Today’s News 25th January 2024

• Beattie: Pretext For A Fedsurrection
  Beattie: Pretext For A Fedsurrection

  Authored by Darren Beattie via The American Mind,

  The Big Lie of the January 6 “insurrection” is falling apart before our eyes…

  

  With over three years having passed since January 6, 2021, it may come as a shock to some that this vexed date is more relevant than ever. The regime has broadly employed the absurd notion of January 6 as a violent assault on the scale of 9/11 as a pretext to weaponize the national security state against its political opponents. The still more absurd notion that Trump personally instigated this insurrection has emerged as the sham legal rationale behind the regime’s recent efforts to remove the presumptive GOP nominee from the ballot entirely. A bungling, senescent Biden clearly signaled in his speech marking the third anniversary of the “day we almost lost America” that January 6 would feature prominently in the Democrat’s 2024 strategy. 

  The stakes involved help us to understand why the regime so jealously guards its official January 6 narrative, and so aggressively attacks anyone who dares to question it. These troublesome questions involve asking why, of all days, the Capitol seemed to enjoy uniquely poor security, despite numerous warnings and threats. One might also ask how, given the well-established level of penetration federal authorities had into the key militia groups accused of conspiracies to attack the Capitol, the same authorities could possibly claim to have been caught off guard. Most troubling and damning of all, one might ask whether any government agents or affiliates took more active steps in helping to facilitate the events of January 6. This last line of questioning has been the principal focus of my reporting at Revolver.news, and has led me to maintain that the two smoking guns of the “Fedsurrection” is the curious case of Ray Epps, on the one hand, and the case of the so-called January 6 pipe bombs on the other. 

  The January 6 pipe bombs refer to the two alleged explosive devices planted on the evening of January 5 and discovered on January 6 near the DNC and RNC buildings, respectively, just as the assault on the west perimeter of the Capitol began to unfold in the early afternoon. These pipe bombs, technically considered weapons of mass destruction by the government, were arguably the most serious, terrorist-like element associated with the day the media and regime has been desperate to paint as a domestic terror attack on par with 9/11. The FBI put out urgent videos pleading with the public to provide help in helping to identify and apprehend this presumptive MAGA terrorist. 

  From the very outset it was clear that something was off with the FBI’s treatment of this case. A more careful look at the pipe bomb story reveals that the official version of events relies on an almost impossible set of coincidences compounded on one another. The best entry point into the pipe bomb story is a 7-minute clip reluctantly and quietly released by the Capitol Police of the DNC bomb being discovered. When considered as a stand-alone piece of footage, it is sufficient to warrant a national scandal; when considered in light of the broader aforementioned coincidences surrounding the pipe bomb story, it threatens to completely demolish the regime’s January 6 narrative and expose one of the darkest and most damning government operations in recent American history. 

  Without further ado, we ask that the reader skim the linked video and then revisit it as you read our description below.

  This surveillance footage released by the Capitol Police depicts the discovery of a pipe bomb by a bench right outside of the Democrat National Committee headquarters at approximately 1:05 PM on January 6. In the first part of the video, from approximately 1:05:30-1:06:30, we can see an individual with a backpack approach two SUVs parked outside the DNC garage entrance. The SUVs were both part of then Vice President-elect Kamala Harris’ secret service detail (more on that later) and the individual with the backpack was informing the Secret Service of the presence of the pipe bomb just feet away.

  After being informed of an explosive device within feet of themselves and possibly their protectee, it takes the Secret Service officers over a minute to even bother getting out of their cars, after which point they proceed to stand and lounge about in the most lackadaisical manner imaginable for another two minutes. Go ahead and look at the footage around the 1:07 timestamp and ask yourself whether the Secret Service officers are behaving the way you’d expect upon being informed of an explosive device in the vicinity.

  The real whopper occurs at around the 1:09:41 timestamp. Here we can see a group of children cross the street in the direction of the pipe bomb, and walk within feet of where the pipe bomb is placed. Astonishingly, the Secret Service agents who themselves are standing about don’t even bother to warn these children of the bomb. Shortly thereafter, a Capitol Police officer walks right up to the bomb, snaps a photo of it, gives a thumbs up sign to the other agents, who then for the first time in the entire clip move with hustle and purpose and quickly leave the scene. 

  Here we see the Secret Service detail acting with utter lack of concern for their own lives, for the lives of their protectee Kamala Harris, and perhaps most scandalously of all, for the lives of the group of children they cavalierly allowed to walk right next to the pipe bomb. The Secret Service somehow knew the pipe bomb was a dud, but how would they have known that? A reliable source who has seen the extended non-public footage reports to us that, minutes after the footage above ends, authorities had that very DNC pipe bomb defused by a bomb-safe robot. If the Secret Service were so confident the bomb wasn’t a threat that they would exhibit zero concern for themselves, their protectee, and children walking by, then why bother with the gratuitous spectacle of defusing the bomb with a robot? 

  Now let’s turn to the question of Kamala Harris. It may surprise the reader to learn of then-VP-elect Harris’ presence in the DNC building on January 6, a fact that Harris studiously kept hidden from the public for almost a year before the information leaked—and still Harris has never acknowledged it publicly. Let’s stop for a moment to process this information. Kamala Harris is without question one of the most politically opportunistic creatures on this planet. Why on earth would she forgo the opportunity to milk politically the fact that she came within a hair’s breadth of losing her life to this January 6 pipe bomb at the DNC? Joe Biden is so desperate to paint Donald Trump and his supporters as insurrectionists that he took the occasion of the third anniversary of January 6 to give an ominous speech on the matter. And yet, nowhere in this speech attempting to reinforce the narrative of January 6 as a dark day of domestic terrorism does he bother to mention that his own Vice President came dangerously close to the only known explosive devices associated with this day of supposed infamy. How is this possible? How dirty and embarrassing does the truth have to be for the likes of Kamala and Biden to forgo such an obvious and politically advantageous talking point? 

  These questions alone are simply damning, but when considered in light of the full context of our knowledge of the January 6 pipe bombs, the situation becomes far worse. Almost as bizarre as the Secret Service’s inexplicable lack of concern in response to being informed of the pipe bomb is the fact that up until that point the Secret Service was informed of the bombs at 1:05 P.M., the pipe bomb had been sitting out there, fairly conspicuously, by the bench for over 17 hours without being discovered. For reference, here is a photo of the pipe bomb next to the DNC bench —presumably the photo taken by the Capitol Police officer as described above. 

  

  According to the FBI and surveillance footage presented by the FBI, the pipe bomber planted this bomb at approximately 8 P.M. on the evening of January 5. From 8 P.M. on January 5 to 1:05 P.M on January 6 (over 17 hours) the pipe bomb was supposedly sitting there by the bench—undiscovered by motorists, pedestrians (January 6 was a very high foot traffic day), a regularly stationed security guard within feet of the pipe bomb, and the Secret Service of the United States, which is on record as having swept the DNC premises prior to Kamala Harris’ entrance into the building. Are we to believe that the Secret Service dogs had Covid that day and weren’t able to smell the live explosive material found on the pipe bomb, according to a national forensics task force report that still has not been made fully available to the public?

  The notion that the DNC pipe bomb could have sat out there for 17 hours undiscovered, including by the Secret Service, seemed so bizarre to our investigative team at Revolver News that we thought to revisit the question as to whether the bombs were actually planted when the surveillance footage released by the FBI suggests they were. From this we were able to demonstrate conclusively that the FBI is in possession of footage that would prove definitively whether or not the pipe bomber planted the bomb at the time they claim he or she did, but they for whatever reason have decided not to release this. Furthermore, we showed that the surveillance footage itself is clearly tampered with, as it has a frame rate of 1.6 frames per second which is well below the lowest commercial standard of 8 frames per second. Are we to believe that any gas station in the country has higher quality surveillance cameras than the national headquarters of the Democrat Party? And why is it the case that the only footage of the pipe bomber at the benches that the FBI will make public is the clearly corrupted DNC surveillance footage? And why is the Democrat Party so uninterested in questions that could help us to identify the pipe bomber who planted an explosive device outside of their national headquarters?

  To get to the essential structural flaw in the official pipe bomb story, however, we need to say a few things about the discovery of the first pipe bomb, at the office of the Republican National Committee, and the timing surrounding it. The first device discovered on January 6 was found by a random pedestrian named Karlin Younger behind a trash can in a back alley near the Capitol Hill Club. Younger reports that she discovered the bomb at 12:40 P.M. and notified a security official in the Capitol Hill Club. We know from sources that the security official in question also happened to be a veteran of the Capitol Police, and reported the bomb’s discovery through the Capitol Police system, whereupon the Capitol Police began responding to the bomb at 12:50 P.M.

  The timing is relevant as 12:50 is just three minutes before the initial and decisive attack on the west perimeter of the Capitol. Karlin Younger reported that the mechanical kitchen timer affixed to the pipe bomb, which was an hourlong timer, was stuck on the 20-minute mark. Younger found the bomb at 12:40 and it had 20 minutes on the dial, conveying the impression that it was set to go off exactly when the certification of the vote proceeding was to begin at 1:00 P.M.

  Take a second to digest just how infinitesimally improbable this set of circumstances is. Like the DNC pipe bomb, surveillance footage provided by the FBI suggests the RNC pipe bomb was planted on the evening of January 5 at around 8:30 P.M. This means that the RNC bomb was sitting behind a trash can in a back alley, undiscovered for over 16 hours, only to be randomly stumbled upon by a random pedestrian who discovers it nearly to the exact minute such as to be perfectly synchronized with both the certification proceeding and the initial and decisive attack on the west perimeter of the Capitol. The synchronicity here is so striking that many, including former head of Capitol Police Steve Sund, believed the pipe bombs were never intended to detonate but rather to serve a diversionary purpose, specifically to divert resources away from the Capitol as the attack unfolded. Given the remarkable timing of the pipe bombs’ discovery this seems likely, especially because the hour-long mechanical kitchen timers on the bombs meant that the latest they could have detonated would have been at 9:30 PM or so on the evening of January 5, which would have been pointless. 

  There’s only one problem with this otherwise eminently sound diversion theory. How could the pipe bomber have counted on these pipe bombs being discovered at such a time as to perfectly synchronize with the unfolding attack on the Capitol? How could he or she have known the pipe bombs wouldn’t have been discovered early in the morning, which likely would have had the counterproductive effect of beefing up security at the Capitol? The DNC bomb was lying undiscovered for over 17 hours until it was found at 1:05 P.M, scarcely 15 minutes after the first pipe bomb was discovered. Did the pipe bomber just count on getting so lucky that the pipe bombs wouldn’t be discovered prematurely, but rather would sit in their respective locations for 16 or 17 hours, only to be discovered in a narrow 15-minute window that corresponded precisely to the unfolding attack on the Capitol? 

  As if things weren’t strange enough, the head of the pipe bomb investigation at the FBI was a man called Steven D’Antuono, who had just recently been the head of the Detroit FBI Field Office where he oversaw the disgraced entrapment operation known as the Whitmer Kidnapping Plot. Perhaps as a result of our continuous and damning reporting on the pipe bomb story, along with a guilty conscience, D’Antuono resigned from his position as head of the Washington D.C. Field Office—a rare move as the WFO position is usually a stepping stone to the rarified floors of the FBI’s Hoover building. 

  Unusually, D’Antuono in his retirement volunteered himself for questioning before the Judiciary Committee in Congress. Congressman Thomas Massie compiled a number of pointed questions based on Revolver’s long history of reporting on the pipe bomb issue. D’Antuono had no answer for any of the questions, and seemed to acknowledge that the whole pipe bomb story made no sense. When asked whether the FBI used geo-fencing technology to identify the pipe bomber, D’Antuono sheepishly replied in the affirmative, but noted that the telecom company in question reported that for the specific time and location of the pipe bomber, the data was corrupted. While D’Antuono acknowledged that it is “investigation 101” that the people who discovered the pipe bombs would be considered suspects, at least initially, he claimed that he didn’t even know the identity of the man who discovered the DNC bomb, and professed not to know whether this individual had even been interviewed.

  The timing of the discovery of the bombs in relation to the attack on the Capitol alone means that, at the very least, the people who discovered the RNC and DNC bombs respectively should be subject to serious questioning. The bizarre footage of the discovery of the DNC bomb is so damning that we must use it to generate sufficient pressure to force the gatekeepers in the Capitol Police to identify the individual who discovered the DNC bombs and allow Congress to question him. Given the massive amount of public attention on this story as of late we expect the plain clothes officer who discovered the DNC pipe bomb to be identified and interviewed quickly. And given the concatenation of shockingly implausible coincidences that precariously undergird the official pipe bomb narrative, we expect the lies behind the pipe bomb story to unravel rapidly, and with it the entire Fedsurrection lie.

  The regime has desperately tried to suppress our Fedsurrection coverage, but with the story now having reached escape velocity the goal of suppression has grudgingly given way to the goal of damage control. At this very moment, mainstream newsrooms and government offices alike are brainstorming the best damage control strategy in nervous anticipation of the pipe bomb story cracking wide open. I suspect this damage control will involve a narrative containment strategy to cordon off the pipe bomb scandal and prevent it from metastasizing to other highly questionable elements of January 6. Unfortunately for the regime such containment is impossible. The perfect synchronicity between the discovery of the pipe bombs and the unfolding of the west perimeter attack on the Capitol make such a containment strategy possible.

  There is already overwhelming evidence for massive federal involvement in this west perimeter breach as presented in the Revolver News piece “Meet Ray Epps Part II.” If the pipe bomb story is exposed as some kind of government operation to frame Trump supporters, the federal involvement in the West Perimeter breach is likely to follow. If both the January 6 pipe bombs and the West Perimeter breach were instigated by the government, then January 6 at large can fairly be described as an inside job. If January 6 is finally and definitively exposed as a Fedsurrection, so goes the key pretext the regime has been counting on to weaponize the security apparatus politically against its opposition, and there goes the key pillar the democrats are leaning on to deprive Trump a fair shot at the White House.

  These are the stakes. We are very close. And this is why we all need to give this ill-fated pipe bomb story the final push that it needs to bring the entire rotten January 6 edifice crumbling down on its corrupt and criminal architects. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 23:40

• MUFG Warns "Higher Friction Geopolitics" Puts These Global Maritime Chokepoints At Risk
  MUFG Warns “Higher Friction Geopolitics” Puts These Global Maritime Chokepoints At Risk

  With the US Department of Transportation and one of the world’s largest shippers, Maersk, warning about prolonged turmoil across the Red Sea on Wednesday due to continued Red Sea attacks by Iran-backed Houthi rebels, global trade could seriously be affected. 

  In a note to clients, the global corporate & investment banking capital markets strategy team at MUFG Bank provided a series of visualizations that show how rising geopolitical tension could jeopardize maritime chokepoints. 

  Analysts led by Tom Joyce, managing director and capital market strategist at MUFG, showed how key events over the last five years, starting with the 2018 trade war to the 2020 Covid crisis to the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war, and so forth, are responsible for the chaos in trade and geopolitics today. 

  

  Joyce’s top theme for markets this year is “Higher friction geopolitics.” 

  

  The deteriorating geopolitical environment worldwide has analysts worried about critical maritime chokepoints:

  Military conflict in the 21st Century is quickly shifting to maritime theaters. Climate, geopolitical risk and de – globalization will pose significant challenges to the world’s most important geopolitical chokepoints in the decade ahead.

  

  Focusing on the Middle East, Joyce shows how 25% of global trade that flows through three chokepoints, Suez Canal, Bab-El Mandeb Strait, and Strait of Hormuz, is at serious risk of sparking global trade disruption. 

  

  “As of early January 2024, the number of container ships at the entry point to the Red Sea had declined 90% from the year prior,” Joyce noted. 

  The analysts elaborated on the trade significance of these three maritime chokepoints in the Middle East:

  

  In a separate report, Rabobank’s Senior Economist Maartje Wijffelaars outlined how commercial vessels rerouted from the Red Sea to Cape of Good Hope will trigger a new round of surging cost-push inflation. 

  And Statista’s Katharina Buchholz recently provided details about global shipping’s chokepoints. 

  More of the MUFG full note available to pro subs in the usual place.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 23:20

• Rand Paul Rages 'Half The GOP Wants To Sell Out The US Border To Fund Ukraine War'
  Rand Paul Rages ‘Half The GOP Wants To Sell Out The US Border To Fund Ukraine War’

  Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

  During an interview with Tucker Carlson on X, Senator Rand Paul expressed anger at his own party, declaring that half of them would rather fund a war in Ukraine than secure their own border.

  

  “It gets to me when I see people who I think care more about the borders of Ukraine than our own Southern border,” Paul stated adding “And I see these people every day because they are the entire Democrat caucus up here, but they are half of my caucus.”

  He continued, “Half of my Republican caucus is, as we speak, ready to sell out, and they’re ready to sell out fake border reform in exchange for what they really want, which is to send more of your tax dollars to Ukraine.”

  “I think Nikki Haley fits right in that camp,” Paul further urged, adding “I think she’s from the McConnell/Dick Cheney wing of the party. And this is the antithesis of everything I believe in.”

  “I’ve spent a few years trying to promote the ideas of liberty, there is a wing of the party that believes in that,” Paul further noted, adding “I want to make sure anybody who follows what I do knows there is no way, shape, or form I could support Nikki Haley.”

  Watch:

  Rand Paul is one of the few Republicans in the Senate who understands the threat of Nikki Haley. He may be the only one who cares where COVID came from. “Anthony Fauci should be in jail,” he says. pic.twitter.com/LoxtDSEI6d

  — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) January 23, 2024

  Paul has set up an entire website dedicated to derailing Haley’s campaign, but he is yet to officially endorse Trump as of time of writing. This will likely change following Trump’s decisive New Hampshire primary win in the face of Democrat shenanigans.

  Meanwhile, Biden’s handlers are now openly admitting they want the border completely open:

  They just openly admit it now. More here: https://t.co/rA67g7mtTv pic.twitter.com/BPC0k9iQt5

  — m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) January 23, 2024

  Again, straight up admitting they want an open border today. More here https://t.co/rA67g7mtTv pic.twitter.com/iqG0JwVMJK

  — m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) January 23, 2024

  Biden’s America, where the National Guard has to desperately cobble together its own fences out of razor wire in a last ditch effort to secure the overrun border, and then the Feds come and take them down with the backing of the Supreme Court. Shameful. https://t.co/QOXBS2OIgQ pic.twitter.com/Hj9WKt72ra

  — m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) January 23, 2024

  *  *  *

  Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 23:00

• Saudi Regime Opens First-Ever Liquor Store… For Non-Muslim Foreigners Only
  Saudi Regime Opens First-Ever Liquor Store… For Non-Muslim Foreigners Only

  Saudi Arabia has since its birth as a modern nation-state been known for its especially rigid form of Islam, called Wahhabism, which is enforced by its largely independent hardline Sharia courts and feared ‘morality police’ who lurk menacingly on city street corners, ready to mete out corporal punishment the moment Koranic law codes are transgressed, from hand-holding among young couples to women going out without a family chaperone, to drinking long forbidden alcohol. 

  Yet it has also long been a kingdom of contradictions, known for its hard-partying set of billionaire princes and their lavish private jet/yacht/French Riviera luxury chateau high society jetsetting life-styles. In Saudi society it remains an open secret that the royal elite partake of indulgences considered “haram” behind closed doors or while traveling abroad, and most especially booze. 

  

  Typically, western workers and oil execs – for example the local expat community in the energy industry – live in their own walled communities that are set apart from daily Saudi society. In these “suburb-style” Aramco compounds it is well-known that alcohol is discreetly consumed. 

  But Reuters has reported in a new exclusive on Wednesday that the kingdom’s strict prohibition on selling and consuming alcohol is about to the change. Of course, it will be a ‘limited’ loosening up, but it’s hugely significant nonetheless: “Saudi Arabia is preparing to open its first alcohol store in the capital Riyadh which will serve exclusively non-Muslim diplomats, according to a source familiar with the plans and a document,” the report says.

  Obviously this will only act in a ‘for foreigners only’ kind of way, but the bin Salman regime is still touting this as part of a broader “reform” plan: 

  Customers will have to register via a mobile app, get a clearance code from the foreign ministry, and respect monthly quotas with their purchases, said the document, which was seen by Reuters.

  The move is a milestone in the kingdom’s efforts, led by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, to open the ultra-conservative Muslim country for tourism and business as drinking alcohol is forbidden in Islam.

  It will be interesting to see what these monthly quantity limits will be. The individual quotas could in the end be so restrictive that this whole initiative will perhaps prove just symbolic in the end, meant merely to generate some positive PR for a ‘reforming’ MbS in Western headlines. Here’s a summary of the proposed restrictions:

  • Thirsty envoys would need to register beforehand and receive clearance by the government
  • No one under 21 will be allowed in the store and “proper attire is required” at all times inside
  • Drinkers will not be able to send a proxy, such as a driver
  • Monthly limitations would be enforced, the statement said.

  

  Diplomats and foreign embassy staff already had their long relied upon workarounds in place, as for years officials with diplomatic passports could bring their secure “pouches” through airports, which authorities weren’t allowed to pry into based on diplomatic immunity and protections.

  Under current/prior laws, expats could face deportation or steep fines if caught with alcohol. As for Saudis themselves, they would be subject to hundreds of lashes as well as hefty monetary penalties.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 22:40

• War Is Always Inflationary
  War Is Always Inflationary

  Authored by Michael Wilkerson via The Epoch Times,

  While the United States is ostensibly not at war with anyone, our government is spending taxpayers’ money as if it were.

  This year, the budget for the U.S. Department of Defense is $844 billion. The United States spends nearly three times more on defense than does China and 10 times more than does Russia. At the same time, the depletion of U.S. military stockpiles and other reserves is accelerating through multiple conflicts such as in Ukraine and the Middle East. The defense contractors, their shareholders, and bought politicians benefit, but who pays? In the end, it is the American taxpayer, who never voted to send their hard-earned tax dollars abroad or to have their militaries engage in wars in all but name, that foots the bill. These citizens are paying twice: first in their tax dollars, and second, and most perniciously, in their diminished purchasing power and real (after inflation) wealth.

  This is taxation without representation, in that these decisions are made without appropriate congressional oversight.

  

  Wars are always inflationary.

  This is a rule without exception.

  We will continue to see high inflation in the United States to the extent these current engagements remain unchecked or others are allowed to mushroom from them.

  When examples are given of runaway inflation, the hyperinflation of Weimar Germany following the First World War is the most often cited of the twentieth century. While it certainly was among the worst suffering nations, Germany was not alone. Every European country engaged in the continental war suffered massive inflation. When Germany entered the war in August 1914, the currency stood at 4.2 Reichsmarks to one U.S. dollar. In the wake of war and its aftermath, the German currency depreciated to a near infinite level of 4.2 trillion Reichsmarks to the U.S. dollar in December 1923, when a new currency was introduced, and hyperinflation eventually brought to heel. All of which came at great political and social cost.

  Russia, like Germany, saw its currency become worthless and its government violently overthrown.

  Other belligerents, including Great Britain, France, Austria, and Hungary saw prices double or triple and their currencies substantially devalue in dollar terms.

  In the United States, the history is the same.

  Prices rose during the Revolutionary War between 350–700 percent depending on the colony and their own fiscal and monetary policies (there was no central government with tax-levying power). During the Civil War, prices rose by over 60 percent, and by much more in the South. Prices rose nearly 70 percent in the United States during World War I, and well over 50 percent during World War II. Price levels rose by 35 percent during the decade-long Vietnam War, but the real inflationary effects were delayed until the 1970s, when high inflation kicked in following the oil crises. Inflation lags monetary expansion by years.

  Governments go to great lengths to hide the true cost of war from their citizens. They do this in a number of ways, but one of the most common is by ensuring that the links in the chain between cause and effect are made long, plentiful, and as invisible as possible. It would be too obvious to levy a “war tax.” So instead, governments fiddle with interest rates, allow inflation to run hot while manipulating the statistical headline rates of prices, and blame greedy corporations and evil villains when inflation is too obvious to ignore. For example, recall President Joe Biden’s reference to “Putin’s price hike!” to explain U.S. inflation in 2022, in order to find someone else to blame and to divert the attention of Americans from the unprecedented $7 trillion of deficit spending that had occurred without congressional restraints over the previous two years. Inflation is a tax, but it is a hidden tax, initially unseen to most as it creeps along year by year, slowly devouring savings and purchasing power.

  When currencies were backed by gold, governments were restrained from perpetuating wars and state-sponsored violence by the fact that wars were very costly and specie was limited. Leaders sued for negotiated peace and wars were ended when government coffers started to run low. However, after each of the world’s leading powers abandoned the gold standard in the twentieth century, and moved instead to a fiat model (i.e., paper currencies backed by nothing more than the faith and credit of the issuing government), this natural restraint on war was removed. So long as the printing press could run, deficits could grow, new debt could be raised, and paper money (or its digital equivalent) issued to pay for ongoing conflict. The massive economic costs are quietly borne by the same patriotic working and middle classes who send their sons and daughters to sacrifice their lives and bodies.

  Today, the United States stands at a crossroads.

  While not technically at war, the country is deficit spending at war-time levels. It would be one thing if the fiscal and monetary position of the nation was healthy at the starting point. But it is not. The U.S. government has over $34 trillion in debt growing by the trillions just from debt-service (interest) costs. The government continues to deficit spend as if the party can go on forever. But it cannot. The risk of a widening war grows with each passing month.

  The U.S. government’s ability to finance a major conflict is slowly but surely being eroded as those foreign nations and other investors who would otherwise subscribe to our debt grow wary of fiscal disaster.

  The remaining option will be monetization of the debt (when the Federal Reserve steps in as buyer of last resort), galloping domestic inflation, and an eventual currency crisis.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 22:20

• Who Will Be Trump's VP Pick?
  Who Will Be Trump’s VP Pick?

  While Trump looks like the likely challenger to President Joe Biden (after dominating Nikki Haley in New Hampshire overnight), the question of who will be his running mate is still open and, according to Trump, it could remain unanswered for a while.

  On Saturday, Trump told Fox News that he “may or may not release something” over the next few months regarding his vice-presidential pick, adding that “there’s no rush to that” and that “it won’t have any impact at all”.

  He gave the person he currently has in mind a 25-percent chance to end up on the ticket, suggesting that the race to become his running mate is still very much open.

  But, as Statista’s Felix Richter notes, looking at the latest betting odds, which can be converted to implied probabilities, no VP candidate is currently given a 25-percent chance, indicating that the race is indeed wide open.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  According to OddsChecker, Kristi Noem, governor of South Dakota, is the current frontrunner ahead of Elise Stefanik and Vivek Ramaswamy, who recently dropped out of the presidential race himself.

  

  Stefanik, the House GOP Conference Chairwoman, campaigned with Trump in New Hampshire this week, fueling speculation about her vice presidential prospects and her desire to be part of the ticket.

  “I would be honored to serve in any capacity in a Trump administration,” she said recently on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 22:00

• Gender-Appropriation 'Good'; Cultural-Appropriation 'Bad'
  Gender-Appropriation ‘Good’; Cultural-Appropriation ‘Bad’

  Authored by Roger Simon via The Epoch Times,

  Many of us remember “Four Legs ‘Good’; Two Legs ’Bad’” from George Orwell’s “Animal Farm.”

  In its proclaimed superiority of animals over humans, it was perhaps the most memorable expression from that brilliant and often hilarious satire of communism and fascism.

  I bet many of our “progressive” friends loved it, too, in their youths, oblivious to how, in present times, it just might in some way be referring to them.

  I can remember decades back sitting in a crowd of hipsters in an outdoor theater in Los Angeles’ Topanga Canyon as they, the coolest of the then-cool, chortled away at a decent adaptation of Orwell’s work.

  So it was of “Animal Farm” that I immediately thought when my wife Sheryl Longin came up, as she often does, with the right phrase to characterize a particularly malign aspect of our contemporary life.

  She called the trans mania that has overtaken our society “gender appropriation,” in response to the left’s endless carping about “cultural appropriation.”

  

  Many men are appropriating women, actually becoming them, in a new form of left-wing misogyny you would think would alarm “feminists.” Somehow, it doesn’t.

  This sexual migration is supposed to be applauded, while cultural appropriation is to be abjured, according to those who think they know better.

  Hence, my Orwellian title:  Gender Appropriation “Good”; Cultural Appropriation “Bad.”

  The cultural appropriation meme—fraternity boys attacked for celebrating Cinco de Mayo, only Italians can make pizza, and more—so beloved of “progressives” has always seemed to me particularly brain dead.

  Virtually everything in culture has been appropriated from something or someone else, starting with the first words uttered by humans.

  On a higher level:

  Shakespeare, in his history plays, appropriated Holinshed.

  Thomas Mann appropriated Goethe in “Dr. Faustus.”

  Picasso appropriated Velázquez.

  Miles Davis appropriated Dizzy Gillespie.

  DJs appropriate other people’s music every time they do a mix. It’s their job.

  I could go on and on and bore you to death. Make up your own. I’m sure you can.

  The whole cultural appropriation song and dance is, on one level, just dumb. However, in reality, it’s a strategy for one group to bully another to get what it wants, sometimes with violent overtones.

  In other words, like most progressivism, “cultural appropriation” is an absurd fake that Orwell would ridicule, and deservedly so until the four-legged cows come home.

  “Gender Appropriation” is based on a similar strategy—something we are told by “elites” to accept as good—but is a great deal more dangerous in its implications.

  I think we can agree that it—the trans movement—is now everywhere, and not just in the heavily criticized, yet still pervasive, acceptance of transgendered men in women’s sports that Donald Trump has promised to do away with if he is reelected president.

  Yet, more importantly, it’s in culture from early childhood. We see this in the fad for drag queen story hours with the most flagrant transvestites reading fairy tales to young children and the sexually explicit material available in school libraries.

  The left accuses the right of censoring these explicit books, but as everybody knows—even the lefties themselves, if they were honest—the right just seeks to preserve the innocence, at least for a while anyway, of pre-pubescent 6-year-olds.

  What’s behind all this?

  Whether conscious or not, the goal of “gender appropriation” is the breakup of the nuclear family. When everything and everyone are confused about gender—a deliberately misused word in itself—what happens to the family unit?

  Ultimately, it dissolves.

  Many of their rank and file may not believe this or deny it, but that’s been a principal aim of the left since the French Revolution.

  Read Rousseau.

  Karl Marx, the Frankfurt School later enhanced it, and now there’s the woke obsession that seeks to throw family values and life into the air like so much worn-out confetti to be stomped on and forgotten.

  The irony in this is they mean your family and mine, but not theirs.

  I hope my wife’s term “gender appropriation” takes off. It could help prevent this cultural Armageddon from destroying the most important part of our lives and the actual lynchpin of Western civilization.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 21:40

• "My Party Is Completely Delusional": Dean Phillips Destroys Democrat Demagoguery Of Republicans After Attending Trump Rally
  “My Party Is Completely Delusional”: Dean Phillips Destroys Democrat Demagoguery Of Republicans After Attending Trump Rally

  2024 Democratic hopeful Dean Phillips attended a New Hampshire Donald Trump rally this week, where he said he met “thoughtful, hospitable and friendly’ people waiting in line, “All of them so frustrated that they feel nobody is listening to them, except Donald Trump.”

  

  “I saw the line of people waiting in the cold for hours, and I thought, ‘What the heck, I’m going to be a leader who actually invites people, doesn’t condemn them,‘” he said. “I met probably 50 Trump people waiting in line. Every single one of them: thoughtful, hospitable, friendly.”

  “My party is completely delusional,” Phillips continued, adding “And somebody had to wake us up, and if that’s my job, so be it.”

  Watch:

  Interesting

  — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 24, 2024

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

  Phillips’ words echo those of JPMorgan Chase Jamie Dimon’s recent CNBC interview where he stated that Democrats need to be more respectful when talking about MAGA.

  “Just take a step back—be honest—he was kind of right about NATO, kind of right about immigration,” Mr. Dimon said. “He grew the economy quite well. Tax reform worked. He was right about some of China. … He wasn’t wrong about some of these critical issues, and that’s why they’re voting for him.”

  More via the Epoch Times;

  Because they are fellow citizens, Democrats should refrain from disparaging Trump voters as they have been doing, he said.

  One host agreed, saying it’s “hard to hate 75 million of your fellow Americans.”

  Mr. Dimon said that framing Trump supporters as “deplorables” who are “hugging onto their Bibles and their beer and their guns” is not going to help Democrats.

  “I mean, really, could we just stop that stuff and actually grow up and treat other people with respect and listen to them a little bit?” Mr. Dimon said. “I think this negative talk about MAGA is going to hurt Biden’s election campaign.”

  ‘Get in the Game’

  Later in the Mr. Phillips interview, the reporter asked, “But you would rather have though have Biden in the White House again than Trump in the White House, yes?”

  “Of course,” he said. “Absolutely.”

  She then asked if Mr. Phillips’ bid for the White House has made President Joe Biden stronger “because that was one of your goals.”

  “Have you succeeded in that?” she asked.

  “I’m trying to extend an invitation to the president to get in the game because if you want to be the president again, the only way to even possibly win is to get out there,” he said. “Listen to voters.”

  She pressed on, asking if his bid for the White House made President Biden “stronger or weaker.”

  The Democrats have surrendered “hundreds of hours of prime-time TV” over to Republicans because they have a competitive race, he said.

  “If Democrats had a competitive race right now, which I’m trying to create, we would have energy,” he said.

  However, President Joe Biden, he said, “is doing nothing.”

  “And if he’s not going to debate, if he’s not going to answer questions . . .. How many interviews has he done? He’s not doing town halls. He’s not showing up. So, yes, I’m trying to do him a favor to show up.”

  Mr. Phillips said he would back President Biden “in a heartbeat” if he would “get in the game.”

  ‘He Might Beat Biden’

  Trump recently stated at his rally in New Hampshire that the Democrats at the New Hampshire primary should vote for Mr. Phillips.

  “He might beat Biden, wouldn’t that be nice? I think Democrats should vote for the congressman just to send a signal [that] you don’t abandon us. Nobody is going to abandon New Hampshire,” he said.

  Mr. Phillips has been critical of President Biden’s absence in active debates and campaigning, as well as his absence in New Hampshire, where he didn’t register to be on the ballot.

  “The fact that we’re not having a spirited competition, the fact that the president is not campaigning, means we are simply handing over hours of prime time television to every single GOP candidate,” he said.

  The Union Leader, New Hampshire’s largest newspaper, backed Mr. Phillips in an editorial published on Jan. 22, calling him a “reasonable alternative” to President Biden.

  “For anyone who supports Joe Biden for his policies but would prefer a president born during the Vietnam War rather than WWII, they will not be disappointed with Dean Phillips,” the editorial said.

  Aldgra Fredly and Caden Pearson contributed to this report.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 21:20

• How To Thwart The Nefarious Propaganda Technique Of Projection
  How To Thwart The Nefarious Propaganda Technique Of Projection

  Authored by James Agresti via The Epoch Times,

  One of the most effective and devious methods of mass deception is falsely accusing others of one’s own misdeeds.

  

  This is called “projecting” or “accusation in a mirror,” and it was used by:

  • corrupt politicians in ancient Rome to purge a statesman who stood in the way of their graft.

  • the Nazis to launch World War II.

  • influential people in Rwanda to incite a genocide.

  Certain moral frameworks that have gained traction in modern times permit and even encourage this type of propaganda.

  Although it can be hard to determine who is projecting and who is the target, this can be accomplished with an awareness of human nature and vital research skills.

  What Is Projection?

  The social scientist Jacques Ellul explained the nature of projection in a classic book titled “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes”:

  “The propagandist will not accuse the enemy of just any misdeed; he will accuse him of the very intention that he himself has and of trying to commit the very crime that he himself is about to commit. He who wants to provoke a war not only proclaims his own peaceful intentions but also accuses the other party of provocation. He who uses concentration camps accuses his neighbor of doing so. He who intends to establish a dictatorship always insists that his adversaries are bent on dictatorship.” [Hat Tip: Stella Morabito]

  Another social scientist named Roger Mucchielli explained why projection is so effective in a French book titled “Psychology of Advertising and Propaganda.” Loosely translated via Google, he notes that “the advantages of mirror charging are many,” such as:

  • placing “honest people” in a “state of self-defense.”

  • depriving “the enemy” of “his arguments.”

  • convincing “everyone” to “be on the side of ‘the just Cause.’”

  These “advantages” are vividly illustrated in history and current events.

  Rome

  In the first century BC, a Roman statesman named Publius Rutilius Rufus—who was famed for having high integrity—was prosecuted for and convicted of extortion. According to historians of that era, this was an unjust act of revenge by corrupt officials because Rufus had stopped them from overtaxing citizens and pocketing the excess money.

  Modern philosophers Ryan Holiday and Stephen Hanselman describe the tactic used against Rufus like this:

  “Accuse the honest man of precisely the opposite of what they’re doing, of the sin you yourself are doing. Use their reputation against them. Muddy the waters. Stain them with lies.” [Hat Tip: Larry Reed]

  While this projection was targeted at an individual, it has also been used against nations.

  World War II

  Fast forward to Sept. 1, 1939, when Nazi Germany launched a pre-dawn military raid on Poland. This marked the official start of World War II, the deadliest and most widespread conflict in world history.

  Ph.D. historian Alexandra Richie explains how the Nazis used projection to justify their assault on Poland:

  • “The military attack against Poland was masterminded by Hitler,” who was “determined to make it look as if the Poles had provoked the hostilities” by “staging numerous false-flag operations and ‘Polish provocations’ against Germans.”

  • “The most infamous of these was the staged attack at a radio station” near the German-Polish border just hours before the Nazis raided Poland. To carry out this plot, the Nazis murdered a local German who was “sympathetic to Poland,” placed his body at the radio station, and “pretended that Poles” had killed the man—using his dead body as “evidence.”

  • “It was a lie from beginning to end,” but the Nazis were “soon churning out stories about the heinous attack,” and by the next morning, “Hitler was already using” this Nazi-committed murder “to justify his invasion of Poland.”

  Evidence of this scheme mainly comes from a former Nazi military official who testified that he participated in it. Yet, Nazi sympathizers claim that “the whole story might have been invented by the Allies to cover up an actual attack by Polish insurgents.”

  Hitler’s minister of propaganda—the infamous Joseph Goebbels—was well aware of the tactic of projection and brazenly accused Germany’s opponents of utilizing it. “The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany,” said Goebbels in a 1934 speech, “was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing.”

  Rwanda

  Another projection that spawned a tidal wave of murder was deployed during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. In just 13 weeks, hundreds of thousands of people in the nation’s ethnic majority (the Hutus) tortured, raped, and slaughtered about 75 percent of the nation’s minority (the Tutsis) and anyone who tried to shelter them. Estimates of the death toll range from at least 500,000 to more than 800,000.

  In the “most authoritative source” on this bloodbath—a book titled “Leave None to Tell the Story”—Ph.D. historian Alison Des Forges details how projection was employed:

  • Government officials, journalists, scholars, celebrities, business leaders, teachers, and healthcare workers stirred hatred of the Tutsis by accusing them of planning to murder the Hutus, which was “false information meant to spur the Hutu massacres of Tutsi.”

  • A photocopied document found in one of the nation’s most blood-soaked cities called for recruiting more Hutus to join in the killings by:

  • using “lies, exaggeration, ridicule, and innuendo to attack the opponent.”

  • staging fake “events to lend credence to propaganda.”

  • imputing “to enemies exactly what they and their own party are planning to do.”

  • Although “there is no proof” that leaders of the genocide “were familiar with this particular document,” “they regularly used the techniques that it described.”

  • Since the leaders of the genocide “regularly attributed to others the actions its own supporters had taken or would be taking,” potential victims learned to listen to the leaders’ radio broadcasts “to find out” what they “would be doing” next.

  Moral Relativism

  The author of Rwandan genocide recruiting document appeals to Vladimir Lenin—the leader of Russia’s Communist revolution—to convince readers that “moral considerations are irrelevant” when it comes to “how to sway the public most effectively.”

  That mindset echoes a speech Lenin gave in 1920 before the Russian Young Communist League. After declaring that “we reject ethics” based on “God’s commandments,” Lenin stated that “our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests” of advancing Communism.

  Lenin’s doctrine was also embraced by Saul Alinsky, the influential leftist who was the topic of Hillary Clinton’s 1969 college thesis. In his famed book, “Rules for Radicals,” Alinsky wrote that the “ends justify almost any means,” and the “most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means.”

  In other words, Alinsky, Lenin, and the Rwandan demagogues considered it immoral to let ethics get in the way of what they wanted. This stance permits and even embraces slander, which is the core of projection.

  Slander is strictly forbidden by the Bible’s ninth commandment against giving “false testimony against your neighbor.” Thus, Albert Einstein noted in 1940 as Nazis were vilifying Jews that “only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth.” In contrast, Einstein was sorely disappointed that Germany’s “universities” and “newspapers” were quickly “silenced.”

  However, the portion of the U.S. population who identify as Christians has declined from about 90 percent in the early 1990s to 63 percent in 2022. As for others with biblical moral foundations, less than 2 percent of U.S. residents say they are Jewish by faith.

  Even more telling than that, a scientific survey conducted in 2005 found that “just one out of every six adults (16%) claim they make their moral choices based on the content of the Bible.” And this percentage would undoubtedly be smaller if one could actually measure what people do instead of what they claim to do.

  Concurrent with the widespread decline in biblical ethics, many have adopted a framework called postmodernism. Generally speaking, this is the belief that there are no moral absolutes and that all ethics are personal and situational. This has rapidly become the dominant view in America.

  Less than two decades ago in 2007, a scientific survey conducted by Pew Research found that 78 percent of U.S. residents completely or mostly agreed that “there are clear and absolute standards for what is right and wrong.” Just seven years later in 2014, Pew found that only 33 percent agreed with that statement.

  The surrounding language of the survey questions in 2007 and 2014 was different, so some of the drastic drop from 78 percent to 33 percent may be due to this. Regardless, these data suggest that many millions of people could justify slander to achieve their objectives.

  Another influential moral code is found in the religion of Islam, which generally forbids lying except in three circumstances, one of which is “at times of war, as a tactic or to demoralize the enemy and win the war.” Given that certain factions of Islam have declared a perpetual war until Israel is “obliterated,” and others have joined a jihad to “achieve global domination—through any means, including violence,” Islam’s permission to lie in “times of war” provides broad leeway for slander.

  The bottom line is that significant portions of the U.S. and world populations have no firm moral barricades against projection.

  Given the effectiveness and potential deadliness of projection, it is important to learn how to spot and expose it.

  Confirmation Bias

  The first bulwark against projection is to be constantly aware that people are prone to confirmation bias. This is the tendency to blindly accept anything that accords with their preexisting beliefs.

  Skilled propagandists take advantage of this human weakness by using “pre-propaganda,” or easily believed ploys like quoting people out of context. As Mucchielli notes, they do this because:

  “[T]he accusations of lies awarded to adversaries can be made easier when we have started by injecting the public with misleading information as if it came from these adversaries.”

  In other words, expert manipulators don’t try to deceive the public in one big leap but use a mounting series of falsehoods to make people receptive to the ultimate lie.

  A simple antidote to such brainwashing is healthy skepticism, especially when it comes to claims that accord with one’s current beliefs. A rational and well-informed assessment cannot occur unless knee-jerk reactions are defeated.

  Mind Reading

  Another telltale sign of projection is the use of unproven assertions about people’s intentions, often woven with facts to provide an air of credibility. In the words of Ellul:

  • “The truth that pays off is in the realm of facts. The necessary falsehoods, which also pay off, are in the realm of intentions and interpretations. This is a fundamental rule for propaganda analysis.”

  • “The accusation aimed at the other’s intention clearly reveals the intention of the accuser. But the public cannot see this because the revelation is interwoven with facts.”

  • “The mechanism used here is to slip from the facts, which would demand factual judgment, to moral terrain and to ethical judgment.”

  • Even “intelligent people can be made to swallow professed intentions by well-executed propaganda.”

  People are often susceptible to such disinformation because they think they are better at reading people than they actually are. Per a 2003 paper in the Journal of Research in Personality, “Every adult possesses and uses” the “ability to recognize emotions, intentions, and thoughts of others,” but “the results of our research show that the self-reported mind-reading ability was not correlated with actual performance.” This lack of self-awareness can make people suckers for projection.

  Again, a little introspection goes a long way. Simply coming to grips with the fact that humans don’t have the magical ability to read minds can foil the tactics of propagandists.

  Vetting the Accusation

  In addition to being aware of how demagogues exploit human foibles, it is vitally important to learn the necessary research skills to determine the truthfulness of accusations and counter-accusations.

  Certain influencers, like Washington Post columnist Philip Bump, claim that “doing your own research is a good way to end up being wrong.” This, he says, is proven by a 2023 study published by the prestigious journal Nature.

  However, Bump fails to reveal that the authors of the study “hired professional fact checkers from leading national media organizations” to “determine” what’s “true” and “false.”

   Given the horrid track record of so-called fact checkers and the widespread breakdown of journalistic and academic integrity, this fatally flawed study only reinforces the need to conduct your own research.

  Because the U.S. education system has failed to equip the vast majority of the general public and even most college graduates with basic analytical skills, Just Facts developed an initiative to fill a major part of this void. Called Just Facts Academy, this resource provides videos that teach the skills needed to sort out fact from fiction.

  By utilizing these skills, Just Facts has consistently been on the forefront of cutting through widespread misinformation. Many research skills are easy and quick to learn, but applying them often takes considerable time and effort. This is the price one must pay for being a rampart against projection instead of a dupe for it.

  Conclusion

  In the words of Jacques Ellul, “Nothing is worse in times of danger than to live in a dream world.” This is what perpetrators of projection do by creating a false reality in people’s minds, and history shows how these mass mental rapes can be deadly.

  To thwart this, stay aware that many people have no moral restraints against projecting, curb your own confirmation biases, don’t jump to conclusions about other’s intentions, master research skills, and share your findings as broadly as possible.

  *  *  *

  From Just Facts Daily

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

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 21:00

• SHOT Show Day 2: Best Gear & Equipment For Special Forces Operators
  SHOT Show Day 2: Best Gear & Equipment For Special Forces Operators

  Welcome to day two of the Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show (SHOT Show), the world’s largest shooting sports, hunting, and law enforcement industry expo of its kind.

  The closed-door event is held at the Venetian Expo in Vegas through Friday. It features 500+ suppliers, some of which are defense contractors, offering weapons and gear for Tier 1 operators to law enforcement to civilian markets. 

  Before the day began, anti-gunners at Bloomberg leaked a new Biden administration draft rule targeting the exports of semiautomatic weapons. 

  It’s crucial to recognize that the timing of the new draft rule’s release is not accidental. This timing was chosen to coincide with SHOT, where the world’s top firearms manufacturers showcase their products.

  For some context, last year, the ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) unveiled the pistol brace rule. 

  On Tuesday, in a running blog titled “Boots On The Ground: ZeroHedge Invades SHOT Show,” we came across all sorts of weapons used or will be used by Tier 1 operators across modern battlefields worldwide. 

  We then saw the ATF booth, where many agents appeared somewhat displeased with attending SHOT. 

  Here’s day two of walking the floor:

  We first stopped by Ops-Core’s booth to check out the latest and greatest headborne system solutions for elite defense forces (i.e., Tier 1 operators).

  

  Ops-Core’s ballistic face protection for Tier 1 operators. 

  

  Next, we checked out Arktis, which supplies Tier 1 operators in Europe with clothing and equipment. 

  

  Tier 1 operators are testing these jackets in Europe. 

  Arktis has provided ZeroHedge readers with 10% off (code: “ZEROHEDGE10“). 

  

  Headed over to Thales to check out their night vision goggles. 

  

  Shaw Concepts shows off gear for the modern battlefield. 

   

  Spotted Cody Wilson’s Ghost Gunner machine at the new products booths. 

  

  ReconRobotics showed us how to operate a mini-room clearing robot. 

  

  Light, camera, action! 

  

  Teal Drones has DoD contracts and will take market share from DJI in federal and state agencies. 

  

  Teledyne FLIR showed off new drone-based optics. 

  

  Tier 1 operators use this thermite torch to cut through doors. 

  

  Guess we found the company that provides ‘white helmets’ to Middle East warzones. 

  

  Dillon Aero’s mini-gun for helicopters. 

  

  Getting behind a massive gun by Ohio Ordnance Works. 

  

  Ohio Ordnance Works also showed off an off-road vehicle for Tier 1 operators. 

  

  Special ops dog? 

  

  *This is a running blog of Shot Show 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 20:40

• The 9th Circuit Is Wrong: There's No Homelessness Protection Clause In Constitution
  The 9th Circuit Is Wrong: There’s No Homelessness Protection Clause In Constitution

  Authored by Paul Larkin and Zack Smith via The Epoch Times,

  Once upon a time, constitutional interpretation actually involved interpreting the text of the Constitution.

  It’s not a blank slate. Its words have actual meanings.

  While the federal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes that the Constitution contains words, the judges on that court seem to think they can ascribe any meaning—no matter how outlandish—to those words.

  One of their latest provocations can be found in a series of three cases: Martin v. City of Boise, Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, and Coalition on Homelessness v. San Francisco.

  Martin, the lead case, held that the government may not punish a homeless individual for sleeping on public property if there is no bed in a secular facility for him or her to use free of charge. (The decisions actually go much further, but let’s take it slowly.)

  

  Now, that ruling might surprise most people, because the government holds public property for the benefit of the public and has the same right to decide who can sleep (or camp, or micturate, or do No. 2) on public property that private parties have to protect their own property. Plus, there is neither a homeless protection clause in the Constitution, nor a right-to-sleep-on-public-property clause.

  To be fair, the 9th Circuit did point to a passage in the Constitution—the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishments clause—that the court thought justified its ruling. This provision prohibits the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments.” (Yes, we had the same puzzled look that you now have, but read on.) It says nothing about whether the government can criminalize certain conduct.

  But the 9th Circuit mistakenly thought that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Robinson v. California and Powell v. Texas held that an act must be voluntary for a state to make it a crime and sleeping is involuntary. Accordingly, the laws at issue must fall.

  But legal interpretation is not like Creative Writing 101 or a class on cubism. There is a limit as to how far the Supreme Court’s words can be stretched before the reader distorts their meaning.

  Robinson held that the state cannot make it a crime to be addicted to drugs (as opposed to possessing or distributing drugs), while Powell held that a state may define public drunkenness as a crime. The latter decision, written by Justice Thurgood Marshall (who was hardly an “extreme MAGA” Republican), is particularly relevant because it expressly distinguished being drunk in public from being drunk at home, with the former being a fit subject for a criminal sanction.

  That decision should have made short work of the case, but it wouldn’t have given the 9th Circuit the result it wanted. So, a little improv was necessary.

  In the second case, Grants Pass, the 9th Circuit went even further and held that the city could not enforce criminal or civil penalties in an attempt to enforce the city’s anti-camping laws.

  And, most recently, in Coalition on Homelessness, Judge Patrick Bumatay, dissenting from the decision, said the 9th Circuit “let stand an injunction permitting homeless persons to sleep anywhere, anytime in public in the City of San Francisco unless adequate shelter is provided.”

  He went on to say that this “represents yet another expansion” of the 9th Circuit’s “cruel and unusual Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.” He explained that in reality, though, the decision itself is “cruel because it leaves the citizens of San Francisco powerless to enforce their own health and safety laws without the permission of a federal judge.” And he said the decision is “unusual because no other court in the country has interpreted the Constitution in this way.”

  After all, the state’s decision to prohibit sleeping on public property is not an irrational or mean-spirited attack on the homeless. The homeless encampments that have taken over the streets in places like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle rob the public of the opportunity to use those areas safely.

  Plus, as Sam Quinones, a journalist who has chronicled America’s ongoing drug crisis, put it, “[t]hough other drugs and alcohol are part of the mix, many encampments are simply meth colonies.”

  Homeless encampments are rife with open drug sales and use, along with prostitution and the fact or threat of violence—including violence against the homeless in those camps—and they are governed by the law of the jungle, as the strong prey on the weak.

  Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to hear the Grants Pass case and has a chance to undo the damage done by the 9th Circuit’s bizarre use of the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause to prohibit cities from protecting their own residents and properties.

  Whatever you can say about the policy choice reflected by the 9th Circuit’s rulings, those decisions make almost no pretense of finding a home in the Constitution. They are result-oriented jurisprudence at its worst, proof that an intellectually dishonest judge can reach any result he or she wants just by writing grammatically correct sentences and sprinkling in a few citations to, or quotations from, Supreme Court decisions.

  The Supreme Court should reverse the 9th Circuit’s judgment in the Grants Pass case, allow public officials to address the problems of homelessness and public safety, and order that the judges responsible for that atrocity be publicly (at least metaphorically) spanked—a fitting punishment that no doubt most honest observers would find neither cruel nor unusual.

  *  *  *

  Reprinted by permission from The Daily Signal, a publication of The Heritage Foundation.

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

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 20:20

• Fed Unexpectedly Kills Bank "Free Money" Bailout-Fund Arbitrage Scheme As It Ends BTFP Program
  Fed Unexpectedly Kills Bank “Free Money” Bailout-Fund Arbitrage Scheme As It Ends BTFP Program

  The arbitrage of The Fed’s various balance sheet facilities – which we have exposed in detail for weeks – first appeared after The Fed’s November 1st meeting made it clear that peak-rates were in (and the Treasury announced a lower than expected refunding plan). That was when the market started to price in lower rates in the year ahead, dragging the one-year overnight index swap rate lower (which The Fed’s Bank Term Funding Program – BTFP) is predicated on.

  As we explained before, a completely perfect and riskless ‘free money’ arbitrage was available to those banks who could lodge collateral with The Fed at its BTFP facility receiving cash at par (at a cost of OIS+10bps) and then post that cash earning Fed Funds rate on it, pocketing the difference.

  

  The difference  – at its peak – amounted to over 60bps of free money from you, Mr. and Mrs.Taxpayer (implicitly), to the bankers for doing absolutely nothing at all.

  Since the arbitrage became worthwhile – really the start of December – bankers have been able to throw $47.6BN at this arbitrage (we are assuming most the incremental rise in the BTFP was arb-driven since it had been only very incrementally drifting higher for months before)…

  

  With the program due to expire in March, this free-money arb made it extremely hard for The Fed to extend this program (with $162BN in bailout fund usage outstanding, transferring tens of millions in funds directly to banks):

  “In justifying the generous terms of the original program, the Fed cited the ‘unusual and exigent’ market conditions facing the banking industry following last spring’s deposit runs,” Wrightson ICAP economist Lou Crandall wrote in a note to clients.

  “It would be difficult to defend a renewal in today’s more normal environment.”

  Which leads us to today, when with just two months until the March threat looming, the Fed has changed the terms on the BTFP to kill the free-money arb.

  “…the interest rate applicable to new BTFP loans has been adjusted such that the rate on new loans extended from now through program expiration will be no lower than the interest rate on reserve balances in effect on the day the loan is made.

  This rate adjustment ensures that the BTFP continues to support the goals of the program in the current interest rate environment. This change is effective immediately. All other terms of the program are unchanged.”

  This out of the blue decision comes just a week after regulators were readying themselves for the end of the facility by attempting to de-stigmatize the use of the discount window. This expanded on earlier plans that we detailed here to reduce banks’ ability to use FHLB as an implicit funding tool.

  

  It goes without saying that the optics of being arbitraged by bankers – giving them free money for even less than they normally do – is terrible, but it’s been going on for two months and $47BN. As a reminder, the regional banks are already deep in crisis without the BTFP (as the red line in the chart below shows), and large bank cash needs a home – green line – like picking up a small bank from the FDIC?

  

  But wait there’s more: because not only is the Fed immediately ending the BTFP arb, it has made clear that the entire BTFP program is being scrapped on March 11, just as we said it will be as one of our preconditions for a very exciting March:

  March will be lit:

  1. Reverse repo ends
  2. BTFP expires
  3. Fed cuts (allegedly)
  4. QT ends (allegedly)

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 8, 2024

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

  This is what the Fed said: “The Federal Reserve Board on Wednesday announced that the Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP) will cease making new loans as scheduled on March 11. The program will continue to make loans until that time and is available as an additional source of liquidity for eligible institutions.”

  And just as we predicted a few days ago when reporting on the Fed’s sudden infatuation with the discount window…

  *US PLANS TO PUSH MORE BANKS TO USE THE FED’S DISCOUNT WINDOW

  translation: many more banks will HAVE to use the discount window… right after the BTFP expires

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 18, 2024

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

  … the Fed is now saying that all liquidity needs going forward will be met by the discount window (the same one that precipitated the global financial crisis back in 2008).

  During a period of stress last spring, the Bank Term Funding Program helped assure the stability of the banking system and provide support for the economy. After March 11, banks and other depository institutions will continue to have ready access to the discount window to meet liquidity needs.

   And that March expiration of the facility lines up with another potential crisis moment for the banking system – The Fed’s Reverse Repo facility being drawn down to zero – at which point reserves get yanked which means huge deposit flight, and a restart of the banking crisis, more liquidity injections, rate cuts, end of QT and so on.

  

  We leave with one question – who could have seen this coming?

  1.❓
  2.✅
  3.❓
  4.❓ https://t.co/4AlC0HRqSZ

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 25, 2024

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

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 20:00

• Andrew Yang: Joe Biden Can't Defeat Trump In November
  Andrew Yang: Joe Biden Can’t Defeat Trump In November

  Authored by Emel Akan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang said on Monday that President Joe Biden is not the right candidate to beat former President Donald Trump in the upcoming election.

  

  Last week, Mr. Yang endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) and began campaigning alongside him.

  The Minnesota Democrat represents the best chance to defeat Donald Trump, Mr. Yang told The Epoch Times during a campaign event in Manchester, New Hampshire.

  He added that an electoral race dominated by 80-year-olds does not reflect the choices of most Americans.

  According to Mr. Yang, Dean Phillips’ campaign is going to see significant momentum beginning Tuesday in New Hampshire.

  “Incumbent presidents historically get 80 to 84 percent of the vote in New Hampshire, and I think that Dean is going to do very well, and Joe Biden is going to do considerably worse than the norm for an incumbent president,” he said of Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary.

  “And I think that that should really spur conversation,“ Mr. Yang said. ”The American people deserve a Democratic nominee who will defeat Trump in the fall, and the numbers show that Joe Biden is not that candidate.”

  Mr. Phillips is a 54-year-old, three-term congressman who launched a run for the Democratic nomination in October last year. He hopes to boost his numbers by appealing to New Hampshire’s sizable population of independent voters in the state’s Democratic primary on Tuesday,

  When asked whether he would still support President Biden if Dean Phillips doesn’t secure the nomination, Mr. Yang did not provide a direct response.

  He said he would support anyone who could prevent President Trump from returning to the White House.

  “Unfortunately, I think Joe Biden was the right candidate in 2020. I do not think he’s the right candidate in 2024.”

  The president’s name will not be on the ballot in the Granite State. This is due to a change in the Democratic National Committee’s rules, which designated South Carolina as the first formal primary in the Democratic presidential nomination cycle.

  However, New Hampshire’s Secretary of State ignored the Democrats’ new rule and set the primary for Jan. 23.

  Twenty-one Democratic candidates will appear on the New Hampshire primary ballot Tuesday, including Mr. Phillips and author Marianne Williamson, who’s running for the nomination for the second time.

  Supporters of President Biden launched a campaign, asking New Hampshire voters to write in his name on voting slips.

  “This is not just about a primary in the state of New Hampshire tomorrow—a primary that our very party, the Democrats, have said is meaningless,” Mr. Phillips told his supporters at the campaign event. “You know what? I think it might be just the opposite.”

  Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman recently endorsed Mr. Phillips and said he donated $1 million to a political action committee (PAC) backing the congressman.

  In his Jan. 13 statement on X (formerly Twitter), Mr. Ackman explained in detail why Mr. Phillips would be a “truly outstanding President of the United States.”

  “This is by far the largest investment I have ever made in someone running for office, and I am making this investment at a high-risk but critically important moment for his campaign,” he wrote.

  Stephen Katte and Nathan Worcester contributed to this report.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 19:40

• Transgender Golfer Wins Women's Tournament In Florida, Aims For LGPA Tour
  Transgender Golfer Wins Women’s Tournament In Florida, Aims For LGPA Tour

  A man transgender golfer has stepped into win a women’s tournament in Florida, bringing with him her “dreams of making it to the LPGA tour”, according to a new report by the NY Post.

  Yes, in the latest example of men transgender athletes beating biological women in their own sports finally getting their slice of equality in sports, 30 year old Hailey Davidson, born a man, won the NXXT Women’s Classic at the Mission Inn Resort and Club near Orlando last week.

  Davidson shot one over 73 and finished the three round tournament +4, which was enough to take the trophy. Davidson was three shots behind an actual woman the next best golfer before forcing a playoff and winning. 

  NXXT says “The Tour’s mission is to prepare the world’s best young women professional golfers for a successful career on the LPGA Tour” and that the tour is focused on “elevating women’s golf”. 

  The Post wrote that Davidson’s recent victory placed her first on the NXXT tour leaderboard with a leading score of 1320, 150 points ahead of her closest competitor. Since November, she has secured two top-2 finishes in the league’s five tournaments, along with seventh and ninth place results.

  

  And it isn’t just bragging rights that Davidson won: he/she was entitled to $1,576.51 in prize money, which adds to her career total which currently stands at $5,801.89 over the course of eight events. 

  The top five leaders in the tour’s standings will receive 10 exemptions to compete in the Epson Tour at the end of the season, the report says. As the official LPGA qualifying tour, the league has seen over 600 players advance to the premier global women’s golf organization.

  With five events already concluded, eight remain, culminating in the NXXT Tour Championship in Ocala, FL., from March 25-27.

  To qualify for two exemptions to the Epson Tour, Davidson, transitioning from male to female, needed LPGA approval. Discussions began in 2016, but eligibility was granted in 2021 after undergoing Hormone Replacement Therapy for over five years and completing gender reassignment surgery, as indicated in an October 2022 social media post.

  Davidson reported a 15 mph reduction in club head speed following her transition, comparing to the PGA Tour’s average of 114.2 mph and the LPGA’s 94 mph, as per GraffGolf’s data.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 19:20

• In 2024, Americans Must Decide What Energy Costs Means To Their Vote
  In 2024, Americans Must Decide What Energy Costs Means To Their Vote

  Authored by David Holt via RealClear Wire,

  As 2024 unfurls, it’s worth putting a few things in context. While we may have seen a slight dip in gasoline prices, we’re still paying prices last seen 12 years ago. Add in persistent inflation that still brings sticker shock at the grocery store and interest rates last seen in the 1980s, and it is clear Americans will enter the election with money on their minds.

  

  There is one important financial thread we all need to pay attention to, and that is energy costs. Lower energy prices spark lower prices for our essentials – food, housing, and transportation – including every gift you sent during the holiday season, whether by U.S. Mail, UPS, FedEx or Amazon. Conversely, higher energy prices mean higher everything prices because energy is literally an inescapable factor in every economic calculation.

  This is the broad message I delivered in testimony during a Congressional hearing on Jan. 11, at the kind invitation of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. Against this concerning energy backdrop, it behooves American voters to support candidates who, regardless of party, back sensible energy policies that deliver abundant, affordable, reliable, and environmentally responsible energy.

  Right now, the United States in 2023 is expected to have produced more natural gas and oil in a year than any nation, ever, according to the latest U.S. government data. This is a great achievement – coupled with our increasing use of renewable energy – but is generally viewed in a negative light by extreme activists and a few fellow travelers in government. This is a mistaken, sad response to an achievement that – if allowed to continue – will do more for our economy, our households, and our environment than the myriad of government controls being offered.

  America’s energy success is borne largely of entrepreneurship and market competition, and comes despite a federal administration and a few states intent on throwing every regulatory and bureaucratic impediment in the way. That playbook has included, among other things:

  • Ignoring laws passed by Congress requiring an oil and gas lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico until forced to do so by a federal court
  • A 500-day delay in a legally required offshore leasing plan
  • The fewest onshore and offshore lease sales in history
  • Constantly delaying and changing the rules to permit much-needed pipelines and transmission that would help keep electricity rates low for Americans. 

  The current Administration’s M.O. from day one has been to attack and limit domestic energy production, by issuing restrictions, delays and numerous economically self-defeating energy regulations. These include policies restricting the use of natural gas and targeting natural gas appliances – water heaters, furnaces and even the gas stovetops that a majority of Americans love – without any plan for how all that new electricity will be generated.

  Although the stated impetus for these policies is something we all agree is important – an improved environment – the evidence is crystal-clear from California to New York to Europe that these policies trigger higher costs, restrict consumer freedom-of-choice and require us to use higher-emitting sources of energy to make up the predictable supply shortfall.

  In other words, the environment loses.

  Ordinary people lose, too.

  Retail residential electricity rates slowed their rise in 2023 but still were still climbing in October, the latest data available. Although electricity pricing is complex, one of the biggest factors is the cost of fuel – once again, when supply is restricted in the face of unyielding demand, prices climb. This is what makes unwise, restrictive energy policies so expensive.

  In states like California, New York and Massachusetts, where energy sources are limited by government fiat, rates have risen higher than elsewhere. The cold weather across the nation this month has shown that regional grid managers are right to have shouted from the housetops about near-term blackout worries.

  Already, many elected leaders who have opposed traditional fuels are signaling they may have been shortsighted, or are trying to deflect blame and keep the cost quiet.

  California has kept its Diablo Canyon nuclear facility and several natural gas power plants online longer than planned because the state doesn’t have enough generating capacity. It’s already importing more energy from neighboring states, increasing what are already some of the highest electricity rates in America.    

  All this is occurring while the U.S. leads the world in carbon reduction. In fact, since 1990, the U.S. has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 19% while the rest of the world has increased theirs by over 18%.

  What conclusion can we draw from all this? It clear that curtailing energy production and consumer choice is costing families and businesses greatly while generating a federal debt that is unsustainable – and now exceeds $100,000 per American. All while we are already marching toward ever-improving environmental performance and ever-greater energy diversity – and we acknowledge that more needs to be done.

  A sensible U.S. energy policy is essential. Cries to ban one energy resource for another should be cast aside in favor of non-partisan, broad-choice energy solutions.  

  For all of us, energy is a central part of every day, all but taken for granted as it underpins our economy, our lives and our future. Energy should not be a partisan issue, especially when higher prices affect us first through our bills and second, when those costs are passed on to us through the goods and services we buy, which drives inflation. Those in poverty and on fixed incomes are hurt the most.

  If we all bear that big picture in mind, regardless of party, our ballot-box decisions should become self-evident. Are we for affordable progress and future prosperity, or failed ideas that remove freedoms and raise the cost of living?

  David Holt is president of Consumer Energy Alliance, a U.S. consumer energy and environment advocate supporting affordable, reliable energy for working families, seniors and businesses across the country. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 19:00

• Texas Defies 'Lawless' Biden, Invokes Right To Self-Defense From 'Invasion' With More Razor Wire
  Texas Defies ‘Lawless’ Biden, Invokes Right To Self-Defense From ‘Invasion’ With More Razor Wire

  Texas Governor Greg Abbott just drew a hard line in the sand, putting the Biden administration on notice that he’s declared the migrant crisis an “invasion” and invoked Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself.

  

  According to Abbott, “That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border.”

  Governor Abbott is correct. https://t.co/tyfEhjGWOc

  — Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) January 24, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsThe situation in Texas has come to a boiling point at Eagle Pass, where the Texas National Guard have taken control of a local park which illegal immigrants use as a landing zone after crossing the Rio Grande. The state has placed razor wire along miles of the river to block entry to the US – which the Supreme Court just allowed the Biden administration to remove while a legal battle plays out in a lower court.

  At the White House, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said Mr. Biden has the authority to nationalize the Texas National Guard and order them to desist. But he said Mr. Biden has made no such determination.

  The high court’s ruling was 5-4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the three Democratic appointees in erasing a lower court injunction that had blocked the feds from cutting wire except in emergency cases. –Washington Times

  Oklahoma stands with Texas. https://t.co/67VzVEfEv1

  — Governor Kevin Stitt (@GovStitt) January 24, 2024

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

  Meanwhile, Abbott has continued to install razor wire around the migrant-engulfed area.

  

  “Texas’ razor wire is an effective deterrent against the illegal border crossings encouraged by Biden’s open border policies,” Abbnott wrote on X Wednesday, adding “We continue to deploy this razor wire to repel illegal immigration.”

  Are we about to witness the federal government vs. Texas over an invasion of illegals?

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 18:40

• Global Nuclear Power Generation To Hit An All-Time High In 2025
  Global Nuclear Power Generation To Hit An All-Time High In 2025

  Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

  The comeback of nuclear power in many countries is expected to drive a record-high electricity generation from nuclear in 2025, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Wednesday.  

  

  By next year, global nuclear generation is forecast to exceed its previous record set in 2021, the IEA said in its Electricity 2024 report published today.

  Even as some countries phase out nuclear power or retire plants early, global nuclear generation is expected to rise by nearly 3% per year on average through 2026. The key drivers of growth will be the completion of maintenance works in France, restart of some nuclear power plants in Japan, and new reactors coming online in China, India, South Korea, and Europe, among others, according to the IEA.  

  After the energy crisis of 2022, many governments – with the notable exception of Germany – have opted to boost its nuclear power generation to ensure energy security and reduce emissions from electricity generation as they aim to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

  The UK, France, Sweden, and Switzerland are some of the European countries that are betting on domestic nuclear power generation and extension of power plant lifetimes as a way to boost energy security and reduce carbon emissions.

  “The power sector currently produces more CO2 emissions than any other in the world economy, so it’s encouraging that the rapid growth of renewables and a steady expansion of nuclear power are together on course to match all the increase in global electricity demand over the next three years,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said in a statement.

  “This is largely thanks to the huge momentum behind renewables, with ever cheaper solar leading the way, and support from the important comeback of nuclear power, whose generation is set to reach a historic high by 2025,” Birol added.

  Soaring renewable capacity additions and the global nuclear renaissance are on track to enable low-emissions power generation to outpace robust electricity demand growth over the next three years, according to the IEA.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 18:20

• FAA Halts Boeing 737 Max Production Expansion, Buttigieg Says "Bigger Picture Exam" Imminent
  FAA Halts Boeing 737 Max Production Expansion, Buttigieg Says “Bigger Picture Exam” Imminent

  Update (1815ET): FAA told Boeing on Wednesday it won’t grant any production expansion of the MAX, including the 737-9 MAX.

  FAA also approved “a thorough inspection and maintenance process that must be performed on each of the grounded 171 Boeing 737-9 MAX aircraft. Upon successful completion, the aircraft will be eligible to return to service.”

  “Following the completion of the enhanced maintenance and inspection process on each aircraft, the door plugs on the 737-9 MAX will be in compliance with the original design which is safe to operate”

  But, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg followed the statement by saying that not only is The FAA examining specific manufacturing concerns related to Boeing’s 737 Max 9 aircraft, “but also a bigger picture examination of any and all quality issues.”

  “I think that’s going to include a structural discussion about how best to conduct this kind of oversight and going forward,” Buttigieg continued.

  Finally, Buttigieg added that “right now everything is on the table” to make sure that the design and manufacturing of Boeing aircraft was as strong as it could be.

  Boeing shares slid further on the news…

  

  Of course, we know what really matters to Boeing (and we can’t wait for Mr. Buttigieg to explain how great they arew doing).

  *  *  *

  …and the hits keep coming for Boeing.

  An anonymous self-described Boeing insider told the Seattle Times that Boeing’s 737 production system is described as “a rambling, shambling, disaster waiting to happen.”

  Specifically, the whistleblower said that the fuselage panel that blew off an Alaska Airlines jet earlier this month was removed for repair then reinstalled improperly by Boeing mechanics on the Renton final assembly line

  “The reason the door blew off is stated in black and white in Boeing’s own records,” the whistleblower wrote. 

  “It is also very, very stupid and speaks volumes about the quality culture at certain portions of the business.”

  The insider said company records show four bolts that prevent the door plug from sliding up off the door frame stop pads that take the pressurization loads in flight, “were not installed when Boeing delivered the airplane.” the whistleblower stated.

  “Our own records reflect this.”

  The Seattle Times additionally notes that NTSB investigators already publicly raised the possibility that the bolts had not been installed.

  

  If verified by the National Transportation Safety Board investigation, this would leave Boeing primarily at fault for the accident, rather than its supplier Spirit AeroSystems, which originally installed the panel into the 737 MAX 9 fuselage in Wichita, Kan.

  Spirit Aerosystems shares are up over 5% in the pre-market…

  

  This news follows reports overnight that in recent inspections of Boeing 737 Max 9 airplanes following an early January incident in which the door blew off of one mid-flight, Alaska Airlines CEO Ben Minicucci revealed that the airline had found “some loose bolts on many” of their Max 9s.

  

  When asked in an interview with NBC whether Boeing has a quality control problem, Minicucci said: “I think this is the issue that’s at question right here, which is what is Boeing going to do differently on their quality program, to make sure that when we get an airplane, it’s at the highest degree of excellence and that’s what’s got to be different going forward.”

  “I’m more than frustrated and disappointed,” he said. “I am angry. This happened to Alaska Airlines. It happened to our guests and happened to our people. And — my demand on Boeing is what are they going to do to improve their quality programs in-house.”

  After the door blew out on a 737 Max 9 a few minutes into a flight from Portland, Oregon to Ontario, California – forcing an emergency landing, the FAA ordered all Boeing Max 9 planes grounded for a safety investigation – and announced an audit of the Boeing Max 9 production line and suppliers “to evaluate Boeing’s compliance with its approved quality procedures.”

  Boeing and its third-party suppliers will also face additional increased monitoring.

  Wheel-y guys?

  It gets worse for Boeing. On Saturday, a Delta 757 traveling from Atlanta lost a wheel as it attempted to take off from the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

  The “nose wheel came off and rolled down the hill,” according to the incident report.

  !

  — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 23, 2024

  Get it together Boeing…

  pic.twitter.com/MZhaHmaIlW

  — Stephanie 🇺🇸 (@StephHoover8) January 23, 2024

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

  I’m not gonna be flying for a while pic.twitter.com/CF27qmyTe4

  — 𝓓𝖗. 𝓥𝖔𝐱 𝓞𝖈𝖚𝖑𝖎 (@Vox_Oculi) January 23, 2024

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 18:15

• Trump's Record-Setting New Hampshire Win Solidifies Path Forward
  Trump’s Record-Setting New Hampshire Win Solidifies Path Forward

  Former President Donald Trump had a historic turnout for Tuesday’s New Hampshire Republican primary on Tuesday. With more than 300,000 votes cast  in the purple state as of early Wednesday vs. the previous high-watermark of 287,000 in 2016, Trump’s decisive victory over Nikki Haley has made his path forward all the more clear.

  

  Even the NY Times had to admit: “The exceptionally high turnout on Tuesday underscores the electrifying effect Mr. Trump has on the electorate, driving loyal supporters and determined opposition to the polls as his divisive style of politics both inspires and revolts.”

  Trump’s command of the Republican ticket is even more impressive when you consider that Democrats were turning out in droves for Haley in order to vote against the former president.

  “He’s picking right up where he left off in 2020, which saw the highest turnout in generations,” said Tom Bonier, a senior adviser to TargetSmart, a Democratic data clearinghouse, in a statement to the Times. “New Hampshire was the first test of how that might have evolved, as an open primary and an opponent providing an outlet for anti-Trump voters to register their opposition.”

  President Trump Makes Surprise Stop in Londonderry, NH on Primary Day🗳️🇺🇸

  “We have to make sure we have honest, fair, and free elections and strong borders.” – President Trump@BenBergquam #NewHampshirePrimary #Vote #Election2024

  Join RAV LIVE on Rumble 24/7 now. See you… pic.twitter.com/55IQFH233E

  — Real America’s Voice (RAV) (@RealAmVoice) January 23, 2024

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

  And despite calls for Nikki Haley to drop out after last night’s drubbing, Haley gave a tone-deaf ‘victory’ speech, and vowed to fight on, arguing that “this race is far from over.”

  That said, the Times‘ Dealbook reports that a number of Haley supporters are reportedly heading for the exits.

  An unnamed Republican fund-raiser told CNBC’s Brian Schwartz that one of her donors was done with her campaign, declaring it over.

  Meanwhile, Puck’s Teddy Schleifer wrote on the social media platform X that the casino magnate Steve Wynn and the financier John Paulson attended Trump’s New Hampshire victory party last night. And Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who appeared at the event, told Schleifer that he expected the Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, his biggest backer before Scott dropped out of the primary race, to support Trump as well. -Dealbook

  Trump has argued that Haley is hurting the party’s chances in the fall by forcing him to engage in an extended nomination process.

  “If she doesn’t drop out, we have to waste money instead of spending it on Biden, which is our focus,” he told Fox News shortly after the New Hampshire race was called.

  Goldman, meanwhile, noted that the results “further reduce the odds of a momentum-driven surprise, including South Carolina – the next major nomination contest.”

  “While Haley’s results were slightly stronger than polling suggested (roughly 11pp vs. 19pp margin), the outcome is unlikely to be enough to prolong uncertainty in the nomination process.”

  

  Traditional party donors from Wall Street, who loathe Mr. Trump, poured money into Ms. Haley’s super PAC. And in New Hampshire, she seemed to have a political environment more hospitable than in Iowa, with a voting base that is less religious and more educated.

  But on Tuesday, New Hampshire Republicans rejected Ms. Haley and her attempt to revive the old guard. -NYT

  And when it comes to the anticipated Trump-Biden rematch, things are looking good for The Don.

  

  Here’s a calendar of what’s to come over the next 12 months:

  

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 01/24/2024 – 18:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest