Voting Out Dems in November is Only Step One

by John Hayward via threadreader

The pushback from groomers and their powerful, media-dominant, filthy rich enablers should convince America's parents that the battle for their children will not end with voting Dems out of office in November. That's just the BEGINNING. That's Step One.

Do you understand now that these people are absolutely, fanatically committed to the belief that your children belong to THEM - that you middle- and lower-class Deplorable bitter clingers are not wise, intelligent, or moral enough to teach your own kids about sex, racism, etc.?

Do you understand that while it's certainly not every teacher or school district that's a problem, public education is riddled with these fanatics - and they hold positions of great power throughout the education bureaucracy? It's not just a couple of kooks here and there.

You angry, activated parents haven't done much yet except speak up at a few school board meetings and discuss the problem online - but you've already been banned, shamed, treated like terrorists, and threatened with reprisals by left-wing corporate ideologues.

You cannot possibly believe the problem will be solved by electing some different legislators, even if November is a tidal wave such has never seen before. Do not imagine the groomer complex will interpret electoral ruin as a "defeat" and back down. They do NOT think that way.

For one thing, to get the drearily obvious out of the way, GOP politicians require constant chiropractic care from motivated constituents to keep their spines straight. They have a dismal track record of backing down from the titanic left-wing establishment after they reach D.C.

Is that really so surprising, especially today, after decades of relentless Washington movement to the Left, and the unimaginable accumulation of power and wealth by the Leviathan State and its unionized permanent bureaucracy? You send a few Davids to fight a legion of Goliaths.

This prospective Great Red Wave of 2022 will crash into the mighty fortifications of our zillion-dollar government and its media establishment. A few reformers will climb the battlements to find themselves facing down a vast, implacably hostile bureaucratic army.

The whole point of the CRT and groomer controversies is that the vast public education establishment, the mighty ocean of money surging behind it, and its powerful corporate and media friends really, truly, fanatically believe you are not fit to raise your own children.

Their key argument all along - and the core principle of Great Reset authoritarianism - is that you don't DESERVE "representation" on these issues of "settled expert consensus." You weren't even supposed to know what your kids were being indoctrinated with in school.

The only reason this huge political battle is taking shape right now is that the dumbass arrogant "experts" forgot that when they locked you in your house with the kids for a year or more, you were inevitably going to notice what they were getting via "remote learning."

So no, the indoctrinators will not look at an epic electoral drubbing in the next election and think: "Gee, the public is really opposed to our agenda, and they just proved they're serious. I guess we should heed the will of the people and go back to teaching math and stuff."

They will think they have a pretty good chance of beating your new elected representatives into submission. They're already redoubling their efforts to make you feel isolated and overwhelmed with their media domination, nicely setting the stage for Republican Failure Theater.

And even if the GOP surprises you and rallies wholeheartedly for this fight, you're talking about taking on a deeply corrupt and politicized education establishment with endless billions in funding and support that has been developing its power for DECADES.

You can't reform that sort of bureaucratic beast in one election, especially when its political wing controls the White House. (But don't let the GOP Congress tell you they're absolutely powerless and nothing can be done until they have the presidency too!)

You're talking about promoting reforms that would put thousands of jobs on the line, many of them overpaid administrators who donate huge amounts of money to the Democrats. They will fight back, and unlike you, they know for a fact they own their political representatives.

American parents, it is my grim duty to inform you that you're fighting a political agenda with fanatical adherents and a trillion-dollar war chest. You discovered the problem during the pandemic, but the agenda and its implementation techniques were developed over decades.

The people you're about to engage in political battle are convinced their ideology requires the indoctrination of your children to survive. This is "fatal terrain" for them. It's must-win. They don't think they stand a chance if they have to persuade adults to vote for them.

And if you haven't noticed by now, they absolutely HATE and despise you with every fiber of their beings. If you're quietly obedient, they view you with condescension and contempt at best. Now that you're pushing back, they really DO think of you as terrorists. Expect their fury.

You need to buckle up for a long, difficult struggle that merely BEGINS with a big win in November - and if you don't hand the Dems a scorched-earth defeat, it might never get off the ground. The election should give you the tools you need - then it's time to get to work. /end

And we Know, Christian Patriot News, and more-April 22

 

Just getting through, bit by bit. (man, I hate being and sounding sniffly). Here's tonight's news:

The Great and Unreliable Informant

Social media is not conducive to the clear-headed and dispassionate evaluation of alternatives that must characterize every prudential decision.

by Anthony Esolen for American Greatness

There was a dust-up recently when a group of Christians on an airplane on Easter Sunday got out a guitar and began to sing Christian praise songs. At the moment, I have heard conflicting reports over whether the flight was commercial or chartered by the Christians themselves. If it was a commercial flight, I’d find their behavior rude and counterproductive. On the other hand, a “flash mob” singing the Hallelujah Chorus in a shopping mall—that seems a glorious thing indeed. I suppose that the distinction lies in the peculiar physical sense of crowding and confinement that characterizes the airplane flight. There is no way out.

In the meantime, as everyone plugged into the Great and Unreliable Informant knows, Elon Musk, whose worth is $283 billion, has been trying to gain control over Twitter, one of the liveliest of the Informant’s vehicles. Musk is vaguely libertarian in his secular outlook, and that has caused some conservatives, who will take tiny favors wherever they think they can get them, to cheer him on. 

Liberals—statists, more properly speaking—complain that Musk is too wealthy, and some of them, a bit wobbly in their arithmetic, have said that Musk could give a million or a billion to every homeless person in America and still have enough left over for Twitter and pizza. They complain that he has not paid his “fair share,” though they never quite explain what that share is and how they determine it.

Now, the real problem with Musk is not personal but, as liberal theologians are fond of saying, structural, and it is similar to the problem posed by the singers on the airplane, assuming that it had been a commercial flight. For a few minutes, the singers were exercising great power over a captive audience. They were exercising what I have called the power of the turnpike, or of the only bridge across a river. You place yourself in a position that compels people to go through you or to go along with you or to accede to you if they want to transact their ordinary business. Such turnpikes are largely artificial. Sometimes they develop without any ill-will or Machiavellian calculation. Sometimes they are extortionate from their inception. They can sometimes be conducive to the common good, as when a nation desires to shelter and foster a fledgling industry and hands it over to an effective and temporary monopoly. 

But I would not depend on it. 

It should give us the shivers to consider that a few men, or worse, a few algorithms, should exert tremendous influence upon what billions of people see and read and think. We are far past the thumb on a scale. Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos, unaccountable to anyone but the stockholders of their companies, and to them only in the most distant and general way, are each more powerful than any individual senator or congressman. When it comes not only to shaping public opinion but doing so without appearing to do so, they are surely more powerful than Congress itself. They are, so to speak, beaming their molecules from the Enterprise to any selected coordinates on the political planet, while Senator Jack S. Phogbound is asking at the general store if anyone is nearby who can mend a broken wagon wheel.

Their influence is more dangerous for its being largely invisible. Does a single congressman know what happens when he types his own name into a search engine? Or a phrase such as “church and state”? The old card catalog in the library was an honest sort of machine. But Google is not, and probably cannot afford to be. 

Imagine a ghostly confidence-man who, when you express some interest in “the Oregon Trail,” will shuffle the cards in the catalog so that you see some things first, or in bright colors, and others only later, if at all. Imagine, too, that the information on the cards is not the bare facts of who wrote what, when, and where, but a blurb posing as mere information. Imagine the Shuffler in the act in millions of places at once, by virtue of its all-rummaging and all-meddling algorithms of choice, of sifting, of categorizing, and of ranking. There has never been anything like it. 

Of course, it is possible to find what you want if you are patient or dogged and you already have a clear idea of your object. But the great power of the Shuffler is that it need not care about the residual people who still exercise patience. Arguing with three people in a bar is not like the “conversation” that goes on, interminably and largely to no purpose, among hundreds of millions of us all, who are fairly required to flit from one post to the next, from tweet to tweet and twit to twit. Let old Sol look things up in a book. He is a blade of grass against a steamroller. Who will ferret out the 30th entry that appears in a search, the one that is most accurate but less favored by the algorithm? It is far worse than burying a story on page six of 60. It is like burying it on page 60,000 out of 600 million. 

In the good old days of jaundiced and mendacious but still somewhat literary and rational journalism, you could read the half-truths in the Times, then read the other half-truths in the Tribune, and compare; or at least you could have the words in front of you, not blaring from a screen, to analyze, or to discuss with somebody across the table. But the momentary and ephemeral nature of our engagement with pseudo-articles on the internet mostly bypasses calm and slow analysis and perhaps even makes us incapable of it. The algorithms are our instructors, and they who write the algorithms swing the tiller of the world. 

Again, we are not talking about a person persuading a person, but about an agglomeration of unconscious and unspecifiable but genuinely active influences weighing upon an electoral mass.

The American founders didn’t insist upon freedom of speech and of the press because they believed that every individual had something important to say. They saw such rational discussion, even when swayed by passion, to be essential to man as such, and to his securing the common good. The broadsides and pamphlets published during the debates about ratifying the Constitution are to our current political speech, such as it commonly is, as Shakespeare to an advertisement on a pack of bubble gum. 

Now of all times we need vehicles of rational discussion, and the internet provides a few—we trust that this site is one of them! But social media, in the aggregate and in the essential case, is not conducive to the clearheaded and dispassionate evaluation of alternatives that must characterize every prudential decision. And if those media are in the grip of a very few people, or of people of a narrow range of cultural beliefs, then democracy will be little more than a tremendously expensive puppet show.

What do we do about it? Rather, what should be a true conservative’s aims? Mine are these: to protect and foster freedom of religious, political, and cultural speech and argument; to prevent the amassing of unheard-of kinds of power into a few hands, and to blunt that power; to do so by means that will not simply fold social media into the all-covetous arms of the Management State; and to do so by means that will not make social media into thoroughfares for obscenity and pornography, those sure cheapjack corrupters of the human imagination and of culture itself. 

I am quite aware that the Supreme Court can give us little more than feeble and uncertain guidance; it is also a problem to look there for help. When it comes to shaping the culture, something that the Court is supremely unqualified to do, the Court also is more powerful than Congress, the so-called branch of the people. Still, I am persuaded that this new power that makes William Randolph Hearst look like a seller of bad lemonade must be opened to political discussion, and to political action. 

What form might such action take? Let the discussion begin.

Woke Racism

Woke Racism

Corporate America has embraced discrimination on the basis of race.

Daniel Lennington - American Mind

Since the death of George Floyd nearly two years ago, the largest American corporations have made massive spending commitments to support racial justice. According to the consulting company McKinsey & Company, initial corporate investments in racial justice initiatives have now topped $200 billion.

Initially, most of these expenditures, in support of education, affordable housing, healthcare, job training, charitable non-profits, and criminal justice reform, seemed relatively benign, if not necessarily in line with maximizing shareholder value. But then there were other, more overtly political initiatives, such as making Juneteenth a paid holiday, opposing election integrity bills, or matching employee donations to the Black Lives Matter Foundation. Most of these forays into social justice could be shrugged off as simply the cost of doing business in the wake of the racially charged summer of 2020.

But now several Fortune 500 companies are crossing a dangerous line. In the name of equity, a group of large publicly traded companies have decided to engage in explicit race discrimination against their own customers.

Equity is all the rage now among the woke institutions. According to the popular theory of systemic racism, racial disparities are all caused by mostly hidden racism “baked into” the  American system. To fight systemic racism, institutions must pursue equity to level the playing field. In practice, equity involves targeting benefits directly to minority groups suffering the effects of systemic racism. As Facebook puts it, “we are committed to advancing equity and racial justice by investing in the Black community, elevating Black voices, and directly funding racial justice organizations.” 

This is where the legal problems begin. Targeting money to one racial group necessary means excluding other racial groups because of their race. This is race discrimination, and, in most circumstances, illegal under federal, state, and local laws.

Cable giant Comcast sponsors a program called Comcast RISE. According to Comcast, minority-owned and women-owned businesses have suffered disproportionately during the pandemic. Comcast’s proposed solution is to target these businesses with free consulting, media, advertising, and technology assistance, along with up to $10,000 in grants. Businesses owned by white males cannot even be considered for the program. They are excluded because of their race and gender.

Earlier this month, small business owners from Indiana, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Tennessee sued Comcast in federal court. Represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, where I serve as deputy counsel, these business owners allege they have been excluded from Comcast RISE on account of their race. And this is a violation of federal law. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed in the aftermath of the civil war, prohibits private parties from discriminating based on race in the creation of contracts. And that’s exactly what Comcast is doing with Comcast RISE.

Comcast is not alone. Amazon offers a program called the Black Business Accelerator. This program offers cash, advertising credits, imaging services, and business coaching services to Amazon sellers identified as a “minority-owned business.” White-owned businesses need not apply. This program is facing a class action lawsuit in federal court in California based on California’s Civil Rights Act.  

These programs are found across major businesses. BMO Harris offers a 0.25 percentage point interest rate reduction for minority-owned businesses seeking a line of credit. Mastercard offers “financial tools, investment and partnerships to bring Black women-owned businesses into the digital economy.” Microsoft operates a program called “Black Partner Growth Initiative,” which provides “personalized guidance and support” to minority owned businesses, along with a range of special financing programs. 

These programs all discriminate based on race. White customers are ineligible for benefits that minority-owned businesses may receive. As such, these programs may face significant legal challenges based on a variety of federal, state, and local nondiscrimination laws.  

Why is corporate America engaging in such explicit racial discrimination? The companies appear to have calculated that the good will generated by being woke outweighs any possible downside, including lawsuits.

Why does America put up with this? If the shoe was on the other foot, and these new corporate initiatives were “Whites Only,” no one would stand for such blatant race discrimination. But because corporations create these programs in the name of “equity” to fight “systemic racism,” they seem to be a tolerable or benign form of race discrimination to some.

Widespread tolerance to race discrimination is a dangerous shift in American culture. If our nation’s struggle to live up to its founding principles has taught us anything, it’s that race discrimination should never be tolerable or ever be considered benign. There are no caveats to equality. To paraphrase Justice Clarence Thomas, when racial groups are singled out for special treatment, it “demeans us all.” Corporate American would do well to consider that caution and recommit their companies to the foundational principle of nondiscrimination. 

Newly Obtained Emails Raise Questions About Department Of Defense Involvement In Spygate

Why did DARPA claim no DARPA-funded researchers assisted the FBI’s or Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the DNC hack?

Margot Cleveland reporting for The Federalist

After spending weeks dismissing concerns about its work with Russia hoax-connected researchers, a newly discovered email from The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to a Georgia Tech researcher with the subject line “Mueller case” casts doubt on DARPA’s denials.

Last month, The Federalist first reported that an email exchange obtained from Georgia Tech pursuant to a Right-to-Know request indicated that Special Counsel John Durham’s office was investigating the Democrat National Committee hack. Manos Antonakakis, the Georgia Tech researcher branded “Researcher-1” in the special counsel’s indictment of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, penned the email shortly after being questioned by one of Durham’s top prosecutors.

The special counsel’s office charged Sussmann last fall with lying to the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, when Sussmann provided Baker with data and white papers supposedly showing the existence of a secret communications network between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russian-based Alfa Bank. The Sussmann indictment also revealed that the Georgia Tech researchers, since identified as Antonakakis and David Dagon, “were receiving and analyzing Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.”

The then-unidentified government contract originated with DARPA, with DARPA eventually awarding Georgia Tech more than $17 million for the project dubbed “Rhamnousia,” after the mythical Greek goddess of divine retribution, Rhamnous.

As part of its investigation into Sussmann, the special counsel’s office subpoenaed both Antonakakis and Dagon and later granted Dagon immunity. While Durham did not provide Antonakakis immunity, Antonakakis nonetheless spoke with the special counsel’s office after receiving assurances that he was merely considered a witness in the investigation.

Then, after speaking with the special counsel’s team, Antonakakis told the university’s general counsel and other members of upper management that he was asked point-blank by lead prosecutor Andrew DeFilippis: “‘Do you believe that DARPA should be instructing you to investigate the origins of a hacker (Guccifer_2.0) that hacked a political entity (DNC)?’”

According to his email, Antonakakis told DeFilippis that was “a question for DARPA’s director.” As I reported at the time, this represented “a seeming confirmation that DARPA had, as the special counsel’s question presumed, directed Antonakakis to investigate who bore responsibility for the DNC hack, although it is unclear whether Antonakakis’ task concerned solely the supposed identity of ‘Guccifer,’ or more broadly the question of who hacked the DNC.”

However, within days, DARPA denied any involvement “in efforts to attribute the DNC hack.” “Dr. Antonakakis worked on DARPA’s Enhanced Attribution program, which did not involve analysis of the DNC hack,” according to Jared Adams, DARPA’s chief of communications. Adams further told the Washington Examiner that “DARPA was not involved in efforts to attribute the Guccifer 2.0 persona, nor any involvement in efforts to attribute the origin of leaked emails provided to Wikileaks.”

While acknowledging DARPA met with the special counsel’s office, DARPA noted that “the meeting between DARPA and special counsel Durham was to provide a high-level overview of the Enhanced Attribution program,” stressing that “during the course of that meeting, DARPA did not discuss matters related to the DNC hack, Guccifer 2.0, or leaked DNC emails provided to Wikileaks.” The Washington Examiner’s article added the DARPA spokesman’s claim that, “to the best our knowledge, no DARPA-funded researchers investigated” the DNC hack or assisted the FBI’s or Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the hack.

In response to a request for clarification based on the Washington Examiner’s reporting, Adams told The Federalist that, to DARPA’s knowledge, no one affiliated with DARPA had asked Antonakakis “to research, in any way, at any time, either the DNC hack or the hacker.” An attorney for Antonakakis did not respond to requests for comment.

But now an email first obtained by The Federalist shows Chris Schneck from DARPA’s Information Innovation Office, known as “I2O,” writing Antonakakis on September 25, 2018, with the subject line of “Mueller case.” While redactions prevent a full understanding of the email, the “Mueller case” subject line and Schneck’s “great work” closer indicate the DARPA-funded Georgia Tech researcher was assisting Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

The only apparent pending Mueller case at the time of the email appears to have been that special counsel’s case against the 12 officers of the Russian military intelligence organization known as GRU, who had been indicted two months earlier and charged with crimes related to the hacking of the DNC’s emails in 2016.

While DARPA’s September 25, 2018 email to Antonakakis about his “great work” regarding the “Mueller case” does not mention the DNC hack, a “chat log” for the DARPA Rhamnousia project shows the Georgia Tech researchers discussing both the DNC hack and GRU. One text reads: “For FBI to give a heads up to the DNC in fall 2015, this means that the attack was active for many months before.” In another message, one of the researchers jokes that if GRU sends the Russian beauty Annet Mahendru after him, he’s “giving up” his colleagues.

Moreover, another email reviewed by The Federalist reveals that Dagon told Durham’s team that the “entire set” of “Rhannousia chat logs” were “pertinent to” the Special Counsel’s investigation.” Those chat logs, in addition to involving chats between Dagon and Antonakakis, included conversations involving, or about, two other DARPA-connected individuals, Angelos Keromytis and Tejas Patel—both of whom were included on the September 25, 2018 email about the “Mueller case.” (The Georgia Tech emails obtained by The Federalist also established that Durham’s team sought to question Keromytis about his time at DARPA.)

The extensive redactions in the “Rhannousia chat logs” make it impossible to assess whether Antonakakis and his colleagues were working on the DNC hack or investigating the identity of Guccifer2.0 for the “Mueller case” against the Russian GRU agents. But if so, it raises serious questions, the foremost of which is: Why did DARPA claim no DARPA-funded researchers assisted the FBI’s or Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the DNC hack?

If Antonakakis assisted Mueller in the DNC hack investigation, as these various documents suggest, it raises a second significant question: Did Rodney Joffe provide Antonakakis the data necessary to conduct an attribution analysis of the hack?

Other emails The Federalist obtained from Georgia Tech establish that Joffe had assisted Antonakakis with data requests he needed for some attribution requests, beginning in August of 2016, even before the DARPA contract became official. So, the question is, did Joffe continue providing the data Antonakakis needed to run various attribution analyses, and specifically did he provide data used to investigate the DNC hack?

Given Joffe’s role in the Alfa Bank hoax, and given yesterday’s revelation by the special counsel’s lead prosecutor DeFilippis that a CIA analyst believed the data was user-created, the country deserves to know whether Georgia Tech researchers assisted the special counsel’s office in investigating the DNC hack and, in turn, relied on data Joffe provided.

DARPA Chief of Communications Jared Adams has not replied to multiple requests for clarification from The Federalist, leaving one to wonder why. (The author of the “Mueller case” email, Chris Schneck, also did not respond to The Federalist’s request for comment.) And if DARPA and Antonakakis weren’t working on the DNC hack case, then what was the Mueller case with which they were assisting?

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/shocked-wall-street-reacts-netflix-implosion-0?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=616

A Shocked Wall Street Reacts To The Netflix Implosion

For the second quarter in a row, Netflix stock has cratered after reporting earnings: NFLX plunged 28% - losing $42 billion in value - after the company announced that not only did its paying subs shrink for the first time since 2011 in the first quarter, but the company forecast the loss of another 2 million subs in the current quarter. Coupled with the devastation from three months ago when Netflix plunged 21% after reporting similarly dire results and dismal guidance, "Netflix is on the verge of losing more than $90B in market cap (total) in its first session following the last 2 earnings reports." according to CNBC.

Of course, in this case one chart is truly worth a thousand words:

But while the market was clearly surprised (and disappointed) with the NFLX results, few were more "shocked" than the Wall Street penguinsanalysts covering the company. Considering that 31 analysts had NFLX at a Buy one day before earnings (with just 3 sells), with an average price target of $500 (vs the closing price of $348.61 before the earnings announcement)...

... one can see why Stephanie Link couldn't wait to see what "Let's see what those 31 sell side analysts that have a buy on it do tmrw."

One can also see why the best word to describe the laughable downgrade parade that has followed today by the same people who are paid to predict that future - and not to create momentum-chasing, circle jerking echo chambers - is "clowns"...

... with one "clown" in particular sticking out.

Sure enough, as of this morning nobody is more "shocked" than this group of so-called experts, because whereas two days ago, there were 31 buys and 3 sells, there are now "only" 20 buys and 5 sells with the average price target plunging by 25% from $500 to $378 (and down almost 50% from the $680 at the start of the year). And while it may seem remarkable that there are still 20 buys when the stock has cratered from $700 to $250, consider that this is the lowest number of buy ratings since 2015!

So what is the sellside's excuse this time? While we realize it's a terrible waste of time to read the following garbage, because - well - it's mostly garbage from sellside lemmings who are trying to justify their lack of calling a move correctly, here is a summary of all the most notable research calls, including that of JPMorgan whose analyst Dan Anmuth ditched his Overweight (i.e., Buy) reco which had been in place since January 2013 with a $600 price target most recently, to go Neutral today for the first time in almost a decade. 

JPMorgan (cuts to neutral, PT cut to $300 from $605)

• Bigger factor was management’s acknowledgment of relatively high household penetration when including account sharing and increased competition
• Near-term visibility on growth plans is limited

Pivotal Research Group (cuts to sell from buy, PT to $235 from $550)

• This was “what can only be called a shocking 1Q subscriber miss and weak subscriber & financial guidance”
• The firm now sees “materially slower subscriber growth at a higher cost,” and there is likely to be substantial uncertainty around the stock for the rest of the year

BofA (downgrades to underperform from buy, PT to $300 from $605)

• “The Street now knows that the low guide last quarter was not an aberration, and we expect it will take a while for investors to believe NFLX can return to growth”

Wells Fargo Securities (downgrades to equal weight from overweight, PT to $300 from $600)

• “Negative sub growth and investments to reaccelerate revenues are the nail in the NFLX narrative coffin”
• The company’s outlook is now “clear as mud”

Piper Sandler (cuts to neutral, PT to $293 from $562)

• Subscribers have slowed and we struggle to see a return to the pre-Covid net add cadence
• Password sharing and ad-supported tiers look promising, but implementation is more than two years away

UBS (cuts to neutral, PT cut to $355 from $575)

• Views Netflix as a long-term winner, however rising competition, macro headwinds and market saturation will continue to weigh on subscriber growth
• While efforts to crack down on account sharing and a new ad-supported tier could enhance financial performance, such efforts will take 1-2 years to play out

Stifel (cuts to hold, PT cut to $300 from $460)

• Expect investors to take a wait and see approach to the company’s initiatives to reinvigorate growth, which will likely take several quarters or years to develop

Needham (upgrades to hold from underperform)

• The firm is positive on Netflix adopting an ad-driven subscription tier and cracking down on password sharing, although it will take a while for these measures to materially drive growth

Bloomberg Intelligence

• “The forecast for 2 million losses in a seasonally soft 2Q will further deepen the bear thesis”
• The company “may need a fresh act like advertising or a bigger push into gaming” in order to revitalize growth

Of course, with everyone finally turning bearish on NFLX, with some floating the suggestion that it's time to kick out the N from FANG, one can safely say that amid this universal capitulation, the time to buy the stock is now. And sure enough, google searches for "Buy Netflix Stock" have exploded 931% following the collapse in NFLX stock.

18 Things That Lasted Longer Than CNN+

Babylon Bee🐝

CNN+ will be shutting down on April 30, just a month after its rocky start. Truly, its candle burned out long before its legend ever will.

Take a gander at these eighteen things that lasted longer than CNN+:

---

1) A gallon of milk

2) Kamala Harris's presidential campaign

3) Two weeks to stop the spread

4) Firefly

5) Housefly

6) Brief, transitory inflation

7) Seattle's CHAZ

8) The ending of Return of the King

9) Your wife's multi-level marketing business

10) Colin Kaepernick’s enslavement in the NFL

11) Your New Year's resolution to get in shape

12) Your New Year's resolution to read your Bible

13) Free AOL trial CD with 1000 hours of internet

14) The COVID vaccine's effectiveness

15) Zune

16) Google+

17) James Cameron's Avatar's cultural impact

18) The Babylon Bee's Twitter suspension

---

Wow! It seems like just yesterday CNN Plus was born, and now she's already gone. Like a leaf on the wind.