- Trump's Victory Saved America
Trump’s Victory Saved America
Authored by James E. Fanell and Bradley A. Thayer via American Greatness,
President Donald Trump’s election victory on November 5 was an epochal event in American history. The American people gave Trump a mandate with almost 51% of the vote. He received over 73 million votes, more than four million more than his opponent. A new American coalition—traditional Republican voters united with lower middle class, working class, African Americans, Hispanics, and white women—provided the monumental victory. At such a significant time, it is important to consider how America arrived at such a historical moment and what must be accomplished in the years ahead.
Retrospectively, Americans must understand how they came to this place in their history. According to the exit polls, a whopping 72% of Americans understood that their country was on the wrong path. America’s political ideology, culture, and traditions were under assault by the so-called “progressive” wing of the Democrat Party. The Biden-Harris administration weakened the economy, caused inflation rates not seen since the 1970s, opened U.S. borders to some 15 million people and facilitated their relocation throughout the U.S. and so weaponized the legal system to wage lawfare against Trump, his major political and legal advisors, and against many of his supporters.
In the realm of foreign and defense policy, the debacle of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the failure to deter the war in Ukraine, the horrific attacks against Israel on October 7, 2023, and the subsequent wars it unleashed. Significantly, the Biden-Harris regime failed to deter Communist China’s hyper-aggression directed against U.S. allies like the Philippines and partners like Taiwan, and most importantly against the American people through the deaths of a quarter of a million of our fellow citizens from Chinese-provided fentanyl and the intellectual capture of so many of the American elite who parrot the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) policy positions to advance the CCP’s interests.
The deeper cause of how America arrived at this point is the embrace of Marxism by the Democratic Party and thus its increasing totalitarianism and alienation from the American people. In its embrace of this ideology, the Democrat Party demonstrated that it had completely become detached from the American experience, ideology, history, and culture in its effort to transform America into a one-party state on the road to totalitarianism. The American people saw this effort to continue the “fundamental transformation” of America—as Obama identified it on the eve of the 2008 election—and rejected it.
Prospectively, there is so much that must be accomplished to repair the great costs that the Biden-Harris administration has inflicted upon the American people. As Trump has already stated in the immediate aftermath of his historic election victory, his first actions will be to “dismantle the Deep State and return power to the American People.” His stated goal is to return the government to the people, not the unelected bureaucrats that have installed themselves as a fourth branch of government. As such, the reform of government employment policies will be a major objective for his administration.
Likewise, a second Trump administration will address inflation, uncontrolled illegal immigration, economic stagnation, and the enormous national debt that risks destroying the Republic. The U.S. is in dire fiscal and economic circumstances and Trump will have to confront these issues immediately as they will be thrust upon him on January 20.
In foreign and defense policy, the situation is just as dire. U.S. conventional and nuclear forces must be strengthened. The defense industrial base must be restored to meet the threat from Communist China. The principal danger, the CCP, must be defeated by cutting it off from U.S. trade and investment—decoupling must be pursued with vigor. Furthermore, all Chinese entities should be prohibited from raising capital in U.S. markets. Its hyper-aggression must be checked by credible U.S. military power in conjunction with its allies and partners, like Japan, Korea, Australia, Thailand, India, and Taiwan.
Increasingly, Americans recognize that the CCP is illegitimate. It is the product of Soviet imperialism, and so is a colonial government ruling the Chinese people. Xi Jinping has no more legitimacy to rule the great Chinese people than we do. The second Trump administration will need to use the bully pulpit of our nation to inform the world of the CCP’s illegitimate control over the people of China.
Trump’s victory also provides the opportunity to save more than America. It provides the chance to defend Western civilization, upon which America’s foundation, history, politics, culture, and intellectual life are anchored. The Progressive Left’s (that is, Communists’) attack against America’s political ideology, history, and culture is part of a broader effort to destroy Western civilization. Initially, the left undermined it through the “ideas industry,” universities, K-12 education, think tanks, media, social media, television, and film. Then they labored hammer and tongs to overthrow it. Trump has the opportunity to repair the tremendous damage that the left has done carefully and deliberately to Western civilization. Working with European, British, Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian allies and other peoples around the world who value the contributions of Western civilization, Trump can begin to fix the damage.
Under Trump, the direction of the nation is clear—as it is for any ship embarking on a new journey. The ship of America must be sounded, the damage repaired, and a renewed course, like the ones originally charted by the celestial constellations that guided Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Reagan, must be set. If we stay true to our constitutional principles, America will once again have a fair wind and a following sea as it returns to its political ideology, principles, and traditions. That course opens the door to the best years in America’s history.
The American people understood their plight and were searching for decades for an effective leader, only to be disappointed and frustrated with Republican Party candidates, which led to a profound alienation of the base from the Party establishment. Trump had brilliant careers in real estate and television before he entered politics. But he chose to throw his hat into the ring because he identified with what was happening to the American people.
In turn, the American people saw clearly that Trump was the vessel that would enact their course change. His tremendous courage, acumen, charisma, indefatigable physical stamina, thick skin, and political instincts are without parallel in modern American history. As such, the American people have unquestionably placed their trust in him to empower the saving of America. Trump has accepted that sacred challenge. He has excelled and will do so again in this colossal task because it is evident to Americans that he loves America, the American people, and is a fighter. The American people gave Trump his victory because they saw that Trump’s triumph is America’s.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 23:20 - Trump Could Impact The Supreme Court For Decades To Come
Trump Could Impact The Supreme Court For Decades To Come
Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,
President-elect Donald Trump’s second term could help make him one of the most consequential presidents for the U.S. Supreme Court by solidifying a long-lasting originalist majority.
Although Democrats have criticized the justices in recent months, the 2024 elections may have stripped them of the power they would need to block Trump’s nominees and implement reforms to stunt conservatives’ influence on the court.
Republicans are projected to take the U.S. Senate, offering a two-year window for Trump to appoint new conservative jurists to the highest court should any of the sitting justices announce retirement. Neither of the two most senior justices, Clarence Thomas, who is 76 and joined the court in 1991, and Samuel Alito, who is 74 and joined in 2006, have announced a retirement plan.
“No one other than Justices Thomas and Alito knows when or if they will retire, and talking about them like meat that has reached its expiration date is unwise, uninformed, and, frankly, just crass,” Federalist Society chairman Leonard Leo said.
If Trump is later tasked with appointing two justices, he could be the first president since President Dwight D. Eisenhower to have five of his nominees sit on the nation’s highest court.
In terms of pace, Trump has already appointed more justices in one term than his predecessors did during their tenures. Continuing at that pace would likely lead to long-term shifts for the institution and its jurisprudence, especially if his successors follow other presidents in nominating fewer justices.
Changes to Precedent
The court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has been described as incrementalist, but some of its recent decisions have raised questions about the stability of longstanding precedents. Trump’s nominees—Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—have already contributed to major shifts in American law, starting with their vote to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Just before Trump’s reelection, they also redefined the scope of presidential immunity and overruled a decades-old administrative law doctrine—known as Chevron deference—that was supported by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Conservatives have touted this decision and Dobbs as following an originalist approach, or one that seeks to follow the Constitution’s original meaning. Such an approach might continue if Trump selects justices from the long list of judges appointed to federal courts during his first term in office.
(Front Row R–L) Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, his wife Jane Sullivan, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, his wife, Virginia Thomas, and Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito attend the memorial service for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor at the National Cathedral in Washington on Dec. 19, 2023. Jim Watson/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino told The Epoch Times that if Trump wanted to appoint more originalists to the Supreme Court, he wouldn’t have to “look any farther than the appellate judges” he appointed during his first term.
“If he picks from that short list he himself has created, then I think we’re going to have an awesome continuation of the originalist approach to the Constitution,” said Severino, a former Thomas clerk.
In October, a three-judge appellate panel, which included a former Thomas clerk and former Alito clerk, backed Republicans’ position that election officials couldn’t count ballots that arrived after voting day. They said doing so violated the Constitution and a law passed in 1844 on the timing of elections.
Thomas has said on more than one occasion that he has no intention of retiring. Meanwhile, conservative attorney and commentator Ed Whelan has speculated in National Review that Alito will retire next spring with Thomas following him in 2026.
Civil Liberties
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions have been viewed by both sides of the ideological spectrum as utilizing originalism and textualism, or trying to adhere to the plain language of American laws, after decades of different approaches.
“After most of the 20th Century spent with a very liberal court, we actually have a majority of originalists in the court,” Severino said during a press call this summer.
Overturning Roe raised questions about a whole body of law, known as “substantive due process,” which stems from the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
That body of law informed the court’s decision in a series of other cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down state laws on birth control, sodomy, and marriage respectively. Following Dobbs, left-leaning voices worried that the more conservative Supreme Court would eventually overturn those cases.
People protest in response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on June 24, 2022. The Court’s decision overturns the landmark 50-year-old Roe v Wade case. Brandon Bell/Getty Images
Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which overturned Roe, indicated that the idea of a constitutional right to abortion exceeded the bounds of substantive due process. However, he attempted to distinguish it from the issues in Lawrence and other cases while maintaining that his opinion wouldn’t threaten those other precedents.
Thomas’s concurring opinion went further in describing substantive due process as “an oxymoron” and said the court should “reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told The Epoch Times, “We may see the justices continue to chip away at civil rights and substantive due process.”
Rahmani pointed to Dobbs and the court’s ruling in 2023 that Harvard University’s and the University of North Carolina’s affirmative action programs violated the equal protection clause. The court’s Obergefell decision and its 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona—which established the Miranda warning that police read to suspects to remind them of their rights during criminal proceedings—may be up for grabs too, Rahmani said.
A ‘MAGA Supreme Court’?
Based on decisions by Trump’s already-appointed justices, it’s questionable whether a court transformed by the president-elect would deliver consistent wins for conservatives’ political causes.
Some of the court’s recent decisions have prompted Democrats to describe the justices as part of a “MAGA Supreme Court”—a reference to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan.
Like others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized the court’s immunity decision, which granted presidents various levels of immunity from criminal prosecution. “On purely partisan lines, the Supreme Court today for the first time in history places presidents substantially above the law,” ACLU National Legal Director David Cole said in July.
Besides its rulings on immunity and abortion, the court ruled in favor of gun rights advocates this year by effectively allowing bump stocks, and in 2022, by clarifying that firearm restrictions must follow the nation’s history and tradition.
Trump himself has praised the justices but expressed disagreement as well, such as when he said the court “really let us down” after it declined to take up a 2020 election-related case from Texas. He also publicly clashed with Roberts, who said in 2018: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”
Illustrating the tenuous ideological formations, Roberts wrote a concurrence that sought to maintain but weaken Roe. Neither Barrett nor Kavanaugh joined that opinion and have each voted differently than both Alito and Thomas on important cases. According to Empirical SCOTUS, Barrett’s, Kavanaugh’s, and Roberts’ votes aligned most with each other’s when compared with the other justices.
Barrett joined the immunity decision in Trump v. United States but partly differed in a way that Roberts said “threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized.” She also joined liberals on the court in ruling against Jan. 6 defendants, as well as in resisting the avenue other justices took in ruling that Colorado couldn’t disqualify Trump from appearing on its ballot this year.
Former President Donald Trump, the Republican 2024 presidential candidate, arrives back at Trump Tower after being convicted in a criminal trial in New York City on May 30, 2024. Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images
In another ruling on agency power this year, Barrett joined Thomas, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Jackson to uphold the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s controversial funding mechanism, which right-leaning advocates saw as unconstitutional. Only Alito and Gorsuch dissented from that decision.
Overruling Chevron could interfere with Trump’s deregulatory agenda as well, even though it’s been backed by critics of administrative overreach. The doctrine was initially decided in 1984 by the majority led by Justice John Paul Stevens and it upheld a deregulatory action by President Ronald Reagan’s administration. Overruling it gave judges more power in reviewing agencies’ interpretations of existing law.
Evolving Originalism
Besides demonstrating an interest in economic deregulation, Trump also said that his second term would see regulations related to gender—specifically opposing so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors. Those regulations will likely encounter lawsuits with left-leaning groups citing Gorsuch’s controversial majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County.
Gorsuch, whose voting aligned most with Thomas’s last term, joined Roberts in ruling that firing someone on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity was a form of sex-based discrimination because the actions wouldn’t have been made “but for” the individuals’ sex.
That reasoning has been used by lower courts to support so-called left-leaning interest on the issue of gender, including the idea that states can’t exclude adults from receiving transgender procedures under government insurance programs.
President Joe Biden’s administration is currently using Gorsuch’s reasoning in asking the Supreme Court to strike down Tennessee’s law banning so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that Bostock’s “core insight is that ‘it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being … transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.’”
What originalism and textualism mean in practice may be evolving due at least in part to the influence of Trump-appointed justices. In his dissent, Alito said “no one should be fooled” by Gorsuch’s “attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation.”
Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch speaks at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., on Aug. 8, 2024. Apu Gomes/Getty Images
Thomas’s approach to originalism has encountered resistance among many on the court. He was the only justice to say in June that his originalist opinion in Bruen protected domestic abusers’ ability to own firearms.
That case—U.S. v. Rahimi—spurred a relatively high number of concurrences from Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Sotomayor each disputing how to apply the nation’s history when considering firearm regulations.
Another decision rejecting a crude, Trump-related trademark saw the justices similarly differing over how to apply legal history despite each agreeing with the ultimate outcome of the case.
In a concurrence joined by liberal-leaning justices, Barrett said Thomas’s approach was “wrong twice over” and suggested that it overemphasized the role of historical comparison. Thomas had argued that a “firm grounding in traditional trademark law is sufficient to justify the content-based trademark restriction here.”
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 22:10 - 'Unhinged' NBC Reporter Rips Off Daily Wire Story, Nerfs It, Then Self-Immolates On X When Called Out
‘Unhinged’ NBC Reporter Rips Off Daily Wire Story, Nerfs It, Then Self-Immolates On X When Called Out
This story is so stupid you should only read it if you’re on the toilet. And even then.
Nevertheless… on Friday, the Daily Wire broke the news that a now-fired FEMA employee ordered workers to bypass the homes of Trump supporters as they surveyed the damage caused by Hurricane Milton in Florida.
Microsoft Teams chat used by FEMA workers. (via the Daily Wire) The story went viral – and was eventually picked up by NBC News reporter Mirna Alsharif (formerly CNN), who proceeded to not only rip off the report without citing the Daily Wire, she completely nerf’d it – failing to adhere to basic journalistic standards despite all of that information having been reported by DW.
When she was called out for her shitty reporting, Alsharif had a complete meltdown on X – claiming that the Daily Wire wasn’t her source, and hurtling High School insults at reporters.
And while she just deleted her account, we’ve got receipts…
She called several people a “troll final boss” in a thread in which journalist Jason Rantz called her an “unhinged left-winger.”
Busted out your mama jokes (probably because of her 90’s hair)…
Called John Podhoretz “sweetheart.”
Called someone a dumb bitch…
When DW’s Mary Margaret Olohan called on Alsharif to Log off, she replied “You first babes.”
Except then she did just that.
NBC seems like an upstanding place to work these days. pic.twitter.com/YIJfV5bSmK
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) November 11, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
So that went well for her and @NBCNewsPR pic.twitter.com/xlqu6FuASQ
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) November 11, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Who’s the dumb bitch?
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 21:35 - Federal Judge Gives States In Censorship Lawsuit Against US Govt Chance To Make Case
Federal Judge Gives States In Censorship Lawsuit Against US Govt Chance To Make Case
Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,
A federal judge kept alive a lawsuit accusing the federal government of encouraging social media platforms to censor users’ views.
The judge ruled that the two states that filed the lawsuit can continue their discovery, a pretrial phase that allows litigants to gather evidence for trial and can consist of examinations under oath and requests for documents.
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty in Monroe, Louisiana, issued the new order on Nov. 8 after the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26 threw out the request by Missouri and Louisiana to prevent the Biden administration from communicating with social media companies about public health issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The states sued the federal government for censorship because it allegedly pressured social media companies to suppress certain content.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy issued a public statement encouraging the social media platforms to prevent information about COVID-19 that had been deemed misinformation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “from taking hold.” The FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency also communicated with the platforms about election-related misinformation in advance of the 2020 presidential election and the 2022 congressional elections.
Supreme Court justices ruled 6–3 in June that the states and five social media users challenging the federal government lacked legal standing to seek an injunction because they couldn’t show that they were directly harmed by the government’s efforts to communicate with the platforms.
Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show a strong enough connection to the law or action complained of to justify their participation in the lawsuit.
The states argue that the Biden administration strong-armed social media companies into censoring disfavored views on important public issues, such as potential side effects related to COVID-19 vaccines and pandemic lockdowns. They say that applying this kind of pressure violates Americans’ First Amendment rights.
Conservatives and others have complained that social media platforms suppress information about their views on transgender issues, COVID-19, and the 2020 election.
Some on the left say removing posts on social media is necessary to prevent the spread of misinformation, and some have complained that social media platforms don’t do enough to combat falsehoods.
Doughty, whose 2023 ruling blocking the federal government from communicating with the social media companies was overturned by the Supreme Court in June, said in his new order that he considered it appropriate to ask the litigants whether there should be further discovery. The discovery would be related to the issue of standing to help the court evaluate if it has authority to continue with this case, or if the lawsuit should be dismissed.
The states argued for discovery, while the federal government argued for dismissal, he said.
“We currently find ourselves in jurisdictional purgatory—caught between differing standards,” Doughty said in his new order.
A “greater showing of standing” is required for an injunction than is required for the “minimal showing” needed to keep litigation alive.
The Supreme Court was “plainly applying this heightened standard when it reversed,” so this means the high court’s ruling “is not necessarily fatal to [the states’] suit generally.”
The states have demonstrated the need for more discovery on the standing issue, the judge said.
At the same time, Doughty denied for the time being the states’ request to amend their complaint in an effort to strengthen their legal standing in the case.
The fact that President Joe Biden, whose administration is being sued, will be replaced by President-elect Donald Trump in a little more than two months doesn’t justify throwing out the lawsuit, he said.
Even though “regime change is imminent,” it would be “quintessentially speculative” to dismiss the case based on that fact alone, the judge said.
The Epoch Times reached out to the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and the U.S. Department of Justice for comment but did not receive a reply by publication time.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 21:00 - First Trump-Putin Call Since Election Focuses On The Quick 'Resolution Of Ukraine War'
First Trump-Putin Call Since Election Focuses On The Quick ‘Resolution Of Ukraine War’
President-elect Donald Trump is already moving quite fast on his goal to quickly bring to an end the Ukraine war. It has been revealed Sunday he held a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin previously on Thursday, the first such communication between the two since Trump won the election.
Trump urged immediate de-escalation in the call with Putin. The Washington Post describes that “During the call, which Trump took from his resort in Florida, he advised the Russian president not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of Washington’s sizable military presence in Europe, said a person familiar with the call, who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.”
Multiple sources said the call focused on the “goal of peace on the European continent” and ended on a positive note with plans to hold future conversations on “the resolution of Ukraine’s war soon”.
Image source: GQ/Getty Images WaPo has further said that Ukraine was informed that the call was going to take place and did not object. However, the Zelensky government has subsequent this the report rejected this claim.
“Reports that the Ukrainian side was informed in advance of the alleged call are false. Subsequently, Ukraine could not have endorsed or opposed the call,” Ukrainian foreign ministry spokesperson Heorhii Tykhyi told Reuters.
WaPo has also underscored that the Trump transition team is fearful of leaks at this point:
Trump’s initial calls with world leaders are not being conducted with the support of the State Department and U.S. government interpreters. The Trump transition team has yet to sign an agreement with the General Services Administration, a standard procedure for presidential transitions.
Trump and his aides are distrustful of career government officials following the leaked transcripts of presidential calls during his first term. “They are just calling [Trump] directly,” one of the people familiar with the calls said.
Currently, the Zelensky government and some of the more hawkish leaders within NATO are deeply worried that the future Trump White House will force a ‘bad deal’ – or one that pressures Kiev to give up some 20% of his territory. They are against anything which the Kremlin could view as ‘victory’ for Russia.
One proposed plan, said to be getting the most attention from Trump’s team, would see an indefinite ‘freeze’ on the front lines in the east, paving the way for immediate ceasefire, and enforced by European peacekeepers along an 800-mile demilitarized zone.
Peace would also be ensured by Ukraine agreeing to suspend its aspirations to join NATO for twenty years. This buffer zone would not involve any US troops, according to initial reports based on the description of Trump officials.
Included a brief discussion on territory…
SCOOP: Trump had a phone call with Vladimir Putin and talked about the war in Ukraine, including a brief discussion on territory, marking the first conversation between the two men since Trump won the election. Our report w/ @nakashimae @jdawsey1 @siobhan_ogrady @ikhurshudyan pic.twitter.com/h1aOZKIY4C
— John Hudson (@John_Hudson) November 10, 2024
Regardless of if the hoped-for ceasefire takes shape, which would spare countless lives, the fact that Trump and Putin are already talking will only be seen as a bad thing by hawks who have recklessly pushed for escalation from the beginning. These same warmongers even condemned France’s Macron when he early in the war sought an off-ramp through an initial series of phone calls with Putin.
Meanwhile, on the battlefield in the east:
Military bloggers on Friday reported that Russian forces were moving closer to capturing a major town on the eastern front in the war in Ukraine as part of their drive westward to capture all of the Donbas region.
Bloggers on both sides reported that Russian forces had entered the village of Sontsivka and were advancing from the northwest on the city of Kurakhove.
“The Kurakhove direction and the Pokrovsk direction are the most challenging right now,” President Volodymyr Zelenskiy announced in a nightly video address this weekend.
The world knows that Ukrainian forces are losing anyway, and Russia is poised to take all of Donetsk, so it is indeed long past time for Washington to do everything possible to both de-escalate and wind down and ultimately find permanent peaceful settlement.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 20:25 - US Childcare Cost Higher Than In Other Developed Countries
US Childcare Cost Higher Than In Other Developed Countries
U.S. childcare costs surpass those in all other OECD countries when taking into account single parents and couples earning average wage.
The price tag for having two children minded while working full-time is also significantly higher in the U.S. than in most other developed countries that are part of the organization.
Only Switzerland, the United Kingdom and New Zealand come even close to the high price parents have to shoulder for childcare in the United States.
You will find more infographics at Statista
As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz details below, according to 2022 data from the OECD, U.S. couples who both earn average wage in full-time jobs and have two young children need to spend 20 percent of their disposable household income on childcare.
For singles on average wage, this rises to 37 percent.
In most countries, single parents pay less as they receive a more favorable rate.
In Switzerland, the most expensive OECD country after the United States, couples with two children spent a whopping 32 percent of their disposable income on childcare if working full-time and earning average wage. For singles, this was lowered to 18 percent, however. In the U.S. and Switzerland alike, childcare is dominated by the private sector and does not receive substantial amounts of regulation or subsidies, leading to high market rates.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has called this state of childcare in the U.S. a “broken market”.
Many Anglophone nations, also including Ireland, New Zealand and Australia struggle with high private market rates for childcare, low subsidies or a combination of the two.
In 2022, Canadian couples working full-time for average wage still needed to shell out 19 percent of disposable income, but the government has since made changes. Like in Canada, many English-speaking nations began to regulate and subsidize their childcare markets much later than elsewhere, leading to them lagging behind in affordability despite the topic of childcare becoming ever more important in the face of demographic change. Outside of Anglophone OECD countries, couples paid the most for childcare in relative terms in the Netherlands – another place dominated by private childcare – at 19 percent of disposable income. Singles paid the most in the Czech Republic at 18 percent.
In many European countries, parents paid substantially less, often just a couple of percent of their disposable incomes, as childcare centers are either run as a public service or private providers are heavily subsidized and regulated. In France, parents who work full-time and earn average wage spent between 6 percent and 10 pecent, while this number was even lower in South Korea, other German-speaking, Scandinavian and Baltic countries. In Germany, rates were as low as 1 percent of disposable income as all parents receive childcare vouchers depending on work time to be redeemed at private or public institutions.
Working parents pay a small fee on top if they receive more than the standard five care hours. Free childcare was provided in OECD countries Italy and Latvia as well as in associated nations Bulgaria and Malta. Single parents also paid no fees in Greece and were substantially unburdened in Canada, under rent subsidies in the United Kingdom and under social assistance benefits in Japan, if they qualified for those.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 19:15 - The Complex Legacy Of George Orwell
The Complex Legacy Of George Orwell
Authored by Allen Gindler via The Mises Institute,
George Orwell, one of the most influential political writers of the 20th century, is widely recognized for his searing critiques of totalitarian regimes in his novels Animal Farm and 1984. Orwell’s portrayal of state control, propaganda, and the manipulation of truth has resonated with readers across the political spectrum. However, Orwell’s personal political ideology and his critiques of totalitarianism are far more complex than is often acknowledged. Rather than being a passive observer or simply an opponent of dictatorship, Orwell was deeply involved in the socialist movements of his time, aligning himself—whether accidentally or intentionally—with Trotskyist circles. Orwell was a powerful voice of the left, despite being a target in the war among socialist factions.
Orwell’s Political Ideology and Alignment with Trotskyism
While Orwell is best remembered for his criticism of authoritarianism and totalitarianism, it is essential to understand that he was, first and foremost, a committed socialist. Despite never formally joining a political party, Orwell was an active and vocal participant in the socialist movement. This may surprise those who associate Orwell solely with his critiques of state tyranny. Indeed, Orwell’s disdain for the left dictatorship did not extend to all forms of socialism, and his political writings often reflect an internal critique of socialist regimes rather than a wholesale rejection of socialist principles.
Orwell’s critique of Stalinist totalitarianism is best understood as part of a broader ideological struggle within the socialist movement itself. Specifically, Orwell’s critiques echo the views of Leon Trotsky, a key figure in early Soviet history and one of Stalin’s most prominent critics. Trotsky was a revolutionary Marxist who played a crucial role in the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent civil war. He was instrumental in founding the Red Army, which secured the Bolshevik victory over the anti-communist White Army during the Russian Civil War. However, Trotsky’s theory of “permanent revolution” set him at odds with Stalin, who favored the consolidation of socialism in one country—namely, the Soviet Union—before pursuing global revolution. Trotsky’s insistence that socialism must be spread worldwide made him a figure of suspicion within the Soviet hierarchy. In the early 1920s, Stalin consolidated power, leading to Trotsky’s exile in 1929. Despite this, Trotsky continued to oppose Stalin’s policies from abroad, particularly through his writings.
Trotsky’s critique of Stalinism included accusations that Stalin had betrayed the original goals of the Russian Revolution. According to Trotsky, Stalin had established a bureaucratic dictatorship rather than a dictatorship of the proletariat, as envisioned by Marxist theory. He argued that Stalin’s regime represented, not the rule of the working class, but the rise of a privileged bureaucratic elite, a “nomenklatura,” that dominated Soviet society. In addition, Trotsky accused Stalin of fostering a cult of personality, suppressing political opposition, and betraying the internationalist principles of socialism.
Orwell and the Spanish Civil War
In 1936, when the Spanish Civil War broke out, Orwell made the fateful decision to join the Republican side, fighting against Francisco Franco’s Nationalista forces. What makes Orwell’s involvement particularly significant is his choice of faction. Rather than aligning himself with the International Brigades, Orwell joined the Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification (POUM), a Marxist faction heavily influenced by Trotskyist ideas. Orwell’s decision to fight with the POUM speaks volumes about his political leanings during this period.
The Spanish Civil War was not simply a battle between Republicans and Nationalistas; it was also an ideological battleground for various factions of the international left. The Republican side was a coalition of various socialist, communist, and anarchist groups. The POUM, with which Orwell fought, was aligned with Trotskyist and anti-Stalinist factions, while the Communist Party of Spain, supported by Stalin, took a hard line against any left-wing groups that did not adhere to Moscow’s policies. As Orwell would later write in Homage to Catalonia, his firsthand experience in Spain profoundly influenced his understanding of the brutal dynamics of power within the left. This dynamic reflects what biologists refer to as “intraspecific struggle,” where members of the same species (or political movement, in this case) compete most aggressively with each other for dominance.
While Orwell fought against Franco’s Nationalistas at the front, Stalin’s agents were conducting a purge of Trotskyist and anarchist factions behind the lines. The NKVD, Stalin’s secret police, were sent to Spain to suppress all non-Bolshevik leftist elements within the Republican forces. This included the POUM, which was eventually outlawed by the Stalinist-backed Republican leadership. NKVD agents kidnapped and killed the head of POUM, Andreu Nin. Orwell himself narrowly escaped assassination by the NKVD and covertly fled to England. These experiences deepened his disillusionment with Stalinism and reinforced his belief that the Soviet regime had betrayed the original ideals of socialism.
Orwell’s Literary Response: Animal Farm and 1984
Orwell’s experiences in Spain and his understanding of the internal conflicts within socialism found their most potent expression in his literary works. Animal Farm, published in 1945, is widely understood as an allegory of the Russian Revolution and the rise of Stalinism. Because of this, he struggled to find a publisher willing to take on the book, as many feared the political consequences of criticizing Stalin at the time of WWII. In the novella, Orwell portrays the betrayal of revolutionary ideals through the story of a group of farm animals who overthrow their human owner, only to see their new leaders—the pigs—become as oppressive as the humans they replaced. The pig Napoleon, who represents Stalin, manipulates the other animals, gradually consolidating power and rewriting the revolution’s history to justify his dictatorship.
What is often overlooked in discussions of Animal Farm is the role of Trotsky’s ideas in shaping Orwell’s narrative. The character of Snowball—who is expelled from the farm by Napoleon—represents Trotsky. Snowball, like Trotsky, is portrayed as an idealistic, but ultimately powerless figure, who is demonized by the regime in power. Orwell’s depiction of Snowball’s exile and the subsequent demonization of his legacy mirrors Trotsky’s real-life expulsion and assassination by Stalin’s agents in 1940.
In this sense, Animal Farm can be read as an artistic rendering of Trotsky’s The Revolution Betrayed (a critique of Stalinism from the left), with Orwell using the fable to illustrate the broader betrayal of socialist ideals by Stalin’s regime. Yet, Orwell could not grasp that if Trotsky had been the head of the Soviet Union, his regime might have been even more ruthless than the one Stalin built. Proletarian dictatorship is no better than party dictatorship.
Orwell’s final novel, 1984, extends his critique of totalitarianism beyond Stalinism to address the broader implications of state control, surveillance, and the manipulation of truth. Although 1984 is not explicitly focused on socialist ideology, its portrayal of a dystopian world ruled by a single party—where dissent is brutally suppressed and history is constantly rewritten—draws heavily on Orwell’s understanding of the Stalinist regime. The famous phrase “Big Brother is watching you” has since become synonymous with state surveillance and authoritarianism, but in the context of Orwell’s political trajectory, it also serves as a broader warning about the dangers of unchecked power, regardless of ideological orientation.
Orwell’s Dilemma: The Limits of Socialist Critique
Despite his damning critique of Stalinism, Orwell remained a socialist until the end of his life. His disillusionment with the Soviet Union did not extend to socialism as a whole. In fact, Orwell believed that socialism could still provide the solution to the social and economic problems facing the world, provided it did not fall into the traps of authoritarianism and bureaucracy. This presents a fundamental paradox in Orwell’s thought: while he was acutely aware of the dangers of totalitarianism produced by different currents of socialism, he continued to advocate for a general utopia that, in practice, often led to the very abuses of power he critiqued.
Orwell could not comprehend that, regardless of the specific flavor of socialism —whether Trotskyist, Stalinist, or otherwise—given enough time, it would inevitably lead to the same outcome: economic stagnation, moral decadence, and repression. His deep belief in the potential of socialism, particularly in its democratic form, blinded him to the inherent authoritarian tendencies within socialist movements.
Orwell’s Legacy
George Orwell’s legacy as a writer and political thinker is marked by his commitment to socialist ideals and his fierce opposition to totalitarianism. His engagement with Trotskyist ideas, his experiences in the Spanish Civil War, and his literary responses to Stalinism reveal a nuanced understanding of the complexities within the socialist movement. While Orwell’s critiques of political tyranny remain profoundly relevant today, his continued belief in socialism—even after witnessing its failures—underscores the intricacies of his thought. Therefore, it feels somewhat awkward to rely on a socialist’s critique of the very regimes that socialism consistently produces.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 18:40 - Rogan Reveals Kamala Campaign Wanted Editorial Control Over His Podcast
Rogan Reveals Kamala Campaign Wanted Editorial Control Over His Podcast
Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,
Podcast king Joe Rogan has revealed that Kamala Harris’ people demanded editorial control over an appearance on his show, and a final say on what was released to the public.
As we have already highlighted, Kamala had demanded to only appear for an hour with Rogan, and wanted to do it outside of his studio, meaning he would have had to travel to a location of her choosing.
Needless to say, Rogan refused to meet the demands, reasoning that it simply wouldn’t be an episode of his podcast if that was to happen.
Rogan unveiled more of what went on with discussions between his team and Kamala’s campaign, noting “There were a few restrictions of things they wanted to talk about…They wanted to know if I’d edit it. I’m like, there’s no editing.”
Joe Rogan & Theo Von Say Kamala Harris’ Team Asked If They Would Edit Her Interview
“There were a few restrictions of things they wanted to talk about…They wanted to know if I’d edit it. I’m like, there’s no editing.” pic.twitter.com/XjKOGSRNGW
— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) November 8, 2024
They were treating it as if it was the corporate soundbite mouthpiece media.
Do they even know what Rogan’s podcast is?
It’s not surprising given that her campaign was just one big insubstantial fake, edited presentation.
Remember the edited 60 Minutes debacle?
This is how it should be now.
From now on, all elected officials should be forced to do 2+ hour unedited interviews.
— Bobby Bradshaw (@BobbyFuria) November 8, 2024
As Axios co founder Jim VandeHei noted yesterday, “I think all of us have to come to grips legacy media is just not as important as it thinks it is…Joe Rogan is more important than any of us.”
“The gravity of right-wing discourse is now taking place on 𝕏.. not Fox. 𝕏 is what matters. Elon Musk is arguably the most powerful civilian in the history of the country,” he added.
🚨AXIOS CO-FOUNDER: “I think all of us have to come to grips legacy media is just not as important as it thinks it is.. Joe Rogan is more important than any of us..”
“The gravity of right-wing discourse is now taking place on 𝕏.. not Fox. 𝕏 is what matters. Elon Musk is… pic.twitter.com/tqdM7pD5z1
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) November 8, 2024
* * *
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 18:05 - Was The 2024 Election Too Big To Rig?
Was The 2024 Election Too Big To Rig?
Authored by Edward Ring via American Greatness,
It’s Wednesday, the 6th of November, and America has chosen a new president. But we may not know the results for days or even weeks.
While there is a chance we will see a quick and decisive Trump victory, the media has prepared us for a protracted aftermath to election day. This raises an obvious question: Was there election rigging in 2024? Did the uniparty establishment and the institutions they control, desperate to prevent a Trump victory, break the rules? Did they cheat?
Answering this question in the affirmative doesn’t have to rely on the countless alarming allegations that are dismissed as unfounded conspiracy theories, even though there are so many of them:
The potential for mail-in ballot fraud, hundreds of ballots received at a single address, dozens of ballots received at a single address, questionable last-minute changes in verification procedures by the US Post Office, inaccurate voter rolls and fraudulent voter registrations, voter data leaks to partisan NGOs, vote harvesting, counterfeit ballots, destruction of legitimate ballots, ballot dumps, selectively applied “malfunctions” of voting machines in multiple states, last minute “patches” to fix voting machine software, illegal immigrants voting, and selectively applied closures of polling stations or inadequately staffed polling stations causing voter suppression.
You can claim there is no basis for concern over any one of those alleged cases of calculated, potentially widespread fraud. You can even dismiss the impact of fining and disbarring attorneys who challenged the integrity of the 2020 election and thus have deterred many attorneys from challenging this one.
The election was still rigged.
Anyone who watches David Muir at ABC, Lester Holt at CBS, Norah O’Donnell at NBC, or Amna Nawaz and Geoff Bennett at PBS will know this election was rigged, thanks to a multi-year propaganda campaign of shameless lying by the news anchors and reporters at the most prestigious networks in America. If you make it your business to keep track of what these “trusted news sources” are telling voters, it is obvious how hard they’ve tried to influence the election.
ABC News, for example, pretty much every single night for the last few months, has opened their newscast with 5-10 minutes where they heap slime all over Trump and praise Harris. If you watch the source material, for example, Harris’s CNN Town Hall, then watch the excerpts highlighted on ABC, you get two completely different impressions of her competence and integrity. Precisely the same tactic is used with Trump, but to the opposite effect. Watch one of his news conferences in its entirety, then watch what is grabbed, out of context, and presented on ABC.
Critics of Trump’s often brusque persona and often unvarnished condemnation of the media must ask, if they’re going to be fair, how would anyone react? For nearly ten years, David Muir has told us, with a straight face, that “the walls are closing in on Trump.” Along with fake scandals like the Russian collusion hoax, over and over we hear gross misrepresentations of things Trump has said. He mocked a disabled reporter; no, he didn’t. He told people to inject bleach to treat COVID; no, he didn’t. He called neo-Nazis “fine people;” no, he did not. And on and on it goes.
David Muir earned particular enmity among people who just wanted fair news coverage during the debate between Trump and Harris, when, for example, Muir insisted on “fact-checking” Trump but left Harris alone. For example, Muir contradicted Trump’s assertion that crime rates had risen, and Muir was wrong. The data, as Trump attempted to explain, was missing statistics from California’s major cities. Once that data was added, Trump’s claim was proven accurate.
Just in the last few days we’ve had the big four broadcast news anchors telling us that Trump wanted to put Liz Cheney in front of a firing squad, wants reporters covering his rallies to get shot, “groped” a woman back in the 1990s, expressed “deeply troubling” admiration for Adolf Hitler, held a “Nazi rally,” and intended to use the military against “the enemy within,” along with endless distorted repetition of everything bad they’ve ever said about him. All of this “news” was either truth twisted beyond recognition or outright lies. Meanwhile, their coverage of Harris has been indistinguishable from a paid Harris campaign ad.
There’s no end to the legacy television news media’s war on Trump. It’s not subtle, and despite their dinosaur status, they still exercise decisive influence over millions of voters. For the 2024 season-to-date, ABC Nightly News has averaged 7.7 million viewers, NBC averaged 6.4 million, and CBS averaged 4.7 million. PBS is now a big player as well, with a regular viewership of more than 5 million. That’s nearly 25 million regular viewers, with an average age of 65, nearly all of them high-propensity voters, and very few of them likely to be perusing alternative media. Cable news, for all the visibility and big audiences for the hosted talk shows on their networks, doesn’t compare. Recent estimates for primetime viewers of Fox News have averaged 359,000, versus 175,000 for CNN and 160,000 for MSNBC. Cable news audiences are dwarfed by the audiences for broadcast news content, which is overwhelmingly anti-Trump and pro-Harris. Tens of millions of Americans have been thoroughly brainwashed by these networks. But what about social media and online searches?
Back in 2015, Robert Epstein, a research psychologist with the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, published “The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections.” Continuing his research, in testimony before the U.S. Congress in 2019, Epstein claimed that biased search results on Google “impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton.” Epstein’s studies are compelling reading, and very little has changed. Google still controls 90 percent of the search engine market in the United States. In 2024, Google employee political donations favored Democrats by a ratio of more than 6 to 1. Draw your own conclusions.
As for social media, much is made of Twitter’s transformation into X, with no more censorship. Twitter, or X, has 95 million users in America. That’s a lot. But in the United States, Facebook has 194 million users, Instagram has 166 million users, TikTok reaches 170 million people, LinkedIn connects 200 million, and YouTube’s regular US viewers number 246 million. As a neutral platform, X’s audience reach is exceeded by more than 10 to 1 by the other major online platforms. With the lone exception of X, every one of these platforms employs biased algorithms designed to suppress conservative content. As for print media, intervention by the owners of the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post to abstain from a presidential endorsement is too little, too late. Every newspaper and magazine with national reach, with the half-hearted exception perhaps of the Wall Street Journal, have been so anti-Trump and pro-Harris it is almost comical.
Social media, search engines, and legacy news media. In every facet of information gathering, the vast majority of Americans have been continuously exposed to anti-Trump, pro-Harris messages. None of this has been happening by accident. Michael Shellenberger, formerly a progressive liberal who was once honored as a Time Magazine “Environmental Hero,” has evolved into an investigative journalist of extraordinary integrity and courage. In recent years, his work has focused on what he has dubbed “the censorship industrial complex.” In a recent substack post, commenting on America’s news media from newspapers to television to online platforms, he had this to say, “It’s not a mirror of reality. It’s not just biased. And it’s not just deferential to the state or the party. It’s a propaganda arm dishonestly representing powerful political, ideological, and financial interests.”
Shellenberger, who alleges government manipulation of information sources available to Americans, is not alone. Mike Benz, a former US State Department official, claims that the U.S. government has become increasingly concerned about the rise of populist movements in the U.S. and around the world and is actively interfering in media freedom. Another window into how this is working is documented by Ben Shapiro in a must-watch video, where he describes the network of state-supported NGOs and quasi-private sector agencies that influence who gets advertising dollars and who gets boycotted, in an ostensibly benign effort to “create a universal framework full of guidelines and ratings designed to enforce approved narratives.”
It ought to be obvious to anyone who finds both sides of the story by using alternative media that in a fair election, America’s print, video, and online media, and search engine results, could have easily delivered just as much negative coverage about Harris as they have inflicted on Trump, and they could have delivered just as much positive coverage about Trump as they’ve lavished on Harris. Maybe the only rules that were broken were supposed norms of journalistic integrity. But by an order of magnitude, America’s sources of “news” and information were massively tilted in favor of Harris and against Trump.
If for no other reason but media bias, this election was rigged. As a result, regardless of the outcome, half of all Americans have lost faith in fair elections. Even if every allegation of actual, fraudulent, widespread rigging is false, nobody who thinks so will change their minds. For them, the media sources that might help debunk any of it have no credibility. That is a crime perpetrated by the elite who control these institutions that transcends even this moment.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 17:30 - "Shocking Video": Masked Man Attempts To Snatch Jewish Child From Father In Brooklyn
“Shocking Video”: Masked Man Attempts To Snatch Jewish Child From Father In Brooklyn
A neighborhood patrol organization in Crown Heights, a central neighborhood in the Brooklyn borough of New York City, posted shocking footage on X showing a masked man attempting to snatch a child from his father while they were walking down the street.
“At approximately 3:30 p.m., this deeply concerning incident took place in the heart of Crown Heights. We are working hand in hand with the @NYPD71pct in identifying the perpetrator. Kudos to the father for his quick action,” Crown Heights Shomrim wrote on X.
Rabbi Yaacov Behrman, member of Community Board 9 in Crown Heights, NY, wrote on X, “This video is shocking. A perpetrator grabbed a Chasidic child who was walking with his father today at approximately 3:30 p.m. on Kingston near Lefferts Ave.”
Behrman warned, “Something is clearly going on in Crown Heights—there have been incident after incident over the past two weeks.”
This video is shocking. A perpetrator grabbed a Chasidic child who was walking with his father today at approximately 3:30pm on Kingston near Lefferts Ave.
Something is clearly going on in Crown Heights—there have been incident after incident over the past two weeks.… pic.twitter.com/7nIkZWhssk
— Yaacov Behrman (@ChabadLubavitch) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Sequoia’s Shaun Maguire chimed in on X, “This happened today in Brooklyn, a masked man tries to grab this boy away from his Jewish father Jews are under attack globally, from Amsterdam to New York to Israel.”
Jason Calacanis of the All-In podcast said this disturbing incident in Brooklyn is a sign that Americans should obtain a “carry permit.”
Behrman updated X users on Sunday morning:
The perpetrator has been arrested, with major charges including attempted kidnapping in the 2nd degree and endangering the welfare of a child.
Known to police, the perpetrator has allegedly been arrested over 30 times. He is under 30 years old and has also been arrested in past for criminal possession of a weapon.
What is wrong with our legal system? What is wrong with society? How is this possible?
Recall that President-elect Trump made a campaign promise to sign “full concealed carry reciprocity” and enforce law and order in crime-infested cities controlled by far-left politicians.
BREAKING
Trump announces full conceal carry reciprocity
WHAT THIS MEANS:
No matter which state you’re in, if you’ve got your concealed carry license, each state will still have to honor it – for example, you have a Florida concealed carry permit – California would have to… pic.twitter.com/GwFYgwOmfx— Frank Fighting For Freedom 🇺🇸 (@thinktankfranks) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Make ‘Law And Order Great Again‘ … How about constitutional carry for all law-abiding Americans?
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 16:55 - These Are The Most Valuable Lego Sets In The World
These Are The Most Valuable Lego Sets In The World
LEGO has become more than just a children’s brand – many of its sets are now seen as valuable collectibles. In 2023 alone, the company generated $10 billion in revenue, surpassing competitors like Mattel and Hasbro.
This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, highlights the most valuable LEGO sets today, including both retail and special collector sets.
The list, compiled by BrickEconomy as of October 2024, shows approximate values, which may vary based on demand.
$17K Spider-Man
Topping the list is the Spider-Man minifigure, released at the 2013 San Diego Comic-Con and given to raffle winners. With only 350 units made, it’s now valued at over $17,000.
Another rare set is a custom model of LEGO founder Ole Kirk Kristiansen’s house, with only 32 hand-numbered copies produced in 2009. Each is now worth nearly $10,000.
Third on the list, the UNICEF van was made in 1985 in a partnership with the United Nations Children’s Fund. It features a blue UNICEF truck and a UNICEF worker minifigure. It is now worth $10,500.
For a somewhat more affordable option, the LEGO 375-2 Castle, released in 1978, is available for around $8,700. This 767-piece Castle set, known as the “Yellow Castle,” came with 14 minifigures and was sold only in Europe, the UK, Australia, and Canada.
If you enjoyed this graphic, check out this comparison of LEGO’s revenue with other major toymakers.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 15:45 - Learning To Speak Trump, Again
Learning To Speak Trump, Again
By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities
Do we have to? Yes, I think we do.
Market Results
U.S. stock markets had an incredible week, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq both up around 5%, and the Russell 2000 ripping up almost 9%!
Interestingly, at least from my perspective as an election night bond bull, the 10-year Treasury yield finished 8 bps lower on the week and about 27 bps tighter than its widest levels on Wednesday morning.
Credit did well too, with CDX IG at 47 bps (the lowest in at least 3 years). But the Bloomberg Corporate Bond OAS stole the show, reaching 74 bps, the lowest level this century!
Crypto, as a source of funding for candidates and often an early indicator of market views on the election, saw Bitcoin finish the week at all-time highs.
Election Results
The Fed likely helped, but the market reaction was primarily due to the election results. As of Saturday morning, according to the Bloomberg Map, President-elect Trump (“Trump” going forward for simplicity), had 301 Electoral College votes compared to 226 for Vice President Harris (“Harris”). Arizona still hasn’t been decided and still only had 81% of votes counted. The popular vote stands at 75 million versus 71 million (though that margin will narrow, assuming California manages to count the 37% of votes not yet counted). I did triple check those “percentage counted” statistics, as it seems (at least for me) difficult to believe that it takes so long.
The Senate shows up as 53 to 46 for Republicans with Arizona not yet decided (a lot of votes yet to be counted). I see two listed as independents, so I assume they have been slotted into whatever side they will caucus with, but the Senate has gone Republican, though not filibuster proof.
The House, as of Saturday morning, shows up as 211 versus 200, with a bunch more seats to be decided (with Arizona and California leading the way in undecided races). I’m seeing one site say that the betting odds are at 97% for Republican control, but I cannot tell if that is truly up to date or not, and the link seems sketchy enough that I didn’t include it (but it sounds about right).
We are starting to see proposed cabinet positions and will get a better sense of what the Trump administration is likely to look like.
At the risk of annoying people, on both sides, I think there are two things that I can safely say:
- There is a hope that whatever team is assembled sticks together and authority is delegated to those in charge, so progress can be made.
- There is a hope that the “best” in terms of policy and negotiation comes out, coupled with a fear that the worst elements could also come out.
Trying to figure this out is why we need to understand TrumpSpeak.
Babbel For Trump
I checked the Babbel website and there are 13 languages that I can learn, but TrumpSpeak isn’t one of them.
If I was able to train an AI Large Language Model, I’d be trying to train it on TrumpSpeak. The database of things that he has said (and tweeted) has to be pretty large. Then I would try to train that AI to predict what is likely to come out of all of that TrumpSpeak.
One thing I can say with certainty is that taking TrumpSpeak at face value has rarely been effective. Worse yet is taking the worst parts of TrumpSpeak (and there are some worse parts) and extrapolating them, which might generate a lot of clicks, but it is unlikely to help anyone make good decisions. For those of you in markets and running businesses, making the best decisions possible is what it is all about.
We will do our best to try to figure out what is likely to occur, but I do think some more background is helpful.
Two Sides of Trump
I will never forget Donald Trump speaking at a Bankers Trust High Yield Conference (I think it was before Deutsche Bank, and given the topic, I could probably figure it out, but that’s not overly important to the story).
He was speaking to a large audience of bond investors, many of whom had recently lost money on one of his Atlantic City casinos (I think it was the Taj, but I could be wrong). The audience, while not hostile, was far from receptive to his discussion – which, of course, focused on raising debt for his new project in Atlantic City (the Taj II if memory serves correctly). Yet, by the end, there was a buzz in the audience, all wanting to get a good allocation when the new bonds came out. Even after his lawyer/accountant, came out and “corrected” some things and said some other things that might not have been 100% correct, there was still a buzz. So, from my perspective, don’t underestimate his ability to charm a room, and even if not everything said is accurate, that room can remain charmed. You can argue that this shouldn’t be the case, but I think if we are going to figure out TrumpSpeak together, this should always be at the back of our minds, if not the forefront.
On the other side (assuming that the above reminiscence is a positive about Trump), his business organization looks very different (in my opinion) compared to other large organizations. The various businesses are compartmentalized. Unless things have changed, there isn’t a Golf Course Corp that manages all the golf courses. Properties and businesses stand as individual entities or maybe in small groups. There is also no one who stands out as his “trusted lieutenant.” So many business leaders rely on often a handful of people for advice and help. We all know when “so and so” gets promoted or goes to another firm, who they are going to bring with them. Yet Trump never seemed to have that cadre of trusted people who have important and visible roles in his dealings (he likely has some people that are in his inner circle, but they don’t seem to be well known, which after 8 years in politics seems surprising). So, a concern I had was his ability to delegate, which I think hampered his first term, as turnover was high, and a lot of roles were left vacant. Quite frankly, during this campaign, many people plugged into the campaign told me that several people recommended that he tone down some of his rhetoric and choice of words. He didn’t listen. He still won.
So, as I try to think about TrumpSpeak, I think of someone who can surprise people by getting them to agree with him, but who might not like delegation and having others share in the success.
You are free to disagree with that, but in my building blocks of thinking about TrumpSpeak, I go back to these “first principles” consistently, and it served me quite well the first time he was president.
Tariffs Are Complex
Let’s start with the topic of tariffs as it has garnered so much attention and seems less sensitive than immigration. I also think that if we start with tariffs, it might help us with TrumpSpeak.
I remember writing a lot about Trade Wars and Tariffs back in the day. I think it may have been before we regularly used our website as all I could find from 2018 was The Battle for IP & Unfair Trade and Time to Price In a Trade War Victory.
I do remember that I was one of only a few economists/strategists who supported tariffs. I argued that we had been in a trade war for decades, but only one side was firing the shots.
2018 was a long time ago, but I remember the back and forth with some economists/strategists who were adamantly against tariffs. In fact, some of the most outspoken people right now were part of that same group. Few, if any, bothered to complain that President Biden left them all in place, and then added some more. I’d be far more worried that the angst is valid, if it didn’t feel like history was repeating itself.
On Friday, I did get to bring up some thoughts on tariffs and protectionist countries in a segment that Bloomberg titled Tchir Says The Gloves Are Coming Off With China. I suspect this is a topic I will cover on Monday (Veteran’s Day) with Charles Payne on Fox Business.
Tariffs are complex!
Before worrying about 100% or 200% or whatever number is being bandied about, let’s just stop for one second on the complexity of tariffs and international trade.
Assembled in America (or USA Assembled). I assume that means something more than just being able to use it as a marketing slogan. That somehow “assembling” here has some impact on tariffs or tax or something. On the glasses, which I like a lot, the assembly is probably a little bit more difficult to do than assembling a Lego kit geared for 6-year-olds, but not by much (I have put the glasses back together after breaking them). I’d guess that the value of the components is about 90% of the value of the product and assembly is 10%. On the golf club, I can only imagine a carton of golf club heads and a carton of shafts being assembled in about 1.5 seconds! Total, not each . But seriously, it is probably more efficient to ship them that way, but why use the sticker “assembled in America?” On this particular product, I vaguely remember reading that it isn’t just for marketing, and it impacted the duty owed.
The above all seems a bit bizarre to me but should be a reminder that international trade is complex and lawyers (as they are apt to do) have built in so many loopholes that you can take very little at face value (who knew the 2018 tariffs would create a surge in Chinese facilities in Mexico?).
We still need to think about tariffs, but as we wade deeper into the discussion, let’s at least be cautious in thinking it is easy to implement tariffs holistically in a way that loopholes aren’t readily available.
Tariffs Are Likely A Negotiating Stance
I’m old enough to remember, back in 2018, when markets would move on trade negotiation headlines. It isn’t like we woke up one day and suddenly tariffs appeared.
While I completely believe Trump is willing to impose significantly large and new tariffs, I don’t think that will be the starting point. Having said that, if I didn’t think he would impose those tariffs, then it wouldn’t be much of a bargaining chip, so he has to convince me, you, and everyone else that the threat is real. Since he has done it before, the threat carries real weight.
So, I fully expect negotiations to begin in earnest once he takes office (and maybe even before). Trump “likes wins” (another thing I take into account in TrumpSpeak) and it is unclear that levying tariffs, especially if they don’t elicit some form of capitulation from China, constitutes a win.
On the other hand, threatening tariffs and getting China to give us some sort of a “deal” to avoid them can easily be spun as a win, and leaves the tariff threat good for another day. The “Art of the Deal” was a popular book (I think) back in the 1980’s. Trump likes to “win” and he likes “deals,” both of which point me to using the threat of tariffs to get some concessions from China.
I am scared of the tariffs – but not for the reason everyone else is.
I mostly fear that “we” will agree to a deal that seems like a “win” but really just gives Xi more time to get the Made By China strategy working well enough that China’s economy can get back to a path that is good for China and the CCP. 2025 was likely a bit ambitious for some of China’s targets, but they have been making a lot of progress towards their stated goals on many fronts, like manufacturing and technology. A deal that gives them more time to build out, with less pressure than they currently face, could prove very detrimental to our interests longer-term, while sounding good in the short-term.
So, I do not lie awake at night worrying about tariffs stoking inflation to unreasonable levels. I do worry that we won’t press our current advantages enough, giving China time to perfect its strategy.
I do agree with those who argue that tariffs alone won’t do much to boost domestic production. Yes, in theory, it will make foreign (Chinese goods) more expensive here, but will the cost be high enough to ramp up domestic production, or will the costs just shift along the existing supply and consumer chain, rather than create a revised, domestic-focused supply chain?
Carefully executed tariffs, that can shift the cost structure enough that domestic production wins out, would be really interesting to see, but might be very difficult to achieve, at least without some sort of additional support.Which Brings Us to Chips
Let’s start with this article from Politico (which leans left according to an AllSides Media Bias Chart). It states that for the CHIPS Act, only one deal, totaling $123 million, out of a total of $33 billion announced, has been finalized!
I am fully in favor of developing a domestic foundry business (along with more extraction and processing of rare earths and critical minerals). It seems critical to national and corporate security to have a reliable supply chain of domestically manufactured chips, right up to the most state-of-the-art chips being made.
Not only do I fully support the idea of building out foundries, but I also think that with or without tariffs, we will need to create incentives and subsidies to speed up the re-shoring of crucial industries.
So why isn’t the CHIPS Act working well? On the bright side, availability of credit from traditional sources is high and inexpensive, so companies don’t need as much. But we’ve discussed that the Act itself tried to incorporate too many “features.” It didn’t just “help establish foundries,” it “helped establish foundries that meet a lot of additional, often complex, and sometimes very difficult to achieve metrics.” They don’t even sound like the same thing because they aren’t.
From the Politico article:
“The Biden administration is trying to balance business-world speed with a web of political and policy priorities, seemingly leaving none of the participants happy.”
There is a push now to close as many deals as possible while the current administration remains in power. I think that makes sense, as not only do I view chip production as a key element of national security, but I also think the jobs that come with it will allow us to truly re-establish a middle to upper income class of workers. I do hope they finalize some deals as I think this is an area that deserves investment, and so far, TrumpSpeak hasn’t focused on this area, at least not as positively as I’d like it to.
The chip industry, the logistics of supporting it (including water, rare earths/critical minerals, and energy) are all at the top of my investment list for stocks and bonds (while valuations in some sectors seem very stretched, there are immense opportunities here).
Which Brings Us to Not In My Backyard
If we are going to do a CHIPS Act, it would be more effective if we simply focused on the stated goal of developing foundries in the U.S. rather than trying to wedge a lot of other policies into the CHIPS Act. Making a competitive domestic chip manufacturing industry is difficult enough without attaching a lot of bells and whistles. Bells and whistles we may want (and even need), but should be handled in their own right, not haphazardly attached to other projects (if they weren’t haphazardly attached, I suspect we’d have more than one deal finalized).
As a whole, the nation, over time, has established a lot of “dos and don’ts.” We have made commitments to not do things, for a variety of reasons. Often environmental.
Those decisions were made when we had no real competition globally.
- From an economic standpoint, we were far ahead of everyone. The European Union, which in theory should have thrived, hasn’t emerged as a powerful economic block (in fact, the EU seems, at least to me, to have hampered much of the entrepreneurial and business side of things through a “robust” list of regulations and rules). China was making some goods, largely for us, but didn’t really have their own brands and hadn’t fully embraced the Belt and Road Initiative giving them global economic influence.
- From a military standpoint, the Soviet Union collapsed, China could not project power via a strong navy, and the rest of the world seemed very weak against a military that had a global presence and had consistently defeated its enemies, often with what seemed like ease.
I am not arguing that we should abandon all the protections we put in place, but I do think we need to re-evaluate many of them as the world has changed and we may no longer have the luxury to do everything we said we would or wouldn’t do.
The Keystone pipeline comes to mind (only because it seemed so close to getting done).But more importantly, chips, rare earths, critical minerals, refineries, etc., are all likely to be crucial to our success and we may need to figure out why they aren’t getting done or built, and if there is something we can do about that. In case I’m sounding like I’m preaching from a soapbox and have some moral high ground, I’m perfectly capable of being hypocritical and fighting a cell phone tower my town plans to build – hypothetically that is .
Seriously, there are no easy answers, but we made a lot of decisions over the past few decades, where the competitive landscape has changed, and we should at least think about re-evaluating some things in the new world we face.
The War in Russia and Ukraine
Wow, I’ve gone on so long already, and despite having more to say, we will end this by examining the TrumpSpeak of ending the war in Ukraine.
I think there is a very good opportunity to end the war.
- I have the privilege of participating in many discussions with members of Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group (“GIG”). The war in Ukraine comes up over and over again (as you would expect). The problem, as I see it, is that most of our experts seem to be forming a consensus around the status quo.
- We can get more weapons into the hands of the Ukrainians, and give them more flexibility to use those weapons to their fullest capabilities, but how many more fighters can Ukraine come up with? How long can this go on and still allow displaced Ukrainians to return home?
- The Russians, while often ineffective, and getting out-strategized by Ukraine, have more able bodies to put into the conflict. While their weaponry might not be very sophisticated, working at a wartime production level has given them a lot of mediocre weapons. As many of our GIG members state – quantity has a quality of its own. With Iran’s help – both directly and by diverting attention to the Middle East, and with North Korea’s help – first with equipment and now with some troops, the Russians are likely able to keep up this pace longer than Ukraine can, without really “winning.”
- If that is the “status quo,” where neither side can really “win,” why not come to some form of peace?
My take on TrumpSpeak related to this subject, once again, varies from much of what I see or hear in the media. There is a lot of concern that since the Republicans and Trump have not been supportive of weapons, they will somehow cut off the supply and demand peace. That is possible, but I don’t think it fits with TrumpSpeak very well. I see it playing out more like this:
- Trump tells Putin – here is what you get – Crimea (which they’ve had now for a long time), some of the Donbas region (which they’ve also had for quite some time), and a bunch (but not all) of your frozen dollar reserves. You, Putin, will accept a path towards Ukraine achieving NATO status (though he might tell him that he doubts Ukraine will achieve the level of governance needed to achieve that). It does fit TrumpSpeak for him to do that. But he will warn Putin that not accepting this deal will force his hand to give Ukraine better equipment, training, and free them up to unleash it, since he will be very disappointed that Putin couldn’t see the value in the deal. And he finishes by reminding him of how much difficulty they are already having in the war, so just imagine how bad it will be for you if I have to really support the Ukrainians.
- Trump tells Zelensky – you aren’t going to win this, and we are tired of supporting you. Let’s be honest, the part of the country I’m telling you to give up was always more Russian than Ukrainian (my presumption of TrumpSpeak). Listen, you have a lot to be proud of. People who had never heard of Ukraine now have, and respect you and your valor! You fought hard, now is the time to keep what is really Ukrainian and we will give you a bunch of $$$ to rebuild. We aren’t going to let Putin get back all of his money. There is a price he has to pay. So, you have world recognition, all the land that is obviously Ukrainian, and a bag of cash to rebuild! Just imagine the buildings you can have with all that money! (TrumpSpeak again). And, to make it sweeter, so it doesn’t happen again, we will create a path for you to join NATO. You will have some work to do to get there, but you can bring your great nation there. Sadly, if you can’t see the sensibility of all of this, and end the suffering of your people, I cannot commit to more weapons going forward. We’ve done a lot, and it is time for the U.S. to step back.
So, I see it more as stopping a playground fight (though I don’t mean to diminish the deaths and brutality) by telling both sides what they already know to be true and using a mix of rewards and threats.
I don’t see why that cannot be done and I don’t think it is at all contradictory to the TrumpSpeak we’ve heard.
If Not Economic Growth, Much Less Risk of a Recession
I am not sure I’m fully on board with the idea that the markets are moving a lot higher because of significantly improved growth prospects. It is possible, and I think there are a lot of potential positives, but that might be the market getting ahead of itself.
What I can argue vehemently for is that the risk of a meaningful economic slowdown in the next year or two has been dramatically reduced:- The Fed wants to get to the “neutral rate” and whatever it is, they think it is lower than where monetary policy is set today.
- The Republicans might not give Trump everything he wants (and we don’t even know what he really wants) but they certainly will be quick to react to slowdowns with fiscal stimulus since they look likely to control what they need to accomplish that.
I think bigger projects might come to fruition, but the first 100 days is likely to be less overwhelming than the market seems to expect (the bond market has regained some of its sense in that respect). The new administration will want to get some big things done while they control everything, but that will likely take time.
I’m also in the camp, that while a mandate was given to the Republicans, many will be cautious on how to use it, as Trump will not be standing for re-election (unless you believe some of the more aggressive conspiracy theories).
In the meantime, we will all figure this out, and please take time to remember and thank veterans on Veterans Day. I’m very proud to work with the team at Academy and have learned a lot about what it takes to be a veteran and to have served! I have not served but I can thank my teammates and hope that we can continue to flourish and do our part to hire and train more veterans.
I can also point you to In Flanders Fields, which I think is a poignant and inspirational poem and appropriate for the day!
My apologies if I offended anyone, but I’m trying to explain how I think about this, and in any case, figuring out how to think about a lot of issues, and getting that analysis correct, will be a key component of success for you, your companies, and your investments.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 15:10 - Trump 'Sweep' Boosts Crypto: Bitcoin Tops $80K, Ethereum Bigger Than BofA
Trump ‘Sweep’ Boosts Crypto: Bitcoin Tops $80K, Ethereum Bigger Than BofA
The Republican sweep is the best outcome for digital assets, bringing regulatory and other changes, with Standard Chartered projecting this to drive total crypto market cap to USD 10tn by end-2026 from USD 2.5tn now.
Specifically, StanChart expects the new administration to follow through on the Trump campaign’s proactively positive stance towards digital assets. Furthermore, any changes are likely to come relatively early in the administration to take advantage of Republican control of Congress before the midterm elections in November 2026. We expect the following specific developments:
1. Repeal of SAB 121. SAB 121, an SEC guidance document on digital assets, requires entities that act as custodians for crypto assets to list the assets on their balance sheets and create a corresponding liability of equal value. In effect, this blocks US banks from crypto custody and spot offerings. The removal of SAB 121 is expected to pave the way for further adoption of digital assets by institutional investors.
2. Passage of stablecoin bills. Stablecoins are becoming an important real-world use case for digital assets. Three significant bills aiming to create guardrails for banks to issue stablecoins were brought to the House over the past 12 months, but little progress was made. More progress on this is likely under the Trump administration in early 2025. This should pave the way for the expansion of this use case, further validating the asset class as a whole.
3. Changes at the SEC. The SEC has taken a firm stance against digital assets under current Chairman Gary Gensler. It has brought court cases against Ripple (wherein it suggested that the majority of digital assets are securities) and Grayscale; it was also initially slow to approve spot ETFs. Trump explicitly stated during his campaign that he would replace Gensler.
4. Potential for a Bitcoin reserve fund. Although this is currently a low-probability event, Trump mentioned in July that he would keep any Bitcoin held by the government (210,000 BTCs at the time), so it needs to be kept in mind. Such a move would have a large price-positive impact on such a small asset class.
The U.S. president-elect made cryptocurrency a key part of his campaign this year, promising to protect and boost the industry in America and end the SEC’s crypto crackdown.
Trump had also proposed to develop a strategic Bitcoin reserve and appointing pro-crypto regulators.
Bitcoin topped $80,000 for the first time in history overnight, now up over $10,000 since the election night blowout by Trump.
Source: Bloomberg
Bitcoin ETFs have seen massive inflows in the days since the election…
Source: Bloomberg
As Standard Chartered’s Geoffrey Kendrick points out, the 80k level is the first large open interest level for BTC calls for the 27 Dec expiry: open interest of 8110 BTC, as per this chart from Deribit:
There is also open interest of 5851 BTC at the 29 Nov expiry, as per this chart (again the 80k level):
Beyond 80k these charts show large open interest at 90k, of 4584 BTC for 29 Nov and 6833 BTC for 27 Dec. For the psychological 100k level, the 27 Dec expiry has a large 9461 BTC in open interest.
Kendrick’s forecast also fits with the lagged response to the recent surge in global money supply…
Given current momentum post-election, Kendrick thinks this means 90k becomes the next target, easily achievable ahead of 29 Nov. And then 100k, easily achievable ahead of 27 December. 125k which I forecast for the end of the year is the next level, although I note following the 2016 election a lot of Trump trades peaked around the time of the 20 Jan inauguration (see USD-MXN chart for example).
So if BTC can’t reach 125k by 31 Dec I think it will by 20 Jan. The only other relevant date is 10 December, which is when the Microsoft board is due to vote on whether they will invest in BTC (let’s call that a low probability yes, high impact yes, if they voted to go ahead).
Crypto Rover, for instance, cited Bitcoin’s tendency to establish record highs “50-60 days after the US elections,” noting that the price could reach $100,000 by January 20245 if the fractal plays out as intended.
Source: Crypto Rover
“In the last few days 60,000 BTC were bought by retail investors, 1800 BTC was bought by BlackRock, at the same time only 450 Bitcoin are mined each day and only two million BTC are available to buy on exchanges,” argued analyst Doctor Profit, adding:
“If we continue in this speed we will reach $100,000 by end of year.”
Medium term, Kendrick thinks what we have seen over the past few days continues with BTC to 200k and ETH to 10k by year-end 2025.
Further out, Bitcoin analyst PlanB’s stock-to-flow model now projects a $500,000 price target for the asset within the next four-year cycle based on the model’s historical data and pattern.
PlanB pointed to Trump’s proposal to create a national BTC reserve as a potential driver for demand, suggesting it could add “200,000 BTCs per year” in buying pressure.
“If history is any guide, if the stock-to-flow model is any guide, then we’ll see sharp price increases from here,” the analyst said.
The stock-to-flow model, which assesses Bitcoin’s value based on its limited supply and scheduled halvings, suggests substantial price growth after each halving event.
While the analyst anticipates BTC price reaching $500,000 in this cycle, he notes a wide variance between $250,000 and $1,000,000 per BTC.
It’s not just bitcoin, Ethereum, the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, topped $3200 – its highest since August – pushing its market cap to around $383 billion (roughly $40 billion above Bank of America’s market cap).
ETH has witnessed its greatest weekly price action since May even as, over the last seven days, ETH supply has been quickly increasing, at an inflationary rate of 0.424% a year – previously deflationary in early-to-mid October.
According to Ultrasound.money data, the current yearly ETH burn rate sits at 452,000 ETH, while the issuance rate is more than double that at 957,000 ETH, resulting in an annual supply increase of 0.42%.
Meanwhile, Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum, introduced the concept of “info finance” on Nov. 9.
Buterin explained that info finance is “a discipline” that begins with “a fact that you want to know” and ends with a market that “optimally” elicits that information from market participants.
The ETH co-founder advocated for prediction markets to collect insights from the community about future events in a way that offers public expectation without media sensationalism or influence.
Finally, as BitcoinMagazine.com reports, historical price analysis suggests that Bitcoin’s current trajectory is strikingly similar to previous cycles. From its lows, Bitcoin usually takes around 24-26 months to break past previous highs. In the last cycle, it took 26 months; in this cycle, Bitcoin’s price is on a similar upward trajectory after 24 months. Bitcoin has historically peaked about 35 months after its lows. If this pattern holds, we may see significant price increases through October 2025, after which another bear market could set in.
Following the anticipated peak, history suggests Bitcoin would enter a bear phase in 2026, lasting roughly one year until the next cycle begins anew. These patterns aren’t a guarantee but provide a roadmap that Bitcoin has adhered to in previous cycles. They offer a potential framework for investors to anticipate and adapt to the market.
Similar timeframes for new highs, cycle peaks, and lows over the previous cycles.
Despite challenges, Bitcoin’s four-year cycle has endured, largely due to its supply schedule, global liquidity, and investor psychology.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 14:35 - The Great Freight Recession Is Officially Over
The Great Freight Recession Is Officially Over
By Craig Fuller of FreightWaves
I’ve been closely following the freight market, and it’s clear that the Great Freight Recession has ended. After the most prolonged freight recession in history, the market has been showing signs of recovery over the past few months. This shift is backed by SONAR data, confirming a market turnaround.
Tender rejections rising: The increase in tender rejections to over 6% signals that the market is tightening. After seeing rejections dip to 3.4% post-Labor Day last year, this change indicates that carriers now have more control in choosing which loads they accept, thus shifting market dynamics in their favor.
Spot rates increasing: Spot rates are also climbing, surpassing those of 2022 and 2023, which tells me there’s either a surge in demand or a decrease in available capacity, possibly both. This could catch many expecting the low rates to persist off guard. Truckload rates are up to $1.78 from $1.54 a year ago.
Carrier revenge could be coming next year: “Carrier revenge” implies that carriers, after a period of low rates and high competition, might leverage their position to negotiate better rates or reject tenders more selectively in the coming months, affecting shippers’ logistics strategies, especially routing guides.
Decreasing capacity: Speaking of capacity, the upcoming implementation of the FMCSA’s Clearinghouse-II regulations on Nov. 18, 2024, will have a significant impact. Trucking expert Adam Wingfield stated that 177,000 truck drivers could potentially lose their CDLs, further tightening the market as state agencies need to query the Clearinghouse for any licensing actions.
In less than two weeks, approximately 177,000 drivers will have their CDLs revoked due to being in the “prohibited” status in the clearinghouse.
Drivers, make sure to check your clearinghouse status and if you are in a SAP, be sure you are properly set for RTD before the…
— Adam L. Wingfield 🚛👨🏾💻 (@adamlwingfield) November 7, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
This regulation requires:
- State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) to remove the commercial driving privileges of drivers in a “prohibited” status in the Clearinghouse. This action will result in a downgrade of the Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) until the driver completes the return-to-duty (RTD) process.
- SDLAs must query the Clearinghouse before issuing, renewing, upgrading, or transferring CDLs and Commercial Learner’s Permits (CLPs). This step ensures that drivers with unresolved drug or alcohol violations are not allowed to operate commercial motor vehicles.
Political influence: Trump’s election could accelerate freight demand as policy changes could stimulate economic activity, increasing the need for freight services. This includes income and corporate tax cuts, bonus depreciation, pre-stocking for tariffs, investment in domestic manufacturing and the change in freight dynamics from containers to surface (trucking, rail and domestic warehousing).
Immigration deportation: According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 20% of truck driver employees are immigrants. While many of these are legal immigrants into the U.S., there are numerous reports of drivers using international driver’s licenses and fake documents to drive in the U.S.
It is hard to know the percentage here, as the data is sparse (after all, the undocumented workers would not admit it). Having been around the industry, any opportunity to game the system will undoubtedly be used. Are undocumented workers 1% of the population of immigrants or 10%?
I don’t know, but if Trump follows through with his threats of deportations, this could remove some percentage of the trucking industry’s excess capacity and make it harder for carriers that skirt the law to stay in business.
Current sentiment: Following a decisive election, I believe the freight market is recovering and might exceed expectations over the next year.
Don’t rely on lagging data: The current conditions in the freight market have been debated extensively, but with the volatility of freight, it is imperative to make decisions based on the freshest and most accurate data. This can only be accomplished with high-frequency data that offers real-time insights into market direction. SONAR’s high-frequency data is refreshed data and offers real-time supply and demand metrics with the most accurate spot and contract data in freight.
This scenario points towards a robust recovery in the freight market, potentially leading to higher freight rates, a shift in power dynamics between shippers and carriers, and an overall more vibrant market environment.
Shippers are advised to prepare for these changes by locking in rates or diversifying their carrier base to mitigate risks associated with routing guide breakdowns.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 14:00 - Liberal Cat Ladies Reveal "Battle Plan" To Poison Trump Men With Aqua Tofana
Liberal Cat Ladies Reveal “Battle Plan” To Poison Trump Men With Aqua Tofana
Educated white liberal women appear to have lost their goddamn minds after the presidential election. Many have posted videos of uncontrollable emotional outbursts over a Trump victory…
I fixed it for you pic.twitter.com/Dmoxdj02DI
— stephen hilton (@stephenhilton23) November 7, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
… with some even threatening to adopt pro-life stances as a form of retaliation against men.
Woman says she has an IQ of 130 and will now “stay dry” and not sleep with men because Trump was elected.
She said it’s punishment for taking away her right to an abortion.
Sounds good. She won’t need any abortions then.
Way to go IQ 130. pic.twitter.com/P6wgGrvYpt
— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) November 7, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Others have made what appears to be terroristic threats, suggesting at the use of strong poison against men because they voted for the evil ‘Orange Man.’
Internet searches for Aqua Tofana—a potent poison created in Sicily around 1630 by a woman named Giulia Tofana, or Tofania, and historically used by women to free themselves from relationships by killing men—spiked shortly after the election results.
Searches for “Aqua Tofana recipe” surged.
And how to make the poison.
The first search result on Google for “Aqua Tofana recipe” came up with a video on the Chinese social media platform TikTok.
Clicking on the link unveiled many creepy women pushing Aqua Tofana propaganda.
“Melania Trump making some Aqua Tofana from scratch before she reunites with her husband,” one video stated.
What in the actual…
X user I Meme Therefore I Am noted, “HOLY SH*T, Karens lost their fvcking minds over Trump’s win and launched MATGA—short for Make Aqua Tofana Great Again.”
HOLY SH*T, Karens lost their fvcking minds over Trump’s win and launched MATGA—short for Make Aqua Tofana Great Again.
Aqua Tofana was a powerful poison in 17th-century Sicily, sold by women to other women seeking to escape abusive relationships by discreetly poisoning their… pic.twitter.com/KvHK8ZXWz4
— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
More unhinged liberal women are pushing Aqua Tofana propaganda after the elections.
‘Your body, my choice’
This new movement is called MATGA – make aqua tofana great again, it’s teaching women how to POIS☠️N Trump supporters with plants and flowers! pic.twitter.com/zg9aWvaVvS
— Sabrina Smolders 🦋🌹 (@SabrinaSmolders) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
#AquaTofana #LiberalismIsAMentalDisease #LiberalInsanity
Liberal women calling for “aqua tofana” against conservatives. Aqua Tofana was a poison used in the 1600’s against abusive husbands. pic.twitter.com/0rGC3A9P5X— Jenn Is Awesome (@rebelpatriot23) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Look at this #FBA woman tell other BW to divorce their husbands and for those who can’t. Use “aqua tofana”
I can’t say what that means on this platform but, take a wild guess. #Election2024 #KamalaHarris #Trump #USElection2024 pic.twitter.com/GkaE07kJL9
— Bon Jour (@BlackinMexico) November 8, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Here’s what X users are saying:
Jesus. If I recognized any of them, I’d be calling their husbands/significant others and show them these clips.
— Not THAT Karen (@KarenM4253) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
They want to kill their husbands if they voted for Trump?
Or are they saying they want to kill ANYONE who voted for Trump?
Creating a movement in which women are encouraging other women to kill those who vote for a different candidate than you l, further illustrates…
— Dabney (@DabneyPorte) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Trump was right. These people are SICK!!
— suzy (@Suzy_1776) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
And they wonder why we won, they need help, they are seriously fucked in the head.
They shouldn’t have any say in our society with this type of thinking…
Make insane asylum great again. MIAGA
— Konstelation (@Konstelation) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
I don’t recall Conservatives posting vids screaming into their pillows, threatening to poison people, threatening to kill people, voicing hatred for people they don’t even know. Not any of those things when we lost last time. The hatred is palpable and completely unnecessary.
— TwistedCherryX (@TwistedCherryX5) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Can we trust these women if they are working in the food service business to serve conservatives?
— Darla Shine 👑 (@DarlaShine) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Hi @FBI. What’s your position on women encouraging other women to poison their husbands or others who voted for Trump?
— spartanqueen100 (@spartanqueen100) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Has anyone reported this? Free speech is one thing. This is a freaking battle plan.
— White Trash Hillbilly Kathy Frisby (@kathy_frisby) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
This is premeditated murder if they succeed. The women posting these should be held as an accessor of murder too!
— pam (@pamntx1) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Great job, Obama, Alex Soros, and MSM…
What in the actual f…
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 13:25 - Now Germany Has A Green Electricity Outage With Huge Consequences
Now Germany Has A Green Electricity Outage With Huge Consequences
Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,
No sun. No wind. Hello Germany, care to rethink your Green New Deal?
A Huge Green Outage
Welt Business (translated from German, paywalled) reports Now Germany is experiencing a green electricity outage – with huge consequences
“The foggy weather of the last few days has brought green electricity production to a virtual standstill. Not only have particularly climate-damaging power plants been brought into operation as a replacement for wind and solar power, but prices have also exploded. And all of this seems to be just a foretaste of winter.”
Dark Doldrums
H/T @hendrikotten3 @JulienReszka @cristoforestman @MichaelAArouet @hagentc
The Green Old Scare
The common sense approach is to replace coal with nuclear and natural gas.
Since we are decades behind on nuclear because of the “Green Old Scare”, the sensible option is to phase out coal for natural gas and then nuclear because of the lead times in building a nuclear plant.
Instead, Germany, with thanks to an idiotic decision dating to Chancellor Angela Merkel, chose to get rid of nuclear with no viable alternative.
When that failed, Germany had needed to import energy from France but also neighboring countries that produced energy with coal, and the dirtiest coal at that.
How stupid can you get?
Greens Trounced in Elections
Greens were hammered in the European Parliament elections, in French elections, and in three German state elections.
But did that change the policies of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyden?
Of course not!
Von Der Leyen Affirms Europe’s Leadership in Green Hydrogen Amid US Delays
Please note Von Der Leyen Affirms Europe’s Leadership in Green Hydrogen Amid US Delays
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, in her speech at the Fourth Edition of the Renewable Hydrogen Summit, outlined Europe’s significant strides and continued leadership in the renewable hydrogen sector, contrasting sharply with the slower pace of progress in the United States.
Addressing a virtual audience, von der Leyen highlighted that over the past year, Europe has finalized investment decisions on more than 2 gigawatts of renewable hydrogen projects—a substantial increase that quadruples the current installed capacity.
The REPowerEU plan aims to produce 10 million tons of renewable hydrogen by 2030, supported by legislative mandates that require significant portions of hydrogen used in industry and transport to be renewable by the end of the decade. These targets are not merely aspirational but are binding, with Member States required to incorporate them into national law by May 2025.
More Green New Idiocy
That’s more Green New Idiocy from Von der Leydon who arrogantly assumes votes don’t matter.
July 7: France is Now Ungovernable Following a Pyrrhic Victory for the Left-Green Alliance
France is Now Ungovernable
By refusing to cooperate with the Right, Macron instead has to cooperate with a Far Left plurality described above including Green policy that spawned the Yellow-Vest Protests that rocked Macron for months.
September 1: Far Right to Win First German State Election Since WWII
I am pleased to report the Greens crashed out in Thuringia, losing every seat.
In Saxony, the Greens managed 5.1 percent of the vote, barely meeting the 5.0 percent threshold, but lost 5 seats in parliament, dropping from 12 to 7.
September 22: SPD Barely Hangs On, Greens Crash in Brandenburg Germany State Election
In Brandenburg, the outgoing government narrowly lost its majority as the Greens collapsed and fell short of the 5% electoral threshold, losing all their seats.
It was nearly a total boot of the Greens in three state elections, but as they say, “two out of three ain’t bad.”
German Polls
Hoot of the Day
The ruling 3-way Traffic Light coalition is down to a combined 35 percent and FDP at 4.5 percent would be booted. So, call it 30 percent. Some coalition!
However, the only thing an election will do is shift the power from one very unstable coalition to another very unstable coalition.
The German Government Collapses, Chancellor Scholz Fired his Finance Minister
Please note my November 7 post, The German Government Collapses, Chancellor Scholz Fired his Finance Minister
The Traffic Light Coalition finally blew up. What’s ahead?
Unlike most in the US, I follow what’s going on in Europe, and it isn’t pretty to say the least.
All of the parties rule out an alliance with AfD and BSW. Combined, that is about 26 percent of the total.
The last Grand Coalition (SPD and Union) nearly collapsed and this go around a “grand” coalition might not even have a majority. Note: Union is CDU/CSU.
The German and French governments are both nonfunctional. Neither county has experienced this before.
Meanwhile, back in the US …
Please consider Why Trump Won the Election in One Clear Picture
Voters are angry everywhere, for obvious reasons, but few can figure out why.
The Brookings Institute Wonders Why Consumer Sentiment is So Bad, I Can Help
On November 5, I wrote The Brookings Institute Wonders Why Consumer Sentiment is So Bad, I Can Help
Dear Ursula
I can hardly wait until Greens and SPD are decimated in the next German Federal election. And we won’t have to wait long.
Best of all, Green New Stupidly will fly out the window when a mass of European countries tell the commission president to go to hell.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 12:50 - "100% I'm On It": Don Jr. Tells Dave Smith He'll Block "Neocons And War Hawks" From Administration
“100% I’m On It”: Don Jr. Tells Dave Smith He’ll Block “Neocons And War Hawks” From Administration
Update (1128ET): With all eyes now on Mike Rogers, who’s been floated to lead Trump’s DoD…
Absolutely not. Mike Rogers is a CIA-owned, Deep State clown who could not care less about putting America First. He will stab Trump and all of his supporters in the back at the very first opportunity in order to push America Last neocon foreign policy. https://t.co/jDuJE5cU0g
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) November 8, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Donald Trump Jr. told comedian Dave Smith on Sunday “I’m on it” in response to keeping “all neocons and war hawks out of the Trump administration.”
Agreed💯💯💯!!! I’m on it. https://t.co/wJga8VyIG2
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
So about Mike Rogers, Don…
* * *
The new conservative era is off to a good start and so far it appears that Trump Admin 2.0 is not messing around. Perhaps the biggest complaint about the 2016 Trump Administration was how quickly a nest of Neo-Con swamp creatures slithered their way into his cabinet. In interviews with podcasters like Joe Rogan, Trump would later regret his reliance on establishment GOP advisers who helped him to fill the thousands of cabinet positions required for a presidential transition.
It was this same cabal of advisers that would help to sabotage his efforts to institute federal reforms, secure the border, clear out corruption and ultimately some of them tried to help the Democrats destroy him. As the saying goes, in a revolution always be sure to save a magazine for your so-called “allies”.
By some miracle Donald Trump has received a second chance to make things right and it looks as though he learned some valuable lessons from the internal sabotage that took place during his first term. There’s little chance we will be seeing ghouls like John Bolton, Anthony Fauci or Mike Pence haunting the halls of the White House in 2025. In fact, Trump recently put swirling rumors to rest that he might be including Neo-Cons like Mike Pompeo and NIkki Haley in his newest administration.
He made the announcement on November 9th on his Truth Social account, rejecting any notions that they would be working with him for his second term.
BREAKING: President Trump clarifies that he will not be inviting Amb Nikki Haley and Sec Mike Pompeo into his next administration. pic.twitter.com/ZypWqhGr5v
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) November 9, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“I will not be inviting former Ambassador Nikki Haley, or former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, to join the Trump Administration, which is currently in formation,” Trump posted on social media. “I very much enjoyed and appreciated working with them previously, and would like to thank them for their service to our country.”
It’s a surprisingly cordial message that sets a much needed standard.
This is welcome news for a lot of conservatives and independents looking for a true break from the Deep State and a fresh start for America. The announcement helps to put to rest public concerns that the policies Trump campaigned on would be diluted by establishment cronies the moment he entered the Oval Office. For those unaware, Pompeo has a nasty reputation as an anti-liberty bureaucrat and a warhawk. To illustrate the Pompeo problem, Tucker Carlson relates his own encounter with the office of the former CIA Director and Secretary of State:
Remember what Tucker Carlson told Joe Rogan about Mike Pompeo? pic.twitter.com/oQD0zbO32t
— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) November 7, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
To be sure, Pompeo plays the game and says what conservatives want to hear when it’s necessary, and his policies tend to run concurrent to his predecessors, but that’s the issue; the old Neo-Con guard is a dinosaur that needs to go. Republican strategist Roger Stone issued a stark warning to President-elect Donald Trump on Friday: Trump should not trust the former cabinet member.
“Now that Trump is back on top, it becomes far more difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff,” Stone wrote on his website. Stone went on to single out Pompeo and Trump’s former UN ambassador—and onetime 2024 Republican rival—Nikki Haley.
These “neocons have positioned themselves to get highly influential roles within the second Trump administration,” Stone wrote, “and this sinister fifth column has the potential to be more harmful to Trump’s America First agenda than his leftist opinion within the Democrat Party.”
Some may recall that Nikki Haley was thoroughly raked over the coals by Vivek Ramaswamy for her neo-con tendencies during the Republican Primaries.
Vivek destroys what’s left of Nikki Haley’s failed campaign by pointing out that she is corrupt and owned by the uniparty RINOs. 👇🏽
pic.twitter.com/8fcW223juB— Glockford Files (@GlockfordFiles) December 7, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
These are not the kinds of people that should be allowed anywhere near the next Trump presidency. Luckily, the voices of reason have the floor this time and Trump seems to be listening.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 12:28 - FEC Filings Show Kamala Harris Team Blew Funds On Hollywood Stars, Private Jets
FEC Filings Show Kamala Harris Team Blew Funds On Hollywood Stars, Private Jets
Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, advised by leftist political strategists, spent a billion dollars centered around labeling former President Trump and a majority of Americans as ‘Hitler’ and ‘Nazis.’ They poured millions into far-left Hollywood stars, elaborate concerts, and private jet travel, yet still ended up $20 million in debt—and got defeated in one of the most historic general election wins in a generation.
X user Autism Capital cited a new report of Federal Election Commission filings that shows the Harris team’s spending trends between August 2023 and October 2024. The data is broken down into monthly spending totals, the top 20 recipients, a distribution of disbursement sizes, spending by type of media, temporal patterns, and trends.
Autism Capital said, “List of the top 500 disbursement recipients from the Kamala campaign. Enjoy, Internet.”
List of the top 500 disbursement
recipients from the Kamala campaign. Enjoy, Internet. 🫡Source: FEChttps://t.co/EAjLdiiG93 pic.twitter.com/uTrzGAz81K
— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) November 9, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
2024, TOP 500 Disbursement Recipients
Monthly Spending Totals for ‘MEDIA’ Related Disbursements (Chronological Order)
Top 20 ‘MEDIA’ Related Spend Recipients by Total Amount
X users are already having fun with this FEC data…
Oprah Winfrey = Harpo Production.
Why did Oprah’s production studio receive $1,000,000 disbursement from the Harris campaign?
That’s in the FEC records – clear as day.
Was Oprah paid for the assistance she gave Harris and if so, was that disclosed during that little town hall?
— Joey Mannarino (@JoeyMannarinoUS) November 9, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Trump needs to investigate all these celebrity endorsements. If they were paid and didn’t disclose this, there should be repercussions.
— David Karim (@davidkarim) November 9, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
She was paid to appear. Duh.
Stupid woman wrecked her legacy for a million bucks.
— Mila Joy (@MilaLovesJoe) November 9, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The massive payouts to celebrities from the Harris campaign show what a sham all of the left’s “Hitler” rhetoric is. Oprah says she’s fighting against a Nazi takeover but won’t waive her 7-figure fee to show up?
What a joke.
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Nothing reflects Kamala Harris’ self-proclaimed middle class values than Harris spending $100,000 of her campaign money to build a set for a podcast rather than flying to LA, or paying Oprah $1,000,000 (like Oprah needs that money) to appear her on her show. pic.twitter.com/4OeKAsMTM9
— Rupa Subramanya (@rupasubramanya) November 9, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Distribution of Disbursement Sizes
Spending by Type of Media Service
More spending trends from the now defunct campaign…
Harris for President Media-Related Disbursements (partial list)
… full report found here: Harris for President Media-Related Disbursements
Can you spot the difference in campaign spending between the Trump and Harris teams?
TRUMP CAMPAIGN:
- $381.54 million in donations
- $354.42 million spent
- $10.4 million for staff
HARRIS CAMPAIGN:
- $1.033 billion in donations
- $1.37 billion spent
- $582.53 million on staff
Despite Harris’ out-of-control spending, Trump won 312 electoral votes.
And the entire country shifted towards Trump.
Just wow.
PRE-TRUMP vs. NOW:
— Voters under 30: 12-point shift
— Voters w/ incomes <$50K: 25-point shift
— Voters w/o college degrees: 18-point shift
— Black voters: 15-point shift
— Hispanic voters: 38-point shift
— Asian voters: 32-point shift pic.twitter.com/crlECm5nsb
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) November 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
In a recent interview on Fox News, DNC Finance Committee member Lindy Li called the Harris campaign:
“The truth is this is just an epic disaster, this is a $1 billion disaster. They’re $20 million or $18 million in debt. It’s incredible, and I raised millions of that. I have friends I have to be accountable to and to explain what happened because I told them it was a margin of error race.“
DNC finance committee member @lindyli blasted the Democratic Party in an appearance on Fox this morning, saying Harris’ campaign was a “$1 billion dollar disaster” and Biden’s endorsement of her was a ‘f*** you’ to the party. pic.twitter.com/kOGyvHM9cB
— Ross O’Keefe (@RossOKeefe2) November 9, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Meanwhile, Trump pledged support to help pay off Harris’ campaign debts…
Let’s take a moment to recognize that as Donald Trump states his willingness to pay off Harris’s campaign debts. The man has the best instincts as a politician since Ronald Reagan. pic.twitter.com/cUyXyLIaIA
— Jim Pfaff (@jimpfaff) November 9, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Perhaps the Democratic Party’s move to alienate historic numbers of Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and Jews from the party was a terrible strategy.
Great job, Barack Hussein Obama. You made a fool of yourself.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 12:15 - Indoctri-Nation
Indoctri-Nation
Authored by Larry Sand via American Greatness,
An essential mission for many educators throughout the country is the indoctrination of their students. The newest arrival on the propaganda front is Israel. In August, one of the topics of a United Teachers of Los Angeles meeting was “How to be a teacher & an organizer. . . and NOT get fired.”
History teacher Ron Gochez elaborated on stealth methods for indoctrinating his students. He talked about transporting busloads of kids to an anti-Israel rally—during the school day—without arousing suspicion.
“A lot of us that have been to those [protest] actions have brought our students. Now, I don’t take the students in my personal car,” Gochez told the crowd. Then, referring to the Los Angeles Unified School District, he explained: “I have members of our organization who are not LAUSD employees. They take those students and I just happen to be at the same place and the same time with them.”
Gochez further explained, “It’s like tomorrow I go to church, and some of my students are at the church. ‘Oh, wow! Hey, how you doing?’ We just happen to be at the same place at the same time, and look! We just happen to be at a pro-Palestine action, same place, same time.”
The unionistas then burst into approving laughter.
John Adams Middle School teacher and UTLA panelist William Shattuc agreed. Wearing a keffiyeh around his neck, he said, “We know that good history education is political education. And when we are coming up against political movements, like the movement for Zionism, that we disagree with, that we’re in conflict with—they [Zionists] have their own form of political education and they employ their own tools of censorship.”
Guadalupe Carrasco Cardona, ethnic studies teacher at Edward R. Roybal Learning Center in Los Angeles, who received a National Education Association Foundation Award for excellence in teaching, insists that the course she teaches, and whose curriculum she helped develop—ethnic studies—is fundamentally incompatible with supporting Israel. “Are you pro-Israel—are you for genocide?”
In Portland, OR, the Intifada begins in kindergarten. For example, the teachers union suggests that kindergarteners be gathered into a circle and taught the history of Palestine: “Seventy-five years ago, a lot of decision-makers around the world decided to take away Palestinian land to make a country called Israel. Israel would be a country where rules were mostly fair for Jewish people with white skin. There’s a BIG word for when indigenous land gets taken away to make a country; that’s called settler colonialism.”
The brainwashing is hardly limited to Israel.
In the San Diego Unified School District, students must confront and examine their “white privilege” and acknowledge when they “feel white fragility.” Additionally, children are told to “understand the impact of white supremacy” in their work.
Courtesy of the 520-page Black Studies Curriculum, public school students in New York City now receive lessons on the tenets of the Black Lives Matter movement and that Black Americans should receive reparations. Students also learn about the evils of capitalism, that student loans are equivalent to “debt peonage,” and the difference between defunding, reforming, and abolishing the police.
At an unspecified school in California, a parent confronted a teacher who told students that “only those who voted for Kamala Harris in their mock election will get a pizza party.”
The educator explained that there were five periods and only one would not get the party. “The Democrats are more for feeding the hungry, free medical care, more services—just pay higher taxes, so I would be willing to buy pizza for the class,” the teacher told the parent.
The teacher confirmed that the class that voted for Trump would not get free pizza, explaining “They just do what the conservatives do—which is pay for yourself.”
And then there is the transgender obsession, which shows no sign of abating. The invaluable Parents Defending Education lists the school districts that have policies that openly state district personnel can or should keep a student’s transgender status hidden from parents. As of Oct. 30, there were 12,222,924 students in 20,951 schools across the country affected by this protocol.
Not only is indoctrination a moral disgrace, it is also very expensive. A recent report surveying 467 superintendents in 46 states reveals that culturally divisive conflict in schools costs public K-12 schools, i.e., taxpayers, about $3.2 billion during the 2023-24 school year.
The cost of school-based culture wars includes “additional security, communications, and legal expenses. Schools incurred indirect costs from using staff time to address misinformation, social media threats, media inquiries about book bans, and growing demands for public information requests.”
John Rogers, a UCLA education professor, and lead researcher for the poll, claimed in a media release, “This research makes clear that culturally divisive conflicts in the nation’s schools are generating fear, stress, and anxiety that is disrupting school districts and taking a personal toll on the educators and staff members who work in them. Sadly, as superintendents have told us, the cost of these conflicts not only has a financial impact but is also eroding teaching and learning and undermining the trust between schools and the communities so essential to our democracy and civic life.”
Notably, according to many of the superintendents interviewed for the report, members of Moms for Liberty and those speaking out about such controversial topics shouldn’t get a platform.
Tiffany Justice, cofounder of Moms for Liberty, responded that the report’s findings are “ridiculous” and a “gaslighting tactic” to make it look like the parents are the problem for opposing sensitive topics being taught to their children without their consent.
Justice adds, “This is more obfuscation, this is more deflection by school districts for not liking the fact that parents are calling out a failing system, and we will not be silenced to protect a failing system.”
“What would be the better thing?” Justice asked. “We just shut up and go along with the indoctrination and the demoralization of our children so we don’t cause a problem and cost the school district money? If they weren’t doing so much nonsense, they wouldn’t have to deal with the ire of parents.”
Fortunately, many adults are indeed catching on to the problems with our wayward schools. According to the results of a Gallup poll released in August, only 43% of American adults indicated they are somewhat or completely satisfied with the quality of education students receive in kindergarten through grade 12 in the United States today.
Additionally, the EdChoice Schooling in America Survey asked respondents about the trajectory of K–12 education in the United States. The responses to this question were red flags for both parents and the broader public. Fully 70% of the public and 64% of parents of school-age children think K–12 education is on the wrong track.
A Pew Research Center poll found that only 16% of Americans were willing to say things are going in the right direction in education.
The 2022 NAEP, or “Nation’s Report Card” shows that Americans’ concerns are valid. The test revealed that nationwide, 29% of the nation’s 8th-graders are proficient in reading, while just 26% are proficient in math.
Clearly, all parents need to be aware of the massive indoctrination going on in the nation’s government-run schools and act accordingly. They have options, which I will delve into in a future post.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 11/10/2024 – 11:40
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
