Badlands News Brief
Trials Galore, Ukraine Backpedal & The Gold Standard
The News Cycle is almost impossible to track these days. At least, to do so fully.
That’s where we come in.
In the Badlands News Brief, the Badlands Media team hand picks news items of interest from the previous days to give you an overview of the biggest goings-on relevant to the Truth Community.
Some items feature original commentary from members of our growing team of citizen journalists. Feel free to follow the corresponding link to see their other work.
Now, onto the news from Wednesday, April 5 …
Trump case spotlights New York rule barring cameras in court
Former President Donald Trump’s arraignment on Tuesday will draw more cameras in Manhattan than perhaps any case in state history. The cameras just aren’t likely to be in the courtroom.
Trump’s case again highlights how New York has among the most restrictive laws in the nation banning cameras and broadcasts inside the courtroom in most proceedings, a law that dates back to the 1930s. The state Legislature has barely tinkered with it since then. Only Washington D.C. is more stringent on media coverage inside the court, according a report last year by the The Fund for Modern Courts, a nonpartisan nonprofit.
Some state lawmakers are making a renewed push to change the law amid Trump’s high-profile appearance Tuesday in Manhattan Criminal Court. — Politico
Our Take: “Cameras are not allowed in Federal court rooms, but are in MOST State court rooms. Perhaps getting the indictment against Trump dismissed isn’t the best path forward, especially if we can get some cameras in the court room for the trial!” — Just Human
Ukraine 'Ready' To Give Up Crimea, Says Zelensky Advisor
There has been much talk and reporting of the coming Spring counteroffensive by Ukraine forces, but with the fight for Bakhmut not going so well for Kiev, there's also been talk of the need for compromise, at a moment Ukrainian casualties in the east are believed to be high.
Last week we reported on President Volodymyr Zelensky's voicing rare doubts concerning Bakhmut - as if preparing his people for news of a devastating defeat. And now, on Wednesday, the Financial Times is reporting the single most important development to come out of the conflict in a long time: Zelensky's office says he's ready to compromise on the future of the Crimean peninsula.
Naturally, the Ukrainians present themselves as speaking from a position of having the upper hand, which is the general tone of the remarks that Andriy Sybiha, who is deputy head of Zelensky’s office, gave to FT. Per the publication, "Kyiv is willing to discuss the future of Crimea with Moscow if its forces reach the border of the Russian-occupied peninsula" - which marks the "most explicit statement of Ukraine’s interest in negotiations since it cut off peace talks with the Kremlin last April."
[…]
All of this represents a public reversal of sorts from Zelensky's prior hardened stance of seeking the return of every inch of Ukrainian territory. For example, last October while feeling emboldened after billions in defense aid was pledged from the US and Western allies, he declared in a nightly address, "We will definitely liberate Crimea." — ZeroHedge
Our Take: “Zelensky is ceding Narrative ground to Russia on the world stage, just as his “forces” have been ceding physical ground since February of 2022.
This comes on the heels of US and NATO rhetoric being dialed back on the prospect of Ukraine achieving victory against Putin’s Special Military Operation, and marks a continued shift in the sort of victory language the Globalist Establishment is employing.
It will be interesting to see when the Globalist puppet masters give up the ghost that is Ukraine, and admit that their latest bid at getting a Forever War started to mire Russia and Eastern Europe in as a means of laundering taxpayer money, favors and weapons is dead on arrival.
Better luck next time.” Burning Bright
Three GOP Reps. Introduce Gold Standard Bill to Stabilize the Dollar’s Value
As America faces the twin threats of inflation and bank failures, three U.S. congressmen introduced a pivotal sound-money bill that would enable the Federal Reserve note “dollar” to regain stable footing for the first time in more than half a century.
Rep. Alex Mooney, R-W.Va., joined by Reps. Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar, both Arizona Republicans, introduced H.R. 2435, the Gold Standard Restoration Act, to facilitate the repegging of the volatile Federal Reserve note to a fixed weight of gold bullion.
Upon passage of H.R. 2435, the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve are given 24 months to publicly disclose all gold holdings and gold transactions, after which time the Federal Reserve note “dollar” would be formally repegged to a fixed weight of gold at its then-market price. — Headline USA
Our Take: “A return to a gold-pegged dollar would likely have massive positive ramifications for the global economy, and the US economy. However, it wouldn't be a silver bullet. The US had a gold standard several times throughout its history.
The bimetal beginnings of the young US, which was a dual silver and gold system, went to a de facto gold standard in 1834 during the free banking era. In 1853, the first of several acts began the demonetization of silver, ending in the so-called crime of 73’, when silver was completely demonetized, effecting a de facto gold standard in the process. What followed was one of the worst depressions in US history.
A gold standard was formally put in place in 1900 with the passage of the Gold Standard Act. While the gold standard stabilized the economy to a certain extent, it caused problems as well. The same problems will face the nation today if we move back to a gold standard with the passage of the House bill. What are those problems? The same problems that have plagued every financial system on earth—a money system controlled by bankers and hidden actors instead of a money system controlled transparently and competently by the people.
Throughout history, currencies have been manipulated by what amounts to off-shore actors who use gold holdings to manipulate markets and currencies. The game is very old, reaching back thousands of years.
All this being said, a return to a gold standard could be a step in the right direction—but, again, it isn't a silver bullet. The only lasting solution to the machinations of the international bankers is for the people to master the law and the monetary system. Today, the vast majority of citizens have no idea what money truly is, how it relates to the law, how it should work (the "science" of money) and the proper role money should have in a truly free and God-centered society.
The founding fathers knew more than we did today. They knew that the rule of law and a sound money system were two sides of the same coin. As such, the quality of a financial system is directly proportional to the quality of the law system and the degree to which the citizenry is competent in the law. For now, it seems unlikely that the international bankers, who are gearing up for their Central Bank Digital Currencies push, will ever let the Americans ruin their plans. And yet, we can use this as a platform to begin the process of re-educating the citizenry.
One day, if we are to keep whatever freedoms we regain from our would-be masters, we will need to create and maintain a truly lawful financial system, where money is a tool of prosperity instead of an ambition unto itself.” — Justin Deschamps
Radical Left-Winger Brandon Johnson Wins Race for Chicago Mayor
Brandon Johnson, the far-left, self-professed “progressive” candidate who ran on a plan to defund the Chicago Police and raise the city’s taxes, has won his runoff campaign for mayor of Chicago.
Moderate Democrat Paul Vallas led Johnson for most of the night until around 8 p.m. when Johnson began overtaking the former Chicago Public Schools chief.
Vallas ran as a business-friendly, law-and-order candidate while Johnson, who is black, ran a brutal campaign calling Vallas a racist who is “really a Republican.”
The election came down to the wire with more than 500,000 Chicagoans casting their ballot for mayor, but in the end, Johnson was able to maintain his slight lead, although the counting will continue as absentee and mail-in votes are counted after Election Night. — Breitbart
Our Take: “In an outcome that should surprise no one, another radical leftist is elected mayor in a city that serves as a spawning ground for radical leftists. What's interesting here is the late surge in votes, which tends to indicate to us that perhaps some foul play was afoot. If true, it is interesting that they would have to even employ such methods in a city like Chicago, where typically an election like this would be a done deal.
It begs the question: if this surge was indeed the result of an artificial inflating of votes to secure the win, was Chicago potentially going to flip Red? Are things really getting that bad for our friends on the left-hand side of the aisle?” — Ryan DeLarme
State of Oregon Denies Woman’s Application to Adopt Based on Her Christian Faith
The state of Oregon is denying the application of a woman who wants to adopt because she is a Christian and will not agree to support gender transition if the child she adopts ends up being trans.
This is where the left has planned to take this argument from the start. It’s a backdoor way to openly discriminate against people of faith.
They don’t care about the welfare of children, they care about spreading their ideology.
Alliance Defending Freedom is suing on her behalf. — Gateway Pundit
Our Take: “Freedom of religion; it's a simple concept, yet one that set America apart from most of the world at one point in history. Rhode Island became the first colony with no established church and the first to grant religious freedom to everyone, including Quakers and Jews. As Virginia’s governor in 1779, Thomas Jefferson drafted a bill that would guarantee the religious freedoms of Virginians of all faiths—including those with no faith. And though the bill did not pass into law at that time, James Madison would go on to draft the First Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights that would provide constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the rights to assemble and petition the government.
The Constitution prohibits the use of religious tests as qualifications for public office. This broke with European tradition by allowing people of any faith (or no faith) to serve in public office in the United States. Over 240 years later, we have the reverse occurring, the State of Oregon refusing a woman's application to adopt based on her Christian faith.
I know that there are those who would prefer we be a strictly Christian nation, but those individuals often cannot empathize with and envision what it would be like to be on the receiving end of such an invasive dictate. Finding God is a miraculous thing; forcing it upon others who have not made the choice yet to seek God is the folly of man.
This applies both ways, refusing someone a rite that is afforded to others based solely on their religion is reprehensible, especially when it is coming from the very government that is supposed to uphold the freedom of religion.” — Ryan DeLarme
National security officials tell special counsel Trump was repeatedly warned he did not have the authority to seize voting machines
Former top national security officials have testified to a federal grand jury that they repeatedly told former President Donald Trump and his allies that the government didn’t have the authority to seize voting machines after the 2020 election, CNN has learned.
Chad Wolf, the former acting Homeland Security secretary, and his former deputy Ken Cuccinelli were asked about discussions inside the administration around DHS seizing voting machines when they appeared before the grand jury earlier this year, according to three people familiar with the proceedings. Cuccinelli testified that he “made clear at all times” that DHS did not have the authority to take such a step, one of the sources said.
Trump’s former national security adviser Robert O’Brien, in a closed-door interview with federal prosecutors earlier this year, also recounted conversations about seizing voting machines after the 2020 election, including during a heated Oval Office meeting that Trump participated in, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Details about the secret grand jury testimony and O’Brien’s interview, neither of which have been previously reported, illustrate how special counsel Jack Smith and his prosecutors are looking at the various ways Trump tried to overturn his electoral loss despite some of his top officials advising him against the ideas. — CNN
Our Take: “Leaks are real, news is fake. Keep that in mind when reading this piece. Filter out the spin on it and find the important info.
It is true that DHS did not have the authority to seize the machines. They are the property of the respective States and Localities they are located in. We don't want the Federal government having the ability to seize property from the States on the whims or EO's of a President. If there is an investigation that results in a judge ordering such a seizure, fine, but have an Executive being able to order such things is not a road we want to go down.
Imagine if Obama had ordered the seizure of machines after Trump won in 2016 and used that to try and prevent Trump from taking office. Not good.
There is a line in this article that is very interesting to me. I think it's a huge tell.
‘That line of questioning goes to the heart of Smith’s challenge in any criminal case he might bring – to prove that Trump and his allies pursued their efforts despite knowing their fraud claims were false or their gambits weren’t lawful. To bring any potential criminal charges, prosecutors would have to overcome Trump’s public claim that he believed then and now that fraud really did cost him the election.’
This means that Special Counsel Smith must investigate the claims of election fraud. Special Counsel Smith must investigate the fortification of the 2020 election.
Boom.” — Just Human
We hope you enjoyed this brief look back at the major news items you might have missed in this ever-escalating and ever-accelerating news cycle as the Information War continues to rage on around us.
The Badlands Media team will continue to combine our cognitive powers in order to slow things down and find the signal amidst the noise as this series expands.
As always, if you have any thoughts on these news items or the MANY others swirling in the digital ether, drop into the comments below to share them with your fellow Badlanders.
Badlands Media will always put out our content for free, but you can support us by becoming a paid subscriber to this newsletter. Help our collective of citizen journalists take back the narrative from the MSM. We are the news now.
To pile on to Ryan's comment that Barbara replied to: The account of creation is centered on the idea that God, desiring a really big family, fashioned bodies and created souls made in His image and likeness - Male and Female by the way - and then breathed in His spirit/breath. To complete His desire, He included free will - with all the bad and good that that would produce - and a means to ransom us from the negative implications that were part and parcel to the creation of mankind! If force was to be used He could and would have used it - but that would have (and still would be) directly and totally contradictory to God's original intent. Jesus said it best (on what became known as Palm Sunday) "And if anyone hears my sayings, and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world." (John 12:47-48)
My deepest thanks for the work you all do - this, along with a good cup of coffee, are a big part of my morning routine.
In the article "National security officials tell special counsel Trump was repeatedly warned he did not have the authority to seize voting machines", one must know that KEN CUCCINELLI is the founder of the group "Never Back Down", a pro-DeSantis, anti- Trump group. (aka, Never Trumpers!) With that in mind, might he have ulterior motives, and can he be trusted, even under oath in a Grand Jury?!