• A Small Arizona Town Prepares To Fight State Over Illegal Immigration
  A Small Arizona Town Prepares To Fight State Over Illegal Immigration

  Authored by Allan Stein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  As a small rural town in Arizona, Springerville has what it needs in terms of material amenities for its residents. There’s a general store, a small regional hospital, a supermarket, retail shops, hotels and restaurants, and parks for recreational vehicles during the tourist season.

  

  The town’s closest neighbor is Eagar (population 4,800). The nearest city is Show Low (population 11,732), about 50 miles southwest across vast golden hills and open range.

  “The one thing I pride myself on with this little community is we band together,” Springerville’s Mayor Shelly Reidhead told The Epoch Times. “We love each other, and we take care of each other.

  “I hope that holds when it hits the fan.”

  Although Springerville sits 300 miles from the U.S.–Mexico border, the illegal immigration crisis almost landed on its doorstep last year.

  This year, Ms. Reidhead fears another showdown with her state officials if the border crisis grows much worse.

  “I’ve been dreading 2024 because I know what we’re in for [with the presidential election]. It’s not going to be a pretty year.”

  In May 2023, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs and her staff pushed the idea of busing illegal aliens to Springerville and housing them in the 189,000-square-foot dome stadium, the Round Valley Ensphere.

  

  When residents found out, they were furious and prepared to take action.

  Some wanted to block the buses carrying the illegal immigrants at the town line with chain barriers—and come armed if necessary, according to residents who didn’t want their names used.

  It was a tense situation, they said. Fortunately, the confrontation never came about after the town told the governor’s office to get lost.

  The stadium looks like a giant flying saucer landed in the middle of horse and cattle country. It’s a massive wooden-dome stadium that can seat 5,500 spectators in bleachers away from the elements.

  Due to its sheer size, the futuristic-looking enclosure has multiple uses. Years ago, it provided temporary shelter for displaced wildfire victims.

  The Arizona governor eyed it up to temporarily place illegal immigrants.

  But, the town moved against it.

  On July 19, 2023, Springerville’s town council passed a binding resolution, signed by the mayor, that said “no” to the town footing the bill for immigrants—illegal or legal.

  

  “The town is a small municipality with limited buildings, space, and material resources to accept, house, maintain, or support migrants,” the two-page resolution reads.

  But, legally, it could take more than a binding resolution to prevent the state from dropping off busloads of illegal aliens and creating problems for the town, Ms. Reidhead said.

  Located in Apache County, Springerville ranks among the state’s poorest communities, with 1,730 residents and a median income of $46,311 in 2022.

  Almost 12 percent live below the poverty line.

  “You’re in cowboy country here,” said Ms. Reidhead, who takes a hard line over illegal immigration and protecting her community’s traditional way of life.

  The Epoch Times has reached out to Ms. Hobbs’s office, which has yet to respond.

  Ms. Reidhead and other town officials have been keeping a close eye on the southern border since President Joe Biden took office.

  “What [the Biden administration] wants is a broken, chaotic country,” Ms. Reidhead said. “They’re doing a good job.”

  “We can’t even feed the people in the United States now. How are we going to feed another 8 million people?”

  According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, border agents apprehended more than 2.4 million illegal aliens at the southern border during the fiscal year spanning October 2022 through September 2023. Another 189,402 were encountered along the northern U.S. border.

  CBP has already reported nearly 989,000 illegal immigrants during the first quarter of fiscal 2024.

  

  Officials say that illegal border crossings have begun to shift away from the embattled 1,254-mile southern border in Texas and to Arizona and California as the Lone State state battles with the Biden administration over border security in Texas.

  Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott has so far prevailed in his state’s efforts to increase border security, but he’s being sued by the Biden administration over several measures, including concertina wire, river buoys, and new state legislation.

  In Arizona

  In December 2023, CBP temporarily closed Arizona’s Lukeville shared port of entry with Mexico due to a surge in illegal crossings.

  Later that month, Ms. Hobbs ordered the deployment of Arizona’s National Guard to assist Border Patrol agents in Lukeville with processing foreign nationals who entered the country illegally.

  The governor has deflected criticism over her handling of the border crisis in Arizona onto the federal government.

  “Yet again, the federal government is refusing to do its job to secure our border and keep our communities safe,” Ms. Hobbs said in a Dec. 15 statement announcing the deployment of National Guardsmen.

  “With this executive order, I am taking action where the federal government won’t. But we can’t stand alone; Arizona needs resources and manpower to reopen the Lukeville crossing, manage the flow of migrants, and maintain a secure, orderly, and humane border,” she said.

  “Despite continued requests for assistance, the Biden administration has refused to deliver desperately needed resources to Arizona’s border.”

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 23:55

• John Fetterman Is Not The Progressive Politician Everyone Thought He Was
  John Fetterman Is Not The Progressive Politician Everyone Thought He Was

  Authored by Beth Brelje via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Financial backing from progressive Democrats helped John Fetterman flip a long-held Republican U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania in 2022.

  

  During his first two years as a senator, Mr. Fetterman has often surprised progressives and conservatives alike with his outspoken positions that have challenged party dogma.

  Mr. Fetterman has voted against his party five times. He was the only Democrat to vote no on the confirmation of Monica Bertagnolli to direct the National Institutes of Health.

  He was one of four Democrats who voted no to increase the debt ceiling.

  And he agreed with Republicans on a resolution to disapprove of a rule written by the Department of Commerce relating to President Joe Biden’s June 2022 emergency and authorization for temporary extensions of time and duty-free importation of solar cells and modules from southeast Asia.

  The guy on the Senate floor in the Carhartt hoodie is still very much a Democrat: pro-abortion, pro-recreational marijuana, pro-criminal justice reform, and a strong supporter of unions.

  At the U.S. Capitol, Mr. Fetterman told The Epoch Times that he has not changed positions, but things are happening that highlight them—most notably, his support for Israel and acknowledging the problem of illegal crossings at the southern border.

  “Sometimes people may have the wrong impressions, whether from the commercials and all that stuff,“ Mr. Fetterman said. ”I’ve always really had those kinds of positions, so it’s not like a shock. So, nothing’s changed, perhaps maybe the perception.”

  He also said he’s never been a progressive. He described himself as a regular Democrat who has made the case that Democrats come with a variety of views.

  G. Terry Madonna, senior fellow in residence for political affairs at Millersville University, has watched Mr. Fetterman’s political career from the beginning and said it is not uncommon for politicians to change their views.

  “He’s not a typical liberal Democrat, which most of us thought he was during the course of his campaign, and the fact of the matter is, he’s evolving,” Mr. Madonna told The Epoch Times.

  But he’s not turning into a conservative. “I’ve not seen any evidence, except for those two issues, that he’s moved away from the liberal mantra, but there have been growing questions about him because of these two big issues that he’s come out with [views] very different from liberal Democrats,” Mr. Madonna said.

  

  Mayor of Braddock

  Mr. Fetterman has often been undaunted by public opinion and sometimes the rules.

  He was the first Pennsylvania mayor to perform a same sex marriage in 2013, despite that a state law prohibited it.

  One January night in 2013, Mr. Fetterman, then the mayor of Braddock, thought he heard gunshots. He ran outside, got in his truck, and chased, confronted, and detained a black man with a shotgun that he had in his truck. The man had no weapon. He was out jogging.

  “I believe I did the right thing, but I may have broken the law in the course of it, and I’m certainly not above the law,” Mr. Fetterman told a WTAE TV reporter at the time. Nothing came of the incident legally, but it does come up at election time.

  Earning $150 a month, Mr. Fetterman worked as the part-time mayor for the impoverished borough from 2006 to 2019. It was his only job for those 13 years. Once a thriving steel town with 20,000 people, Braddock had dwindled to 2,300 by the time Mr. Fetterman became mayor. In 2021, only 1,700 residents remained, including Mr. Fetterman, his wife, Gisele, and their three children.

  

  Then, like now, Mr. Fetterman’s style and blunt comments attracted media coverage and opportunities.

  The small-town mayor was invited to speak in Colorado at the Aspen Institute Cultural Diplomacy Forum in 2009. He also spoke at the Aspen Ideas Festival in 2010, had a feature written about him in The New York Times, and gave a Ted Talk in 2013 about how he was revitalizing Braddock with community gardens, teaching youth work skills, creating housing for kids aging out of foster care, and building playgrounds on abandoned lots.

  On the Issues

  Many issues in Washington are boiled down to black-and-white positions, but immigration is a gray area for Mr. Fetterman, he said, as he acknowledges the complexity of the issue.

  During his failed 2015 campaign for Senate, he ran an advertisement highlighting his wife, who is from Brazil. She entered the United States illegally at age 9 with her mother.

  “I was asked: ‘Your wife’s family broke the law. What do you think of that?’ And I said: ‘Well, I’m so grateful that they did. Because if they didn’t have the courage to take that step, I wouldn’t have the three beautiful children that I have today,’” Mr. Fetterman said in the advertisement. “We as a society take a step backwards if we do anything but embrace the people that are here, and create effective laws and pass the citizenship for people coming into our country.”

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 23:00

• Fani Willis Disqualification Is "Possible," Judge Says
  Fani Willis Disqualification Is “Possible,” Judge Says

  By Catherine Yang of The Epoch Times

  Fulton County Superior Judge Scott McAfee confirmed on Feb. 12 that the hearing about misconduct claims against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade “must occur” on Feb. 15 and could lead to disqualification.

  

  Ms. Willis is presiding over the high-profile racketeering case that names former President Donald Trump and 14 others.

  “I think it’s clear that disqualification can occur if evidence is produced presenting a conflict or the appearance of one, and the filings submitted on this issue so far have presented a conflict of interest that can’t be resolved as a matter of law,” Judge McAfee said.

  Ms. Willis will be called as the first witness, the judge said after hearing some of the prosecutors’ arguments. “I don’t see how quash can be imposed here,” he said, referring to the district attorney’s effort to dismiss the subpoenas.

  On Feb. 12, the judge held a hearing regarding the district attorney’s motions to quash the nine subpoenas issued on Ms. Willis herself and her staffers, ahead of this week’s anticipated hearing where the district attorney will have to respond to allegations of an “improper” relationship.

  On Jan. 8, defendant Michael Roman filed a lengthy motion that alleged Ms. Willis was in a personal relationship with Mr. Wade, an attorney with a private law firm whom she had contracted to take a lead position in the racketeering case. He alleged that Mr. Wade took Ms. Willis on “lavish” vacations including a cruise, and that she financially benefited from the situation.

  He also made several other allegations including that Mr. Wade wasn’t qualified for the position and that Ms. Willis used funds improperly, which the judge indicated would not be the focus of the Jan. 15 evidentiary hearing. After the huge claims were made, several codefendants filed their own motions to disqualify Ms. Willis based on “prejudicial” actions.

  “Specifically looking at defendant Roman’s motion, it alleged a personal relationship that resulted in a financial benefit to the district attorney that is no longer a matter of speculation,” the judge said. “The state has admitted a relationship existed, and so what remains to be proven is the existence and extent of any financial benefit, again if there even was one.”

  Judge McAfee said the claims of prejudice were based on public statements—a speech Ms. Willis gave at an Atlanta church where she invoked God and said her critics were playing the “race card”—and did not warrant a hearing meant to produce evidence for the record. Other issues such as Mr. Wade’s resume also did not warrant an evidentiary hearing, the judge said.

  The district attorney had filed a motion arguing that no evidentiary hearing was necessary because no conflict of interest had occurred, but the judge rejected the argument.

  “Because I think it’s possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification, I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish a record on those core allegations,” Judge McAfee said.

  He said the hearing will focus on “whether a relationship existed, whether that relationship was romantic or not in nature, when it formed, and whether it continues.”

  “I think that’s only relevant because it’s in relation to the question of the extent of any personal benefit conveyed as a result of the relationship,” Judge McAfee said.

  Mr. Roman’s attorney, Ashleigh Merchant, alleged that the relationship began as early as 2019 and the couple cohabited at one point, and claimed in a court filing that she could produce witnesses to testify to these allegations.

  Mr. Wade had submitted a sworn affidavit stating that he had met Ms. Willis in 2019 but a “personal relationship” began only in 2022, and that Ms. Willis split expenses with him so there was no financial benefit.

  Anna Cross, another one of the prosecutors contracted by the district attorney for the case, said during the Feb. 12 hearing that none of the subpoenaed witnesses have anything to say that contradicts Mr. Wade’s affidavit.

  Continue reading here.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 22:05

• House GOP Seeks Biden-Hur Dementia Transcripts, Recordings
  House GOP Seeks Biden-Hur Dementia Transcripts, Recordings

  Three House committees have asked the DOJ to turn over transcripts and recordings of President Joe Biden’s interviews with special counsel Robert Hur, following an explosive report that concluded Biden is too cognitively impaired to be charged with a crime.

  

  The request, sent by the three GOP leaders to Attorney General Merrick Garland, echoes many Republican concerns that Biden is receiving more favorable treatment than Donald Trump for the same crime.

  “The Committee on the Judiciary requires these documents for its ongoing oversight of the Department’s commitment to impartial justice and its handling of the investigation and prosecution of President Biden’s presumptive opponent, Donald J. Trump, in the November 2024 presidential election,” wrote the chairs of the three committees – House Oversight and Accountability Chair James Comer (R-KY), House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH), and House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-MO), who are demanding the information no later than February 19.

  

  “Although Mr. Hur reasoned that President Biden’s presentation ‘as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory’ who “did not remember when he was vice president’ or ‘when his son Beau died’ posed challenges to proving the President’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the report concluded that the Department’s principles of prosecution weighed against prosecution because the Department has not prosecuted ‘a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration,” the letter continues.

  “The one ‘exception’ to the Department’s principles of prosecution, as Mr. Hur noted, ‘is former President Trump.’ This speaks volumes about the Department’s commitment to evenhanded justice.”

  Other GOP lawmakers have said more of the same.

  

  “Among the most disturbing parts of this report is the Special Counsel’s justification for not recommending charges: namely that the President’s memory had such ‘significant limitations’ that he could not convince a jury that the President held a ‘mental state of willfulness’ that a serious felony requires,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) and conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-NY) in a letter sent last week in response to the report.

  “A man too incapable of being held accountable for mishandling classified information is certainly unfit for the Oval Office.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 21:30

• "Vladimir Putin Will Not Lose This War": Sen. Ron Johnson And Elon Musk Discuss Facing Reality In Ukraine
  “Vladimir Putin Will Not Lose This War”: Sen. Ron Johnson And Elon Musk Discuss Facing Reality In Ukraine

  Update (2100ET): During today’s Twitter Spaces, Elon Musk and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) discussed their opposition to the ongoing war in Ukraine.

  

  “We all have to understand that Vladimir Putin will not lose this war… Losing to Vladimir Putin is existential to Vladimir Putin. Russia has four times the population and a much larger industrial base,” said Johnson, adding “Russia can produce 4.5 million artillery shells per year. We’re not even up to 1 million per year. The average age of a Ukrainian soldier right now is 43 years old.”

  “If you’re worried about the people of Ukraine, you have to understand that probably 100,000 of their soldiers have been killed,” Johnson continued, adding “The only way this war ends is in a settlement, and every day that the war goes on, more Ukrainians and more Russian conscripts die, more civilians die, and more of Ukraine gets destroyed. Again, sending $60 billion as added fuel to the flames of a bloody stalemate makes no sense.”

  Musk echoed Johnson’s sentiment, saying “As you said, there’s no way Putin is going to lose. If he backs off, he will be assassinated. And for those who want regime change in Russia, they should think about who is the person that could take out Putin?”

  

  He also defended his record – saying “My companies have probably done more to undermine Russia than anyone. Space X has taken away two-thirds of the Russian launch business. Starlink has overwhelmingly helped Ukraine.”

  Listen:

  🚨BREAKING: Elon Musk and Senator Ron Johnson discuss their opposition to escalating the ongoing bloody stalemate in the War in Ukraine.

  Instead, advocating for peace negotiations to bring an end to the loss of lives and the destruction of Ukraine.@elonmusk: “My companies have… pic.twitter.com/89O09FkYGM

  — KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) February 13, 2024

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

  *  *  *

  On Monday, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) shared a memo sent to his Republican colleagues in Congress which outlines an “impeachment time bomb” hidden in the text of the Senate’s Ukraine funding bill in case Trump wins the November election.

  

  According to the memo;

  President Trump has said, in regard to the war in Ukraine, “We got to get that war settled and I’ll get it settled.” He has stated that he would resolve the war in 24 hours.

  The bill includes $1.6 billion for foreign military financing in Ukraine, and $13.7 billion for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. These funds expire on September 30, 2025 — nearly a year into the possible second term of President Trump. These are the exact same accounts President Trump was impeached for pausing in December 2019.

  …

  If President Trump were to withdraw from or pause financial support for the war in Ukraine in order to bring the conflict to a peaceful conclusion, “over the objections of career experts,” it would amount to the same fake violation of budget law from the first impeachment, under markedly similar facts and circumstances.”

  According to Vance, Democrats “would seize on the opportunity to impeach him once again.” 

  I just sent the below memo to every one of my Republican colleagues in Congress.

  Buried in the bill’s text is an impeachment time bomb for the next Trump presidency if he tries to stop funding the war in Ukraine.

  We must vote against this disastrous bill. pic.twitter.com/uKqet9s0xd

  — J.D. Vance (@JDVance1) February 12, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js“This is insane,” replied Elon Musk – who then arranged for a ‘spaces’ discussion on X which will include Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Vance, along with Vivek Ramaswamy and David Sacks, at 6PM E.T.

  You can listen in by clicking into the post below:

  What’s up with this spending bill? https://t.co/nlaY8JQlTx

  — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 12, 2024

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

   

  ZeroPointNow
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 21:01

• Houston Church Shooter Identified As Transgender With A Long Criminal History
  Houston Church Shooter Identified As Transgender With A Long Criminal History

  Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

  A shooter who was killed by off-duty police officers after opening fire at a Houston megachurch while seemingly using a 7-year-old child as a human shield has been identified as a woman named Genesse Moreno, who police said also identified as a man named Jeffrey Escalante.

  

  Police said a woman in her early 30s entered Lakewood Church on Feb. 11 wearing a trench coat and backpack, armed with a long rifle, and began firing.

  Before managing to kill anyone, the shooter was taken down by two off-duty officers, one a Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission agent and the other a Houston police officer, according to Houston Police Chief Troy Finner.

  “I want to commend those officers. She had a long gun, and it could’ve been a lot worse, but they stepped up and they did their job,” Chief Finner said during a media briefing on the afternoon of Feb. 11.

  

  Emergency vehicles line the feeder road outside Lakewood Church during a reported active shooter event in Houston on Feb. 11, 2024. (Kirk Sides/Houston Chronicle via AP)

  An affidavit seeking a search warrant for a home in Conroe, Texas, about 40 miles north of Houston, identifies the shooter as 36-year-old Genesse Ivonne Moreno, according to the Associated Press. The warrant was released by the Montgomery County district attorney’s office.

  Records cited by the Houston Chronicle and other media outlets, and which are circulating online, show that the shooter also identified as Jeffrey Escalante, who had a long criminal history, including assault, drug, and weapons charges.

  “A lengthy criminal history. A woman who thinks she is a man,” Don Hooper, a writer at the Houston Conservative Forum, wrote in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, that featured a series of the shooter’s mugshots over the years.

  “My information is biological female per the medical examiner,” he wrote in an earlier post. “They were looking at the body when brought in.”

  Chris Hassig, commander of the Houston Police Department homicide division, said during a media briefing on Feb. 12 that investigators have identified the shooter as a 36-year-old Hispanic female named Genesse Moreno.

  “There are some discrepancies [regarding the individual’s gender],” he said. “We do have reports she used multiple aliases, including Jeffrey Escalante. So she utilized both male and female names.”

  However, Mr. Hassig said the investigation indicates that “she has been identified this entire time as female.”

  He noted that the gun used by the shooter had a sticker with the word “Palestine” on it.

  Child as Human Shield?

  At the Feb. 12 briefing, Mr. Hassig said two people were injured in the incident, including the child who accompanied the shooter.

  The other person injured was a 57-year-old man, who was shot in the hip or leg.

  Mr. Hassig said the 7-year-old child who accompanied Ms. Moreno was struck in the head in the exchange of gunfire and remains in critical condition.

  He said Ms. Moreno pulled up to the church in a vehicle with the child inside and then entered the building with the little boy and, after entering, “she immediately starts firing inside of the hallway.”

  The two officers returned fire.

  “Multiple shots are exchanged by all three,” Mr. Hassig said. “She eventually falls to the ground; the 7-year-old child falls to the ground as well from gunfire. One gunshot wound to the head.”

  A Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office spokesperson was cited by the Houston Chronicle as saying on Feb. 12 that the 7-year-old was not expected to survive.

  While it’s unclear who shot the child, Chief Finner blamed the shooter.

  “That female, that suspect put that baby in danger,” he said during the Feb. 11 briefing.

  “I’m going to put that blame on her.”

  Lakewood Church, which seats roughly 16,000 people, is led by pastor Joel Osteen.

  

  Pastor Joel Osteen speaks to the media after a shooting at Lakewood Church in Houston on Feb. 11, 2024, in a still from video footage. (KTRK-TV ABC13 via AP)

  In a statement posted on X, Mr. Osteen praised law enforcement for acting swiftly to neutralize the threat and said that he was “devastated” by the shooting.

  “In the face of such darkness, we must hold onto our faith and remember evil will not prevail,” he said.

  Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issued a statement calling the shooting a “heinous act” and praising law enforcement for acting “quickly to respond to this tragedy.”

  “Our hearts are with those impacted by today’s tragic shooting and the entire Lakewood Church community in Houston,” Mr. Abbott wrote.

  A motive for the attack remains unclear.

  Ms. Moreno’s posts on social media show a history of leftist politics, according to independent journalist Andy Ngo.

  Alan Guity, a member of Lakewood Church since 1998, said he heard gunshots while resting inside the church’s sanctuary as his mother was working as an usher.

  He told the Associated Press that he ran to his mother and that they both lay flat on the floor as the gunfire continued.

  Mr. Guity told the outlet that he and his mother prayed and stayed on the floor for about five minutes until they were told it was safe to leave the building. He said that as he exited the building, he could see people crying and looking for loved ones.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 20:55

• Invasion Spreads To Unfenced US Northern Border Amid "Record-Breaking Surge" Of Illegal Entries Detected
  Invasion Spreads To Unfenced US Northern Border Amid “Record-Breaking Surge” Of Illegal Entries Detected

  As the Biden administration and “shadowy network of secretive nonprofits” facilitate the greatest migration invasion this nation has ever seen on the southern border, new concerns are mounting that illegals are finding alternative routes into the country via the unfenced northern border with Canada. 

  New US Customs and Border Protection data shows more than 12,000 migrants were apprehended on the northern border last year, more than double the number from the year before of 3,578. 

  The New York Post first reported that most illegal crossings (about 70%) have occurred along the 295-mile Swanton Sector, including upstate New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont. 

  Earlier this month, Robert Garcia, the chief patrol agent for the northern border sector, posted on X:

  Since October 1, 2023, Swanton Sector Border Patrol Agents have apprehended more than 3,100 subjects from 55 countries (more than Fiscal Years 2022, 21, 20 & 19 combined). Photo: An early morning apprehension of 4 adult males from Bangladesh on February 1, near Mooers, New York.

  Since October 1, 2023, Swanton Sector Border Patrol Agents have apprehended more than 3,100 subjects from 55 countries (more than Fiscal Years 2022, 21, 20 & 19 combined). Photo: An early morning apprehension of 4 adult males from Bangladesh on February 1, near Mooers, New York. pic.twitter.com/nAf5KG467R

  — Chief Patrol Agent Robert Garcia (@USBPChiefSWB) February 2, 2024

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

  Garcia then warned: 

  “The record-breaking surge of illegal entries from Canada continues in Swanton Sector.” 

  The record-breaking surge of illegal entries from Canada continues in Swanton Sector. A citizen’s report in Champlain, NY, led to the arrest of 10 Bangladesh citizens. Agents rely on the vigilance of our community.
  If you see something, say something! Call 1-800-689-3362. pic.twitter.com/eSTMV8HwOu

  — Chief Patrol Agent Robert Garcia (@USBPChiefSWB) February 8, 2024

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

  Experts told NYPost, “Migrants who make it to Mexico and can afford a $350 one-way plane ticket from Mexico City or Cancun to Montreal or Toronto are making their way south to cross the northern US border — where they are less likely to be turned away than those who cross the southern border.” 

  On the northern border, migrants take advantage of border crossings without walls or fences. They’re simply just walking right into the US. 

  

  New York State Assemblyman Billy Jones, who represents Clinton County, recently warned: “The northern border has pretty much been ignored.” 

  The tick-up in migrant encounters on the northern border first came to our attention nearly one year ago. We penned this note last May: “Northern US Border Encounters With Illegals More Than Double In 7 Months.”

  And just days ago, a migrant smuggling ring in New Jersey was uncovered that bussed “dozens if not hundreds” of migrants into the US through the unfenced border between Quebec and Vermont. 

  

  Earlier this month, New York Republican leaders in the state Legislature urged Gov. Kathy Hochul to deploy the state’s National Guard on its northern border. 

  “More than 8 million border encounters have occurred since President Biden took office. In 2023, over 2.5 million migrants entered the country through the southern border. In December alone, 302,034 encounters were reported by US Customs and Border Protection. On New York’s Northern Border, 91,640 illegal crossings were reported in the past year.

  “Immigration reform is a matter that must be dealt with on the Federal level. However, we hope you agree that the states’ sovereign right to protect its citizens and its communities must be valued above the actions of federal authorities. For this reason, we urge you to deploy the National Guard immediately to assist the State of Texas and New York Canadian border in efforts to stop the flow of migrants coming into our country illegally,” the letter stated, signed by state Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt and Assembly Minority Leader William Barclay.

  The colossal mess the Biden administration has created by willfully ignoring the border invasion and refusing any executive action is only worsening as the crisis is now spreading to the northern border. 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 20:20

• Best And Worst Metro Areas For First-Time Buyers In 2024
  Best And Worst Metro Areas For First-Time Buyers In 2024

  Submitted by Sam Bourgi of CreditNews

  

  The past few years have been one of the worst periods for first-time homebuyers in America’s history.

  Record home prices, chronically low inventory, 22-year-high mortgage rates, and bidding wars with cash- and equity-flush buyers have locked many younger buyers out of the housing market.

  According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), first-time homebuyers made up just 32% of all transactions last year—the fourth lowest share seen in more than 40 years.

  While would-be homeowners bide their time, Creditnews Research looked at America’s 50 largest metro areas to uncover housing markets that are still attractive for first-time buyers.

  Our ranking shows how easy it is for residents in each metro area to buy a starter home—defined as homes with a sale value in the 5th to 35th percentile range purchased with a mortgage.

  Primary factors in our scoring model include mortgage affordability, market access, and bargaining power. We also looked at macro indicators, such as employment growth and livability.

  Combined, the weighted scoring model provides a holistic snapshot of America’s largest metro areas that offer first-time buyers the best bang for their buck.

  Some of the results may surprise you.

  Best metro areas for first-time buyers

  Based on Creditnews Research’s scoring model, the top metro areas for first-time buyers are:

  1. Pittsburgh: America’s steel town is an excellent place for first-time homebuyers because it offers the best affordability for a starter home. No other metro area in our ranking offers a lower mortgage payment relative to income. Pittsburgh also ranks second in terms of listing price cuts—giving buyers strong bargaining power when house hunting. Pittsburgh’s labor market isn’t exactly booming (it ranks 31st for employment growth), but its job growth is still positive. In this remote work age, the Pittsburgh metro area, made up of five counties, can be an attractive place to live, even for families who aren’t employed in local manufacturing.
  2. Austin-Round Rock: Austin has experienced a population explosion in recent years, making homes at the higher end of the spectrum hard to afford for first-time buyers. But those shopping for starter homes can still find a decent value. The Austin metro area, which includes five counties, ranks first for market access—with its home listings staying on the market the longest. Austin is also a top-10 city for employment growth and is one of the most livable cities in America when it comes to amenities, culture, and healthcare. The trade-off is mortgage affordability (29th). Families in Austin have a much higher income than the national average, but starter homes are priced at $331,565—bringing the average mortgage payment to a hefty $2,259 a month.
  3. San Antonio-New Braunfels: Roughly 80 miles from the state capital, the San Antonio-New Braunfels metro area is the third most affordable place for first-time homebuyers. And, San Antonio ranks second in market access, suggesting much lower competition among buyers than the national average. It’s also a top-10 area for employment and livability but doesn’t rank as highly as Austin in either category. It does, however, boast much better mortgage affordability and bargaining power than Austin, ranking 6th and 4th among other metro areas, respectively.
  4. Birmingham-Hoover: Alabama’s largest metro area, consisting of seven counties, has seen its population steadily decline over the decades, but still offers first-time buyers a little bit of everything: mortgage affordability (6th), bargaining power (4th), and employment growth (5th). Over the past year, employment in the area has increased by 3%, making it one of the fastest-growing labor markets in the country.
  5. Jacksonville: Wrapping up our top 5 ranking is metro Jacksonville, which includes four counties and is the 4th largest metropolitan area in Florida. Jacksonville makes the list thanks to its strong market access (4th) and good livability (12th). What makes Jacksonville a major standout on this list is its labor market. After registering a whopping 3.8% increase over the past year it ranks first in employment growth. The only caveats to Jacksonville are mortgage affordability (28th) and bargaining power (32nd), which rank middle of the pack. Still, starter home prices are highly affordable compared to other major metro areas.

  Pittsburgh: Steel town becomes boom town?

  While Pittsburgh doesn’t get as much spotlight as Austin and other Sun Belt cities, the steel town punches above its weight in giving the best bang for the buck for first-time homebuyers.

  What makes Pittsburgh such an attractive place for first-time buyers is the affordability of its starter homes, which typically go for $107,912—the lowest among other metro areas in our ranking.

  Even at the current mortgage rates, a mortgage for such a home, including fees and insurance, would come to around $850 a month.

  That translates to just 14% of the median monthly household income in Pittsburgh, meaning many middle-class households can easily afford two starter homes.

  Pittsburgh is also one of the few metropolitan areas where the average household can afford a median-priced home.

  As such, the Pittsburgh metro ranks #1 in our mortgage affordability ranking.

  Perhaps more surprising is the fact that Pittsburgh’s unemployment rate is well below the national average. Its cost of living is also lower than the U.S. average.

  Even investors have recognized the real estate potential in the steel town.

  In 2021, nearly 25% of homes sold in the city were to investors or corporations—up from 15.5% in 2010, according to the local nonprofit Pittsburgh Community Reinvestment Group.

  Unlike other investor-infested housing markets, however, Pittsburgh continues to offer the best value among the top 50 metro areas.

  Worst metro areas for first-time buyers

  Not surprisingly, California dominates the bottom of the rankings because of its lack of mortgage affordability, relatively weak market access, and diminished bargaining power.

  The bottom five metro areas in our ranking are:

  • 46. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario: Riverside’s close proximity to Los Angeles has made it an attractive destination for Californians. Despite being a growing city with lots of amenities, the third largest metro area in California, which includes Riverside and San Bernardino counties, ranks 48th for livability due to its high cost of living. Mortgage affordability for a starter home is also among the worst (44th), mainly because of elevated housing costs. Riverside residents also lack bargaining power—the metro ranks 39th in that category.
  • 47. Denver-Aurora-Lakewood: The mile-high city ranks dead last for bargaining power—meaning residents there shouldn’t expect price reductions when shopping for a starter home in this six-county metro area. Mortgage affordability is also among the lowest (38th), mostly because of elevated housing costs. Denver ranks 48th for jobs, becoming one of only a small handful of major cities to register negative employment growth.
  • 48. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim: With an average starter home price of $645,196, Los Angeles, the most populous metropolitan area in the country, is one of the worst cities for first-time homebuyers. Elevated housing costs have pushed down mortgage affordability—the city ranks 49th in this category. Los Angeles also ranks poorly for livability (46th) due to a high cost of living, crime, and poor access to healthcare.
  • 49. San Diego-Carlsbad: For first-time buyers, the San Diego metro, which encompasses all of San Diego county, is very similar to Los Angeles. The city has an average home price of $651,891 and poor mortgage affordability (48th). San Diego has a much higher livability score (26th) but ranks worse than Los Angeles for market access and bargaining power. There just aren’t a lot of housing options for first-time buyers, and the prospects aren’t looking up in the near term.
  • 50. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara: At the very bottom of our ranking is San Jose, which is an hour’s drive south of San Francisco. What makes San Jose so prohibitive is its lack of mortgage affordability (50th), with starter home prices coming in at a whopping $965,068—even higher than Los Angeles. That’s more than six times higher than the annual median household income in that area. A lack of market access (35th) and poor employment growth (38th) round out the reasons first-time buyers might want to (or have to) steer clear.

  Where each metropolitan area ranks

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 19:55

• CRE Crash Unfolding: "Yes That's Not A Typo – It Literally Sold For $9 Per SQFT" 
  CRE Crash Unfolding: “Yes That’s Not A Typo – It Literally Sold For $9 Per SQFT” 

  In a commentary, Neil Callanan of Bloomberg highlighted, “The commercial real estate crash unfolding in the US is a natural consequence of quantitative easing.” 

  Callanan continued: ” … which intentionally pushed investors out of safer assets like bonds and into alternatives like private equity, malls, and warehouses.” 

  

  The journalist penned the note titled “The CRE Crash Is Part of the Price of Global Quantitative Easing” following the latest CRE rumblings with loan losses, reserve build, and dividend cuts announced by New York Community Bancorp, a regional bank with high exposure to multifamily and CRE lending across NYC. Also, sizable credit losses and/or write-downs of US CRE sparked chaos for lenders in Japan, Germany, and Canada as the dominoes began to fall. 

  Furthermore, Callanan referenced a National Bureau of Economic Research report revealing that 45% of all office loans are underwater. This report also cautioned that upwards of 300 regional banks could face solvency runs due to CRE turmoil at the end of the third quarter. 

  In a report last week, research firm Green Street estimated that appraised property values could sustain another 10% to reach fair valuations, which is bad news for lenders, particularly smaller ones with weak balance sheets. 

  X user Triple Net Investor posted the latest CRE catastrophe: “A 262k sq ft building in Ohio has just sold for $2.4 million, or $9 per sq ft.” 

  X user said, “Yes, that’s not a typo – it literally sold for $9 per sq ft.” 

  “The commercial real estate ‘correction’ has gone from concerning to an outright apocalypse, primarily impacting office properties in most cities across the US,” the user explained. 

  A 262k sq ft building in Ohio has just sold for $2.4 million, or $9 per sq ft

  Yes that’s not a typo – it literally sold for $9 per sq ft

  It was the former site of FedEx Custom Critical in Green, Ohio

  The commercial real estate ‘correction’ has gone from concerning to an… pic.twitter.com/8yJMTg09Nc

  — Triple Net Investor (@TripleNetInvest) February 9, 2024

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

  Barry Sternlicht, chairman and CEO of Starwood Capital, warned last summer that the CRE storm is entering “Category 5 hurricane” strength. He recently gave his take on the situation:

  “The office market has an existential crisis right now… it’s a $3 trillion dollar asset class that’s probably worth $1.8 trillion [now].” 

  Barry Sternlicht just gave a VERY thoughtful interview about the growing troubles in commercial real estate:

  Here’s what he had to say:

  “We have a problem in real estate. In every sector of real estate, not just office, because of the 500 basis point increase in rates that was… pic.twitter.com/OZdrpxxBtq

  — Triple Net Investor (@TripleNetInvest) February 1, 2024

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

  So, what’s ahead for the office market? 

  Well, more turmoil: Analysts led by Morgan Stanley’s Ronald Kamdem warned the most significant headwinds for Class A and Class B/C is years of supply, well above pre-Covid levels. 

  

  Class A office has about 18 years of supply, compared with the 2015-19 average of 13 years. 

  

  “The supply risk picture at the national level remains concerning and implies vacancy rates will likely remain under pressure,” Kamdem wrote. 

  And what happens if these buildings can’t find tenants and office owners can’t find financing?

  Well, as Vishwanath Tirupattur, global head of Quantitative Research at Morgan Stanley, warned in a note days ago: The CRE crisis will be with us for a long time. 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 19:30

• Democrats Strongly Support Mail-In Voting While Republicans Oppose, Poll Shows
  Democrats Strongly Support Mail-In Voting While Republicans Oppose, Poll Shows

  Authored by Aaron Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  

  A solid majority of Americans support the use of voter ID and paper ballot backups as measures to ensure election integrity, yet they remain divided along party lines over the issue of voting by mail, according to a survey.

  The Pew Research Center poll, released on Feb. 7, found that 84 percent of Democrats believe voting by mail should be available to all voters, while 28 percent of Republicans favor this requirement. On a national average, 57 percent of respondents support this proposal.

  Democrats strongly favor automatic voter registration for all eligible citizens and election-day voter registration, with 79 percent and 76 percent support, respectively. In comparison, nearly four in ten Republicans support these measures.

  In 2021, another Pew Research survey found that “Democrats are more likely to strongly favor proposals aimed at making it easier to vote; Republicans are more likely to strongly support requiring voters to show photo ID.”

  Measures With Strong Bipartisan Support

  The survey also found that most U.S. voters support paper ballot backups (82 percent), voter ID requirement (81 percent), early in-person voting (76 percent), making Election Day a national holiday (72 percent), and granting voting rights to convicted felons after completing their sentences (69 percent).

  Voter ID requirements and paper ballot backups have the highest support among Republicans. The other three proposals receive higher support among Democrats.

  Although a solid majority of Americans support voter ID, with 81 percent in favor, there is partisan division over the policy. Nearly all Republicans (95 percent) favor the measure, while 69 percent of Democrats support voter ID.

  Americans are also divided over the policy of removing inactive records from voter registration lists: 60 percent of Republicans favor this policy, compared with 27 percent of Democrats.

  Among racial and ethnic groups, black voters are more strongly supportive of early in-person voting (85 percent) and of granting voting rights to convicted felons after they finish their sentences (79 percent) than other groups are.

  Shift in Public Opinion

  The survey found that voters have changed their views in recent years, particularly regarding voting by mail; 57 percent of American adults now support voting by mail, compared with 70 percent four years ago. Among Republicans, only 28 percent support the policy, down from 49 percent in 2020, while Democrats’ views on this have remained unchanged since 2020.

  For the photo ID requirement, Republican support remains unchanged at 95 percent, whereas Democrat support has increased to 69 percent, up from 61 percent last year.

  Support among Americans for making election day a national holiday has increased from 65 percent in 2018 to 72 percent at present. In contrast, support for election-day voter registration has declined over recent years, dropping from 64 percent in 2018 to 57 percent today.

  Election Integrity Concerns

  Newly released documents show that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) knew it was unethical to censor concerns about the security of mail-in voting prior to the 2020 election, but it proceeded to do so anyway.

  On Jan. 22, America First Legal (AFL) revealed a collection of documents alleging that CISA was aware that mail-in ballots were less secure than voting in person before the 2020 election.

  “CISA interfered in the 2020 presidential election. CISA knew that in-person voting did not increase the spread of COVID[-19]. CISA knew mail-in voting was less secure. CISA nevertheless supported policy changes to encourage unprecedented widespread mail-in voting,” AFL said in a statement.

  “Common sense dictates that ballots submitted via mail are inherently less secure than verified, in-person voting by a citizen who shows identification before casting his or her ballot,” Gene Hamilton, AFL’s vice president and general counsel, said in a press release. “The American people were lied to, and there must be accountability. ”

  CISA admitted that mail-in voting held more severe risks than in-person elections, but it collaborated with technology companies to restrict what it deemed misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation surrounding the 2020 election. However, the recently disclosed records reveal how CISA did this.

  Austin Alonzo and Savannah Hulsey Pointer contributed to this report.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 19:05

• Court Orders Netherlands To Halt F-35 Parts For Israel As EU Says "Too Many People" Are Dying
  Court Orders Netherlands To Halt F-35 Parts For Israel As EU Says “Too Many People” Are Dying

  Israel’s worst nightmare is beginning to unfold. It has worked for years and decades to prevent a global boycott movement from ever gaining traction amid persistent accusations it violates Palestinians’ human rights, but amid the current war and soaring civilian death toll in Gaza, there are signs the pro-boycott movement is gaining steam.

  The government of the Netherlands has been ordered to block of all exports of F-35 fighter jet parts by a Dutch appeals court, on fears that the transfer would contribute to human rights violations. 

  

  “It is undeniable that there is a clear risk the exported F-35 parts are used in serious violations of international humanitarian law,” the court said according to Reuters.

  Israel has been bombing the Gaza Strip continuously since Oct.7 as part of the military operation to root out Hamas. But the war has resulted in an immense civilian death toll. Gaza health officials say the death toll has surpassed 28,000 as a result of the ground and air assault. 

  Defense leaders not happy, however, the government’s Trade Minister Geoffrey van Leeuwen admitted that “The delivery of US F-35 parts to Israel in our view is not unjustified.” He said F-35s were for Israel’s protection from the many regional threats it faces, “for example from Iran, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon.”

  According to the court, “the state had to comply with the order within seven days and dismissed a request by government lawyers to suspend the order pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.”

  There’s reportedly a possible workaround in progress which would involve sending the jet parts to Israel based on the government providing guarantees that the parts wouldn’t go toward F-35s operating over Gaza.

  Interestingly, the court order threatens to disrupt a crucial US-supply chain pipeline of defense wares to Israel: 

  The appeals court also said it was likely the F-35s were being used in attacks on Gaza, leading to unacceptable civilian casualties. It dismissed the Dutch state’s argument that it did not have to do a new check on the permit for the exports.

  The Netherlands houses one of several regional warehouses of US-owned F-35 parts, from which the parts are distributed to countries that request them, including Israel in at least one shipment since Oct. 7.

  The government said it would try to convince partners it would remain a reliable member of the F-35 program and other forms of international and European defense cooperation.

  Meanwhile, humanitarian pressure continues to mount on Israel, also at a moment the International Court of Justice is weighing South Africa’s ‘genocide’ case against Israel.

  European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell is the latest to urge Israel’s backers to halt all military supplies to the Jewish State. He lamented Monday that “too many people” are being killed in Gaza. But his remarks more highlighted the hypocrisy of the West as it condemns the death toll from Israel’s actions but still keeps pumping in the arms…

  Update: EU’s Borrell on US+Israel:
  “If you believe too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms”
  “Everybody goes to Tel Aviv begging”
  “Netanyahu doesn’t listen to anyone. They’re going to evacuate. Where? To the moon?”
  “Stop saying please & do something!” pic.twitter.com/g8uiprUia2

  — Rosie Birchard (@RosieBirchard) February 12, 2024

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

  Referencing Joe Biden’s remark last week that Israel’s military action was “over the top,” Borrell said, “Well, if you believe that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms in order to prevent so many people having been killed.”

  “How many times have you heard the most prominent leaders and foreign ministers around the world saying too many people are being killed?” Borrell questioned. “If the international community believes that this is a slaughter, that too many people are being killed, maybe we have to think about the provision of arms.”

  Meanwhile, this testy exchange also played out Monday afternoon…

  AP’s Matt Lee: What leverage is US using?

  State Dept spox Matt Miller: “The words of the President…matter”

  Lee: “Over the top?’ That’s leverage?”

  (2 days after Biden called Israel’s behavior “over the top,” it attacked the last refuge for 1.5 million Palestinians—killing 90+) pic.twitter.com/pEOKbQlCsb

  — Prem Thakker (@prem_thakker) February 12, 2024

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

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 18:45

• Victor Davis Hanson: The Absurd Border Con
  Victor Davis Hanson: The Absurd Border Con

  Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via The Epoch Times,

  In 2021, President Joe Biden opened wide an inherited, secure southern border that had finally stopped mass illegal immigration.

  

  When he overturned former President Donald Trump’s efforts, a planned flood of over 8 million illegal immigrants entered the United States.

  Almost all arrived without background checks, health screening, or vaccination certificates—but with massive needs for free housing, education, healthcare, and food entitlements and subsidies.

  For four years, President Trump battled the courts, his Democratic opposition, and the open-border establishments within his own party to ensure legal-only immigration. Somehow, he rebuilt some of the old porous border fence. He had begun to build his long-promised new wall to the Gulf of Mexico. He had ended Obama-era catch-and-release.

  Would-be refugees had to apply for asylum in their home country. President Trump leveraged Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to police his own border and stop cynically transiting millions of illegal aliens into the United States.

  There was general Democratic Party opposition to all of Trump’s measures, both through Congress and via the courts.

  For the last three years of Biden’s mass influx, the left has applauded open borders. That is, until late last year, when overwhelmed southern border state governors began busing and flying illegal immigrants en masse to northern sanctuary-city jurisdictions.

  For years, these sanctuary zones had preened their liberality about open borders. They smeared as “racists” and “xenophobes” any who insisted on legal-only immigration.

  But now they were subject to the real-life ramifications of their own destructive ideologies.

  Major blue-state cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., became outraged that they were inundated with tens of thousands of immigrants, all without legality, veritable identification, or background checks.

  Some proved violent. Others crowded out scarce resources essential to millions of inner-city poor.

  The liberal architects of illegal immigration are usually rich and powerful enough to be insulated from the consequences of their utopian policies.

  But not so their poor or minority constituents. They deal first-hand with spiking crime, appropriation of their parks and civic centers, and restricted access to now overwhelmed social services.

  So the once open-border Democrat Party and President Biden are in a quandary. They now fear mass defections of core Latino and black voters in an election year.

  But how can they square the circle of insisting on open borders with the need to appear to their own voters as determined to close them?

  We saw the absurd answer this week. Shameless Democrats tried to enlist naive and foolish Republicans to bail them out with a “comprehensive immigration bill.”

  It was really designed to keep the border open while spending billions of dollars to facilitate more rapid and orderly transits—and more substantial welfare support for millions of illegals here and still to come.

  Now Democrats claim that anyone who did not sign on to codify and regulate illegal immigration was responsible for their own deliberate open border policies in the first place!

  To add insult to injury, they next sought to piggyback their toxic immigration bill onto massive aid for Israel and Ukraine. It was a transparent effort to blame any Republicans for harming Israel and aiding Putin, should they not sign on to a more efficient open border.

  The real agenda of the bill’s supporters is absolutely no return to Trump’s legal-only immigration and a secure border.

  That simple solution requires no new legislation and almost no new spending. But it does imply acknowledgment that the hated President Trump had solved the problem executively – and that admission is apparently taboo.

  Finally, public outrage from the left and conservative anger at foolish and naive Republican enablers stopped the bill.

  Still, it remains somewhat unclear why President Biden and his Homeland Security chief, Alejandro Mayorkas, destroyed what President Trump had achieved. Why would they ensure such misery for both American hosts and millions of illegal immigrants?

  Did they want new long-term constituents, given that their neo-socialist agendas cannot win over a majority of current Americans?

  Is importing millions of the poorest and most in need on the planet a way to ensure a still larger Great Society of entitlements and, with it, higher taxes on the “filthy rich”?

  Do they assume that America’s increasingly non-Election-Day balloting ensures far less authentication and rejection of mail-in ballots, and thus it will be relatively easy for non-citizens to vote?

  Many, left and right, make no effort to hide their desire for cheap imported labor—even though the current labor participation rate is only 62 percent of the potential American workforce.

  Finally, one might expect this artifice from the left that is wedded to open borders.

  But why some establishment Republicans aided and abetted these disingenuous efforts is yet another reminder why the doctrinaire Republican Party had to be reinvented by President Trump.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 18:20

• Satanic Temple Claims Abortion Is Part Of Their Religion In Effort To Block Abortion Bans
  Satanic Temple Claims Abortion Is Part Of Their Religion In Effort To Block Abortion Bans

  Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  

  A satanic group is continuing attempts to overturn abortion bans in pro-life states by filing lawsuits claiming abortion is part of their religion.

  The Satanic Temple (TST), a nonprofit based in Salem, Massachusetts, has filed lawsuits in Missouri, Indiana, Texas, and Idaho that so far have been unsuccessful.

  That hasn’t stopped the headline-grabbing organization from plaintiff-shopping for new religious freedom lawsuits to stop abortion bans, according to its website.

  The group doesn’t shy away from controversy. It made news recently for staging a satanic holiday display featuring a silver goat head atop blood-red robes during Christmas at the Iowa Capitol. The Baphomet statue shared space with a Christmas display until it was decapitated.

  Michael Cassidy, a former U.S. Navy fighter pilot who ran for office in Mississippi, took credit for tearing it down. The Christian conservative raised $120,000 as of early February for legal fees after being charged with criminal mischief. Recently, prosecutors announced they are charging him with a felony hate crime.

  TST created an abortion ritual that it claims will exempt women from their states’ laws. The ritual, along with TST’s new abortion clinic in New Mexico, was featured in November’s Cosmopolitan magazine.

  Proponents of abortion feel a woman should have control over her body, and abortion should be a choice. Pro-life groups contend that life starts at conception and that the developing child has the right to life.

  TST named their clinic Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic, mocking the U.S. Supreme Court justice who wrote the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade.

  The abortion ritual involves the recitation of two of the group’s tenets and reinforces the idea of bodily autonomy.

  “The Satanic Abortion Ritual is a destruction ritual that serves as a protective rite,” the website states. “Its purpose is to cast off notions of guilt, shame, and mental discomfort that a patient may be experiencing due to choosing to have a legal and medically safe abortion.”

  

  The group’s website states that it relies on several legal arguments: that denying members access to abortion infringes on their religious right to participate in a satanic abortion ritual; that forcing someone to carry an unwanted child amounts to seizing a woman’s uterus without compensation; and that forced pregnancy is akin to servitude, in violation of the 13th Amendment, which abolishes slavery.

  In the case of Indiana, the group argues that the abortion restrictions criminalize abortions resulting from protected sex and create a class of people who are discriminated against because they are denied an abortion.

  Recent judicial rulings, such as the case of a Christian business owner denying services to LGBT people on religious grounds, appear to be part of the group’s legal strategy to flip the script on abortion bans. Except in this case, their religion involves providing the service of ritualized abortion.

  Critics say the legal strategies are shaky.

  Jonathan Hullihan is a Texas attorney for Citizens Defending Freedom, a watchdog group focused on liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. He told The Epoch Times that the High Court’s decision in Dobbs held that the Constitution did not confer a right to an abortion, leaving it to states to regulate.

  TST has brought claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or state versions, he said.

  “This is an attempt to recognize a federal constitutional right to abortion in direct conflict with the Dobbs holding,” Mr. Hullihan said.

  

  “While courts generally don’t question the sincerity of religious beliefs, the claim that religious beliefs require members to seek an abortion is unlikely to prevail in court,” he said. When contacted for comment, Lucien Greaves, TST co-founder and spokesperson, told The Epoch Times that critics don’t have a monopoly on freedom of religion.

  ProLove Ministries founder and CEO Abby Johnson questioned the idea of religion without a deity.

  “I think it’s interesting they’re trying to get a religious exemption when they say over and over and over again that satanism isn’t a religion and they’re non-theistic,” she told the Epoch Times.

  “So, I’m like, ‘Tell me again how you are trying to get a religious exemption?’” she said.

  ‘Out of Touch’

  Opponents of abortion argue that religious freedom doesn’t mean anything goes.

  “The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear that you’re not allowed to claim a religious exemption to get away with doing whatever you want to,” said Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League.

  TST’s rhetoric about choice ignores the facts about abortion, Mr. Scheidler said. Some 60 percent of women who get an abortion felt “high levels of pressure” to do so, according to a 2023 study in the National Library of Medicine.

  “They are really out of touch,” Mr. Scheidler told The Epoch Times. “I mean, most Americans find a story like this kind of horrifying, people making light of abortion.”

  A 2021 government study found more than 90 percent of biologists believe life begins at conception.

  Mr. Scheidler suspects part of the group’s goal is to play the provocateur.

  “They get some sort of adolescent thrill out of the imagined conniption fits that they drive religious people into with their antics,” Mr. Scheidler said. “In fact, we sort of roll our eyes and carry on with the real business.”

  Epoch Times reporters Sam Dorman, Samantha Flom, and Jackson Elliott contributed to this report.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 17:40

• Trump Asks Supreme Court To Intervene In Immunity Appeal
  Trump Asks Supreme Court To Intervene In Immunity Appeal

  Former President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Monday to step in and weigh in on his claim of presidential immunity after the DC Circuit Court of Appeals sided with special counsel Jack Smith – ruling that Trump is not immune from prosecution. The lower court held off on issuing the mandate until Monday in order to allow Trump’s legal team time to approach the Supreme Court.

  

  Trump is specifically asking the Supreme Court to pause the lower court’s ruling until he can formally appeal, which will further delay his trial in front of District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan.

  BREAKING: Trump asks Supreme Court to halt an appeals court ruling denying his bid to dismiss his election interference case based on presidential immunity. pic.twitter.com/sccmQSQEcb

  — Katelynn Richardson (@katesrichardson) February 12, 2024

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

  The trial was originally scheduled for March 4, however Chutkan vacated the date in early February amid Trump’s immunity defense, and noted that the court would “set a new schedule if and when the mandate is returned.” Chutkan’s decision also denied Trump’s bid to toss the case in December based on the immunity claim.

  Smith sought to keep the trial on schedule in December by asking the Supreme Court to take up the question before the appeals court had a chance to consider it, but the justices rejected his request.

  “President Trump’s claim that Presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts presents a novel, complex, and momentous question that warrants careful consideration on appeal,” the application states. “The panel opinion below, like the district court, concludes that Presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts does not exist at all. This is a stunning breach of precedent and historical norms.” –Daily Caller

  In January, Trump’s legal team presented oral arguments to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which Trump attended. The Judge, Biden appointee Florence Pan, questioned whether presidential immunity extended to such examples as a president ordering SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival without facing criminal charges.

  “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,” the panel wrote in its Feb. 6 ruling. “Former President Trump lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law and he is answerable in court for his conduct.”

  In short, to be continued…

  ZeroPointNow
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 17:20

• Institutions Double Down On AI In trading — JPMorgan Survey
  Institutions Double Down On AI In trading — JPMorgan Survey

  Authored by Helen Partz via Cointelegraph.com,

  

  Institutional investors have been increasingly betting on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in the future of trading, according to a new survey by the multinational investment bank JPMorgan.

  In the most recent edition of JPMorgan’s “e-Trading Edit: Insights from the Inside” survey, 61% of the 4,010 institutional traders surveyed across 65 countries anticipated AI and machine learning (ML) to emerge as the most impactful technologies for trading within the next three years.

  According to the survey’s rankings, AI and ML are followed by application programming interface (API) integration, with 13% of respondents choosing it as one of the most important technologies shaping the future of trading.

  Blockchain or distributed ledger technology and quantum computing both account for 7% based on the respondent’s preferences. Mobile trading applications and natural language processing secured 6% of respondents.

  

  AI and machine learning have been steadily gaining ground in JPMorgan’s reports in recent years, with the tech accounting for just 25% in ranked importance two years ago.

  On the other hand, institutions have been growing increasingly skeptical about the role of other technologies in trading, including mobile trading applications and blockchain, according to JPMorgan’s survey. Since 2022, blockchain and mobile trading applications have lost 18% and 23% of investor choices as promising technologies for trading, respectively.

  AI has been reshaping the future of finance over the past few years by offering various features, including trade predictions or identifying real-time threats to market sentiment. According to a 2022 report by Nvidia, investors have been integrating AI and ML, with 30% of respondents reportedly managing to reduce their annual revenue by more than 10%.

  While doubling down on the AI role in trading, JPMorgan-surveyed institutions have become less willing to get into cryptocurrency trading.

  According to the survey results, 78% of institutional traders have no plans to trade cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin

  or digital coins within the next five years. The percentage of investors not planning to trade crypto has increased since last year, as 72% of respondents indicated unwillingness to trade such assets in 2023.

  

  At the same time, the percentage of respondents that have started trading crypto or trade it already has slightly increased from 8% in 2023 to 9% in 2024.

  JPMorgan has been controversial in terms of its approach to crypto over the past few years. CEO Jamie Dimon continued to slam cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin even after the company was named an authorized participant in one of the fastest-growing spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds by BlackRock.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 17:00

• Mapping Global GDP Growth Forecasts By Country In 2024
  Mapping Global GDP Growth Forecasts By Country In 2024

  Resilient GDP growth and falling inflation are spurring a brighter outlook for 2024, although cautions remain across global economies.

  While investors are hopeful that U.S. rate cuts could happen as early as May, the Fed has signaled that it won’t “declare victory” too soon. As countries around the world maneuver a complex landscape, they are faced with a scope of risks that include inflationary spikes, rising debt loads, and dwindling consumer savings.

  The grpah below, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, shows global GDP growth projections in 2024, based on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) October 2023 Outlook and January 2024 update.

  

  Global GDP Growth Outlook 2024

  In 2024, real GDP growth is forecast to increase 3.1%, a slight rise from October’s outlook.

  While positive growth is projected across all regions, it varies widely due to many factors spanning from the effects of higher borrowing costs to low consumer sentiment. Here are forecasts across 191 countries worldwide:

  Country	2024 Real GDP % Change (Projected)	2023 Real GDP % Change (Estimate)
  🇦🇱 Albania	3.3%	3.6%
  🇩🇿 Algeria	3.1%	3.8%
  🇦🇩 Andorra	1.5%	2.1%
  🇦🇴 Angola	3.3%	1.3%
  🇦🇬 Antigua and Barbuda	5.4%	5.6%
  🇦🇷 Argentina	2.8%	-2.5%
  🇦🇲 Armenia	5.0%	7.0%
  🇦🇼 Aruba	1.2%	2.3%
  🇦🇺 Australia	1.2%	1.8%
  🇦🇹 Austria	0.8%	0.1%
  🇦🇿 Azerbaijan	2.5%	2.5%
  🇧🇸 The Bahamas	1.8%	2.7%
  🇧🇭 Bahrain	3.6%	6.0%
  🇧🇩 Bangladesh	6.0%	4.5%
  🇧🇧 Barbados	3.9%	1.6%
  🇧🇾 Belarus	1.3%	1.0%
  🇧🇪 Belgium	0.9%	4.0%
  🇧🇿 Belize	3.0%	5.5%
  🇧🇯 Benin	6.3%	5.3%
  🇧🇹 Bhutan	3.0%	1.8%
  🇧🇴 Bolivia	1.8%	2.0%
  🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina	3.0%	3.8%
  🇧🇼 Botswana	4.1%	3.1%
  🇧🇷 Brazil*	1.7%	-0.8%
  🇧🇳 Brunei Darussalam	3.5%	1.7%
  🇧🇬 Bulgaria	3.2%	4.4%
  🇧🇫 Burkina Faso	6.4%	3.3%
  🇧🇮 Burundi	6.0%	4.4%
  🇨🇻 Cabo Verde	4.5%	5.6%
  🇰🇭 Cambodia	6.1%	4.0%
  🇨🇲 Cameroon	4.2%	1.3%
  🇨🇦 Canada*	1.4%	1.0%
  🇨🇫 Central African Republic	2.5%	4.0%
  🇹🇩 Chad	3.7%	-0.5%
  🇨🇱 Chile	1.6%	5.0%
  🇨🇳 China*	4.6%	1.4%
  🇨🇴 Colombia	2.0%	3.0%
  🇰🇲 Comoros	3.5%	4.4%
  🇨🇩 Democratic Republic of the Congo	4.7%	2.7%
  🇨🇬 Republic of Congo	4.4%	6.2%
  🇨🇷 Costa Rica	3.2%	2.2%
  🇨🇮 Côte d’Ivoire	6.6%	0.2%
  🇭🇷 Croatia	2.6%	6.7%
  🇨🇾 Cyprus	2.7%	1.7%
  🇨🇿 Czech Republic	2.3%	5.0%
  🇩🇰 Denmark	1.4%	4.6%
  🇩🇯 Djibouti	6.0%	3.0%
  🇩🇲 Dominica	4.6%	1.4%
  🇩🇴 Dominican Republic	5.2%	4.2%
  🇪🇨 Ecuador	1.8%	2.2%
  🇪🇬 Egypt	3.6%	-6.2%
  🇸🇻 El Salvador	1.9%	-2.3%
  🇬🇶 Equatorial Guinea	-5.5%	3.1%
  🇪🇪 Estonia	2.4%	6.1%
  🇸🇿 Eswatini	3.3%	7.5%
  🇪🇹 Ethiopia	6.2%	-0.1%
  🇫🇯 Fiji	3.9%	1.0%
  🇫🇮 Finland	1.0%	2.8%
  🇫🇷 France*	1.0%	6.2%
  🇬🇦 Gabon	2.6%	-0.5%
  🇬🇲 The Gambia	6.2%	1.2%
  🇬🇪 Georgia	4.8%	2.5%
  🇩🇪 Germany*	0.5%	3.9%
  🇬🇭 Ghana	2.7%	3.4%
  🇬🇷 Greece	2.0%	5.9%
  🇬🇩 Grenada	3.8%	4.5%
  🇬🇹 Guatemala	3.5%	38.4%
  🇬🇳 Guinea	5.6%	-1.5%
  🇬🇼 Guinea-Bissau	5.0%	2.9%
  🇬🇾 Guyana	26.6%	4.4%
  🇭🇹 Haiti	1.4%	-0.3%
  🇭🇳 Honduras	3.2%	3.3%
  🇭🇰 Hong Kong SAR	2.9%	6.3%
  🇭🇺 Hungary	3.1%	5.0%
  🇮🇸 Iceland	1.7%	-2.7%
  🇮🇳 India*	6.5%	2.0%
  🇮🇩 Indonesia	5.0%	3.0%
  🇮🇷 Iran	2.5%	3.1%
  🇮🇶 Iraq	2.9%	0.7%
  🇮🇪 Ireland	3.3%	2.0%
  🇮🇱 Israel	3.0%	2.0%
  🇮🇹 Italy*	0.7%	2.6%
  🇯🇲 Jamaica	1.8%	4.6%
  🇯🇵 Japan*	0.9%	5.0%
  🇯🇴 Jordan	2.7%	2.6%
  🇰🇿 Kazakhstan	4.2%	1.4%
  🇰🇪 Kenya	5.3%	3.8%
  🇰🇮 Kiribati	2.4%	-0.6%
  🇰🇷 Korea	2.2%	3.4%
  🇽🇰 Kosovo	4.0%	4.0%
  🇰🇼 Kuwait	3.6%	0.5%
  🇰🇬 Kyrgyz Republic	4.3%	2.1%
  🇱🇦 Lao P.D.R.	4.0%	4.6%
  🇱🇻 Latvia	2.6%	12.5%
  🇱🇸 Lesotho	2.3%	-0.2%
  🇱🇷 Liberia	5.3%	-0.4%
  🇱🇾 Libya	7.5%	74.4%
  🇱🇹 Lithuania	2.7%	4.0%
  🇱🇺 Luxembourg	1.5%	1.7%
  🇲🇴 Macao SAR	27.2%	4.0%
  🇲🇬 Madagascar	4.8%	8.1%
  🇲🇼 Malawi	3.3%	4.5%
  🇲🇾 Malaysia	4.3%	3.8%
  🇲🇻 Maldives	5.0%	3.0%
  🇲🇱 Mali	4.8%	4.5%
  🇲🇹 Malta	3.3%	5.1%
  🇲🇭 Marshall Islands	3.0%	3.2%
  🇲🇷 Mauritania	5.3%	2.6%
  🇲🇺 Mauritius	3.8%	2.0%
  🇲🇽 Mexico*	2.7%	5.5%
  🇫🇲 Micronesia	3.1%	4.5%
  🇲🇩 Moldova	4.3%	2.4%
  🇲🇳 Mongolia	4.5%	7.0%
  🇲🇪 Montenegro	3.7%	2.6%
  🇲🇦 Morocco	3.6%	2.8%
  🇲🇿 Mozambique	5.0%	0.5%
  🇲🇲 Myanmar	2.6%	0.8%
  🇳🇦 Namibia	2.7%	0.6%
  🇳🇷 Nauru	1.3%	1.1%
  🇳🇵 Nepal	5.0%	3.0%
  🇳🇱 Netherlands	1.2%	4.1%
  🇳🇿 New Zealand	1.0%	2.9%
  🇳🇮 Nicaragua	3.3%	2.5%
  🇳🇪 Niger	11.1%	2.3%
  🇳🇬 Nigeria*	3.0%	1.2%
  🇲🇰 North Macedonia	3.2%	-0.5%
  🇳🇴 Norway	1.5%	0.8%
  🇴🇲 Oman	2.7%	6.0%
  🇵🇰 Pakistan	2.5%	3.0%
  🇵🇼 Palau	12.4%	4.5%
  🇵🇦 Panama	4.0%	1.1%
  🇵🇬 Papua New Guinea	5.0%	5.3%
  🇵🇾 Paraguay	3.8%	0.6%
  🇵🇪 Peru	2.7%	2.3%
  🇵🇭 Philippines	5.9%	-0.7%
  🇵🇱 Poland	2.3%	2.4%
  🇵🇹 Portugal	1.5%	4.0%
  🇵🇷 Puerto Rico	-0.2%	2.2%
  🇶🇦 Qatar	2.2%	2.2%
  🇷🇴 Romania	3.8%	6.2%
  🇷🇺 Russia*	2.6%	0.5%
  🇷🇼 Rwanda	7.0%	8.0%
  🇼🇸 Samoa	3.6%	2.2%
  🇸🇲 San Marino	1.3%	0.8%
  🇸🇹 São Tomé and Príncipe	2.4%	4.1%
  🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia*	2.7%	2.0%
  🇸🇳 Senegal	8.8%	4.2%
  🇷🇸 Serbia	3.0%	2.7%
  🇸🇨 Seychelles	3.9%	1.0%
  🇸🇱 Sierra Leone	4.7%	1.3%
  🇸🇬 Singapore	2.1%	2.0%
  🇸🇰 Slovak Republic	2.5%	2.5%
  🇸🇮 Slovenia	2.2%	2.8%
  🇸🇧 Solomon Islands	2.4%	0.9%
  🇸🇴 Somalia	3.7%	3.5%
  🇿🇦 South Africa*	1.0%	2.5%
  🇸🇸 South Sudan	4.2%	4.9%
  🇪🇸 Spain*	1.5%	3.2%
  🇰🇳 St. Kitts and Nevis	3.8%	6.2%
  🇱🇨 St. Lucia	2.3%	-18.3%
  🇻🇨 St. Vincent and the Grenadines	5.0%	2.1%
  🇸🇩 Sudan	0.3%	-0.7%
  🇸🇷 Suriname	3.0%	0.9%
  🇸🇪 Sweden	0.6%	4.0%
  🇨🇭 Switzerland	1.8%	0.8%
  🇹🇼 Taiwan	3.0%	6.5%
  🇹🇯 Tajikistan	5.0%	5.2%
  🇹🇿 Tanzania	6.1%	2.7%
  🇹🇭 Thailand	3.2%	4.3%
  🇹🇱 Timor-Leste	3.1%	5.6%
  🇹🇬 Togo	5.3%	1.5%
  🇹🇴 Tonga	2.5%	5.4%
  🇹🇹 Trinidad and Tobago	2.2%	2.6%
  🇹🇳 Tunisia	1.9%	2.5%
  🇹🇷 Türkiye	3.0%	1.3%
  🇹🇲 Turkmenistan	2.1%	2.5%
  🇹🇻 Tuvalu	3.5%	3.9%
  🇺🇬 Uganda	5.7%	4.6%
  🇺🇦 Ukraine	3.2%	2.0%
  🇦🇪 United Arab Emirates	4.0%	3.4%
  🇬🇧 United Kingdom*	0.6%	0.5%
  🇺🇸 U.S.*	2.1%	2.1%
  🇺🇾 Uruguay	3.3%	1.0%
  🇺🇿 Uzbekistan	5.5%	5.5%
  🇻🇺 Vanuatu	2.6%	1.5%
  🇻🇪 Venezuela	4.5%	4.0%
  🇻🇳 Vietnam	5.8%	4.7%
  🇵🇸 West Bank and Gaza	2.7%	3.0%
  🇾🇪 Yemen	2.0%	-0.5%
  🇿🇲 Zambia	4.3%	3.6%
  🇿🇼 Zimbabwe	3.6%	4.1%

  *Reflect updated figures from the January 2024 IMF Update

  In the United States, GDP growth is projected to remain moderately strong, supported by rising real wages boosting consumption across the economy.

  Yet compared to last year, growth is set to slow amid a softening labor market. In 2024, Citigroup announced it was laying off 20,000 employees after a disappointing year. Meanwhile, tech firms such as Google, Amazon, and Salesforce are reducing headcounts. Along with this, package delivery giant UPS announced 12,000 job cuts.

  In China, property market woes are dragging on economic growth. Declining real estate values have impacted incomes, assets, and the public mood. Due to these headwinds, consumption growth is forecast to drop over the year.

  Over in Latin America, Chile and Brazil were among the first emerging countries to hike interest rates in 2021—and they were some of the first to cut them last year. Thanks to improving domestic demand amid dissipating price spikes, the IMF upgraded the outlooks for Brazil and Mexico in 2024.

  The lowest growth across all regions is forecast to be seen in Europe, at 0.9%. In late 2023, Signa, a multi-billion European property firm collapsed following the sharpest rise in interest rates in the European Union’s 25-year history. Also dimming the outlook is low consumer sentiment and the impact of high energy prices.

  What are the Key Risks?

  While no one holds a crystal ball, there are certain risks outlined by the IMF that could negatively impact global GDP growth:

  • Sharply Rising Commodity Prices: If geopolitical tensions escalate in the Israel-Hamas war, it could spillover into the broader region leading to spikes in energy prices. Over a third of global oil exports are based out of the region, in addition to 14% of global gas exports. Adding to this, 11% of international trade passes through the Red Sea, which has seen continued attacks between Iran-backed Houthi rebels and strikes from the U.S. and its allies.

  • Stubborn Inflation: A return of supply disruptions paired with an overheated labor market could add inflationary pressures, potentially leading to higher interest rates. In turn, stock markets could respond adversely and financial stability could deteriorate.

  • China’s Economy Slows: A property market rout could hurt domestic growth and consumer confidence, leading to declining consumption across the country. Accounting for nearly 19% of global GDP (PPP) in 2023, a slowing Chinese economy could impact countries that rely on trade with China.

  While these risks remain present, the economy could witness positive surprises as well. Should inflation fall faster than expected, it would likely lead to monetary easing and a boost to global economic growth. Overall, the global economy defied expectations in 2023, and it may do the same in 2024.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 16:40

• Why Are Solar Panels 44% Cheaper In China Than The US?
  Why Are Solar Panels 44% Cheaper In China Than The US?

  Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

  The US wants to break into the solar panel business. Doing so, if its possible at all, means costs of the solar panels and electricity will surge…

  

  China’s Grip on Solar

  The Wall Street Journal asks Can the U.S. Break China’s Grip on Solar?

  That’s a free link worth reading. The short answer is everything in China is cheaper from materials to electricity to labor.

  The process is worth a closer look, however, and the US trails significantly in every stage.

  Polysilicon

  The primary building block for some 97% of the world’s solar panels is high-purity silicon, or polysilicon. Making that silicon is the first big step in the solar manufacturing process. It is the most energy- and capital-intensive piece because of the high temperatures and expensive equipment used in refining.

  Until around 2005, polysilicon manufacturing was dominated by companies from the U.S., Europe and Japan. With China’s huge expansion and investment into solar, that has flipped. In 2023, roughly 91% of the polysilicon for solar panels was produced in China.

  Recently, the U.S. has effectively banned the use of most Chinese polysilicon in imported solar panels because much of it is made in the western Chinese region of Xinjiang, where the U.S. has accused Chinese authorities of committing human-rights abuses including forced labor, allegations that Beijing denies.

  Today, U.S. buyers are increasingly relying on solar panels that use polysilicon made outside of China. Those supplies are tight, and keep prices for the U.S. market higher than for other markets.

  Ingots and wafers

  In the next part of the process, the solar-grade silicon is melted in furnaces then cooled into big rod-shaped crystals called ingots. The ingots are sawed into thin slices called wafers.

  China makes more than 97% of the world’s solar ingots and wafers. The U.S. makes none.

  Ingot manufacturing is very energy-intensive due to the high temperatures used.

  China has built many factories in areas with cheap power from coal or hydroelectric plants. The bulk of China’s solar manufacturing is in provinces where electricity costs are nearly 30% below the global industrial average.

  Sand and other materials

  High-quality quartz sand is used to produce special containers, called crucibles, for melting the silicon.

  Most of the world’s sand used in ingot production comes from the Appalachian mountains in North Carolina. But almost all of it is shipped straight to China, which makes the bulk of the world’s crucibles.

  Would-be crucible makers in the U.S. could have trouble getting sand. And would-be ingot and wafer makers in the U.S. will probably be buying the crucibles from China, bumping up costs.

  Cell manufacturing

  This is the stage at which the silicon becomes a device that can convert sunlight into electricity. There are many different ways of making solar cells, but in most, wafers are treated with chemicals and etched with circuits.

  China controls around 80% of the solar-cell market, largely because of cost advantages, and because it controls other steps of the supply chain, which lets it build ecosystems of suppliers. Many Chinese cell manufacturers also produce wafers or panels.

  The U.S. currently has no solar-cell manufacturers, with the last few pulling out of the country or going bankrupt within the past few years. Many companies have said they are planning to build solar-cell factories following the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. More announcements are expected since it doesn’t require as much initial investment as silicon or wafer manufacturing.

  Solar Panels

  Solar-panel manufacturing is effectively an assembly process. Companies take cells and line them between sheets of glass or another material, connect them with wires, laminate the whole thing and place it in a frame. Then wires and other electronics are added to connect the panels to each other and the larger electrical system.

  This is the easiest and least capital-intensive piece of the solar supply chain, and the part that is most widely dispersed around the world. China accounted for 83% of the world’s solar-panel production and the U.S. less than 2% in 2023.

  In Europe

  Reuters reports With Solar industry in Crisis, Europe in a Bind Over Chinese Imports

  Europe’s green energy transition is stuck between a rock and a hard place. A flood of cheap Chinese solar panel imports is driving record solar energy installations. But those same imports are crushing Europe’s few local solar manufacturers.

  Europe just had a bumper year for green energy. European Union countries installed record levels of solar capacity, 40% more than in 2022. The vast majority of those panels and parts came from China – in some cases, 95%, International Energy Agency data show.

  German Economy Minister Robert Habeck wrote to the European Commission in November, expressing concern that the EU executive was about to slap trade restrictions on Chinese solar imports, a letter seen by Reuters showed.

  Habeck warned restricting Chinese imports could kill off Europe’s rapid expansion of green energy and make 90% of the PV market more expensive. It risked bankruptcies among EU companies that assemble and install solar panels using imported parts, he said.

  “You can’t reduce dependency on China in the short term or you don’t build the projects,” Miguel Stilwell d’Andrade, CEO of Portuguese utility EDP, told Reuters.
  He noted that solar panel prices have climbed in the United States, which has duties on Chinese imports. “It is having an inflationary impact … the price of panels is more than double that of Europe,” he said.

  Rather than being happy about cheap panels that help a green transition, the EU nannycrats are up in arms. So are President Biden and Donald Trump.

  60 Percent Tariffs

  The Inflation Reduction Act aims to bring some of the above processes back to the US. But it will not level the playing field on labor costs or electricity costs. Nor does the US have the plants.

  The US can easily catch up on technical know how, but it is going to lose out on every other step without huge additional tariffs.

  Both Biden and Trump are willing to do so. Trump proposes 60 percent tariffs on China. To date, Biden took Tariffs trump imposed and increased most of them.

  If the US puts 60 percent tariffs on China, the final costs will rise at least 60 percent and we will need much more electricity as well. So electricity costs will jump too.

  There are big inflationary pressures on many fronts.

  Minimum Wages Hikes at California Fast Food Restaurants

  On September 28, I noted Minimum Wage for Fast Food Workers Jumps 30% to $20 Per Hour in California

  More inflation is coming your way. California again leads the way.The bill will force many small restaurants out of business or they will pony up too. If McDonalds pays $20, why take $15.50 elsewhere? The $4.50 hike from $15.50 to $20 is a massive 30 percent jump.More inflation is coming your way. California again leads the way.

  Student Debt Cancellation

  President Biden is bragging the Supreme Court didn’t stop him from handing out still more inflationary free money.

  

  “The Supreme Court Didn’t Stop Me” said Biden on more student debt cancellation.

  The True Costs of Net Zero Are Becoming Impossible to Hide

  On February 6, I noted The True Costs of Net Zero Are Becoming Impossible to Hide

  Bloomberg reports a 48% Surge in Costs Wrecks Biden’s Much-Lauded Wind-Power Plans.

  Even with massive subsidies, these projects are not economical.

  Big Explosion of Government and Social Assistance Jobs

  President Biden is bragging about job growth in 2023. But he doesn’t say where those jobs are.

  

  Data from the BLS, chart and calculations by Mish.

  As a direct result of migration Denver Health at “Critical Point” as 8,000 Migrants Make 20,000 Emergency Visits

  Denver Health CEO Donna Lynne warned Denver Health is at a critical, critical point. Eight-thousand migrants from Central America accounted for approximately 20,000 visits in 2023.

  Denver Health asked the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide funds for immigrants’ medical costs. The state and federal governments aren’t reimbursing the hospital, which spent $136 million for patients who didn’t pay.

  For more discussion, please see Big Explosion of Government and Social Assistance Jobs in 2023 to Help Migrants

  For now, we have disinflation, a slower increase in prices, not falling prices.

  I wonder how long that can last given the huge number of inflationary pressures that are still on deck.

  Fed Chairman Tells 60 Minutes US Fiscal Path is Unsustainable

  Also note that Jerome Powell told 60 Minutes the US Fiscal Path is Unsustainable

  Fed Chair Jerome Powell tells 60 Minutes that it’s “urgent” the US address its “Unsustainable Fiscal Path”

  I list 15 key takeaways from the interview.

  In light of unsustainable fiscal policy, the end of global wage arbitrage, the end of just in time manufacturing, and huge tariffs, I do not see the happy soft landing that nearly everyone including the Feds now sees.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 16:20

• 0DTE Punters Pump And Dump Momentum Stocks As "Parabolic" Tech Hits An Airpocket
  0DTE Punters Pump And Dump Momentum Stocks As “Parabolic” Tech Hits An Airpocket

  For a few hours there it seemed like the “market” was about to blast off in a carbon-copy replica of the dot com bubble.

  With futures opening flat after Asia was closed for trading and with most traders sitting on the sideline ahead of tomorrow’s CPI print, it didn’t take long for the algos and the 0DTE crew to take control of market flows and promptly lift the Mag Seven (or rather the Mag AI since most of the 7 participants did not take part in today’s meltup and instead it was just the AI names) to new all time highs with the liftathon however fizzling the moment Europe closed. And then in the early afternoon, the party suddenly ended with a whimper, when two two consecutive dumps in 0DTE sparked an initial retracement of all gains and subsequently pushed it to session lows and – gasp – down on the day…

  

  … which also triggered the biggest sell program of the day, as seen in the TICK puke just after 2pm.

  

  The mini vortex first pushed such parabolic tech bubble names as ARM (which is so clearly and grotesqsuely manipulated by SoftBank again, one has to an en even greater moron than the SEC not to notice it), NVDA and SMCI to new all time highs, before an air pocket emerged, sending both names in the red for the day before the dip buyers made another appearance.

  

  The continued meltup in the AIvantgarde names was enough to briefly push NVDA market cap above that of AMZN, and is now breathing down GOOGL’s neck.

  

  In the end, however, the attempt to force another all time high failed, and even though spoos earlier hit a new all time high of 5,066 they closed down 0.1%,  with the Nasdaq also sliding to close 0.4% lower…

  

  … which however did nothing to reverse the brutal squeeze that has sent the most shorted names soaring in the past week.

  

  And speaking of ARM Holdings, its its latest 29% meltup has now brought the 3 days surge to 93%.

  • *ARM SOARS 29% TO BRING THREE-DAY JUMP TO MORE THAN 93%

  

  For those confused, the move is nothing more than another gamma squeeze orchestrated by SoftBank, the same trader who famously sparked the market-wide Gamma squeeze of the Nasdaq in the summer of 2020.

  Softbank is certainly not known for forced gamma squeezes https://t.co/zFyRKkAoZ6

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 8, 2024

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

  To be sure, if the market is about to crack, and Goldman warned over the weekend that that may indeed be the case as there are quite a few disconnects below the surface..

  

  … we may have a long way to drop as the coming 30% drop in Momemtum would claim quite a few “AI” names.

  

  Yet even a 30% drop, which Goldman specifically warned may be coming…

  

  … would do little to dent the unprecedented outperformance of the Mag 7 vs pretty much everything else.

  

  The rest of the market – and the rest of the day – was rather boring, with rates virtually unchanged, as the 10Y closed at 4.17%, flat on the day…

  

  … and FX was even more boring with the BBDXY also flat. The only notable outlier was crypto, with bitcoin surging above $50,000 for the first time since Dec 2021 and even Ether finally preparing to break out…

  

  … as all those aggressively shorting every pop higher in the cryptocurrency via futures get REKT.

  

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 16:17

• Boston Couple Sign Up To House Illegal Immigrants, Get Four Delivered Within An Hour
  Boston Couple Sign Up To House Illegal Immigrants, Get Four Delivered Within An Hour

  Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

  A couple in Boston signed up to a government scheme to house illegal immigrants in their own home and were delivered an entire family of four within an hour, according to a CBS News report.

  

  “When Colin and Jessica Stokes called the state to sign up to be a host family, it took less than an hour for the displaced migrants to be dropped off at their door,” the report notes, adding “The family of four, who didn’t want to go on camera, had made been sleeping at Logan Airport“

  The couple, Colin and Jessica Stokes, said that “they knew they had the means and wanted to step up,” and that “It has been wonderful.”

  “I was like I have to get sheets on the beds. How many people are coming? Where are they from? What ages. We really knew nothing,” Mrs Stokes told reporters, with her husband adding “The need is so clearly overwhelming.”

  A couple said they were willing to provide shelter for illegal immigrants sleeping in Boston Logan airport. Within an hour the government sent a family of 4 to live in their house. @elonmusk was right when he said “They will come for your homes.” Report: https://t.co/m11isvHRGo pic.twitter.com/yGLdcYVOyp

  — m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) February 12, 2024

  X owner Elon Musk, who has vocally charged that the Biden Administration is encouraging and aiding mass illegal immigration, previously warned that soon people would be giving up their homes to house immigrants as there is no where else for them to go.

  Musk was right.

  As we previously highlighted, illegal immigrants are being found sleeping in airports all over the country as states such as Texas are bussing them further north once they have crossed the border and been processed.

  Meanwhile, Department Of Homeland Security head Alejandro Mayorkas has again refused to take responsibility for what is happening on the Southern border, declaring that “Congress is the only one who can fix it.”

  *  *  *

  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
  Mon, 02/12/2024 – 15:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• The Coming 2024 Leftist Election Grift
  The Coming 2024 Leftist Election Grift

  Authored by Daniel Street via American Greatness,

  The 2024 U.S. presidential election will likely pit former President Donald J. Trump against current President Joseph Biden in an epic rematch of the 2020 election.  As most Americans know, in 2020, the Democrats and their allies on the far left reached deep into their bag of dirty tricks to put Biden in the White House.  They will undoubtedly pull out all of the stops yet again in 2024.  This time, however, far more people are watching and are aware of the grifts being run in our elections by the left. 

  With so many election integrity groups and concerned citizens watching this time around, what will the Democrats do to tilt the results in their favor? 

  They have quite a few arrows in their quiver, but virtually every trick relies on one thing: dirty voter rolls.

  

  Voter rolls filled with unqualified voters—for instance, voters without a valid address or with an insufficient or incorrect address—are ready-made for fraud.  A mailed ballot may go out to that person, but if the address is wrong or incorrect, the ballot will not reach the voter.  These “floating ballots” are often gathered and cast as votes illegitimately.  These practices, along with many others, are widely practiced around the country.

  Election integrity groups all over America are fighting to clean voter rolls, state-by-state and town-by-town.  Progress has been made.  For instance, election integrity groups worked hard to clean up Wisconsin’s voter rolls after the 2020 election.  Using fractal technology to tie voter rolls to addresses in state property tax databases, phantom voters are being removed from voter rolls throughout the country, making mail in ballot shenanigans more difficult.  In Michigan, an election integrity group puts qualified voter file data at your fingertips, allowing ineligible voter registrations to be readily identified.  These are just a smattering of the efforts going on across the country to clean up voter rolls, but hopefully the point is made: A lot of people are doing good work to try to clean up the voter rolls all over the country.

  What is the problem, then?  How will the Democrats and far-left non-governmental organizations (NGOs) tip the scales back in their favor? 

  Part of the answer is the National Voter Registration Act(NVRA). This Act is commonly known as the Motor Voter Law, because it mandates states to allow people to register to vote when obtaining a driver’s license.  While this law actually requires states to remove the names of ineligible voters and to maintain “accurate” lists of registered voters and is used by election integrity groups to challenge inaccurate voter rolls, other provisions are problematic.

  The NVRA provision presenting the problem in this context is  52 U.S.C. §20507(c)(2)(A). 

  This provision creates what is known as the “quiet period” in the 90 days leading up to a federal election and prohibits states from “systematically” removing “names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters” during that 90-day window.  As the court observed in Arcia v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 772 F. 3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2014), the NRVA allows three forms of removals in the 90 days before an election: (1) removals at the request of the registrant; (2) removals for criminal conviction or mental incapacity; and (3) removals upon the death of the registrant.  In that case, the court prohibited the Florida secretary of state from systematically removing illegally registered people who were not American citizens in the 90-day “quiet period.”

  How will the left seek to take advantage of this 90-day “quiet period” where voters may not be systematically removed from the rolls? 

  What happened in Muskegon County, Michigan, in 2020 is illustrative. In October 2020, thousands of voter registration applications were filed in Muskegon County, Michigan.  The city clerk was immediately suspicious, as many of the applications were in the same handwriting and contained incomplete or invalid addresses.  The city clerk reported the matter to local police.  An investigation confirmed many of the registrations were fraudulent and that the company gathering and submitting the registrations worked with Democratic political organizations, including working with the Biden campaign in multiple States in 2020.

  The police interview with the contractor’s “compliance officer” was obtained by an independent researcher and released in November 2023.  In it, the employee outlines the problems with “false registrations” that were happening “everywhere,” not just in Muskegon.  Listen to this person’s interview for more on the type of organization this is and how it operates.

  Under a provision of the Federal Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. §10307(c), a person who knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his “name, address, or period of residence” to register to vote or “who conspires with another individual” for the purpose of encouraging false registration may be imprisoned for 5 years.  Despite this, no one was prosecuted for the thousands of false voter registrations submitted in Muskegon, Michigan.  In fact, instead of expanding the investigation to other jurisdictions in Michigan as well as into other states, the investigation was shut down, according to news reports.  That does not inspire much confidence in the people in charge of maintaining the integrity of our elections, does it?

  In the 90-day “quiet period” established by the NVRA, local election officials are effectively the only screening system in place to block unlawful voter registrations.  While challenging an individual registration remains possible in the 90-day “quiet period,” challenging thousands of registrations submitted on a particular day or series of days will undoubtedly be a prohibited “systematic” challenge.  Do you think these officials in many of the Democrat bastions in big cities would refuse to accept these bogus registrations?  Do you think what happened in Muskegon, Michigan, was an aberration? In jurisdiction after jurisdiction and city after city, piles of fraudulent registration applications will probably be readily accepted.  After all, why not?

  The bottom line is that the entire Democrat and far-left get-out-the-vote apparatus will be in overdrive in the 90 days before the 2024 presidential election, submitting as many voter registrations as possible (valid or not) in order to harvest as many ballots as conceivably possible. 

  This will be one of the primary battlegrounds that will determine the outcome of the 2024 election.  Is the RNC ready for it? 

  If “what’s past is prologue,” the answer is probably not. Election integrity groups are doing what they can, but they will need your help. 

  If Americans hope to maintain legitimate elections, 2024 is the time for “all hands on deck.”

  *  *  *

  Daniel R. Street is an attorney with over 25 years of litigation experience.  He is the author of the Fake News Exposed about Trump book series.  Links to his books, substack, social media and more may be found at his website danielrstreet.com.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 23:20

• Nor'easter Aims For Northeast Early Next Week
  Nor’easter Aims For Northeast Early Next Week

  Unseasonably warm temperatures in the Northeast are ending to start the week as a snowstorm approaches. We have been following a “pattern change” since mid-last week, warning days ago of the increasing possibility of a snowstorm impacting the Mid-Alantic and Northeast regions. 

  AccuWeather meteorologists say Ohio Valley, Mid-Atlantic, central Appalachians, and southern New England will see rain or a mixture of rain, wet snow, and sleet to start Monday. By night, portions of the central Appalachians, the upper mid-Atlantic, and New England will transition to all snow, and some areas could receive significant accumulation. 

  

  “The way the cold air will invade the storm it appears the best bet for a heavy snowfall will be from northern Pennsylvania to southeastern upstate New York, and southern and central New England, especially from northeastern Pennsylvania on to the east from Monday night to Tuesday evening,” AccuWeather Chief On-Air Meteorologist Bernie Rayno said. 

  

  Richmond, Virginia, Washington, DC and Baltimore are forecasted to receive mostly rain. Philadelphia might receive a coating, with higher odds of a few inches in northern and western suburbs. On Monday night, New York City, Manhattan could receive upwards of 2 inches. As for Boston and Hartford, Connecticut, these areas could expect meaningful snowfall. 

  More from Accuweather on the snow forecast: 

  The Poconos in northeastern Pennsylvania and the Endless Mountains along Pennsylvania’s northern tier are likely to pick up 6-10 inches of snow, while the lower elevation cities along the Susquehanna River, like Harrisburg and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, may struggle to pick up 3 inches of slush. Other spots with the best chance for 6-10 inches of snow and locally higher amounts include the Catskills of eastern New York and much of Massachusetts, including the hills west of Boston.

  “For much of the central Appalachians to central and southern New England, accumulations will be highly dependent on elevation, where hilly areas and the mountains will pick up much more snow than the valleys or immediate coastal places,” AccuWeather Senior Meteorologist Adam Douty said.

  

  Here’s what other meteorologists on X are saying about the upcoming storm:

  much stronger…. NYC and juuuuust north gets heavy snow on this run pic.twitter.com/97TgPgcbFI

  — NsfwWx ❄️ (@NsfwWx) February 11, 2024

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

  National Weather Service forecasts updating for Nor’easter storm event 💣❄️

  Boston 10.4″ 📈
  NYC 1.5″

  Maximum location would receive: 14.1″ pic.twitter.com/LKot5jxu10

  — Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) February 11, 2024

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

  The impact map for tomorrow night through Tuesday has been updated! Premium Consulting Members, the impact map in the Premium Dashboard is zoomable down to your street! #nywx #njwx #pawx #ctwx pic.twitter.com/t0IBso6a0k

  — NY NJ PA Weather (@nynjpaweather) February 11, 2024

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

  Could it be… a Bulls-eye in the Wyoming Valley???
  No. Probably not.#PAwx #wxtwitter #NEPA #wxX pic.twitter.com/5AawkzRd1K

  — Mark Margavage (@MeteoMark) February 11, 2024

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

  Meanwhile, Punxsutawney Phil – the famous groundhog weather oracle – might have been wrong in his early spring forecast. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 22:45

• When "Good For You" Is Too Good
  When “Good For You” Is Too Good

  Authored by Todd Hayen via Off-Guardian.org,

  The ultimate “good for you” is to be dead. At least that is what it would be if some outside authority, or entity, was watching our human behaviour and assessing what looks to be the “best” for us – meaning that if we are dead, nothing bad can happen to us. I would assume that if we fed all of the information a typical human life creates into a supercomputer, and then asked it “What is the best state of being for a human being” it would spit out, “that it never be born, and if alive, it would be safest, (best, good,) for it to be dead.”

  The next notch down from this perfection would be to live in a bubble, literally.

  Apparently, there are some people who have no immune systems who have to do this (remember the Seinfeld episode, “The Bubble Boy”?)

  

  The next notch down is to be a recluse, to live on some little patch of land, in a little house, and venture out only into your local neighbourhood to buy fish sticks, Twinkies, and RC Cola.

  You would never fly in a plane, and never drive as well.

  The next notch down is the spot that most people seem to wish they occupied.

  This place in the sun is actually sunless. Or at least as sunless as you can make it. Here we find gobs of sunscreen, dark glasses on cloudy days, heavy coats in the fall, and umbrellas in summer. We find ourselves avoiding nearly everything that can be avoided, except the things, of course, that actually do harm us, like McDonalds’ “Big Macs” and a nice can of Diet Coke. Here we avoid travel to dicey countries (which includes nearly all of them), if we travel at all. We avoid being in the same room with someone who is coughing or sneezing or looking the least bit odd, and we essentially avoid taking any risks whatsoever. Nearly everything is dangerous, and it is best to avoid anything unknown, dubious in nature, or not recommended by the guys and gals in white coats with the antique medical device hanging around their neck.

  A person at this level of existence is alive but certainly not living.

  Why are people into this?

  Well, once again, we can thank Mr. Agenda.

  Before I was “awakened” I used to muse at this phenomenon and wonder how it could have happened naturally and organically. I thought about all the men clambering on board boats and planes to go to Europe to fight in the trenches in 1917, as well as in 1941. I thought of the scads of pioneers setting out on the perilous journey across the American continent during the decades after the Civil War. I thought of the untold numbers who left the comfort of their homes (which at the time probably wasn’t all that comfortable) to hazard the jungles of Central America to work on the malaria-infested Panama Canal, and the same untold numbers of brave men and women who set out on various journeys in dark and dangerous parts of the world to pursue fame and fortune, or to lend their humanitarian hand in helping others less fortunate.

  Where are all of these people today? Sure, there are a few left, but nowhere as many as there used to be. Now most people are terrified to step out of their house, and if they are told by Big Brother to avoid coming close to other humans, or to wear a piece of paper or cloth over their quivering face, they do so frantically and obediently.

  Did this decline in chutzpah happen as a natural consequence of social evolution?

  No. I don’t think so.

  Now I believe it is part of the plan—the agenda.

  Ol’ Dr. Paranoia’s mind at work again. Maybe so, but I suspect there are a lot of you out there in the same psych ward as me.

  Not only have we been dumbed down, but our natural sense of “joie de vivre” has been all but entirely sucked out of our collective soul. I see this particularly in men, which needless to say have been a major focus of the agenda. But, of course, it is found in all of us, men and women alike.

  We have become a nation (or nations) of wimps. When a Covid particle allegedly enters a room, we jump up on the nearest chair and shriek, much like the proverbial fragile women of the Victorian age presumably did when they saw a mouse (if they did this, it was probably all an act to help men feel more manly). Only difference is that you can see a mouse, but you must be told the Covid particle is in the air. And guess who told us? Yep, Mr. Agenda. We are wimps. Enough said. And the agenda wishes us to be wimps because fear is the devil’s greatest and most effective weapon.

  Along with fear, there is the carrot—a reward for behaviour, or even an enticement to comply by convincing us whatever we are expected to comply with is good for us. And not only us, but for everyone! So, the vaccine is good for us because it keeps us from getting a deadly disease (or so we are told). Wearing masks is good for us, and keeping a “social distance” is good for us. All these things keep us safe, wearing latex gloves, sloshing poison disinfectant on our hands, and staying at home out of the swarm of Covid nasties flying about on the street. We must do what we can to live safe lives, safe from all the horrible things that nature wants to throw at us. Always remember, the agenda tells us, nature is our enemy.

  And this is only part of it. We are now protected from everything because just about everything wants to take a chunk out of us. Not only that, but it isn’t even good for us to own things, because owning things is a pain, and makes our life difficult. It is much easier to just rent stuff. It is also good for us to be lazy and avoid doing anything at all. Why not play virtual games rather than travel, why not have that conference that took us to Las Vegas every year in our bedroom on Zoom? Why not have therapy virtually, or even visit our doctor through the computer or phone?

  Why not get a salary paid by the government for doing nothing? How about getting an advanced academic degree without having to go to any classes? What about winning a gold medal in women’s swimming when you are a man and can beat all those little ladies’ times in your sleep? Sure, it is best for us not to drive too much or have to go out of town to meet friends or go to that cool restaurant that’s 20 miles away. It’s safer and better for us to work at home too. In fact, why not just stay at home and do everything there, and have every meal there, even if we want a nice evening without having to stay at home, which used to be a nice visit to a beautiful restaurant, with maybe some nice live music. Nope. Now it’s Uber Eats. That’s good too. It’s all good for us, safe, convenient, takes no effort or skill, and fun. We’re happy, right?

  Anyone know where you can buy a nice, cheap, plastic bubble?

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 22:10

• Beware Of The Philanthropaths!
  Beware Of The Philanthropaths!

  Authored by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

  I think this made up word in the meme below perfectly captures the tyrannical billionaire psychopaths who seem to have gained control of the world using their billions, while portraying themselves as the saviors of humanity.

  Whenever I see the term Foundation related to one of these psychopaths, I know that Foundation is nothing more than a front to achieve their evil agenda.

  And if ever their was a poster boy for philanthropaths across the world, it would be Mister depopulation/vaccine pusher/farmer Bill Gates and his Gates Foundation.

  

  Gates, Soros, Bloomberg and the Clintons represent the evil forces in this world, using their wealth, power, and control of the regime media to push their agenda of chaos, death, destruction, and depopulation. They all use their “Charitable” Foundations as a means to their evil ends, while being portrayed by the media they have bought off, as generous philanthropists improving the lives of the poor and downtrodden.

  It is all a ruse, easily revealed to anyone willing to dig just below the surface of these Potemkin foundations.

  Bill Gates has openly articulated his belief the world needs billions less people.

  Everything he does, supports, and funds, actively promotes achieving his psychotic death wish for those he considers useless eaters. Gates funded Event 201 in October 2019, laying out the master plan for the Covid plandemic, while at the same time funding the vaccines for a disease that supposedly didn’t exist yet.

  This psychopath was front and center in pushing billions across the globe to be injected with this untested toxic DNA altering concoction.

  

  It is now unequivocally provable these vaccines killed millions immediately, millions more slowly and methodically, and stopped millions more from ever being born by drastically altering the fertility of young people who had ZERO risk from covid, but were forced to be injected by the authorities and their bought off lackeys. This psycho has also funded the introduction of GMO mosquitos into the wild. Suddenly, cases of malaria have risen. This mental defective has funded fake chemically produced meat, while buying up farmland across the country, with no intention of farming. He funds new vaccines, using Africans as his guinea pigs. He funds geo-engineering (aka chemtrails) to block the sun, because his high school degree makes him not only a vaccine expert, but a climate expert too.

  

  Psycho Soros made his billions manipulating financial markets through insider information, so now he fancies himself as puppet master of politicians, the media, and NGOs across the globe. He is single-handedly responsible for the ongoing destruction of America and most of the western world. It has taken billions of dollars to transport the millions of invaders placed at our southern border. Soros is the psychopath funding this invasion under the cover of his foundation and the hundreds of “charitable” organizations he funds to make sure the invaders have the means to successfully enter our country and western Europe.

  His sole purpose is to destroy American and western culture, create chaos, maximize societal strife, and destroy every vestige of community, normalcy, and peaceful coexistence. Soros is behind the selection of the DAs in every urban enclave in America, who refuse to enforce the law, encourage crime, and purposefully destroy the cities they were entrusted to protect. Soros wants rampant crime, illegal immigrants overwhelming cities, uncontrolled drug use, mass homelessness, rigged elections through mail-in ballot fraud, and the downfall of America. All done through “legal” means, and cheered on by the regime media he funds.

  I could go on with examples about Bloomberg and the Clintons, but it gets repetitive, as these philanthropaths all have the same general purpose. They use their massive wealth, power, and control to gain more wealth, power and control, while inflicting their psychopathic beliefs upon an unsuspecting populace just trying to live their lives.

  Most people are not psychopaths. Only this micro-fraction of truly evil people with massive levels of wealth are the true enemy of us all. They are relatively easy to expose.

  

  If the plebs ever gained the courage to stand up to these psychopaths and made examples of a few, the tide might be able to be turned. I’m not optimistic, but it just takes one.

  *  *  *

  To support Jim’s site, donate via Stripe here.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 21:00

• NYC 'Super Speeders' Amass Hundreds Of Speeding Tickets
  NYC ‘Super Speeders’ Amass Hundreds Of Speeding Tickets

  “Super speeders” in New York – or people who have racked up over 100 infractions for going 10 miles per hour or more above the speed limit – are on the rise. In New York City, of all places. Is nothing sacred anymore?

  In a report published last week by Bloomberg, it was revealed that these repeat offenders are racking up tickets at a greater share than they ever have. In fact, according to the report, the city was equipped with 1,300 automated traffic enforcement cameras spread throughout its boroughs in 2020. This amounted for just 4 drivers reaching the ‘super speeder’ threshold. 

  But by 2023, as the number of these cameras nearly doubled, the count of drivers meeting this criterion surged to 186, with one individual alone amassing 373 tickets. In the previous year, the number of speed camera tickets accumulated by fewer than 200 drivers was equivalent to the total received by the lowest-ranked 25,000 drivers.

  Amid a national rise in traffic fatalities, which has been exacerbated by the pandemic, speeding remains a key factor in roughly a third of all US roadway deaths. In response, cities are increasingly turning to automated enforcement, like speed cameras, a measure supported by health organizations for its potential to lessen accidents and save lives.

  However, the effectiveness of such strategies is not absolute.

  

  New York City’s extensive speed camera program, initiated a decade ago under the Vision Zero initiative by Mayor Bill de Blasio, now includes around 2,500 cameras, operating 24/7 since August 2022, Bloomberg writes.

  Since this expansion, there’s been a 33% drop in tickets per hour issued, indicating a general reduction in speeding as most drivers reduce their speed after receiving one or two tickets. Yet, a significant rise in repeat offenses among a small group of persistent violators highlights the complexity of addressing traffic safety solely through enforcement. These “super speeders” now represent a majority of speeding violations, with outstanding fines averaging over $11,000 each.

  New York is advancing traffic law enforcement with proposals to hike fines and lower speed limits, though their future is uncertain.

  A previous initiative targeting dangerous drivers was discontinued due to its ineffectiveness. An audit also found that illegal or missing license plates led to a $100 million revenue loss from unenforceable camera tickets. Despite challenges, New York’s method of connecting tickets to plates and its extensive camera network could inspire other cities.

  Transportation researcher Marcel Moran commented to Bloomberg: “So I think that New York has succeeded in one of its objectives. But the other piece is, ‘What do we do about the extremes?’ That’s when the penalty design really becomes suspect.”

  He continued: “There’s no lawbreaking more normalized than speeding. There is a norm in the US of driving 10 miles over the speed limit, which results in the enforcement component: You cannot be written up for speeding unless you’re going over 10. So that enforcement norm becomes a behavioral norm.”

  Read Bloomberg’s full report here. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 20:30

• The "Unassailable" Theory Faces A Potential Unanimous Rejection
  The “Unassailable” Theory Faces A Potential Unanimous Rejection

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  This week, the argument before the Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson captivated the nation as the justices considered the disqualification of former President Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot. For some of us, the argument brought back vivid memories of covering Bush v. Gore almost 25 years ago. While one justice (Clarence Thomas) remains on the Court, the last major intervention of the Court into a close presidential election is a matter of distant history.

  

  As someone who covered both cases, much is regrettably familiar: the deep division in the country and rage of many advocates. However, unlike in 2000, the Court itself appears virtually unanimous in this case. The biggest difference is not the Court but the coverage.

  The Trump case exposed the erosion of legal coverage in the media. For millions of Americans, the cold reception of all of the justices to the novel theory under the 14th Amendment came as a surprise. Networks and newspapers have been featuring experts who assured the public that this theory was well-based and disqualification well-established. The only barrier, they insisted, was the blind partisanship of the six conservative justices on the Court.

  Twenty-four years ago, I was covering the Bush v. Gore case for CBS. I had just left NBC as an analyst when the election controversy exploded. While there were the usual partisans and some outlets slanted the merits, the legal analysis was overall balanced and informative.

  This is not a case of the Court changing. We have changed as legal analysts.

  The Court itself is deeply divided on some issues.

  However, the justices gave a fair hearing to both sides. That is not the case with the coverage.

  Looking back at the coverage, most legacy media called upon the same legal experts who have previously endorsed virtually every claim made against Trump.

  They predictably declared Trump as clearly disqualified despite the fact that this theory has never been embraced by the federal courts.

  Figures like federal court Judge J. Michael Luttig who called these arguments against disqualification as “revealing, fatuous, and politically and constitutionally cynical.” 

  Others insisted that the argument that the provision might not apply to presidents was “absurd.” That was the argument pushed by Justice Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson.

  Many of the media turned to Professor Laurence Tribe despite a long record of constitutional claims rejected by the Court, in some cases unanimously.

  Tribe assured the public that the theory was “unassailable” and also insisted that the theory (later voiced by Jackson) is “an absurd interpretation.”

  It is important that such views are heard in the coverage.

  The problem is that the media has, once again, pushed this novel (and in my view unfounded) theory to the point that many assumed that it was indeed unassailable.

  What was most troubling is the repeated attacks on the Court by legal experts who suggested that the only thing keeping Trump on the ballot was the bias of conservative justices.  Rep. Jamie Raskin (D. Md.) declared “This is their opportunity to behave like real Supreme Court justices.”

  It appears that both Justices Kagan and Jackson did not behave like “real Supreme Court justices” in oral argument by objecting to core aspects of this theory.

  We will have to wait for the final opinion but most of us are predicting a reversal of Colorado and the possibility of a unanimous or near unanimous decision.

  The question is whether such a result will change how media outlets frame these disputes in the future.

  After weeks of portraying the opposition as only resting with the right of the Court, the coverage had a weird disjointed feel as some of the same commentators reported that the justices appeared uniformly unconvinced by this “unassailable” theory.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 20:00

• Gaslight Supreme: Mayorkas Says "We Don't Bear Responsibility" For Border Crisis
  Gaslight Supreme: Mayorkas Says “We Don’t Bear Responsibility” For Border Crisis

  The Biden administration can’t stop lying to the American public.

  

  On Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had the audacity to claim that the Biden administration doesn’t bear responsibility for the border crisis, despite, among other things:

  • Terminating the National Emergency at the Southwest border
  • Revoking a Trump-era Executive Order that was designed to ensure there was meaningful enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.
  • Issuing an executive order protecting DACA recipients
  • Unveiling the U.S. Citizenship Act, which would provide amnesty to millions of illegal aliens in the U.S., demonstrating intent to reward illegal border crossers with a path to citizenship.
  • Announcing a 100-day moratorium on deportations and immigration enforcement, effectively providing amnesty to criminal and other removable aliens

  (It’s a really long list…)

  And since Biden was sworn in as president in January 2021, there have been at least 7 million encounters near the southern border, while the government deals with a backlog of more than 3 million asylum cases in US courts.

  Appearing on NBC‘s “Meet the Press,” Mayorkas claimed: “It certainly is a crisis. And, well, we don’t bear responsibility for a broken system, and we’re doing a tremendous amount within the system. But fundamentally, Congress is the only one who can fix it.”

  And of course, zero pushback from the ‘journalist’ sitting across from him.

  “Do you bear responsibility for what is happening at the border?”

  MAYORKAS: “We don’t bear responsibility” pic.twitter.com/rCdwOIAIAX

  — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 11, 2024

  So the narrative is: Biden inherited a broken border from Trump.

  How much gaslighting can a country take before even Democrats call bullshit?

  Mayorkas’ comments come after a failed effort by House Republicans to impeach him – in part because Rep. Al Green (D-TX) was wheeled into Congress from the hospital to vote following abdominal surgery.

  “Sometimes when you’re counting votes and people show up when they’re not expected to be in the building, it changes the equation,” said Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) afterward, the NY Post reports.

  According to Mayorkas, “They’re baseless allegations,” adding “That’s why I really am not distracted by them and focused on the work of the Department of Homeland Security.”

  House Republicans have accused Mayorkas of “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” while presiding over the border crisis and “breach of public trust” for allegedly lying to Congress by saying the border is “secure” and that DHS has “operational control” of it.

  In addition to the impeachment effort against Mayorkas falling by the wayside, a sweeping bipartisan border security reform package in the Senate collapsed last week.

  The deal had been negotiated for some four months and was widely seen as a means of unlocking Republican support for a broader supplemental featuring aid to Ukraine, Israel and Indo-Pacific allies. -NY Post

  “The system has not been fixed for 30 years. A bipartisan group of senators [has] now presented us with the tools and resources we need … and yet Congress killed it before even reading it,” said Mayorkas, following a failed Senate spending plan which would allocate a scant amount to the border, while providing Ukraine and Israel with roughly $80 billion in aid.

  And yet, Biden could simply issue executive orders like Trump in order to close the border.

   

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

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 19:35

• Gold Wars: The US Versus Europe During The Demise Of Bretton Woods
  Gold Wars: The US Versus Europe During The Demise Of Bretton Woods

  By Jan Nieuwenhuijs of Gainvesville Coins

  The story on the emergence of the US dollar hegemony.

  * * *

  After the collapse of Bretton Woods in 1971 several European central banks tried setting up a new gold pool to stabilize the price and move to a quasi gold standard. The US wanted to phase out gold from the system and enforce a dollar standard on the world.

  What frightened the US was that Europe held the most gold and alluded to raising the gold price periodically to create liquidity, giving them the dominant means of creating reserves. Through its military presence in Germany, protecting it from the Soviet Union, the US was able to pressure the Germans not to cooperate with the gold pool. Without Germany the other European countries couldn’t materialize the pool and gold lost its anchor role in the monetary system. In the meantime, the US made a secret deal with Saudi Arabia to recycle oil dollars into US government bonds.

  The United States didn’t manage to phase out gold from the system altogether, but it did succeed in establishing a global dollar standard which yielded them unprecedented power.

  

  For the sake of simplicity “Europe” will generally refer to Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, most of which also cooperated during the classic gold standard in the 19th century.

  The Beginning of the End

  At a conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in July 1944, no less than 730 delegates from 44 nations forged a new international monetary system. With the currency wars of the 1930s in fresh memory an agreement of fixed exchange rates and free trade was reached. Because the United States had the strongest hand at the negotiation table, only the dollar was convertible into gold at $35 per troy ounce, making it “as good as gold” and stimulating its use as a reserve currency. Other currencies were pegged to the dollar (or gold). Gold was thus the ultimate anchor of “Bretton Woods,” granted by the Federal Reserve that was obligated to convert (buy and sell) dollars into bullion for foreign central banks.

  

  While pound sterling was still held by central banks the world over from the previous arrangement, Bretton Woods incentivized central banks to hold dollars and gold as reserves. An advantage of the dollar, relative to gold, was that it accrued interest; a disadvantage was that it could devalue against gold (or be seized). In practice, the system created demand for dollars as a trade, intervention, and reserve currency.

  The evolution of the composition of global international reserves (#gold and foreign exchange) since 1950. pic.twitter.com/ZYbHZh6dIi

  — Jan Nieuwenhuijs (@JanGold_) January 24, 2024

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

  The “rules of the game” were enshrined in the Articles of Agreement of the newly erected International Monetary Fund (IMF) that was to administer the system and support countries with temporary balance of payments deficits through lending reserves. In consultation with the IMF countries could devalue (revalue) their currency in case of chronic balance of payments deficits (surpluses) to restore equilibrium. The system was stable as long as its members implemented similar domestic monetary policies (countries with relatively loose policies had to devalue), which didn’t happen.

  In the late 1950s the United States’ balance of payments deteriorated, resulting in a buildup of dollar balances held abroad, and, as central banks could convert dollars into gold, a decline of the US’s monetary gold stock. At first an increase in the supply of dollars abroad was welcomed because it inflated international liquidity beyond the growth of gold supply. Though, in 1960 the United States’ external dollar liabilities exceeded its monetary gold holdings, which prompted global concern. A run on the dollar could coerce a devaluation or default of the US.

  

  

  In November 1961, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Alfred Hayes, presented a plan at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Bazel, Switzerland, to collectively defend the price of gold at $35 dollars an ounce in the free market (Bordo et al 2017). European central banks assented to form a Gold Pool with the US—buying and selling gold in the London Bullion Market to keep the free market price close to the official price—and protect the international monetary system from disintegrating. France accepted to join on the condition the US would restore its balance of payments deficit (Avaro 2022).

  

  Although the new club started as a secretive syndicate, it didn’t take long before the Pool’s operations were leaked to the press to amplify its impact. On March 8, 1962, the Pool was first covered by Le Courrier de Genève (Bordo et al 2017, Naef 2022). Creating public awareness likely worked in its maiden years of existence when the Pool was a net buyer of gold. But as the US started printing more money to finance the war in Vietnam throughout the 1960s, downward pressure on the dollar mounted. The Pool was challenged in its bluff selling gold.

  In February 1965, the President of France, Charles de Gaulle, gave a speech in which he conveyed his criticism of Bretton Woods and America’s “exorbitant privilege”: to the extent countries were willing to hold dollars in reserve, the US could print dollars out of thin air to pay for imports and make investments abroad. In reality, Bretton Woods was designed for the world to accumulate dollars. Additionally, the inflationary policies of the US in the late 1960s were exported abroad through its balance of payments deficit and fixed exchange rates, pushing foreign central banks to buy dollars with their printing presses (Dibooglu 1999, Bordo et al 2017).

  According to De Gaulle, international settlement should be done in gold and the use of reserve currencies had to be limited. De Gaulle and his economic advisors foresaw a dollar crisis advancing. To protect itself from devaluation France ramped up dollar conversions into gold at the Fed, in part to supply the Pool.

  

  Shortly after, Belgium and France expressed their doubts about the viability of the Pool at BIS meetings (Bordo et al 2017). European central banks didn’t want to defend the dollar-gold peg indefinitely for what was essentially a problem of the United States. France dropped out in June 1967 when the Pool’s resources needed to be increased (Avaro 2020).

  In November 1967, Great Britain was forced to devalue pound sterling. If sterling could fail, so could the dollar, the market reckoned. Slowly but surely things started spiraling out of control and the Pool was confronted with significant losses. “The gold markets were faced with numerous bouts of speculative buying in late 1967 and early 1968,” the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas remarks in its 1968 annual statement. From March 8 through 14, 1968, the Pool sold nearly 1,000 tonnes of gold. “US air force planes rushed more and more Fort Knox gold to London, and so much piled up in the Bank of England’s weighing room that the floor collapsed,” writes Timothy Green in The New World of Gold.

  Belgium and Italy also became anxious to opt out as their gold reserves contracted (Green 1973 135). It became senseless to sell gold into a black hole. The next day, on March 15, 1968, the London Bullion Market was closed for two weeks at the behest of the US. Quickly the central bankers of the Pool flew to Washington for a conference.

  A prominent person at that time was Jelle Zijlstra, President of the Dutch central bank and Chairman of the BIS from 1967 until 1981. Zijlstra writes the Europeans had a different interpretation than the US from the agreements reached in Washington (Zijlstra 1978 191):

  The Washington conference of March 1968, … gave rise to many difficulties afterwards, because almost from the outset the decisions taken there were interpreted in two very different ways. Some countries were of the opinion that the only decision taken in Washington was to abolish the gold pool, to stop gold sales by central banks in the free market in order to keep the free market gold price close to the official price. The Americans took the position that it had also been decided that the central banks would never again buy gold on the free market, or in other words, that a first step had been taken towards the removal of gold from the international monetary system, the so-called demonetization of gold.

  Clearly, the communique from the conference doesn’t state that central banks would never again buy gold from the free market. In any case, the Pool was disbanded and the free market price of gold allowed to float.

  

  In favor of the Americans, the IMF’s Articles of Agreement (Article IV Section 2) stipulated that no central bank would buy or sell gold at a price other than the official price. And so, as a consequence from the Pool’s moratorium, a two-tier gold market was born. Private entities could trade gold at the free market price and central banks could transact at the official price.

  This setup subsided the role of gold in the international monetary system, as it severed the link between gold production and other sources of gold and monetary reserves. Gold also became increasingly illiquid, because no central bank wanted to sell at $35 an ounce knowing gold was worth much more. Gresham’s Law assured the use of the dollar as intervention and trade currency by its presumed overvaluation with respect to gold (Mundell 1971 13). The world began creeping towards a dollar standard (Bordo 1993 4).

  Europe got cornered. By then they held the largest gold reserves, and it would have been a pity, to say the least, to render it useless.

  

  Zijlstra’s solutions to resuscitate Bretton Woods were simple. The official gold prices in all currencies should have been raised to increase global liquidity and make sure the dollar would stay convertible into gold (Zijlstra 1978 190). He adds, “it was curious that in the post-war world, where everything was at least three to four times more expensive than in the 1930s, the gold price had remained unchanged” (Zijlstra 1992 222). In addition to the first measure the official gold price of the dollar should have been raised even more, thus devaluing the dollar against all other currencies to restore the United States its balance of payments. “However, the Americans opposed both solutions tooth and nail. … After all, this would put the dollar in second place to gold, and the Americans’ ideal was and is for the dollar to play a central role on the economic stage” (Zijlstra 1978 191, 1992 222).

  The Heat is On

  European central banks continued converting dollars at the Federal Reserve, whilst the Americans tried to block such requests.

  

  As shown in chart 6, Germany held less of its total reserves in gold than its European peers. Having American troops on its soil, protecting Germany from the Soviets, came at a cost: not being allowed to convert dollars at the Fed. Germany held large gold reserves, but this was mainly obtained via trading partners in Europe (Bundesbank 2018 99).

  Germany’s commitment not to convert dollars was sealed in a letter to the Fed, dated March 30, 1967, by Karl Blessing, President of the German central bank (Bundesbank). Blessing also concurred to invest $500 million dollars in US government bonds, financing both America’s balance of payments and fiscal deficit.

  

  Shortly before Blessing died he gave an interview published in Der Spiegel:

  BLESSING: … the threat was always in the background. Former US High Commissioner McCloy once visited the German government and said: “Look, we’ve now had a Senate decision; there is soon a majority that we will withdraw our boys. We have to do something.” So, he called me at home on a Sunday afternoon at half past three and said: “I have to fly back tonight, can’t we see each other?” And I said to him: “My dear McCloy, your situation is clear, this is a balance of payments problem for you, nothing more. You have seen that we are sensible and do not convert our dollars into gold. I am even willing to give you that in writing for a certain time.” Unfortunately, the letter that I wrote back then is still valid today.

  I should have been more rigorous with regard to the US. The dollars that we were accumulating should simply have been rigorously converted into gold.

  Other European countries were better off. In one of his books Zijlstra describes how he was pressured by the Americans but stood his ground. From Zijlstra (1978 191):

  That the mood was becoming more threatening became apparent to me when on July 7, 1971, the US Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Volcker, and my American colleague, Dewey Daane, came to visit me in Amsterdam [the Netherlands]. They urged me to cancel the exchange of $250 million into gold. We had already exchanged nearly $600 million worth of dollars into gold … since the beginning of 1971. The fact that such a heavy delegation came to Amsterdam to ask me to refrain from conversion was the clearest proof to me that the storm was really about to break. I explained that I could not comply with their request. We held dollars only up to an amount that we considered working stock. Everything above that we wished to exchange for gold …. Volcker then said to me, “You are rocking the boat.” My response was: “if that boat rocks too violently as a result of converting $250 million, that boat has already sunk.”

  

  All along the intent of the Americans was to phase out gold from the international monetary system; for the rest of the world to import their dollars and hold as reserves so the US could live beyond its means and secure the dollar hegemony. Illustrative of this scheme is an action memorandum from Henry Kissinger, the US President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, to President Richard Nixon dated June 25, 1969. “We can try to finance our deficits,” Kissinger wrote, to “borrow implicitly by inducing other countries to build their dollar holdings. At the extreme, this would mean getting (or forcing) the world to go onto a ‘dollar standard’.” In international economics holding foreign exchange as reserves is a loan to the issuer of that money because technically that issuer still has to settle a trade imbalance with something real.

  Primarily “the [dollar-gold] convertibility link,” was blocking the United States’ agenda, as noted by a Volcker Group Paper from 1969. The paper continues:

  Perhaps one of the most important long-term problems facing the US is how to move out of this commitment in a graceful manner without causing undue disturbance to the monetary system and with a fair measure of international approbation, at some time in the future. It is not yet clear whether this can be done, and a breaking of the link may have to come in the context of some crisis and a threatened run on the dollar.

  A run on the dollar, from the viewpoint of the US, arrived early August 1971 when both the British and French called on the Fed to redeem more dollars (Bordo et al 2017). Finally, on August 15 President Nixon announced to temporarily suspend dollar convertibility, although this has never been reactivated. The “Nixon Shock” de facto terminated Bretton Woods and one can imagine countries holding dollars were not amused. Kindly note, in chart 2, how external dollar liabilities of the US exploded from then on.

  

  At the same time, European countries, trading a great deal with one another, were integrating through the European Economic Community (EEC) and introduced their own framework for managing exchange rates (aimed to progress toward a monetary union) called “the snake.” A unified Europe showed the world its strength and leadership. Kissinger said to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, William Simon, at one point: “I basically have only one view right now which is to do as much as we can to prevent a united European position without showing our hand. … I don’t think a unified European monetary system is in our interest.”

  Because the dollar had become grossly overvalued relative to several other currencies, a group of ten developed countries (G10) met in Washington in December 1971 to negotiate exchange rate realignment. In what became known as the Smithsonian Agreement the dollar was devalued by 10.7% versus a basket of currencies (De Vries 1976 555). The official (“fictional”) gold price was raised to $38 as exchange rates were formally still expressed in parities vis-à-vis the official gold price.

  Over a year later pressure on the dollar broke its peg again. In March 1973 the G10 accorded that 6 EEC currencies would jointly float against the dollar, effectively discontinuing what was left over from Bretton Woods. IMF members were free to choose any form of exchange arrangement, “except pegging their currency to gold.”

  Among IMF members there was a desire to reform the monetary system, for which a novel reserve asset was developed: the Special Drawing Rights (SDR). In general, both the US and Europe supported the introduction of the SDR in 1969, albeit for different reasons. The Europeans wished the SDR could substitute the dollar (Zijlstra 1992 222), while the US concocted “the nations of the world come to accept Special Drawing Rights in lieu of gold.” All the while Bretton Woods crumbled, the SDR was used as a decoy by the United States.

  

  A European Gold Pool

  The US received intelligence that the Europeans were preparing to mobilize their gold by transacting bullion among themselves at the free market price. Then Secretary of the Treasury, George Shultz, wrote to President Nixon:

  Some—but not all European officials— … see the proposed move as enhancing the probability that gold will work its way back into the center of the international monetary system and facilitate a French-European vision of a new monetary system.

  We should actively support … amending existing agreements so that monetary authorities may sell gold into private markets at the market prices but may not buy gold from any source except at the established official price. It would be hoped that this procedure would permit a gradual phase-out in the official monetary use of gold.

  Although the exact date from the above memo isn’t known, it’s likely from October 1973. At BIS headquarters, in November 1973, Zijlstra suggested rescinding the Washington agreement of March 1968. Chairman of the Fed, Arthur Burns, proposed to allow selling (not buying) by central banks in the private market (De Vries 1985 609). Burns’ offer was accepted and from that day central banks could sell gold, just as envisioned by Schultz.

  Apparently, it was irrelevant where policy makers met (in Bazel or elsewhere), as long as they had a majority vote in the IMF a decision could be made. Although the US had broken the rules of the Articles of Agreement by ceasing to convert dollars in 1971, the Europeans were cautious to do the same.

  Of course, the Europeans wanted more than being able to sell gold. In a Wikileaks cable from 1973 it reads the Minister of Finance of the Netherlands, Willem Duisenberg, told an American ambassador that all currencies should be convertible “or money has no meaning.” In other cables (here and here) from early 1974 it reads that France wanted to regulate (stabilize) the free market price of gold and the EEC oriented to use their gold for international settlement. The former being a prerequisite for the latter (Zijlstra 1981 10). If the EEC joint float would be pegged to gold it would result in “a new gold-based currency bloc.” Within the EEC the Germans weren’t enthusiastic about these ideas, because, as we shall see, they were still being played by the US.

  Zijlstra made his views public on March 13, 1974, in a speech in Zurich, Switzerland (Zijlstra 1974):

  Central banks holding gold should be free … to … buy and sell gold in the free market – perhaps regulating the price a little through a new-style gold pool – or … use it in settlements between one another. In this latter context one might think in particular of regional groupings like the EEC.

  One month after, the Ministers of Finance of the EEC held a conference in Zeist, the Netherlands, that conceptually produced the same as Zijlstra’s views in Zurich (EEC 1975 19).

  1. Monetary authorities should be permitted to buy and to sell gold among themselves at a market related price and to buy and sell on the free market (hold gold in the center of the monetary system).
  2. Monetary authorities periodically fix a minimum and a maximum price beyond which they would not respectively sell or buy on the market (stabilizing the gold price).
  3. Creating a buffer stock to be managed by an agent who would be charged by the monetary authorities to sell or buy on the market such as to ensure orderly conditions on the free market for gold (a new gold pool).

  

  The Americans countered the EEC from the inside. First, on June 3, 1975, Burns wrote to a colleague (Alan Greenspan) that he has “a secret understanding in writing with the Bundesbank—concurred in by [Minister of Finance] Mr. Schmidt—that Germany will not buy gold, either from the market or from another government, at a price above the official price,” which pretty much blocked the Zeist initiative. Without Germany the EEC wasn’t able to form a gold pool, stabilize the price and use gold for international settlement.

  Burns’ secretive understanding can be traced to a letter dated November 14, 1973, by then Bundesbank President, Karl Klasen, to the Fed pledging adherence, with Schmidt’s consent, to Article IV Section 2 about not trading gold at a price other than the official par value.

  Second, ample leverage equipped the US to go the extra mile. Advisors of US President Ford wrote on June 4, 1975, on the role of gold in the international monetary system: “We must first swing Germany, thus isolating France.” On June 6 President Ford felt comfortable to tell Minister Schmidt:

  We … do feel strongly that some safeguards are necessary to ensure that a tendency does not develop to place gold back in the center of the system. We must ensure that there is no opportunity for governments to begin active trading in gold among themselves with the purpose of creating a gold bloc or reinstating reliance on gold as the principal international monetary medium.

  Most definitely the Germans obeyed and threw a wrench in the Zeist initiative, as it was strangely never realized.

  By not converting dollars into gold when the Fed’s gold window was still open, Germany dug itself into a hole. Next to being dependent on US troops, Germany’s gold to total reserves ratio was so much lower than in surrounding countries that any revaluation of monetary metal relative to dollars would have been sorely embarrassing (chart 6).

  Aside from the US the least developed countries (LDCs) of the world also opposed the activation of official gold holdings, for the simple reason they owned fairly little.

  The IMF began selling 750 tonnes of gold from its own stock to use for concessional loans to LDCs in 1976 (De Vries 1985 662). At the announcement of the sale the gold price in the free market declined. Ironically, the Swiss central bank (SNB) considered buying some of the gold at auction “to demonstrate its attachment to gold and participate in efforts to stabilize the gold price,” SNB reminisces in its centenary. Four years later in 1979, when the gold price skyrocketed, SNB “considered selling gold on the market, in a coordinated action with other central banks, with the aim of stabilizing the price.”

  By 1978 the IMF’s Articles of Agreement had been amended and central banks could buy and sell gold in the private market (De Vries 1985 656). The idea to put monetary gold to use hadn’t died in Europe and so in 1979 the idea to intervene floated again. This time also for gold not to make a mockery out of their fiat currencies and calm monetary unrest.

  Before me, attempts of forming a European gold pool in 1979 have been covered by precious metals analyst Ronan Manly (here and here). Manly was able to get his hands on documents from the Bank of England (BOE) in which a new gold pool was discussed. What stands out from Manly’s publications, in relation to our present analysis, is that France didn’t want to participate because Germany resisted and the pool never saw the light of day.

  The following quotes are from multiple BOE documents regarding meetings at the BIS in 1979. Paul Jeanty was a dealer in the London Bullion Market, all the others government officials. In brackets it’s clarified who is representing which country:

  Paul Jeanty told me [McMahon, UK] that Zijlstra had told him personally a couple of weeks ago that he would now be in favor of a central bank operation to stabilize the price within a moving band. Leutwiler [Switzerland] and Clappier [France] have said this to him in the past and he believes … that de Stryker [Belgium] and Baffi [Italy] would go along with such a plan. All recognize, however, that Emminger [Germany] has no disposition to support.

  Fritz [Switzerland] had told Jeanty, what Jeanty already knew, that Zijlstra would be interested; however, apparently Clappier indicated that he was against. This was a reversal of view which Leutwiler attributed to pressure from the Élysée [France] which was itself influenced by the Germans. … Emminger continued to be strongly against.

  Leutwiler and Zijlstra then said that although they did not think a very large group was necessary to undertake the operation it probably had to be bigger than two: specifically, they really needed either the French or the Germans.

  The core of Europe tried to form a gold pool, but Germany was jamming the project again! Very likely the Germans were still on a leash of the United States.

  The US Oil Deal with Saudi Arabia

  Suppressing the role of gold was one part in the bigger picture of the US to install the dollar hegemony. In part two “risk free” dollar assets were required to become the prime international reserves.

  The oil crisis in the early 1970s was a blessing and a curse for the US. It caused expenses to go up, but a higher price of oil also created more demand for dollars abroad. Now those dollars needed to be invested in US governments bonds (Treasuries).

  In July 1974, Secretary of the Treasury, William Simon, visited the Middle-East to dust off a proposal by Saudi Arabian Oil Minister, Yamani, from 1970. Simon’s endeavor was for the Saudis to recycle dollars in bonds.

  Eventually the deal encompassed Saudi Arabia to supply oil to the United States and invest the proceeds in Treasury securities. In return, the US would provide military aid and hand the kingdom an “add-on” in the form of a special treatment in Treasury auctions. On request of Saudi King Faisal the deal would remain “strictly secret.”

  

  The add-on allowed the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA) non-competitive bidding outside of the normal auctions held by the New York Fed and avoid disrupting the market caused by large security purchases on their part. “The sine-qua-non for the Saudis in this arrangement is confidential and we have assured them that we will do everything in our power to comply with their desires,” Undersecretary of the Treasury for Monetary Affairs, Jack Benett, writes in a memo to Kissinger in 1975.

  For starters $2.5 billion was expected to be invested by SAMA, but shortly after the Treasury inadvertently raised $800 million more than it intended to borrow at auction. Dollars were recycled alright.

  

  

  Conclusion

  It wasn’t all smooth sailing for the dollar in the 1970s, but the US managed to secure its currency as the sun in the international monetary cosmos. In his memoirs, Zijlstra looks back on how it happened (1992 211):

  Gold disappeared as the anchor of monetary stability. An attempt to replace it with a newly created substitute (the IMF’s [SDR] …) virtually failed. The fixed parities, apart from our own EEC system, have disappeared. … The road from dollar supremacy, through endless vicissitudes, to a new dollar hegemony was paved with many conferences, with faithful, shrewd, and sometimes misleading stories, with idealistic visions of the future and impressive professorial speeches. (For every notion, no matter how extreme, there is always a professor of economics available.) The political reality was that Americans supported or fought any change, depending on whether they saw the dollar’s position strengthened or threatened.

  According to Zijlstra and De Gaulle, final settlement in cross-border trade should be done in gold and the use of reserve currencies restricted (Zijlstra 1972). What frightened the US was that Europe held the most gold and alluded to raising the gold price periodically to create liquidity, giving them “the dominant means of creating reserves.” A few days after the Zeist conference an advisor of Kissinger explained it to him well:

  Mr. Enders: It’s against our interest to have gold in the system because for it to remain there it would result in it being evaluated periodically. Although we have still some substantial gold holdings … a larger part of the official gold in the world is concentrated in Western Europe. This gives them the dominant position in world reserves and the dominant means of creating reserves. We’ve been trying to get away from that into a system in which we can control—

  Secretary Kissinger: But that’s a balance of payments problem.

  Mr. Enders: Yes, but it’s a question of who has the most leverage internationally. If they have the reserve-creating instrument, by having the largest amount of gold and the ability to change its price periodically, they have a position relative to ours of considerable power.

  Remarkably, everything that held back the envisioned monetary system of Zijlstra and friends in the 1970s has been resolved. Since Germany repatriated gold from New York several years ago we may assume it has released itself from bondage. Gold is globally more evenly distributed (chart 5), there is a gold leasing market for those that are looking for a yield, and the gold market is liquid. The fact the Dutch central bank recently signaled that it has prepared for a new gold standard makes perfect sense from a historical perspective.

  

  Experience from Bretton Woods and the need to periodically increase the gold price suggests that Europe would target the price in the free market in order to stabilize it. The remaining questions are, (i) what could trigger Europe to stabilize the gold price in the future, and (ii) at what price level?

  For a full list of sources, see here

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

• The Next ZeroHedge Live Debate: The Fate Of The US Dollar
  The Next ZeroHedge Live Debate: The Fate Of The US Dollar

  It’s perhaps the most important question in all of finance, so much so that Vladimir Putin and Elon Musk have both asked it in just the past few days: what is the fate of the US dollar, and will it remain the world’s reserve currency?

  To be sure, the US Dollar is – and has been for the past century – the most important means of exchange, involved in 88% of all global transactions. That’s according to the latest Bank for International Settlements survey But how long can this hegemony last?

  

  As the IMF cautioned recently, 2020 was the first year in over two decades that foreign central bank dollar allotment dipped below 60%, a figure which has inched lower since: Meanwhile, foreign holdings of US Treasury bonds have steadily declined since 2012, a testament to the declining faith of the rest of the world in the reserve currency.

  

  Still, the greenback remains the most ubiquitous currency and reserve asset of choice around the globe. To determine whether dollar-dominance will persist indefinitely, or a historic transition looms ZeroHedge has assembled a panel of top macroeconomic experts for our next debate: The Fate of the U.S. Dollar.

  

  The two-on-two debate features the following financial luminaries:

  • Jim Rickards: the NYT-best selling author who predicted the 2008 Great Recession and successfully brokered the $3.6 billion takeover of Long-Term Capital Management. 

  • Michael Every: regular ZeroHedge readers are intimately familiar with the research of Rabobank’s head of Global Strategy. Michael brilliantly weaves geopolitical and economic trends into actionable market insights, which have made his daily note a must read for every finance professional. 

  • Bob Murphy: senior fellow at the Mises Institute, Bob is among the upper echelon of Austrian Economists with his work quoted by Argentinian President Javier Millei.

  • Brent Johnson: famous for the “Dollar Milkshake Theory,” Brent runs Santiago Capital where he manages over $175 million in assets. 

  • Adam Taggart: from Peak Prosperity to Wealthion to his new channel Thoughtful Money, Adam is a veteran of the contrarian financial space and will be moderating this epic debate. 

  The live, in-person debate will take place on Tuesday, February 13 at 7pm ET, and will air concurrently on this website and on X.

  We also have an extremely limited number of seats set aside for readers who wish to watch the debate in person and engage the participants over dinner (if interested please email Debates@zerohedge.com for details and price).

  As usual, we will also dedicate a portion of the debate to responding directly to questions submitted by our premium subscribers.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 18:55

• "Stupid No Longer": Trump Says No More Foreign Aid Without Guarantees, Warned NATO Countries Who Refuse To Pay Fair Share
  “Stupid No Longer”: Trump Says No More Foreign Aid Without Guarantees, Warned NATO Countries Who Refuse To Pay Fair Share

  While the Biden administration reels from its own Justice Department concluding that the president is too senile to be prosecuted for mishandling classified documents, the left is lashing out over recent comments made by former President Donald Trump about NATO and US foreign aid.

  

  “NATO was busted until I came along. I said, everybody’s going to pay,” said Trump during a Saturday campaign rally in South Carolina. “They said, ‘Well, if we don’t pay, are you still going to protect us?’ I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ They couldn’t believe the answer.”

  “One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’ I said, ‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Let’s say that happened. No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.’ You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”

  Trump said that due to his pressure to convince NATO members to pay their agreed upon share in the alliance, “hundreds of billions of dollars” came into the organization, “and that’s why they have money today, because of what I did,” Trump continued.

  During his 2016 campaign, President Trump had warned that under his leadership, the United States would be able to abandon its NATO commitments to nations that don’t commit two percent of their GDP to military spending as mentioned in the alliance’s guidelines.

  According to a 2023 NATO report, only seven of the 31 allies met the 2 percent GDP spending target on defense in 2022. Even this was an improvement over 2014, when only three allies fulfilled the minimum requirement. –Epoch Times

  Distract!

  White House spox Andrew Bates called Trump’s comments “unhinged,” telling Reuters: “Encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes is appalling and unhinged – and it endangers American national security, global stability and our economy at home.”

  EU Commissioner Thierry Breton told France’s LCI television that Trump’s comments were “nothing new under the sun,” adding “He maybe has issues with his memory, it was actually a female president, not of a country, but of the European Union,” referring to  European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen and a conversation she had with Trump in 2020.

  (Not exactly calling the President of Egypt the President of Mexico while trying to think of the President of Israel ‘issues with his memory,’ eh Theirry?)

  “Stupid no longer”

  Over the weekend Trump also called on US Congress to stop gifting US aid to foreign nation without “strings” attached.

  “From this point forward, are you listening U.S. Senate(?), no money in the form of foreign aid should be given to any country unless it is done as a loan, not just a giveaway,” he wrote in a Saturday post on Truth Social.

  “It can be loaned on extraordinarily good terms, like no interest and an unlimited life, but a loan nevertheless.

  “The deal should be (Contingent!) that the U.S. is helping you as a nation, but if the country we are helping ever turns against us, or strikes it rich sometime in the future, the loan will be paid off and the money returned to the United States.“

  As the Epoch Times notes further;

  The suggestion comes as the GOP front-runner and leader of the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement campaigns for the 2024 presidency with a foreign policy record that caused somewhat of a stir on the international stage.

  As the 45th president of the United States, President Trump pushed many contrarian views on the world stage, questioning why the United States has been expected to fund more than its fair share in multilateral efforts. He said at the time that he believed many of the international platforms were no longer serving the U.S. interests he wanted to prioritize, such as providing benefit to U.S. producers and manufacturing over those of other countries.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 18:45

• State AGs Pressure CBS To Not Run Temu's 2024 Super Bowl Ad
  State AGs Pressure CBS To Not Run Temu’s 2024 Super Bowl Ad

  Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times,

  A group of six state attorneys general are asking CBS and its parent company, Paramount Global, not to run Super Bowl ads from Temu, a rapidly growing Chinese online shopping platform they claim is selling products of forced labor.

  

  This will be the second time Temu has spent millions of dollars for an ad spot at a high-profile football event. Its first Super Bowl commercial last year featured the tagline, “Shop like a billionaire,” highlighting a business model of swaying customers with ultra-discounted merchandise predominantly sourced from China.

  In a Feb. 10 letter to CBS and Paramount Global, the attorneys general said they have reason to believe that Temu is selling products made with forced labor.

  “Congressional investigators believe Temu is illegally selling products made by forced labor in an area of China in which the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is committing genocide,” they wrote in the letter, first reported by Daily Wire.

  “CBS should not elevate a company profiting from forced labor and genocide during America’s biggest game.”

  The letter is led by Attorney General Austin Knudsen of Montana. He was joined by Attorneys General Tim Griffin of Arkansas, Raúl Labrador of Idaho, Brenna Bird of Iowa, Lynn Fitch of Mississippi, and Alan Wilson of South Carolina.

  “The United States House Select Committee on the CCP has revealed disturbing information about Temu’s failure to comply with American laws prohibiting use of forced labor by Uyghurs,” they added, referring to the Select Committee’s interim report published last June.

  In that report, the Select Committee details the preliminary findings of a bipartisan investigation into Temu and its Chinese rival, Shein. According to the Committee, Temu has no system to ensure compliance with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2021 to ban any goods produced in Xinjiang—where the CCP’s human rights abuses against the Uyghurs took place—or by entities associated with CCP authorities in Xinjiang from entering the United States.

  The report also suggested that Shein and Temu were exploiting the United States’ de minimis rule to evade customs enforcement—wherein nearly all their products are valued under $800 and can enter the country uninspected and free from duties that most American clothing brands pay.

  “Temu is doing next to nothing to keep its supply chains free from slave labor,” Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), Select Committee’s chairman, said at that time.

  “Temu and Shein are building empires around the de minimis loophole in our import rules—dodging import taxes and evading scrutiny on the millions of goods they sell to Americans.”

  Several big apparel retailers with a manufacturing presence in China, including Adidas and Nike, have been under congressional investigation by the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party since last May.

  While Adidas, Nike, and Shein are able to regularly audit their manufacturers and publish data on how often cotton and other raw materials that can be traced to forced labor are found in their products, Temu has yet to make such data public.

  In Saturday’s letter, the attorneys general also took issue with Temu’s parent company, Pinduoduo, or PDD, accusing the Chinese online retailer of being linked to the CCP.

  “Given the virtual guarantee that Temu is selling products made with forced labor in China and its links to the CCP, CBS should not broadcast Temu’s commercials during the Super Bowl. Americans deserve better,” the attorneys general conclude.

  The same concern was echoed in an earlier letter to CBS and Paramount Global by a group of 11 Republican members of Congress. Allowing Temu’s commercial to air “would be a touchdown for the Chinese Communist Party against the home team,” they argued.

  CBS and Paramount Global declined to comment on the petitions.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 18:20

• SecDef Austin Hospitalized… Again
  SecDef Austin Hospitalized… Again

  Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has been readmitted to hospital, the Pentagon said on Sunday afternoon.

  Pentagon Press Secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder gave an update on the defense leader’s condition, saying that the hospital admission had occurred early Sunday afternoon.

  “Today, at approximately 2:20 pm, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III was transported by his security detail to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center to be seen for symptoms suggesting an emergent bladder issue,” he said.

  As The Epoch Times’ Melanie Sun reports, following criticism over an earlier hospitalization that was kept a secret from the public and even the White House, the press secretary said that the deputy secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had been notified of this admission.

  

  The White House and Congress have also been notified, he added.

  Secretary Austin then revealed that he had received a prostate cancer diagnosis in January after experiencing complications with a urinary tract infection following surgery.

  The update also said that as of Sunday evening, the secretary “is retaining the functions and duties of his office.”

  “The Deputy Secretary is prepared to assume the functions and duties of the Secretary of Defense, if required,” the statement from Mr. Ryder said.

  “Secretary Austin traveled to the hospital with the unclassified and classified communications systems necessary to perform his duties.

  “We will provide an update on Secretary Austin’s condition as soon as possible.”

  It comes just under two weeks after Austin’s Jan. 29 return to the Pentagon after a weeks-long hospitalization in early January.

  He was hospitalized on Jan. 1 for an infection stemming from a Dec. 22 surgery for prostate cancer. The New Year’s emergency placed Austin in the intensive care unit (ICU) for days and forced Austin to carry out his duties from home for nearly two weeks after being released from Walter Reed.

  …so, to summarise: the commander-in-chief is “an elderly man with a poor memory” and his SecDef is in hospital… again…

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 17:55

• One Nation, Two Anthems?
  One Nation, Two Anthems?

  Via The Washington Examiner,

  The NFL will continue trying to disunite America by featuring two separate “anthems” to begin the Super Bowl. Our country has only one national anthem, which speaks for all its citizens. To suggest otherwise is anathema.

  

  As also happened last year, fans will be asked to stand at attention not just for “The Star-Spangled Banner” but also for “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” long known colloquially as the “black national anthem.”

  It’s a lovely song, a paean to liberty, and a worthy expression of black people’s historical struggle to overcome unspeakable mistreatment.

  Its final sentiments, despite the “gloomy past,” are admirably patriotic: “May we forever stand/ True to our God/ True to our native land.”

  This being so, it is important to explain why it is a bad idea that it be sung alongside the national anthem.

  The affront lies not in the message within the song but in the message sent by when and how the song is to be presented. By pairing it with the national anthem and expecting attendees to stand at attention, the NFL signals that “The Star-Spangled Banner” does not speak for everyone. Rather than respecting a single unifying anthem, the league presents two, one for white people and one for black people, as if the latter were not included in the meaning and grandeur of the first.

  This is part of the political Left’s radical racial agenda of national division. Identity politics define people by racial or sexual group membership while immutably characterizing each group and each person within it as either victim or victimizer. Rather than one history in which modern sensibilities demand that black people receive equal recognition, separatism posits that there must be a separate month for black history. Rather than one course of mathematics, the “woke” educrats push a separate black mathematics. The separate black anthem is a musical endorsement of the forces and agenda that are driving deep fissures into our culture and threatening our society.

  Even institutions such as the Smithsonian tell us that black people are oppressed by supposed attributes of “whiteness” that include individualism and “self-reliance,” the “nuclear family,” the “scientific method” using “objective, rational linear thinking,” and the “Protestant work ethic” emphasizing (Lord forbid!) that “hard work is the key to success.” To suggest this is to insult black people by asserting that they uniquely lack these qualities.

  But the work ethic, self-reliance, rational thinking, and the rest are not congenitally foreign to people who have dark complexions.

  When scores of NFL players several years ago refused to stand for the national anthem, their message was based on the misguided notion that the United States corporately was responsible for what was claimed to be a nationwide epidemic of police abusing black people. No data support those calumnies about police, nor did right reason support the condemnation of America as a whole as a racist nation.

  The logic of those distorted assessments produced the idea that the national anthem itself is disreputable, or at least is exclusive of black people. This notion is horribly wrong. Frederick Douglass, a great black advocate of emancipation, loved to play “The Star-Spangled Banner” on his violin for his grandchildren, and he argued that the Constitution of the land the song honored was rightly interpreted as a document promising freedom to black and white alike.

  The national anthem began being played ritually at sports contests at the end of World War I, and its playing became a universal practice for the NFL as World War II ended. It defies reason to think the song that, for generations, was understood to represent all Americans suddenly, about three years ago, became only for white people.

  “To sing the ‘black national anthem’ suggests that black people are separatist and want to have their own nation,” said Timothy Askew, an English professor at historically black Clark Atlanta University, in a 2010 interview.

  “This means that everything Martin Luther King Jr. believed about being one nation gets thrown out the window.”

  Askew, who did copious research into the origins of “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” added, “I think it is important that African Americans nationally understand that we should be moving towards racial cohesiveness,” but the idea of a “black national anthem” does the opposite.

  Askew is right. The NFL is wrong.

  It’s fine to play a lovely song at some point during the festivities. There’s everything wrong, though, with using it to balkanize a civic ceremony of national unity and pride.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 17:30

• Which Teams Have Played The Most Super Bowl Games?
  Which Teams Have Played The Most Super Bowl Games?

  The Kansas City Chiefs will play the San Francisco 49ers in the LVIII Super Bowl in Las Vegas, Nevada today.

  The game is a rematch from four years ago, when the same two teams faced off in Miami Gardens, Fla. That year, the Chiefs took home the trophy, as they did in 2023 and back in 1970s.

  As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz details below, both teams are among the top competitors in the championship, with the Kansas City Chiefs having competed six times – also in 2021 and 1967 – and the San Francisco 49ers even eight times between 1982 and 2024.

  Six Super Bowl appearances give the Chiefs more Super Bowl clout than the Green Bay Packers and the New York Giants.

  Three wins put them on the same level as the Washington Commanders or the Oakland/Las Vegas Raiders, with both teams needing just as many tries to take home three trophies.

  At eight appearances, the San Francisco 49ers competed as many times as the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Dallas Cowboys and the Denver Broncos and can look back on a quite a good track record in terms of wins.

  There are still four teams – the Cleveland Browns, the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Detroit Lions and the Houston Texans – which have never played the Super Bowl, and 12 which have never won the game.

  Jacksonville and Houston only joined the competition in 1995 and 2002, respectively.

  There is one more team, the New England Patriots, which have racked up the most Super Bowl appearances, according to statistics published by ESPN.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  Yet, the Patriots are among the teams with below average wins-to-participation ratios, with only six wins out of 11 Super Bowls played.

  The most unlucky teams among the Super Bowl participants are the Minnesota Vikings and the Buffalo Bills.

  They each played in the Super Bowl four times but failed to win any of those competitions.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 15:45

• Hillary Admits Biden's Age Is "Legitimate Issue" As Trump Urges Mandatory Cognitive Tests For All Candidates
  Hillary Admits Biden’s Age Is “Legitimate Issue” As Trump Urges Mandatory Cognitive Tests For All Candidates

  …well, well, well, how the turn tables…

  Something just changed. Instead of an overwhelming avalanche of gaslit headlines and bullshit punditry projecting mental un-fitness on the opposition (as we have seen from every Democratic operative and mainstream media lackey over the past five years), it’s different this time – since special counsel Hur’s (independent) report official raised questions about President Biden’s mental acuity, describing him as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

  Peter Doocy is a hero: “If the special counsel says President Biden’s got significant limitations on his memory, then who is helping him run the country?”

  White House Press Sec. Karine Jean-Pierre: “The president of the United States runs the country.”

  pic.twitter.com/Kun4iUUEY6

  — Kambree (@KamVTV) February 9, 2024

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

  Finding anyone willing to actually defend Biden against these accusations – in any other way but proclaiming that ‘well Trump appointed Hur’ – has been nigh on impossible (even on Sunday’s political talk-shows which seemed designed to do just this week in and week out for years).

  

  Instead, the opposite – some actual reflection by Democrats that maybe, just maybe, all the glitches, stumbles, stammers, gaffes, shaking hands with no-one, angry outbursts, mis-remembering, and talking-to-dead-people – are a thing after all.

  Here’s top Clinton Advisor Paul Begala practically admitting defeat live on CNN:

  “…This is terrible for Democrats. And anybody with a functioning brain knows that… This is going to be a really rough, ugly, unpleasant campaign.”

  PANIC: Top Clinton Advisor Paul Begala ADMITS Defeat LIVE on CNN after Joe Biden proves to the world he’s senile hours after federal prosecutors declare him UNFIT for office:

  “I slept like a baby last night. I woke up every two hours and wet the bed. This is terrible for… pic.twitter.com/oBYrYkYssq

  — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 9, 2024

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

  And here’s the horse’s mouth herself, no lesser mortal than Hillary Clinton, admitting to MSNBC’s Alex Wagner in an interview aired Saturday, that Biden’s age is an issue…

  “I talk to people in the White House all the time, and you know, they know it’s an issue, but as I like to say, look, it’s a legitimate issue,” Clinton told

  Of course, she added that it is a “legitimate issue” for former President Donald Trump (who is three and a half years younger than Biden).

  But it gets better, as former Obama advisor David Axelrod declared Friday that Joe Biden’s angry reaction to Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report suggesting his memory has faded only served to “reinforce a meme that’s out there,” adding that Biden’s cognitive acuity “is a problem.”

  “The central meme that is hurting the president is this issue of age. It’s a big barrier,” he further urged, also noting “you can’t unring the bell.”

  Former Obama advisor David Axelrod says Biden’s mental acuity “is a problem,” and his behaviour only serves to “reinforce the meme that’s out there,” that he’s not fit to run, adding “you can’t unring the bell.” Report here: https://t.co/ey3my6ba0U pic.twitter.com/PcjRCSL0fE

  — m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) February 10, 2024

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

  Axelrod’s comments should not be a total surprise, however, as he has been questioning Biden’s running for re-election since November…

  Only @JoeBiden can make this decision. If he continues to run, he will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. What he needs to decide is whether that is wise; whether it’s in HIS best interest or the country’s?

  — David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) November 5, 2023

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

  Furthermore, The Daily Mail reports that sources indicate Democrats are considering a ‘nuclear option’ of ditching Biden before or at the Party convention in August in favour of either California Governor Gavin Newsom or Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

  The report cites a “former senior Democrat White House official” who has previously worked with Biden.

  “I think it is now panic time. Biden should not be our standard bearer,” the source is quoted as saying. 

  Of course, the Trump campaign has been questioning Biden’s fitness for office for months, and the former president suggested during a speech at a rally in South Carolina, that “anybody running for President should have tests, and I pass them every time,” adding “I don’t think Nikki would pass the test.”

  

  Trump further stated that “regardless of age,” all candidates for major offices, including Vice President also should be mentally tested.

  “They say it’s not Constitutional, I’d be willing to wave it,” Trump urged, before going on to describe Haley as “the candidate of globalists and warmongers who want to spend trillions and trillions of dollars on endless wars.”

  Trump went on to tell the crowd of thousands that if you asked Joe Biden what MAGA stands for “he would not be able to tell you,” because his “brain is not working too well.”

  

  Finally, returning to the left side of the aisle, even James Carville is raising doubts about Biden’s ability (on CNN no less)…

  The fact that Biden isn’t doing the Super Bowl interview and probably won’t debate, says James Carville, “that’s a sign your staff doesn’t have much confidence in you.”

  And while it’s “never too late” to change candidates, Carville warns “the later it gets the more confusing the process gets.”

  Oh, and in case you wondered what Biden is doing on Super Bowl Sunday, he is blaming ‘big corporate greed’ for shrinkflation and the rising cost of snacking…

  While you were Super Bowl shopping, did you notice smaller-than-usual products where the price stays the same?

  Folks are calling it Shrinkflation and it means companies are giving you less for every dollar you spend.

  I’m calling on the big consumer brands to put a stop to it. pic.twitter.com/wL1NsEh78F

  — President Biden (@POTUS) February 11, 2024

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

  Read the fucking room, you clueless twat “well-meaning old man with a poor memory.”

  And Biden’s odds have tumbled in the last few days…

  

  Tick, tock, Mr.President.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 14:35

• A Retrospective Of All-Time Highs
  A Retrospective Of All-Time Highs

  By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

  If you were hoping for a review of Cheech & Chong movies, you will be sorely disappointed. With the S&P 500 breaching 5,000 and setting all-time highs, it seemed like a good time to do a retrospective of all-time highs. At least those that I remember, so we only have to go back to the 1980s.

  One Thing That I am Certain of Regarding All-Time Highs

  We will all get sick of hearing about “all-time” highs. Yes, if the S&P 500 goes up a measly 1 point on Monday, we will have a “new” all-time high. Every dip that gets bought will create “new” all-time highs. We will probably all get sick of being told about “intraday” versus “closing” all-time highs. 5,100 on the S&P 500 will be cause for “wild celebration” in the media, despite it “only” being 1.5% away (which could easily happen in a day at its current pace).

  All that “all-time” high chatter (and cheerleading) will be a distraction from our real jobs – figuring out where the market is headed next. Which is why I think that a “retrospective” would be interesting and potentially useful.

  All Sorts of Things Happen Around All-Time Highs

  Let’s start with a quick “synopsis” of what has happened since 1980. I probably should have used a log chart or something to dampen recent moves relative to prior moves. However, since I went down this path, I didn’t feel like going back and think that it is quite effective in illustrating some points.

  

  There are a few things that stick out to me:

  • We tend to get long periods of relatively steady uptrends. I guess that is common sense since we started in 1980 at 115 and are now at 5,027.
  • It is easier to put labels on the “bad” moments rather than the “good” moments. Again, in part, this is because going up is much more common.
  • It was easier, at least for me, to put labels on more recent moves rather than historical moves, as my recollection is better and I was much more directly involved.
  • On one hand, even adjusting for scale over time, some things that seemed “critical” at the time were mere blips in the grand scheme of things. On the other hand, what seemed like nice long-term trends often had periods of volatility in both directions. The “tech bubble” bursting had several tremendous reversals.
  • While some of the labels might be accurate overall, they don’t do justice to the complexities of each event. During what is commonly referred to as the “tech bubble” bursting, the world had to deal with the tragic attacks on 9/11 and the aftermath.

  Let’s examine a few of these in more detail to see what we can learn.

  The Crash of 1987

  Portfolio “hedging,” where managers tried to dynamically manage their portfolio rather than buying options, allegedly contributed to what (at the time) was called “Black Monday.”

  

  In a matter of days, the stock market gave up about 18 months of gains. While I’ve drawn a trendline from September 1986 to October 1987, there were some meaningful pullbacks. In hindsight, was that first 5% “dip” a warning sign or a precursor of what was to come? Or was it just noise like previous dips? While we bounced on efforts to “solve” the issue (with massive liquidity, though long before QE was a household term), I didn’t realize that we dropped more than 10% from there as we headed into November and early December. A further 10% decline would be memorable in most situations, but that brief sell-off was so large that everything else was forgotten (at least by me).

  The Greenspan Put

  While the “Greenspan Put” started in 1987, it seemed like a reasonable response to a set of circumstances that had exposed flaws in market structure. 1998 seemed different to me. Yes, Russia was teetering on default. Yes, Long-Term Capital (the “smartest people in the room”) was apparently threatening to bring down Wall Street. This included massive bets, unheard of at the time, on esoteric instruments that were moving several standard deviations and wreaking havoc with collateral management. But were they really “systemic?” Did the Fed really need to intervene as aggressively as it did not just on monetary policy, but also by “encouraging” (and I use that term very loosely) the banks to cooperate in previously unheard-of ways? This one was near and dear to my heart as I was directly involved. One lesson that I learned from this, which only became apparent as the GFC unfolded, is that if you are a CEO of an entity and asked by the Fed to help, you sure as heck better help! (See Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers).

  

  The Greenspan Put, maybe because it was “unnecessary” or certainly not as necessary as it was in 1987, helped stocks recover their losses very quickly and we moved to new highs!

  The “Tech Bubble”

  First, what was commonly referred to as a “tech bubble” at the time, merely looks like a moderate misalignment of capital in retrospect. While some companies never grew into their valuations and never returned, several of today’s market leaders look “dirt cheap” now even at levels that were then considered “bubbles.” The data has pointed to a resilient consumer. I’ve been skeptical of how strong the consumer will be going forward. My impression, albeit subjective, is that discounts were very prevalent during this holiday season (pulling future demand forward) and inflation continued to skew spending higher (as we still have to spend more to get the same amount of stuff). While that might have been a sufficient argument a few weeks ago, we need to dig deeper. Some of the high yield issuers (I was more involved with them) wound up defaulting but came roaring back over time. I still have “fond” memories of AOL being acquired and a lot of specific CDS related questions about dilution not having to get resolved. But I digress.

  

  You can see 9/11 in the chart. What I don’t highlight, which I think is a problem when we discuss the period, was the failing of WorldCom and Enron. Two “allegedly” investment grade companies went “poof” relatively quickly. How could analysts do their jobs when the data was misleading or outright fraudulent? I strongly believe that the concern those two bankruptcies caused for credit markets played a great role in not just the depth of the problem, but also why it took well over 5 years to recover!

  It will forever be known as a “tech bubble” but I think that is a misnomer and too simplistic.

  What you can see from the chart is that it was a “great” period for traders, if you caught some of the moves correctly, or it was one of the few times that “buy the dip” failed, repeatedly.

  Yes, the “bubble burst” but there were multiple moves higher of 10% or more, and remember, this is the S&P 500, not the Nasdaq, which had even “crazier” moves.

  The 2007 “All-Time” High

  Of all the all-time highs, this is the one that I’m most bitter about, and it seems bizarre in almost every respect.

  

  I jammed a lot into this chart. I feel obligated to highlight my “frustration” with Michael Lewis’s book “The Big Short.” It makes it sound like only a select few saw housing start to crack. From my seat, many people saw it, but the timing was incredibly difficult, and you were certainly “fighting the Fed.”

  We “finally” got back to the “tech bubble” highs in the summer of 2007. It was helped by housing, but also incredibly tight credit spreads, as products like CPDOs seemed “miraculous” in that you could take BBB credits, leverage them in a vehicle, and get a AAA rating (flawed). This was coupled with everything that went on in the mortgage-backed market (where issues with the original tranching models were multiplied when tranches were re-tranched into CDO squared).

  But it was the “Bernanke Put” that strikes me as the most odd. The all-time highs in stocks were set after some serious problems had been exposed. But the measures Bernanke took (from monetary policy to the media) helped us reach new highs. Then, while we tried to bounce every time the Fed (or D.C.) intervened, we continued to slide. We didn’t bottom until March of 2009, a full 6 months after Lehman defaulted. I still think that the Lehman Moment is the greatest misnomer in financial markets as stocks rallied that week and there were far more problems (many greater than this). But maybe a “scapegoat” helps everyone feel better?

  But, to this day, I still do not understand how the Bernanke Put, which came shortly after all-time highs were breached, could overcome all of the obvious problems.

  Having said that, I did learn the hard way that you don’t need to understand something to trade it, which came in very handy, most recently during COVID.

  More “at the highs” Thoughts

  Almost all are surrounded by frantic volatility, especially after they fail.

  It is almost disturbing (actually I find it quite disturbing) how many highs seem dependent on monetary policy, which may explain why the uptrends and downswings both seem more manic.

  Brexit, which caused markets to trade limit down after the surprise vote, was “solved” by the time markets opened for business with central banks providing “globally coordinated” support. Ditto for the 2023 “banking crisis.” This was the first time that I was asked to participate in a “crisis” special – which was an obvious buy signal. 😊

  We’ve all lived through the past few years, so no reason to expound on them anymore, other than that they too seem to fit the patterns of the past.

  Bottom Line

  Could this be just the start of breaking through to higher and higher highs?

  • If AI is passing on cost/benefit analysis already, then it is certainly a real possibility!
  • As supply chains shift and we redevelop a strong “working class” in America, where jobs are more secure and higher paying, then it is certainly a real possibility.
  • If the Fed cuts and forces “savers” back into equities on anything like the scale that occurred during ZIRP, then it is a real possibility.

  On the other hand, if all we have done is chase monetary policy to levels that aren’t currently sustainable through innovation, jobs, and real economic growth, then the decline is likely to be rapid and leave a lot of people scratching their heads and wondering how it was possible to sell off so quickly (even though historically, that is the “norm”).

  I guess that if I was writing to Ann Landers, this is where I’d sign the report “torn and confused.”

  I remain resolute on higher yields and tighter credit spreads, but I am truly struggling with what to do with stocks here, except to add to commodity related holdings and wait to see how commercial real estate does.

  Good luck, enjoy the Super Bowl, and take the over on the number of times Taylor Swift is mentioned!

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 14:00

• Alcohol Sales Halted After Drunk Chaos Erupts At WM Phoenix Open
  Alcohol Sales Halted After Drunk Chaos Erupts At WM Phoenix Open

  The Waste Management Open in Phoenix is well-known for being one of the biggest parties in the golf world. However, even this event has limits, as fans quickly found out on Saturday afternoon when tournament organizers suspended alcohol sales. 

  “On Saturday at the WM Phoenix Open, I observed more chaos in the last eight hours than I have cumulatively in the last decade of my life,” golf reporter Claire Rogers wrote. 

  Rogers continued: “I saw men bleeding from the face, people napping on muddy hills and adults knocking each other over because they couldn’t walk straight.” 

  Videos on social media platform X captured the rowdiness of the crowd: 

  🚨#WATCH: CHAOS IN PHOENIX 🍺💀
  (via wrush08 / Reddit) pic.twitter.com/M4QJDNwQK1

  — NUCLR GOLF (@NUCLRGOLF) February 10, 2024

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

  I would say he did not stick the landing pic.twitter.com/Y8bI8Eu9IK

  — Paige Spiranac (@PaigeSpiranac) February 10, 2024

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

  Man & Earth become one at the Waste Management @ForePlayPod pic.twitter.com/bBzsPe6gBL

  — Barstool Sports (@barstoolsports) February 11, 2024

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

  After Saturday, has the Waste Management Open officially gone too far with the drunkenness? Is it time for organizers to rein it in? pic.twitter.com/EqLGVlyFPZ

  — Joe Kinsey (@JoeKinseyexp) February 11, 2024

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

  Besides cutting off alcohol to fans, event organizers also closed “entrance gates,” which they blamed on “larger than usual crowds.” 

  Due to larger than usual crowds, the WM Phoenix Open entrance gates are temporarily closed and shuttle service to the event is on hold. Shuttle service back to parking lots will remain running. Regularly check our channels for updates. pic.twitter.com/NAi1nYuuCu

  — WM Phoenix Open (@WMPhoenixOpen) February 10, 2024

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

  The crowds chanted: “We Want Beer!” 

  🚨🍺🚫 #DRY IN THE DESERT: ‘WE WANT BEER’ chants have broken out! — The fans in Phoenix are getting restless after officials put a stop to alcohol. (Via IG / eric_gliebe) pic.twitter.com/11Y0fOlbUu

  — NUCLR GOLF (@NUCLRGOLF) February 10, 2024

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

  Sounds epic. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 13:25

• CDC Is Now Retaliating Against Its Own Scientists For 'Wrong' Mask Research
  CDC Is Now Retaliating Against Its Own Scientists For ‘Wrong’ Mask Research

  Authored by Paul D. Thacker via The Disinformation Chronicle (subscribe here),

  In a congressional hearing last November on restoring trust in science, CDC Director Mandy Cohen kept evading questions on whether she would bring back mask mandates for toddlers.

  

  “We have a lot of different tools to protect our children,” Dr. Cohen said during her cagey response.

  Six days later, a BMJ journal published a study that found “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.”

  

  Director Cohen’s scientific bumbling continued last week as her agency began fighting with CDC’s own researchers over another contentious declaration: N95 respirators work better than surgical masks. In recent years, mask advocates have shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators, which they claim perform better than surgical masks at stopping the COVID virus.

  Not true say CDC’s own scientists, according to CDC documents I uncovered.

  During a presentation last summer, a CDC expert stated there was no difference between N95 respirators and masks in stopping viruses. These findings have been supported by CDC scientists in a study CDC published on the agency’s website last November—just a few weeks before Director Cohen testified before Congress.

  To shut down this controversy, CDC wrote a blog last week warning researchers that to suggest that facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct.” 

  Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID. And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal “Emerging Infectious Diseases” that did not find a “substantial effect” for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.

  

  Does this sound like a problem? Not really.

  The CDC then began a policy pivot. On their website and on social media, the CDC started plugging N95 respirators as superior to simple surgical masks.

  

  However, on their webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC did add one critical disclaimer: there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses. In one example, CDC noted that a 2019 study in JAMA compared respirators to masks and found “no significant difference.”  

  Oops. See the JAMA conclusions, below.

  

  Over the last year, CDC’s researchers have supported scientific findings that N95s perform the same as masks in stopping viruses. At a meeting last summer in Atlanta, a CDC health analyst presented the findings from a CDC meta-analysis on the effectiveness of surgical masks compared to N95 respirators.

  Guess what CDC findings suggested: no difference. Here’s the health analyst’s testimony below:

  Subscribers to The Disinformation Chronicle can read the rest here…

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 12:50

• Egypt Warns Israel: Rafah Invasion Could Negate '79 Peace Treaty
  Egypt Warns Israel: Rafah Invasion Could Negate ’79 Peace Treaty

  With Israel on the verge of invading Gaza’s southernmost city, Egypt is warning that such a move could trigger a suspension of the treaty that has maintained peace between the two countries since 1979, the Wall Street Journal reports. 

  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday directed the Israeli Defense Forces to plan the evacuation of the city of Rafah, which lies on Gaza’s southern border with Egypt and reportedly holds more than a million refugees already forced from their homes elsewhere in the 25-mile-long strip. 

  Therefore, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered the IDF and the security establishment to submit to the Cabinet a combined plan for evacuating the population and destroying the battalions.

  — Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM) February 9, 2024

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

  One particularly sensitive slice of real estate is the so-called Philadelphi Route or Philadelphi Corridor, which stretches nine miles along the Gaza-Egypt border. Diplomatic accords establish limits on the number of troops that either Israel or Egypt can position in several delineated zones along and near the border, and certainly don’t authorize large numbers of Israeli troops and armored vehicles. 

  In late December, Netanyahu said the Philadelphi Route “has to be in our hands” if Gaza is to be effectively and permanently demilitarized. In January, an Egyptian official said, “It must be strictly emphasized that any Israeli move in this direction will lead to a serious threat to Egyptian-Israeli relations.” 

  

  While an Egyptian diplomatic delegation visited Tel Aviv on Friday to discuss the situation in Gaza, Mexican Egyptian President Sisi has rejected several phone calls from Netanyahu over recent weeks, sources tell the Journal. 

  The threat that large numbers of Palestinian refugees could soon be pouring across the border raises many deep concerns for Egypt. Perhaps more than the challenge of managing a humanitarian crisis, if displaced Palestinians launch attacks on the IDF from Egypt, that could trigger Israeli retaliatory strikes across the border. If Israel doesn’t allow the Palestinians to return, tensions between Israel and Egypt would be sharply increased for years to come.  

  With the threat of a looming ground invasion by the Israeli occupation is in Rafah, the situation has become dire.

  The lives of more than 1 million displaced Palestinians are at imminent risk of being taken. pic.twitter.com/pBTWhh35vh

  — TIMES OF GAZA (@Timesofgaza) February 11, 2024

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

  Nor does Egypt want to be seen as facilitating an ethnic cleansing of Gaza by Israel — an option that was presented by Israel’s intelligence ministry in the wake of the Oct 7 Hamas invasion of southern Israel, and embraced by various Israeli officials. 

  Since the war began, Egypt has been reinforcing its border with Gaza, building a concrete, barbed-wire-topped wall that extends six meters into the ground below it, while also boosting surveillance capabilities, and moving tanks and armored vehicles into the vicinity. The Israel-Hamas war is proving costly for Egypt in other ways, as Suez Canal traffic has plummeted some 30%.  

  Egypt’s warning comes alongside expressions of concern by a variety of countries both inside and outside of the region:

  • “Military operations right now would be a disaster for those people, and it’s not something that we would support,” said US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby.

  • “Invading Rafah… which is the last refuge for hundreds of thousands of civilians whom the brutal Israeli aggression displaced will have [grave] consequences,” said the Saudi foreign ministry.

  • “Deeply concerned about the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah – over half of Gaza’s population are sheltering in the area,” tweeted UK foreign secretary David Cameron.  

  • “The people of Gaza cannot disappear into thin air…[it is a] “humanitarian catastrophe in the making,” said German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. 

  • A Rafah invasion would create an “unspeakable humanitarian catastrophe,” said EU Foreign Minister Joseph Borrell. 

  • Israel’s plan “threatens to cause the loss of more innocent life and exacerbate the humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip,” said the United Arab Emirates foreign ministry.

  However, if past is prologue, watch for the Israeli government to disregard the protests of its partners and benefactors — protests that may be offered primarily for domestic consumption.  

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 02/11/2024 – 12:15

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• 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