Thread Reader helps you read and share Twitter threads easily!
I'm @ThreadReaderApp a Twitter bot here to help you read threads more easily. To trigger me, you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll send you a link back on Twitter 😀
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) November 25, 2017
X thread is series of posts by the same author connected with a line!
From any post in the thread, mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll
Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us easily!
Practice here first or read more on our help page!
Recent
#GaPol the Georgia Hashgraph Network has lobbied to get a new elections security law passed in the assembly but guess who is standing in the way? The only Governors candidates who will get this passed are either @KeishaBottoms or @RickJacksonGA they know elections are unsafe. 
#GaPol go ask you know who why they did not put the elections security bill on the floor. We have the receipts @bluestein and copies of emails sent to key leaders such as @DolezalForGA
Who wants the full story @MurphyAJC
@Vote4TedMetz @tedmetz you are brave — Will you help ?
Who wants the full story @MurphyAJC
@Vote4TedMetz @tedmetz you are brave — Will you help ?
@threadreaderapp “unroll”
There are people who want to act like there is not a solution for Georgia elections.
Despite its existence which I have diagramed who passed the law to authorize. The bill sitting in legislators emails. Which ones? Just call the inventor and ask. See prior post. The truth is..
Despite its existence which I have diagramed who passed the law to authorize. The bill sitting in legislators emails. Which ones? Just call the inventor and ask. See prior post. The truth is..
hard to swallow. We have the state of Georgia senators betting on their own elections and no one did anything about it @RickJacksonGA and @KeishaBottoms ? @MurphyAJC brought to the public concerns in stop the steal. We all learned of foreign parts in DOMINION VOTE (Liberty Voter)
Machines. @kelvinking4ga’s website points out some concerns but not all. For more about the remedy: and the bill to authorize it reach out to me for an interview.
@KeishaBottoms will you public say you will promote this? @RickJacksonGA will you?
The republicans have came out
@KeishaBottoms will you public say you will promote this? @RickJacksonGA will you?
The republicans have came out
A thread on SAINTS quoting, directly referencing or commenting on Psalm 50(51):7(5)
“For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me.” 🧵
“For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me.” 🧵
The flesh’s impulse to reproduce is not subject to our minds, which God has appointed to govern us, and is not entirely without sin. That is why David said, “I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
- St. Gregory Palamas, Homily on the Annunciation (16.5)
[1a/25]
- St. Gregory Palamas, Homily on the Annunciation (16.5)
[1a/25]
He [Christ] alone had not been shapen in iniquity or conceived in sin, as David declared in the Psalms about himself, or rather about everyone. The impulse of the flesh is involuntary and openly wars against the law of the mind. Even though it is brought into subjection by chaste people, and given reign only for the purpose of having children, it ushers in the original condemnation, being subject to corruption and always bringing forth what will perish.
- St. Gregory Palamas, Homily on Holy Saturday (16.4)
[1b/25]
- St. Gregory Palamas, Homily on Holy Saturday (16.4)
[1b/25]
1/ A new BMJ systematic review examined human evidence on aluminium adjuvants in vaccines.
This was not a narrative opinion piece. The authors used:
• PRISMA 2020
• PROSPERO registration
• RoB 2.0 / ROBINS-I
• GRADE assessment
BMJ 2026;393:e088921
This was not a narrative opinion piece. The authors used:
• PRISMA 2020
• PROSPERO registration
• RoB 2.0 / ROBINS-I
• GRADE assessment
BMJ 2026;393:e088921
2/ The review included:
• 11 randomized controlled trials
• 9 cohort studies
• 37 case series
• 2 ecological studies
The authors repeatedly emphasized that study quality matters when interpreting safety claims.
• 11 randomized controlled trials
• 9 cohort studies
• 37 case series
• 2 ecological studies
The authors repeatedly emphasized that study quality matters when interpreting safety claims.
3/ For major systemic outcomes—including ASD, asthma, autoimmune disease, and chronic conditions—the strongest studies did NOT show increased risk.
That does not mean every question is solved. It means current human evidence does not support causal association.
That does not mean every question is solved. It means current human evidence does not support causal association.
Do you think this right-wing influencer is Woke Right?
This is a thread of new polls revisiting the same questions and same personalities from last August, so scroll down and RT the top post.
1) Tucker Carlson
This is a thread of new polls revisiting the same questions and same personalities from last August, so scroll down and RT the top post.
1) Tucker Carlson
2) Ben Shapiro
3) Candace Owens
European IQ's rising due to natural selection (as measured by PGS) continuing into the modern era whereas it stalled in East Asia could have been predicted from Gregory Clark's genealogical studies in both regions.
Clark found that "survival of the richest" was the rule in England from 1300-1880 or so, with huge differences in surviving offspring by class and this was much weaker in Qing China because higher class women didn't have more kids due to elite polygamy.
(IQ is not the only trait that goes into income or wealth, of course, so selection for wealth is only indirectly selection for IQ and also selects for a package of other traits, some of which are collective goods like IQ and some of which are not.)
I wrote a new piece about the Lend-Lease program to fully cover the subject and answer challenges and questions.
In the eight decades since that final victory, a persistent Western narrative has emerged: one that credits American Lend-Lease material with tipping the balance in the Soviet Union's favour. This article challenges that claim directly.
Lend-Lease was a genuine contribution, and to dismiss it as irrelevant would be dishonest. But the assertion that the Soviet Union could not have prevailed without it, a claim still echoed in Western popular histories, does not survive rigorous scrutiny. What follows is a four-part examination of Soviet industrial capacity, the chronological mismatch between aid delivery and the war's decisive moments, the internal transformation of the Red Army, and the broader strategic balance that made Soviet victory structurally inevitable long before American goods crossed the North Atlantic in meaningful quantities.
PART 1 :
Any serious engagement with the Lend-Lease debate must begin with chronology, because the chronology is damning to the maximalist case. The United States formally extended the Lend-Lease Act to the Soviet Union in November 1941, but the logistical reality meant that supplies in militarily significant quantities did not begin arriving until the latter half of 1942, and the programme did not reach its peak deliveries until 1943 and 1944.
This timing is critical. The three battles that decided the war on the Eastern Front, Moscow (autumn-winter 1941), Stalingrad (autumn 1942 through February 1943), and the Kursk salient (summer 1943), were fought overwhelmingly with Soviet-produced weapons, Soviet-grown food, Soviet-mined fuel, and the blood of Soviet soldiers. To credit Lend-Lease with these victories is to confuse a supporting actor for the lead.
The crisis that Lend-Lease was meant to address had already passed by the time the pipeline reached its stride. The Red Army that smashed Army Group Centre in 1944 was built on four years of catastrophic sacrifice and accelerating domestic production, not on American trucks and tinned beef.
In the autumn of 1941, the Wehrmacht drove to within striking distance of Moscow. The Stavka's response, drawing on Siberian reserves, improvised fortifications, and the desperate resolve of a nation fighting on its own soil, produced the first major German strategic defeat of the Second World War. At this moment, total Lend-Lease deliveries to the Soviet Union amounted to less than 1% of what would eventually arrive. The Sherman tanks, the Studebaker trucks, the canned rations: none of this existed in meaningful quantities at the front when Georgy Zhukov launched his December counteroffensive.
The first Arctic convoys had barely begun running. The Persian corridor was not yet operational. The Alaskan-Siberian air route (ALSIB) would not become functional until late 1942. Moscow was saved by Soviet soldiers with Soviet guns manufactured in factories relocated, in an astonishing feat of wartime logistics, east of the Urals. That relocation alone, arguably the greatest industrial migration in human history, is a more significant factor in Soviet survival than anything that crossed the North Atlantic in 1941 or early 1942.
Stalingrad:
The encirclement and destruction of Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus's Sixth Army at Stalingrad is universally acknowledged as the strategic turning point of the European war. By February 1943, when the last German survivors surrendered in the ruins of the city, Lend-Lease deliveries were accelerating but still represented a modest fraction of Red Army frontline strength. The T-34s that formed the walls of Operation Uranus's encirclement came from Chelyabinsk and Nizhny Tagil, not from Detroit. The aircraft flying close support were overwhelmingly Soviet-designed and Soviet-built Ilyushin Il-2s.
In the eight decades since that final victory, a persistent Western narrative has emerged: one that credits American Lend-Lease material with tipping the balance in the Soviet Union's favour. This article challenges that claim directly.
Lend-Lease was a genuine contribution, and to dismiss it as irrelevant would be dishonest. But the assertion that the Soviet Union could not have prevailed without it, a claim still echoed in Western popular histories, does not survive rigorous scrutiny. What follows is a four-part examination of Soviet industrial capacity, the chronological mismatch between aid delivery and the war's decisive moments, the internal transformation of the Red Army, and the broader strategic balance that made Soviet victory structurally inevitable long before American goods crossed the North Atlantic in meaningful quantities.
PART 1 :
Any serious engagement with the Lend-Lease debate must begin with chronology, because the chronology is damning to the maximalist case. The United States formally extended the Lend-Lease Act to the Soviet Union in November 1941, but the logistical reality meant that supplies in militarily significant quantities did not begin arriving until the latter half of 1942, and the programme did not reach its peak deliveries until 1943 and 1944.
This timing is critical. The three battles that decided the war on the Eastern Front, Moscow (autumn-winter 1941), Stalingrad (autumn 1942 through February 1943), and the Kursk salient (summer 1943), were fought overwhelmingly with Soviet-produced weapons, Soviet-grown food, Soviet-mined fuel, and the blood of Soviet soldiers. To credit Lend-Lease with these victories is to confuse a supporting actor for the lead.
The crisis that Lend-Lease was meant to address had already passed by the time the pipeline reached its stride. The Red Army that smashed Army Group Centre in 1944 was built on four years of catastrophic sacrifice and accelerating domestic production, not on American trucks and tinned beef.
In the autumn of 1941, the Wehrmacht drove to within striking distance of Moscow. The Stavka's response, drawing on Siberian reserves, improvised fortifications, and the desperate resolve of a nation fighting on its own soil, produced the first major German strategic defeat of the Second World War. At this moment, total Lend-Lease deliveries to the Soviet Union amounted to less than 1% of what would eventually arrive. The Sherman tanks, the Studebaker trucks, the canned rations: none of this existed in meaningful quantities at the front when Georgy Zhukov launched his December counteroffensive.
The first Arctic convoys had barely begun running. The Persian corridor was not yet operational. The Alaskan-Siberian air route (ALSIB) would not become functional until late 1942. Moscow was saved by Soviet soldiers with Soviet guns manufactured in factories relocated, in an astonishing feat of wartime logistics, east of the Urals. That relocation alone, arguably the greatest industrial migration in human history, is a more significant factor in Soviet survival than anything that crossed the North Atlantic in 1941 or early 1942.
Stalingrad:
The encirclement and destruction of Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus's Sixth Army at Stalingrad is universally acknowledged as the strategic turning point of the European war. By February 1943, when the last German survivors surrendered in the ruins of the city, Lend-Lease deliveries were accelerating but still represented a modest fraction of Red Army frontline strength. The T-34s that formed the walls of Operation Uranus's encirclement came from Chelyabinsk and Nizhny Tagil, not from Detroit. The aircraft flying close support were overwhelmingly Soviet-designed and Soviet-built Ilyushin Il-2s.
Part 2:
Key figures at Stalingrad:
Lend-Lease share of total Red Army armoured vehicles by Stalingrad: 4%
Red Army aircraft at Stalingrad that were domestically produced: 90%+
Year Soviet tank output first matched and then exceeded Germany's: 1942
Factories relocated east of the Urals, 1941-42: 1,500+
What Lend-Lease did contribute by late 1942 was in logistics and communications: telephone wire, explosives, and early deliveries of trucks that helped Red Army supply lines. These were real contributions at the operational margins. But margins do not decide the battle of annihilation that Stalingrad was. Sheer weight of men, materiel, and the extraordinary planning of Zhukov and Aleksandr Vasilevsky decided it.
Kursk:
By July 1943, Lend-Lease was flowing more substantially, and here the Western case is somewhat stronger. American-supplied communications equipment had improved Red Army command and control, and Studebaker trucks were enhancing operational mobility. Yet even at Kursk, the largest armoured engagement in history, the fundamental balance of forces was determined by Soviet industrial output. The Red Army deployed over 5,000 tanks and self-propelled guns; Lend-Lease had contributed perhaps a few hundred vehicles to that total. The great majority were T-34/76s, SU-122s, and SU-152s rolling off Soviet assembly lines at a rate Germany could not match or meaningfully disrupt.
After Kursk, the strategic initiative passed permanently to the Soviet side. From that point on, the Red Army conducted an almost unbroken series of offensive operations that carried it from the Dnieper to the Elbe. Lend-Lease aid intensified during this period, but intensifying aid delivered to an army that is already winning is a very different thing from aid that turns the tide of a losing war.
Key Production Figures:
- Soviet factories produced approximately 57,000 tanks and self-propelled guns in 1943-44 alone, more than Germany, Italy, and occupied Europe combined during the entire war.
- Aircraft output reached roughly 40,000 units per year by 1944, almost entirely from domestic plants.
- Artillery production was so vast that the Red Army maintained a material superiority in guns of nearly 3:1 along most active fronts by mid-1943.
The heart of the anti-Lend-Lease argument lies in Soviet industrial capacity, and it is here that the numbers are most striking. Western observers, then and now, have systematically underestimated the economic transformation the Soviet state had been executing since the First Five-Year Plan of 1928. By 1941, the USSR had already become the world's third-largest industrial power. The wartime evacuation and reconstitution of that industrial base east of the Urals, accomplished under conditions of active military crisis, produced an economy capable of outfitting and sustaining the largest land army in human history.
The Factory Relocation: An Unsung Miracle
Between June and December 1941, Soviet authorities oversaw the physical dismantling and rail transport of over 1,500 industrial enterprises, including entire tank factories, steel mills, and munitions plants, from the western USSR to the Urals, Siberia, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia. Workers followed their machines, often living in improvised shelters during the brutal Russian winter while resuming production within weeks of arrival. This was not planned in advance by any algorithm or central committee directive; it was improvised under conditions of catastrophic military pressure by engineers, factory directors, and ordinary workers operating at the absolute limits of human endurance.
By mid-1942, this relocated industry was producing weapons at a rate that stunned German military intelligence, which consistently underestimated Soviet output throughout the war.
Key figures at Stalingrad:
Lend-Lease share of total Red Army armoured vehicles by Stalingrad: 4%
Red Army aircraft at Stalingrad that were domestically produced: 90%+
Year Soviet tank output first matched and then exceeded Germany's: 1942
Factories relocated east of the Urals, 1941-42: 1,500+
What Lend-Lease did contribute by late 1942 was in logistics and communications: telephone wire, explosives, and early deliveries of trucks that helped Red Army supply lines. These were real contributions at the operational margins. But margins do not decide the battle of annihilation that Stalingrad was. Sheer weight of men, materiel, and the extraordinary planning of Zhukov and Aleksandr Vasilevsky decided it.
Kursk:
By July 1943, Lend-Lease was flowing more substantially, and here the Western case is somewhat stronger. American-supplied communications equipment had improved Red Army command and control, and Studebaker trucks were enhancing operational mobility. Yet even at Kursk, the largest armoured engagement in history, the fundamental balance of forces was determined by Soviet industrial output. The Red Army deployed over 5,000 tanks and self-propelled guns; Lend-Lease had contributed perhaps a few hundred vehicles to that total. The great majority were T-34/76s, SU-122s, and SU-152s rolling off Soviet assembly lines at a rate Germany could not match or meaningfully disrupt.
After Kursk, the strategic initiative passed permanently to the Soviet side. From that point on, the Red Army conducted an almost unbroken series of offensive operations that carried it from the Dnieper to the Elbe. Lend-Lease aid intensified during this period, but intensifying aid delivered to an army that is already winning is a very different thing from aid that turns the tide of a losing war.
Key Production Figures:
- Soviet factories produced approximately 57,000 tanks and self-propelled guns in 1943-44 alone, more than Germany, Italy, and occupied Europe combined during the entire war.
- Aircraft output reached roughly 40,000 units per year by 1944, almost entirely from domestic plants.
- Artillery production was so vast that the Red Army maintained a material superiority in guns of nearly 3:1 along most active fronts by mid-1943.
The heart of the anti-Lend-Lease argument lies in Soviet industrial capacity, and it is here that the numbers are most striking. Western observers, then and now, have systematically underestimated the economic transformation the Soviet state had been executing since the First Five-Year Plan of 1928. By 1941, the USSR had already become the world's third-largest industrial power. The wartime evacuation and reconstitution of that industrial base east of the Urals, accomplished under conditions of active military crisis, produced an economy capable of outfitting and sustaining the largest land army in human history.
The Factory Relocation: An Unsung Miracle
Between June and December 1941, Soviet authorities oversaw the physical dismantling and rail transport of over 1,500 industrial enterprises, including entire tank factories, steel mills, and munitions plants, from the western USSR to the Urals, Siberia, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia. Workers followed their machines, often living in improvised shelters during the brutal Russian winter while resuming production within weeks of arrival. This was not planned in advance by any algorithm or central committee directive; it was improvised under conditions of catastrophic military pressure by engineers, factory directors, and ordinary workers operating at the absolute limits of human endurance.
By mid-1942, this relocated industry was producing weapons at a rate that stunned German military intelligence, which consistently underestimated Soviet output throughout the war.
Part 3:
The T-34 production lines at the Ural Tank Factory in Nizhny Tagil, the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant (nicknamed "Tankograd," or Tank City), and the Kirov Factory transplanted to the Urals were churning out armoured vehicles at rates that no logistical pipeline from America could match in qualitative influence over the strategic balance.
Quantifying the Domestic Contribution:
The figures are unambiguous. Over the course of the entire war, the Soviet Union produced approximately 105,000 tanks and self-propelled guns against Lend-Lease deliveries of roughly 12,700 armoured vehicles, less than 11% of the total Soviet armoured park. In aircraft, the disproportion is similar: Soviet factories produced around 157,000 aircraft during the war years; Lend-Lease contributed approximately 18,700, or about 12% of total Soviet air strength.
The one category where Lend-Lease made a genuinely significant quantitative contribution was wheeled motor transport. American trucks, above all the legendary Studebaker US6, did substantially augment Red Army operational mobility, and this is the strongest legitimate argument for Lend-Lease's importance. Soviet motor vehicle production had been disrupted catastrophically by the 1941 invasion, and American trucks helped close that specific gap.
But even here, context matters. The Red Army of 1941-42 had operated, and won significant victories, with horse-drawn transport, railway logistics, and a domestic truck fleet. The American vehicles accelerated the speed of Red Army offensive operations after 1943; they did not make those offensives possible in any binary sense. An army that could have defeated Germany in a slower, more attritional fashion still defeats Germany.
Food, Fuel, and Strategic Materials
Lend-Lease also delivered substantial quantities of food (notably canned meat, fat, and sugar) and refined aviation fuel. Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov, in memoirs compiled after the war, acknowledged that food deliveries had been important, though critics of his account note that these remarks were made in private conversation rather than formal historical writing, and that the official Soviet military history consistently assigned Lend-Lease a supporting rather than decisive role.
Aluminium, copper, and high-octane aviation fuel deliveries were meaningful inputs into Soviet production, particularly aviation. Yet the Soviet economy's capacity to substitute, improvise, and extract from its own enormous resource base was repeatedly demonstrated. The USSR possessed some of the largest reserves of iron ore, coal, manganese, and oil in the world, resources that German economic planners had hoped to seize but never did. Soviet petroleum output from the Baku fields and, increasingly, the Volga-Ural basin sustained both military and industrial operations throughout the war without foreign energy imports.
The T-34 production lines at the Ural Tank Factory in Nizhny Tagil, the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant (nicknamed "Tankograd," or Tank City), and the Kirov Factory transplanted to the Urals were churning out armoured vehicles at rates that no logistical pipeline from America could match in qualitative influence over the strategic balance.
Quantifying the Domestic Contribution:
The figures are unambiguous. Over the course of the entire war, the Soviet Union produced approximately 105,000 tanks and self-propelled guns against Lend-Lease deliveries of roughly 12,700 armoured vehicles, less than 11% of the total Soviet armoured park. In aircraft, the disproportion is similar: Soviet factories produced around 157,000 aircraft during the war years; Lend-Lease contributed approximately 18,700, or about 12% of total Soviet air strength.
The one category where Lend-Lease made a genuinely significant quantitative contribution was wheeled motor transport. American trucks, above all the legendary Studebaker US6, did substantially augment Red Army operational mobility, and this is the strongest legitimate argument for Lend-Lease's importance. Soviet motor vehicle production had been disrupted catastrophically by the 1941 invasion, and American trucks helped close that specific gap.
But even here, context matters. The Red Army of 1941-42 had operated, and won significant victories, with horse-drawn transport, railway logistics, and a domestic truck fleet. The American vehicles accelerated the speed of Red Army offensive operations after 1943; they did not make those offensives possible in any binary sense. An army that could have defeated Germany in a slower, more attritional fashion still defeats Germany.
Food, Fuel, and Strategic Materials
Lend-Lease also delivered substantial quantities of food (notably canned meat, fat, and sugar) and refined aviation fuel. Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov, in memoirs compiled after the war, acknowledged that food deliveries had been important, though critics of his account note that these remarks were made in private conversation rather than formal historical writing, and that the official Soviet military history consistently assigned Lend-Lease a supporting rather than decisive role.
Aluminium, copper, and high-octane aviation fuel deliveries were meaningful inputs into Soviet production, particularly aviation. Yet the Soviet economy's capacity to substitute, improvise, and extract from its own enormous resource base was repeatedly demonstrated. The USSR possessed some of the largest reserves of iron ore, coal, manganese, and oil in the world, resources that German economic planners had hoped to seize but never did. Soviet petroleum output from the Baku fields and, increasingly, the Volga-Ural basin sustained both military and industrial operations throughout the war without foreign energy imports.
🧵
1/8
Your Wallet, Their Panopticon: The Hidden Architecture of CBDC Control
Bentham dreamed it. Foucault warned of it. Central banks are building it—not with stone towers, but with programmable digital ledgers.
Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) aren’t “modern money.” They’re the most sophisticated tool of financial surveillance and behavioral engineering ever designed: a state-issued, fully traceable, instantly editable ledger where you are the node, and the issuer holds the off-switch.
Cash dies. Autonomy evaporates. Welcome to the programmable panopticon.
1/8
Your Wallet, Their Panopticon: The Hidden Architecture of CBDC Control
Bentham dreamed it. Foucault warned of it. Central banks are building it—not with stone towers, but with programmable digital ledgers.
Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) aren’t “modern money.” They’re the most sophisticated tool of financial surveillance and behavioral engineering ever designed: a state-issued, fully traceable, instantly editable ledger where you are the node, and the issuer holds the off-switch.
Cash dies. Autonomy evaporates. Welcome to the programmable panopticon.
2/8
How Control Works
CBDCs bypass commercial banks. The central bank (or its proxies) interacts directly with your wallet. Every transaction is native to the issuer’s ledger.
Programmability turns money into “smart contracts” on steroids:
- Expiration dates (China’s e-CNY pilots in
Shenzhen forced 90%+ spending before funds
vanished).
- Geo-fencing (spend only within approved zones).
- Merchant/category locks (no “disapproved”
goods, no political donations, no protest fuel).
- Automatic deductions or freezes for “social
infractions.”
Real-time surveillance fuses with social credit systems. Dissent? Your wallet goes dark—no court, no appeal. Nigeria’s eNaira rollout proved the playbook: cash caps to force adoption, followed by public backlash.
This is documented policy, not theory.
How Control Works
CBDCs bypass commercial banks. The central bank (or its proxies) interacts directly with your wallet. Every transaction is native to the issuer’s ledger.
Programmability turns money into “smart contracts” on steroids:
- Expiration dates (China’s e-CNY pilots in
Shenzhen forced 90%+ spending before funds
vanished).
- Geo-fencing (spend only within approved zones).
- Merchant/category locks (no “disapproved”
goods, no political donations, no protest fuel).
- Automatic deductions or freezes for “social
infractions.”
Real-time surveillance fuses with social credit systems. Dissent? Your wallet goes dark—no court, no appeal. Nigeria’s eNaira rollout proved the playbook: cash caps to force adoption, followed by public backlash.
This is documented policy, not theory.
3/8
Cash vs. CBDC: The Liberty Ledger
Refer to the first image below.
Privacy isn’t a “nice-to-have.” It is the bedrock of economic sovereignty. Without anonymous exchange, you are no longer a citizen—you are a permissioned user in the state’s credit system.
Cash vs. CBDC: The Liberty Ledger
Refer to the first image below.
Privacy isn’t a “nice-to-have.” It is the bedrock of economic sovereignty. Without anonymous exchange, you are no longer a citizen—you are a permissioned user in the state’s credit system.
Beautiful hit piece by an Alberta boy, who went east and now earns his living writing hit pieces for the Government of Canada, who pay his wages.🧵1
2
3
🚨⚡️Judge Sanket J. Bulsara at @EDNYnews denied my Motion for Summary Judgment and granted @KevinJames FRAUDULENT motion for summary judgment filed by @gordonreesllp, despite my position that the motion failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and did not rebut the evidence in the record.
@gordonreesllp never denied or confronted the evidence. No evidence, no valid NDA, wrong full termination by a ghost company, only "character assassination" supported by the false narrative of Judge Bulsara. Abuse of power and lawfare.
I WILL CONTINUE SAYING THE TRUTH UNTIL THEY STOP LYING - FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, BASED ON LAWS, FACTS, AND EVIDENCE!
The case record includes recordings, text messages, emails, a disputed termination letter, evidence concerning a ghost company, and other documentary evidence. All of it was filed in the case and remains part of the public record for anyone to review. Below are only a few from tons of evidence👇🧵
Including a video of @KevinJames days before filing the Complaint.
The evidence is overwhelming, yet the outcome shows how difficult it can be for individuals without money or influence to obtain justice against powerful parties.
This fight just started.
Never give up.
Other victims from the system / Warriors ❤️⚖️💪 include @SFranklmt, @ladybea67, @Jenilyn67961481, @MikeYup10, @TERYDIXON, @ProEthanSmith, and @GWash02221732.
Supporters who keep sharing and following—thank you so much ❤️🙌📢: @SamAntar, @CorneliaDiNunz1, @MaryWalterRadio, @W4Nevada, @naomirwolf, @IngrahamAngle, @julie_kelly2, @LoggieNY_, @Hunter_Eagleman, @BrianOSheaSPI, @SteveMcNY, @LitaONYC, @franko_ufo, @SteffyAlis72269, @BirdsForLiberty, @kwasny007, @DisabledOfficer, @thematthew, @drrodrigo23, @DosMoscas, @ConservativeNY3, @imranigra, @DJTNYCLUB, @UnitingNYS, @ClaudiaYadette1, @KevinBerge9223, @maverick2886, @MisterScarlett, @Amusement2022, @WhimsyWithStyle, @SoleFranco1979, @slgarelli_cnn, @FrankFurter420a, @BrettDoyleMCS, @DeckerKell36048, @EF039229637459, @Attorney_Cox @nypost
@gordonreesllp never denied or confronted the evidence. No evidence, no valid NDA, wrong full termination by a ghost company, only "character assassination" supported by the false narrative of Judge Bulsara. Abuse of power and lawfare.
I WILL CONTINUE SAYING THE TRUTH UNTIL THEY STOP LYING - FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, BASED ON LAWS, FACTS, AND EVIDENCE!
The case record includes recordings, text messages, emails, a disputed termination letter, evidence concerning a ghost company, and other documentary evidence. All of it was filed in the case and remains part of the public record for anyone to review. Below are only a few from tons of evidence👇🧵
Including a video of @KevinJames days before filing the Complaint.
The evidence is overwhelming, yet the outcome shows how difficult it can be for individuals without money or influence to obtain justice against powerful parties.
This fight just started.
Never give up.
Other victims from the system / Warriors ❤️⚖️💪 include @SFranklmt, @ladybea67, @Jenilyn67961481, @MikeYup10, @TERYDIXON, @ProEthanSmith, and @GWash02221732.
Supporters who keep sharing and following—thank you so much ❤️🙌📢: @SamAntar, @CorneliaDiNunz1, @MaryWalterRadio, @W4Nevada, @naomirwolf, @IngrahamAngle, @julie_kelly2, @LoggieNY_, @Hunter_Eagleman, @BrianOSheaSPI, @SteveMcNY, @LitaONYC, @franko_ufo, @SteffyAlis72269, @BirdsForLiberty, @kwasny007, @DisabledOfficer, @thematthew, @drrodrigo23, @DosMoscas, @ConservativeNY3, @imranigra, @DJTNYCLUB, @UnitingNYS, @ClaudiaYadette1, @KevinBerge9223, @maverick2886, @MisterScarlett, @Amusement2022, @WhimsyWithStyle, @SoleFranco1979, @slgarelli_cnn, @FrankFurter420a, @BrettDoyleMCS, @DeckerKell36048, @EF039229637459, @Attorney_Cox @nypost
All the evidence filed in the case 20CV3361 Orrego v Knipfing et al.
📍 July 2022
Rebeca Uzcategui confirmed the underlying abuses and related conduct, which, according to the record and my position in 2018, had been concealed until that time by @gordonreesllp and @KevinJames
Rebeca Uzcategui confirmed the underlying abuses and related conduct, which, according to the record and my position in 2018, had been concealed until that time by @gordonreesllp and @KevinJames
🧵This VA Supreme Court Opinion is straight fire for ~30 pages.
"From Madison’s era to the present, political parties of every stripe have offered if-by-whiskey arguments supporting partisan gerrymandering."
"Virginians voted by a wide margin [in 2020] to reform the redistricting process in the Commonwealth in an effort to end partisan gerrymandering."
"Under the 2020 amendment, if this bipartisan commission could not reach a consensus, the responsibility to achieve the amendment’s ultimate goal — ridding political partisanship as much as possible from the redistricting task — would become the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court of Virginia."
"Under the 2020 amendment, if this bipartisan commission could not reach a consensus, the responsibility to achieve the amendment’s ultimate goal — ridding political partisanship as much as possible from the redistricting task — would become the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court of Virginia."
I’ve heard from a lot of Utahns over the past week about the proposed data center project in Box Elder County. Many are asking questions about water, air quality, energy, land use, and the long-term impact on rural Utah. Those are real concerns, and all Utahns should expect clear standards and accountability.
Industry is our state’s motto. And in our pursuit of economic strength, we must always ensure that development is thoughtful and in line with Utah values.
Based on conversations with residents, local leaders, subject matter experts, and project stakeholders, the following actions are now being taken regarding this project. 🧵
Industry is our state’s motto. And in our pursuit of economic strength, we must always ensure that development is thoughtful and in line with Utah values.
Based on conversations with residents, local leaders, subject matter experts, and project stakeholders, the following actions are now being taken regarding this project. 🧵
PROJECT SIZE. The project developer has agreed to focus all approval requests for the project in a phased approach, with the first phase not to exceed 1.5 GW. Rather than focusing approvals on potential projects to be built 10-15 years down the road that could be as large as 9 GW, the current proposal should only be focused on phase one development. Future project approvals must be contingent on meeting clear metrics and expectations during this initial phase.
AIR. In accordance with state law, I am directing the Utah Department of Environmental Quality to review all air permits to ensure project impacts are limited and our airshed is protected. I further instruct Utah DEQ to follow all applicable federal air quality laws and limitations that are relevant to this proposed project.
