Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Monday, April 23, 2018
The Regulated States Of America
Authored by Robert Patrick Shanahan via InvestmentWatchBlog.com,
The United States is far from the land of the free these days. The governments in state capitols and Washington DC have confiscated our rights and are selling them back to us for a steep price.
American culture has shifted in a frightening way that has expanded the number of professions and industries that now require an occupational license to legally provide a service or start a business. This stifles business creation in many states and disproportionally affects low and middle income individuals the most.
Governments have overreached yet again in requiring a license to perform work that is not in the realm of public safety for consumers. Sandefur stated how it started and what it has become today, “Okay, yeah you gotta get licensing to do something that might be really risky to public health and safety and we accept little by little and eventually we have this growing trend where people are not allowed to work or start a business at all without first getting government permission.” Our insistence on government telling us what to do has hopefully peaked, but recent examples around the country might suggest otherwise.
Over the last 50 years, Sandefur pointed out, 1 in 20 Americans were required to get permission from the government to work by obtaining a license. This included obvious professions in the medical or educational fields. However, today, this number has exploded to 1 in 5 Americans being required to obtain an occupational license, essentially a permission slip from the government, to do their job. Other figures peg the number at closer to 1 in 4.
Is there any reason to believe this grotesque trajectory won’t continue?
Incredibly, over half of all jobs that require licenses are only required in one state. Examples include graphic designers, audio engineers, and travel agents. Consequences of not obtaining permission from the government to work include massive fines and even jail time. This government intervention in the economy restricts liberty and confiscates our freedom to make a living. Many people do not have the money to go to school, so they try to start a business and provide a service, only to run into the pointed gun of government telling them they can’t unless they spend an enormous amount of time and money to get the “proper training.”
Even more disturbing is the fact that when one challenges these licensing laws, they are guilty until proven innocent. Prospective entrepreneurs have to show the government why they should be free to work without permission from the government, but there is no burden of proof for the government to prove why the occupation should be licensed in the first place.
One atrocious example is requiring a license to blow dry hair. To get this permission, one must spend $15,000 in schooling and put in 1,000 hours to be “trained.” This training includes things like perming and drying hair, activities not performed when you are merely blow drying hair.
This outrageous spike in occupational licensing is an obvious example of established businesses colluding with all-powerful government to keep new competition at bay. Those who can afford schooling for the proper licensing work to make it illegal for others to enter the profession, ensuring less competition. In essence, “this license protects their jobs,” Sandefur concluded.
A recent report written by Mark Flatten, an investigative journalist for the Goldwater Institute, titled, Occupational Licensing Laws and the Right to Earn a Living, digs into the government’s outlandish actions to regulate an increasing numbers of occupations.
There is no public cry for these professions to be regulated, Flatten writes, “Licensing almost always comes at the behest of the regulated industries themselves rather than in response to consumer demands or some demonstrated need to protect the public.” This added regulation makes it more difficult for newcomers to enter a profession, allowing existing businesses to charge approximately 15 percent more for their services, according to Morris Kleiner, a labor policy professor at the University of Minnesota and a noted expert on the economic consequences of occupational licensing.
Still, the argument that these licensing measures protect the public from harm is continuously made by industry lobbyists clamoring for additional licensure. Only 30 professions are actually licensed in all 50 states, according to Flatten. This clarifies the fact that since most professions are licensed only in one state, this excessive licensing is completely unnecessary on the grounds of public safety.
Examples of licensed occupations required in most or all 50 states include: cosmetologists, massage therapists, land surveyors, acupuncturists, and real estate agents.
A law in Louisiana mandates florists to have a license. Other professions that require a license that have little to no effect on public health are: interior designers, locksmiths, alarm installers, hypnotists, motion picture operators, parking valets, magicians, landscapers, horseshoers, and furniture upholsterers.
Occupational licensing has given state regulatory boards
broad powers over active market participants, leading to a “risk of
self-dealing,” Flatten writes. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2015
put a stop to a North Carolina dental board shutting down
teeth-whitening companies that were competing with local and licensed
dentists. In turn, occupational licensing “has become a protection
racket for politically powerful industries that are able to use the
force of government to control monopolies, drive out competition, and
punish upstarts in ways that would be illegal in other circumstances.”
Republican Senator Mike Lee from Utah echoed this sentiment, saying, “Occupational licensing has grown not because consumers demanded it, but because lobbyists recognized a business opportunity where they could use government power to get rich at the public’s expense.”
This comes at a high cost to the economy, putting a cap on business creation and employment growth. Kleiner estimates that about 2.8 million jobs are lost each year due to licensing with education, training, testing, and licensing requirements creating a barrier to entry.
Below is a list of mundane professions that require a license in the U.S. Law enforcement spends a great deal of time enforcing these licenses to the point of swat team raids against barbers and yoga teachers. This country has gone completely insane.
“Ridiculous licensing rules are holding back people who want to work,” Glenn Harlan Reynolds’ opinion column headline read in USA Today. Another example of needless licensing he references is a proposal to require personal training licenses, an investigation Reason TV revealed to be funded by the soda industry.
“Most occupational licensing is corrupt and idiotic,” Reynolds wrote. We don’t need “300 hours of training to shampoo hair.” That does not protect the consumer. It protects current practitioners in the profession. Government power is used to stifle competition in an expansive manner with each passing year.
Reynolds referenced the liberty-lover Milton Friedman who observed in his book, Capitalism and Freedom, “The pressure on the legislature to license an occupation rarely comes from the members of the public who have been mulcted or in other ways abused by members of the occupation. On the contrary, the pressure invariably comes from members of the occupation itself.”
This is all blatantly obvious to anyone who takes 5 minutes to research this issue. But our governments remain oblivious and many consumers hapless to this unneeded government intervention in our free market economy.
Conor Friedersdorf wrote a piece in The Atlantic last year about this
crazy occupational licensing. He agrees with the unnecessary nature
resulting in self-dealing mentioned above, writing, “Too often,
occupational-licensing laws are less about protecting workers or
consumers as a class than they are about protecting the interests of
incumbents. Want to compete with me? Good luck, now that I’ve lobbied
for a law that requires you to shell out cash and work toward a
certificate before you can begin.”
Worthwhile reforms a 2017 Institute for Justice report called for were to make it easier for aspiring employees and business owners to bring legal challenges against these onerous licensing laws.
The IJ report references the backward burden of proof Sandefur also mentioned:
The United States is far from the land of the free these days. The governments in state capitols and Washington DC have confiscated our rights and are selling them back to us for a steep price.
American culture has shifted in a frightening way that has expanded the number of professions and industries that now require an occupational license to legally provide a service or start a business. This stifles business creation in many states and disproportionally affects low and middle income individuals the most.
 |
| just another form of asset seizure by armed thugs with badges, like when the mob required protection payments to run your business. |
Governments have overreached yet again in requiring a license to perform work that is not in the realm of public safety for consumers. Sandefur stated how it started and what it has become today, “Okay, yeah you gotta get licensing to do something that might be really risky to public health and safety and we accept little by little and eventually we have this growing trend where people are not allowed to work or start a business at all without first getting government permission.” Our insistence on government telling us what to do has hopefully peaked, but recent examples around the country might suggest otherwise.
Over the last 50 years, Sandefur pointed out, 1 in 20 Americans were required to get permission from the government to work by obtaining a license. This included obvious professions in the medical or educational fields. However, today, this number has exploded to 1 in 5 Americans being required to obtain an occupational license, essentially a permission slip from the government, to do their job. Other figures peg the number at closer to 1 in 4.
Is there any reason to believe this grotesque trajectory won’t continue?
Incredibly, over half of all jobs that require licenses are only required in one state. Examples include graphic designers, audio engineers, and travel agents. Consequences of not obtaining permission from the government to work include massive fines and even jail time. This government intervention in the economy restricts liberty and confiscates our freedom to make a living. Many people do not have the money to go to school, so they try to start a business and provide a service, only to run into the pointed gun of government telling them they can’t unless they spend an enormous amount of time and money to get the “proper training.”
Even more disturbing is the fact that when one challenges these licensing laws, they are guilty until proven innocent. Prospective entrepreneurs have to show the government why they should be free to work without permission from the government, but there is no burden of proof for the government to prove why the occupation should be licensed in the first place.
One atrocious example is requiring a license to blow dry hair. To get this permission, one must spend $15,000 in schooling and put in 1,000 hours to be “trained.” This training includes things like perming and drying hair, activities not performed when you are merely blow drying hair.
This outrageous spike in occupational licensing is an obvious example of established businesses colluding with all-powerful government to keep new competition at bay. Those who can afford schooling for the proper licensing work to make it illegal for others to enter the profession, ensuring less competition. In essence, “this license protects their jobs,” Sandefur concluded.
There is no public cry for these professions to be regulated, Flatten writes, “Licensing almost always comes at the behest of the regulated industries themselves rather than in response to consumer demands or some demonstrated need to protect the public.” This added regulation makes it more difficult for newcomers to enter a profession, allowing existing businesses to charge approximately 15 percent more for their services, according to Morris Kleiner, a labor policy professor at the University of Minnesota and a noted expert on the economic consequences of occupational licensing.
Still, the argument that these licensing measures protect the public from harm is continuously made by industry lobbyists clamoring for additional licensure. Only 30 professions are actually licensed in all 50 states, according to Flatten. This clarifies the fact that since most professions are licensed only in one state, this excessive licensing is completely unnecessary on the grounds of public safety.
Examples of licensed occupations required in most or all 50 states include: cosmetologists, massage therapists, land surveyors, acupuncturists, and real estate agents.
A law in Louisiana mandates florists to have a license. Other professions that require a license that have little to no effect on public health are: interior designers, locksmiths, alarm installers, hypnotists, motion picture operators, parking valets, magicians, landscapers, horseshoers, and furniture upholsterers.
Republican Senator Mike Lee from Utah echoed this sentiment, saying, “Occupational licensing has grown not because consumers demanded it, but because lobbyists recognized a business opportunity where they could use government power to get rich at the public’s expense.”
This comes at a high cost to the economy, putting a cap on business creation and employment growth. Kleiner estimates that about 2.8 million jobs are lost each year due to licensing with education, training, testing, and licensing requirements creating a barrier to entry.
Below is a list of mundane professions that require a license in the U.S. Law enforcement spends a great deal of time enforcing these licenses to the point of swat team raids against barbers and yoga teachers. This country has gone completely insane.
- Chimney sweepers are licensed in Vermont.
- Parking valets are licensed in West Virginia.
- People who sell, service, or install portable fire extinguishers are licensed in Arkansas and Tennessee.
- Iowa requires licenses for manure applicators and manure service representatives.
- Minnesota licenses animal waste technicians and is the only state to license horse-teeth floaters.
- Arkansas and New York license farriers, commonly known as horseshoers.
- California has eight separate licenses for furniture upholsters, suppliers, builders, and sellers.
- Massachusetts licenses horseback riding instructors and motion picture operators.
- Appliance installers need a license in South Dakota
- Sign installers need to be licensed in California.
- Illinois licenses wardrobe attendants and restaurant busing staff.
- Grease processors are licensed in Wisconsin.
- Kentucky, Mississippi, Wisconsin, and New Mexico license artists.
- Wisconsin licenses dance teachers.
- North Dakota and Nevada license music teachers.
- New Hampshire licenses recreational therapists.
- Taxidermists are licensed in 16 states.
- Hunting and fishing guides and outfitters are licensed in 17 states.
- Auctioneers are licensed in 21 states.
- New Mexico licenses animal artificial insemination technicians.
- New York licenses milk testers.
- Arkansas has separate licenses for people who design, manufacture, install, and clean septic tanks
“Ridiculous licensing rules are holding back people who want to work,” Glenn Harlan Reynolds’ opinion column headline read in USA Today. Another example of needless licensing he references is a proposal to require personal training licenses, an investigation Reason TV revealed to be funded by the soda industry.
“Most occupational licensing is corrupt and idiotic,” Reynolds wrote. We don’t need “300 hours of training to shampoo hair.” That does not protect the consumer. It protects current practitioners in the profession. Government power is used to stifle competition in an expansive manner with each passing year.
Reynolds referenced the liberty-lover Milton Friedman who observed in his book, Capitalism and Freedom, “The pressure on the legislature to license an occupation rarely comes from the members of the public who have been mulcted or in other ways abused by members of the occupation. On the contrary, the pressure invariably comes from members of the occupation itself.”
This is all blatantly obvious to anyone who takes 5 minutes to research this issue. But our governments remain oblivious and many consumers hapless to this unneeded government intervention in our free market economy.
Worthwhile reforms a 2017 Institute for Justice report called for were to make it easier for aspiring employees and business owners to bring legal challenges against these onerous licensing laws.
The IJ report references the backward burden of proof Sandefur also mentioned:
“The U.S. Constitution protects the right to earn an honest living free from unreasonable government interference, yet courts have often been reluctant to enforce this right by striking down arbitrary or irrational licensing laws. Under the prevailing legal standard, licensing laws are presumed valid when challenged in court, and individuals must prove that they are unconstitutional. This gets it exactly backward. Governments should have to prove that licensing laws advance legitimate health and safety concerns to justify restrictions on the right to earn a living.”The government has no right to restrict our freedom to earn a living for ourselves. Occupational licensing must be rolled back. Companies cannot be allowed to raise the barrier to entry for those simply wanting to provide a valuable service to consumers and provide for themselves and their families. There is no need for most of these occupations to be licensed. We need to make our economy great again by rolling back these unnecessary regulations as the Trump administration has done in DC with its pro-business regulatory rollback agenda.
Friday, April 20, 2018
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Speaking of a waste of time and money Electric Cars are far worse of a nightmare than people imagine
- burn 2x the oil, coal, natural gas of light duty diesels
- produce more CO2 and pollutants than light duty diesels
Including energy distribution (at the wheel efficiency) of various energy sources:
- Electric: 18%
- Gas: 34%
- Diesel: 47%
The details:
https://www.finitespaces.com/2018/02/14/electric-cars-use-twice-as-much-oil-as-diesel-vehicles/
Monday, April 16, 2018
The Lusitania, Woodrow Wilson, and the Deceptions ...
The Daily Messenger: The Lusitania, Woodrow Wilson, and the Deceptions ...: Just a few of the 4 MILLION ROUNDS OF ENFIELD .303 BRITISH ROUNDS FOUND IN THE HOLD OF THE LUSITANIA. We were lied to in order that we wo...
Sunday, April 15, 2018
Bad Blood Book Theranos
From the Slope of Hope:
At the risk of getting all Holden Caulfield-y on you, I really hate phony. Anything fake or phony drives me to distraction. Dyed hair. Insincere compliments. Ulterior motives. Plastic surgery. Anyone or anything constructing a facade just rubs me the wrong way.
And that is the principal reason I have written so many posts about Theranos (this is my eleventh one) even though it was never a public company and there's nothing to chart about it. Some have even wondered out loud if I'm obsessed with Elizabeth Holmes. Far from it. First off, take my word for it, she isn't my type, and secondly, I don't get all tingly about baritone-voiced business criminals. Never been a turn-on. Honest.
I was prompted to write this post since John Carreyrou's book Bad Blood is coming out next month. John is the multiple Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who brought down the company through his thorough, diligent investigative reporting, and scumbug Holmes (while Theranos still had hundreds of employees) led her entire organization into a cheer "Fuck Carreyrou! Fuck Carreyrou!" over and over again when his story hit the stands. A shameless charlatan like Elizabeth Holmes is naturally going to lead her followers with such Nuremberg-style rallies in order to counteract the forces of the truth.
In case by some chance you missed my first ten posts about Theranos, here's a blurb about the book which will help catch you up:
The fact that Holmes and her much older, umm, "date" Sunny Balwani were able to get away with something so blatant for so long is a combination of (a) bull market mentality, in which people look the other way and (b) the old white men on her board of directors like Henry Kissinger and James Mattis who didn't know shit about blood analysis technology but probably liked staring at Holmes' ass during presentations.
Suffice it to say, although I personally have not been harmed one iota by anything Theranos ever did, I hope Holmes and Balwani both wind up being thrown into prison. And that's all I've got to say about that.
At the risk of getting all Holden Caulfield-y on you, I really hate phony. Anything fake or phony drives me to distraction. Dyed hair. Insincere compliments. Ulterior motives. Plastic surgery. Anyone or anything constructing a facade just rubs me the wrong way.
And that is the principal reason I have written so many posts about Theranos (this is my eleventh one) even though it was never a public company and there's nothing to chart about it. Some have even wondered out loud if I'm obsessed with Elizabeth Holmes. Far from it. First off, take my word for it, she isn't my type, and secondly, I don't get all tingly about baritone-voiced business criminals. Never been a turn-on. Honest.
I was prompted to write this post since John Carreyrou's book Bad Blood is coming out next month. John is the multiple Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who brought down the company through his thorough, diligent investigative reporting, and scumbug Holmes (while Theranos still had hundreds of employees) led her entire organization into a cheer "Fuck Carreyrou! Fuck Carreyrou!" over and over again when his story hit the stands. A shameless charlatan like Elizabeth Holmes is naturally going to lead her followers with such Nuremberg-style rallies in order to counteract the forces of the truth.
In case by some chance you missed my first ten posts about Theranos, here's a blurb about the book which will help catch you up:
The book isn't out yet, but a handful of folks have advance copies, and here are a few tidbits that are reportedly in it:The full inside story of the breathtaking rise and shocking collapse of Theranos, the multibillion-dollar biotech startup, by the prize-winning journalist who first broke the story and pursued it to the end, despite pressure from its charismatic CEO and threats by her lawyers.In 2014, Theranos founder and CEO Elizabeth Holmes was widely seen as the female Steve Jobs: a brilliant Stanford dropout whose startup "unicorn" promised to revolutionize the medical industry with a machine that would make blood testing significantly faster and easier. Backed by investors such as Larry Ellison and Tim Draper, Theranos sold shares in a fundraising round that valued the company at more than $9 billion, putting Holmes's worth at an estimated $4.7 billion. There was just one problem: The technology didn't work.A riveting story of the biggest corporate fraud since Enron, a tale of ambition and hubris set amid the bold promises of Silicon Valley.
+ Elizabeth Holmes was 19 when she started the company, and in the early days of the company, she and her partner in crime Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani were - - what's the euphemism these days? - - oh, yeah, "dating". I don't want to imagine these two in coitus, particularly since he was more than double her age. Yuck.
+ One employee took the time and trouble to create a Space Invaders-like arcade game in
which Mr. Carreyrou was the object to be destroyed. This shows the
twisted mentality of the salaried employees in the organization
although, let's face it, this was the ONE working product that emerged from the $700 million invested into this fiasco.
+ According to StatNews.com, in
the book it reveals for the first time: "Carreyrou describes a surreal
scene from 2006, in which the company’s first chief financial
officer learned that Theranos had deceived Novartis executives in
demonstrating its technology at a pitch meeting in Switzerland.
The trick: Because the blood-testing system was inconsistent in
generating results, Theranos staffers had recorded a result from one of
the times it worked to display in the demonstration. And when the CFO raised concern about that with Holmes? He was fired on the spot."
+ As Theranos senior executives
were trying to scam companies like Novartis into pouring more money into
the organization, there is one almost comic scene retold in which Holmes pricked her finger hundreds of times in a hotel room before a key meeting in a clumsy effort to get the faulty technology to actually function.
+ In a shameless example of nepotism, Elizabeth hired her younger brother Christian (oh, the irony........) to join, and he, in turn, got jobs for a bunch of his frat brothers. They were collectively known as the "Therabros",
and I suspect their main function at the organization was the enjoy
direct deposit of their inflated salaries and make copious use of Friday
beer fetes. Below are the lovely siblings at a state dinner at the White House:
+ Tim Draper, the first investor in the company, defiantly claimed the innocence of Holmes (to this very day, I assume). Last year he went on a media rant about how there was a "conspiracy" to take her down. “Well, they first say: ‘There’s a great woman entrepreneur and
she's on the cover of Forbes. Let's see what we can do to take her
down,’” Draper explained. So - - umm - - it's basically because she's a woman that the world is so mean to her. I would counter that the fact she's a woman is the ONLY reason she isn't in
prison at this very moment. Sort of like - - just to grab an example - -
Hillary. Here's an image of the shy, self-effacing Tim Draper, who
probably at this very moment is thinking about the importance of opportunities for women-folk in technology.
+ Oh, and going back to my dislike of "fake", the book also reveals that her ridiculously deep voice is an affectation, and
that her actual voice is several octaves higher. That makes a lot of
sense, because if you've ever seen a video of her speaking, what comes
out of her mouth sounds completely alien.
+ There's much, much more, of course, including the tale of the sad, sorry, son of a bitch who killed himself because he couldn't bear the guilty of the fraud any longer. For him, suicide was better than facing the wrath of Elizabeth Holmes.
As for Holmes - - her blonde hair is fake - - her deep voice is fake - - her technology is fake - - it seems the only thing that's real is the $700 million that her unsuspecting investors lost by getting duped in this elaborate scheme.The fact that Holmes and her much older, umm, "date" Sunny Balwani were able to get away with something so blatant for so long is a combination of (a) bull market mentality, in which people look the other way and (b) the old white men on her board of directors like Henry Kissinger and James Mattis who didn't know shit about blood analysis technology but probably liked staring at Holmes' ass during presentations.
Suffice it to say, although I personally have not been harmed one iota by anything Theranos ever did, I hope Holmes and Balwani both wind up being thrown into prison. And that's all I've got to say about that.
Elon Musk is a person totally manufactured by Intelligence agency CIA as the fake human front for all these fake projects. In this way he is exactly like Mark Zuckerberg, another person I have outed as a probable manufactured entity . When I wrote that paper on Zuckerberg, he was also alleged to be worth 13.6 billion. Coincidence? Nope.
Although Musk's companies have received 5 billion in government subsidies, Musk says he isn't in favor of government subsidies for companies like his. Instead he has come out in favor of a carbon tax.
Obviously, he is just reading from the Teleprompter again there, and isn't concerned with appearing to
be consistent. Fake people fronting fake companies don't have to worry about appearing consistent. It
is all about stirring your mind into Musk, I mean Mush. The people behind Musk want all the subsidies they can drink, but then they want to pretend they don't lust for them like they do. They also don't want you to apply for any subsidies, because they don't need the competition. They don't want you to be subsidized; they want you to be taxed.
So why do I think these companies are fake? We'll start with Musk's links to Mike Griffin. Griffin was head of NASA from 2005 to 2009, but on Musk's page we learn that Griffin also worked for In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA!
That is probably the biggest red flag on the entire page. Curiously, that information has been scrubbed off Griffin's own page. What exactly is In-Q-Tel?
In-Q-Tel invests in high-tech companies for the sole purpose of keeping the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology in support of United States intelligence capability.
That is the key to unlocking this whole mystery, so I suggest you read it several times, to let it sink in.
I suggest that not only did In-Q-Tel “invest” in all of Musk's companies, it actually
created them, and
him. We know the CIA creates many front companies, since the mainstream admits it. But it is usually assumed they do this to facilitate domestic covert operations of various sorts. But we have tripped over much evidence companies are created for reasons even more fundamental to the American way. That is to say, a significant part of the US infrastructure is an illusion—an illusion created to facilitate a variety of treasury dips by the very wealthy. Actually, the mainstream press has already reported on a small part of these thefts and grafts. See, for example, Matt Taibbi's
Rolling Stone reports on the big banks, especially this 2013 report entitled “Everything is Rigged”
. 
http://mileswmathis.com/musk.pdf
I Don't Believe in Elon Musk
by Miles Mathis
First published October 5, 2015
As usual, this is an opinion piece, protected by the US Constitution. It is my personal reading of the published
factoids. If you prefer the mainstream reading, you can have it.
Elon Musk
is supposed to be worth 13.6 billion. He is supposed to be the CEO of Tesla Motors. He is
supposed to be the founder of SpaceX. He is supposed to be the founder of Solar City. He is supposed
to be the inventor of Hyperloop. I for one don't believe any of it. Elon Musk looks to me like a person
totally manufactured by Intelligence as the fake human front for all these fake projects. In this way he
is exactly like Mark Zuckerberg, another person
I have outed as a probable manufactured entity
. When
I wrote that paper on Zuckerberg, he was also alleged to be worth 13.6 billion. Coincidence? Nope.
Why do I think that? I think it because Musk's entire Wikipedia page and bio reads like a red flag. It is
nothing but transparent BS from top to bottom. We'll start with his family. His mother's maiden name
is Haldeman. That is a prominent Jewish name. Elon is also a Jewish name, meaning “oak” in
Hebrew. Kimbal, Elon's brother, also has a Jewish name. So why not just admit they are Jewish? I
don't know. Maybe they plan on running him for Governor of California or something.
Although we will cover the other red flags, I want to skip ahead to the end, to lead with later red flags
that demand our early attention. I want to lead with them although they come later on the Wikipedia
page. Musk has claimed he is a big fan of Margaret Thatcher. What? Only fascists and plants are fans
of Margaret Thatcher. No real person of any intelligence and scruple is a fan of Margaret Thatcher.
Musk is sold as a progressive, but no progressive would claim to be a fan of Thatcher. It doesn't fit his
profile at all, and we can only imagine it was worked into his bio as either a clue for people like me or
as part of some late promotion of Thatcher and fascism in general. Actually, I assume it is mainly
another plug for privatization. Musk's entire bio is a long plug for privatization. Along with
deregulation, privatization is one of the two main planks of neo-fascism.
Musk has said he is “socially liberal and fiscally conservative”. Was Thatcher socially liberal? Not
according to Section 28, which made “promotion” of homosexuality illegal, and which stopped just
short of making homosexuality itself illegal again, as in the time of Oscar Wilde. I should think this
would be of some concern to Musk, since I don't really buy either one of his marriages. But he doesn't
have to be concerned with that, does he, since he lives in the US in 2015, not the UK in 1980. In the
US in 2015, homosexuality is being promoted like never before.
So why don't I buy his marriages? Well, in answer to that, I send you to pictures of Musk with his
wives and girlfriends. Just Google something like “Musk with Riley”. While any normal heterosexual
guy would be getting all the sugar he could from these sweeties, glowing in the perfume, Musk always
looks highly uncomfortable.
The girls are often leaning away from him, as there. And look at his hand in his pocket. Discomfort
signs all over the place.
Or you can read
this 2010 article
at
Marie Claire
written by his alleged first wife Justine. You may
find it convincing, but I don't. Just look at the lead photo for the article:
I draw your attention to the three tricycles and two bikes. This is to remind us that Musk is supposed to
have five sons by this woman. Not only do we get no photos of the children—which is perhaps
understandable—she doesn't mention them once in the article, either by name or in any other way.
Mostly she just repeats the story of Musk's rise to fame and fortune, with the occasional plug of her
own. Very strange. I would have to say it is the most impersonal article of its kind I have ever read.
No, beyond impersonal; it is chilly, almost chilling. It reads like it was put together by a committee,
and it may have been. I say that because if we do a people search on Elon Musk, we find no evidence
of these children in the computers. In fact, Intelius doesn't even have an Elon Musk listed in
California. Only his father, Errol Musk. InstantCheckMate lists an Elon Musk related to Justine, but
the only other relation is a Jennifer. Since Justine's middle initial is J., I assume Jennifer is also her. If
these five boys have birth certificates, they should be in the computers. They aren't.
Then we have to read this:
Musk is a self-described
American exceptionalist
and
nationalist
, describing himself as
"nauseatingly pro-American". According to Musk, the United States is "inarguably the greatest
country that has ever existed on Earth", describing it as "the greatest force for good of any country
that's ever been". Musk believes outright that there "would not be democracy in the world if not
for the United States.”
Nauseating, yes. Believable, no. Again, no real person of any intelligence would be caught saying
that in the second decade of the 21
st
century. Even the American Nazi Party is more circumspect than
that. Musk has obviously been hired to read these lines provided him by the Pentagon or someplace
(except that even the Pentagon isn't that jingoistic these days). Now that I think of it, this reads like
copy provided Musk by Henry Kissinger or the CFR. But even in that context, it is over the top. When
I read quotes like this, I have to imagine that clues have been inserted into Musk's bio on purpose by
someone. I begin to think this is all part of some game: a nationwide contest to see if anyone can see
through this. If so, send me the prize.
Although I may be the first to propose Musk is an Intel creation, I am not the only one who has noticed
that he appears to be reading from neo-con or fascist cue-cards. PolicyMic and many other sites have
criticized Musk harshly for contributing to anti-science Republican candidates and groups like the
Longhorn PAC and the NRCC, confirming my analysis above by saying that
these political calculations betray Musk's persona of a socially-conscious entrepreneur.
His many interviews also betray (or disprove) his created persona of a person with very high
intelligence and skills. Although he is sold as some sort of Tony Stark, he comes off as Ron Howard
with a bit more hair** and a foreign accent. I don't see any spark there, and in my opinion he looks
like just another hired actor. Unfortunately, he's not even a good actor, and if he hadn't been born into a
rich family he would have had to work as a crisis actor, like Robbie Parker.
**Actually, it's a toupee, as we can tell by the picture under my title. Musk is 24 there and his hair is very thin in
front, so we may assume his new look is augmented in some way. In that more recent photo, he obviously has
on a rug. It doesn't really matter, of course, and I wouldn't mention it except for the fact that I am showing Musk
is a fake in all ways.
Although Musk's companies have received 5 billion in government subsidies, Musk says he isn't in
favor of government subsidies for companies like his. Instead he has come out in favor of a carbon tax.
Obviously, he is just reading from the Teleprompter again there, and isn't concerned with appearing to
be consistent. Fake people fronting fake companies don't have to worry about appearing consistent. It
is all about stirring your mind into Musk, I mean Mush. The people behind Musk want all the
subsidies they can drink, but then they want to pretend they don't lust for them like they do. They also
don't want
you
to apply for any subsidies, because they don't need the competition. They don't want
you to be subsidized; they want you to be
taxed
.
So why do I think these companies are fake? We'll start with Musk's links to Mike Griffin. Griffin was
head of NASA from 2005 to 2009, but on Musk's page we learn that Griffin also worked for In-Q-Tel,
the venture capital arm of the CIA!
That is probably the biggest red flag on the entire page
.
Curiously, that information has been scrubbed off Griffin's own page. What exactly is In-Q-Tel?
In-Q-Tel
invests in high-tech companies for the sole purpose of keeping the
Central Intelligence
Agency
, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in
information technology
in
support of
United States
intelligence
capability.
That is the key to unlocking this whole mystery, so I suggest you read it several times, to let it sink in.
I suggest that not only did In-Q-Tel “invest” in all of Musk's companies, it actually
created
them, and
him. We know the CIA creates many front companies, since the mainstream admits it. But it is usually
assumed they do this to facilitate domestic covert operations of various sorts. But we have tripped over
much evidence companies are created for reasons even more fundamental to the American way. That is
to say, a significant part of the US infrastructure is an illusion—an illusion created to facilitate a variety
of treasury dips by the very wealthy. Actually, the mainstream press has already reported on a small
part of these thefts and grafts. See, for example, Matt Taibbi's
Rolling Stone
reports on the big banks,
especially
this 2013 report entitled “Everything is Rigged”
. However, even Taibbi has not yet seen
that it is not only via rigging that the rich are becoming richer. It is also via manufacturing fake
companies, fake portfolios, and fake projects, by which the treasury can be milked and bilked of
billions of dollars of subsidies, grants, and other monies.
So if you thought my mention of Intelligence in paragraph one was just conspiracy theory, think again.
Musk has admitted ties to the CIA through Griffin, if nowhere else. You see, before he was hired to
head NASA, Griffin was working with Musk on SpaceX, trying to buy old ICBMs from Russia.
Again, could you ask for a bigger red flag? Griffin and Musk were in Russia in 2002 trying to buy
ICBMs! We are told one of the Russian engineers spat on Musk, which is about the only thing that
makes sense on the entire page. They could probably see he was a spook-baby.
Musk also has some parallels to Yuri Milner, the Russian billionaire who—we are told—is the money
for the Fundamental Physics Prize.* Like Milner, Musk went to the Wharton School of Business. He
also went to the University of Pennsylvania, which has come up in my previous papers. Both Ezra
Pound and Noam Chomsky were probably recruited from there.
But back to SpaceX. The whole project stinks of a con. We are told,
In 2001, Musk conceptualised "Mars Oasis"; a project to land a miniature experimental greenhouse
on Mars, containing food crops growing on Martian
regolith
, in an attempt to regain public interest
in space exploration.
That idea is ridiculous for so many reasons it is hard to know where to start. Food crops on Mars?
Wouldn't the transport costs back to Earth be a little high? Talk about a carbon footprint! Before we
start growing food on Mars, shouldn't we hit a few others things first, like, say,
getting people there
?
Who is going to eat that food? I guess they can feed it to the ground squirrels we have seen in NASA's
fake pictures from Mars. Except that those ground squirrels are already eating pretty well it seems,
since we have also
seen their candy wrappers on the ground
.
Also, who is going to water those plants on Mars? Maybe this lady:
Actually, it wasn't any of the Mars anomaly photos that convinced me the Mars missions were faked. It
was watching
this NASA press conference
for the Curiosity lander. I recommend you watch it without
any later commentary added, so that you can be completely objective. Just ask yourself if these guys
seem like real scientists. Notice that they are unable to answer any substantive questions from the
audience. Only after you have watched these NASA guys should you return to the anomaly photos.
Once you do, your mind will be in a more receptive state and you will start to see what is there.
[Addendum, October 14, 2015. Another strange coincidence, if coincidence it was: I ran into some
friends at a local pub this evening and they asked me if I wanted to go with them to a movie. I asked
what they were going to see, and they said
The Martian
. I immediately got a creeping feeling (as I
usually do now when I think of any Hollywood movie) and begged off. When I got home, I looked up
the film. Guess what it is about? Top spook-baby actor Matt Damon is stranded on Mars. Being a
biologist, he is forced to grow his own food in a greenhouse attached to the stranded lander. Curious
how this ties into Musk's plan for Mars Oasis, eh? Hollywood is still selling NASA's fictions, almost
Tesla builds cars by hand, Gigafactory produces ONE BATTERY PER DAY
A new securities class action lawsuit filed in late March 2018, which
names Elon Musk as a defendant, alleges that the Tesla CEO knew that
the Model 3 was not going to be able to be produced as the rates he
claimed - and that the company was not going to be able to meet
production goals due to - get this - the production lines not even being assembled.
The lawsuit alleges that this didn’t prevent Elon Musk from going out
and telling the investing public otherwise, hence the allegation of
securities fraud.
First, the allegation that Musk was told by his own employees that the Model 3 couldn't be mass produced by the end of 2017, which was the company's stated goal:
Then, after claiming in May 2017 that the company was "on track" to meet its mass production goal, it's alleged the company hadn't even finished building its production lines, clearly meaning it wasn't "on track". The lawsuit alleges that Musk knew the line was "way behind":
The suit alleges that the company was building Model 3's by hand at a "pilot shop" at the same time Tesla claimed to be on track for "mass production"; it also claims that it was "evident to anyone who visited the facility" - including Elon Musk - that the line wasn't built and that "construction workers were spending most of their shifts sitting around with nothing to do":
We also read in the lawsuit that Tesla’s Gigafactory, at the time in question, was allegedly capable of producing only one battery pack per day - and that the production of one battery pack took “two shifts” to complete.
The suit alleges that the company's former CFO, Jason Wheeler - who is one of more than 50 key executives and VPs to have left the company over the last half decade or so - told Elon Musk personally that they wouldn't be able to mass produce by the end of 2017. The entire lawsuit is available at this link and some of the most interesting content was first shared by critics of the company on Twitter.
The drumbeat of accountability for Elon Musk continues to pound louder and louder as each day progresses, with some analysts calling for the SEC to investigate him if the company doesn't meet its stated cash flow positive and "no capital raise" guidance for the back end of 2018.
Yesterday we detailed how the company is cutting corners with production and suppliers, as well as with its certified preowned vehicle program. Commentators continue to suggest that Elon musk should be held accountable by regulators if the company again raises capital this year or is not free cash flow positive by the second half of this year, two claims that Musk made this week in an angry outburst where he attacked the messenger (The Economist) for pointing out a Jefferies analysis.
If the stock takes another dive next week, what is Mr. Musk going to come up with in order to keep a sense of being such trivial concerns as cash flow and profitability - and more importantly, how long will his lawyers let him keep talking?
First, the allegation that Musk was told by his own employees that the Model 3 couldn't be mass produced by the end of 2017, which was the company's stated goal:
Then, after claiming in May 2017 that the company was "on track" to meet its mass production goal, it's alleged the company hadn't even finished building its production lines, clearly meaning it wasn't "on track". The lawsuit alleges that Musk knew the line was "way behind":
The suit alleges that the company was building Model 3's by hand at a "pilot shop" at the same time Tesla claimed to be on track for "mass production"; it also claims that it was "evident to anyone who visited the facility" - including Elon Musk - that the line wasn't built and that "construction workers were spending most of their shifts sitting around with nothing to do":
We also read in the lawsuit that Tesla’s Gigafactory, at the time in question, was allegedly capable of producing only one battery pack per day - and that the production of one battery pack took “two shifts” to complete.
The suit alleges that the company's former CFO, Jason Wheeler - who is one of more than 50 key executives and VPs to have left the company over the last half decade or so - told Elon Musk personally that they wouldn't be able to mass produce by the end of 2017. The entire lawsuit is available at this link and some of the most interesting content was first shared by critics of the company on Twitter.
The drumbeat of accountability for Elon Musk continues to pound louder and louder as each day progresses, with some analysts calling for the SEC to investigate him if the company doesn't meet its stated cash flow positive and "no capital raise" guidance for the back end of 2018.
 |
| A Tool of the NWO, Agenda 21 change agent |
Yesterday we detailed how the company is cutting corners with production and suppliers, as well as with its certified preowned vehicle program. Commentators continue to suggest that Elon musk should be held accountable by regulators if the company again raises capital this year or is not free cash flow positive by the second half of this year, two claims that Musk made this week in an angry outburst where he attacked the messenger (The Economist) for pointing out a Jefferies analysis.
Then, on Friday afternoon, CNBC released an scathing report detailing that a large portion of parts supplied to Tesla to manufacture vehicles with has been substandard or defective. The article alleged that:The Economist used to be boring, but smart with a wicked dry wit. Now it’s just boring (sigh). Tesla will be profitable & cash flow+ in Q3 & Q4, so obv no need to raise money.— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 13, 2018
Tesla is struggling to manage and fix a significant volume of flawed or damaged parts from its suppliers, sending some to local machine shops for rework, according to several current and former Tesla engineers. The company said it also makes adjustments to the design of some parts after receiving them from suppliers.It continues:
All automakers have to deal with some amount of defective or damaged parts, both from their own factories and from suppliers. But, as previously reported, current and former employees say that Tesla experiences a higher rate of defects than industry norms. A significant number of flawed parts, and parts in need of design changes, also come from Tesla's suppliers, they said.The reason for the large number of defective parts? Spending less time to vet suppliers, according to company employees.
Current and former employees from the company's Fremont, Calif. and Sparks, Nevada factories blame Tesla for spending less time to vet suppliers than is typical in auto manufacturing. These people said the company failed to comprehensively test "variance specs" with some vendors before embarking on Model 3 production.Ultimately, it's Tesla lack of experience and scramble to get a car to market that was leading to the pile up in defects, which will end up crushing the company's "quality control" reputation, as the following episode suggests:
Auto manufacturing expert Steve Finch, a former GM plant manager with about 40 years of industry experience, said automakers typically deal with some flawed parts from suppliers. Finch said that mass-market car companies normally will take a year or more to vet a prospective supplier. This is to ensure the supplier's factory follows ISO quality management standards and other processes that are on par with the automaker's own.We also pointed out yesterday that Tesla is starting to give other indications that it is stretched very thin - and that this leads to cutting certified pre-owned vehicle corners. Yesterday, Electrek wrote an article detailing ugly new changes to the company's certified preowned checklist procedures, including the company no longer taking care of cosmetic details, which the article refers to as "refurbishing":
Former and current employees said Tesla took less time before signing on new suppliers. Tesla employees tasked with vetting suppliers were also not always experienced with ISO quality management standards, said these people.
Now the company has updated its policy and some new cars coming on Tesla’s list of used vehicles have this ‘Not Refurbished’ warning that reads:Worst of all, these changes come a time where the company is about to receive a massive inflow of vehicle inventory from three-year leases that started in 2015:
“This car has passed a 70-point mechanical inspection and will be cleaned before delivery. If you would like any additional work that is not covered under your warranty, we can help arrange service after delivery for an added cost.”
Tesla salespeople have been telling buyers that the automaker is still making sure that the vehicles are up to their standards for the warranty, but they are not fixing cosmetic issues anymore.
Tesla has changed its ‘certified pre-owned’ (used) vehicle policy this week to stop “refurbishing” its used cars just ahead of them receiving a big influx of vehicles as more 3-year leases are ending. The automaker had launched the program 3 years ago and it has been tuning it over the last two years.Previously, certified preowned Tesla vehicles not only underwent a inspection to check the mechanics and operation of the vehicle, but they also underwent a cosmetic clean up. The cosmetic cleanup always seemed like an absolute necessity, especially given the fact that Tesla buyers are actually unable to view pictures of the certified preowned vehicles that they’re purchasing:
The cars with this new warning still don’t have real pictures of the actual vehicle, but instead only renderings of the vehicle’s configuration.On top of that, the company is still selling these vehicles at premium prices, which the Elektrek article hilariously calls "value retention":
Tesla told Electrek that they are soon going to make it easier to request real pictures of listed vehicles.
The change comes as Tesla is getting more and more used vehicles, especially after 3-year leases from 2015 when Tesla started ramping up production significantly and also making strides with its leasing program.
With the increased inventory and the lack of “refurbishing”, a decrease in price would be expected, but Tesla used vehicles have historically been very good at value retention.Regardless, the air - and questions - of accountability continues to get thicker around Elon Musk and his band of merry brothers.
If the stock takes another dive next week, what is Mr. Musk going to come up with in order to keep a sense of being such trivial concerns as cash flow and profitability - and more importantly, how long will his lawyers let him keep talking?
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-14/elon-knew-new-lawsuit-alleges-musk-knowingly-lied-about-model-3-production-0Elon was found passed out against a Tesla Model 3, surrounded by "Teslaquilla" bottles, the tracks of dried tears still visible on his cheeks.— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 1, 2018
This is not a forward-looking statement, because, obviously, what's the point?
Happy New Month! pic.twitter.com/YcouvFz6Y1
Friday, April 13, 2018
Lesbian couple with 5 mulatto children commit suicide killing all
SAN
FRANCISCO (AP) — A woman was not drunk when she drove her large family off a
Northern California cliff last month and her wife and several children
had large amounts of a drug in their systems that can cause drowsiness,
authorities said Friday. she only had ONE BEER.
Police
had previously said they believed the Hart family died in a suicide
plunge from a scenic overlook. The crash happened just days after
authorities in Washington state opened an investigation following
allegations the children were being neglected.
Preliminary
toxicology tests found Jennifer Hart had an alcohol level of 0.102,
said California Patrol Capt. Bruce Carpenter. California drivers are
considered drunk with a level of 0.08 or higher.
Toxicology
tests also found that her wife Sarah Hart and two of their children had
"a significant amount" of an ingredient commonly found in the allergy
drug Benadryl, which can make people sleepy. Toxicology results for a
third child killed are still pending, Carpenter said.
Carpenter said none of the car's occupants were wearing seat-belts.
Sarah
and Jennifer Hart and their six adopted children were believed to be in
the family's SUV when it plunged off a cliff in Mendocino County, more
than 160 miles (250 kilometers) north of San Francisco.
Authorities
have said data from the vehicle's software suggested the crash was
deliberate, though the California Highway Patrol has not concluded why
the vehicle went off an ocean overlook on a rugged part of coastline. A
specialized team of accident investigators is trying to figure that out
with help from the FBI, Carpenter said.
"We believe that the Hart incident was in fact intentional," he said.
Carpenter
said the family stopped in the small town of Naselle, Washington, near
their Woodland, Washington, home, during their drive to the California
cliff but that investigators are still trying to determine why they
stopped there and whether they contacted anyone.
Five
bodies were found March 26 near the small city of Mendocino, a few days
after Washington state authorities began investigating the Harts for
possible child neglect, but three of their children were not immediately
recovered from the scene.
Two more are missing and another body has been found but not identified.
The
100-foot (31-meter) drop killed the women, both 39, and their children
Markis Hart, 19; Jeremiah Hart, 14; and Abigail Hart, 14. Hannah Hart,
16; Devonte Hart, 15; and Sierra Hart, 12, have not been found.
Devonte drew national attention after he was photographed in tears while hugging a white police officer during a 2014 protest.
A
neighbor of the Harts in Woodland, Washington, had filed a complaint,
saying the children were apparently being deprived of food as
punishment.
Long
before the crash, Sarah Hart pleaded guilty in 2011 to a domestic
assault charge in Minnesota over what she said was a spanking given to
one of her children.
And
authorities have said social services officials in Oregon contacted the
West Linn Police Department about the family in 2013 while they were
living in the area.
 |
| A family of lesbians, all die - suicide pact, note under car mat. |
Baarts also cited the lack of skid marks near the cliff’s edge — indicating that the vehicle did not attempt to brake.
View photos
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Who was a criminal felon...
He made an electrical thingy,
That toasted a man like a weenie.
In business since 2003. Never made a dime of profit (GAAP).
Does not make cash to keep the doors open by normal business methods. They depend on massive government (taxpayer) subsidies and the sale of astronomically overpriced stock to True Believer fanboyz.
They have no proprietary technology. They use 20 year old Li-Ion battery tech to drive 100 year old electric motor tech. It's been repackaged and marketed as green and cutting edge. It's neither.
It's a $300 lotto ticket.