• Global Economic War Is Coming And The Threat To The US Dollar Is Real
  Global Economic War Is Coming And The Threat To The US Dollar Is Real

  Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

  In a recent statement posted to social media, Tucker Carlson explained succinctly his many reasons for traveling to Russia to interview President Vladimir Putin. His decision, mired in an avalanche of outrage from leftist media talking heads and a multitude of western politicians, was inspired by Carlson’s concern that Americans have been misdirected by corporate propaganda leaving the public completely uneducated on the war in Ukraine and what tensions with the East might lead to.

  

  I agree. In fact, I don’t think the majority of Americans have a clue what the real consequences of a global war with Russia and its allies would look like. Even if the conflict never resulted in shots fired and stayed confined to the realm of economic warfare, the US and most of Europe would be devastated by the effects.

  Carlson specifically mentioned dangers to the status of the US dollar, and I suspect this comment probably mystified a great number of people. Most of the population cannot fathom the idea of a US dollar implosion set in motion by a foreign dump of the greenback as the world reserve currency. They really do believe the dollar is invincible.

  The most delusional people are, unfortunately, those within mainstream economic circles. They just can’t seem to grasp that the west is in the midst of financial collapse already, and war would accelerate the effects to levels not seen since the Great Depression.

  I have been warning about this outcome for many years. I think I have made my position clear in the past; I suspect the conflict between east and west has been carefully engineered over the course of a decade or more, and Russia is not innocent in this affair.

  Russia has consistently collaborated with globalist institutions including the International Monetary Fund in the effort to create a new “global reserve currency system.” In other words, the interests of Russia and the globalists do indeed intersect in a number of ways and the war in Ukraine has not necessarily changed that.  Time Magazine even complained last year about the IMF issuing positive reports about Russia’s economy – They thought the organization was going to repeat the false NATO narrative that Russia was in the midst of fiscal implosion.  Instead, the IMF essentially praised Russia’s resiliency in the face of sanctions.

  As I noted in 2014 in my article ‘False East/West Paradigm Hides Rise Of Global Currency’ in reference to the burgeoning war with Ukraine.

  “I would remind pro-Putin cheerleaders that Putin and the Kremlin first pushed for the IMF to take control of the Ukrainian economy, and the IMF is now demanding that Ukraine fight Russia in exchange for financial support. This might seem like irony to more foolhardy observers; but to those who are aware of the false East/West paradigm, it is all the part of a greater plan for consolidation of power.”

  I also argued that:

  “I have warned for quite some time that the development of East/West tensions would be used as a cover for a collapse of the dollar system. I have warned that among the American media this collapse would be blamed on an Eastern dump of foreign exchange reserves and treasuries, resulting in a global domino-effect ending U.S. world reserve status.”

  From the moment Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was deposed (many argue that this was done with the help of western intel agencies) the agenda for WWIII was set in motion. Both sides seemed to create the circumstances by which a conflagration was unavoidable.

  Russia, strangely, supported the intervention of the IMF to secure Ukraine’s economy. The IMF then asserted that Ukraine would have to fight Russia to keep control of the Donbas or risk losing the financial aid that was keeping the country alive. Is this irony, or is there something else going on here?

  NATO started arming Ukraine, and Ukraine used those arms to slaughter civilians in the Donbas. The eastern population wanted to join with Russia, and Ukraine had no intention of allowing this (IMF funding was on the line). In the meantime, the government began openly discussing the official inclusion of Ukraine into NATO. Russia then invaded, taking the Donbas. Now the entire region is a powder keg and both sides are ready to light the fuse.

  But let’s look at this situation as if there was no globalist involvement in facilitating the crisis, just for a moment as an exercise in critical thinking…

  If I had to pick a side that is “more right” in their position, it would have to be Russia, but not for the reasons many leftists might imagine when conservatives defend Russia.  The bottom line is that the left blindly follows establishment dictates while the rest of us are at least willing to look at the situation from both sides (which is the same thing Tucker Carlson is doing, and he’s being accused of treason for it).

  Imagine if China was working to create a military alliance with Mexico with the potential for the Chinese military to stage long range weapons and soldiers on the American southern border? Imagine the chaos that this would cause in the US (maybe they would finally secure the border)? That’s what Russia was facing with Ukraine. Hell, America almost initiated global nuclear war when the Soviets staged missiles in Cuba in 1962. Military operations so close to the borders of major national powers are not a joke.

  This was exact rationale for the war on Ukraine cited by Putin in his discussion with Tucker Carlson, and it makes sense.  Again, if we look at the events without the prospect of globalist interference.  But what if we start to consider who benefits the most from this war?

  I certainly don’t trust Putin, but that doesn’t negate the Orwellian behavior of European and American political leaders. There is something going on here beyond the typical mechanisms of geopolitical brinkmanship. The conflict has wide ranging consequences and only serves the goals of a select group of elites.  I suspect elements of both Russia and NATO governments are either knowingly or unwittingly serving these interests.

  It is undeniable. It is a verifiable reality – Many of our political leaders and elitist institutions are corrupt beyond comprehension. They are seeking an authoritarian reformation, a “great economic reset” and they are triggering multiple conflicts around the world. We saw the mask come off during covid. These people are not merely misguided; they are monsters, and they are hungry. It’s not beyond them to conjure a worldwide calamity and sacrifice the west like a goat on the altar to get the total centralization they desire.

  The East/West paradigm plays into this plan perfectly. The BRICS nations are poised to drop the dollar as world reserve; some have already done so in bilateral trade. Make no mistake, if the conflict in Ukraine (and other parts of the world like Syria or Iran) continues to escalate nations like China will move to dump their dollar holdings just as Russia did. As the largest importer/exporter in the world, many countries would follow China’s lead and shift into a basket of currencies instead of the dollar for international trade.

  What does this mean?

  The dollar, which has been hyperinflated through more than a decade of Federal Reserve QE money printing, has continued to remain stable only because it is the world reserve and the petro-currency. Foreign banks hold trillions in US currency in overseas coffers for this very reason. With the loss of reserve status, an endless river of dollars will then flood back into the US as foreign investors diversify away from the Fed note. Result? Massive inflationary collapse.

  This is what’s at stake. This is what Tucker Carlson was referring to, and far too many in America just don’t get it. Globalists benefit because this is what they have been working towards for decades – The deconstruction of US society and the economy so that the “old world order” can be replaced with their “new world order” of Central Bank Digital Currencies.  An IMF one-world currency basket and a host of other highly unpleasant socialist changes would swiftly follow.

  The BRICS might be working with the IMF because they see the dethroning of the dollar as an opportunity to gain greater influence over international trade.  Or, maybe they are controlled opposition and they are scrambling for a seat at the NWO table.  In the end, the fall of the dollar would be a watershed moment for the formation of a global currency system.

  And the best part for globalists is, they will be seen as the “heroes” when it’s all over. They spent the better part of the last century setting up America for economic failure through their devaluation of the dollar and the creation of a national debt trap. The system was going to break anyway, but now they can divert all blame to war and the “arrogance of nation states” and then come to the rescue with their dystopian digital money.

  An east/west conflict opens the door to the Great Reset.  It is, in a lot of ways, the core of the Reset.  Everything in the new world order agenda relies on it.  Right now, the only thing holding back the tide is the public’s general refusal to fight. No one is interested in going overseas to die in a meaningless battle for Ukraine (Zelensky is truly delusional if he thinks Americans will shed blood in his trenches – Even a draft would be an utter failure). No one is interested in starting WWIII, whether it be nuclear or just economic.

  I think the establishment’s outrage over Tucker Carlson interviewing Putin is based on their fear that western audiences are already skeptical of the motives behind the conflict and an unfiltered discussion on the war might galvanize this feeling.  The notion of war is becoming harder and harder for the establishment to sell.

  This, however, does not negate the ability of NATO or Russia in expanding the crisis beyond Ukraine into other regions or into financial subterfuge (again, keep your eyes on Syria and Iran). Ultimately, they want us to choose sides, but only from the list of sides they approve. Liberty minded groups in the west need to choose our OWN side and fight for our own interests. It can’t be about NATO vs Russia, it has to be about free people vs the globalists. This is the only way these disaster events will ever end.

  *  *  *

  If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 23:20

• Billionaire Wealth: The Biggest Winners (& Losers) In 2023
  Billionaire Wealth: The Biggest Winners (& Losers) In 2023

  In early February, Mark Zuckerberg added $28 billion to his wealth in a matter of hours as Meta’s shares soared after the company announced its first dividend payout.

  This follows a banner year for the Facebook founder, who saw his wealth surge 173% in 2023. Like Zuckerberg, many tech billionaires added huge sums to their wealth as the stock market rebounded.

  Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld shows in the following graphic from Preyash Shah, the biggest winners and losers in billionaire wealth in 2023…

  

  The Top Risers and Fallers

  Below, we rank the world’s top 50 billionaires by their net change in wealth:

  

  Adding $113.5 billion to his fortune, Elon Musk saw the biggest gains across the group as Tesla shares doubled in price in 2023.

  This marks a sharp reversal from the previous year, when Musk lost more money than any other billionaire. In a record year, Tesla delivered 1.8 million vehicles—a 38% year-over-year increase.

  Mark Zuckerberg, with the second-highest gains, raked in $78.3 billion as Meta’s shares skyrocketed. Last year, Facebook saw 5 million new users in North America. Adding to this, users’ time spent on Instagram has increased 40% since mid-2020 when Reels was launched.

  As the fastest riser across the top 50, Indonesia’s energy billionaire Prajogo Pangestu saw his wealth climb an incredible 971%. The majority of gains were driven from Barito Renewables, his geothermal power company, going public in October 2023.

  By contrast, India’s Gautam Adani saw the steepest decline in wealth. After a Hindenburg report accused the Adani Group of operating several shell companies to manipulate stock prices and launder money, Adani saw his wealth decline by $56.5 billion, cutting it by almost half.

  Along with Adani, Zhang Yiming, the founder of ByteDance—known for its social media app TikTok—lost $6.1 billion while major Republican donor Charles Koch lost $3.8 billion over the year.

  Rapidly Changing Wealth

  So far, the U.S. stock market has hit record highs in 2024, boosting the fortunes of many of the world’s billionaires.

  In fact, Meta recently added $196 billion to its market cap in one day, the biggest gain in the history of Wall Street. Year-to-date, Zuckerberg’s wealth has increased by $38.2 billion as of February 5. Additionally, Jeff Bezos has added $18 billion to his net worth in just over a month as Amazon shares have jumped nearly 14%.

  In 2024, Warren Buffett’s net worth has already climbed by $9.9 billion.

  Other billionaires have not fared as well, in particular Elon Musk, whose wealth has plummeted $55.8 billion after issuing recalls for 3.8 million vehicles. Tesla’s shares have slumped 27% year-to-date given production headwinds and a host of other setbacks, including legal troubles and increasing competition in the electric vehicle market.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 22:45

• The Greatest Trick Big Brother Ever Pulled
  The Greatest Trick Big Brother Ever Pulled

  Authored by Daniel Nuccio via The Brownstone Institute,

  “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist” is a quote generally attributed to Charles Baudelaire – or possibly Keyser Söze – depending on who you ask on the internet.

  

  Something similar can be said about Big Brother.

  When you think about what our emerging surveillance state will look like, you think “1984.” You imagine East Germany powered by Google and Amazon. You recall your favorite dystopian sci-fi film—or maybe horror stories of China’s social credit system. Thoughts of a frustrated middle-aged police chief from a mid-sized Midwestern town attempting to procure security cameras with innovative new features probably don’t come to mind. You definitely don’t think of a guy in a lawn chair jotting down the license plate numbers of passing vehicles in a notebook. And that’s partly how the surveillance state is going to emerge as it creeps its way into one small town at a time.

  Whether a surveillance state is the end goal is hard to say. The police chief of Pawnee, Indiana probably isn’t plotting the development of his own mini-Oceania. But, 18,000-plus mini-Oceanias operating across multiple platforms with varying degrees of integration, both locally and nationally, is undoubtedly the direction in which we are heading as salespeople peddle shiny new surveillance gadgets to cities big and small, making often unverified but intuitively appealing claims of how their devices will decrease crime or prove to be useful investigative tools.

  Facial recognition tends to be the surveillance gadget that receives the most attention these days. You’ve seen it in movies and maybe feel some unease over visions of government agents sitting in a penumbrous room illuminated only by the faint glow of countless monitors with little boxes tracking the faces of every person walking down a busy city street. Likely, by now, you’ve also probably heard of facial recognition being used for relatively petty purposes or leading to incidents in which innocent people were harassed or arrested because a program made a mistake. Maybe you’ve even been following the efforts to ban the technology.

  Yet, other surveillance gadgets that aren’t quite as sexy or as prevalent in pop culture manage to remain under the radar of even the most privacy-conscious as they are promoted through law enforcement peer referral programs organized by surveillance gadget companies seeking to have their devices in every town in America.

  Some, such as gunshot detection devices, may seem relatively benign, although there have been concerns they might pick up bits of conversation on quiet streets. Others, such as cell site simulators, are quite a bit more intrusive as they can be used by law enforcement to monitor the location of people through their cell phones, as well as collect metadata from their calls and a considerable amount of other information.

  Automatic license plate readers, or ALPRs, can be used to log a person’s movements through the license plates of their vehicles. Given the exponential increase in their use over the past few years and the ease with which data from the cameras of some vendors are integrated, they also pose a threat to privacy on par with facial recognition and cell site simulators.

  Often positioned on street lights, traffic lights, independent structures, or police vehicles, ALPRs are a type of camera that captures the license plate and other identifying information of passing vehicles before comparing the information in real time to “hot lists” of vehicles actively being sought by law enforcement and transmitting the information to a searchable database. ALPRs sold by some companies are even said to be able to assess a car’s driving patterns to determine whether the person behind the wheel is “driving like a criminal.”

  Depending on the vendor and the particulars of their contract with a municipality or private entity leasing the cameras from them, the information the cameras collect is maintained usually for thirty days but sometimes for a period of months or even years.

  Although on the surface this may sound relatively unintrusive, leading to places such as Nashville approving ALPRs while rejecting facial recognition, what this ultimately does is create a searchable database for the timestamped rough location of any individual who regularly travels using a single vehicle—in other words, most Americans especially those living outside of major cities.

  Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the ACLU’s national office, who has written extensively on matters pertaining to technology, privacy, and surveillance, stated in a 2023 phone interview, “There’s no question that if you get enough license plate readers and you got one on every block, that put together … can create a GPS-tracker-like-record of my movement and even if there’s, you know, only one every ten miles and [I’m] driving around the country, I’m driving from Texas to California or what have you, that can be very revealing as well.”

  Subsequently, organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy advocacy group, and the Brennan Center for Justice, a self-described “non-partisan law and policy institute,” have expressed concerns that the devices could be used to track the activities of protesters and activists.

  If ALPRs were as prevalent during lockdowns as they are now, it’s not difficult to imagine at least some governors or mayors using them to track and reprimand those who dared violate Corona law.

  Furthermore, sometimes the devices do make mistakes, leading to claims by individuals and families that they were psychologically traumatized after they were pulled over, held at gunpoint, searched, and handcuffed by police essentially due to a computer error.

  As for the benefits they provide in terms of making communities safer, quantitative data demonstrating their success tends to be lacking.

  The University of Washington’s Center for Human Rights released a report in December 2022 indicating hit rates for ALPRs, or the percentage of license plates photographed by ALPRs within a municipality that are associated with a vehicle being sought by law enforcement, tend to fall below 0.1 percent, meaning a lot of data have to be collected on a lot of law-abiding citizens in order for the devices to be of any use. Moreover, even when they do aid law enforcement in finding a wanted vehicle, the end results still can be somewhat underwhelming.

  The University of Illinois’ Community Data Clinic, for example, in a preliminary report dated Fall 2023, indicated that of 54 instances law enforcement in Champaign, one of the two cities U of I calls home, accessed data from their ALPRs within a particular period, only 31 of those instances likely involved felonies, most of which did not involve a firearm. The University of Illinois report went on to indicate only ten of those instances led to an arrest or an arrest warrant and only two of those arrests led to formal charges.

  As demonstrated at an October 2021 town hall regarding ALPRs in Urbana, Illinois, Champaign’s sister city, even proponents of the devices struggle to produce a single study showing that the cameras deter or prevent gun violence, which is often one of the main reasons communities turn to ALPRs in the first place.

  However, when vendor reps and local law enforcement are trying to gain approval from city councils and assuage the fears of wary citizens, the surveillance potential of the devices, along with their questionable effectiveness and the devastating consequences that can follow when one makes a mistake, tend not to be what they lead with.

  Instead, proponents emphasize how common they are in surrounding cities, cite anecdotal evidence of their utility, and try to present ALPRs as non-threatening, normal, and perhaps even a little old-fashioned.

  You have nothing to worry about, you’re told. The town down the road brought them in six months back. Chief Jones over there said they helped solve that murder from the news. And, by the way, they’re not really that much different from a concerned citizen just keeping an eye on things.

  At the town hall in Urbana, for example, then-police chief, Bryant Seraphin, worked to dismiss the notion that ALPRs actually pose a threat to privacy or even constitute a surveillance tool.

  “They [ALPRs] are not surveillance cameras,” stated Seraphin early in the event. “I cannot pan, tilt, [or] zoom them. There’s no live looking to see what’s happening at the corner …” he explained.

  Repeatedly, he emphasized that ALPRs do not capture any information about the person driving a car or automatically link to information about the person to whom a vehicle is registered. Their ubiquity in the area was accentuated. Supposed success stories were shared.

  To allay any remaining notion that there might be something scary about ALPRs, Seraphin described them with a folksy metaphor: “One of the things that I’ve talked about with these things is that if you pictured somebody sitting in a lawn chair writing down every plate that went by, the date, and the time when they wrote ‘red Toyota ABC123’, and then they would make a phone call and check the databases and then hang up and then go on to the next one—that’s what [an ALPR] does automatically and it can do it over and over again … with incredible speed.”

  Yet, when Anita Chan, the director of the University of Illinois Community Data Clinic, proceeded to raise concerns regarding “the potential violation of civil liberties” and how a license plate alone is sufficient for the police to not just find out “where you live and where you work but also … who potentially your friends are, what religious affiliation you might have, essentially where you get medical services … [and] suss out essentially who’s traveling and where,” Seraphin acknowledged all this is possible. However, he assured her with a frustrated chuckle, ALPRs simply provide a notebook that would only be referenced when investigating serious crimes.

  By the same logic, facial recognition simply provides a notebook as well. As do cell site simulators. As do any surveillance device. Yet, there is a fundamental question of whether such a notebook should exist. Does the chief of police in Urbana or the sheriff in Pawnee need a notebook containing your approximate location three Thursdays ago at 8:15pm, as well as a record of who attended last week’s political rally, in order to solve a murder? Should he be allowed to keep such a notebook if it might help solve an extra murder in his town each year? If the answer is yes, then what are the limits to the tools he and his department should be afforded?

  Furthermore, there is also something a little off about the disarming metaphor of a guy who spends his days sitting around in a lawn chair jotting down the license plate numbers of passing vehicles. Something a little insidious. Something that perhaps Anita Chan was piking up on.

  One guy in a lawn chair jotting down license plate numbers is a nosy neighbor, maybe even a neighborhood crank, but not someone to whom you would pay much attention. When he starts following you around though to the point of knowing who your friends are, where you worship, and when you go to the doctor, he kind of becomes a stalker. But, when he develops the ability to gather this kind of information on everyone, he starts to develop a level of omnipresence and omniscience with which no one should be comfortable—which may be why you’re told he’s just a guy in a lawn chair.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 22:10

• Swift Or The Super Bowl: Who Is The Real MVP?
  Swift Or The Super Bowl: Who Is The Real MVP?

  Is Taylor Swift and her already iconic Eras Tour bigger than the Super Bowl?

  The question that started with a quote alleging so from Jane Talbot, CEO of city business improvement association Downtown Van, can be answered with: It depends.

  Talbot alluded to reports that local businesses in Glendale, Arizona, had said their revenues soared more when Swift kicked off her mammoth tour there in March 2023 than when the Super Bowl was played at the same stadium one month earlier.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  This Sunday, Swift and the Super Bowl will of course collide for the first time as the 34-year-old singer is expected to cheer on her boyfriend, Kansas City Chief’s tight end Travis Kelce, at the event in Paradise, Nev., close to Las Vegas.

  Some of Swift’s perceived superiority might have come from the fact that she packed State Farm Stadium on the outskirts of Phoenix with more people on back-to-back nights than last year’s Super Bowl did. 

  Around 146,000 Swifties – Taylor Swift fans – descended upon the area for both concerts.

  While Talbot’s quote only refers to the opening night, both Swift’s and the Super Bowl’s fans tend to visit hosting cities for several days around their event of choice, creating revenues for local businesses throughout. Looking at per-person spending only, the Super Bowl is still in the lead at $2,500 per ticketed attendee.

  Swift’s fans’ spending was estimated somewhat lower at “just” $1,300 to $1,500 per person. So despite this, the Eras Tour’s 151 dates announced across five continents and two years are clearly bound to bring more money into local economies as well as Taylor Swift’s pockets in total.

  When it comes to net worth, Swift is therefore the most valuable player in the comparison, with a newly estimated net worth of $1.1 billion hugely padded by Eras Tour income.

  This year’s Super Bowl’s richest players are Partrick Mahomes, quarterback for the Kansas City Chief, at $70 million and Nick Bosa, defensive end for the San Francisco 49ers, at $50 million. Boyfriend Travis Kelce can also not hold the candle to Swift at a net worth of $40 million.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 21:35

• Trump: 2nd Biden Term Would Be The Death Knell For The 2nd Amendment
  Trump: 2nd Biden Term Would Be The Death Knell For The 2nd Amendment

  Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times,

  The former president and current frontrunner for the GOP nomination for the 2024 presidential race vowed before hundreds of NRA members to support them in their fight for the Second Amendment.

  

  President Trump was the keynote speaker at the Presidential Forum in the 2024 NRA’s Great American Outdoors Show on Feb. 9.

  “Your second amendment will always be safe with me as your president,” President Trump told the raucous crowd in the Pennsylvania Farm Show Complex in Harrisburg.

  To the crowd’s cheers, President Trump said he would make the Second Amendment a true American right by demanding Congress pass a national reciprocity law so that Americans could legally carry a gun regardless of where they happen to be.

  “It has to cross state lines,” President Trump said.

  Then he turned his guns on President Joe Biden.

  He told the crowd that the Biden administration is committed to gun control. He promised to reinstate policies from his administration that Democrats had done away with.

  He reminded the crowd that he removed the United States from international gun control agreements, labeled gun makers and dealers as critical businesses during the pandemic, and appointed judges who support the Second Amendment.

  “If Joe Biden is reelected, your gun rights will be gone, totally gone,” President Trump said.

  “The only thing standing between you and the obliteration of the Second Amendment is me.”

  He called President Biden the most incompetent and corrupt president in American history. He warned that reelecting President Biden would be disastrous.

  “If you care about your country, if you care about your children, then we have to fire—remember the apprentice—we have to fire crooked Joe Biden,” President Trump said.

  President Trump said he would defend the Second Amendment by reforming the agencies that enforce gun laws. He promised to replace the heads of agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Department of Justice.

  “We will completely overhaul the Department of Justice,” President Trump said.

  According to President Trump, President Biden is responsible for increased crime, higher inflation, depressed wages, and America’s diminished standing in the world.

  Trump supporters were out in force for the former president during the National Rifle Association’s Great American Outdoors show in Harrisburg, Pa., on Feb. 8, 2024. (Michael Clements/The Epoch Times)

  “Four years ago, I told you what would happen if Joe Biden got into office. I didn’t know how bad it would be. It’s even worse,” President Trump said.

  He said President Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, which he called the most embarrassing moment in American history, led to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the growing boldness of Iran, and the Oct. 7 terrorist invasion of Israel by Hamas. He said that none of these things happened during his term.

  “The attack on Israel would have never happened,” President Trump said.

  He promised to reinstate strict enforcement of immigration laws and begin a major deportation effort.

  “The day that I’m reelected is the day that law and order and justice will return to the United States,” President Trump said.

  NRA spokesman Billy McLaughlin revved the crowd up by listing who he considered to be the enemies of the Second Amendment.

  “We have CNN in here, we have MSNBC, we have the New York Times,” Mr. McLaughlin said. As the crowd began to jeer, Mr. McLaughlin responded, “Exactly.”

  He said that the media, working with “gun-hating politicians,” is dedicated to ending the Second Amendment. He lauded the crowd for standing up for their constitutional right to bear arms.

  “Gun-hating politicians and their promoters in the gun-hating media hate everything we stand for. Most importantly, they hate those 27 words we fight for every day, the Second Amendment,” Mr. McLaughlin said, drawing cheers. “We will never let Joe Biden take our guns.”

  ‘We’ve Got to Close the Border’

  Attendees had more than the Second Amendment on their minds. Mark Ciechanowicz of Long Island, New York, said he wants issues at the southern border addressed.

  “We’ve got to close the border. I think everybody now sees what’s really going on is illegal immigration is running rampant, and they’re tired of it,” Mr. Ciechanowicz told The Epoch Times.

  Brian Sherr of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, agreed. He wants to see President Trump sent back to Washington to handle immigration and to tame the economy. According to Mr. Sherr, the price of diesel fuel is driving up the cost of everything else.

  “We need to reduce the price of groceries; that will make everything easier on everyone in the country,” he told The Epoch Times.

  Former President Donald J. Trump speaks at the National Rifle Association in Harrisburg, Pa., on Feb. 9, 2024. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)

  NRA President Charles Cotton said he has faith in President Trump’s promises. While he doesn’t know President Trump personally, he said he knows his record and people who have worked with him for years. He said they all tell him the same thing about the former president.

  “If Donald Trump gives you his word, he will never go back on it,” Mr. Cotton said.

  The Trump supporters who spoke to The Epoch Times acknowledged that President Trump is facing some severe challenges even as he maintains a more than 40 percent lead in the GOP race. But Mr. Sherr said the lawsuits, investigations, and other issues only solidified in his mind that the former president was onto something.

  “The simple fact is that if they had anything on him, they would have been done years ago,” Mr. Sherr said.

  “I don’t think there’s anything else they can try do to keep him out of office.

  “They’re scared.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 21:00

• "If You Want To Control People, You Have To Control The CO2"
  “If You Want To Control People, You Have To Control The CO2”

  As farmer protests rage across Europe, Dutch MP Rob Roos sits down with The HighWire’s Del Bigtree to discuss the climate scam pushed by radical globalist elites in the Western world to seize more power and control. 

  “They [elites] go against family values. They go against natural food. They go against freedom – because if you have to buy an electric car. They’re almost twice as expensive – and people cannot buy that – it’s not about the car – it’s about you can’t go anywhere and must depend on public transportation,” Roos explained. 

  

  He said, “It’s also digitalization – what we see is the digital identity and central bank digital currency – this is all about a new form of communism.” 

  “If you want to control the people, you have to control the CO2 – because everything we do in life, breathing, living, traveling, eating, and everything we do in life leads to CO2 emissions. And if you can control the CO2, you can control the people,” Roos said. 

  He further explained that the ultimate control comes when globalists connect people’s digital identities to the central bank’s digital currency. 

  Bigtree responded: “So much of this [globalist takeover of the West] was really fast-tracked during Covid.” He pointed out that WEF branded the Covid era as the “Great Reset.” 

  MEP Warns Climate Change Policies Will Lead to a “New Form of Communism”

  “If you want to control the people, you have to control the CO2,” says MEP @Rob_Roos.

  “It’s taking away your freedom,” he added.

  “And if you then have the digital identity connected to the central bank… pic.twitter.com/r41RK9wdhF

  — The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) February 10, 2024

  We have cited 1,600 scientists, including two Nobel laureates, who have stated in a letter: “There is no climate emergency.” But under the guise of an imminent climate disaster, globalist elites, NGOs, governments, politicians, mega-corporations, and, of course, legacy media outlets push climate fear to usher in a reset of society. 

  The most critical line to remember from Roos’ interview is: “If you can control the CO2, you can control the people. “

  So, the next time you find yourself concerned about radical progressive politicians and rogue billionaires, like Bill Gates, advocating for ‘green’ policies, consider asking yourself: Are these new policies resulting in any loss of freedoms?

  *   *   * 

  Watch the full interview on Rumble: 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 20:25

• Republicans Should Ally With The American People – Not Washington Democrats: Gingrich
  Republicans Should Ally With The American People – Not Washington Democrats: Gingrich

  Authored by Newt Gingrich via RealClear Wire,

  No one should be surprised that conservatives are not supporting the U.S. Senate’s supposedly bipartisan border bill.

  

  Every time Republicans reach out to Democrats to write a bipartisan bill, they inevitably sell out conservative values and accept liberal poison pills to get Democrats’ votes.

  When Republicans give up their principles in the name of bipartisanship, it is a disaster for conservatism, enrages the base, and splits the Republican Party.

  This was the model of so-called bipartisan outreach which led President George H.W. Bush to break his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge.

  It was the same model of bipartisanship which led President George W. Bush to begin his first term working with Sen. Edward Kennedy on No Child Left Behind, a supposedly bipartisan education bill. It only benefited the Teachers’ Union and leftwing bureaucrats – and was a disaster for American students.

  The same brand of bipartisanship ‌is leading Sen. Mitt Romney to propose a fiscal commission on the national debt (which Democrats openly state must include tax increases which the American people deeply oppose).

  Marc Thiessen captured the insanity to which this passion for bipartisanship leads in the Washington Post:

  “This much is certain about the border agreement being negotiated by Senate Republicans and the Biden administration: There is no excuse for a weak deal. The border crisis could cost Democrats this year’s election and put Donald Trump in the White House — and Democrats know it. That means Republicans have all the leverage in these negotiations. So, any deal that Republicans reach needs to force Biden to take steps that will cause some in his party to balk — if Biden won’t do these things, it will be clear that he doesn’t want to stop illegal immigration. He only wants to stop Trump from entering the Oval Office again.”

  Speaking specifically to the bipartisan border deal being discussed in the U.S. Senate, Andrew McCarthy put things even more bluntly in the National Review. Citing Fox News’ Bill Melugin’s analysis of the bill, McCarthy said the parts of the bill Republican senators are touting are “disingenuous and, ultimately, counterproductive.”

  McCarthy explained:

  “That is to say, the good in the bipartisan Senate negotiators’ proposal — and there definitely is some — (a) can already be accomplished under current law, and (b) would require faith that the Biden administration will for some reason enforce these provisions even though it has systematically refused to enforce existing border-security provisions. More important, to get the illusory good in the proposal, Congress would have to enact provisions in the deal that would both undermine existing statutory restrictions and etch into our law magnets for illegal immigration.”

  There is a clear alternative to seeking an alliance with the Democrats. It is to seek an alliance with the American people. It is why President Abraham Lincoln said, with public sentiment anything is possible. Without public sentiment nothing is possible.

  President Ronald Reagan understood this principle, too. He would often say to us, “my job is to shine the light on the American people, so they will turn up the heat on Congress.” In his farewell address, he said “I’ve had my share of victories in the Congress, but what few people noticed is that I never won anything you didn’t win for me. They never saw my troops, they never saw Reagan’s regiments, the American people. You won every battle with every call you made and letter you wrote demanding action.”

  We stood on President Reagan’s shoulders with the Contract with America in 1994. We realized that you can achieve bipartisanship – from the ground up. Every item in the Contract was overwhelmingly popular with the American people. When we passed welfare reform, half the Democrats voted with us, because it was so popular back home they had no choice.

  Recent America’s New Majority Polls make clear the kind of border security bill the American people support. Two-in-three support the provisions in the Secure the Border Act of 2023 (H.R. 2). Further, three-in-four Americans want the government to prioritize stopping illegal immigration before addressing the status of current illegal immigrants. This includes 89% of Republicans, 75% of independents and 60% of Democrats. You would think numbers this massive would help define an American citizen-based bipartisanship.

  Americans by 2:1 favor simplifying the laws for deporting illegal immigrants back to their home countries. This includes 88% of Republicans and 67% of independents. Among minorities it includes 75% of Asian Americans, 52% of Latino Americans, and 48% of African Americans.

  If you just started with these two principles, you could write an immigration and border control bill that would have overwhelming popular support.

  The more the American people learn about the U.S. Senate’s supposedly bipartisan bill, which should be called the Illegal Immigration Support Act, the more they will oppose it – and question the common sense of the people who wrote it.

  For more commentary from Newt Gingrich, visit Gingrich360.com. Also, subscribe to the Newt’s World podcast.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 19:50

• A New Year Every Two Months? 'Year-End' Celebrations Around The World
  A New Year Every Two Months? ‘Year-End’ Celebrations Around The World

  Lunar New Year festivities, celebrated in China, Vietnam and South Korea among others, are ringing in a new year today, February 10.

  In China, the event will start the year of the dragon.

  While January 1 is a also public holiday in the country, it is rather insignificant compared to the massive Chinese New Year’s celebration lasting seven days or even longer.

  The Chinese welcome two new years in short succession and, as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz shows in the chart below, a new year is celebrated almost every two months in some part of the world.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  In July, Muslim countries rang in a new year on the Islamic calendar. 1445 AH will last from July 19, 2023, to approximately July 5, 2024 – 14 days shorter than the 366 days of the Gregorian year. The date set by Saudi Arabia is based on astronomical calculations of moon cycles and while many countries in the region follow the Saudis’ lead, others wait until they can spot the new moon themselves, causing slightly different observation dates for the holiday.

  Like the Islamic New Year, many regional new year’s celebrations rely on lunar calendars, causing their dates to vary each year in relation to the Gregorian calendar, which is based on one revolution of the Earth around the sun. Because the Islamic year is the only one which is significantly shorter than the solar year, the Islamic celebration is also the only one which can occur in any month of the Gregorian calendar.

  Saudi Arabia until recently condemned new year’s celebrations on January 1 and only allowed fireworks to take place on the date for the first time in 2021. January 1 celebrations have also caused debate in Uzbekistan, where the Persian New Year Nowruz is celebrated in March and traditionally minded Uzbeks would like to see January 1 celebrations – a Soviet legacy – disappear. Nowruz is considered the main new year’s celebration – and main festival of the year – in Iran and Afghanistan, while it is celebrated as “Spring Festival” in much of Central Asia.

  In Southeast Asia, January 1 and regional celebration Songkran coexists peacefully. Its date used to be determined by the lunar Hindu calendar, but has since received set Gregorian dates varying slightly by country for convenience’s sake. In India, the Hindu calendar’s new year is celebrated on various days in March and April depending on the region, while January 1 celebrations are also popular.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 19:15

• "Garbage Deals": Dealership Puts Customers In Cars With $3,000 Monthly Payments
  “Garbage Deals”: Dealership Puts Customers In Cars With $3,000 Monthly Payments

  A New York Fed survey published earlier this week indicated that, in the fourth quarter of 2023, auto loan delinquencies reached levels not seen since right after the Great Recession more than a decade ago. 

  As a refresher, the data from Tuesday by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York showed (read: ZH report here) the rate at which car owners are behind on their payments hit an annualized rate of 7.7%, the highest level since 2010. 

  

  “Delinquency transition rates have pushed past pre-pandemic levels, and the worsening appears to be broad-based,” researchers at the NY Fed wrote in a blog post. 

  Given that we already covered this in a report titled Credit-Card & Auto Delinquencies Soar, Especially Age Group 18-39, as well as other eye-opener credit reports in recent weeks:

  • Banks Report Tighter Standards, Weaker Loan Demand But Some Improvement As Financial Conditions Ease
  • Stunning Collapse In Credit Card Debt Change As Average APR Hits New All-Time High

  … perhaps there is reason to believe an increasing number of households have hit the proverbial brick wall despite the Biden administration cheering ‘Bidenomics’ on legacy corporate media outlets. 

  The households who piled on insurmountable auto and credit card debt through the Covid era and the current high-interest rate environment are likely the folks running into financial turmoil. 

  An Edmunds report from last year showed the percentage of drivers with plus $1,000 monthly payments jumped to an all-time high of 17.1% in the second quarter of 2023 compared to 16.8% in the first quarter. The reason is that the average amount financed for a new vehicle is around $40,000, plus auto loan rates are at a generational high.

  “The double whammy of relentlessly high vehicle pricing and daunting borrowing costs is presenting significant challenges for shoppers in today’s car market,” Edmunds’ director of insights Ivan Drury said last year. 

  This leads us to two posts made by X user Clown World. They shared what appears to be an auto dealer sharing several images online of new customers financing vehicles with payments that are as much as monthly mortgage payments. 

  One person purchased a 2023 Tahoe with $2,550 monthly payments on an 84-month term! 

  

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Another person bought a 2023 Sierra 2500 Denali with $3,000 monthly payments, locked in a 96-month term! 

  What a deal 😅😳 pic.twitter.com/r0Sjhma5gC

  — Clown World ™ 🤡 (@ClownWorld_) February 9, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Here’s what folks on X said in response to the two posts:

  $288,000 for a truck that will depreciate to 1/5 of that long before it’s paid off.

  — Caballero 🏹 (@HughAkston0) February 9, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Dude could be almost 1/3 of the way through a 30 year mortgage on an expensive house when he pays off his truck.

  — Branos (@thesonofbran) February 9, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  What’s with this trend of people posting their garbage “deals” at dealerships.
  Nice flex 😂

  — T M (@T_morgan61) February 9, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The repo industry silently cheers. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 19:11

• Biden Admin Confirms Using Financial Surveillance To Help Feds Catch Jan6'ers
  Biden Admin Confirms Using Financial Surveillance To Help Feds Catch Jan6’ers

  Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

  The Treasury Department has admitted that it helped law enforcement catch people involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol breach by urging banks to comb through the private transactions of customers using terms like “MAGA” and “Trump” as part of a surveillance scheme intended to fight money launderers but used to hunt Jan. 6-ers.

  

  In January, The Epoch Times reported on allegations that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)—the U.S. Treasury Department’s financial crime-fighting unit—was accused of engaging in “pervasive financial surveillance” by circulating materials to banks that listed keywords that could be used to flag private financial transactions of potential Jan. 6 suspects for law enforcement.

  The materials also allegedly included instructions to banks to use indicators that could include “the purchase of books (including religious texts)” and subscriptions to media containing “extremist views.”

  The explosive allegations that FinCEN pushed banks to surveil the private transactions of their customers for suspicious charges based in part on political and religious expression prompted Republican lawmakers to demand answers.

  Among these was Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, who pressed Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and FinCEN director Andrea Gacki for answers in a Jan. 19 letter, in which the lawmaker alleged that, if true, the allegations “represent a flagrant violation of Americans’ privacy and the improper targeting of U.S. citizens for exercising their constitutional rights without due process.”

  Mr. Scott received a response letter on Feb. 9, in which Office of Legislative Affairs acting assistant secretary Corey Tellez confirmed that keywords like “MAGA,” “Trump,” or “storm the Capitol” were included in materials FinCEN provided to banks to help the feds track down Jan. 6 protesters.

  Mr. Tellez wrote that, following the Jan. 6 incident, FinCEN shared information with banks that included typologies that were based on previous efforts to develop robust anti-money laundering programs that could identify specific types of illegal activity, such as that related to active shooters or violent extremists.

  “For example, a document distributed on January 15, 2021, suggested that banks could review payment messages for indications that an individual participated in the assault on the Capitol and included terms such as ”Antifa,“ ”MAGA,“ ”Trump,“ ”Biden,“ ”Kamala,“ ”Schumer,“ and ”Pelosi,“ along with terms indicating an intent to do violence, such as ”shoot,“ ”kill,“ ”murder,“ and ”storm the Capitol.”

  FinCEN shared such documents with banks and law enforcement agencies via a series of events on FinCEN Exchange. This is a public-private information exchange platform established by Congress in 2020 for the purpose of disrupting money laundering, terrorism financing, and other crime

  “FinCEN’s primary role through these Exchange events was to support law enforcement efforts,” Mr. Tellez wrote, adding that these FinCEN Exchange events lasted until around mid-February 2021, so about a month-and-a-half after the Jan. 6 incident.

  Financial Surveillance of ‘MAGA’

  Confirmation that the Biden administration used what Mr. Scott called “politically charged search terms” to flag customers for the benefit of law enforcement stems from the work of the House Judiciary Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, which are conducting oversight of law enforcement activity against U.S. citizens that may skirt the legal process.

  On Jan. 17, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who also heads the weaponization subcommittee, revealed that the two committees were in possession of documents indicating that FinCEN sent out materials to banks on behalf of law enforcement that outlined the typologies of persons of interest linked to the Jan. 6 incident.

  “We now know the federal government flagged terms like ‘MAGA’ and ‘TRUMP’ to financial institutions if Americans completed transactions using those terms,” Mr. Jordan said in a post on X.

  “What was also flagged? If you bought a religious text, like a BIBLE, or shopped at Bass Pro Shop.”

  In a letter to former FinCEN division director Noah Bishoff, Mr. Jordan accused the agency of engaging in “pervasive financial surveillance” carried out at the request of law enforcement, with the lawmaker claiming this raised doubts about the Treasury Department’s “respect for fundamental civil liberties.”

  Several days after Mr. Jordan made his allegations, Mr. Scott wrote to Ms. Yellen and the FinCEN chief demanding explanations for what he described as reports of “unwarranted financial surveillance.”

  “These allegations are particularly concerning given past efforts to weaponize the financial system and payment activity against politically disfavored, lawful activity,” he wrote.

  As an example of such weaponization, Mr. Scott singled out the Obama-era “Operation Choke Point” initiative, which involved the Justice Department coordinating with financial regulators to push banks to deny services to legitimate businesses that the administration was ideologically opposed to, such as gun retailers.

  Mr. Scott’s demand for answers led to the Feb. 9 letter from the Biden administration and admission of financial surveillance—which Treasury insists was both legal and legitimate.

  “FinCEN is deeply committed to fulfilling this important national security and criminal justice mission in accordance with the law,” Mr. Tellez wrote, suggesting in the letter that, thanks in part to FinCEN, “more than 1,200 people have been charged with crimes in connection with the Capitol attack and nearly 900 have been convicted.”

  Among those convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6 incident, roughly 750 have been sentenced, with nearly two-thirds receiving some time in prison.

  The longest prison sentence—22 years—was handed down to Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys national chairman who was convicted of seditious conspiracy for what prosecutors alleged was a plot to stop the transfer of power from then-President Donald Trump to President-elect Joe Biden during the certification of electoral votes in Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.

  Dozens of Jan. 6 detainees are still languishing in jail awaiting trial three years after the Capitol incident.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 18:40

• Poll Shows Biden Border Policy Has Backfired With Latinos
  Poll Shows Biden Border Policy Has Backfired With Latinos

  Authored by Bill King via RealClear Wire,

  A poll by the University of Houston was released last week on the prospects for the March primary elections and the November general election in Texas. The poll unsurprisingly projected that Biden and Trump were headed to another showdown in November, and that Trump was leading Biden in that rematch by 9% in Texas. However, what I suspect the Biden campaign team found shocking was that Biden was losing to Trump with Latino voters by a 47-41 margin. Only 55% of Latino Democratic primary voters said they were committed to vote for Biden. The other 45% were undecided.

  

  I have watched for years as pundits and political consultants from both parties, who were mostly white, have made assumptions about how Latino voters felt about issues and how they would likely vote. The near universal mistake these consultants and pundits have made for years was that immigration was the paramount issue for the Latino community and that they wanted more liberal immigration laws. Both assumptions were wrong.

  First, there is no monolithic “Latino community.” Those of Mexican American heritage are the predominant group but there are also Americans from every other country in Central and South America. And they all have very different perspectives on just about every aspect of life, and especially on politics.

  Even among those whose families originally immigrated from Mexico there are vast differences. I have a Latino friend who is a sixth-generation Texan. He joked with me one day that he didn’t know he was a “minority” until he went to college. I can assure you that his views on immigration are very different than a recent immigrant from Mexico who is trying to get the other family members into the country.

  Also, immigration is hardly the only issue that Latinos are concerned about. I had dinner with some members of the Texas House of Representatives a couple of years ago about the prospect of starting a new party in Texas. The group was evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. All but one of the Democrat members were Latino.

  I went around the room asking each one why they were dissatisfied with their existing party affiliation. One of the Latino members told me that his family were devout Catholics and opposed to abortion. He was tired of his party “looking down” on him because of his faith. Another said, “Defund the police my a#$, half my family works in law enforcement.” Another shared that his family was in the oilfield service business, and he was worried that Biden’s green energy agenda was going to hurt their family’s business and the economy of the area he represented. Immigration never came up during the dinner.

  In a recent UT poll, 71% of Latinos supported “tightening U.S. border security and providing Border Patrol with increased technology, infrastructure, and personnel.” That was not far behind whites at 85% and African Americans at 81%. It seems clear that Biden’s lax border policies are hurting him in Texas across every demographic group, including Latinos.

  But there is nuance in the polling. While Latinos generally feel about the same as their non-Latino neighbors regarding the state of the border, their views on other immigration issues vary significantly. For example, only 29% support the immediate deportation of immigrants here illegally, with 41% strongly opposed. That compares to 51% of whites who support immediate deportation. Similarly, 68% of Latinos support a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants compared to 56% of whites. 61% of Latinos support harsher penalties for employers who hire workers here illegally compared to 82% of whites. Latinos also support a continuation of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, often referred to as Dreamers) at significantly higher levels than whites.

  All of this suggests that a majority of Latinos, and at least a significant plurality of the rest of Americans, want the government to control the border but at the same time want a more rational system to process new immigrants and those who are already here. Biden could thread the needle on immigration but for some inexplicable reason has persisted in his lax border policies.

  I do not subscribe to the theory that the president’s intention was to bring new Democratic voters into the country or the even nuttier “white replacement” conspiracy theories. Those of us who have worked in elections know that trying to register and get non-citizens to the polls is virtually impossible, at least at any scale that could affect the outcome of an election. When a third of American citizens are still not voting in presidential elections, it is much easier to get qualified voters to the polls. By the way, most of those who do not vote would likely favor Democratic candidates. Also, many of the Latino immigrants coming into the country have views on many issues, such as abortion, that are at odds with the Democratic platform.

  This New York Times story attempted to put a noble face on Biden’s immigration political disaster. But even these Biden-friendly reporters struggled to concoct a rational explanation for his border policies. I think the simpler explanation is that every time party control of the White House changes, the new president feels the need to reverse all of his predecessor’s policies, whether they were working or not. Which is why we get little to nothing done. Trump was obsessed with repealing Obamacare, notwithstanding that it was supported by a growing majority of Americans throughout his presidency and most analyses showed that it slowed the increase in healthcare costs.

  Biden came to the White House with the same mindset. Had he simply admitted that some of Trump’s border policies were working and then pressed to pass some badly needed reforms to the immigration system, he would not be in the mess he is now. But as Thomas Paine insightfully observed, “A man under the tyranny of party spirit is the greatest slave upon the earth, for none but himself can deprive him of the freedom of thought.”

  Where is Thomas Paine when we need him?

  Bill King is a businessman and lawyer, and is a former opinion columnist and editorial board member at the Houston Chronicle. He has served in a number of appointed and elected positions, including mayor of his hometown. He writes on a wide range of public policy and political issues. Bill is the author of “Unapologetically Moderate.” 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 17:30

• Israel Prepares For Rafah Assault That Could Lead To "Tens Of Thousands" Of Casualties As Saudis Warn Of Imminent "Humanitarian Catastrophe"
  Israel Prepares For Rafah Assault That Could Lead To “Tens Of Thousands” Of Casualties As Saudis Warn Of Imminent “Humanitarian Catastrophe”

  With any hopes for a Israel-Hamas ceasefire now dead, overnight Israeli air strikes killed 17 people in Rafah on the Gaza border medics said on Saturday, as over a million Palestinians crammed into the city await a full-scale offensive with the rest of the enclave in ruins and nowhere left to run.

  

  As reported yesterday, four months into the war in Gaza, Israeli PM Netanyahu’s office said it ordered the army to prepare to evacuate civilians from Rafah – a city in Gaza’s far south where more than one million displaced Palestinians have taken refuge, many sheltering in tents pushed up against the border with Egypt and the sea – ahead of a planned ground operation against four Hamas batallions it says are deployed in the city; on Saturday, the Israeli military said the air force killed two Hamas operatives in Rafah. The assault is set to escalate substantially, with Israeli Channel 13 news reporting that Netanyahu has requested the remobilization of reserve soldiers for the military operation.

  Israeli Channel 13: Netanyahu requested the remobilization of reserve soldiers in preparation for the military operation in Rafah. https://t.co/DIcPxziAkA

  — EndGameWW3 🇺🇸 (@EndGameWW3) February 10, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Gaza’s Hamas rulers warned on Saturday that Israeli operations in Rafah could cause “tens of thousands” of casualties in the city. The office of Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas said the move “threatens security and peace in the region in the world” and is “a blatant violation of all red lines”.

  Meanwhile, the Israeli military has been dropping leaflets over Rafah advising the civilians of the upcoming military operation and advising them to move safe locations, although it isn’t clear where the Palestinians can move to.

  Today Israel dropped new leaflets over Rafah warning civilians of the forthcoming military operation in the area and advising civilians to move to safe locations. #Gaza pic.twitter.com/rH9OMu9VAW

  — FJ (@Natsecjeff) February 10, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  While in prior Israeli assaults on Gaza’s cities the military ordered civilians to flee south, now that they are effectively pressing against the border with Egypt, there is no obvious place for them to go and aid agencies have said large numbers could die.

  “Any Israeli incursion in Rafah means massacres, means destruction. People are filling every inch of the city and we have nowhere to go,” said Rezik Salah, 35, who fled his Gaza City home with his wife and two children for Rafah early in the war.

  Meanwhile, the world is warning Israel that any incursion into Rafah will have dire consequences. On Saturday, Saudi Arabia said that Israel’s planned army operation in overcrowded Rafah would cause a “humanitarian catastrophe” and called for the United Nations Security Council to intervene.

  The kingdom “warned of the extremely dangerous repercussions of storming and targeting” Rafah and affirmed its “categorical rejection and strong condemnation of their forced deportation”, in a foreign ministry statement carried by state media.

  #Statement | The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia warns of the very serious repercussions of storming and targeting the city of Rafah in the Gaza Strip. pic.twitter.com/JrdfxLnxaA

  — Foreign Ministry 🇸🇦 (@KSAmofaEN) February 10, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “This continued violation of international law and international humanitarian law confirms the necessity of convening the Security Council urgently to prevent Israel from causing an imminent humanitarian catastrophe,” the statement added.

  

  While US President Joe Biden’s administration has voiced optimism that Saudi-Israeli normalisation can be revived, Saudi Arabia said this week it had told Washington it would not establish ties with Israel until an independent Palestinian state is “recognised” and Israeli forces leave Gaza. Saudi Arabia, home to the holiest sites in Islam, has never recognised Israel but had been considering to do so before the Israel-Hamas war broke out in October.

  Meanwhile, Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian warned Israel against taking any steps towards a broader war against its proxy, the Hezbollah terror group in Lebanon, saying that would be Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “last day.”

  At a news conference with his Lebanese counterpart Abdallah Bou Habib in Beirut, he also said Iran saw a political solution as the only way to end the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. “Iran and Lebanon confirm that war is not the solution and that we absolutely never sought to expand it,” Amir-Abdollahian said. He also said Tehran was in talks with Saudi Arabia on a political solution to hostilities in Gaza.

  Hamas this week proposed a ceasefire of four and a half months, during which remaining hostages held by Hamas would go free, Israel would withdraw its troops from Gaza, and an agreement would be reached on an end to the war. It also demands the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences in Israeli jails for terror attacks.

  Netanyahu called the Hamas terms “delusional” and vowed to fight on. But Amir-Abdollahian said Hamas was presenting ideas based on a “realistic view,” and that they should be widely backed to end the war.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 16:55

• Dem Calls For 25th Amendment Against Trump Come Back To Haunt
  Dem Calls For 25th Amendment Against Trump Come Back To Haunt

  Authored by Susan Crabtree via RealClear Wire,

  Thursday’s news crescendo ending in a calamitous presidential press conference carried hidden lessons for both parties: Be careful what you wish on your political enemies. It could monumentally backfire.

  

  The Democrats’ continuous calls during his four years in office to use the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office on the presumed grounds of mental instability took a disastrous turn this week, as the effort self-combusted in a Hindenburg-sized blowback.

  In October 2020, before Joe Biden was elected president and three months before Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a press conference. She was touting a bill to create a bipartisan commission that could determine a sitting president’s ability to carry out the duties of the office.

  The original bill’s author was Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and former constitutional lawyer who would go on to lead the second Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump. In Pelosi’s eerily portentous remarks, she said the measure wasn’t explicitly aimed at Trump, but his mental health “reminded” Democrats of why such a commission was needed.

  “This is not about President Trump. He will face the judgment of the voters, but he knows the need for us to create a process for future presidents,” she said. “This legislation applies to future presidents, but we are reminded of the necessity of action by the health of the current president.”

  The measure would have augmented the 25th Amendment, which provides procedures for transferring power to the vice president in case of the president’s death, incapacitation, removal, or resignation. It would set up a commission of 16 members chosen by Democrats and Republicans, who are medical experts or former high-ranking executive branch officials such as former members of a president’s Cabinet. The commission’s members would then select a 17th member, who would serve as chairperson.

  Pelosi and many Democrats regularly raised the issue of the 25th Amendment during Trump’s tenure as president, more as a way to question his judgment and mental acuity amid the 45th U.S. president’s furious Twitter rants and frequent acts of retribution and name-calling.

  Many Democrats have long questioned whether Trump suffers from cognitive decline, and recently, the former president provided more fodder by confusing Nikki Haley with Pelosi herself in accusing the former ambassador to the United Nations of being responsible for security at the Capitol during the pro-Trump riots.

  But the Democratic digs at Trump’s mental health were far trickier after the party’s leaders coalesced around Joe Biden as the Democratic 2020 presidential nominee and suddenly were forced to fend off far worse public perceptions of Biden. Once elected, his stairway falls, mangled words, and misidentified world leaders made the task all the more difficult.

  Now the tables have decisively turned. Republicans are now beating the drum for invoking the 25th Amendment after Special Counsel Robert Hur released a damning report. The findings accused Biden of “willfully” keeping classified documents in his Delaware home but declined to charge the president because his deteriorated mental state made him impossible to prosecute. Jurors would view him only as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” Hur asserted in his report.

  Legal experts and hardline Republicans erupted with calls for Biden’s removal from office, citing Hur’s claims that Biden struggled to remember events such as when his term began and ended as vice president and when, within several years, his son Beau died.

  “The Special Counsel’s report exposing that Joe Biden’s mental decline is so severe that he can not stand trial means he is unfit for office,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, posted on X.com. “We must demand either the 25th amendment be invoked or impeachment.”

  Several other members of the House Freedom Caucus, a conservative group that helped remove House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in December, quickly amplified the calls. Rep. Mary Miller, an Indiana Republican, painted a dire situation, deeming Biden’s removal from office a matter of national security.

  “For the safety of our nation, Joe Biden must resign,” Miller wrote. “He could not remember basic facts about his life. He is not competent to remain as Commander-in-Chief & every day that he remains, he puts America at risk.”

  Speaker Mike Johnson and the entire House GOP leadership also waded in, issuing a joint statement that concluded: “A man too incapable of being held accountable for mishandling classified information is certainly unfit for the Oval Office.”

  Johnson then doubled down after Biden decided to take the questions head-on at a hastily assembled press conference in which he angrily sparred with reporters questioning his mental abilities and mistakenly called Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi the “president of Mexico.”

  “The President’s press conference this evening further confirmed on live television what the Special Counsel outlined,” the Speaker said on X. “He is not fit to be President.” Two conservative GOP senators, Mike Lee of Utah and Rick Scott of Florida, joined the chorus. “It’s time for his cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment,” Scott tweeted.

  Scott acknowledged just how unlikely such an outcome would be, considering the rules for removing a president outlined in the constitutional amendment and the politics of doing so in an election year. A president can only be removed if he agrees to resign or if the vice president and a majority of presidential Cabinet members agree that he must leave office. And that’s just the first step.

  Under such a scenario, the president can still resist and insist he’s competent to lead the nation. If the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet still disagree, they must wait four days before the 25th Amendment faces further nearly insurmountable hurdles. Successfully removing a president requires the support of two-thirds of the House and the Senate. 

  Why does the process give the president so much control over his ability to remain in office? The 25th Amendment’s authors crafted the process to maintain the power of the presidency and to prevent partisan political forces from manipulating it as an end-run around impeachment.

  “It reflects a preference for giving the president the ability to be the main decision-maker here,” explained Brian Kalt, a professor of Michigan State University College of Law and the author of “Unable: The Law, Politics, and Limits of Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.”

  “Not only do you need the president’s own party to vote in significant numbers against him in the House and Senate, you need his own team, basically to say, ‘Look, this is not okay,’” Kalt told RealClearPolitics. “It’s supposed to be hard. It’s supposed to be for extreme situations.”

  The 25th Amendment was ratified and approved after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy as a more explicit mechanism for transferring power from the president. It had previously been understood that the vice president could step in if the president was disabled, but until that time, the Constitution didn’t provide the requisite standards or procedures.

  “So, we never used it, even when presidents were clearly incapacitated,” Kalt said.

  Several times before Kennedy’s assassination, the country’s continuity of government was endangered when presidents became incapacitated. President Garfield was incoherent for two and a half months after he was shot in 1881 before he eventually died. Vice President Chester Arthur didn’t take over despite Garfield’s inability to perform his official duties.

  In 1919, President Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke that severely affected his physical and mental health for the remainder of his term. But he refused to resign, and Vice President Thomas Marshall declined to serve as acting president.

  During President Dwight Eisenhower’s years in office, he suffered a heart attack and underwent surgery for Crohn’s disease. Eisenhower wrote a confidential letter to his vice president, Richard Nixon, naming him responsible for determining whether he could perform his presidential duties. The letter’s legal authority was never adjudicated, and in any event, Nixon took over the duties of president only for a few hours two times, in 1955 after Eisenhower’s heart attack and again during the president’s 1956 surgery.

  “It’s not supposed to be another way for the president’s opponents to get rid of him,” Kalt said. “We really do stack the deck in favor of the president but in a way that allows power to transfer when it’s an undeniable case.”

  After Hur released his devastating report Thursday, Biden’s personal and White House lawyers showed no willingness to concede that Biden’s mental capacity is in any way diminished. The vast majority of Americans do not seem to agree. Even before the special counsel’s conclusions, a January NBC News poll found that 76% of voters have major or moderate concerns about Biden’s cognitive and physical health.

  In reacting to Hur’s report, Biden’s lawyers strongly objected to its characterizations and accused the special counsel of engaging in partisan politics. Bob Bauer, Biden’s personal attorney, who previously served as the general counsel to the Democratic National Committee and President Obama’s presidential campaign, accused Hur of “trashing” Biden.

  “The special counsel could not refrain from investigative excess, perhaps unsurprisingly given the intense pressures of the current political environment,” he said in a statement. “Whatever the impact of those pressures on the final report, it flouts department regulations and norms.”

  But other prominent legal analysts argued that Hur’s decision not to hold Biden responsible for years of violating the Presidential Records Act was far too lenient. Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, said the depiction of Biden as too feeble to stand trial reminded him of the defense of mob leader Vincent Gigante, who often showed up in court in robes and pajamas. His lawyers successfully delayed his prosecution for years through arguments that he was mentally unfit to stand trial. Gigante was eventually convicted and sentenced to 12 years.

  “Here the special counsel is saying, ‘You know what? It’s just going to break the jury’s heart to see an elderly man with such a faulty memory and diminished faculties being charged,’” Turley said on Fox News after the report’s release. “There’s going to be a lot of questions about that.”

  When it comes to Trump, Turley argued, it seems prosecutors “hit him with any possible crimes stretching every possible definition.” But when they’re dealing with figures like President Biden, they are “far more cautious and resistant to charges,” he added.

  Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andy McCarthy, a conservative commentator and regular contributor to Fox News, said the report’s conclusions about Biden’s mental health are far more damning than the determination that Biden willfully stored classified documents in his Delaware home.

  “Well, my first impression was that this is supposed to be about whether there’s enough evidence to indict, and as you read the report, I can’t help but say it sure looks like there’s enough here to invoke the 25th Amendment,” McCarthy said on Fox News. “And I know that’s not what he’s looking at, what his purpose is, but [Biden’s] fitness for office is a major issue here.” 

  The White House and Democrats on Thursday immediately pushed back at the report’s conclusions about the president’s mental fitness even as other Democratic members privately acknowledged the grim political reality – that the report confirmed what many Americans had suspected for months, making it far more difficult for Biden to remain the nominee in November.

  Before the report was released, top White House aides were already struggling to defend Biden’s decision to skip the traditional pre-Superbowl presidential interview and explain away his gaffes from earlier this week. Biden, during a fundraiser, wrongly identified dead European leaders as having expressed concern to him about the events of the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

  The politics of the situation are daunting for both major political parties. It seems increasingly clear that the Republicans are stuck with Donald Trump as their nominee whether they like it or not – and most rank-and-file voters seem fine with it even though Trump doesn’t poll as well against Biden as challenger Nikki Haley. On the Democrats’ side, if Vice President Kamala Harris becomes the president under the 25th Amendment, she would choose her own running mate. Under such a scenario, it would be far more difficult for the party to dump Harris, who is even less popular than the president, as the presumptive nominee during the remaining primaries or at the convention. There has been talk of Biden trying to replace Harris as his No. 2 since early last year. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren endorsed Biden in February, but equivocated when it came to whether or not he should boot Harris from the ticket. 

  “I really want to defer to what makes Biden comfortable on his team,” said Warren, who shortly afterward tried to undo the damage by issuing a statement “fully” supporting the reelection of Biden and Harris “together.” 

  That hasn’t stopped the speculation about other would-be presidential contenders. There are plenty of Biden alternatives already waiting in the wings, including such possibilities as former first lady Michelle Obama, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

  “Republicans should be careful what they wish for when talking about the 25th Amendment,” Kalt warned. “It could mean they won’t have Biden to run against in November.”

  Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics’ national political correspondent.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 16:20

• Propaganda Wars Begin: Illegal Immigration Will Boost US GDP By $7 Trillion
  Propaganda Wars Begin: Illegal Immigration Will Boost US GDP By $7 Trillion

  One month ago we asked a simple question: at a time when the Biden admin is breathlessly taking credit for a quote-unquote “strong” job market, how is it not the biggest political talking point right now that since October 2019, native-born US workers have lost 1.4 million jobs; while over the same period foreign-born workers have gained 3 million jobs.

  How is this not the biggest political talking point right now: since October 2019, native-born US workers have lost 1.4 million jobs; over the same period foreign-born workers have gained 3 million jobs. pic.twitter.com/Z5HVWmQ24C

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 15, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  A few weeks later, when the grotesque and ridiculous January jobs report hit, we reran the analysis to find something even more jarring. Not only were all job gains in the past year entirely thanks to part-time workers, but native-born workers plunged by a another whopping 560 thousand, bringing the two-month total drop to just under 2 million. This meant that not only has all job creation in the past 4 years been exclusively for foreign-born workers, but there has been zero job-creation for native-born American workers since July 2018 (don’t believe us? go ahead and check the data directly from the Fed).

  

  Well, little by little our observations went viral, and soon the fact that immigration has been the only source of growth in the US was picked up by everyone from unimportant people such as fake (or is it fax) economists such as Paul Krugman, all the way to the most important person in the world, (with all due respect to Dementia Joe), the Fed chair Jerome Powell, and even the Congressional Budget Office. And that required an immediate propaganda response.

  So what does the propaganda blowback against this “biggest political talking point” look like?

  Well, let’s start with the NY Times’ pet Goebbels, Paul Krugman, who just happens to be the world’s most overrated economist who in 1998 said that “by 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s”, concedes that “all of the increase in employment since the eve of the Covid-19 pandemic has involved foreign-born workers” (but because facts are “political” he mocks that “Trump and those around him clearly believe that immigrants take jobs away from native-born Americans”), and then he proceeds to lose any last trace of credibility liberals may still have in him – since anyone who knows how to click on a hyperlink such as this one can figure it out on their own – when he claims that immigrants “haven’t been taking jobs from the native-born, who are more likely to be employed in their prime working years than they were before the pandemic.” Great, the only problem with that is if one also looks at the quality of jobs instead of just quantity, and finds that all jobs in the past year have been part-time jobs.

  

  Is that the quality of jobs Krugman believes native-born Americans are entitled to? Don’t answer that: it’s rhetorical. As we showed repeatedly, non-immigrant Americans have not gained any jobs in 6 years, so Krugman’s whole argument is one giant strawman.

  As for the employment rate among prime-aged native Americans being flat, all Krugman is confirming is that the population of native born Americans is falling just as fast as their employment, which in turn is keeping the numerator and the denominator more or less unchanged. At the same time not only are all new jobs going to immigrants (whether legal or illegal), all of the US population growth is also due to immigrants (whether legal or illegal), which last time we checked, is precisely what the Replacement Theory is all about.

  Perhaps for his next propaganda exercise, the Democrats’ favorite economist can answer this question: why are so many native-born Americans so terrified of having families and raising children in this Bidenomical nirvana where everything is so wonderful, and why is all growth, in both the labor force and population, left to immigrants (whether legal or illegal).

  Of course, he won’t do that, as that requires figuring out the true nature of the problem which would go against his ideology; and instead he will jump right to the propaganda conclusion which is what one would expect from a professional liar, namely that “Immigrants are really good for the U.S. economy — and nativists really bad.“

  All this is short-run; add in huge long-run benefits from immigration in helping us pay for Social Security, Medicare and so on. Immigrants are really good for the U.S. economy — and nativists really bad 6/

  — Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) February 2, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  * *  *

  Of course, if it was just Krugman doing the full court propaganda press we wouldn’t even bother with this response, but we were rather amazed to hear none other than the Fed chair bring the topic of immigration up in his 60 Minutes interview. Luckily, unlike the NYT ecomedist, Powell’s take was far more accurate, if much more sinister. For those who missed it, here is what Powell said when host Scott Pelley asked him why the return of immigration to the US after the Pandemic (when Trump locked down all the borders) was so important:

  PELLEY: Why was immigration important?

  POWELL: Because, you know, immigrants come in, and they tend to work at a rate that is at or above that for non-immigrants. Immigrants who come to the country tend to be in the workforce at a slightly higher level than native Americans do. But that’s largely because of the age difference. They tend to skew younger.

  PELLEY: Why is immigration so important to the economy?

  POWELL: Well, first of all, immigration policy is not the Fed’s job. The immigration policy of the United States is really important and really much under discussion right now, and that’s none of our business. We don’t set immigration policy. We don’t comment on it.

  I will say, over time, though, the U.S. economy has benefited from immigration. And, frankly, just in the last, year a big part of the story of the labor market coming back into better balance is immigration returning to levels that were more typical of the pre-pandemic era.

  PELLEY: The country needed the workers.

  POWELL: It did. And so, that’s what’s been happening.

  Two points here: first, whether he meant to or not, Powell just insulted a few hundred million native-born Americans who reportedly do not work at a “rate that is above that for non-immigrants”, i.e., they are plain old lazy, and then there is the far more ominous insinuation: when Powell says that a “big part of the story of the labor market coming back into better balance is immigration returning to levels that were more typical of the pre-pandemic era,” what he really means is that the reason why inflation has fallen so fast since peaking in June 2022 (at 9.1% YoY) without a corresponding surge in the unemployment rate, is because immigrants (whether legal or illegal) were replacing the jobs of those native American workers who were leaving the labor force! Or said otherwise, you have Replacement Theory to thank for the drop in inflation (i.e., wages) which would not have been possible without the surge in immigration, which in turn is why native-American workers haven’t seen any job gains in 6 years!

  Which also explains why private worker wages have indeed tumbled in the past two years, even as government wage growth has exploded to an all time high. That’s right, Replacement Theory for thee… just not for the Deep State, which is taking all the benefits of sliding wages (thanks to Paco mowing your lawn again), and pushing wages of government workers (i.e., the Deep State) to an all time high!

  

  But while Powell’s attempt at spinning immigration (almost entirely of the illegal sort since that’s where the bulk of workers came from in the past two years) was at least grounded in truth – and is why the ominous conclusion of why all this is taking place emerged – the third and final propaganda shocker came from none other than the “bipartisan” Congressional Budget Office, which this week published its latest “Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024 to 2034“, and which not surprisingly for an election year, came out decidedly more optimistic than last year’s edition, largely due to a handful of ridiculous assumptions about the future US budget and deficit, which we will discuss in a subsequent post – some of the “highlights” are i) no recession for a decade, ii) unemployment rates peaks just over 4%, iii) inflation peaks at 2%, iv) discretionary spending declines drastically largely due to a big drop in Medicaid spending – yet even with all these ludicrous cherry-picked assumptions, US debt/GDP still rises to catastrophic, hyperinflationary 172% by 2054.

  

  Anyway, since it is an election year, the CBO – whose forecasts have been dead wrong and overly optimistic every single year this century – was tasked with coming up with some optimistic talking points for the Biden admin, like how many trillions in nominal GDP growth the US economy will add if it maintains the current course over the next decade, and it did as ordered. In fact, it did so well, that the WaPo’s favorite economic columnist and spin master, Catherine Rampell, was effusive in her praise of the CBO forecast on X (formerly twitter). To be sure, not even she could mask the fact that the US is on an unsustainable fiscal course, pointing out that “Thanks largely to those higher-than-previously-expected interest rates, CBO raised its estimate of net outlays for interest over the next decade by $1.2 trillion (or 11%)” (spoiler alert: outlays due to the soaring interest will be orders of magnitude greater).

  But what matters for this analysis is the CBO’s punchline, and what one item they goalseeked to get to their mandated economic increase. Can you guess where the bulk of economic growth comes from?

  Why, that’s right: immigration!

  Here is how the CBO’s labor force forecast looks like today vs a year ago. Why the surge? Well, as the CBO explains, higher population growth through 2026 is “mainly from increased immigration”, which “more than offset a decline in labor force participation due to slowing demand for workers and the rising average age of the population” – translation: more immigrant workers, fewer native-American workers. And that’s not all: according to the CBO, “a large proportion of recent and projected immigrants are expected to be 25 to 54 years old – adults in their prime working years.“

  

  And there’s your Replacement Theory again, only this time with a beautiful spin, one which as the WaPo columnist was delivered by none other than CBO Director Phill Swagel, who writes that “as a result of those changes in the labor force, we estimate that from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and revenue will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise.”

  From CBO Director Phill Swagel: “As a result of those changes in the labor force, we estimate that, from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and revenues will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise.”https://t.co/751mWoOqNL pic.twitter.com/xsJS0ROpPc

  — Catherine Rampell (@crampell) February 8, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  And so there you have it. One month ago we wondered how the surge in immigrant workers is “not the biggest political talking point right now.”

  Well, just a few weeks later, it is emerging as just that, and the propaganda response has been staggering, with establishment figures such as Krugman, who accuses anyone that believes immigration is bad as being part of the lumpenproletariat, which ironically is a Marxist term…

  “No, A.I. and automation, for all the changes they may bring, won’t ultimately take away jobs, and neither will immigrants. Don’t join the lumpencommentariat” – source

  … Powell, who accuses native-born workers of being lazy and claims that immigration is helping defeat the inflation that his policies unleashed…

  “… a big part of the story of the labor market coming back into better balance is immigration returning to levels that were more typical of the pre-pandemic era.” – source

  … and finally the CBO…

  “The labor force in 2033 is larger by 5.2 million people, mostly because of higher net immigration. As a result of those changes in the labor force we estimate that from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and revenue will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise.” – source

  … all coming out in full-throated support of immigration (mostly of the illegal, inflation-crushing because wage-hammering variety).

  To be sure, many rational voices – even those of conventional economists – have come out to challenge these ludicrous assumptions and conclusions, but none of them will be heard because as it should be abundantly clear by now, immigration will be the decisive factor of the November election, and if the Biden propaganda machine can kill two birds with one stone, namely that (illegal) immigration is actually great for the US and will end up boosting the economy by trillions, all the better.

  

  And so, with the election still nine months ago, expect the topic of how illegal immigration is the greatest thing imaginable for the US, to dominate the airwaves of the liberal mainstream media which is also the most vocal propaganda channel available to the establishment, whose fate is now contingent on convincing hundreds of millions of Americans that all those tens of thousands of illegals entering the country every day thanks to Biden’s open-border policies are actually the best thing that could happen to them.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 16:00

• These Were The 10 Best-Selling Vehicles In The US In 2023
  These Were The 10 Best-Selling Vehicles In The US In 2023

  In a banner year, U.S. automakers sold 15.5 million cars in 2023, driven by pent-up demand. Overall, sales jumped 12.4%, with many car manufacturers seeing double-digit sales increases.

  Higher dealership inventory and moderating car prices were two reasons for this growth, helping make up for a tough 2022 which was the worst year in a decade due to supply chain disruptions and production snags.

  Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu created this graphic to show the best-selling vehicles in America in 2023, with data from Motor1.

  

  Trucks and SUVs See Highest Sales

  As the table below shows, nine out of America’s top 10 selling cars were trucks or SUVS:

  

  *Tesla does not break out sales by region. Figures are based on estimates by EVadoption.com.

  The Ford F-Series maintained its spot as the best-selling vehicle in America for over four decades straight.

  Of the two million cars that Ford sold last year, nearly 40% were of the F-Series. While the automaker has cut back electric vehicle (EV) plans for 2024, sales of EV models increased 18% over the year. Meanwhile, hybrid sales climbed 25%, with 133,743 hybrid models sold.

  The Chevrolet Silverado fell next in line—the full-size pickup truck has been a long-standing number two seller to the F-Series. In 2023, the most affordable model had a manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) of $38,195 while the least expensive Ford F-150’s MSRP was $34,445. Overall, sales of the Silverado grew by 6.1% annually.

  Coming in fifth was Tesla’s Model Y. In efforts to reach sales targets, Tesla cut prices on the Model Y SUV amid competition from Ford and BYD, a leading Chinese EV company. While the company doesn’t report regional figures, EVadoption.com estimates U.S. sales to be 403,897.

  Surprisingly, the only sedan in the top 10 is the Toyota Camry. The cheaper Corolla ranked 12th, with 232,370 units sold.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 15:45

• US Intelligence Officials Say Israel Not Close To Defeating Hamas
  US Intelligence Officials Say Israel Not Close To Defeating Hamas

  Via Middle East Eye

  Israel has not even come close to defeating Hamas through its military offensive on the Gaza Strip, US intelligence officials have said. According to the New York Times, the officials told members of Congress earlier this week that while Israel had managed to degrade Hamas’s fighting capabilities, they were still very far from crushing the organization itself.

  Officials also said that given the nature of Hamas’ military wing as a fundamentally “guerilla” force, defeating the group might not even be possible and that simply weakening their combat strength might be a more realistic goal.

  

  Their comments come despite repeated insistence from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the defeat of the Palestinian group was the ultimate goal of his country’s ongoing attack on Gaza.

  In a press conference late on Wednesday, Netanyahu vowed to continue Israel’s military offensive until “total victory” was secured, saying his country would achieve this “within months”.

  “We won’t settle for less,” he said, as he rejected a ceasefire plan proposed by Hamas.

  Earlier on Wednesday, several news agencies, including Middle East Eye, said they had seen the Palestinian group’s proposed three-stage ceasefire plan.

  Among the proposals was for all Israeli women, children under 19, the elderly, and the sick to be released from Gaza during the first 45-day phase in exchange for the release of all Palestinian female, children, sick, and elderly prisoners over 50 years old from Israeli jails. 

  The Palestinian death toll in four months has risen reportedly to more than 27,900, with over 67,400 wounded and at least 7,000 missing, who are believed to be dead and buried under rubble. Over 70 percent of the victims are children and women, according to health officials.

  The air war has also continued…

  ⚡️Sky over the north moments ago pic.twitter.com/iyxNnY7SZy

  — War Monitor (@WarMonitors) February 9, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  While Netanyahu claimed last month that Israel had killed two-thirds of Hamas’ fighting force, American officials say privately that their estimates are considerably lower, saying maybe only a third of Hamas’s estimated 20,000 to 25,000 fighters had been killed.

  “The closed-door intelligence briefing to members of Congress did not include a discussion of how many Hamas fighters may have been killed, nor did it contain refined estimates of civilian casualties,” NYT writes. 

  “American intelligence officials have refrained from offering specific estimates of how many Hamas fighters have been killed, arguing that such estimates are neither accurate nor meaningful,” the report continues.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 15:10

• Gunning For Garland: Biden Melts Down Over Hur Report As White House 'Unlists' Disaster Press Conference
  Gunning For Garland: Biden Melts Down Over Hur Report As White House ‘Unlists’ Disaster Press Conference

  Joe Biden is fuming mad, and has told aides and outside advisers that Attorney General Merrick Garland didn’t do enough to sanitize a special counsel’s report which concluded that Biden is too cognitively diminished to face prosecution for mishandling classified documents.

  

  As Politico reports;

  Biden and his closest advisers believe Hur went well beyond his purview and was gratuitous and misleading in his descriptions, according to those two people, who were granted anonymity to speak freely. And they put part of the blame on Garland, who they say should have demanded edits to Hur’s report, including around the descriptions of Biden’s faltering memory.

  The import of Hur’s report, of course, is being seized and pounced upon by conservatives, as the obvious conclusion is that if Biden is too senile to face prosecution, he’s too senile to be the president.

  

  According to the report, Garland is finished – and wouldn’t remain in his post for a possible second term.

  “This has been building for a while,” said an anonymous insider. “No one is happy.”

  And while the White House insists the DOJ isn’t ‘weaponized,’ Biden in recent weeks has apparently grumbled to aides and advisers that had Garland simply moved sooner in his investigation into Donald Trump for election interference, a trial might already be underway – or even have concluded.

  

  “I think Garland will be criticized by historians. We’ve had some terrific attorneys general and some not so good attorneys general. And I think he’s going to rank in the not so good,” said Robert Shrum, a longtime consultant in the Democratic Party.

  “Garland is far and away Biden’s worst appointee by an order of magnitude,” Robert Kuttner, co-founder of the liberal American Prospect. “And we all pay the price. If Biden goes down the drain because Garland has mishandled the investigation of Trump and gave Republicans a weapon … then the country pays the price. It’s not just that Biden gets punished for the stupidity of appointing Garland.” -Politico

  That said, one former DOJ official suggested that frustrations at Garland are better directed at the White House – where the president’s team could have asserted executive privilege over elements of Hur’s report. Had Garland done so, he would have had to explain those redactions to Congress.

  “The way in which the White House story kept changing at the outset made it much more difficult for the Justice Department to resist having a special counsel,” said the former official, referring to the classified documents case. “Had there been a very clear story at the beginning, it would have been easier.”

  Mental competency?

  Meanwhile, following the report, medical professionals stepped up calls for Biden to take a mental competency test.

  “The horse is out of the barn. Not only does [Biden] have an infirmity of some degree, but he has delayed producing objective evidence,” said Dr. Stuart Fischer, a primary care physician at a nursing home in the Bronx, in a statement to the NY Post.

  [A]ccording to Fischer, Biden has “signs of symptoms” that could indicate he suffers from “infectious disease or fatigue,” though the physician stressed that he is not Biden’s doctor and his statements did not constitute a diagnosis.

  “I don’t know how this man can have anything more than a mild schedule,” added the doc, “because the more he pushes himself, the more difficult it is for an 81-year-old body to respond.”

  Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), a physician to both former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump and a member of the White House Medical Unit under President George W. Bush, told The Post that if Biden clinches the Democratic presidential nomination, he should “100%” have to submit to a mental competency test before the general election. -NY Post

  Leading Democrats, meanwhile, are encouraging Biden to ‘get out there’ and show he’s ok upstairs, Politico reports, writing that top party operatives are warning that he cannot retreat – and “want to see him engage with the press and voters in the off-script and punchy exchanges he’s been known for in the past, which they believe will help chip away at concerns about the president’s mental acuity.”

  Hiding the evidence

  Following the Thursday release of Hur’s report, Biden stormed out and gave an angry press conference denouncing its findings and insisting that he’s got all his marbles – before mistakenly referring to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as the President of Mexico, while trying to convey a story about Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu.

  In response, the White House unlisted the video from its YouTube feed for anyone who doesn’t have a direct link.

  🚨 BREAKING: The White House has now UNLISTED Joe Biden’s humiliating press conference from Thursday night, effectively hiding it from their page unless you have the direct link. pic.twitter.com/0EnxDXnmAS

  — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 10, 2024

  So, here it is:

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  This is fine…

  …Of course, the various experts and pundits who called for Trump’s removal under the 25th Amendment are notably silent this week, even after his own Justice Department cited his diminished faculties as a reason for not charging him.

  — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 10, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 14:35

• Mail-In Ballot Fraud Study Finds Trump 'Almost Certainly' Won In 2020
  Mail-In Ballot Fraud Study Finds Trump ‘Almost Certainly’ Won In 2020

  Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A new study examining the likely impact that fraudulent mail-in ballots had in the 2020 election concludes that the outcome would “almost certainly” have been different without the massive expansion of voting by mail.

  

  The Heartland Institute study tried to gauge the probable impact that fraudulent mail-in ballots cast for both then-candidate Joe Biden and his opponent, President Donald Trump, would have had on the overall 2020 election results.

  The study was based on data obtained from a Heartland/Rasmussen survey in December that revealed that roughly one in five mail-in voters admitted to potentially fraudulent actions in the presidential election.

  After the researchers carried out additional analyses of the data, they concluded that mail-in ballot fraud “significantly” impacted the 2020 presidential election.

  They also found that, absent the huge expansion of mail-in ballots during the pandemic, which was often done without legislative approval, President Trump would most likely have won.

  “Had the 2020 election been conducted like every national election has been over the past two centuries, wherein the vast majority of voters cast ballots in-person rather than by mail, Donald Trump would have almost certainly been re-elected,” the report’s authors wrote.

  Over 43 percent of 2020 votes were cast by mail, the highest percentage in U.S. history.

  ‘Biggest Story of the Year’

  The new study examined raw data from the December survey carried out jointly between Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports, which tried to assess the level of fraudulent voting that took place in 2020.

  The December survey, which President Trump called “the biggest story of the year,” suggested that roughly 20 percent of mail-in voters engaged in at least one potentially fraudulent action in the 2020 election, such as voting in a state where they’re no longer permanent residents.

  

  In the new study, Heartland analysts say that, after reviewing the raw survey data, subjecting it to additional statistical treatment and more thorough analysis, they now believe they can conclude that 28.2 percent of respondents who voted by mail committed at least one type of behavior that is “under most circumstances, illegal” and so potentially amounts to voter fraud.

  “This means that more than one-in-four ballots cast by mail in 2020 were likely cast fraudulently, and thus should not have been counted,” the researchers wrote.

  A Heartland Institute research editor and research fellow who was involved in the study explained to The Epoch Times in a telephone interview that there are narrow exceptions where a surveyed behavior may be legal, like filling out a mail-in ballot on behalf of another voter if that person is blind, illiterate, or disabled, and requests assistance.

  However, the research fellow, Jack McPherrin, said such cases were within the margin of error and not statistically significant.

  What Are the Implications?

  In addition to reassessing the likely overall degree of fraudulent mail-in ballots in the 2020 election, Heartland analysts calculated the potential impact that fraudulent mail-in ballots might have produced in the six key swing states that President Trump officially lost.

  This, then, was used to determine the impact of potentially fraudulent mail-in ballots on the overall 2020 election result.

  First, the researchers analyzed the electoral results for the six swing states—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—under the 28.2 percent fraudulent mail-in ballot scenario that they estimated based on the raw survey data.

  Then they calculated the electoral results in the six states under the different scenarios, each with a lower assumed percentage of fraudulent ballots, ranging from 28.2 percent all the way down to 1 percent.

  For each of the 29 scenarios that they assesses, the researchers calculated the estimated number of fraudulent ballots, which were then subtracted from overall 2020 vote totals to generate a new estimate for vote totals.

  Overall, of the 29 different scenarios presented in the study, the researchers concluded that President Trump would have won the 2020 election in all but three.

  Specifically, they calculated that the only scenarios that would affirm the official 2020 election result, namely that candidate Biden won, were mail-in ballot fraud levels between 1 and 3 percent of ballots cast.

  Mail-in ballot fraud rates higher than 3 percent would, according to the study, mean more fraudulent Biden votes that should be subtracted from the total, putting President Trump ahead.

  For example, the adjustment to the vote tallies under fraud percentage rates between 13 and 6 percent would mean President Trump would have won Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, though he would have still lost in Michigan and Nevada.

  Under such a scenario, President Trump would have won 289 Electoral College votes compared to candidate Biden’s 249.

  In scenarios of 5–4 percent fraud, each candidate would have received 269 Electoral College votes, but President Trump would likely still have won because Republicans controlled more state delegations and, under a tie scenario, Congress would have voted based on the number of delegates.

  However, the researchers expressed confidence in their overall assessment that the level of mail-in ballot fraud was over 25 percent, indicative of an actual Trump win.

  “We have no reason to believe that our survey overstated voter fraud by more than 25 percentage points, and thus, we must conclude that the best available evidence suggests that mail-in ballot fraud significantly impacted the 2020 presidential election, in favor of Joe Biden,” the paper’s authors wrote.

  

  Survey Criticism

  Jim Womack, president of the North Carolina Election Integrity Team, told The Epoch Times in an earlier interview and in additional written comments in response to the new study, that he believes the survey questions were flawed and make the survey statistically meaningless, though not without value.

  “We know there was fraud in the 2020 election, but you can’t conclude that it was 20 percent or 10 percent or even 5 percent based on the survey because the questions that could lead to such conclusions were unclear,” Mr. Womack said.

  However, he said that the survey questions on which Heartland based its research were unclear. He argued that the questions comingled legal and illegal activity and that this made it impossible to conclude specific percentages of mail-in ballot fraud with certainty.

  For instance, Mr. Womack pointed out that it’s legal and permissible in all states for people who by reason of blindness, disability, or illiteracy request or require assistance in filling out mail-in ballots to get such assistance.

  However, the wording of one of the survey questions—“During the 2020 election, did you fill out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child?”—did not differentiate between legal and illegal forms of filling out a mail ballot on behalf of someone.

  Therefore, 21 percent of people responding “yes” to this question does not necessarily mean that this percentage of people actually committed voter fraud, Mr. Womack argued.

  Mr. Womack also said that another survey question–“During the 2020 election, did you cast a mail-in ballot in a state where you were no longer a permanent resident?”—to which 17 percent replied yes—also does not support the conclusion that all such cases were illegal. That’s because, as Mr. Womack pointed out, federal and state laws allow some voters (such as UOCAVA registered citizens) to cast a ballot in a state where they are no longer permanent residents under certain circumstances.

  “We’d need to dive deeper into these responses to determine if these were fraudulent or not,” Mr. Womack said.

  Regardless, he praised the Heartland Institute for engaging with the topic of mail-in ballot fraud and raising public awareness about what he said is an important problem.

  Response to Criticism

  When asked to comment on Mr. Womack’s objections, Mr. McPherrin, of the Heartland Institute, told The Epoch Times that he stands by the findings.

  For instance, Mr. McPherrin acknowledged that it’s legal for people who are blind, disabled, or illiterate to get help from someone in filling out a ballot.

  However, he argued that the number of such individuals responding to the Heartland/Rasmussen survey (which was based on a representative sample of 1,085 likely voters) would likely have been tiny.

  “It would be difficult to imagine that dozens of blind people or those that are illiterate or disabled are answering this poll,” he said, adding that the presumably tiny fraction of survey respondents who fall into this category would be statistically insignificant and not impact the overall survey results.

  But even if that particular question is left out due to concerns about its clarity, the percentage of people who admitted to potentially fraudulent voter activity would still be about one in five, he said.

  Mr. McPherrin said he and his team have received and reviewed Mr. Womack’s criticism and they believe the points he makes have some validity but not enough to affect their findings in a meaningful way.

  He maintains the study clearly shows that if the 2020 election had been as fair and secure as prior elections, President Trump would “almost certainly” have been re-elected to a second term.

  Mr. Womack continues to stand by his criticism of the survey question design, providing The Epoch Times with a written statement on Feb. 8 that calls the survey “very poorly constructed, failing to capture even a single instance of probable voter fraud.”

  He argued that the survey questions were “vague and ambiguous, commingling permissible with impermissible behaviors, thus diminishing the quality and usefulness of responses.”

  Further, Mr. Womack argued that propagating the contents of the survey does more harm than good and potentially undermines the work and reputation of “legitimate election integrity organizations like EIN,” referring to the Election Integrity Network, a project of the Conservative Partnership Institute.

  Meanwhile, the authors of the Heartland study call for state legislatures to do all in their power to ensure the 2024 presidential election is as secure as possible, mostly by severely limiting mail-in voting and adopting other commonsense policies to prevent mail-in voter fraud.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 14:00

• "More Red Flags Than Before 9-11": Ohio Sheriff Warns American People Of Worsening Border Invasion
  “More Red Flags Than Before 9-11”: Ohio Sheriff Warns American People Of Worsening Border Invasion

  The Biden administration’s radical southern border policies have led to the greatest invasion of migrants this nation has ever seen, including a significant number of military-aged men from around the world. This situation has raised alarm bells within the FBI, prompting the head of the federal agency to alert local law enforcement agencies across the US in a meeting last week.  

  On Wednesday, Ohio Sheriff Richard K. Jones held a press conference where he shared details about a meeting in Washington, DC, that he attended alongside sheriffs from across the nation. The meeting featured discussions with Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI.

  

  Jones explained the president has refused to meet with the 3,300 sheriffs and police chiefs across the US amid the border crisis and eruption in violent crime nationwide. 

  “We were also told by Mr. Ray, the FBI director, that there are more red flags going off now than before 9-11,” Jones said. 

  Here’s part of the transcript of the sheriff’s press conference where he explains Wray’s warning for America (transcript courtesy of Wall Street Apes): 

  “China has safe houses in every state in the United States.” 

  “They’re bringing something here to cause us harm. You have to believe that. China has safe houses in every state in the United States. My name is Rick Jones. I’m the Butler County Sheriff, Butler County, Ohio. I just came back from the National Sheriff’s Training in DC three days ago, two days ago. We were briefed by the FBI director Ray, the director of the FBI, and several federal agencies. There’s 3,300 sheriffs in the United States. 

  The President of the United States refuses to meet with the sheriffs of the 3,300. We have a hierarchy. We have a president. We have a vice president. The President of the United States refuses to meet with the sheriffs. 

  He also refuses to meet with the police chiefs of the United States. They have a hierarchy also. He refuses to meet with them to talk about border issues or talk about crime that’s going on because of the border issue. We were also told by Mr. Ray, the FBI director, that there are more red flags going off now than before 9-11. Okay? 

  When I say red flags, meaning people that are here in this country that are wanting to do harm to us. We were also explained we’re bombing two countries right now. Two countries. These people do not like us before this started. There’s thousands of people here from other countries, 160 different countries. They’re here not to be our friends. 

  Some of them are coming because they’re wanting to come here to the best country in the world, the way we see it. Some are coming here to do harm to us. And we were told by the FBI director, it’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. We were also told five sheriffs went to Israel five weeks after the attack. The only thing that saved the Israelis, their government was the local police. They were outgunned, outmanned. They came over. The Palestinians did. They came over. They killed, raped. The sheriffs were there. They talked to the police. The local police are what saved that country. You can’t just call, even in Israel, you can’t just call the military up, and they’re going to be there, okay? They went house to house, raping, killing. The Israeli police. 

  When our guys got there, the sheriffs said, they just don’t hate us. They hate you guys equally. And the same people that train them are the same people that train people to hate us. 

  The FBI director said when 9-11 hit, there’s more red flags now than then. So, and he said, these are people that want to kill us and do harm to us. Now, so you’re wondering, I want everybody to know what I know. 

  I can’t tell you everything, but I want the public to know that we are in a terrible way right now. The United States, and I’m going to get to the local. 

  The United States, we’re on the defense. You can’t be just defense and not have an offense. We have no offense. We’re just defense. We’re absorbing these attacks. We’re in other countries. We’re supplying them with weapons. We’re supplying them with our treasure, our money. And we’re not doing much back home. So. 

  With that in mind, we were also told that they’re going, this is from the federal government, three days ago. They’re going to attack our elections.” 

  Ohio Sheriff Richard K. Jones Warning The Amercian People

  After Meeting With Director Of The FBI Christopher Wray, Sheriff Says The Illegal Immigrants Entering America Will Do Us Harm “It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when”

  “China has safe houses in every state in the… pic.twitter.com/SJ9DJlk8sY

  — Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) February 9, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The sheriff also noted, “We’re going to start training civilians – we’ve offered uh classes to train civilians.” 

  This planned border invasion (via open southern border policies and shadowy networks of NGOs) by the radicals in the White House is happening in an election year.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 02/10/2024 – 13:25

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Chinese Engineer Allegedly Stole Trade Secret Technology For Detecting Nuclear Missile Launches: DOJ
  Chinese Engineer Allegedly Stole Trade Secret Technology For Detecting Nuclear Missile Launches: DOJ

  Authored by Frank Fang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A Chinese-born researcher has been arrested for allegedly stealing trade secret technologies developed for the U.S. government to detect nuclear missile launches and to track ballistic and hypersonic missiles, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

  

  Chenguang Gong, 57, of San Jose, California, was arrested in San Jose on Feb. 6, prosecutors said.

  Mr. Gong became a U.S. citizen in 2011. He got his master’s degree in electrical engineering from Clemson University and completed some work toward a doctorate at Stanford University, according to court documents.

  From January 2023 to April 2023, Mr. Gong worked as an engineer for a research and development company based in Malibu, California. The company was referred to only as the “victim company” by the DOJ and in court documents.

  Court documents said much of the company’s work—the development of infrared sensor technology for space-based and military missions for missile detection—was funded through contacts with the Pentagon and other government contracts.

  Mr. Gong allegedly transferred 3,600 files from his work laptop to three personal storage devices from March 2023 to April 2023, according to court documents. Hundreds of documents marked as confidential or proprietary belonging to the company were discovered on devices taken from his temporary residence in Thousand Oaks, California, following an FBI search in May 2023.

  The DOJ said the technology allegedly stolen by Mr. Gong would be “dangerous to U.S. national security if obtained by international actors.”

  “Many of the files Gong allegedly transferred contained proprietary and trade secret information related to the development and design of a readout integrated circuit that allows space-based systems to detect missile launches and track ballistic and hypersonic missiles while providing resilience and a readout integrated circuit that allows aircraft to track incoming threats in low visibility environments,” the DOJ stated.

  Other files were related to the development of the company’s “next-generation sensors,” which can “detect low observable targets while demonstrating improved survivability in strategic space applications,” the court document says.

  The information Mr. Gong allegedly stole was among the company’s “most important trade secrets,” worth hundreds of millions of dollars, the DOJ said, adding that some of the files were marked “EXPORT CONTROLLED.”

  “The theft of trade secrets, especially of sensitive military technology, undermines our national security, erodes U.S. competitiveness in the global market, and harms the businesses and individuals who have invested time, resources, and creativity into developing innovative technologies,” Donald Alway, assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office, said in a statement.

  After becoming aware of his activities, the company terminated Mr. Gong’s employment in late April 2023.

  According to the DOJ, Mr. Gong is charged with theft of trade secrets, which, if he’s convicted, carries a statutory maximum penalty of 10 years in federal prison.

  He was released on $2.5 million bond with location monitoring and curfew on Feb. 7 following a hearing in San Jose, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles said, according to NBC News.

  China

  The FBI also uncovered Mr. Gong’s employment history in China. For three years in the 1990s, Mr. Gong was a “government employee” of a provincial-level association under the leadership of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials in China’s eastern province of Zhejiang, according to court documents.

  Before joining the Malibu-based company last year, Mr. Gong worked for “a number of prominent U.S. technology companies, as well as an international defense, aerospace, and security company,” according to court documents.

  While employed in the United States, Mr. Gong repeatedly contacted Chinese authorities. According to court documents, he submitted “numerous applications” for China’s “Talent Programs” from 2014 to 2022.

  The regime in Beijing offers hefty financial incentives—including research funding, salaries, and housing—via many different talent recruitment programs to entice overseas Chinese and foreign experts into working in China’s science and tech sectors. The CCP hopes to quickly turn China into an industrial and innovation powerhouse through these programs, one that ultimately outperforms Western countries.

  The FBI has long warned about these Chinese programs, saying that they encourage trade secret theft and economic espionage.

  “Talent plans usually involve undisclosed and illegal transfers of information, technology, or intellectual property that are one-way and detrimental to U.S. institutions,” the FBI says on its website.

  In recent years, federal authorities have prosecuted academics who have allegedly concealed their links to China’s talent programs.

  In 2017, Mr. Gong wrote to the 38th Research Institute of the state-run China Electronics Technology Group Corp. requesting funding. He stated that he “would like to apply for funding for entrepreneurial teams” to develop high-performance analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converters similar to those produced by his U.S. employer, according to court documents.

  He told the institute that he would use the funding for his startup company, which would “become the leader in the field of data converters in China, providing customization for the military and civilian fields,” according to court documents.

  Mr. Gong traveled to China twice to participate in talent program conferences in 2019. In an email translated from Chinese to English by the FBI, Mr. Gong remarked that he “took a risk” by traveling to China to participate in the Talent Programs “because [he] worked for … an American military industry company” and thought he could “do something” to contribute to China’s “high-end military integrated circuits,” according to the DOJ.

  In a 2020 talent program application, Mr. Gong proposed to develop “low light/night vision” image sensors for use in military night vision goggles and civilian applications, according to the DOJ.

  “In a video presentation included with Gong’s [2020] submission, Gong used a video containing the model number of a sensor developed by an international defense, aerospace, and security company where Gong worked from 2015 to 2019,” the DOJ said.

  “We will do everything to protect our nation’s security, including from foreign threats,” Martin Estrada, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, said in a statement.

  “We know that foreign actors, including the PRC [People’s Republic of China], are actively seeking to steal our technology, but we will remain vigilant against this threat … by safeguarding the innovations of American businesses and researchers.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 23:40

• October 2023, The Month Streaming Costs Ballooned
  October 2023, The Month Streaming Costs Ballooned

  While price hikes for subscription services might seem like a smart short-term solution to boost revenue and income, they tend to become more of a gamble in times of fracturing markets.

  This is especially true for the subscription video, or SVoD, sector where many traditional TV networks have launched their own streaming platforms in recent years.

  In the U.S., Netflix, Amazon and Disney dominate this industry, despite aggressive price increases by the latter two companies in the last six months.

  As Statista’s Florian Zandt shows in the chart below, only one major video streaming service didn’t announce or implement higher costs for their standard plans…

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  The platform in question is Netflix, which kept the price for its standard ad-free plan steady since January 2022.

  This isn’t to say that the company hasn’t turned the screws in other areas.

  In October 2023, the streaming service raised the price for its Basic plan by $2 and for its Premium plan by $3, which is in line with the increase in costs for the standard plans of other providers. These price hikes coincided with Apple, Amazon and Disney all raising monthly fees by $3 in absolute terms, sometimes directly, sometimes by announcing add-ons to existing plans that will get rid of ads like in Amazon’s case. Customers of Max, the SVoD offering by HBO, had to contend with an increase in pricing even earlier in the year, although the base cost of its standard plan had already been relatively high.

  It remains to be seen if these price hikes, which most certainly won’t be the last for the near future, manage to balance out other macroeconomic effects and market developments. For now, the companies behind the platforms seem optimistic. Disney, for example, claimed to be on track for profitability in its direct-to-consumer segment by the fourth fiscal quarter of 2024, despite losing 1.3 million subscribers in their core markets between October and December 2023.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 23:20

• Who's To Blame For The Elite Extreme Left?
  Who’s To Blame For The Elite Extreme Left?

  Authored by Rob Natelson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Many writers decry the American political scene as “too divisive.” But I don’t think this goes to the root of our political problems. A much more serious concern is that a very powerful minority of Americans reject the core principles upon which our Constitution and our society rest: principles of Western Civilization, republican government, and the Judeo-Christian heritage.

  

  In the view of this minority, the American Founding was a crime, people should be judged largely on race and gender, elections should be manipulated (to protect “our democracy”), the traditional family structure should be abandoned, sexual mores should be perverted, and government should be nearly omnipotent.

  These ideas resemble a variant of fascism in which everyone serves the state and individual rights—economic and political—are exercised only by the elite’s permission. This minority not only believe these things themselves, but they want to force you to accept them also. They’re authoritarian, even totalitarian.

  When the rest of us push back against their agenda, it isn’t “divisiveness.” It’s self-defense.

  The Power of the Elite

  Despite our efforts of self-defense, this group has been remarkably successful in setting the national agenda. One example: From 1998 to 2014, there were 30 state referenda on the definition of civil marriage. The advocates of traditional marriage—that is, between a man and a woman—won all these referenda, and most of them by decisive supermajorities.

  But the agenda-setters wanted same-sex civil marriage; therefore, now it’s imposed on every state, no matter what the voters might think. So much for “our democracy.”

  Once same-sex civil marriage was secured, the agenda-setters proceeded to implement even more outré policies: critical race theory, “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” and, at least in some states, infanticide and the mutilation of children.

  And despite the fact that most Americans think we have too much government and not enough freedom, under the guidance of the agenda-setters, government continues to grow.

  Who Are They?

  Scott Rasmussen, the national pollster, set out to learn who these agenda-setters are. His polling results—some of which were publicized in The Epoch Times by Newt Gingrich—provide some answers. Mr. Rasmussen’s results also point toward the culprits who created this dangerous class of people.

  When conducting general surveys, Mr. Rasmussen noticed that most people expressing extreme leftist views share three characteristics: (1) they are very urban; (2) they hold postgraduate university degrees; and (3) they are relatively wealthy. People meeting all these criteria make up about 1 percent of the general population.

  I would have guessed our agenda-setters comprise more than 1 percent, but as it turns out, they amount to even less than that.

  Anyway, Mr. Rasmussen decided to poll a national sample of these people: urbanites with post-grad degrees who had an income of more than $150,000 per year.

  He found that their economic situations and political views are remote from those of most Americans. While most Americans have been suffering hardship during the Biden years, the 1 percent has been prospering. While most Americans are concerned about inflation, illegal immigration, and border security, the 1 percent couldn’t care less.

  Mr. Rasmussen also uncovered just how unsympathetic to American ideals this group is and how authoritarian it is:

  • Nearly half of the elite group say Americans have too much freedom.
  • 70 percent trust government to do the right thing most of the time. (What planet are they living on?)
  • Over three-quarters want to restrict your right to eat meat and use electricity.
  • Nearly three-quarters want to abolish your right to have a gasoline-powered car.
  • Nearly 70 percent would deprive you of your right to choose a gas stove.
  • More than two-thirds favor letting teachers (who usually are government employees) dictate to parents what children should be taught.
  • Decisive majorities would take away our SUVs, air conditioning, and any air travel they deem “non-essential.”

  Nearly a third of these people are focused on politics—and the views of that third are even more alarming. For example, 69 percent of them said they would rather cheat on an election than lose one! (The comparable figure among all citizens is only 7 percent.)

  This is the faction that has been setting the national agenda. The left sometimes tries to raise resentment against the wealthiest 1 percent, but the Rasmussen poll shows that the real danger lies with a different 1 percent.

  Who’s to Blame?

  In several Epoch Times columns, I’ve commented on the leftist extremism prevailing on many of our university campuses. The Rasmussen survey suggests the establishment media bear some of the blame for the elite’s attitudes. (Seventy-one percent of the subset Rasmussen designates as the “politically obsessed” elite have a “very favorable” opinion of journalists.) But the survey also suggests that the prestige universities bear much of the blame as well.

  Seventy-six percent of the “politically obsessed” elite have a “very favorable” opinion of professors. Roughly half of the entire elite attended at least one of 12 prestigious universities: Berkeley, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Northwestern, Penn, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale.

  In a prior Epoch Times column, I contended that university “affirmative action” policies were less about race and gender than about gerrymandering student admissions and faculty hiring to benefit leftists and exclude conservatives (especially Trump voters). Rasmussen reports that 65 percent of Harvard’s entering class describe themselves as “progressive,” while only 8 percent describe themselves as “conservative.”

  Even more astonishing, he reports that Protestant Christians—who make up nearly half the American population—comprise only 6 percent of Harvard’s entering class. Perhaps some at Harvard rationalize this situation by telling themselves that conservatives and Protestants are just too stupid to get into their school.

  If the universities were performing their duty of transmitting the culture, conveying knowledge, and promoting free thought, the political and cultural imbalances in entering classes would even out somewhat as those classes progressed through college. But the Rasmussen numbers suggest prestige universities are also indoctrinating the young people they’re supposed to be educating.

  This shows up in the polling data: The views of members of the elite who attended a university recently were far more extreme than the views of older members.

  Thus, among those 55 years of age or older, only 10 percent believe there’s too much individual freedom. This is below the number for the general population (16 percent).

  But among members of the elite under 35—and therefore most recently out of college—54 percent think Americans have too much freedom.

  The Rasmussen poll supports the view that America is under attack from what French author Julien Bender called La Trahison des Clercs—The Treason of the Intellectuals. For some proposed cures, see my Epoch Times series, “What’s Wrong With the Universities and How to Fix It.”

  Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 23:00

• Spot The Start Of The Biden Administration…
  Spot The Start Of The Biden Administration…

  A border deal proposed in the U.S. Senate has quickly fallen through, dragging into jeopardy a new funding plan for Ukraine wartime aid that had been tied to it as well as more funds for Israel, Gaza, Asian allies and more.

  President Joe Biden, a Democrat, had worked with Republican Senate leaders on the plan, but it was still voted down Wednesday in the chamber despite Republicans having demanded that the situation at the Southern border be addressed at the same time as aid to foreign allies.

  Republicans are right to worry, as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz details below, fiscal years 2023 and 2024 have seen new record numbers of migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border, counting both migrants apprehended and those asking to enter legally but deemed inadmissible. Their numbers rose to almost 2.5 million in FY 2023 and stood at 785,000 three months into the new fiscal year, which would constitute another record if extrapolated.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  While in 2019, Non-Mexicans outnumbered Mexicans 4:1 at the Southern border, this trend has subsided in the years since with levels of around 2:1 most recently, records from Customs and Border Protection show.

  Because a majority of people seeking to enter the United States recently have come from Central and South America and more have been applying for asylum, the Trump administration in 2019 overhauled its application process, making many asylum seekers wait in camps on the Mexican side without assistance.

  The Biden administration tried to end the policy around 1.5 years into its term, in mid-2022, but was ensnared in legal battles. ‘Remain in Mexico’ was implemented after another system overhaul – the separation of families in U.S. custody and the tendency to release fewer immigration detainees on bail – had caused chaotic scenes at detention centers and an international outcry during Trump’s time in office.

  Since then, it appears the Biden administration has done nothing to secure the border (and some might say even the opposite).

  One glance at that chart and one can only think that Cloward and Piven would be so proud…

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 22:40

• A Rushed EV Approach Will Undermine Our National Security
  A Rushed EV Approach Will Undermine Our National Security

  Authored by James Marks via RealClear Wire,

  Normally a new year brings a renewed focus on getting things done in Washington. But with Congress accomplishing little in 2023 and attentions now shifting to the November elections, it is more prudent than ever that the policy agenda of our nation’s leaders reflect what’s best for our collective future, not politics.

  

  Take this administration’s campaign to spread electric-vehicle (EV) technologies. There is no doubt that EVs will be part of America’s future. But decisions made by President Biden and his allies to incentivize and rush the adoption of EVs into the American transportation sector will have unintended consequences. Most unrecognized being the implications on our national security priorities.

  Back in April, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced a rule that would regulate the tailpipe emissions of light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The rule aims to have roughly two-thirds of automobiles sold in 2032 to be electric. However, proponents of these types of heavy-handed government policies fail to account for the realities of the global EV market and importantly the dominance held by the Chinese.

  For the last 15 years, China has solidified various investments within the EV value chain, fortifying its position of power in this rapidly expanding market. China dominates the market for rare earths reserves, mineral extraction, and battery production, all of which are integral to the production of EVs. And while the U.S. Geological Survey estimates China only has about 36% of the globe’s rare earths reserves, it has come to control 70% of the world’s extraction capability and nearly 77% of the world’s battery manufacturing capacity.

  It’s this condition that makes a concerted push toward EVs risky because clearly to get more electric vehicles, Americans will increase our reliance on China.

  Recently a letter cosigned by me, and 16 other national security experts highlight these details and the associated risk that continued overexposure to China could mean for public officials. the U.S. automobile market will be inadvertently tied to Chinese interests, making prices and markets more susceptible to Chinese manipulation.

  For example, in October China announced intentions to enforce export restrictions on graphite, a mineral that makes up the largest amount by volume and mass of an EV battery. The country has a history of weaponizing trade as a means to exert its power. As Columbia’s Center on Global Energy Policy explained, the move was clearly “part of China’s broader strategy of flexing its economic muscle in response to escalating trade tensions with the United States.” If we continue to push the status quo, Americans will more likely face a trade war with China rather than a fully integrated, electrified future.

  Instead of electrification strategies and regulations that will artificially increase EV demand, we need to ensure that domestic investment and infrastructure opportunities are our first priority and establish policies that will level our playing field with China. One place to start would be enabling more domestic mineral and battery production with a timely and effective permitting process.

  Thankfully, national security voices like ours aren’t the only ones sounding the alarm. Recently, dozens of Congressional members in both the Senate and House wrote a likeminded letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan, expressing concern over this aggressive plan to reduce vehicle emissions and flood the nation with EVs. Additionally, the House passed the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act of 2023 (CARS Act) at the end of last year, which affirms American security and independence, and would force leaders to think of solutions that will responsibly and equitably transition people to EVs.

  Pushing forward with emissions rules and mandates will only serve to undermine Americans’ national security. President Xi Jinping’s recent speeches at the G20 make it clear that China wants to maintain its position at the top of this market and is continuing investments to do so. As stated in our letter, we must strengthen our market share and capabilities before hastening the clean energy transition. In this way, we can stand up for freedom and democracy, rather than submit to Chinese domination, and secure a prosperous economic future for us all in the 21st century.

  James “Spider” Marks is a retired U.S. Army major general.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 22:20

• Meta Removes Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei's Instagram, Facebook Accounts
  Meta Removes Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei’s Instagram, Facebook Accounts

  It has been a growing trend for the US government and US-based media platforms to censor and cancel Iranian state media entities. For example the biggest instance came in 2021 when the US Justice Department seized state-run PressTV’s domain. 

  The DOJ had seized a total of “33 Iranian government-affiliated media websites, as well as three of the Iraqi group Kataeb Hezbollah, which it said were hosted on US-owned domains in violation of sanctions,” according to a statement at the time. 

  This was after it became clear that attempts to revive the JCPOA nuclear deal with the US and Europeans had failed, and as Iran-linked attacks on US based in Syria and Iraq increased. In the wake of last month’s drone strike on a Jordanian base which killed three Marines, likely from a pro-Iran militia in Syria or Iraq, this drive to remove Iranian state social media accounts has returned.

  On Thursday Meta removed the Instagram and Facebook accounts of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The action is said to be largely the result of pressure from Israeli lobby groups in the wake of the Oct.7 terror attacks on southern Israel. Iranian leaders frequently use the term “Zionist entity” in English messaging and will not say “Israel” – which has been flagged as a violation of Meta’s hate speech policies. 

  

  “We have removed these accounts for repeatedly violating our Dangerous Organizations & Individuals policy,” a Meta spokesperson confirmed to English-language Arab news outlet Middle East Eye.

  Meta cited its policy of not allowing “organizations or individuals that proclaim a violent mission or are engaged in violence” on its.

  Ayatollah Khamenei has used his official media accounts to post in support of the Palestinian plight, and Tehran has long stood accused of backing Hamas, which is listed by the US and many European countries as a terrorist organization.

  Per MEE’s figurs, “Khamenei’s Persian-language account had more than 5.1 million followers, while his English-language account had more than 204,000.”

  Iranian opposition groups have also long lobbied to get Iranian leaders banned from Western social media platforms, particularly in wake of the recent ‘anti-hijab’ protests led by women in Iranian cities, which resulted in a harsh security services crackdown.

  

  However, critics of these censorship policies have argued that there are fewer and fewer avenues left whereby an international audience can gain insight into what Tehran is thinking. Often accounts like the Ayatollah’s Instagram or X are used to communicate official statements in multiple languages to the West.

  Additionally, in many cases state media are the first to report major breaking events such as bombings or assassinations within the country, or instances of alleged Israeli sabotage on Iranian nuclear facilities. Thus the opposing argument would be that such vital information is needed, and that these accounts should be kept active.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 22:00

• Bugs On The Menu? Biden's Climate And ESG Policies Threaten Food Supply, Think-Tank Warns
  Bugs On The Menu? Biden’s Climate And ESG Policies Threaten Food Supply, Think-Tank Warns

  Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A new report from the right-leaning think-tank The Buckeye Institute sounded the alarm on the Biden administration’s net-zero climate-control policies and that agenda items threaten U.S. food production.

  

  The report, released on Feb.7, found that the climate policies and mandates guided by the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) agenda that is being pushed by the Biden administration carries a hefty price tag for American farmers and consumers.

  “To better appreciate the true costs that American farms and households will likely pay for the Biden administration’s net-zero policies and objectives, The Buckeye Institute’s Economic Research Center developed a model corn farm that must play by the government’s new carbon emission rules,” wrote report authors Trevor W. Lewis and M. Ankith Reddy, who are both economic research analysts at the think-tank.

  “The farm’s operational costs, as expected, all rose significantly,” they added.

  Crunching the numbers, the researchers found that U.S. farmers will see their operational costs rise by an estimated 34 percent as a result of the Biden administration’s net-zero emissions policies.

  Not only did the model predict that the government’s carbon pricing policies would raise farm operating costs, consumers also face a hit to their wallets.

  “Carbon pricing will increase the average U.S. grocery bill by $110 per month, $1,330 annually, or 15 percent,” the researchers estimated.

  

  Threat to Food Supply

  The government’s net-zero policies that the Buckeye report took into account in its analysis include the implications of rejoining the Paris Climate Accords, which targets greenhouse gas emissions.

  In order to achieve the climate pact’s objectives, the Biden administration committed to cutting America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 50–52 percent by 2030 and to reach economy-wide net-zero emissions by 2050.

  “Achieving the administration’s desired decarbonized economy will require aggressive climate-emission reduction policies that drain and replace fossil fuels from every sector of the U.S. economy,” the report’s authors wrote.

  The Biden administration has already started implementing stringent regulatory policies meant to cut carbon emissions from America’s energy industry, while a looming final rule on ESG reporting, due to enter into force in April 2024, threatens to push carbon compliance onto other industries.

  Many of these policies have been tested in Europe, with the researchers concluding that the results there have been an “unmitigated failure.”

  “Despite these resounding warnings from European counterparts, U.S. policymakers have recommitted American industry to the same net-zero emissions standards and have imposed the same kinds of costly mandates on farms and businesses that will ultimately reduce food and energy supplies without achieving their intended benefits,” they argued.

  “The results of Buckeye’s modeling were predictable and unsurprising, but many U.S. policymakers seem unwilling to address or even acknowledge them. That has to change, or the United States will face dire economic consequences,” concludes the report’s executive summary.

  The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the report’s findings.

  

  Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, commented on the report in a post on X.

  “Farmers and ranchers lay out huge sums for everything from fertilizer, seeds, and feed to heavy machinery and pesticides to produce the food we eat. Yet, the climate cult and ESG elites are causing these costs to skyrocket,” he wrote.

  “That puts a heavier financial burden on agricultural producers and imposes higher food costs on hardworking Americans,” he continued.

  “America’s farmers and ranchers’ livelihoods shouldn’t be at risk because of inflated operating costs or loss of access to capital from woke banks. Nor should the American people be victim to a crushing tax put on their groceries by climate extremists.”

  ‘Agriculture Is National Security’

  The Buckeye report comes a week or so after a dozen Republican state agriculture commissioners warned in a Jan. 29 letter to top bank executives that membership in the UN Net-Zero Banking Alliance would negatively impact farmers and threaten America’s food security.

  Along with their membership in the alliance, banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have pledged that the loans they make will “align with pathways to net-zero by mid-century or sooner.”

  Tyler Harper, Georgia agriculture commissioner and one of the letter’s signatories, told The Epoch Times in an earlier interview that committing to net-zero policies has a negative knock-on impact on national security.

  “At the end of the day, agriculture is national security, and if we’re not able to feed ourselves as a nation, we’re not able to protect ourselves,” he said.

  “When you look at Sri Lanka and the devastating impacts that [climate mandates] had there, you look at the Netherlands and what they did to implement some of these policies there and the devastating impact it had on their ag economy—we’ve seen the impacts that this had in other nations and we don’t want that to happen here,” Mr. Harper added.

  

  In 2019, after the government of Sri Lanka implemented rules to cut down the use of nitrogen in fertilizer, crop yields collapsed, leading to violent protests that ultimately toppled the government.

  In the Netherlands, regulatory attempts to impose net-zero policies led to widespread protests from farmers.

  ‘Will You Eat the Bugs?’

  Meanwhile, a recent Epoch Original Documentary called “No Farmers No Food: Will You Eat the Bugs?” explores the climate-control policies pushed by governments around the world and how they’re forcing farmers out of business, threatening food supply.

  “This is the next global crisis that is being ignored by media across the world,” Roman Balmakov, host of EpochTV’s “Facts Matter” and director of the documentary, told The Epoch Times during an interview on the sidelines of the world premiere of the film in September 2023.

  

  The documentary delves into the history of the “climate crisis” and how it was conceived by world leaders during the United Nations Conferences on Environment and Development, also known as the Earth Summit, in June 1992, shortly after the Cold War ended.

  The film also dives into Agenda 30, previously known as Agenda 21, laying out a case for how global policies set forth by the UN’s aim to end private farming and create dependence on a one-world government that will control the world’s food supply.

  “People in charge of some of the most powerful organizations on the planet have determined that agriculture, specifically animal agriculture, is to blame for global warming and global warming is to blame for the high prices of food and food shortages,” Mr. Balmakov explained.

  The documentary explores the impact of radical climate policies in Sri Lanka and the Netherlands, while also exploring the impact of net-zero and other regulations in the United States.

  The solutions being proposed by governments around the world to solve climate change “might surprise you,” Mr. Balmakov says in the film.

  “According to the United Nations, [bugs] might actually be your future dinner,” he says.

  Kevin Stocklin and Jana Pruet contributed to this report.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 21:40

• Leftist San Francisco Mayor Scrambles For Survival By Backing GOP Effort To Restore Law & Order
  Leftist San Francisco Mayor Scrambles For Survival By Backing GOP Effort To Restore Law & Order

  So what changed in just a few short years, San Francisco Mayor London Breed?

  A few years back. 

  

  Fast-forward to this week. 

  

  Breed’s sudden U-turn has been in the making since last summer.

  A ZH report titled “San Francisco Mayor Makes U-Turn To Fund Police After Company Exodus Pressures City Finances” shows last June that after years of defunding the police, the mayor decided to refund them. This was primarily because of the tsunami of violent crime triggered by failed social justice policies that led to a massive exodus of residents and businesses. And with the exodus, the metro area also deals with a commercial real estate crisis. 

  

  Breed is up for election. And recent polling data, according to The San Francisco Standard, shows the mayor’s job performance has tumbled to only 13%. Respondents pointed to the mayor’s inability to manage homelessness and crime. Respondents want the return of law and order after years of failed social justice reforms (they’re starting to sound like MAGA). 

  

  Now Breed is scrambling to restore confidence (a little too late for that) by joining a Republican-led campaign to eliminate parts of a law that allowed criminals to stay on the streets, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. 

  Where are Henry Lee & Da Lin? Recall the SF DA. https://t.co/hC3zuDSGEo

  — Elmano Gonsalves (@Elmanogonsalves) February 1, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  On Thursday, Mayor London Breed endorsed a proposal known as “The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act,” which aims to increase jail sentences for distributing fentanyl, streamline the process of charging drug dealers with murder, and extend incarceration for those who participate in organized retail crime. It’s noteworthy that the mayor previously supported Prop. 47, a 2014 law approved by voters that nearly eliminated punishment for criminals who stole less than $950.  

  “Our goal is not to keep people locked up,” said Breed, who is running for reelection in 2024, according to the Chronicle. “But when there are no real consequences for crimes that are committed in this city, that’s a real problem.”

  The theft of 49 iPhones from an Apple store in San Francisco highlights the ongoing challenge of retail theft in urban centers. It’s crucial for businesses and law enforcement to work together to address this issue and ensure public safety. #RetailSecurity #BeAware #Collaboration pic.twitter.com/sCOUfxrgKc

  — Andy Beltran (@Andy080195) February 8, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Democrats in the progressive and imploding state are running far away from their party’s own disastrous social justice reforms so they can be re-elected, as the people have spoken loud enough: return law and order. 

  Now that downtown SF has banned cars on market street and is rampant with vacancies and drug tourists, the motorcycle gangs roam the streets with impunity.

  Great job @LondonBreed 🤡 pic.twitter.com/fQ6X3XqpX4

  — Morgan Bender (@MorganWBender) February 7, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Voters should be demanding accountability for Democrats who pushed failed policies and triggered what appears to be real-world ‘Grand Theft Auto’ across the metro area.  

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 21:20

• Medicine Has Been Fully Militarized
  Medicine Has Been Fully Militarized

  Authored by Clayton Baker via The Brownstone Institute,

  I am thinking of a certain industry. See if you can guess what it is…

  

  This industry is huge, constituting a large portion of the nation’s GDP. Millions of people earn their living through it, directly or indirectly. The people at the top of this industry (who operate mostly behind the scenes, of course) are among the super-rich. This industry’s corporations lobby the nation’s government relentlessly, to the tune of billions of dollars per year, both to secure lucrative contracts and to influence national policy in their favor. This investment pays off richly, sometimes reaching trillions of dollars.

  The corporations supplying this industry with its materiel conduct advanced, highly technical research that is far beyond the understanding of the average citizen. The citizens fund this research, however, through tax dollars. Unbeknownst to them, many of the profits gained from the products developed using tax dollars are kept by the corporations’ executives and investors.

  This industry addresses fundamental, life-or-death issues facing the nation. As such, it relentlessly promotes itself as a global force for good, claiming to protect and save countless lives. However, it kills a lot of people too, and the balance is not always a favorable one.

  The operational side of this industry is emphatically top-down in its structure and function. Those who work at the ground level must undergo rigorous training that standardizes their attitudes and behavior. They must follow strict codes of practice, and they are subject to harsh professional discipline if they deviate from accepted policies and procedures, or even if they publicly question them.

  Finally, these ground-level personnel are handled in a peculiar manner. Publicly, they are frequently lauded as heroes, particularly under declared periods of crisis. Privately, they are kept completely in the dark regarding high-level industry decisions, and they are often lied to outright by those at higher levels of command. The “grunts” even significantly forfeit some fundamental civil liberties for the privilege of working in the industry.

  What industry am I describing?

  If you answered, “the military,” of course you would be correct.

  However, if you answered “the medical industry,” you would be every bit as right.

  In President Eisenhower’s farewell speech of Jan. 17, 1961, he stated that “… in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” Sixty-three years on, many Americans understand what he was referring to.

  They see the endless cycle of undeclared wars and decades-long foreign occupations that are undertaken on nebulous or even outright false pretenses. They see the ever-hungry mega-industry that produces super-expensive, high-tech killing devices of every imaginable form, as well as the steady stream of traumatized soldiers that it spits out. War (or, if you prefer its Orwellian nickname, “defense”) is big business. And as Eisenhower warned, as long as those profiting from it drive the policy and the money stream, it will not only continue, it will continue to grow.

  Other mega-industries – the medical industry in particular – have generally fared better in public perception than the military-industrial complex. Then came COVID.

  Among its many harsh lessons, COVID has taught us this: if you substitute Pfizer and Moderna for Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, and swap the NIH and CDC for the Pentagon, you get the same result. The “medical-industrial complex” is every bit as real as its military-industrial counterpart, and it is every bit as real a problem.

  As a physician, I am embarrassed to admit that until COVID, I possessed only an inkling that this was so—or more accurately, I knew it, but didn’t realize how bad it was, and I didn’t worry about it too much. Sure (I thought), Pharma engaged in dishonest practices, but we’d known that for decades, and after all, they do make some effective drugs. Yes, physicians were increasingly becoming employees, and protocols were dictating care more and more, but the profession still seemed manageable. True, healthcare was far too expensive (gobbling up a reported 18.3 percent of the U.S. GDP in 2021), but healthcare is inherently expensive. And after all, we’re saving lives.

  Until we weren’t.

  By early-to-mid 2020, it became obvious to those paying attention that the COVID “response,” while promoted as a medical initiative, was in fact a military operation. Martial law had effectively been declared approximately on the Ides of March 2020, after President Trump was mysteriously convinced to cede the COVID response (and practically speaking, control of the nation) to the National Security Council. Civil liberties—freedom of assembly, worship, the right to travel, to earn one’s living, to pursue one’s education, to obtain legal relief—were rendered null and void.

  Top-down diktats on how to manage COVID patients were handed down to physicians from high above, and these were enforced with a militaristic rigidity unseen in doctors’ professional lifetimes. The mandated protocols made no sense. They ignored fundamental tenets of both sound medical practice and medical ethics. They shamelessly lied about well-known, tried-and-true medicines that were known to be safe and appeared to work. The protocols killed people.

  Those physicians and other professionals who spoke out were effectively court-martialed. State medical boards, specialty certification boards, and large healthcare system employers virtually tripped over each other in the rush to delicense, decertify, and fire dissenters. Genuine, courageous physicians who actually treat patients, such as Peter McCullough, Mary Talley Bowden, Scott Jensen, Simone Gold, and others, were persecuted, while non-practicing bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci were hailed with false titles like “America’s Top Doctor.” The propaganda was as nauseating as it was blatant. And then came the jabs.

  How did this happen to medicine?

  It all seemed so sudden, but in fact it has been in the works for years.

  COVID taught us (by the way, COVID has been such a harsh tutor, but haven’t we learned so much from her!) that the medical-industrial complex and military-industrial complex are deeply connected. They are not just twins, or even identical twins. They are conjoined twins, and so-called “Public Health” is the tissue shared between them.

  The SARS CoV-2 virus, after all, is a bioweapon, developed over a period of years, funded by U.S. tax dollars in a joint effort between Fauci’s NIH and the Department of Defense to genetically manipulate the transmissibility and virulence of coronaviruses (all done in the name of “Public Health,” of course).

  Once the bioweapon was out of the lab and into the population, the race was on within the medical-industrial complex to develop and market the supremely profitable antidote to the bioweapon. Cue the full-on military takeover of medicine: the martial law lockdowns, the suppression of cheap and effective treatments, the persecution of dissidents, the ceaseless propaganda and anti-science, and the unabashed whoring of most hospital systems for CARES Act money.

  We know the rest. The ill-conceived, toxic, gene-therapy antidote, falsely billed as a “vaccine,” was foisted upon the population by blackmail (“the vaccine is how we end the pandemic”), the effective bribery of medical authorities and politicians, as well as other Deep-State directed psyops designed to divide the population and scapegoat dissenters (“pandemic of the unvaccinated”).

  The end result even sounds like the aftermath of a gigantic military operation. Millions are dead, many millions more are psychologically traumatized, economies are in tatters, and a few warmongers are fantastically rich. Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel (who, incidentally, oversaw the construction of the Wuhan Institute of Virology years ago) is a freshly minted billionaire. And not one of those who caused all the mischief are in prison.

  At this writing, virtually all the major healthcare systems, specialty regulatory boards, specialty associations, and medical schools are standing at attention, still in lockstep with the received—and by now, clearly false—narrative. Their funding, after all, be it from Pharma or the Government, depends upon their obedience. Barring dramatic change, they will respond in the same fashion when orders come down from above in the future. Medicine has been fully militarized.

  In his farewell address, Eisenhower said something else that I believe is most prescient here.

  He described that a military-industrial complex fostered “a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties.”

  Enter Disease X.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 21:00

• Where The World Celebrates Chinese New Year
  Where The World Celebrates Chinese New Year

  For around 1.4 billion Chinese, the new year begins on February 10 – unlike in the Gregorian calendar, China calculates its traditional new year’s date according to the lunar cycle.

  While various Asian nations also celebrate their own Lunar New Year festivals, the Chinese New Year is in fact a public holiday in several nations around the world, not just in the People’s Republic.

  As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz shows in the chart below, Southeast Asia is the region in which most countries give their citizens time off for the beginning of the Chinese New Year. These include Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  In recent years, the Chinese New Year has also been introduced as a special holiday in the Philippines, most recently in 2024. South Korea and Vietnam also organize celebrations at the beginning of the lunar year, but these differ in part from the customs of the Chinese New Year and are more likely to be shaped by national culture.

  While the majority of the countries and territories that explicitly celebrate the Chinese New Year are in Asia, there are two exceptions.

  In Suriname in South America, the turn of the year in both the Gregorian and the lunar calendar are public holidays. According to the official census, around seven percent of the approximately 618,000 inhabitants are of Chinese descent. The island state of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean also celebrates the Chinese New Year, although only about three percent of the approximately 1.3 million inhabitants have Chinese roots. In the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, the island was a popular emigration destination for Chinese from the province of Guangdong, also referred to as Canton at the time.

  Chinese New Year celebrations are spread over the course two weeks and usually triggers an increased volume of travel, one of the largest waves of migration in the world. The festivities also mark the official start of spring, which is why the Lunar New Year is also known as Chūnjié or Spring Festival. According to the official lunar calendar, 2024 is the year of the dragon, which last happened in 2012.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 20:40

• 7 Indicted For Attacking NYPD Officers At Times Square
  7 Indicted For Attacking NYPD Officers At Times Square

  Authored by Allen Zhong via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A total of seven persons have been indicted for attacking the New York Police Department (NYPD) officers at Times Square, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced Thursday during a joint press conference with New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

  

  Yohenry Brito, 24, was charged with assault, obstruction, and evidence tampering.

  Four others, 19-year-old Darwin Andres Gomez-Izquiel, 21-year-old Wilson Juarez, 19-year-old Kelvin Servita Arocha, and 24-year-old Yorman Reveron, were charged with assault and obstructing governmental administration.

  The other two suspects have not been identified.

  Mr. Bragg strongly condemned the attacks during the press conference.

  “This assault sickens me and outrages me. We all rely on our members of the NYPD every day to keep us safe and keep this the safest big city in America,” he said. “I do not tolerate attacks on our police officers.”

  Mr. Bragg has faced pressure since four others who had allegedly beaten police were released without bail, drawing criticism from New York Attorney General Letitia James and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul. He defended himself, saying more investigation was needed to tell who did what during that incident.

  Mr. Bragg said Thursday that he’s confident with the indictments after a thorough joint investigation between the NYPD and his office.

  “Today’s indictment follows a painstaking joint investigation between the NYPD and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office,” he told reporters. “I stand here today confident that we have identified the roles of every person who broke the law and participated in this heinous attack.”

  The NYPD is still looking for two other suspects who were at the scene and has asked the public to help.

  Anyone with information about these two suspects and the assault is encouraged to contact the NYPD’s Crime Stoppers Hotline at 1-800-577-TIPS (8477) or for Spanish, 1-888-57-PISTA (74782).

  

  The Incident

  A group of youths—reportedly all illegal immigrants—attacked two NYPD police officers at Times Square at around 8:30 p.m. on Jan. 27.

  The officers were attempting to disperse a disorderly group in front of 220 West 42 Street in Manhattan when a physical altercation started, the NYPD said.

  Several individuals repeatedly kicked and punched the officers’ heads and bodies when they were trying to take an individual into custody.

  The officers sustained minor injuries and were treated at the scene.

  Initially, police arrested five men in connection with the incident. Four were released without bail later and only one suspect, Mr. Brito, was ordered held on bail in Rikers Island, New York City’s largest jail.

  NYPD Chief of Patrol John Chell criticized the decision to release four of the suspects without bail, calling it “reprehensible,” and saying the “cowards” should be in jail.

  “Do you want to know why our cops are getting assaulted? There are no consequences,” Mr. Chell told reporters during a news conference.

  New York Gov. Kathy Hochul also expressed disappointment during a Feb. 2 press conference that the suspects involved in the assault on police officers were released on bail.

  “All I know is that an assault on a police officer means you should be sitting in jail,” she said.

  4 Arrested in Arizona

  Several illegal immigrants believed to be involved in a separate officer beating in New York have been arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, according to an official.

  A spokesperson for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sources told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement that, on Feb. 5, special agents from multiple law enforcement agencies arrested four individuals on a bus from El Paso, Texas, on its way to the Greyhound bus station in Phoenix.

  “The subjects were believed to be fleeing the state of New York from their suspected involvement in a coordinated assault on multiple New York City Police Department (NYPD) Officers,” said Yasmeen Pitts O’Keefe, ICE acting deputy press secretary.

  Ms. O’Keefe added that the four were transferred to the custody of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations to be processed for immigration violations.

  Special agents from ICE, Homeland Security Investigations, and U.S. Border Patrol participated in the operation.

  It’s unclear if those arrested in Arizona are the same persons released without bail in New York.

  Tom Ozimek contributed to this report.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 20:20

• Propaganda Wars Begin: Illegal Immigration Will Boost US GDP By $7 Trillion
  Propaganda Wars Begin: Illegal Immigration Will Boost US GDP By $7 Trillion

  One month ago we asked a simple question: at a time when the Biden admin is breathlessly taking credit for a quote-unquote “strong” job market, how is it not the biggest political talking point right now that since October 2019, native-born US workers have lost 1.4 million jobs; while over the same period foreign-born workers have gained 3 million jobs.

  How is this not the biggest political talking point right now: since October 2019, native-born US workers have lost 1.4 million jobs; over the same period foreign-born workers have gained 3 million jobs. pic.twitter.com/Z5HVWmQ24C

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 15, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  A few weeks later, when the grotesque and ridiculous January jobs report hit, we reran the analysis to find something even more jarring. Not only were all job gains in the past year entirely thanks to part-time workers, but native-born workers plunged by a another whopping 560 thousand, bringing the two-month total drop to just under 2 million. This meant that not only has all job creation in the past 4 years been exclusively for foreign-born workers, but there has been zero job-creation for native-born American workers since July 2018 (don’t believe us? go ahead and check the data directly from the Fed).

  

  Well, little by little our observations went viral, and soon the fact that immigration has been the only source of growth in the US was picked up by everyone from unimportant people such as fake (or is it fax) economists such as Paul Krugman, all the way to the most important person in the world, (with all due respect to Dementia Joe), the Fed chair Jerome Powell, and even the Congressional Budget Office. And that required an immediate propaganda response.

  So what does the propaganda blowback against this “biggest political talking point” look like?

  Well, let’s start with the NY Times’ pet Goebbels, Paul Krugman, who just happens to be the world’s most overrated economist who in 1998 said that “by 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s”, concedes that “all of the increase in employment since the eve of the Covid-19 pandemic has involved foreign-born workers” (but because facts are “political” he mocks that “Trump and those around him clearly believe that immigrants take jobs away from native-born Americans”), and then he proceeds to lose any last trace of credibility liberals may still have in him – since anyone who knows how to click on a hyperlink such as this one can figure it out on their own – when he claims that immigrants “haven’t been taking jobs from the native-born, who are more likely to be employed in their prime working years than they were before the pandemic.” Great, the only problem with that is if one also looks at the quality of jobs instead of just quantity, and finds that all jobs in the past year have been part-time jobs.

  

  Is that the quality of jobs Krugman believes native-born Americans are entitled to? Don’t answer that: it’s rhetorical. As we showed repeatedly, non-immigrant Americans have not gained any jobs in 6 years, so Krugman’s whole argument is one giant strawman.

  As for the employment rate among prime-aged native Americans being flat, all Krugman is confirming is that the population of native born Americans is falling just as fast as their employment, which in turn is keeping the numerator and the denominator more or less unchanged. At the same time not only are all new jobs going to immigrants (whether legal or illegal), all of the US population growth is also due to immigrants (whether legal or illegal), which last time we checked, is precisely what the Replacement Theory is all about.

  Perhaps for his next propaganda exercise, the Democrats’ favorite economist can answer this question: why are so many native-born Americans so terrified of having families and raising children in this Bidenomical nirvana where everything is so wonderful, and why is all growth, in both the labor force and population, left to immigrants (whether legal or illegal).

  Of course, he won’t do that, as that requires figuring out the true nature of the problem which would go against his ideology; and instead he will jump right to the propaganda conclusion which is what one would expect from a professional liar, namely that “Immigrants are really good for the U.S. economy — and nativists really bad.“

  All this is short-run; add in huge long-run benefits from immigration in helping us pay for Social Security, Medicare and so on. Immigrants are really good for the U.S. economy — and nativists really bad 6/

  — Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) February 2, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  * *  *

  Of course, if it was just Krugman doing the full court propaganda press we wouldn’t even bother with this response, but we were rather amazed to hear none other than the Fed chair bring the topic of immigration up in his 60 Minutes interview. Luckily, unlike the NYT ecomedist, Powell’s take was far more accurate, if much more sinister. For those who missed it, here is what Powell said when host Scott Pelley asked him why the return of immigration to the US after the Pandemic (when Trump locked down all the borders) was so important:

  PELLEY: Why was immigration important?

  POWELL: Because, you know, immigrants come in, and they tend to work at a rate that is at or above that for non-immigrants. Immigrants who come to the country tend to be in the workforce at a slightly higher level than native Americans do. But that’s largely because of the age difference. They tend to skew younger.

  PELLEY: Why is immigration so important to the economy?

  POWELL: Well, first of all, immigration policy is not the Fed’s job. The immigration policy of the United States is really important and really much under discussion right now, and that’s none of our business. We don’t set immigration policy. We don’t comment on it.

  I will say, over time, though, the U.S. economy has benefited from immigration. And, frankly, just in the last, year a big part of the story of the labor market coming back into better balance is immigration returning to levels that were more typical of the pre-pandemic era.

  PELLEY: The country needed the workers.

  POWELL: It did. And so, that’s what’s been happening.

  Two points here: first, whether he meant to or not, Powell just insulted a few hundred million native-born Americans who reportedly do not work at a “rate that is above that for non-immigrants”, i.e., they are plain old lazy, and then there is the far more ominous insinuation: when Powell says that a “big part of the story of the labor market coming back into better balance is immigration returning to levels that were more typical of the pre-pandemic era,” what he really means is that the reason why inflation has fallen so fast since peaking in June 2022 (at 9.1% YoY) without a corresponding surge in the unemployment rate, is because immigrants (whether legal or illegal) were replacing the jobs of those native American workers who were leaving the labor force! Or said otherwise, you have Replacement Theory to thank for the drop in inflation (i.e., wages) which would not have been possible without the surge in immigration, which in turn is why native-American workers haven’t seen any job gains in 6 years!

  Which also explains why private worker wages have indeed tumbled in the past two years, even as government wage growth has exploded to an all time high. That’s right, Replacement Theory for thee… just not for the Deep State, which is taking all the benefits of sliding wages (thanks to Paco mowing your lawn again), and pushing wages of government workers (i.e., the Deep State) to an all time high!

  

  But while Powell’s attempt at spinning immigration (almost entirely of the illegal sort since that’s where the bulk of workers came from in the past two years) was at least grounded in truth – and is why the ominous conclusion of why all this is taking place emerged – the third and final propaganda shocker came from none other than the “bipartisan” Congressional Budget Office, which this week published its latest “Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024 to 2034“, and which not surprisingly for an election year, came out decidedly more optimistic than last year’s edition, largely due to a handful of ridiculous assumptions about the future US budget and deficit, which we will discuss in a subsequent post – some of the “highlights” are i) no recession for a decade, ii) unemployment rates peaks just over 4%, iii) inflation peaks at 2%, iv) discretionary spending declines drastically largely due to a big drop in Medicaid spending – yet even with all these ludicrous cherry-picked assumptions, US debt/GDP still rises to catastrophic, hyperinflationary 172% by 2054.

  

  Anyway, since it is an election year, the CBO – whose forecasts have been dead wrong and overly optimistic every single year this century – was tasked with coming up with some optimistic talking points for the Biden admin, like how many trillions in nominal GDP growth the US economy will add if it maintains the current course over the next decade, and it did as ordered. In fact, it did so well, that the WaPo’s favorite economic columnist and spin master, Catherine Rampell, was effusive in her praise of the CBO forecast on X (formerly twitter). To be sure, not even she could mask the fact that the US is on an unsustainable fiscal course, pointing out that “Thanks largely to those higher-than-previously-expected interest rates, CBO raised its estimate of net outlays for interest over the next decade by $1.2 trillion (or 11%)” (spoiler alert: outlays due to the soaring interest will be orders of magnitude greater).

  But what matters for this analysis is the CBO’s punchline, and what one item they goalseeked to get to their mandated economic increase. Can you guess where the bulk of economic growth comes from?

  Why, that’s right: immigration!

  Here is how the CBO’s labor force forecast looks like today vs a year ago. Why the surge? Well, as the CBO explains, higher population growth through 2026 is “mainly from increased immigration”, which “more than offset a decline in labor force participation due to slowing demand for workers and the rising average age of the population” – translation: more immigrant workers, fewer native-American workers. And that’s not all: according to the CBO, “a large proportion of recent and projected immigrants are expected to be 25 to 54 years old – adults in their prime working years.“

  

  And there’s your Replacement Theory again, only this time with a beautiful spin, one which as the WaPo columnist was delivered by none other than CBO Director Phill Swagel, who writes that “as a result of those changes in the labor force, we estimate that from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and revenue will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise.”

  From CBO Director Phill Swagel: “As a result of those changes in the labor force, we estimate that, from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and revenues will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise.”https://t.co/751mWoOqNL pic.twitter.com/xsJS0ROpPc

  — Catherine Rampell (@crampell) February 8, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  And so there you have it. One month ago we wondered how the surge in immigrant workers is “not the biggest political talking point right now.”

  Well, just a few weeks later, it is emerging as just that, and the propaganda response has been staggering, with establishment figures such as Krugman, who accuses anyone that believes immigration is bad as being part of the lumpenproletariat, which ironically is a Marxist term…

  “No, A.I. and automation, for all the changes they may bring, won’t ultimately take away jobs, and neither will immigrants. Don’t join the lumpencommentariat” – source

  … Powell, who accuses native-born workers of being lazy and claims that immigration is helping defeat the inflation that his policies unleashed…

  “… a big part of the story of the labor market coming back into better balance is immigration returning to levels that were more typical of the pre-pandemic era.” – source

  … and finally the CBO…

  “The labor force in 2033 is larger by 5.2 million people, mostly because of higher net immigration. As a result of those changes in the labor force we estimate that from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and revenue will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise.” – source

  … all coming out in full-throated support of immigration (mostly of the illegal, inflation-crushing because wage-hammering variety).

  To be sure, many rational voices – even those of conventional economists – have come out to challenge these ludicrous assumptions and conclusions, but none of them will be heard because as it should be abundantly clear by now, immigration will be the decisive factor of the November election, and if the Biden propaganda machine can kill two birds with one stone, namely that (illegal) immigration is actually great for the US and will end up boosting the economy by trillions, all the better.

  

  And so, with the election still nine months ago, expect the topic of how illegal immigration is the greatest thing imaginable for the US, to dominate the airwaves of the liberal mainstream media which is also the most vocal propaganda channel available to the establishment, whose fate is now contingent on convincing hundreds of millions of Americans that all those tens of thousands of illegals entering the country every day thanks to Biden’s open-border policies are actually the best thing that could happen to them.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 20:00

• DNC Files FEC Complaint Against RFK Jr. Alleging Illegal Super PAC Coordination
  DNC Files FEC Complaint Against RFK Jr. Alleging Illegal Super PAC Coordination

  Authored by Jeff Louderback via The Epoch Times,

  Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign is accused of receiving an illegal contribution from the super PAC working to get him elected president, according to a Federal Election Commission complaint filed by the Democratic National Committee.

  

  Mr. Kennedy’s campaign is “in the process of accepting a $15 million unlawful in-kind contribution by coordinating their efforts to get him on the ballot,” DNC legal counsel Bob Lenhard said in a Feb. 9 call detailing the FEC complaint.

  Mr. Kennedy’s campaign “has acknowledged that it is time-consuming and expensive for a first-time candidate to get on the presidential ballot in all 50 states. Rather than doing that hard work itself, using money raised in compliance with the candidate contribution limits, the campaign is taking a shortcut outsourcing what is otherwise a core campaign function to a super PAC,” Mr. Lenhard added.

  American Values 2024 is ignoring federal law, according to the complaint, Mr. Lenhard noted.

  “The law does allow the super PAC to raise unlimited amounts of money from wealthy individuals, corporations, and unions for independent expenditures. But it remains illegal for a super PAC to provide goods and services directly to a campaign,” Mr. Lenhard said.

  Mr. Kennedy announced in April 2023 that he would challenge President Biden for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. He has generated wide-ranging support from conservatives, moderates, independents, and Libertarians throughout his campaign, although he hasn’t gained the same favor from many Democrats.

  Campaign finance reports have shown that Mr. Kennedy is getting more support from Republican-leaning donors than from Democrats.

  For months, Mr. Kennedy was confronted with roadblocks from the Democratic National Committee, which he said was “rigging” the primary process to favor President Joe Biden. On Oct. 9, he declared his candidacy for president as an independent.

  American Values 2024 said late last year that it plans to spend as much as $15 million to help get Mr. Kennedy on the ballot in multiple states deemed important to winning the election.

  Mr. Kennedy has so far qualified to appear on the ballot in one state—Utah. Late last month, he reported that his campaign gathered enough signatures to appear on the ballot in New Hampshire. Mr. Kennedy is traveling the country and holding voter rallies in his effort to get on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, a feat he believes he will accomplish.

  Mr. Kennedy noted that his favorability ratings were better than President Biden and President Trump, and he is ahead of both candidates among Americans under the age of 45 in six battleground states, and among independents, according to polls.

  

  Supporters of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. listen to the announcement that he will run as an independent for president in Philadelphia on Oct. 9, 2023. (Jeff Louderback/The Epoch Times)

  When asked if the DNC is concerned that Mr. Kennedy’s candidacy is a threat to President Biden’s reelection bid, DNC spokesperson Ramsey Reid called the alleged FEC violation a “scheme.”

  Billionaire Tim Mellon, one of former President Trump’s largest donors, gave American Values 2024 “the exact $15 million paycheck, they said that they would need for ballot access.”

  Mr. Reid called the move “an effort to subvert our election laws” and “prop up” Mr. Kennedy.

  Campaign finance records indicate that Mr. Mellon gave American Values 2024 $15 million in 2023. Mr. Mellon also contributed $10 million to pro-Trump super PAC MAGA Inc. last year, according to FEC filings.

  Anthony Lyons, who is co-chairman of American Values 2024, said in a statement that the super PAC: “has been working independently from the campaign in accordance with FEC precedent to get Bobby Kennedy on the ballot in 12 states. Recent polling shows that as many as 40,000,000 Americans are prepared to vote for Kennedy in November of 2024. The DNC wants to deny millions of people their basic constitutional voting rights in a relentless onslaught against democracy.”

  “The Biden administration and the DNC clearly find democracy inconvenient, want to stifle any dissenting opinions and don’t believe that their candidate can win a free, open and fair election. I don’t know if all of this amounts to election fraud,” Mr. Lyons added.

  “This FEC complaint is just another desperate DNC tactic to defame Kennedy, vilify him, and drain his campaign funds. The American people are too smart to be fooled by these political games,” he said.

  Mr. Kennedy responded to the complaint, alleging he’s being targeted for political reasons.

  “The DNC is accusing my campaign of FEC violations in the form of secretive activity—activity that’s so secretive it’s on the Ballot Access HQ of my website,” Mr. Kennedy wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

  “After the day they had yesterday, it’s understandable they’d want to put the focus on someone else. The DNC is in no position to assert morality over anyone—they refused to have a primary and have worked against the will of the people in the past few elections. It’s sad to see the party my family built crash and burn,” he added, referring to the special counsel report released yesterday that made damning findings about the president’s “poor” memory.

  Mr. Kennedy has called ballot access laws for independent and third-party candidates “among the worst forms of voter suppression in America today” and said that state officials should work together to “streamline and standardize ballot access procedures.”

  Ballot access restrictions “artificially prop up the two-party duopoly,” Mr. Kennedy added, noting that a Gallup poll conducted in September 2023 showed that 63 percent of American adults agree that “the Republican and Democratic parties do such a poor job of representing the American people that another choice is needed.”

  FEC Involvement

  The DNC’s allegations mark the second time the FEC has become involved in matters regarding Mr. Kennedy.

  Last month, the FEC asked Mr. Kennedy’s campaign to clarify salary payments made to a family member.

  In a letter first obtained by CNBC, the FEC questioned whether payments made by the Kennedy campaign to the candidate’s daughter-in-law, Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, between July 1 and Sept. 30 exceeded “fair market value.”

  The correspondence indicates that the Kennedy campaign must provide the FEC information regarding “payments to members of the candidate’s family that possibly constitute personal use of the committee’s campaign funds.”

  The FEC threatened legal action against the campaign if the payments did not meet fair market value guidelines for legitimate campaign services.

  According to financial disclosures, the Kennedy campaign reported paying Ms. Kennedy around $70,000 for administrative services.

  Ms. Kennedy was not named in the FEC letter, but she was the only family member on the campaign payroll between July and September, according to CNBC.

  A former undercover CIA agent who is married to Mr. Kennedy’s son, Robert F. Kennedy III, Ms. Kennedy joined the Kennedy campaign as digital director in May 2023, according to a statement from the campaign.

  Last October, Ms. Kennedy was named campaign manager, replacing former Democrat Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, who stepped down days after Mr. Kennedy announced that he would run for president as an independent.

  “I asked Amaryllis to run my presidential campaign for the same reason my uncle, John F. Kennedy, asked his brother, Robert F. Kennedy, to run his campaign,” Mr. Kennedy said in a statement. “There is nobody who could possibly be more effective in this position than Amaryllis Kennedy.”

  “RFK Jr. has broadly complained against the weaponization of federal agencies, including the Secret Service, against his campaign. It’s curious that the FEC has the capacity to investigate this non-issue when legitimate complaints against top-level Democrats and Republicans have sat dormant for years,” the statement explained.

  The FEC set a Feb. 13 deadline for the campaign to provide details on the payments.

  Mr. Kennedy’s campaign has also been focusing on the findings of a 388-page report regarding Justice Department special counsel Robert Hur’s 13-month investigation that found President Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.”

  Citing a lack of sufficient evidence to establish his guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” and how he would appear to a jury, Mr. Hur declined to pursue charges against the president.

  “At trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” the special counsel wrote.

  Mr. Kennedy told NewsNation’s Chris Cuomo that “we’ve reached a time where it’s no longer character assassination to ask legitimate questions about his (President Biden’s) competency.”

  American citizens have a right to know if their president is capable of making decisions that require complex levels of thinking, Mr. Kennedy said.

  “There are entrenched interests and special interests in government that actually benefit from having a president who is not completely competent. Their power increases as a president’s power decreases,” Mr. Kennedy continued, adding that President Biden should participate in general election debates.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 19:40

• US Army Ditches Next-Gen Helicopter Program In Major Aviation Shakeup 
  US Army Ditches Next-Gen Helicopter Program In Major Aviation Shakeup 

  The US Army is abandoning its multi-billion dollar Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) program for next-generation scout helicopters. At the same time, the service has reassessed the modern battlefield in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. 

  In an announcement, the service said the decision to end FARA was based on a “sober assessment of the modern battlefield” that would now allow it to increase investments in unmanned aerial vehicles. FARA was launched in 2018 and selected two helicopters in 2020: Bell-Textron with the 360 Invictus and Sikorsky with its Raider X. 

  

  “We are learning from the battlefield – especially in Ukraine – that aerial reconnaissance has fundamentally changed,” Army Chief of Staff General Randy George said in a statement.

  George said, “Sensors and weapons mounted on a variety of unmanned systems and in space are more ubiquitous, further reaching and more inexpensive than ever before.”

  He continued, “We are paying attention [to world events] and adjusting because we could go to war tonight, this weekend.” 

  As for the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft program, the Army plans to continue with the Bell V-280 Valor, a tiltrotor aircraft designed to replace the UH-60 Black Hawk. The service noted production of the UH-60V version of the Black Hawk will be halted in 2025. 

  

  This represents a significant transformation in the Army’s aviation strategy and upends years of planning.  

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 19:20

• In January Cold, The Texas Electricity Grid Held-Up… Barely
  In January Cold, The Texas Electricity Grid Held-Up… Barely

  Authored by Bill King via RealClear Wire,

  During the recent Winter Storm Heather (Jan. 13-16), the Texas grid was able to produce enough energy to meet the demand, but just barely. Since Winter Storm Uri (February 2021), it appears that improvements have been made to the reliability of natural gas generation. Also, there have been significant additions of renewables capacity, primarily solar, and a small amount of energy storage (batteries). All of these helped to prevent another grid collapse. But we also got lucky. This storm was not nearly as severe as Uri in its intensity, duration, and precipitation.

  

  During the storm, Texans used a wintertime record amount of electricity at 78,138 megawatts on Jan. 16 at 7:50 a.m. At that time, ERCOT’s data showed that the system had 5,229 megawatts in Physical Responsive Capability (PRC). ERCOT begins calling alerts when operating reserves drop below 2,500 megawatts. At 1,500 megawatts, ERCOT begins “controlled outages,” a.k.a. rolling blackouts.

  So, it appears to me that at the worst of the storm, we had about 7% in reserves. The amount of reserves as a percentage of the total demand varies dramatically, even within a day, but typically runs in the 10-20% range. So, while we were never in danger of the grid failing this time, I think it is likely that if Heather had been as bad as Uri, the grid would have likely failed again, but perhaps not as badly as it did with Uri.

  The recent storm did, however, once again underscore the dilemma Texas faces with its current mix of generation sources. The industry jargon for this is called the “fuel mix.” Texas has the most diverse fuel mix in the country, and many may be surprised to know that Texas generates the highest level of renewables in the country, with wind and solar contributing over 30% of total generation.

  Data Source: ERCOT

  The Texas grid was primarily designed to perform in the summer heat when demand peaks are generally limited to several hours in the late afternoon and early evening. In the winter, during periods of extreme cold, demand peaks can be much longer. In the case of Uri, the demand peak lasted for several days.

  Wind and solar perform better in the summer. Typically, renewables do not perform very well during winter storms. Because of the poorer performance of renewables and prolonged periods of high demand, the Texas grid is much more at risk of catastrophic failure in the winter.

  The contribution of wind and solar fell close to zero for several hours during Heather and for several days during Uri. For example, on Jan. 15 at 7:00 a.m., wind was only producing 4,700 megawatts, and solar was at zero. At that time, wind and solar were contributing less than 7% of the electricity Texans were using.

  In these situations, the load falls back on other sources, primarily natural gas. Several times during the recent storm, natural gas was generating almost 70% of Texas’ electricity.

  This dynamic means that for a reliable grid, we must have sufficient dispatchable generation capacity to make up the difference when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. For now, at least, that is natural gas generation. 

  But the problem is that when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, wind and solar produce electricity at a significantly lower cost, making it difficult for natural gas to compete during those times. For wind, the cost advantage is almost entirely attributable to government subsidies. But solar comes in a little below natural gas without any subsidy, and the cost of solar continues to drop. 

  In a market-based system like ERCOT, the competitive problem for natural gas is even more challenging during times when wind and solar are producing a lot of electricity. That is because wind and solar have high upfront capital costs, but the marginal (input) costs are nearly zero. Even when electric prices are very low, wind operators are incentivized to continue to produce because their primary government subsidiary is based on the amount of electricity they produce. In some cases, wind operators will continue to produce at even negative market prices (i.e., the grid is oversupplied with electricity) because they still collect the production tax credit. In contrast, natural gas generators, which have significant fuel and operating costs, cannot afford to continue to produce when the price drops below their input costs.

  As a result, there is very little incentive to invest in natural gas generation in Texas today. Texas recently offered a package of incentives to build additional natural gas generation, including low-rate loans. There were no takers.

  So, if Texas wants to be assured that it will have adequate dispatchable power for extreme weather conditions, the state is going to have to subsidize it with taxpayer money or require it by regulation, which would ultimately increase rates. I will leave the irony of one government subsidy causing the creation of another government subsidy or additional regulation for another day.

  The only other alternative is to build storage capacity for the electricity. Currently, that means batteries. At one point in the recent storm, batteries were contributing over 1,000 megawatts. The all-time record for battery contribution to the grid was 2,172 megawatts in February 2023. So, currently, batteries are making a very small contribution.

  There is a building boom in battery storage as electricity users have become increasingly suspect of the grid’s reliability. And we are likely to see that number continue to grow. However, as you can see on the chart above, the cost of battery storage is very high. That will probably come down over time, but it has a long way to go.

  Because of cheap natural gas prices and the significant contribution of wind and solar, Texans enjoy some of the lowest electricity prices in the country, running 18% below the national average. But that low cost comes at a price – an inherent lack of reliability in its grid. And it is a savings that is wiped out many times over when a storm like Uri does billions of dollars in damage, not to mention the human toll.

  The Texas grid held in this storm, but the long-term issue of building a reliable grid in Texas is far from over.

  Bill is a life-long resident of the Houston area. He has enjoyed a varied career as a businessman and a lawyer. Bill was an opinion writer for the Houston Chronicle from 2004-2015, writing over 400 columns and editorials eventually serving on the editorial board.  In 1996, Bill was elected to the City Council of Kemah, Texas where later served as mayor of Kemah from 2001-2005. He lost an independent run for mayor of Houston in 2015 in the closest mayoral election in Houston’s history.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 19:00

• Khan-linked Candidates Stun By Outperforming In Pakistan Election Against Military-Backed Nawaz Sharif
  Khan-linked Candidates Stun By Outperforming In Pakistan Election Against Military-Backed Nawaz Sharif

  Results which have continued to come in through late Friday, some 12 hours after polling for national and provincial assemblies ended Thursday, show PTI-affiliated candidates doing better than previously expected in a national ‘shocker’. Ex-PM Imran Khan’s party is indeed raising eyebrows and is ‘overperforming’ – as one Washington Post headline has put it.

  This despite Khan’s PTI having been forced by a prior legal ruling to run candidates on independent platforms in what his supporters say is a move by the military and its political allies to ensure Khan, who is in prison on dozens of corruption charges, can never rise to power again. The PTI has surged ahead for seats in parliament against recent Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League.

  

  “With results from just 24 seats of 266-member National Assembly now outstanding, political maneuvering begins to form the next government,” Al Jazeera reports of the latest figures to come in. “At least 134 seats are needed for a simple majority.”

  “PTI-backed candidates have won 98 seats while Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN), has secured 67.”

  Still there are contradictory declarations of ‘victory’ happening…

  In a speech earlier on Friday, Sharif claimed victory and invited allies.

  Hours later, Imran Khan released an AI-generated “victory speech” video from jail, calling Sharif a “petty man” and saying no Pakistani would accept his claim of victory.

  Sharif still said as the public has been described as “stunned” (or rather in reality the military establishment is stunned) at Khan’s party surge that he would seek a broad coalition government. “Since we don’t have a clear majority, we will reach out to steer the country out of the quagmire it is in,” he announced.

  “I don’t want to fight with those who are in the mood for fighting,” he said before supporters in Lahore. “We will have to sit together to settle all matters.”

  Former PM Khan’s AI-generated ‘victory speech’ issued from jail…

  Chairman Imran Khan’s victory speech (AI version) after an unprecedented fightback from the nation that resulted in PTI’s landslide victory in General Elections 2024. pic.twitter.com/Z6GiLwCVCR

  — Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) February 9, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Sharif was viewed going into the election as the clear front-runner. He’s seen as the “military’s man” in Islamabad, while Khan’s legacy has sought to be erased by those same elite powers.

  Sharif’s political ‘reaching out’ is unlikely to include former Khan officials and his PTI, but likely some who ran as independents will have to be dealt with cooperatively. 

  #PAKWatch🇵🇰: Even though it appears that Imran Khan and the PTI party had a runaway electoral victory, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) is working overtime to rig the results and remove Captain Pakistan from the picture. pic.twitter.com/LMd3POYbno

  — Steve Hanke (@steve_hanke) February 9, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The Washington Post underscores that what this shows is the Pakistani countryside continues to have large bastions of PTI and pro-Khan support: “But the provisional results of Thursday’s vote still pointed to lingering support for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or PTI, which was politically sidelined by the Pakistani establishment after Khan ran afoul of the military two years ago,” it writes.

  The contest is fundamentally between Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan and Bilawal Bhutto’s parties. Already there are widespread accusations of “fraud” and political violence on the streets could persist.

  

  As we detailed yesterday, the hotly contested election has been marred by political violence and acts of terrorism of the past several days, which has even included bombings at polling stations and attacks on political offices. 48 hours of violence going into Thursday’s voting saw over 35 people killed and scores wounded.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 18:40

• "It Has To Be Done": After Court Victory For Freedom Convoy, Canadians Ready To Sue
  “It Has To Be Done”: After Court Victory For Freedom Convoy, Canadians Ready To Sue

  Authored by Matthew Horwood via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Several Freedom Convoy protesters, buoyed by a recent victory in Canadian federal court, said they’re preparing to sue the federal government, banks, and the police that brought the 2022 protest to a heated end.

  

  “I think it’s the second phase to what took place with the federal court case,” military veteran and plaintiff Eddie Cornell said. “We’ve got a big hill to climb, but it’s something that’s necessary. It has to be done.”

  On Jan. 23, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley issued a ruling against the federal government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act in response to the protests and blockades that gridlocked Canada’s capital Ottawa for weeks.

  The government’s use of the act did “not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness—justification, transparency and intelligibility—and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration,” Justice Mosley wrote in his ruling.

  Police veteran and plaintiff Vincent Gircys, whose bank account was frozen for more than a week under the Emergencies Act, said that while he was initially “very disappointed with our justice system—having worked in there for 32 years”—he’s pleased to see that “some level of justice is being restored.”

  Alberta contractor Jeremiah Jost, who, alongside his wife, drove to Ottawa as part of the convoy, said he was “incredibly encouraged by Justice Mosley’s ruling and his courage to put his neck out.”

  The ruling has likely given hope to Canadians who are upset with the country’s justice system, he said.

  The Freedom Convoy, a protest response to a federal mandate requiring COVID-19 vaccination for truck drivers crossing the Canada–U.S. border, resulted in an encampment of large trucks in the nation’s capital in early 2022.

  The original protest action, which began in January 2022, quickly evolved into a broader, large-scale movement in opposition to pandemic mandates and restrictions, with similar demonstrations being held at several Canada-U.S. border crossings.

  The federal government invoked the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, 2022—for the first time since its creation in 1988. The act gave law enforcement expanded powers to arrest demonstrators and to require towing companies to remove protesters’ vehicles from Ottawa’s downtown core (some of which refused).

  The emergency measure also allowed the national police force—the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)—to provide banks and other financial institutions with a list of individuals and entities involved in the protests and to ask them to freeze the accounts of those on the list.

  Justice Mosley ruled that invocation of the act infringed the charter’s Section 2(b), which deals with “freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression,” and Section 8, which deals with the “right to be secure against unreasonable search seizure.”

  The action to freeze bank accounts was “not minimally impairing,” the judge said, as the measure applied everywhere in Canada—including in areas where no protests were occurring—and because there were “less impairing alternatives available” to Ottawa.

  Hours after Justice Mosley’s ruling was issued, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said the Liberal government intends to fight it.

  “We respect very much Canada’s independent judiciary. However, we do not agree with this decision. And respectfully, we will be appealing it,” she said on Jan. 23.

  

  Lawsuits Against Government, Banks

  Justice Mosley’s decision was ultimately the result of court action by five plaintiffs who participated in the protest, two of whom had their bank accounts frozen.

  Three of the plaintiffs—Mr. Jost, Mr. Gircys, and Mr. Cornell—said on Jan. 29 that they plan to take further legal action against “those in government, the financial institutions who froze people’s bank accounts, and the police officers who beat up and injured innocent Canadians.”

  Mr. Cornell, a co-founder of the organization Veterans 4 Freedom, said his legal team had “great success” in the federal court ruling and that he felt vindicated. His bank account was one of those that was frozen.

  He said his team has established an initiative called “The Accountability Project” to fundraise for the planned lawsuit. The legal team, which is currently being assembled, will decide whether the litigation will take the form of a class-action or a tort suit.

  “They want to make sure that they get it done correctly. We have complete faith in the team, because these are the guys that actually were successful with this Federal Court challenge,” Mr. Cornell said.

  “I’m just hoping that Canadians will stand up and support this initiative.”

  While Justice Mosley ruled that Mr. Jost lacked standing to challenge the Emergencies Act decision and ultimately dismissed his application, Mr. Jost said he was pleased to still provide video and first-hand evidence.

  “I was able to be there and testify that they were filming all of us. There were snipers on the roof. They had guns, batons, rubber bullets, and pepper spray, and all those things. And they were snatching people and beating people,” he said.

  “So I’m thankful I was able to be another voice for truth in the case. That was really my goal.”

  ‘Something Historical’

  Mr. Gircys, who assisted with the logistics and coordination for the Ottawa protest, said he was in “disbelief” when city police moved in to evict the protesters from the downtown core.

  

  “The event was peaceful, and I would never believe that our police agencies would move on peaceful protesters,” he said.

  A former forensic investigator with the Ontario Provincial Police, Mr. Gircys said he had observed what was happening in regard to the vaccine mandates and travel restrictions, and as the trucker convoy converged on the nation’s capital, he felt he had to go see it for himself.

  “I thought this could be something historical,” he said.

  “When we arrived—and my intention was just to stay one night and head back—I could not believe how big this was, how many people were there, just how huge this event was and how incredibly happy and jovial everybody was to come together from one end of the country to the other.”

  Mr. Gircys, who is based in the Toronto area and had traveled to Ottawa with his son, said he had to drive his son back to Toronto but then returned to the capital and stayed for the protest.

  He said citizens came together “organically” to ensure that necessary services such as restrooms, first-aid stations, and access to fuel were provided.

  “My observations with all those that I engaged with, was that this was a very peaceful event,” he said. “I’ve never seen this much unity in our country, as I had never seen such a large group of people being as happy as they were. And yet I’m constantly, every evening, observing on the news reporting that ’this was a violent, hateful group,’ and nothing could be further from the truth. This was complete propaganda.”

  Mr. Gircys said that after the Emergencies Act was invoked, he heard that some individuals’ bank accounts had been frozen. Then it happened to him.

  He said he was able to get some money “through the goodness and kindness around me” to fuel his vehicle to get home.

  “They’re violating rights on a massive scale in a number of ways, and eventually, they moved in with police en masse again,” he said.

  “Having been a former police officer with 32 years of service, and having spent time in emergency management as a member of the Emergency Response Team, I’m very aware of what was about to take place from the policing side.

  “I was in disbelief that this would actually be happening, because the event was peaceful,” he said.

  Mr. Gircys said he’s pleased that the court found the invocation of the Emergencies Act unjustified and he’s looking forward to filing the civil suit with Mr. Jost and Mr. Cornell.

  Court Ruling Has ‘Teeth’

  Chris Barber, one of the Freedom Convoy’s lead organizers, said Justice Mosley’s ruling is a “step in the right direction” and will help many Canadians see how “the government trampled on us during the protests.”

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 18:20

• Cisco To Fire "Thousands", Adding To Firehose Of Tech Layoffs Since Beginning Of 2024
  Cisco To Fire “Thousands”, Adding To Firehose Of Tech Layoffs Since Beginning Of 2024

  The tech industry has been so delirious about the vast wealth that pervasive chatbots will supposedly unleash, it forgot about the massive layoffs on the road to AI nirvana. Luckily, every day there is a new tech giant to remind us of just how much fewer jobs will be needed in said future, and how laughable the Biden Labor Department’s “strong jobs data” is… and today it was network giant Cisco’s turn.

  According to Reuters, Cisco will lay off “thousands of employees”, as part of a business restructuring which seeks to “focus on high-growth areas”…. such as AI/chatGPT of course. The San Jose-based company, which has a total employee count of 84,900 according to its website – is still deciding on the total number of employees to be affected by the layoffs, but it will certainly be substantial. The official announcement will likely come next week, when the company holes its earnings call on Feb. 14.

  In November 2022, Cisco announced during an earnings call a restructuring that impacted roughly 5% of its workforce which lead to $600 million in severance and other charges. Back then Cisco cut its full-year revenue and profit forecasts, and blamed the weakness on a slowdown in orders in the first quarter, saying “customers are currently focused on installing and implementing products in their environments.” The coming mass termination will probably reiterate continued weakness even as the lunatic buying up chatGPT chips and hot air keep bidding up the AI bubble.

  Cisco joins dozens of other tech companies which have started 2024 – a year when supposedly the economy is bursting higher according to fans of the president with dementia and where AI stocks are soaring – with another brutal wave of job cuts, paring back even further after widespread layoffs last year.

  So far, nearly 34,000 tech workers have lost their jobs in 2024 according to Layoffs.fyi.

  

  Prior to Cisco, Snap and DocuSign became the latest examples, announcing earlier this week they they are reducing their workforces by about 10% and 6%, respectively. Earlier this month, software company Okta Inc. said it would eliminate 7% of its staff to reduce costs, affecting about 400 employees. The list goes on, including Big Tech employers like Amazon.com, Salesforce and Meta Platforms.

  This year, “tech companies are still trying to correct for their over-hiring during the pandemic surge, given that the high interest-rate environment and tech downturn have both lasted longer than initially expected,” Layoffs.fyi founder Roger Lee told Bloomberg.

  There have been two main waves of job cuts in recent years, according to Lee. The “early Covid” spike, from the first to second quarters of 2020, and the “interest rate hike” effect, which has been going on since the second quarter of 2022. “This year’s layoffs are typically smaller and more targeted than the layoffs a year ago,” Lee said.

  Although economic factors are the main reason for tech layoffs, Lee noted that many companies are citing the race for artificial intelligence as a factor, as they are shifting resources to focus on AI talent. According to an analysis by CompTIA, which tracks employment trends in the tech industry, job postings in “artificial intelligence or requiring AI skill increased by about 2,000 from December to January, to 17,479.”

  “I do feel like most of the layoffs have happened, and companies are going to start to rebound,” said Bert Bean, chief executive officer of staffing company Insight Global. “But it’s still very uncertain.” He expects the market to remain that way for about the next two quarters, “until the Fed really comes out and starts to cut interest rates.”

  Good luck with Bert, who clearly has zero conflicts of interest. And also good luck to anyone else who believes that BS from the BLS that unemployment is “falling”; instead here is the truth, and this covers just the past few weeks.

  1. Twitch: 35% of workforce
  2. Roomba: 31% of workforce
  3. Hasbro: 20% of workforce
  4. LA Times: 20% of workforce
  5. Spotify: 17% of workforce
  6. Levi’s: 15% of workforce
  7. Xerox: 15% of workforce
  8. Qualtrics: 14% of workforce
  9. Wayfair: 13% of workforce
  10. Duolingo: 10% of workforce
  11. Washington Post: 10% of workforce
  12: Snap: 10% of workforce
  13. eBay: 9% of workforce
  14. Business Insider: 8% of workforce
  15. Paypal: 7% of workforce
  16. Okta: 7% of workforce
  17. Charles Schwab: 6% of workforce
  18. Docusign: 6% of workforce
  19. UPS: 2% of workforce
  20. Blackrock: 3% of workforce
  21. Citigroup: 20,000 employees
  22. Pixar: 1,300 employees

  According to the Biden Bureau of Goalseeked Statistical Bullshit, none of this is happening…

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 18:05

• "Garbage Deals": Dealership Puts Customers In Cars With $3,000 Monthly Payments
  “Garbage Deals”: Dealership Puts Customers In Cars With $3,000 Monthly Payments

  A New York Fed survey published earlier this week indicated that, in the fourth quarter of 2023, auto loan delinquencies reached levels not seen since right after the Great Recession more than a decade ago. 

  As a refresher, the data from Tuesday by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York showed (read: ZH report here) the rate at which car owners are behind on their payments hit an annualized rate of 7.7%, the highest level since 2010. 

  

  “Delinquency transition rates have pushed past pre-pandemic levels, and the worsening appears to be broad-based,” researchers at the NY Fed wrote in a blog post. 

  Given that we already covered this in a report titled Credit-Card & Auto Delinquencies Soar, Especially Age Group 18-39, as well as other eye-opener credit reports in recent weeks:

  • Banks Report Tighter Standards, Weaker Loan Demand But Some Improvement As Financial Conditions Ease
  • Stunning Collapse In Credit Card Debt Change As Average APR Hits New All-Time High

  … perhaps there is reason to believe an increasing number of households have hit the proverbial brick wall despite the Biden administration cheering ‘Bidenomics’ on legacy corporate media outlets. 

  The households who piled on insurmountable auto and credit card debt through the Covid era and the current high-interest rate environment are likely the folks running into financial turmoil. 

  An Edmunds report from last year showed the percentage of drivers with plus $1,000 monthly payments jumped to an all-time high of 17.1% in the second quarter of 2023 compared to 16.8% in the first quarter. The reason is that the average amount financed for a new vehicle is around $40,000, plus auto loan rates are at a generational high.

  “The double whammy of relentlessly high vehicle pricing and daunting borrowing costs is presenting significant challenges for shoppers in today’s car market,” Edmunds’ director of insights Ivan Drury said last year. 

  This leads us to two posts made by X user Clown World. They shared what appears to be an auto dealer sharing several images online of new customers financing vehicles with payments that are as much as monthly mortgage payments. 

  One person purchased a 2023 Tahoe with $2,550 monthly payments on an 84-month term! 

  

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Another person bought a 2023 Sierra 2500 Denali with $3,000 monthly payments, locked in a 96-month term! 

  What a deal 😅😳 pic.twitter.com/r0Sjhma5gC

  — Clown World ™ 🤡 (@ClownWorld_) February 9, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Here’s what folks on X said in response to the two posts:

  $288,000 for a truck that will depreciate to 1/5 of that long before it’s paid off.

  — Caballero 🏹 (@HughAkston0) February 9, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Dude could be almost 1/3 of the way through a 30 year mortgage on an expensive house when he pays off his truck.

  — Branos (@thesonofbran) February 9, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  What’s with this trend of people posting their garbage “deals” at dealerships.
  Nice flex 😂

  — T M (@T_morgan61) February 9, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The repo industry silently cheers. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 02/09/2024 – 18:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• The Geopolitics Of World War III
  The Geopolitics Of World War III

  Authored by Michael Hochberg & Leonard Hochberg via RealClearWire.com,

  Introduction

  On January 2, 2024, Foreign Minister Israel Katz proclaimed “We’re in the middle of World War III against Iran [led] radical Islam, whose tentacles are already in Europe.”   He claimed that Israel, in engaging in a war against Hamas and other Iranian proxies, was defending “everyone.” Although his rhetoric may seem overblown to many in the United States and Europe, it should not be dismissed out of hand.  Sometimes, regional conflicts, such as the Japanese conquest of Manchuria of 1931-32 or the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39, foreshadow dangers that are more geographically extensive and militarily intense.  Do the barbaric events of October 7, 2023, and the Israeli military campaign in Gaza prefigure a broader, global armed conflict?  Or is this merely a local conflict, one that is likely unresolvable short of one side or the other engaging in genocide or ethnic cleansing? 

  We have written this paper in a specific context. Over thirty months ago we made a geopolitical prediction regarding the emergence of a global conflict with four fronts.  However, social scientists rarely test their theories by predicting future political events.  Who wants to be characterized as a Jonah or a Cassandra?  As one eminent strategist argued, the future of war (in detail) is unknowable.  And, with perhaps one notable exception, social scientists rarely engage, on a routine basis, in disprovable prediction.  Without predictive tools, social scientists and strategists must rely on intuition, a knowledge of history, and good theories—all of which are often in short supply.

  

  A Four-Front Global War?

  On the anniversary of D-day, June 6, 2021, The Hill posted our paper, “Could the United States Fight a Four Front War? Not Today.”  We predicted that several autocratic powers would launch “simultaneous challenges” designed to diminish the power and influence of the United States.  These seemingly distinct conflicts, when viewed from the perspective of Halford Mackinder’s Heartland thesis, should be perceived as separate fronts of a single war by autocratic, territorial powers – either in close cooperation or piggybacking on one or another’s challenge to the established order – on the dominance of the United States and its maritime partners and allies situated along the Eurasian littoral.  We argued that the United States should rebuild its naval capacity, and by implication its military industrial capacity more generally.  Specifically, we wrote: “If we are to avoid a multi-front war, the United States must be ready to fight and win conventional conflicts in several places simultaneously and must invest in strengthening our allies’ ability to defend themselves.”

  Written on the eve of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, August 31, 2021, our paper suggested that Vladimir Putin’s Russia might once again attack Ukraine to complete the conquest it had initiated in 2014 and thereby dominate the northern littoral of the Black Sea from Crimea to Moldova. To wit:

  Russia continues to threaten Ukraine, aiming to consolidate its conquest of Crimea. When Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arms, the U.S. guaranteed Ukrainian territorial integrity in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Russia has eloquently demonstrated the low value of such guarantees.

  Regarding Iran, we argued that:

  Rogue autocratic regimes are a growing threat. Iran sponsors Houthi rebels in Yemen, stokes Shi’ite discontent in the Gulf States and Iraq, dominates Lebanon and Syria through Hezbollah, and threatens shipping through the Gulf of Hormuz. Iran, through its many proxies throughout the Middle East, would seek to dominate the region and instigate further attacks by Hamas on Israel. 

  Communist China, a new peer adversary for the United States, would be tempted to pile on, seeking to reunify Taiwan with the Mainland as a preliminary to securing control over the South China and East China Seas:

  Chinese leader Xi Jinping has declared that Taiwan will be incorporated into China, by force if necessary. China is building a capacity to invade or blockade Taiwan, threatening U.S. reliance on Taiwan for advanced electronics, semiconductors, and as a port to contain Chinese ambitions in the Pacific.

  Our intuition suggested that the current administration was squandering a key strategic asset, specifically the deterrence required to cause leaders of autocracies across Eurasia to refrain from testing the resolve of the United States.  More recently, we introduced the concept of ‘distributed deterrence’ as a strategy that the United States could leverage to generate more effective deterrence both quickly and inexpensively.

  We offered these predictions in the hope that Western policy makers would strengthen the defenses of our allies in Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, and that as a result, deterrence would win the day.  In effect, we were hoping to be proven wrong, as policy makers considered the dangers of a multi-front war in their planning.  Unfortunately, events have begun to unfold as we predicted, because the United States did not act in a timely way to adequately reinforce, train, and support our allies.

  Taking Stock

  After 30 months, we believe it is now necessary to take stock of our prediction.  To do so is not merely to provide a checklist of what we got right or wrong, but more significantly to offer an assessment of how our understanding of the strategic history of Eurasian autocracies led to these predictions.

  The Ukraine Front

  The 2014 Russian attack on Ukraine resulted in the conquest of Donbas – a territory along the eastern Ukrainian border with Russia – and the Crimea.  These areas were inhabited largely by ethnic Russians and Russian speakers, though some of them certainly had no desire to be ruled from Moscow.  Putin justified this attack as a response to Ukraine’s assault on a population that wished to remain Russian, in a cultural, linguistic, and ethnic sense.  The Russian failure to capture a land bridge to Crimea from its conquests in Donbas strongly suggested that another campaign would have to be launched to consolidate territory, provide another supply route to Crimea, and forestall a Ukrainian bid to enter the EU and NATO (here, here, here, and here). 

  After Russia renewed its war in Ukraine on February 22, 2022, many Western pundits began to speculate on how this second phase would end.  The Russian drive on Kiev, designed to conquer the Ukraine capital, stalled, and then was turned back.  Ukraine forces launched successful counter attacks in the east and south, reconquering some lost territory and fueling a sense that a Ukrainian victory might soon be possible.  Meanwhile, as the United States became more committed to the Ukraine cause, few commentators offered an assessment of what the United States should seek as an outcome in line with its own interests, and what means should be deployed in order to generate such an outcome.  We indicated that there were essentially three geostrategic outcomes (here, here, and here) that should be considered: Sell out Ukraine to turn Russia from an ally of China into a client of the United States, secure a rapid Ukraine victory that would reinforce the international rules based order, or allow a stalemate to emerge that would grind down the Russian military machine.  After explaining the pros and cons for each, we argued that the most desirable outcome, from an American strategic perspective, was a rapid Ukrainian victory that would result in Ukraine retaking both the Russian naval base in Sevastopol and the Crimean bridgehead.  Regardless of the feasibility of reconquering Crimea, the destruction of the Russian Black Sea fleet is highly desirable.

  To achieve this goal, the United States had to quickly supply Ukraine with advanced conventional military equipment, including long range missiles that would enable Ukraine’s forces to attack not only the logistics centers deep in Russian territory but also the Russian Navy.  Instead, the Biden administration has released ever more advanced equipment, haltingly and in dribs and drabs, which did not permit the Ukrainian troops to expel Russian forces from Donbas.  What weapons were provided were in many cases deliberately crippled so that they could not be used against Russian territory.  Extensive public discussions have preceded the delivery of advanced weapons systems, which has made it impossible for the Ukrainians to achieve surprise.   Instead of a rapid Ukrainian advance, the current position is one of stalemate, with trial balloons being released for diplomacy (here, here, and here) to restore (a faux) peace to Ukraine.  Initiating talks with Putin at this moment, when he has mobilized more manpower and is negotiating the purchase of weapons from Iran and China, signals Western weakness while emboldening enemies of the United States and disheartening Western allies across Eurasia.  With a significantly larger economy and population base than Ukraine, and with the ability to operate from a geographic shelter where they cannot be attacked, Russia has marked advantages in a long-war scenario.  If Russian propaganda and Western impatience can undermine Western popular support for Ukraine, even maintaining the current stalemate may become impracticable for the Ukrainians.  A steady and assured flow of Western support, including the provision of advanced systems is a necessity for the continued viability of the Ukrainian war effort. 

  Hamas-Israel Front

  Israel, the United States’ foremost ally in the Middle East, has once again come under attack by Hamas.  In a recent post, we argue that Hamas attacked Israel on the behalf of Iran to derail the Abraham Accords between Israel and the Arabic Muslim countries including, most notably, an upcoming negotiation with Saudi Arabia.  Such was the short-term occasion for the attack; over the medium run, Iran had engaged in a geostrategy of proxy encirclement, at two different scales: the local encirclement of Israel and a wider regional encirclement of Saudi Arabia.

  Across the Middle East, Saudi Arabia faces adversaries: Iran and its clients and proxies across the Fertile Crescent – that is the lands from Iraq, through Syria, and on to the eastern Mediterranean coast in Lebanon – and in Yemen, to the south of Saudi Arabia, where the Houthis have launched rockets attacking Saudi pipelines.  Furthermore, Iran has become deeply involved in the civil war in Sudan and has cooperated extensively with Qatar.  Both are major supporters of Hamas, and Iran backed Qatar during the crisis in Qatari relations with Saudi Arabia in 2017.   In addition to this geographically extensive encirclement of Saudi Arabia, there is ongoing effort to encircle Israel: To the North, Iranian proxies in Lebanon (i.e., Hezbollah) and, across the Golan Heights, the client state of Alawite Syria; to the east, the Palestinians in the territories of Jordan and the Palestinian Authority; in Israel, the Arab Israelis as a potential fifth column; and, to the west, in Gaza, the terror group, Hamas.  An Israeli tie to Saudi Arabia would have provided Israel with legitimacy in the Arab Muslim world and, should the Iranians launch an attack on Saudi Arabia or Israel, shared intelligence, technology, and expertise could have contributed to mutual defense.  For the foreseeable future, while the war in Gaza continues, negotiations between Israel and Saudi Arabia are unlikely to yield any public results.

  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his war cabinet recognized in the aftermath of the slaughter of October 7, 2023 that Hamas and Gazan civilians were inspired by a culture of hatred to commit acts of barbarism (here, here, and here) – rape, beheadings, mutilation, kidnappings, etc. – previously deployed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. To respond to this attack along the Gaza frontier, and to cope with the threats emerging on the northern border, on the Golan, and in the West Bank, Israel called up 300,000 reservists.  As of October 8, 2023, Israel’s standing army numbered 169,500, with the reserves numbering 465,000.  This call-up has deleterious economic consequences:  According to the Times of India, “JPMorgan Chase & Co. predicts that Israel’s economy may shrink 11% on an annualized basis in the last three months of the year due to the ongoing conflict with Hamas.”  The longer this war goes on, the greater the economic disruption.  The longer the desired political and military outcome, eliminating Hamas in Gaza, remains in doubt, the greater the likelihood that Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies will enter the fray in a significant fashion.  For Israel, deterrence, once lost in Gaza, must be forcefully and unambiguously restored, or its many regional enemies, including the Palestinians on the West Bank and potentially Muslims in Israel itself, may be inspired to launch intifadas, insurrections, and attacks.  For Israel, the attack on 10/7 and its aftermath presented an existential threat, because it altered regional perceptions of the competence of the IDF (contra here).

  The Attack on International Shipping

  In our prediction, we suggested that the Iranian regime would once again disrupt maritime commerce by attacking international shipping that passed through the Strait of Hormuz.  On January 11, 2024, Iran announced the seizure of a Greek-owned oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman, the waterway leading to the Strait of Hormuz.  It is too soon to tell if this event is a one-off or the opening of a campaign. 

  However, we did not perceive that the Iranians would prompt the Houthis to disrupt maritime commerce in the Bab al-Mandab, the strait connecting the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea via the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.  The Iranians have allegedly supplied the Houthis with advanced weaponry – missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles – for attacking Saudi pipelines and international shipping.  Although the Houthis’ claim to be attacking Israeli shipping in response to the Gaza war, the fact that most of the ships that have been attacked are owned by non-Israeli nationals and are not traveling to or from Israel suggests that these attacks are part of an ongoing Iranian effort to disrupt flows of commerce passing through the Middle East.  Such attacks are particularly harmful to the Egyptian regime, which derives an outsized portion of their revenues from canal fees and associated activity.  Identifying the geographic particular, the disruption at the Bab al-Mandab instead of at the Strait of Hormuz, proved elusive; however, we anticipated the Iranian intention. 

  Why did the Iranians turn to the Houthi proxy?  The Iranians may have become more risk averse, acting indirectly through the Houthis; attacks through proxies are less likely to generate repercussions or counterattacks at home, as they are deniable.  Meanwhile Iranian proxies are also engaged in repeatedly attacking U.S. outposts and military bases in Iraq and Syria, and most egregiously the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.  Iran has also issued a threat to attack shipping passing through the Strait of Gibraltar, presumably by mobilizing another proxy in Morocco.  Such geostrategic darts, for want of a better word, thrown at the United States and maritime commerce have demonstrated Iranian opposition to the Israeli war in Gaza and an intent to compromise the passage of shipping over the high seas.  It is unclear whether Iran’s leaders seek to drive the United States out of the Middle East, or whether they intend to draw the United States into a series of local counterinsurgencies against Iranian proxies, which would give Iran immense negotiating leverage.

  As of the writing of this essay, these attacks at the Bab al-Mandab have led the United States and the United Kingdom to attack the Houthis, but the maritime coalition has not, as yet, used military force against Iranian interests or facilities to reestablish deterrence with regard to the sponsors of these proxy attacks.  Certainly, these attacks serve to increase open-market prices for oil and gas; this helps Russian economic prospects.  Also, China is likely paying fixed prices for sanctioned Iranian oil coming through the Straits of Hormuz; this likely helps explain why the Red Sea is being closed (to all but Chinese and Russian aligned shipping) but Hormuz has thus far remained open.

  What is of utmost importance here is this: the earlier a prediction, the more difficult it is to specify the date and location of any adversarial event, particularly a military attack.  The fact that the Iranians have instigated attacks by Houthis at the Bab al Mandab instead of launching a campaign at Hormuz is less important than having correctly predicted Iran’s intentions amid a multi-front war.  We advanced the claim that the Iranians would once again disrupt international shipping, which they have done through a proxy.  Attacks at any major maritime choke point have consequences for supply chains across the world economy.    

  China and the Taiwan Front

  The jury is still out regarding a final geopolitical prediction:  Will Communist China resort to armed force to integrate Taiwan?  Recently, the Chinese regime has sent war ships into the seas near Taiwan to demonstrate a capacity to blockade that island.  In addition, Chinese fighter jets have tested Taiwanese aerial defenses, prompting Defense Minister Chiu Kuo-cheng to state, in October of 2022, that “[We] will view any crossing of aerial entities (into Taiwan’s territorial airspace) as a first strike.”  Kuo-cheng subsequently threatened to respond with force. 

  CNN recently reported that President Xi Jinping told President Joe Biden, during their summit held near San Francisco on November 15, 2023, that “China’s preference was for peaceful reunification and laid out conditions under which use of force would be utilized.”  CNN failed to report on those conditions or may not have been privy to the specifics; nevertheless, CNN also reported that an unnamed U.S. official indicated that, when Biden suggested that “peace and stability” were U.S. goals for the region, “President Xi responded: Look, peace is all well and good, but at some point we need to move towards resolution more generally[.]” In the run up to the recent election in Taiwan, Beijing urged voters to choose “peace over war.”  The candidate who Beijing perceived as advocating for Taiwanese independence won, and now Xi may believe that China has to make good on the many threats (here, here, here, here, and here) issued regarding the Taiwan issue.

  Such threats should not be ignored; rather, they must be understood as occurring during an ongoing confrontation with the United States, one that could erupt into another front in a global war should the United States continue dealing ineffectively with the seemingly separate conflicts in Ukraine, the Levant, and at the Bab al-Mandab.  As our prediction indicated, the greater the number of fronts in this emerging global conflict, the more difficult it will be for the United States to prioritize where to send depleted treasure – due in part to the rising national debt – and scarce weaponry – due in part to the failure to maintain an adequate industrial base to produce military hardware. 

  Four Fronts, One War

  At this point, the Russo-Ukraine war, Hamas’ attack on Israel and the Israeli response, the Houthis’ war against international shipping, and the 100 or more Iranian proxy attacks on American outposts in the Middle East would all suggest that a multifront war has been launched.   Was this multi-front war coordinated, sequenced, or merely the result of opportunism? 

  Historians may one day be able to make a definitive determination.  For purposes of figuring out what to do next, this is a distinction without a difference: The perception among the enemies of the West is that the present moment is one in which they have an opportunity to exploit Western distraction and weakness.  What is known now is this: Russia, Iran and China have signed a series of bilateral economic agreements rendering their economies, including weapons acquisitions, more interdependent (here, here, here, here and here).  Such economic understandings often undergird emerging alliances. 

  For further evidence that the prediction of four fronts is in fact one war, consider the following mutually reinforcing consequences.  The shipments of Ukrainian exports through the Suez Canal have fallen off since the Houthis compromised transport that passes through the Bab al Mandab.  Ukraine’s financial ability to prosecute its war against Russia is thus being impaired.  Russian and Chinese freighters have reportedly been given a free pass through the Red Sea by the Houthis (here), a preferential policy conferring a time and distance advantage over competitors who, to avoid the war zone, transport their cargoes round the Cape of Good Hope to European markets.  Meanwhile, Russian Defense Ministry has reportedly announced a soon-to-be-signed, anti-American, and pro-multipolar pact with Iran.  Meanwhile, the delivery of U.S. military hardware to Ukraine and Israel reduces available equipment for Taiwan.

  Will Xi Jinping take advantage of America’s lack of preparedness for a multifront war across the Eurasian rimland?  For our prediction of a four-front war to be fully realized, Communist China would have to blockade or attack Taiwan even as these other conflicts take place, or in their immediate aftermath – once it becomes apparent that the United States lacks the will and/or the capability to respond effectively to yet another threat to the existing order.  At some point, these separate fronts may be perceived as a single world-wide war, though not, as the Israeli Foreign Minister claimed, a world war between the West and radical Islam.  Instead, this world-wide four-front war should be perceived as Eurasian land-power autocracies attacking maritime democracies and their allies, led by the United States. 

  Geopolitical Theory of the Heartland

  Beyond an intuition born of having read strategic history, what theory informs our understanding of strategic history and the relevant geography?  We rely on geopolitical theory, most notably Halford Mackinder’s theory of the Heartland, to assess the trajectory of events across Eurasia.  Despite differences across Mackinder’s three geopolitical statements (1904, 1919, and 1943), the essential feature of his geopolitical theory is this: With the completion of the Trans-Siberian Railroad, the economic isolation imposed on interior Eurasian settlements by virtue of the cost of overland transportation had come to an end.  Until that moment, a vast stretch of territory reaching from the Arctic in the north to the Iranian plateau in the south, from the Lena, Indigirka, and Kolyma River basins in the east and beyond Moscow to the west, was characterized by a shared geographic feature: the rivers in this area flowed north to the frozen Arctic Ocean or south to land-locked seas such as the Caspian Sea.  As a result of this landlocked situation, naval power, exercised by Great Britain or other seafaring nations, had little if any military impact on the course of events in the region Mackinder labeled ‘the Heartland.’  But with the completion of the Railway, Tsarist Russia – and later the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – alone or in an alliance with European or Asian powers, might profoundly influence the course of global events due to access to new sources of minerals, the presence of virgin soil, and demographic expansion.  Ultimately, interior lines of transport and communication for the movement of armies overland across the expanse of the Heartland would enable whichever power occupied the Heartland to project power westward to the European Coastlands, southwestward to Arabia, and south and eastward into the Monsoon Coastland – three of the six natural regions of Eurasia (here and here).

  Even more critical was Mackinder’s recognition that World War I led to a potential reshaping of the Heartland as one of these natural regions.  Mackinder posited that the region he labeled the “Strategic Heartland” included contested seas and river basins, as well as land routes suitable for invasion.  Hence, the Strategic Heartland encompassed the natural Heartland, and in Europe, it extended to the Danube Basin, the Black Sea littoral, the eastern stretches of the Northern European Plain, and the Baltic Sea littoral.  For Mackinder, the maritime outposts of naval power, the Black and Baltic Seas, might be turned into “lakes,” should the power occupying the Heartland capture a sea’s littoral through the successful domination by land power. 

  Learning From Geopolitical Theory

  We learned three lessons from Mackinder’s geopolitical theory.  First, Mackinder’s argument pertaining to the Baltic and Black Seas revealed that threatening or capturing the maritime chokepoints near the Bosporus and Dardanelles or the Kattegat and Skagerrak – the straits north of Denmark connecting the Baltic to the North Sea – was essential to controlling these seas.  By way of a geographic analogy, Mackinder’s theory enables the observer of geopolitics to appreciate how control over the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandab compromises freedom of the seas in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea approach to the Suez Canal and may eventually lead to control over the relevant coastlines.  However, modern missile technology requires only proximity to a strategic strait or narrow body of water for sea denial to be effective against commercial shipping (here).

  Second, Mackinder’s 1920 Report on the situation in South Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution revealed the strategic importance of Ukraine’s territory.  A major invasion into the Russian cultural and demographic core around Moscow was launched north from Ukraine by the White Russian forces.  In addition, one glance at a “strategic map” of Europe, viewed from high above the Urals, reveals not only the importance of the Northern European plain as an invasion route into Russia but also the southern invasion route from the Crimea.  Before the recent outbreak of war, the United States allegedly began modernizing a Ukrainian naval base located east of Odessa  to accommodate larger warships.  Russian geostrategic planners must consider threats from both directions, particularly if the Baltics and Ukraine are aligned with what they consider to be an adversary.  For restoring the Russian empire and reestablishing Russian status as a great power, the conquest and incorporation of Ukraine is perceived as critical.  Russia seeks to dominate Ukraine for its manpower, its on-shore mineral and off-shore hydrocarbon deposits, its industrial base, its agricultural productivity, and its strategic location.  In geo-economic terms, the ongoing division of the world-economy into a sphere of maritime and the land-based Eurasian territorial powers puts Ukraine in the cross hairs.

  Third, America, as the recent holder of the baton of thalassocracy, failed to forestall the formation of a proto alliance of the Heartland Power, Russia, with two powers that straddle the Heartland and the maritime rim, Iran, and China.  In Democratic Ideals and Reality (1919), Mackinder warned of the danger of the Heartland Power gaining control over the Baltic and Black seas and then, at some future date, securing power over Eurasia and Africa:

  What if the Great Continent, the whole World-Island [i.e., Eurasia and Africa] or a large part of it, were at some future time to become a single and united base of sea-power?  Would not the other insular bases be outbuilt as regards ships and outmanned as regards seamen?  Their fleets would no doubt fight with all the heroism begotten of their histories, but the end would be fated.

  Mackinder feared that the Heartland Power, alone or in alliance with powers controlling portions of the maritime rim of Eurasia, might go to sea, and become an amphibious power. 

  Currently, in Ukraine, Russia seeks to reassert control over the northern Black Sea littoral, from Crimea to Moldova, thereby gaining control over the offshore hydrocarbons (here).  China and Iran, with their long coastlines, have decided to become amphibious powers while developing and deploying drones and land-based anti-ship missiles for sea control and denial.  Iran makes modern weapons systems for their Houthi proxies.  China threatens to reintegrate Taiwan, by force, if necessary, perhaps by blockade, even as it asserts exclusive control over the passage of shipping and offshore hydrocarbon deposits in the South China Sea.

  NOW WHAT?

  What of the near future?  Will there be any further challenges to the United States?  Venezuela placed a referendum in front of its citizenry questioning whether contested territory currently held by Guyana should be reincorporated into Venezuelan territory.  The response was in favor of reincorporation, with Venezuela reportedly mobilizing contingents of its military.  Guyana and Brazil have responded.  A nuclear armed North Korea continues to issue threats in response to alleged American and South Korean provocations.  The Russian regime has imperial ambitions beyond Ukraine.  Should Putin or his successor believe that the conquest of the Baltic States is achievable, it will certainly be attempted.  And there is a final point grounded in a comparative geopolitical speculation: In addition to compromising passage through Bab al-Mandab and the Strait of Hormuz, and the threat to shipping via the Strait of Gibraltar, Iran or another power may mobilize a proxy near another maritime choke point – the Strait of Malacca.  Certainly, the autocracies of the world are engaged in gray-zone warfare aimed at undermining Western support for Israel and Ukraine and aimed at mobilizing political extremists of all stripes.  With the very large number of Muslim immigrants in Western Europe, any instability in the Middle East can easily produce crippling riots and insurgent or terrorist activity, especially with financial and logistical support from Iran and other regional powers.  Western leaders are beginning to recognize that weakness in dealing with the threats that are already on the table will prompt new challenges in new locations (here and here).

  Despite these ominous developments, the United States and its allies have generated one significant success and several potential successes in their attempt to thwart the designs of these autocratic Heartland regimes.  In response to the war in Ukraine, Finland has joined NATO and Sweden’s accession has recently been approved by a parliamentary committee in Turkey (though not yet by the Turkish state).  The anticipated consequence is to turn the Baltic Sea, but for the Russian naval base at Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg, into a NATO dominated lake.  In addition, should Ukraine manage to reverse Russian territorial conquests, secure its independence from Russia, and then join NATO and the EU, these events would represent an extension of European power.  Meanwhile, Ukraine has had great success in driving the Russian Black Sea Fleet out of Crimea and into home ports further from Ukrainian missile launching sites; we have argued that before the war is over, the Ukrainians should be furnished with the means to sink the remainder of the fleet and destroy the shipyards.  Ukrainian successes in attacking the Black Sea fleet have led the Russians to consider building a naval base in Ochamchire, Georgia.   In the Middle East and Arabia, the United States almost succeeded in fostering an extension of the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia.  Finally, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (“Quad”) is a potential maritime alliance of India, Australia, Japan, and the United States that may, in the coming years, act to secure the free passage of shipping in the South China Sea and defend Taiwan.  In short, across the maritime rim of Eurasia, the United States is slowly mobilizing partners and allies that are threatened by the revisionist and revanchist regimes of the Heartland.

  Conclusion: Strategy and the Geopolitical Advantage

  Our horrifying prediction, which may yet be fully realized, of a four-front war was made by attending to geopolitical theory, strategic history, and an intuition for how events might unfold.  Regardless of whether China undertakes kinetic action against Taiwan, the United States and our allies now need to rush preparations for such a war at the highest possible priority.  As we pointed out in the earlier article, being ready to fight a global, multi-front war is the only way to avert one.

  Geopolitics provides the observer of international relations with several advantages.  First, it is an interdisciplinary and integrative field of study that aims to capture aspects of reality that impinge on the evolution of international crises.  Second, it juxtaposes persistent geographic structures, such as landed and maritime locations and activities, with trends and events, placing the ephemeral in the context of the enduring (here).  Third, geography and geopolitics deploy particularizing and generalizing methods to understand the relationships of places to spaces, locations to regions, and nation-states to the international system.  Fourth, geopolitics uses maps, including those generated by geographic information systems, to develop an appreciation of how states transform terrain into more favorable environments for the projection of power amid adversarial relationships, both potential and realized. 

  Geopolitics is as old an approach to international conflict as Thucydides, Sun Tse, and Kautilya.   It may be that geopolitical analysis, if properly deployed, gives insight reminiscent of Galadriel’s Mirror, “For it shows things that were, and things that are, and things that yet may be.”

  However, despite the advantages offered by geopolitical thought for the development of strategy, Mackinder is explicit (here): “Democracy refuses to think strategically unless and until compelled to do so for purposes of defense.” After at least a generation, now is the moment for Americans to once again use geopolitics to formulate strategy.

  *  *  *

  Acknowledgements:  The authors thank the speakers and participants in the Mackinder Forum seminars and lectures for sharing their insights.  Professors Brian Blouet, Athanasios Platias, Geoffrey Sloan, and Paul Rahe commented on an earlier draft of this paper.  We are grateful for their thoughtful suggestions.  Errors and misinterpretations remain ours.

  Michael Hochberg earned his PhD in Applied Physics from Caltech and is currently a visiting scholar at the Centre for Geopolitics at Cambridge University.  He is the President of Periplous LLC, which provides advisory services on strategy, technology, and organization design.  He co-founded four companies, representing an exit value over a billion dollars in aggregate, spent some time as a tenured professor, and started the world’s first silicon photonics foundry service.  He co-authored a widely used textbook on silicon photonics and has published work in Science, Nature, National Review, The Hill, American Spectator, RealClearDefense, Fast Company, Naval War College Review, etc.

  Leonard Hochberg taught at Stanford University (among other institutions), was appointed a Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and co-founded Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (i.e., STRATFOR).  He has published in Social Science History, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, National Review, The Hill, American Spectator, RealClearDefense, Naval War College Review, Orbis, etc.   Len Hochberg earned his PhD in political theory and European history at Cornell University.  He is a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and serves as the Coordinator of the Mackinder Forum-U.S.

  Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 23:45

• Porn Star Allowed Into Hardline Islamic Iran Because She's 'Pro-Palestine' 
  Porn Star Allowed Into Hardline Islamic Iran Because She’s ‘Pro-Palestine’ 

  The words Islamic Republic of Iran and “porn star” aren’t two concepts one typically hears coupled in the same sentence, but this week controversy and confusion has been unleashed after adult film actress Whitney Wright made a bizarre visit to Iran.

  Wright, whose real name is Brittni Rayne Whittington, also deems herself a pro-Palestinian activist, and presumably that is how she was allowed into Iran. At the start of this week she posted multiple photos of herself wearing – ironically enough – an Islamic hijab during her trip to tour the capital of Tehran.

  

  “I’m extremely disappointed that the attention surrounding my visit [seems] to overshadow Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza,” Wright has told Newsweek, addressing the significant backlash online that followed her photos. The porn star says she’s “not backing down”.

  According to EuroNews, Iranian opposition activists were especially outraged:

  US-based activist Masih Alinejad, who faced assassination attempts by Iran, condemned Wright for making the trip and for alleged remarks where the actress said “if you respect the law, you will be safe in Iran.”

  Alinejad took to X to point out that “American porn star Whitney Wright is in Iran, my birth country, where women are killed for simply showing their hair and being true to themselves.”

  Also controversial were her posts seeming to glorify the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution which resulted in the long-running US hostage crisis. In one Instagram post…

  She said she “HAD to visit” the embassy where Iranian students held staff members hostage for 444 days after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

  

  She’s been accused also by pro-Israel pundits of being a willing propagandists on behalf of Tehran, and for issuing anti-American statements and images at a moment US forces have come under attack in the Middle East.

  Engaging in pornography can bring the death penalty in the hardline Islamic Republic. So how did this supposed “influencer” line up the strange junket which involved taking snaps (fully clothed) in and around the capital? Also did she have government-assigned minders to escort here (as is sometimes the case)?…

  American porn star Whitney Wright is in Iran, my birth country, where women are killed for simply showing their hair and being true to themselves.
  Whitney has published several photos on herself completely covered up on Instagram. On her post she called me a warmonger and tells… pic.twitter.com/MwBBsVorBJ

  — Masih Alinejad 🏳️ (@AlinejadMasih) February 4, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Strangely, even though there’s no doubt Iranian foreign ministry authorities deeply vet especially Americans and other Westerners who wish to enter, Iranian officials are claiming “they didn’t know” about her role in pornography:

  In Tehran, foreign ministry spokesman Nasser Kanani denied any knowledge of her trip, but noted that despite the political tensions “it is not forbidden” for Americans to visit Iran.

  A source told the Tasnim news agency that she was not invited by any organization in Iran and the visa system “was not aware of the nature of her immoral and obscene occupation”.

  

  At this point Wright has moved on in her travels and is safely out of Iran.

  The whole spectacle of a porn actress inside Iran certainly does not seem very in keeping with old fashioned hardline Iranian ‘Islamic Revolution’ principles.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 23:25

• Why Are Woke Pro Sports Leagues Lobbying Congress For Gun Control?
  Why Are Woke Pro Sports Leagues Lobbying Congress For Gun Control?

  Submitted by Gun Owners of America,

  As the United States prepares for its most-watched sporting event of the year, anti-gun senators are pushing for a reauthorization of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 in Congress.

  Thanks to the support of our grassroots membership, Gun Owners of America and our allies in Congress were successful in removing a permanent reauthorization of the UFA from a must-pass military funding bill.

  But the anti-gun lobby isn’t going to give up without a fight, especially with the law set to expire in just under a month.

  In drumming up support for reauthorizing the UFA, anti-gun politicians have found some new allies: Professional sports leagues.

  The NFL, NHL, NBA, and even NASCAR have written a letter to Congress in support of the reauthorization of the Undetectable Firearms Act.

  While the letter states that the leagues “urge you to reauthorize this critical law so that our organizations can continue to keep our fans safe,” the evidence is that the UFA is an arbitrary and capricious law that only serves as a ticking time bomb for future gun control.

  Under current law, all that a criminal would have to do to violate the Undetectable Firearms Act would be to 3D Print a gun and not epoxy the legally required amount of metal to the frame.

  Believe it or not, criminals and terrorists have been committing crimes in the United States this past decade, but they’re not choosing fully plastic or 3D-printed guns.

  Watch: Ben from GOA Demonstrates how a simple Garrett Security Wand can detect a .22LR bullet through layers of 3D-printed plastic and clothing.

  How do we know criminals aren’t using “undetectable” guns? Well, we searched every criminal indictment, prosecution, and conviction since the 1990’s and no one has ever been charged—let alone convicted—of violating the Undetectable Firearms Act.

  If Professional sports leagues were concerned about these types of firearms being snuck into their events, they could upgrade their security systems instead of relying on an unconstitutional law that criminals easily ignore. 

  Millimeter Wave Scanners and other modern detection devices can detect non-metal—such as plastic guns. And common metal detectors like this garret hand scanner can easily detect metal weighing far less than the archaic 3.7oz of metal requirement from the 1980’s.

  Professional sporting leagues like the NFL should stick to entertainment and stop attempting to infringe on their customer’s rights.

  Gun Owners of America stands with our allies in Congress in opposition to the reauthorization of the archaic Undetectable Firearms Act. Please call your elected representatives and demand they do the same. 

  *   *   *

  We’ll hold the line for you in Washington. We are No Compromise. Join the Fight Now.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 23:05

• "My Memory Is Fine" Biden Fumes, Before Confusing Egypt's Sisi With The President Of Mexico
  “My Memory Is Fine” Biden Fumes, Before Confusing Egypt’s Sisi With The President Of Mexico

  In less than 15 minutes, President Biden proved Special Counsel Robert Hur right and confirmed all concerns about his fitness for office.

  As we detailed earlier, Hur wrote in his report that he would not suggest bringing charges against the president for his mishandling of classified documents because, “Biden will likely present himself to the jury, as he did during his interview with our office, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

  The president, having ‘seen dead people’ numerous times this week, was apparently displeased with the report, and decided the correct course of action was a (rare) press conference to set the world straight on his mental acuity.

  

  It did not go well.

  He welcomed the special counsel’s decision not to bring charges:

  “The bottom line is the matter is now closed,” Biden asserted, with respect to the report.

  But, then proceeded to throw his staff under the bus:

  “I take responsibility for not having seen exactly what my staff was doing,” he said.

  “Things that appeared in my garage, things that came out of my home, things that were moved, were moved not by me, but my staff, but my staff,” he continued.

  Then he took issue with the special counsel report’s questioning his mental acuity around the timing of his son’s death, and angry-old-man mode was unleashed:

  “How in the hell dare he raise that? Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself, it was none of their damn business,” Biden thundered.

  Biden started to say he wore his son’s rosary every day since the day Beau died, but stopped, when he appeared to forget where the rosary came from.

  “Every Memorial Day we hold a service remembering him, attended by friends and family and the people who loved him,” Biden continued, after a pause. “I don’t need anyone. I don’t need anyone to remind me when he passed away.”

  The mumbling continued as opened up the press conference to questions – not a great idea in hindsight.

  Constantly defending himself against allegations of failing memory, Biden appeared to snap when Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy asked Biden, “How bad is your memory?”

  “My memory is so bad I let you speak,” Biden said.

  “My memory is fine. Take a look at what I’ve done since I’ve become president.”

  Doocy pressed, pointing to the Special Counsel’s description of Biden as an “elderly, well-meaning man.”

  “I am well-meaning. And I’m an elderly man. And I know what the hell I’m doing,” Biden reacted.

  “I’ve been president – I put this country back on its feet. I don’t need his recommendation.”

  Biden’s rage reached its zenith when a CNN reporter began to ask a question about the American people’s concerns about his mental state (a perspective that is widely held according to many polls). “The American people have been watching and they have expressed concerns about your age,” the reporter said.

  “That is your judgement! That is your judgement! That is not the judgement of the press!” Biden shouted back at her.

  

  Biden also bizarrely claimed that he had vowed to be a “president” for everybody “whether they were from a red state or a green state.”

  And then, as his piéce de resistance, after initially walking out, the president called Israel’s response in Gaza “over the top” and then mistakenly referred to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as the President of Mexico.

  “Initially, the president of Mexico — Sisi — did not want to open up the gate to allow humanitarian material to get in. I talked to him. I convinced him to open the gate.”

  He did not correct himself.

  Egyptian drug lord. pic.twitter.com/4qrDcUgNGu

  — Orda (@TheChaosEngine1) February 9, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  So to summarize:

  In a press conference trying to prove that he is not senile and thus competent enough to stand trial.

  Wild stuff. pic.twitter.com/8ugZNmDfbx

  — Yossi Gestetner (@YossiGestetner) February 9, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Watch the full (15 minutes from start to finish) shitshow here:

  And believe it or not, it got worse as even CNN refused to provide cover for the president:

  CNN’s Elie Honig on Biden’s denial he shared classified documents with his ghostwriter:

  “He’s ON TAPE — after he’s out of the vice presidency — saying to his autobiographer, ‘the classified documents are in the basement.’ He knew it!” pic.twitter.com/pft2PbQ9oC

  — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 9, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Of course, the ultimate irony of all of this is that it occurred within minutes of Tucker Carlson releasing an unedited, wide-ranging two-hour long interview with Russian president Vladimir Putin.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 22:45

• Water Level Projections Threaten Future Panama Canal Transits
  Water Level Projections Threaten Future Panama Canal Transits

  By Tony Mulvey of FreightWaves

  Dry season in Panama is in full swing, and the impacts to trade through the Panama Canal will remain challenged in the months to come. The situation in the canal, after a wetter-than-expected November, wasn’t as dire as many believed, allowing the number of daily transits to increase in January.

  

  The Panama Canal forecast 24 daily transits in January, up from 20 previously expected for January and 18 previously expected for February. Throughout fiscal year 2023, 12,638 vessels traversed the canal, a daily average of 34 oceangoing vessels moving through the canal. 

  In the first four months of the canal’s fiscal year 2024, there were 3,233 transits across all vessel types, with the vast majority being Panamax vessels. The run rate for fiscal year 2024 of vessels through the canal is 9,700, 23% lower than the 2023 fiscal year throughput.

  While container traffic receives a lot of attention, the tanker and dry bulk market will be heavily impacted as well. Through the first four months of fiscal 2024, chemical tankers have made up 25.6% of Panamax-class vessels that have traversed the canal. Liquefied petroleum gas carriers made up 25.5% of the Neopanamax traffic through the canal.

  The water levels within the Panama Canal are largely to blame, but any hope for a significant rebound in water levels to boost throughput will likely be met with a harsh reality over the next few months.

  

  The water levels are going to remain a challenge that has the potential to continue to derail vessel throughput. Gatun Lake, the manmade lake that vessels must traverse, had water levels at 81.2 feet as of Tuesday. Water levels in this critical portion of the canal have started 2024 at the lowest level on record, dating back to 1965.

  Projections are for even lower levels over the next two months, falling below 80 feet in early April.

  Three of the largest five ports in the U.S. rely on shipments that navigate through the Panama Canal: the Port of New York and New Jersey, the Port of Savannah, Georgia, and Port Houston. Over the past month, these three ports combined to handle 30% of total twenty-foot equivalent unit throughput. For reference, the two largest ports in the country: the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, accounted for 32% of the total U.S. throughput.

  Import demand has picked up steam ahead of the Lunar New Year, which will provide a boost to overall imports that are trending above last year’s levels. This boost is being felt by the East Coast ports, like Savannah, where the Ocean TEU Volume Index is up over 40% in the past month.

  The water crisis is creating increased delays as backlogs around the canal remain.

  

  The limiting effects of the low water levels have created an additional six-day delay on average to the Port of Savannah from all ports around the globe. These delays are adding an extra day and a half to the scheduled transit times, which have also increased — nearly four days longer than they were this time last year.

  These delays are even more impactful the further up the Eastern Seaboard you go. The Port of New York and New Jersey is having similar delays, around the six-day mark, but are over three days longer than they were last year.

  Comparing these East Coast ports to their West Coast counterparts, the port pair delays for the Port of Los Angeles are under three days and nearly a day less than they were this time last year.

  Mother Nature is outside human control, and if the water level projection holds true, the next couple of months could add to the ongoing crisis.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 22:25

• US Trade With Mexico Surges To No. 1 Position
  US Trade With Mexico Surges To No. 1 Position

  Mexico was the biggest trade partner of the U.S. in 2023 and the biggest source of the country’s imports ahead of China.

  As Statista’s Katharina Buchhoz details below, trade with Mexico – both imports and exports – totaled close to $800 billion last year as efforts to source closer to home and reduce dependence on China are ongoing in the U.S. and other Western countries.

  The U.S. has also intensified trade with its neighbor to the North.

  Canada is currently the country’s top 2 trade partner and top 3 source of imports, only slightly behind China for the latter metric.

  Trade with two more close allies, Japan and Germany, also grew over the last couple of years.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  China has traditionally bought fewer goods from the U.S. than Mexico and Canada so when its imports to the U.S. dropped last year, so did its overall trade balance with its North American partner.

  China was the biggest trade partner of the U.S. between 2015 and 2018.

  Canada and Mexico then became top partners at the height of the U.S.-China trade war in 2019.

  2020 and the outbreak of the coronavirus caused a trade slump in the U.S. and saw China reemerge as the country’s biggest partner since the pandemic affected it only from a later date.

  When the pandemic subsided in 2022 and 2023 and critique of China soared, first Canada and then Mexico got ahead, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 22:05

• South Dakota Forced To Apologize To Transgender Activists, Pay $300,000
  South Dakota Forced To Apologize To Transgender Activists, Pay $300,000

  Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

  South Dakota has issued an apology to a transgender advocacy group and must pay $300,000 under an agreement that settles a lawsuit against Gov. Kristi Noem and the state health secretary over a terminated contract.

  

  The Transformation Project, a nonprofit that provides suicide prevention and other services to transgender people in South Dakota, sued Ms. Noem and Secretary of Health Melissa Magstadt last year after the state canceled a contract to hire and train a community health worker to connect members of the LGBT community to health services.

  The contract included a $136,000 state-administered federal grant, of which the transgender group received roughly $39,000, according to its attorneys.

  Lynne Valenti, South Dakota Deputy Health Secretary, alleged in the contract cancellation letter that the transgender group failed to perform certain contractual obligations.

  Attorneys for the group accused Ms. Valenti of having canceled the agreement for political reasons.

  U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier ruled on Feb. 5 to dismiss the lawsuit after the parties jointly asked for a dismissal after entering into a settlement.

  As part of the settlement, South Dakota is required to pay $300,000 and issue a public apology.

  “This settlement marks a significant milestone in our ongoing commitment to civil rights advocacy,” Brendan Johnson, lead attorney representing the Transformation Project, said in a statement.

  Ms. Noem’s office did not respond to a request for comment on the settlement.

  Background

  South Dakota’s contract with the Transformation Project was canceled on Dec. 16, 2023, after a reporter from The Daily Signal contacted her office to inquire about it.

  “In a statement provided to The Daily Signal, Governor Noem stated ‘South Dakota does not support this organization’s efforts, and state government should not be participating in them,’” the transgender advocacy group wrote in its lawsuit, alleging that the contract cancellation was “based purely on national politics.”

  According to the cited report from The Daily Signal, Ms. Noem terminated the contract after a reporter from the news outlet reached out to her office with questions about a “Gender Identity Summit” that South Dakota’s largest employer, Sanford Health, was set to jointly host with the Transformation Project.

  The Daily Signal report cited in the complaint noted that the project “celebrates controversial medical interventions for minors and hosts events in which people ritually ‘burn’ their ‘old name or pronouns.’”

  Ian Fury, a spokesperson for Ms. Noem, told The Epoch Times in December that the contract had been signed without the governor’s knowledge or approval.

  

  South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem speaks during the National Rifle Association annual convention at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas, on May 27, 2022. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

  The Department of Health, which had originally awarded the contract, said in the cancellation letter that the group had violated contract terms.

  The group disputed this claim, leading to the lawsuit, which alleged violations of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination in the administration of federal grants.

  The transgender advocacy’s attorneys also accused South Dakota of having violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

  The lawsuit led to a settlement, under which South Dakota Secretary of Health Melissa Magstadt issued an apology letter, though the state did not have to admit to discrimination.

  “On behalf of the State of South Dakota, I apologize that the Transformation Project’s contract was terminated and for treating the Transformation Project differently than other organizations awarded Community Health Worker contracts,” reads the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.

  Transformation Project Executive Director Susan Williams said in a statement that she feels vindicated and the settlement sends a “clear and strong” message that “discrimination against transgender people will not be tolerated in South Dakota.”

  Noem Sigs Law Banning Trans Surgery for Youth

  Ms. Noem, a Republican, has been a vocal opponent of transgender procedures for young people.

  In February 2023, she signed the “Help Not Harm” bill into law, banning certain medical and surgical interventions, such as puberty blockers and genital surgery, for minors.

  “South Dakota’s kids are our future. With this legislation, we are protecting kids from harmful, permanent medical procedures,” Noem said in a statement.

  “I will always stand up for the next generation of South Dakotans.”

  According to the text of the bill, health care professionals are prohibited from prescribing or administering certain medical and surgical interventions for minors to attempt to alter their appearance or perception of their sex.

  These interventions include prescribing drugs to delay puberty and administering hormones in amounts greater than what is typically produced naturally in a healthy individual of the same age and sex, such as testosterone, estrogen, or progesterone.

  The law also blocks doctors from performing sterilization surgeries or surgeries that artificially construct genitalia differing from the minor’s sex, and procedures that remove healthy or non-diseased body parts or tissue.

  The law prohibits health care providers from violating the ban at risk of having their medical license revoked, and possible legal action.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 21:45

• Mayo Clinic Vaccine Research Director Calls For Expanding Detection Of 'Silent' COVID Vaccine Risks
  Mayo Clinic Vaccine Research Director Calls For Expanding Detection Of ‘Silent’ COVID Vaccine Risks

  Authored by Marina Zhang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Dr. Gregory Poland, the director of Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group, has called for more rigorous detection of vaccine adverse events after suffering a COVID-19 vaccine adverse event.

  

  “While vaccines have an overwhelmingly positive safety profile, it’s essential to address concerns about potential adverse events comprehensively and compassionately,” Dr. Poland and his co-author Dr. Steve Black of the Global Vaccine Data Network wrote in their commentary published in the journal Vaccine.

  “Some of these reactions are immediate and easily observable or measurable … Others however are not immediately obvious, or are even clinically ‘silent’ or cryptic, making them challenging to identify and link directly to a vaccine.”

  Dr. Poland, the lead author, suffered from what he deemed a “cryptic” adverse event.

  In 2021, soon after his second Moderna shot, Dr. Poland was driving back from the clinic when he suddenly heard a whistling sound in his ears.

  “It was like someone suddenly blew a dog whistle in my ear,” he told MedPage Today. “It has been pretty much unrelenting.”

  He has since attributed his tinnitus to the COVID-19 vaccine and become vocal in advocating for better vaccine adverse event surveillance programs.

  “It is critical to be vigilant about rare, silent, or subtle reactions. Public health agencies and healthcare providers can play a much more favorable and vital role in establishing vaccine trust by enlarging the current vaccine safety paradigm,” Dr. Poland wrote.

  Spectrum of Vaccine Adverse Events

  Dr. Poland said a spectrum of adverse events exists; some are easily detectable, while others are far more hidden.

  Swelling at the injection site and immediate fever, for example, are immediate, easily observed, and measurable. These are thus far easier to detect and link to the vaccine if the symptoms come on soon after vaccination.

  Dr. Poland reasoned that an adverse event’s detectability differs by whether it can be measured or imaged, if biomarkers are present, and if the condition is responsive to treatment.

  Guillain-Barré syndrome, for example, has a long history of being associated with vaccine adverse events. The condition may be detected using a spinal tap during the acute phase and looking for elevated cerebrospinal fluid (CFS) protein levels.

  Myocarditis can be detected by looking for biomarkers and taking X-rays.

  Hearing loss, while it cannot be imaged or tested for using biomarkers, can be demonstrated by running hearing tests.

  However, Dr. Poland considers tinnitus a cryptic adverse event since it is inherently subjective, lacks biomarkers, can be psychosomatic, and may be caused by an underlying condition other than the vaccine.

  But just as tinnitus is difficult to quantify, it can also be highly disabling, Dr. Poland wrote.

  React19 co-founder Dr. Joel Wallskog, who was not involved in the commentary, said that people have been driven to suicide as a result of their tinnitus. React19 is an advocacy group for those injured by COVID-19 vaccines and sufferers of long COVID.

  Ways to Detect Vaccine Adverse Events

  Vaccine adverse events were first detected in the earlier vaccine clinical trials. However, some adverse events were missed.

  Dr. Poland gave the example of menstrual irregularities, which have been strongly linked to COVID-19 vaccines but were not reported during the vaccine trials.

  “Had investigators actively solicited information on such issues or symptomatology, it would have been detected and quantifiable,” he wrote.

  He also suggested monitoring new symptoms discussed on social media to detect possible trends. This may help detect new symptoms that people have not yet linked to the vaccine.

  After a vaccine rolls out, average citizens can report their adverse events to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) managed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

  VAERS is a public database that allows anyone to check and report a vaccine adverse event. The system also has interventions put in place to reduce false reporting. For instance, the lengthy reporting process deters false reports. It is also a direct violation of federal law to make a false report, and those caught doing this may be fined or even imprisoned.

  “Most adverse reactions are transient and self-limiting, although some may be serious or life-threatening. In my experience, however, even ‘transient’ conditions such as facial palsy may extend for months, if not years,” dentist and professor Dr. Nicola Cirillo at the University of Melbourne said in a statement on oral-facial adverse events post-COVID vaccine.

  “It is important to inform vaccine recipients about these possible consequences,” he added.

  Hundreds of Adverse Events Linked to COVID-19 Vaccines

  Since July 2022, Freedom of Information Act-released documents from the CDC showed at least 770 safety signals have been detected by CDC researchers in the VAERS database.

  These include myocarditis, tinnitus, death, and increased instances of health checkups.

  Dr. Wallskog said that many VAERS reports have also become hidden.

  In 2022, React19 surveyed 126 people who submitted VAERS reports. It found that only around 60 percent of VAERS reports are made available to the public.

  Twelve percent of the VAERS reports were deleted, and 22 percent do not have permanent IDs and, therefore, could not be accessed by the public. The remaining 5 percent of would-be VAERS reporters could not file a report, or their report numbers were unknown.

  Dr. Peter McCullough, cardiologist and a vocal critic of the COVID-19 vaccines, expressed disappointment that authors Drs. Poland and Black said that vaccines have an “overwhelmingly positive safety profile” in their conclusion, adding that safety data systems have recorded injuries, disabilities, and deaths related to the COVID vaccines.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 21:05

• US Warns Against Impending Israeli Assault On Refugee-Packed Rafah
  US Warns Against Impending Israeli Assault On Refugee-Packed Rafah

  US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he has voiced “concerns” to Prime Minister Netanyahu regarding the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) impending ground operation against the far southern city of Rafah in the Gaza Strip.

  Hundreds of thousands of civilian refugees have until this point sought out the greater ‘safety’ of Rafah. But Al Jazeera observes that “Panic is growing in Rafah over an imminent ground invasion after Israel’s prime minister ordered his military to prepare to enter the city in the southern Gaza Strip that is sheltering 1.2 million people with nowhere else to go as he rejected Hamas’s truce plan and rebuffed US efforts to reach a deal.”

  

  Initially almost the entire population of the northern half of the Strip moved south to the Khan Younis area, but after in past weeks it came under massive assault – as the IDF has sought to root out Hamas’ command structure from there – throngs of Palestinian refugees were forced further south, to the border with Egypt.

  According to Axios, “Blinken also expressed concerns about the failures of communication between the IDF and international organizations and insufficient deconfliction, which led to the targeting of UN personnel who were delivering aid, the sources said.”

  The report further indicates Blinken communicated the following to the Israelis:

  • The U.S. is concerned that an Israeli Defense Forces operation in the city without evacuating the civilian population to safe areas will lead to mass casualties.
  • It also fears that such an operation will push tens of thousands of Palestinians into Egypt. The Egyptian government has already warned the displacement of Palestinians to Egypt would lead to a rupture in its relations with Israel.

  Of course, Israel has accused some of these organizations, especially the largest – the UNRWA – of being compromised by Hamas members and alleged associations with terrorists.

  The White House on Thursday also issued statements saying truce negotiations are still “ongoing” – but the reality is that PM Netanyahu fully rejected the “delusional” Hamas demands, in particular the condition that Israeli troops must first completely withdraw from the Gaza Strip.

  Both sides are still offering the other ‘non-starters’ which means the process in reality hasn’t gone anywhere. And from Hamas’ perspective, Israel is now only widening the war by bringing it to Rafah. According to the latest words of Netanyahu via the NY Times:

  Israel’s prime minister said the military would soon go into to an area of Gaza near the border with Egypt where hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians have fled, something the United Nations has said would be catastrophic.

  Gazan health officials say that more than 27,000 people — many of them women and children — have been killed in Israel’s bombardment and ground assault of Gaza since the Hamas-led attack on Oct. 7. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that Israeli troops had been directed to deploy in Rafah, near the southern border, and in camps in central Gaza, calling the areas “Hamas’s last remaining strongholds.”

  Below: Secretary General of the Norwegian Refugee Council…

  An Israeli ground offensive on overcrowded Rafah in #Gaza would be a bloodbath, and a stain on both Israel and those nations providing arms.

  We need an immediate ceasefire to reach the women, children, families who are at breaking point, with lifesaving aid. pic.twitter.com/XHsL2NdgLE

  — Jan Egeland (@NRC_Egeland) February 8, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The United Nations is still pressing for urgent ceasefire. “It is time for an immediate humanitarian cease-fire, and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages,” UN Secretary General António Guterres said.

  Jens Laerke, a spokesman for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, warned against a Rafah assault: “We can make clear what the law says. Under international humanitarian law, indiscriminate bombing of densely populated areas may amount to war crimes,” he told reporters in Geneva.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 20:45

• Pentagon Secretly Institutionalized DEI In Its K-12 Public Schools
  Pentagon Secretly Institutionalized DEI In Its K-12 Public Schools

  By Adam Andrzejewski of Open The Books Substack

  In a Congressional hearing last spring, Gil Cisneros, then-Under Secretary for Military Readiness, announced that the Pentagon was closing its newly formed Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion within its K-12 school system and reassigning its controversial DEI chief after a ten-month internal investigation.

  

  The Pentagon’s climb-down was a big win for OpenTheBooks.com. We had worked alongside whistleblowers, journalists, other investigative non-profits, and ranking members of Congress to expose alleged conflicts of interest, violations of military ethics policies, and radical ideologies being forced on the kids of servicemen and servicewomen.

  Today, we are announcing Cisneros was actually faking. The radical curriculum was not dismantled. Instead, it was stealthily embedded into the lesson plans and classrooms throughout the entire school system.

  The Pentagon, under Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, is preventing details of their DEI policies from coming to light by abusing the Freedom of Information Act. They bamboozled the public with window dressing in Congressional hearings while forcing woke extremism on the roughly 70,000 children of our military service members.

  It’s critical that taxpayers understand the scope of the DEI philosophy within the DoD’s schools – deployed servicemembers often have no alternative but to use the Pentagon-run school system, called the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA).

  Troubling Curriculum

  DOD relentlessly promotes DEI-ideologies to school children of serving families through educational contractors with millions of dollars of taxpayer funding.

  Here are some examples of what’s happening in the Pentagon’s schools:

  • Chat rooms to facilitate teacher-student conversations that are closed off to parents about sexuality and gender, and likely without their knowledge or consent.

  • Engaging four-year-olds in LGBTQ+ conversations. Elementary schools are the “perfect time” to “really show students the diversity of the gender expression and gender activity.”

  • Solidarity with the neo-Marxist Black Lives Matter organization to encourage teachers to “challenge our beliefs, examine our own biases, and reflect on how we need to evaluate the structures and systems in our classrooms.”

  • Video content on “dissent” and “equity” to “help educators facilitate classroom conversations and much-needed discussions about implicit bias and systemic racism, human rights, equity, social justice, dissent, protest, and empathy.” 

  • Marxist activism to dismantle systems of “power” and “privilege.” Suggesting a refusal to teach a “white-washed” curriculum and instead teach “social justice rather than heroes, holidays, and celebrations.”

  • A teaching handbook that recommends “critical conversations” with students about race, identity, and privilege and the way “injustice” affects our lives and society. These “explicit conversations” provoke “strong emotions” and crying students are expected.

  Read the details about these vendors, their payments, and the full background dossier on our investigation here.

  

  Transparency Problems

  The Pentagon is assiduously attempting to hide its biased left-wing extremist curriculum from public view.  It is deleting public access to links, driving DEI infrastructure underground, and liberally redacting the most basic Freedom of Information Act requests.

  For example, OpenTheBooks.com filed a FOIA request for the agency payroll just as we have at nearly 13,000 public schools across America. Stunningly, the DoDEA refused to disclose the individual salaries of its staff, unlike public schools nationwide and almost every other federal agency. No names, job titles, or compensation details on the $1.4 billion payroll.

  It’s not just our organization having problems.

  In September 2022, The Claremont Institute published a groundbreaking report on left-wing extremism in DoDEA classrooms, called “Grooming Future Revolutionaries.” The report highlighted content from dozens of video presentations from staffers at a 2021 “Equity and Access Summit” discussing what they were doing to turn schoolchildren into social justice activists.

  Days later, all videos were taken down from the publicly available links and are no longer accessible. While the agency originally refused to release relevant documents via our FOIA request, we appealed, and the subsequent production confirmed that the videos were taken down in response to the report.

  Last spring, at the Congressional hearing, Gil Cisneros announced that the Pentagon was dissolving the DoDEA’s DEI department and reassigning its chief. However, key documents we captured via FOIA suggest that DEI-ethos is still at the core of agency mission.

  Here is what we were able to find out:

  The Pentagon “integrated” DEI specialists into “four key divisions” in the agency last March while also launching a DEI Steering Committee. The committee is comprised of top executives including the agency’s CEO Thomas Brady, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Academic Officer, and twelve others.  

  We sought more information on the steering committee, but our DoD redacted, or, “hid”: 1. member names; 2. agendas, materials, minutes and discussions; and 3. impact the committee is having on the whole education environment at the Pentagon.

  The extent of these redactions is so ridiculous that almost every slide from the 14-page slide-deck presented at a committee meeting had been redacted except for the title page and a page defining DEI. 

  The only non-executive staffer we can confirm attended these meetings is DEI Specialist Michelle Woodfork. See her redacted slide deck and calendar information here. 

  

  Key Quote

  During the agency’s 2021 Equity and Access Summit, Woodfork made her devotion to the Pentagon’s DEI initiatives abundantly clear in her presentation:  

  “When headquarters published their initiative for REDI [an earlier name for DEI at DoDEA] I got heart palpitations because it felt so affirming of the work I’ve been doing for so long.”

  Woodfork’s presentation centered on her then-role as a principal at a Pentagon school, where she led “equity audits” on school materials and practices. 

  The background and ideological orientation of Woodfork only underscores the need for the public and DoDEA parents to know who exactly is on this committee, and how much power they have over system-wide education.

  

  Background

  DoDEA made headlines in recent years for practices like hiding “gender transitions” from parents, forcing children into “difficult conversations” about race, class, gender, and sexuality, and the antics of a self-described “woke” Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion chief who allegedly hawked her own books to her colleagues.  

  DoDEA’s focus on DEI, Thomas Brady said, is compelled by President Biden’s 2021 Executive Order 14035, which among other items charges all agencies with “assessing the current state of diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility within their workforces.”

  But even before EO 14035, Brady strived to inculcate DEI ideology at the agency, announcing on Juneteenth 2020 that DEI must be “embedded in everything we do.” 

  In December 2024 the National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law by President Joe Biden. The law delineates “rights” for the parents of children attending DoDEA schools, authored by Representative Elise Stefanik (NY-21) which will go into effect in two years.

  The parental rights include, among other items: 

  • The right to review the curriculum of the school 
  • The right to review all instructional materials used by their students 

  While these measures are certainly progress for military families, much can still be obfuscated. Teacher training, such as the Equity and Access Summit, should be included as well. And it is not clear if the full spectrum of tools included, such as the secret LGBT chatrooms, would be disclosed as “instructional materials.”

  Moreover, if extremist materials are disclosed, there does not seem to be a recourse for opting children out of these lessons.  

  

  Conclusion

  Secretary Austin and then-Under Secretary Cisneros devoted themselves to hiding their DEI bait-and-switch.

  With the fanfare of a Congressional platform, Cisnero sought credit for shutting down DEI. But under our scrutiny, we found DoD instead made DEI a stealth weapon against the kids of our fighting men and women in service to an anti-American neo-Marxist ideology.

  We have further found that DoD under Secretary Austin is leveraging public record laws to the hilt to prevent parents and the public from knowing details of its efforts, while spending millions of taxpayer dollars on objectionable content for school children.  

  DoDEA did not dismantle its DEI efforts. It redoubled those efforts and added deceit and dissembling to its mix. 

  Given DoDEA’s recent history and press regarding extremist content in schools, heads must roll, and the agency must provide full transparency of teaching methods and its DEI-related policy operations.

  Parents, taxpayers, and the kids themselves deserve no less.  

  Note: We reached out to DoDEA and all educator employees who were quoted or gave presentations as referenced in this article. If they are no longer employed by DoDEA, we couldn’t reach them. We will update our piece if we receive a response.

  Furthermore, no employee or vendor is accused of any breach or violation of statute, military policy, or agency policy. In fact, they just might be abiding by agency rules or Biden’s executive order, if anything.

  Will Griffin, DoDEA Director of Communications responded to our comment request:

  DoDEA remains committed to maintaining a school system where military-connected students can excel and prepare for success in college and careers and where all employees are treated with dignity and respect. We will continue to comply with all applicable Federal laws, Department of Defense policies, and applicable executive orders.

  Additional Reading

  • “Agitate, Agitate, Agitate”— Military’s New Diversity Chief Hawks Books, Advocates “Revolution” In K-12 Schools | Adam Andrzejewski | OpenTheBooks.Substack.com | October 2022 

  • Military Stonewalls Investigation Into Controversial Diversity Official Leading K-12 Schools | Adam Andrzejewski | OpenTheBooks.Substack.com | March 2023 

  • Letter to Secretary Lloyd Austin | Rep. Elise Stefanik, Rep. C Scott Franklin, et al. | September 2022 

  • Grooming Future Revolutionaries | The Claremont Institute Center for the American Way of Life | September 2022 

  • Kids Must Cry | The American Mind | September 2022 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 20:25

• A Matured MAGA Movement Prepares For Trump’s Return To DC
  A Matured MAGA Movement Prepares For Trump’s Return To DC

  Authored by Nathan Worcester and Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  What would the start of a second Trump term look like—and what sort of opposition would it face?

  

  In search of answers, The Epoch Times interviewed veterans of the first Trump administration, reviewed writings from that time as well as the Trump campaign’s Agenda 47, and talked to those helping to provide a 2025 roadmap.

  It seems the MAGA movement is now older, wiser, and better situated in Washington.

  Preexisting conservative institutions such as The Heritage Foundation have tilted in former President Donald Trump’s direction. The former president will also have a deeper bench of possible appointees and real experience running the show. A more sympathetic Supreme Court and possible gains in Congress could also help him—and, unlike in 2016, the Republican establishment is consolidating behind his candidacy early in the primary season.

  Yet many federal bureaucracies, legacy media organs, and other institutions can be counted on to put up resistance.

  Additionally, the “sanctuary city” phenomenon—and, on the flip side, Republican states’ underreported solidarity with Texas in its battle with federal authorities over the border—offers a foretaste of how the Trump administration might clash with some cities, counties, and states during a second term.

  And, as in the first term, neoconservatives, neoliberals, and other Washington non-neophytes who boast deep backgrounds in government but don’t share the MAGA vision may seek power for their own reasons.

  During late 2016 and early 2017, the outsider whom Americans elevated to the presidency faced multiple challenges as he met with immediate and unprecedented hostility from the establishment, including scrutiny from the outgoing Obama administration and the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation before he was even elected.

  President Trump is still marching into gale-force winds—and if he reaches the Oval Office, he will have little time for rest and almost no room for error.

  The Americans who vote for him will demand the swift, efficient execution of MAGA agenda items that lay the groundwork for a lasting legacy—what Stephen Bannon described to The Epoch Times as the starting point for “50 years of MAGA policies.”
   

  

  The 2nd Transition

  If President Trump is elected on Nov. 5, he’ll have until Inauguration Day—Jan. 20, 2025—to manage the transition from the Biden administration to a second Trump term.

  The first Trump transition was rocky. President Trump came to Washington as an outsider after winning an election he was widely expected to lose.

  New York City was the real estate mogul’s home turf, not “the swamp” along the Potomac River. He and a small group of loyalists were starting from scratch in what, to many of them, was a strange and hostile town.

  “We didn’t have a deep bench,” recalled Mr. Bannon, a member of the transition team in 2016 who later served as the White House’s chief strategist.

  “He [Trump] wasn’t versed in how Washington does business,” K.T. McFarland, a Trump administration deputy national security adviser who previously worked in multiple Republican presidential administrations, told The Epoch Times.

  

  While earlier presidents were comfortable recruiting from prior administrations in the same party, President Trump was hesitant to take in George W. Bush administration veterans, particularly in national security roles. According to Ms. McFarland, President Trump felt the Bush crew had failed on that score.

  As evidence of how President Trump shook things up, she cited his call with the president of Taiwan during the transition period. Much of the establishment was aghast—but, on Ms. McFarland’s account, the president-elect recognized the country’s value as a trading partner.

  In “The Fifth Risk,” journalist Michael Lewis depicts a chaotic transition period. One chapter opens by describing how Department of Energy staff members awaited a Trump team the day after the election, in line with prior administrations. Thirty parking spaces that were cleared for the victor remained vacant all day—the expected delegation never materialized.

  At least some of Mr. Lewis’s sources are Obama political appointees who, a critic might note, count as less than impartial authorities on their political opponents. For instance, he quotes the department’s deputy secretary, Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, who is now President Joe Biden’s homeland security adviser.

  Lawyer Paul Dans said that although he wasn’t in the mix during the transition, he was “trying to knock on the door to get on the team.”

  He said he had “a really hard time getting into the federal government” despite his prestigious credentials, which include multiple degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and stints at top law firms such as Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP (later bought out by Locke Lord).

  Mr. Dans ultimately served in multiple roles in the Trump administration, including as chief of staff for the crucial Office of Personnel Management (OPM)—the human resources hub for each presidential administration and the federal government as a whole.

  

  Mr. Dans now leads The Heritage Foundation’s 2025 Presidential Transition Project, or Project 2025, a coalition of more than 90 conservative organizations seeking to line up the right people, policies, and priorities well ahead of any coming transition period. Project 2025 doesn’t officially endorse any presidential candidate.

  Project 2025 partners include credible, experienced MAGA policy shops such as the Center for Renewing America, a think tank led by former Trump Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought. Stephen Miller’s America First Legal is another coalition member. The coalition’s playbook, “Mandate for Leadership,” is a hefty 920 pages.

  The tome comes alongside other detailed instruction manuals for Republicans hoping to carry out a better presidential transition—for example, “Year Zero” by Chris Liddell, former White House deputy chief of staff under President Trump.

  Mr. Dans’s own struggles hopping on the first “Trump train” have clearly influenced his thinking.

  “It was really important in my view that the next president—and I believe that will be President Trump—needs to be supported by a team who knows day one what the game plan is—that they’re brought in, and they’re trained, and they’re ready to go to work,” Mr. Dans told The Epoch Times.

  Mr. Bannon spoke about filling out a new Washington “ecosystem” more in keeping President Trump and his priorities than what came before.

  “You have a broad base of super-competent people that are thinking these ideas through in a self-organizing way and will be there if the president is so inclined, but even if they’re not selected, they become part of this very important ecosystem in Washington,” he said.

  

  Transition Teams

  Mr. Dans described ideal candidates for the “army of conservatives” the project aims to train as, among other things, “personable” and “willing to keep driving and problem-solving.”

  The first Trump transition may have been heavier on generals than foot soldiers—and many of the strong personalities clashed over difficult problems.

  More than a few current foes of President Trump were left in the wake of those early days and months.

  “The transition would become a breeding ground for creatures who would inhabit the Washington Swamp,” Anthony Scaramucci wrote in “Trump: The Blue-Collar President.” Mr. Scaramucci, who served little more than a week as White House communications director in 2017, is now an outspoken supporter of President Biden.

  Mr. Bannon recounted that former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, now another intractable Trump foe, assembled the initial transition team after President Trump’s 2016 election.

  The resulting work product was “a joke” and easily discarded, Mr. Bannon said. Incoming Vice President Mike Pence, now also a Trump critic from time to time, replaced Mr. Christie at the helm of the transition effort.

  “Ivanka, Jared, and I were really pulling together to run the transition,” Mr. Bannon said. “The Obama administration was not particularly helpful in the transition.”

  

  President Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner became fixtures of the Trump White House.

  “There’s no question that Jared was very involved,” Sean Spicer told The Epoch Times.

  Mr. Spicer, who after working on the transition team served as the first press secretary, noted Sen. Bill Haggerty’s (R-Tenn.) involvement in making key appointments.

  Mr. Spicer was among the more politically experienced people in the room, having previously served as the Republican National Committee’s communications director. But multiple memoirs covering the transition and early administration took aim at Mr. Spicer, including Trump official Cliff Sims’s “Team of Vipers” and journalist Jonathan Karl’s “Front Row at the Trump Show.”

  Mr. Bannon is also criticized by some memoirists. Mr. Karl noted he was a “surprisingly accessible source.”

  For his part, the former White House chief strategist said the clash of personalities early on was a positive, comparing it to the “team of rivals” in President Abraham Lincoln’s Cabinet.

  An anonymous Trump administration insider told The Epoch Times that the involvement of the Boston Consulting Group in the first transition was particularly jarring. The company is one of the Big Three management consulting firms and, like both McKinsey & Company and Bain & Company, a potent symbol of the establishment.

  

  “It was ridiculous. It was the biggest fraud of the Trump presidency,” the insider said of the consulting group’s involvement, claiming that “the political loyalists had to defer to them.”

  Mr. Spicer told The Epoch Times he hadn’t heard of any firm affiliates’ involvement in the transition. Yet reporting from the time identifies Boston Consulting Group staff on the transition team.

  The group was also a part of the Trump–Biden transition.

  A joint report from the group and the Partnership for Public Service’s Center for Presidential Transition claims the two parties “played crucial roles in assisting all three of the major stakeholder groups throughout the 2020–21 transition.”

  “Throughout 2020, we were able to build trusted relationships and provide critical support to three main audiences—the Biden transition team, Trump administration, and career agency officials,” a more detailed report from the Center for Presidential Transition reads. It describes Boston Consulting Group as the center’s “anchor partner on the transition.”

  The 1st Days in Power

  Kicking off the first term was President Trump’s inauguration speech.

  A comparison between Mr. Kushner’s account of the speech and Mr. Karl’s version reveals just how differently the same few words resonated with different audiences.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 19:45

• Democrats Fail America's Youth As Dozens Of Schools In Illinois & Maryland Have Zero Kids Proficient In Math
  Democrats Fail America’s Youth As Dozens Of Schools In Illinois & Maryland Have Zero Kids Proficient In Math

  “Democrats always congratulate themselves on being the only party truly concerned with education, especially of the underprivileged, and regularly attack conservatives and Republicans for their “callous indifference.” The Democratic Party Platform, presenting itself as a savior of the underclass, calls for billions of dollars in “bold new investments” by federal and state governments to make good public schools available to every child, “no matter what zip code they live in,”” an excerpt from the “Shame of the Schools” book read. 

  Despite Democrats plowing tens of billions into public K-12 education, schools across the nation are failing in their core mission to educate. 

  

  The answer by Democrats for failing schools is to spend, spend, spend. However, the evidence of Democrats spending into oblivion on education, yielding positive results for the future generation, has yet to materialize: 

  “The average test scores for U.S. 13-year-olds have dipped in reading and dropped sharply in math since 2020, according to new data from National Assessment of Educational Progress.

  “The average scores, from tests given last fall, declined 4 points in reading and 9 points in math, compared with tests given in the 2019-2020 school year, and are the lowest in decades. The declines in reading were more pronounced for lower performing students, but dropped across all percentiles,” NPR reported. 

  In Maryland and Illinois, two states controlled by radical Democrats, evidence is mounting that progressives are failing to educate the youth. 

  Independent research firm Wirepoints found that, shockingly, 53 schools in Illinois had zero students proficient in math at grade levels. The state spends $40.6 billion on K-12 education or $21,750 per student – some of the highest in the nation. 

  Not a single student can do math at grade level in 53 Illinois schools. pic.twitter.com/LMYxvD7oGq

  — Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 (@MarinaMedvin) February 6, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  And also read. 

  Not a single student can read at grade level in 30 Illinois schools.

  I bet they can name a dozen genders though and explain why white people are evil. pic.twitter.com/0fIfgDyzaJ

  — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 6, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Similarly, investigative journalist Chris Papst of Fox45 News’ Project Baltimore found last year that 23 Baltimore City schools did not have a single student proficient in math at grade level. Again, another school district with a massive education budget but higher spending doesn’t result in better student outcomes. 

  BREAKING: 23 Baltimore City Schools had ZERO students test proficient in math during the most recent Maryland state testing. This includes 10 high schools. “Take your kids out of these schools,” one community activist told @FOXBaltimore @Project_Bmore https://t.co/MSyOLKEhf7

  — Chris Papst (@chrispapst) February 7, 2023

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  This is very sad for the future of this nation. 

  23 Baltimore schools have zero students proficient in math, per state test results.

  Baltimore County Public Schools spends $14,883 per student each year. It has an annual revenue of $1,891,725,000, yet kids can’t do math at their grade level.

  Reminder Baltimore is Democrat run… pic.twitter.com/6LfJLQqO3J

  — I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) February 9, 2023

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Meanwhile, “Leftwing Democrats work overtime to establish the idea that the failure of our inner-city schools is wholly the responsibility of mean-spirited, tight-fisted, and outright racist Republicans ready to consign minority children to the social ash heap,” an excerpt from the Shame of the Schools book noted. 

  Democrats need a rescue plan to save America’s failing public K-12 education system that they oversee. It probably doesn’t help when leftists inject toxic CRT and DEI into education curriculums. 

  Let’s get back to actual learning and critical thinking, something Elon Musk is pushing with his new private K-12 school in Texas. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 19:25

• US Asset Or US Adversary? Why Qatar Looks Worryingly Like Both
  US Asset Or US Adversary? Why Qatar Looks Worryingly Like Both

  Authored by Ben Weingarten via RealClear Wire,

  After Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel, one of the terrorist organization’s chief financial sponsors, hosts of its leaders, and backers of its propaganda found itself singled out by America’s leaders – not for condemnation, but praise.

  “The U.S.-Qatar partnership could not be stronger, and Qatar could not have done more than it did in 2023 to play an indispensable role on the world stage,” U.S. ambassador to Qatar Timmy Davis wrote on X last December.

  

  The Biden administration, from the president on down, has lauded the emirate throughout the Israel-Hamas war, especially for its shepherding of negotiations between the two sides for a ceasefire and hostage releases – a role Qatar is singularly capable of filling in part because it maintains Hamas’ “political office” in its capital city, Doha.

  At the annual Qatar-led Doha Forum last December, Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham echoed the Democratic administration, while also thanking Qatar for its assistance evacuating Americans during the deadly Afghanistan withdrawal – a success attributed in part to its harboring of another terrorist group, the Taliban.

  Graham too thanked Qatar for accommodating “10,000 American airmen who live better than [at] any air base in the … world” – a reference to Al Udeid, the largest such facility in the region

  House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Jack Bergman, a Michigan Republican, highlighted the irony of this bipartisan praise, noting, “Our brave men and women in uniform who have served out of Al Udeid … have gone on missions to combat terrorist groups funded by Qatar.”

  Even Qatar’s critics acknowledge that its role as both a valued U.S. ally and supporter of some of America’s deadliest foes represents a remarkable diplomatic feat. 

  To understand how this tiny but rich, theocratic and terror-tied nation has become “indispensable” to Washington – elevated by the Biden administration to major non-NATO ally status on par with Australia, Japan, and Israel – RealClearInvestigations analyzed thousands of pages of congressional testimony and correspondence, other research and news articles, and conducted interviews with policymakers and scholars.

  The analysis suggests how Qatar has wedded the leverage of the Pentagon’s operational demands, and policymakers’ desire to negotiate with adversaries, with a sprawling multi-billion-dollar campaign to “buy power and influence wherever possible,” as Richard Goldberg, a senior adviser at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, put it.

  The upshot is that Qatar’s ruling House of Thani has executed what Goldberg told RCI is a “kind of terror-finance double game” transcending Hamas.

  Energy Windfall, Outsized Power

  The Connecticut-sized state with a population the size of Houston punches above its weight with a war chest built on vast liquefied natural gas reserves. After the U.S., Qatar is the second largest exporter of the commodity in the world. Its position could improve not just because of the Biden administration’s recent bow to its domestic anti-fossil-fuel base in curbing U.S. LNG exports, but also as the gulf state capitalizes on the growing energy needs of China and a Europe seeking alternatives to Russian gas.

  The LNG-rich nation has used its energy windfall to project outsized global power and influence. “Billions of Qatari dollars permeate all aspects of our lives without us even knowing it,” says Goldberg.

  Defense cooperation is core to the U.S.-Qatar relationship. U.S. officials cast Al Udeid, U.S. Central Command’s headquarters, as its key asset in the Middle East. Built in 1996 by Qatar at a cost of $1 billion, the U.S. transitioned its major air operations there from Saudi Arabia in 2003, in part due to security threats. 

  The base, in which Qatar has invested billions more to revamp, enables the U.S. “to support a range of critical missions in the region and respond to challenges to our shared security” according to the Pentagon.

  Critics see it differently. “Far from being an American strategic asset in the Arabian Gulf, Al Udeid is, in fact, a Qatari asset in Washington,” national security analyst David Reaboi wrote in his 2021 book, “Qatar’s Shadow War.”

  “As long as the U.S. military advocates on behalf of the base’s continued use,” he argued, “… nearly any amount of trouble and mischief Qatar creates will be accepted, excused or contextualized.”

  The emirate has deepened influence with the U.S. military by lavishing sometimes lucrative contracts on over a dozen former high-ranking defense officials. One implicated official is retired Marine Gen. John Allen. The former commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan came under federal scrutiny for alleged illegal foreign lobbying for Qatar when, in 2017, he counseled the country as it faced a blockade from neighbors over its support for Islamists.

  Investigators alleged Gen. Allen traveled to Doha to confer with top Qatari officials on how to influence U.S. policy, and promoted Qatar’s view to U.S. lawmakers – including its opposition to a resolution linking Doha to terror financing. “At the same time he was lobbying U.S. government officials on behalf of Qatar,” the government alleged, “Allen pursued at least one multimillion-dollar business deal with the Qatari government on behalf of a company on whose board of directors he served.”

  Prosecutors dropped their probe last year, but not before Allen stepped down as president of the prestigious Brookings Institution.

  U.S. think tanks, including Brookings, are another strategically significant area Qatar has cultivated for influence.

  The Brookings Connection

  Brookings established its satellite Doha Center in 2007 to “undertake research on the socio-economic and geopolitical issues facing the Muslim world, and encourage more understanding between U.S. and Muslim policy-makers” – in consultation and coordination with Qatar, and with $5 million in Qatari funding.

  In 2014 the New York Times reported that one year prior, the emirate agreed to donate an additional $15 million to the liberal think tank in part for the center. The report suggested the Qatari cash may have come with strings attached – scholars were not to criticize Doha.

  Brookings is adamant Qatari funding has not compromised its work.

  But the affiliation undoubtedly bought Qatar a prestigious partner – and proximity to a roster filled with prominent policymakers and thought leaders. At times they would take positions consonant with Doha or those of its Islamist acquaintances.

  The center was formed under the leadership of, among others, the then-head of Brookings’ Middle East center and later director of its Foreign Policy Program, Martin Indyk.

  The Obama administration would tab the former Clinton administration diplomat as its Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations in summer 2013 – the year the Doha Center secured the massive Qatari cash infusion – where he would lead talks to which Qatar-sponsored Hamas was central. Indyk would reportedly blame Israel for the collapse of those talks, and return to Brookings in 2014.

  Hady Amr led the Doha Center as its first director, a position he held until 2010. Then, he too joined the Obama administration, including serving under Indyk and later as Deputy U.S. Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations for Economics. After returning to Brookings, President Biden would tab Amr Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs before elevating him to Special Representative for Palestinian Affairs. Amr, who wrote a year after September 11, 2001 that he “was inspired by the Palestinian intifada,” has drawn the ire of pro-Israel critics for such rhetoric, and support for related policies they see as hostile towards the Jewish state and favorable to its foes, including Hamas.

  Shadi Hamid served as the Doha Center’s research director from 2009 to 2014 and continued as a senior fellow at Brookings. Hamid would argue during a Qatar-sponsored 2009 debate that Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are “committed to a moderate path” and “clearly” pose no threat to the West. When Trump administration officials suggested they would consider designating the Muslim Brotherhood – which spawned Hamas – as a terrorist group, Hamid argued vigorously against it. In a 2017 Brookings explainer, he warned that targeting the “mainstream” organization would “open[] the door for repressive regimes abroad to crack down on Islamist groups,” “feed[] into ISIS propaganda,” and promote “a false narrative” that U.S. Muslim organizations have ties to the group. “Not a single American expert” supports such a designation, he would argue then, and again as designation talk intensified in 2019.

  Proponents of the policy would note that Qatar is a leading patron of the Islamist group. Fox News reported on Jan. 20 that recently revealed documents suggest Qatar’s efforts to defeat a congressional measure aimed at achieving the designation also included using a firm run by former CIA officer Kevin Chalker “to discredit Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex … because he had sought to have the Muslim Brotherhood designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.” Reports allege that in recent years Qatar has targeted a number of high-level American critics via such surreptitious efforts, as well as through lawfare.

  Hamid did not reply to RCI’s request for comment.

  Brookings would rake in at least $22 million from Qatar from 2013 to 2017, when it “elected not to renew funding,” according to a FAQ that appears to have been published amid bipartisan congressional scrutiny, including regarding whether Brookings violated the Foreign Agent Registrations Act.

  Brookings maintained the center until 2021. Then it ended its affiliation, ceding authority to Qatar. Still, critics, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), say the Doha Center relationship “appears to have significantly compromised the organization’s independence.”

  Another recipient of Qatari largesse to come under scrutiny is the Richardson Center for Global Engagement, a Santa Fe-based group established to carry on the work of the late New Mexico governor and U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Bill Richardson to “promote international peace and dialogue.”

  In 2019, the organization announced that it had received a “substantial commitment” – later reported to be $900,000 – from Doha for its efforts to secure the release of hostages detained abroad. Qatar would contribute $900,000 again in 2020 before tapering off its donations to $250,000 in early 2023. In December, Jewish Insider reported that the Richardson Center had “advised the families of Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza not to criticize the Gulf state,” as it engages with Qatar in what’s been described as an “under-the-radar role” to free hostages held captive by Hamas.

  Facing criticism over the group’s conciliatory posture towards Qatar – compounded by a report that Richardson Center Vice President and Executive Director Mickey Bergman had counseled Jewish community officials that Israel’s caving to Hamas’ demands was the only way to quickly secure the release of hostages – Bergman took to X to respond. “For those of us who’ve been working on getting hostages home for years & the families that experienced this tragedy, there are two cardinal truths: 1) the deals to bring them home never get better with time; 2) the chances of survival never get better with time,” he wrote.

  Bergman added: “The deal last month was better than today’s. Unfortunately, it was not taken & several hostages killed since. ‘If your goal is to bring hostages home, you do what you need to, today. If your goal is different, you criticize those who r trying to bring them home.’”

  The Richardson Center is not alone among Qatari-funded American entities advising the families of hostages held in Gaza. On January 31, Politico reported that former special assistant to President Bill Clinton Jay Footlik’s ThirdCircle Inc. has also been counseling such families. It has been a registered foreign agent since 2019, facilitating trips for U.S. officials to Qatar on behalf of its embassy for $40,000 per month.

  Robert Malley, Accused Iran Appeaser

  Another influential recipient of Qatari funds is the Washington, D.C.-based International Crisis Group. Financial records show the emirate made two grants to the group totaling $5 million from 2018 to 2021. This period largely overlapped with Robert Malley’s tenure as the organization’s president.

  Seen by critics as an Iran appeaser and apologist for its proxy Hamas, Malley rose to national attention in 2008 when the Obama presidential campaign removed the diplomat as an adviser for having met Hamas’ leaders while running International Crisis Group’s Middle East program. Ultimately, President Obama would bring Malley back into the fold as lead negotiator on his Iran nuclear deal team.

  Malley returned to government in January 2021 to help the Biden administration reprise that deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, from which President Trump had withdrawn. Qatar helped mediate indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran. Qatar also helped mediate America’s exchange with Iran last September of five Iranian detainees plus $6 billion in unfrozen Iranian funds – panned by critics as a ransom payment – for five detained Americans. After Iran-backed Hamas carried out the Oct. 7 attack, Qatar reportedly agreed with the U.S. to withhold the funds – which are held in Doha bank accounts – though Iran’s foreign ministry recently released a statement suggesting otherwise.

  Last year, Malley was stripped of his security clearance, suspended, and reportedly put under FBI investigation for allegedly mishandling classified information while serving as President Biden’s special envoy to Iran.

  Evidence would emerge suggesting Malley “and members of his negotiating team may have had compromising ties to the Iranian regime,” per congressional investigators. They noted that Ariane Tabatabai, whom Malley would recruit to that team, was part of the Iran Experts Initiative (IEI). The Iranian government launched this apparent influence operation in 2014 to cultivate a network of U.S. and European scholars to promote the regime’s favored positions on global security matters. Two International Crisis Group employees have also been implicated in this effort.

  In response to questions about Qatar funding, International Crisis Group told RCI, “Donations from the Government of Qatar accounted for less than 5% of our total funding during the relevant period and were constructed to preserve our full independence.”

  Direct Investments in America

  Money lubricates the U.S.-Qatar relationship in other ways. Qatar’s Investment Authority is one of the ten largest sovereign wealth funds in the world. It has pumped over $30 billion into the U.S., sometimes in concert with major U.S. financial firms like Apollo, Blackstone, and KKR.

  Qatar plans to commit $45 billion more to the U.S.

  Recently, Qatar reportedly became the first foreign country to use its sovereign wealth fund to make a direct investment in American’s sports teams when it bought a 5% stake worth hundreds of millions of dollars into an entity holding Washington, D.C.’s professional basketball and hockey teams.

  Qatar also owns stakes in numerous landmarks including iconic New York properties such as the Empire State Building, The Plaza, and St. Regis hotels.

  The U.S.-Qatar Business Council aims to foster bilateral commercial relations. It counts among its members major oil companies like ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Chevron, some with which it has engaged in joint energy projects; defense contractors including Boeing – from which Qatar Airways purchased $37 billion in 737 Max planes in a massive 2022 deal – General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin; and financial services companies such as MetLife and Visa.

  Recently, the Washington Examiner reported that Washington, D.C., U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves represented the Qatari government, a Qatari charitable organization alleged to have backed Al-Qaeda, and the Qatar-backed Al Jazeera Media Network when he was a partner at DLA Piper law firm in D.C. Critics charge that Graves, who is now overseeing many Jan. 6 prosecutions, has by contrast gone soft on pro-Palestinian rioters in the nation’s capital. 

  Bankrolling Higher Ed

  Qatar’s influence extends to the higher education institutions that seed America’s most influential sectors as well.

  The emirate has been the largest foreign donor to American universities since 9/11, contributing at least $4.7 billion from 2001 to 2022 according to the National Association of Scholars (NAS).

  A large chunk of the funds has gone to Virginia Commonwealth University, Cornell, Texas A&M, Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, and Northwestern to establish American campuses in Doha’s “education city.”

  Ben Freeman, director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute, has said the funds “could translate to an implicit bias amongst university graduates, which is probably why … most of the top recipients of funding from countries in the Middle East are universities that produce some of the top foreign policy minds in the U.S.”

  A 2023 Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism & Policy study suggests these funds correlate with both “the erosion of free speech norms” and “increased levels of campus antisemitism.”

  Middle East Studies departments, often funded by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, NAS found, “have repurposed critical theory to galvanize activism on Middle East issues,” which some link to the eruption of pro-Palestinian and anti-Semitic sentiment at colleges after Oct. 7.

  Other reporting suggest Qatari funds may not only compromise the work of its recipients, but raise national security concerns.

  Doha’s Direct Lobbying – for Hamas?

  Qatar’s direct lobbying operation is also formidable.

  From 2016 to 2023, Qatar spent $240 million based on Foreign Agent Registration Act filings alone – sixth most of any country. China ranked first, at $378 million.

  These efforts mushroomed during the Trump years as the emirate sought to fight the economic, diplomatic, and travel blockade imposed by Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, and Egypt.

  The stated reason for the row was Qatar’s support for both Sunni and Shia Islamists, which the emirate’s neighbors felt threatened their authoritarian but anti-Islamist regimes – particularly during the Arab spring.

  The parties to the blockade demanded that Qatar curb its ties to Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and that it cease backing and designate as terrorist organizations the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah. The Gulf states also demanded that Qatar shutter the Al-Jazeera media network, whose programming, they said, promotes terror. (Former Vice President Al Gore reportedly netted $100 million when Qatar bought his struggling Current TV in 2013, and turned it into the since-shuttered Al Jazeera America.)

  Members of Congress have characterized Al-Jazeera’s often pro-Islamist programming and platforming of jihadists as “anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Israel” – something critics say is even more prevalent in its Arabic-language content.

  The blockading states treated Qatar’s backing of Al-Jazeera – which reaches more than 400 million people in some 150 countries – as tantamount to its waging of information warfare against them.

  The Justice Department wrote in a September 2020 letter that Al-Jazeera and its affiliates were foreign agents of Qatar.

  These entities have refused to register accordingly, prompting Rep. Bergman to push Speaker Mike Johnson to revoke House Press Gallery credentials from the 136 Al-Jazeera employees who have received them – nearly double that of those provided the New York Times – some percentage of whom he is concerned could be influence agents or spies.

  Qatar’s lobbying efforts aimed to undermine the blockade, including by countering prominent critics and targeting hundreds of influencers in Trump world. In addition to hiring the likes of former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to advocate on its behalf, Qatar enlisted lobbyists to change the hearts and minds of national security-focused American Jews weary of Qatar’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations, some of whom it flew to Doha and feted.

  One specific aim of the lobbying effort, according to a recent Wall Street Journal report, was to kill legislation aimed at sanctioning state sponsors of Hamas, including Qatar.

  Rep. Bergman told RCI the emirate “single-handedly defeated” a 2017 bipartisan bill specifically fingering Qatar for its Hamas support.

  When colleagues re-introduced the bill in 2019, with “Qatar’s name … removed, and only Iran remain[ing] – Qatar killed it again,” Rep. Bergman emphasized.

  Had America imposed such sanctions, the congressman believes, Hamas might not have been able to execute the Oct.. 7 attack.

  “To go against the Qatar regime for its state sponsorship of Muslim Brotherhood and jihadist terrorism,” said J. Michael Waller, senior analyst for strategy at the Center for Security Policy, “is to commit political suicide in Washington.”

  A Tough Cost-Benefit Equation

  Despite its connection to terrorist groups and state sponsors of terror, the West and its allies believe the benefits of using Qatar as an intermediary to the world’s pariahs outweigh the costs.

  Even as leaders from both sides of the aisle in both chambers of Congress have pushed the Biden administration to exert pressure on Qatar to squeeze Hamas to return all hostages, expel its leaders, and cease support for the terrorist group, the administration has agreed to extend its stay at Al Udeid for the next 10 years.

  This cemented the U.S.-Qatar alliance at the same time critics had been calling for the U.S. to leverage the air base to influence the emirates’ behavior.

  The White House did not respond to RCI’s inquiries.

  Former Trump deputy national security adviser Victoria Coates told RCI that while the emirate’s Islamist ties pose “a significant problem,” some of the capabilities touted by Doha’s boosters, plus its formidable natural gas position – where Coates believes there could be mutual benefits to cooperation – compel America to carefully consider its approach to the relationship. Between “apologists” and “haters,” Coates asks, “are either of those positions actually what’s in the best interest of the American people?”

  Rep. Bergman is adamant that the U.S. should not allow Qatar to buy influence. “Qatar should not be allowed to infiltrate our universities or buy up half of the lobbyists and PR firms in Washington, let alone to purchase 5% of the NBA and NHL teams in Washington, D.C. … Nor should Qatar be able to covertly fund – and thus exert control over – the think tanks that Congress and the Administration rely on so heavily to set policies.”

  Coates’ former NSC colleague Goldberg put it this way: “Qatar can be with Hamas or with the United States. It can’t be both.”

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 19:05

• Iraq Closer To Expelling US Troops After Drone Strike In Busy Neighborhood
  Iraq Closer To Expelling US Troops After Drone Strike In Busy Neighborhood

  The fallout continues in the wake of the Pentagon’s assassination by drone strike of at least one or more Kataib Hezbollah leaders in a crowded east Baghdad neighborhood Wednesday night.

  Iraq’s government on Thursday condemned the violation of the country’s sovereignty, and warned it brings political leadership a big step closer to kicking American troops out of Iraq altogether.

  Iraq’s military commander-in-chief condemned the “blatant assassination” of an Iranian-backed militia leader “in the heart of a residential neighborhood” in Baghdad, which could have killed many bystanders.The statement underscored that the US has shown “no regard for civilian lives or international laws.”

  

  “By this act, the American forces jeopardize civil peace, violate Iraqi sovereignty, and disregard the safety and lives of our citizens,” the Iraqi military statement said.

  There were large overnight protests outside the ‘Green Zone’ where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad. These protests will likely persist in the coming days and could grow violent, as has happened in recent years.

  The US Central Command (CENTCOM) statement which was issued within hours after the drone strike on the SUV claimed there were no civilian casualties:

  There are no indications of collateral damage or civilian casualties at this time. The United States will continue to take necessary action to protect our people.

  Still, the Pentagon is expected to mount more targeted attacks pm senior Iranian-backed militia commanders in the wake of last month’s drone strike on a US base along the Jordan-Syria border, which killed three US Army soldiers.

  Currently, some 2,500 US troops remain in Iraq, ostensibly still there as part of a ‘counter-ISIS’ mission, though ISIS terrorists have long been driven underground. Likely there are many thousands more US contractors and security operators throughout the country, and especially in the north in Erbil.

  The Iraqi military statement concluded by calling out the ambiguous “mission” and changing rationale for US troops remaining in the country. It said that “even more concerning is that the coalition consistently deviates from the reasons and objectives for its presence on our territory.”

  #BREAKING
  Drone airstrike targeted a vehicle in Mashtal neighborhood, eastern Baghdad. 🇮🇶 pic.twitter.com/Ymwva2Tpnj

  — Tammuz Intel (@Tammuz_Intel) February 7, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  One of the real reasons US troops are still in Iraq is to provide support for the occupation of Syria across the border.

  American outposts on the Iraqi side assists with logistics and staging, and also has come under accusations of supporting the ‘oil theft’ happening in the Deir Ezzor region. In some cases tanker trucks have been seen crossing into Iraq from Syria, laden with Syrian oil.

  Meanwhile in Iraq today…

  A US drone roves the skies of Baghdad as a funeral for Kataib Hezbollah’s senior commander Wissam AlSaedi aka Abou Baqer is held. pic.twitter.com/QDtL94jsDF

  — Ali Hashem علي هاشم (@alihashem_tv) February 8, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 18:45

• Judge Rules Former Trump Advisor Peter Navarro Will Remain In Prison While He Appeals Contempt Conviction
  Judge Rules Former Trump Advisor Peter Navarro Will Remain In Prison While He Appeals Contempt Conviction

  Authored by Ryan Morgan via NTD News,

  A federal judge has rejected a request by former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro to be allowed to stay out of prison while he appeals a conviction for contempt of Congress.

  

  Mr. Navarro was charged with contempt of Congress after defying a pair of subpoenas from the now-disbanded House committee that investigated the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, which was controlled at the time by Democrats. He was found guilty on two counts of contempt of Congress and sentenced last month to serve concurrent four-month prison terms.

  The former adviser argued throughout the subpoena process, at trial, and again in his appeal that he had a good faith belief that testifying before Congress would have conflicted with President Donald Trump’s executive privilege. On Thursday, Judge Ahmit Meta of the U.S. District Court for Washington D.C. ruled that there is no “substantial question of law” for which Mr. Navarro warrants remaining out of prison.

  Mr. Navarro’s legal team has argued that the questions he raised about executive privilege meet the major questions doctrine of legal interpretation. This doctrine states that courts should rely on relevant executive branch agencies to resolve significant regulatory policy questions.

  Judge Mehta had rejected Mr. Navarro’s privilege claims earlier in the case, stating that during his trial, Mr. Navarro’s team never presented evidence that President Trump asserted a privilege claim over his testimony. Mr. Navarro had claimed President Trump had asserted his privilege verbally in a February 2022 phone call, but Judge Mehta ruled that he had “not carried his burden of establishing a formal claim of privilege from President Trump.”

  In his Thursday ruling, Judge Mehta acknowledged that the exact requirements to invoke executive privilege properly remains an open question before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals but said, “After over a year of litigation, Defendant still has not offered what he thinks is required for a proper invocation of executive privilege.”

  Judge Rejects Political Bias Argument

  In addition to rejecting Mr. Navarro’s arguments about executive privilege, Judge Mehta also rejected the argument made by Navarro’s team during sentencing that his prosecution for contempt of Congress was motivated by political bias.

  Mr. Navarro has argued that there was political bias in his case. He noted that three assistant U.S. attorneys who had organized a letter to then-Attorney General Bill Barr challenging allegations of fraud in the 2020 election ended up on the same prosecution team that investigated and charged him.

  According to Mr. Navarro’s legal team, prosecutors injected an improper bias into his trial. They argued that this was done when the prosecutors associated his prosecution with the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6th, 2021. Additionally, Mr. Navarro’s legal team claimed that the prosecutors continued to cast doubt on his case during the trial by insinuating that it had to do with a refusal to honor the historic U.S. tradition of a peaceful transfer of power.

  Judge Mehta ruled Mr. Navarro’s legal team “offers no actual proof to support” their contention that political bias motivated the prosecution. Further, the federal judge argued that the record reflects the opposite of political bias because the Department of Justice had declined to prosecute two other former Trump advisors—former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Dan Scavino—for contempt of Congress.

  “Defendant’s cynical, self-serving claim of political bias poses no question at all, let alone a ’substantial’ one,” Judge Mehta wrote.

  Navarro Could Appeal Conviction Up to SCOTUS

  In an interview with NTD’s “Capitol Report” last month, Mr. Navarro expressed his belief that his questions about executive privilege could eventually become an issue for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve.

  Mr. Navarro said after he first raised the issue of executive privilege to the Jan. 6 committee, the committee should have reached out to President Trump to clear up any dispute over his privilege claims rather than proceed instead with moving to consider him in contempt and requesting his prosecution by the DOJ.

  “I was more than happy to comply with that subpoena if they simply called the president and asked for a waiver of the privilege,” Mr. Navarro said at the time.

  “And I think it tells the lie, in this whole case, that they never made one phone call, they never lifted a finger to call him to get the information they claimed they needed to have. Had they made that one phone call, we wouldn’t be sitting here.”

  It remains to be seen how Mr. Navarro’s efforts to appeal his criminal conviction will play out. Whether he should remain out of prison during the appeal process is being treated as a separate issue for the court. In his Thursday ruling, Judge Mehta said unless the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacates his ruling, Mr. Navarro shall report to prison on time.

  NTD News reached out to Mr. Navarro’s legal team about whether he will seek an appeals court ruling to remain out of prison while he appeals his underlying case. The attorneys did not respond by press time.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 18:25

• Tucker Carlson: The Putin Interview
  Tucker Carlson: The Putin Interview

  Last week, Tucker Carlson traveled to Rusia to interview President Vladimir Putin. This sent the left into hysterics – some of whom have called for the journalist to face sanctions, or worse.

  

  Prior to the interview – which can be seen right now in its entirety at tuckercarlson.com, Carlson explained that it’s his job as a journalist “to inform people,” as “most Americans are not informed” as to what’s happening in Ukraine.

  To that end, let’s get into it.

  Tucker starts the interview by asking Putin why he invaded Ukraine, “and the answer we got shocked us.”

  Putin proceeded to delve into the history of Ukraine, going back to the middle-ages. Tucker pushed back, saying “I’m not sure why it’s relevant to what happened two years ago,” to which Putin continued with the history lesson.

  “But why didn’t you make this case for the first 22 years as president, that Ukraine wasn’t a real country?” Tucker asked.

  “The Soviet Union was given a great deal of territory that had never belonged to it, including the Black Sea region. At some point when Russia received them as an outcome of the Russo Turkish wars, they were called New Russia or another Russia. But that does not matter. What matters is that Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, established Ukraine that way,” Putin replied. “For decades, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic developed as part of the USSR. And for unknown reasons, again, the Bolsheviks were engaged in Ukrainization.”

  The trigger for the Ukraine war: “Initially, it was the coup in Ukraine that provoked the conflict… They launched the war in Donbas in 2014 with the use of aircraft and artillery against civilians. This is when it all started.”

  NATO Expansion

  Getting to the meat of the Ukraine war, Putin told Carlson that “The former Russian leadership assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and therefore there were no longer any ideological dividing lines. Russia even agreed voluntarily and proactively to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and believed that this would be understood by the so-called civilized West as an invitation for cooperation and association.”

  “We were promised no NATO to the east, not an inch to the east, as we were told. And then what? They said, well, it’s not enshrined on paper, so we’ll expand.”

  “That is what Russia was expecting, both from the United States and this so-called collective West as a whole. There were smart people, including in Germany, Egon Bahr, a major politician of the Social Democratic Party, who insisted in his personal conversations with the Soviet leadership on the brink of the collapse of the Soviet Union, that they knew security systems should be established in Europe. Help should be given to unified Germany, but a new system should be also established to include the United States, Canada, Russia and other Central European countries. But NATO needs not to expand. That’s what he said. If NATO expands, everything would be just the same as during the Cold War, only closer to Russia’s borders. That’s all. He was a wise old man, but no one listened to him. In fact, he got angry once. If, he said, you don’t listen to me, I’m never setting my foot in Moscow once again. Everything happened just as he had said.”

  The state of negotiations:

  Vladimir Putin: I already said that we did not refuse to talk. We’re willing to negotiate. It is the western side, and Ukraine is obviously a satellite state of the US. It is evident. I do not want you to take it as if I am looking for a strong word or an insult. But we both understand what is happening. The financial support. 72 billion U.S. dollars was provided. Germany ranks second, then other European countries come. Dozens of billions of U.S. dollars are going to Ukraine. There’s a huge influx of weapons. In this case, you should tell the current Ukrainian leadership to stop and come to a negotiating table, rescind this absurd decree. We did not refuse.

  Tucker: Sure, but you already said it. I didn’t think you meant it is an insult because you already said correctly, it’s been reported that Ukraine was prevented from negotiating a peace settlement by the former British Prime Minister acting on behalf of the Biden administration. So, of course they’re a satellite. Big countries control small countries. That’s not new. And that’s why I asked about dealing directly with the Biden administration, which is making these decisions, not President Zelensky of Ukraine.

  Vladimir Putin: Well if the Zelensky administration in Ukraine refused to negotiate, I assume they did it under the instruction from Washington. If Washington believes it to be the wrong decision, let it abandon it. Let it find the delicate excuse so that no one is insulted. Let it come up with a way out. It was not us who made this decision. It was them. So let them go back on it. That is it. However, they made the wrong decision. And now we have to look for a way out of this situation to correct their mistakes. They did it, so let them correct it themselves. We support this.

  Tucker: So I just want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding what you’re saying. I don’t think that I am. I think you’re saying you want a negotiated settlement to what’s happening in Ukraine.

  Vladimir Putin: Right. And we made it. We prepared the huge document in Istanbul that was initialed by the head of the Ukrainian delegation. He had fixed his signature to some of the provisions, not to all of it. He put his signature and then he himself said, we were ready to sign it, and the war would have been over long ago. 18 months ago. However, Prime Minister Johnson came, talk to us out of it and we missed that chance. Well, you missed it. You made a mistake. Let them get back to that. That is all. Why do we have to bother ourselves and correct somebody else’s mistakes? I know one can say it is our mistake. It was us who intensified the situation and decided to put an end to the war that started in 2014, in Donbas. As I have already said by means of weapons. Lt me get back to furthering history. I already told you this. We were just discussing it. Let us go back to 1991, when we were promised that NATO would not expand to 2008, when the doors to NATO opened to the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, declaring Ukraine a neutral state. Let us go back to the fact that NATO and U.S. military bases started to appear on the territory, Ukraine creating threats to us. Let us go back to coup d’etat in Ukraine in 2014. It is pointless, though, isn’t it? We may go back and forth endlessly, but they stopped negotiations. Is it a mistake? Yes. Correct it. We are ready. What else is needed?

  Watch Putin explain that he had a signed peace deal (before BoJo arrived) here: 

  Vladimir Putin wanted peace and a settlement in Ukraine
  Tucker Carlson interview#TuckerPutin #TuckerCarlson pic.twitter.com/Gt8DY2dSRy

  — Michael Smith 🇺🇸 Ceo of nothing. (@Shotgunhunter1) February 8, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  More: 

  • On the negotiation process and its failure: “There have been [talks] they reached a very high stage of coordination of positions in a complex process, but still they were almost finalized. But after we withdrew our troops from Kiev… the other side threw away all these agreements.”

  • On his last conversation with Joe Biden: “Well, yes, he funds, but I talked to him before the special military operation, of course… I believe that you are making a huge mistake of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening there, in Ukraine, by pushing Russia away.”

  • On the possibility of global conflict: “It goes against common sense to get involved in some kind of a global war and a global war will bring all humanity to the brink of destruction.”

  • On the concept of de-nazification: “De-nazification… means the prohibition of all kinds of neo-Nazi movements… We have to get rid of those people who maintain this concept and support this practice and try to preserve it.”

  • On Russia’s territorial ambitions: “We simply don’t have any interest [in Poland, Latvia, or anywhere else]. It’s just threat mongering.”

  Elon Musk and Neuralink

  Putin then suggested that Elon Musk is unstoppable, saying “He will do as he sees fit. Nevertheless, you’ll need to find some common ground with him. Search for ways to persuade him. I think he’s a smart person. I truly believe he is. So you’ll need to reach an agreement with him because this process needs to be formalized and subjected to certain rules. Humanity has to consider what is going to happen due to the newest development in genetics or in AI? One can make an approximate prediction of what will happen.”

  Even more:

  • On the Nord Stream explosion: “People always say in such cases, look for someone who is interested. But in this case, we should not only look for someone who is interested, but also for someone who has capabilities… Who is interested and who is capable of doing it?”

  Tucker: “Who blew up Nord Stream?” Putin: “You for sure.” Tucker: “I was busy that day. I did not blow up Nord Stream.” Putin: “You personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi.“

  • On presenting evidence of NATO’s involvement: “In the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat the United States because the United States controls all the world’s media… We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information and we will not achieve results.”

  • On Germany’s silence regarding Nord Stream: “Today’s German leadership is guided by the interests of the collective West rather than its national interests.”

  • On global alliances and security: “Security should be shared rather than meant for the golden billion. That is the only scenario where the world could be stable, sustainable, and predictable.”

  • On the use of the US dollar as a political tool: “To use the dollar as a tool of foreign policy struggle is one of the biggest strategic mistakes made by the US political leadership.”

  • On the impact of sanctions and the shift away from the US dollar: “Even the United States allies are now downsizing their dollar reserves… It wasn’t us who banned the use of the US dollar. It was the decision of the United States to restrict our transactions in U.S. dollars.”

  • On the relationship with China: “China’s foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive. Its idea is to always look for compromise.”

  • On potential for change in US-Russia relations: “It is not about the personality of the leader. It is about the elites’ mindset, leader deal. If the idea of domination at any cost, based also on forceful actions, dominates the American society, nothing will change.”

  • On the nature of power in the US: “It is very difficult for us to sort it all out. Who makes decisions in the elections? Each state regulates itself… There are two parties that are dominant: the Republicans and the Democrats.”

  • On Christianity and violence: “It is very easy when it comes to protecting oneself and one’s family, one’s homeland. We won’t attack anyone… And we were protecting our people, ourselves, our homeland and our future.”

  Tucker also asked about imprisoned WSJ reporter Evan Gershkovich:

  Tucker: I just gotta ask you one last question. And that’s about someone who is very famous in the United States. Probably not here. Evan Gershkovich who’s the Wall Street Journal reporter. He’s 32. And he’s been in prison for almost a year. This is a huge story in the United States. And I just want to ask you directly, without getting into the details of it or your version of what happened, if, as a sign of your decency, you would be willing to release
  him to us and we’ll bring him back to the United States.

  Vladimir Putin: We have done so many gestures of goodwill out of decency that I think we have run out of them. We have never seen anyone reciprocate to us in a similar manner. However, in theory, we can say that we do not rule out that we can do that if our partners take reciprocal steps. When I talk about the partners, I first of all refer to special services. Special services are in contact with one another. They are talking about the matter in question. There is no taboo to settle this issue. We are willing to solve it but there are certain terms being discussed via special services channels. I believe an agreement can be reached.

  Watch the full interview here on X:

  Ep. 73 The Vladimir Putin Interview pic.twitter.com/67YuZRkfLL

  — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 8, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Full transcript available here at TuckerCarlson.com.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 18:08

• Diesel Prices Primed To Rise Sharply In 2024
  Diesel Prices Primed To Rise Sharply In 2024

  By John Kemp, senior market analyst

  Global stocks of diesel and other middle distillates are below normal and prices could start to rise quickly if the industrial economies of North America and Western Europe emerge from their lingering recession in 2024.

  

  Inventories of diesel, heating oil and gas oil were below the prior ten-year seasonal average across North America, Europe and Singapore in January, which has begun to exert upward pressure on fuel prices. Investors have already noticed and amassed a position equivalent to 56 million barrels in the two major futures and options contracts tied to middle distillates up from 20 million barrels in the middle of December.

  Diesel and other distillate fuel oils are the workhorse of the industrial economy, widely used in manufacturing, freight transport and construction, and therefore the most sensitive fuels to the condition of the business cycle.

  Recent data has confirmed manufacturers in the United States are poised to return to growth after a prolonged though shallow cyclical downturn in 2022/23.

  European manufacturers have experienced an even longer and much deeper downturn caused by the surge in energy prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. But in Europe too there are signs the worst of the downturn is now over and the sector will return to growth before the end of the year.

  Traders anticipate both the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank will cut interest rates this year which would turbocharge the cyclical upswing. As a result, global distillate inventories are likely to remain below average and could easily tighten further, intensifying the upward pressure on prices.

  In the United States, distillate fuel oil stocks amounted to 114 million barrels at the end of November 2023…

  

  … the lowest for the time of year since 1951, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

  

  U.S. distillate inventories were 22 million barrels (-16% or -1.42 standard deviations) below the prior ten-year seasonal average (“Petroleum supply monthly“, EIA, January 31, 2024).

  

  

  

  Since then inventories have become more comfortable but they were still 10 million barrels (-7% or -0.54 standard deviations) below the seasonal average near the end of January.

  In Europe, inventories were 20 million barrels (-5% or -0.80 standard deviations) below the prior 10-year average at the end of December, the most recent data available.

  

  

  In Singapore, distillate stocks were an average of 3 million barrels (-33% or -1.95 standard deviations) below the 10-year average in January.

  

  There has been no sustained accumulation of inventories in any of the regions despite depressed industrial activity over the last year.

  Distillate supplies have been disrupted by Ukraine’s drone attacks on petroleum refineries in Russia and by Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden which have disrupted east-west flows.

  Re-routing east-west tankers from the Red Sea and the Suez Canal to the much longer route around Africa has tied up millions of barrels of diesel and gasoil as extra inventories on the water.

  Benchmark crack spreads for gasoil delivered in Northwest Europe in April 2024 have averaged $214 per tonne over Brent crude so far in February up from a premium of $174 in December.

  

  More generally, gasoil cracks have been rising since the start of 2024, reversing the steady decline in the fourth quarter of 2023.

  

  So far the impact on end-users has been muted because crude prices, which account for most of the total cost, have been fairly flat since the start of the year.

  Gasoil cracks for April 2024 have surged 37% since the start of the year but crude prices have increased by just 2%; the combined impact has been an increase in gasoil prices of 9%.

  

  But if gasoil inventories tighten further as the cyclical upswing proceeds, and Saudi Arabia and its OPEC⁺ allies finally obtain some traction over crude stocks and prices, there is potential for a sharp rise in diesel prices in 2024.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 17:40

• Zelensky Fires Top General, Appoints New Commander, In Major Shake-Up
  Zelensky Fires Top General, Appoints New Commander, In Major Shake-Up

  It’s official: as we predicted even starting last month Ukraine’s top general and commander of the armed forces is now out.

  President Zelensky has confirmed that Gen. Valery Zaluzhny has been dismissed, in what appears part of a broader shake-up of top military and government leadership. Zelensky said it is “time for renewal”.

  

  Zelensky said Thursday he met with his army chief and that while it’s time for significant “changes” – Zaluzhny should remain “on his team”. Though the decision had been rumored and reported for over a week, presumably the stall was to negotiate and ensure peaceful transition of the top defense post. There were also widespread reports that Zaluzhny had refused to step down.

  “We discussed what renewal the Armed Forces of Ukraine need. We also discussed who could be in the renewed leadership of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The time for this renewal is now,” Zelensky announced in an English statement on X and Telegram.

  Zaluzhny had just before the announcement confirmed he had an “important and serious conversation” with Zelensky which focused on changing battlefield tactics and strategy.

  The now former top commander has huge popularity among military ranks and especially far-right, ultranationalist and neo-Nazi elements. Will his firing result in mutiny or rebellion among some units? 

  Very quickly on the heels of news of Zaluzhny’s dismissal, Ukraine announced the appointment of Oleksandr Syrskyi as the new commander-in-chief the armed forces. Until now, Gen. Syrskyi was Ukraine’s ground forces commander.

  ‼️ Volodymyr Zelenskyy officially announced that he appointed Oleksandr Syrskyi as the new commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. pic.twitter.com/zNidGclLiD

  — NEXTA (@nexta_tv) February 8, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  According to Ukraine’s FT correspondent:

  Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov thanked Zaluzhny for his “achievements and victories,” saying that the general “had one of the most difficult tasks – to lead the Armed Forces of Ukraine during the Great War with Russia.”

  A new military leadership team is expected to take over as of today. President Biden just yesterday acknowledged Ukraine is in “dire straights” right now, after Zelensky has struggled to attract more weaponry, and amid war weary Western publics, and European nations which have seen their own stockpiles drained.

  Zelensky is likely hoping this major change and shake-up could once again attract and renew Western defense support and aid. To illustrate just how dire the situation is, most might have missed this subtle detail in The New York Times days ago…

  ‘They Come in Waves’: Ukraine Goes on Defense Against a Relentless Foe (archived) – New York Times, Feb 4 2024
  …At the hot spots of the eastern front line, Ukrainian troops are outmanned, outgunned and digging in.

  “They come in waves,” said Lt. Oleksandr Shyrshyn, 29, the deputy battalion commander in the 47th Mechanized Brigade. “And they do not stop.”

  The geopolitical blog Moon of Alabama was the first to highlight it, and accurately observed the following days ago [emphasis ZH]:

  A Lieutenant at age 28 is likely a seasoned one. But in the role of a ‘deputy battalion commander’?

  What happened to the S3, the Major and nominal deputy battalion commander? What happened to the six Captains the battalion is supposed to have? All of them should be better trained and qualified to take on the role of a deputy battalion commander than a mere Lieutenant.

  This small detail, a Lieutenant as deputy battalion commander, tells me more about the battalion’s state that any flowery description of casualties.

  Likely it is too late for any major turn-around for Kiev forces, though the Zelensky administration has lately been teasing the potential for a large new military mobilization of hundreds of thousands, which is sure to be hugely unpopular and controversial among the Ukrainian population.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 17:25

• Hawaii Ignores US Supreme Court, Strikes Down Right To Carry Firearms In Public
  Hawaii Ignores US Supreme Court, Strikes Down Right To Carry Firearms In Public

  Hawaii’s Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the state doesn’t have to adhere to a constitutional right to carry firearms in public, deviating from a 2022 US Supreme Court decision affirming such a right.

  

  “Article I, section 17 of the Hawaii Constitution mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the Supreme Court of Hawaii wrote. However, “we read those words differently than the current United States Supreme Court. We hold that in Hawaii there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.”

  In doing so, the justices reversed a circuit court decision siding with a gun owner who was charged with a felony for violating three Hawaiian gun laws. The lower court had dismissed the charges, citing the 2022 “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen” in which the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that an individual’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense is covered under the 2nd Amendment.

  In December, Christopher Wilson was charged with a felony for violating three gun laws in Hawaii. Two of these laws restrict the possession of firearms and ammunition to the owner’s residence or business. A third law, HRS Section 134-9, authorizes the chief of police in each county to issue licenses for carrying firearms.

  Mr. Wilson’s legal team moved to have the charges dismissed, arguing that prosecuting him for possessing a firearm for self-defense purposes outside his home violated his right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 17 of the Hawaii Constitution.

  In August 2022, a circuit court judge granted Mr. Wilson’s motion to dismiss the charges. It agreed that regulations restricting firearms to Mr. Wilson’s business or residence violated his right to keep and bear arms. -Epoch Times

  In its ruling, the Hawaiian Supreme Court claimed that the Bruen decision “snubs federalism principles.”

  The Hawaii Supreme Court held that while Wilson has standing to challenge the two laws restricting firearms, they wrote “we reject Wilson’s constitutional challenges.”

  “Hawaii’s historical tradition of firearm regulation rule out an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Hawaii Constitution … The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.”

  As the Epoch Times further notes:

  ‘Anti-Gun’ Court

  The Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision was criticized by Kostas Moros, an attorney with Michel and Associates representing the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

  “I hope the poor guy dealing with all this nonsense files a cert petition. What a preposterous ruling by a bench of antigun activists,” he said in a Feb. 8 post on X (formerly Twitter). A cert petition seeks to have a higher court review the decision of a lower court.

  “At the time this man was charged, no one had ever gotten a CCW (concealed carry weapons) permit in Hawaii. It’s completely abdication of the judicial role to ignore this, unless the petitioner never brought it up, which I find unlikely.”

  Mr. Moros also criticized the Hawaii Supreme Court’s statement in its opinion that it makes “no sense for contemporary society to pledge allegiance to the founding era’s culture, realities, laws, and understanding of the Constitution.”

  “Sounds like the Hawaii Supreme Court doesn’t even want to be a part of the United States, in this rejection of not just the Second Amendment but their culture and understanding of the Constitution,” he said.

  In June last year, Gov. Josh Green, a Democrat, signed bill SB1230 into law that prohibits carrying guns at many places, including beaches, nursing homes, hospitals, restaurants serving alcohol, movie theaters, stadiums, courthouses, and public parks.

  At the time, Mr. Green justified the bill by stating it would prevent injuries and deaths. “We’re taking action on gun violence … because most important to us as a family is to keep our keiki safe, and those that we love safe,” he said. In Hawaii, “keiki” refers to children.

  The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action criticized the bill, stating it “massively expands ‘gun-free zones’ where law-abiding citizens are left defenseless and also prohibits carrying firearms on private property unless the owner gives affirmative permission.” The bill also requires people carrying firearms to other places to have insurance coverage.

  A lawsuit has been filed against the bill that is scheduled for a hearing in San Francisco in April, according to attorney Alan Beck, who is litigating the case. A fundraiser has been created to cover the expenses of the lawsuit, which has received close to $8,000 in donations out of the targeted $20,000.

  In a Jan. 8 Facebook post, Mr. Beck said that the lawsuit would be heard by judges who will “at least be open to the Second Amendment arguments. That is good news for Hawaii gun owners.”

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 02/08/2024 – 17:20

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• 2024 Is The New 1984: Big Brother & The Rise Of The Security Industrial Complex
  2024 Is The New 1984: Big Brother & The Rise Of The Security Industrial Complex

  Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

  “Big Brother is Watching You.”

  – George Orwell, 1984

  2024 is the new 1984.

  Forty years past the time that George Orwell envisioned the stomping boot of Big Brother, the police state is about to pass off the baton to the surveillance state.

  Fueled by a melding of government and corporate power—the rise of the security industrial complex—this watershed moment sounds a death knell for our privacy rights.

  An unofficial fourth branch of government, the Surveillance State came into being without any electoral mandate or constitutional referendum, and yet it possesses superpowers, above and beyond those of any other government agency save the military.

  It operates beyond the reach of the president, Congress and the courts, and it marches in lockstep with the corporate elite who really call the shots in Washington, DC.

  This is the new face of tyranny in America: all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful.

  

  Tread cautiously.

  Empowered by advances in surveillance technology and emboldened by rapidly expanding public-private partnerships between law enforcement, the Intelligence Community, and the private sector, the Surveillance State is making the fictional world of 1984, Orwell’s dystopian nightmare, our looming reality.

  1984 portrays a global society of total control in which people are not allowed to have thoughts that in any way disagree with the corporate state. There is no personal freedom, and advanced technology has become the driving force behind a surveillance-driven society. Snitches and cameras are everywhere. People are subject to the Thought Police, who deal with anyone guilty of thought crimes. The government, or “Party,” is headed by Big Brother who appears on posters everywhere with the words: “Big Brother is watching you.”

  Indeed, in our present age of ubiquitous surveillance, there are no private lives.

  Everything is increasingly public.

  What we are witnessing, in the so-called name of security and efficiency, is the creation of a new class system comprised of the watched (average Americans such as you and me) and the watchers (government bureaucrats, technicians and private corporations).

  We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not to us but to our government and corporate rulers.

  This is the fact-is-stranger-than-fiction lesson that is being pounded into us on a daily basis.

  In this way, 1984, which depicted the ominous rise of ubiquitous technology, fascism and totalitarianism, has become an operation manual for the omnipresent, modern-day surveillance state.

  There are roughly one billion surveillance cameras worldwide and that number continues to grow, thanks to their wholehearted adoption by governments (especially law enforcement and military agencies), businesses, and individual consumers.

  Surveillance cameras mounted on utility poles, traffic lights, businesses, and homes. Ring doorbells. GPS devices. Dash cameras. Drones. Store security cameras. Geofencing and geotracking. FitBits. Alexa. Internet-connected devices. 

  Stingray devices, facial recognition technology, body cameras, automated license plate readers, gunshot detection, predictive policing software, AI-enhanced video analytics, real-time crime centers, fusion centers: all of these technologies and surveillance programs rely on public-private partnerships that together create a sticky spiderweb from which there is no escape.

  With every new surveillance device we welcome into our lives, the government gains yet another toehold into our private worlds.

  As the cost of these technologies becomes more affordable for the average consumer, an effort underwritten by the tech industry and encouraged by law enforcement agencies and local governing boards, which in turn benefit from access to surveillance they don’t need to include in their budgets, big cities, small towns, urban, suburban and rural communities alike are adding themselves to the surveillance state’s interconnected grid.

  What this adds up to for government agencies (that is, FBI, NSA, DHS agents, etc., as well as local police) is a surveillance map that allows them to track someone’s movements over time and space, hopscotching from doorbell camera feeds and business security cameras to public cameras on utility poles, license plate readers, traffic cameras, drones, etc.

  It has all but eliminated the notion of privacy enshrined in the  Fourth Amendment and radically re-drawn the line of demarcation between our public and private selves.

  The police state has become particularly adept at sidestepping the Fourth Amendment, empowered by advances in surveillance technology and emboldened by rapidly expanding public-private partnerships between law enforcement, the Intelligence Community, and the private sector.

  Over the past 50-plus years, surveillance has brought about a series of revolutions in how governments govern and populations are policed to the detriment of us all. Cybersecurity expert Adam Scott Wandt has identified three such revolutions.

  The first surveillance revolution came about as a result of government video cameras being installed in public areas. There were a reported 51 million surveillance cameras blanketing the United States in 2022. It’s estimated that Americans are caught on camera an average of 238 times every week (160 times per week while driving; 40 times per week at work; 24 times per week while out running errands and shopping; and 14 times per week through various other channels and activities). That doesn’t even touch on the coverage by surveillance drones, which remain a relatively covert part of police spying operations.

  The second revolution occurred when law enforcement agencies started forging public-private partnerships with commercial establishments like banks and drug stores and parking lots in order to gain access to their live surveillance feeds. The use of automatic license plate readers (manufactured and distributed by the likes of Flock Safety), once deployed exclusively by police and now spreading to home owners associations and gated communities, extends the reach of the surveillance state that much further afield. It’s a win-win for police budgets and local legislatures when they can persuade businesses and residential communities to shoulder the costs of the equipment and share the footage, and they can conscript the citizenry to spy on each other through crowdsourced surveillance.

  The third revolution was ushered in with the growing popularity of doorbell cameras such as Ring, Amazon’s video surveillance doorbell, and Google’s Nest Cam.

  Amazon has been particularly aggressive in its pursuit of a relationship with police, enlisting them in its marketing efforts, and going so far as to hosting parties for police, providing free Ring doorbells and deep discounts, sharing “active camera” maps of Ring owners, allowing access to the Law Enforcement Neighborhood Portal, which enables police to directly contact owners for access to their footage, and coaching police on how to obtain footage without a warrant.

  Ring currently partners with upwards of 2,161 law enforcement agencies and 455 fire departments, and that number grows exponentially every year. As Vice reports, “Ring has also heavily pursued city discount programs and private alliances with neighborhood watch groups. When cities provide free or discounted Ring cameras, they sometimes create camera registries, and police sometimes order people to aim Ring cameras at their neighbors, or only give cameras to people surveilled by neighborhood watches.”

  In November 2022, San Francisco police gained access to the live footage of privately owned internet cameras as opposed to merely being able to access recorded footage. No longer do police even have to request permission of homeowners for such access: increasingly, corporations have given police access to footage as part of their so-called criminal investigations with or without court orders.

  The fourth revolutionary shift may well be the use of facial recognition software and artificial intelligence-powered programs that can track people by their biometrics, clothing, behavior and car, thereby synthesizing the many strands of surveillance video footage into one cohesive narrative, which privacy advocates refer to as 360 degree surveillance.

  While the guarantee of safety afforded by these surveillance nerve centers remains dubious, at best, there is no disguising their contribution in effecting a sea change towards outright authoritarianism.

  For instance, as an in-depth investigative report by the Associated Press concludes, the very same mass surveillance technologies that were supposedly so necessary to fight the spread of COVID-19 are now being used to stifle dissent, persecute activists, harass marginalized communities, and link people’s health information to other surveillance and law enforcement tools.

  As the AP reports, federal officials have also been looking into how to add “‘identifiable patient data,’ such as mental health, substance use and behavioral health information from group homes, shelters, jails, detox facilities and schools,” to its surveillance toolkit.

  These cameras—and the public-private eyes peering at us through them—are re-engineering a society structured around the aesthetic of fear and, in the process, empowering “people to not just watch their neighborhood, but to organize as watchers,” creating not just digital neighborhood watches but digital gated communities.

  Finally, there is a repressive, suppressive effect to surveillance that not only acts as a potentially small deterrent on crime but serves to monitor and chill lawful First Amendment activity.

  As Matthew Feeney warns in the New York Times, “In the past, Communists, civil rights leaders, feminists, Quakers, folk singers, war protesters and others have been on the receiving end of law enforcement surveillance. No one knows who the next target will be.”

  No one knows, but it’s a pretty good bet that the surveillance state will be keeping a close watch on anyone seen as a threat to the government’s chokehold on power.

  After all, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the Surveillance State never sleeps.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 23:55

• Panama Canal Traffic By Shipment Category And Tonnage
  Panama Canal Traffic By Shipment Category And Tonnage

  Daily Panama Canal traffic has been steadily restricted to start the year, with an expected peak reduction of over 40% by February 2024 due to severe drought. The problem is already affecting supply chains for U.S. and Asian importers.

  In the graphic below, Visual Capitalist’s Omri Wallach illustrates the number of shipping crossings by market segment at the Canal and the net tonnage carried during the Annual Fiscal 2023 (October 2022 to September 2023). Data is from the Panama Canal Authority.

  

  About the Panama Canal

  The Panama Canal is an artificial 82-kilometer (51-mile) waterway that connects the Pacific Ocean with the Atlantic Ocean, built between 1904 and 1914.

  The Canal locks at each end lift ships to Gatun Lake, an artificial freshwater lake 26 meters (85 ft) above sea level. The shortcut dramatically reduces the time for ships to travel between the two oceans, enabling them to avoid the route around the southernmost tip of South America via the Drake Passage or Strait of Magellan.

  The Panama Canal moves roughly $270 billion worth of cargo annually–it’s the trade route taken by 40% of all U.S. container traffic alone and handles about 5% of all global maritime trade.

  The Driest October in 70 Years

  Last October, however, Panama received 41% less rainfall than usual, leading to the driest October in 70 years in what was supposed to be Panama’s rainy season, bringing the level of the Gatun Lake almost six feet below where it was a year ago. Additionally, infrastructure constraints led the Panama Canal Authority to restrict the number of ships that could pass each day.

  The principal commodity groups carried through the Canal are motor vehicles, petroleum products, grains, coal, and coke.

  

  According to the Panama Canal Authority, most of its traffic came from containers and dry bulk like soybeans. The world’s largest operator of chemical tankers (Stolt-Nielsen) typically also uses the Canal. However, due to the drought and the backup at the crossing, the operator has decided to reroute its fleet to the Suez Canal.

  Although representing the smaller number of crossings, the Canal is also an important route for passengers, with many ocean cruise lines offering popular Panama Canal itineraries that sail through the Canal in the approximately 8-hour passage to their next destination in the opposite ocean.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 23:35

• Matt Taibbi Warns 'Financial Big Brother Is Watching You'
  Matt Taibbi Warns ‘Financial Big Brother Is Watching You’

  Authored by Matt Taibbi via Racket News substack,

  A few weeks ago, Ohio congressman and Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan’s office released a letter to Noah Bishoff, the former director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, an arm of the Treasury Department. Jordan’s team was asking Bishoff for answers about why FinCEN had “distributed slides, prepared by a financial institution,” detailing how other private companies might use MCC transaction codes to “detect customers whose transactions may reflect ‘potential active shooters.’”

  The slide suggested the “financial company” was sorting for terms like “Trump” and “MAGA,” and watching for purchases of small arms and sporting goods, or purchases in places like pawn shops or Cabela’s, to identify financial threats.

  Jordan’s letter to Bishoff went on:

  According to this analysis, FinCEN warned financial institutions of “extremism” indicators that include “transportation charges, such as bus tickets, rental cars, or plane tickets, for travel to areas with no apparent purpose,” or “the purchase of books (including religious texts) and subscriptions to other media containing extremist views.”

  During the Twitter Files, we searched for snapshots of the company’s denylist algorithms, i.e. whatever rules the platform was using to deamplify or remove users. We knew they had them, because they were alluded to often in documents (a report on the denylist is_Russian, which included Jill Stein and Julian Assange, was one example).

  However, we never found anything like the snapshot Jordan’s team just published:

  

  The highlighted portion shows how algorithmic analysis works in financial surveillance.

  • First compile a list of naughty behaviors, in the form of MCC codes for guns, sporting goods, and pawn shops.

  • Then, create rules: $2,500 worth of transactions in the forbidden codes, or a number showing that more than 50% of the customer’s transactions are the wrong kind, might trigger a response.

  The Committee wasn’t able to specify what the responses were in this instance, but from previous experience covering anti-money-laundering (AML) techniques at banks like HSBC, a good guess would be generation of something like Suspcious Activity Reports, which can lead to a customer being debanked.

  If Facebook, Twitter, and Google have already shown a tendency toward wide-scale monitoring of speech and the use of subtle levers to apply pressure on attitudes, financial companies can use records of transactions to penetrate individual behaviors far more deeply. Especially if enhanced by AI, a financial history can give almost any institution an immediate, unpleasantly accurate outline of anyone’s life, habits, and secrets. Worse, they can couple that picture with a powerful disciplinary lever, in the form of the threat of closed accounts or reduced access to payment services or credit. Jordan’s slide is a picture of the birth of the political credit score.

  There’s more coming on this, and other articles forthcoming (readers who’ve noticed it’s been quiet around here will soon find out why). While the world falls to pieces over Tucker, Putin, and Ukraine, don’t overlook this horror movie. If banks and the Treasury are playing the same domestic spy game that Twitter and Facebook have been playing with the FBI, tales like the frozen finances of protesting Canadian truckers won’t be novelties for long. As is the case with speech, where huge populations have learned to internalize censorship rules almost overnight, we may soon have to learn the hard way that even though some behaviors aren’t illegal, they can still be punished with great effectiveness, in a Terminator-like world where computers won’t miss anything that moves.

  

  The U.S. Treasury might be the state’s next major surveillance player.

  What a crazy time we live in! See you from the Nevada caucus, and watch this space for other news soon.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 23:15

• 5.5 Tons Of Radioactive Water Leaks Out Of Damaged Fukushima Nuclear Plant
  5.5 Tons Of Radioactive Water Leaks Out Of Damaged Fukushima Nuclear Plant

  Japan’s damaged Fukushima nuclear plant has been discharging batches of treated radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean for six months. A new report, however, has brought to light a newly discovered leak that caused tons of contaminated water to seep into the ground. 

  Local media Kyodo News reports that on Wednesday morning – at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear power plant – workers found water leaking from an exhaust port on the outer wall of a high-temperature incinerator building. 

  According to the plant operator, TEPCO, the contaminated water treatment equipment connected to the exhaust vent inside the building was being cleaned, and water containing radioactive materials leaked out.

  TEPCO estimates that 5.5 tons of water, with over 22 billion becquerels of radioactive material, leaked into the soil outside the building. 

  

  The leak brings to mind the large amounts of radioactive wastewater accumulated at the facility since the plant was damaged in 2011 by a massive earthquake and tsunami. Since August, TEPCO has been releasing treated radioactive water into the ocean, which is expected to take decades. 

  Local fishing groups and neighboring countries, including China, have been concerned about the dischargers. Beijing has banned all imports of Japanese seafood. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 22:55

• Federal Judge Denies Jack Smith Request To Keep Officials' Names, Departments Sealed
  Federal Judge Denies Jack Smith Request To Keep Officials’ Names, Departments Sealed

  Authored by Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times,

  On Feb. 6, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon ordered the unsealing of some names and information about government officials, granting in part a motion by former President Donald Trump to unseal a partially redacted version of his motion to compel prosecutors to hand over evidence.

  “The parties are reminded of the strong presumption of public access in criminal proceedings,” the judge wrote, ordering that no unclassified material in the case be filed under seal going forward.

  All filings under full or partial seal will require approval from the judge in the future, unless there are “clear and supported cases of risk to personal safety or national security.”

  

  The case, prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith, has been dominated by a battle for documents, extending the pre-trial motions stage and delaying what would have been a May 20 trial. Last year, President Trump pleaded not guilty to 40 counts related to allegedly mishandling classified documents.

  On Jan. 16, President Trump filed multiple motions to compel discovery and attached several exhibits under seal. Some of these were emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and containing names and identifying information about government officials, which defense attorneys argue show that the prosecution and the Biden administration have colluded to target President Trump.

  The defense attorneys have asked to unseal this information, and a coalition of news media companies have sought to intervene to request the same, both arguing that court filings are “matters of public record.”

  The special counsel’s office has opposed both requests, arguing that there are witness safety and intimidation concerns.

  Referencing the First Amendment, Judge Cannon found that “the Special Counsel has not set forth a sufficient factual or legal basis warranting deviation from the strong presumption in favor of public access to the records at issue.”

  She found the prosecutors’ arguments “sparse and undifferentiated” and lacking the facts she needed to weigh their arguments.

  “The Special Counsel also alludes, again in general terms, to the concern that ‘public disclosure of witness identities or their statements in advance of trial also risks infecting the testimony of other witnesses or unnecessarily influencing the jury pool,’” she wrote. “Even accepting those rationales for sealing, the Special Counsel’s submission offers nothing in the form of concrete factual support for those rationales.”

  “A party seeking to seal or redact court filings, including pretrial motions, carries a heavy burden,” the order reads.

  The U.S. Supreme Court has established that the press and public have a right to access criminal trial proceedings, which include the court records.

  The defense, prosecutors, and judge agreed that certain information should remain redacted, such as personal phone numbers and home addresses, birth dates, and Social Security numbers.

  However, the judge decided that much of the remaining information could be released, sometimes in partially redacted form. For example, the full email address of an official would be redacted to show only the server address, which would identify the department.

  The FBI code name of a separate investigation can also be unsealed, as the special counsel didn’t give a reason why it shouldn’t be, the judge ordered.

  “The Special Counsel fails to identify the information at issue, provide any explanation about the nature of the investigation, or explain how disclosure of the code name would prejudice or jeopardize the integrity of the separate investigation (assuming it remains ongoing),” the order reads.

  The media request to intervene was thus dismissed as moot, and the judge declined to weigh in on whether the press has legal standing.

  On Feb. 7, attorneys for President Trump filed a separate motion to adjourn some upcoming motions deadlines, noting that the resolution of this motion to compel—which can now be unsealed, but is still being litigated—may inform several new motions they plan to file.

  Defense attorneys revealed they plan to file motions, including to dismiss the indictment, relating to “presidential immunity, the Presidential Records Act, President Trump’s security clearances, the vagueness doctrine, impermissible preindictment delay, and selective and vindictive prosecution” on Feb. 22.

  The public version of the Jan. 16 motion to compel discovery accused the special counsel of covering up cooperation between executive branch departments and staff leading up to the indictment of President Trump, but most of the 22 emails referenced were redacted or not included.

  “Though the Special Counsel’s Office has suppressed these communications, we know from FOIA releases that NARA started to coordinate with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community by Jan. 25, 2022,” the defense wrote.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 22:35

• Only 3 In 10 Americans Were Aware US Had Troops In Syria Prior To Deadly Attack
  Only 3 In 10 Americans Were Aware US Had Troops In Syria Prior To Deadly Attack

  Authored by Kyle Anzalone via The Libertarian Institute,

  A recent poll of Americans found that only 30% were aware that US troops were deployed to Syria before three US soldiers were killed just across the border in Jordan. The results of the survey show Americans are generally unaware of the attacks against US forces in Syria and the reason for the deployment.

  Defense Priorities commissioned YouGov to poll Americans from January 8-15 about the deployment of 900 US troops in Syria. Three in ten Americans responded that they were aware US troops were deployed to Syria. The three US soldiers killed at Tower 22 in Jordan were supporting the US base in southern Syria. 

  

  US troops in Iraq and Syria have come under attack over 160 times from Shia militias that operate in the region. The YouGov poll found only a quarter of Americans were aware of the attacks that left scores of US soldiers injured. 

  The Shia militias say they are targeting American soldiers occupying Iraq and Syria with drones, rockets, and missiles because of US support for the ongoing genocide Israel is conducting in Gaza.

  The poll found that a majority of Americans are concerned about a larger war breaking out in the region because of the US troops’ presence. 

  The outcome may be playing out. In response to the death of three members of the Georgia National Guard in Jordan, President Joe Biden ordered a massive bombing operation in Iraq and Syria. The White House will not rule out hitting targets inside Iran and has pledged future strikes. 

  Poll finding: Opposition to maintaining a presence in Syria grows if U.S. troops there were to be killed.

  

  President Biden has refused to reverse his unconditional support for Israel even as his approval rating has dipped. An NBC News poll released on Sunday found the President’s approval rating at the lowest of his term, 37%.

  Weighing on his approval is likely the war in Gaza. Only 29% of Americans approve of the way Biden has handled US support for the Israeli onslaught. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 21:55

• NBC Gives 'Libs of TikTok' Free Advertising With Pretzel-Logic Hit-Piece
  NBC Gives ‘Libs of TikTok’ Free Advertising With Pretzel-Logic Hit-Piece

  The absolute morons at NBC – specifically tech reporter David Ingram, has just given a massive boost to one of the largest conservative voices exposing leftist degeneracy. 

  

  In a hit-piece divorced from logic, Ingram claims that hugely popular X influencer Chaya Raichik – aka Libs of TikTok, is responsible for 33 instances in which “people or institutions” she highlighted for mentally ill, abusive, disgusting, or otherwise abhorrent behavior, “later reported bomb threats or other violent intimidation.”

  The threats, which on average came several days after tweets from Libs of TikTok, targeted schools, libraries, hospitals, small businesses and elected officials in 16 states, Washington, D.C., and the Canadian province of Ontario. Twenty-one of the 33 threats were bomb threats, which most commonly targeted schools and were made via email. –NBC News

  David, you idiot…

  David, that is like claiming that you are responsible for the death threats that @ChayaRaichik10 is receiving because you are writing ridiculous articles like this.@libsoftiktok is reporting on what is happening in the world. Just because you support groomers and child porn in…

  — Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) February 7, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Hi @David_Ingram @NBCNews, if I get any death threats or hateful messages as a result of this article, is that your fault?

  — Chaya Raichik (@ChayaRaichik10) February 7, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Oh…

  NBC News is inciting violence against me. https://t.co/DID2NTuj1Q

  — Chaya Raichik (@ChayaRaichik10) February 7, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Ingram earned quite the ‘ratio’ (more comments than ‘likes’, indicating a really stupid tweet).

  

  The replies have been epic:

  How are those Covington kids doing? pic.twitter.com/GRfVUNnz60

  — Chris Nodima 🍄 (@chrisnodima) February 7, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Round 2 incoming… pic.twitter.com/KsiB9LAuKH

  — steve smith the anti-communist (@stevesmithsnoq) February 7, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  This is stochastic terrorism by @David_Ingram and anything that happens to Chaya is his fault.

  — 🫃🏼💉🇺🇦Hollaria Briden, Esq. (@HollyBriden) February 7, 2024

  This is beyond slanderous

  — Charlie Vigon (@CharlieVigon) February 7, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  “ThE FbI ReSouRceS aRe BeInG TiEd uP!!”.

  According to FBI whistleblowers, the FBI pulled agents off child sex trafficking cases to hunt down anyone within a mile of the Capitol on January 6,

  Spare me your righteous indignation and report on that. pic.twitter.com/RKbuyCsxwY

  — The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) February 7, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 21:35

• "Innovating Ways To Resist, Heal, & Liberate": California Defends $250,000 Contract For 'Woke Kindergarten' Program
  “Innovating Ways To Resist, Heal, & Liberate”: California Defends $250,000 Contract For ‘Woke Kindergarten’ Program

  Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A low-performing Bay Area elementary school introduced a “Woke Kindergarten” program centered on “abolitionist education” that instructs teachers how to remove barriers to learning by fighting racism and oppression—only to see children’s test scores drop.

  Two years ago, Glassbrook Elementary School in Hayward entered into a three-year $250,000 contract with Woke Kindergarten to help kids perform better by teaching educators how to remove learning barriers like oppression, racism, and white supremacy, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

  Woke Kindergarten calls itself a “global, abolitionist early childhood ecosystem” that advocates “abolitionist early education and pro-black and queer and trans liberation” by training teachers how to use “abolitionist” educational concepts and curricula.

  The for-profit company was founded by non-binary early educator Akiea Gross, who uses they/them pronouns and self-describes as “an abolitionist early educator, cultural organizer and creator currently innovating ways to resist, heal, liberate and create with their pedagogy, Woke Kindergarten.”

  Gross has long been an advocate for extreme views. She has declared that “I believe the United States has no right to exist. I believe every settler colony who has committed genocide against native peoples, against Indigenous people, has no right to exist. Y’all the demons. Y’all are the villains. We’ve been trying to end y’all. Get free of y’all.”

  

  But two years into the Woke Kindergarten program, Glassbrook student’s test scores have not only failed to show much improvement—they’ve actually plummeted to new lows, per the Chronicle.

  English and math scores each fell four percentage points to record lows as of last spring—with less than 4 percent of students proficient in math and less than 12 percent proficient at English.

  The Hayward Unified School District did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether it thinks the $250,000 on the program was money well spent.

  Hayward Unified School District Superintendent Jason Reinmann told the Chronicle that the Woke Kindergarten program was backed by parents and teachers alike at the Bay Area school.

  Mr. Reinmann added that the program raised classroom attendance by nearly 20 percent, which he suggested was more of a program aim than boosting test scores.

  However, some Glassbrook teachers have expressed concern that the program is too progressive, with teacher Tiger Craven-Neeley telling the Chronicle that he was told a key objective of the program was to “disrupt whiteness” at the school.

  ‘Abolitionist Education’

  Zeus Leonard, an education professor at UC Berkeley, told the Chronicle that Woke Kindergarten is based on a relatively new concept called “abolitionist education.”

  In a podcast, Mr. Gholdy Muhammad, a professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago, described abolitionist education as a teaching approach centered on dismantling parts of the current educational system and moving towards “ideas and practices of equity and anti-racism, anti-oppression and love of humanity.”

  Mr. Muhammad explained that there are five core pillars to abolitionist education: identity, skill development, intellectualism, criticality, and joyfulness.

  Identity includes the basic categories of race, class, and “gender” but Mr. Muhammad said it should be seen more broadly from the abolitionist education lens, hinting at a kind of “intersectionality” associated with the oppressor-oppressed dynamic in social justice movements.

  “Criticality is helping your child to name, understand, and disrupt oppression, putting your learning in the context of the state of the world, social problems, to problem-solve, to understand issues of power, justice, and equity,” the professor explained.

  This suggests a possible link to “critical theory,” which James Lindsay, author of “The Marxification of Education” and co-author of “Cynical Theories” described on an episode of Chris Williamson’s podcast as a way of viewing the world through the lens of power dynamics and the oppressed-oppressor dualism.

  “At its very bottom, it’s a way to view the world where everything relevant in terms of at least social relations, has to do with the power dynamics that are in society between some group with power and other groups who don’t have as much power,” Mr. Lindsay explained.

  “And the object of critical theory is to say that the groups that have power carry certain assumptions and biases and the likes, and they bake that into the systems that they create without realizing that they’re doing it,” he continued.

  “So the critical theorists job is to expose those biases and uncover those assumptions, so that they can be critiqued and re-examined and usually discarded, dismantled, subverted or otherwise overthrown,” he added.

  Mr. Lindsay said there’s a potentially positive aspect to critical theory, in the sense that it can be helpful to adopt a “useful skepticism” regarding various phenomena and identify areas for improvement.

  However, Mr. Lindsay said critical theory has been misused by the social justice movement to look for systemic injustices without any or much attempt to understand why certain differences in outcomes exist, reducing explanations to simplistic diagnoses like “systemic racism.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 21:15

• Medvedev Warns Russia Has 'No Choice' But To Unleash Nuclear 'Apocalypse' If Attacked By NATO
  Medvedev Warns Russia Has ‘No Choice’ But To Unleash Nuclear ‘Apocalypse’ If Attacked By NATO

  Not for the first time, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has warned that a direct war between Moscow forces and NATO would lead to nuclear apocalypse.

  The current deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council issued the warning on Telegram Wednesday, in response to recent statements and reports that some European leaders are telling their populations to ‘prepare for war’. For example, just last month UK Army chief General Patrick Sanders called on authorities to “mobilize the nation” to prepare for war with Putin, and that the population needs a “shift” in thinking to be ready.

  Medvedev mocked this and other examples of NATO leaders accusing Moscow of seeking a broader war as but “dangerous drivel”. He said that this all about trying to bolster support for sending more weapons to Kiev amid what’s become war fatigue among Western publics.

  

  According to Russian media translation of his words, Medvedev said this is part of efforts to prop up Ukraine—”a dying country that is foreign to taxpayers”—while ignoring problems at home. “Therefore, every day the leaders of these countries broadcast: We need to prepare for war with Russia and continue to help Ukraine,” he wrote.

  That’s when he said that people in the West have to be told the blunt truth. Medvedev underscored that the Russian response to attack by NATO would without doubt be “asymmetrical”. He explained:

  “Since our military capabilities are incomparable, we will simply have no choice. The response will be asymmetrical. To protect the territorial integrity of our country, ballistic and cruise missiles with special warheads will be used… This will be the proverbial Apocalypse. The end of everything.”

  This is certainly not the first time that Medvedev, known for this bellicose and hawkish rhetoric, has warned of nuclear apocalypse. But it is the clearest he has ever spelled out that the Kremlin would not hesitate to activate its nuclear arsenal if Russian territory is directly threatened by NATO. 

  His comments also come at a very dangerous moment where Ukraine security services are increasingly targeting oil refineries on Russian soil with drone and missile attacks, sometimes at long ranges.

  Below: UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak says Britain ready for war….

  If Russia turns its guns in our direction, is Great Britain ready to defend itself?

  “Yes. And my task is to ensure everyone’s safety.”

  ‼️🇬🇧🇷🇺 Unelected UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak says rainbow flag waving #Britain is ready for war with #Russia

  If Russia turns its guns in our direction, is Great Britain ready to defend itself?

  “Yes. And my task is to ensure everyone’s safety.” pic.twitter.com/7Vba4ClzEd

  — Maimunka News (@MaimunkaNews) February 6, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Moscow has accused Western and NATO intelligence services of assisting with such attacks. Recently it has accused France of maintaining mercenaries in the northern city of Kharkiv, in order to mount attacks on nearby Belgorod Oblast. There are rising fears that this ‘indirect’ fighting or proxy war could drift into direct ‘live fire’ between Russia and NATO countries, but so far this has been narrowly avoided.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 21:11

• 'A Republican Leader Should Actually Lead': Ted Cruz Savages Mitch McConnell After Border Bill Quagmire
  ‘A Republican Leader Should Actually Lead’: Ted Cruz Savages Mitch McConnell After Border Bill Quagmire

  Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) slammed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell over the crappy border deal, suggesting on Tuesday that McConnell should step down from his leadership position.

  

  “A Republican leader should actually lead this conference and should advance the priorities of Republicans,” Cruz said during a press conference, responding to a question over whether McConnell should step aside, the Daily Caller reports.

  .@LeaderMcConnell: “We can all agree that Senator Cruz is not a fan.”

  Sen. Ted Cruz, pointing to what he called the mismanagement of a border security and Ukraine funding package, said Tuesday it’s time for Sen. Mitch McConnell to step down as the Senate GOP leader.

  Cruz was… pic.twitter.com/xLQqhZJ7uj

  — The Hill (@thehill) February 6, 2024

  Republicans in both chambers slammed the bill, which would allow 1.5 million illegal immigrants into the country per year, shift legal disputes over the border to courts in Washington DC, and sends around $80 billion to Ukraine and Israel.

  “The Senate Amnesty Bill literally would force President Trump to let in illegals well into his term,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) in a Sunday post on X. “Any Republican who votes for this is no better than a Democrat!”

  The Federalist‘s Sean Davis chimed in on X with some inside baseball over the issue:

  There’s a LOT going on in this statement from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), one of Mitch McConnell’s top lieutenants and the head of the Senate Republican conference.

  Barrasso and McConnell are in a real jam here, because it was Mitch McConnell who actually negotiated the abominable amnesty bill with Chuck Schumer, and it was Mitch McConnell who enlisted James Lankford to sell it. The entire exercise was a disaster, and now McConnell is trying to wash his hands of the whole mess. So who to blame?

  That’s the key question Republican senators are trying to answer. In this statement from Barrasso, it’s obvious that McConnell has decided to cast Lankford as the victim and Joe Biden, who doesn’t even know what decade it is, as the mastermind behind the amnesty bill debacle.

  What’s really going on here is members feel bad for Lankford, who they genuinely like, and are not happy with McConnell for making them nearly walk the plank on one of the worst immigration bills this century. McConnell has been slowly losing control of his conference due to his poor health, which his staff are unable to hide, and his increasingly poor decision making. McConnell is losing his grip on power, everyone in the Capitol knows it even if they won’t say it out loud, and this is causing an existential crisis among incompetent McConnell staff and hangers-on whose entire livelihoods depend on the ability of McConnell to browbeat industry interests into hiring them and giving them money. Without him, they are nothing, so he must be propped up and protected at all costs.

  Meanwhile, a group of moderate senators trying to figure out how this whole thing went sideways so quickly has formed what Senate insiders have dubbed the “Poor James” caucus: Poor James didn’t have a chance. Poor James was put in an awful situation. Poor James deserved better than this. They feel sorry for him, but they don’t want to blame him for the whole mess.

  So what do McConnell’s lieutenants do when it becomes obvious even to them that no one is going to support this bill they desperately wanted to pass? They can’t publicly blame McConnell, even though deep down they know it’s his fault, that he’s really not up to the job anymore, and it’s probably time for him to move on. Easy: they blame Biden, who is such an obvious political mastermind operating at the top of his game, for tricking poor James Lankford into shilling for a bill everyone knows was written by McConnell and Schumer.

  They know nobody normal is going to believe this.  All they care about is convincing 5-10 dumb GOP senators that this is totally not Mitch McConnell’s fault for nearly destroying his conference over an insane gambit to cost Trump (and Republicans) the 2024 election by giving Democrats political cover for a toxic crisis they deliberately created, voting for a bill that does nothing to fix the border, and giving another $60 billion to the only nation Mitch McConnell actually cares about protecting: Ukraine.

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 20:55

• What Would JFK Think?
  What Would JFK Think?

  Authored by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

  The meme below perfectly captures the downfall of a once thriving nation, before the Deep State/CIA murdered John F. Kennedy, ushering in the welfare/warfare state, built upon debt, consumerism, egotism, and technological distraction.

  

  The image is sad, deeply disturbing, and accurate.

  The ongoing degradation and decay are a consequence of the nation turning its back on personal responsibility and service to community as reflected in JFK’s viewpoint of, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country”.

  LBJ’s Great Society encouraged the destruction of the family – particularly black families, while setting in motion the accumulation of current and unfunded welfare debts.

  What can your politicians give you to buy your vote. The selling of feminism to females further destroyed the traditional family and has resulted in the state raising our kids in their indoctrination centers, to the detriment of society.

  The credit card was introduced in the late 1960’s and has enslaved generations in unpayable high interest debt, as citizens devolved into consumers through propaganda spewed incessantly by the mainstream media, convincing the masses to keep up with the Joneses by buying today and paying tomorrow.

  The masses have been programmed to buy fast food, liquor, smokes, etc. using credit cards.

  Americans now owe more than $1 trillion and delinquencies are currently soaring. An enormous percentage of Americans have no ability or desire to defer gratification by saving for what they need or want.

  During JFK’s presidency, Americans were forced to defer gratification.

  In today’s bizarro world, JFK’s political positions would classify him as a far right demagogue by the now far left media. 

  The Wall Street cabal, and their puppets at the Federal Reserve, promoted and encouraged the financialization of the world, resulting in a debt enslaved class and a debt enriched class.

  The printing of fiat (Fed issued debt) has allowed politicians to wage endless wars, deficit spend to infinity, create inflation to benefit themselves, and enrich the bankers and billionaires pulling the strings of society.

  The gap between the Haves and Have Nots has never been greater.

  As millions of lawless diverse savages swarm across our southern border; the diverse savages already occupying our urban shithole cities storming and looting the fast food joints and few remaining retail outlets; corrupt politicians militarizing the judicial system, rigging elections, provoking and funding wars across the globe, and accelerating the nations spiral towards bankruptcy; and an apathetic, dumbed down, sickly, obese, indoctrinated, igadget distracted public allows it to happen, our nation in no way resembles the nation on November 22, 1963 when they murdered JFK.

  

  We will never return to Camelot.

  *  *  *

  To support Jim’s site, donate via Stripe, click here.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 20:35

• 1-In-5 Deaths In The US Caused By Heart Disease
  1-In-5 Deaths In The US Caused By Heart Disease

  Even though new cancer cases in the U.S. are projected to cross the two-million mark for the first time ever in 2024, heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  

  Apart from afflictions related to these diseases, Statista’s Florian Zandt reports that the CDC says Covid-19 claimed the third-highest number of lives in 2021.

  While there is more recent data, 2021 is currently the latest year with full, final data on mortality in the country.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  Other prevalent causes of death in the U.S. include accidents, strokes and respiratory diseases, which were responsible for 64.7, 41.1. and 34.7 deaths per 100,000 of the population, respectively.

  Alzheimer’s disease, which might become more significant in aging societies over the next couple of decades, ranked seventh with 31 deaths per 100,000 population and a share of 3.4 percent in overall deaths registered by the CDC.

  In total, around 3.5 million deaths were registered in the United States in 2021, up by 80,000 compared to 2020.

  This increase in number of deaths comes on the heels of a drop in life expectancy in the country. According to CDC data, life expectancy at birth in 2021 dropped by 0.6 years for women and 0.7 years for men year-over-year.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 20:15

• 12 Absolutely Insane Examples That Show Just How Far The US Has Fallen
  12 Absolutely Insane Examples That Show Just How Far The US Has Fallen

  Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

  When I was young, I often wondered what it must have been like to live during the fall of the Roman Empire.  Unfortunately, now I have a pretty good idea.  Just like the Roman Empire, the United States is falling.  Every day our decline gets even more pronounced, and you can see evidence of this all around us.  Virtually all of our major institutions are crumbling, and virtually all of our most critical systems are failing. 

  We tend to blame our problems on our politicians, but the truth is that the rot that is rapidly spreading throughout our society runs a lot deeper than that. 

  Millions upon millions of us have completely rejected the values that this nation was founded upon, and so now we have a giant mess on our hands. 

  

  The following are 12 absolutely insane examples that show just how far the U.S. has fallen…

  #1 A social media influencer that returned a couch to Costco after using it for more than two years is telling her followers to buy all of their furniture from Costco because “you can return it when you don’t like it anymore”…

  A woman named Jackie shared she bought a couch from Costco over two and a half years ago, in a video posted last week to TikTok that’s attracted nearly 3 million views.

  Jackie admits she was nervous to return the large item to the warehouse store and felt intimidated by other shoppers staring at her while waiting in line.

  “But who cares. Return it. They have an awesome return policy,” she tells her followers. “Buy your furniture from Costco, girl. You can return it when you don’t like it anymore.”

  #2 The U.S. Navy is having a really difficult time recruiting young people, and so they have decided that a radical new approach is needed.  From now on, a high school diploma will no longer be necessary…

  “We get thousands of people into our recruiting stations every year that want to join the Navy but do not have an education credential,” said the branch’s chief of personnel Vice Admiral Rick Cheeseman. “And we just turn them away.”

  Now the Navy will accept some of those potential recruits lacking a high school diploma or GED, assuming they’re able to score 50 or above on a qualification test.

  The move comes after the service previously lowered their qualification requirements in 2022, again amidst recruitment challenges. The Navy is the only branch of the US armed forces that admits applicants who score below 30 out of 100 on the qualification test. Officials say some positions, such as in maintenance or food preparation, don’t require a conventional education.

  #3 Three years ago, the city of Portland decriminalized the possession of all drugs.  Let’s check in and see how that is working out…

  Oregon leaders have declared a 90-day state of emergency in Portland to battle the city’s debilitating fentanyl crisis three years after decriminalizing possession of all drugs.

  Governor Tina Kotek, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and Multnomah County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson made the declaration and are directing their agencies to work with first responders in connecting people addicted to the synthetic opioid with resources including drug treatment programs and to crack down on drug sales.

  #4 Western Oregon University has found a way to keep students from failing.  D- and F grades will no longer be earned by anyone because they are being abolished…

  Citing a wrongheaded “GPA fixation,” Western Oregon University leaders have announced plans to abolish D- and F grades for students.

  They will replace them with “no credit” in an effort to support student success and encourage struggling undergrads to continue their education despite obstacles, they said.

  The public university announced in a news release this month the changes would start in the fall.

  #5 From this point forward, every police officer in El Paso, Texas will be forced to ask for the preferred pronouns of every person that they encounter…

  The policy, called “Constitutional Policing,” was introduced in December 2023; however, it was not implemented until January 2024 and will require officers to ask every person they encounter, “How would you like to be referred to?”

  The gender-inclusive policy was created with the help of the Borderland Rainbow Center, an “LGBTQ Community Center,” in El Paso, Texas, and exists so that LGBTQ “people and their allies can heal, grow, and empower themselves and others.” The director of the center, Amber Perez, told a local news station, “This is just the start.”

  “The most important thing is that we can’t change the past,” Perez said. “[B]ut what we can do is take this first moment and run with it and continue the conversation and be able to speak to each other with respect.”

  #6 A group of migrants that was caught on camera physically attacking cops in Times Square was shocking released without even having to post bail…

  Police officers and other critics are slamming Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for refusing to seek bail for the rowdy migrants arrested after allegedly being caught on camera attacking NYPD cops in Times Square.

  Veteran police officers fumed to The Post Saturday that Bragg made a mockery of the entire justice system by letting five migrants walk after they were arraigned Wednesday on charges of second-degree assault on a police officer and obstruction of governmental administration in the shocking Jan. 27 beatdown.

  “Alvin Bragg just showed all New Yorkers that the Police Department doesn’t matter to him,” said an NYPD detective with more than two decades on the job.

  It has been reported that the migrants were seen getting on a bus to California, and so hopefully someone can track them down before they disappear completely.

  #7 A group of pro-life activists in Tennessee face 11 years in prison for praying and singing outside of an abortion clinic…

  Nearly three years ago several pro-Life activists held a prayer rally at a Tennessee abortion clinic.

  The Christian protesters prayed and sang hymns.

  They were sitting peacefully in the lobby of the abortion center.

  The protesters included: Chester Gallagher, 73, of Lebanon, Tennessee; Heather Idoni, 58; Calvin Zastrow, 57; and Caroline Davis, 24; all of Michigan; Coleman Boyd, 51, of Bolton, Mississippi; Dennis Green, 56, of Cumberland, Virginia; and Paul Vaughn, 55, of Centerville, Tennessee.

  #8 The 24-year-old aide to U.S. Senator Ben Cardin that was filmed having gay sex in a Senate hearing room will not be charged with breaking any laws…

  As reported earlier – The United States Capitol Police have concluded their investigation into a controversial incident involving Aidan Maese-Czeropski, a 24-year-old former aide to Democratic Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland.

  Maese-Czeropski had been embroiled in a scandal after a sexually explicit video recorded in the Senate hearing room surfaced online.

  The video, which depicted Maese-Czeropski and his partner engaging in anal sex inside the Senate Hearing Room, sparked nationwide controversy. Clad only in a g-string jockstrap, Maese-Czeropski was seen atop the senator’s desk, a setting traditionally reserved for grave legislative deliberations and Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

  #9 Violent carjackers are fearlessly roaming the streets of Washington D.C., and anyone that resists one of those young carjackers can end up dead.  Sadly, that is precisely what just happened to an official that worked in the Trump administration…

  Former Trump Administration official Mike Gill has died after being shot in front of his wife during a carjacking in Washington DC.

  Gill, a married father of three, was shot by Artell Cunningham on K Street NW about 5.45pm last Monday and died in hospital on Saturday.

  He was collecting his wife, an education lawyer, when he was shot inside the car by the attacker. He stumbled outside the vehicle and collapsed.

  #10 The Chinese and other foreign buyers are purchasing millions of acres of U.S. farmland, but nobody knows exactly how much farmland they now own and very few of our politicians are interested in stopping this practice…

  America is seeing more and more of its most fertile land snapped up by China and other foreign buyers, yet problems with how the US tracks such data means it’s difficult to know just how much, according to a report.

  Foreign ownership and investment in property such as farmland, pastures and forests jumped to about 40 million acres in 2021, up 40% from 2016, according to the US Department of Agriculture data. But an analysis conducted by the US Government Accountability Office — a non-partisan watchdog that reports to Congress — found mistakes in the data, including the largest land holding linked with China being counted twice. Other issues include the challenge of enforcing a US law that requires foreigners to self-report such purchases, the report said, citing USDA.

  #11 So many radical Muslims have moved into Dearborn, Michigan that the Wall Street Journal is referring to it as “America’s Jihad Capital”…

  A Michigan suburb with the largest Muslim population in the US has upped its security in fear of hate attacks after it was branded America’s ‘jihad capital.’

  The headline of a Wall Street Journal opinion piece published on Friday read ‘Welcome to Dearborn, America’s Jihad Capital’ – a title given to the city by the publication because of its residents’ pro-Palestine stances.

  #12 A teacher in Massachusetts that had a spotless record for 23 years was fired after she revealed the truth about what was really going on in her school…

  “Bonnie Manchester had a spotless record in 23 years as a teacher at Baird Middle School. She laid it all on the line when she saw what was now happening to vulnerable children,” the organization reported. “Bonnie Manchester is a Christian middle school teacher who was fired from her job in 2021. Her ‘crime’ was informing a father and mother that school officials were referring to their daughter as a boy and keeping it secret from them.”

  How are people supposed to have faith in a system that is this broken?

  Unfortunately, things are only going to get worse.

  As a society, we are the most divided that we have been in modern times, and with each passing day more foreigners that have come into this country illegally pour into U.S. cities that are already overwhelmed by crime, drugs, violence, homelessness and depravity.

  The stage is being set for chaos on a scale that most Americans never even dreamed would be possible.

  The election of 2024 is going to be the most divisive election that any of us have ever seen, our economic problems are rapidly accelerating, and global events threaten to turn all of our lives completely upside down.

  So I hope that you have been getting prepared, because things will soon start breaking loose in a major way.

  *  *  *

  Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can check out his new Substack newsletter right here.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 19:55

• Family Of Native American 'Blackface' Kid Sues Deadspin
  Family Of Native American ‘Blackface’ Kid Sues Deadspin

  The family of a 9-year-old Kansas City Chiefs fan falsely accused of wearing blackface by a race-baiting Deadspin reporter are now suing the outlet for “maliciously and wantonly” attacking the child, according to a complaint filed Tuesday.

  

  Deadspin senior writer Carron Phillips wrote that the child, Holden Armenta, had “found a way to hate Black people and the Native Americans at the same time.”

  Why is @Deadspin @carronJphillips trying to ruin this little kid’s life? They’re accusing him of blackface but conveniently left out his full face which was painted for the game https://t.co/kFfgAL4aDH pic.twitter.com/750u5sfETE

  — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) November 28, 2023

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Following publication of the article, Holden’s parents – Shannon and Raul Armenta, hired law firm Clare Locke LLP. The firm previously won a $787.5 million settlement against Fox News for Dominion Voting Systems (resulting in Tucker Carlson’s ouster). The Armentas accused the outlet of having a “race-drenched political agenda,” according to the complaint – which states that the accusations caused “enormous damage” to their family, and that they’ve received death threats and a “barrage of hate,” the Daily Caller reports.

  “By selectively capturing from the CBS broadcast an image of H.A. showing only the one side of his face with black paint on it—an effort that took laser-focused precision to accomplish given how quickly the boy appeared on screen—Phillips and Deadspin deliberately omitted the half of H.A.’s face with red paint on it,” reads the complaint.

  The complaint clarified Armenta did not wear blackface, pointing out that the boy neither knows what blackface is nor wore the faceprint or headdress to symbolize racism. The complaint reiterated previous reports that Armenta is Native American. The headdress the boy wore resembles the traditional logo from the 1960s and early 70s.

  “H.A. did not wear a costume headdress because he was ‘taught hate at home’—he wore it because he loves the Kansas City Chiefs’ football team and because he loves his Native American heritage,” the complaint reads.

  The suit further alleges Deadspin and Phillips knew the boy did not wear blackface, but decided to write an article “viciously race-baiting” a young boy to “generate clicks.” -Daily Caller

  The family initially threatened to sue Deadspin and its owner, G/O Media, unless they retracted the story. Instead, the outlet added an editor’s note which called out the NFL’s alleged “failure” to extend anti-racist rules across the league.

  “Deadspin did not retract the Article, and it did not apologize,” reads the complaint. “Rather, it published a series of further ‘updates’ that not only failed to correct the record, but instead established that Deadspin fully understood the Article’s highly damaging and defamatory nature—while maliciously refusing to back down. And Deadspin’s lawyers threatened the Armenta family with counter-legal action should Raul and Shannon attempt to hold Phillips and Deadspin accountable for their false and defamatory Article.”

  BREAKING: The parents of 9-year old Holden Armenta are threatening to sue Deadspin for slandering their son by saying he wore “Black face.”

  Do it! 🔥

  Shannon and Raul Armenta have hired Clare Locke LLP, demanding that they issue a retraction of the viral story.

  It gets better:… pic.twitter.com/gJShq1MFKW

  — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) December 4, 2023

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  What’s more, the family claims that Armenta’s grades have fallen, and that his father, Raul, is now a “pariah” at work. Armenta has also suffered a “devastating loss” of his “innocence of youth,” and an “encumbered love for his favorite football team and its players.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 19:35

• Proposition 1: Politics And Policy As Usual In Newsom’s California
  Proposition 1: Politics And Policy As Usual In Newsom’s California

  Authored by Michele Steeb via RealClear Wire,

  Gov. Gavin Newsom and his legislative allies whisked Proposition One onto the March 5 primary ballot in the nick of time. If approved, it will authorize $6.4 billion in state bonds to fund mental health facilities and housing for the homeless.

  

  In a press conference last week, Gov. Newsom portrayed Proposition One as a new approach. “We can’t continue to do what we’ve done, or we’ll get what we’ve got.”

  Having spent 13 years building and running one of Northern California’s largest programs for homeless women and children, I urge her voters to look beyond the governor’s rhetoric to see this initiative for what it really is … throwing more taxpayer funds at the same failed model.

  First, the good news: the measure would overhaul a 2004 referendum that raised taxes on individuals with incomes over $1 million to fund mental health services. Despite the tens of billions raised and spent since Prop 63 went into effect, it has failed to deliver material results.

  However, two other aspects of Proposition One merit close attention. The measure would authorize bonds dedicated to the building of mental health treatment facilities (up to $4.4 billion) and to the creation of 4,350 beds for the chronically homeless and those struggling with mental health issues (up to $2 billion).

  Every year under Gov. Newsom’s tenure, three circumstances have held true: a significant increase in homelessness, a legislative discussion around the need for Prop 63 reform, and a budget surplus that could have funded such an initiative.

  So why now?

  What’s more, how will the state execute on the mental health facility expansion given their shortage of trained personnel required to operate these facilities? And what about the remaining 97.5% of the state’s homeless population who will not receive housing under Prop One?

  Further folly is woven deep into the details of the 69-page law. “Housing interventions shall comply with the core components” of the state’s “Housing First” law … hardly a radical departure from business as usual asserted by the governor.

  He and his allies have long argued that Housing First – the placement of homeless individuals in housing as the be-all and end-all objective of social services efforts – is working.

  However, pre and post-pandemic data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development emphasizes its failure at the federal level and in California, the only state to fully adopt Housing First (starting in 2016). HUD’s latest data shows that nationally, homelessness is at its highest level since the homeless count began in 2007 and that California is home to 30% of the nation’s homeless population and 50% of its chronically homeless population.

  “Housing First” law in Californiaexplicitly endorses a “philosophy that recognizes drug and alcohol use and addiction as a part of tenants’ lives” and that tenants should be able to self-determine as to whether to accept treatment services.

  Thus, under Proposition One’s requirement that counties allocate 30% of the funds received on “housing interventions,” nearly 1/3 of the measure’s resources will be dedicated to supplying housing where “the use of alcohol or drugs in and of itself is allowed and not a reason for eviction.”

  Half of those dollars would be dedicated to housing the chronically homeless, “with a focus on those in encampments.” Bearing in mind that 78% of this population struggles with mental illness and substance use disorder, voters would be wise to review this 14-year study out of Boston to understand the outcomes of such an approach. Only 36% of the chronically homeless placed directly in housing retained that housing for five years and almost half (45%) died during that time span.

  With meager prospects for impact and bigger prospects for accumulating more public debt, voters should recognize Proposition One for what it really is – politics and policy as usual.      

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 19:15

• "X" Tops App Store Downloads Ahead Of Historic Tucker Carlson Interview With Putin
  “X” Tops App Store Downloads Ahead Of Historic Tucker Carlson Interview With Putin

  Ahead of Tucker Carlson’s interview with President Vladimir Putin, Elon Musk’s “X” social media platform, known for upholding free speech, has seen a surge in downloads by iPhone and iPad users on Apple’s App Store. This anticipation for the interview, which has the potential to break the internet (and only exclusive on X and Tucker’s website), has already caused a stir among neoconservatives and the legacy media outlets that oversee the censorship-industrial complex, especially since Carlson was seen in Moscow this week. 

  𝕏 is now the #1 most downloaded app of any kind! pic.twitter.com/TeqWxcmZfs

  — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 7, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

   “X is the number 1 free app in the App Store right now, beating out ChatGPT, Threads, and TikTok,” X user Whole Mars Catalog said. 

  Congratulations X team and @elonmusk

  X is the number 1 free app in the App Store right now, beating out ChatGPT, Threads and TikTok

  Tell your friends to sign up for X and let’s keep it going pic.twitter.com/u6AfagH9zS

  — Whole Mars Catalog (@WholeMarsBlog) February 7, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  X user DogeDesigner pointed out that no matter how many misinformation campaigns (read: here) legacy media runs against X, the reality is: “𝕏 is the #1 app in the AppStore.” Musk chimed in by quoting the post: “It’s almost as though you can’t trust the media.” 

  It’s almost as though you can’t trust the media 🤔 https://t.co/NwN2PwkE4F

  — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 7, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Research firm SensorTower also showed X soaring to the top of the App Store ahead of Tucker’s interview with Putin, which is expected to be released late Thursday afternoon. X now ranks number one in all free categories and news.

  

  While legacy media in the free world melts down over the upcoming interview.

  

  …Europeans, supposedly in the free Western world, want to sanction the journalist. 

  If true, this would be disturbing indeed.

  One may agree with Tucker or not, but he is a major American journalist and such an action would greatly offend the American public. https://t.co/IYqOzfWHf9

  — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 7, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Why didn’t the EU want to sanction these corporate media journos?  

  

  As a journalist, Trucker has the autonomy to interview Putin without needing to justify his actions. He is not bound by the Biden administration, the censorship-industrial complex, or any corporate media outlets, and corporations, which means those on X are about to receive diverse viewpoints about Urakine from the other side that might allow folks to wake up about how NATO and Russia are on the cusp of WW3. 

  Meanwhile, the Biden administration’s efforts to suppress diverse viewpoints and inhibit critical debate are eroding the foundational principles of democratic societies. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 18:55

• 1-In-7 Americans Have Unclaimed Money Or Financial Assets – Here's How To Redeem
  1-In-7 Americans Have Unclaimed Money Or Financial Assets – Here’s How To Redeem

  Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Billions of dollars worth of unclaimed funds are being held by state departments across the United States which can be rightfully collected by their legal owners through a simple online process.

  

  Feb. 1 was Unclaimed Property Day. Unclaimed property refers to “accounts within financial institutions or companies in which there has been no activity generated (or contact with the owner) regarding the property for one year or a longer period,” according to the National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators (NAUPA). By law, such properties are turned over to the state.

  For instance, an individual may have rented a property in Texas by putting up a security deposit. If the person moves to New York and fails to collect back the deposit after a set dormancy period, the money becomes an unclaimed property and goes to the state.

  NAUPA estimates that at least one in seven individuals in the United States have unclaimed funds, which at the current population count, comes to roughly 48 million Americans.

  More than $5 billion worth of unclaimed property is returned by states annually, the organization stated. This includes bank accounts, safe deposit boxes, utility security deposits, stocks, uncashed dividends, refunds, trust distributions, traveler’s checks, customer overpayments, certificate of deposit, unredeemed gift certificates or money orders, insurance payments or refunds, life insurance policies, uncashed payroll checks, mineral royalty payments, and annuities.

  NAUPA is a network managed by the bipartisan National Association of State Treasurers. The association has a dedicated webpage where Americans can search whether they have any unclaimed funds in their name.

  Each state has its own database, and the NAUPA webpage gives direct links to state websites where individuals can conduct searches. In addition, NAUPA also maintains a missingmoney.com website.

  “Unclaimed property is reported to the state in which the company or organization resides. Therefore, it’s common to have unclaimed property in multiple states, especially if you have moved to another state,” NAUPA states.

  According to Missing Money, 95 percent of all unclaimed property claims are filed online. The average value of a claim comes to $2,080.

  Claiming Process

  The claims process for getting back property varies by state. As a general first step, the individual should initiate the claim per instructions provided by the state holding the unclaimed property.

  Next, the person will have to prove their ownership with relevant documents. For instance, someone seeking to reclaim a security deposit for a rental property may likely have to show the rent agreement.

  The claimant will also have to provide proof of personal identity like a driver’s license, social security number, or passport. Some states allow citizens to submit documentation online while others require mail.

  When all relevant documents have been submitted, the unclaimed property department of the state will seek to verify the individual’s right over the funds.

  Once verified, the department will begin processing the claim. Certain states can complete the verification and processing steps in less than 30 days. Some states may keep a small amount of the unclaimed property as a holding fee.

  If the claim is processed successfully, the state will return back unclaimed funds to the individual. Most states do not usually have a deadline for holding the unclaimed property.

  However, the states could auction them off after a certain period of time. In such cases, the owners typically have a right to claim the value of auction from the state.

  Unclaimed Properties

  The National Association of State Treasurers recommends multiple ways to prevent financial assets from becoming unclaimed properties.

  “The easiest way to prevent unclaimed property is to maintain activity on all financial accounts. This includes accounts such as your checking, savings, and certificates of deposit. For these types of accounts, making a withdrawal or contribution every now and then is essential,” the association stated.

  “Similar activity may be beneficial for brokerage accounts, IRAs, or employer-sponsored plans as well. Even the slightest activity can help keep an account active. This can eliminate the threat of an account becoming inactive and unclaimed.”

  The association recommends that individuals keep their contact information with financial institutions updated at all times. If contact info is outdated, a financial institution may fail to get in touch with an individual regarding any unpaid funds and the amount could turn into an unclaimed property.

  People should also keep in mind that they may have to pay taxes on assets claimed. Certain funds do not attract taxes, like a rental deposit, as the individual may have already paid taxes on their income which was likely the source of the deposit.

  However, unclaimed property like unredeemed gift cards or life insurance policy beneficiary payments can attract taxes.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 18:35

• These Are The Most (And Least) Affordable US Cities For Renters On An Average Salary
  These Are The Most (And Least) Affordable US Cities For Renters On An Average Salary

  In 2023, 34% of the 131 million households in the U.S. lived in rented homes.

  But which U.S. cities are the most affordable to rent in? The question isn’t just about cost, but about the average salary in each city, and some cities in expensive-seeming states turn out to be relatively affordable.

  To answer the question, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao introduces the graphic below.

  CashNetUSA found rental price data (as of August 2023) from Zillow.com and compared it to city salary data to calculate the percentage of properties available to rent for 30% or less of the local average income.

  

  Ranked: Most Affordable American Cities for Renters

  Ranked first, nearly 97% of the available rentals in Hartford can be rented for an affordable rate, based on average income.

  This might be a surprising statistic. Connecticut was the richest U.S. state (by per capita income) for nearly three decades till 2019, and has one of the highest costs of living in the U.S.

  However, it’s important to note that this data deals with averages instead of medians. For example, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage for a Hartford resident—across all occupations—is slightly more than $33/hour, or close to $70,000 a year. Its median wage is almost $8/hour lower, which comes in at $53,000 a year.

  Richer residents, with higher incomes might be skewing the apparent affordability of available rentals.

  Note: Data current as of August, 2023.

  Toledo and Akron, ranked second and third, have similar rates of affordability, with 95% of their available rentals falling within 30% of the city’s average wage. In fact Ohio has the most number of cities in the top 20, with Waterbury ranked 17th.

  Detroit and Rockford round out the top five most affordable cities in the U.S. for renters. Both cities have affordable housing markets, after the Great Recession caused the local economies to tank, in turn causing an increase in crime and decline in population. Post-pandemic, however, both cities are on the rebound with an influx of industries, jobs, and people.

  But which U.S. cities are the least affordable to rent in?

  With runaway housing prices and local salaries struggling to keep up, some of America’s largest metros feel quite unaffordable.

  To answer the question more concretely, CashNetUSA found rental price data (as of August 2023) from Zillow.com and compared it to city salary data to calculate the percentage of properties available to rent for 30% or less of the local average income.

  

  It turns out that plenty of places are shockingly unaffordable for renters. In Miami, Cambridge, and Boston, fewer than 10% of the rental listings are affordable on a the average salary.

  For context, Miami’s annual mean salary is close to $59,000, and the Boston-Cambridge area comes in at $80,000 a year. These places are also expensive for homeowners, with both Boston and Miami being in the 10 most expensive cities in the U.S. to buy a home in.

  Joining Boston and Miami in the most unaffordable cities is Chula Vista in California, where exactly one in 10 the rental listings could be classified as affordable. That’s fewer than New York’s results (11.63%).

  California has four of the top 20 most unaffordable cities for renters, and ranks fifth in the list of states by income inequality.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 18:15

• Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough Could Revolutionize Artificial Intelligence
  Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough Could Revolutionize Artificial Intelligence

  Authored by Tristan Greene via CoinTelegraph.com,

  A recent physics breakthrough that could serve as a proof-of-concept for the development of nuclear fusion reactors capable of producing near-unlimited energy has finally passed its official peer-review successfully. 

  

  On Dec. 5, 2022, a team of researchers at the United States National Ignition Facility (NIF) in California recorded data indicating that it had achieved a nuclear fusion reaction that created more energy than it took to produce. The reported results were the first of their kind.

  In physics, this is sometimes colloquially referred to as a “free lunch,” meaning a nuclear fusion reactor could one day be scaled to the point where it is capable of producing near-unlimited energy.

  If the NIF team’s reported results were correct, their breakthrough research could serve as a platform for the future technology that might help us eliminate our dependence on carbon energy and supercharge fields where energy scarcity presents as a roadblock, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing.

  But, as science communicator Carl Sagan put it, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” News of the breakthrough was taken with both a measure of optimism and a grain of salt by the physics community. The general consensus, at the time, was that people should wait until peer review before shouting “eureka!” at the findings.

  Eureka time?

  The peer review is in, and according to a report in the APA Physics journal, multiple teams have confirmed and replicated the results.

  Recreating the experiment was no easy feat. To achieve the original fusion reaction, NIF scientists used a technique called inertial confinement fusion. This form of fusion involves bombarding heavy hydrogen atoms with nearly 200 lasers, causing them to superheat and, ultimately, fuse at pressures greater than those found within the sun.

  While this early work has only just been confirmed through peer review, the NIF device could serve as a platform by which practical fusion reactors can be built. It’s currently too soon to predict when a viable fusion reactor might be achieved.

  Next-generation energy

  Once realized, however, the free availability of so-called next-generation energy sources could supercharge the engineering and development of adjacent technologies such as AI and quantum computing. 

  Fields such as those, where energy bottlenecks at play are perceived to be the next great hurdle to scale, could see generational leaps in progress once those roadblocks are removed.

  As Cointelegraph recently reported, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said there’s no way to build the AI systems of the future until there’s a fusion energy breakthrough. It’s possible that this work from the NIF team could be the first confirmed step toward that breakthrough technology.

  OpenAI might be in the best position to understand the energy requirements needed to train systems such as ChatGPT, but it bears mention that Altman is personally invested in a private company working on fusion.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 02/07/2024 – 17:55

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• The 5 Global Powers That Vie To Crush Each Other And Their Subjects
  The 5 Global Powers That Vie To Crush Each Other And Their Subjects

  Authored by Patricia Adams and Lawrence Solomon via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  In the 1930s, the world had three powers that aspired to dominate the world: the communists of the Soviet Union under Stalin, who sought a worldwide proletariat revolution that redistributed wealth to the masses; the Nazis of Germany under Hitler, who sought to establish a global top-down fascist regime; and the United States under FDR, who sought to spread free-market capitalism throughout the world.

  Although these three powers competed for global dominance with each other, they nonetheless sought alliances of convenience when it served their interests. Stalin tried to form an alliance with the West to counter Hitler’s rise, and when rebuffed he entered into a non-aggression pact with Hitler. Later, the capitalist West and communist Russia allied against fascist Germany.

  Today, the world has five globalist elites with worldwide aspirations—communist China and Islamists have joined refashioned successors of the three of the 1930s. As in the 1930s, the elites form alliances and cooperate in numerous areas, often to crush opposition from their own subjects.

  

  Today’s Socialists

  The fall of the Soviet Union didn’t extinguish Karl Marx’s aspiration to abolish private property and the family in favor of the egalitarian economic model: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” Its most visual proponents today are found in the U.S. Democratic Party’s progressive wing, championed by Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the Democratic Socialists of America.

  Today’s socialists, hueing to cultural Marxism and identity politics, have won over academia, much of the government bureaucracy, and much of the press. They’re anti-family, anti-capitalists who want workers to control and governments to own public utilities and other major industries. Their success in transforming the U.S. culture to intersectionality, gender fluidity, and identity politics can be seen in numerous public opinion polls, such as a recent Harvard Harris poll of attitudes among the coming generation: 79 percent of 18 to 24-year-olds  support the “ideology that white people are oppressors and nonwhite people and people of certain groups have been oppressed and as a result should be favored today at universities and for employment.”

  Today’s Fascists

  The fascist economic model was a hybrid form of capitalism, with a competitive free market at the shop-keeper level and government-supported cartels and oligopolies in major industries—Nazi Germany had 2,100 cartel agreements alone, most famously involving giants such as I.G. Farben in chemicals, Siemens and AEG in electricals, and Krupp in armaments.

  This concentration of industry, which placed big business at the commanding heights of the fascist economy, was also favored by U.S. industrialists. In 1931, General Electric president Gerard Swope, with the endorsement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, called for the compulsory cartelization of all major American corporations into federally controlled trade associations for each industry. General Motors president William Knudsen, after meeting Goering, talked of Germany as “the miracle of the 20th century.”

  Today, proponents of a fascist-style economy, or corporatism, are organized under the mantle of the World Economic Forum, which is funded by 1,000 member corporations—typically multinationals with sales of $5 billion or more—and sympathetic governments. It seeks a new model of governance called “Stakeholder Capitalism” that would reduce the influence of the electorate in favor of a Great Reset plan called Global Redesign in which a coalition of multinational corporations in league with governments have an outsized role in managing the world economy. Elected officials would work with corporations and fund them to deliver desirable outcomes without being the ultimate decision-makers.

  Under the paternalistic power structure that it touts, the mandate of corporations would be broadened to include corporate social responsibility, rather than being narrowly limited to earning profits for shareholders. Property would be controlled by managerial elites. The slogan, “You’ll own nothing and be happy,” crystallizes the WEF’s sentiment. Leaders of the WEF include Bill Gates, BlackRock’s Larry Fink, and the heads of Big Pharma and Big Tech, all of whom have demonstrated their ability to set public policy that rewards their organizations.

  American Foreign Policy Hawks

  After John F. Kennedy’s debacle in Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, and Lyndon B. Johnson’s unpopular war in Vietnam, the peace movement in the United States pushed the Democratic Party to shun its traditional use of military force to counter the spread of communism and promote democracy abroad. In reaction, hawkish liberal Democrats and traditional Republicans found common cause in advocating for a strong interventionist military. Known as neo-conservatives, they intervened through the CIA, the U.S. military, and NATO to counter anti-Americanism throughout the world. The muscular presence of today’s foreign policy hawks can be seen in Ukraine, the Middle East, and East Asia.

  Although neocons became known primarily for their stance on foreign policy—Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” encapsulates their ideology—they were best described as establishment centrists who first came together in opposition to the counterculture of the left, which included hippies, peaceniks, and radical social programs such as LBJ’s Great Society. Opposition to Donald Trump within the Republican Party was largely led by the foreign policy hawks, who objected to his brash style as well as his ambivalence toward NATO and his intention to withdraw U.S. troops from overseas bases.

  Islamists

  During World War II, Muslim Turkey was allied with Nazi Germany, as were Arabs under the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who in 1941 met Hitler in Germany and attempted to form an Arab Legion allied with the Axis powers. Muslim countries, energized by the revival of Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism, were focused on regional aspirations during World War II.

  The last half of the 20th century saw jihadism evolve from a regional to a global phenomenon, initially due to the Soviet Union, which in the 1960s invented American “imperial Zionism” and sponsored Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization to counter the West in the Middle East. The 1970s saw the overthrow of the Shah of Iran by Khomeini’s Iranian Revolution, the 1980s the Beirut bombings and the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan, and the 1990s the first attack on the World Trade Center and the beginning of large-scale immigration of Muslims into the United States. The Jihadist goal of global domination became clear and credible to the West after the attacks by al-Qaida on Sept. 11, 2001.

  Communist China

  Over the millennia, China was a regional power, often at war with its immediate neighbors in Russia and Asia, and often inward-looking. At the start of the 21st century, China began its dominance on a global scale with its membership in the World Trade Organization, which created an industrial giant that de-industrialized much of the West. As China’s prowess increased, it infiltrated Western economies by acquiring Western corporations, by populating and funding universities, and by influencing the election of government officials in other countries.

  The new China with global ambitions became especially evident with Xi Jinping’s 2013 Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which involves some 150 countries accounting for two-thirds of the world’s population, and China’s expressed desire to become the world’s largest economy by 2049, the 100th anniversary of Mao’s founding of the People’s Republic of China.

  China is no longer viewed as a benign giant. French President Emmanuel Macron warned that BRI could make partner countries “vassal states,” and many in the United States now view China as America’s number one military and geopolitical threat.

  Strange-bedfellow Cooperation

  The five globalist groups are ideologically incompatible, each seeking the ultimate defeat of the other four. Within the United States, each has a degree of influence through lobbying and public relations activities, but none has the clout to unilaterally impose its will over a skeptical electorate. In response, globalists ally in strange-bedfellow groupings to bend policy to meet their objectives. 

  For example, the de facto open-immigration policy promoted by the progressive wing of today’s U.S. socialists is hugely unpopular with the American public as well as America’s foreign-policy elite because it threatens national security, increases crime, and undermines the country’s social fabric. Yet open immigration persists because it serves the interests of various globalist elites.

  Big business corporatists benefit because the large numbers of immigrants flooding the labor markets lower their labor costs. Islamists benefit because open immigration permits the infiltration of terrorists as well as large numbers of Muslims who can influence domestic politics through protests. Communist China benefits because open immigration enables espionage—according to the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, a majority of the illegal Chinese immigrants are men of military age with ties to the Chinese Communist Party and its military.

  Likewise, climate policies harm the general public but benefit most of the global elites, albeit for different reasons. Socialists and fascists/corporatists, who each have their own brand of world government, promote climate policies because they lend themselves to global criteria for the regulation of industry and human behavior. Communist China, as the chief supplier of renewable energy equipment, benefits economically. Islamists also benefit economically as Western countries curb their own production and lose market share to the Muslim fossil-fuel exporting countries that fund the Islamists. And almost everyone favors climate policies for their virtue-signalling merit.

  Likewise, critical race theory harms the general public but benefits the socialists, for whom it is a raison d’etre; the Islamists, by validating the accusation of Islamophobia; and communist China, by allowing it to point to U.S. moral failings whenever China is accused of violating the human rights of its own ethnic minorities.

  Because radical social innovations in the West—whether gender fluidity or Black Lives Matter or critical race theories—undermine the West’s cohesion, all the enemies of the West support their infiltration into Western society. That, and a distaste for a citizenry exercising individual freedoms, sums up what the five globalist elites have in common.

  Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 23:50

• Russia Releases $9M In Frozen N.Korean Assets, Alleged To Be Helping Kim Skirt UN Sanctions
  Russia Releases $9M In Frozen N.Korean Assets, Alleged To Be Helping Kim Skirt UN Sanctions

  Russia-North Korea ties have continued to deepen amid the backdrop of the Ukraine war and corresponding US-led sanctions. Already it’s believed Pyongyang has provided Russia with huge shipments of missies and ammunition, especially artillery, likely shipped by train.

  The New York Times reports Tuesday that the Russian government has released $9 million in frozen North Korean assets, following Kim Jong-Un’s delivering on arms for Moscow. While the Russian bank which cleared the release hasn’t been named, it’s believed to be $9 million out of a total $30 million which was frozen.

  

  The move is likely part of broader efforts to implement Pyongyang’s ultimate ‘wish list’ of lasting methods and banking ties to skirt UN sanctions, imposed over past banned nuclear weapons testing.

  The NY Times writes, “In addition, a North Korean front company recently opened an account at another Russian bank, the intelligence officials say, evidence that Moscow may be helping Pyongyang get around U.N. sanctions that prohibit most banks from doing business with North Korea.”

  North Korea has for years been almost completely isolated from the international banking system, and has been lashing out of late in response to increased US military drills on the peninsula, conducting missile tests on a near weekly basis.

  “The new bank account is held in South Ossetia, a self-proclaimed independent state in the Caucasus region that has close connections with Russia, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence matters,” the Times continues.

  Moscow is still expected to move cautiously and not be too brazen over how it helps North Korea given it is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. On this point, the NYT report observes:

  For Russia, the financial transactions may be more palatable than supplying military expertise and nuclear and other technology.

  Even though the two countries “could be friends with benefits now,” said Soo Kim, a former C.I.A. analyst on North Korea, their trust is not so great that Russia would “give away its valued secrets.”

  Back in September, Kim Jong Un met with President Vladimir Putin in the far eastern city of Vladivostok, and even toured weapons and satellite facilities. 

  Kim had issued statements at the time signaling enthusiastic backing for Russia’s resistance to NATO in the context of the war in Ukriane. “We are confident that the Russian army and people will win a great victory in the just fight to punish evil groups who pursue hegemony, expansion, and ambition,” Kim had said.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 23:30

• Controlled Instability
  Controlled Instability

  Authored by Robert Gore via StraightLineLogic.com,

  Would-be rulers embrace a moronic oxymoron…

  The Houthis stymie 12 percent of the world’s shipping. Israel has bitten off more than it can chew and is desperately trying to maneuver the U.S. into a broader Middle Eastern engagement and years of pointless war. In Europe, farmers and truckers are protesting and blocking roads over climate change measures and other grievances. In the U.S., a governor ignores a Supreme Court decision and receives support from 25 fellow governors.

  At the recently concluded confab at Davos, the world’s would-be rulers conferred on how they would rule the world. How quaint. They’re going to rule a world that’s spinning out of their, or anybody else’s, control. A Russian politician, Konstantin Dolgov, coined a phrase for the oxymoronic pipe dream that prevails in Washington, Davos, Brussels, and Tel Aviv:

  “The Americans need controlled instability to realize their own plans.” Dolgov noted:

  “But this instability has long been out of Washington’s control.”

  

  Controlled instability is a futile hope from a bygone age. The instability that manifests daily is anything but controlled.

  Texas Governor Greg Abbott and his fellow governors’ defiance marks an emerging phase: instability and conflict among actors within the political system. It may be posturing, but it still amounts to a middle finger from the governors to the federal government and its once revered Supreme Court.

  The Supreme Court has been rubber-stamping expansion of the federal government’s power since the Constitution was ratified. The most egregious recent examples were National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) and King v. Burwell (2015), the decisions that upheld Obamacare. Nobody protested against the program that hastened the destruction of American health care. Nine years after Burwell, anti-government rage is kindling fires in the U.S. and all over the world. Control is losing; instability is winning, and the game is still in the early innings.

  The control freaks cling to their empire and wars. Empire is untenable, but the U.S. military is being deployed into another Middle Eastern quagmire. The Middle East is particularly unsuited for U.S. imperial ventures. The sum total of Western knowledge of the region is a nanoparticle compared to the Everest of its ignorance.

  The Middle East is tribal; the concept of a nation with a national government is a foreign import. Tribal rivalries date back to Old Testament times and have always undermined the best laid plans of emperors, kings, sultans, sheiks, satraps, and other poobahs. The Islamic religion has been the one quasi-unifying force, but it is split and both the Sunni and Shia denominations are splintered into various sects.

  The secret Sykes-Picot treaty of 1916 between Britain and France, with assent from the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Italy, drew lines on the map of the Ottoman Empire (allied with the losers in World War I), specified European spheres of influence, and created so-called nations to be dominated by the European victors.

  It was hubristic folly, matched by the Balfour Declaration one year later. In a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish Community, the British government declared its endorsement of a “national home for the Jewish people” in what would become, in 1922, the British Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan. At that time, Jews were only a single-digit percentage of Palestine’s population.

  Outsiders, especially those bent on domination, have never fared particularly well in the Middle East. It’s tough enough for insiders bent on domination. Outsiders can generally find compliant satraps whose ostensible loyalty is secured through bribery and extortion, but the average Mohammad deeply resents his overlords and resists them in his own way. No wonder then, that Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration proved to be recipes for disaster.

  The U.S. threw it and the UN’s weight behind the Zionist project in 1948, when Palestine became Israel and Jews began displacing Palestinian Arabs, an ongoing process that has accelerated since the October 7 Hamas massacre. Pre-October 7 controlled instability in Gaza has given way to all-out war, ostensibly against Hamas insurgents, but the death toll among Palestinian civilians is approaching 30,000.

  The U.S. has long considered Israel its forward base in the Middle East. That imperial projection is now under attack on multiple fronts. Anyone who claims to know how the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, and various other insurgent groups in Iraq and Syria—collectively known as the Axis of Resistance—are structured, coordinate with each other, or interact with Iran is lying. However, they are making war on the U.S.-Israel alliance, gradually ratcheting up the pressure, and last week the U.S. lost its first three soldiers since October 7.

  The alliance will lose because it can’t win. The only way an outside power can “win” in the Middle East is to stay out. Occupation is the concomitant of empire, but now the costs of invasion and occupation dwarf the costs of insurgency. It’s no sure thing that the Israelis will be able to expel the Palestinians, their ultimate aim. Even if the do, it will only lead to greater instability over a wider area. The Axis of Resistance is opening new fronts almost daily across the Middle East. The U.S. empire and Israel have neither the military and financial staying power nor the regional support necessary for a lengthy war.

  At Israel’s behest, demented warmongers are urging an alliance attack on Iran, which would exponentially compound its difficulties. An attack would probably bring in Russia and perhaps China. The alliance’s only option would be to take it nuclear, which could lead to humanity’s extinction. That’s apparently what the warmongers have been looking for all these years.

  The West’s rulers and string pullers regard their internal opposition as so many Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, and Iranians. That characterization is more apt than they realize, particularly in the well-armed U.S. Anything those “extremists” can do in the Middle East can be done by what the Biden administration reckons are tens of millions of “domestic extremists” in the U.S. And what the Middle Eastern extremists are in the process of doing is defeating the U.S. government and its allies.

  While much of the Western citizenry remains supine and susceptible to state propaganda and narratives, the ranks of the aware and engaged, fed by the alternative media hydra, keep expanding. Even the Corruptocracy and its media mouthpieces are starting to realize that fundamental change is afoot. At Davos, there were begrudging admissions (and lamentations) that the media no longer controls the narrative and dim recognition that nobody trusts it. Invitees even subjected themselves to Argentinian president Javier Milei’s and Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts’ excoriations.

  What the Davos set doesn’t get is that for the next few centuries, change will messily burble up from the bottom, not be neatly imposed from the top. That’s actually the way it’s been for centuries, but the top has gotten all the press. Politics, governments and war are newsworthy, innovation and progress are not. The perpetual war of the former on the latter never gets mentioned at all. Regardless, the top will go on proposing; the bottom will go on disposing.

  The transition in global affairs is hailed as multipolarity, but multipolarity proponents show little recognition that it’s not just the American empire and its confederates in the crosshairs, but all governments. Those coming together in the various not-the-West arrangements are still governments, and are just as tyrannical and corrupt as Western governments, in many cases more so.

  Multipolarity will proceed full steam ahead, but it won’t stop until there are 8 billion plus poles, call it multi-multipolarity. The age of the state and ostensible control is giving way to the age of the individual and instability. That doesn’t mean that order won’t eventually emerge, but it will be order based on individual sovereignty, cooperation, and voluntarily exchange, or as friend of SLL Leif Smith calls it—freeorder—“Order spontaneously emergent from the imaginations and actions of free people.”

  Recognition can come from anywhere. Governments may offer concessions to the new reality, their wiser functionaries realizing that limits on their power are better than no power at all. Argentina’s Milei could turn out to be in the vanguard of a much larger trend. Governments will never abolish themselves, but any moves towards freedom and away from control will be beneficial.

  In the interim, instability will reign, and we ain’t seen nothing yet.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 23:10

• Biden Admin Classifies Martha's Vineyard And Other Elite Enclaves 'Low-Income' To Push EV Charger Subsidies
  Biden Admin Classifies Martha’s Vineyard And Other Elite Enclaves ‘Low-Income’ To Push EV Charger Subsidies

  Some of the wealthiest liberal enclaves in the country are being classified by the Biden administration as “low-income” in order to qualify for an electric vehicle (EV) charger subsidy program contained within the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the Daily Caller reports.

  

  The locales includes Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, as well as Montauk and Fishers Island in New York. Yes, the same Martha’s Vineyard that freaked out over a few migrants on their hallowed soil.

  The administration’s EV charger tax credit program — made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), President Joe Biden’s signature climate bill — is specifically designed to route subsidies to “low-income” or “non-urban” areas of the country. The “low-income” emphasis for eligibility aligns in spirit with the Biden administration’s wider pursuit of so-called “environmental justice,” which is effectively the combination of social justice ideology and green policy.

  Numerous elite hangouts and locales — including Montauk and Fishers Island in New York, and parts of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket in Massachusetts — are among the areas that the administration has classified as “low-income” and eligible for receipt of EV charger subsidies, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) interactive eligibility map.

  The nationwide charging network is a central plank of the Biden administration’s EV agenda. While plenty of charging stations are located in wealthy areas (where people can afford EVs), the IRA was supposed to blunt the costs of charger construction in non-urban, less wealthy areas of the country that would be less likely to implement them on their own.

  “This tax credit provides up to 30% off the cost of the charger to individuals and businesses in low-income communities and non-urban areas, making it more affordable to install EV charging infrastructure and increasing access to EV charging in underserved communities,” the White House boasted on Jan. 19.

  In order to meet the definition of “low-income,” a given area must have a poverty rate of 20% or more, or, if the median family income is below 80% of the median family income in the wider metropolitan area, or if a given Census tract isn’t attached to any specific metro, according to section 45D(e) of IRS code, the Caller reports.

  But the latter definition for a “low-income” area has enabled many areas, according to the report.

  For example, nearly half of the landmass of Nantucket Island, one of the ritziest summer vacation destinations favored by New England’s elite, is eligible for EV charger subsidies, according to the DOE’s interactive eligibility map.

  The Vineyard Haven area of Martha’s Vineyard, another destination frequented by New England’s upper crust, is also eligible as a “low-income” area, according to the DOE’s map. For context, many of the homes in the covered area are valued at well over $1 million, with several properties valued between about $2 million and $5 million. Former President Barack Obama also owns a massive $11.7 million estate on the island.

  Large pockets of Cape Cod, another pricey locale, are also eligible for “low income” EV subsidies. This includes Hyannis, the longtime home base of the Kennedy political dynasty, and Great Island, which features numerous multi-million dollar properties. -Daily Caller

  Other wealthy areas which can take advantage of this loophole include a three block zone in New York City’s Upper East Side, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware (a few miles from Joe Biden’s ‘office’), and Fishers Island, New York – enclave known as a hangout for dynastic families such as the Rockefellers, Roosevelts and DuPonts.

  Large swaths of San Francisco deemed “low-income” also qualify, along with areas of Beverly Hills.

  Not exactly as advertised, is it?

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 22:50

• On The Rising Danger Of Democratic 'Lawfare'
  On The Rising Danger Of Democratic ‘Lawfare’

  Authored by Alex Berenson via ‘Unreported Truths’ substack,

  The New York state fraud case against Donald Trump is absurd; and the White House now openly tells its operatives to defy Congressional subpoenas. Democrats seem blind to the risks they’re running.

  

  Even dictatorships have judges.

  Which doesn’t mean they have justice.

  Democrats appear ever-more enamored with “lawfare” — a term that hardly existed before Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 — as they try to keep Trump from returning to the White House.

  Left-wing politicians, prosecutors, and lawyers may be sincere when they say they believe Trump is an existential threat to democracy who must be stopped by any means necessary.

  But they would be wise not to become what they fear.

  The Democratic effort to twist the legal system has accelerated in the last few months.

  Trump and his most ardent supporters now face an unrelenting flow of civil and criminal cases, some of which at best stretch legal theories to their limits. But judges in blue cities and states have been notably reluctant to push back on them.

  Meanwhile, as I wrote yesterday, the Biden White House has now openly encouraged its operatives to defy Congressional subpoenas by promising them carte blanche to do so – even as the Justice Department tries to jail Trump’s advisors for similar moves.

  The issue stretches far beyond the four flagship criminal cases and 91 charges that Trump faces. In those, at least, he has the protections that criminal law gives defendants, and the financial resources to use them.

  The Associated Press estimated that Trump has spent $77 million in the last two years defending himself. Even bigger expenses lie ahead as his criminal trials approach.

  Some of Trump’s biggest supporters are not so lucky. In Washington, D.C., prosecutions over the Jan. 6 protests and riot are increasingly unhinged. Even the New York Times admitted last month they have now caught many people who “did little more than walk into — and then out of — the Capitol.”

  In Colorado, the former general counsel of the Democratic Party has led an effort to use language meant for Confederate secessionists to keep Trump off the 2024 ballot.

  And in New York, the reality that Trump cannot count on anything like impartial hearings from neutral judges has been clear for months. Not coincidentally, the actions that have damaged Trump the most were both brought in Manhattan, where Trump is widely hated and Joe Biden won 87 percent of the vote in 2020.

  Most stunningly, Trump faces up to $370 million in fines and the loss of his businesses for a civil “fraud” case brought by the state of New York in which he took out loans – then fully repaid them. 

  Even the Associated Press questioned the ruling, writing that Trump’s companies were:

  the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown [under the New York law used against Trump] without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

  Some legal experts worry if the New York judge goes ahead with such a penalty in a final ruling expected within the next couple of weeks, it could make it easier for courts to wipe out companies in the future.

  Then there are the two “defamation” lawsuits from E. Jean Carroll, a woman who was completely unknown until she accused Trump in print of raping her. (Carroll’s suits might more accurately be called “famation” cases.)

  Manhattan juries have already decided against Trump in those suits and awarded Carroll almost $90 million. Trump certainly used nasty language to defend himself against Carroll’s claims, but it is unclear how exactly he could have denied them without incurring a jury’s wrath.

  *  *  *

  Back in Washington, the Biden Administration is now extending its (literal) contempt of the law to Congress, as I wrote yesterday:

  URGENT: Ex-White House advisor Andy Slavitt is refusing to comply with a subpoena over questions about how he tried to censor me and others in 2021

  ALEX BERENSON· FEB 4

  

  Andrew Slavitt, the former Biden Administration operative who in 2021 helped conspire to violate my First Amendment rights and make Twitter ban me, has refused to comply with a Congressional subpoena to testify about his actions. Slavitt’s lawyers told

  Read full story…

  That the White House has told two of its former operatives – Andy Slavitt and Rob Flaherty, the deputy campaign manager of Biden’s 2024 presidential campaign – to ignore a lawful Congressional subpoena is ugly enough.

  But the fact that it has done so while prosecuting two of Trump’s advisors for refusing similar testimony is far worse.

  Of course, none of this has stopped me and James Lawrence from suing the White House for its censorship efforts in Berenson v Biden.

  I remain a believer in the court system – and very optimistic that federal Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke will see the merits of our case. After all, Judge William Alsup – a Clinton appointee – took our arguments in Berenson v Twitter seriously and rejected Twitter’s motion to dismiss the suit.

  But the overall picture is ugly.

  Sure, Democrats are winning tactical victories and costing Trump money. But they’re not considering how these efforts to use the courts look, not just to Trump partisans but anyone who thinks elections should be decided by voters, not judges or juries.

  And Trump’s criminal prosecutions haven’t even gotten to trial yet.

  *  *  *

  Subscribe to Unreported Truths

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 22:30

• New Report Reveals Federal Gov't "Funds Domestic Censorship Superweapons" Against Taxpayers
  New Report Reveals Federal Gov’t “Funds Domestic Censorship Superweapons” Against Taxpayers

  A new report reveals more details about how the Biden administration is plowing millions of dollars of taxpayer funds into woke universities and private firms to fund the “Censorship Industrial Complex.” 

  During the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government hearing on Tuesday morning, Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) reporter Katelynn Richardson detailed how the federal government used taxpayer dollars to fund numerous projects that censored anyone with a non-government-approved view. 

  “The effort fits within the broader trend of the federal government’s increasing involvement in online censorship, from the Center for Disease Control flagging posts during COVID-19 to the FBI working with social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story,” Richardson said.

  According to a November Foundation for Freedom Online report, the National Science Foundation (NSF) spent $38.8 million on “misinformation” funding efforts since Biden took office in 2021. However, the DCNF found that NSF spent a lot more to target so-called misinformation.

  “The NSF swears it does not engage in censorship and that it does not partner directly with social media platforms,” Richardson said, adding, “But taxpayer dollars spent on projects that do are still troubling, as were the agency’s responses to straightforward questions about its programs.”

  Ahead of the hearing, the Judiciary Committee and Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released a report titled “The Weaponization Of The National Science Foundation: How NSF Is Funding The Development Of Automated Tools To Censor Online Speech “At Scale” And Trying To Cover Up.” 

  🚨 #BREAKING: New Report Details How the National Science Foundation is Funding AI Tools to Censor and Indoctrinate Americans Online

  Read here: https://t.co/vYBygxvA51

  — Weaponization Committee (@Weaponization) February 6, 2024

  “This interim report details the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) funding of AI-powered censorship and propaganda tools and its repeated efforts to hide its actions and avoid political and media scrutiny,” the report said.

  The report continued: “In the name of combatting alleged misinformation regarding COVID-19 and the 2020 election, NSF has been issuing multi-million-dollar grants to university and non-profit research teams. The purpose of these taxpayer-funded projects is to develop artificial intelligence (AI)- powered censorship and propaganda tools that can be used by governments and Big Tech to shape public opinion by restricting certain viewpoints or promoting others.” 

  

  “But NSF’s taxpayer funding for this potential automated censorship is only half of the story. The Committee and the Select Subcommittee have also obtained, via document requests and subpoenas, nonpublic emails and other documents that reveal a years-long, intentional effort by NSF to hide its role in funding these censorship and propaganda tools from media and political scrutiny,” the report said. 

  It added: “NSF went so far as to develop a media strategy that considered blacklisting certain American media outlets because they were scrutinizing NSF’s funding of censorship and propaganda tools.” 

  The report said the federal government’s funding of the censorship industrial complex “violates the First Amendment.” 

  The Committee and Subcommittee uncovered “serious violations of the First Amendment throughout the Executive Branch,” including:

  • The Biden White House directly coercing large social media companies, such as Facebook, to censor true information, memes, and satire, eventually leading Facebook to change its content moderation policies,

  • Stanford’s Election Integrity Partnership (EIP)—created at the request of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)—working with the federal government to flag thousands of links and submit recommendations directly to large social media platforms to censor Americans’ online speech in the lead-up to the 2020 U.S. election; and

  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) harassing Elon Musk’s Twitter (now X) because of Musk’s commitment to free speech, even going so far as to target certain journalists by name

  In a separate report, Michael Benz, a former Trump admin State Department official whose work has been cited in congressional hearings, posted on X his findings that the “Biden Admin is funding next-generation censorship technologies with millions of dollars in cash infusions to start-up AI censorship projects.”

  Benz’s report is titled “The National Science Foundation’s “Convergence Accelerator Track F” Is Funding Domestic Censorship Superweapons.” 

  The Biden Admin is funding next-generation censorship technologies with millions of dollars in cash infusions to start-up AI censorship projects.

  Their targets are Covid critics and political conservatives. Full report here: https://t.co/glmLDE1V5O

  — Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) January 30, 2023

  Benz said, “*Extremely* proud to have broken this whole scandal open with a series of original reports 18 months ago, followed by nonstop public speaking, in-depth reporting & private briefings on this subject.” 

  *Extremely* proud to have broken this whole scandal open with a series of original reports 18 months ago, followed by nonstop public speaking, in-depth reporting & private briefings on this subject.

  Next step: DEFUND the Weapons Of Mass Deletion. https://t.co/ASPKdNpfWf pic.twitter.com/ja0rT37aGn

  — Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) February 6, 2024

  “Next step: DEFUND the Weapons Of Mass Deletion,” he said. 

  Also, the report showed how NSF program manager Michael Pozmantier sent a message to universities and firms about the need to hide online videos that showcased their AI censorship tools. 

  

  “The government is not the arbiter of truth. Our Founders understood this, which is why we have a First Amendment,” Richardson said earlier today, adding, “They understood the danger of the government telling people what they should believe and targeting opinions that cut against the official narrative. Pursuing information control by funding outside organizations is no less a threat to free speech and freedom of the press than a tyrannical government.”

  The implications of NSF’s funding of automated censorship tools weaponized against the American people are not entirely shocking since we have covered in great length the censorship industrial complex:

  • Dismantle The Censorship-Industrial Complex: The Westminster Declaration

  • Whistleblower Docs Expose Key Tactics Of The Censorship Industrial Complex: Matt Taibbi

  • The Censorship Industrial Complex Exposes The Kleptocracy’s True Intentions

  • Docs Offer Glimpse Inside Censorship Industrial Complex

  • The Censorship Industrial Complex Is The Revolt Of The Elites

  The government’s efforts to suppress diverse viewpoints and inhibit critical debate are eroding the foundational principles of democratic societies. 

  However, the good news: the matrix is glitching. 

  WSJ Editor-in-Chief Admits ‘We No Longer Own the News’

  “During a WEF discussion at Davos entitled ‘Defending Truth,’ Wall St. Journal EIC Emma Tucker lamented this loss of control over ‘the facts,’” @zerohedge reported.

  She said:

  “I think there’s a very specific challenge for… pic.twitter.com/AhPr8cLWYo

  — Vigilant News (@VigilantNews) January 29, 2024

  Progressive elites and neocons are terrified that people can actually think for themselves. 

  *   *   *

  Here’s the full report titled “The Weaponization Of The National Science Foundation: How NSF Is Funding The Development Of Automated Tools To Censor Online Speech “At Scale” And Trying To Cover Up.” 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 22:10

• Moderna Scientists Warn mRNA Vaccines Carry Toxicity Risks
  Moderna Scientists Warn mRNA Vaccines Carry Toxicity Risks

  Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The technology used in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine carries toxicity risks, scientists with the company said in a new paper.

  

  “A major challenge now is how to efficiently de-risk potential toxicities associated with mRNA technology,” the scientists wrote in the paper, which was published by Nature Reviews Drug Discovery on Jan. 23.

  The Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 shots use modified messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology. The mRNA is delivered by lipid nanoparticles (LNP).

  The toxicity risks include “lipid nanoparticle structural components, production methods, route of administration and proteins produced from complexed mRNAs,” the authors of the paper said.

  Authors of the paper include Eric Jacquinet and Dimitrios Bitounis, Moderna employees, and Maximillian Rogers, who was working at Moderna when the paper was being done.

  Moderna didn’t respond to a request for comment.

  The mRNA vaccines have multiple known side effects, including heart inflammation and severe allergic shock. Those may stem from hypersensitivity reactions, which can be elicited by “any LNP-mRNA component” but are most likely triggered by PEGlyated lipid nanoparticles, which is “the most potentially reactogenic component,” the scientists said.

  Polyethylene glycol, or PEG, an ingredient in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, is known to cause allergic reactions. Outside scientists are divided over the mechanism behind the heart inflammation, while Pfizer has posited that the LNPs are behind the issue.

  The new paper drew from prior publications and other data. The authors didn’t carry out any new experiments.

  Some of the papers cited included those that have found mRNA and the spike protein delivered by Moderna’s shot in various parts of human beings weeks or months after vaccination, despite health officials claiming when the vaccines were rolled out that such materials would exit the body within days.

  The scientists said that Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is “safe and effective” and hailed the development of an updated shot as “demonstrat[ing] the rapid timeline for modifications with mRNA technology in the clinic.” Due to the “transient nature of mRNA,” though, “repeat administration may be necessary,” they said.

  The scientists added later that reducing risks of toxicities with mRNA-based vaccines and drugs is necessary but “complicated.” That can be accomplished through a multi-pronged approach that includes advanced testing in laboratories and adjusts preclinical, animal trials to better account for “differences in human and animal physiology.”

  Moderna and other companies are currently testing a number of new mRNA products, including influenza vaccines and cancer treatments.

  “Thanks to the mRNA platform we built, we have an exciting pipeline, with up to 15 launches in the next five years,” Stephane Bancel, Moderna’s CEO, told investors in the company’s most recent earnings call.

  The paper’s corresponding author, Mansoor Amiji of Northeastern University’s Departments of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Chemical Engineering, referred a request for comment to Mr. Bitounis, who didn’t provide any answers.

  Dr. Malone Reacts

  Dr. Robert Malone, who helped invent the mRNA technology, said the paper downplayed the range of risks that have been linked to the mRNA-based vaccines and may be part of a limited hangout, or a propaganda technique.

  That technique, a form of misdirection, involves people offering some information to obscure or prevent the discovery of other information.

  “My most generous interpretation of the overall intent of the article is that this article summarizes and represents information concerning risks and toxicities of this platform technology which Moderna wishes to have disclosed in a manner which puts the firm, its activities and the underlying platform technology in the best possible light,” Dr. Malone, who wasn’t involved with the paper, wrote in his review.

  “A less generous interpretation of intent is that this article represents a subtle form of propaganda strategy commonly referred to as a limited hangout.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 21:10

• Biden Barely Loses To Trump, Beats Haley, In Hypothetical Matchup
  Biden Barely Loses To Trump, Beats Haley, In Hypothetical Matchup

  A new survey from YouGov reveals that President Joe Biden would lose in a hypothetical matchup against former President Donald Trump, but would beat Nikki Haley, if the election were held today.

  

  The survey of 12,000 US adults released Feb. 2 found that 45% of respondents preferred Trump, vs. 44% for Biden. If it’s Biden vs. Haley, however, the president wins 39% to 38%.

  In a separate (but similar) question, respondents were asked who they think will win regardless of their personal preference. This resulted in an 11-point margin for Trump (47% to 36%), while a Biden-Haley matchup would yield a 38-32 victory for Biden.

  The poll also found that Americans feel more favorably towards Trump than Haley, and more view him as a strong leader. In fact, there isn’t a single issue in which Haley polled better than Trump.

  As the Epoch Times notes further, for President Trump, the YouGov poll’s results will surely be welcome—though not unexpected—news. On his Truth Social platform, the former president has touted several polls showing his continued dominance in not only the Republican primary but also the general presidential race.

  One such poll, released on Jan. 31 by Morning Consult, indicated that President Trump currently leads President Biden in all seven swing states, and in most cases, it’s not close.

  In North Carolina—the only swing state President Biden lost in 2020—President Trump holds a commanding 10-point lead, besting his successor 49-39 percent. Meanwhile, in both Georgia and Nevada, his advantage is a slightly smaller, though still significant, 8 percent. In Michigan and Wisconsin, the former president has a 5 percent lead, while in Arizona and Pennsylvania, his edge is just 3 points.

  

  If those numbers hold steady and the rest of the country votes as it did in 2020, President Trump would win in November with 312 Electoral College votes.
  Of course, he would first need to secure the Republican presidential nomination. The RealClearPolitics average of polls shows that he has now expanded his support to include roughly 73 percent of Republican voters. Ms. Haley is hovering at around 19 percent.

  Still, the former ambassador to the U.N. is determined to keep up the fight. Opting to forgo the Nevada caucus, she is instead betting it all on her home state of South Carolina. But she faces an uphill climb there as well, down 27 points to President Trump. Brushing off the polls, Ms. Haley told CNN’s Jake Tapper that she was going to work her way to a Palmetto State victory.

  “We’re going to do it the same way we did in New Hampshire,” she said on Feb. 2. “We moved 25 points in New Hampshire the last three weeks before the election. We’re at that same point here. We’re going to be anywhere and everywhere, all over South Carolina.”

  The candidate added that she intends to remind South Carolina voters of her conservative record as governor “and then show them that we could do that same thing as president.”

  But even among those who support the former governor, hope for an upset appears to be fading.

  “Honestly, I don’t think it’s going to be great,” Charleston resident Kelly Wade, who plans to vote for Ms. Haley, told USA Today. “I feel like if there’s a state she could win, it would be our state, but I just think the people who are diehard for Trump, they’re going to carry him all the way to the end.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 20:50

• Ronna Out: RNC Chairwoman Plans To Step Down After Presiding Over 'Party Of Losers'
  Ronna Out: RNC Chairwoman Plans To Step Down After Presiding Over ‘Party Of Losers’

  After years of criticism and a public spat with Vivek Ramaswamy, who said Republicans under her watch have become a “party of losers,” RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel is stepping down.

  

  According to the NY Times, which required four journalists, McDaniel has told former President Donald Trump that she’ll quit shortly after the South Carolina primary on Feb. 24, according to two people familiar with the plans (ah yes, ‘people familiar’).

  In her place, Trump is expected to promote Michael Whatley, chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party – after which an election will take place.

  McDaniel, the longest-serving chair since the 19th century, came under fire in January of 2023 after Republicans had terrible results going back to 2018.

  “We’ve had three substandard election cycles in a row: ‘18, ’20, and ’22,” Florida Governor DeSantis told TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk in an interview. “Given the political environment of a very unpopular president in Biden, huge majorities of the people think the country is going in the wrong direction—that is an environment that’s tailor-made to make big gains in the House and the Senate and in state houses all across the country, and yet that didn’t happen.”

  McDaniel also took barbs from attorney and GOP committee member Harmeet Dhillon, McDaniel’s primary challenger in the Jan. 2023 election for chair, telling Fox News: “But you know, at the end of the day, like I said, this isn’t school. You don’t get a gold star forever. You don’t get to stay in your job forever. If you continuously under perform what you promised your clients, they don’t hire you the next time around.”

  In November, after the GOP lost several races that should have been layups, more people called for Ronna’s head.

  “What, exactly, does Ronna McDaniel do, besides lose?” asked former Trump administration official Monica Crowley on X. “The only thing she SHOULD do is RESIGN. Effective immediately.”

  What, exactly, does Ronna McDaniel do, besides lose?

  The only thing she SHOULD do is RESIGN.

  Effective immediately.

  — Monica Crowley (@MonicaCrowley) November 8, 2023

   “FIRE RINO RONNA MCDANIEL NOW!” tweeted Florida congressional candidate Anthony Sabatini, an Army veteran, adding “Ronna McDaniel will go down as the worst RNC Chair in history.”

  FIRE RINO RONNA MCDANIEL NOW!

  — Anthony Sabatini (@AnthonySabatini) November 8, 2023

  🚨 Steve Bannon and John Solomon are calling for Ronna Romney McDaniel to resign after the GOP’s performance in elections last night

  pic.twitter.com/yAHjk2Kv3c

  — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) November 8, 2023

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  McDaniel has also come under fire for picking NBC to host a November GOP debate – during which former 2024 presidential contender Vivek Ramaswamy suggested she come up on stage and quit during said debate, as the GOP has become a “party of losers” under her watch.

  “…there is a cancer in the Republican establishment… Since Ronna McDaniel took over as chairwoman of the RNC in 2017 we have lost 2018, 2020, 2022, no red wave, that never came.”

  And then the haymaker…

  “We got trounced last night in 2023 and I think that we have to have accountability in our party,” he went on.

  “For that matter, Ronna if you want to come up on stage tonight. You want to look the GOP voters in the eye and tell them you resign… I will turn over my time to you.”

  Vivek Ramaswamy: “We’ve become a party of losers.”#debatten pic.twitter.com/GUeD2r5Dr5

  — The Watcher 🌎 (@TheWatcherDaily) November 9, 2023

  It took four months, but here we are. 

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 20:30

• Seattle Restaurant Has Been Broken Into 5 Times In Past 6 Months
  Seattle Restaurant Has Been Broken Into 5 Times In Past 6 Months

  Even before Biden took over the White House thanks to millions of mailed-in harvested ballots dropping in at 3am in the morning, Seattle had emerged as one socialist America’s liberal meccas. Here are the consequences.

  According to Seattle’s King5 news, Sandia, a Mexican restaurant in the city’s Laurelhurst neighborhood, has been broken into no less than 5 times in the past 6 months, costing the business $10,000.

  “As of today, now we have been broken into five times,” said Nathan Yeager, the owner.

  In the surveillance video provided to KING 5, you can see criminals break the front door with a crowbar, climb over the counter, steal money from the till, and then sneak around while looking in every door for something to take.

  “People are just breaking in our windows blatantly, stealing nothing. I mean, they’re really getting away with nothing,” Yeager said.

  Recently, someone broke in and took their elevator key box, which costs around $2,000 to repair and install.

  Yeager said they are now out $10,000 for the repeat break-ins.

  On Thursday night, someone smashed through the window facing the Burke Gilman Trail and took alcohol. They left behind broken glass everywhere.

  “That was that $900 to replace the window for one bottle of alcohol,” Yeager said. Yeager feels at a loss for what to do about the crime. He feels “heartbroken, sad and defeated.”

  Owning seven businesses in Seattle, Yeager had strong feelings about the brazen crime.

  “I don’t think I’ll open another business in Seattle. I think that Seattle has failed small businesses,” he said.

  The City of Seattle does have a “storefront repair fund,” and according to their latest update, funds are still available. They have updated the eligibility requirements for the $2,000 grants to include more small businesses and now nonprofit organizations.

  Yeager has seen an incredible show of support from his customers after posting about the crime on the business’ Instagram. He hopes sharing his experience will lead to change.

  “We just can’t keep writing these checks every day, you know, but we have to, you know, like, I have to fix this window. I have to fix this door,” Yeager said. “We’ve got to solve this problem somehow and figure this out.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 20:10

• House Fails To Impeach Mayorkas After Four Republicans Join Democrats
  House Fails To Impeach Mayorkas After Four Republicans Join Democrats

  House lawmakers on Tuesday failed to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, under whose tenure more than 10 million illegal immigrants have entered the US – doubling the existing population.

  

  Three Republicans voted with House Democrats – while a fourth, Blake Moore (R-UT) flipped his “Aye” to a “No” in order to preserve the ability to bring ‘Motions to Reconsider’ (which can only be brought by someone who voted ‘no’).

  

  The open-border Republicans who voted against impeachment are:

  • Ken Buck (CO)
  • Tom McClintonck (CA)
  • Mike Gallagher (WI)

  In a Monday op-ed in The Hill, Buck said that while Mayorkas may be incompetent, his behavior wasn’t impeachable, and that doing so would set a bad precedent.

  

  The vote to impeach Mayorkas was held as a bipartisan effort in the Senate to send $60 billion to Ukraine and lock in 1.5 million illegal migrants per year unraveled.

  In the articles of impeachment, Mayorkas was accused of demonstrating a “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law,” and “breaching the public trust,” which Democrats suggested was nothing more than disagreements over policy or performance failings, but not impeachable crimes.

  The border has become a central concern of Congress and the White House, as arrests hit records in recent months. Border Patrol agents in December set a monthly record of nearly 250,000 arrests of migrants caught crossing the border illegally, up 31% from November, with daily arrests sometimes topping 10,000. An additional 50,000 migrants entered the country in December at legal border crossings to seek asylum. 

  Democrats said the effort to impeach Mayorkas amounted to political theater at the start of a heated presidential-election campaign in which immigration is expected to be a top issue for voters. –WSJ

  According to Rep. Mark Green (R-TN), Mayorkas “is the very type of public official the Framers feared—someone who would cast aside the laws passed by a co-equal branch of government, replacing those with his own preferences.”

  On Monday, the White House said that impeaching Mayorkas “would be an unprecedented and unconstitutional act of political retribution that would do nothing to solve the challenges our nation faces in securing the border,” and suggested that he’s been a great DHS secretary.

  If the House had succeeded in impeaching Mayorkas, he would have been the second cabinet secretary in US history to be impeached.

  With friends like these, who needs enemies?

  

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 19:50

• New York Community Bancorp Cut To 'Junk' By Moody's: 33% Of Deposits Uninsured
  New York Community Bancorp Cut To ‘Junk’ By Moody’s: 33% Of Deposits Uninsured

  Having seen the share price collapse to its lowest since 1997, following the regional lender’s reporting of a surprising (and large) loss for Q4 and slashing its dividend (to 5c vs 17c exp), ratings agency Moody’s has cut all long-term and some short-term ratings of New York Community Bancorp to ‘junk’ (Ba2 from Baa3).

  

  NYCB is extending losses to a $3 handle after the downgrade…

  

  While we heard all day about how NYCB was an idiosyncratic issue, Moody’s warns that this is anything but, generalizing to the multi-family CRE space being a problem:

  NYCB is highly concentrated in rent regulated multi-family properties, a segment which has historically performed well for them. However, this cycle may be different.

  While vacancy rates are low for this CRE segment, properties may face different challenges this cycle due to higher interest expense when refinanced and already higher maintenance costs due to inflationary pressures.

  These higher costs may prove more challenging for owners of rent regulated properties to pass along through rent increases to tenants.

  Beyond rent-regulated, the bank has a significant concentration of low fixed-rate multifamily loans. This type of loan portfolio faces refinancing risk.

  As a reminder,:

  Once a $3 trillion asset class, offices now are “probably worth $1.8 trillion,” said Barry Sternlicht, chief executive officer of Starwood Capital Group.

  “There’s $1.2 trillion of losses spread somewhere, and nobody knows exactly where it all is.”

  Additionally, Moody’s warns this could end badly:

  “The company’s elevated use of market funding may limit the bank’s financial flexibility in the current environment.”

  Moody’s also points out that, as of Dec 31st, 33% of NYCB’s deposits were uninsured, and “could face significant funding and liquidity pressure if there is a loss of depositor confidence.”

  The total amount of public bonds & loans outstanding affected by this downgrade is $1.14 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

  

  *  *  *

  RATINGS RATIONALE

  [ZH: emphasis ours]

  Today’s rating action reflects multi-faceted financial, risk-management and governance challenges facing NYCB.

  In terms of financial strategy, the bank is seeking to build its capital but just took an unanticipated loss on commercial real estate (CRE) which is a significant concentration for the bank.

  The downgrade reflects Moody’s views that NYCB faces high governance risks from its transition with regards to the leadership of its second and third lines of defense, the risk and audit functions of the bank, at a pivotal time. In Moody’s view, control functions with strong knowledge of a bank’s risks are key to a bank’s credit strength.

  NYCB’s core historical commercial real estate lending, significant and unanticipated loss on its New York office and multifamily property could create potential confidence sensitivity.

  The company’s elevated use of market funding may limit the bank’s financial flexibility in the current environment.

  NYCB is highly concentrated in rent regulated multi-family properties, a segment which has historically performed well for them. However, this cycle may be different. While vacancy rates are low for this CRE segment, properties may face different challenges this cycle due to higher interest expense when refinanced and already higher maintenance costs due to inflationary pressures. These higher costs may prove more challenging for owners of rent regulated properties to pass along through rent increases to tenants. Beyond rent-regulated, the bank has a significant concentration of low fixed-rate multifamily loans. This type of loan portfolio faces refinancing risk.

  For the year, provision for credit losses rose 526% to $833 million from $133 million in 2022. Allowance for credit losses stands at $992 million as of 31 December 2023 which equates to 1.17% of total loans, or 1.26% when excluding loans with government guarantees and warehouse loans. Reserve for office loans is approximately 8% while reserves for multifamily is approximately 0.82%.

  Moody’s views NYCB’s funding and liquidity as a relative weakness when compared to peers due to its relatively high dependence on market-sensitive wholesale funding and a smaller pool of liquid assets when compared with peers. NYCB’s loan-to-deposit ratio was 104% as of 31 December 2023, also higher than most peers. Market funding increased 49% during the fourth quarter to $20.3 billion, in part to fund an increase in the bank’s liquidity buffer as the bank prepares for Regulation YY compliance. Market funds as a percentage of tangible banking assets (TBA) rose to 18.8% as of 31 December 2023 from 12.9% in the prior quarter and 23.6% at the end of 2022. Liquid banking assets as a percentage of TBA rose to 18.2% as of 31 December 2023 from 14.5% in the prior quarter and 12.9% at the end of 2022.

  NYCB’s share of uninsured deposits was 33% as of 31 December 2023.

  The bank could face significant funding and liquidity pressure if there is a loss of depositor confidence.

  NYCB relies heavily on wholesale funding from the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York.

  NYCB’s capitalization, as measured by its common equity tier 1 (CET1) ratio, fell to 9.1% as of 31 December 2023 from 9.59% the prior quarter and 9.06% as of 31 December 2022. The decline in capital resulted from a $252 million net loss in the fourth quarter driven by a $552 million provision for credit losses. NYCB is targeting a 10% CET1 ratio by the end of 2024 and has cut its dividend to 5 cents a quarter from 17 cents to assist with capital generation.

  Pressure on profitability could challenge NYCB’s internal capital generation plans. Management expects net interest margin (NIM) to be between 2.4% and 2.5% in 2024 as the company repositions into lower-yielding liquid assets to prepare for Regulation YY compliance. NIM was 2.99% in 2023 compared to 2.35% in 2022. Further provisions for credit losses, rising compliance costs, and higher funding costs could also negatively impact earnings. The bank’s transition to a Category IV bank entails meaningful investments in its risk management and compliance that will also weigh on profitability.

  Reflecting Moody’s views of the high governance risks NYCB faces, Moody’s introduced a one-notch negative qualitative adjustment to Flagstar Bank, NA’s BCA and changed NYCB’s governance issuer profile score to G-4 from G-2 and NYCB’s ESG credit impact score to CIS-4 from CIS-2 to reflect the negative impact this risk has on NYCB’s ratings.

  This should not come as a huge surprise, as we detailed earlier, Small banks are proper fucked without The Fed’s (soon to be killed) BTFP bailout facility (red line)…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  …and one can’t help but notice the burgeoning balance sheet of the big banks – willing to scoop up small banks with the FDIC’s help?

  Don’t believe us? Here’s Jay Powell on Sunday:

  “We looked at the larger banks’ balance sheets, and it appears to be a manageable problem. There’s some smaller and regional banks that have concentrated exposures in these areas that are challenged.

  …

  There will be expected losses.

  It’s a sizable problem… it doesn’t appear to have the makings of the kind of crisis things that we’ve seen sometimes in the past.

  I don’t think there’s much risk of a repeat of 2008. I also think, you know, we need to be careful about making proclamations about the.. future.

  …

  There will be certainly be some banks that have to be closed or merged out of, out of existence because of this. That’ll be smaller banks, I suspect, for the most part.

  You know, these are losses. It’s a secular change in the use of downtown real estate. And the result will be losses for the owners and for the lenders, but it should be manageable.”

  Do you feel lucky, punk? Picking the right regional bank that will be bought before it’s closed under FDIC?

  Canary meat coalmine.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 19:30

• Kristi Noem: "Somebody's Running The White House. I Don't Believe It's Joe Biden"
  Kristi Noem: “Somebody’s Running The White House. I Don’t Believe It’s Joe Biden”

  Authored by Aaron Pan via The Epoch Times,

  South Dakota governor Kristi Noem said President Joe Biden is not running the White House, but someone else is governing the country as she raised concerns over the border crisis that is “an extreme remaking of America.”

  

  During an interview on Fox News on Feb. 4, when asked by host Maria Bartiromo why President Biden is providing free housing and health care to illegal immigrants, Ms. Noem said,

  “He’s weak. Somebody’s running the White House. I don’t believe it’s Joe Biden. He’s never been this extreme. This is an extreme remaking of America.”

  “It is a socialist-communist agenda. I think that they’ve so infiltrated the Democrat party that it’s no longer the Democrat Party of 20 years ago; it’s now a socialist party that does not want a strong America,” she added.

  Ms. Noem is one of over a dozen GOP governors who have visited Texas to show their support for Gov. Greg Abbott in his fight with the Biden administration over the influx of illegal immigrants crossing the border in Eagle Pass.

  The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) estimated throughout the 2023 fiscal year, 2.4 million people illegally crossed the border, up from 2.3 million the previous year. In contrast, between Oct. 1, 2019, to Sept. 30, 2020, before President Biden took office, there were only 458,000 encounters with illegal immigrants by border patrol agents.

  In the interview, South Dakota’s governor criticized the Biden administration for the border crisis. “We see the president undermining our country by allowing this invasion at the southern border, and it’s destabilizing our country,” she said.

  For weeks, the Biden administration has clashed with Mr. Abbott after the National Guard took control of the 47-acre Shelby Park area in Eagle Pass, Texas, to stop the flood of illegal border crossings.

  The Texas National Guard has been accused of denying Border Patrol agents access to the park, leading to multiple legal battles. The Texas state government has cited its constitutional right to exercise its authority to protect the borders.

  Ms. Noem has previously sent South Dakota National Guard troops three times to support Texas border control efforts. Last month, she indicated that she would continue to deploy her state’s troops to the border.

  Ms. Noem’s border visit comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that the federal government could remove razor wire and other barriers the Texas state government had placed along the border with Mexico to deter illegal crossings.

  Despite the Supreme Court ruling, Mr. Abbott has ordered even more razor wire barriers to be installed. Numerous Republican political leaders, in turn, have voiced their support for the Texas governor’s efforts. Ms. Noem was one of 25 Republican governors who signed a letter voicing support for the Texas governor after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

  In the interview with host Maria Bartiromo, she explained, “The reason that the federal government went after Texas was because they’d actually figured out a way to put up the razor wire that was impenetrable that people could not get through. They said even those able-bodied military-aged men could not get through the barrier at that point. And it was so effective that that’s when the federal government came after Texas to take it down.”

  The South Dakota governor accused Democrats and President Biden of abusing their power by seeking to federalize the National Guard. She stated that she would defend her authority and even warned of a potential war.

  “Democrats have been encouraging this president. They’ve been encouraging President Biden to come after our state’s rights. They’ve been talking about federalizing our National Guard, which would be the first time in American history that we would have a president that would pay soldiers to stand down, to actually not protect America,” she noted.

  “If he’s willing to do that and to take away my authority as governor, as commander in chief of those National Guard, boy, we do have a war on our hands,” she warned.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 19:10

• Dismal NBC Approval Poll Shows Biden's Chances Of Reelection Plummeting
  Dismal NBC Approval Poll Shows Biden’s Chances Of Reelection Plummeting

  Did Joe Biden really have the numbers in 2023 to beat Donald Trump as some surveys indicated?  If he did, he certainly doesn’t have them in 2024.  The polls are increasingly ugly for Democrats – public approval for the Biden Administration has hit the lowest levels in modern presidential history next to Jimmy Carter (a man who also mismanaged a stagflationary crisis).  Even the corporate media has been forced to acknowledge that things don’t look so good for “the big guy.”  

  NBC has released its latest survey, which indicates a growing lead for Donald Trump in the general election (Trump 47% vs Biden 42%), but Trump also has a dramatic edge over Biden in most public issue categories.  On the economy, 55% of respondents preferred Trump vs 33% for Biden.  On border security, 57% wanted Trump and only 22% thought Biden would do a better job.  In dealing with crime, 48% would vote Trump vs. 32% for Biden.  And, when asked which candidate was more competent and mentally capable, 48% said Trump vs 32% for Biden.

  A smaller percentage of people in each category chose the option of “not sure.”

  NBC polling continues to observe an accelerating decline for Joe Biden in terms of public perception on a host of top concerns.  This seems to mirror his overall low approval rating which just dropped again to 37%. 

  Democrats have taken to social media recently to demand answers, racking their brains trying to figure out why Biden’s brand is sinking faster than Bud Light.    

  Extremely low voter turnout for the Democratic Primaries (only 4% of Democrats were interested this year) is not necessarily an indication of how many Dems will show up at the ballot box (or mail box) in November.  However, the stagflationary crisis, the draconian covid lockdowns, unnecessary tensions with Russia and the border crisis that Biden created by erasing numerous Trump era measures have left the American public with a sour taste in their mouths.

  People are less inclined to forget government trespasses than political think tanks seem to realize.  They’re definitely not going to overlook 30%-plus higher prices on most goods and services since 2020.  One must truly struggle to think of a single positive result of Biden’s last three years.  Even the low unemployment rate is mired in the suspicious creative math used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the public just isn’t buying it.   

  One could argue that the election of 2024 isn’t about which candidate is loved; it’s about which candidate is less hated or mistrusted.  Under these conditions, Trump clearly wins.  Others would point out that ongoing national and global instability might disrupt the elections or throw them into disarray (as we witnessed when the covid pandemic struck in the middle of election season 2020 and mail-in ballots became a mainstay).  

  If this is the case, the Biden Administration would be a primary beneficiary.  As it turns out, the long running propaganda campaign to demonize conservatives may have had the opposite effect to what Democrats intended.  Biden might need more than another overnight miracle in November to keep his seat in the Oval Office.        

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 18:50

• MS-13 Gang Members, Al-Qaeda Terrorist Found Living Illegally In US
  MS-13 Gang Members, Al-Qaeda Terrorist Found Living Illegally In US

  Authored by Alice Giordano via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Members of the notorious MS-13 gang, as well as several terrorists, including one linked to al-Qaeda and another to Tren de Aragua, Venezuela’s largest criminal organization, have recently been arrested by immigration officials in U.S. cities, including Baltimore, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Chicago.

  

  According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) records, they were all living in the United States illegally and were released by detention centers under the Biden administration despite previous convictions for violent crimes, including murder.

  The latest arrest occurred just last week, involving an MS-13 gang member from El Salvador who had been convicted in 2023 of being an accessory after the fact in a first-degree murder case and was sentenced to five years in prison.

  According to Darius Reeves, acting field director of ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) in Baltimore, a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge suspended most of his sentence, ignored an immigration detainer issued against the Salvadoran national, and instead ordered his release into the general public.

  “This unlawfully present Salvadoran gang member’s presence in the United States represents a threat to the safety and security of our residents,” Mr. Reeves stated. “Not only is he a validated member of a notorious criminal enterprise, but he also aided other criminals in the commission of a murder. ERO Baltimore will continue to apprehend and remove such criminal elements from our Maryland communities.”

  An ICE spokesman told The Epoch Times that the name of the 30-year-old MS-13 gang member, who initially entered the United States illegally near Falfurrias, Texas, is being withheld pending a removal order, as mandated by federal law.

  Two days after the MS-13 gang member’s arrest, Patrick Lechleitner, President Biden’s acting ICE director, admitted that last year, a Somali terrorist from the Islamic military group al-Shabaab was accidentally released after being found living illegally in the United States. He had been freely roaming until his re-arrest on Jan. 20 in Minneapolis.

  According to the National Counterterrorism Center, al-Shabaab has killed more U.S. citizens than any other al-Qaeda affiliate. It reportedly has between 7,000 and 10,000 members, according to the federal agency. The group lists its main targets as U.S. military forces and is known to attack civilian targets such as hotels, shopping malls, universities, and busy intersections.

  Members of other foreign terrorist organizations have also been discovered living illegally in the United States recently. Last month, a man from Bangladesh, convicted of attempting to provide material support to an unnamed foreign terrorist organization, was deported. He had been found living in the United States illegally more than eight years ago.

  According to ICE records, Rakin Islam Chowdhury was granted temporary permission to remain in the United States on June 5, 2015. This authorization expired on Dec. 4, 2015.

  Recent reports from Chicago have highlighted the presence of dangerous illegal immigrants in the United States, where law enforcement has allegedly discovered a cell operated by Tren de Aragua. This gang, known in English as the Aragua Train, is considered the largest criminal organization in Venezuela and is primarily engaged in sex trafficking.

  Telemundo Chicago Investiga wrote in a Jan. 22, 2024, article that it had obtained communications between Willow Springs, Illinois, police chief Garry McCarthy and the Cook County Sheriff’s Department in Los Angeles, California, showing growing concerns about gang operations in their communities.

  Neither Mr. McCarthy nor the Cook County Sheriff’s Police Department responded to multiple inquiries from The Epoch Times. A Telemundo report featured an email sent by the Cook County Sheriff.

  “I wanted to give you a heads-up about a new threat developing among the newly arriving immigrant community,” the email stated. “There is a gang from Venezuela known as Tren de Aragua. This gang has strong human trafficking operations in Latin America and is likely engaged in sex and labor trafficking in the United States. Multiple agencies have confirmed their presence in the United States.”

  The email includes a redacted source that claims to have “information that the gang is here in Chicago.”

  

  In another report, Mr. McCarthy told Telemundo that law enforcement is having a hard time identifying gang members as they cross the border because Venezuela does not share criminal records with the United States.

  “We do not have data on them because I am sure that if it is Venezuela, it does not share it with the United States. So you can’t connect dots when we don’t have points,” Mr. McCarthy told Telemundo.

  In September, Interpol put out a red notice to law enforcement worldwide to be on the lookout for Tren de Aragua boss Héctor Guerrero Flores after he escaped from a prison in Venezuela.

  On Monday, Borderreport.com quoted former U.S. Border Patrol agent Ammon Blair as saying Venezuela has become a “significant concern along the US-Mexico border.”

  An ICE spokesman told The Epoch Times that the agency has encountered members of the Venezuelan gang, but did not yet have anything that could be released. Telemundo reported that Border Patrol confirmed that at least 38 members have been arrested around the United States in the past year and that all of their points of entry were in El Paso, Texas.

  Several other members of MS-13, short for Mara Salvatrucha, have also appeared on ICE’s radar after crossing the Texas border.

  

  In 2022, another MS-13 member who entered the United States illegally through Texas under the Biden administration’s open border policy, allegedly raped and killed Kayla Hamilton just days before she turned 20.

  According to an investigation into Kayla’s murder by the Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, the then 16-year-old gang member was housed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the same foster home where Kayla was living. Kayla was autistic, but trying to transition to a life of independence.

  The Republican-led committee concluded its investigation with a report blaming Kayla’s murder on the “Biden administration’s radical open-borders policies.”

  The report highlighted that, in addition to an already lengthy criminal history, the Salvadoran minor had MS-13-specific tattoos, which should have alerted border officials to his affiliation and led to him being flagged for deportation.

  Kayla’s mother Tammy Nobles has filed a $100 million wrongful death lawsuit against both HHS and the Department of Homeland Security.

  In a press release announcing the suit, Ms. Noble’s attorney Brian Claypool, claims that another illegal immigrant was placed in charge of housing Kayla and her alleged murderer in the same home and that the MS-13 gang member was released to his custody.

  “We’re bringing this lawsuit because we’re tired of being held hostage in our own country. We’re tired of DHS playing Russian roulette with our lives,” Mr. Claypool said in a Facebook post.

  According to the judiciary committee’s investigation, the MS-13 gang member was originally apprehended at the Texas border on March 23, 2022, and referred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). The ORR is a program run by the HHS’s administration for children and families and helps minor children who are not from the United States become what it calls “integrated members of American society.”

  The recent reports of terrorists and gang members coming into the United States at the Texas border come amidst a recent Supreme Court ruling that Texas could not block the passage of illegal immigrants into the United States.

  

  Texas is refusing to recognize the order, which has created a standoff between Texas law enforcement and federal border agents.

  The report also comes amidst a controversial Senate bipartisan bill that seeks to allow up to 4,000 daily crossings by migrants before a cap is considered.

  “Only a fool, or a radical left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous border bill,” former President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social on Monday.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 18:30

• 'Major Differences From Trump Case': WaPo Front-Runs DoJ Decision Not To Charge Biden Over Mishandled Classified Docs
  ‘Major Differences From Trump Case’: WaPo Front-Runs DoJ Decision Not To Charge Biden Over Mishandled Classified Docs

  Who could have seen this coming?

  The Washington Post reports that the Biden Justice Department does not plan to pursue criminal charges against President Biden for his mishandling of classified documents.

  

  The DoJ is reportedly preparing to release a special counsel report in coming days that will be critical of President Biden and his aides for mishandling classified documents in Biden’s private home and former office and this WaPo report appears to be the mainstream media foaming the runway as this report crash-lands at the feet of a Republican Congress. WaPo writes:

  “While the facts of the Biden case appear to have major differences from the Trump case, Hur’s conclusions are likely to face intense scrutiny from Republicans in Congress.”

  The lack of charges was initially leaked in November, and prompted outrage:

  They’re trying to throw Trump in prison over classified documents that he DID have the authority to declassify but Biden won’t even get a slap on wrist for mishandling + keeping classified docs he kept as a VP/Senator when he wasn’t able to declassify them. Political prosecution! https://t.co/8UElp4aGx0

  — Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) November 16, 2023

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Joe Biden’s DOJ investigated Joe Biden and found that Joe Biden had done nothing wrong by taking classified material and storing it in his office and garage floor. https://t.co/6VsDxDw3gO

  — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) November 16, 2023

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  And so, with the actual report’s imminent release, WaPo felt the need to spend a few thousand more words to provide talking points to the base on why it’s different for Biden… except they really didn’t – aside from to claim that Trump ‘intentionally misled or delayed’ his response on the classified docs (that as president he was allowed to declassify), while they appear to claim – by explaining each of the various locations where Biden’s classified documents were discovered, that is was merely a mistake by a bumbling old fart and his aides

  About 10 documents from Biden’s time as vice president were found Nov. 2, 2022, when lawyers for Biden were cleaning out his private office at the Washington-based Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, a think tank Biden started with the University of Pennsylvania after his tenure as vice president.

  The attorney, Pat Moore, found the documents in a small closet and called White House lawyers, who contacted the National Archives and Records Administration, the federal agency responsible for storing and preserving presidential records.

  …

  In December 2022, legal representatives for Biden searched his home in Wilmington, Del., and found a “small number” of records with classified markings in the garage, the White House has said.

  Biden’s vacation home in Rehoboth Beach, Del., also was searched, but no classified material was found there, the White House has said.

  In January, lawyers found another potential record with classified markings at the Wilmington residence, in a room adjacent to the garage.

  Biden’s personal attorneys arranged for the Justice Department to take possession of the material.

  Biden aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the investigation, have said they believe the documents unintentionally ended up at Biden’s home and office because of sloppy staff work.

  

  Later in the WaPo report, the cover is provided very transparently: “the Trump investigation seems significantly different from the Biden investigation.

  “…more importantly, federal prosecutors came to suspect Trump was deliberately misleading them and hiding some highly sensitive papers even after he received a grand jury subpoena demanding their return.

  Showing willful intent to mishandle national security secrets is often a key factor in charging decisions involving classified papers…

  Trump is accused of deliberately trying to mislead investigators as they demanded the government documents back.

  He is scheduled to stand trial on those charges in Fort Pierce, Fla., in May,…”

  Finally, we are reminded of Trump Special Counsel Jack Smith’s comments in his press conference announcing the criminal charges against Trump last year:

  “We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone….Nothing more, nothing less.”

  Indeed.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 18:10

• "You Americans, You're Fascinated By Power"
  “You Americans, You’re Fascinated By Power”

  Authored by John J. Waters via RealClear Wire,

  In most places around the country, the point of acquiring power is to do something with it.

  Your state’s legislators pass a corporate tax cut to attract new business. Or, your mayor deploys city funds to repair streets damaged by winter’s snow and ice, paving the way for a smooth commute.

  But D.C. is different.

  

  More than other places, in D.C., the best use of power is not to discharge it toward solving some real or concrete problem that exists in the world, but to use power to create even more power. Whether that’s a better committee assignment, a bigger office, deeper donor pool, or a bigger professional network, there’s an urgency to spend what you have in furtherance of your ambition for more, to apply all of one’s tools in a strategy that (swiftly) generates more and greater power.

  It’s a unique environment, and one in which military historian Eliot Cohen has thrived for more than 30 years. He’s advised presidents, cabinet secretaries, generals and diplomats. “In government and out,” writes David Petraeus, “Eliot Cohen has consistently been one of the shrewdest observers of the exercise of power.” In his new book The Hollow Crown, Cohen finds in Shakespeare the characters and stories that illustrate what he has learned about the ebb and flow of power in the real world, and it’s on this theme that we pick up our conversation. I talked with the author about military leadership, Coriolanus, and the Henry plays in part one of our conversation, which you can find here. Now, on to part two …

  What is the state of “power” in 2024?

  Power is more diffuse today than in previous periods of history.

  As a group, elites don’t have the same voice as they once did because the number of elites has expanded, so you don’t have groups that have a high level of authority. For example, you once had senior clerics in this country who had a profound moral voice. I grew up in Boston and I’m Jewish but if Cardinal Richard Cushing said something, then people would really pay attention. Presidents of the great university played a role in our national debate that they do not play right now. Because power has gotten very diffuse, it’s sometimes in the hands of people who are irresponsible. Look at Congress. Our committee chairs are not powerful anymore. The Speaker of the House once was powerful. We’ve watched several of them get defenestrated. The elites lost their moral authority and there is no coherent leadership group rising in its place.

  What concerns you about the state of politics in our country?

  I am concerned that power is being separated from character. What one hears in Washington, DC is that someone is “smart.” That’s the least important thing to have in a leader. It’s very easy to rent smart or hire smart people—it’s much harder to find people with good judgment and good character. I don’t think we’re living in a world that cares about honesty, loyalty, consistency, willingness to sacrifice or give of themselves. And, on the judgment side, do our leaders have an ability to understand enough what is happening to decide what ought to be done? The absence of that quality is how you get into trouble. I make reference in the book to George Washington, who was far from being the smartest but had the strongest character and best judgment. As a counter-example, Richard II was a brilliant talker … and he’s the last guy on earth you want running something.

  But Machiavelli separated politics from ethics some 500 years ago, and so I wonder if this phenomenon you observe of an absence of character in politics is really that new at all …

  Yes, but first, we don’t have to accept that Machiavelli was necessarily right! Also, Machiavelli had his own conception of virtue, or virtú, that is very different from ours, but still involved some qualities of character that we don’t have much of.

  What is Shakespeare’s first lesson on power?

  I take away from Shakespeare that all power is dangerous. It’s dangerous when you inherit it because you may not be suited to its exercise. I mention Jack Welch and Jeffrey Immelt, how that plan for succession at General Electric didn’t work out despite all of Welch’s great processes for identifying high performing executives, something he devoted himself to for some 20 years. Acquiring power by manipulation means you’re dealing people at the top who are very slippery. Go to the Federalist Papers. The genius of the American Constitution is that ambition will counter ambition—it’s not set up for a constant flow of brilliant statesmen. I was just in Israel with a delegation of national security people and was in a discussion with an old friend, and this person was saying all we need are honest judges and good people in charge. I disagree. You simply cannot count on those people always being there …

  Michael Ledeen said the best government is a good czar. The worst government is a bad czar. There are more bad czars than good czars, so democracy becomes a very good alternative.

  Yes, sooner or later, you’re going to end up with bad people in those positions and the system must carry on anyway. I had a professor who was a refugee from Europe during World War II. She said there are two reasons to study political science: either you’re fascinated by power or you’re afraid of power. “You Americans, you’re fascinated by it. I’m afraid of it.”

  Shakespeare filled his plays with Machiavellian archetypes, people like Lady Macbeth and Iago who ultimately fail to control the outcomes of their schemes for power. What did Shakespeare think of Machiavelli?

  He certainly knew about him, because Richard III, before he becomes king, makes reference to him. But his picture of human beings is far more subtle and nuanced than Machiavelli’s. Lady Macbeth, for example, is consumed with guilt and eventually goes mad; Iago arranges the ruin of Othello for no particular purpose, because he can never replace him. These are not Machiavellian characters like, for example, Cesare Borgia.

  You note that Machiavelli believed there’s more “virtú” in a Republic because you have so many people striving. We’re in an election year. Politicians across the country will scheme, deceive and strive in hopes of acquiring power. We should see this “virtú” in abundance. What do you suppose Machiavelli would think about our politics in 2024?

  I suspect that he would think that we are a pretty pathetic lot. A lot of politicians whine, a lot of them are cowardly, a lot fear their own followers. Whatever that is, it’s not virtú.

  Let’s end with a few brief questions.

  Okay.

  Which Shakespeare play has become too popular?

  Macbeth. Macbeth and Richard III are my favorites but, if there’s someone you don’t like, then you say they’re like Macbeth or Richard. Both are wonderful plays but they are overdone.

  Which Shakespeare play should be more popular?

  The Henry VI plays should be read much more widely, all three of the Henry VI plays. There is no strong king or strong leadership. There’s a bunch of squabbling courtiers and politicians. Some people are villainous, others are naïve and both come to bad ends. You have demagogues interested in turning things upside down but don’t have an idea of what they want to accomplish. It’s something worth thinking about.

  Finally, who is your favorite character from Shakespeare?

  Prospero. He’s a flawed human being. He was oblivious as to how he was overthrown. In the first parts of The Tempest, he could be cruel. He has a short fuse and could be arbitrary and is tempted to be vengeful, but at the end he makes a decision to renounce his power. He becomes human because he can walk away from power without illusions. He knows he’s coming to the end but he can relinquish it. He uses power well but also knows he’s got to give it up if he wants to be a normal human being, and that’s a very rare thing.

  John J. Waters is the author of the postwar novel River City One (Simon and Schuster), and a former deputy assistant secretary of homeland security.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 17:50

• Israel Demands Lebanon Remove Hezbollah 20 Miles From Border, Beirut Refuses
  Israel Demands Lebanon Remove Hezbollah 20 Miles From Border, Beirut Refuses

  Israel’s military has issued a new assessment which estimates it has launched attacks on some 3,000 Hezbollah sites in Lebanon in Syria since war started after Oct.7. Military spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari says that while Israel is nothing seeking a bigger war in Lebanon, it is “certainly ready” and that the defense forces (IDF) are ready to “attack immediately if provoked.”

  Hezbollah has been hitting back on a daily basis too, with villages and communities on both sides of the border being impacted, and in some cases resulting in civilian casualties. When Israel hits targets in Syria, it tends to describe these as “Iran-linked”, which often means Hezbollah.

  Israel now says that time is running out for diplomacy as the two sides spiral toward bigger war. “Israel has said, though, that it’s prepared to open another front with a military attack on southern Lebanon if Hezbollah doesn’t move back to about 20 miles (32 kilometers) from the border, as per the terms of a long-standing United Nations resolution,” according to Bloomberg.

  

  We reported in December that Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has estimated that over 80,000 Israeli citizens are still displaced from their homes, after border regions had to be evacuated en masse as a result of Hezbollah attacks since Oct.7.

  At the time it was reported that “The Israelis are anticipating within the next six weeks to two months that if the diplomatic track isn’t working, they’re going to have to opt for some kind of military solution.” Israeli leaders have been reiterating this message this week.

  “Israel will act militarily to return the evacuated citizens to their homes” if Hezbollah doesn’t comply with the demand for a buffer zone, according to Monday statements of Foreign Minister Israel Katz. 

  Israel is further demanding that the Lebanese government take action, but this has already been rejected in a fresh Tuesday statement: 

  Lebanese caretaker Foreign Minister, Abdallah Bou Habib, voiced on February 6 the nation’s rejection of recent Israeli and international demands seeking to push Lebanese resistance group, Hezbollah, north of the Litani River, saying Beirut will not accept ‘partial solutions’ to resolving the cross-border conflict.  

  “Western countries demand the retreat of Hezbollah for about eight to ten kilometers north of Litani,” Bou Habib said in an interview with Nida al-Watan. “This is a formula that Lebanon rejects. [Beirut] will not accept ‘partial solutions’ that do not bring the desired peace and do not secure stability but will lead to the renewal of the war again and again.” 

  But in reality even if the Lebanese government wanted to try and force Hezbollah away from the southern border it would not be able to do so. The Lebanese Army has long had a very limited arsenal, and really no air force to speak of, due to sanctions and limitations imposed by Washington. 

  

  Hezbollah is widely considered to be stronger than even the Lebanese state’s army, and a weak army is largely the legacy of the prior two-decade long Lebanese civil war. But if Israel and Hezbollah enter a full, uncontrollable war, the entirety of Lebanon is likely to be impacted and bombed by Israeli warplanes, as happened to some degree in the 2006 war.

  Meanwhile, there appears to be a rare positive development on Tuesday, per Newsquawk: “US and four European allies hope to announce in the next few weeks a series of commitments made by Israel and Hezbollah to diffuse tensions and restore calm to the Israel-Lebanon border, according to two Israeli officials and a source cited by Axios.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 17:30

• Trump Calls For "Immediate Debates" Against Biden
  Trump Calls For “Immediate Debates” Against Biden

  Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

  Donald Trump has called for debates between himself and Joe Biden to be held as soon as possible, “for the good of the country.”

  

  Appearing on Dan Bongino’s podcast, Trump made the call, urging that more Americans need to be made aware that Biden “can’t do anything.”

  “He can’t talk. He can’t do anything. He’s ruining our country and I don’t think he’s going to run,” Trump stated.

  He continued, “I don’t know if it’s donors or otherwise. It might be his family. It might be something. I don’t think he’s going to run.”

  “I’d like to call for immediate debates. I’d like to debate him now because we should debate. We should debate for the good of the country,” Trump further declared, adding “I am officially going to do that.

  Trump also repeated an earlier offer to take Biden’s interview spot at the Super Bowl, proclaiming “We’ll get very good ratings.”

  Trump calls for “immediate debates” against Biden, declaring “”He can’t talk. He can’t do anything. He’s ruining our country.” Report here: https://t.co/3z3cpdEzJU pic.twitter.com/i8Yvnniftg

  — m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) February 6, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Trump made the Super Bowl offer after it emerged that Biden would not be partaking in the usual pregame interview with the President for the second year running.

  “Crooked Joe Biden has just announced that he will not be doing the big Super Bowl interview. A great decision, he can’t put two sentences together. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO REPLACE HIM – would be ‘RATINGS GOLD!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

  It’s no surprise that Biden is sitting it out as he can barely string two sentences together.

  On Sunday he declared that when he took office he met “Mitterrand from Germany.”

  Mitterrand was a former French President who died 28 years ago in 1996.

  *  *  *

  Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 02/06/2024 – 17:10

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Why All of America Could See a San Francisco-Style Homeless Crisis
  Why All of America Could See a San Francisco-Style Homeless Crisis

  Authored by Michael Washburn via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The homeless crisis in America is set to come to a head with a Supreme Court ruling as early as this spring, in the case of Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, Oregon.

  

  The Supreme Court could—depending on what it decides—force changes in city ordinances and homeless policies across the country.

  The decision is one of the most anticipated in years for San Francisco and other cities facing legal challenges from homeless people and advocacy groups.

  At the heart of the case is the challenge by three homeless people to ordinances in the Oregon town of Grants Pass that prohibit homeless people “from using a blanket, pillow, or cardboard box for protection from the elements.”

  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, drawing on logic applied in the 2018 decision in Martin v. City of Boise, sided with the plaintiffs and blocked Grants Pass from enforcing its ordinance in the absence of shelters or other accommodations for the homeless.

  The decision applies across nine western states, Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

  Officials are left with two unappealing choices: let the sprawling encampments stand, or provide immediate emergency housing far beyond what their strained budgets allow for.

  The Supreme Court, which announced on Jan. 11 that it will review the case, must either uphold or throw out the 9th Circuit’s ruling.

  With close to 600,000 homeless people in America, according to recent Department of Housing and Urban Development figures, many cities that are bickering about what to do are paying attention to the case.

  

  In Los Angeles, some 75,000 people live on the street, and the current mayor’s first action on taking office was to declare a homeless state of emergency.

  In San Francisco, the crisis is so severe that residents are fleeing a city they have long cherished as one of the world’s most beautiful and livable locales, not to mention a dynamic tech hub. Nearly 8,000 people now live on the streets there.

  Rampant public drug use, panhandling, urination, defecation, and other unruly conduct have taken over some areas of the City by the Bay and the city’s administration’s inability to enforce its own laws and clear out homeless encampments makes the crisis much worse.

  “San Francisco is a mess, and even if it were to reduce its homeless population modestly, by a third, the streets would still look worse than most American cities,” Stephen Eide, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who studies homelessness and public policy, told The Epoch Times.

  The city is a battleground for myriad legal, social, economic, and political forces amid rising public alarm about homelessness. Lawyers there want to press pause on their own court battle over an injunction forbidding the police from cracking down on homeless camps. In their view, the looming Supreme Court case will render other legal struggles moot.

  Homelessness advocates insist that longstanding legal precedent guarantees rights to people living on the street, and the city is not free to disregard those rights and take away homeless people’s property without due process, just because some of the homeless commit more serious violations and spark a public outcry.

  But others who have studied the issue find providing housing for ever-growing numbers of homeless to be an unsustainable burden.

  

  A Protracted Battle

  San Francisco’s impasse has its roots in a lawsuit that a local advocacy group, the Coalition on Homelessness, launched in September 2022 with the aid of the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and the global law firm Latham & Watkins. Also named as plaintiffs in the suit were seven people who were, or had recently been, homeless.

  One goal of the lawsuit was to stop the city from arresting and ticketing people who lived on the street, and clearing out their encampments—in short, to put an end to sweeps of homeless settlements and to put pressure on the administration to ramp up temporary housing for the undomiciled.

  In a Dec. 23, 2022, ruling, Judge Donna Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California slapped the city with a preliminary injunction, denying it the power to enforce or threaten to enforce laws and ordinances that barred “involuntarily homeless individuals” from lying, sleeping, or sitting on public property.

  Judge Ryu sided with the plaintiffs who believed that San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) actions had violated their Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their persons and possessions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

  

  “Plaintiffs have presented significant evidence of a practice of seizing and destroying of homeless individuals’ unabandoned personal property in violation of the Fourth Amendment … and San Francisco’s own bag and tag policy, which clearly requires the City to store personal property so that homeless individuals may retrieve,” the judge wrote.

  Lawyers for San Francisco unsuccessfully challenged Judge Ryu’s decision in federal court. In September 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shot down the city’s claim that Judge Ryu had overstepped legal bounds set in Martin v. Boise and Johnson v. Grants Pass.

  On Jan. 11, another Ninth Circuit Court ruling clarified the definition of “involuntarily homeless” while substantially upholding the injunction.

  Instead of appealing. San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu on Jan. 17 has filed a motion to essentially pause proceedings to wait for the Supreme Court decision on Grants Pass.

  “It makes no sense to spend months litigating this case and expend enormous resources collecting evidence and expert testimony when the entire legal landscape may soon change,” Mr. Chiu said in a statement.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 23:40

• The Most Popular Shotguns In America 
  The Most Popular Shotguns In America 

  Self-defense is the top reason Americans have been panic-buying firearms in the last several years. The deterioration of cities under Democratic leadership, plagued by violent crime and an influx of undocumented immigrants bussed from the wide open southern border, has compelled law-abiding citizens to purchase handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Also, Biden’s ATF war on the Second Amendment is another driver in firearms demand. 

  A new study by 24/7 Wall St. identified the most popular shotgun brands purchased by Americans based on an analysis of data from the ATF’s Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report.

  

  The findings show that Maverick Arms (Mossberg) is America’s most popular shotgun brand. Second is Legacy Sports International, then Kel Tec CNC Industries coming in at number three, Remarms (Remington) at four, and Beretta USA at five. 

  

  Here’s the full list: 

  1. Maverick Arms (Mossberg)

  

  • Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 293,089 (43.4% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
  • Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 388,171 (75.5% shotguns)
  • Popular shotgun model(s): Maverick 88, Mossberg 500
  • 2021 manufacturing location(s): Eagle Pass, TX, and North Haven, CT

  2. Legacy Sports International

  

  • Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 161,099 (23.9% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
  • Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 214,258 (75.2% shotguns)
  • Popular shotgun model(s): Pointer Field Tek 3, Pointer Sport Tek 5, Pointer Acrius
  • 2021 manufacturing location(s): Reno, NV

  3. Kel Tec CNC Industries

  

  • Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 46,737 (6.9% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
  • Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 215,804 (21.7% shotguns)
  • Popular shotgun model(s): KS7 Bullpup, KSG Bullpup
  • 2021 manufacturing location(s): Cocoa, FL

  4. Remarms (Remington)

  

  • Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 45,277 (6.7% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
  • Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 70,076 (64.6% shotguns)
  • Popular shotgun model(s): Model 1100, Model 870 Fieldmaster, V3 Tactical
  • 2021 manufacturing location(s): Ilion, NY

  5. Beretta USA

  

  • Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 24,210 (3.6% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
  • Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 155,352 (15.6% shotguns)
  • Popular shotgun model(s): A300 Ultima, A400, 686 Silver Pigeon I
  • 2021 manufacturing location(s): Gallatin, TN

  6. IWI US

  

  • Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 15,965 (2.4% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
  • Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 96,662 (16.5% shotguns)
  • Popular shotgun model(s): Tavor TS12
  • 2021 manufacturing location(s): Middletown, PA

  7. Henry RAC

  

  • Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 15,878 (2.4% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
  • Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 316,050 (5.0% shotguns)
  • Popular shotgun model(s): Single Shot Shotgun, Lever Action X Model
  • 2021 manufacturing location(s): Bayonne, NJ, and Rice Lake, WI

  8. Savage Arms

  

  • Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 13,352 (2.0% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
  • Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 406,867 (3.3% shotguns)
  • Popular shotgun model(s): 555 Sporting, 320 Field Grade, 212 Slug
  • 2021 manufacturing location(s): Westfield, MA

  9. International Firearm Corporation

  

  • Domestic shotgun production in 2021: 11,423 (1.7% of all U.S.-made shotguns)
  • Total domestic firearm production in 2021: 11,423 (100.0% shotguns)
  • Popular shotgun model(s): IFC Radical Bullpup, IFC Maximus
  • 2021 manufacturing location(s): Midwest City, OK

  Weeks ago, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) showed gun-buying soared the highest in eight months. 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 23:20

• Concern Lingers About Biden Losing Black Voters After South Carolina Primary
  Concern Lingers About Biden Losing Black Voters After South Carolina Primary

  Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) adamantly insisted that President Joe Biden’s support is rock solid among black voters moments after the president won the state’s Democratic presidential primary.

  “The best illustration of that, he got 96 percent of the vote in this primary, but its largest percentage—over 97 percent—was in the town of Orangeburg where there are two HBCUs and a community college,” Mr. Clyburn told reporters at the Democratic watch party on Feb. 3.

  “I go to an African American barbershop. I go to an African American Church. Joe Biden is as strong with African Americans as he has ever been,” Mr. Clyburn added.

  

  Democrats have labored to dispel the notion that President Biden is losing popularity with black voters, a key element of the Democratic coalition, after a Dec. 12 survey by GenForward revealed that 17 percent of black Americans would vote for President Donald Trump and 20 percent said they would vote for someone other than the two major candidates.

  A poll conducted by The New York Times and Siena College in November revealed that 22 percent of black voters in six battleground states vote for President Trump in 2024.

  South Carolina was specifically selected to hold the nation’s first Democratic primary this year in order to give black voters, who comprise 51 percent of the state’s Democratic voters, a greater voice in the electoral process.

  While the impressive margin of victory helped place President Biden in a position of strength at the beginning of the 2024 campaign, the data itself presents a mixed picture. And some, especially younger, South Carolina democrats seem resigned rather than enthusiastic about supporting his reelection.

  The Black Vote

  While awaiting the result of the Feb. 3 primary, Christale Spain, chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party, touted an increase in voting by blacks. “From the data, we saw a 13 percent increase in black voter participation,” she told attendees at a Democratic watch party.

  That data point was derived from the roughly 48,000 ballots cast during the state’s 12-day early voting period. It is not yet known how data from the remainder of the approximately 131,000 votes cast may alter that result.

  Overall, voter turnout in this primary appears to have been low by historical standards. Nearly 188,000 Democratic votes were cast in the state’s 2022 midterm primary. More than 330,000 voters participated in the state’s 2020 Democratic presidential primary.

  Some Democratic officials had speculated that voter turnout could be depressed by the fact that an incumbent president was facing little opposition and that some Democrats had stated an intention to vote in the Feb. 24 Republican primary to oppose President Donald Trump. Crossover voting is possible in this state with an open primary system.

  Democratic leaders did not entertain the idea, at least publicly, that some Democrats may have preferred to vote for neither President Biden nor President Trump.

  If that were to have been the case, President Biden could face a significant challenge in the general election. Black eligible voters are projected to number 34.4 million in November, comprising 14 percent of eligible voters, a historic high, according to Pew Research.

  “I think the president needs to be concerned about black voters,” Richard Gordon, founder of Gordon Strategies and member of the chairman’s board of the Democratic Governors Association, told The Epoch Times.

  “Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia … were enormously close [in 2020]. And if the President were to lose, let’s say, 2 percent of the vote in each of those, he probably won’t get reelected. And that is why the black vote in all of those states is massively important,” Mr. Gordon said.

  Younger People, Different Issues

  Democrats are not a monolithic group, and one fissure runs along generational lines. Older, more traditional Democrats are more likely to be well satisfied with President Biden’s performance and age.

  

  Asked if the president has an electability problem, Jim Horch, 67, an ironworker from Aiken, said, “No, I really don’t because I’ve seen President Biden give several speeches, and his fitness, in my opinion, is great.”

  Younger Democrats were more likely to hedge their answer about President Biden’s electability. “I hope and pray his health remains good for the next four years,” Andrina Mullins, 40, of Florence, said.

  A 31-year-old Columbia woman supporting President Biden, who asked not to be named, when asked about his electability, paused, laughed nervously, and said, “Do I have to answer that?”

  Younger black Democrats may also be driven by different issues than their elders, according to Marcurius Byrd, 39, an advisor to Young Democrats of the Central Midlands.

  That difference in perspective is readily seen in attitudes toward the war in Gaza, according to Mr. Byrd, who, as an older Millennial, sees himself as a bridge between generations.

  Older Democrats are more likely to view support for Israel as unconditional based on their emotional memory of previous conflicts and historical support for an ally. Younger Democrats, lacking that attachment, may be more likely to evaluate the fact in a neutral manner.

  “There are also the complexities of this being warfare,” Mr. Byrd said. “There’s more [to it] than just a ceasefire because ceasefire does not bring an end, and other things will be happening,” he added, “and people aren’t thinking that far ahead.”

  That’s why Gen Z Democrats may be more likely to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, according to Mr. Byrd.

  Younger black Democrats are more likely to mention the war in Gaza, affordable housing, and the cost of higher education as key issues. Older black Democrats are more likely to mention access to abortion, voter suppression, and preserving the gains made in civil and women’s rights as key concerns.

  

  In South Carolina, 42 percent of registered black voters are under age 45 according to data from the South Carolina Election Commission. Nationally, 60 percent of black eligible voters are age 59 or younger according to Pew Research.

  Messaging and Turnout

  President Biden has had a messaging problem with some black voters, according to Mr. Gordon.

  “For many people in the black community, it’s been very hard for the President to translate what he has done for them,” Mr. Gordon said. That may be easier done in a small state like South Carolina than in a battleground state like Michigan or Wisconsin, he added.

  Some black Democratic leaders are aware of this communication gap. “I think my only concern is that we have to do a better job of getting the message out about why we should be voting for Joe Biden,” Isaac Wilson, 36, chair of the Florence County Democratic Party, told The Epoch Times. “We’ve got to do a better job of getting that message out.”

  Regarding President Biden’s electability, Jonathan Kirkwood, 54, of Columbia, told The Epoch Times, “I don’t think that there’s a big concern, but I think that we all need to get out and vote and just make sure that that happens.”

  That will involve new messaging tailored to specific demographics, according to Mr. Byrd. “He’s done a good job. The problem is, nobody knows about it,” he said. “You have to do more direct targeting.”

  For some black Democrats, this comes down to a binary choice between Presidents Biden and Trump in which they believe President Biden will surely prevail.

  “Do you want a competent administration led by an 81-year-old man or an incompetent administration by someone that’s pushing 80? That, I believe, is going to end up becoming the choice. And I believe that most people will vote for competence in the end,” Austin Jackson, 33, president of Young Democrats of South Carolina, told The Epoch Times.

  

  The question is whether winning most black voters will be enough.

  In 2020, President Biden won 92 percent of the black vote compared to 8 percent by President Trump. Even a relatively small change in that balance could affect the outcome of the 2024 election, according to Mr. Gordon.

  “I don’t believe there is a realignment of the black vote in America. I feel there is an erosion of the black vote in America,” Mr. Gordon said. “I think it will prove relatively small when the population is confronted with a binary choice between Biden and Trump. But he doesn’t have room to lose those voters.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 23:00

• Standard Chartered Sees Ether HItting $4,000 By May, When Ethereum ETF Is Approved
  Standard Chartered Sees Ether HItting $4,000 By May, When Ethereum ETF Is Approved

  One month ago, Standard Chartered predicted that with ETF approval in the rearview mirror, bitcoin would eventually rise up to $200,000. It has since turned its attention to ether and the inevitable ethereum ETF approval, and while it does not follow up with a similarly bombastic forecast, it nonetheless sees ETH rising to $4,000 by May 23, when it expect the Ethereum ETH will be approved. Incidentally, we agree.

  And now, frontrunning the ETH ETF

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 9, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  How do they get there? Well, as Std Chtd analyst Geoff Kendrick writes, the SEC approved 11 new spot Bitcoin ETFs on 10 January. The approvals, along with BTC price action before and since, provide valuable lessons for the ongoing Ethereum (ETH) ETF application process.

  According to Kendrick, the SEC’s dominant strategy for ETH ETF applications is to replicate the BTC process. This partly reflects structural similarities between the two. During its case against Ripple in June 2023, the SEC did not list ETH (or BTC) among the 67 coins and tokens that it claimed were “securities”. In addition, ETH – like BTC – is a listed and regulated futures contract on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME).

  As a result, the bank expects pending applications for ETH US spot ETFs to be approved on 23 May, the final deadline for the first of the ETFs under consideration – the equivalent date to 10 January for BTC ETFs. And if ETH prices perform similarly to how BTC prices performed in the lead-up to BTC ETF approval, Kendrick expects ETH to trade as high as $4,000 by then.

  

  To be sure, for ETH prices to follow the same price pattern as BTC, Standard Chartered lays out three conditions that need to be met:

  First, current market expectations for the probability of a 23 May approval date would have to be low, as was the case for BTC ETFs. This appears to be true; several media reports (for example from The Block, a leading digital-assets news provider) suggest that commentators are mixed on the chances of approval. ‘No approval’ expectations centre on the view that the SEC defines ETH as a security rather than a commodity – the argument that was at the heart of the Ripple case in 2023. Based on market commentary, we believe approval expectations are relatively low, likely below 50%.

  Second, the market-implied probability of approval would have to be wrong. We also believe this is the case. While SEC Chair Gary Gensler did say during the SEC’s June 2023 lawsuit against Ripple that “everything other than Bitcoin is potentially a security“, ETH was not included among the 67 coins and tokens the SEC identified as securities at the time. Also notably, the SEC was not successful in that case – Ripple was ruled to be a security when sold to institutional clients, but not when purchased on exchanges. In addition, the SEC has since lost its case against Grayscale on the BTC ETF. Grayscale also has an ETH trust that it wants to turn into an ETF, so a denial of that application would likely lead to another appeal by Grayscale. Both BTC and ETH are listed and regulated futures on the CME, and we see no fundamental reason for the SEC to view ETH differently than the CME already does.

  Third, several spot ETH ETFs would need to be approved on 23 May. In other words, the SEC would need to follow the same process that it did for BTC ETF approvals. We think this is highly likely. During the BTC ETF vetting process, the SEC continually postponed decisions, and stated publicly that they would not be approved right up to the time of approval. The SEC postponed decisions on two ETH ETFs (Blackrock and Fidelity) on 24 January and a third (Grayscale) on 25 January, and Gensler claimed that the BTC approval was a one-off. Indeed, we think a similar SEC approach to ETH ETFs is not only likely but also optimal in terms of ETH price impact, as it would create lower market expectations – maximising price upside as approval probability increased.

  Looking beyond the ETF approval, Standard Charated believes that that ETH is less susceptible to the post-approval selling that BTC has seen:

  the BTC price fell to an intra-day low of USD 38,500 on 23 January from an intra-day high of USD 49,000 on 11 January. This is because the Grayscale Ethereum Trust has a smaller share of overall ETH market cap than the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) did before ETF approval. FTX holdings, and the associated forced selling pressure, have even smaller relative market cap shares of ETH versus BTC.

  Meanwhile, while GBTC selling in recent weeks (USD 4.9bn) has been heavier than we expected – and recall our report that forced liquidation by FTX and affiliated entities has been one of the main reasons for the bitcoin’s subpar performance in the past month – pressure has eased in recent sessions.

  

  Like us, Kendrick thinks that the period of sharp GBTC selling is over (even if sporadic sizable futures liquidations persist); the analyst also expects inflows to the other new BTC ETFs to continue, allowing BTC prices to resume their uptrend.

  As a result, heading into the expected approval date on 23 May, we expect ETH prices to track, or outperform, the BTC uptrend during the comparable period.

  Finally, there is a fundamental reason to be optimistic on ETH pricing besides merely the outcome of the ETF process. As Standard Chartered reminds us, the “Dencun” upgrade is imminent and will be tested on the Sepolia and Holesky test networks on 30 January and 7 February, respectively. This should enable it to be rolled out on the Ethereum mainnet in late February or early March.

  The upgrade will primarily enable proto-danksharding, a process that will dramatically decrease the cost of transactions on layer 2 blockchains (such as Arbitrum and Optimism), to a level consistent with layer 1 blockchains such as Solana. It will also slow the pace of ETH staking, so that at the new fastest possible pace, 100% staking can theoretically be achieved only by end-2028, rather than end-2024 before the upgrade. Overall, this upgrade should see more value captured within the ETH ecosystem as lower layer 2 fees make ETH more competitive, and slower staking should keep staking rewards higher for longer. Both of these are positive for ETH prices.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 22:40

• Federal Judge Rejects Challenge To Mail-in Ballots In North Dakota
  Federal Judge Rejects Challenge To Mail-in Ballots In North Dakota

  Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a legal foundation focused on election integrity cases that sought to invalidate a North Dakota law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted for 13 days after Election Day.

  

  U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor said in his Feb. 2 order that the lawsuit both lacked standing and failed to show harm or violation of constitutional rights.

  “The complaint is dismissed,” Judge Traynor, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote in the order.

  The lawsuit was filed in July 2023 by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) on behalf of Burleigh County Auditor Mark Splonkowski.

  Mr. Splonkowski, as county auditor, is required to enforce state law in the administration of elections in Burleigh County. He argued that conflicts between state and federal law force him into an impossible situation in which he risks criminal penalties.

  “North Dakota law and Defendant’s enforcement of it harm Mr. Splonkowski because they put him in the position of having to choose between dictates of state law to accept and allow votes to be cast after Election Day and federal law that requires a single election day,” the complaint reads.

  A key argument in his lawsuit was that the U.S. Constitution provides that federal elections occur on one day, while North Dakota law allows for mail-in ballots to be counted for up to 13 days after Election Day so long as they’re postmarked on or before the election.

  ‘Impossibility in Enforcing the Law’

  Mr. Splonkowski, who in his role as auditor must swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution (which his lawsuit argues requires a single Election Day), sits on the county canvassing board that reviews and counts ballots arriving after Election Day.

  Since North Dakota law requires him to count and certify votes arriving after Election Day, his attorneys said that “he faces an impossibility in enforcing the law” and risks a misdemeanor charge for failing to perform a duty as an election official or a felony for certifying a false canvass of votes.

  Mr. Splonkowski sought a court declaration that North Dakota’s extension of Election Day is unlawful and asked for an injunction voiding laws that allow for the extension.

  Judge Traynor disagreed. In ruling against Mr. Splonkowski, the judge cited lack of standing, failure to show harm, and lack of constitutional violation in the ruling.

  “The only cause for his potential injury is himself because he states he will violate North Dakota election law,” the judge wrote.

  “This is deeply concerning to the Court that an elected official openly advocates for violating the law he was elected to enforce because he has independently concluded it contradicts federal law.”

  Judge Traynor also said the reasoning in Mr. Splonkowski’s lawsuit, if accepted by the court, could undermine overseas and military voters’ rights to vote.

  PILF spokesperson Lauren Bowman Bis expressed disappointment in the judgment.

  “We are disappointed in the Court’s ruling,” she told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement. “We believe unresolved elections undermine confidence and that federal law should be followed.”

  North Dakota’s top election official, Secretary of State Michael Howe, a Republican, praised the ruling, calling it a “win for the rule of law in North Dakota and a win for our military and overseas voters.”

  PILF is involved in various election integrity cases around the country and is also backing former President Donald Trump’s bid before the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court decision to block him from the ballot on 14th Amendment grounds.

  More than a dozen states have post-Election Day mail-in ballot receipt deadlines.

  Mississippi Challenge

  Besides the PILF-led lawsuit in North Dakota, another challenge to extended mail ballot deadlines was filed last month in Mississippi.

  The Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, a member of the state Republican Executive Committee, and an election commissioner in one county filed a federal lawsuit on Jan. 26 against Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson and six local election officials.

  In this case, the lawsuit seeks to overturn a Mississippi law that allows absentee ballots in presidential elections to be counted for five days after Election Day.

  “Federal law is very clear—Election Day is the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,” RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement when the lawsuit was announced. “However, some states accept and count ballots days and days after Election Day, and we believe that practice is wrong.”

  The Democratic National Committee (DNC) stated that it’s tracking such cases closely and will oppose efforts it sees as voter disenfranchisement.

  “Democrats will always stand on the side of voters against unlawful attacks on Americans’ fundamental right to make their voices heard at the ballot box,” DNC deputy press secretary Nina Raneses said in a statement.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 22:20

• The Scale Of California's Pineapple Express Phenomenon
  The Scale Of California’s Pineapple Express Phenomenon

  A second atmospheric river rainstorm in a week is moving across California and has been causing landslides, downpours and high winds of hurricane strengths that toppled trees in some locations.

  Statista’s Katharina Buchholz reports that conditions could persist until mid-week as the storm is now projected to move across the state slower than originally expected.

  

  The National Weather Service in Los Angeles warned that the storm was “dangerous” and posed “major risks to life and property.” The service’s office in San Diego meanwhile predicted the potential of flooding in Los Angeles and “locally catastrophic” flooding in Orange County as amounts of rain typical for a whole month could come down in just the span of days. The risk of excessive rain in Southern California was put at a 4 out of 4. More than half a million Californians were already without power early Monday due to wind damage. Some residents in Santa Barbara, Los Angeles and San José are currently under evacuation orders, according to CNN.

  The phenomenon of atmospheric rivers is fed by the El Niño conditions that have taken over the climate of the Americas again since mid-2023. Atmospheric rivers are plumes of moisture that extend from the tropics all the way to more Northern reaches and are made possible by El Niño-related changes in the jet stream air currents that circle the globe. Normally, these jet streams travel in a westerly directions but under certain conditions, plumes can escape and travel long distances, bringing tropical rains to more moderate locales.

  An atmospheric river that has been reoccurring is the one originating from the Pacific near Hawaii all the way to California – dubbed the Pineapple Express because of the fruit being a symbol of the U.S. island chain.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  The latest Pineapple Express pummeling California was rated moderate to strong – a level 2-3 out of 5 possible – by the center for Western Weather and Water Extremes at the University of California San Diego. 

  Partially forecast as of early Monday, the current storm’s rating could increase since the system is now expected to move more slowly and duration is one of two levels the storms are rated on. The current weather phenomenon was initially expected to continue for around 30 hours into early Tuesday while carrying around half the moisture intensity of the most exceptional scenario still included in the rating system. 

  Thursday’s system that already brought heavy rains as well as snowfall to the state was rated similarly, but opposed to Monday’s forecast was a little shorter, yet a little more moisture intense at a level 3 out of 5 on the rating scale.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 22:00

• IRS To Boost Enforcement Workforce By 40% By Year-End 2024
  IRS To Boost Enforcement Workforce By 40% By Year-End 2024

  Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to raise its enforcement personnel by 40 percent by the end of this fiscal year, with revenue agents seeing the largest workforce increase.

  

  For fiscal year 2024, the IRS plans to boost enforcement staff by a net 5,462 employees, according to a Jan. 29 report by IRS watchdog Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). This would take the total number of enforcement personnel at the tax agency to 18,960 by the end of fiscal 2024, which is 40 percent higher than the staffing at the beginning of October 2023.

  Out of the 5,462 net additions, 4,704 will be revenue agents who are tasked with conducting “face-to-face audits of more complex returns.”

  The tax agency intends to add a net 493 special agents for the year, who are armed officials investigating “potential criminal activities.” Staffing of revenue officers will rise by 265 employees. Revenue officers are tasked with collecting delinquent taxes and securing delinquent returns.

  By fiscal 2024-end, revenue agents will comprise close to 70 percent of the enforcement personnel. Armed special agents will make up 13.5 percent and revenue officers will account for 16.4 percent.

  The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provided the IRS with $79.4 billion in supplemental funding that is available for the agency until September 2031. By the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2023, the agency had used $3.5 billion of the funds.

  The IRS spent $1.4 billion out of the $3.5 billion IRA funds on its employees, “nearly doubling expenditures in this object class category in the fourth quarter.”

  Most of the labor costs were accounted for by taxpayer services, which the TIGTA said “helped support the IRS’s efforts to hire additional customer service representatives to answer taxpayer telephone calls, as well as employees to staff Taxpayer Assistance Centers for the 2023 filing season.”

  The IRS employed 89,767 people by the end of fiscal 2023. In addition to hiring staff to improve taxpayer services, the tax agency “focused on expanding enforcement on taxpayers with complex tax filings and high-dollar noncompliance to address the tax gap.”

  “Tax gap” refers to the difference between taxes owed and paid to the government. The IRS claims the tax gap rose to $688 billion in 2021 alone, which is $192 billion more than estimates from 2014–16 and $138 billion more than 2017-19.

  In October, IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel pointed to the tax gap to justify the importance of “increased IRS compliance efforts on key areas.” At the time, he said that the agency would use IRA funding to strengthen compliance on “high-income and high-wealth individuals” as well as businesses.

  Expanded Enforcement

  Out of the $79.4 billion in IRA funds, IRS had set aside $45.6 billion for enforcement. Taxpayer services were allocated $3.2 billion. Administration activities like business systems modernization and operations support were allocated $4.8 billion and $25.3 billion respectively.

  The IRS’s decision to use most of the IRA funds for enforcement was questioned by Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) at a joint subcommittee hearing in October last year.

  “This funding spree prioritizes enforcement over improving taxpayer services,” she said while noting that some of her constituents complained about call wait times when dialing the IRS. A few of them tried to get in touch with the IRS for several months but could not.

  Ms. McClain said that even she had faced such difficulties. “If a private business did what the IRS does on a daily basis, it would quickly go out of business.”

  In the 2022 fiscal year, the IRS raked in a record $4.9 trillion in taxes, which was $790 billion more than the previous fiscal. The agency collected $72 billion in revenues from enforcement activities, which was well above the historical average of $59 billion.

  There are also concerns that the IRS could use some of its IRA funding to boost enforcement on individuals making less than $400,000 per year.

  When Commissioner Werfel was asked about this during a hearing last year, he did not explicitly guarantee that the agency would not increase the number of audits for this income group.

  Budget Shortfall

  Out of the $3.5 billion the IRS has used from IRA funding so far, almost $2 billion went to supplement its fiscal year 2023 appropriations, the TIGTA report stated.

  IRS officials said they had to take $2 billion from IRA funds as the amount it received for spending in 2023 “was insufficient to cover normal operating expenses and did not include adjustments to account for inflation, estimated at approximately $460 million from fiscal year 2022.”

  Out of the $3.5 billion, operations support took the largest chunk at $1.5 billion, followed by taxpayer services, business systems modernization, and enforcement activities.

  The IRS calculates it would need $818 million more than last year’s funding in 2024 just to continue regular operations. The tax agency is yet to receive its fiscal 2024 appropriations.

  The TIGTA pointed out that if Congress keeps the budget flat for 2024, the IRS will have to plug the $818 million shortfall using IRA funds. “This means less funds available for IRS transformation efforts.”

  “Any reduction in the IRS’s annual appropriated funding, including inadequate funding to cover inflationary increases, will require the IRS to shift IRA funding to cover general operating expenses … Without the restoration in the IRS’s annual appropriation, IRA funding will cover only approximately two-thirds of the IRS’s planned modernization.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 21:40

• US Diesel Supply Tightens As Manufacturing Comes Roaring Back
  US Diesel Supply Tightens As Manufacturing Comes Roaring Back

  By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

  U.S. manufacturers are recovering from an extended slump in activity and their energy consumption is about to start rising, with the risk of tightening an already tight diesel market.

  

  Reuters market analyst John Kemp reported the index for manufacturing activity had improved to 49.1 for January from 47.1 in December. The latter figure was the highest since October 2022, Kemp noted in his report, adding that the trend signaled a return to growth.

  As manufacturing activity improves, however, diesel demand begins to increase in lockstep. This might be problematic in case of a fast recovery because distillate inventories in the U.S. remain below the five-year average, by 5%, per the latest weekly petroleum report of the Energy Information Administration.

  The state of distillate inventories, with the total as of January 26 standing at 10 million barrels below the 10-year seasonal average, per Kemp, is better than it was in late 2023. At that time, distillate stocks were 19 million barrels below the 10-year average. Even with the boost in stockpiles, the distillate supply balance remains elusive.

  This means that if manufacturing activity continues to improve, it will soon enough lead to higher fuel prices, which would in turn pressure that same manufacturing activity before too long, constraining any growth.

  Diesel prices are already on the rise, both thanks to the rebound in manufacturing activity and a refinery outage. BP’s whiting refinery in Indiana—the largest inland refinery in the U.S.—was shut down last week after a power outage. An analyst has said the return to operation could take as little as a week but there is no guarantee it will be so quick. BP has not given any timeline for the refinery’s return to operation.

  The outage comes on the heels of several weeks of lower fuel production across the country amid frigid winter weather, Bloomberg noted in a recent report. Supply, therefore, remains precariously close to a shortage.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 21:00

• Hong Kong Set To Pass Article 23, Further Tightening Beijing’s Control
  Hong Kong Set To Pass Article 23, Further Tightening Beijing’s Control

  Authored by Julia Ye and Angela Bright via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The prospect of Basic Law Article 23, which rocked Hong Kong in 2003, is now becoming a reality under Beijing-controlled Hong Kong authorities.

  

  “While the society as a whole looks calm and very safe, we still have to watch out for potential sabotage and undercurrents that try to create trouble, particularly some of the ‘independent Hong Kong’ ideas are still being embedded in some people’s minds,” John Lee Ka-chiu, Hong Kong’s chief executive, said at a press conference on Jan. 30.

  Article 23, outlined in Hong Kong’s Basic Law enacted after its handover from British rule in 1997, mandated that Hong Kong write its own national security code. An attempt to do so in 2003 led to massive protests, leading the government to shelve the proposal.

  After pro-democracy protests brought hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers to the streets in 2019, Beijing imposed a national security law to punish four major crimes: secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces.

  Now, under an administration hand-picked by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Hong Kong is once again looking to pass Article 23, which authorities say will fill loopholes left by the national security law. A four-week comment period will precede a vote on the law by Hong Kong’s Beijing-aligned legislature.

  The new national security law will cover five offenses: treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets and espionage, destructive activities endangering national security, and external interference.

  The newly added ordinance on “external interference” will prohibit any person from cooperating with foreign powers to interfere with Hong Kong’s elections, legislature, and judiciary.

  To the question of “Why now?” Mr. Lee responded, “The threats to national security—they are real. We have experienced all these threats. We have suffered from them badly. We were all very heartbroken. We still remember the pain and the sorrow. We don’t want to go through that painful experience again.”  The chief executive referred to foreign agents who “may still be active in Hong Kong.”

  “We can’t afford to wait,” Mr. Lee said. “It’s for 26 years we have been waiting.”

  Explainer: What Is Article 23?

  The Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984 set out the conditions under which Hong Kong would be transferred to China control and for the city’s governance after the handover. The treaty guaranteed a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong, enshrined in the Basic Law, a mini-constitution that was the blueprint for the “one country, two systems” arrangement.

  After the signing of the treaty, the CCP was eager to establish a legal framework for the resumption of its sovereignty over Hong Kong. Article 23 of the Basic Law was part of that legal framework, stipulating that Hong Kong must enact legislation on its own to prohibit seven types of acts that endanger national security, including “treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government, or theft of state secrets.”

  However, the mandated legislation has not been realized since the handover of Hong Kong’s sovereignty in 1997.

  In 1985, the CCP’s rubber stamp legislature set up a 59-member “Hong Kong Basic Law Drafting Committee.” However, the first draft of the Basic Law was regarded as too vague and wide-ranging.

  The drafting committee added the words “to legislate on its own” to the second draft so that the Hong Kong authorities could legislate only when it considered necessary.

  The drafting of the relevant provisions coincided with the Tiananmen Square movement in 1989. To strengthen its control over the Asia financial hub, the CCP reintroduced the offense of subversion and added a provision concerning political organizations to the re-draft.

  The CCP has continued to push for the completion of Article 23 legislation. However, the legislative process that was initiated has aroused great controversy, and disputes have abounded.

  A Broader Scope than the National Security Law

  Some may wonder why, since the national security law had already been imposed when Mr. Lee came to power as chief executive in 2022, he should be so eager to legislate Article 23.

  “One reason is that recently, the whole international society is targeting the Hong Kong national security law. Many Western countries are questioning Hong Kong’s human rights situation,” current affairs commentator Wang Anran told The Epoch Times.

  Mr. Wang said he believes that, given the negative attention garnered by the national security law, Article 23 may be an alternative.

  While the national security law was implemented in 2020, of the seven items to be covered under Article 23, it only covered two: secession and subversion of state power. Therefore the two laws are expected to work together.

  It is expected that if the legislation on Article 23 is completed, the scope of its coverage will be wider than initially planned. For instance, its definition of state secrets will be broader and more in line with China’s vague laws on espionage and state secrets. The proposal for the law deemed Hong Kong’s current definition of state secrets to be “not broad enough.”

  

  There are concerns that Article 23 will cause the business environment in Hong Kong to continue to deteriorate. The law would include economic matters in its definition of national security.

  “If a business or organization has a certain connection with a foreign government, it may be arrested,” said Simon Ngai Man Young, a professor at the University of Hong Kong’s Faculty of Law. “On top of that, even if it is a business enterprise or a joint venture, the source of funds may have to be checked more carefully.”

  Chung Kim-wah, deputy chief executive of Hong Kong’s Public Opinion Research Institute, argued that Hong Kong authorities are now expanding the scope of Article 23 to include soft counter-opposition, cybersecurity, and false information.

  “The current implementation of the national security law has resulted in the criminalization of everything, and the introduction of Article 23 is an additional tool and weapon for [the] violent regime to suppress the public,” he told The Epoch Times.

  Was 2003’s Legislation Targeted at Falun Gong?

  Sources familiar with top CCP officials have said that in 2003, when authorities pushed for Article 23, their intended target was Hong Kong’s Falun Gong community.

  Hong Kong’s first chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, openly made negative comments about Falun Gong in 2001. The following year, Mr. Tung initiated the legislation to implement Article 23. The legislation of Article 23 at the time was seen as a political mission given to Mr. Tung by late CCP leader Jiang Zemin, who initiated the persecution of Falun Gong.

  

  During the SARS outbreak in 2003—a time when Hong Kong’s economy was in the doldrums, coupled with the introduction of the consultation paper on Article 23 legislation—worries about the future and dissatisfaction with Mr. Tung reached an unprecedented high.

  The law was set to be passed on July 9, 2003. As the date approached, the Civil Human Rights Front, a pro-democracy group, called for a protest. On July 1, over 500,000 people took to the streets to oppose Article 23 and to demand that Mr. Tung step down.

  Authorities withdrew the bill on Sept. 5 to “allay the public’s concern.” More than a year later, Mr. Tung stepped down.

  Consolidating Control: Reciprocal Enforcement

  Article 23 is now on the fast track to legislation, but it remains to be seen whether it will be shelved again.

  Meanwhile, Hong Kong authorities have introduced a law that allows for the mutual recognition of judgments in civil and commercial cases between China and Hong Kong.

  On Jan. 29, the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance came into effect. According to a statement by Hong Kong’s Department of Justice, the arrangement reduces the need to re-litigate the same dispute in Hong Kong courts and China. 

  Despite the description of the law as “reciprocal,” the legislation is clearly aimed at the Hong Kong judiciary, said political commentator and Epoch Times contributor Ji Da.

  “The purpose is for Hong Kong to recognize China’s judicial system. Judgments in mainland China are also valid in Hong Kong,” Mr. Ji told the Chinese edition of The Epoch Times.

  CCP Eager to Re-control HK for Strategic Reasons

  The Mainland Judgments ordinance, coupled with the CCP’s actions surrounding the legislation of Article 23, shows that the CCP is eager to regain control of Hong Kong in the face of the current tense international situation, Mr. Wang said.

  In the international arena, friction continues between China and Japan over the Senkaku Islands (called the Diaoyu Islands by China). In addition, conflicts may arise at any time in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. Concerned that Hong Kong could be another source of unrest, the CCP is enacting Article 23 at this time as a strategic consideration, according to Mr. Wang.

  

  “When Hong Kong experienced a major upheaval in 2019, the CCP was very worried about these unstable factors, especially when it recognized that Hong Kong has always been an anti-communist base linking the mainland and overseas. The CCP was taking precautions by launching Lee Ka-chiu, the police chief, as the chief executive,” he said.

  Hong Kong authorities expect to complete Article 23 legislation before the legislative council adjourns in July. The short consultation period has led to public concern that the comment period is only a formality.

  Public consultation on Article 23 will remain open until Feb. 28.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 20:20

• New Jersey Illegal Migrant Gang Charging Other Migrants $6,000 To Illegally Migrate
  New Jersey Illegal Migrant Gang Charging Other Migrants $6,000 To Illegally Migrate

  A migrant gang based in New Jersey is helping a flood of future Democrats pour into the United States through the Canadian border for a princely sum of $6,000 per head, the Daily Mail reveals.

  

  Several of the ringleaders settled in New Jersey after being released by ICE – where they’ve moved “dozens if not hundreds” of migrants into the US using secret techniques along the poorly-guarded boder between Quebec and Vermont.

  See, Biden has created jobs!

  

  What’s more, despite being caught several times, the gang continues to operate amid a 500% surge in border traffic in 2023.

  Border Patrol agents apprehended several illegal immigrants in January after they crossed the Niagara River from Canada, which came amid the surge in crossings at the northern border

  US authorities have arrested and charged two accused ringleaders who are both undocumented migrants. 

  A third alleged leader remains at large in Canada, where authorities say they have no powers to detain him.

  Despite snaring two of the ringleaders, individuals linked to the gang have continued to smuggle migrants across the border. -Daily Mail

  The ringleaders, Jhon Reina-Perez, 34, and Victor Lopez-Padilla, 35, have been linked to at least five foiled smuggling incidents in Vermont which involved ‘at least 25 migrants,’ while runners for the gang have confessed to Border Patrol officials that many more illegal crossings have gone undetected. 

  

  Reina-Perez is a Colombian national who crossed into the US near El Paso, Texas in April 2022 according to court filings. He was then processed and released into the US ‘pending immigration proceedings,’ which of course, he ignored. Six months later, he was arrested again near the Canadian border in Vermont while allegedly acting as a ‘foot guide’ to traffic five other people who had just crossed illegally over the northern US border. He was subsequently released again, telling authorities that he ‘intended to live in the state of Washington.’

  

  Lopez-Padilla is from Guatemala, and has been accused of playing a leading role in the smuggling operation. The third ringleader, Simon Jacinto-Ramos, is still at large. He ran the Canadian side of the operation.

  

  In 2023, there were 10,021 arrests at the US-Canada border, five times more than the previous year – and the majority of which took place in or around Vermont. The route has become popular with wealthier migrants who want to avoid the hustle and bustle of being human trafficked from the south. According to official figures, people crossing the northern border illegally are more likely to be on the US terror watchlist on a percentage basis.

  

  According to court filings, Lopez-Padilla is a fan of Joaquín Guzmán Loera, the notorious Mexican drug lord known as ‘El Chapo,’ according to the Mail. Several of his social media profiles include references to the cartel leader.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 20:00

• Doctor Who Helped A Wounded Ashli Babbitt On Jan. 6 Sentenced To Probation
  Doctor Who Helped A Wounded Ashli Babbitt On Jan. 6 Sentenced To Probation

  Authored by Joseph M. Hanneman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  

  A California physician who gave medical aid to a dying Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6, 2021, but was forced away from the scene by police has been sentenced to probation as part of a plea deal for his time at the U.S. Capitol.

  Dr. Austin Brendlen Harris, 43, of Granada Hills, California, was sentenced on Feb. 2 by U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to three years of probation and fined $5,000 for the petty misdemeanor charge of parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

  Federal prosecutors recommended that Judge Walton sentence Dr. Harris to 30 days in jail.

  While Dr. Harris acknowledged his presence inside the Capitol broke the law, he said it at least gave him the opportunity to help a mortally wounded Ms. Babbitt, 35, an Air Force veteran from San Diego who was shot outside the Speaker’s Lobby at 2:44 p.m. on Jan. 6.

  “He was not involved in that area or situation before he heard the shot, but when he saw her fall he did not hesitate,” defense attorney Scott Weinberg wrote in a four-page sentencing memorandum. “He ran toward her without thinking. As a physician who has worked in many significant trauma situations, this was second nature to him.

  “He wanted to help to try to save her life,” Mr. Weinberg wrote. “Unfortunately just as her pulse faded and he was about to start CPR, he was prevented from acting further as law enforcement had to control the crowd and move protesters away from the situation, understandably so.”

  The sentencing memo understated the role a Capitol Police bicycle officer played in preventing Dr. Harris from giving Ms. Babbitt further medical aid.

  Dr. Harris was on his knees checking Ms. Babbitt’s upper chest wound when the officer reached down and grabbed him by the shoulders. The officer wrestled Dr. Harris away from Ms. Babbitt, grabbed him by the jacket, and shoved him down the hallway.

  The visibly angry officer kept pushing Dr. Harris and the two struggled down the hallway. It’s impossible to hear what was said between the men because the crowd was yelling at the police.

  Dr. Harris went back and asked the officer to retrieve his medical bag, which was still sitting next to Ms. Babbitt. The officer handed it back to him.

  “If Dr. Harris had not been in one specific location within the building, he would not have had the opportunity to render aid to Ms. Ashli Babbitt after she was shot,” Mr. Weinberg wrote.

  Tried to Prevent Rioting

  Ms. Babbitt, who owned a pool cleaning business with her husband, traveled alone to Washington on Jan. 5 and attended President Donald J. Trump’s speech at the Ellipse on Jan. 6.

  She walked to the Capitol along with tens of thousands of other protesters and entered the building through a window at 2:23 p.m., according to a detailed Epoch Times timeline first published on Jan. 5.

  While DOJ investigative documents and persistent commentators on social media describe Ms. Babbitt as a rioter, a careful examination of scene video shows she tried to prevent the vandalism and violence that occurred near the Speaker’s Lobby.

  In its sentencing memo seeking jail time for Dr. Harris, federal prosecutors cited his “encouragement to other rioters to participate in the attack” and that he compared “police officers defending the Capitol to Nazis.”

  Prosecutors acknowledged that Dr. Harris accepted responsibility for running afoul of the law.

  

  “The government has also considered the fact that Harris made clear his intention to accept responsibility for his actions at the time of his arrest and did so at the earliest opportunity,” prosecutors wrote.

  The sentencing of Dr. Harris is the latest development in the death of Ms. Babbitt, who was shot and killed by Capitol Police Lt. Michael L. Byrd.

  On Jan. 5, Judicial Watch Inc. filed a $30 million wrongful-death lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Babbitt’s husband, Aaron, and her estate. The federal suit was filed in U.S. District Court in San Diego, where the Babbitts lived and where Mr. Babbitt continues to reside.

  The lawsuit alleges Mr. Byrd was negligent in use of his service weapon, lacked proper judgment, and had poor scene awareness when he fired a single shot as Ms. Babbitt climbed into a broken window leading into the Speaker’s Lobby. The suit called the shooting an “ambush murder.“

  On Feb. 2, Judicial Watch announced a lawsuit against the DOJ, claiming the FBI is wrongfully withholding records related to Ms. Babbitt and Aaron Babbitt.

  That federal suit, also filed in San Diego, says the FBI rejected Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and never provided records even after an appeal was filed with the DOJ. The lawsuit asks a judge to compel the FBI to release the records.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 19:40

• US Presidents' Approval Ratings In Their Third Year Since WWII
  US Presidents’ Approval Ratings In Their Third Year Since WWII

  President Biden’s approval rating is the second lowest in modern history for a first-term president.

  Today, under 40% of Americans approve of his job performance, a level it has hovered around over the last year. According to recent polls, younger Democrats have a lower approval rating of Biden’s handling of the economy compared to older Democrats. Leading up to the election in 2024, the state of the economy is the most important issue among Americans.

  This graphic shows approval ratings for first-term U.S. presidents in their third year – and whether or not they were re-elected – based on data from Gallup.

  

  First-Term Presidential Approval Ratings, Ranked

  Here’s how Biden’s approval rating in year three stacks up against past U.S. presidents:

  

  Average annual approval ratings from January 20 through to January 19 in the following year. *Approval ratings for Kennedy are from January 20-November 22 1963 due to assassination.

  We can see that Biden falls near the bottom, with President Carter being the only president to have lower ratings in their third year.

  Biden’s political standing has fallen from a peak of 63% in 2021 given concerns of rising costs and the state of his fitness. The Israel-Hamas war is also weighing on his ratings, with younger Democrats criticizing his handling of the crisis.

  While Biden struggles to achieve majority approval, economic indicators have been optimistic. The unemployment rate remains low, GDP growth is strong, and the S&P 500 recently hit record highs. Despite this, Americans are paying attention to the cost of basic goods, which have grown more expensive in the last few years.

   

  The U.S is among the most polarized countries globally, stemming from low trust in the media, economic anxieties, and low trust in the government. As a Biden-Trump rematch looks increasingly likely, political success hinges on who will align most with voter concerns, and whether disaffected Democrats will elect Biden for a second term.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 19:20

• "Take Our Border Back" Convoy Ends With Rallies In 3 States
  “Take Our Border Back” Convoy Ends With Rallies In 3 States

  By Noi Mahoney of FreightWaves

  

  Several hundred people gathered in three border states Saturday to call for stricter immigration security, ending the cross-country “Take Our Border Back” convoy that traveled from Virginia to Texas last week.

  Convoy organizers and supporters initially said as many as 700,000 vehicles would take part in three separate rallies in Arizona, California and Texas, including truckers who took part in recent protest convoys in Washington, D.C., and Canada, according to U.S. Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas.

  While hundreds of thousands of vehicles never materialized as the convoy moved across the country, about 100 passenger vehicles, recreational vehicles and trucks towing campers arrived in Texas, according to NBC News.

  The Texas rally occurred at the Cornerstone Children’s Ranch in the town of Quemado, about 20 miles outside of Eagle Pass. The daylong event included musical performances, vendors and speakers who voiced their concerns about illegal immigration.

  “The mission here is the border, that’s what we’re here for,” said Trenis Evans, one of the speakers at the Quemado rally. 

  At another “Take Our Border Back” rally Saturday in San Ysidro, California, convoy organizer Scotty Saks said the border is “a national security crisis.”

  “We have a human trafficking problem on the border in proportions that we’ve never imagined,” Saks told a crowd of about 200 people, according to the New York Post. 

  The “Take Our Border Back” convoy also gathered for a rally in Yuma, Arizona.

  The rallies were held amid a feud between Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the Biden administration over border enforcement measures and jurisdictional authority. 

  The Texas National Guard seized control of Shelby Park in Eagle Pass several weeks ago, and erected a razor wire barrier around it, limiting U.S. Border Patrol’s access to the area.

  On Sunday, Abbott held a news briefing in Shelby Park accompanied by 13 Republican governors to discuss border and immigration issues.

  “A state can defend itself and its citizens to protect their safety from the imminent danger that we are facing, and from an invasion of millions of people coming from across the globe into our country who are unaccounted for whatsoever,” Abbott said.

  Abbott also said he is expanding Operation Lone Star, the controversial border security initiative he launched in 2021. The operation has included deploying Texas National Guard members along the Mexico border, installing a floating barrier in the Rio Grande River and initiating safety inspections on commercial trucks arriving at ports of entry from Mexico.

  “As we speak right now, the Texas National Guard is undertaking operations to expand this effort,” Abbott said. “We’re not going to contain ourselves just to this park, we are expanding to further areas to make sure that we will expand our level of deterrence and denial of illegal entry into the United States.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 19:00

• China Joins Russia In Condemning US Strikes In Middle East
  China Joins Russia In Condemning US Strikes In Middle East

  After the Friday large-scale US strikes on Iranian proxy positions in Iraq and Syria, and following the Saturday and Sunday Western coalition attacks on Houthi positions in Yemen, China on Monday issued a blistering condemnation of what is sees as aggression against sovereign countries 

  China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said in a press briefing, “Syria and Iraq are sovereign countries” and thus “China opposes any act that violates the UN Charter and infringes upon other countries’ territorial sovereignty and security.”

  

  “The current situation in the Middle East is highly complex and sensitive,” Wenbin added. “China urges relevant parties to earnestly observe the international law, remain calm, exercise restraint, and prevent the tensions in the region from escalating or even spiraling out of control.”

  Beijing’s critiques of this latest round of Western military intervention related to ongoing spillover from the Gaza war echo that of Russia’s rhetoric. Russia soon after Biden’s Friday airstrikes on Iraq and Syria called for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council to address the crisis.

  The Kremlin has gone so far as to accuse the US of stoking a great power confrontation and larger war for the Middle East.

  “It is clear that the airstrikes were specifically intended to further escalate the conflict,” Russia’s foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. “By relentlessly attacking the facilities of allegedly pro-Iranian groups in Iraq and Syria, the United States has been purposefully attempting to draw the largest countries in the region into the conflict.” 

  In response to US strikes in Iraq and Syria, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said that China opposes any actions that violate the UN Charter and infringe upon the territorial sovereignty and security of other countries. The current situation in the Middle East… pic.twitter.com/uNEdAOWJ2N

  — Global Times (@globaltimesnews) February 5, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Meanwhile, Yemen’s Houthis have continued to give Chinese and Russian commercial shipping a free pass in the Red Sea, while attacking US, UK, Israeli-linked and other shipping vessels.

  Still, as VOA reports, “China’s navy has started escorting Chinese cargo ships through the Red Sea, according to a shipping company and Chinese state media reports.” Most major shipping companies are choosing to avoid the passage altogether. 

  Meanwhile…

  “ALL CHINESE CREW” is now out-trending “NO CONTACT ISRAEL”. Those white plastic lawn chairs shall reach Europe by spring, come hell or high water. pic.twitter.com/rfVqJTho0A

  — TankerTrackers.com, Inc. (@TankerTrackers) February 5, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 18:40

• Massachusetts Cuts College Degree Requirements For 90% Of State Jobs
  Massachusetts Cuts College Degree Requirements For 90% Of State Jobs

  By Austin Browne of Campus Reform

  Massachusetts will no longer require a college degree for a large majority of government jobs due to a new state executive order intended to make the commonwealth more “inclusive.”

  

  Governor Maura Healey signed the order, titled “Instituting Skill-Based Hiring Practices,” on Jan 25. The document asserts that “skills-based hiring practices will strengthen the Commonwealth’s workforce, increase access to quality jobs for nontraditional candidates with varied backgrounds and work experiences, and reduce structural barriers that result in inequities in pay and access to employment.”

  It also contends that such practices will build a “workforce that is representative of the diversity of the state.”

  The guideline directs hiring managers to “consider the full set of competencies that candidates bring to the job beyond traditional education.” 

  It prohibits a minimum level of education from being included in job listings “unless the Human Resources Division determines that a particular level of education is necessary to perform the job after completing a job analysis.”

  Candidates will now be assessed based on “their skills from real-world experience, military service, apprenticeship and certificate programs, internships, and other on-the-job programs.”

  “This Executive Order directs our administration to focus on applicants’ skills and experiences, rather than college credentials,” Healey said in an address announcing the new guidelines. “It will expand our applicant pool and help us build a more inclusive and skilled workforce than ever before.”

  Several state labor and education leaders issued statements in support of the order. 

  Massachusetts AFL-CIO President and CEO Chrissy Lynch applauded the governor for what she called an “inclusive workforce strategy.” 

  Western New England University President Robert Johnson stated that the order will help in “breaking down unnecessary barriers and creating equal opportunities” and will build “a more inclusive workforce.”

  Campus Reform contacted Governor Healey for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 18:20

• These Are The US States Losing (& Gaining) Population
  These Are The US States Losing (& Gaining) Population

  As pandemic patterns of U.S. population growth are normalizing, three states have remained among the U.S. jurisdictions which are shrinking.

  Statista’s Katharina Buchholz reports that, according to a December release by the Census Bureau, California, Illinois and New York – along with West Virginia, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Hawaii and Oregon – lost population in 2023 compared to 2022. Throughout the new Census first released in 2020, all three states have shown continuously sinking population numbers. New York and Illinois even started to see their populations decline under the old Census since 2016 and 2014, respectively, while California experienced a stagnating number of inhabitants in 2019.

  While during pandemic conditions, many other states experienced the same shrinking populations (19 at the height of the trend in 2022), the release of the 2023 data now shows that the demographic problems that have plagued some states since before the pandemic are still ongoing.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  Americans resettling because of high cost of living do play a role in this development, but changes in immigration into the U.S. have also had a big part in the state’s ongoing population decline as immigrants increasingly diversify their destinations in the U.S., favoring – like domestic migrants – the Sun Belt states, but also smaller cities.

  The story of New York, the country’s fastest shrinking state as of the latest Census release, fits this mold. New York lost 0.5 percent of its population between July 2022 and June 2023 and the previous Census had recorded a decreasing population in the state since 2016. The speed of New York’s population shrink also seems to have sped up since – from just 0.1 percent in 2016 to 0.4 percent in 2019 and now 0.5 percent in 2023. While Covid-19-era losses were even higher in New York, which became the poster child of pandemic city flight, normalization seems to mean that New York is now back on its trajectory of steadily increasing population loss. The state experienced a negative domestic net migration of more than 200,000 people last year and it received only a net 73,900 people from overseas, staying behind Florida, California and Texas for international migration.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 18:00

• Open Borders & Closed Courts: How The Supreme Court Laid The Seeds For The Immigration Crisis
  Open Borders & Closed Courts: How The Supreme Court Laid The Seeds For The Immigration Crisis

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  The upcoming impeachment vote on Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has caused a deep rift even among his critics, including some Republican members of Congress.

  

  Many view Mayorkas as an unmitigated disaster as Homeland secretary. The massive numbers of migrants crossing the border has become a growing economic and security threat to the entire nation.

  I have previously expressed my disagreement with the two articles of impeachment, which present their own inherent dangers to the underlying constitutional standards. But whatever happens in the House, the real crisis is not the employment status of Mayorkas. It is what brought the House to seriously consider this extreme remedy in the first place.

  The seeds of this disaster were planted by the Supreme Court over a decade ago, in Arizona v. U.S., if not earlier. In that case, a 5-3 majority ruled against a state seeking to enforce immigration laws in light of what it described as a vacuum of federal action. The court declared that the states were preempted or barred from taking such action. While giving the state a small victory in allowing state officers to investigate the immigration status of a suspect with reasonable suspicion, it left little room for independent state action in the area.

  Despite President Obama’s orders giving some migrants effective immunity from enforcement (such as the youths that came to be known as “DREAMers”), he actually deported a significant number of illegal migrants. At the time, many of us asked where the line would be drawn in the future, often raising the hypothetical of a president who abandons enforcement entirely or to a large extent.

  It took a decade, but that hypothetical seems dangerously close to reality. Mayorkas is carrying out the policies of President Biden, who continues to praise his work and the worst record of enforcement in history. One of the first things that Biden did when coming into office was to seek to shut down policies and construction used to deter unlawful migration. At the same time, both Biden and Mayorkas were widely viewed as supportive of those crossing the border as many Democratic cities declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented migrants pursued by ICE.

  Now, even some Democrats are now criticizing President Biden for his lax policies and the failure to do more in securing the border, as hundreds of thousands pour into the country. Most are promptly released, and many are not even asked to appear for eight years at an immigration proceeding.

  For the states, desperate times call for desperate measures. For example, Texas recently declared that it was acting unilaterally under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution. That provision reserves the right of self-defense for a state that is “actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”

  The current crisis is a practical invasion, overwhelming towns and cities across the country. No state faces a greater danger than Texas. However, “invasion” was clearly meant in the traditional sense of a foreign power or army. Similarly, “such imminent danger” was referencing “such” an invasion.

  The southern border in 2024 is, constitutionally, suffering no more an “invasion” than the Capitol riot in 2021 was an “insurrection.” There is a difference between the colloquial and constitutional meaning of such terms.

  States have also tried to go to court to enforce these laws in cases like Arizona v. United States and, most recently, in U.S. v. Texas. They have often found the courts closed to them. The courts have denied standing to sue in many cases or else granted sweeping authority (and preemption) over immigration.

  That has left many in Congress or the states with few meaningful ways to compel enforcement of the law. This includes provisions written as mandatory “shall” obligations, which have been effectively ignored by the federal government.

  The result is that many now see impeachment as the only viable option to force change. However, given Biden’s support for his actions, it is difficult to see how Mayorkas’s removal would alter policies or practices in any respect.

  Congress is not blameless in any of this. The court has virtually invited Congress to pass laws giving people greater standing to sue the government. It could also apply more stringent conditions on spending and block confirmations.

  Yet this crisis is the result of decades of court rulings expanding executive powers while limiting the ability to challenge those policies. The court’s decisions narrowing standing have been deleterious, limiting those who can challenge unlawful or unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

  States such as Texas are absolutely correct that this is a breach of the original understanding with the federal government. The combination of the sweeping preemption by the courts and diminishing enforcement by the agencies has left states as mere observers to their own destruction. It is like watching your house burn down as the fire department works primarily to prevent anyone else from putting it out.

  The Biden fire department is claiming that, just as it has the authority to put out fires, it has the authority to let them burn.

  The question is whether states have finally reached a point of near-total disempowerment, becoming effective nullities or nonentities in dealing with this overwhelming influx across their own borders. While they can patrol the border, they are powerless to exercise inherent powers to protect their citizens and society. It runs counter to the original federalism guarantees used to secure ratification of the Constitution. States were viewed as partners in our federalism system, not mere pedestrians.

  One can see why this looks like a bait-and-switch for states, who were offered something very different when they agreed to abandon the Articles of Confederation. They understood the need for a stronger federal government and that states could not act as separate sovereign powers. States yielded authority to the central government, including interstate matters.

  Yet, the Constitution would have likely failed in ratification if they had been told of the degree to which they would become dependent on federal authority within their states.

  Clearly, the federal government will continue to determine who enters the country. However, Congress has repeatedly tried to impose limits on such actions through express legislative mandates.

  That brings us back to the courts. Members of Congress have been told that they cannot sue to enforce mandatory provisions, while states are told that they cannot sue to secure their own borders. It reduces our system to a mere Potemkin Village, a facade of constitutional powers with little ability to protect them.

  The combination of open borders and closed courts will continue to fuel this crisis. If the justices will not allow states to close their borders, they can at least open the courts to allow them greater ability to be heard.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 17:40

• Glimpse Of Sanity: Dartmouth Returns Standardized Testing For Admission After Failed Experiment
  Glimpse Of Sanity: Dartmouth Returns Standardized Testing For Admission After Failed Experiment

  In response to the virus pandemic and nationwide Black Lives Matter riots in the summer of 2020, some elite colleges and universities shredded testing requirements for admission. Several years later, the test-optional admission has yet to produce the promising results for racial and class-based equity that many woke academic institutions wished.

  

  The failure of test-optional admission policies has forced Dartmouth College to reinstate standardized test scores for admission starting next year. This should never have been eliminated, as merit will always prevail. 

  “Nearly four years later, having studied the role of testing in our admissions process as well as its value as a predictor of student success at Dartmouth, we are removing the extended pause and reactivating the standardized testing requirement for undergraduate admission, effective with the Class of 2029,” Dartmouth wrote in a press release Monday morning. 

  “For Dartmouth, the evidence supporting our reactivation of a required testing policy is clear. Our bottom line is simple: we believe a standardized testing requirement will improve—not detract from—our ability to bring the most promising and diverse students to our campus,” the elite college said. 

  Who would’ve thought eliminating standardized tests for admission because a fringe minority said they were instruments of racism and a biased system was ever a good idea? 

  We’re doomed pic.twitter.com/eNoKVnaOcz

  — Clown World ™ 🤡 (@ClownWorld_) February 5, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Also, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. More from Dartmouth, who commissioned the research: 

  They also found that test scores represent an especially valuable tool to identify high-achieving applicants from low and middle-income backgrounds; who are first-generation college-bound; as well as students from urban and rural backgrounds.

  All the colleges and universities that quickly adopted test-optional admissions in 2020 experienced a surge in applications. Perhaps the push for test-optional was under the guise of woke equality but was nothing more than protecting the bottom line for these institutions. 

  A glimpse of sanity returns to woke schools: Admit qualified kids. Next up is corporate America and all tiers of the US government. 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 17:20

• Trump Says AI Might Be 'Most Dangerous Thing Out There'
  Trump Says AI Might Be ‘Most Dangerous Thing Out There’

  Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Former President Donald Trump said that artificial intelligence, or AI, has “no real solution,” coming weeks after a series of robocalls were made in New Hampshire telling voters not to vote in the primary.

  

  When asked by Fox Business Network host Maria Bartiromo Friday about proposals for digital U.S. central bank currency, the former president said he was concerned about their possible risks.

  “Very dangerous. It’s very dangerous. One day, you don’t have any money in your account. It can be a very dangerous thing,” President Trump said. “And the other thing that I think is maybe the most dangerous thing out there of anything because there’s no real solution—the AI, as they call it. It is so scary.”

  Previously, the former president has issued concerns about AI for its ability to distort voices, pictures, and videos of political candidates to deceive the public during campaigns. In his Bartiromo interview, he said that he recently saw an instance when someone used AI that used his likeness to promote their product.

  “I saw somebody ripping me off the other day where they had me making a speech about their product,” President Trump said. “I said, ‘I’ll never endorse that product.’ You can’t even tell the difference. It looks like I’m actually endorsing it.”

  The former president also made reference to artificial intelligence’s capacity to alter images when he spoke with another Fox News reporter on Thursday. He was asked about pictures that a Getty Images photographer took of him last month that appeared to show red marks on his hands—which at the time drew a number of speculative headlines and online rumors.

  When pressed further, President Trump quipped that “nothing” was wrong with his hands while he held them up. “Maybe it’s AI,” he joked.

  Meanwhile, a digitally made robocall that appeared to use President Joe Biden’s voice to tell people not to vote in New Hampshire’s primary was flagged last month by the state’s attorney general.

  Attorney General John Formella said last month that the recorded message, which was sent to multiple voters on Sunday, appears to be an illegal attempt to disrupt and suppress voting. He said voters “should disregard the contents of this message entirely.”

  A recording of the call uploaded online appeared to generate a voice similar to President Biden’s and employs his often-used phrase, “What a bunch of malarkey.” It then tells the listener to “save your vote for the November election.”

  “Voting this Tuesday only enables the Republicans in their quest to elect Donald Trump again,” the voice mimicking the former president says. “Your vote makes a difference in November, not this Tuesday.”

  It’s not clear how many people actually received the calls.

  White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre had said that the call “was indeed fake and not recorded by the president.”

  The president’s campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, said in a statement that the campaign is “actively discussing additional actions to take immediately.”

  Katie Dolan, a spokeswoman for the campaign of Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who is challenging President Biden in the Democratic primary, said Mr. Phillips’ team was not involved and only found out about the deepfake attempt when a reporter called seeking comment. The Trump campaign said it had nothing to do with the recording either.

  Move to Criminalize AI Robocalls

  Meanwhile, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) appears to have taken heed and moved to explicitly criminalize unsolicited robocalls that appear to use voices created via AI.

  “AI-generated voice cloning and images are already sowing confusion by tricking consumers into thinking scams and frauds are legitimate,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement.

  “No matter what celebrity or politician you favor, or what your relationship is with your kin when they call for help, it is possible we could all be a target of these faked calls,“ she said, adding, “That’s why the FCC is taking steps to recognize this emerging technology as illegal under existing law, giving our partners at State Attorneys General offices across the country new tools they can use to crack down on these scams and protect consumers.”

  She noted that more than two dozen state attorneys general favor regulations on AI-generated robocalls.

  The Associated Press contributed to this report.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/05/2024 – 17:00