Dec 12

Today’s News 12th December 2024

  • When Rights Become Privileges: Is The Constitution Becoming Optional?
    When Rights Become Privileges: Is The Constitution Becoming Optional?

    Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a ‘Bill of Temporary Privileges.’ And if you read the news, even badly, you know that the list gets shorter and shorter.”

    – George Carlin

    Disguising its power grabs in the self-righteous fervor of national security, the Deep State has mastered the art of the bait-and-switch.

    It works like this: first, the government foments fear about some crisis or threat to national security, then they capitalize on it by seizing greater power and using those powers against the American people.

    We’ve seen this play out over and over again.

    The government used its so-called War on Terror to transform itself into a police state.

    Then the police state used its War on COVID-19 to claim lockdown powers.

    All indications are that the government’s promised War on Illegal Immigration will be yet another sleight of hand that allows the powers-that-be to engage in greater power grabs while weakening the Constitution.

    Therein lies the danger of the government’s growing addiction to power.

    Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America healthy again—inevitably, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.

    The slippery slope that starts with illegal immigration has all the makings of a thinly veiled plot to empower the government to become the arbiter of who is deserving of rights and who isn’t.

    That quickly, we could find ourselves navigating a world in which the rights enshrined in the Constitution for all persons living in the United States are transformed into privileges enjoyed only by those whom the government chooses to recognize as legitimate.

    By persuading the public that non-citizens, particularly illegal immigrants, do not enjoy the same inalienable rights as law-abiding citizens (a fact refuted by the Constitution and every credible legal scholar in the country), the Deep State is leading us down a road in which all rights are transitory.

    This is how you establish a hierarchy of rights, contingent on whether you belong to a favored political class.

    Be warned.

    At such a time as the government is emboldened to flip that switch and appoint itself the ultimate authority on which protected class of individuals gets to enjoy the rights enshrined within the Constitution, the dividing line will not be between legal citizens and illegal immigrants.

    It will not even be between Republicans and Democrats.

    Rather, the purpose of that line of demarcation will be to distinguish the compliant, obedient, subservient vassal of the American police state (the so-called Loyalists) from everyone else.

    We’re almost at that point now.

    This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

    Here are some of the inherent dangers in allowing the government to become the arbiter of who is deserving of rights:

    It leads to the erosion of universal rights. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the fundamental rights of all persons within the United States, regardless of their citizenship status, race, religion, or any other factor. When the government starts making distinctions about who is entitled to these rights, it undermines the universality that makes them so powerful. This creates a slippery slope where rights become privileges, subject to the whims of those in power.

    It gives rise to authoritarianism. History is replete with examples of governments that consolidated power by first stripping away the rights of marginalized groups. Once the principle of universal rights is breached, it becomes easier to target other groups deemed “undesirable” or “unworthy.” This paves the way for authoritarianism, where the government dictates who enjoys freedom and who does not.

    It creates a two-tiered society. A hierarchy of rights inevitably leads to a two-tiered society, where some individuals enjoy full protection under the law while others are relegated to second-class status. This fosters resentment, division, and social unrest. It also creates a vulnerable population that can be easily exploited and abused.

    It undermines the rule of law. The rule of law is a fundamental principle of a just society. It means that everyone is subject to the same laws and that no one is above the law. When the government selectively applies the law based on arbitrary criteria, it undermines the rule of law and erodes trust in the legal system.

    It chills free speech and dissent, i.e., the right to criticize the government. When people fear that their rights are contingent on their political views or social status, they are less likely to speak out against injustice or challenge the government. This chilling effect on dissent stifles free speech and creates a climate of fear and conformity.

    It contributes to the loss of moral authority. A nation that claims to champion liberty and justice for all loses its moral authority when it denies those principles to certain groups within its borders. This undermines its standing in the world and diminishes its ability to promote human rights abroad.

    Remember, the erosion of inalienable rights often starts subtly, with the government chipping away at the edges of those rights for specific groups.

    The pattern is subtle at first, with government officials exploiting fear and prejudice in order to target groups that are already marginalized or perceived as “outsiders.” Incrementally, the net is cast wider and wider, so that by the time the injustice is widespread enough to inspire outrage in the greater populace, it’s too late to resist.

    Historic examples abound of how the government has manufactured a blatantly unjust hierarchy of rights in order to diminish certain segments of society. These run the gamut from slavery and the persecution of Native Americans to the Japanese internment camps and segregation.

    More recently, we’ve seen this tactic deployed in order to justify policies that run afoul of the Constitution, ranging from immigration policies and mass surveillance programs to SWAT team raids, voting rights, and the erosion of due process.

    Clearly, Martin Niemöller’s warning about the widening net that ensnares us all, a warning issued in response to the threat posed by Nazi Germany’s fascist regime, still applies.

    “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

    This is how the slippery slope to all-out persecution starts.

    It doesn’t help that growing numbers of American citizens barely know their rights. Consider that only 5% of the U.S. adults surveyed could correctly name all five rights in the First Amendment, 20% could not correctly name any, and less than one in 10 Americans know they have a right to petition the government.

    Such civic illiteracy lays the groundwork for all manner of tyrannies to follow. After all, how can you defend your rights if you don’t know what those rights are?

    Then again, civic illiteracy among government officials, who are entrusted with upholding and protecting the Constitution, doesn’t appear to be much better.

    It was ten years ago on December 15, National Bill of Rights Day, that the U.S. Supreme Court in its 8-1 ruling in Heien v. State of North Carolina gave police in America one more ready excuse to routinely violate the laws of the land, this time under the guise of ignorance.

    The Heien case, which started with an improper traffic stop based on a police officer’s ignorance of the law and ended with an unlawful search, seizure and arrest, was supposed to ensure that ignorance of the law did not become a ready excuse for government officials to routinely violate the law.

    It failed to do so.

    In failing to enforce the Constitution, the Court gave police the go-ahead to justify a laundry list of misconduct, from police shootings of unarmed citizens to SWAT team raids, roadside strip searches, and the tasering of vulnerable individuals with paltry excuses such as “they looked suspicious” and “she wouldn’t obey our orders.”

    Ignorance of the law has become an all-too-convenient cover for all manner of abuses by government officials who should know better.

    I’m not sure which is worse: government officials who know nothing about the laws they have sworn to uphold, support and defend, or a constitutionally illiterate citizenry so clueless about their rights that they don’t even know when those rights are being violated.

    This much I do know, however: for anyone to advocate terminating or suspending the Constitution is tantamount to a declaration of war against the founding principles of our representative government and the rule of law.

    If there is one point on which there should be no political parsing, no legal jockeying, and no disagreement, it is this.

    Then again, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, one could well make the case that the Constitution has already been terminated after years on life support, given the extent to which the safeguards enshrined in the Bill of Rights—adopted 233 years ago as a means of protecting the people against government overreach and abuse—have been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded with the support of Congress, the White House, and the courts.

    History provides chilling examples of how quickly rights can vanish, even in a nation such as ours founded on the principles of freedom. As George Carlin astutely observed:

    “If you think you do have rights, next time you’re at the computer, get on the internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, I want you to type in ‘Japanese Americans 1942’ and you’ll find out all about your precious … rights. In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That’s all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had: ‘right this way’ into the internment camps. Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away. And rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away.”

    Remember you were warned, folks.

    At the point that rights become privileges, then the Constitution and the government’s adherence to the rule of law will become optional.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 23:25

  • Damascus Airport To Open In 'Next Few Days' But Israel Still Controls Skies
    Damascus Airport To Open In ‘Next Few Days’ But Israel Still Controls Skies

    The government of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in Damascus on Wednesday said that it expects Damascus International Airport to reopen within days, which would be a surprising and unexpected development.

    It had been closed since the dramatic events of HTS-led forces entering the capital, and Assad and his top officials fleeing the country. The airport’s director Anis Fallouh said it will reopen “in the next few days” – according to the AFP.

    Via AFP

    “God willing, the airport will reopen as quickly as possible because we are going to work flat out,” Fallouh said. “We can quickly resume flights through Syrian airspace.”

    For now, however, it seems unrealistic that any flights will land or take off from the airport given that Israeli warplanes have been bombing the country non-stop for at least 72 hours. This has included the targeting of at least 350 Syrian Army sites, as well as facilities for the production of chemical weapons.

    With Israeli warplanes roaming the skies, commercial flight travel over Syria remains highly dangerous. There’s also the fact that the various al-Qaeda factions now in control of Syria have gained access to at least some of Syria’s remnant anti-aircraft missile arsenal, such as MANPADS.

    There have also long-been NATO-supplied shoulder-fired missiles all around Syria, supplied to the ‘rebels’. Below appears to be evidence of this…

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

    Only Cham Wings, a private Syrian airline and Syrian Air, the country’s national airline, had been continuing to operate up to the dramatic events of the last ten days. 

    But Al Jazeera has noted of the status of these defunct airlines, “Aircraft maintenance official Samer Radi said there were currently 12 aircraft on the ground, one of which had been stripped of its equipment by looters during the takeover by opposition forces.”

    It’s unclear whether these carriers will be reestablished, or a timeline for potential operations. At this moment the country and population are also starved of fuel, after days ago an Iranian tanker en route to Syria turned around as it became clear the Assad government was in collapse.

    Before the war, British Airways and Emirates had frequent flights to and from Damascus. But immense hurdles remain in what is still basically a war zone and questions over the fact that a US-designated terror organization is now running the show in Damascus.

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

    “So far, the operations of Syrian Air have been extremely restricted,” explained one industry analyst. “Everybody would want to reopen flights into Damascus, which obviously is a significant destination for the Gulf.”

    “Airlines will have to individually go and do a damage assessment, a liability assessment and a review of what’s happened, what’s workable, what’s permissible, as well as what’s functioning and what is not,” the analyst continued.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 23:00

  • Trouble Tax: We All Pay A Time Price For Bureaucratic Dysfunction
    Trouble Tax: We All Pay A Time Price For Bureaucratic Dysfunction

    Authored by Michael Munger via the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER),

    Adam Smith said it all, in “Wealth of Nations”: “The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.”

    Now, we might interpret “toil” as the cost, or money price, of the thing, and “trouble” as the transaction cost, or inconvenience of the purchase. Then an increase in either the money price, or an increase in trouble, are both cost increases. Demand curves slope downward, so people are better off if the price, or the “trouble,” are reduced. They are substitutes, for citizens.

    The problem is that these two costs are not seen as substitutes for bureaucracies, not at all. The result is that citizens are constantly paying substantial, and easily avoidable, “taxes” in the form of trouble, just so bureaucracies can save money.

    It is easy to think of examples.

    You are trying to enter the country, after a trip abroad. There are only two stations open at the passport control barrier, and hundreds of people in line. Now, the government could easily hire more passport agents, but that would cost money. Instead, a terrible “trouble tax” is imposed, as people have to wait in line for more than two hours just to have a bureaucrat spend 30 seconds looking at a passport and waving you through. (This happened to me in Charlotte this year: there were literally two agents working. We were told “there is a shortage,” as if that were an explanation for indifference to citizens’ needs). Other places, including Dulles Airport in Virginia, may even be worse!

    Each of the hundreds of people in line, many of whom missed their connection, would happily have paid $10, or $20 (I would have paid $50!) to have a ten-minute line instead of two hours.

    The extra thousands in revenue would easily have paid an hour’s salary and benefits for five more bureaucrats to process passports.

    This is a “government failure,” because the outcome is Pareto inferior—the new bureaucrats would be better off being paid, and the customers would have been happy to pay.

    Yet the transaction fails to take place, resulting in what economists call “deadweight loss.”

    This kind of failure is epidemic in our current system of government, and it’s getting worse fast.

    A friend who has young children recently recounted his experience getting “school supplies” (an experience parents all over the United States can identify with). Parents were given a specific, mandatory list of items: the pencils needed to be of a certain type, the notebooks had to have specific dimensions. No single store had every particular item required, so my friend had to go to multiple stores to buy just a few items at a time.

    The parents of all 30 kids in the class each had to go on this tiresome search and purchase quest, spending hours that they would have paid to avoid. Why doesn’t the school buy these items, of the correct type and in bulk, and then distribute them on the first day of class?

    The diligent school-shopper wrote in an email: “Sure, this would cost money. But they could send me a bill! Or raise my taxes by whatever amount that offsets the cost. It would surely be socially efficient to allow a procurement specialist to take care of this, rather than outsourcing it to hundreds of families” in the whole school.

    Look: the money cost is the same, either way: the parents are paying for the supplies. Either they pay directly, to the retail store, or they pay taxes which fund purchase of the supplies. (Actually, since having the school buy in bulk is cheaper, the tax cost would be less, but let’s ignore that, and call it even).

    The explanation is obvious, and it illustrates why the use of bureaucracy as a means of provision of services is so inefficient, and frustrating: the burden of the costs is different for the government, and the citizens! Citizens pay both the money price (from their toil to earn cash), and the trouble (time waiting in line, driving around, filling out forms) of acquiring the needed permission or service. But the bureaucracy only counts the money cost, because they only care about their “budget.” That doesn’t make them bad people, but they are drawn that way, because all the incentives are to save on budgets.

    In many areas of government, this has led to a doom loop: tax cuts reduce funding, funding reduces service, and lack of service imposes a very large “trouble tax” on citizens. Citizens would love to pay more taxes to avoid the trouble, but that option is not available because government is not a competitive system where a competitor can enter and offer better service for a lower total (toil plus trouble) cost.

    In North Carolina, my home state, the “need to hire more workers” problem is particularly egregious at the Department of Motor Vehicles drivers’ license stations. The General Assembly is proud of its tax cuts, and the “savings” on the DMV budget. The Governor has responded by refusing to use what money is available to hire new inspectors and clerks. As a result, the average wait time for a driver’s license is four to six hours, if it is possible to get one at all.

    Of course, it is illegal to drive, and impossible to fly, without a valid “Real ID” driver’s license, so citizens have no choice but to pay the trouble tax. This kind of government failure, driven by the fact that employees of the state focus on money, but care nothing for the time of citizens, is a product of bureaucracy and monopoly power. There is no reason to make the system more convenient or more efficient, because there is no profit incentive, no payoff to providing good service.

    We are all forced, essentially at gunpoint, to line up and accept whatever “service” the state deigns to provide.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 22:35

  • Daniel Penny Speaks After Acquittal, May Sue Manhattan DA For 'Malicious Prosecution'
    Daniel Penny Speaks After Acquittal, May Sue Manhattan DA For ‘Malicious Prosecution’

    Daniel Penny has made his first public comments after being acquitted on charges of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the May 2023 death of Jordan Neely on a New York City subway.

    Speaking with Fox News, Penny said he had put himself in a “very vulnerable position,” during the encounter, but felt compelled to act.

    Penny, 26, a four-year Marine veteran, said that while he’s “not a confrontational person,” Neely was “threatening to kill people.”

    The case took a significant turn when New York Supreme Court Judge Maxwell Wiley dismissed a second-degree manslaughter charge against Penny after a jury deliberation that lasted four days without reaching a unanimous verdict. Subsequently, a Manhattan jury acquitted Penny of criminally negligent homicide.

    Throughout the trial, Penny’s defense argued that their client did not intend to kill Neely but was acting in self-defense. They portrayed Neely as a former street performer whose aggressive outburst on the train frightened other passengers. Witnesses testified that Neely had been loudly declaring his hunger and indifference to returning to prison.

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

    The medical examiner’s conclusion that Neely died from “compression of neck” was a key point in the trial, with Penny’s defense challenging this finding. It was also noted that Neely had synthetic marijuana in his system at the time of the incident and had a history of assaultive behavior in subway stations.

    The aftermath of the trial saw Penny reflecting on the severe criticism he has faced, expressing no desire for praise, merely justifying his actions as necessary to prevent potential harm to other passengers. He criticized city officials for their policies, which he implied contributed to the circumstances leading to the fatal encounter, though he refrained from naming anyone specifically. “I’ll take a million court appearances and people calling me names and people hating me, just to keep one of those people from getting hurt or killed,” Penny told Fox.

    He also told the network that he and his lawyers are considering suing Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg for malicious prosecution.

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

    Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg responded to the acquittal by affirming that the prosecution had diligently “followed the facts and the evidence from beginning to end.”

    This case has left New Yorkers and people nationwide deeply divided, bringing to the forefront issues concerning homelessness, mental health, and the responsibilities of individuals and authorities in maintaining public safety. The national debate continues as communities grapple with these complex challenges.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 22:10

  • What's (State-Funded) Russian Media Saying About Syria's Regime Change?
    What’s (State-Funded) Russian Media Saying About Syria’s Regime Change?

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

    Publicly financed Russian media’s reaction to Syria’s regime change is a lot different than most could have expected after they earlier warned that this could lead to an unprecedented terrorist crisis.

    Those concerns were warranted since Turkish-backed Harat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is designated as a terrorist group and was originally part of Al Qaeda. Nevertheless, these outlets’ reactions have been surprisingly calm, thus suggesting a desire to play everything by ear for the sake of retaining Russian influence there.

    RT published two very thought-provoking op-eds since the Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) epic collapse and Assad’s cowardly flight from Damascus that are worth reviewing in this context. The first is by Murad Sadygzade, who’s President of the Middle East Studies Center and Visiting Lecturer at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, and answers the question of “Why did Syria fall so fast and what happens next?” He began by drawing attention to foreign meddling but then dove into domestic details.

    This approach is noteworthy since it had hitherto been very rare for publicly financed Russian media to talk about the Assad Government’s many shortcomings, but Sadygzade candidly addressed them:

    “A key turning point came when Assad lost the support of even those who had stood by him for years. Economic hardships, sanctions, and a growing sense of hopelessness led many to believe that change was inevitable, even if it came at the cost of destruction. The strategic mistake of the ruling elite – betting on a military solution to the conflict while ignoring political dialogue, both domestically and internationally – ultimately left Assad vulnerable to determined and well-organized adversaries.”

    The second RT op-ed is a republication of an article by Gazeta.ru political analyst Vitaly Ryumshin under the title “Assad’s collapse was coming – everyone just looked away”. Here are the highlights:

    “Assad’s Syria had been rotting from within for years. The country was locked in a perpetual humanitarian and economic crisis, with 90% of Syrians living in poverty and widespread malnutrition. Desperate families took out loans just to buy food but couldn’t pay them back. Power outages crippled even Damascus, sometimes leaving the capital dark for 20 hours a day. Electricity prices soared by up to 585% in the spring of 2024 alone, pushing an already destitute population deeper into despair.

    The Assad government offered no solutions – only mounting repression. Under crushing sanctions, Damascus couldn’t secure foreign loans, and with its oil fields under US-Kurdish control, there was nothing left to trade. Even Syria’s illicit drug trade, once a lifeline, couldn’t plug the gaping holes in state finances. Profits disappeared into the pockets of warlords and traffickers, not the state treasury.

    Meanwhile, Assad’s underpaid, demoralized army, bled dry by years of civil war, continued to disintegrate. For a time, Iranian proxies like Hezbollah propped up his forces, but by 2024, they’d shifted their attention to fighting Israel. Attempts to draw Russia further into Syria’s quagmire fell flat. Moscow, busy elsewhere, had no interest in bailing Assad out.”

    Ryumshin also twice referred to the Assad Government as a “regime” in back-to-back sentences, writing that “In the south and southeast, dormant rebel cells rose up, striking a final blow against Assad’s hollowed-out regime. On Sunday, opposition forces stormed Damascus from several directions. Bashar al-Assad, whose regime withstood over a decade of civil war, finally fell from power.” It’s a stunning change in RT’s editorial policy that they didn’t replace that previously taboo word before republishing.

    Perhaps they listened to what their senior correspondent and veteran Syrian War journalist Murad Gazdiev told them in an interview, where he concluded that “Assad’s govt fell due to corruption, lack of organization, and motivation”. He has a decade worth of experience covering this conflict so his post-mortem on Assad’s Government should be taken very seriously. Publicly financed TASS also editorialized the word “regime” into a headline about Syria on Tuesday in a related visible change of policy.

    The day prior, they described HTS’ chief as an “armed opposition leader” without referencing the US’ $10 million bounty on his head for terrorist-related crimes or even his connection to such groups. TASS also reported how “Syrian Embassy operating as usual under new flag”, which implies Moscow’s tacit (key qualifier) acceptance of this regime change in the sense of continuing to recognize those Syrian diplomats as official representatives of the new ruling arrangement who are allowed to keep working.

    Their press review of Vedomosti’s article about the future of Russia’s military bases in Syria adds context to why that tacit acceptance appears to have been made. Ibragim Ibragimov, a researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World Economy and International Relations, told them that “I don’t exclude that a new format of military-technical cooperation will appear soon and that Russian military instructors will play a role in establishing a new Syrian army.” That would be an intriguing turn of events.

    It might not be as far-fetched as some think provided that there’s political will and the right conditions to make it work, the latter of which would require the non-terrorist anti-government opposition (NTAGO) to separate itself from terrorist-designated groups and figures. Moreover, such groups and figures would have to prove that they’ve changed their ways, just like the Taliban have sought to do since returning to power in mid-2021 to regain Russia’s trust and try to have restrictions on cooperation with them lifted.

    To that end, meaningful progress on implementing UNSC Resolution 2254 from December 2015 would go a long way, which Assad refused to do for reasons beyond the scope of this analysis. The Russian-written draft constitution that was unveiled during the first Astana Summit in January 2017 could also be revived to serve as a model for the constitutional reform that this resolution obligates Syria to undertake. Assad had unofficially rubbished it due to the concessions that he was asked to make.

    Judging by what the head of the Syrian armed opposition delegation to the Astana talks told Sputnik and the president of the Syrian Negotiation Commission told RT, these two internationally recognized NTAGO platforms want to retain positive relations with Russia. That could explain why the leader of the new interim Syrian government, Mohammed al-Bashir, was described by TASS as someone who “joined anti-government armed units supported by foreign funding” instead of the previously typical foreign proxy.

    Reflecting on publicly financed Russian media’s reports about Syria’s regime change, it therefore appears as though the Kremlin signaled to those outlets within its “sphere of influence” to withhold publishing worst-case scenario forecasts for now while their country’s diplomats try to avert an even worse crisis. The worst might still be yet to come, but it hasn’t yet unfolded and might still be prevented, hence the importance of them remaining calm and reciprocating the new ruling arrangement’s positive messages.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 21:45

  • Eric Trump: My Father Wants To Make U.S. The World's 'Crypto Capital'
    Eric Trump: My Father Wants To Make U.S. The World’s ‘Crypto Capital’

    Eric Trump, Executive Vice President of the Trump Organization, discussed President-elect Donald Trump’s plans for the crypto industry, emphasizing his father’s vision for the U.S. to become the “crypto capital of the world” during an interview with CNBC. 

    ERIC TRUMP: I’ve been in crypto for a long time and so is my father, and I think he realizes that every country in the world is embracing it. People are running—look at where we are right now in Abu Dhabi. They’re putting billions of dollars into crypto, into digital technologies. If we don’t do it as America, we’re going to be left behind. He wants to make America the crypto capital of the world. He’s been very, very clear with that, and I applaud that.

    Listen, right now, if you live in America and want to get a home loan, it takes you 90 days. How the hell does it take 90 days to get a home loan? By then, the house is already sold. Your dream is gone. There’s zero chance you’re getting it. There is nothing on blockchain that can’t be done better, faster, and substantially cheaper—not pushing paper. The banking system we have around the world, the modern banking system, is antiquated. It’s antiquated, and it’s just a matter of time before crypto not only catches up but really leaps ahead.

    We’re incredibly excited on a lot of fronts, and I think America will be the crypto capital of the world. I fully support it, my father fully supports it, and our family fully embraces it. We believe in DeFi.  We believe that’s the way of the future. America better lead the way; otherwise, we’re going to leave a lot behind.

    DAN MURPHY: All of this also comes back to regulation as well, and one thing your father has spoken about is incorporating new legislation, even deregulation, in the crypto space to really accelerate and move this forward. What does that look like?

    ERIC TRUMP: It’s transparent, that’s what it is. The people in the crypto industry are frustrated that no one’s ever put together a sensible plan as to how to regulate an industry. They’re fine with regulation, but they just want guidelines, and they’ve said that. The problem is, you see so many companies have been so unfairly treated—so many lawsuits, hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, people attacked, companies attacked—and they’re just saying, “Just give us the rules of the road, and we’ll obey them.”

    And by the way, if you give us the rules of the road, chances are the rest of the world will follow. So I think sensible regulation makes a lot of sense. A lot of people think the crypto industry doesn’t want regulation, but that’s actually not true. They just want sensible regulation—regulation that they can follow, regulation that’s crystal clear, that’s black and white.

    They don’t want to see people like Gensler, who was absolutely a disaster for crypto. He did everything he could to try and stifle innovation. He would do so, and those people have all been cleared out. I think they will put together good regulation. I think we will have a clear roadmap, and hopefully, the rest of the world follows that. Hopefully, we can lead by example because that’s what we should do as Americans. Hopefully, we truly are the crypto superpower of the world.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 21:20

  • The Lithium Glut Could Persist Until 2027
    The Lithium Glut Could Persist Until 2027

    Authored by Tsvetana Parskova via OilPrice.com,

    • Lithium prices have dropped sharply, prompting production curtailments in Australia and China but not in Africa, where Chinese-owned mines maintain output.

    • The global lithium market remains oversupplied, with UBS forecasting imbalances until at least 2027 despite recent production cuts.

    • China’s strategic focus on EVs and low-cost lithium ensures continued mining, while a potential restocking phase could eventually boost prices.

    This year’s plunge in lithium prices has forced curtailments in production in China and Western Australia as lithium miners look to limit losses and reduce the oversupply hanging over the market and prices. 

    However, the lithium glut has not gone away and the market could remain oversupplied until 2027, analysts say. 

    One of the reasons for a persistent glut could be the fact that while producers in Australia and, to some extent, in China, are curtailing output and delaying project ramp-ups, lithium mines in Africa owned by Chinese battery makers are not reducing supply. 

    The mines, especially those in Zimbabwe, continue to operate as Chinese battery makers continue mining operations to have low-cost lithium supply and maintain market share, industry insiders and analysts have told Reuters. 

    As a result, the market will continue to be oversupplied for the next two years, and not find balance until 2027, according to UBS. 

    The bank still expects lithium supply to have increased by 25% this year and to rise by 15% next year, according to its estimates cited by Reuters.

    The supply boost is expected despite the recent curtailments at lithium mines in Australia.

    Global lithium miners have moved to curtail production and shrink their workforce—at least until market conditions improve.

    Last month, Australian miner Mineral Resources said it was shutting down its Bald Hill lithium mine amid a crash in lithium prices in another project curtailment in the industry.

    The low lithium prices have hit other producers and projects, too.

    Australia’s Liontown Resources said it would reduce production from its Kathleen Valley lithium project, “to prioritise higher margin ore at reduced costs to adapt to the low-price lithium environment.”

    Pilbara Minerals has also announced a suspension of a lithium processing plant in Western Australia.

    The world’s largest lithium producer, North Carolina-based Albemarle, booked a net loss of $1.1 billion for the third quarter amid lower pricing in the lithium value chain.

    As part of measures to reduce costs and operations, Albemarle will be reducing its global workforce by an expected 6-7% and is slashing its 2025 capital expenditures by around 50% versus 2024 to an anticipated range of $800 million to $900 million.

    The reduction in some Chinese lithium supply is being replaced by output in Africa, which is serving the growing Chinese market, Albemarle’s chief commercial officer, Eric Norris, said on the company’s Q3 earnings call last month.

    “It is a fragmented market. It is a market with significant Chinese presence today. And it’s a market where you have a lot of young companies whose sole reason for existing is to raise a lithium project,” Norris said, commenting on why more supply hasn’t been curtailed.

    It could take longer for this market to rebalance, he added. 

    Many mines supplying Chinese battery makers wouldn’t close amid the price plunge because they are integrated into downstream supply chains, analysts told Reuters.  

    EV manufacturing and sales is a strategic priority for China’s government, which would like to have cheap lithium supply flowing.  

    And China’s electric vehicle sales are surging. November marked the fifth consecutive month in which battery electric vehicles and plug-in vehicles outsold gasoline passenger cars.

    China’s most recent rebound in demand has pushed local lithium prices higher. But the fundamentals of the global lithium market haven’t changed much—supply continues to outpace demand, setting the stage for at least another year of oversupply and depressed prices, analysts say.

    However, an expected phase of restocking of processed lithium for batteries could rebalance the market faster, according to Will Adams, head of base metals research at Fastmarkets, a commodity price reporting agency.

    “We’re probably going to be stepping in and out of deficits for a while, but as the deficits get closer, look out for the restocking phase as that can really give prices a boost,” Adams said on a recent webinar on the global outlook for the battery raw materials market in 2025. 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 20:55

  • Russians Urged To Avoid US Travel On Fears Of Arrest Or Being 'Lured' By CIA
    Russians Urged To Avoid US Travel On Fears Of Arrest Or Being ‘Lured’ By CIA

    In yet another diplomatic tit-for-tat move as relations with Washington spiral, Russia has warned its citizens to avoid all travel to the United States, saying they could face arrest.

    Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova laid out in a briefing Wednesday that “Traveling to the United States privately or on official business is fraught with serious risks.”

    Via Associated Press

    While it at first sounds like Moscow is doing a bit of trolling here, the Kremlin seems genuinely concerned over individual Russians being contacted or “lured” by US intelligence operatives.

    Zakharova continued, “In this regard, we urge [Russians] to avoid non-emergency travel to the U.S. and its allied satellite states, including primarily Canada and, with a few exceptions, EU countries, for these upcoming holidays and in the future.”

    While the message raised the possibility of potential prosecution from US authorities, she also emphasized the following:

    “Our compatriots have long been hunted in the direct sense of the word by U.S. intelligence services,” she said.

    And more:

    Russians already in the U.S. should avoid situations where they could become “victims of provocations” and face arrest under the pretext of violating local laws. 

    “If the attention shown to Russian citizens by Americans is becoming suspicious and intrusive, it may make sense to cut off these contacts and reconsider travel plans,” she said.

    Interestingly, orchestrating ‘provocations’ is precisely what the State Department has long accused Russia of doing with Americans traveling in Russia, with the most famous recent case being the imprisonment of Brittney Griner (later released in a prison swap with Victor Bout).

    The US Embassy in Moscow has in turned warned all US citizens that arbitrary detention could come if they travel through Russia. This has tensions have sourced between the two countries since the Feb. 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 20:30

  • DHS Announces New Rule To Allow Noncitizen Workers To Keep Jobs Longer While Awaiting Renewals
    DHS Announces New Rule To Allow Noncitizen Workers To Keep Jobs Longer While Awaiting Renewals

    Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times,

    The Department of Homeland Security this week announced a new rule making it easier and more reliable for certain noncitizen workers to keep their jobs while waiting for their work permit renewals to be processed.

    Starting Jan. 13, eligible applicants who file for their employment authorization documents (EADs) on time will automatically have their work authorization extended for up to 540 days, nearly three times longer than the previous 180-day maximum.

    The change will retroactively apply to applications filed on or after May 4, 2022, the agency said.

    DHS said the need for the rule change is “clear” as the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency in charge of processing these requests, “received and processed a record number of EAD applications this year.”

    This permanent change is expected to help workers avoid forced job breaks caused by processing delays and give employers more certainty when planning their staffing needs, DHS said in announcing the changes on Dec. 10.

    Federal officials say this decision is a direct response to business communities that have called for more efficient ways to keep valued employees on the job.

    “Increasing the automatic extension period for certain employment authorization documents will help eliminate red tape that burdens employers, ensure hundreds of thousands of individuals eligible for employment can continue to contribute to our communities, and further strengthen our nation’s robust economy,” Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement.

    For many applicants, navigating the work permit renewal process can be challenging, DHS said.

    Lengthy waits sometimes force employers to temporarily lose trained staff while applications wind through the system. USCIS has taken steps to reduce wait times to address this, the announcement said.

    “USCIS is committed to reducing unnecessary barriers and burdens in the immigration system to support our nation’s economy,” said USCIS Director Ur M. Jaddou.

    “This final rule will help U.S. employers better retain their workers and help prevent workers with timely-filed EAD renewal applications from experiencing lapses in their employment authorization and employment authorization documentation through no fault of their own.”

    DHS said the new rule will ensure a more stable employment environment for everyone involved.

    The move is part of a broader push to streamline the immigration system and bolster the nation’s economy, DHS said.

    Other efforts to cut processing times include extending validity periods from two to five years in some cases, improving how refugee permits are handled, and offering easier online filing options, the agency said.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 20:05

  • Exxon Plans Large Nat Gas Plants To Supply Electricity To Data Centers
    Exxon Plans Large Nat Gas Plants To Supply Electricity To Data Centers

    It isn’t just nuclear projects getting in on the “selling power to data centers” trend – now oil supermajor Exxon is joining the trend. 

    In fact, Exxon is planning a large natural gas-powered plant to supply electricity directly to data centers, incorporating technology to capture over 90% of its carbon emissions, according to the New York Times.

    This would be Exxon’s first power plant not dedicated to its own operations. Carbon capture systems remain rare and costly, despite federal subsidies, limiting their broader adoption.

    CEO Darren Woods said this week: “There are very few opportunities in the short term to power those data centers and do it in a way that at the same time minimizes, if not completely eliminates, the emissions.”

    Exxon exec Dan Ammann added: “We’re being driven by the market demand here. It’s low carbon, it’s available on an accelerated timeline and it avoids all the grid interconnection challenges.”

    Tech giants are increasingly willing to pay extra for reliable clean energy, including nuclear power. Here are Zero Hedge we spent most of 2024 documenting numerous tech giants like Google, Meta and Microsoft all inking deals with nuclear power generators to secure data center power in the future.

    The New York Times adds that Exxon, having secured land and engaged potential customers, plans to launch its gas-powered plant within five years—faster than building new nuclear reactors.

    Uniquely, the plant would operate off-grid, avoiding lengthy grid connection delays. This move highlights how the growth of data centers and AI is transforming the energy sector, pushing Exxon into a business it once avoided.

    Chevron could be next, too. Its CEO Mike Wirth predicts off-grid power projects will become more common, and Exxon is exploring similar ventures, aiming to launch a gas-powered plant with carbon capture technology.

    Exxon plans to spend $30 billion over six years on emission reduction and alternative energy while expanding oil and gas production. The company sees growing electricity demand from data centers as an opportunity to enter the power business, leveraging its expertise in carbon management and pipeline networks.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 19:40

  • The Wild World Of Democratic Ethics: Defeated Representative Accused Of Gaetz Leak
    The Wild World Of Democratic Ethics: Defeated Representative Accused Of Gaetz Leak

    Authored by Jonathan Turley,

    “You must be wary of those seeking to use their influence and their expertise to wrongful ends.”

    Those words were spoken at the George Washington Law School commencement ceremony two years ago by the recently defeated Rep. Susan Wild (D., Pa.).

    This week, the words took on a new meaning after Wild was accused of leaking information from the House Ethics Committee. Wild embodies a party that is in an ethical and political free fall this month.

     If news reports are accurate, Wild appears to have given our students a curious ethical lesson in how not to be a lawyer or legislator.

    Wild was fighting to release the report of the investigation into former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.).

    When Gaetz decided to withdraw from Congress, the report was not released. That is when details from the committee were leaked to the media, and the press reported that “two sources said Wild ultimately acknowledged to the panel that she had leaked information.”

    Keep in mind that this is the House Ethics Committee, and she is a member. She is also a member of Congress who took an oath as part of the panel’s rules that “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose, to any person or entity outside the Committee on Ethics, any information received in the course of my service with the Committee, except as authorized by the Committee or in accordance with its rules.”

    Wild herself has not publicly confirmed or denied the alleged leaking of the information.

    If the reports are true, Wild knowingly violated an oath that she took not to release information from the Ethics Committee because she was unhappy with losing votes on the release of information.

    Her office seems to have shrugged off media inquiries.

    As in the past controversy, Wild has avoided public comment on the report that she was the leaker.

    This controversy speaks to more than one unethical former representative. This month, we have seen Democrats line up to support one of the most unethical and abusive uses of presidential pardon power in history. President Biden not only pardoned his son but pardoned him for any crimes over a decade, including some that many felt implicated President Biden himself.

    The President issued the pardon after repeatedly lying to the public when he was a candidate that he would never do so. In the previous election, Biden lied to the public about not having met Hunter Biden’s clients or having knowledge of his dealings in the influence-peddling scandal.

    Biden’s lack of ethics surprised no one. However, even today, the support that he received from Democratic leaders over the pardon has been shocking. Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate majority whip, even called it a “labor of love.”

    Indeed, much of the corruption in Washington is a labor of love, from nepotism to influence peddling to corrupt pardons. Indeed, faced with overwhelming opposition of the public to the Biden pardon, Democratic members look like the comical choreography of “Prisoners of Love” from the movie The Producers. (“Oh, you can lock us up and lose the key; But hearts in love are always free!”).

    The distorted view of ethics in the Democratic Party was vividly on display during an embarrassing moment recently at the White House when Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed that a poll showed “64% of the American people agree with the pardon — 64% of the American people. So, we get a sense of where the American people are on this.”

    That poll actually showed the majority of Americans opposed the pardon.

    Yet, it was 64 percent of Democrats who favored a president giving his own son a pardon.

    It is all about the ends rather than the means in today’s politics of rage.

    The 2022 words of Wild were particularly poignant because they were used as part of a false attack made by Wild at my own school. In a speech to the law students on living an ethical life as a lawyer, Wild accused me of testifying falsely in the Trump impeachment that only criminal acts are impeachable after saying the opposite in my testimony in the Clinton impeachment.

    The only problem is that Wild’s statement was demonstrably and undeniably false. I testified in both the Clinton and Trump impeachments that an impeachable offense need not be an actual crime.  Ironically, Wild’s own Democratic colleagues and later the House managers in the Senate Trump trial repeatedly cited my testimony on that very point.

    None of this matters in the Wild world of Democratic ethics. It is very simple. Whatever Democrats are attempting cannot be “wrongful ends.” More importantly, it is the ends, not the means, that are the measure of ethics. Since they are only fighting for what is right, the ends justify the means from cleansing ballots of Republicans (including Trump) to supporting a massive censorship system to ignoring court decisions to count invalid votes.

    It is the same sense of ethics that led someone at the Supreme Court to leak a draft of the Dobbs decision.

    Even though the leak shattered court ethical rules and traditions, the leaker was lionized by many on the left.

    For years, the “by any means necessary” wing has dominated the Democratic Party. Ironically, the collapsing of the party’s credibility with the public has left little to show beyond a litany of unethical means used to achieve unrealized ends.

    *  *  *

    Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 19:15

  • South Korea's Top Cops Arrested, Ex-Defense Chief Tries Suicide As Failed Martial Law Bid Rocks Country
    South Korea’s Top Cops Arrested, Ex-Defense Chief Tries Suicide As Failed Martial Law Bid Rocks Country

    South Korea continues to be rocked by aftershocks in the wake of President Yoon Suk Yeol’s aborted declaration of marital law. In a trio of jarring new developments, the country’s top two law enforcement officers have been arrested, the former defense chief attempted suicide in detention, and police raided the president’s office — all while a second impeachment vote looms this weekend with greater prospects for success.  

    Late on Tuesday, police arrested South Korea’s former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who resigned on Thursday after a warrant was issued for his arrest for his alleged role in aiding Yoon’s martial law attempt. He then tried killing himself shortly after midnight in a detention center bathroom. His attempt was thwarted by a “control room staff member,” according to a report from the commissioner general of the Korea Correctional Service, and he’s said to be under close monitoring and in good health.

    South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol (left) with then-Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun — who resigned Thursday, was arrested Tuesday, and attempted suicide Wednesday (Yonhap/DPA)

    The first to be arrested over the constitutional crisis, Kim faces charges of “engaging in critical duties during an insurrection” and “abuse of authority to obstruct the exercise of rights.” A guilty verdict on the insurrection charge would expose Kim to a maximum penalty of death by hanging. While his method of suicide-attempt hasn’t been disclosed, it seems Kim wanted to skip the proceedings and administer his own form of justice.

    Wednesday also brought word that South Korea’s two senior-most law enforcement officers have been arrested on insurrection charges. National Police Commissioner Cho Ji-ho and Seoul metropolitan police chief Kim Bong-sik are behind bars at Seoul’s Namdaemun police station, according to the South China Morning Post.

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

    The two top cops are in hot water for deploying police to impede lawmakers who were trying to make their way into the parliament building to counteract Yoon’s martial law declaration. Then-Defense Minister Kim deployed soldiers to the same location. On Tuesday, Kim issued a statement taking responsibility for his actions and seeking to shield subordinates from consequences for their actions:

    “All responsibility for this situation lies solely with me. My subordinates were simply faithful in following my orders and the missions that were given to them. I ask for leniency for them.” 

    On Monday, the Justice Ministry banned Yoon from traveling overseas, at the request of police, prosecutors, and an anti-corruption agency. As the investigation intensified, President Yoon’s office was raided by police on Wednesday, as they sought evidence relating to his attempted imposition of martial law and the accompanying suspension of civil liberties and governmental checks and balances. 

    The office search, which has been reported by local media but not yet confirmed by police or the president’s office as this is written, flies in the face of previous assurances by observers that the presidential security service would thwart any such raid. They’d pointed to a law barring the search of areas that hold state secrets without the consent of those responsible for such spaces.   

    After the martial law declaration, police buses blocked the main entrance to the South Korean Parliament 

    The rolling crisis began on Dec. 3, when Yoon stunned South Korea and the international community with a late-night declaration of martial law, which he claimed was necessary to “rebuild and protect” the country, and prevent it from “falling into the depths of national ruin.” The move came after an impasse over the country’s 2025 budget, and the attempted impeachment of three top prosecutors. In his announcement, Yoon railed against “shameless pro-North-Korean anti-state forces who are plundering the freedom and happiness of our citizens…I will eliminate anti-state forces as quickly as possible and normalize the country.”

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

    As soldiers and police surrounded the National Assembly, the South Korean parliament’s speaker used his YouTube channel to summon legislators. All 190 who heeded the call voted to repeal the martial law declaration. Six hours after his shocking announcement, Yoon apologized for the move and retracted it, saying he’d acted out of “desperation.” 

    An impeachment vote last weekend failed in the face of a boycott by the ruling People Power Party (PPP), but the Democratic Party (DP) has announced it will move for impeachment again on Saturday, and some PPP members are now voicing their support. Success requires a two-thirds majority of the 300-member assembly. DP leader Lee Jae-myung voiced confidence:  “The impeachment train has left the platform. There is going to be no way to stop it,” 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 18:50

  • Judge Strikes Part Of Federal Law, Making It Easier To Remove 'Powerful' Judges
    Judge Strikes Part Of Federal Law, Making It Easier To Remove ‘Powerful’ Judges

    Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Some judges can be removed at will, rather than for cause, a federal judge said in a new Dec. 10 ruling as he also removed a layer of protection for the judges.

    The Department of Labor in Washington on Aug. 6, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

    National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative law judges have been protected in a complex scheme that requires the board to petition a different agency, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, to remove the judges. Even if the protection board agrees, the NLRB can only act if “good cause” for removal is found.

    Adding to the “byzantine process,” members of both boards can only be removed themselves for certain reasons, such as neglect of duty, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden wrote in the new decision.

    The U.S. Constitution gives the president executive power, which includes, according to Congress and court rulings, the power to remove subordinates. The exceptions are for inferior officers and some boards.

    In 2010, U.S. Supreme Court justices said that a scheme protecting Public Company Accounting Oversight Board officers was unconstitutional because it placed the president two layers away from removal. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which appointed the members, could only remove the members for good cause. SEC commissioners themselves could only be fired by the president for neglect of duty, malfeasance in office, or inefficiency.

    “In short, two protective layers was one too many,” McFadden said. “So too here.”

    The protection NLRB judges have “could result in federal officers pursuing unordained and perhaps unwise paths, with the only fear of reprisal shrouded in a maze of red tape,” the judge said. “Such attenuation from accountability was precisely what the Framers warned against when they rebuffed calls to fashion a plural executive.”

    The NLRB said in court filings that the administrative law judges have less power than Public Company Accounting Oversight Board officers and that they are more easily removed than the officers. McFadden said the judges are “powerful actors in the Executive Branch” because they can manage cases without oversight, including granting applications for subpoenas, and that the easier removal does not change the multilayer removal scheme.

    The Supreme Court ruling “was clear in its admonition: Officers of the United States cannot be insulated from the removal power by two or more levels of decisionmakers who themselves enjoy job protection,” the judge said. “To find otherwise would poison the soil of Article II and choke off accountability to the President. The removal restrictions are unconstitutional.”

    The Supreme Court has not weighed in on the matter. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has found SEC administrative law judges, which had similar protections to NLRB judges, were unconstitutionally protected. Three other circuit courts have found administrative law judge protections to be constitutional.

    In two of those rulings, the courts “placed too much weight on the adjudicatory ‘functions’” of the judges, ignoring how the judges “were nonetheless exerting executive power, case by case,” McFadden said. The third ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court, on other grounds.

    “That is a tenuous reed to sustain the NLRB’s position,” he said.

    In a two-page order, McFadden said that NLRB judges can now be removed by the board itself, without input from the Merit Systems Protection Board.

    The ruling came in a case brought by VHS Acquisition Subsidiary Number 7 Inc., which does business as Saint Vincent Hospital.

    A spokeswoman for the NLRB declined to comment. A lawyer for the hospital, which is in Massachusetts, did not return an inquiry.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 18:25

  • Government Spending Shock: US Budget Deficit Soars In Worst Start To Year On Record
    Government Spending Shock: US Budget Deficit Soars In Worst Start To Year On Record

    We thought last month’s US budget deficit was bad. Boy, were we wrong.

    It is only fitting that the twilight days of the Biden admin would exhibit more of the same fakeness that defined not only all of the past four years, but certainly the fakeness of that Kamala Harris presidential campaign which had a billion dollars a month ago and ended up in failure, broke… and millions in debt. We are talking, of course, about the relentless debt-funded spree that somehow became synonymous with economic success in the US.

    According to the latest Treasury data released today, in November – the second month of fiscal 2025 – the US spent a massive $584.2 billion, a 14% increase from the prior year, and a record for the month of November. For those who remember out outrage from a month ago, will also remember that the latest deficit number follows what was also a record government outlay for the month of October.

    On a trailing 6 month moving average basis, to smooth out outliers months, the spending hit $586 billion, effectively at an all time high with just the record spending spree during covid pushing government spending higher.

    The surge in spending was driven primarily by higher spending on health, defense and Social Security, but mostly a huge $50BN spike on Medicare outlays!

    The long-term chart of government spending shows what we all know: DOGE or not DOGE, there is no stopping this train.

    The surge in spending was far greater than the much more modest increase in tax revenues: in November, the US government collected $301.8 billion in taxes, up 9.8% from the $274.8 billion last November. As shown in the next chart, while spending continued to grow exponentially, tax receipts have flatlined, and the 6 month average in October was just $380 billion, the same as three years ago!

    To be sure, there were some calendar effects in play. Recall that last month we said that October 2023’s tax receipts were unusually higher due to deferred tax receipts that were received that month from companies and individuals affected by disasters including wildfires in California. Taking that into account, the October budget deficit would have been 22% higher (and would offset the freak September surplus which we are convinced was staged to make the last month of fiscal 2024 look abnormally good for the Biden admin). And since some of this calendar effect also nets in November, to avoid the calendar shifts across months we combined the first two months of fiscal 2025.  What we got was this shocker of a chart: 

    It shows that in October and November, the US deficit exploded to a staggering $624.2 billion, and even though this included several calendar adjustments – which explains the freak September surplus which as we said was due to calendar effects – the November deficit of $367 billion was $14 billion more than consensus estimates of $353 billion. Worse, combining October and November we find that not only was the combined number of $624 billion some 64% higher than the corresponding period one year ago, but it was also the highest deficit on record for the first two-months of the year (and that includes the spending insanity during the covid crisis).

    Putting the deficit in context, the budget deficit in October and November – the first two months of fiscal 2025 – are now officially the worst start a year for the US Treasury on record.

    Taking a closer look at what has been the most terrifying trend in the US income statement for some time now, the Treasury’s debt-servicing costs rose once again in November. Gross interest costs totaled $87 billion, up $7 billion from $80 billion in the same month a year before.

    And if the November print seems low by recent standards, just wait one month: the December gross interest payment will be an absolute shocker as that’s when the bulk of interest payments take place. For December, expect a number north of $150 billion in interest alone!

    And while we wait, this is what a chart of LTM spending across the main categories looks like. Yes, gross interest spending is not only the second largest outlay for the US government, just shy of $1.2 trillion, it’s also the highest it has ever been, and will continue rising, especially if/when the Fed ends its easing cycle prematurely due to rising prices sparking the next meltup…. in US interest payment.

    The good news is that for now (certainly until the December explosion), the surge in US interest payments has been delayed. That’s because the weighted average interest rate for total outstanding debt at the end of November was 3.36%, at roughly 15-year highs, but down slightly from the month before, the third monthly decline.

    However, don’t expect this decline in interest spending to persist because even though the Fed has cut rates twice since September, this has been more than offset by the surge in debt which at last check was now $36.2 trillion, up half a trillion from a month ago, and unless Elon’s Department for Government Efficiency (DOGE) manages to somehow slash trillions in both spending and interest, this is what US debt will look like for the next few years, guaranteeing that interest on said debt will very soon become the single largest spending category for the US government.

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

    For those who were still unsure if buying votes has a cost associated with it, now you know.

    The mindblowing figures illustrate the monumental challenge for Trump and all those promising to rein in US debt, which has exploded to 120% of GDP after four years of Biden’s “drunken-sailor” spending ways. The last hope for the US is that Trump has tapped Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to look at ways to cut spending. Alas, these figures show that the bulk of the outlays are in areas that are bound to be a politically explosive to address, in other words any cuts even remotely close to the $2 trillion suggested by Vivek would lead to a full-blown deep state revolt… and government cataclysm.

    It’s also why attempts to reroute the US from its inevitable collision with the iceberg of fiscal devastation will likewise end in ruin.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 18:00

  • There Is No Right To A Minimum Wage
    There Is No Right To A Minimum Wage

    Authored by Soham Patil via The Mises Institute,

    One of the most popular economic fallacies of our time is the belief that the absence of a minimum wage would lead to limitless exploitation of employees in the economy. Minimum wage legislation prevents employees from being hired at pay rates below the mandated amount. Proponents of minimum wage laws claim that not having a minimum wage would lead to employees being paid very little for the amount of work they do. They also claim that everyone ought to be entitled to some standard of living and that minimum wages are instrumental in ensuring better conditions for everyone. Ultimately, arguments for minimum wage laws do not stand up to scrutiny.

    The most important reason to oppose minimum wage laws is that they violate freedom of association and freedom of contract. It prevents two willing and able parties from coming to a voluntary contractual agreement if the wages are below the legally-mandated minimum. While minimum wage limits are often relatively low, their imposition entails that legislators believe some wages are too low and that they must take measures to prevent work being done for “exploitative wages.” Naturally, this means that some jobs will cease to exist since jobs that pay below the legally-mandated amount will no longer be worthwhile for the firms. As a result, minimum wage laws necessarily destroy some jobs in the economy.

    Arguments for minimum wages rest on economic fallacies.

    One of the most popular ones is that minimum wage laws prevent exploitation by setting a standard limit under which firms cannot go. A key, but mistaken, assumption in this line of thought is that without minimum wages firms would simply drive wage rates lower and lower and employees would have no choice other than to accept whatever they are given. This ignores the fact that all agreements require at least two consenting parties.

    Hardly anyone would agree to work a job which pays nothing or pays a disproportionately low amount for the amount of effort and skill required.

    Employees set the floor in negotiations as they would not work for too low an amount while firms set the ceiling as they wouldn’t pay exorbitant amounts which would cause them to be unprofitable. If the lack of minimum wage legislation allows firms to drive wage rates low, we must ask ourselves why certain jobs that pay much more than the minimum wage exist. Clearly there must be other factors that impact wages which would invalidate the talking point of limitless exploitation.

    Employees also do not have the right to a minimum wage. Their work is only as valuable as what they can fetch on the free market. I might believe that the work I can do is worth a thousand dollars an hour, but if no firm is willing to offer me that much money, I don’t have an entitlement to it. The same is true at any wage rate, even the minimum wage rate. Many seem not to grasp this fact as advocates for a minimum wage often state that no work is worth lower than the minimum wage amount. This ignores the nature of work and that work itself does not have intrinsic value.

    While minimum wage laws fail to deliver on their benefits, their consequences are more potent. Since minimum wage laws destroy some jobs, there exists a percentage of the workforce which would have had employment in the absence of these laws. Businesses are also forced to operate either on higher costs or with a lower workforce which either raises costs for consumers or leads to lower productivity. While the advocates of minimum wage legislation believe they operate from a higher ground of morality, their policies only hurt the ones whom they wish to help the most.

    Repealing these laws can only lead to a better economy.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 17:40

  • FBI Director Chris Wray Resigns
    FBI Director Chris Wray Resigns

    Before President-elect Donald Trump could say “You’re Fired!” – FBI Director Christopher Wray has resigned, and will leave his post at the end of President Joe Biden’s term.

    Wray’s decision comes weeks after Trump nominated Kash Patel as his replacement. Patel, a fierce critic of the FBI, has said he would seek to shrink the agency’s power, close its Washington headquarters, fire its top ranks, and prosecute corrupt agents.

    While Wray’s departure was always in the cards, the move comes two days after Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wrote an 11-page letter to Wray asking him to step down, accusing him of mismanagement and “failure to take control of the FBI.”

    “These failures are serious enough and their pattern widespread enough to have shattered my confidence in your leadership and the confidence and hope many others in Congress placed in you,” wrote Grassley.

    As the Epoch Times notes further, in November 2022, Grassley published FBI documents showing that higher-ranking officials were sometimes penalized less severely than subordinates.

    Wray had addressed this disparity, saying in a Bureau-wide email on Dec. 11, 2020, that the agency “has zero tolerance for any form of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct.”

    On March 4, 2022, FBI Deputy Director Abbate warned all FBI employees: “Regardless of your rank and title, every one of us has the responsibility to treat everyone with dignity, respect, and professionalism. … Harassment of any kind will not be tolerated.”

    Grassley also mentioned in his letter his inquiry about the vetting of refugees from Afghanistan through the Operation Allies Welcome program. In February 2022, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that the Department of Homeland Security had not cross-checked these evacuees against data from the Department of Defense.

    As a result, 50 individuals who had been flagged as “potentially significant security concerns” by the National Ground Intelligence Center were allowed into the United States.

    Requests to the FBI for further information were ignored, Grassley said.

    Wray said “in a classified multi-agency briefing to congressional staff” that he was unsure of the location of other refugees who might pose a threat, Grassley wrote.

    “I can’t sit here right now and tell you that we know where all are located at any given time,” Grassley quoted Wray as saying.

    He pointed out that one potential terror threat had been foiled when the FBI arrested Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi on Oct. 7 of this year. Tawhedi was allegedly planning a terror attack to disrupt the U.S. election on Nov. 5.

    Grassley also accused Wray and the FBI of exercising a double standard by refusing to investigate President Joe Biden’s or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information.

    President-elect Donald Trump appointed Wray in 2017 after firing the previous director, James Comey. In a recent interview with “Meet the Press,” Trump expressed displeasure over Wray’s performance.

    “He invaded my home,” Trump said, referring to the 2022 FBI raid on his Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago.

    Trump also cited Wray’s initial claim that his ear was struck by shrapnel instead of an assassin’s bullet, and waning public respect for the FBI as an institution.

    “I can’t say I’m thrilled,” he said.

    The president-elect has already named Kash Patel the new FBI director, indicating that Wray’s time at the post is nearly over. However, Grassley wants Wray and Abbate to step down sooner.

    “For the good of the country, it’s time for you and your deputy to move on to the next chapter in your lives,” the letter says.

    The agency told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement: “The FBI has repeatedly demonstrated our commitment to responding to Congressional oversight and being transparent with the American people.

    “Director Wray and Deputy Director Abbate have taken strong actions toward achieving accountability in the areas mentioned in the letter and remain committed to sharing information about the continuously evolving threat environment facing our nation and the extraordinary work of the FBI.”

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 17:33

  • 'Simply Robbery': Moscow To Retaliate After US Hands Ukraine $20BN Utilizing Russian Assets
    ‘Simply Robbery’: Moscow To Retaliate After US Hands Ukraine $20BN Utilizing Russian Assets

    Russia on Wednesday blasted the US disbursing a $20 billion loan to Ukraine backed by frozen Russian assets as “theft” and “simply robbery” while vowing that retaliation will soon come.

    On Tuesday, the Biden administration announced it disbursed the $20 billion loan for Ukraine, to eventually be paid back using interest earned on frozen Russian Central Bank assets, which has been a controversial plan long in preparation.

    AFP/Getty Images

    Washington said it issued the funds as part of the bigger total $50 billion loan being provided by the Group of Seven (G7) nations.

    Russia’s foreign ministry on Wednesday further said the move “will not go answered”. It warned that it has “sufficient capacity and leverage to retaliate by seizing Western assets under its jurisdiction”.

    In announcing the major action, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen had described the following:

    “These funds — paid for by the windfall proceeds earned from Russia’s own immobilized assets — will provide Ukraine a critical infusion of support as it defends its country against an unprovoked war of aggression.”

    “The $50 billion collectively being provided by the G7 through this initiative will help ensure Ukraine has the resources it needs to sustain emergency services, hospitals, and other foundations of its brave resistance,” she added.

    This is all part of Biden and NATO allies’ efforts to ‘Trump proof’ future aid and support to Ukraine for years to come. Trump is expected to ‘probably’ reduce US defense aid to Ukraine. Trump officials have warned that Kiev would see funding greatly reduced or even pulled if it is unwilling to engage Moscow seriously at the negotiating table.

    A key rationale of Trump’s team in making the case for a necessary and quick winding down of the war is that the West must avoid nuclear confrontation or a WW3 scenario with Russia at all costs.

    War-weary populations across Europe and the West are also in favor of peace, all recent polling shows, and Trump has been given a clear mandate by US voters to seek a diplomatic end to the war.

    Zelensky has in response said: “What is needed are concrete, strong actions that will force him [Putin] to peace, not persuasion and attempts at appeasement, which he sees as a sign of weakness and uses to his advantage.”

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 17:20

  • Trump Nominates Harmeet Dhillon To DOJ's Civil Rights Division
    Trump Nominates Harmeet Dhillon To DOJ’s Civil Rights Division

    Authored by Melanie Sun and Nathan Worcester via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    President-elect Donald Trump named attorney Harmeet Dhillon as assistant attorney general for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Justice in a post on Truth Social on Dec. 9.

    Harmeet Dhillon, an adviser to former President Donald Trump who is also a Republican delegate in California, attends the 2023 CAGOP convention of Anaheim, Calif., on Sept. 29, 2023. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

    “Throughout her career, Harmeet has stood up consistently to protect our cherished Civil Liberties, including taking on Big Tech for censoring our Free Speech, representing Christians who were prevented from praying together during COVID, and suing corporations who use woke policies to discriminate against their workers,” Trump said.

    “In her new role at the DOJ, Harmeet will be a tireless defender of our Constitutional Rights, and will enforce our Civil Rights and Election Laws fairly and firmly. Congratulations, Harmeet!”

    The Department of Justice will be headed by U.S. Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi, pending confirmation by the Senate.

    Dhillon has clerked in the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The Dartmouth College and University of Virginia Law School graduate, who is a member of the Sikh religious community, thanked Trump for the nomination and her family for their support.

    In a post on X, she said she is “extremely honored by President Trump’s nomination to assist with our nation’s civil rights agenda.”

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

    “It has been my dream to be able to serve our great country, and I am so excited to be part of an incredible team of lawyers led by Pam Bondi. I cannot wait to get to work!” she wrote.

    Dhillon’s appointment happened after Trump named another partner in her law firm, Dhillon Law Group, to a key position.

    On Dec. 4, he announced he was selecting David Warrington as his White House counsel. Warrington replaced Trump’s previous pick for the position, William McGinley, who was moved into the role of counsel for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) commission.

    Dhillon, a Republican National Committeewoman for California, previously contested then-Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel for that post. McDaniel, who ultimately won, stepped down earlier this year. Former North Carolina Republican Party Chair Michael Whatley received Trump’s endorsement and stepped into the role. Trump recently endorsed Whatley’s continuation as committee chair.

    Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dhillon filed numerous lawsuits challenging California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s measures, including his mask order.

    Trump Names General Counsel of the OMB

    In another post, Trump also announced that he was appointing Mark Paoletta to return to serve in the second Trump administration as General Counsel of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    “Mark will work closely with our DOGE team to cut the size of our bloated Government bureaucracy, and root out wasteful and anti-American spending,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

    Paoletta, a partner at the Law Firm, Schaerr Jaffe, and a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America, was part of the first Trump administration and an ally in advancing Trump’s American First agenda. Alongside then-OMB Director Russ Vought, who has also been asked by Trump to head the OMB again, Paoletta arranged federal funding to build Trump’s border wall facing Mexico.

    “Mark is a conservative warrior who knows the ‘ins and outs’ of Government – He will help us, Make America Great Again!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

    The president-elect also endorsed K.C. Crosbie for the next co-chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC).

    The position became open after Lara Trump announced on Dec. 8 that she would be stepping down and was considering a possible Senate appointment in the incoming administration as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has been named by Trump to be the next secretary of state.

    Crosbie previously served as the RNC’s treasurer and the national committeewoman representing Kentucky.

    “KC has been with me from the very beginning, helping real Republicans get elected across the Country, and would be a tremendous Co-Chair of the RNC! KC will work on continuing to ensure a highly functioning, fiscally responsible, and effective RNC that makes Election Integrity a highest priority,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 17:00

  • San Diego Sheriff 'Will Not' Comply With New 'Super Sanctuary' Protections For Illegals
    San Diego Sheriff ‘Will Not’ Comply With New ‘Super Sanctuary’ Protections For Illegals

    The San Diego County Sheriff’s office is refusing to comply with the County Board of Supervisors’ vote to turn the county into a “super” sanctuary by preventing local law enforcement from complying with federal immigration enforcement efforts.

    San Diego County Sheriff Kelly Martinez

    With the return of Trump to the White House, the board on Tuesday approved the measure in a 3-1 vote, prohibiting the use of its resources to help ICE, and limiting the use of its jails, county buildings and personnel in assisting federal immigration enforcement agents.

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

    “San Diego County has always been a place where communities are valued, not divided and as a County Supervisor, I’m committed to leading a local government that promotes unity, equity, and justice for all, while upholding the law,” said County Chairwoman Nora Vargas, adding “We will not allow our local resources to be used for actions that separate families, harm community trust, or divert critical local resources away from addressing our most pressing challenges. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and our County will not be a tool for policies that hurt our residents.”

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

    Not So Fast

    In response, the San Diego County Sheriff says they will ignore the Board’s resolution.

    “The Sheriff’s Office will not change its practices based on the Board resolution and policy that was passed at today’s meeting,” adding that “The Board of Supervisors does not set policy for the Sheriff’s Office.

    “The Sheriff as an independently elected official, sets the policy for the Sheriff’s Office. California law prohibits the Board of Supervisors from interfering with the independent, constitutionally and statutorily designated investigative functions of the Sheriff.”

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

    Vargas doesn’t know what to do!

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/11/2024 – 16:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.