Note in the above chart that the two different indexes, SGS CPI in blue and CPI-U in red, were trending in unison until 1982, when the new calculation methods were implemented.

Final Thoughts

Inflation is a hidden tax on the working class—those citizens who don’t have excess capital to invest in the stock market—where prices of stocks tend to rise with inflation.

Inflation reduces the cost of debt due to the fact payments are enumerated in fixed currency amounts—your mortgage payment doesn’t go up or adjust for inflation.

This means inflation favors the wealthy and those with debt, like the US government.

What prices have you seen rise the most? What are you doing to mitigate the impact?

The Georgia Guidestones, “American Stonehenge” Bombed—No One Expected What Happened Next

By ,

ELBERTON GEORGIA — The Georgia Guidestones, a mysterious monument that many believe is a warning of overpopulation, was bombed in the early morning hours of Wednesday, July 6th. No one seemed to predict what happened next.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation reported that the “GBI is releasing surveillance video from this morning’s explosion that destroyed the Georgia Guidestones. The videos show the explosion and a car leaving the scene shortly after the explosion.”

Built in the 1980s, the large granite monument was inscribed with messages, that some think, provide instructions for how to reboot society after a catastrophe.

“A capstone lay on top of the five slabs, which were astronomically aligned. An additional stone tablet, which was set in the ground a short distance to the west of the structure, provided some notes on the history and purpose of the guidestones. The structure is sometimes referred to as an “American Stonehenge”

The inscriptions are written in eight different languages: English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Traditional Chinese, and Russian.

The inscriptions read:

  1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
  2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity
  3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
  4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
  5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
  6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
  7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
  8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
  9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
  10. Be not a cancer on the Earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

The GBI further reported “No one was injured. For safety reasons, the structure has been completely demolished.”

The destruction of the infamous monument triggered passionate responses.

Some responses had comedic value.

What do you think?

Is this a herald of events to come or is this merely an act of vandalism?

CONSTITUTIONAL VICTORY: SCOTUS Strips EPA of Authority It Never Had in West Virginia v. EPA

By ,

WASHINGTON DC — In a 6 to 3 ruling today, the Supreme Court limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority, preventing the agency from exercising it’s claimed power to reduce carbon emissions in concert with the Biden administration’s April 2021.

In a ruling that angered climate change activists, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, writing the majority opinion, said that the EPA had not received proper authority from Congress to limit carbon emissions.

It was believed, that the Clean Air Act in concert with initiatives put forward by the Obama administration, that the EPA had all the authority it needed, but that is not the case.

At issue, is the question in the case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 20-1530, whether the Clean Air Act allowed the EPA to codify sweeping regulations that have the force of law, without proper Congressional involvement.

The key issue, in this writer’s opinion, is that any rights of the body corporate, We The People, cannot be infringed without proper consent from the people. Congress provides the mechanism of consent at a national level, especially since the supposed climate change science is hardly a settled issue. The EPA cannot unilaterally act as if it has that de jure authority. If SCOTUS did side with the EPA, it would have, in effect, authorized the EPA’s side-stepping of the people’s rights through Congress. And SCOTUS would have, in effect, granted rights to the EPA in a similar way that Roe v Wade created rights in the recently overturned ruling from the ’70s.

The decision exposed the judicial activism of some of the liberal justices in the court.

Justice Elena Kagan, in dissent of the ruling, said,

“Whatever else this court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change,” … “And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions.”

Whether SCOTUS “does not have a clue about how to address climate change” isn’t the issue. The issue is whether the EPA can grant itself rights it never had to address climate change—which is not scientifically proven to exist. And if the highest court in the land should go along with the EPA’s renegade strategies.

The fact that a sitting justice doesn’t seem to understand the importance of Congress and is all too ready to use SCOTUS to manufacture rights and legislate from the bench has alarmed many.

Patrick Morrisey, the attorney general of West Virginia and one of the leaders of the challenge to the E.P.A.’s authority, welcomed the decision.

“E.P.A. can no longer sidestep Congress to exercise broad regulatory power that would radically transform the nation’s energy grid and force states to fundamentally shift their energy portfolios away from coal-fired generation,” he said.

Morrisey appears to understand the deeper constitutional attacks underpinning climate activists to assume any and all power to implement their green agenda.

Richard Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard, said “the court’s ruling is a major setback for E.P.A.’s ability to address climate change, and it could hardly have come at a worse time.”

“By insisting instead that an agency can promulgate an important and significant climate rule only by showing ‘clear congressional authorization’ at a time when the court knows that Congress is effectively dysfunctional, the court threatens to upend the national government’s ability to safeguard the public health and welfare at the very moment when the United States, and all nations, are facing our greatest environmental challenge of all: climate change,” he added.

The comments by Lazarus and Justice Kagan are alarming because they are essentially arguing that the challenges of going through the proper Congressional process are too great, and, in effect “the ends justify the means.” But if anyone should be arguing for adhering to the proper congressional process, it should be a justice of the Supreme Court.

The ruling did not hinder the EPAs ability to regulate the energy sector, it merely pushed back against the agency’s attempt to claim powers it was never given by Congress.

Read more about the questionable science of the EPA in our article here.