Tag Archives: the Guardian

October 8, 2025 · 00:20

The weighted fabrication

That is how I see it and the article by Stephanie Kirchgaessner (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/18/saudi-arabia-turki-al-jasser-executed) goes straight into this. You see, I am not debating whether someone was ‘deleted’ it is what you can prove and we cannot prove anything. You see, The Guardian ‘hides’ behind a piece by the United Nations and I dove into this in ‘That was Easy!’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/27/that-was-easy/) I even added the UN document there and I made several connections, I used the setting of something called ‘evidence’ it is how I roll and seemingly the Guardian does not. Somewhere today I stumbled upon a Kirchgaessner article that was from June 18th 2025. I do not track everything that is out there, so I have an excuse. But the setting that the media uses requires me to illustrate where they went mad like a lemming. We get “It was the first high-profile killing of a journalist by the Saudi state since the 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist and prominent critic of the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, who was lured into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and murdered by Saudi agents. A UN report concluded that the murder was an extrajudicial killing by the state, and an intelligence assessment released by then president Joe Biden in 2021 concluded that Prince Mohammed approved the murder.” We need to take heed of the two settings here. The first one is “A UN report concluded that the murder was an extrajudicial killing by the state” and the second one is “intelligence assessment released by then president Joe Biden in 2021 concluded that Prince Mohammed approved the murder”. So, we have two settings. Lets start with the second on first. How was this assessment obtained? That is the question. There is a chance that it came from Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri and the ‘pasted’ solutions that the Americans give him (read: CIA) sounds that he is all on the up and up. Yet “Aljabri has strong support in the US, where former intelligence officials have credited their Saudi counterpart for helping to save American and Saudi lives following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US.

On 60 Minutes, the former acting CIA director Mike Morell said Aljabri was “honorable”. Intelligence relayed to the US by Aljabri – Morell said – had led to the interception of bombs that had been planted by al-Qaida in 2010 in two desktop printers that were being flown as cargo on two planes. Morell said there were also other examples of Aljabri saving the lives of Americans, but that they were still classified.” Yet here too I have questions and they might be invalid and when we see the accusations of “The Saudi government did not address Aljabri’s allegations but said in a statement that “Saad Aljabri is a discredited former government official with a long history of fabricating and creating distractions to hide the financial crimes he committed”” So how does a general get these billions? That was the issues that I saw when I looked at the CBC article (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/investigates/saad-aljabri-assets-frozen-1.5903422) 

Where we see ““Although the investigation is ongoing, it is clear that from at least 2008 to 2017, Aljabri masterminded and oversaw a conspiracy incorporating at least 21 conspirators across at least 13 jurisdictions to misappropriate at least [$4.3 billion] from the plaintiffs,” the lawsuit states.” As well as “It alleges Aljabri funneled security and counterterrorism funds from Saudi Arabia’s Interior Ministry to himself, his family and associates.” So is one true, or is the other true? It is a fair question as the sources of the “intelligence assessment” remain valid if Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri was involved. At that point, merely one issue remains and I blew that apart in my initial blog (link above) and what wasn’t mentioned is that the so called ‘torture tapes’ were never forensically cleared in any way. There are mentions of “I heard them and they were dreadful” or something of that nature. That is not evidence. Evidence is “The tape(s) consist of x number of tapes (or files). They are set to a length of XXX minutes and the voices on the tapes include Jamal Khashoggi” That NEVER happened, that was NEVER done. As such there is no evidence and the shoddy journals behind blood and oil added a few inches of fantasy to that counter. That as well as the issues in that UN report gave me enough to call Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud innocent. Evidence is set to that, not thoughtful processes of ‘I don’t believe he is guilty’ a person is innocent until proven guilty and that proof never came, no matter how intensely all the media is pushing for it and the media with people carrying trash bags stating “This could be the part of the body of Jamal Khashoggi” is nothing less than a joke, a bad one at that. So as Stephanie Kirchgaessner is linked to several of these articles the journalist is just as guilty as the story. She never properly investigated the articles she wrote and I just called out several parts. There is no such setting with Saudi journalist Turki al-Jasser, as the news gives us “the Saudi interior ministry announced that al-Jasser had been executed in Riyadh, for crimes including “high treason by communicating with and conspiring against the security of the Kingdom with individuals outside it”.” It seems like a setting that is. There is no wonder about guilt or innocence. He was found guilty and executed, but leave it to the Guardian to add the columnist no-one ever cared about to the mix (Jamal Khashoggi). Yet I have seen this game being played by the Guardian and several other sources and I have had enough. As such I have questions. Questions like will Stephanie Kirchgaessner ever be questioned and will there be a larger setting where journalists like this are held to account on what they write, because as I see it this cannot continue as it is. The CBC gives us a lot more. You see as we see “Aljabri, 62, was MBN’s chief advisor. As Minister of State and head of security and counterterrorism, he was a key member of the regime. He was stripped of his duties in 2015. Following the power change in 2017, he fled the country and now lives in a mansion on The Bridle Path, one of Canada’s most upscale residential neighbourhoods.” Is a setting that does not imply he is guilty of anything, but as I see it, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has 4.3 billion reasons to want him and I do not know any government that takes such a loss for granted. And they would be right. And as I see it, there is an easy setting, get a forensic accountant go over the records and I reckon that this is where the CIA is not to happy over that happening and I expect neither is Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri. I wonder why the media didn’t set this setting to paper, do you know? 

So when the Guardian gave us (in June) “The former intelligence chief also claimed Prince Mohammed “feared” the information Aljabri knew about him, including a 2014 recorded discussion between Prince Mohammed and the then crown prince, Bin Nayef, in which Prince Mohammed allegedly said he could kill the sitting king, Abdullah, to clear the throne for his own father, Salman.” The use of ‘allegedly’ makes the quote dubious, did anyone hear that recording? Was it forensically analyzed? Simple questions that could lift the veil of this. Did no one catch on to this?

I think I have raised enough doubt on the settings we see. And as we go back to the setting of “an intelligence assessment released by then president Joe Biden in 2021 concluded that Prince Mohammed approved the murder.” As such, as it was released, why didn’t the Guardian include this to give weight to the article? Was it because it relied to heavy on Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri? I don’t know, I never saw the assessment. So have a great day and consider what others want you to think. I, merely want you to see the evidence because that decides the guilt of someone, I could (of course) be wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 18, 2025 · 06:59

The setting changes

That is at times a rule, but to call it the massive rule to measure things to is not the greatest rule to live by (you might have to think that sentence over a little while before it makes sense). You see, there is a story that bugs me and I was almost willing to let it go. But Yesterday in ‘Name Calling’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/09/17/name-calling/) I started down a rabbit hole, a hole that smothers and makes it hard to breath. You see the press to a much larger degree has become a populist media, they do not check sources (as shown yesterday) The media is losing credibility in massive waves. The problem is that I thought I was alone. When you are the only one shouting at a wall, is there a case that you yourself might have lost the focus? 

That was my premise (at first).

So when you start looking at the wall, not being a wall, but a sea the dimension changes. It is no longer the height, but the amount of water that becomes an issue (it makes sense after a little while) and when you start looking into the water and you realise that water is transparent, you start looking for things. As such I found several sources (I already had a few) and these sources are a lot more focussed on the sham that is the International Association of Genocide Scholars. There was the simplest setting that “a member in good standing—a status achieved simply by paying an annual fee of 30 dollars. No academic credentials are required” and this comes with the added quote “Dr. Sara Brown, regional director of the American Jewish Committee in San Diego and a scholar who has served on the IAGS advisory board, told The Media Line: “I was silenced. And the resolution was forced through. What really troubled me was the way that it was presented to mainstream media, that 86 percent of the association had unanimously agreed to condemn Israel for genocide. That’s inaccurate. And to be perfectly honest, it lacks academic integrity, basic integrity to falsely represent the association and falsely cite statistics.”” (source: the media line) The France24 news (added in yesterday’s blog) had a few other settings that were weird, but the overbearing setting was that the media didn’t care, they preferred to not do their job. They became (as I personally see it) as courtesans towards the digital dollar. 

The medicine also gives us “Only 28 percent of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) cast a ballot in the resolution declaring Israel guilty of genocide in Gaza. Of those who voted, 108 supported the measure—less than a quarter of the association’s total membership. Yet international outlets, including The Guardian, AP, Reuters, The Washington Post, and the Financial Times reported the outcome as if it were a sweeping consensus of the world’s foremost genocide experts. Critics inside and outside the association now argue that the process was unrepresentative and that the coverage misled the public into believing in unanimity where none existed.” Now I wanted to have a setting that if people like Amal Clooney (a revered British lawyer and human rights activist) was part of that list, you get a mixed setting, but that is as I see it less of a case. The doughty street chambers adds this to her name “Amal Clooney is a barrister who specializes in international law and human rights. She is ranked in the legal directories Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners  as a leading barrister in international human rights law, public international law, and international criminal law. She is described as ‘a brilliant legal mind’ who is ‘in a league of her own at the Bar’. The directories spotlight her ‘commanding presence before courts’ and describe her as ‘a dream performer before international tribunals’ with ‘superb advocacy’ that is ‘crystal clear in focus and highly persuasive’. The rankings emphasize her ability to galvanize ‘heads of state, foreign ministers and business … in a way that is very effective’ for victims of human rights abuses.” That would be a legal mind to say ‘wow’ to, but when you see the feedback from the IAGS (in the France24 story) stating that it goes through a “rigorous peer reviewing process” and that it went through three separate committees. Now here is the crunch, there are 500 members, did they came from that pool? Where is the paperwork on that? And that happens before the vote. So how was the voting set? What was the minimum amount of votes? Only 28% voted as other sources gave its (the France24 article never brought that out) the article also ‘pressed’ of those who voted. As I see it, Melanie O’Brien never gave the details and more over France24 never pushed anything on this. And she skipped over the report being a three page document. That alone should have halted the press. They didn’t. The joke about the journalist no one cares about was 106 pages (the UN document). One person, so how come that the ‘genocide’ setting that players like Hamas feed us can be summarized in three pages? So how is ‘extensive’ research done in three pages? And who are these reliable and extensive sources? That entire sham (about 4 minutes of it) was swallowed whole by the audience.

So, here I am digesting several matters. As such it is time to call in some assistance and (at https://www.thefp.com/p/another-reason-not-to-trust-the-experts) wee see that the Free Press gives us ‘Another Reason Not to Trust the ‘Experts’’ and it starts by giving us “The International Association of Genocide Scholars calls itself a body of experts, but joining requires only a form and a fee. Members include parody accounts like ‘Mo Cookie’ and ‘Emperor Palpatine.’” And the story start of in a most interesting way. “This week, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) voted on a resolution that accused Israel of committing genocide in its war against Hamas. Like moths to a flame, the mainstream press ran wild with the story of the organization’s declaration. “Israel Is Committing Genocide in Gaza, Leading Scholars’ Association Says,” ran the headline in The Washington Post.”

And in continuation we get “The Guardian quoted the president of the association, Melanie O’Brien, declaring that the resolution represented “a definitive statement from experts in the field of genocide studies that what is going on on the ground in Gaza is genocide.” In another interview with ABC News Australia, O’Brien boasted that the resolution passed with nearly 90 percent support. The BBC’s headline read: “Israel Committing Genocide in Gaza, World’s Leading Experts Say.” The problem for these publications is that if you kick the tires—even slightly—it becomes obvious that the resolution is a sham, top to bottom.” And the press is not waking up? You have gotta be joking me. With the source that according to most started the wave of looking into this setting we are given “On Tuesday evening, Salo Aizenberg, a board member of HonestReporting and contributor to NGO Monitor, tested that proposition. After exploring the IAGS website, he found that he could become a member of the organization with just a $30 contribution. “This organization that purports to be a leading organization of scholars is open to anyone who is interested,” he told The Free Press.” I got alerted to this setting by the Javier Bardem (who told us all on the red carpet in the Emmy event) and someone who went to town on this in LinkedIn. That was my trigger to give you yesterday’s blog and I found out most of what I know in under an hour of investigation. As such what did the Guardian, the Washington Post and ABC News Australia do? Is it weird that I call the ‘Courtesans of the digital dollar’? (I considered that calling them greed driven whores was too crass a statement to make). We then get “IAGS’s open membership is important because as Aizenberg learned in his research on the website, 80 of the 500 members of IAGS all claim to be based in Iraq—a country not known for universities with robust genocide scholarship. But it’s even worse than that. Only 108 out of the organization’s 500 members actually voted for the resolution. So contra O’Brien, only 21.6 percent of the IAGS supported it, not nearly 90 percent. That figure represents 108 out of the 129 people who bothered voting for the resolution at all.” As well as “One IAGS member, Sara Brown, the author of Gender and Genocide in Rwanda, posted on X that the leadership of the organization prevented members from filing comments criticizing the resolution before the vote. “We were promised a town hall, which is a common practice for controversial resolutions,” she wrote, “but the president of the association reversed that. The association has also refused to disclose who were the authors of the resolution.” After reading through the resolution, it’s easy to understand why the identities of the authors were shielded from the other members of the group. It’s riddled with inaccuracies and deceptive language. For example, the first paragraph asserts that Israel has killed “59,000 adults and children in Gaza,” without distinguishing between civilians and Hamas fighters.” You need to read the rest in the Free Press article (link above) And there is more to ‘convict’ the IAGS of, they make a sham of several settings and the press has no other recourse but to convict them as well, because if they do not, the press will have proven themselves to be biased and unworthy to call themselves news media. There is of course the funny setting that all these papers will have to be charged VAT from now on as most hide behind the zero VAT setting for being news sources. When that stops their advertisers go the way of the Dodo really fast.

The media line also gave us “For her, the flaws went beyond procedure. “They cite U.N. sources … and if you look at the citation, it says data that has not yet been verified by the United Nations, and then in footnote five it says Ministry of Health Gaza—the Hamas-run Ministry of Health,” she pointed out. “The fact that those are the statistics that they had to cite and it’s in the first paragraph immediately speaks to a lack of academic integrity … It’s not even academically lazy. It’s reckless. And the harm is real.””

The article can be seen (at https://themedialine.org/top-stories/only-28-of-scholars-associations-members-voted-on-gaza-genocide-resolution-but-global-media-missed-the-story/) and that part gives us that The Media line as ‘trusted news’ is a lot more trustworthy than the mainstream media at present. 

Darn, I forgot to shine the limelight on Microsoft again (my personal behemoth) and in that same setting I now wish you a good day and consider trusting the news media a lot less than before. So to all of you, have a great day today and don’t forget to question your news vendor at some point.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 16, 2025 · 11:23

Rehashing a smear-campaign

That is at the centre of this and the Guardian is guilty as fuck (pardon this expression). So what gives? Well on August 10 2025 I wrote a blog article where I gave light to an article they posted on August 7th 2025. I did it in ‘The emotional grab’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/08/10/the-emotional-grab/) as I said there, I had some issues with the article. And I stated “And in that story, we see one photo of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which was taken in Riyadh, May 2009. It is the only time that his royal highness is mentioned. There is no mention of him anywhere in the article, I checked. So why is he there? Because of the mention of Saudi Arabia?” Then we get “Then we get the wife Emma, she is mentioned four times, and twice by name. What is her involvement? Or is she merely dressing (like a Window) making this story more ‘humane’ The more I read it, the less it makes sense.” I ended the article with “In the end I wonder what this article served. It was not the truth (too much emotion and too little evidence for that), was this another anti-Saudi smear campaign? I am not sure but as we see the lack of evidence and no reference to the declassifieduk site, which could have been used to spice up the article. I reckon that this counterbalanced the article and the article would make even less sense. But that is merely my view on the matter.” So now we get (less than 21 hours ago) the same article as a podcast (By David Pegg. Read by Shane Zaza), as such, what is this rehashing of a smear campaign. Is the Guardian setting out feelers for politicians? I didn’t bother listening to the podcast as there are too many issues with the printed article and if they are resolved it would prove that the Guardian isn’t doing its job correctly. It is a simple setting we tend to see in a smear campaign. So what is the issue with the British government (because this is evidently the push as I see it) So what did the Saudi government do wrong? Did they not rise the oil prices too much? Did they not buy enough British sportspeople? Your guess is as good as mine and I reckon that the Guardian owes the readers (and listeners) a decent explanation. And if it was rehashing for news levels, the Guardian left a lot on the floor. There is the EEA report in 2022 where they stated (outright) that 50% of all the environmental damage was done by 147 factories (I gave light to that a few times), but no that never made the papers apart from the settings that they (and their friends) felt happy with. And they were eager to blame airplanes for all that environmental damage. Even Taylor Swift got that dirty spade of clubs (hidden joke there). As I showed the readers that 41,000 flights a day more amounts to a lot more than the private jets out there. And to wreck Tim McGrath’s day out there this week. He was every bit as guilty as the Guardian itself. And when I see that the EEA report hands out the setting to 147 facilities in Europe. How does the smear-campaign towards Saudi Arabia men make the top 25 anywhere?

That is the setting of the day and the Guardian advertising that they are under pressure doesn’t make the cut. Clean up your editorials to begin with and then give proper light to the EEA reports.

Have a great day, I’ll be looking into Microsoft a little more today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

August 10, 2025 · 02:10

The emotional grab

That is at times a setting. I got this article two days ago in my sights, but I rejected it for the obvious reasons. But today I had some second thoughts, so I took a hold of it. There are a few settings that I need to explain. When a newspaper needs 7000 words to give you the issues that you could have gotten from 700 words, we usually see that there is something under it all. In this case we see all these ‘emotional’ settings, because there is basically nothing to be seen. This isn’t entirely true, but the gist of it comes to that. The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/07/long-read-british-bribery-britain-arms-deals-saudi-arabia-ian-foxley) gives us ‘Very British bribery: the whistleblower who exposed the UK’s dodgy arms deals with Saudi Arabia’ and the headline gives us ‘dodgy arms deals’ and that takes some explanation. The United Kingdom is a nation, a monarchy no less. As such it can sell weapons to other nations. Saud Arabia is a monarchy too, as such is there something dodgy going on?

And in that story, we see one photo of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which was taken in Riyadh, May 2009. It is the only time that his royal highness is mentioned. There is no mention of him anywhere in the article, I checked. So why is he there? Because of the mention of Saudi Arabia? 

Then we get the wife Emma, she is mentioned four times, and twice by name. What is her involvement? Or is she merely dressing (like a Window) making this story more ‘humane’ The more I read it, the less it makes sense. The first is that it took 7000 words to say nothing, the second that it is lacking a few items. The first is that Declassified (at https://www.declassifieduk.org/britains-secret-saudi-military-support-programme/) gave us a lot more information which was RELEASED in 2019. A simple setting is that the London School of Economics had 24 alumni working there. So at what point did the Guardian interview, or at least try to interview any of them? The 2019 story also gives us “Earlier this year, another US military official, Colonel Kevin Lambert, manager of the US’s own SANG modernisation programme, confirmed that the SANG was “executing combat operations in the Yemen conflict”.” The Guardian article doesn’t even mention Yemen once. In addition, the story is riddled with emotion. Things like “an accountant called Michael Paterson, was “a madman”” this might be true, but what purpose does it serve? If it is about dodgy deals, why is the wife involved? I get that she gets to be mentioned once (at the beginning) optionally twice (at departure), but the other two mentions? As I stated, the more data you see, the less is valued and it is not valued because there is more useless data, at times more data is to hide that you have none. So, then we get the ‘abundance’ of data. In this I refer to “Another time, a colleague casually joked about a Saudi general being willing to sign anything GPT suggested, on account of something called “bought in services”. Foxley didn’t recognise the term and when he began asking about it, he received only vague non-answers about “things we buy in”.” 47 words that could have been set through “GPT used ‘bought in services’ to hide acquisition of Saudi top military signing for services” I simplified it in 15 words, one third and then I would set the situation to evidence, which is massively lacking here. Then we get the word ‘bribery’ used 13 times, but how? Once is to mention the Bribery Act which was passed in 2010. It is important three times. The first is “Foxley could not have known bribery was rife in Saudi Arabia” (i’ll get to this later) and “Not only had the government ratted him out to GPT when he discovered the bribery conspiracy”, so who did rat him out? And is ratting him out the correct phrase here? The third time is “The MoD and the government “had been running the scam, the bribery, since 1978, ever since the project was set up”” So, exactly what scam were they running? A scam implies that criminal acts are being committed by the UK government. What is the scam exactly and who is involved? Then we get the one setting where it is important. It is given with ““Do you know about the Cayman Islands?” Paterson asked. Over the following 90 minutes, the accountant set out a series of discoveries that implicated GPT in years of bribery and corruption. What neither man knew was that the scheme they had stumbled upon had been overseen and authorised for decades, in both Britain and Saudi Arabia, by the highest levels of government.” Here we get the following settings. The Cayman Islands and what evidence is there of bribery and corruption? The setting is given in the article as well. “It doesn’t invalidate the invoices and the payments to Simec” as such, bribery is merely a smudging word and there is no evidence of bribery or corruption. 

As I see it, the United Kingdom needs to walk a fine line to make deals with some nations and these high ranking officials are entitled to a commission, or a consultancy fee and as Generals were mentioned they are most likely allowed consultancy fees. I am using ‘most likely’ because I do not know Saudi law in these matters. In case of Simmer, that is up to the Saudi government. This article is a simple act of slinging mud, see what sticks and I fear it is very little as this article is missing all kinds of connections and evidence. So when we see “Eight Saudis received a collective £10m between 2007 and 2012 alone” and weirdly enough, this article doesn’t name these people as we are also given “the British government had authorised the entire scheme – had won out.” As such 7000 words to fulfill the setting that was decided over a year ago. So, what exactly was the meaning of this? Seems a fair question as there are settings that are not given, too much emotion in the entire article and a massive amount of facts that just aren’t there. 

So what was exactly the call for this article? To smear the Saudi Government? To smear the British government? As such we also get both Cook and Mason were acquitted. Then a mention that one of them is separately convicted for taking kickbacks, while he was a civil servant at the MoD, before he became part of the GPT. A simple unrelated misconduct offence.

In the end I wonder what this article served. It was not the truth (too much emotion and too little evidence for that), was this another anti-Saudi smear campaign? I am not sure but as we see the lack of evidence and no reference to the declassifieduk site, which could have been used to spice up the article. I reckon that this counterbalanced the article and the article would make even less sense. But that is merely my view on the matter.

Have a great day, 360 minutes until breakfast.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 31, 2025 · 10:22

Drowning in misrepresentation

That is the setting as I personally believe it to be. The problem isn’t me, the problem is that politicians are clueless and as such the people will end up suffering. As we get the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/30/zuckerberg-superintelligence-meta-ai) telling us ‘Zuckerberg claims ‘super-intelligence is now in sight’ as Meta lavishes billions on AI’ the dwindling situation is overlooked. This is not on Meta or on Mark the innovator Zuckerberg, well, perhaps it is a little on him. But the setting of “Whether it’s poaching top talent away from competitors, acquiring AI startups or proclaiming that it will build data centers the size of Manhattan, Meta has been on a spending spree to boost its artificial intelligence capabilities for months now”. So, what are you missing? It is easy to miss it and unless you are savvy in data, there is absolutely no blame on you. I will blame politicians shoving the buck to a pile that has no representation and I do see that the political mind is merely ‘money savvy’, it does not have an alleged clue on data verification. There is a second point, it was given to me by someone (I don’t remember who) who gives us “All AI startups are their own shells linking to ChatGPT” I see the wisdom of that, but I never investigated that myself. You see, all these shells have issues with verification and these startups don’t have the resources to properly verify the data they have, so you end up having a bucket with badly arranged and misliked data. You would think that if they all link to ChatGPT it is a singular issue, but it is not. Language is one, interpretation of what is, is another side and these are merely two sides in a much larger issue. And hiding behind “build data centers the size of Manhattan” is nothing else than a massive folly. You see, what will power this? Most places in this world have a clear shortage of power and any data centre relying on power that isn’t there will crash with some regularity and these data links are maintained in real time, so links will go wrong again and again. And that link is seen by ‘some’ as “A new study of a dozen A.I. -detection services by researchers at the University of Maryland found that they had erroneously flagged human-written text as A.I. -generated about 6.8 percent of the time, on average” that implies that 1 in 15 statements are riddles with errors and there is no way around it until the verification passes are sorted out. Consider that one source gives us “monthly searches to more than 30.4 million during the last month”, this gives us that AI events resulted in 2,026,666 possible erroneous results and when that happens to something that was essential to your needs? When technical support and customer care fails because the number, aren’t right? How long will you remain a customer? That is the folly I am foreseeing and when all these firms (like Microsoft) are done shedding their people and they realise that the knowledge they actually had was pushed out of the side door? Where does this leave the customers? Will they remain Microsoft, Amazon, IBM or Google customers? This is about to hit nearly every niche in America business. The ones that held on the their people knowledge base tend to be decently safe, but the resources needed to clean up the mess that this created will scuttle the European and American economies as they overextended the new they spun themselves and when reality catches up, these people will see the dark light of a self created nightmare.

So in retrospect consider “Behind the hype of Microsoft backing and a $1B+ valuation, the company reportedly inflated numbers, burned through ~$450M funding, and collapsed into insolvency.” This setting was hyped on every channel and praised as a solution. It took less then a year to go from a billion to naught. How many even have a billion? Considering that Microsoft backed it, implies that they were unaware how they were, driven by a simple setting that should have been verified before they even backed it to over a $1,000,000,000 plus.

Now, we can feel sorry for Zuckerberg, not for the money, he probably has more in his wallet, but the ones wanting in on such a ‘great endeavor’ are bound to lose everything they own. This is a very slippery slope and as governments are seeing what some call as AI as a solution to solve a expensive setting in a cheap way are likely to lose the ownership of data of their entire population and these systems do not care who the owner is, they copy EVERYTHING. So where will that data end up going? I wonder who looked at the ownership of collected data and all the errors it has within itself.

The fear is not what it costs, but for billions of people is where their information will end up being and these politicians sell ‘sort of solutions’ which they cannot back with facts and in the end it will end up being the problem of a software engineer and that setting was too complicated to understand for any politician who was too eager to put his name under this and merely will shrug saying ‘I’m sorry’ whilst he is exiting through any side door with his personal wallet filled to the brink to a zero tax nation with a non-extradition treaty.

A setting we will see the media repeat time after time without seriously digging into the mess as they told us “Wall Street investors are happy with the expensive course Zuckerberg is charting. After the company reported better-than-expected financial results for yet another quarter, its stock soared by double digits.” All whilst the statement “Zuckerberg did not provide any details of what would qualify as “super-intelligence” versus standard artificial intelligence, he did say that it would pose “novel safety concerns”. “We’ll need to be rigorous about mitigating these risks and careful about what we choose to open source,”” is trivialized to the largest degree and in all this there is no setting of verification. Weird isn’t it? 

So feel free to enjoy you cub of toffee and don’t worry about the jacked setting of demonstration which was tracked by the original AI as “enjoy your cup of coffee and don’t worry about the impact of verification” because that is the likely heading of the coming super-intelligence

Have a great day (not have a grate clay).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 29, 2025 · 19:08

The person everyone wants dead

Yes, these people exist, but it is uncommon and actually quite rare, but the setting of Ghislaine Maxwell warrants that thought. It is not a simple setting. Not only was she convicted, she was convicted to 20 years and several women’s life were squandered to what some call the ‘pedo’ organisation of a lifetime (as expressions go). They were not merely destroyed by man, a woman named Ghislaine Maxwell seemingly ‘prepared’ them for the ‘entertainment’ of certain man. 

And now 4 years later it starts again as she is vying for reduced sentences, optionally overturning her situation. I’ll grant it is balmy, because every father with daughters is willing to shoot her down, they will hunt her across the globe and as she wants to ‘compel’ them to stay their weapons, she is unlikely to succeed. And this is a circus with three rings. The first ring is the list of Epstein and the wealthy ‘suiters’ of these underaged woman. The second ring has President Trump and whatever political aspirations are coning from this scene. And here we see the first (as I personally see it, the first lie) and we get to thank ABC news for that (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-29/trump-has-not-considered-pardoning-epstein-ally-maxwell/105584506) where we see ‘Donald Trump says he has not considered pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell’, you see, the question was asked and in that moment any person would consider the question and as such he would have considered pardoning her. There of course the thought that he would reject that, but that doesn’t matter the question was considered as I personally see it. So as ABC gives us “Maxwell is appealing against her 20-year prison sentence, arguing that a prior plea deal that Jeffrey Epstein took protected her from prosecution.” This is as I see it a null option. For that to be considered Epstein would have had to set that stage, but he (allegedly) committed suicide making the entire stage to go away. It is a personal view and perhaps there was something, but if that is absent of documentation it is null and void. You see, an old setting has been (going all the way back to the Italian army of AD45) “If it isn’t written down, it does not exist” or words (and written down) to that nature. As such this is basically a Marie Celeste in business, in politics and in ethics. Now, I am all for the law and if there is something then show us the documentations, in other settings, such an agreement would have had witnesses, who were they? Where are they? And what was the stage? Because Jeffrey Epstein decided that suicide by hanging was preferable than facing the world and his world is all about presentation and alleged holiness. He took the fast way out, he was sentenced to eighteen months in prison and he was sentenced to (as some sources state) be housed in a private wing of the Palm Beach County Stockade and, according to the sheriff’s office, was, after 3.5 months, allowed to leave the jail on “work release” for up to twelve hours a day, six days a week, but after one month he must have realised what his life was about to become and he took the quick avoidance method.

The third ring is about the list, who was on it, what evidence was there and so on. This ring has its issues and problems. The conspiracy theorists are flaming this in the trend of “Republicans will set the list to democrats, no republicans and President Trump was never on the list” in that setting I have no idea. You see, the setting is that political players all want billionaire people as friends as they can fund campaigns, as such plenty might have ‘known’ Jeffrey Epstein but to what matter remains the question. We all have seen the image of Trump and Epstein. That is however no proof of guilt. Billionaires hang around billionaire, that part makes sense, but that is no evidence that President Trump did anything wrong. I go one step further, as I speculatively see it, no farther of daughters will use a minor girl for sex. The only possible setting is that these men also sexually abuse their own daughters. It is speculation but that is what I think and if there is a decent psychologist that states that this is not the case, I will accept that. As I say it is speculation. I still have a problem imagining that any woman will serve up female minors for sex duty. 

So as we see this we get to the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/28/ghislaine-maxwell-supreme-court) who gives us ‘Maxwell, sentenced to 20 years for sex trafficking, says 2007 plea deal negotiated by Epstein should have protected her’ and my issue is also (I already answered this at the beginning) that she ‘waited’ over 2 years to set the stage. Was she hoping the case had gone cold? As we are given “Her legal team, however, submitted a request to the supreme court on Monday, seeking to overturn the lower court’s decision, arguing that a prior plea deal that Epstein took protected Maxwell from prosecution.” The skeptic in me is thinking that they have a juicy paycheck coming their way and whilst Ghislaine Maxwell is paying, they will continue any branch they can get. In the end it becomes a setting of coin and a setting of ego. More coin as it is a paying setting, less ego as it is about overturning a conviction with witnesses and that is a lot to un-stage. So as we are given “The controversial 2007 plea agreement between Epstein and the justice department said that if Epstein followed the terms of the plea agreement, the US government would not charge “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein”, including “but not limited to” four co-conspirators. Maxwell is not one of the four co-conspirators named in the agreement, but her attorneys say she did not need to be named to receive the protection from that deal.” I have an issue with that (with my limited law knowledge). As such shouldn’t the four coconspirators be named? Who are these four? As I see it, an exact number requires identities? No, here the attorney of Ghislaine Maxwell is correct, it is seen in “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein”. The issue is, how was this ‘overlooked’? The referred document is seen (at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6184602-Jeffrey-Epstein-non-prosecution-agreement/) and on page 2 and 3 gives us the setting. We are given:

THEREFORE, on the authority of R, Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below.

If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days’ of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed.

This is what we are given as Exhibit 62. What I believe the case is that as given “Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement” making the setting null and void. As such all coconspirators could be prosecuted and that is as I see it the setting. So when we see 

Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment; and Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of community conool consecutive to his two terms in county jail as described in Term supra. 

But he never did the second term, he never made it past the first term as such the setting becomes a nulled one and he basically hung all ‘his friends’ out to dry, wasn’t that great of him? As I have legal training (a decade ago), this is what I see. Perhaps there are American ‘rules’ that state that the agreement is till valid, but that agreement would be hung (I couldn’t resist that) on the setting that he completed his sentence and he did not.

I reckon that this was seen 5 minutes after this was agreed upon and it is my personal view that lawyers will cash in on any option they can and as Ghislaine Maxwell cannot spend her money in prison and most likely will not survive her time in prison (she is 63 after all) there might be an alternative setting for the lawyers in question (a presumption, as there is every chance that they were instructed by their client Ghislaine Maxwell to pursue any option they can) and they are doing their job as instructed.

As such I think this goes nowhere and perhaps there will be leniency if she hands over the list, but that is might be a big if, and that should strike fear in the hearts (and loins) of anyone making that list. As such I reckon that a certain Silk Road marker place will have more than one items for the execution of Ghislaine Maxwell with the reward at ₿1000 (or $119,000,000) that is the setting she is invoking, even if she gives false names, her days are numbered. These people don’t like taking chances and she is likely happy to go that road for one free day, one last meal and one drink. This is mere speculation but that is how I see it and as I stated it, every father of daughters likely wants her dead, they are all about keeping their daughters safe. It might not sound reasonable, but fathers tend to be not so solid and sturdy when their little girls are in danger.

Have a great day

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 13, 2025 · 01:25

Where is the exit?

That is a question that is more often than not a valid one. We went to exit any setting, but there is the ego to consider, America has skin in the game (as the expression goes). As the Guardian gives us (at https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/jul/08/saudi-arabia-capital-punishment-executions-foreigners-drug-offences-crime-600-people-amnesty-international) last week, last Tuesday to be more exact, we are given ‘Saudi Arabia executing ‘horrifying’ number of foreigners for drug crimes’ with the byline “Hundreds put to death for non-violent drug offenses over past decade, with little scrutiny of Saudis, says Amnesty”, yup it is everyones favourite crybaby Amnesty International. I can’t really fault them here. They have a ‘strict’ setting and I get that, but the rest of the world needs to understand that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia takes a harsh views on any drug offense. So as we are given “Almost 600 people have been executed over the past decade for drug-related offenses, Amnesty International has found, three-quarters of whom were foreign nationals from countries including Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Nigeria and Egypt.” It is like toddlers in a zoo. If you put your hand in the tiger cage, it will be bitten off. There is no ‘but’ or ‘why’ in this. It is the nature of the beast. Saudi Arabia is totally against drugs and they do not accept any other setting. You see, America might have started ‘the war on drugs’ around 1971 (optionally 1970) and for 50 years where we see that the setting should be seen as “at least $100 billion a year, and far from eliminating use, supply and production, as many as 300 million people now use drugs worldwide, contributing to a global market with a turnover of $330 billion a year” as such America has spend a generic $5,000,000,000,000 dollars on a war that has no exit strategy. Saudi Arabia isn’t falling for that trap and is not concerned for the 600 people who threw away their lives and is happy to end their seemingly pathetic lives. I am decently certain that their lives in Pakistan or Egypt would end in the same way. Although, I am certain that these two countries only give the death penalty on extreme cases (whatever that means), still the death penalty is in the cards there too. 

So, whilst every is calling the war on drug in America a lost cause and it is only in the eye of politicians who want to get coin out of this setting that they would ‘see’ an optional solution. I am of the mind that simply putting them all to death might have saved America $100,000,000,000 on an annual basis. That is the setting I personally see. 

So whilst we see “With little international scrutiny of what Amnesty describes as “grossly unfair trials” and a “chilling disregard for human life”, the rights organisation warned that the death toll would only increase.” We need to understand that Saudi Arabia sees drug use as a complete ‘no-no’ and they have strict laws in place. When we understand this, we should consider why these people go for drugs, and more important, how is this setting being supported? I think that most people in that ‘industry’ want their slice of a $330 billion cake and it is an annual cake, as such I wonder what is fueling this. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia isn’t wondering this at all. They merely execute the people who go for that dish and I get that. The American war on drugs is a stalemate for negotiations and a setting for delays and optionally some people get some out of this. Saudi Arabia sees them all as equally unworthy and treats them all to a one way ticket to the grim reaper, or towards Malak al-Maut as they call him. I reckon he is the American version of ‘Kill ‘em all, let god sort them out’ I have no real view on this. You see Saudi Arabia has capital punishment and the results are not unlike “Old Sparky,” who had been executing people since  1924 at the Huntsville Penitentiary. So is that any different? There is no setting of violent or non-violent. If you get caught with drugs in Saudi Arabia, they get a one way ticket to wherever they were supposed to go. It sounds harsh, but it is time that people realise that intentionally breaking the law in some countries has consequences and drugs have a finite consequence here. So when we see “Dana Ahmed, Amnesty International’s Middle East researcher, said: “We are witnessing a truly horrifying trend, with foreign nationals being put to death at a startling rate for crimes that should never carry the death penalty.” According to who? Is my question. You see “Saudi Arabia has a zero-tolerance policy regarding drugs and enforces its laws rigorously” as such I wonder where Dana Ahmed got her law degree. I kinda understand her. I am not in favor of the death penalty, but it is for every government to decide for themselves and as I see it, Saudi Arabia is not interested in wasting $100,000,000,000 a year on this problem. I get that too and I see that they decided to take ‘zero-tolerance’ to the next level and the people who cannot stay away from drugs, need to find a little burrow in America to see they lives through. As I see it Saudi Arabia said ‘not here’ and I get that too, I very well understand that. As such these people should have exited that country (preferably) before they got caught, they had the option between ‘leave now’ or ‘drugs now’ and they chose poorly. 

So whilst we see all parties cry their way into your hearts consider that it is well stated and openly documented that Saudi Arabia does not tolerate drugs of any kind, even as we might, we ned to learn that other countries have other values and they might not condone our recreational approach to drugs. That part I see missing here. There was a larger truth, it was there from day one and now we see that some are trying to seek other solutions, but the fact is that the other solution has proven to be a failure for over half a century and now that the funds are dwindling I reckon that America will get a new premise, it will go from ‘America first’ to ‘Healthy Americans first’ a setting we are likely to see before the years end. Especially when fentanyl is not only fueling political settings, America might take drastic steps to downsize that problem. So does that make Saudi Arabia a trendsetter?

Consider that and not merely the ‘bad’ feeling you get from a death penalty, consider what drugs and the drug market is doing to your economy. There are a few sides to this that Amnesty International does not want you to see, consider the impact of trillions on a war that never had anywhere to go. And you can afford this trillion, can’t you? 

Have a great day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 4, 2025 · 12:32

About the setting of prayers

This is about the Hajj, it is not a negative piece as I refuse to put any religion negatively. Perhaps the Catholic side as I was raised a Catholic. So as we get the the Hajj, which starts in a little over 12 hours. We start with the Bangkok Post (at https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/3038397/no-permit-no-hajj-says-saudi-arabia) where we see ‘No permit, no hajj, says Saudi Arabia’. I get that and as we see “Last year, 1,301 pilgrims, most of them unregistered and lacking access to air-conditioned tents and buses, died as temperatures soared to 51.8 degrees Celsius (125.2 degrees Fahrenheit)”, as well as ““Since the end of last season, we realised the biggest challenge is preventing unauthorised pilgrims from undermining the success of the hajj season,” said one official helping organise the hajj, requesting anonymity” I get that, I pointed this out in my lest years writings, even as many did not, they were all about blaming the Saudi governments of that failure. In addition, these settings of media never dug into the tour operators fleecing profits and living these tourists to their doom. But the media ignored that side of the equation as they reported their blame settings. Even with these unregistered Hajj seekers, the casualty list remains below 0.1% of the visitors, and when we filter this out we get a setting that the casualties in a setting of 51 degrees heat celsius remains a mere 0.018%, which is nothing short of absolutely astounding. I reckon that any western nation has yet to reveal a setting with over 600,000 people (half of what the Hajj got) and that little casualties. Consider that the Saudi government does nearly everything to keep people safe. A remarkable setting to say the least. 

Then we get to the second item, which is given to us by News Central Africa (at https://newscentral.africa/saudi-arabia-tightens-crackdown-on-unregistered-hajj-pilgrims-after-deadly-heatwave/) where we see ‘Saudi Arabia Tightens Crackdown on Unregistered Hajj Pilgrims After Deadly Heatwave’ and here we get “Saudi Arabia is intensifying its efforts to prevent unauthorised participation in the annual hajj pilgrimage, a year after extreme heat led to the deaths of over a thousand pilgrims, most of whom were unregistered.” With the additional “One organiser, who wished to remain anonymous, said that since the end of last year’s pilgrimage, preventing unauthorised worshippers has been a top priority. The hajj is one of Islam’s five pillars, and Muslims who are physically and financially able must perform it at least once in their lifetime. However, due to a quota system, permits are limited and distributed via a lottery, making the costly official route unaffordable for many. As a result, some pilgrims opt for cheaper, unofficial alternatives” I personally see why this person wants to stay anonymous. As I personally see it, their ‘sales staff’ seemingly saw a way around the permit setting and sold them using alternative settings. It is a speculatively view, but the setting makes sense when you consider the 1100 casualties without a permit and the 14 countries that has the ban are India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Nigeria, Jordan, Algeria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Yemen, and Morocco (according to a source). It makes a lot more sense when you consider the facts that ‘Nearly 270,000 pilgrims without permits stopped from entering Mecca’ (source: Euro News) where we see “Saudi Arabia has stopped nearly 269,678 pilgrims without authorisation from entering Mecca during the annual Hajj pilgrimage. The government blames overcrowding at the Hajj on participants without permits. It also says they made up large numbers of the 1,300 people who died in last year’s searing summer heat.” So, so you think the pool of an additional 15% all came to the thought by themselves, or were tour operators involved? The Guardian gave us last year that tour operators made promises that caused the deaths of several, and as I see it (at least through western media) this was never investigated. This does not mean that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia didn’t investigate this, it merely means that I don’t know what happened in that specific scenario. My view that I had last year is also seemingly proven correctly as Euro News also gave me “Officials have also imposed penalties on more than 23,000 Saudi residents for violating Hajj regulations and revoked the licenses of 400 Hajj companies.” I get that over the cuties there are a lot of companies involved, but the setting of 400 Hajj companies clearly astounds me. 

And with this I salute the Hajj 2025 participants and wish them a blessed and meaningful Hajj, and I hope for Allah’s acceptance of their pilgrimage, or in shorter terms Hajj Mubarak. Let their journey be a safe one and their pilgrimage a fulfilling one. Have a great day you all.

1 Comment

Filed under Religion, Tourism

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 6, 2025 · 02:05

Repeating the same mistake

That happens, it happens to me too. As I’m decently convinced of something I will repeat that thought. Actually it might be the wrong idea, but you get the point. As such I saw over the last 24 hours several articles. 

The first is given to us by Time, (at https://time.com/7282450/trump-annex-canada-economy-recession-upholding-the-constitution/) we are given ‘Trump Speaks Out on His Desire to Annex Canada, Recession Concerns, and If He Has to Uphold the Constitution’ In this article we get “The first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term in the White House have been dominated by talks of Executive Orders, tariffs, foreign relations and economic stability in light of the trade war sparked by the tariffs, comments about annexing Canada, the possibility of seeking a third term, and much more.” Followed by “Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose Liberal Party won the Canadian election on April 28, has—much like his predecessor Justin Trudeau—made it clear that Canada has no intention of taking Trump up on his offer. “It will never happen,” he said. In this latest interview, Trump said he had congratulated Carney on his election win, but doubled down on his desire to make Canada the 51st state, saying he will “always talk about that.” Trump repeated his previous sentiments, referring once more to Canada’s former Prime Minister as “Governor Trudeau.””. As I see it, the southern folks might as well call these southerners “The United States of Canada” soon enough (my reason follow far below). His reasoning is ““If Canada was a state it wouldn’t cost us. It would be great. It would be such a great—it would be a cherished state. And, if you look at our map, if you look at the geography, I’m a real estate guy at heart. When I look down at that without that artificial line that was drawn with a ruler many years ago… You don’t even realize. What a beautiful country it would be,” he said. “Again, remember this, we don’t need their cars, we don’t need their lumber, we don’t need their energy. We don’t need anything. We do very little business with Canada. They do all of their business practically with us. They need us. We don’t need them.”” As I see it, the first deception, more to follow in the near future and that deception is given through “They need us. We don’t need them”. Then we get to the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/04/trump-greenland-denmark-military-force) where we are given ‘Trump says he ‘doesn’t rule out’ using military force to control Greenland’, so what kind of a yahoo dictator reverts to force to attack its allies? And these two have been given the stage that their resources are up for grabs and America needs them. The same for Canada. A setting that is concerning as this is the likely first setting that they need us (Greenland and Canada) a lot more than they need him. So as again deception rules, we are left with “Donald Trump would not rule out using military force to gain control of Greenland, the world’s largest island and an autonomous territory within Denmark, a fellow Nato member with the US.” America never needed it for the longest of time, but America is on the outer limits of bankrupt and it needs their resources to survive. So as such the ‘promise’ of “It would be great. It would be such a great—it would be a cherished state” is like a crack whore begging for anything to get that ‘cherished’ high. That is how I see it. The biting effect of 36 trillion debt, for America at 4.5% it comes down to 1.62 trillion dollars (aka 1,620,000,000,000) EVERY YEAR and that is how it bites. During fiscal year 2024, the IRS collected more than $5.1 trillion in tax revenue, that implies that 31.76% is lost of that revenue is lost on interest alone and it gets worse, because (as the US Treasury gives us) “Compared to the national deficit of $1.06 trillion for the same period last year (Oct 2023 – Mar 2024), our national deficit has increased by $242 billion.” And the funny part was that on the occasion of World Animal day 2021 I gave “In 2013 the US debt was $17,000,000,000,000 (17 trillion), and over 8 years 8 trillion was added, a nice $8,000,000,000,000. This implies that the US government overspends a trillion a year with no exit strategy on how to cope with the debt and it is on both Republicans and Democrats.” I saw this moment come to mind over three years ago and over this time, of three years, the debt doubled. So how is that for foresight? I did so (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/10/04/utter-insanity/) in the blog article ‘Utter Insanity’ I saw that clearly ahead of it all and due to American politicians sitting on their hand it is now too late and I made notice of this before 2021 as well. Reuters might give us a Met Gala and how things are bolder, but it still needs people with incomes to afford it all and that is about to end and President Trump doesn’t want to be the president having to inform the people that it is about to end, as such we will get The United States of Canada with (at this time) Prime minister of the Americas to become the biggest president the world has ever seen. As such I opt that he will unite several states as one with in the east called the Cockcoeske collective (honouring the Rappahannock Tribe of the 1600’s) named after the first female chief following her father Chief Captain Chawanta Nelson) this would unite the states of Virginia and all the states to the North of that. I know it is a little mean but America was stupid and mean to elect Donald Trump as such, so they don’t get a choice in the matter. And it makes sense, to elect this, they will need the upheaval and as such one third of the boards of any new states in America will consist of Native Americans and in the settings that America is out of funds, other measures will have to be taken, with a damper on spending, military spending is a first and most remaining spending will go on infrastructures and soup kitchens because as I see it, when the defaults start pretty much all retirement funds go belly up. Wanna doubt me? That is fair, but show me a non-violent and non invasive solution. I bet you can’t do that. I voiced the overhaul of the American tax system for the better part of a decade and now it is too late. Time is up and not one politician stated that it needed to be done. 

As a third article we get USA Today (at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2025/05/04/donald-trump-canada-greenland-military-force/83447719007/) giving us ‘Trump says ‘highly unlikely’ US uses military force to annex Canada’ where the tone is set by “In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press”, President Donald Trump said he still wants to make Canada the 51st U.S. state and does not envision the United States using military force to seize the neighboring country. During the interview, which aired on May 4, Trump said he’s still interested in annexing Canada but does not label it in the same category as Greenland, a Danish territory Trump has repeatedly suggested the U.S. could one day be compelled to acquire.” As such the tables are turned, America will not annex Canada, America will be given to Canada, to safe it from dangerous politicians and the people of America give it to Canada to deliver it from destitution and the people utterly out of funds. If only they had listened to me as I voice it a little over a decade ago. Redesign your tax system. It was never about taxing the rich, it was about redesigning the tax system they had, as it was never working on the design it had. You want to blame Apple (the first to become a trillion dollar company) and that never made sense with all the trillions of debt that America had and it took a mere abacus to work that out, not an non-existent AI supercomputer.

And now, as time is up for America (as I personally see it) we see the more violent side of America (annexing nations resources) and that solution is already too late to safe America, it might merely delay this setting a few more years and in the meantime, it will mine the hell out of Canada and Greenland, destroying these environments and to that I say ‘Hell no!’, because we need to step up for the environment and also because Canada is a Commonwealth brother and Greenland is part of our ally Denmark.

So have a great day and try to salvage your goods, because American time is, as I personally see it, done for.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 29, 2025 · 02:53

What is humor?

That is the question that we might get. CBC gives us (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/donald-trump-election-canada-truth-social-1.7520212) the headline ‘Trump implies Canadians vote for him on election day, Poilievre tells president to butt out’ so as we see that even the honorable PP has had enough of President Trump. And the quote reads ““President Trump, stay out of our election. The only people who will decide the future of Canada are Canadians at the ballot box,” Poilievre posted on social media.” I would state that if it was humor that President Trump was after, we would have gotten the Guardian to give us ‘Conclave to elect new pope to start on 7 May, Vatican says’ with an added “The 135 Roman Catholic cardinals eligible to vote will meet at Sistine Chapel to decide church’s next leader, Donald Trump is now electable as pope” It would have been a gasser for 23% of the American population, optionally all the other christians too. But THAT didn’t happen. He chose his imaginary 51st state friends to seek hour with and that was not in the cards. So is my view on it all that America is about to default? With Canada as part of this, he might postpone the setting for about 2 more years and after that he will blame the loss of income by these stealing Chinese and Europeans. That might be the premise if he didn’t just blew up the Canadians and the Commonwealth at large with them. Because the Commonwealth as the larger national interest is not happy. Looking at President Trump, at present, we see someone like a nagging little toddler angry at the world because he cannot have his toy, which he never had and his mommy won’t buy him one because it belongs to the neighbour. That is what I see and I am pretty intelligent. The world is catching up with the setting I am seeing and now it takes actual journalists (more clever than me) to see into the dark abyss that is the actual American economy. Will they? The media is such an incestual lot, depending on the voices of shareholders, stake holders and their pool of advertisers and their incessant need for digital dollars. Whatever is left is for the readers. So how much unfiltered and unreplaced news will get to the readers? I ask you, because there is a chance that I can no longer tell.

So when we get “Trump went on in his post to repeat his argument that Canada joining the U.S. would be advantageous to the country, along with the false claim that the United States subsidizes Canada with “hundreds of billions of dollars a year.”” So as such, why would Canada even want this? He could just cut these so called hundreds of billions a year and pay his interest bill. So, is he just a deranged toddler crying over what he can’t have? I ask you, as the setting is shown to us, or does he want to give the voice to Pierre Poilievre so that he looks like more of a real Canadian? Because as it stands in this day and age there is only one choice for Canadians and it is Mark Carney and now HIS Liberal party of Canada. The is what President Trump fears, he being out of options, having to declare the Bankrupt States of America absolutely broke. It is, as I see it the news that President Putin and President Xi are waiting on. These two nations have the economists and the math skills to see that America is a sinking ship at present. A ship so rotten to the core that if beached it might make a decent island of opportunity and as I personally see it, the moment is no longer far away. It is about to happen and the settings we see now are an indication of this.

America did this to themselves. They proclaim to be the place of opportunity, but this opportunity is largely fake and only meant for those with the cash on hand, because a defaulted America doesn’t have retirement plans, it has no logistics in place to help the weak or sick. All that has been squandered by the Wall Street moguls and they pushed forward the economic wealth for the next best thing (at present it is AI) and when this too fail the ones who walked out in wealth took their money to the Bahama’s, Lichtenstein, Monaco or the UAE, that is where they will remain until 2070 when the dust settles with little or no survivors. The 150,000,000 outraged Americans will make sure of that and the little who had something and couldn’t escape will be the unwilling target of outrage. Those who knew got out fast. So at that point will President Trump and family be paraded to the audience in Lefortovo Prison in Moscow, or Beijing State Security Bureau Detention Center? You can guess, I do not know. I reckon that the zero tax nations might not want Trump in their midst as he would be seen as a cancer on their way of life and with a possible default, China or Russia might become his only option. He might try to buy a golden UAE visa, but I do not know if he has the billions required, he might make that claim but the nation giving him and his family these visas might want a deposit on hand and that is the claim he might not be able to do. America is about to get that dangerous a place. And even Pierre Poilievre might see that setting at present. 

So how right or wrong am I?

It is a fair question. My view comes from watching certain matters with the eyes of a hawk. It might be wrong, but the media gave the snippets of reality through the filtered information and in this I see the papers of half a dozen nations and they all respond to different stake holders and as such some information reached me and I filtered that information to seemingly data. Seemingly because the filtering was personal (and optionally wrong), but what choice did I have? Accept the journalist data that was filtered? That person would have been drinking brand X (the other gatorade). So I came to this conclusion and it is what you make of it, reset it, accept it or question it. It is all fair, but I didn’t post that we should vote for Trump, I didn’t start the tariff war that is costing America billions and I can go on from that, but you get the idea. 

Perhaps President Trump could keep his fingers still (off the keyboard) and his mouth shut? The is the premise that is starting this all. Make of this what you want. I am stating up front (actually now) that this is largely speculative. If there is a reliable journalist and a reliable economist you might get a better picture. So Canadians enjoy your Bundaberg Rum (Australia), Broken Shed Vodka (New Zealand), Bombay Sapphire Gin (United Kingdom) or Crown Royal Black Whiskey (Canada) and enjoy the outcome of the election with a new Prime Minister (hopefully Mark Carney), you’ve earned it.

Have a great day all, it is time for me to get some sleep (it’s 02:40) now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,