Today’s News 18th December 2023

• US Military Faces 'Mutiny' Of Enlisted Gen-Zers As TikTok Virus Spreads
  US Military Faces ‘Mutiny’ Of Enlisted Gen-Zers As TikTok Virus Spreads

  Gen-Zers in the civilian world have already taken to the Chinese social media platform ‘TikTok’ to blast Washington and the military-industrial complex that they will not fight America’s endless wars. Even enlisted Gen-Zers are bashing the military amid a worsening recruitment crisis while neocon warmongers in the White House drag the world closer to World War III. 

  A new report from DailyMail shows a number of enlisted TikTokers, with millions of followers, are bashing the military as a morale crisis spreads like a virus across the ranks. 

  Military influencer Anthony Laster posted a video that emphasized the Army life is now for him: “Privacy, The Pay Sucks, Sh***y Food, Disrespectful Leadership, NO SLEEP!” The video was viewed more than 600,000 times. 

  Laster has more than a million followers on TikTok. His negative press on military life leaves a terrible impression on recruits. 

  

  “Politicians from both sides have concerns about the platform’s links with China and accuse it of pushing subversive anti-US propaganda,” DailyMail pointed out. 

  

  Another TikToker told thousands of followers not to join the military. 

  

  Here’s another TikToker. 

  

  And another… 

  

  DailyMail spoke with a defense official who said: 

  “DoD Components are required to review and approve non-official mobile applications for use on government-issued devices.

  “The DoD never authorized the use of TikTok, and several organizations have already banned its download onto its mobile devices. Users are required to sign a user agreement when the device is issued. 

  “The agreement informs them of the proper device use requirements and their responsibilities for the appropriate use and download of unmanaged applications. Additionally, all DoD personnel are required to take the Annual Cyber Awareness Challenge which has modules specific to mobile devices, social media, and geolocation capabilities.” 

  The official added:

  “DoD Mobile Application policy requires DOD Components to review and prohibit the use of applications that pose potential risk. DoD is currently updating its mobile application security policy to establish a process for prohibiting the installation of any application that DoD believes is inappropriate to be downloaded to a government device as well.” 

  In some cases, warfare has shifted from destroying men and military machinery to paralyzing and controlling the mind. 

  According to the military publication Defstrat, the sixth domain of warfare is cognitive warfare. The Chinese understand cognitive warfare exceptionally well with the TikTok virus spreading through America’s military, which comes amid a worsening recruitment crisis. Meanwhile, radical neocons in the White House are gunning for World War III. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 23:55

• Nobel Prize Winner Seeking to Cure Cancer With mRNA Technology
  Nobel Prize Winner Seeking to Cure Cancer With mRNA Technology

  Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Nobel Prize winner Dr. Drew Weissman talked recently about using mRNA technology to prevent the development of cancers among vulnerable people.

  

  Dr. Weissman suggested using mRNA vaccines to prevent cancers during his Nobel Prize lecture on Dec. 7. “The idea here is that you treat people before they develop cancer,” he said. Dr. Weissman won the Nobel Prize for medicine this year along with Dr. Katalin Karikó for developing a method to prevent the immune system from launching inflammatory attacks when lab-made mRNA is injected into the body, thus enabling the therapeutic use of the medical technology.

  This allowed for the rapid development of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Dr. Weissman and his team at the University of Pennsylvania are now focusing on using mRNA technology to treat cancer.

  A vaccine under development by the team teaches the body to identify and fight tumor cells. The vaccine is aimed at people who have a genetic mutation which raises their risk of cancer.

  For instance, BRCA is a gene that contributes to breast cancer risk. Out of the more than 18 million cancers identified globally every year, around five to 10 percent stem from genetic mutations.

  The Nobel Prize winner and his team investigated methods to use mRNA to trigger an immune response in the body that would kill cancer cells.

  In experiments with mice, the researchers injected mRNA that taught the body to produce a protein called IL-12. This protein directs the body to produce immune cells called effector T-cells that can remove cancer.

  “We know that it’s five or 10 years that cancer cells first start to appear before you’ve got full-fledged large tumors that impair function,” Dr. Weissman said during his lecture.

  “If we treat these people, maybe every 5 years, with a vaccine that only makes effector T-cells, [it] will clean out, clear away, kill all of the transformed cells and maybe completely prevent cancer from ever appearing in these patients.”

  mRNA Treatments

  Many pharma companies are already researching the use of mRNA for cancer therapy. This month, Moderna and Merck & Co. announced that they have begun a late-stage trial of their experimental personalized mRNA treatment for patients with a type of lung cancer.

  The therapy, called v940, will be tailored for each patient individually to trigger T-cells. It will be offered in combination with the drug Keytruda. In July, the two companies kicked off a late-stage study of the combination therapy in patients with melanoma, a skin cancer.

  Earlier this year, BioNTech, the company that partnered with Pfizer to make the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, said that it had signed a deal with the UK government for personalized cancer therapies.

  According to the deal, up to 10,000 patients will be enrolled in clinical trials by the end of 2030. The cancer therapies will use mRNA technology in their treatments.

  In addition to cancer, mRNA technology is being investigated for use in the treatment of allergies, genetic diseases, heart attack, stroke, heart failure, neurodevelopmental disorders, HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis.

  Developing mRNA to vaccinate against other diseases when the existing technology has considerable flaws brings up several safety questions.

  Researchers in a landmark new study have discovered a sequence within the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine that produces an “unintended immune response” in the body, which experts are calling a massive “developmental and regulatory failure.”

  Synthetic Messenger Ribonucleic Acid (mRNA), such as that used in Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, enables the body to create a specific spike protein mimicking SARS-CoV-2. The body reacts to the foreign protein and generates protective immunity, which theoretically neutralizes the real virus when it enters the body.

  “Researchers from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Toxicology Unit have discovered that the cellular machinery that ‘reads’ mRNAs ‘slips’ when confronted with repeats of a chemical modification commonly found in mRNA therapeutics. In addition to the target protein, these slips lead to the production of ‘off-target’ proteins triggering an unintended immune response,” said a press release for the study published in Nature on Dec. 6.

  Last week, Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo demanded that federal health officials provide more info on the discovery of DNA fragments in Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines “hitchhiking into human cells.”

  In a letter to officials at the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he pointed out that the presence of Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter/enhancer DNA in the vaccines poses a “heightened risk of DNA integration into host cells.”

  “DNA integration could theoretically impact a human’s oncogenes—the genes which can transform a healthy cell into a cancerous cell,” he warned.

  There is also research showing that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines can reduce a beneficial gut bacteria called Bifidobacteria, the presence of which is associated with higher immunity against pathogens and cancer.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 23:20

• Which Cars Have The Best Resale Value?
  Which Cars Have The Best Resale Value?

  For three years now, the used-car market has been booming, after the pandemic disrupted new car supply chains, sending secondhand vehicle prices skyrocketing.

  But which cars have the best resale value?

  In the graphic below, Visual Capitalist’s Marcu Lu and Pallavi Rao show the top 10 vehicles with the lowest depreciation rates over five years, based on data from iSeeCars.

  

  They analyzed over 1.1 million used cars from model year 2018, sold between November 2022 to October 2023. Models no longer in production as of the 2022 model year were excluded.

  Porsche is Still (Almost) Perfect After Five Years

  Heading the list, Porsche has two models with the best resale value after half a decade.

  After five years, the 911 (Coupe) only loses 9% of its retail value in the used-car market on average. Porsche’s flagship costs anywhere between $90,000–$294,000 based on the horsepower (ranging from 200–700), along with other model specifications.

  At second place, the Porsche 718 Cayman loses about one-fifth of its value. Two other Porsches – the Boxster, and the 911 convertible – also feature in ranks, at 12th and 15th respectively, both losing around 25% of their retail price tag.

  Here’s a look at the full list of slowest depreciating cars in the United States:

  Rank	Model	Average 5-Yr Depreciation	Average Difference from MSRP
  1	Porsche 911 (Coupe)	9%	$18,094
  2	Porsche 718 Cayman	18%	$13,372
  3	Toyota Tacoma	20%	$8,359
  4	Jeep Wrangler	21%	$8,951
  5	Honda Civic	22%	$5,817
  6	Subaru BRZ	23%	$8,114
  7	Chevrolet Camaro	24%	$10,161
  8	Toyota C-HR	24%	$6,692
  9	Subaru Crosstrek	25%	$7,214
  10	Toyota Corolla	25%	$5,800
  11	Ford Mustang	25%	$10,035
  12	Porsche 718 Boxster	25%	$20,216
  13	Toyota Tundra	25%	$12,588
  14	Kia Rio 5-Door	26%	$5,006
  15	Porsche 911 (Convertible)	26%	$42,227
  16	Honda HR-V	26%	$7,318
  17	Subaru Impreza (Wagon)	26%	$6,927
  18	Kia Rio	26%	$4,959
  19	Chevrolet Spark	27%	$4,784
  20	Toyota RAV4	27%	$8,858
  21	Hyundai Accent	27%	$5,353
  22	Toyota 4Runner	27%	$13,147
  23	Chevrolet Corvette	28%	$22,712
  24	Nissan Kicks	28%	$6,560
  25	Subaru Impreza (Sedan)	28%	$7,158

  Note: MSRP stands for Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price, the price recommended by a product’s producer to retailers. Furthermore, MSRPs from 2018 were inflation-adjusted to 2023 dollars.

  The Toyota Tacoma, America’s fifth best-selling truck, comes in third, losing 20%.

  The Jeep Wrangler (-21%) and the Honda Civic (-22%) round out the top five cars with the best resale value.

  Two more sports cars (the Subaru BRZ and Chevrolet Camaro) feature in the top 10, indicating that these “fun” designer cars are valued for their status as well as functionality.

  Aside from the sports category, Americans seem to rate Japanese automakers highly. Put together, Toyota, Subaru, Honda, and Nissan account for half of the cars with the best resale value.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 22:45

• Goodbye, Scout Snipers … For Now
  Goodbye, Scout Snipers … For Now

  Authored by John J. Waters via RealClear Wire,

  Scout Snipers have a mantra.

  

  I learned that mantra years ago when I was assigned to lead a platoon of these Marines. My chief scout in the platoon, a title held by the most experienced Scout Sniper, was Damon.

  When we met in 2012 on Camp Lejeune, Damon was in his late twenties. His guys were at-home in the woods and with a load on their backs; they rarely complained about being dirty, tired or uncomfortable. I learned quickly that Scout Snipers were the best in the battalion, regular infantrymen who had started out carrying an assault rifle or lobbing mortars but aspired to something sleeker, freer and more elite. Before graduating the arduous Scout Sniper Basic Course to earn his new, coveted title, Damon himself had carried a machine gun on a deployment to Anbar province. I remember the front of his uniform was covered in ribbons and medals earned on combat tours. On his back were the words “Scout Sniper.” They were branded into his skin.

  Similar to most competitive people, Damon didn’t like following rules, including the rule that required him to buckle the chinstrap on his Kevlar helmet. Like a kid who refuses to put on a helmet before riding his bicycle, I couldn’t get him to listen. Whenever we went to the field for training, I’d see that nylon strap dangling off his sideburns. “I know, sir,” Damon would say. Until the next time it happened, and the time after that. If only he hadn’t been so good-natured (and good at his job), I might have been more insistent that he fall in line.

  But I wasn’t.

  Recently, the Marine Corps decided its infantry battalions no longer need Scout Snipers. The final class graduates today from the Scout Sniper Basic Course. Soon, Scout Sniper platoons will disband and transform into so-called “scout platoons.” They will observe the enemy, but not shoot him. Some argue the loss of formally-trained precision marksmen will make infantry battalions less lethal. Others, including military brass, say the cuts will help build a lighter, more “commando-style” infantry.

  Either way, they had this coming.

  After two decades of continuous deployments in the War on Terror, Scout Snipers had grown arrogant and independent-minded. They flouted the strict uniform and grooming standards demanded of other Marines. They stubbornly insisted there was a difference between “field Marines” and “garrison Marines,” that their skill in the bush more than compensated for their unwillingness to conform to standards of appearance or behavior when back at headquarters. And, as the rules of engagement in Afghanistan became increasingly convoluted, Scout Snipers confronted risk-averse officers and argued for greater authority to identify targets and fire their weapons—to protect their brothers-in-arms.

  In short, Scout Snipers mistakenly believed they were independent. 

  And so, after today’s graduation ceremony, for the first time in decades, school-trained Scout Snipers will find themselves without platoons to call home. They have at least two options to bide their time, while they wait for our country and Marine Corps to once again call upon young men with the spark and spirit to embark alone on dangerous missions: blend back into regular infantry platoons, or continue their pursuit of new challenges in reconnaissance or special operations units.

  Regardless, and while they wait, Scout Snipers would do well to follow the mantra I first saw printed onto the back of a T-shirt Damon wore underneath his camouflage utilities, which read:

  “Suffer Patiently; Patiently Suffer.”

  John J. Waters is the author of the postwar novel River City One. He lives in Nebraska, where he was born. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 22:10

• Who Can Afford Kids These Days?
  Who Can Afford Kids These Days?

  Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The large data sets on the cost of living and the cost of children are instructive. But nothing compares with the anecdotes you hear from people who once thought they were prosperous but now wonder if they can really get by while completely ruling out the idea of having and raising children. It’s a genuine shift and one that is devastating for the future.

  

  Last week, the Wall Street Journal ran a fascinating piece by a high-end worker in New York City. He has a great job and so does his wife. But during the last year, they discovered that they are truly living paycheck to paycheck, barely able to pay the bills. They have discovered home cooking and have pretty well given up concerts and dinners out with friends. The writer was being deeply honest about a problem that seems to affect most people.

  They thought that they had finally achieved the long-sought goal of prosperity. Instead, they feel a sense of impending doom. The kicker: the writer is in the C-suite of the Wall Street Journal itself! It turns out that this situation is now typical. A majority of Americans live this way!

  And this is a childless couple. How in the world can they afford to have children? The wife cannot quit her job else they would both have to move, if they can find a place. Giving up a full income stream to raise a child is a huge expense in addition to the high costs of everything associated with children from diapers to formula to health care insurance.

  The alternative is to keep working and put the kid in childcare. That is extremely difficult to come by everywhere. A report on childcare by Care.com offers some amazing data of the costs over the last ten years.

  • Weekly nanny cost: $736 (up 56 percent from $472 in 2013). • Weekly daycare cost: $284 (up 53 percent from $186 in 2013). • Weekly family care center cost: $229 (up 80 percent from $127 in 2013). • Weekly babysitter cost: $179 (up 92 percent from $93 in 2013)

  In terms of the most expensive places, the report offers the following. A weekly nanny in D.C. costs $885. In Massachusetts, it’s $865. In Connecticut, it’s $799. A weekly babysitter costs $200 in places like California. Daycare is going to run $250 to $400.

  These are the most expensive cities and also the most regulated states. When there is no competition and the costs of opening child care are astronomical, this is what you get. However, the problem is also nationwide.

  The report comments: “Today, families are spending, on average, 27 percent of their household income on child care expenses. And 59 percent of parents surveyed tell us they are planning to spend more than $18,000 per child on child care in 2023. It’s no surprise that 50 percent of parents are more concerned about the cost of child care than they were at this time last year.”

  Think about this impossible situation that affects millions of young couples. You need two incomes to pay the bills, and that’s if you are lucky. Chances are that one of the two will need an additional part-time job, which is why multiple job holders are higher than ever before. That was the big change that occurred after the last great inflation of the late seventies. After 1985, women with children were more likely to have a remunerative job than not.

  At the time, this was called “women’s liberation” but that was mostly a marketing gimmick to hide the dramatic decline in household income that required a second income to have growing household prosperity. That seemed to work for a while, even a long time. But as health care and childcare have become so expensive, the second income went from being a luxury to being an expected necessity.

  Many people these days are hoping to homeschool children. This is especially true since the school closures forced so many millions into Zoom school that didn’t work and set a whole generation of kids back two years in learning outcomes. Many parents want to avoid that as their children get older. But homeschooling requires foregoing a full income stream. Only the richest can do that now, so that is ever more out of the question.

  Oh and by the way, the Biden administration is considering new regulations on au pairs that would more than double their cost. The government wants to demand that they get paid the minimum wage, which would dramatically reduce demand and thus supply, thus ruining one of the few functioning migration markets we have.

  After the school situation is solved, there is the problem of college, which introduces another set of problems. It’s no longer even thinkable that people can work their way through school and pay the bills. How many people are declining to have kids on those grounds alone? Who can afford to throw down $200K for a college degree in addition to paying the bills for the household?

  For most of human history, having kids was just what you do, the whole reason for pairing up, and a driving force of the purpose of life itself. Today, we have different options and choices, and that’s great. But what happens when bearing children becomes completely unaffordable for any couple that has bills to pay, health care to cover, and would like to think about retirement too? That’s a huge problem and not just for the family but for the whole of society.

  You will notice, too, that this grim situation is completely consistent with the depopulation agenda of elite classes that they have pushed for many decades. Elon Musk is exactly right to call this out and argue that it is a profound danger to society itself when the birthrate falls below its replacement rate. It literally means that humanity is dying out.

  I do think it is about time that everyone admits that we have lost a huge amount in living standards over the decades. The expectation of two and three income streams in every household is a major culprit that is often not considered in the data. And yet in some ways, family income is all that really matters in terms of assessing the quality of life.

  This week, I’ve been thinking back on the world my parents lived in circa 1958. They got married and immediately got in their car and drove to Northern California. Why? My father had finished his undergraduate degree in history and decided to go to seminary where he planned to study music. His ambition then was to become the director of music at a church.

  While he was in school, they had one child, my brother, and then when my father got his first appointment, they had me. My mother did not work. Somehow, and this seems inconceivable to me today, the very idea that a family of four could support itself in California on the salary of a beginning church music director. And yet they were not poor. They were middle class.

  Later they moved again and when it became fashionable for women with children to work, my mother together with her mother both obtained teachers certificates and took jobs. They were enormously proud of what they had achieved. They felt themselves to be upwardly mobile, and the family certainly benefited since by then my brother and I were happy in good schools.

  All of this changed in the later 1970s as inflation kicked in. I can recall how my mother’s job went from being a joy to a chore that she could no longer give up. Things became intense as we needed more cars, more clothing, and mortgage payments were rising and rising. Now of course the situation is enormously worse, as everyone knows.

  My point is that the circumstances under which my own parents decided to have kids back in the early 1960s seem like a completely different world. It was a time that was in many ways massively more prosperous. True, they didn’t have streaming videos and the internet but I can never recall being bored. Life was good.

  I often hear Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. reflect on these days with a deep sense of nostalgia and an awareness that the American middle class was large and robust and optimism was everywhere in the air. This awareness more than anything is what drew him into politics to see if there is something he can do to bring back the greatest of the American dream.

  I’m not sure that he or anyone can do it, but let’s not deceive ourselves. Poverty is spreading, the middle class is dying, the birth rate is plummeting, and the dream is fading faster and faster into the recesses of our memories. If you doubt it, speak to any newly married couple today about their plight and the decision to have children. You will get an earful.

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

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 21:00

• 'Mega Cold Blast' Hits China As Temps Hit Record Lows 
  ‘Mega Cold Blast’ Hits China As Temps Hit Record Lows 

  The strongest cold blast of this winter has gripped large swathes of China as temperatures in Shanxi, Hebei, and Liaoning have plunged to their lowest levels on record on Sunday. 

  Reuters cited a meteorological forecaster from the city of Yichun in Heilongjiang, located in the Northeast part of the country, who said temperatures could reach a record low of minus 47.9 C (minus 54.2 F) early next week. 

  Bloomberg data shows average temperatures across China have plunged well below 30-year, 10-year, and 5-year trends for this time of year to about 27 C. 

  

  “The weather in China, including Beijing, is the coldest December temperature in more than 50 years. Climate emergency warnings have been declared for extreme cold,” Ryan Maue, a meteorologist and former NOAA chief scientist, wrote on X.

  BREAKING: The weather in China 🇨🇳, including Beijing, is the coldest December temperature in more than 50 years. Climate emergency warnings have been declared for extreme cold.

  ZBAA 172000Z 00000MPS CAVOK M18/M20 Q1036 NOSIG

  -18°C = -0.4°F pic.twitter.com/LHc2rjWhd2

  — Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) December 17, 2023

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

  China’s cold snap was quick and vicious. 

  From record-breaking warm to record-breaking cold! Today, 30 stations in northern China broke the lowest temperature record for December, and 5 stations broke the lowest temperature record for the whole year! @extremetemps @ThierryGooseBC pic.twitter.com/urBA1wI7I0

  — Jim yang (@yangyubin1998) December 17, 2023

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

  Meanwhile, Russia benefits from the “ongoing mega-blast of extreme cold,” Maue said. 

  During the ongoing mega-blast of extreme cold, Russian natural gas flows through the Power of Siberia pipeline have reached record highs. https://t.co/w0TH3fRs2Q pic.twitter.com/HbLSYAM2KQ

  — Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) December 17, 2023

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

  On Friday, Chinese media Xinhua said President Xi Jinping urged “all-out efforts” in emergency response to the cold weather. 

  While China freezes, weather blog Severe Weather Europe warned last week that “cold anomalies across much of the central, southern, and eastern United States” could begin after the new year. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 20:25

• Yes, Hunter Is Now In Contempt Of Congress
  Yes, Hunter Is Now In Contempt Of Congress

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  Below is my column in The Messenger on the decision of Hunter Biden to defy Congress in a press conference outside of the Capitol Building. Remarkably, this spectacle was coordinated by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Cal.) who presumably knew that Biden was going to violate the congressional subpoena. So Swalwell (a former impeachment House manager) helped facilitate a possible criminal act in refusing to share appear in an impeachment inquiry.

  Here is the column:

  Congress is often a theater of the absurd, from Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) pulling a fire alarm before a major vote to former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) being, well, a member of Congress at all. However, none of that compares to what unfolded on Wednesday as Hunter Biden stood outside Congress and defied a subpoena as being “beyond the absurd.” What happens next could be even more bizarre.

  Hunter was under a subpoena from the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability to appear for testimony. As I previously wrote, he had two choices: He could appear and either testify or invoke his right to remain silent. The only thing that he could not do is what he did — just refuse to go into the hearing room. Yet, there he was, with counsel Abbe Lowell by his side, holding forth with a public press conference while refusing to appear in the closed-door deposition being held in the building behind him.

  By staying on the Senate side of the Capitol, Hunter guaranteed that the House sergeant at arms did not pull him into the hearing room. Ironically, that would have been a better option than his blowing a raspberry at the committee and then speeding away.

  Many pundits immediately claimed this was a clever move because the subpoena was not really enforceable until the House voted on the formal impeachment inquiry a few hours later.

  

  I disagree. As I noted in my testimony in the first impeachment inquiry, there is no requirement for a formal vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry. Indeed, that is precisely what then-majority Democrats did with the impeachment of then-President Donald Trump. While I encouraged the House to hold a formal vote on the inquiry, it is not constitutionally required.

  Moreover, this is an oversight committee which has independent authority to issue subpoenas. The subpoena was issued not only by the Oversight Committee but by the Judiciary Committee. It was issued under three different authorities, including Rule 12(g) of the Oversight Committee which allows for subpoenas “in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee.”

  In holding this spectacle, Biden and his legal team committed another unforced error. This one could prove as costly as pushing for an obscenely generous plea agreement and then telling prosecutors to “rip it up” in July.

  Few people expected Hunter to testify in the deposition. The evidence against him is overwhelming, as shown in his second federal indictment on tax charges. He and his uncles were allegedly engaged in one of the largest influence-peddling operations in history involving millions of dollars from various foreign sources. Hunter simply could have done what prior witnesses have done: Go in and take the Fifth. That is what attorney and former IRS official Lois Lerner did — twice — when House Republicans wanted to ask her about the Obama administration targeting conservative groups.

  It was a no-brainer that someone appears to have radically over-thought on the Hunter Biden legal team.

  Hunter can now be held in contempt of Congress. That will force the hand of Attorney General Merrick Garland, who aggressively pursued Trump figures for contempt, including former Trump adviser Steve Bannon. Despite some of us writing to the contrary, Bannon claimed his lawyers told him he did not have to appear before a House committee. He was swiftly charged and convicted by Garland’s prosecutors.

  In this instance, the contempt case would go to the U.S. Attorney in D.C., Matthew Graves, who previously declined to assist in bringing tax charges against the president’s son. Yet by pulling a Bannon, Hunter now faces the expectation in many circles that he will get the full Bannon treatment from Garland.

  There is another possible cost to this move. Fox News quoted White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre saying that President Biden “was certainly familiar with what his son was going to say,” which suggests that the president spoke with his son before his act of contempt and discussed his statement. If that is true, it was a breathtaking mistake. One of the four most obvious potential articles of impeachment that I laid out in my prior testimony was obstruction. There already are questions over special treatment potentially being given to Hunter in the form of alleged felonies being allowed to expire, warnings about planned federal raids, and sweetheart deals.

  In addition, President Biden has enlisted White House staff to actively push challenged accounts of his conduct and attack the House Republicans’ investigative process. Such acts could legally bootstrap prior misconduct into his presidency under abuse-of-power allegations.

  If this latest allegation is true, the president was speaking with his son about committing a potentially criminal act of contempt. Hunter was refusing to give testimony focused not on his own role but on his father’s potential role in the alleged influence peddling. The House can pursue evidence on that conversation and how the president may have supported his son’s effort.

  With his bizarre public display, Hunter has opened a new potential front for prosecution.

  If the same law is applied the same way as it was to Bannon, Hunter could find himself indicted within a few weeks.

  In Bannon’s case, the subpoena was issued at the end of September. He was held in contempt by the House in October and indicted in November. It took just four days of trial to convict him.

  Indeed, President Biden himself has maintained that defying subpoenas cannot be tolerated. When subpoenas were issued to Republicans during the House’s January 6 investigation, Biden declared: “I hope that the committee goes after them and holds them accountable criminally.”

  That is precisely what Republicans will now expect from Garland in Hunter’s case. In the meantime, the House did not lose anything that it expected to get from Hunter. It will now move to secure the testimony of a circle of associates surrounding both Hunter and his father. At the same time, the National Archives has finally agreed to give House investigators tens of thousands of emails reportedly involving the president.

  As expected, in a floor vote late in the day, not a single House Democrat supported getting answers to these questions through an impeachment inquiry. They unanimously opposed any inquiry even though 40% of Democrats have said in polling that they believe the president has acted illegally or unethically regarding his family’s business deals. (Overall, 70% of those polled held that view.)

  Hunter, however, just tripped another wire that could seriously complicate matters not just for himself but for his father. Perhaps that is why, when dramatist-scholar Martin Julius Esslin devised the term “theater of the absurd,” he described it as “part reality and part nightmare.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 19:50

• Replacing Kamala Harris
  Replacing Kamala Harris

  Authored by Thomas Neuberger via “God’s Spies” Substack,

  In the exclusive piece below, Democratic Party donor Guy Saperstein argues that Kamala Harris’s presence on the 2024 ticket could be fatal to Joe Biden’s electoral chances.

  

  I’ve said the same, especially here:

  Trump (if he’s smart) pivots to Kamala Harris, dismisses Biden and makes her his opponent…

  Biden improves his odds if he gets rid of Kamala Harris as a running mate.

  What’s different about Saperstein’s argument is his bill of particulars — reasons why Harris should be dropped. Much of this is in the public domain. But much of it isn’t — the Willie Brown connection, for example, or her sloppiness and massive “chain of custody” problems as DA.

  About the Willie Brown material, you may not want to think ill of Harris for her romantic life or its effect on her career, but progressives avoiding the discussion won’t stop Republicans from making sure everyone in the country is exposed to it daily. Saperstein’s point is the effect of Harris on the ticket. Willie Brown will be made part of that effect.

  The piece deserves your careful consideration. To paraphrase Saperstein, “Imagine how Republicans are going to play this.” They won’t be silent.

  Guy Saperstein is a former member of the Democracy Alliance, a progressive, and a major Democratic Party donor. From his Huff Post bio page:

  [H]e founded a law firm in Oakland which became the largest plaintiffs civil rights law firm in America, in the process successfully prosecuting the largest race, sex and age discrimination class actions in American history. Guy also prosecuted False Claims Act cases against Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. regarding satellite surveillance systems, and against Raytheon, Boeing and TRW regarding the sham National Missile Defense Program.

  In 2006, Guy helped write the “Real Security” plank of the Democratic Party’s New Directions for America, and in 2007, helped found the National Security/Foreign Policy New Ideas Fund, with funding from the Democracy Alliance. He also has been Co-Chair of the Democracy Alliance’s Strategy Group and was active in its National Security/Foreign Policy Group. In 2006, Guy was described by Bill O’Reilly as “a character assassin” and “a member of the nefarious Left-Wing Mafia,” along with four other DA Partners.

  The Twitter insertions below are mine. The rest is Saperstein.

  The Time to Replace Kamala Harris Is Now

  by Guy Saperstein

  2024 is going to consist of an attack on Biden for being too old and frail, combined with an attack on his VP, who would become president if Biden died. The attack on Biden will be simple: endless, repeated videos of him slurring words, misstating facts, stumbling, looking lost, forgetting names — all the classic signs of dementia.

  The Republicans ignored Kamala in 2020, but they won’t in 2024 because of Biden’s age. They will be shouting from the rooftops, “Hey, people, this person could become your President!”

  Remember that the person we are talking about entered the 2020 primaries polling 18% and, after four debates, fell to 6% and dropped out. I can’t remember any presidential aspirant falling so far, so fast, so there should be no argument Kamala is a truly terrible candidate.

  But there is more, much more.

  Harris as District Attorney

  My career was as a trial lawyer in the SF Bay Area. The mayor and later Speaker of the California Assembly, Willie Brown, was a personal friend and political supporter of trial lawyers. I loved Willie. He was smart, politically gifted — he supported everything I ever asked him for — and funny. Willie defined the word “dapper.” We’d go shopping at the same store, Wilkes Bashford, where he was the King. He would always tell the staff, “Now, you take care of my white buddy Guy. Whites are not blessed with my good taste, so help the poor boy.” Willie had more charm than ten white boys.

  Willie was married and estranged from his wife. It was well-known he had a young — 30 years younger — black girlfriend. He didn’t even try to hide it. The girlfriend was Kamala Harris, then a nondescript assistant city attorney. Next thing I knew, Kamala was running for District Attorney, supported by Willie’s powerful political machine against the then DA, Terence Hallinan, a progressive. Willie’s machine won and Kamala became San Francisco DA.

  Next next thing I knew, assistant San Francisco DAs were calling me and asking, “Where is Kamala?” They knew I was a friend of Willie’s. Apparently, she wasn’t showing up for work.

  A few months later, I read that Kamala had been read the riot act by a solid Democratic judge for not maintaining good chain of custody for evidence. “Chain of custody” is a legal term which means that the evidence you submit to the court is that same uncontaminated evidence you seized at the crime scene. Before I became a civil rights class action lawyer, I did 50 criminal jury trials, and chain of custody was never an issue because the DA would do his/her job competently and insure that the correct evidence was presented to the court. But that was before Kamala’s laziness set new standards.

  Kamala was hauled before three liberal judges who were outraged by her sloppiness. In response, Kamala lied under oath to all of them, trying to blame it on the police department crime lab, but that was total bullshit. When an attorney presents evidence to a court, she or he vouches for it. Kamala should have been disbarred as a result, but San Francisco is a liberal “old boys” network, and liberals protect even lying, unethical DAs.

  When the dust cleared, 1,100 FELONIES had to be dismissed — and by Democratic judges. In the history of American jurisprudence, I don’t think this has ever happened. Just think of what it means to have 1,100 felonies dismissed for defective chain-of-custody. Harris was willing to allow 1,100 people to go to prison for years because she wouldn’t admit her errors.

  Pretty low-integrity, in my opinion. Now imagine how the Republican law-and-order zealots are going to play this!

  Harris as National Candidate

  In two Senate campaigns against weak opponents, Harris ran behind Democratic registration. And though Biden picked her for his VP, the first black woman to be so chosen, she is not well-liked in the black community. She is seen as “the black DA who put black men in jail.” Her parents were not inner city blacks; her mother’s heritage is Indian and her father is Jamaican. She didn’t really share the American black experience, having grown up middle class.

  The guy who sold @KamalaHarris weed must feel like the luckiest man on the planet.

  Every other person she saw with weed for the next 30 years wound up fighting forest fires for 2 bucks an hour.

  — 🇵🇸🅲🅷🆄🅲🅺🇵🇸 (@benigma2017) February 13, 2019

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

  There is video of @kamalaharris saying she smoked weed while listening to Tupac and Snoop albums that didn’t exist.

  There is video of @KamalaHarris laughing about locking up a poor woman working 2 jobs because her kid didn’t go to school.

  This is your Democratic frontrunner.

  — 🇵🇸🅲🅷🆄🅲🅺🇵🇸 (@benigma2017) February 17, 2019

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

  When she was California Attorney General, I interfaced with her many times, mostly around federal bail-out money for homeowners. She was uniformly terrible. She wouldn’t do a damn thing unless pushed to the wall and embarrassed politically.

  My last direct contact with her was when she ran for her second Senate term. She came to my house and we talked in my living room for 1-1/2 hours. Partway through I said, “We’ve been talking for at least an hour and all I’ve heard are Democratic platitudes. Now I would like to hear one original idea.”

  She couldn’t do it.

  Time for Change

  We may be locked into Joe Biden, but VPs get changed all the time.

  Since Biden played race politics the first time, he may feel compelled to choose another black woman. Fine with me. My first two choices are Stacey Abrams and Karen Bass. Abrams is an accomplished author, incredibly eloquent, very likeable, very smart. And not just attractive to black women. I have heard so many white women comment about how they feel her compassion.

  Bass had at least several terms in the House, some in leadership positions, and now is running an iconic major city, Los Angeles.

  Gretchen Whitmer would also help Biden with women. She is younger, attractive, more robust, and she governed Michigan, a major state.

  Of course, I think Newsom is the strongest candidate and Pritzker in Illinois is doing a great job.

  Let the discussion begin, but let’s not assume Harris is irreplaceable.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 18:40

• Kremlin May Preemptively Bar Uranium Exports To U.S., Firm Warns
  Kremlin May Preemptively Bar Uranium Exports To U.S., Firm Warns

  Oil isn’t the only commodity at the center of tensions between the U.S. and Russia…

  Now Russian state-owned uranium company Tenex is telling American customers that “the Kremlin may preemptively bar exports” to the U.S. if Washington passes certain legislation that would prohibit imports beginning in 2028, Bloomberg reported on Friday. 

  Tenex’s US branch has already alerted firms like Constellation Energy, Duke Energy, and Dominion Energy about a potential scenario, the report says, though Russia hasn’t finalized a decision. The individual companies didn’t respond to comments from Bloomberg, while Rosatom, Tenex’s parent company, refuted claims of any warnings issued to US clients.

  Rosatom commented: “Tenex completely refutes as inaccurate the information regarding the alleged ‘warnings’ of a potential ‘pre-emptive’ ban on enriched uranium supplies to the United States.”

  “Neither Tenex itself nor any of its subsidiaries have issued any such notifications to their foreign customers,” they added. 

  Banning Russian uranium exports could disrupt markets and increase fuel prices, affecting smaller utilities, the report says.

  As a reminder, the US Senate halted a fast-track approval of a House bill banning Russian uranium imports, though it remains popular and might resurface.

  

  If the bill passes it would permit imports until 2028 via waivers, giving utilities time to find other sources.

  Russia, supplying nearly a quarter of America’s enriched uranium last year, is a key provider.

  Jonathan Hinze of UxC LLC told Bloomberg that without these waivers, prices could jump from $152 to a record $180 per separative work unit. SWUs measure uranium’s volume and enrichment.’

  He added: “But if there is an immediate ban it could be even more extreme. There are very limited supplies available.”

  Recall we noted at the end of October that hedge funds were loading up on uranium stocks, many of which have had returns double digit percentages higher than the S&P for 2023, after uranium lagged in previous years. 

  “We’re most focused on uranium miners in public markets,” Arthur Hyde, a portfolio manager at Segra Capital, told Bloomberg two months ago. “For the supply and demand of this market to balance, we need new assets to come online…If you’re going to insulate the US, Europe and Canada from the global fuel cycle, which is heavily dependent on Russia and China, the best way to do that is to build new mines, new conversion capacity, new enrichment capacity.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 18:05

• Putin Blasts Biden's Claim That Russia Seeks To Attack NATO As "Complete Nonsense"  
  Putin Blasts Biden’s Claim That Russia Seeks To Attack NATO As “Complete Nonsense”  

  “It is complete nonsense – and I think President Biden understands that,” Russia’s President Putin told state television channel Rossiya in a Sunday interview, as a response to claims made earlier this month by President Biden, who claimed that Russia is eyeing an invasion of countries beyond Ukraine.

  “Russia has no reason, no interest – no geopolitical interest, neither economic, political nor military – to fight with NATO countries,” the Russian leader added.

  

  He then suggested that Biden’s recent rhetoric is all about stoking fears in the Western public in order to further justify his “erroneous policy” concerning the Ukraine conflict.

  Biden’s words had come in the context of trying to press Republicans in Congress to pass his $106 billion defense aid package – the bulk of which would go to Ukraine. Here’s what the US president had said, as reported in The New York Times: 

  The president even raised the prospect that an emboldened Mr. Putin would pose a threat to NATO allies, requiring the United States to come to their assistance with troops on the group. “If Putin takes Ukraine, he won’t stop there,” Mr. Biden said. “It’s important to see the long run here. He’s going to keep going. He’s made their pretty clear.”

  “If he keeps going and then he attacks a NATO ally” to which the United States is bound by treaty to help, “then we’ll have something that we don’t seek and that we don’t have today — American troops fighting Russian troops,” Mr. Biden said.

  “Make no mistake,” he added. “Today’s vote is going to be long remembered and history’s going to judge harshly those who turn their back on freedom’s cause. We can’t let Putin win. I’ll say it again, we can’t let Putin win.”

  This is all part of the usual ’emboldening Putin’ narrative, by not approving the White House’s foreign funding package. It’s long been a Democratic and administration talking point to say that blocking Biden’s request is a ‘gift’ to the Kremlin. Of the broader more than hundred billion dollars in funds, the president wants to see $61.4bn of that go to Ukraine support.

  Also on Sunday, Putin said at an event for the ruling United Russia party that the country’s very sovereignty is threatened after years of NATO expansion.

  NATO’s expansion in Europe pic.twitter.com/8ETqeZIeu0

  — Epic Maps 🗺️ (@Locati0ns) December 11, 2023

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

  “We must remember and never forget, and teach our children: Russia will be either a self-sufficient and sovereign state or will not exist at all. It is a very important thing, which we should keep in our minds and hearts,” he said according to TASS.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 16:55

• There's Something Happening Here…
  There’s Something Happening Here…

  There’s something happening here
  But what it is ain’t exactly clear

  – Buffalo Springfield

  Something is not right, and the drastically divergent messages from Powell and his cronies at the Fed over the last month and a half confirm this suspicion.

  

  The Burning Platform’s Jim Quinn writes that the current situation does remind me of September 2019 when the repo market revealed the underlying mechanisms within the financial system were malfunctioning and were about to lead to another massive financial crisis.

  Powell restarted QE and “luckily” the COVID scamdemic was rolled out, so Powell and and our corrupt political class could pump trillions into the system and keep it alive.

  Powell and his fellow tough guys at the Fed had increased rates to 5.3% and have talked tough about keeping rates up until inflation got back to their 2% target.

  With GDP supposedly accelerating at 5.2%, unemployment still near all-time lows, and corporate profits still booming, there should be no fear about rates being too high by Powell and his sycophants.

  But suddenly this week Powell and these economic “rocket scientists” now are saying they will be cutting rates soon and more than anyone expected.

  

  The Fed Since November 1st:

  1. Nov. 1: Getting inflation to 2% “has a long way to go”

  2. Nov. 21: “No indication of rate cuts at last meeting”

  3. Dec. 1: Talks about rate cuts are “premature”

  4. Dec. 1: “We are prepared to tighten policy further” if needed

  5. Dec. 13: Rates have peaked, 3 rate cuts coming in 2024

  6. Dec. 15: Fed “isn’t really talking about rate cuts”

  What is happening here?

  Source: The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) December 15, 2023

  The stock market exploded to all-time highs and interest rates plummeted.

  This seems odd, when more than half the country is struggling to put food on the table.

  It’s almost as if Powell and his pals know something really bad is about to happen and want to front run the event, or, like September 2019, they see something terribly wrong within the financial system and are trying to fix it before it blows up.

  We do know the Too Big To Trust Wall Street banks have close to $700 billion of unrealized losses on their books due to interest rates hitting 16 year highs.

  

  We also know these banks have been increasingly utilizing the Fed’s emergency facility every day.

  

  All it would take is some sort of emergency, whether global crisis, natural disaster crisis, or war breaking out between global powers, to start a run on the banks.

  If that were to happen, those unrealized losses would become realized, and the entire financial system would begin to collapse.

  Is that why Powell and the Fed are now desperate to drive interest rates lower, in order to eliminate those unrealized losses before they become realized?

  Whatever the reason, they are trapped.

  Drastically lowering interest rates will just reignite inflation again.

  It looks like Powell has chosen inflation rather than deflation as we spiral into the abyss.

  [ZH: as we warned on Friday, “trouble is brewing” in the banking system]

  …the key warning sign continues to trend ominously lower (Small Banks’ reserve constraint – blue line), supported above the critical level by The Fed’s emergency funds (for now)…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  As the red line shows, without The Fed’s help, the crisis is back (and large bank cash needs a home – green line – like picking up a small bank from the FDIC).

  All of which makes us wonder – you know, just thinking out loud – are we setting up for another banking crisis in March as:

  1) BTFP runs out (it was only a 12 month temporary program), and

  2) RRP drains to zero, at which point reserves get yanked which means huge deposits flight.

  

  Is that why The Fed needed to bring rates down massively and fast, to reduce the bond losses on banks’ books?

  [ZH: Or, as we detailed here, is there another reason for Powell’s big pivot?]

  

  Enjoy the show and buy more ammo.

  I think it’s time we stop
  Children, what’s that sound?
  Everybody look what’s going down

  Buffalo Springfield

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 16:20

• Maher: "It's Hard To Negotiate When The Other Side's Position Is – You All Die And Disappear"
  Maher: “It’s Hard To Negotiate When The Other Side’s Position Is – You All Die And Disappear”

  Comedian Bill Maher discussed the Israel-Hamas conflict on Friday, suggesting that Palestinians get used to the fact that Israel isn’t going anywhere, and there’s no way for Israel to negotiate with Palestine in good faith when the other side’s position is “you all die and disappear.”

  

  “Things change. Countries, boundaries, empires,” said Maher, citing various historical instances where other groups of people accepted regional defeat and moved on. “In 1950, the little town of Bethlehem was 86 percent Christian, now it’s overwhelmingly Muslim.”

  While failing to address international calls for Israel to dial back civilian deaths in dealing with Hamas (out of optics, not genuine concern – we assure you), Maher’s position is essentially – deal with it.

  “After World War II, 12 million ethnic Germans got shoved out of Russia, and Poland, and Czechoslovakia because being German had become kind of unpopular,” Maher continued. “People get moved, and yes, colonized. Nobody was a bigger colonizer than the Muslim army that swept out of the Arabian desert and took over much of the world in a single century.”

  He also noted that there were several missed opportunities for deals with Israel in years past.

  “There were deals on the table to share the land called Palestine… And East Jerusalem could have been the capital of a Palestinian state that today might look more like Dubai than Gaza,” Maher pointed out, noting that “Arafat was offered 95 percent of the West Bank, and said no.”

  Maher then used a map to show how the slogan “from the river to the sea” is a call for either the death of all Jews, or at minimum – to move all of them out.

  

  “Look at what Mexico used to own… but no Mexican is out there chanting, ‘From the Rio Grande to Portland, Oregon.‘”

  

  “Get used to it…”

  After laying out historical examples, Maher got to his point – that Israel isn’t going anywhere, noting that it’s “one of the most powerful countries in the world with the 500-billion-dollar economy, the world’s second largest tech sector after Silicon Valley, and nuclear weapons. They’re here, they like their bagel with a shmear, get used to it.“

  Watch:

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 15:45

• It Seems We Have Hit A Point Where A Wall Is In The Way Of "Kicking The Can" Much Further
  It Seems We Have Hit A Point Where A Wall Is In The Way Of “Kicking The Can” Much Further

  By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

  I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about “kicking the can.” Not because “kicking the can” has been effective, but because we seem to have hit the point where a wall is in the way, stopping us from “kicking the can” much further. This is more apparent on the geopolitical front, where the Middle East seems to need serious, long-term solutions. While we aren’t there yet with China and Taiwan, it seems that solutions like “one country, two systems” will be tested sooner rather than later.

  But, since it is the holiday season in the U.S. and much of the world, let’s stick to a more positive message.

  From Stalemate to Victory – the Fed

  As you can tell from the immediate post-FOMC reaction and Thursday’s T-Report – Unthinking the Fed, I’m struggling to process the shift in tone. Much of that came out during Thursday’s Bloomberg TV interview (Academy’s section starts at the 41 minute mark). We did focus on my “pet theory” that the Fed is far less interested in creating a recession during an election year, than they were, say, in 2023. Also, they might not need to.

  Maybe that is the problem, I’ve been arguing that the Fed has done too much already. That they should be on pause and thinking about cutting. Not every analyst has had that view, and until Wednesday, it didn’t seem like the Fed did either. Sure, they had slowed the hiking process rather dramatically, but they were still portraying a Fed that could hike or cut with equal probability. That does not seem to be the case. It is telling that they didn’t trot out multiple speakers to dissuade the market from their exuberance.

  So maybe I’m just too jaded to accept that the Fed might actually be on the same page as we are. Maybe I have some self-destructive tendencies that make me want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (I am a contrarian, after all).

  While it is difficult to love a market at or near all-time highs, we can always go higher. Just because August didn’t follow trend and everyone seems to be betting on a rally into year-end, doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

  Maybe it is simply time to accept that the stalemate is over, victory conditions have been achieved, and we can move on? Maybe this applies beyond the battle with the Fed?

  From Stalemate to Victory – Russia/Ukraine

  While there is no sign of the stalemate ending, it seems that most people involved, directly and indirectly, have to face the reality that some form of “absolute” victory is unlikely. If that acceptance occurs, should we be thinking about what a victory looks like?

  What opportunities and risks are there if Russia and Ukraine agree to some sort of serious ceasefire/peace agreement in 2024? Are we (or your company) prepared for the opportunities that rebuilding Ukraine would create? That impact could be immediate and large if the agreement includes the use of some or all of Russia’s frozen dollar reserves.

  One of the things that also prevents “rebuilding” is the availability of funds – it seems plausible that there will be readily available funds for this rebuilding as it is in the interest of not just Ukraine, but Europe too! Europe, more than the U.S., needs to get Ukraine up and running as quickly as possible so it can export commodities again, and more importantly, so that displaced Ukrainians can return home.

  I’m now spending more time thinking about what a peace agreement could mean for markets and the global economy, than I am thinking about how the war can progress.

  From Stalemate to Victory – China Trade

  I’m still looking for some attempt to create better relationships between the two countries.

  • Whether we like it or not, incumbents do best in elections when the economy is doing well. Almost anything done with China will help in that direction, at least in the near-term, which is what may be directing the actions of many incumbents looking to get re-elected. My apologies if this sounds too cynical, but my view is that most politicians view their jobs as being politicians, so to keep their jobs, they need to get re-elected. Cynical or not, that is my working assumption and shapes why I think that we can get something in the headlines in the next month or two (Treasury Secretary Yellen heading back to China seems good on this front).
  • Many economic advisors to the Democratic party were very vocal about how detrimental tariffs were for the economy. There must be some who are still prodding the administration to ease back on tariffs. Whether it is cutting tariffs or just creating a “pathway” to reducing tariffs, the markets would likely respond well. At the very least, there is an argument to be made, depending on how it is done, that easing tariffs should reduce prices, and in turn reduce inflation.
  • Chips. Clearly defining what is mission critical for the U.S. with respect to the military and AI could help the chip sector, as it would reduce uncertainty about which chips may or may not come under scrutiny. Just some clarity could help markets.
  • While nothing to do with the U.S., China itself seems overdue for some more aggressive stimulus.
  • Food. That is one area where (hands down) the U.S. dominates China and could create some good bargaining positions for the U.S. in any negotiations.

  So, rather than being worried about what has gone on, maybe it is time to think about what happens next.

  For clarity, Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group is adamant that China remains the number one concern in D.C. on the National Security front. We will not, as a nation, jeopardize the nation’s future in our dealings with China. Having said that, there is plenty of room to come up with a deal that is (or at least seems to be) more economic in nature – which is what I’m betting on.

  From Stalemate to Stalemate

  It is unclear how we get to “victory” by almost any definition in the next few weeks (or even months) in the Middle East or with respect to the tensions surrounding China and Taiwan, especially with Taiwan heading into a crucial election. Those both seem to fit the “kicking the can into a wall” metaphor, but today, we are erring on the positive side.

  Bottom Line

  Rates. Difficult to like here, so slightly bearish bias. The rising debt, the growing percentage of our budget spent on interest, etc. were (and are) real. It shouldn’t have pushed 10s to 5%, but it makes sub-4% somewhat untenable.

  Equities. Difficult to like here, but slightly bullish bias, favoring the “laggards.” My inclination is to step away from the punch bowl, but am I just snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? I cut positions but am buying dips. So, a timid bullishness, even with the laggards, which I continue to favor.

  

  While I’m cautious about leaving early, it has been one heck of a party!

  Since November 9th, the Nasdaq 100 and the S&P 500 have underperformed the equal weighted indices. They got beat up pretty badly by the Russell 2000 and have been left in the dust by Regional Banks and ARKK. I use ARKK as a proxy for “disruption” and early in the year it was performing more or less in line with the Nasdaq 100, which surprised me. I view it as very high beta and would have expected it to trounce the Nasdaq 100 in such a strong market (it is finally doing that).

  When I look at this chart, it gives me optimism for the IPO market and for M&A coming into 2024 – typically good for stocks!

  Credit. It is tight by recent measures, but I think that it can go tighter. People seem to want to fight the spread tightening. While it is difficult to pound the table for credit, especially since M&A activity could result in an even bigger (and longer duration) calendar than expected, I wouldn’t fade it just yet.

  For once, let’s enjoy the victory and keep on enjoying it for a little longer.

  I’m looking to add more risk on dips, as whatever ranges we thought applied to markets at the start of the week have materially moved with the Fed Put back in play!

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 15:10

• Watch: Pro-Israel Congressmen Confronted Over Israel's History Of Propping-Up Hamas
  Watch: Pro-Israel Congressmen Confronted Over Israel’s History Of Propping-Up Hamas

  Submitted by Decensored News,

  MUST SEE: Journalist @cosgrove_iv presses pro-Israel Congressmen about Benjamin Netanyahu & the Israeli government’s long history of propping up Hamas

  “Shouldn’t you look into this BEFORE we send billions of dollars over to Israel?”

  Ft. @ScottHortonShow & @ComicDaveSmith pic.twitter.com/BwJXrcAJst

  — Decensored News (@decensorednews) December 12, 2023

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

   “For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces.”

  So read an op-ed headline in The Times of Israel by Israeli journalist and political correspondent Tal Schneider on October 8, one day after Hamas’s deadly incursion.

  “The premier’s policy of treating the terror group as a partner, at the expense of Abbas and Palestinian statehood, has resulted in wounds that will take Israel years to heal from,” she said.

  Schneider was far from the only one to draw attention to this sordid history as the Israel government rushed to declare war on Hamas and begin their slaughter in Gaza.

  “Since he took office as prime minister a second time,” wrote Dmitry Shumsky for Israel’s Haaretz on October 11, “Netanyahu developed and advanced a destructive, warped political doctrine that held that strengthening Hamas at the expense of the Palestinian Authority would be good for Israel.”

  While statements like these – and the fact that they’re made so matter-of-factly in top Israeli newspapers – may come as a major surprise to many American news consumers who hadn’t followed the Israel-Palestine conflict closely prior to October 7, Israel’s role in propping up Hamas has been reported for years by the likes of UPI (“Israel gave major to aid to Hamas“), The Wall Street Journal (“How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas“), and others.

  The policy has also been repeatedly elucidated by Israel officials, including Finance Minister Bezelal Smotrich and, reportedly, Netanyahu himself, as documented in depth by writers Scott Horton and Connor Freeman.

  In light of this, journalist Liam Cosgrove ventured to Capitol Hill recently with a couple queries for pro-Israel Congressmen: First and foremost, are they even aware of this basic historical fact? And second, shouldn’t it have a bearing on their decision to send billions of dollars to the very government that helped strengthen Hamas in the first place?

  These should have been pretty straightforward questions (to which one would hope the answers would be “yes” and “yes”). However, as seen in the video above, they were treated as anything but by staunchly “pro-Israel” congressmen Dan Crenshaw, Byron Donalds, August Pfluger, and Juan Ciscomani.

  The evasiveness displayed by Crenshaw (R-TX), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, stands out as particularly noteworthy. Besides telling Fox News that it’s “crazy” to be concerned about Palestinian civilians “caught in the crossfire” of Israel’s bombardment because “they support Hamas!” and “want a terrorist government,” Crenshaw has said of the October 7 attack:

  By the very nature of funding and training this proxy force for decades, it’s clearly Iran’s fault. So whether Iran has direct involvement in this particular operation is another question. But Iran created Hamas. . . . So it’s, it’s— they are one and the same, effectively. Doesn’t mean they always operate exactly in unison, but they are one and the same, because they’ve been funding and training them for decades.

  “Are you aware that Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government were funding and propping up Hamas…?” Cosgrove asked him.

  Despite agreeing to take a question seconds earlier, Crenshaw cut him off before he could finish and refused to answer.

  “Are you familiar with that? That they were propping up Hamas and funding them, prior to October 7th?” Cosgrove repeated as Crenshaw climbed into the passenger side of a pickup truck and shut the door in his face.

  Ciscomani (R-AZ), a member of the House Abraham Accords Caucus, was similarly unwilling to comment. He initially seemed taken aback by the question and asked Cosgrove to repeat.

  “I’m not gonna give you a comment on that,” he replied after hearing it again.

  Donalds and Pfluger were more willing to engage, but pleaded ignorance while reavowing their support for Israel.

  Donalds (R-FL) said during an interview on November 18 that “to argue for ceasefires” or “the plight of the Palestinian people when the political group that they elected and keep in power fomented and executed a heinous terrorist attack” is “ridiculous.”

  “Are you familiar with the reports that Benjamin Netanyahu, over the years, has been actively funding Hamas?” asked Cosgrove.

  “No, I’m not aware of the report,” Donalds said.

  Cosgrove explained that the reports (plural) have been published in papers like Haaretz and The Time of Israel, while Donalds said he “doesn’t do hot takes” and needs to “read it” before commenting.

  “Shouldn’t you have read that before sending 14 billion dollars of American taxpayer money over there?” asked Cosgove.

  “To support our greatest ally in the region when they were attacked?” replied Donalds. “We would always do that.”

  Pfluger, too, said that he had “not seen that report.” When Cosgrove noted that Netanyahu is openly being criticized in Israeli papers for the policy, the Republican lawmaker replied that he hadn’t “seen a credible report on that.”

  After some more back and forth, Pfluger said he wasn’t “going to debate” Cosgrove about it. “If you wanna listen to an answer, I’ll give you an answer,” he said, before talking about how the US’s support for Israel is “much more important” than “just defeating Hamas.”

  “This is a statement against Iran,” he said in part. “It’s a statement that will be received by Xi Jinping.”

  Congressman Dan Crenshaw: “By the very nature of funding and training [Hamas] for decades, [Oct 7] is clearly Iran’s fault.”

  Me: What about Netanyahu’s decades-long funding of Hamas?

  Crenshaw: *Slams car door* pic.twitter.com/XIGFKWGG3i

  — Liam Cosgrove (@cosgrove_iv) December 13, 2023

  For more reporting like this, please follow Decensored News on your favorite social media platforms and bookmark the website. Thank you for your interest and support.

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

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 14:35

• Federal Judge Permanently Blocks Illinois Law Targeting Pro-Life Pregnancy Counseling
  Federal Judge Permanently Blocks Illinois Law Targeting Pro-Life Pregnancy Counseling

  Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A federal judge permanently blocked an Illinois law on Dec. 14 that he previously called “stupid” that targets maternal health care centers and sidewalk counselors for expressing their pro-life message.

  

  The state of Illinois consented to the injunction and the dismissal of the underlying lawsuit filed against it.

  Plaintiffs who sued to stop the law objected to it because it declared that the pro-life speech engaged in by pregnancy help ministries was a “deceptive business practice.”

  They litigated to protect the right of pro-life pregnancy help centers and sidewalk counselors across the state to continue their work reaching out to women across the Land of Lincoln facing unplanned pregnancies.

  Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, appeared on CNN on Aug. 4 to defend the law.

  The statute is constitutional, the governor argued at the time.

  “Well, it’s just like the case against President [Donald] Trump,” he said.

  “You have a right to free speech, but you don’t have a right to lie. You don’t have a right to use those lies to push people into situations in which they, frankly, are breaking the law, or where they are unaware of what their full rights are. So, you know, we need to make sure that people know [what] their rights are.”

  The law barred “so-called ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ from using misinformation, deceptive practices, or misrepresentation in order to interfere with access to abortion services or emergency contraception,” according to the governor’s office.

  Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, a Democrat, previously said the now-enjoined law was needed because he had “witnessed deceptive crisis pregnancy center tactics firsthand on a visit to tour a Planned Parenthood health center in Illinois.”

  There were “people who appeared as though they might work there … outside attempting to divert patients away from the health center,” he said.

  Judge Iain D. Johnston of the Western Division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued the document titled “agreed permanent injunction order” (pdf) in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NILFA) v. Raoul. Judge Johnston was appointed in 2020 by President Trump.

  The defendant, Mr. Raoul, was sued in his official capacity.

  Founded in 1993, NILFA “provides pro-life pregnancy centers and medical clinics with legal counsel, education, and training,” according to the group’s website.

  The judge dismissed the lawsuit “with prejudice,” meaning the case cannot be litigated again. The court “shall retain jurisdiction over this action to enforce the final judgment,” the order states. The order also states that NILFA “may file a motion seeking the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses[.]”

  On Aug. 4, Judge Johnston called SB1909, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act, “both stupid and very likely unconstitutional,” when he signed a preliminary injunction halting its enforcement.

  In that August order, Judge Johnston ridiculed the state law.

  The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia “once said that he wished all federal judges were given a stamp that read ‘stupid but constitutional,’” the judge wrote.

  SB 1909 “is stupid because its own supporter admitted it was unneeded and was unsupported by evidence when challenged.”

  “It is likely unconstitutional because it is a blatant example of government taking the side of whose speech is sanctionable and whose speech is immunized … SB 1909 is likely classic content and viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment.”

  The kind of speech regulated by the law “is extremely controversial,” and the law itself  “is not a constitutional regulation of professional speech.”

  “Plaintiffs have established by undisputed evidence that they will be irreparably harmed absent a preliminary injunction. Their First Amendment rights will more than likely be violated, which is an irreparable harm,” the judge wrote at the time.

  Peter Breen, executive vice president of the Thomas More Society, which represented NILFA in the lawsuit, weighed in on the permanent injunction in a statement on Dec. 14.

  Mr. Breen hailed the victory as a big win for pro-life ministries and free speech in Illinois that would send a message to those who would enact laws that discriminate against pro-life ministries.

  “The federal court was spot on in holding that SB 1909 is ‘both stupid and very likely unconstitutional,’” he said.

  “SB 1909 exempts abortion facilities and their speech, while exclusively regulating pro-life organizations and their speech, in flagrant violation of the First Amendment.

  “This law is just one of a number of illegal new laws enacted across the country that restrict pro-life speech. We hope this permanent injunction, with full attorney’s fees, serves as a warning to other states that would seek to follow Illinois and try to silence pro-life viewpoints.

  “We are honored to represent NIFLA and other life-affirming organizations to protect them from unjust laws like SB 1909 that seek to put a halt to their good work.”

  The Epoch Times reached out to Mr. Raoul’s office for comment but had not received a reply as of press time.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 14:00

• A Record Number Of American 40-Year-Olds Have Never Been Married
  A Record Number Of American 40-Year-Olds Have Never Been Married

  A quarter of 40-year-olds in the United States have never been married, according to an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by the Pew Research Center.

  As Statista’s Anna Fleck reports, this marks the highest figure since the data first started being published back in 1900, and a major leap from the 6 percent low of 1980.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  But interestingly, it isn’t just a case of more people cohabiting without getting married: Analysts found that many of the adults surveyed in 2021 were living alone, with just 22 percent of those who had never married between the ages of 40-44 reporting that they were living with a partner.

  Looking at a breakdown of the 2021 data by different demographic groups, men were more likely to be unmarried by 40 than women, at 28 percent and 22 percent, respectively.

  

  A slightly higher share of Black U.S. adults (46 percent) reported not having married by that age versus Hispanic (27 percent), white (20 percent) or Asian (17 percent) adults.

  In terms of education, 40-year-olds who didn’t finish a four-year college degree were more likely to have never married than those who completed at least a bachelor’s degree.

  The general increase of people who are still single by 40 suggests that there has been a shift in sentiments on the importance of marriage.

  The trend is likely due to a wide variety and combination of factors, whether that’s a loosening of stigma around being single, or as Belinda Luscombe of Time Magazine explains, due to economic reasons, such as the fact that since women have “gained economic power, they needed to rely less on men to provide”, or conversely, because many men say they feel they need a level of financial stability to be ready for marriage.

  Pew Research Center analysts also highlight how people aged over 40 of course do often get married too, with around one in four 40 year olds who had not married in 2001 having done so by age 60.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 13:25

• Haley's Top Backers Include Democrat Donors, Silicon Valley Billionaires
  Haley’s Top Backers Include Democrat Donors, Silicon Valley Billionaires

  Authored by Austin Alonzo via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley is racking up endorsements from key conservative fundraisers ahead of the 2024 primaries. She already has solid backing from wealthy donors in Silicon Valley, including those who typically donate to the Democratic Party, as well as her network of political action committees.

  According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings and her campaign’s spending ahead of the Iowa Caucuses, the former United Nations ambassador’s main political action committee is SFA Fund Inc. However, Ms. Haley is also linked to two other super PACs and a 501(c)(4) organization.

  

  PACs and nonprofits

  Collectively, the PACs SFA Fund Inc., Team Stand For America, and Stand For America PAC had a total of about $19.5 million on hand at the end of June, according to FEC records. Most of the money was in SFA Fund, which held about $17 million. Those funds had raised $28 million through June, the last time that the FEC required PACs to disclose their fundraising activities.

  A super PAC can solicit or make unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other political committees, according to the regulatory agency.

  SFA Fund is a hybrid PAC. This, according to the FEC, means that it can solicit and accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other political committees. It must maintain two bank accounts—one for independent spending on advertisements or voter drives, and another for making direct contributions to federal candidates.

  Stand For America

  Ms. Haley is linked to a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization: Stand For America Inc. According to 2021 Internal Revenue Service records obtained by The Epoch Times, the group’s president at the time was Michael Haley, Ms. Haley’s husband. Stand For America was registered as a nonprofit by the IRS in 2019, shortly after she left her position as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

  According to the IRS, A 501(c)(4) is a social welfare organization. The earnings of a 501(c)(4) group must not inure—or enrich—any private shareholder or individual. A 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, as long as that isn’t its primary activity.

  In 2021, Stand For America Inc. stated that it had collected about $8.6 million, spent about $8.5 million, and ended the year with about $2.3 million. Its 2022 990 filing isn’t yet publicly available.

  Stand For America PAC, a traditional political action committee, was formed in January 2021, well ahead of Ms. Haley’s February 2023 announcement that she was running for president.

  Between January 2021 and December 2022, Stand For America PAC raised about $17.5 million. During that same period, it sent about $1.7 million back to Stand For America Inc. It also spent about $5.4 million with Arlington, Virginia, consultancy Targeted Victory.

  Additionally, during this period, the Stand For America PAC sent money to the election campaigns of numerous Republicans. Most notably, it sent $10,000 to [Iowa Gov.] Kim Reynolds for Iowa in June 2021. Ms. Reynolds, a Republican, has endorsed and is now campaigning with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, also a Republican, in his bid for the GOP’s presidential nomination.

  In 2023, Stand For America PAC raised about $2.3 million through the end of June. It held about $2.2 million. In June 2023, Stand For America PAC sent $1 million to SFA Fund.

  

  Team Stand for America

  Team Stand for America, a joint fundraising committee, was founded in November 2022 and shares an address with Stand For America Inc. It raised about $7 million in the first six months of this year and sent most of the money to Ms. Haley’s principal campaign committee, Nikki Haley for President Inc., or a committee related to her campaign.

  Joint fundraising, according to the FEC, is an election-related fundraising activity conducted jointly by a political committee and one or more other political committees or unregistered organizations.

  Through June, Team Stand for America sent about $2 million to Nikki Haley for President, about $1.3 million to Stand For America PAC, and about $770,000 to SFA Fund. At the end of September, Ms. Haley’s principal campaign committee had raised about $18.7 million and retained about $11.6 million on hand.

  

  Jan Koum

  The largest single donor to SFA Fund is Ukranian-American billionaire Jan Koum. He gave $5 million to SFA Fund Inc. between February and June.

  Mr. Koum is a co-founder and former CEO of messaging application WhatsApp. The application was acquired by Facebook Inc. in 2014 for $19.3 billion. Forbes estimates that Mr. Koum is worth $15.3 billion.

  According to data collected by watchdog group Open Secrets, Mr. Koum began donating to Republican Party causes in 2021. Most of his contributions have gone to the Republican Jewish Coalition Victory Fund and the United Democracy Project (UDP). The UDP, according to FEC records, has sent about $2.5 million to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee between January and June.

  

  Tim Draper

  Tim Draper, the founder and managing partner of San Mateo, California-based Draper Associates and a member of the wealthy Draper family, gave $1.25 million to SFA Fund in June. Forbes estimates that Mr. Draper is worth $1.2 billion.

  Mr. Draper, who campaigned in 2018 to split the state of California into six states, is a prolific donor but not one to splurge on political causes. He’s given to both Republican and Democratic candidates, according to Open Secrets records. His SFA gift was his largest political contribution ever.

  The Epoch Times reached out to representatives of Mr. Draper but did not receive a reply by press time.

  Vivek Garipalli

  Vivek Garipalli, co-founder and executive chairperson of Franklin, Tennessee-based Clover Health, gave $1 million to SFA Fund in March. The health care entrepreneur is a consistent political donor who typically gives to Democratic Party causes.

  According to Open Secrets records, Mr. Garipalli gave $250,000 to the Democrat-supporting Senate Majority PAC in June. He’s given $750,000 to that cause since 2019. Additionally, he’s given $265,500 to the DNC Services Corp.—the Democratic National Committee—since 2014.

  The Epoch Times reached out to representatives of Mr. Garipalli but did not receive a reply by press time.

  Laurel Asness

  Laurel Asness is the wife of Clifford “Cliff” Asness, the managing and founding principal of Greenwich, Connecticut-based AQR Capital Management LLC. Ms. Asness gave $1 million to SFA Fund in February. It was her largest-ever political contribution.

  Ms. Asness, who lists herself as a philanthropist and a homemaker on federal filings since 2017, is a consistent supporter of Republican causes like the Republican National Committee (RNC), National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), according to Open Secrets records. Her $1 million gift to SFA Fund is the largest contribution she’s ever made.

  Likewise, Mr. Asness is a major Republican Party donor. He’s repeatedly given gifts of $100,000 or more to causes like the Republican-backing Senate Leadership Fund and Congressional Leadership Fund, according to Open Secrets records. Forbes estimates Mr. Asness is worth $1.6 billion.

  In the 2016 election cycle, Mr. Asness gave $1 million to Our Principals PAC, which opposed former President Donald Trump. He also gave $1 million to Conservative Solutions PAC, which supported Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) in his 2016 presidential run.

  In 2023, Mr. Asness is backing former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican seeking the party’s presidential nomination. He gave $250,000 to the Christie-aligned Tell It Like It Is PAC in June.

  The Epoch Times reached out to representatives of Ms. Asness but did not receive a reply by press time.

  Christopher Redlich Jr.

  Christopher Redlich Jr., a member of the board of the San Francisco-based Gladstone Foundation and the board of overseers at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, gave a total of $1 million to SFA Fund between March and June. Mr. Redlich, formerly chairman of Marine Terminals Corp. of San Francisco, now lives in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

  Mr. Redlich is typically a Republican donor, according to Open Secrets records. The SFA Fund gifts are the largest he’s ever given. However, he made small donations—$2,800—to President Joe Biden in 2020 and gave former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton $2,300 in 2007.

  The Epoch Times reached out to representatives of Mr. Redlich but did not receive a reply by press time.

  Steven Stull

  Steven Stull, the president of New Orleans-based Advantage Capital Partners, gave $1 million to SFA Fund in June. The contribution to SFA Fund was the largest he’s ever made to a political cause.

  According to Open Secrets records, Mr. Stull has supported both Democratic and Republican candidates and made other, smaller contributions to funds connected to Ms. Haley.

  The Epoch Times reached out to representatives of Mr. Stull but did not receive a reply by press time.

  Ronald Simon

  Ronald “Ron” Simon is the founder and chairman of Newport Beach, California-based RSI Equity Partners. He gave $1 million to SFA Fund in June.

  Mr. Simon, according to OpenSecrets records, is a consistent Republican Party donor. His contribution to SFA Fund was his largest ever.

  The Epoch Times reached out to representatives of Mr. Simon but did not receive a reply by press time.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 12:50

• Large Majority Of Americans Believe Israel "Is Trying To Avoid Civilian Casualties" Despite Recent Killings, But…
  Large Majority Of Americans Believe Israel “Is Trying To Avoid Civilian Casualties” Despite Recent Killings, But…

  Amid ongoing pro-Palestine protests (on and off campuses), antagonistic back-and-forth exchanges on display in Washington press-briefing rooms, and reports of scathing ‘dissent memos’ criticizing White House Israel policy being circulated within the State Department, the Biden White House continues to publicly support Israel (albeit with some placating language on the optics of their actions in Gaza).

  However, despite the MSM adopting decidedly anti-Israel headlines – due to incidents such as the IDF’s most recent example of aggression against what appear to be more civilians (as detailed below) – a new Harvard/Harris poll (of all places) shows the majority of all Americans believe that Hamas wants the genocide of Israelis…

  

  …and believe Israel’s ultimate goal is to defend itself – and should continue doing so until Hamas is defeated…

  

  …and see the ‘jews as oppressors’ narrative as a ‘false ideology’…

  

  …and believe that Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties – which, ironically, is diametrically opposed to what Harvard students are chanting on campus…

  

  The poll comes as yet another video has surfaced exposing IDF soldiers’ actions, this time shooting two men to death – one incapacitated and the other seemingly unarmed – in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

  

  Security camera video shows soldiers in vehicles chasing Palestinians in the Faraa refugee camp in the northeastern sector of the West Bank. A group of young men flee as the vehicles close in on them. Soldiers open fire, hitting 25-year-old Rami Jundob, who was holding some kind of red canister – possibly an incendiary device.

  After the wounded Jundob collapses to the ground, the lead IDF vehicle stops about 25 to 35 feet from him. Eleven seconds after he’d fallen to the ground and began slowly writhing in pain, soldiers unleash another volley of rifle rounds at him.

  Jundob holds his left hand in the air, and the IDF vehicle pulls forward so the driver door is facing him. The door opens and – another 18 seconds after the previous volley – a soldier fires a high volume of rounds at Jundob, ensuring his death.

  The double-execution comes on the heels of other recent instances appearing to show a reckless disregard for life on the part of Israeli military and police forces, including three escaped or abandoned Israeli hostages who were holding a white flag were shot to death in Gaza, as the IDF apparently mistook them for Hamas militants.

  Original security camera footage obtained by B’Tselem captures two short-range executions of Palestinians in al-Far’ah R.C. on 8 December 2023. pic.twitter.com/gyDztMXIww

  — B’Tselem בצלם بتسيلم (@btselem) December 15, 2023

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

  Which, it would appear is weighing far more heavily on America’s youth that any other generation as the hidden secret beneath the poll is there is a growing chasm between young and old when it comes to Hamas/Palestine/Israel/Jews/Whites/Oppressors…

  67% of 18-24-year-olds believe Jews as a class are oppressors:

  

  A strong majority of 18-34-year-olds believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza:

  

  76% of 18-24-year-olds believe that Hamas can be negotiated with to create peace:

  

  More young Americans believe Israel is primarily responsible for triggering the humanitarian crisis than Hamas:

  

  And over two-thirds of 18-24-year-olds favor an unconditional ceasefire:

  

  So, to summarize, despite recent headlines of heavy civilian casualties – and a growing call from the Biden admin for Israel to ‘calm down’ – the majority of Americans still believe that Israel is not intentionally trying to kill Palestinian civilians.

  But, and its a big Marxist but, the vast majority of young American adults believe Jews are oppressors, that the 10/7 attack is justified by Jews’ prior actions, and even more broadly speaking ‘white people are oppressors‘.

  

  Does make one wonder…

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 12:15

• California Circles The Toilet Bowl
  California Circles The Toilet Bowl

  Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com,

  “I go with the word ‘serious.’  A serious budget problem.  I would stop short of calling it a crisis.”

  – Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek, on California’s $68 billion deficit

  What Was It Like?

  California, without question, is a great state to be from. 

  We lived there for nearly 45 years.  We made our California exodus in July 2022.  No regrets.

  In fact, not living in California becomes a greater blessing with each passing day.  Moreover, depending on the time lived there, and the decades encompassed, plenty of insight can be found in the answers to three simple questions.

  What was it like?  What happened?  What is it like now?

  The answer to the first question comes with warm reminiscence.  A fond nostalgia for a California that long ago faded from existence.

  In the early 20th century, before the mania to splatter every square foot of the LA Basin’s surface with concrete took hold of the local spirits, the place was a magnet for eccentrics and madmen.  On any average day, Howard Hughes, a total lunatic, would crash test his latest flying machine into Beverly Hills.

  Italian immigrant Simon Rodia, however, was the real archetypical California oddball.  For reasons unknown, and between swigs of malt liquor, he worked nearly every day from 1921 to 1955 chicken wiring steel pipes and rods together, erecting numerous towering eyesores in his backyard in the Watts district of Los Angeles.

  Then, after 34 years of this madness, Rodia, on a whim, deeded the property to his neighbor and hopped a bus to the East Bay.  No one in Watts ever heard from him again.  But his monstrosities, known as the Watts Towers, are now a National Historic Landmark.  Go figure?

  There was also Griffith J. Griffith, who amassed a fortune in the mining industry.  That was before he shot his wife in the eye while staying in the presidential suite of Santa Monica’s Arcadia Hotel.

  To make good for his transgressions – and to commute his time in San Quentin to just two years – Griffith donated the land for Griffith Park to Los Angeles and funded the City’s observatory.  Without Griffith’s private act of preservation, the city wouldn’t have any remaining land that’s not covered with concrete.

  What Happened?

  These were the sorts of wacky and wild characters that roamed about when state and local governments were small and feeble.  When crime was low, and optimism was high.  And the only direction the economy could go was up.

  This was back when the infrastructure shined.  And Hollywood made descent movies.  It was also the beginning of a long property boom…where, for the next 50-years, property values went up without interruption.

  Even the most harebrained business ventures were almost guaranteed to succeed.  For example, you could buy an old mail service boat – like John Clearman did – tow it from the Long Beach Harbor up to a wide open corner lot on Huntington Drive in the San Gabriel Valley, plop it down, and get rich selling cheese toast and red cabbage salad out of it.

  This was before zoning codes, land use master plans, and city permits spoiled all the fun.  Was the world a better place?  It was certainly freer.

  Private eccentricity in California these days has been regulated away like the free-flowing carburetor.  In its place, there’s now state-sponsored Transgender History Month – the nation’s first of its kind – and countless other acts of public madness.  The cutting edge of public policy, guided by academic retards, slices through the land.

  Over several decades, state and local governments were taken over by control freak sociopaths. 

  Moreover, their socialist policies transformed many of the urban areas into unlivable hellholes.

  Shelling out for all the waste championed in Sacramento and various City Halls made it impossible for the average guy, who just wanted to work hard and pay his way, to get ahead.

  

  What Is It Like Now?

  Today, California persists as a place of sky-high taxes, crumbling infrastructure, woke idiocy, and mass homeless encampments.  Where grifters and freeloaders hold hands in symbiotic disharmony.  Together, they exercise the malady of a mega homeless industrial complex in return for government lard.

  In the City of Los Angeles, over 46,000 homeless people thrash about on the concrete each night, setting fires and burning down bridges.  If you broaden the envelope to include Los Angeles County, that number jumps to over 75,000.

  Despite hundreds of millions of dollars being spent to fight homelessness these numbers keep going up.  This doesn’t make sense until you understand how it all works.

  The primary objective of the homeless industrial complex has nothing to do with getting people off the streets.  Rather, dollars alone equal victory.  And more money is the ultimate aim.

  Unfortunately for taxpayers, more money isn’t limited to securing private funds.  It involves appropriating public funds and directing them towards the technocratic vision of forced philanthropy.

  According to a 2022 city audit, in the City of Los Angeles it costs $837,000 to build a single housing unit for one homeless person.  In another instance, because of self-imposed regulatory knots, it took 17 years to build 49 affordable housing units in Boyle Heights.

  Yet, this madness extends statewide.  In San Jose, for example, it costs $938,700 to build a single unit of affordable housing.  Certainly, there’s plenty of grift built into California’s homeless industrial complex.  Did you get your cut?

  California Circles the Toilet Bowl

  Alas, countless other examples of government insanity extend up and down the entire state.  Take the California Teachers Association.  Rather than teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic, the massive state teachers union hides student gender identities from parents as a matter of legal policy.

  There’s also Ebony Alert – a faux-liberal twist on Amber Alert.  And for reasons unclear, there are state-mandated gender-neutral toy aisles, which include escalating fines for noncompliance.

  So, now, with all these displays of public madness, California is circling the toilet bowl.

  Quite frankly, the golden state has run out of money to finance all the bloat, grift, incompetence, and stoopid diktats. 

  This was the conclusion that was recently provided by the Legislative Analyst’s Office.  From the Executive Summary of California’s 2024-25 Fiscal Outlook:

  “California Faces a $68 Billion Deficit.  Largely as a result of a severe revenue decline in 2022?23, the state faces a serious budget deficit.  Specifically, under the state’s current law and policy, we estimate the Legislature will need to solve a budget problem of $68 billion in the upcoming budget process.”

  If you didn’t know, in California the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay 50 percent of state income tax.  The top 0.1 percent pays a third.  Politicians exploit this progressive tax system by making outrageous promises to the non-taxpaying masses.

  As CalMatters notes, Governor Newsom will likely close the record deficit by dipping into $24 billion of emergency funds and by commandeering $10 billion previously allocated for transportation, environmental and education programs.

  By our rough calculation that cuts the $68 billion deficit in half.  Where will the other $34 billion come from?  Will the top 1 percent pay it?

  

  Come January 1, the top income tax rate spikes to 14.4 percent, up from 13.3 percent.  Moreover, workers making over $61,214 will pay 10.4 percent of their income to the state, which is up from the current 9.3 percent.

  This is in addition to federal income tax, social security tax, medicare tax, sales tax, property tax, and numerous other licensing fees and exactions.

  There’s also the inflation tax.

  This is why in many parts of California a pre-tax income of $61,214 won’t get you very far.

  Indeed, California’s a great state to be from.  Thus as California circles the toilet bowl the state exodus goes on.

  *  *  *

  Today, more than ever, unconventional investing ideas are needed.  Discover how to protect your wealth and financial privacy, using the Financial First Aid Kit.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/17/2023 – 11:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest