- The Japanese-Philippine Military Logistics Pact Raises The Risk Of War With China
The Japanese-Philippine Military Logistics Pact Raises The Risk Of War With China
Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,
It’s no secret that the US is preparing to “Pivot (back) to Asia” in order to more muscularly contain China, but few have paid attention to the form in which this is expected to take in the coming future. Instead of the US doing so on its own or through the previously assembled Quad of itself, Australia, India, and Japan, it’s increasingly relying on the Squad. This framework swaps India out for the Philippines, and its latest relevant development was the clinching of a Japanese-Philippine military logistics pact.
That agreement follows April’s first-ever trilateral US-Japanese-Philippine summit, which tightened the US’ containment noose around China, and came approximately nine months after those three’s National Security Advisors met for the first time ever in June 2023. In practice, Japan will likely ramp up its military exercises with the Philippines and explore more arms deals, with those two possibly also roping Taiwan into their activities to an uncertain extent in the future given that it’s roughly equidistant between them.
This will increase the chances of a conflict by miscalculation since China has already recently shown that it has the political will to respond to violations of the maritime territory that it claims as its own as proven by its latest low-intensify clashes with the Philippines. Even though the US has mutual defense obligations to the Philippines and has recently reminded China of them, it’s been reluctant to meaningfully act on its commitments for de-escalation reasons, but that could easily change.
After all, the US would be pressured to respond if China clashes with both its Japanese and Philippine allies in the event that they jointly violate the maritime territory that Beijing claims as its own, though they might of course abstain from such a provocation for the time being for whatever reason. In any case, it can’t be ruled out that something of the sort might eventually transpire, which could prompt a dangerous brinksmanship crisis that risks spiraling out of control if cooler heads on all sides don’t prevail.
Southeast Asia isn’t the only battleground in the Sino-US dimension of the New Cold War since Northeast Asia is rapidly shaping up to be a complementary one as well. North Korea recently accused the US, South Korea, and Japan of conspiring to create an “Asian NATO” after their latest trilateral drills. South Korea is a prime candidate for joining the Squad, which can also be described as AUKUS+, with Japan playing the senior partner role in that scenario exactly as it now plays with the Philippines.
That likely won’t happen anytime soon though since the South Koreans remain resentful of Japan’s World War II-era occupation that Tokyo hasn’t ever taken full responsibility for in their view. Trilateral drills under America’s aegis are one thing, but entering into a military-logistics pact with their former colonizer is an altogether different matter, especially if it leads to the latter gaining the upper hand. Nevertheless, South Korea is expected to scale up its role in AUKUS+, with Japan as its top Asian partner.
The grand strategic trend is that the US is forming two Asian trilaterals with itself and Japan that are centered on the Philippines in Southeast Asia and South Korea in Northeast Asia.
Australia’s role is largely symbolic for the time being, and these two trilaterals haven’t yet merged into a multilateral defense network along the lines of NATO, but the writing is on the wall.
It’s unclear how China will respond to these moves, but there’s no doubt that they make the New Cold War much more dangerous.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/10/2024 – 02:00 - Give Me Liberty Or Give Me America 2.0
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me America 2.0
Authored by Donald Jeffries via ‘I Protest” Substack,
As I’ve noted before, I was fascinated by history as a very young boy. And no part of history caught my attention like the founding of this nation. The American Revolution, the War for Independence- call it what you will. The Boston Tea Party. The Minutemen. Paul Revere’s midnight ride. The shot heard around the world.
I know that our Founders weren’t perfect. Thomas Paine, the brilliant writer who produced Common Sense, the pamphlet that helped ignite patriotic fervor in the colonies, wound up hating George Washington, who did indeed seem to have forgotten his invaluable contributions to the movement for independence. Shockingly and inexplicably, the location of most of Paine’s remains are unknown, as I detailed in Crimes and Cover-Ups in American Politics: 1776-1963. Washington’s actions regarding the Whiskey Rebellion besmirch his reputation. He also was unfortunately swayed by the dastardly future Black Broadway star Alexander Hamilton, instead of Hamilton’s ideological foe Thomas Jefferson. This would have a huge negative impact on the future of the young republic.
And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who was a member of the blasphemous Hellfire Club. In the 1990s, some human bones were found in his one-time London home. The court historians were quick to declare that there was nothing sinister about this, and blamed it on a young medical student renting a room from Franklin, who went on to die very young, interestingly enough. But Franklin was an undeniably brilliant man, who discovered electricity among other things. And you have to love someone who said “There is no such thing as a good war or a bad peace.” Not to mention his very clever pickup line, which he used on the fair damsels of eighteenth century Paris, “Would you care to join me in the pursuit of happiness?” That’s way better than “you got any fries to go with that shake?”
Our Founding Fathers were the wealthiest men of their time. The One Percent if you will. Can we picture any One Percenter today like John Hancock, who is said to have written his name so large on the Declaration of Independence in order for King George to read it without his glasses? Think of Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet, and other billionaires meeting surreptitiously in small taverns, passing out radical pamphlets, all for the cause of human liberty. There wasn’t a eugenicist in the bunch. Well, maybe Alexander Hamilton. If he were actually around today, and not just a fake Black Broadway star, he’d be invited to Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove. But the rest of them would be relegated to appearing on humble little podcasts like mine.
Those who signed the Declaration of Independence did truly pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Quoting from my Crimes and Cover-Ups in American Politics: 1776-1963: “Seventeen of those who signed the Declaration lost everything they owned. Nine of these men lost their lives in the conflict. Rhode Island’s William Ellery’s estate was burned to the ground during the war. William Floyd of New York suffered the same fate. Fellow New Yorker Frances Lewis saw his estates destroyed by fire as well, and he was imprisoned and died during his incarceration. One of the richest of all those who signed, William Livingston, died impoverished a few years after the war. John Hart of New Jersey risked not only his fortune, but his family ties. His wife was dying as he signed the Declaration, and he was forced to flee from the British when he headed home to say goodbye. He never saw his thirteen children again, and died in 1779. New Jersey Judge Richard Stockton was another British prisoner, and he too died a pauper. Wealthy banker Robert Morris gave away his fortune in an effort to finance the revolution. He also died penniless….Virginia’s Thomas Nelson, in a perhaps implausible anecdote, allegedly turned a cannon on his own home, which had become General Cornwallis’s headquarters, and destroyed it. He, like so many of the others, died in poverty. South Carolina’s Thomas Lynch, along with his wife, simply disappeared at sea.”
The very wealthy George Washington led his troops in battle. Picture one of our countless chicken hawk political warriors, like Lindsey Graham, subjecting themselves to anything more dangerous than a game of Risk. The American Revolution was a revolt of the One Percent. They weren’t rebelling against any homegrown aristocracy, but the yoke of British rule. They didn’t want to be under the thumb of royalty. Their guiding principles of consent of the governed and no taxation without representation were watershed concepts in human history. The whole consent of the governed thing was shattered by Abraham Lincoln, whose despotism contradicted the intentions of the Founders. As for taxation without representation; does your congressional representative represent you? And are you taxed?
Could there be any bolder words than these? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson’s unique intellect shines through here, and his thoughts remain relevant, almost 250 years later.
“Endowed by their creator?” That won’t play well in Hollywood, or any big city in America 2.0. This was the basis of the Bill of Rights, which made the Constitution tolerable. How many Americans understand that we are born free; that our rights come from God, not from any government? Pay particular attention to the very clear statement that the People have a right to alter or abolish “any Form of Government” when it no longer suits their needs. Jefferson would be arrested and prosecuted as an “insurrectionist” for such Thought Crimes in America 2.0. He’d be given a small cell, alongside all those January 6 defendants, who’ve been denied all due process. To understand his present reputation, look at his demeaning character in the Broadway play Hamilton. To millions of Americans, he’s the “racist” who “raped” Sally Hemings.
As inhabitants of the most corrupt society in the history of the world, this passage should resonate with all of us: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” Do those “long train of abuses and usurpations” sound familiar?
Just imagine the list we could compile.
The situation in America 2.0 is unlike any other in history. We have an entrenched cadre of monstrously corrupt rulers, who are repulsed by the Founders that fought to establish the government they still swear allegiance to. I’ve written about just how much Lincoln hated Jefferson. Think about that. Was Honest Abe taking all those unconstitutional actions, and assuming all that unconstitutional authority, in defense of the vision outlined by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence? Remember, he hated him. Lincoln would fit right in at today’s Bohemian Grove confab. He seems to have been gay, after all, so he’d probably enjoy peeing against the giant redwoods and traipsing with the all-male attendees. I can see Lincoln supporting the transgender lunacy. No body can stand against itself, or something like that.
After the Declaration of Independence was approved and signed, copies were printed and sent to various civilian and military leaders, to be trumpeted far and wide. Today, the Declaration is a subversive document, a Thought Crime in quill and ink. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito- perhaps the best to serve on the Court in a very long time- was castigated for flying a Pine Tree flag outside his home. George Washington flew a Pine Tree flag during the War for Independence. Washington used to be the Father of our Country. Anyone flying the same flag he flew would have been looked upon with favor. Now, he’s just another dead White male “racist.” Our disastrous “bipartisan” interventionist foreign policy directly contradicts what Washington said in his Farewell Address. Washington would be demonized today as an “isolationist.”
In Crimes and Cover-Ups, I included a litany of crystal clear quotes from all the leading Founders, who each reiterated that the Second Amendment was to protect the individual right to bear arms. And yet today, constitutional “scholars” continue to argue that the Founders didn’t write the Second Amendment for individual gun owners. Well, who am I, a lowly community college dropout, to argue with any constitutional “scholar?” The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, is violated by police officers in traffic stops and other public encounters many times every day. And as for the First Amendment they oppose more than all the others, these same “scholars” will insist that it doesn’t protect “hate speech.” You can’t yell fire in a crowded transgender story hour.
The rights enumerated in our Founding documents, all self-evidently coming from God, are a blueprint for free societies. Freedom of speech, and religion, and assembly. Any rights not specifically enumerated in the other Amendments are reserved for the states, and the People. Since the central government was given very limited powers originally, this would involve a great many rights. Instead, it is our rights now which are strictly limited, not the federal government. You need a license to drive a car. Or to hunt. Or to fish. Or to sell things on the street. Little girls confronted by our brave law enforcement officers over their lemonade stands. Compare these to the shallow, transient issues of today. “Pride” month? Fat acceptance? You might as well talk about the Equal Rights Amendment, bra burning, or school busing.
I cover more hidden history from the revolutionary era in my book American Memory Hole: How the Court Historians Promote Disinformation, now available for pre-sale, officially released on August 27. We’ll dive into Judicial Review, an odious usurpation of the separation of powers by the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall. Jefferson strongly opposed it, and to my knowledge no one else has really crusaded against Judicial Review since him. Until me, in my own small way, in my humble little book. A single federal judge, or a Supreme Court, shouldn’t be able to thwart the will of the People, under our constitutional republic. Or even in a supposed “democracy.” And yet both the Left and Right swear by Judicial Review. That’s just one of many topics we’ll discuss in the book.
I don’t expect our beloved President Biden to quote from Patrick Henry on Independence Day. He’s probably more familiar with Cardi B, or the gender fluid nonbinaries from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, recent visitors to the White House. Our cackling Vice President Kamala Harris even answered the door and let them in. What a country!, as the forgotten comedian Yakoff Smirnoff used to say. Where we once had John Adams, and James Madison, and George Mason, now we have the guy with the shaved head and the red dress, who steals women’s luggage from airports. Lori Lightfoot and Liz Cheney. If Lincoln hated Jefferson, imagine how Michelle Obama and Gavin Newsom feel about him.
America 2.0 is the United States in name only. Recall that before Lincoln’s war of aggression on the South, the United States was a plural; as in the United States are loosely confederated into a common union. After nearly a million senseless deaths of young American boys, the United States became the singular monstrosity we’ve come to know and love. As in the United States is the greatest country in the world! Most Americans don’t understand the important distinction. We still may salute the flag, but nothing for which it used to stand. Now it stands for occupation of smaller, sovereign nations. The outsourcing of industry and the death of the middle class. Respect for “pronouns” but not free speech. Open borders. The Great Replacement. Those who fight under this flag aren’t fighting for anything the Founders did.
As Alex Jones so memorably put it, the answer to 1984 is 1776. 1776 is also the answer to America 2.0. In my little corner of the world, I’ll be drinking a toast to Patrick Henry, whose impassioned plea to stand up for the rights of those you disagree with stirred me as a youth, and helped influence me to become a civil libertarian. Or George Mason, who pushed for the Bill of Rights, and lost his friendship with neighbor George Washington over his initial opposition to the Constitution. Curiously, his wife also vanished under unknown circumstances. But all that will be in American Memory Hole. While I bemoan the state of this collapsing country in almost everything I write, I understand the beauty of the Founders’ framework. You can’t have half ass human liberty, as we do now. And that’s what I’ll be thinking of, while grilling the hamburgers and hot dogs, and watching the fireworks.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 23:40 - These Are The 10 Highest-Paid World Leaders In 2024
These Are The 10 Highest-Paid World Leaders In 2024
Although their salaries are far from those of CEOs of big companies, presidents, prime ministers, and other world leaders can be paid high salaries in some countries.
This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, ranks the top 10 highest-paid world leaders in 2024, according to various sources. Hong Kong data is as of 2022. All figures are in USD and are approximate. They can vary year to year with changes in policies, additional perks, and other compensations.
Singapore Leads the Ranking of Highest-Paid World Leaders
Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong is the highest-paid government leader, earning over $1.6 million per year. His annual salary package includes a 13th-month bonus and other benefits.
Second on our list is Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu, with a salary of $695,000. His position was created in 1997 during the handover of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the People’s Republic of China, replacing the office of the governor of Hong Kong, who was the representative of the British monarch during British rule.
The third place is occupied by Switzerland President Viola Amherd.
U.S. President Joe Biden is the fourth on our list, with $400,000 per year.
Interestingly, in seventh place with a salary of $364,000 is German politician Ursula von der Leyen, who is not the leader of an individual country. Instead, she is the 13th president of the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union, appointed in December 2019.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 23:20 - Universities Should Promote Rigorous Discourse, Not Stifle It
Universities Should Promote Rigorous Discourse, Not Stifle It
Authored by Jay Bhattacharya & Wesley J. Smith via RealClearPolitics,
The New England Journal of Medicine recently published an advocacy article that attacks academic freedom and urges stifling contentious campus debates. Specifically, Evan Mullen, Eric J. Topol, and Abraham Verghese urge universities to “speak out publicly” and issue official institutional opinions about public controversies involving its professors “when it concludes that a faculty member’s opinion could cause public harm.”
The NEJM authors write in the context of Stanford University refusing to institutionally condemn the arguments made by one of its scholars, Dr. Scott Atlas, when he advised the Trump administration on COVID policies in the early days of the pandemic. The authors, one of whom is a physician trainee (Mullen) and another the former vice chair of education (Verghese) at Stanford, are university colleagues of Atlas, as is one of the authors of this essay (Bhattacharya). They claim that Atlas’ publicly expressed skepticism of masking as an effective prophylactic against infection and his belief that lockdowns and school closures would cause more harm than good were so potentially harmful that Stanford itself – as an institution – should have condemned Atlas’ opinions.
Why? It wasn’t as if some of his colleagues didn’t criticize Atlas. Indeed, more than a hundred Stanford professors and physicians wrote publicly opposing his advice. The letter’s signatories also pushed a vote through the Stanford Faculty Senate in November 2020 condemning Dr. Atlas, using quasi-religious language to declare his positions “anathema.” But that wasn’t enough, apparently, because “institutional silence may be interpreted as tacit approval.”
Controversy between professors is the norm at the frontiers of science. It is utterly unsurprising that there would be discord over the proper policy to follow in the wake of a pandemic featuring a new virus, with great uncertainty about its epidemiological and biological aspects. In the intervening years, Dr. Atlas’ positions in 2020 on school closures and mask mandates have been proven legitimate, demonstrating the wisdom of Stanford not taking a position as an institution.
Meanwhile, in another attack on academic freedom, Harvard’s Dean of Social Science issued a call in the Daily Crimson to punish professors who criticize the university, “A faculty member’s right to free speech does not amount to a blank check to engage in behaviors that plainly incite external actors,” wrote Lawrence D. Bobo, “be it the media, alumni, donors, federal agencies, or the government to intervene in Harvard’s affairs.” In other words, what happens at Harvard should stay at Harvard.
We believe these efforts to stifle heterodox thinking are not only wrong from an academic freedom perspective but harmful to the open and even raucous discourse required for the healthy functioning of a democratic society.
First, there is the problem of how the institutional “official” opinions would be determined. The NEJM authors suggest establishing a large committee made up of members with a wide array of expertise and the ability to obtain outside opinions as circumstances warrant.
But such committees would quickly turn into ideologically stacked decks, particularly given the overwhelming progressive political dominance among professors and administrators in most major universities. After all, who would decide those selected to be committee members – and perhaps even more importantly, decide who should excluded? Why, the same administrators and faculty department chairs who have crafted the kind of sclerotic homogeneity that typifies contemporary university faculties.
The proposal calls to mind an earlier incident in scientific history. In response to Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity, in 1931, a hundred German professors wrote a book attacking his idea. Einstein’s famous response? If his theory was wrong, it would not take the word of 100 scientists but rather just one fact. Scientific disputes and academic disagreements are properly handled in this way, not by institutional authority but by reason, data, and experimentation. The freedom to speak and disagree is essential to science.
Second, if universities took “official positions” on matters of public controversy and on-campus debate, it would stifle the expression of unpopular or heterodox opinions by faculty that disagreed with officially sanctioned opinions and materially chill the free and open exchange of ideas required for academic freedom to thrive. Even tenured faculty with job security would be reluctant to disagree with the university’s institutional position openly. After all, a university can punish a professor in many ways besides losing a position. These include restricting lab time, making professors teach undesired classes, social shunning, and other means to create a hostile work environment. And what chance would there be for untenured faculty or adjunct professors with little job security to contest the university’s institutional opinion? Slim and none.
As for the Daily Crimson piece, if professors can be subject to professional discipline for publicly criticizing their institutions – say, by alerting alumni to the problem of campus antisemitism – then universities will become more insular than they already are. Talk about a formula to allow serious institutional problems to fester and become existential crises! Besides, why should university leadership be able to punish their on-campus critics? The only thing accomplished would be to isolate them from institutional and public accountability.
That officials at both Stanford and Harvard have publicly advocated unwarranted restrictions in academic discourse points to the distressing possibility that the leadership of our elite universities desires to operate under an opaque shield of unaccountability. That’s the absolute wrong approach to achieving scholastic and scientific excellence, which requires transparency and the freedom to express ideas that may be unpopular today but could well prove true tomorrow.
Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D., is a professor of health policy at Stanford Medical School, a co-founder of Hillsdale College’s Academy of Science and Freeedom, and Collateral Global, a UK charity devoted to documenting the impacts of lockdowns.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 23:00 - How El Niño And La Niña Are Affecting Weather Patterns
How El Niño And La Niña Are Affecting Weather Patterns
Hurricane Beryl is likely to be one among a series of extreme Atlantic weather events this coming season, according to forecasters. This prediction is partly based on the fact the Atlantic has continued to see warm sea surface temperatures and partly due to the anticipation of the climate event known as La Niña falling this year.
As Statista’s Anna Fleck details below, La Niña, which translates to “little girl”, and El Niño, or “little boy”, are two parts of a natural climate phenomenon called the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which describes the changes in temperature between the ocean and atmosphere in the east-central equatorial Pacific Ocean. These episodes usually take place every two to seven years, depending on the conditions between Australia and South America, and last between nine to 12 months, although they do not always alternate and a neutral ENSO phase is also possible. El Niño occurs more often than La Niña.
You will find more infographics at Statista
El Niño takes place when trade winds weaken and unusually warm sea surface water is pushed east, forcing the Pacific jet stream further south than usual. According to NOAA, this results in wetter-than-average weather in the southeast of the United States and the U.S. Gulf Coast, but warmer-than-average temperatures in the north of the U.S. and Canada. Meanwhile, Southeast Asia, Australia and central Africa can usually expect drier conditions at this time.
La Niña events, on the other hand, are characterized by stronger trade winds than usual. While warm water is pushed towards Asia, the west coast of the Americas sees cool waters rise to the surface and the jet stream diverted north. This means the weather patterns tend to be the opposite from El Niño, with droughts in southern U.S. but more rainfall in Australia and Southeast Asia. Hurricanes are also more likely in the Atlantic Basin, when there is less wind shear in the region. This is because when there is higher wind shear, it is harder for hurricanes to maintain their structure.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 22:40 - Lackluster's Last Stand: Biden Fights Against His Own Party's Elite "Deep State"
Lackluster’s Last Stand: Biden Fights Against His Own Party’s Elite “Deep State”
Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance
In a rambling, half-incoherent interview with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” yesterday morning, President Biden – or some AI-generated, half pre-recorded version of him – phoning from what sounded like a toilet, proclaimed that he was staying in the race and has had enough of Democrat elites.
In as fiery of a declaration to stay in the race as a semi-conscious octogenarian could muster up, Biden appeared to blame the lack of confidence in his ability to serve another term not on the the aging process, but on the “elites” within his party.
A bemused looking Joe Scarborough and his chief executive emasculator Mika Brzezinski nodded along and did their best to make it sound like they hadn’t been given cues from their handlers to push the narrative that Biden doesn’t belong in the race anymore (not even 2 months after Scarborough sang Biden’s praises on air).
Behold: the cruel, poignant irony of a man who spent his formative political years arguing that a deep state didn’t exist, now learning firsthand that it does, that it is in charge, and that it will try to destroy you just like anyone else if you get in its way.
But in the cadence of how Biden’s voice sounded during the interview, there was something about yesterday’s interview with “Morning Joe” that made me feel like it was engineered. I mean, even moreso than most Biden interviews where he is given questions in advance and doesn’t engage with press.
The cued up answers — some of which drifted from the questions asked, it seemed, to get across the image of a man fighting for his candidacy when it wasn’t appropriate to do so during the interview — came off to me as part of a bigger plan to fake a situation where they wanted to make it look like Biden wanted to hold onto office.
I just can’t help but think that if the entire Democratic machine – the same one that unilaterally kicked Bernie Sanders out of the race in 2016 – wants Biden out, he’s going to be out. And it doesn’t matter what anyone else wants.
Don’t get it wrong, it isn’t just Democratic elites that want Biden out of the race. Pretty much everybody in the country agrees that he is too senile to be president. In fact, many people of my ilk in the alternative media have been proclaiming this for years. We were perpetually disregarded as conspiracy theorists pushing AI ‘deepfakes’ and told to not believe our lying eyes and that Joe Biden was “sharp as a tack”, but we were just too dumb to see it.
But let’s just assume that Biden going on the defensive yesterday isn’t part of a larger plan to eventually relinquish his candidacy. Let’s assume that either Jill or Hunter, or maybe even President Biden himself, are convinced that they deserve a shot at a second term and are damn well going to take it.
If that’s the case, and Biden really is in the midst of standing up against the Democratic machine, well… In that case, I guess I have to give him a little bit of credit and I’d only wish that he was lucid enough to realize the pervasive hypocrisy within his party, which he would now be fighting against. At the very least, I hope that other “on the fence” Democrats recognize it, but I’m sure they won’t.
🔥 80% OFF: Since it’s officially summer, I’m going to offer up my largest discount of the year for Fringe Finance: Get 80% off forever
This morning, it was already announced that House Democrats would be taking a meeting at 9 o’clock, ostensibly on how to deal with their party imploding from the inside out.
As I noted just days ago, Democrats haven’t really been experts at finesse with the way they have handled Donald Trump. If they continue to lack strategy in handling this President Biden situation, things could get real ugly, real fast. And the more the DNC is in chaos, the less time they have to focus on Donald Trump. With that, I’m hoping this political self-immolation continues. It’s the best reality TV there is, and it’s going to make for an extraordinarily unprecedented mess in political game theory between now and November.
If Democrats hadn’t spent the last 2 years lying to the public and themselves about Biden, they wouldn’t be stuck in this mess 5 months before the election. But now they’re reaping what they’ve sown and, for me, there’s a special feeling in watching them finally have to choke on the political sh*tburger they’ve been feeding the rest of the country for the last 2 years. Bon appetite!
QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. These positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.
QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. These positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 22:20 - Olympics Draw Millions, But Rarely Sell Out
Olympics Draw Millions, But Rarely Sell Out
With the opening ceremony of the Paris 2024 Olympics less than three weeks away, the French capital is bracing for an onslaught of visitors from all around the world.
Along with 10,500 athletes, 20,000 accredited journalists and 45,000 volunteers, millions of spectators will descend on Paris in the coming weeks to watch the 329 events at 35 venues located in Paris, across the country and, with Tahiti’s iconic Teahupo’o wave, even overseas.
As Statista’s Felix Richter shows in the chart below, Paris 2024 is on track to be historic in terms of paying spectators.
You will find more infographics at Statista
With roughly 9 million of the available 10 million tickets sold as of April 2024, the Paris Olympics have already exceeded the previous record of 8.3 million tickets sold for Atlanta 1996.
Given the expected record-breaking attendance, Paris 2024 will be in stark contrast to Tokyo 2020, which was postponed to 2021 and held behind closed doors due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
It remains to be seen whether Paris 2024 can achieve something that neither Rio, nor London or Beijing have managed: sell out all available tickets.
With 97 percent of all available tickets sold, London 2012 came closest to selling out in the past four decades, while Athens 2004 struggled most to fill the venues with just 71 percent of tickets sold.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 22:00 - "Linguistic White Supremacy’": The Left's New Crusade Against The English Language
“Linguistic White Supremacy’”: The Left’s New Crusade Against The English Language
By Wenyuan Wu of MindingTheCampus
The fringe lens of critical pedagogy has swallowed today’s academia. Facts are deconstructed, logical reasoning is contorted, historical narratives are rewritten, and causality takes a back seat to the post-modernist project of affirming feelings and identities. Increasingly, words lose meaning and become weaponized for the sake of ideological conformity.
Cue the perennial abuse of “white supremacy.” The phrase’s original meaning of a belief system that White people are inherently superior to other races is now completely coopted with shapeshifting and ever-expanding connotations. Objectivity, a sense of urgency, perfectionism, and written words are characteristics of white supremacy culture. Getting married, like structural racism, bolsters white supremacy. Even soap dispensers perpetuate white supremacy.
The U.S. academia has now concocted an absurd proposition that speaking and writing proper English is a form of white supremacy. The term is “Linguistic White Supremacy (LWS)” or “White Language Supremacy (WLS),” depending on where you look.
According to the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC), a membership-based professional association for “diverse communicators inside and outside of postsecondary classrooms,”
WLS assists white supremacy by using language to control reality and resources by defining and evaluating people, places, things, reading, writing, rhetoric, pedagogies, and processes in multiple ways that damage our students and our democracy. It imposes a worldview that is simultaneously pro-white, cisgender, male, heteronormative, patriarchal, ableist, racist, and capitalist … WLS is, thus, structural and usually a part of the standard operating procedures of classrooms, disciplines, and professions …WLS perpetuates many forms of systemic and structural violence.
CCC goes on to outline the characteristics of WLS as “habits of white language,” including: “individualism,” “stance of neutrality, objectivity, and apoliticality,” “rational, controlled self,” “rule-governed, contractual relationships,” “clarity, order, and control.” In other words, good virtues and values, with roots in the Age of the Enlightenment, are just learned habits of white supremacists.
For the Metropolitan State University of Denver, “Linguistic White Supremacy,” which is equated with standard American English, permeates every facet of higher education, such as writing, grading, teaching, and campus life. There is no “correct” or “standard” way to write and speak in American English. The standard version is “a social construct that privileges white communities and maintains social and racial hierarchies.” To combat linguistic white supremacy, educators must grade with equity, keeping “grammar and mechanics to less than 10% of the overall grade.”
Similarly, professors should also adopt restorative approaches to plagiarism, allowing students to rewrite the essay, removing penalties for late assignments, and even abstaining from using an originality checker at all. According to opponents of linguistic white supremacy, plagiarism is an excusable plea for help and a courageous act of defiance. After all, students may be unable to speak or write standard American English because they don’t understand the citation system, come from a country “that believes that copying other people’s work is an homage to that person,” or lack the confidence. The woke bigotry of low expectations is on full display here.
To put it in plain English, teachers should cut students, especially those who are not White and therefore underprivileged, some slacks if they plagiarize or make grammatical errors in writing. Giving penalties is simply inequitable and racist.
A pair of faculty members from the University of Southern California School of Education coins the term “linguistic racism” as “the mistreatment, devaluation, and acts of discrimination towards people based on their language use or perceptions about their ethnicities.” The researchers proceed to advise immigrants to make a conscious effort to keep their accents and honor their own grammar structures in defiance of the mistreatment from native speakers of English.
Approximately 43 million U.S. adults possess low literacy skills and two-thirds of whom are U.S.-born, 35 percent are white and Hispanic. This new crusade against standard English is only going to make things worse. We all know what will happen when parents and other authority figures fail to provide structure and enforce discipline for children. The antiracist business of fighting linguistic white supremacy infantilizes young college students and feeds them a fat big lie by trivializing the importance of mastering reading, writing, and speaking English.
I don’t know who needs to hear this: As a first-generation immigrant whose native language can’t be more different than English, I pride myself on steadily improving my spoken and written language skills. It makes life for myself and those I interact with more pleasant and less confusing. More importantly, it is infinitely more empowering than trying to fit the world around me into the surmountable limitations of a language barrier.
The irony is not lost when subscribers to the antiracism dogma can’t live up to their own expectations. Recently, my colleague—also a Chinese immigrant—mispronounced the Spanish last name “Jimenez” at a local school board meeting when he publicly commented on academic transparency and accountability. Instead of showing tolerance towards this linguistic mistake, the school board’s most progressive trustee immediately mocked my colleague.
When it comes to battling systemic linguistic white supremacy, the warriors only want “rules for thee, not for me.”
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 21:40 - Newsom's California: Flash Mob Robs, Ransacks Bay Area Mini-Mart, Causing $100,000 In Damage
Newsom’s California: Flash Mob Robs, Ransacks Bay Area Mini-Mart, Causing $100,000 In Damage
A flash mob ransacked a mini-mart near the San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport in Oakland, California this week, robbing and destroying the store.
In yet another dystopian scene of what California has become, the group was captured on surveillance video “tearing apart the store”, according to Fox News, who obtained footage of the looting.
The group rummaged through the refrigerated section and shelves, smashing items and stuffing shopping baskets with stolen goods.
The owner of the store told Fox News that they group caused about $100,000 in damage and that, in the process, they threatened two employees.
He said it took “nine hours” for police to respond to the incident, telling Fox News: “This is the hardest thing you could ever go through … especially if you’ve been put in sweat and tears day in and day out.”
Oakland Police offered up a different story, telling Fox officers responded within 90 minutes of the incident, which took place at 4AM.
The owner estimated that approximately 70 individuals connected to a nearby illegal sideshow gathering forced their way into the store, which was operating with window-only service at the time.
He concluded: “They got away with it. They were here for 40 minutes. You could tear a whole city down in 40 minutes. Every time I think about it, the more it hurts.”
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 21:20 - Actor Kevin Costner Says America Needs To Be Protected
Actor Kevin Costner Says America Needs To Be Protected
Authored by Elma Aksalic via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
“Yellowstone” star Kevin Costner is one of many celebrities expressing their patriotism this holiday weekend, weighing in on what America means to him.
Kevin Costner takes part in ‘Horizon: An American Saga’ Town Hall hosted by Jessica Shaw in New York City on June 18, 2024. (Cindy Ord/Getty Images) During an interview with Fox News Digital, the 69-year-old spoke on the importance of celebrating Independence Day and why it holds greater meaning.
“It is an opportunity to look back at the journey of America, and before America was America, there is something to protect here. There is something to celebrate,” he said.
When it comes to protecting the country, Mr. Costner believes Americans should put ego aside and come together to prioritize “what is good for the nation,” specifically when making a decision come November.
“That is a public service. [It] should be about the public, to begin with. Not about someone’s next four years. It can’t be … It has to be first and foremost about what’s broken here, and there’s always gonna be something to be done. How do we fit in the world? What is our place?” he said.
The actor’s latest film, “Horizon: An American Saga,” revolves around American history detailing the expansion of the West and how the country grew to spread from ocean to ocean.
Mr. Costner stars and directs the movie, even co-writing the script that tells a darker side of history, focusing on the plight of Native Americans during that time.
“You can’t tell the story unless you bump into that. You can’t talk about anything without understanding who was here before us,” he told Entertainment Weekly.
‘Greatest Country in the World’
Meanwhile, country singer Jason Aldean echoed Mr. Costner’s sentiment and love for the nation, saying freedom comes with being American, and calling it the “greatest country in the world.”
“I think we live in the best country in the world … we get the chance to go and still have the American dream. You can come from nothing and build something and make something out of your life, out of yourself and change your life, your family’s life.”
Despite the trials and tribulations citizens face on a daily basis, Mr. Aldean says there is still so much to be proud of.
“I mean, there’s a reason that everybody else wants to be here and wants to come here. It’s because they don’t have what we have. And so, I’m still very proud of that and proud of our country, even though sometimes it gets a little sideways and a little hard to recognize sometimes,” he said.
“American Pie” singer Don McLean learned from personal experience that being an American means getting back up after being knocked down.
The 78-year-old singer believes in “fair play” and “respect” across the board, after finding himself down in life.
“I had a lot of things happen to me where I’ve been flattened, and I get up, you know, and I dust myself off,” he recalled.
“You don’t have to win all the time, but if you lose, you realize you lost because you weren’t good enough, so you’ve got to make yourself better, and you’re going to win next time.”
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 21:00 - China Conducts Military Drills Near Polish & Ukrainian Borders
China Conducts Military Drills Near Polish & Ukrainian Borders
China and Belarus kicked off ultra-rare joint military drills near the Polish border inside Belarusian territory on Monday. It is unprecedented given Chinese troops are now deployed so close to a raging war zone in Eastern Europe.
The Belarusian armed forces pointed specifically to “Ukrainian provocation” as a key reason to hold the drills. Vladimir Kupriyanyuk, the deputy head of the general staff of the military, said the exercises are a response to the “West’s aggressive foreign policy towards Belarus” and to “Ukrainian provocation.”
State media images show PLA troops arriving in Belarus Alarmingly, the maneuvers dubbed ‘Eagle Assault’ are not just a single day or two-day drill, but are slated to last eleven days, until July 19. The drills are being staged near the city of Brest on the Belarus-Poland border, and which is some 40 miles from the Belarusian border with Ukraine to the south.
“As part of the anti-terrorist exercises, the military personnel of both countries will work out the issues of night landing, overcoming water obstacles, and conducting operations in [urban settings],” the Belarusian defense ministry announced on Telegram.
The statement called out NATO’s growing involvement in Ukraine specifically: “The NATO grouping on the border with Belarus is growing rapidly, which leads to an increase in tension in the region,” stated a follow-up post. It additionally warned of “harsh reaction” should any external forces “cross Belarusian borders.”
Poland’s Defense Ministry responded by saying that a big focus of the NATO summit in Washington this week will be addressing the “hybrid war ongoing on the Poland-Belarus border, as well as on the Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian borders.”
All of this is also happening while Russia has stationed tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, which it calls a ‘Union State’ based on their close defensive partnership (and historic treaty) and ongoing cooperation regarding Ukraine.
As for China’s explanation, its defense ministry said Sunday the drills are primarily ‘anti-terrorism’ in nature, to include “hostage rescue operations and counter-terrorism missions.”
🚨🇨🇳🇧🇾Meanwhile China is conducting military drills on the Polish border in a staunch show of support to Belarus.
Are you watching NATO? pic.twitter.com/hSmUcWlcx0
— Aussie Cossack (@aussiecossack) July 9, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“The training aims to enhance the training levels and coordination capabilities of the participating troops, as well as deepen practical cooperation between the armies of the two countries,” it added.
At this point the potential for a true global war centered in Ukraine is becoming easier to imagine, given PLA troops are now in the region, holding drills with the ‘pro-Russian’ side.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 20:40 - Roots Of And Remedies To America's Illiberal Education
Roots Of And Remedies To America’s Illiberal Education
Authored by Peter Berkowitz via RealClearPolitics,
In mid-June, Lawrence D. Bobo – Harvard University dean of the social sciences, professor of social sciences, and professor of sociology – published a Harvard Crimson op-ed that reinforced well-founded suspicions that powerful university administrators favor restricting speech with which they disagree. Understanding the roots of the academy’s censorious spirit and devising remedies are crucial to furnishing an education that suits students’ rights and responsibilities in a free and democratic nation.
In “Faculty Speech Must Have Limits,” Bobo posed two questions: “Is it outside the bounds of acceptable professional conduct for a faculty member to excoriate University leadership, faculty, staff, or students with the intent to arouse external intervention into University business? And does the broad publication of such views cross a line into sanctionable violations of professional conduct?”
Dean Bobo’s chilling answers – “Yes it is and yes it does” – dismayed friends of free speech at Harvard and beyond.
Speech must operate within well-recognized outer limits such as harassment, defamation, true threats, and incitement to immediate violence. Since when, though, does the intensity and persuasiveness of faculty criticism of their institutions determine the permissibility of expression at universities, which are supposedly devoted to preserving, discovering, and disseminating knowledge and driven by robust exchange of opinion?
As dean of the social sciences, moreover, Bobo exercises considerable power: to set salaries; to hire, retain, and tenure faculty; to shape scholarly agendas and curricular priorities. Who in the social sciences among job candidates, faculty vying for promotion, or tenured faculty seeking raises and research opportunities will now risk openly criticizing the Harvard administration?
In a June 25 email to social science colleagues, Bobo sought to calm the storm he created. “First, I would like to make clear that the op-ed represents my own views as an individual member of the faculty and is in no way intended as a policy statement of our Division, or of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences,” he wrote. “And further, in my role as dean, I am bound by our policies and governance structures. I am not empowered to, nor would I seek to, act outside of those policies or structures on issues of speech.”
Really?
What faculty member will believe that a senior university administrator who publicly condemns professors’ public criticism of university policy – and the free-speech guarantees that protect such criticism – will uphold professors’ right to criticize university governance? In his email to social science faculty, Bobo asserts, “I respect and value our longstanding policies that establish free expression as uniquely important to the FAS as a community committed to reason and rational discourse.” But his contention in his op-ed that severe criticism of Harvard that rouses people off campus to press for institutional reforms deserves university sanction says the opposite.
Bobo’s hypocrisy is of a piece with that of former Harvard President Claudine Gay. As dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Gay, working with Bobo, entrenched at Harvard hard-left norms and diversity, equity, and inclusion practices that, among other consequences, treated microaggressions – innocuous utterances that may be experienced as demeaning by select minorities – as dire transgressions. Their authoritarian policies helped Harvard come in dead-last for free-speech protection among 248 institutions of higher education ranked by The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Nevertheless, in testifying before Congress last December, Gay presented herself as a near free-speech absolutist. She implausibly suggested that owing to Harvard’s resolute commitment to free expression, determining whether calling for the genocide of the Jewish people violated Harvard’s code of conduct depended on the context and not on how calls for the genocide of their people may be experienced by the Jewish minority on campus.
Judging by their policies as well as their equivocations under fire, Bobo and Gay suppose that speech that complies with their progressive agenda should be staunchly protected and speech that diverges from it should be disciplined. That view is anathema to liberty of thought and discussion and is poisonous to liberal education. Since the post-Oct. 7 outbreak on elite campuses – prominent among them Harvard – of anti-Israel agitation and harassment of Jewish students, the broader public has noticed the debasement of American higher education, long apparent to those paying attention.
In “Beyond Academic Sectarianism,” in the current issue of National Affairs, my friend Steven Teles argues that “the public’s impression that American higher education has grown increasingly closed minded is undeniably correct.” A political science professor at Johns Hopkins University and a senior fellow at the Niskanen Center – as well as an old-fashioned and high-minded liberal – Teles sees a crucial manifestation of university closed-mindedness in the dearth of conservative professors, and he explores measures to make universities more welcoming to them.
His observations corroborate the data, which indicate that outside of economics, fewer than 10% of social science and humanities faculty are conservatives. “At my own university,” Teles writes, “I would be hard-pressed to name a single tenured professor in the social sciences and humanities who is openly right of center in any reasonable understanding of the term.” So pronounced is universities’ subordination of teaching and scholarship to progressive social activism that he fears for the future of “liberal institutionalists, that is, professors like himself “who believe universities should be places of intellectual pluralism and adhere to the traditional academic norms of merit and free inquiry.” Teles, however, gives his camp too much credit since, as campus attacks on free speech mounted over the decades, many liberals remained silent while conservatives conspicuously championed intellectual pluralism, scholarly merit, and free inquiry.
To account for the drastic underrepresentation of conservatives among faculty, Teles turns to social-science theorizing and findings. A healthy skepticism is warranted, however, because, as he himself observes, the left dominates the field.
Teles begins with what he regards as the less adequate explanations. He reports that “some evidence” suggests discrimination against conservatives by faculty hiring committees “but not much,” although he does not consider that progressive political science may have done a poor job of examining its own biases. He rightly rejects “group-attribute-based theories of conservative underrepresentation” which, drawing on the vulgar stereotype that conservatives are less intelligent and less willing to question inherited opinions, posit that they lack the qualities to gain academic employment. He offers a theory according to which conservatives’ false perception of discrimination drives them away from academic life despite the indications sprinkled throughout his article that conservative perceptions of discrimination are accurate, not least the fear he himself expresses that staunch liberals such as himself are next in line to be “excluded” from universities.
Teles’ preferred theory for the paucity of conservative professors is the “disparate impact” that stems from “facially neutral factors.” He identifies two. Overwhelmingly progressive universities tend to omit from their scholarship and teaching “the subjects that conservatives are typically most interested in religion, the classics, civil society, war, the military, etc.” And universities create a progressive “cultural ethos” that alienates conservatives.
Teles is right about “disparate impact,” but he wrongly describes the factors involved as “facially neutral”; they are decidedly hostile to the fundamental imperatives of liberal education. To leverage the curriculum and harness faculty research to advance progressive visions of social justice, the progressive majority demotes and quarantines study of such matters as religion, the classics, civil society, war, the military, etc. – domains of knowledge essential to understanding human affairs. Meanwhile, the dominant cultural ethos on elite campuses cracks down on speech and discourages inquiry that deviates from or takes exception to the progressive political agenda.
Teles urges universities to hire more conservatives because putting their opinions in the mix advances higher education’s proper mission. He calls on fellow old-fashioned liberals to “be explicit in arguing that moderates and conservatives would enrich their intellectual communities –â??that they would be valued for what they could bring to the university’s intellectual pursuits.” He asks liberals like himself “at top research universities to offer positions in subjects that are disproportionately appealing to right-leaning scholars.” And he advises the remaining liberals among professors to “think about putting pressure on the non-academic departments of the university, such as student life, that are in many cases even more ideologically narrow than academic departments.” He does not ask, however, why his fellow liberals have largely thus far failed to act.
Teles’ salutary aspiration to promote intellectual diversity requires a crucial caveat. American universities should not embrace hiring based on candidates’ political views. Instead, they should find faculty members capable of fashioning and teaching a curriculum that introduces the moral and political principles on which America is based; the basic ideas, institutions, and events of Western civilization; and the leading features of other civilizations. Such a faculty and curriculum would foster civility and toleration by teaching mastery of facts, exploring clashing arguments, and encouraging vigorous discussions.
Such a faculty and such a curriculum would also remedy the censorious spirit that prevails on elite campuses by furnishing an education appropriate to students’ rights and responsibilities in a free and democratic nation.
Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. From 2019 to 2021, he served as director of the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. State Department. His writings are posted at PeterBerkowitz.com and he can be followed on Twitter @BerkowitzPeter.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 20:20 - "Kind Of Like Communist Housing Meets Corporate Housing": Lennar Showcases New Texas Home-Builds
“Kind Of Like Communist Housing Meets Corporate Housing”: Lennar Showcases New Texas Home-Builds
Lennar, one of the largest homebuilders in the US, showcases beautifully rendered images online of its new single-family homes in the Fort Worth, Texas, area. To prospective homeowners, the neighborhood appears picture-perfect for raising a family.
However, Lance Lambert, the founder of the research firm ResiClub, pointed out on X that these tiny homes in the Risinger Court community are not as they appear online.
Lambert shares a rendered image of one of the 763 sq ft homes, featuring two bedrooms and two bathrooms, side by side with an image of the same house in real life.
LEFT: Image that @Lennar shows on its website for Risinger Court community in Fort Worth, Texas
RIGHT: Image on Google reviews for the same community
Lennar has the homes list for $197,999
763 sq ft
2 bed
2 bath pic.twitter.com/PRiBmj9bbx— Lance Lambert (@NewsLambert) July 8, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
And more images…
Some more images posted on Google review pic.twitter.com/GQt3VeWuNQ
— Lance Lambert (@NewsLambert) July 8, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“It’s always fun to see how much foliage is included in renderings — even for far higher priced new home communities,” rental housing economist Jay Parsons wrote on X.
it’s always fun to see how much foliage is included in renderings — even for far higher priced new home communities.
— Jay Parsons (@jayparsons) July 8, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Real estate broker Aaron Layman said, “There should be an MLS violation and fine for putting a “representative” photo on a listing which is not really representative of the actual product. Customers should have a reasonably accurate expectation of what they are showing up for.”
There should be an MLS violation and fine for putting a “representative” photo on a listing which is not really representative of the actual product.
Customers should have a reasonably accurate expectation of what they are showing up for.
— Aaron Layman (@dfwaaronlayman) July 8, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Another X user said, “It looks like a minimum-security prison camp,” while another pointed out, “They rebranded trailer parks as tiny homes.”
Here’s what others are saying about the Lennar’s Risinger Court community:
Is that a prison community?
— Jon Elder | Amazon Growth | Private Label (@BlackLabelAdvsr) July 8, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Illegal immigrants in NYC are living in less cramped conditions than that community in Texas
— The Rogue Politico (@politikaljunki) July 8, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
It’s kinda like communist housing meets corporate housing.
What an awful combo 😂
— TheLastEntrepreneur (@jeremydgriffin) July 8, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
$200k for a shed? These are absolutely wild times.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 20:00 - It Didn't Begin With LBJ: How The US Became A Transfer Society
It Didn’t Begin With LBJ: How The US Became A Transfer Society
Authored by Eduard Bucher via The Mises Institute,
Terry L. Anderson and Peter J. Hill’s fascinating account traces the decline of the American constitutional framework from its origins in laissez-faire individualism to its current state of redistributive collectivism. Viewing the evolution as a series of legal developments motivated by ever greater financial incentives to involve the federal government, they highlight the following pivotal cases: (1) Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established the Supreme Court’s right to perform judicial review, striking down laws it considered unconstitutional; (2) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), which sanctioned Congress’s founding of the Bank of the United States, deemed that states could not tax instruments of the federal government and further solidified the basis for judicial review; (3) Ogden v. Saunders (1827), which ended the old, laissez-faire interpretation of the Contract Clause; (4) Munn v. Illinois (1877), which for the first time granted the state the power to control private property via the “public interest” argument; and (5) US v. Grimaud (1911), which gave administrative rulings the force of law, beginning the transfer of the lawmaking function from Congress to the president.
Emphasizing the role played by the courts, the authors show how from “1877 to 1917 the Constitution was altered in numerous ways that made transfers much easier to obtain. Except for the income tax amendment, all of these changes came through interpretation.” Furthermore, the “substitution of an equivocal concept like public interest for firm constitutional limitations meant that the subjective judgment of justices was supreme.” This set the stage for private interests to learn to benefit from governmental transfers: “There is no field in which industry expects, or gets more from its associations than that of relations with governmental bodies. This becomes true year by year, as government, and particularly the Federal government, plays an ever-increasing part in our business and industrial life.”
Unlike mainstream economists, the authors identify governmentally enforced transfers as negative-sum instead of as zero-sum games. Their reasoning, while cogent, can, however, be enhanced in its rigor by including insights from the Austrian School. Consider the following:
When [property] rights are transferred without some quid pro quo, a non-voluntary transfer takes place. The most obvious example of such transfer activity is theft. At first glance such activity might appear to be zero sum since one person’s gain is another’s loss. But this ignores the process through which the transfer is effected. The result of this transfer activity is negative sum since nothing is produced and resources are expended in the process. (The reader is reminded of our unwillingness to allow interpersonal utility comparisons.) A thief invests in physical and human capital to effect a transfer only if it nets a normal rate of return. Moreover, an owner invests in additional measures to increase the probability of capturing the return [of] his assets. Traditional analysis has viewed transfers of this sort as altering the distribution of income without affecting output since the total amount of goods in society remains unchanged. Thus, if A steals B’s car, traditional analysis says that no social loss has occurred, assuming the value to both individuals is equal. But this ignores the consumption of resources in A’s attempts to carry out the theft and B’s attempts to prevent it. The transfer itself may be costless, but the prospect of the transfer leads individuals and groups to invest resources in either attempting to obtain a transfer or to resist a transfer away from themselves. These resources represent net social waste.
In short, expenditures on predatory and protective activities constitute the “waste” that makes the total less than the sum of its parts. However, as Austrians have argued from several viewpoints (Ludwig von Mises’s book Human Action, Peter Klein’s essays, the research of Nicolai Foss et al.), the structure of ownership is itself an integral component of a society’s wealth; if assets are owned by individuals who put them to poor use, wealth is relatively diminished. Unlike nonvoluntary transfers, exchanges that arise voluntarily in the market are the mechanism by which ownership passes to those most qualified to use it ex ante. Thus, the new distribution itself constitutes a loss of value compared to that which existed previously irrespective of the resources expended on predatory and protective activities.
Furthermore, the authors claim that the state is justified in pursuing nonvoluntary transfers to rectify illegitimate property distributions and to eliminate the free-rider problem in public goods. The problem, they argue, is that once coercive redistribution is allowed for those reasons, special interests are incentivized to find ways to use it to benefit themselves:
Nonvoluntary transfers for the purpose of providing public goods may become positive-sum transactions. The problem is one of accurately defining a public good. If this cannot be specified then and therefore limited to only those goods from which nonpaying consumers cannot be excluded, legitimate powers specified in the constitution can and will be used for other types of transfer activity. Negative-sum games will result. Transfer mechanisms dealing with illegitimacy and public goods allow the camel’s nose under the tent. The problem is keeping the beast from obtaining full entry.
However, in neither of these cases is government action net value-generating. Regarding the illegitimacy question, the state has no competitors and thus faces no negative consequences for poorly resolving competing property claims. By comparison, private arbiters that become corrupted or have a poor reputation lose customers and are ultimately replaced by competitors, leading to losses for their shareholders. The state’s monopoly on coercion, however, cannot be withdrawn, and so it lacks such a corrective mechanism (which is significant in light of its susceptibility to abuse by special interests). In the case of public goods, on the other hand, even if the state were somehow capable of operating without transaction costs or extracting resources, it could only finance value-destroying ventures because value-generating undertakings are already voluntarily financed by profit-seeking entrepreneurs. Furthermore, the supposed need to combat the free-rider problem is entirely fallacious, for as Murray Rothbard points out, the definition of what constitutes free-riding is entirely subjective and arbitrary; it applies to everyone regarding the civilizational and technological achievements of both ancestors and contemporaries, and there is likely not a single benefit that accrues only to a single person. We can either accept this as a happy fact of life and let it be or tax away everything in pursuit of a confused conception of justice, bringing all economic activity to a standstill.
The authors also see a role for the state in maintaining the democratic nature of politics. They write that between the American Revolution and 1790, the number of land-owning Rhode Islanders decreased drastically, reducing the number of voters to one-third due to a land-ownership requirement for enfranchisement, and they conclude that “expanding the franchise was thus essential to maintaining a government based on the consent of the governed.” However, they then concede that, although appropriate, such changes increased the reliance on majority rule to an extent incompatible with constitutional restrictions on government. But that is precisely the point: The greater the number of individuals who can influence the state, the greater the potential for redistributive cooperation between them. If the state were just a well-meaning public institution, diligently providing police, military, and courts at minimum cost, there would be no connection between the number of voters and constitutional restrictiveness. Only if the state is an alternative marketplace with profit opportunities for political entrepreneurs does an increase in voters (competitors for government handouts) result in greater clamor for the removal of restrictions on government, since every government action is an opportunity for someone to benefit at the public’s expense.
The authors end by proposing a return to the original conception of government, its roles and limitations, along with the removal of the political and legal bases for the statist developments that have occurred since the nineteenth century. As they put it, it is essential “that the concept of a government limited by a set of fundamental, difficult-to-change rules dominate our thinking.” Anarcho-capitalists will counter that the only true guarantee of freedom is through competition in the free market. Regardless of one’s stance on that debate, however, Anderson and Hill’s book provides an illuminating account of the decay of constitutional safeguards and warrants serious study.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 19:40 - Biden's Costliest Publicity Stunt To Be Dismantled Permanently
Biden’s Costliest Publicity Stunt To Be Dismantled Permanently
The Pentagon’s Gaza humanitarian pier project, which has been troubled from day one and spent more time out of commission than it’s actually been in operation, will soon be scrapped altogether, the Associated Press reports Tuesday.
The report says this is the ‘final blow’ for the pier after rough seas left it needing constant pauses for repairs: “The pier built by the U.S. military to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza will be reinstalled Wednesday to be used for several days, but then the plan is to pull it out permanently, several U.S. officials said.”
Thus it looks like it will not longer be there by the end of this month. “The officials said the goal is to clear whatever aid has piled up in Cyprus and on the floating dock offshore and get it to the secure area on the beach in Gaza,” the report adds, and notes that’s when the army will begin the final dismantle.
The pier had allowed for the delivery of nearly 20 million pounds of food to the starving Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip, but persistent high and choppy seas caused many lengthy stoppages. At one point last month large pieces of the pier actually broke off and washed up north on an Israel beach, with US vessels also getting stuck attempting to retrieve the pieces.
Part of the Pentagon rationale for dismantling the whole thing is that the weather is only set to get worse, and that the Biden-ordered initiative was to be temporary to begin with. For a brief timeline and partial review of recent problems:
- May 25: pier was damaged by seas and high winds
- Removed for repairs
- June 7: finally reconnected after a couple weeks
- June 14: inclement weather leads to pier removal again
- Days later it is put back
- June 28: heavy seas result in removal again
- Out of commission again for nearly a couple of weeks
First announced as a White House aim in March during President Biden’s State of the Union address, the pier required hundreds of millions of dollars and the work of some 1,000 service members to plan, assemble and operate.
The pier will go down as one of history’s costliest publicity stunts. The impetus for the pier was mounting political pressure on Biden — particularly from his own party — as Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 Hamas invasion killed tens of thousands, displaced more than a million, and caused a territory-wide food and medical-supply crisis. But critics also pointed out there are land routes which can be used to get aid into Gaza.
U.S. Army’s $320 million Gaza pier before it broke into pieces.
The US will “temporarily” remove the pier off because of “expected high seas”, CENTOM says. pic.twitter.com/NTc0chHumM
— War Intel (@warintel4u) June 15, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Biden’s pier announcement came a week after the Michigan primary, in which 13% of Democrats — more than 100,000 people — voted “uncommitted” as a means of condemning Biden’s performance on Gaza, among other issues.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 19:20 - How Out-Of-Body Experiences May Enhance Empathy By Altering Our Sense Of Self
How Out-Of-Body Experiences May Enhance Empathy By Altering Our Sense Of Self
Authored by Cara Michelle Miller via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
How does floating outside your body, seeing yourself from above, sound? This surreal experience, known as an out-of-body event, might be more than just a curious phenomenon.
New research suggests these extraordinary events could unlock greater empathy. By reshaping our sense of self, they may reshape our worldview, allowing us to truly step into another’s shoes.
(PRILL/Shutterstock) The Transformative Impact of Out-of-Body Experiences
Out-of-body experiences (OBEs) occur spontaneously during sleep, near-death experiences, or through induced methods like hypnosis or psychedelic drugs. Affecting approximately 15 percent of people, according to some research, out-of-body experiences challenge the notion that the mind is confined to the body.
Recent studies suggest OBEs can result in lasting increases in perspective-taking, patience, and compassion—similar to effects seen with meditation.
A new narrative review in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews explores the psychological and neurological basis of out-of-body experiences as “seeds” that, under certain conditions, can grow into transformative events.
“We propose psychological and neuroscientific mechanisms to try to explain how it works, how having an out-of-body experience could lead to increased empathy,” lead study author Marina Weiler, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia (UVA) who holds a doctorate in neurology, told The Epoch Times.
Dissolving the Ego
Central to an out-of-body experience is ego dissolution, a state where one detaches from his or her self-identity.
Historically rooted in spiritual practices, experiencers describe ego dissolution as perceiving no boundaries or awakening from an “egoic version” of oneself. Research shows that the intensity of out-of-body experience correlates with the degree of ego dissolution.
“When a person is not linked to their physical bodies,” Ms. Weiler said, “it allows the person to feel connected to other things, to other people, to other circumstances, or everything that is around them.” This occurs because our self-identity or ego is partly tied to our physical body, from which we typically view the world, she added.
Empathy, crucial for understanding others, involves adopting different perspectives by shedding one’s ego. Ms. Weiler emphasized that “making sense of the out-of-body experiences is crucial for integrating its transformative effects.” She describes it as a two-stage process: ego dissolution followed by re-evaluation of oneself and reality.
Those who process their OBEs emotionally and discuss them often experience less self-doubt and anxiety, she noted.
This shift from self-centered to other-focused thinking expands an individual’s worldview, fostering a more profound sense of connection with others.
How It Might Rewire Our Brains
Neuroscience provides insights into the brain mechanisms underlying empathy and its modulation through OBEs. The temporoparietal junction (TPJ), a specific brain region, is linked to bodily self-awareness. TPJ integrates sensory information from our bodies and the environment, distinguishing self from non-self.
OBEs can be triggered by temporarily altering brain activity through electrical stimulation of regions like the TPJ, according to research by Dr. Olaf Blanke, a renowned neuroscientist and neurologist at the University Hospitals of Geneva, Switzerland. This demonstrates how changing consciousness states can influence empathy.
According to Ms. Weiler, the TPJ relates to bodily sensations and spatial awareness. Mirror neurons, which fire both when a person performs an action and when they watch someone else do the same, activate in the TPJ when we understand others’ emotions—a key aspect of empathy. TPJ activity disruptions during out-of-body experiences may alter self-awareness, enhancing shared experiences and empathetic responses.
While mirror neurons enable empathy by mirroring others’ behaviors and emotions, OBEs involve multiple brain networks beyond the TPJ, including the frontal cortex and temporal lobes, which are also implicated in empathy and self-perception.
The review authors noted that these conclusions are primarily based on personal accounts, as no studies directly verify the correlation between OBEs, ego dissolution, and feelings of unity. Also, other experiences, such as awe, can promote empathy without the disembodied sensation typical of OBEs.
Unlocking the Potential
Out-of-body experiences have drawn attention over the years due to their potential to spur personal growth and spiritual transformation.
According to the Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews paper, a study from the 1980s found that OBEs profoundly affected 55 percent of the 386 participants, with 71 percent reporting long-term benefits. Also, 84 percent expressed a desire to relive the experience, and 40 percent ranked it as the most significant event of their lives.
While the therapeutic applications of OBEs remain exploratory, a recent study in Psychology of Consciousness identified eight core themes that people often explore after an OBE, each suggesting ways that well-being may be improved.
Researchers highlighted that OBEs can act as catalysts for:
- Motivation
- Reducing fear of death
- Fostering inner peace
- Altering life perspectives
- Increasing self-awareness
- Redefining relationships
- Strengthening spiritual beliefs
Current research does not link OBEs themselves to any serious health risks. However, they can sometimes cause confusion about the experience and raise concerns about neurological or mental health issues. Certain medical conditions have been associated with OBEs, including epilepsy, brain injuries, and dissociative disorders like depersonalization-derealization disorder.
Practices to Facilitate Out-of-Body Experiences
To study OBEs, which typically occur randomly, Ms. Weiler and researchers at UVA’s Division of Perceptual Studies work with volunteers who can induce them at will. Techniques include:
- Meditation: deep absorption states that transcend ordinary self-identity
- Visualization: using mental imagery to expand beyond the physical body
- Lucid dreaming: maintaining awareness while transitioning into dream states
- Yoga: practices like Kundalini yoga that aim to transcend bodily limits
According to Ms. Weiler, research progresses with the goal of harnessing out-of-body experiences as tools for promoting empathy and compassion rather than merely treating them as extraordinary experiences.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 19:00 - Bodyguard For Anti-Gun Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Shoots At Would-Be Carjacker
Bodyguard For Anti-Gun Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Shoots At Would-Be Carjacker
Bodyguards for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor fired shots at an attempted carjacker on Friday outside her northwest DC home, according to a spokesperson for the US Marshals Service.
The perp, 18-year-old Kentrell Flowers, suffered non-fatal injuries and was taken to a local hospital following the incident.
“The Deputy U.S. Marshals involved in the shooting incident were part of the unit protecting the residences of U.S. Supreme Court justices. As a general practice, the U.S. Marshals don’t discuss specifics of protective details,” said US Marshals Service spokeswoman Abigail Meyer in a statement.
As the Daily Caller reports:
Kentrell Flowers allegedly approached and pointed a handgun at a car belonging to one of two deputy U.S. Marshals in separate vehicles protecting Sotomayor’s residence around 1:15 a.m., according to a press release from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
Flowers first exited a vehicle before threatening the U.S. Marshal at the 2100 block of 11th Street, the press release stated. The U.S. Marshal fired several shots at the 18-year-old suspect with the help of his U.S. Marshal colleague, who also drew and fired his service weapon from a separate vehicle.
Flowers was arrested and charged with armed carjacking, carrying a pistol without a license and possession of a large-capacity ammunition feeding device, according to the press release.
In 2010, Justice Sotomayor joined a dissenting opinion in McDonald v. Chicago that stated, “In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense.”
Meanwhile, Sotomayor’s armed security team just sh*t a would-be… pic.twitter.com/d9CmFK76Yp
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 9, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s bodyguard shoots would-be carjacker outside her home https://t.co/n2XVyy7OEp pic.twitter.com/fh4D1k7ALj
— New York Post (@nypost) July 9, 2024
The MPD’s Criminal Investigation Division is conducting an investigation.
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 18:40 - 'Ukraine Can & Will Stop Putin': Biden Successfully Navigates Teleprompter At NATO Summit
‘Ukraine Can & Will Stop Putin’: Biden Successfully Navigates Teleprompter At NATO Summit
Update(1835ET): We’ve just been given a glimpse of what another Biden administration would look like: endless war and escalation in Europe until we get nuclear-armed conflict with Russia (though a Trump administration after November is looking likelier by the day).
President Biden’s address to the NATO summit in D.C. on the 75th anniversary of the alliance’s founding was full of bravado and chest-thumping, complete with declarations of Ukraine will win against Russia.
“Putin wants nothing less, nothing less, than Ukraine’s total subjugation … and to wipe Ukraine off the map,” Biden said. He then vowed that “Ukraine can and will stop Putin.”
Getty Images Toward that end, he announced that Ukraine will be given dozens more US anti-air defense systems, and that Kiev will be priority number one in terms of advanced arms transfers to countries abroad.
Biden came out speaking fast, at times mumbling and stumbling over hastily-formed words while hugging the teleprompter, but in the end was actually coherent this time.
Reuters notes that “The White House is hoping he can turn the page on speculation with his speech, in which he spoke with a strong and confident voice and avoided any verbal flubs or signs of confusion that marked his debate performance.”
Biden during speech at start of NATO summit: “Ukraine can and will stop Putin.” pic.twitter.com/EesXHt0l3S
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 9, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
And the Associated Press wrote:
Biden, using a teleprompter, told world leaders that “NATO is more powerful than ever” on its 75th anniversary, highlighting the expansion of the alliance under his watch.
“This moment in history calls for our collective strength,” he said, stressing NATO’s resolve to help Ukraine fend off Russia’s invasion. In his 13-minute remarks, Biden did not nod to the domestic political drama swirling around him.
But just a couple of hours before Biden’s big speech, this devastating take down occurred in the White House press briefing room, leading to obvious questions of: who is in charge here?
DOOCY: Biden says he’s best before 8p, but say the Pentagon picks up an incoming nuke at 11pm — who do you call? Nurse Jill?
KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: “He has a team.” pic.twitter.com/qVf4zHmaNB
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 9, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
* * *
The annual NATO summit 2024 began Tuesday in Washington D.C., and House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson used the opportunity to urge all alliance members to meeting spending goals, which as at least 2% of GDP for defense.
“I just want to say this, and I’ll deliver the message to them emphatically: Republicans, of course, celebrate the peace and prosperity that NATO has secured and will continue to stand by our partners as we prevent needless wars,” he said before an audience at the Hudson Institute think tank.
“But we also believe that NATO needs to be doing more,” he stressed. As NATO heads of state are in town, Congressional members will hold various meetings with the foreign delegations. “Every NATO member needs to be spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense. That’s the agreement, that’s the deal,” Johnson continued.
Via AP Currently, fewer than half of NATO members are meeting this goal, according to various international reports. It was a big talking point in the prior Trump administration, and if Trump gets in office again he’ll likely dial up the pressure on allies just like in the past.
Back in February, Trump sparked fury and controversy by suggesting the US would not defend NATO allies who failed to spend enough on defense.
On the campaign trail he had recounted a past conversation with the “president of a big country”…
“Well sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia – will you protect us?” Trump quoted the unnamed leader as saying.
“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 (Russia) to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay,” Trump said.
As for Johnson’s fresh speech just as NATO leaders arrive in D.C., he called out both Russia and China, but especially Beijing which it called “our single greatest threat… engaging in malign influence operations around the world.”
But he also stated of Russia, “People understand that (Russian President Vladimir Putin) would not stop if he took Kyiv. He’s a ruthless dictator in my view.”
Zelensky has also been invited to be in attendance this week, but Ukraine isn’t expected to join the alliance anytime soon. Zelensky says he will focus on attracting more anti-air systems amid the Russian aerial onslaught:
Now in Washington. Today marks the beginning of the NATO Summit.
We are fighting for more air defense systems for Ukraine, and I’m confident we will succeed. We are also striving to secure more aircraft, including F-16s. Additionally, we are pushing for enhanced security… pic.twitter.com/ydkHQjK6RL
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) July 9, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
So far there’s been no evidence showing Moscow desires an expanded war. Many Western pundits predicted Russia would march on Moldova next, but that hasn’t materialized.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 18:35 - Haley Releases Delegates, Urges Them To Back Trump Ahead Of RNC Convention
Haley Releases Delegates, Urges Them To Back Trump Ahead Of RNC Convention
Authored by Jackson Richman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Former GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley announced on July 9 that she is releasing her 97 delegates and urging them to support former President Donald Trump.
(Left) Former President Donald Trump arrives to speak during a Super Tuesday election night watch party at Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., on March 5, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential hopeful Nikki Haley speaks during a campaign rally in Portland, Maine, on March 3, 2024. (Chandan Khanna, Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images) The move comes days before the Republican National Convention when the 45th president is set to be nominated as the party’s 2024 presidential candidate.
In a statement, Ms. Haley called for the GOP to come together as President Joe Biden is incompetent to have four more years in the Oval Office and Vice President Kamala Harris “would be a disaster for America.”
“The nominating convention is a time for Republican unity,” said Ms. Haley in a statement.
“We need a president who will hold our enemies to account, secure our border, cut our debt, and get our economy back on track,” said the former South Carolina governor and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Ms. Haley went on to call on her delegates to back former President Trump at the Republican National Convention, which will be held July 15–18 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Politico first reported the news.
The former candidate will not be attending the convention.
“She was not invited, and she’s fine with that,” Ms. Haley’s spokesperson, Chaney Denton, told The Epoch Times.
“Trump deserves the convention he wants,” Ms. Denton said. “She’s made it clear she’s voting for him and wishes him the best.”
In May, a few months after suspending her presidential campaign, Ms. Haley announced she will be voting for former President Trump.
She said that she wants a “president who would support capitalism and freedom. A president who understands we need less debt, not more debt.” While former President Trump “has not been perfect on these policies,” she said, he is preferable to President Joe Biden.
The following day, former President Trump suggested Ms. Haley would be on his team “in some form” and did not rule her out as a running mate despite having done so before her announcement that she will cast her ballot for her former boss.
In the primary, Ms. Haley won just Vermont and the District of Columbia with nine and 19 delegates, respectively.
In other primaries, which former President Trump won, Ms. Haley picked up eight delegates in Iowa; nine in New Hampshire; three in her home state of South Carolina; four in Michigan; 12 each in Colorado, North Carolina, and Minnesota; six in Virginia; one in Arkansas and two in Rhode Island.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/09/2024 – 18:20
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
