Luongo On The Speakership Impasse
We’ll get to Luongo and the Speakership, but first …
It’s hard enough getting reliable information on events in distant places, but it doesn’t help when MSM outlets falsify. After all, how many tweets and such are still based on MSM news accounts? Lots. This is why I try to comb through a lot of different sources. So it was refreshing to learn that Elon Musk revoked NYT’s verification badge. One of NYT’s offenses, apparently, was to publish a story about the hospital strike in Gaza, but featuring a photo of a different, heavily bombed, building. That’s not a matter of opinion or debate. In fairness, please note: David refers to "a flood of false information,” quoting Drew Harwell, but I haven’t attempted to verify the claim of a flood—beyond the photo in question. Musk didn’t actually specify the reason for removing the verification tag:
Breaking:
@elonmusk removed New York Times' verification badge, following a flood of false information it published on the Israel-Gaza war.
Still, it’s refreshing to see Musk taking this kind of action.
So, on to Tom Luongo’s somewhat cryptic comments on the Speakership impasse. Of course Tom has spoken/written about the political dynamics of what’s going on in much more detail than his few tweets today, but you’d need to go back through some of his podcasts to get that detail. Nevertheless, those few tweets do point us toward things to watch.
First of all, I’ve quoted Tom several times to the effect that Kev McCarthy is basically owned by the big NY banks. Well, being Speaker is, to a significant degree, a fund raising job, right? Further, Trump is the guy who pretty much shaped Powell’s Fed with his appointments. So the fact that McCarthy and Trump have both endorsed Jim Jordan may be significant.
Second, Tom has consistently maintained that Powell’s Fed took out FTX and the failed West Coast money laundering banks. We see that Bankman-Fried’s trial isn’t going well for him. Since our boy Sam was a conduit for money to Capitol Hill (and beyond), it would follow that recipients of his fraudulent largesse would want to keep their paws on the levers of power, to prevent too much investigating. So here’s food for thought.
First, Tom identifies the Neocons as opposed to a Jordan Speakership:
Tom Luongo (Head Sneetch) @TFL1728
The Neocons win this round to get us through the next budget crisis... bond market pain finally caught up.
What else is behind the impasse? Money—duh!
BREAKING REPORT: 14 Republican HOLDOUTS including Steve Scalise attempting to stop JIM JORDAN purportedly implicated in FTX AND VOTER MULE donations.. Steve Scalise (R-LA), who is opposing Jim Jordan's bid for House Speaker, received financial contributions from Sam Bankman-Fried's illegal FTX campaign finance operation. Thirteen of the 22 RINO holdouts also received donations from the same source. Scalise is a key figure among the 22 Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) who have thwarted Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) from securing the House Speakership, despite having been endorsed by former President Trump. Jordan has strong support from grassroots conservatives, with many constituents inundating congressional offices with phone calls in favor of his candidacy. Source: https://joehoft.com/breaking-exclusive-steve-scalise-and-13-rino-holdouts-derailing-jim-jordan-are-connected-to-ftx-and-voter-mule-donations/…
To which Luongo responds:
Tom Luongo (Head Sneetch) @TFL1728
The Deuce you say?
Back in November, we talked explicitly about who blew up FTX and why.... HINT: It was the Fed and the NY Boys. Now, the fight for Capitol Hill is in Round 6. Knockout blow coming.
Check out Eps. #123 through #127 of the GGnG Podcast. @fountain_app
9:34 AM · Oct 20, 2023
We shall see.
Tom Luongo has interesting theories. I follow a lot of channels (not MSM) to get as many ideas as possible then I’ll make my own opinions. I listening Tom’s agreements almost for 2 years. He is even more brutal behind pay wall. Anyway, I think he was the 1st one arguing that Powell and Dimon are on the same team. It didn’t make any sense when JPow start raising rates and then Dimon went to Davos and told Bloomberg on live TV - wake up, the oil will be here for about 50 years or so.
Most of Tom’s thoughts make sense, worth to consider to watch.
I wonder if the NY boys are wary about how CBDCs would affect commercial banking. How would capital be raised? How would markets operate? Who would determine distribution.
Seems like a rehash of the Roundheads against the Cavaliers, parliamentarians vs the crown.
CBDCs represent ‘digital feudalism’ (great term and a lot is written on the topic) whereas capital represents freedom of capital flow.