Texas Law Allowing Ivermectin To Be Sold Over The Counter Goes Into Effect

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times,

A Texas law allowing ivermectin to be sold over the counter went into effect Dec. 4, but rollout appears slow as pharmacies wrestle with how to proceed.

House Bill 25, signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott in August, allows pharmacies to sell the antiviral drug without a prescription.

Ivermectin gained popularity for off-label use during the COVID-19 pandemic, which influenced support and criticism of the measure. The drug was discovered in the 1970s and developed to treat parasites in humans and animals, and has been studied for its cancer-fighting properties.

Medical freedom advocates supported the bill, but others, such as the Texas Medical Association, worried about health risks to patients.

“Removing clinical involvement is a risk to patient safety,” the group said on its website.

The law indicates a pharmacy may dispense the drug “in accordance with any written standardized procedures or protocols issued by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy, including, if required, providing the person with instructions on the proper use of ivermectin.”

Tyler RX Pharmacy indicated it would eventually dispense ivermectin without a prescription, but said the protocols for doing so haven’t been finalized yet.

“The law states to follow the state Board of Pharmacy guidelines, but there are no guidelines in place yet,” the store’s pharmacist, Katelin Nuon, told The Epoch Times.

At Cody Pharmacy in Sulfur Springs, Texas, the store manager said they didn’t have ivermectin available yet because the law just went into effect, but advised checking back next week.

However, Republican state Sen. Bob Hall, who sponsored a companion bill in the Texas Senate, told The Epoch Times that pharmacies could sell ivermectin even if the pharmacy guidelines were not in place.

“There is nothing in the bill that requires the pharmacy board to do anything,” he said. “We’re checking with the pharmacy board to see if there is something buried in their rules that preempts this changeover.”

The Texas State Board of Pharmacy did not immediately respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment.

Hall said he has received calls from constituents complaining that their local pharmacies claim they can’t sell ivermectin.

Despite this, Hall believes that independent pharmacies will take the lead in offering the drug to the public. He noted that some outlets have told him they intend to mail it to consumers if needed.

Hall said he has not received information that large retail pharmacies intend to sell the drug over the counter.

Texas is one of five states to legalize the sale of the drug without a prescription. The others are Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, and Tennessee.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 15:10

At the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter this week:

Click on graph for larger image.

• Inflation Adjusted House Prices 3.0% Below 2022 Peak

• Q3 Update: Delinquencies, Foreclosures and REO

• Final Look at Housing Markets in October and a Look Ahead to November Sales

• Asking Rents Soft Year-over-year

This is usually published 4 to 6 times a week and provides more in-depth analysis of the housing market.

The GRANITE Act: How Congress Can Strike Back Against Foreign Censors

Authored by Preston Byrne,

Please find below the draft text of the GRANITE Act, a bill I have offered to New Hampshire legislators for consideration for enactment in that state. It could serve as a template for a U.S. fightback against global censorship, if adapted for federal use.

It doesn’t really require a ton of explanation.

The gist is simple: the only real defense a foreign censor has from injunctive relief in a U.S. court, as we saw with Ofcom’s recent fine letter to 4chan and the strategy employed by Trump Media and Technology Group’s attorneys in their case against Alexandre de Moraes in the Middle District of Florida, is sovereign immunity.

Foreign countries can bully the shit out of American citizens and companies because they know that U.S. law potentially protects them from consequences for doing so.

We should take that immunity away from them. Such a move would have teeth because these foreign countries’ economies would break down if they didn’t have access to the U.S. banking system. The UK, for example, has £47 billion custodied in North American banks in order to support its currency.

The GRANITE Act makes foreign censorship inbound to the U.S. a very simple cost/benefit exercise for these countries: you can try to censor an American citizen or corporation, but if you do, they can sue you, and you, Mr. Foreign Censor, are not judgment proof because your country needs access to the U.S. financial system to survive.

This also means that trial lawyers will be responsible for protecting Americans’ rights rather than the State Department/the Executive Branch. This will mean that instead of having to deal with nuisance demands from foreign bureaucrats, President Trump can move on to other, more important matters he has proven so very adept at, like bringing the peoples and nations of the world together in peace and harmony, and blame Congress and aggressive American trial lawyers if any foreigner complains about American rules.

I add: the statutory damages are set at a minimum of $10 million because the UK is threatening Americans with fines of $25 million or 10% of global turnover, whichever is greater. That is the scale of the abuse that American citizens currently have to tolerate from these foreign countries.

I have a feeling, if we create consequences for foreign censorship, inbound foreign censorship will stop.

So, I ask Congress: adapt this for federal use. Enact it. If you do this, you will end the foreign censorship problem in a day.

Model Bill – the GRANITE Act

Section 1. Short Title

This Act may be cited as the Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny & Extortion Act (the “GRANITE Act” or the “Act”).

Section 2. Legislative Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to safeguard the constitutional rights of New Hampshire residents against the extraterritorial application of foreign Internet censorship laws that would restrict speech or compel disclosure of information in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire.

Section 3. Jurisdiction and Venue

1. The courts of this state shall have subject-matter jurisdiction over any action brought by a resident or domiciliary of New Hampshire, a New Hampshire corporation, or a person within the State of New Hampshire alleging that a foreign government, or any officer, employee, or instrumentality thereof, has:
   • (a) issued or attempted to enforce any law, judgment, subpoena, or order purporting to regulate speech or conduct protected by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, in each case occurring wholly within the United States; or
   • (b) sought to compel a New Hampshire resident or entity to comply with such foreign law, judgment, subpoena, or order purporting to regulate speech or conduct protected by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire.
2. Personal jurisdiction shall be deemed established whenever the foreign actor directs or transmits any demand, notice, threat, or other communication into the state or to a resident of this state, whether by electronic means or otherwise.

Section 4. Cause of Action and Remedies

1. Any resident or domiciliary of New Hampshire who has been, or any person who is physically present in New Hampshire at the time they were, or any New Hampshire corporation who has been victimized by, conduct described in Section 3 may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against any person or entity responsible for that conduct or any foreign state authorizing that conduct. Such persons or entities responsible for the conduct described in Section 3 shall be jointly and severally liable for that conduct.
2. Upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the foreign government or its instrumentality acted to chill, restrict, or penalize constitutionally protected expression or association, or otherwise infringe on any right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, the plaintiff shall be entitled to:
   • (a) the greater of:
     1. Treble actual damages; or
     2. statutory damages of not less than $10,000,000 (ten million U.S. dollars) or the equivalent dollar amount of the threatened fine on the date on which the fine was threatened, whichever is greater;

(b) Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and

(c) Injunctive and declaratory relief as necessary to prevent further violations of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Section 5. Waiver of Sovereign Immunity

1. A foreign state, foreign agency, or foreign instrumentality, or any person employed by such foreign state, foreign agency, or foreign instrumentality, that engages in conduct described in Section 3 shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of this state.
2. The doctrine of sovereign immunity shall be deemed waived for any act undertaken to enforce or threaten enforcement of a foreign law that is contrary to the public policy or constitutional guarantees of the United States or the State of New Hampshire.

Section 6. Non-Recognition of Foreign Judgments

No court of this state shall recognize, enforce, or give any effect to a foreign judgment, order, or administrative action that infringes rights protected by the United States or New Hampshire Constitutions.

Section 7. Construction

This Act shall be liberally construed to provide maximum protection for New Hampshire residents against the extraterritorial enforcement of foreign censorship laws. Nothing in this Act shall limit any other cause of action or remedy available under federal or state law.

*  *  *

Update 1: Since the initial draft of this blog post, it has been converted into an actual bill and been filed in the State of Wyoming. New Hampshire to follow soon.

Update 2: The United States Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Sarah Rogers, has told GB News that UK censorship of Americans has crossed a “red line” and that a version of the GRANITE Act, presumably derived from the Wyoming bill, is on the verge of introduction in the U.S. House of Representatives. I can also personally confirm a derivative of the Wyoming GRANITE Act continues to move forward in New Hampshire and filing is expected in weeks.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 14:00

Nearly Two-Thirds Of Americans Say College Degree Isn't Worth The Cost: Poll

Authored by Gabrielle Temaat via The College Fix,

Nearly two-thirds of Americans don’t believe that a college degree is worth its price tag, according to a recent NBC News survey.  

Sixty-three percent of registered voters said a four-year degree is “not worth the cost because people often graduate without specific job skills and with a large amount of debt to pay off,” according to the poll. 

Meanwhile, only 33 percent said a degree is “worth the cost because people have a better chance to get a good job and earn more money over their lifetime.” 

The survey included 1,000 registered voters, with 655 interviewed by cellphone and 300 reached through an online questionnaire sent via text message.

Responses varied significantly depending on the respondents’ political party affiliation.

Only 22 percent of Republicans said college is worth the cost while 47 percent of Democrats said a degree is worth pursuing. 

Asked about the primary factor eroding their confidence in the value of a college education, respondents overwhelmingly cited escalating tuition costs.

Further, respondents were much more evenly split on the question eight years ago. In 2017, 49 percent felt a college degree was worth the price, while 47 percent disagreed, NBC News reported. 

Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies.

“It’s just remarkable to see attitudes on any issue shift this dramatically, and particularly on a central tenet of the American dream, which is a college degree. Americans used to view a college degree as aspirational — it provided an opportunity for a better life. And now that promise is really in doubt,” Horwitt said. 

He also said he was surprised by how widespread the shift has been. Attitudes have changed across all groups, not just among those without college degrees.

“This is a political problem. It’s also a real problem for higher education. Colleges and universities have lost that connection they’ve had with a large swath of the American people based on affordability,” Horwitt said. “They’re now seen as out of touch and not accessible to many Americans.”

College tuition has surged, roughly doubling in the past 20 years, and doubling again from two decades before, The New York Post reported. 

At some universities, including the University of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, and Columbia, annual costs to attend the school are nearing $100,000, The College Fix previously reported. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 12:50

Journal Retracts 'Ghost Written' Monsanto Study Claiming Glyphosate Is Safe

Over the past year massive scandals involving academic research have come under the microscope, after dedicated researchers uncovered rigged studies that made it through peer-review with flying colors, and are now being retracted. 

On Friday, the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal announced that it has retracted a review, safety evaluation, and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, after it emerged that Monsanto was heavily involved in its production. 

"This decision has been made after careful consideration of the COPE guidelines and thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the authorship and content of this article and in light of no response having been provided to address the findings," the journal said in a statement. 

"Litigation in the United States revealed correspondence from Monsanto suggesting that the authors of the article were not solely responsible for writing its content," and contributions by Monsanto employees were not disclosed, including in the acknowledgements section of the review. 

The journal also said that the authors may have been paid by Monsanto - which was also not disclosed. 

The Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology had been frequently cited in defending glyphosate, an ingredient in Roundup, including citations on Wikipedia, researchers said in a paper published in September. Since 2017, multiple juries have concluded that Roundup exposure has resulted in non-Hodgkin lymphoma in people. Bayer took over legal cases involving the matter after it purchased Monsanto in 2018, including a case that may be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. -Epoch Times

Meanwhile the study's lead author, Gary Williams - a former pathologist at New York Medical College, is MIA, according to an Epoch Times inquiry. 

An internal email from February 2015 presented as evidence in a 2017 court case revealed that Monsanto employees worked with the authors of the review, with one employee writing that it would be expensive to involve experts from all major areas in a review - and would be cheaper to simply involve certain experts and "we ghost-write" other sections. 

"We would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak. Recall that is how we handled Williams Kroes & Munro, 2000," the employee wrote. 

So of course, the journal retracts the dodgy study almost 10 years later - even as other journals - including Critical Reviews in Toxicology, attached expressions of concern co-authored by Williams because they said they authors didn't disclose the involvement of Monsanto employees and contractors in authoring their research. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 12:15

Impeachment Mania Returns In Time For The Midterm Elections

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The military has long had a saying that “when you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” When it comes to impeachment power, Democrats have long acted as if every problem is a high crime and misdemeanor.

After two impeachments against President Donald Trump (including what I labeled as an infamous “snap impeachment“), Democratic politicians and pundits are back calling for the impeachment of President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) was the latest to prepare articles of impeachment. He is demanding the removal of Hegseth over his use of the encrypted messaging app Signal to convey battle plans and the “double tap” order on a disabled drug boat.

The Signal app controversy was a legitimate objection raised by critics. The Pentagon inspector general recently found that such use can endanger both missions and personnel, even though it did not appear to have resulted in damage in this case. Nevertheless, the Pentagon is claiming that the report is a “TOTAL exoneration of Secretary Hegseth.”  That is hardly convincing. It is akin to Harris claiming that Gov. Josh Shapiro’s description of her book as “utter bulls**t” is a glowing review.

However, such a controversy does not even come close to meeting the constitutional standard for impeachment. Democrats did not call for the removal of Democratic presidents or cabinet members for such past controversies, including the use of social media and private email accounts.

The inclusion of the boat strike ignores how the war crimes story has collapsed this week. Even the New York Times and ABC News (and some Democratic members) now admit that it is not true that Hegseth gave an order to kill any survivors of these attacks or that such an order was issued by military commanders.

A finishing shot on a still floating vessel is not uncommon in war. There is a legitimate debate over the policy of striking these boats. However, in terms of the president’s inherent constitutional powers, he has the authority to strike such vessels outside the United States. Other presidents have asserted such authority. This includes President Barack Obama, who claimed in his “kill list” policy to have the right to kill even American citizens anywhere and at any time based on his unilateral decision that they represent an imminent threat to national security.

With respect to the laws of war, if the military had the authority to sink the boat, the commander could order a finishing shot or shots to complete the mission. It has long been common in war to deliver such finishing shots even when there are survivors on board or in the area of the vessel. The commander must not re-engage for the sole purpose of killing survivors. There is no evidence of any such order in this strike. The Washington Post based its sensational claim on a single anonymous source.

Throughout history (including the famed sinking of the Bismarck in World War II), there have been finishing shots delivered in sea engagements to destroy vessels.

The same is true with aerial attacks. It is common for the military to deliver multiple hits on a target if it is not completely destroyed despite the presence of wounded or survivors in the area. Once again, this does not mean the decision was correct or commendable in any given circumstance. Still, it falls within the discretion historically afforded to military commanders in achieving mission objectives.

In the end, the laws of war reflect the fluidity and uncertainty of military engagement. The “fog of war” is a reality of military conflicts, even with the added technological advances that we have today.

We still have not seen the full video and have not yet confirmed the timeline of orders. That will help establish if the successive strikes were plausibly tied to the mission objective of destroying the still floating vessel and stopping the salvaging of the drugs. It will also help establish that the boat and the drugs were indeed still viable targets. The latter recovery of survivors by the military would indicate that there was no “kill them all” policy with regard to survivors.

What is clear is that this is not even close to an impeachable offense.

Thanedar is not the only one reviving calls for impeachment.

Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta is calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump over his “hateful comments” about the Minnesota Somali community, which he claims are grounds for impeachment:

“What needs to be said that isn’t being said enough in our press over the last 24 hours is that the President of the United States said a blatantly, obviously racist thing in the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday when he said what he said about Somali immigrants in this country. That they don’t contribute anything, that they’re not of value. In no normal world should the President of the United States of America ever, ever say something like that to the American people or even say it privately… I mean, if the President of the United States says it privately, it means he’s a bad person, and we should get rid of him.”

But to me, that was an impeachable moment. There have been so many impeachable moments since Donald Trump has come back to the White House, but to blatantly say something as racist and as hateful and as nasty and cruel and mean-spirited as what he said yesterday. The impeachment proceedings should begin right now. But of course, they won’t.”

There is a reason why they won’t . . . because this is ridiculous. Many of us have objected to the President’s comments about whole groups in this country. It is wrong to attack all Somalis in this country. I have previously written about how many of these immigrants from authoritarian nations embrace the essence of our country in seeking a free and better life.

However, past presidents have also used offensive or objectionable terms to refer to groups in the United States from Hillary Clinton’s reference to black men as “super predators” to Joe Biden’s referring to school desegregation as forcing white students to study in a “racial jungle” or claiming that any blacks who do not support him “ain’t black.”

I also do not remember these critics denouncing the attacks on figures like Elon Musk over his nationality.

The suggestion that these comments by Trump are an impeachable offense is absurd.

There is little danger that such impeachments will move forward.

However, if Democrats retake the House, the impeachment impulse will be overwhelming.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 11:40

Is A Backdoor Gold Standard Coming?

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

For decades, I’ve been vexed over a monetary issue. How can we transition from the present fiat money system to a sound-money standard like we once had in the United States and the world?

Clearly the gold standard was superior whereas we now have a fiat standard that has mired the world in debt and big government. A central-bank digital currency with programmable debt-based money and omnipresent surveillance is the dystopian nightmare of which many dream.

But this would pile calamity on top of disaster.

What we really need is the gold standard back. But how could it happen? There has never been a viable transition plan.

Rather, I’ve seen many such plans but they all have their limits. A clean redefinition of the dollar as a title for physical gold has huge transition problems and probable pricing chaos. We don’t even know for sure how much gold the federal government owns now. President Trump had spoken of auditing Fort Knox but that hasn’t happened.

Many other plans for a new Bretton Woods falter on grounds that they depend on sound management by the central bank. Such a system does not allow for domestic convertibility and will therefore lack a mechanism of discipline and a proof of credibility. It would also plunge us back to the very problem that ruined that system in its first try: gold flows break when governments overextend.

A purely pricing model—whereby the Fed targets the gold price—requires a level of precision, judgment, and knowledge that the Fed lacks. If it cannot manage the system now, why should we think it could manage a gold-price standard well?

There is a political problem that afflicts even the best reform plan. Any transition to a sound system requires the cooperation of many parties that benefit from the status quo: government, industry, finance, and banks. They are all nuts for the fiat system despite how it has eroded the standard of living for the middle class and fueled endless rounds of booms and busts.

We are relying on government to reform itself. This problem is intractable.

Keep in mind that the 19th-century gold standard was itself codified in the form of legislation. The Coinage Act of 1873 recognized that gold was money. This was not so much an imposition but a bow to reality. Forty years later, the central bank came along and that began the long process of destroying sound money.

It’s hard to shake the idea that a new gold standard would be a wonderful idea. How do we get from here to there?

Recent trends in gold and silver prices provide a strong hint that we could be slouching our way toward hard money in any case, with or without official planning.

Both gold and silver are experiencing a stunning renaissance. You would have to be naive not to observe the significance of these moves. These trends amount to a vote of confidence in the real over the financial fictions of the fiat world.

Source: Bloomberg

Over 10 years, the price of gold has moved from $1.1K per ounce to $4.2K, a 256 percent increase. The price of silver has moved from $13 to $57 per ounce, a 315 percent increase.

This beats both the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500. This is an outstanding investment, one that beats dollar depreciation.

To be sure, the silver demand is driven by industrial interest. Gold is being pushed by investors. Still, to see the two move together suggests tremendous insecurity in the financial system. It could portend some significant moves in the future.

Demand has also increased based on new purchases from central banks and the new stablecoins (with a $308 billion market cap, up 50 percent in a year). Stable coins are trying to balance out their debt-dominated portfolios with some hard-money backing. This alone is remarkable, especially since intellectuals have been calling gold a “barbarous relic” for nearly one hundred years. Still to this day, these metals are considered to be safe havens.

The Basel III rules that took full effect in 2022 explicitly reclassified allocated gold as a zero-risk-weight asset again.

This is the first time since the 1970s. The timing is significant because this took place when the world economy was locked down and suffering from pandemic-related attacks.

Another crucial fact: more banks are today accepting gold and silver as collateral for dollar-based loans. This is a form of backdoor monetization. It is a small step for a liquid and portable metal to serve as money, with on and off ramps being provided by the banks themselves. Gold is already allowed to be used this way, and silver is on the way toward this status.

This path is consistent with F.A. Hayek’s speculations on the denationalization of money. He was an economist who had been writing for sound money since the 1930s. His plans were continually foiled by governments and the trends of his time. For his work on this topic, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974.

After this, he decided it was time to say the unthinkable. He wrote that governments would never reform the money in a good way because governments love bad money. He said that the best path forward would be for the banks to shepherd the change themselves. He posited that banks could create a new currency based on their own assets or on a commodity basket of real goods.

Hayek speculated that when the money fails, the banks’ own hard money could serve as the monetary safe haven.

To some extent, his vision for choice in currency is being realized within the crypto sector. It was designed to be a non-state money. Bitcoin itself took a different direction when the core developers refused to allow it to scale, as Roger Ver explains.

This led to forks of new tokens. Now there are thousands of them, many with privacy protection that far exceeds Bitcoin. They are the go-to choice for people who actually use crypto for transactions.

But now we are seeing the advent of hybrid models, such as stablecoins backed by physical gold, thus uniting the soundness of gold with the speed and low cost of blockchain exchange of ownership titles.

If the money fails this time, and even if government defaults on its debt, these monetary instruments could immediately swing into action.

If the dollar actually degrades to the point that it is not useful, new pricing structures could emerge rooted in crypto and/or hard money like gold and silver.

Would that not be fascinating if we eventually end up with a gold standard as fact even without legislation?

As in 1873, Congress can come along later and recognize reality after the fact.

Such a path would be consistent with the long history of money. It was never a creation of the state but rather emerged from markets. A new and better path to sound money in our times might travel the same trajectory.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 10:30

Anti-Free-Speech War Escalates As EU Unleashes DSA On Musk's X

For years, many in the free speech community (most vehemently, Jonathan Turley) have warned about the threat of the European Union to free speech, particularly in the enactment of the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA).

The EU has virtually declared war on free speech and is targeting American companies.

That war just began with the first DSA fine.

Not surprisingly, X was the chosen target - a company blamed by many in the EU and the U.S. for rolling back free-speech protections.

In essence, it’s punishment for not bending the knee to the EU’s iron-fisted control over online content.

As Modernity.news' Steve Watson points out, the fine reeks of the same vindictive playbook the EU has used since Musk took over Twitter in 2022. It’s no coincidence; Brussels has been gunning for him precisely because he’s turned the platform into a haven for unfiltered discourse, refusing to censor at the whim of unelected technocrats.

This isn’t a one-off slap; it’s the culmination of years of threats and harassment. Back in January 2023, EU Commission Vice-President Vera Jourová openly warned Musk that his “freedom of speech absolutism” wouldn’t fly, declaring the “time of the Wild West is over” and threatening sanctions if Twitter didn’t comply with DSA rules. She conflated illegal content with anything the elites deem offensive, setting the stage for today’s fine.

At the WEF annual meeting, the EU regulator threatens Twitter and Elon Musk with sanctions.

She is very unhappy about unapproved thoughts being expressed freely on Twitter.

Your thoughts are too dangerous for the EU bureaucrats to handle! pic.twitter.com/M27cykXqtF

— Igor Chudov (@ichudov) January 23, 2023

In October 2023, EU Commissioner Thierry Breton fired off a letter demanding X address “illegal content and disinformation” related to the Gaza conflict. Musk fired back, demanding a specific list of violations so the public could judge for themselves.

Breton’s vague accusations—citing repurposed images and unverified claims—highlighted the EU’s preference for opacity over accountability. Musk called it out: “List the violations you allude to on X, so that the public can see them.” The EU’s response was not forthcoming, but the threats continued.

Our policy is that everything is open source and transparent, an approach that I know the EU supports.

Please list the violations you allude to on ?, so that that the public can see them.

Merci beaucoup.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 10, 2023

We take our actions in the open.

No back room deals.

Please post your concerns explicitly on this platform.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 11, 2023

Further, Musk brings receipts showing the European Union sent him a formal letter demanding that he censor Donald Trump during the 2024 US presidential election.

Since Musk’s acquisition, X has become a battleground for free expression, reinstating accounts banned under the old regime and prioritizing user-driven content over algorithmic suppression. But for the EU, that’s the problem.

Their DSA empowers regulators to dictate what platforms promote or demote, under the guise of fighting “hate speech” and “misinformation.” In reality, it’s a tool to silence dissent against open borders, climate hysteria, or any narrative challenging the globalist agenda.

This fine doesn’t exist in a vacuum - it’s part of a chilling pattern of EU overreach that threatens privacy and free speech across the continent.

Take the proposed Chat Control law, which would mandate backdoors into encrypted messages on apps like WhatsApp and Signal.

Sold as a child protection measure, it would scan billions of private conversations, exposing users to hacking, fraud, and government spying. Signal’s CEO Meredith Whittaker slammed it as a “catastrophic about-face” that betrays Europe’s privacy commitments, while experts warn of mass false positives and geopolitical abuse.

Then there’s Brussels’ aggressive enforcement tactics. In May of this year, the European Commission sued Czechia, Spain, Cyprus, Poland, and Portugal for dragging their feet on DSA implementation—specifically for not appointing national coordinators or setting penalties. Critics see this as forcing member states into a surveillance straitjacket, where platforms must over-censor to avoid fines, stifling smaller voices and user privacy.

At the heart of it all is the EU’s obsession with controlling information flows. In a January 2024 speech at Davos, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared disinformation the “top concern” for the coming years, calling for a “new global framework” where governments and Big Tech collaborate to police AI and online content.

She praised the DSA for defining platform responsibilities, but the subtext was clear: crush platforms like X that don’t toe the line. Jourová echoed this, meeting with Meta and YouTube execs to ensure compliance while targeting Musk’s “absolutism.”

These moves expose the hypocrisy: the EU claims to champion democracy but builds an Orwellian apparatus that monitors, scans, and punishes speech. It’s not about safety—it’s about power.

This latest EU assault on X has infuriated US Vice President JD Vance, who yesterday, as rumors of the impending penalty circulated, took to X and posted:

“The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage.”

Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship. The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage.

— JD Vance (@JDVance) December 4, 2025

Vance’s previously blistering critiques of European tyranny sent shockwaves through Brussels. In a February 2025 speech at the Munich Security Conference, Vance tore into EU leaders for preaching democracy while arresting citizens for silent prayer, canceling elections, and ignoring voters on mass migration.

“No voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants,” he declared, labeling Europeans as more than “interchangeable cogs in a global economy.”

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius called Vance’s opinions “unacceptable,” proving Vance’s point about normalized authoritarianism.

Vance’s words were prescient—today’s fine on X exemplifies how the EU weaponizes laws to crush free speech platforms, treating them as threats to their controlled narrative. With Trump back in the White House and Vance as a key ally, expect pushback: America won’t stand idly by as allies erode the very freedoms that define the West.

The $140 million hit on X isn’t just a fine—it’s a declaration of war on uncensored dialogue.

Musk’s platform remains one of the last major outposts where ideas flow freely, unhampered by globalist filters. As the EU tightens its grip, the message is clear: comply or be crushed.

As Jonathan Turley concludes, this is the first fine under the DSA and the EU officials acknowledged that it will lay the foundation for additional penalties to come to force companies to comply with EU “values” on free speech.

Specifically, the European Commission has imposed a €120 million ($140 million) fine on X after finding that it misled users with its paid-for blue checkmark verification symbol, failed to provide researchers with access to data, and did not properly set up an advertising repository. 

Bingo https://t.co/JRrMjn1UfO

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 6, 2025

X has 60 days to develop solutions to address the issues and 90 days to implement the changes, or it may face additional fines.

The “EU” imposed this crazy fine not just on @X, but also on me personally, which is even more insane!

Therefore, it would seem appropriate to apply our response not just to the EU, but also to the individuals who took this action against me. https://t.co/n2LE0eZiI7

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 5, 2025

Under the DSA, the EU can impose fines of up to 6% of an online platform’s annual global revenue for failing to address illegal content, disinformation, or transparency requirements.

It is still investigating X as well as several other major US tech firms, including Apple, Google, and Meta, under the DSA and the Digital Markets Act.

This includes investigations for failing to carry out demands for censorship, including of American citizens.

The EU woke Stasi commissars are about to understand the full meaning of the “Streisand Effect” https://t.co/2XgsSzwJ7z

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 5, 2025

This is just the first salvo in a war that some of us have warned is coming. We cannot be passive at this moment. The EU is threatening the very indispensable right that has long defined us as a people. Many in the United States are rooting for the Europeans to roll back free-speech protections at X and Meta. Some have appeared before the EU to call for this type of action. They could use the EU to achieve abroad what they have failed to accomplish in the United States. The results will be the same for Americans, who will find themselves subject to European censors and “values.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 09:55

Germany Scales Back Offshore Wind Auctions After Latest Flop

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

Germany moved to reduce the capacity it will auction in its offshore wind tender in 2026, following the flop in the latest auction without a single bid made.  

The German Parliament approved legislation narrowing the capacity in the 2026 tender to just 2.5 gigawatts (GW) to 5 GW, compared with an earlier plan of auctioning off 6 GW of offshore wind capacity and with as much as 10 GW offered in the auction in August. 

The August offshore wind auction without government subsidies failed to attract a single bid, alarming the local offshore wind sector, which is calling for a fundamental redesign of Germany’s renewable energy auctions. 

The Federal Network Agency’s auction for 10.1 GW offshore wind farms in the German part of the North Sea ended with no investor submitting a bid for any of the two proposed sites, the Federal Association for Offshore Wind Energy, BWO, said.  

The auction flop signals that offshore wind power developers are wary of taking on riskier, zero-subsidy projects amid rising costs and supply chain issues. 

In response to the failure in the August auction, Germany’s ruling coalition proposed reduced capacity up for grabs, and the proposal was approved by Parliament in a package also aimed at speeding up permitting and other approvals for offshore wind projects and power grid upgrades. 

“Offshore wind is facing a difficult market environment, both internationally and in Germany,” the Economy Ministry said in a statement carried by Bloomberg. Surging costs and tight supply chains deter offshore wind expansion, the ministry noted.   

Germany is expanding onshore wind installations but offshore wind capacity additions are nowhere near its targets. 

Days before the flop in the August auction, German industry associations said that offshore wind power installations had stagnated in the first half of 2025. For offshore wind to reach the ambitious government targets of boosting capacity to 70 GW by 2045, policy makers need to fundamentally revise the tenders and ensure additional revenue and planning security, the German wind energy association, Bundesverband WindEnergie (BWE), and several other sector groups said.  

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 09:20

French Soldiers 'Open Fire' On Drones Threatening High-Secure Nuclear Submarine Base

A major security breach of French military airspace has been revealed Friday at a moment European officials have been hyping the 'hybrid warfare' threat from Russia, which has of late centered on many dozens of 'mystery' drone breaches in EU airspace especially near sensitive locations like airports.

French Marines opened fire on five unidentified drones that breached restricted airspace above a key nuclear submarine base Thursday evening, military officials said, according to EuroNews. But one official has said a "jammer" was hot and not necessarily live ammunition. 

via Telegram

At around 7:30pm local at the Île Longue naval base in Brittany, which importantly is the command center for France's fleet of nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines, radar detected incoming unauthorized UAVs at the high-secure facility.

The marine infantry battalion responsible for protecting the site immediately deployed anti-drone procedures, which included firing several shots at the aircraft in an effort to disable and bring them down.

As it wasn't confirmed whether the drones were actually hit, the security forces initiated a large-scale search operation. Authorities still haven't confirmed that any drones were brought down or recovered.

The drones may have been electronically thwarted or intercepted, based on vague references from French military officials, but not much in the way of details have been offered: 

Defense Minister Catherine Vautrin confirmed that troops at the base intercepted an overflight, without detailing whether they fired shots, used electronic jamming or other means against the aerial intruders. It wasn’t clear who was responsible.

“Any overflight of a military site is prohibited in our country,” Vautrin said. “I want to commend the interception carried out by our military personnel at the Île Longue base.”

The installation is located near Brest in western France, and is guarded by more than 120 maritime forces alongside naval security forces, according to French media.

It hosts four ballistic missile submarines — Le Triomphant, Le Téméraire, Le Vigilant, and Le Terrible — and provides maintenance for the vessels which support the nation's nuclear deterrent. According to official policy, at least one nuclear submarine is deployed on patrol at all times.

"No link with foreign interference has been established," Frédéric Teillet, the public prosecutor in Rennes, was quoted in AFP as saying. He also indicated that no operators behind the drones have been apprehended or identified.

European officials have of late and without firm evidence been pointing the finger at Russian intelligence for a series of drone incidents near commercial and military airports and installations in northern Europe.

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 08:45

UK Sanctions Russia After Inquiry Holds Putin Responsible For 2018 Novichok Poisonings

Authored by Guy Birchall via The Epoch Times,

The UK issued new sanctions on Russia on Dec. 4, after a public inquiry into the death of a woman poisoned by the nerve agent Novichok in the UK in 2018 held Russian President Vladimir Putin responsible for her demise.

London also summoned the Kremlin’s ambassador for a response to the inquiry’s findings and over what it called an “ongoing campaign of hostile activity” against the UK.

The public inquiry into the death of Dawn Sturgess concluded that Putin had ordered the 2018 Novichok attack by GRU agents on Sergei Skripal, a Russian defector and former GRU colonel, in Salisbury, Wiltshire, which eventually resulted in the death of Sturgess, who had no connection to Skripal or Russia.

“The Salisbury poisonings shocked the nation and today’s findings are a grave reminder of the Kremlin’s disregard for innocent lives,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a statement. “Dawn’s needless death was a tragedy and will forever be a reminder of Russia’s reckless aggression. My thoughts are with her family and loved ones.”

He said the UK “will always stand up to Putin’s brutal regime” and “call out his murderous machine for what it is.”

“Today’s sanctions are the latest step in our unwavering defense of European security, as we continue to squeeze Russia’s finances and strengthen Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table,” he added.

Along with the GRU in its entirety, London specifically sanctioned eight cyber military intelligence officers, as well as three other GRU officers, it said were responsible for orchestrating hostile activity in Ukraine and across Europe, including plotting an attack on Ukrainian supermarkets.

The latest sanctions build on a string of packages that have been issued by the UK against Moscow in support of its ally, Ukraine.

Russia has always denied any involvement in the Salisbury incident and dismissed the latest move by the UK.

“The Russian side does not recognize illegitimate sanctions imposed under far-fetched pretexts in circumvention of the UN Security Council, and reserves the right to retaliatory measures,” Moscow’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said, Russian state news agency TASS reported.

“The British can be confident in the inevitability of such measures.”

Zakharova criticized British allegations that the phone of Skripal’s daughter, Yulia, was allegedly hacked by GRU agents.

“Britain announced that Yulia Skripal’s ‘electronic device was hacked.’ Why won’t Yulia Skripal herself speak out about what’s going on? How has she been living all these years? What’s happened to her father? Why is hacking ‘Yulia Skripal’s electronic device’ equated to ‘undermining the integrity of the state?’” she wrote on Telegram.

“I’m tired of these tasteless tales from the English crypt.”

Sturgess, 44, died after being exposed to Novichok, which had been left in a discarded perfume bottle in Amesbury, Wiltshire, in July 2018.

Her death followed the attempted murder of the Skripals and then-police officer Nick Bailey, who were poisoned in nearby Salisbury in March of that year.

According to the public inquiry, they were harmed when members of a Russian GRU military intelligence squad smeared the nerve agent on Sergei Skripal’s door handle.

In the inquiry’s final report, published on Dec. 4, Judge Lord Hughes concluded that the attempted assassination of Skripal “must have been authorized at the highest level, by President Putin.”

Hughes said GRU agents Alexander Petrov, Ruslan Boshirov, and Sergey Fedotov were “acting on instructions” when they carried out the attack.

Following the report’s publication, Lord Hughes said: “The conduct of Petrov and Boshirov, their GRU superiors and those who authorized the mission up to and including, as I have found, President Putin, was astonishingly reckless.

“They, and only they, bear moral responsibility for Dawn’s death.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 12/06/2025 - 08:10

Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not the Cure for Cononavirus



In his most recent podcast, Peter Schiff talked about coronavirus and the impact that it is having on the markets. Earlier this month, Peter said he thought the virus was just an excuse for stock market woes. At the time he believed the market was poised to fall anyway. But as it turns out, coronavirus has actually helped the US stock market because it has led central banks to pump even more liquidity into the world financial system. All this means more liquidity — central banks easing. In fact, that is exactly what has already happened, except the new easing is taking place, for now, outside the United States, particularly in China.” Although the new money is primarily being created in China, it is flowing into dollars — the dollar index is up — and into US stocks. Last week, US stock markets once again made all-time record highs. In fact, I think but for the coronavirus, the US stock market would still be selling off. But because of the central bank stimulus that has been the result of fears over the coronavirus, that actually benefitted not only the US dollar, but the US stock market.” In the midst of all this, Peter raises a really good question. The primary economic concern is that coronavirus will slow down output and ultimately stunt economic growth. Practically speaking, the world would produce less stuff. If the virus continues to spread, there would be fewer goods and services produced in a market that is hunkered down. Why would the Federal Reserve respond, or why would any central bank respond to that by printing money? How does printing more money solve that problem? It doesn’t. In fact, it actually exacerbates it. But you know, everybody looks at central bankers as if they’ve got the solution to every problem. They don’t. They don’t have the magic wand. They just have a printing press. And all that creates is inflation.” Sometimes the illusion inflation creates can look like a magic wand. Printing money can paper over problems. But none of this is going to fundamentally fix the economy. In fact, if central bankers were really going to do the right thing, the appropriate response would be to drain liquidity from the markets, not supply even more.” Peter explained how the Fed was originally intended to create an “elastic” money supply that would expand or contract along with economic output. Today, the money supply only goes in one direction — that’s up. The economy is strong, print money. The economy is weak, print even more money.” Of course, the asset that’s doing the best right now is gold. The yellow metal pushed above $1,600 yesterday. Gold is up 5.5% on the year in dollar terms and has set record highs in other currencies. Because gold is rising even in an environment where the dollar is strengthening against other fiat currencies, that shows you that there is an underlying weakness in the dollar that is right now not being reflected in the Forex markets, but is being reflected in the gold markets. Because after all, why are people buying gold more aggressively than they’re buying dollars or more aggressively than they’re buying US Treasuries? Because they know that things are not as good for the dollar or the US economy as everybody likes to believe. So, more people are seeking out refuge in a better safe-haven and that is gold.” Peter also talked about the debate between Trump and Obama over who gets credit for the booming economy – which of course, is not booming.

We are living in crazy times. I have a hard time believing that most of the general public is not awake, but in reality, they are. We've never seen anything like this; I mean not even under Obama during the worst part of the Great Recession." Now the Fed is desperately trying to keep interest rates from rising. The problem is that it's a much bigger debt bubble this time around , and the Fed is going to have to blow a lot more air into it to keep it inflated. The difference is this time it's not going to work." It looks like the Fed did another $104.15 billion of Not Q.E. in a single day. The Fed claims it's only temporary. But that is precisely what Bernanke claimed when the Fed started QE1. Milton Freedman once said, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." The same applies to Q.E., or whatever the Fed wants to pretend it's doing. Except this is not QE4, according to Powell. Right. Pumping so much money out, and they are accusing China of currency manipulation ? Wow! Seriously! Amazing! Dump the U.S. dollar while you still have a chance. Welcome to The Atlantis Report. And it is even worse than that, In addition to the $104.15 billion of "Not Q.E." this past Thursday; the FED added another $56.65 billion in liquidity to financial markets the next day on Friday. That's $160.8 billion in two days!!!! in just 48 hours. That is more than 2 TIMES the highest amount the FED has ever injected on a monthly basis under a Q.E. program (which was $80 billion per month) Since this isn't QE....it will be really scary on what they are going to call Q.E. Will it twice, three times, four times, five times what this injection per month ! It is going to be explosive since it takes about 60 to 90 days for prices to react to this, January should see significant inflation as prices soak up the excess liquidity. The question is, where will the inflation occur first . The spike in the repo rate might have a technical explanation: a misjudgment was made in the Fed's money market operations. Even so, two conclusions can be drawn: managing the money markets is becoming harder, and from now on, banks will be studying each other's creditworthiness to a greater degree than before. Those people, who struggle with the minutiae of money markets, and that includes most professionals, should focus on the causes and not the symptoms. Financial markets have recovered from each downturn since 1980 because interest rates have been cut to new lows. Post-2008, they were cut to near zero or below zero in all major economies. In response to a new financial crisis, they cannot go any lower. Central banks will look for new ways to replicate or broaden Q.E. (At some point, governments will simply see repression as an easier option). Then there is the problem of 'risk-free' assets becoming risky assets. Financial markets assume that the probability of major governments such as the U.S. or U.K. defaulting is zero. These governments are entering the next downturn with debt roughly twice the levels proportionate to GDP that was seen in 2008. The belief that the policy worked was completely predicated on the fact that it was temporary and that it was reversible, that the Fed was going to be able to normalize interest rates and shrink its balance sheet back down to pre-crisis levels. Well, when the balance sheet is five-trillion, six-trillion, seven-trillion when we're back at zero, when we're back in a recession, nobody is going to believe it is temporary. Nobody is going to believe that the Fed has this under control, that they can reverse this policy. And the dollar is going to crash. And when the dollar crashes, it's going to take the bond market with it, and we're going to have stagflation. We're going to have a deep recession with rising interest rates, and this whole thing is going to come imploding down. everything is temporary with the fed including remaining off the gold standard temporary in the Fed's eyes could mean at least 50 years This liquidity problem is a signal that trading desks are loaded up on inventory and can't get rid of it. Repo is done out of a need for cash. If you own all of your securities (i.e., a long-only, no leverage mutual fund) you have no need to "repo" your securities - you're earning interest every night so why would you want to 'repo' your securities where you are paying interest for that overnight loan (securities lending is another animal). So, it is those that 'lever-up' and need the cash for settlement purposes on securities they've bought with borrowed money that needs to utilize the repo desk. With this in mind, as we continue to see this need to obtain cash (again, needed to settle other securities purchases), it shows these firms don't have the capital to add more inventory to, what appears to be, a bloated inventory. Now comes the fun part: the Treasury is about to auction 3's, 10's, and 30-year bonds. If I am correct (again, I could be wrong), the Fed realizes securities firms don't have the shelf space to take down a good portion of these auctions. If there isn't enough retail/institutional demand, it will lead to not only a crappy sale but major concerns to the street that there is now no backstop, at all, to any sell-off. At which point, everyone will want to be the first one through the door and sell immediately, but to whom? If there isn't enough liquidity in the repo market to finance their positions, the firms would be unable to increase their inventory. We all saw repo shut down on the 2008 crisis. Wall St runs on money. . OVERNIGHT money. They lever up to inventory securities for trading. If they can't get overnight money, they can't purchase securities. And if they can't unload what they have, it means the buy-side isn't taking on more either. Accounts settle overnight. This includes things like payrolls and bill pay settlements. If a bank doesn't have enough cash to payout what its customers need to pay out, it borrows. At least one and probably more than one banks are insolvent. That's what's going on. First, it can't be one or two banks that are short. They'd simply call around until they found someone to lend. But they did that, and even at markedly elevated rates, still, NO ONE would lend them the money. That tells me that it's not a problem of a couple of borrowers, it's a problem of no lenders. And that means that there's no bank in the world left with any real liquidity. They are ALL maxed out. But as bad as that is, and that alone could be catastrophic, what it really signals is even worse. The lending rates are just the flip side of the coin of the value of the assets lent against. If the rates go up, the value goes down. And with rates spiking to 10%, how far does the value fall? Enormously! And if banks had to actually mark down the value of the assets to reflect 10% interest rates, then my god, every bank in the world is insolvent overnight. Everyone's capital ratios are in the toilet, and they'd have to liquidate. We're talking about the simultaneous insolvency of every bank on the planet. Bank runs. No money in ATMs, Branches closed. Safe deposit boxes confiscated. The whole nine yards, It's actually here. The scenario has tended to guide toward for years and years is actually happening RIGHT NOW! And people are still trying to say it's under control. Every bank in the world is currently insolvent. The only thing keeping it going is printing billions of dollars every day. Financial Armageddon isn't some far off future risk. It's here. Prepare accordingly. This fiat system has reached the end of the line, and it's not correct that fiat currencies fail by design. The problem is corruption and manipulation. It is corruption and cheating that erodes trust and faith until the entire system becomes a gigantic fraud. Banks and governments everywhere ARE the problem and simply have to be removed. They have lost all trust and respect, and all they have left is war and mayhem. As long as we continue to have a majority of braindead asleep imbeciles following orders from these psychopaths, nothing will change. Fiat currency is not just thievery. Fiat currency is SLAVERY. Ultimately the most harmful effect of using debt of undefined value as money (i.e., fiat currencies) is the de facto legalization of a caste system based on voluntary slavery. The bankers have a charter, or the legal *right*, to create money out of nothing. You, you don't. Therefore you and the bankers do not have the same standing before the law. The law of the land says that you will go to jail if you do the same thing (creating money out of thin air) that the banker does in full legality. You and the banker are not equal before the law. ALL the countries of the world; Islamic or secular, Jewish or Arab, democracy or dictatorship; all of them place the bankers ABOVE you. And all of you accept that only whining about fiat money going down in exchange value over time (price inflation which is not the same as monetary inflation). Actually, price inflation itself is mainly due to the greed and stupidity of the bankers who could keep fiat money's exchange value reasonably stable, only if they wanted to. Witness the crash of silver and gold prices which the bankers of the world; Russian, American, Chinese, Jewish, Indian, Arab, all of them collaborated to engineer through the suppression and stagnation of precious metals' prices to levels around the metals' production costs, or what it costs to dig gold and silver out of the ground. The bankers of the world could also collaborate to keep nominal prices steady (as they do in the case of the suppression of precious metals prices). After all, the ability to create fiat money and force its usage is a far more excellent source of power and wealth than that which is afforded simply by stealing it through inflation. The bankers' greed and stupidity blind them to this fact. They want it all, and they want it now. In conclusion, The bankers can create money out of nothing and buy your goods and services with this worthless fiat money, effectively for free. You, you can't. You, you have to lead miserable existences for the most of you and WORK in order to obtain that effectively nonexistent, worthless credit money (whose purchasing/exchange value is not even DEFINED thus rendering all contracts based on the null and void!) that the banker effortlessly creates out of thin air with a few strokes of the computer keyboard, and which he doesn't even bother to print on paper anymore, electing to keep it in its pure quantum uncertain form instead, as electrons whizzing about inside computer chips which will become mute and turn silent refusing to tell you how many fiat dollars or euros there are in which account, in the absence of electricity. No electricity, no fiat, nor crypto money. It would appear that trust is deteriorating as it did when Lehman blew up . Something really big happened that set off this chain reaction in the repo markets. Whatever that something is, we aren't be informed. They're trying to cover it up, paper it over with conjured cash injections, play it cool in front of the cameras while sweating profusely under the 5 thousands dollar suits. I'm guessing that the final high-speed plunge into global economic collapse has begun. All we see here is the ripples and whitewater churning the surface, but beneath the surface, there is an enormous beast thrashing desperately in its death throws. Now is probably the time to start tying up loose ends with the long-running prep projects, just saying. In other words, prepare accordingly, and Get your money out of the banks. I don't care if you don't believe me about Bitcoin. Get your money out of the banks. Don't keep any more money in a bank than you need to pay your bills and can afford to lose.











The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more













The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more

The FBI released a summary of its file from the Hillary Clinton email investigation on Friday, showing details of Clinton's explanation of her use of a private email server to handle classified communications. The release comes nearly two months after FBI Director James Comey announced that although Clinton's handling of classified information was "extremely careless," it did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the next day that she would not pursue charges in the matter. "We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests," the FBI noted in a statement sent to reporters with links to the documents. The documents include notes from Clinton's July 2 interview with agents, as well as a "factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter," according to the FBI release. Throughout her interview with agents, Clinton repeatedly said she relied on the career professionals she worked with to handle classified information correctly. The agents asked about a series of specific emails, and in each case Clinton said she wasn't worried about the particular material being discussed on a nonclassified channel.