The Bank of Crooks And Criminals

Endless Lies. Endless Wars. Endless Inflation.

This feature is a follow-up to ‘Friends in High Places,’ and is best read with that feature in mind.

---

How did Citibank become Citigroup?

They had friends in high places.

What do those friends in high places give you?

Two things.

Favored treatment and protection.

Citibank was a commercial bank and was wanting to expand and grow, but one law prevented them from moving into the investment banking world. That law was the Glass-Steagall Act. It was passed into law because Citibank was blamed for the market crash in 1929, which led to the Great Depression and the shuttering of around 4000 banks nationwide. Citibank had packaged bad loans into securities and sold them, not just nationwide, but around the world.

It became a cabal template for the future.

When everything crashed, these corrupt banks like Citibank and their elite friends all got wealthier, while the nation suffered for years and many Americans lost everything.

Through it all, Citibank has just become more powerful over the years because they’ve bought politicians and bureaucrats who were supposed to be regulating them to prevent another banking collapse.

As I wrote about in my last article, the Glass-Steagall Act was gutted in 1999 in a bipartisan push for deregulation.

But who was behind the push?

According to The Guardian:

Wall Street deregulation, blamed for deepening the banking crisis, was aggressively pushed by advisers to Bill Clinton who have also been at the heart of current White House policy-making, according to newly disclosed documents from his presidential library.

The previously restricted papers reveal two separate attempts, in 1995 and 1997, to hurry Clinton into supporting a repeal of the Depression-era Glass Steagall Act and allow investment banks, insurers and retail banks to merge.

A Financial Services Modernization Act was passed by Congress in 1999, giving retrospective clearance to the 1998 merger of Citigroup and Travelers Group and unleashing a wave of Wall Street consolidation that was later blamed for forcing taxpayers to spend billions bailing out the enlarged banks after the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

You need to understand the timeline here.

Citibank was already completing the merger with Travelers Group, which was illegal, according to the Glass-Steagall Act. Citibank as a commercial bank was supposed to remain separated from any insurance company or investment bank.

But Citibank has always been politically connected.

There were powerful people within the Clinton administration that were doing Citibank’s bidding and pressuring Clinton in order to hurry the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Not surprisingly, one of them worked at the Treasury Department.

More from The Guardian:

Earlier, in February 1995, newly-appointed Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, his deputy Bo Cutter and senior advisers including John Podesta gave the president three days to decide whether to back a repeal of Glass-Steagall.

In what Cutter described as “an action forcing event”, he wrote to Clinton on 21 February, telling him Rubin wanted to announce the policy before it was raised by the House banking committee on 1 March.

Robert Rubin was the “newly appointed” Treasury Secretary for President Bill Clinton. Citibank had been recruiting leaders from the Treasury department to work for them going back many generations, so it shouldn’t surprise you that Robert Rubin would go on to lead Citibank after he left the Clinton administration. There’s a direct pipeline from the Treasury Department to Citibank.

John Podesta also played a big role in convincing Clinton to get rid of the Glass-Steagall Act.

More from The Guardian:

Podesta, who was then staff secretary but went on to become Clinton’s chief of staff, wrote a covering note telling the president that all his senior advisers backed the plan, although he noted the danger that “allowing banks to engage in riskier activities like securities or insurance could subject the deposit insurance fund to added risk”.

But Clinton’s advisers repeatedly reassured him that the decision to let Wall Street dismantle regulatory barriers designed to protect the public after the Great Depression simply represented inevitable modernization .

John Podesta became Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, and then later became campaign chairman for Hillary Clinton’s run for president in 2016. Those were powerful positions working for one of the most powerful and corrupt political couples in the world. The Clinton’s are the Jezebel and Ahab of the modern world, in my opinion.

John Podesta has been a powerful insider for a long time, and that’s not a coincidence. There’s a reason for that.

More on that in a coming article.

Podesta knew that allowing banks to engage in riskier securities and insurance would put Federal Deposit Insurance at risk. FDIC insurance is just tax payers money disguised as deposit insurance. It is a banking scam. Clinton’s advisers encouraged him to “let Wall Street dismantle regulatory barriers” that were put in place to protect the American people. Citibank was behind this push because of their merger with the Travelers Group. That merger made Citicorp the biggest bank in the world, so they changed their name to Citigroup.

But who was really behind the push to make Citicorp the largest bank in the world?

Guess who controlled Citicorp in 1999 when Clinton and the uni-party repealed the Glass-Steagall Act?

According to The New York Times:

Citicorp, the nation's largest banking company, said yesterday that a member of the Saudi royal family, Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, had agreed to invest $590 million, in a deal that will help Citicorp strengthen its finances.

The investment will make Prince al-Waleed the largest single shareholder in Citicorp. The Prince, who quietly bought about 4.9 percent of Citicorp's common stock in the last months of 1990, could eventually own as much as 14.9 percent of the company with his new stake. But he will not be represented on Citicorp's board and has promised not to try to gain control over the company.

Prince Alwaleed became the biggest shareholder in Citicorp back in 1991, and he promised not to try to gain control of the bank. That was a lie. Taking control of the most corrupt bank in the world was always the purpose.

More from The New York Times:

At a time when Citicorp's stock has fallen out of favor with investors and Moody's Investors Service has downgraded Citicorp preferred stock to a speculative "junk" rating, Prince Waleed appears to have struck a very good deal. In addition to an 11 percent dividend on the new issue of convertible preferred stock, he may earn a profit if Citicorp common stock rises above $16 a share. The Prince may convert his nonvoting preferred stock to voting common stock at a price of $16 a share, which is only slightly higher than yesterday's price of $15.375.

Not many people could get that kind of a deal—an eleven percent dividend and he could convert his preferred stock into common shares and earn a profit if the stock rose above $16. What was the price when he bought the shares? It was sitting just below that conversion price at $15.375.

So as soon as it went above $16, Alwaleed got to convert his “non-voting” preferred stock into “voting” common stock, and he also profited in a huge way.

Make no mistake, Prince Alwaleed controlled Citicorp when he owned almost 15% of the stock.

So eight years later, in 1999, when Citicorp was pressuring the Clinton administration to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, the person who was going to benefit the most was Prince Alwaleed. Citicorp was merging with the Travelers Group to become the biggest bank in the world, and the Glass-Steagall Act was preventing it, so the law was repealed.

Prince Alwaleed not only got a sweetheart deal when he helped “bailout” Citicorp, he also got favored treatment from the Federal Reserve.

How?

More from the New York Times:

The Federal Reserve informally approved the Prince's investment on Tuesday. And it has indicated that it will grant official approval if the Prince's investment rises above 10 percent of Citicorp's total common stock. The Federal Reserve's approval is required for any purchase of 10 percent or more of the stock of an American banking company.

Why was Alwaleed getting such preferential treatment? Was it just because he was wealthy? Or was it more than that?

And here’s another great question:

Why was Citicorp in need of a private bailout back in 1991 anyway?

Here’s where an interesting connection comes in that begins to reveal a much bigger connection.

According to The New York Times:

Citicorp, the largest U.S. banking company, paid the price Tuesday for years of heedless expansion by swallowing $930 million in charges for cutting staff and writing down bad loans. The move resulted in a third-quarter loss of $885 million.

The bank skipped its common-stock dividend, and two rating agencies put Citicorp's long-term paper on watch or lowered it, which could increase the bank's cost of raising funds.

Back in 1991, Citibank had lost nearly a billion dollars in one quarter on bad loans. Rating agencies were downgrading the bank, and they stopped paying a dividend. The bank was in real trouble when Alwaleed stepped in to save them.

A lot of those bad loans were from a specific area. Can you guess where?

Have you ever heard of Latin America’s “Lost Decade?”

According to Federal Reserve History:

During the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s—a period often referred to as the “lost decade”—many Latin American countries became unable to service their foreign debt.

Latin American borrowing from US commercial banks and other creditors increased dramatically during the 1970s. At the end of 1970, total outstanding debt from all sources totaled only $29 billion, but by the end of 1978, that number had skyrocketed to $159 billion. By 1982, the debt level reached $327 billion.

The potential risk of the growing involvement of US banks in Latin American and other less-developed country (LDC) debt didn’t go unnoticed. In 1977, during a speech at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business, then-Fed Chairman Arthur Burns criticized commercial banks for assuming excessive risk in their Third World lending (FDIC 1997). Still, by 1982, the nine largest US money-center banks held Latin American debt amounting to 176 percent of their capital; their total LDC debt was nearly 290 percent of capital.

Nominal interest rates rose globally, and in 1981 the world economy entered a recession. At the same time, commercial banks began to shorten re-payment periods and charge higher interest rates for loans. The Latin American countries soon found their debt burdens unsustainable.

The 1980s was called the “lost decade” for many Latin American countries, and that was no accident.

As I’ve written about before, the CIA/shadow government led by George H.W. Bush, was installing dictators and fighting proxy wars to protect their global drug trafficking in Latin America at that time.

While that was happening, American commercial banks like Citibank, were lending these countries a lot of money and putting these puppet governments into debt. It’s the same cabal playbook. It was making the banks a lot of money and giving the cabal control of the governments and economies. But then something happened that changed everything.

What was it?

More from Federal Reserve History:

The spark for the crisis occurred in August 1982, when Mexican Finance Minister Jesús Silva Herzog informed the Federal Reserve chairman, the US Treasury secretary, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) managing director that Mexico would no longer be able to service its debt, which at that point totaled $80 billion. Other countries quickly followed suit. Ultimately, sixteen Latin American countries rescheduled their debts, as well as eleven LDCs in other parts of the world.

Mexico defaulted on its debt, which triggered another sixteen Latin American countries to do the same. That’s what helped cause the write down of over $800 million in bad loans by Citibank that led to Prince Alwaleed coming to their rescue.

At the time, Prince Alwaleed wasn’t well known outside of Saudi Arabia. He had already quietly bought $200 million worth of Citibank common stock on the open market in 1990, before he bought another $590 million in preferred stock that he converted to common stock, which made him the largest individual shareholder of Citicorp.

This one investment put Prince Alwaleed on the world stage. He had just taken control of the most politically connected and corrupt bank in America. This investment would make him much wealthier and a lot more powerful.

How wealthy did Alwaleed get by bailing out Citibank?

According to Forbes:

Alwaleed began to get seriously rich in 1991, when he invested nearly $800 million in Citicorp, including $590 million in convertible preferred stock. At the time plenty of intelligent people thought Citi might fail. Alwaleed figured it was too big to fail and that Citi's brand name and worldwide presence made it a great way to play global growth.

Alwaleed already knew that Citibank was “too big to fail” way back in 1991. Why? Because it was the most politically connected bank in the United States.

More from Forbes:

Citi's stock has since climbed from $15 a share when Alwaleed bought in to $141. After selling 8 million shares and recouping much of his initial investment several years ago, Alwaleed now sits on a 9.1% Citi stake that is worth $5.8 billion and pumped out $210 million in dividends in just the last three years.

Citibank became a cash cow for Alwaleed, but more importantly, it tied him directly to the shadow government that George H.W. Bush had set up that was controlling the government. Citibank has always been a major money laundering bank for the CIA, and that was already known by Alwaleed before he bailed the bank out.

This is when Alwaleed began taking control of political puppets in the United States.

Example: Alwaleed HUMA BO Citigroup US Control

Why is this relevant?

House of Saud.

House of Saud US Control.

When Alwaleed took control of Citigroup, it was his first step in taking control of the United States. His arrest later in Saudi Arabia not only removed him from the chessboard, but his bank records also revealed a lot of things. I talked about that in my first article in this series titled ‘Trump Takes Out The King.’

But who is Prince Alwaleed? What is his background and how did he become so wealthy?

More from Forbes:

When FORBES first spoke with Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, he was 31 and worth around $1 billion. He had earned his early money in Saudi Arabian construction projects and had yet to diversify into U.S.
common stocks. Today Prince Alwaleed (he's a nephew of Saudi Arabian King Fahd) is 41 and worth nearly $13 billion.

Prince Alwaleed was a nephew of King Fahd, and back in 1998 he was worth $13 billion “after” his Citibank purchase. Some of his early money came from construction projects. That’s a key data point that we’ll come back to in a coming article.

More from Forbes:

Raised in Beirut by his Lebanese mother, Alwaleed earned a degree in business administration from Menlo College in northern California in 1979. He says he got his start that year with a house and $15,000, both gifts from his father. He moved into land speculation and the contracting business in Saudi Arabia. He claims to have made $450 million by 1983.

This important background on Alwaleed helps explain a lot that I will be revealing over the next several articles.

Alwaleed’s parents divorced when he was young, and he likes to share how his father gave him a small sum of money to get him started, and then he turned it into a fortune. But his story isn’t consistent, and what he rarely talks about is the connection to Citibank and his early success.

According to Vanity Fair:

The official story of how Alwaleed got his start in business is where, many people believe, the myths about him originate. Alwaleed claims his father gave him $30,000. Within a year, he had lost the money. He went back to his father, who gave him $300,000. This time, it took him three years to lose it. He went back to his father again, who refused to give him more money and instead gave him the deed to a house he was building for Alwaleed in Riyadh. “Go work for yourself,” his father admonished.

Alwaleed got a $600,000 mortgage on the house from a branch of Citibank in Riyadh. In pictures, the house looks like little more than a ramshackle structure and certainly not one that would serve as collateral for a large mortgage.

Alwaleed often tells the story of his dad giving him money to get started, but doesn’t often mention the house his dad gave him that Vanity Fair described as a “ramshackle structure.”

Citibank gave the young prince a large loan and used that ramshackle structure as collateral. He got favored treatment.

That was the beginning of Alwaleed’s relationship with the CIA’s most favored bank.

Prince Alwaleed’s mother was Lebanese, and he grew up in both Beirut and Riyadh because of his parents divorce. That’s very important. He was a nephew to the King of Saudi Arabia at the time, but had strong ties to Lebanon.

His family background and past history is more important than I think most people realize. That family history created powerful connections, but why wasn’t he in line to the throne?

According to Foreign Policy:

How Saudi is he? Not enough to ever be king. His father, Prince Talal, was born to an Armenian wife of King Abdulaziz, who reigned from 1936 to 1953, which is decidedly the wrong pedigree. To ascend to the throne, princes should possess an entirely Arab family tree. Al-Waleed's own mother was Lebanese, which compounds the problem. He has hundreds of other cousins with better credentials for the throne.

Alwaleed did not have an entire Arab family tree, and because of that, he had no chance at ever becoming king of Saudi Arabia. But that didn’t prevent him from becoming one of the most powerful people in Saudi Arabia and the world.

Don’t miss this important fact: Prince Alwaleed had family ties to both Lebanon and Armenia. I’m going to reveal how important those connections are in coming articles.

Prince Alwaleed was in a unique position because of his family background. It helped him develop very important contacts, which would make him a global power broker.

Both of his grandparents were very powerful. He was grandson to King Abdulaziz, who was the first king of Saudi Arabia. He was also grandson to Riad Al Sohl, who was the first Prime Minister of Lebanon.

Prince Alwaleed would become far more powerful than both his grandfathers.

I want to offer an important distinction: Kings and prime ministers rule countries and can have a lot of influence around the world, but their power is limited. The small group of puppet masters that have controlled the world also control kings, prime ministers and presidents.

Q told us who these puppet masters were. Here’s a portion of Q drop 133:

This Q drop was not referring to the king of Saudi Arabia as a puppet master. It was referring to Prince Alwaleed, and I will make that case in the coming articles.

Alwaleed became very wealthy and was considered one of the wealthiest men in the world. Q said their wealth disclosures were false. Alwaleed wasn’t just a billionaire, he controlled trillions of dollars. I’ll make that case in the coming articles too. Governments he controlled funneled money to him and he also gained wealth through slush funds and wars. Lots of money. Money is power.

As I’ve been saying, Prince Alwaleed was the biggest threat to Trump when he became president.

He wasn’t well known before he bailed out Citibank.

But why did he bailout Citibank?

Was it just to get wealthier?

That’s been the media narrative.

Let’s connect some important dots that will lead into the next article.

Do you remember from my previous articles, how Citibank laundered drug money for the Medellin cartel and the corrupt Salinas family in Mexico using private bankers and accountants? They were both CIA operations.

Citibank was one of George H.W. Bush’s main money laundering banks for CIA drug trafficking. It was politically connected and had been for generations.

Let me ask the question again.

Why did Alwaleed bailout Citibank?

The answer may surprise you, and it’s going to reveal several things.

According to The New York Times:

For weeks, Prince al-Waleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia pondered the notion of spending a spare half-billion dollars. Then last month, on the recommendation of American advisers, he used the money to buy up a sizable piece of America's largest banking company, Citicorp.

You’ll never guess who the American advisers were and who they are connected to.

More from The New York Times:

The advisers were the Carlyle Group -- not a familiar name on Wall Street, certainly.

The Carlyle Group, relatively new and based in Washington, is led by people with little experience in the investment business but with strong connections, especially in Washington.

Political connections are important, especially when a shadow government is controlling the country. The Carlyle Group was connected to the most powerful man in Washington at the time.

Can you guess who it was?

More from The New York Times:

David M. Rubenstein, a founding partner, served as a domestic policy adviser to President Jimmy Carter; Frank C. Carlucci, the vice chairman, was Defense Secretary in the Reagan Administration, and Frederick V. Malek, an adviser, is close to President Bush.

Who are these three Carlyle advisers that encouraged Alwaleed to bail out Citibank, and who are they all closely related to?

David Rubenstein is always described as a wealthy philanthropist for his many donations to worthy causes. He reminds me of John Jacob Astor, who bailed out Citibank back in 1837. Astor was also a huge philanthropist, but got wealthy in ways that often took advantage of the poor.

According to The Chronicle:

While those who live in mobile homes usually own their residence, they pay rent on the land it’s residing in. In the past few years, private equity firms have been buying up mobile home parks and sharply increasing rent to astronomical levels for the majority low-income residents.

While his accomplishments are well broadcasted, what you won’t hear in Rubenstein’s 2017 commencement address or read in Duke Today is how his investment firm has produced millions in returns for investors through “preying” on poor residents.

Private equity firms work by collecting large sums of money from the uber-wealthy to buy companies in hopes of changing them to turn a profit—often through maneuvers like laying off workers or, in the case of the Carlyle Group and manufactured homes parks, buying the community land and gouging low-income residents who can’t afford to move. Carlyle group has also made its billions through “investing in the defense and national security markets.

Gouging low-income residents has been a cabal template forever. But these wealthy cabal puppets know that if they make large donations to newsworthy projects, then they will be seen as philanthropists instead of oppressors.

The Carlyle Group also invested in defense and national security companies. I’ll have more on that in my next article. This is where Frank Carlucci comes in.

According to The Nation:

Last November Frank Carlucci, chairman of the Carlyle Group, spoke to a conference on national security sponsored by the Pentagon and the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank where he sits on the board of directors. His topic, "Employing the Instruments of National Power in a Complex Environment," was a perfect metaphor for Carlucci's career, which has taken him from the CIA to the highest ranks of the defense and national security establishment and, finally, to the top of one of the world's largest private equity funds.

The Carlyle Group was a CIA operation from the beginning.

Frank Carlucci was the number two man at the CIA during the Jimmy Carter administration before becoming a national security advisor for Ronald Reagan, and then Secretary of Defense when Caspar Weinberger was forced out because of the Iran Contra scandal.

Carlucci was close friends with Donald Rumsfeld and would advocate for a huge arms buildup to end the Cold War that would benefit the Bush family, the military industrial complex, the CIA and ultimately the Carlyle Group. More on that in the next article.

How about Frederick Malek? Who is he?

According to Wikipedia:

Frederic Vincent Malek (December 22, 1936 – March 24, 2019) was an American business executive, political advisor, fraudster, and philanthropist. He was a president of Marriott Hotels and Northwest Airlines and an assistant to United States Presidents Richard Nixon (in whose purge of Jewish government employees Malek would take an active role) and George H. W. Bush.

Active in politics for more than fifty years, Malek also served as a National Finance Committee Chair of Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, as well as the finance chair for the Republican Governors Association, and played various roles in the campaign of every Republican nominee for president, with the exception of Donald Trump, over the past four decades.

Frederick Malek was an aide to President George H.W. Bush, and then became a major player in finance for the Republican Party, giving Bush Sr. a lot of control over the Republican Party.

That ended when Trump stepped into the ring.

Malek has been a close friend to the Bush family for a long time. He was a Green Beret in Vietnam, and I’m pretty sure he’s known George H.W. Bush since then. He got caught by the SEC bribing a political figure but was only forced to pay a fine.

These three members of the Carlyle Group encouraged Prince Alwaleed to take control of Citicorp back in 1991. All three of them have a long history with George H.W. Bush.

The Carlyle Group would soon become one of the largest private equity firms in the world.

Why did Bush want Alwaleed to take control of Citicorp in 1991?

Timing is everything.

The CIA/shadow government’s biggest money laundering operation was being exposed at the time, and their dark money funding sources were in danger.

Do you remember what was happening in 1990 and 1991?

It was the biggest banking scandal in history.

Have you heard of the BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International) banking scandal?

According to Wikipedia:

Investigators in the United States and the UK determined that BCCI had been "set up deliberately to avoid centralized regulatory review, and operated extensively in bank secrecy jurisdictions. Its affairs were extraordinarily complex. Its officers were sophisticated international bankers whose apparent objective was to keep their affairs secret, to commit fraud on a massive scale, and to avoid detection.

In addition to violations of lending laws, BCCI was also accused of opening accounts or laundering money for figures such as Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Hussain Muhammad Ershad, and Samuel Doe, and for criminal organizations such as the Medellin Cartel and Abu Nidal. Police and intelligence experts nicknamed BCCI the "Bank of Crooks and Criminals International" for its penchant for catering to customers who dealt in arms, drugs, and hot money.

Did you catch some of those customers of this crooked bank? Guess who else had accounts at BCCI?

More from Wikipedia:

William von Raab, a former U.S. Commissioner of Customs, also told the Kerry Committee that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency held "several" accounts at BCCI. According to a 1991 article in Time magazine, the National Security Council also had accounts at BCCI, which were used for a variety of covert operations, including transfers of money and weapons during the Iran–Contra affair.

I’m sure it probably doesn’t surprise many people that the CIA and National Security Council had accounts at this massive money laundering bank. This story was gaining worldwide media attention.

More from Wikipedia:

BCCI became the focus of a massive regulatory battle in 1991, and, on 5 July of that year, customs and bank regulators in seven countries raided and locked down records of its branch offices during Operation C-Chase.

This BCCI story is bigger than most people realize, and unfortunately, not a lot of people even remember it. There’s a reason most people don’t remember much about BCCI.

The cabal changed the narrative.

Timing is everything.

George H.W. Bush was president at the time, and he should have been feeling the heat over this scandal. Guess what happened in 1990 that changed the narrative and dominated the headlines for the next year?

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

According to Wikipedia:

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait began on 2 August 1990 and marked the beginning of the Gulf War. After defeating the State of Kuwait on 4 August 1990, Iraq went on to militarily occupy the country for the next seven months.

The Gulf War would dominate the entire media narrative as President George H.W. Bush built up a great “coalition” of 42 countries to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

According to Wikipedia:

The Gulf War was an armed conflict between Iraq and a 42-country coalition led by the United States. The coalition's efforts against Iraq were carried out in two key phases: Operation Desert Shield, which marked the military buildup from August 1990 to January 1991; and Operation Desert Storm, which began with the aerial bombing campaign against Iraq on 17 January 1991 and came to a close with the American-led liberation of Kuwait on 28 February 1991.

Operation Desert Shield would fill the headlines for several months, and then Desert Storm would completely wipe away the thought of the BCCI scandal from the media narrative.

Mission accomplished.

The biggest bank scandal in history was forgotten because of a war.

As Q said:

“Public truths of some events force WARS.”

Wars are often started as a cover-up for massive crimes.

George H.W. Bush feared the BCCI banking scandal being fully exposed, so he started a war.

The Gulf War was a coverup that turned into a massive money laundering operation.

We’ll go deeper into this in my next article, along with more interesting history of Prince Alwaleed.

---

Badlands Media articles and features represent the opinions of the contributing authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Badlands Media itself.

---

If you enjoyed this contribution to Badlands Media, please consider checking out more of Joe’s work for free at Joe Lange’s Substack.

---

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.