Today’s News 21st January 2024

• Americans Are Fighting For Control Of Federal Powers That Shouldn’t Exist
  Americans Are Fighting For Control Of Federal Powers That Shouldn’t Exist

  By Brian McGlinchey via Stark Realities

  It’s no secret that politics in the United States is growing increasingly acrimonious — to the point that a 2022 poll found 43% of Americans think a civil war is a least somewhat likely in the next decade. 

  But here’s what few people realize: The intensity of our division springs from a federal government operating far beyond the limits of the Constitution — fueling a fight for control over powers that were never supposed to exist at the national level.

  To put it another way, if the federal government were confined to its actual granted authorities, federal elections would be of little interest to the general public, because the outcome would be largely irrelevant to their everyday lives. 

  America’s founders drafted the Constitution with great trepidation. Having just escaped British tyranny, the people of the separate states that would comprise the proposed union were wary of centralizing too much power at the federal level, and thus sowing the seeds of a new tyranny. 

  

  They therefore set out to create a federal government to which the states delegated only certain limited powers, with all other subjects of governance reserved to the states. 

  Those powers — only 18 of them — are listed, one by one, in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. They include such things as the power to raise armies, maintain a navy, declare war, borrow money, coin money, establish punishments for counterfeiters and pirates, set standards of weights and measures, secure patents and establish post offices. 

  Reassuring those who were considering the enormously consequential decision of whether to ratify the Constitution, James Madison wrote, 

  “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. [Federal powers] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people.” 

  To win over those would-be ratifiers who still feared the proposed federal government would undercut state sovereignty and infringe individual liberties, ten amendments were drafted — the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment codified Madison’s previous assurance about the division of authorities between the federal and state governments: 

  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 

  We arrive then at a hard fact: Today’s sprawling federal government, which involves itself in almost every aspect of daily American life, is almost entirely unconstitutional. 

  To rattle off just a random fistful of the federal government’s unauthorized undertakings and entities — brace yourself — there is zero constitutional authority for the Social Security, Medicare, federal drug prohibitions, the Small Business Administration, crop subsidies, the Department of Labor, automotive fuel efficiency standards, climate regulations, the Federal Reserve, union regulation, housing subsidies, the Department of Agriculture, workplace regulations, the Department of Education, federal student loans, the Food and Drug Administration, food stamps, unemployment insurance or light bulb regulations. Even that sampling doesn’t begin to fully account for the scope of the unsanctioned activity. 

  Don’t let your affinity for any of those enterprises short-circuit your intellectual honesty: Even if you view some of them as benign, that doesn’t render them constitutional. And if you’ve ever invoked the Constitution to spotlight a different kind of government overreach, it would be hypocritical to nod approvingly when it’s violated in ways where you deem the result beneficial.

  So how did we get to this place where the intended relationship between federal and state powers has been completely inverted — with a federal government wielding powers that are now “numerous and indefinite” rather than being “few and defined”? 

  Much of the current state of affairs has been driven by the Supreme Court’s extreme and expansive interpretations of certain clauses of the Constitution. Among the most significant are the General Welfare and Commerce clauses. 

  The General Welfare Clause, found at the start of Article 1, Section 8, says: 

  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…

  Embedded in a clause focused on the power to tax, the words “general welfare” were meant to ensure that Congress’s taxation and spending would be confined to purposes that were broadly beneficial, rather than catering to narrow or localized interests. 

  The clause’s language was copied from the Articles of Confederation, where, as Madison explained, “it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers.” Indeed, he said, it was copied for the very reason that its prior use and understanding would hopefully minimize the risk of it being misinterpreted as a grant of power. 

  

  It flies in the face of reason that the drafters of the Constitution would take pains to carefully list the Congress’s specific authorities, yet simultaneously say Congress could also do anything it thinks generally beneficial. 

  Countering those who sought to interpret the clause that way, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To consider the…phrase…as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.”

  Clearly, based on context and history, those two words, general welfare, do not bestow an authority. Indeed, they’re present to limit an authority — the power to tax and spend. 

  The forces seeking to reshape the federal government by exploiting those two words were held at bay, but only for so long. In 1937, the Supreme Court used the imaginatively expansive interpretation of the General Welfare Clause to turn back a constitutional challenge to the Social Security Act — and to set a precedent that would fundamentally change the nature of our federal government. 

  That decision — Helvering v. Davis — came as the court was under intense institutional duress. Following a wave of high court decisions rightly striking down various pieces of New Deal legislation as unconstitutional, President Roosevelt — emboldened by his massive landslide reelection in 1936 — pushed a legislative scheme that would enable him to appoint as many as six more justices to the Supreme Court. 

  

  Whether to derail that plan or to merely cave to the overwhelming public opinion manifested in FDR’s jaw-dropping 523-8 electoral college landslide, the court — thanks in great part to swing-vote Justice Owen J. Roberts — began stamping its approval on New Deal legislation, with Helvering among the first. 

  Fittingly for a ruling that eviscerated limited government in America, Helvering’s very language had its own air of authoritarianism: 

  “Congress may spend money in aid of the ‘general welfare.’ There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision.” 

  As if that proclamation didn’t do enough to demolish the concept of limited federal government, the court proceeded to amplify the damage. While acknowledging that determining what falls under “general welfare” requires discretion, the court declared, “the discretion…is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress.” Thus, the court not only granted broad new power to Congress, but also limited the extent to which that power would be subject to checks and balances. 

  We don’t have to imagine how the “Father of the Constitution” would feel about the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the welfare clause. In 1792, Madison wrote, “The federal government has been hitherto limited to the specified powers…If not only the means, but the objects [purposes] are unlimited, the parchment had better be thrown into the fire at once.”

  While the Welfare Clause has been abused to expand federal spending power, Commerce Clause abuse has unleashed sprawling federal regulatory power. As with the Welfare Clause, what was meant to curtail government intrusion into the lives of Americans has perversely been used to expand it. 

  The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The Supreme Court’s sham interpretation focuses on “among the several states.” 

  It’s important to consider that the Constitution was drafted to replace the Articles of Confederation. Among the woes that prompted that evolution was the imposition of tariffs by individual states against other states. The Commerce Clause was intended to enable a free trade zone within the union, by empowering Congress to bar interstate tariffs. 

  “It grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing,” wrote Madison, “and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.” 

  Those working to expand federal authority have argued that “commerce” doesn’t merely apply to trade, but also encompasses manufacturing and agriculture or even “all gainful activity.” 

  However, in the constitutional ratification debates, the word “commerce” uniformly and narrowly referred only to mercantile trade or exchange — not to manufacturing, agriculture or retail sales, much less to any gainful activity. 

  Thomas Jefferson underscored the intended scope of the clause:

  “The power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” 

  However, the Commerce Clause is now used to justify federal regulation of nearly every aspect of our existence, including activities that happen entirely within a single state. On this front, the Supreme Court did its greatest harm with its 1942 decision in Wickard v Filburn.

  In a move that would leave founding farmers aghast, the federal government had fined Ohio farmer Roscoe Filburn for growing more wheat on his small farm than allowed by the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938. 

  Filburn wasn’t even growing the wheat for sale — only to feed his own family and animals, and for future planting. This clearly wasn’t commerce as meant by the Constitution’s authors and ratifiers, to say nothing of the fact that Filburn’s activity lacked any interstate character whatsoever. 

  That didn’t stop the Supreme Court from upholding the law on Commerce Clause grounds. The court creatively declared that, by choosing not to buy wheat in the marketplace, individuals like Filburn could collectively have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. 

  

  As Rand Paul wrote in a 2012 Supreme Court amicus filing, “Wickard stands for the sad proposition that Congress can prevent a man from feeding his family in his own home with food he grew himself.” Of course, it does far more than that, serving as a key precedent that subjects any activity to the federal government’s control and punishment. All that’s needed is a theoretical, tangential link to the economy — something every single aspect of life has to some degree.

  We’d be far better off had the founding arrangement endured. The decentralization of power and governance reduces political discord and results in more people being governed in ways they find agreeable. If our federalism matched the constitutional design, we’d see citizens focusing most of their political energy on state and local governments — where they have far more meaningful representation compared to the federal legislature, which now has the average House member representing 761,000 people. 

  If state law, rather than federal law, were preeminent on the vast majority of topics, we’d also see sharper differentiations in what life is like in each of the 50 states. Americans would be presented with a more diverse selection of places to live, while enjoying the freedom to choose the one that best comports with their views on how things should be. 

  As it is, the Supreme Court-enabled concentration of power in Washington locks us all into a massive, winner-take-all steel-cage match, forcing us to fight over who gets to impose their philosophy on 332 million people across 3.8 million square miles of territory. 

  Even when the states comprising the union were far fewer in number and occupied far less territory, the prospect of centralized government was anathema to the likes of George Mason. At Virginia’s ratifying convention, he asked:

  “Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs?” 

  How can we close the Pandora’s box the Supreme Court has opened? Though Helvering, Wickard and similar decisions are objectively outrageous, it’s hard to imagine the Supreme Court setting things right by overturning them. 

  There’s another long-shot avenue — amending the Constitution. Under Article V, a constitutional amendment convention must be convened if two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures call for one. Such a movement is already underway: As I previously covered, 19 states have now requested a convention, with one of the goals being to limit federal jurisdiction and power. 

  If we don’t bend the union back into proper shape, it will surely break under the pressure of intensifying discontent with concentrated power and one-size-fits-all governance. Barring a burst of constitutional-amendment momentum, expect the country’s simmering secession movements to grow far more substantial and numerous.

  Stark Realities undermines official narratives, demolishes conventional wisdom and exposes fundamental myths across the political spectrum. Read more and subscribe at starkrealities.substack.com 

  

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 23:20

• Johns Hopkins Says Gun-Control Will Prevent Second Civil War
  Johns Hopkins Says Gun-Control Will Prevent Second Civil War

  Submitted by Gun Owners of America,

  A new study published by Johns Hopkins own Bloomberg School for Public Health outlines the action items on the billionaire-funded gun control lobby’s wish list and makes the claim that those specific gun control provisions are crucial to stopping an armed insurrection in the United States.

  The policy recommendations made by the study include regulating the public carry of firearms, prohibiting “paramilitary” activity, enacting unconstitutional red flag laws that remove due process, and finally (and maybe most sinisterly) repealing state-level preemption laws.

  

  The study’s authors are all gun control lobby veterans. A quick glance at their LinkedIn pages revealed a work history within gun control groups before starting at Johns Hopkins.

  In the study, the authors reference a study titled “Views of American Democracy and Society and Support for Political Violence.” Conducted in 2022, the study features a statistic that half (50.1%) of survey participants agreed that “in the next few years there will a be a civil war in the United States.” This statistic is featured prominently within the Johns Hopkins study.

  Only tyrants should be worried.👀 https://t.co/QR58g5E1iF

  — Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) January 19, 2024

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

  The solutions proposed by the study are currently gun control priorities from the anti-gun lobby, particularly the repeal of state-level preemption laws. For those unfamiliar, state preemption laws say that local governments cannot impose regulations on firearms tighter than State law. This helps to stop a web of inconsistent laws in States where some counties may disagree with State law.

  For example, take this recent case in Maryland, in Maryland Shall Issue Inc, et al v. Montgomery County, where the court threw out a local gun restriction because of Maryland’s preemption law.

  But because local laws are easier to change than State law, gun control groups like Giffords and Everytown have sought out State lawmakers to convince them to overturn their preemption laws.

  In 2021, Giffords convinced Colorado to overturn its state preemption law, which allowed the city of Boulder to pass its own assault weapons ban later.

  In an article from governing.com about the overturn of the preemption law, Allison Anderman, senior counsel for the Giffords Law Center, was reported to have spoken with other states about overturning their laws and that the discussions were still “in the early stages.”

  It seems as though gun control groups are so frustrated at not being able to pass laws through Congress that they’ve started looking to local jurisdictions to pass their legislative priorities. Interestingly, this strategy mirrors the Soros district-attorney campaigns.

  Johns Hopkins’ study looks to increase the legitimacy of these preemption overturn policies and, therefore, make them more appealing to state lawmakers to pass.

  Gun Owners of America stands ready to fight the anti-gun lobby, whether on the federal, state, or local level.

  *   *   *

   We’ll hold the line for you in Washington. We are No Compromise. Join the Fight Now.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 22:10

• India Set To Cement Role As New GDP Growth Champion
  India Set To Cement Role As New GDP Growth Champion

  The growth of most highly developed economies has tapered off since the turn of the century due to an already high level of economic performance.

  Yet, as Statista’s Florian Zandt reports, two countries that are now among the nations with the highest gross domestic product worldwide have continued their ascendancy through the ranks: India and China.

  While the former is still projected to show significant real GDP growth over the next few years, the latter’s economic upturn is estimated to slow considerably, according to the most recent IMF World Economic Outlook from October 2023.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  The People’s Republic reportedly showed real GDP growth of 5.2 percent in 2023, 0.2 percent above target.

   A recent Reuters report still proposed a grim outlook with a “deepening property crisis, mounting deflationary risks and tepid demand casting a pall over the outlook for this year”.

  With the country’s population declining again this past year after 2022 saw the first net decrease in six decades and interest rates not likely to be cut soon, experts are united in suggesting only a broad range of stimuli could help the country’s economy out of its ongoing slump. The lack of said stimuli led the IMF to project China’s real GDP growth to dip below four percent from 2027 onwards.

  

  On the other hand, India is projected to see constant growth of about 6.3 percent over the next five years.

  The country’s central bank recently revised its growth forecast for its fiscal year of 2023/2024, which ends on March 31, to 7.3 percent. If this trend continues, S&P Global estimates that the country is set to become the world’s third largest economy by 2030.

  This new-found economic success is not shared equally among Indians, however.

  In an opinion piece for Nikkei Asia published in December 2023, corporate economist and head of Indonomics Consulting Ritesh Kumar Singh illustrated how large companies prosper due to benefits, tax cuts and lackluster competition control. Meanwhile, smaller corporations are increasingly entangled in a tightening bureaucratic net and households are subjected to ever-increasing economic pressure connected to rising taxes financing said benefits.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 21:35

• David Frum And The Axis Of Errors
  David Frum And The Axis Of Errors

  Authored by Francis P. Sempa via RealClear Wire,

  Writing in The Atlantic, David Frum, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and cheerleader for endless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Global War on Terror, warns us that if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election NATO will be wrecked, our allies around the world will suffer “potential disaster,” and “above all” Ukraine will be left to the mercy of Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

  Given Frum’s track record of advice about wars, one wonders why anyone would take his advice.

  Frum takes credit for Bush’s phrase the “axis of evil” to describe Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.

  Frum’s advice about war should be labeled the “axis of error.”

  The twin debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan and the endless Global War on Terror – the wasted blood of American soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen (and women) and the wasted American treasure provided to the “military-industrial complex” – should make Frum more humble about giving war advice.

  

  How many times does Frum have to be wrong before he fades away into the obscurity he so richly deserves?

  But here he is again spouting the neoconservative line about the importance of Ukraine to U.S. national security.

  He condemns Republican Senators who have voiced support for Trump even though they know he will “cut off Ukraine” and “wreck NATO.”

  Of course, while he was president, Trump did not “cut” Ukraine and did not “wreck” NATO.

  In fact, NATO unfortunately expanded under Trump–Montenegro joined in 2017 and North Macedonia joined in 2020. Trump did and does demand that NATO members contribute more to their own defense–something that U.S. policymakers and legislators have done for the last 50 years or more.

  Trump does question the wisdom of providing aid to Ukraine–which is fighting to hold on to its eastern provinces and to take back Crimea–when America is experiencing a broken southern border and faces the existential threat of Communist China.

  Respected national security experts such as Frank Gaffney, Elbridge Colby, and others–as opposed to a neoconservative speechwriter–agree with Trump on that issue.

  How easy it is to advocate war abroad from an office in Washington or New York. Unlike American troops, David Frum didn’t suffer the casualties for 20 years that resulted from his “axis of error,” and he does not suffer today from his war advocacy in Ukraine. If he feels so strongly about it, perhaps he should join–or even lead–an Abraham Lincoln-type brigade of volunteers. In the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), writers, professors, journalists, lawyers and others volunteered to fight on the Republican side. They put their lives on the line for a cause they believed in.

  Frum and others in the neoconservative camp (like Max Boot, Robert Kagan, and Bill Kristol) seem to jump from war to war, crusade to crusade, always searching for the next enemy for other Americans or “allies” to fight.

  In a recent post on X, Frum promoted Anne Applebaum’s recent article opposing a ceasefire in Ukraine entitled “The West Has to Defeat Russia.”

  In another post, Frum writes that the 2024 election will decide the outcome of the war in Ukraine.

  “If Trump wins, Ukraine will be betrayed. If Biden wins, Russia loses its last and only route to victory and must accept defeat.”

  Will Frum be right this time?

  Or is this just another mistake in his axis of errors?

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 21:00

• "F**k These Cops, It's A Lesson To Him": NYC Woman Makes Self-Incriminating Statements After Car-Ramming Attack Caught On Video
  "F**k These Cops, It's A Lesson To Him": NYC Woman Makes Self-Incriminating Statements After Car-Ramming Attack Caught On Video

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  Sahara Dula, 24, is a New England College criminal justice graduate who wants to specialize in “crisis communication.”

  If so, she has a bit to learn after intentionally hitting a police officer with her Lexus and then declaring “F— these cops, it’s a lesson to him.”

  

  A video captures Dula driving the wrong way on Park Avenue near East 71st Street around 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday when an officer approaches the vehicle to turn it around.

  She then floored the black Lexus and hit the officer.

  A BLM activist involved in NYC pro-Palestine protests has been arrested for ramming a car into an NYPD officer on Jan. 17. Sahara Dula was arrested on suspicion of assault with serious physical injury, vehicular assault, reckless endangerment and more. pic.twitter.com/PT3fKXuERd

  — Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) January 19, 2024

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

  She was later found to be high on marijuana.

  She told investigators:

  “I told the cop I wanted to go straight, and he wouldn’t move, so I hit him. I did it on purpose. F— these cops! He wouldn’t move!”

  The wounded officer suffered a broken leg and extensive bruising. However, Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Lucy Shephard did not charge Dula with attempted murder. Instead, she will face an array of charges for first-degree attempted assault, attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer, second-degree assault, second-degree reckless endangerment and operating a vehicle while ability impaired by drugs and reckless driving.

  Dula has a record of past arrests including a criminal mischief arrest in March 2022 after destroying property.

  The charges were dropped. 

  She was also arrested at least twice in New Hampshire, including an arrest in 2020 for failing to stop at an intersection in the town of Henniker and striking another vehicle.

  She then fled the scene. She was also arrested for simple assault after an incident at Concord Hospital.

  There are reports that Dula has been under treatment for mental illness, including possible bipolar illness.

  It is difficult for courts to balance such elements.

  This is a person who has gone to school and reportedly supports her mother and family while struggling with mental illness.

  On the other hand, she just admitted to intentionally striking down an officer.

  It is not clear if the defense will argue the mental illness as a defense and argue that she was experiencing an uncontrolled episode due to medication problems. Yet, how is a judge to handle such a claim? Dula is not institutionalized due to a view that she is able to function in society. The defense could argue that the episode showed that she requires institutionalization and treatment, but that she was not in control of her actions.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 20:25

• "Easy Decision": Trump Believes Supreme Court Will "Intervene" Soon
  "Easy Decision": Trump Believes Supreme Court Will "Intervene" Soon

  Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Former President Donald Trump said he believes the U.S. Supreme Court will “intervene” in multiple cases to prevent him from appearing on state ballots, forecasting that the three justices he nominated to the high court will rule in his favor.

  

  Speaking to Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Thursday evening, the former president said that the justices are “not going to take the vote away from the people” because of “three great justices” and “other great justices up there.” During his term in office, President Trump nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

  “I’m sure the Supreme Court is going to say, ‘We’re not going to take the vote away from the people,’” he continued to say, saying that Democrats are the real “threat to democracy” in the United States.

  Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a 4–3 decision to prevent the former president from appearing on state ballots, citing their interpretation of the “insurrection” clause of the Constitution’s 14th amendment. They claimed that they believed President Trump engaged in an insurrection against the U.S. government despite him having not been convicted or charged with the crime in any court.

  Days later, Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, issued a unilateral decision to bar the former president from that state’s ballots under similar pretexts. Unlike Colorado, which is expected to lean heavily Democratic in the 2024 election, Maine could be considered a battleground state, and President Trump won one of the state’s four electors during the 2020 contest.

  Meanwhile, according to the former president, the Supreme Court justices should factor in his strong poll numbers and recent win in the Iowa caucuses. National polling averages show that he has a 50-point advantage over the second-place and third-place GOP presidential candidates—former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

  “But I don’t think the Supreme Court would [agree with decisions to keep him from ballots] because you can’t take the vote,“ the former commander-in-chief added to Mr. Hannity. ”You know, I’m leading in every poll … I’m leading the remaining Republicans … they’re barely hanging on. How can you possibly take the vote away?”

  In a Truth Social post earlier on Thursday, President Trump said he hoped that it would be “an easy decision” for the Supreme Court. “God bless the Supreme Court,” he added.

  The former president several weeks ago appealed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court before the high court accepted it. Arguments in the case are scheduled for next month.

  Other Activity

  This week, more than 170 congressional Republicans—including some of its leadership—filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, arguing to keep President Trump on the 2024 ballots.

  “Disqualification under Section 3 is an extraordinarily harsh result, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s own text confirms that Congress, representing the Nation’s various interests and constituencies, is the best judge of when to authorize Section 3’s affirmative enforcement,” the lawmakers wrote in their brief.

  The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, they added, “will only supercharge state officials to conjure bases for labeling political opponents as having engaged in insurrection.“ What’s more, the nine justices should overturn that ruling to reduce the ”partisan incentive“ to remove political opponents from ballots under the 14th Amendment’s Section 3, or ”insurrectionist ban,” according to the lawmakers.

  Also this week, a Maine Superior Court judge concluded she lacked authority to stay the judicial proceedings but she wrote that she did have authority to send the case back to the secretary of state with instructions to await the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court case before withdrawing, modifying or upholding her original decision.

  In the decision, the judge said that the issues raised in the Maine case mirror the issues raised in the Colorado case before the U.S. Supreme Court. She wrote that her decision “minimizes any potentially destabilizing effect of inconsistent decisions and will promote greater predictability in the weeks ahead of the primary election.”

  

  Days before that, in Oregon, the state Supreme Court issued a statement saying that it would not rule on a ballot-related challenge against President Trump “for now” until the U.S. high court renders its decision.

  A number of other federal and state judges in different jurisdictions have also rejected similar ballot-related lawsuits seeking to bar the former president from appearing on the ballots.

  The nation’s highest court has never ruled on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office. Some left-wing legal scholars and activists say the post-Civil War clause applies to President Trump, while some have noted that he was never charged with those crimes.

  In California, Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom released a statement last month rejecting a push to bar the former president from his state’s ballots in 2024, writing that in the Golden State, “we defeat candidates at the polls.” He added, “Everything else is a political distraction.”

  The Associated Press contributed to this report.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 19:50

• Furries Are Infiltrating Our Schools
  Furries Are Infiltrating Our Schools

  Authored by Nicole James via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  As I sat at the Christmas dinner table, my fork poised over a baked potato crisped to perfection, I found myself enrolled in an impromptu seminar on the curious world of “furries,” courtesy of my teenage relatives.

  

  These bright-eyed purveyors of contemporary oddities regaled tales from a Sydney satellite city’s school, a veritable hotbed of furry fandom. I’d heard whispers of this subculture—apparently false reports of cat litter being offered up in schools—but the depth and fervour of this phenomenon had previously eluded my grasp.

  So, what in the Dickensian landscape of modern subcultures are “furries”?

  The term defies a neat, one-size-fits-all definition. But if one were to ask Kathleen Gerbasi—a scholar armed with a Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the University of Rochester in New York—a “furry” is an individual who finds themselves spiritually aligned with, or even adopting the traits of, a specific animal species.

  Ms. Gerbasi isn’t a mere casual observer in the furry fray; she was the pioneering mind behind a 2008 scholarly paper that delved into the intricacies of “fursonas.”

  This revelation at the dinner table, nestled between the gravy boat and the cranberry sauce, left me bewildered and bemused, with a forkful of potato suspended in mid-air as I pondered the depths of human identity and expression.

  As I ventured further into this festive feast of absurdity, my youthful informants—let’s affectionately label them Hannah, Olivia, and Izzy—served up a narrative far more peculiar than the conventional understanding of “furries.”

  In their academic jungle, a peculiar breed flourished: students who, in the early wilderness of years 7 to 9, donned their furry personas with the fervour of a Shakespearean actor in a sold-out show.

  But, as the curtain fell on Year 9, these fur-clad thespians seemed to vanish into thin air.

  Had they retreated to more domestic pursuits, like purring on the laps of doting mothers or honing their mousing skills?

  The trio couldn’t say.

  Dedication to Stay in Character

  The truly baffling aspect, as relayed by my earnest narrators, was the unwavering commitment these furries had to their roles.

  Not once did they break character within the hallowed halls of school.

  Speech was forsaken for meows and barks; answers to teachers’ questions were met with stoic silence. These furry aficionados, eschewing the drab garb of school uniforms, adorned themselves with sewn-on tails and headbands crowned with furry ears.

  

  Hannah recounted a tale that bordered on the Kafkaesque: a non-furry lad from Year 9 dared to bark at a furry and found himself chastised by the teacher, who sternly reminded him to respect the feline identity of the student.

  “The teachers just let them do their thing,” Olivia chimed in, while Izzy added that this furry phenomenon was not exclusive to their school, although was conspicuously absent from the city’s private education where the girls were now enrolled.

  Izzy shared a surreal episode about a girl who, perched atop a tree during lunch, refused to descend until the principal’s arrival. Upon alighting, she flapped her arms bird-like, then barked—a furry identity crisis if ever there was one.

  According to this teenage trio, the furry hierarchy at their school was dominated by cats, dogs, and, intriguingly, lorikeets.

  As I digested this feast of the bizarre, alongside my impeccably baked potato, I found myself marvelling at the ever-evolving teenage expression, a world where the lines between human and animal, reality and fantasy, were not just blurred, but enthusiastically erased.

  It’s Everywhere

  This furry frenzy isn’t just an Aussie fad. It’s a global epidemic, spreading faster than a kangaroo on a hot tin roof.

  It started in the United States but now even the Brits are hopping on the bandwagon.

  The Sun splashed across its pages that the UK’s “Safer Schools” group was telling teachers and parents to keep their eyes peeled for kids prancing about as furries.

  The advice? Don’t mock or make a fuss.

  Easy for them to say—they don’t have a kid in a cat costume purring on their dining table!

  

  Meanwhile, in Wollongong, another satellite city outside Sydney, a state school has become a veritable zoo.

  As reported in the Herald Sun, kids are crawling on tables, meowing in packs, and grooming each other like it’s a feline beauty parlour.

  Over in the world of social platform X, UAP Senator Ralph Babet has been sounding the alarm. He reckons this is what happens when the “radical left” runs amok, unchecked, and untamed.

  He wrote, “Can we just put a stop to this garbage right now? You go to school to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic.”

  Then there’s Michael Carr-Greg, a child psychologist who’s seen it all, except, apparently, an abundance of these fur-clad youngsters.

  As reported in the Herald Sun, he says it’s a rare spectacle. These furry fellows, he observes, are leading pretty normal lives, apart from the occasional meow.

  The big question, he muses, is whether this is a passing cloud or a full-blown storm of mental illness.

  The jury’s still out, but Mr. Carr-Greg’s got his eye on the impact on the trifecta of life: friendships, school, and family. If these get muddled up by the furry business, then, and only then, does he start to worry.

  Bridging this concern with the broader cultural spectacle, it’s evident that while experts like Mr. Carr-Greg ponder the psychological ramifications, the wider world is grappling with its own perceptions and reactions.

  As the fur flies in this increasingly barmy debate, one thing’s clear: in the world of fursonas, it’s a jungle out there, and everyone’s just trying to find their way—on foot, paw, or claws.

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

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 18:40

• 'Not Tough, Smart, Or Respected Enough To Be My VP' – Trump Taunts Haley, Dominates New Hampshire Polls Despite MSM Onslaught
  'Not Tough, Smart, Or Respected Enough To Be My VP' – Trump Taunts Haley, Dominates New Hampshire Polls Despite MSM Onslaught

  The mainstream media appears to have got the message from the ‘uniparty’ – Nikki Haley is our gal. The neocon’s recently improving trend in New Hampshire Republican Primary polls has sparked a wave of supportive headlines (and anti-Trump sub-texts) pushing Haley as the last, best hope for bringing down the advance of ‘literal Hitler’ to become the Republican candidate and into The White House.

  “We always wanted to be strong in Iowa and even stronger in New Hampshire, and we’re on track to do that,” Haley Campaign manager, Betsy Ankney, told reporters at a luncheon hosted by Bloomberg News in Manchester.

  “Beating Donald Trump is not easy. He’s a juggernaut. But how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time,” she said.

  But although she’s shot up 30 points over four months in the Granite State, she still trails Trump by nearly 16 points in the RealClearPolitics average of polls.

  

  But that won’t stop the media trying…

  Here’s Bloomberg today – running three separate stories within hours of each other about how great Haley is doing…

  

  Trump at a rally in Concord, New Hampshire, on Friday evening said Haley was “OK” when serving as his UN ambassador but did not have “presidential” material.

  “Now when I say that, that probably means that she’s not going to be chosen as the vice president,” Trump said, adding that:

  “She’s not tough enough. She’s not smart enough. And she wasn’t respected enough. She cannot do this job. She’s not going to be able to deal with President Xi. She’s not going to be able to deal with Putin and Kim Jong Un.”

  The war of words continued as Haley accused the Republican frontrunner of “telling a whole lot of lies.”

  “If he’s gonna lie about me, I’m gonna tell the truth about him,” she added.

  

  But, much to the chagrin of the media’s recent fixation on Haley, Trump has expanded his nationwide lead among Republican voters…

  
   

  But Washington is not giving up in their OrangeManBad efforts.

  Echoing warnings that Vivek Ramaswamy recently issued, Tucker Carlson laid out the potential ‘cunning’ plan underway to  push Washington’s favorite heel-wearer over the ‘Orange Tyrant’.

  In Iowa – before he ended his presidential primary run – Ramaswamy warned that the current system “wants to narrow us down to a two-horse race between Donald Trump and a puppet who they can control,” namely Nikki Haley.

  Carlson extends the thinking…

  Tucker is saying exactly what Vivek has been warning us about. If this happens, don’t blame democrats. Blame trump voters for ignoring the warning. pic.twitter.com/UDvhotjmtI

  — Publius Americanus (@aka_Sulla) January 19, 2024

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

  As Ron Faucheux writes at RealClearPolitics, there is one fragile, complicated scenario that gives Haley (or DeSantis) a glimmer of hope – and that’s if the dynamics of the race change because of a Trump conviction.

  The first step, they believe, is for Haley or DeSantis to quickly become the “last woman (man) standing” against Trump, and to consolidate Republican voters who are resistant to supporting the former president. While that bloc of votes – three out of 10 – isn’t enough to win the nomination, it could add up to decent showings in a few key states. And that, they think, would keep their campaigns on life-support while waiting for the big break.

  The big break is entirely out of the control of either Haley or DeSantis – and that’s a Trump guilty verdict, one that resets the race. The problem is that there may not be a verdict in time. Even if there is, it may not be guilty, and even if it’s guilty, it may not reset the race.

  If there is a guilty verdict before the July convention, the Trump resistance could try to release delegates from their earlier commitments. It’s possible some Trump delegates would rethink their support for him if, as a convicted felon, he no longer appeared to be electable in November. But rest assured, Trump’s hardcore supporters would hit the barricades to stop such a maneuver.

  This scenario may be a vanishing star for Haley and DeSantis to wish upon, but it is effectively the strategic underpinning of their current campaigns; it’s all they have left.

  But, it won’t be easy.

  

  Despite Haley reportedly spending $4 million on an advertising campaign in her home state of South Carolina, JustTheNews reports that Tony Fabrizio, a Trump-aligned pollster on Friday, circulated a private memo including survey results that showed Trump ahead of former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley by 39%, The Hill reported.

  Trump claimed 64% support in the survey, while Haley claimed 25% and Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis earned 8% support.

  “President Trump is set to deliver a South Carolina smackdown to Nikki Haley in her home state where she is best known,” Fabrizio said of the poll results.

  News of Trump’s lead in South Carolina comes after South Carolina GOP Sen. Tim Scott endorsed Trump on Friday evening –  a direct blow to Haley who appointed Scott to the Senate in 2012.

  “We need a president who understands that the American people are sick and tired about being sick and tired,” Scott said, joining Trump at his rally. “We need a president our foreign adversaries are afraid of and our allies respect.”

  Scott is now the third major candidate who previously ran for the 2024 Republican nomination to back Trump.

  North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum and Ohio entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy also joined Trump in recent days to throw their support behind him.

  Trump told supporters Friday evening that New Hampshire “could end it.”

  “We’ll finish it off,” he said. “And then we can focus on the worst president,” he added, looking ahead to a likely rematch with Joe Biden.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 18:05

• Alec Baldwin Indicted By Grand Jury In 'Rust' Shooting
  Alec Baldwin Indicted By Grand Jury In 'Rust' Shooting

  Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Actor Alec Baldwin was indicted by a New Mexico grand jury over the 2021 death of “Rust” cinematographer Halyna Hutchins after a prop gun fired a live round and struck her, according to court documents.

  

  According to several media outlets, the move to indict Mr. Baldwin was confirmed Friday after the grand jury heard evidence presented by special prosecutors. He was charged with involuntary manslaughter.

  Specifically, he was charged with involuntary manslaughter—negligent use of a firearm—or, in the alternative, involuntary manslaughter—without due caution or circumspection—reported ABC News. Both are fourth-degree felonies.

  His lawyers suggested to several news outlets Friday that they would fight the charge. “We look forward to our day in court,” Baldwin lawyers Alex Spiro and Luke Nikas said in a statement.

  The “30 Rock” actor’s initial involuntary manslaughter charges were dropped in April 2023. At the time, prosecutors said they could be brought again, however.

  “Rust” armorer Hannah Gutierrez was charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter as well. She faces an additional charge of evidence tampering.

  The special prosecutors, Kari Morrissey and Jason Lewis sent the gun for more forensic testing several months ago. Experts who evaluated the firearm found that it could have only fired if the trigger was pulled.

  “This fatal incident was the consequence of the hammer being manually retracted to its fully rearward and cocked position followed, at some point, by the pull or rearward depression of the trigger,” their report concluded. “Although Alec Baldwin repeatedly denies pulling the trigger, given the tests, findings and observations reported here, the trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer of the evidence revolver.”

  While the proceeding is shrouded in secrecy, two of the witnesses seen at the courthouse included crew members—one who was present when the fatal shot was fired and another who had walked off the set the day before due to safety concerns.

  Mr. Baldwin, the lead actor and a co-producer on the Western movie, was pointing a gun at Ms. Hutchins during a rehearsal on a movie set outside Santa Fe in October 2021 when the gun went off, killing her and wounding director Joel Souza. But Mr. Baldwin has said he pulled back the hammer but not the trigger, and the gun fired.

  An earlier FBI report on the agency’s analysis of the gun found that, as is common with firearms of that design, it could go off without pulling the trigger if force was applied to an uncocked hammer, such as by dropping the weapon.

  The only way the testers could get it to fire was by striking the gun with a mallet while the hammer was down and resting on the cartridge or by pulling the trigger while it was fully cocked. The gun eventually broke during testing.

  The 2021 shooting resulted in a series of civil lawsuits, including wrongful death claims filed by members of Hutchins’ family, centered on accusations that the defendants were lax with safety standards. Mr. Baldwin and other defendants have disputed those allegations.

  Ms. Hutchins’ widower, Matthew Hutchins, also filed a lawsuit after the incident, reaching a settlement in 2022. It allowed for insurance funds and a portion of “Rust’s” profits to help the couple’s child.

  When the settlement was reached, Mr. Hutchins said he didn’t assign blame to Mr. Baldwin.

  “I have no interest in engaging in recriminations or attribution of blame (to the producers or Mr. Baldwin),” he said at the time, according to reports. “All of us believe Halyna’s death was a terrible accident. I am grateful that the producers and the entertainment community have come together to pay tribute to Halyna’s final work.”

  The Rust Movie Productions company has paid a $100,000 fine to state workplace safety regulators after a scathing narrative of failures in violation of standard industry protocols, including testimony that production managers took limited or no action to address two misfires on set before the fatal shooting.

  The filming of “Rust” resumed last year in Montana under an agreement with the cinematographer’s widower, Matthew Hutchins, that made him an executive producer.

  The movie’s assistant director, David Halls, was named as the individual who gave the firearm to Mr. Baldwin on the day of the shooting. Last year, he signed a plea deal for the “charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon” and received six months’ probation, according to prosecutors.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 17:30

• US Mulls More Aggressive, Stepped-Up Measures Against Houthis
  US Mulls More Aggressive, Stepped-Up Measures Against Houthis

  On Saturday the Pentagon conducted yet another round of airstrikes on Houthi positions in Yemen, which marks likely the seventh round of such Western coalition attacks. It follows a round of strikes the day prior. 

  Even after this steady progression of escalation, which comes in response to near daily Houthi attacks on commercial ships transiting the Red Sea, the Pentagon still says the US government does not believe it is at war in Yemen. It was only on Thursday that President Biden issued a surprise admission, saying that the bombing is not working, yet it will continue anyway. The comments to the media included Biden responding when asked whether the strikes are deterring Houthi aggression: “Well, when you say ‘working’ — are they stopping the Houthis? No. Are they going to continue? Yes,” the president said. 

  

  And now the US administration is mulling bigger escalation, though it remains anything but clear whether the Houthis will actually halt their war on Red Sea shipping, given also Israel is persisting in its Gaza operation. 

  According to fresh reporting in Bloomberg, “The US and the UK are exploring ways to step up their campaign against Houthi militants in Yemen without provoking a broader war, with a focus on targeting Iranian resupplies and launching more aggressive pre-emptive strikes, people familiar with the matter said.”

  But the fear is that it would put Washington on a collision course with Iran. Already there are widespread allegations that Iran has elite IRGC operatives on the ground advising the Houthis. The US has also accused Tehran of giving the Yemeni rebels intelligence information to help with targeting. The White House says it doesn’t want a wider war in the Middle East.

  Bloomberg, based on administration sources, said that an internal debate is raging over the course of action:

  The people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations, said the US and UK are examining ways to better disrupt Iranian efforts to resupply the Houthis at sea, especially given that it will be harder to sever land routes. A British official echoed that argument, saying officials are weighing various types of military operations to disrupt Iranian weapons flows to the Houthis.

  Advocates for more aggressive action also argue that the time is ripe because of what they see as an emerging Iranian weakness. People familiar with the US stance say that the leadership in Iran may have overextended itself with its support for the Houthis along with launching attacks in Pakistan and Iraq, and may not respond to further escalation.

  The US Navy last week intercepted a dhow in the Arabian Sea, off Somalia, that looked “suspicious”. It was found to have been transporting Iranian-made missile components, and was believed bound for Houthi territory. 

  Tragically, the operation wasn’t without a cost, as two Navy Seals were lost at sea, and are presumed dead, as search and rescue efforts have persisted for many days.

  Iran’s allies in the Middle East are seeking to pressure US troops out of the region….

  ⚡️BREAKING

  In an unprecedented move, Iraq has refused the entry of additional US forces into its territory.

  The start of negotiations to remove US forces are imminent, says Iraqi army spokesman pic.twitter.com/XAp8iYxr88

  — Iran Observer (@IranObserver0) January 20, 2024

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

  Israel itself appears to be stepping up its anti-Iran intervention in Syria, on Saturday striking a Damascus suburb. Iran later confirmed that several high-ranking IRGC officers were killed. Tehran is vowing revenge, and things are set to get even more chaotic in the region in the coming days. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 16:55

• National Security Experts Raise Alarm Over Biden’s EV Push
  National Security Experts Raise Alarm Over Biden’s EV Push

  Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A coalition of 17 retired military officials led by retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. James Marks have warned that President Joe Biden’s push for mass electric vehicle (EV) adoption is a threat to national security.

  

  In a Jan. 17 letter to President Biden and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan, the group of national security experts said they oppose the Biden administration’s aggressive EV push because Chinese dominance of EV supply chains poses national security risks for the United States.

  In particular, regulatory initiatives meant to incentivize EV adoption “intensify America’s vulnerability to political interference by the Chinese Communist Party,” the experts wrote.

  Since taking office, President Biden has signed a number of executive orders to boost the sales of EVs, while outlining a plan that seeks to have 50 percent of new vehicles be either plug-in hybrids or fully electric by 2030.

  Further, the EPA in April 2023 proposed tough new vehicle standards that seek to reduce the number of cars that produce emissions by 2032.

  The White House said at the time that the EPA’s strict emission standards are part of a “clear pathway for a continued rise in EV sales and protecting future generations from the impacts of climate change.”

  This reflects the Biden administration’s often-repeated messaging that rapid electrification of transportation would lower greenhouse gases quickly and so reduce global warming, though this is a view that has been challenged, including by climate strategists who generally back climate action but warn that the dash to go electric could lead to unsustainable costs and needless damage to the environment.

  EPA Rule In Focus

  The retired military officials singled out EPA’s tailpipe emissions proposal for particular criticism because they say it would force up to two-thirds of new vehicles sold in America to be electric by 2032.

  “At a nearly tenfold increase over current electric vehicle sales, this proposed rule is a clear example of tone-deaf policymaking that favors the geopolitical advantages currently held by China in this market,” the retired military officers wrote.

  While the experts said that they believe EVs will play a significant role in diversifying America’s transportation systems, they believe the Biden administration’s various quick-adoption initiatives “will rush our transition to EVs before the infrastructure necessary to support it is in place.”

  “This trajectory will only position the U.S. to become more reliant on China for critical minerals and manufacturing that are necessary for the rapid expansion of EV markets this administration envisions.”

  “And even more concerning is the fact that this reliance hinges upon China’s goodwill to export those minerals and manufactured goods to the U.S. This will undoubtedly open the U.S. up to economic manipulations by China,” which poses a “major threat to our national security.”

  “We do not believe now is the time to make ourselves vulnerable to such easy political pressures,” they added.

  The EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.

  Car Dealers Oppose Biden’s EV Push

  There has been other notable opposition to the Biden administration’s EV push in general and the EPA’s strict new tailpipe emissions standard proposal.

  Several thousand car dealership owners around the country in November signed an open letter to the Biden administration, saying they oppose its aggressive EV push.

  More than 3,800 auto dealers wrote in the letter that EV demand isn’t sufficient, even though they said they believe that EVs “are ideal for many people” and that “their appeal will grow over time.”

  “The reality, however, is that electric vehicle demand today is not keeping up with the large influx of BEVs [battery electric vehicles] arriving at our dealerships prompted by the current regulations,” the dealers said. “BEVs are stacking up on our lots.”

  The dealers noted that enthusiasm for EVs “has stalled” and their supply is building “even with deep price cuts, manufacturer incentives, and generous government incentives.”

  They said the EPA’s emissions goals are “unrealistic” and that EVs in general have major hurdles to overcome before adoption can ramp up widely, including a lack of EV charging infrastructure.

  Range Anxiety

  A major worry among Americans considering the wisdom of switching to an EV is range anxiety, which is the fear of driving an EV and running out of power without being able to find a charging port—and ending up stranded on the side of the road.

  A recent study by the American Automobile Association (AAA) found that EV range can fall by up to a quarter when the vehicle is carrying heavy loads.

  “Range anxiety remains a top reason consumers are hesitant to switch from gasoline-powered vehicles to EVs,” Adrienne Woodland, spokesperson for AAA, said in a statement.

  Another recent study by consultancy Ernst & Young—in collaboration with European energy industry body Eurelectric—found that range anxiety is the second-most cited concern about switching to an EV, with a lack of public charging stations in the top spot.

  The study points to an estimated need for 68.9 million chargers across the United States and Canada by 2035 to support the pace of the EV transition.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 16:20

• Earnings Call Sentiment: "Red Sea" Mentions Hit Record High As Fears Mount Of Snarled Supply Chains
  Earnings Call Sentiment: "Red Sea" Mentions Hit Record High As Fears Mount Of Snarled Supply Chains

  Earnings-call mentions of “Red Sea” surged to record highs in recent weeks as the fourth-quarter earnings season kicks off. 

  Management teams and analysts are particularly worried about shipping disruptions as major shippers suspend sails through the critical waterway. At the same time, US and allied forces unleashed bombing raids on Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen. Still, the rebels have been able to strike commercial vessels with missiles and drones this past week, as the chaos in the region could last months.

  Using the Document Search function on Bloomberg, earnings-call mentions of “Red Sea” topped 41 this week, a record high. As the earning season progresses, the mentions will likely increase. 

  

  Here’s a list of corporate executives discussing the Red Sea situtaion in the latest earnings calls. 

  

  In one earnings call, paint and coating company PPG Industries executives mentioned Red Sea disruptions could affect their raw material purchases. 

  

  An Indian executive at plastics company Supreme Industries warned that the Red Sea chaos “has disrupted the normal flow of business.” 

  

  “And just to build on that, zooming out a bit. Of course, if the conflict in the Red Sea were to escalate or to endure, it’s going to affect everybody,” the CEO of British electrical and telecommunications retailer and services company Currys plc said. 

  

  Disruptions in the critical waterway could have significant consequences for global growth. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 15:45

• Advocates Outraged That Feds Asked Banks To Search Customers' 'Religious Texts' Purchases
  Advocates Outraged That Feds Asked Banks To Search Customers' 'Religious Texts' Purchases

  Authored by Mark Tapscott via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Faith leaders and religious liberty advocates are up in arms over news that the federal government encouraged banks and other financial institutions to search customers’ private accounts using the search term “religious texts.”

  

  The “religious texts” search term was among those federal officials asked financial institutions to use following the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, a congressional source with direct knowledge confirmed to The Epoch Times on Jan. 18.

  Other terms that banks, credit card companies, and financial firms were asked to use in the searches included “MAGA” and “Trump,” according to the House Judiciary Committee. Federal officials at the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department sought the data from such searches as part of their investigation of the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

  Religious liberty advocates interviewed by The Epoch Times were unanimous in condemning the searches, which were conducted without judicially authorized search warrants.

  “This is beyond alarming,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told The Epoch Times. “If we did a word search in history of the type of activities the Biden administration is engaged in, it would return words like ‘KGB,’ ’totalitarian,‘ ’repressive,’ ‘anti-democratic,’ and ‘grave threat to freedom.’”

  Family Research Council is a Washington-based nonprofit advocacy group that works on behalf of traditional values, including and especially defense of the family and religious freedom.

  “The last place you would anticipate this kind of government intrusion into freedom of speech is America and yet it is rife with this administration and with the ‘deep state,’” Liberty Counsel founder and Chairman Mat Staver told The Epoch Times.

  “It is a very serious concern and it should be a serious concern, no matter your political beliefs because if this is permitted, then it just depends on who is in power. This is what despotic governments do to suppress people that they don’t agree with,” he said.

  Mr. Staver’s organization, Liberty Counsel, is an Orlando, Florida-based nonprofit religious liberty defense foundation.

  ‘Mockery of Our Laws’

  Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel for the Plano, Texas-based First Liberty Institute, told The Epoch Times the searches exposed by the House panel represent a threat to religious freedom.

  “It’s outrageous and frankly chilling that the federal government may be urging banks to monitor Americans for exercising their religious freedom by simply purchasing a Bible or other religious text,” Mr. Shackelford said.

  “Weaponizing the federal government against religious Americans freely exercising their constitutionally protected freedom is outrageous and a danger to all our freedoms. It makes a mockery of our laws. When religious people are attacked and religious freedom is not upheld, all other civil liberties—including economic freedom—soon start crumbling.”

  “This news should serve as a wake-up call for every American,“ warned Jeremy Tedesco, senior vice president of corporate engagement for Alliance Defending Freedom. ”The revelation that the government is working with financial institutions to flag everyday American citizens as ’threats’ because they shop at Cabelas, Dick’s Sporting Goods, or buy religious texts is terrifying.

  “No one should live in fear that law enforcement or a financial service provider will flag their account based on the exercise of their constitutionally protected rights.”

  House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said in a Jan. 17 statement that the searches were sought by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Stakeholder Integration and Engagement in the Strategic Operations of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), in conjunction with the FBI.

  

  Mr. Jordan wrote a Jan. 17 letter to Noah Bishoff, the former FinCEN director who is now the anti-money laundering officer for Plaid Inc., a San Francisco digital financial platform developer and marketer.

  “According to this analysis, FinCEN warned financial institutions of ‘extremism’ indicators that include ‘transportation charges, such as bus tickets, rental cars, or plane tickets, for travel areas with no apparent purpose,’ or ‘the purchase of books (including religious texts) and subscriptions to other media containing extremist views,’” Mr. Jordan wrote.

  “In other words, FinCEN used large financial institutions to comb through the private transactions of their customers for suspicious charges on the basis of protected political and religious expression.”

  Officials’ Testimony Sought

  Mr. Bishoff was asked to provide testimony to the House Judiciary panel about the searches, as was Peter Sullivan, senior private sector partner for outreach in the Strategic Partner Engagement Section of the FBI.

  “Freedom of Religion is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution,” Mr. Jordan told The Epoch Times. “It should frighten every American that the federal government is watching people based on their purchases. This is as wrong as it gets and we will continue to expose this blatant attack on faith and civil liberties.”

  In a Jan. 17 letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Mr. Jordan explained that Mr. Sullivan’s testimony “will help to inform the [House Judiciary] Committee and Select Subcommittee [on the Weaponization of the Federal Government] about the FBI’s mass accumulation and use of Americans’ private information without legal process; the FBI’s protocols, if any, to safeguard Americans’ privacy and constitutional rights in the receipt and use of such information; and the FBI’s general engagement with the private sector on law-enforcement matters.”

  Congressional leaders also told The Epoch Times the searches warrant further investigation and corrective action.

  

  House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) also commented.

  “The Biden administration is bringing back ‘Operation Chokepoint’ from the Obama-Biden era to weaponize our financial system against their political opponents. House Republicans, under the leadership of Chairman Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee, will not tolerate this un-American abuse of power.” Mr. Emmer said.

  He was referring to a Department of Justice investigation in 2013 of firearms dealers, payday lenders, and other businesses thought to be vulnerable to money laundering.

  Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told The Epoch Times that “digging through American citizens’ private financial transactions, based on political phrases, is a clear weaponization of the federal government and those responsible must be held responsible.”

  Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called the searches “outrageous” and claimed “the Biden administration is using federal law enforcement to engage in financial surveillance of Americans. … Shockingly, the government is even monitoring people for purchasing religious texts like the Bible. This is an Orwellian invasion of privacy, and it should have never happened in the United States. Biden’s bureaucrats running this horrendous financial surveillance system must be held accountable.”

  Similarly, Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) told The Epoch Times: “This is yet another example of the federal government being weaponized against Joe Biden’s political opposition, as well as people of faith. This sort of activity is highly concerning and warrants further investigation. I applaud the House Judiciary Committee for digging into this issue and I look forward to investigators exposing and rooting out this misconduct.”

  Tactics of Marxism

  Shea Bradley-Farrell is an international development professional and president of the Washington-based Counterpoint Institute for Policy, Research, and Education. She told The Epoch Times that the searches are typical of the control measures used by totalitarian regimes to counter dissidents and other groups not approved by the authorities.

  “Weaponizing the federal government against private citizens for their political or religious beliefs is straight out of the playbook of Marxism, and was also used to identify, crush, and control the occupied peoples under the communist Soviet Union,” Ms. Bradley-Farrell said.

  “As I explain in my book, ‘Last Warning to the West,’ these are totalitarian, police-state tactics used to impose ‘docility, discipline and controllability of subject populations. These are warrantless searches that violate the Fourth Amendment.”

  A spokesman for Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen didn’t respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 15:10

• Prediction Consensus: What The 'Experts' See Coming In 2024
  Prediction Consensus: What The 'Experts' See Coming In 2024

  As we look ahead to 2024, there is no shortage of expert forecasts and predictions for the world’s economy, markets, geopolitics, and technology to track in this new year.

  In this now fifth year of our Prediction Consensus (part of our comprehensive 2024 Global Forecast Series), we’ve summarized 25 of the most common predictions and forecasts by experts into a single visual of what’s expected to happen in 2024.

  Drawing from our predictions database of over 700 forecasts compiled from reports, interviews, podcasts, and more, Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte created the Prediction Consensus “bingo card” and this article to offer an overview of the most cited trends and opportunities that experts are watching for the rest of the year.

  

  This visual is from our 2024 Global Forecast Series Report:

  Get full access to the series, which compiles insights from 700+ expert predictions for what will happen in 2024, by becoming a VC+ member today.

  The Economy and Markets in 2024

  Based on the hundreds of economic forecasts and predictions we’ve sifted through, many analysts and experts share similar views on what’s ahead for inflation, interest rates, and economic growth in 2024.

  Inflation: After inflation’s steady decline across economies in 2023, many analysts see inflation continuing to cool off towards target levels. While some note that the last stretch to these targets could be the toughest, few foresee the possibility of inflation surging again like we saw in 2022.

  

  Interest Rates: With inflation largely expected to be tamed in 2024, every major bank and institution forecasts interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, and Bank of England by the middle of the year. Forecasts from analysts on how much rates will be cut vary between three and six cuts, with Federal Reserve board members themselves forecasting two to three cuts.

  Markets: With interest rate cuts on the horizon, experts have echoed tentatively positive forecasts for both stocks and bonds in 2024. Falling rates should see bond yields fall as well, while equities should continue to benefit from the growing AI theme. Portfolio diversification is a common theme in the 2024 investment playbook, especially as geopolitical risks loom.

  Real GDP Growth: The outlook for growth around the world is muted. Global GDP growth forecasts range from 2.5-3%, which is slightly lower than the 10-year average (2013-2022) of 3.1%. The U.S. is also forecasted to see slowing growth, with the IMF’s forecasts of 2.4% in 2023 moving down to 1.5% in 2024, while Europe is also expected to continue seeing slow growth at 0.9% in 2024.

  

  When looking at other nations, many experts are predicting we’ll see India outpace China when it comes to real GDP growth this year, especially if the trend of manufacturing and foreign investment shifting away from China continues.

  “The transition is two-sided: India is investing in infrastructure and courting foreign investment, while China is investing in aircraft carriers and turning its gaze inward to deal with youth unemployment and sectors crashing.”

  – Scott Galloway

  Geopolitical Predictions for 2024

  After the past couple of years brought geopolitics back to the forefront with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s war with Hamas, experts don’t see global tensions cooling off anytime soon. In fact, many cite further geopolitical sparks and potential escalation as their top risk to watch out for in 2024, requiring diversified and nimble positioning.

  With ongoing strikes from Yemen’s Houthi militants on container ships in the Red Sea resulting in marine shipping disruptions, retaliatory U.S. strikes are now likely cementing the potential for ongoing disruption for marine shipping around the world.

  

  Outlooks for the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas wars are equally indecisive, with few to no experts foreseeing true resolutions for either conflict in 2024, and most citing further escalation and additional country involvement as the more likely scenarios.

  Along with these ongoing geopolitical issues, 2024 is a key year for elections around the world. With the U.S., Russia, Ukraine, India, Mexico, and many other countries holding elections this year, there’s little stable ground in geopolitics without the potential for seismic shifts this year.

  Further Boom or Regulatory Bust for AI in 2024?

  After its breakout year in 2023, artificial intelligence faces new challenges in 2024 which is set to be another pivotal year for the technology.

  While advances in the technology are inevitable, the less exciting reality of regulation and legal disputes around training data is already a key issue, as seen in the New York Times’ lawsuit against OpenAI. Along with this, the growing potential for malicious AI use around the many global elections this year could spur further calls for greater regulation.

  

  Experts see these topics acting as a bit of a damper on another potentially explosive year for AI product growth and distribution. Many are expecting the EU to clamp down faster and harder than the U.S. when it comes to regulation.

  2024 Forecasts: Everything is Connected

  While the global economy, markets, geopolitics, and technological advancements have always affected each other in various ways, in 2024 these connections feel stronger than ever.

  One such example is how escalating conflicts in the Middle East are affecting shipping insurance costs and routes, which could drive up inflation again and lead central banks to hold off on cutting interest rates this year, thus affecting myriad economic factors and markets around the world.

  2024 feels full of both good and bad interconnected possibilities, from forecasts around AI advancements ushering in a new bull market and golden age of productivity to the potential job disruptions it could cause that our labor markets and society might not be ready for.

  Despite the world growing more polarized and geopolitically fractured in the past couple of years, these predictions and forecasts remind us of how deeply dependent the health and future of the global economy is on the interconnected nature of these factors.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 14:35

• Decode Your Hospital Bill To Catch Overcharges
  Decode Your Hospital Bill To Catch Overcharges

  Authored by George Citroner via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Millions of Americans are trapped in a maze of inflated hospital fees and opaque billing codes. Yet they either pay these crushing bills or watch their credit score plummet.

  But what if patients could decode hospital charges and gain the upper hand? Armed with such knowledge, they may reveal errors, negotiate costs, access aid programs, and protect themselves from crippling medical debt.

  

  Patients Pay the Price as Hospitals Fail Billing Standards

  Recently published research in the Journal of the American Medical Association analyzed data from a 2022 survey by The Leapfrog Group. This nonprofit issues an annual review assessing the quality of care and billing accountability standards across U.S. hospitals.

  The analysis focused on responses from 2,270 hospitals. It found that 754 facilities (33.2 percent) had taken legal action against patients who could not pay bills in full or on time. Additionally, over 1,000 hospitals failed to provide itemized bills within 30 days, possibly violating legal billing requirements.

  The bill most patients get in the mail is usually a consolidated summary, “making it impossible to assess whether you’re charged correctly or not,” Patrick Haig, CEO and co-founder of Goodbill, a startup dedicated to making hospital bills transparent and affordable for patients, told The Epoch Times.

  Furthermore, 125 hospitals (5.5 percent) lacked billing representatives who could investigate errors, offer price adjustments, or discuss payment plan options. In total, 1,415, or over 60 percent, of the facilities surveyed did not satisfy all three critical billing quality standards.

  Over 50 percent of hospital bills reviewed by Goodbill contain inaccuracies, according to Mr. Haig. These range from coding mistakes to charges for unnecessary medical procedures.

  “That’s kind of crazy when you think about it,” Mr. Haig said, “because so many people feel like they have no choice but to just pay their bills, or they go into debt because they can’t afford to pay their bills.”

  Vague Hospital Invoices Hide Behind Fake ‘Itemization’

  If you have concerns regarding hospital charges, request an itemized bill within 30 days. This line-item invoice details all services and supplies involved in your care.

  An accurate itemized bill includes standardized diagnosis, procedure, and billing codes that determine costs, Mr. Haig said—specifically, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes, and others. These codes clearly convey how insurance companies reimburse hospitals, enabling “apples-to-apples” charge comparisons with other providers, he added.

  “For example, a charge for an acute emergency room visit might go by different names, depending on the hospital—like ‘Level 5 ED visit,’ or ‘ER visit Lvl 5,’ but universally has only one CPT code: 99285,” he said.

  If the itemized bill lacks sufficient coding detail, request the UB-04 claim form submitted to insurers for payment. It contains the clearest procedure coding available, according to Mr. Haig. Simply requesting the hospital’s proprietary “itemized bill” could yield useless internal classifications rather than standardized descriptors.

  “We’ve seen that hospitals sometimes have their own version of an ‘itemized bill’ with internal codes that aren’t helpful at all,” he said. “Requesting your UB-04 claim form is a much more specific ask that is difficult to misconstrue.”

  Emergency Care Springboards People Into Debt

  According to a nationwide poll by KFF, formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit organization focusing on health care and health policy research and analysis, the medical debt crisis extends far beyond hospital bills alone. Factors like credit cards, personal loans, and borrowing from friends used to pay outstanding health care fees were also considered.

  Key findings reveal that about 25 percent of adults with medical debt owe over $5,000. About 20 percent said they believe they’ll never pay it off. For many, the initial debt stems from one-time or short-term emergency care.

  Additionally, nearly 50 percent of adults couldn’t afford an unexpected $500 medical bill without taking on debt. Over a third currently owe less than $1,000—an amount with serious financial consequences.

  Up to 40 Percent Qualify for Hospital Aid, but It Goes Unused

  However, up to 40 percent of the medical debt seen by Goodbill qualifies for hospital financial assistance, Mr. Haig said.

  “Nonprofit hospitals, which comprise the majority of hospitals in the United States, are required by law to offer financial assistance to patients who fall below certain household income thresholds,” he added. “At some hospitals, that threshold can be well over $100,000.”

  However, qualifications go widely unadvertised, and many patients don’t know to ask. “Patients can save up to 100 percent off their portion of the bill,” Mr. Haig said. “It’s one of the most underutilized benefits in health care.”

  Other ways to protect yourself against inflated medical bills include the following:

  • Seeking pre-approvals for covered care.
  • Negotiating costs even if correctly billed.
  • Understanding new surprise billing guardrails.

  The No Surprises Act shields insured patients from many unexpected medical bills. This includes bills sent by out-of-network providers that were beyond the patient’s control.

  The new rules enable uninsured and cash-pay patients to access good-faith cost estimates before receiving care.

  Finally, if you have a problem with debt collection due to surprise medical billing, you can submit a complaint online to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) or call (855) 411-CFPB (2372).

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 14:00

• Ballistic Missiles May Have Been Used In Huge Strike On US Base In Iraq
  Ballistic Missiles May Have Been Used In Huge Strike On US Base In Iraq

  Update(1355ET): Details have continued trickling out and are scant, but by all accounts the Saturday attack on Al-Asad airbase in Western Iraq, which houses US forces, was a big one. Reuters cites an official who said “the base was hit by ballistic missiles but he left open the possibility it was struck by rockets.” This has led to some speculation that ballistic missiles could have been fired on the US outpost from Iranian territory.

  But Reuters also notes, “Two security sources in Iraq and one government source said the base was hit by multiple rockets fired from inside Iraq.” One regional analyst has gathered sources to detail the following…

  Some updates:

  – Not rockets, but tactical ballistic missiles;
  – U.S. injuries confirmed;
  – 15+ U.S. Patriot missiles were launched to intercept, but some missiles still got through — meaning attack was BIG;
  – #Iran-directed “Islamic Resistance in #Iraq” claimed responsibility. https://t.co/E858p7PNRz

  — Charles Lister (@Charles_Lister) January 20, 2024

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

  This is the very same base that Iran retaliated against with ballistic missiles in January 2020, as revenge for the US assassination by drone strike of IRGC Quds Force General Qasem Soleimani.

  * * *

  A missile barrage has reportedly struck the Al-Asad Airbase — a U.S. military facility maintained in Iraq since 2003 — according to Reuters accompanied by videos on X alleging to show the missiles raining down:

  🇮🇶🇺🇸BREAKING: ROCKET BARRAGE HITS U.S BASE IN IRAQ

  Ain Al-Assad base in western Iraq, housing American forces, was reportedly hit by 20 rockets in a severe missile attack.

  Hezbollah in Iraq has reportedly claimed responsibility, stating the attack targeted American troops.… pic.twitter.com/GokK35aNzk

  — Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) January 20, 2024

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

  The Al-Asad base is the same that suffered retaliatory strikes in January of 2020 after then-President Trump killed Iranian military officer Qasem Soleimani.

  US defense officials at the time said just 10 missiles managed to make contact with the base. It appears fewer than 20 missiles were fired in Saturday’s attack — with an unknown number intercepted by missile defense systems — though the story continues to develop.

  According to further details:

  US personnel suffered minor injuries and a member of Iraq’s security forces was seriously wounded in an attack on Iraq’s Ain al-Asad air base on Saturday, a US official said, citing initial assessments, which are subject to change.

  At least a dozen missiles were fired at a military base used by US-led coalition forces in western Iraq, a US defense source and Iraqi police told AFP.

  Al-Asad was the second largest base constructed during George Bush’s “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” — wherein ‘freedom’ in Neocon-speak of course refers to 300,000 dead Iraqi civilians — an operation which ostensibly ended in December of 2011.

  The Pentagon will use these strikes — on a base constructed for Bush’s Iraq war which ended in 2011 — to escalate US involvment in the ME.

  The media will ignore all context of US funding Israel’s war and fail to ask any questions on why the base still operates 13 years later: https://t.co/kN02MdvVNA

  — Liam Cosgrove (@cosgrove_iv) January 20, 2024

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

  The Iran Observer said to “expect US retaliatory strikes against Iraqi resistance forces.”

  This follows an Iranian strike on what they deemed foreign “espionage centers” and “anti-Iranian terrorist gatherings in parts of the region” with ballistic missiles, killing four though no Americans.

  One regional correspondent, Joyce Karam, pointed out that last Monday was an exceptional day in terms of the number of hugely escalatory events close in time.

  

  She wrote that the “Middle East is imploding, in one day”…which has included the following:

  • Attack on US ship by Yemen Houthis 
  • US intercepting 2nd attack in Red Sea
  • Israel strikes in Gaza [and Syria]
  • Stabbing & car ramming near Tel Aviv
  • IRGC attack in Iraq
  • IRGC attack in Syria

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 13:55

• Israeli Airstrike Kills Several High-Ranking IRGC Officers In Damascus
  Israeli Airstrike Kills Several High-Ranking IRGC Officers In Damascus

  Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

  Five members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) serving in an advisory capacity were killed Saturday in the Syrian capital of Damascus when Israeli warplanes struck a residential building they were staying in. Iran confirmed the deaths of the Guard members.

  Syrian state media reported that the attack was carried out against the Mazzeh neighborhood by planes operating in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Israel has yet to comment on the incident. Some reports say ten people in total were killed in the attack.

  Footage of Israeli strike in Mezzeh, heart of Syria’s capital Damascus today, killing IRGC Gen. Sadegh Omidzadeh,his deputy Haj Gholam and 3 others. Location, timing, tactic, all significant:
  pic.twitter.com/rseZpX1GDE

  — Joyce Karam (@Joyce_Karam) January 20, 2024

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

  The slain reportedly included a Quds force general, and the Revolutionary Guard identified the slain, but did not include their ranks or duties within Syria. Notably, the Guard’s names did not include the Quds force general, though it also did not deny he was killed. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported five Iranians and an unidentified Syrian were amongst the slain.

  Syrian state media identified the killed Iranians simply as advisers, and Iran followed up the incident with a statement condemning Israel for “organized terrorism,” and threatened retaliation at a time and place of their choosing.

  A witness reported hearing at least five separate explosions during the attack, and saw bodies being taken away, including three surviving wounded. The media reports said the building was heavily guarded at the time.

  Iran has had advisory forces in Syria since 2011, and played a big role in trying to help them organize the fight during the protracted civil war. Israel presented this as a threat along their border, and has regularly attacked Iranian targets within Syria when it has identified them.

  

  Without knowing more about the victims, it is impossible to know how much of an impact this will have on the Iranian mission within Syria, though if history is any indicator, it will not mean any kind of ending to it.

  With Israel escalating fighting in several border regions already and tensions soaring, Syria will no doubt hope for advice to continue apace.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 13:25

• The Fundamental Value Of Bitcoin
  The Fundamental Value Of Bitcoin

  Authored by Kane McGukin via BombThrower.com,

  It’s the second layer of the internet and more valuable than price

  In this piece, I will explain how Bitcoin is built like TCP/IP, the two protocols that are at the foundation of the internet. Without protocols, there would be no digital revolution and our entire lives would be drastically different.

  

  Throughout, are snippets from Flavio Copes’ Valley of Code that I’ll use to explain why the value in Bitcoin lies more in the protocol than in the asset.

  Flavio’s site is dedicated to programming and learning other web-related skills. Several years ago, I stumbled across his work and was very impressed at how simply one of his tutorials broke down the core foundation of the internet: TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol).

  In the past, I’ve written a few related pieces here and here. In this update, I hope to explain the fundamental value behind why Bitcoin/bitcoin is important.

  Fundamentals are more important than price.

  Over the long term, fundamentals are the true driver of any asset. Fundamentals are rooted in having a low time preference (Bitcoin Standard). Even though this mantra is a core ethos to the Bitcoin community you still consistently see fiat-brained, high time preference behaviors… Especially, near the end of bull markets.

  This is classic TradFi behavior. A human emotion I’m almost convinced we’ll never be able to remove as long as price is part of the equation. “Money” or rather currency makes us all do crazy things!

  What shocked me about Flavio’s breakdown was how simply he explained a rather complex topic, and how well it also describes Bitcoin. Having been more than two decades since I dove into protocols, network architecture, and other related details. This was a nice refresher. A basic description of the internet is:

  

  At the core of Bitcoin, you’ll find many of these same characteristics with nodes networked together to support Bitcoin wallet addresses that make transactions that are compiled and processed by miners that act similar to ISPs (traditional Internet Service Providers). 

  The latter confirms and bundles transactions so that transfers happen across the Bitcoin Network.

  This technology is transitioning us from an Industrial Society to a Digital one and the move is just as drastic as our last hop from an Agrarian to an Industrial Society (18th – 20th centuries).

  Future winners will be rewarded just as handsomely, and losers will find themselves just as debilitated as those during the last major transfer of wealth. The one thing that’s for sure is we’ll all be operating in a “new world” with a different set of standards.

  The power of a digital world is that everything will be connected.

  In a networked world, the value of the network is much more powerful than sparsely linked silos. What’s different about the 21st Century is that we’ve “Made Math Great Again”. Power Law statistics (exponential growth) and Metcalfe’s Law are the drivers of the new age which operates with data as the new oil.

  We’ve watched this story before -> the evolution and adoption of the traditional internet (TCP/IP). We saw what happens when information, business, and communication are made accessible to almost everyone, everywhere. Now, with the emergence of Bitcoin, we’ll see it happen with money. Effectively, we’ll get API-money.

  In the new world, banks, self-sovereign digital wallets, nodes, people, businesses, media, etc. all will have an address that can post data or receive money. It creates optionality. Something truly for the people.

  We’ve never had this before with this level of integration potential, but we have seen the ramifications of digitization across almost every industry. This wave will be much bigger and much more drastic. Especially when you consider the potential of AI, but that’s outside the realm of this discussion.

  

  Local area networks (digital) are now a dominant part of our lives. Some sort of local network touches pretty much everything we do. Because our networks are still rather siloed, it’s great when we have access but not so great when we can’t connect. Unless we have an FTP, cloud, or some sort of remote server access, we can be left out.

  This sounds very much like our current state of banking when you read between the lines.

  By and large bankers, specifically central bankers, have fended off digital transformation with regulation, bureaucracy, and intentional faux interest for a whole host of reasons. I’ll let you guess them, though they are quite obvious.

  Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are bridging the gap not only for disjointed and disconnected money but also paving the road for new digital infrastructure that is more connected, more integrated, and more available than our existing TCP/IP setup.

  Of course, some are more secure (Bitcoin) than others (Crypto). But, together they will bring about a new wave of innovation that paves the way for the next Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc.

  The Bitcoin protocol acts in the same manner as TCP but with security and cryptography as a core foundation. Bringing ownership back to the user rather than the platform.

  More direct, peer-to-peer, communication happens without the need for an intermediary who historically has siphoned off the data for their own personal gain or has imposed some form of censorship whenever it behooved the platform to do such a thing.

  

  This is fundamentally what is different about the Bitcoin Protocol that sits atop TCP/IP; the traditional internet protocol.

  To make things simple on the internet, we don’t have to remember IP addresses, servers, etc. We just need to type the Domain name (google.com, espn.com, enterwebsitename.com), and the information is displayed.

  

  

  Bitcoin is currently (and quickly changing) at the state where we are entering the IP addresses and having to know the details of the servers, etc. BUT, that will and is changing. I imagine soon, the next wave will bring a host of applications (they’re rolling out) that will have better UI/UX so that much of this is hidden.

  You’re starting to see similar domain names and pay-to-a-user email type functions much like we are comfortable with on the traditional internet. That’s when Bitcoin goes mainstream. When the long complicated addresses are removed, much like not having to use IP addresses on the internet.

  A friend, Mark Jeftovic who runs a traditional internet domain business, has done some early work on what domains might look like in Bitcoin. So, this type of innovation is coming, and it’s needed if we want to get 4-6 billion people onboarded onto Bitcoin.

  What’s important when referencing these early internet RFCs is that there structured exactly like the Bitcoin Improvement Process. These RFCs are how DARPA built the early stages of the internet. RFC 793

  

  How they voted and intellectually hashed out what *standards* were needed to run a functional information system accessible by the entire world. These were some of the smartest of smartest “hackers” building out a system that powered the next major wave of human evolution – the digital revolution.

  15 years ago, Satoshi did the same. Whomever he, she, they, or whatever global group it was that created the Bitcoin Protocol, seems to have recognized the value of building a global system in the same manner.

  It appears Satoshi copied this template while also figuring out how to incorporate cryptography. Most importantly, Satoshi solved the double spend problem. For the first time, digital money could not be copied. Allowing money and data to live on the same chain. In my opinion, this has a much greater implication than cloud computing and we have a reference for how that turned out.

  As we enter into a new era, we have created a base layer digital money that can harness new energy sources, better integrate and power commerce, and continue a history of technological innovation throughout the entire world. Not just in centralized portions of the globe.

  Today, Bitcoin Core Developers carry on this torch, “hacking” and having high-level, extremely intelligent debates to build a more connected and secure monetary system.

  Like TCP/IP, Bitcoin is in search of its secondary protocol (layer 2) to be the lightweight option that’s faster, less clunky, and cheaper. UDP, reminds me of Lightning Protocol for Bitcoin, or potentially Fediment or any other L2 that eventually becomes the layer that:

  “This implies that it’s faster, each packet sent is more lightweight, as it does not contain all the information needed in TCP, and it does have a lighter handshake process. The drawback is that UDP is not as reliable as TCP.” RFC 768

  

  In the traditional currency space money acts much the same. In the US, we have gold as the base clunky layer and treasuries and dollars as the lightweight faster L2. In China, they have the Yuan as the base and the Renminbi as the L2.

  

  While Bitcoin is a new innovative protocol, it’s just another addition to better connect our global systems, people, and money. It’s also a case of, “there’s nothing new under the sun”.

  As innovation happens, time, names, technology, and money change but human emotion does not.

  The ride will be the same but feel different based on our behaviors and the advisories who feel threatened.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 12:50

• Massive Deficit Spending Keeping The Economy Out Of Recession (For Now)
  Massive Deficit Spending Keeping The Economy Out Of Recession (For Now)

  Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

  Economic growth continues to defy expectations of a slowdown and recession due to continued increases in deficit spending. In fact, the U.S. Treasury recently reported the December budget deficit, which shows the U.S. collected $429 billion through various taxes while total outlays hit $559 billion.

  

  As noted, the problem remains on how the economy has avoided a recession despite the Fed’s aggressive rate hiking campaign. Numerous indicators, from the leading economic index to the yield curve, suggest a high probability of an economic recession, but one has yet to occur. One explanation for this has been the surge in Federal expenditures since the end of 2022 stemming from the Inflation Reduction and CHIPs Acts. The second reason is that GDP was so grossly elevated from the $5 Trillion in previous fiscal policies that the lag effect is taking longer than historical norms to resolve.

  

  However, that red line in the chart above is the most interesting. Notice that while Federal expenditures are rising, Federal tax receipts are falling. Such is why the national deficit is increasing. When we discussed this previously, many thought the shortfall was temporary. To wit:

  “California’s tax payments are delayed due to the emergency declaration. However, that doesn’t account for the magnitude of the decline in filings. Secondly, given the shuttering of the entire economy in 2020, which also delayed filings nationwide, the extent of the current decrease seems more than just a single event.”

  Given the length of time and the fact the collection rate fell further, it suggests there is more to the decline.

  Tax Receipts Send A Warning

  The change in Federal receipts is essential as the Government’s revenue is from the taxes on both corporate and individual incomes. Unsurprisingly, if revenues and incomes decline, such would reflect economic activity. As shown below, there is a very high correlation between the annual change in Federal receipts and economic growth. Historically, when the yearly change in Federal receipts falls below 2% annual growth, such has preceded economic recessions. Federal receipts’ yearly rate of change is currently a negative five percent (-5%).

  

  We see the exact correlation by smoothing the data and using inflation-adjusted tax receipts on a 24-month rate of change. Again, a recession follows when tax receipts fall below 2% annual growth rates. I like this measure better as it accounts for the “lag effect” in the economy. The 2-year yearly change in receipts has fallen well below the 2% warning line and is currently at -5.77%.

  

  While tax receipts suggest economic weakness is more pervasive than headlines suggest, the deficit spending flows keep economic growth from becoming recessionary.

  The Frog And Deficit Spending

  If we look at the current economy, there is no noticeable collapse in the dollar, private capital, rampant Inflation, or recession. However, like bringing the water to a slow boil, the frog doesn’t realize it is in trouble until it’s too late.

  The government’s serious endeavors into deficit spending began with Ronald Reagan in 1980. Since then, politicians concluded that a lot should be better if a little deficit spending is good. For politicians, there are only positive benefits of deficit spending increases. More spending provides a short-term boost in economic activity, which gets them re-elected to office.

  However, the water temperature is clearly rising in the longer term.

  While the dollar hasn’t collapsed under the weight of deficit spending, the negative strength trend relative to other currencies is slowly rising in temperature.

  

  Of course, as the dollar weakened and deficits grew, Inflation, for both producers and consumers, rose.

  

  

  While deficits may not appear to crowd out private investment, the rise of behemoth companies like Apple, Google, and others do crowd out innovation and new company formations. Such activities require capital, and a reasonable correlation exists between the ebbs and flows of deficits and capital acquisition.

  

  Not surprisingly, as the dollar weakens, the movement of capital slows, and Inflation rises, the economic growth rate slows. Such should not be surprising as debt used for non-productive purposes diverts money from productivity to interest service.

  

  The one thing that deficits have not led to is surging interest rates and massive increases in borrowing costs.

  

  However, that suppression of interest rates has come from two primary sources.

  1. Slower rates of economic growth

  2. Massive interventions by the Federal Government to suppress rates.

  

  Given the sharp increases in Federal debt since 2008 to support economic growth, the economy can not sustain higher borrowing costs for long.

  The Economy Is Close To Recession

  While economic growth continues to defy expectations on the surface, if it weren’t for increases in deficit spending, economic growth would be flirting with recessionary levels at just 0.7% in Q3 rather than 6.21%

  

  In GDP accounting, consumption is the most significant component. Since deficit spending doesn’t filter down into the average household, it is no wonder why Presidential approving ratings are so dismal.

  Should governments use deficit spending for “productive investments” during economic downturns? That answer is clearly in the affirmative category.

  However, once the economy returns to growth, the deficits should be reversed into surpluses to prepare for the next inevitable downturn. Such is the entire underlying premise of Keynesian economic theory. But, unfortunately, politicians, in their ongoing endeavor to get reelected, ignore the part about repaying debts.

  While short-term deficits may have no consequences, the rising levels of corporatism, wage disparities, and wealth inequality provide ample evidence that something has gone wrong.

  Are all the problems in the U.S. solely the result of rampant deficit spending? Of course not. The U.S. has also spent four decades making poor political and economic choices.

  1. Massive increases in consumer and corporate debt.

  2. A shift from productive to non-productive labor.

  3. Poor immigration policies.

  4. The slow erosion of the rule of law; and,

  5. An undermining of capitalism and a move to socialistic policies.

  If you ignore all of the anecdotal evidence, an argument can be made for running continual economic deficits. However, suggesting “deficit spending” has no consequences is entirely wrong.

  We can continue our path for quite some time, and probably longer than most imagine.

  But, just because we haven’t realized it yet, it doesn’t mean we aren’t slowly being “boiled by deficits.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 01/20/2024 – 11:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest