- The Atlantic Council Has Big Plans For A War Between The US And Iran
The Atlantic Council Has Big Plans For A War Between The US And Iran
Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,
Globalists as an organized entity have a habit of shifting their efforts between various false-front institutions in order to avoid significant scrutiny. For example, in 2020 they ramped up the fear machine on the covid pandemic and the World Economic Forum took a lead role in that effort. Klaus Schwab was all over the media using covid as an excuse to promote every authoritarian measure imaginable.
When that agenda failed (lockdowns blocked, mask mandates ignored, vaccine passports defeated and the CDC caught inflating vaccination numbers), the WEF and Klaus Schwab conveniently disappeared from the media radar.
When globalists tried to permanently establish ESG as a way of life for corporations, they introduced the Council For Inclusive Capitalism, run by Lynn de Rothschild and partnered with the Vatican. When ESG was exposed for what it really is (a bridge to full bore communism in which corporations enforce far left social engineering), the CIC vanished from the limelight as quickly as they appeared.
That said, there is one globalist group that has consistently been in the background during most of these operations – The Atlantic Council. Whenever there’s a propaganda push in play to misdirect the western public, whenever there’s a policy initiative to take away your freedoms, whenever there’s a regional war that might explode into a world war, I always end up finding the fingerprints of the Atlantic Council.
The council was deeply involved in covid propaganda from 2020 onward and they also have their hands in climate change propaganda, but their bread and butter is regional proxy wars.
In my recent article ‘Globalists Are Trying To Escalate The Ukraine War Into WWIII Before The US Election’, I outlined how the council is deeply interwoven into the escalation of the Ukraine war through their Eurasia Center and their Scowcroft Center. They have been stoking conflict in the region for at least a decade with the intention of drawing NATO forces into a direct confrontation with Russia.
In a report published by the Atlantic Council in 2014 titled ‘A Roadmap for Ukraine: Delivering on the Promise of the Maidan’, the group notes:
“Last fall, as Ukrainians massed on the Maidan to demand a better government and closer ties to Europe, the Atlantic Council began to mobilize on Ukraine. An Atlantic Council delegation visited Warsaw and Kyiv in March to map out our strategy, and during the visit of Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk to the Council that same month, we launched a one hundred- day campaign to galvanize the transatlantic community behind Ukraine’s democratic future in Europe.
As the crisis worsened, we convened at the highest levels, making vital connections between Ukrainian, American, and European policymakers and thought leaders. We deployed our substantial expertise to launch “red team” exercises that anticipated Russia’s actions and outlined strategies to respond to likely scenarios. Our rapid response working groups (“tiger teams”) made recommendations on issues fundamental to Ukraine’s success. An Atlantic Council delegation delivered this report, which brings all of these findings together, to Prime Minister Yatsenyuk and other leaders in Kyiv the first week of July. The findings are also being shared with American and European policymakers…”
On Ukraine’s security policy, the Council advised both NATO and Ukraine officials. The document goes on to outline how NATO could covertly and overtly engage with Ukraine to strengthen their chances of joining with the EU over time; a move which Vladimir Putin claims was one of the very reasons for his invasion of the Donbas. Finally, the paper described how NATO could foster a proxy war against Russia through Ukraine without directly declaring war on Russia. As the Council states:
“Russia’s aggression provides an opportunity of strategic clarity and urgency that should be used to expedite building a robust, modern, and capable Ukrainian defense and security establishment…”
I believe the Atlantic Council is a root instigator behind every globalist scheme to trigger a larger war between the East and the West. Their ideal scenario seems to be the creation of a proxy conflict that acts as a first domino in a chain that leads to world war, a bit like DARPA’s “Linchpin Theory” which I have written about in the past.
To be clear, the council is not only interested in Ukraine and Russia. They’re happy to embroil Americans in a larger war wherever they can.
This past week, the Atlantic Council has published another war scenario report dealing with Iran titled ‘The Future of US Strategy Toward Iran: A Bipartisan Roadmap For The Next Administration’. The goal of the report is to influence a new defense doctrine with a mission to insert the US directly in the middle of the burgeoning war between Iran and Israel.
As the report states:
“In simple terms, the goal was to develop a US policy toward Iran, not a Democratic or Republican one. We termed the effort the Iran Strategy Project (ISP). And when we began recruiting experts to join our advisory committee and working group, we did so with two overriding principles in mind. First, ideological diversity and bipartisanship could not just be talking points—they were requirements. The wild swings of US policy toward Iran over the last decade created significant policy gaps that Iran exploited to more rapidly advance its regional malign influence and nuclear program…”
The assumption in the notion of a “bipartisan” posture on Iran is that there is common ground to be harvested between conservatives and leftists when it comes to war in the region. To be sure, the Democrats and the Neo-Cons are in full agreement on most things. But Neo-Cons are not conservatives and the political base on both sides of the aisle has little interest in another war in the Middle East.
The wild card here is Trump. The establishment media reports that Iran hacked the Trump campaign’s election strategies and gave them to the Harris camp. There are also rumors spread by US intelligence agencies that Iran was working to have Trump assassinated. Are these claims true? There’s little public evidence available to prove it.
Maybe Iran really wants to take Trump down. Or, maybe this is part of a plot to ensure that Trump backs a full blown war with Iran should he win the election. Trump has said repeatedly that he intends to end the war in Ukraine upon his return to the White House. This would ruin over a decade of planning by the Atlantic Council. But what if they can sink the US into a different conflict with the same potential for a world war? That’s what Iran is – Another linchpin.
The council asserts that they will seek to tie the US inexorably to the fate of Israel by positioning a permanent American military force in the region:
“Deterring the threat posed by Iran and its proxies requires a multifaceted approach that includes maintaining an adequate military presence in the region and a willingness to respond with appropriate force to attacks on US interests and those of US allies; working with allies to enhance cooperation on regional security; collaborating with partners on ways to reduce conflicts and instability that create openings for Iran to exploit; and expanding security cooperation beyond traditional realms.”
They also want the US to create its own red line declaration; if Iran obtains nukes, then Iran must be destroyed (keep in mind, it is confirmed that Israel already has its own nuclear arsenal).
“The United States needs to maintain a declaratory policy, explicitly enunciated by the president, that it will not tolerate Iran getting a nuclear weapon and will use military force to prevent this development if all other measures fail. To support this policy, the United States should refrain from stressing that it does not seek conflict with Iran; announce that it will conduct yearly joint exercises with Israel, such as Juniper Oak.”
Juniper Oak was a joint live fire war exercise organized by US and Israeli defense forces in 2023 which is viewed as a theoretical trial run for an attack on Iran. War between Iran and the US has been a sought after outcome for globalists for a long time, but it seems to me that they are particularly interested in roping Trump into the agenda. The following statement from the Atlantic Council report is highly suspicious:
“Because assassination plots against current or former US officials are a direct threat to US sovereignty, and in order to enhance deterrence, the United States needs to consider a standing policy of a kinetic military response against Iran in retaliation for a successful—or even close to successful—plot…”
This seems to be a direct reference or message to Trump concerning the rumors of Iran contracting his death. Given there have been at least two assassination attempts on Trump so far, I would not be surprised if after he wins the election new information is suddenly released linking Iran to at least one attack. I would also expect a major terror attack in the US within the next year (real or false flag).
This is not to say that Trump wants war; I can’t make that claim one way or the other yet. To his credit he was one of the few presidents that avoided the expansion of US conflicts during his first term. But as I warned back in 2016, he had a LOT of ghouls in his cabinet whispering in his ear. Keeping the Atlantic Council (among others) away from the Oval Office and Trump should be a priority in 2025.
The council appears to be positioning for a war under either administration – A war with Russia under Harris or a war with Iran under Trump. I’m not a fan of Islamic fundamentalism, but a conflict between the US and Iran is exactly what the globalists want because it can easily metastasize like a cancer.
The council notes that there are already 40,000 US troops spread across the Middle East, and that this force could be reorganized into a contingent for rapid response to Iran, along with new troops added over time. Of course, they acknowledge that Iran’s situation has changed over the years, with far closer strategic associations with China and Russia:
“This requires recognition that Iran’s relationship with Russia and China has evolved in a manner that makes it difficult to convince either country to support new economic or military restrictions against Iran…”
In other words, the council understands that a war with Iran could escalate into a larger conflict with Russia and perhaps China.
The fight between Israel and multiple nations in the Middle East does not concern me. I have no stake in the success of either side. I’m an American and I care about America, but there are powerful people out there that WANT us to become invested in foreign wars. They want us to pick a side and they want us to cheer for American troops being sent to fight and die over these foreign conflagrations.
The greater concern here is that one day these proxy wars and regional wars will explode into something that lands on our doorstep. In the past Americans have been lured into apathy when it comes to foreign entanglements because we never have to deal with them in our daily lives. They’ve always been out of sight and out of mind. In the next war, we may not have that luxury.
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 23:20 - US Intelligence Says China Leading 'Rapid Expansion' Of Nuclear Arsenal
US Intelligence Says China Leading ‘Rapid Expansion’ Of Nuclear Arsenal
On Wednesday the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued a new public intelligence estimate entitled “Nuclear Challenges 2024”.
The detailed 194-page document includes an overview of chief nuclear-armed powers and rivals of the United States, focusing especially on countries with “mature nuclear weapons programs” which are said to be “increasing stockpiles” or else “modernizing their legacy stockpiles by incorporating advanced technologies to penetrate or avoid missile defense systems” – such as North Korea.
Xinhua via Getty Images “Countries are also developing nuclear weapons with smaller yields, improved precision, and increased range for military or coercive use,” the DIA says.
One nation’s program is gaining the most attention as a result of the DIA report, and that’s China. The intelligence agency assesses the country under President Xi is undergoing a huge and rapid expanse of its nuclear arsenal, which is the biggest in its history, assuming the projection is accurate.
The “Nuclear Challenges 2024” assesses that China is on track to possess more than 1,000 operational nuclear warheads by 2030.
The report contextualizes that this accelerated growth is being drive primarily by China’s strategic competition with the Untied States.
Below is a section providing the DIA’s bird’s eye view summary of China’s nuclear arsenal plans and expansion:
China. Beijing has far surpassed earlier growth estimates assessed in 2018, and is currently exceeding 500 deliverable nuclear warheads in its stockpile. By 2030, we estimate that China will have more than 1,000 operational nuclear warheads— most of which will be fielded on systems capable of ranging the continental United States. China probably also seeks lower-yield nuclear warhead capabilities to provide proportional response options that its high-yield warheads cannot deliver. For example, China is increasing its stockpile of theater-range delivery systems, such as the DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM).
Below is a current snapshot of the global nuclear stockpile situation, as it stood by middle of this year…
You will find more infographics at Statista
As Statista’s Anna Fleck reports, currently, there are estimated to be 9,585 nuclear warheads in military stockpiles for potential use across nine countries, with Russia and the U.S. accounting for 8,088 of these.
There are also an estimated 2,536 retired warheads that are yet to be dismantled. China has added 90 nuclear warheads to its arsenal since January 2023, increasing from 410 warheads to 500.
This is according to data from the peace research institute SIPRI. India and North Korea have also expanded their arsenals, bringing their total figures to an estimated 170 warheads and 50 warheads, respectively.
The two European nuclear powers, France and the UK, together have 515 operational nuclear warheads. With the exception of North Korea, none of the nations in possession of nuclear warheads have tested them since the 1990s.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 22:45 - The Green New Scam Is Dying
The Green New Scam Is Dying
Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,
It’s no secret that the vast majority of the so-called elites are advocates of climate alarmism and are taken in by the Green New Scam.
Whether this preference is based on ignorance of the science, ideological zeal, a willful desire to hurt American growth or simple greed because of their investments in Green New Scam infrastructure varies case by case.
The typical upper-income supporter of the climate cult including academics, media figures and celebrities is probably ignorant of the fact that there is no evidence that CO2 emissions cause climate change and that the real causes are solar cycles, volcanoes, ocean currents and atmospheric moisture not caused by humans.
Climate Alarmists Have It Backward
The historical record actually demonstrates that warming periods produce higher CO2 levels — not the other way around. CO2 doesn’t cause warming. It’s caused by natural warming.
In other words, climate alarmists have causation completely backward.
Climate alarmism is based almost entirely on computer models, which depend on the inputs the modelers themselves build into them. A model is only as good as the inputs and assumptions programmed into it.
Virtually every one of these models has overestimated warming, sometimes by orders of magnitude, because it’s based on faulty assumptions that overestimate the impact of CO2 on climate.
In other words, it’s junk science. But they keep relying on these models because their political agenda requires it.
Climate: The New Communism
There’s no doubt that a fair number of neo-Marxists embrace the climate scam because they know it damages U.S. industry, raises costs to U.S. consumers and helps to undermine the U.S. economy.
Following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism, anti-capitalistic collectivists admitted that they needed to promote the climate agenda because the only way to combat global warming is through collective action. It requires a coordinated global effort that limits national sovereignty.
The neo-Marxists are impervious to evidence; they just want to hurt America and wasting money on windmills instead of building new refineries is a good way to do it. That leaves the greed crowd.
The Real “Green” in the Green Agenda
They’re early investors in windmills, solar modules, lithium car batteries, EVs, charging stations, carbon credits and other infrastructure of the climate scam. They stand to make billions of dollars off the narrative with help from extravagant government subsidies.
They don’t really care if it all collapses in the end (which it will) as long as they get rich at taxpayer expense in the meantime. All of this behavior is clear as far as it goes. What is not clear is the extent to which the Green New Scammers are doing this with your money.
The best example is multibillionaire Larry Fink, who runs the giant BlackRock investment fund. Fink has been aggressive in promoting the climate scam along with racial quotas, DEI and defunding police.
He’s entitled to his opinions. But is he entitled to pursue his radical agenda with pension fund money from conservative states and institutions? Fortunately, a backlash has begun against Fink and his fellow wokesters.
More state pension fund managers are beginning to pull their funds from BlackRock and other investment managers that pursue far-left policies not in the best interests of their beneficiaries. This backlash may not change Larry Fink’s lifestyle. But over time, it might change the world for the better.
The EV Sham
A major part of the climate agenda includes electric vehicles (EVs). I’ve been warning for years that EVs aren’t feasible as a transportation solution for more than relatively few Americans and that they are little more than glorified golf carts despite the $70,000-and-up price tags.
In the first place, EVs don’t cut carbon emissions. The car itself does not have emissions, but it’s charged with electricity from power plants that do.
The batteries are made with poisonous chemicals and metals including lithium, cobalt, copper and nickel that come from mining operations that use enormous amounts of water and electricity to extract the needed materials.
It takes thousands of tons of ore to extract enough critical minerals to make one battery. EVs don’t take a charge in extreme cold, and the batteries can’t hold a charge. Travel range is grossly overstated for many reasons, including the fact that EV car heaters drain the batteries (with internal-combustion engines, ICEs, the engine makes heat which can easily be directed into the car to keep passengers comfortable with no additional energy required).
Resale values of EVs are close to zero because buyers of used EVs have to shell out $25,000 or more for new batteries after the vehicle is about seven years old. The list of drawbacks goes on.
Most Americans have resisted EVs because they understand the disadvantages. But many Americans were drawn to the false promise of emission-free transportation and other ridiculous claims by the Green New Scammers. Now even the most committed EV buyers are waking up.
I Want My ICE Car Back
A fairly recent survey by consulting firm McKinsey and Co. shows that 29% of EV owners in nine major economies want to return to ICE vehicles. When the sample is narrowed to just the U.S., 46% of those surveyed want to return to ICEs.
The McKinsey officials who conducted the survey claimed to be “surprised” by those results. That probably says something about the fact that McKinsey experts were just as deluded about EVs as the buyers surveyed.
When breaking down the results, 45% say EVs are too expensive, 33% say they have charging concerns and 29% are concerned about the limited driving range.
The truth is that the EV was invented in 1837 and reached the peak of its popularity in 1910 just before the mass production of internal-combustion cars by Henry Ford. The American public got it right when they flocked to the Model T.
It sounds like they’re getting it right again after a brief infatuation with the false promise of the EV. The bottom line is that the Green New Scam is falling apart.
It can’t happen soon enough.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 22:10 - Zelensky Outraged Over UN Chief Getting Chummy With Putin At BRICS
Zelensky Outraged Over UN Chief Getting Chummy With Putin At BRICS
Ukraine is seething over the fact that United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was in Kazan, Russia this week for the major BRICS summit, where he was seen getting chummy with leaders like Presidents Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko.
A smiling Guterres was photographed shaking hands with Putin during the ‘family photo’ ceremony, and actually at one point hugged Belarusian strongman Lukashenko.
Via Kremlin.ru Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has subsequently blasted the UN chief for the warm embrace of Ukraine’s ‘enemies’.
An official close to Zelensky has described to Politico that Guterres “shook hands with him [Putin]. He smiled. He was asked to come to promote the BRICS summit even more. He was used by them, and he seemed happy to be used.”
Ukraine has reportedly informed Guterres that he will no longer be hosted in Kiev on visits. “Even if some officials prefer the allure of Kazan over the substance of the U.N. Charter, our world is structured so that the rights of nations and international legal norms matter, and will continue to matter,” said Zelensky in a Thursday night address.
And an official Ukrainian Foreign Ministry statement also slammed the UN chief: “The UN Secretary General declined Ukraine’s invitation to the first global peace summit in Switzerland. He did, however, accept the invitation to Kazan from war criminal Putin,” a message posted on X stated.
“This is a wrong choice that does not advance the cause of peace. It only damages the UN’s reputation,” the statement added.
Staunch supporters of Kiev also lashed out at Guterres, with Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis in a statement strongly hinting he should step down from his post.
“Guterres must admit that he was wrong and take responsibility, both when he decided not to go to the Ukraine peace summit in Switzerland and now, when he went to see the wanted war criminal Putin and grovelled with both him and his accomplice Lukashenko,” the Lithuanian top diplomat said.
“Guterres is no longer accepted as an honest broker, and if he decides to resign, we would certainly not be the ones to discourage him from doing so.”
The below moment also greatly outraged supporters of Ukraine…
It’s not over yet.
The friend of the dictators and part-time UN Secretary General first bowed to putin, then hugged Lukashenka passionately and thanked him for the “gifts”.If this scum still has his job as Secretary General tomorrow – who will still believe in the UN? pic.twitter.com/RhDyvho60r
— Jürgen Nauditt 🇩🇪🇺🇦 (@jurgen_nauditt) October 24, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The whole controversy comes at a moment of increasing chatter among diplomats over the need to find a negotiated settlement to the Ukraine war. Kiev fears that this will result in Ukraine permanently losing a huge chunk of its territory in the east, which Russian forces have captured.
The UN and Guterres’ office framed his whole visit to the BRICS meeting and interactions with Putin as an “operational necessity” and part of diplomacy and peace-keeping.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 21:35 - History Rhymes: Freedom From Fear
History Rhymes: Freedom From Fear
Authored by Jim Bovard via The Browstone Institute,
“Freedom from fear” was a prime justification for many of the most oppressive Covid pandemic policies. As Georgetown University Law professor Lawrence Gostin declared in late 2021, “COVID-19 vaccines are a remarkable scientific tool that enables society to live in greater freedom and with less fear. Using every tool—including mandates—to achieve high vaccination coverage enhances freedom.”
While many Covid vaccine skeptics were astounded to see the intellectual contortions of mandate advocates, “freedom from fear” has been a favorite invocation of political charlatans for almost a century. Providing “freedom from fear” has become one of the most frequent political promises in this century.
Politicians routinely portray freedom from fear as the apex of freedom, higher than the specific freedoms buttressed by the Bill of Rights. While presidents have defined “freedom from fear” differently, the common thread is that it requires unleashing government agents. Reviewing almost a century of bipartisan invocations on freedom from fear provides good cause to doubt the next bombast on the subject.
“Freedom from fear” first entered the American political pantheon thanks to a January 1941 speech by President Franklin Roosevelt. In that State of the Union address, he promised citizens freedom of speech and freedom of worship—two cornerstones of the First Amendment—and then added socialist-style “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear.” FDR’s revised freedoms did not include freedom to dissent, since he said the government would need to take care of the “few slackers or trouble makers in our midst.”
Nor did FDR’s improved freedoms include the freedom not to be rounded up for concentration camps, as FDR ordered for Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. Three years later, FDR amended his definition of freedom by championing a Universal Conscription Act to entitle government to the forced labor of any citizen.
Richard Nixon, in his acceptance speech at the 1968 Republican National Convention, promised, “We shall re-establish freedom from fear in America so that America can take the lead in re-establishing freedom from fear in the world.” Nixon asserted: “The first civil right of every American is to be free from domestic violence, and that right must be guaranteed in this country.”
But with the Nixon scorecard, government violence didn’t count. He perpetuated the war in Vietnam, resulting in another 20,000 American soldiers pointlessly dying. On the home front, he created the Drug Enforcement Administration and appointed the nation’s first drug czar. The FBI perpetuated its COINTELPRO program, carrying out “a secret war against those citizens it considers threats to the established order,” as a 1976 Senate report noted.
President George H.W. Bush told the National Baptist Convention on September 8, 1989: “Today freedom from fear…means freedom from drugs.” To boost public fear, a DEA informant arranged for a knucklehead to sell crack cocaine to an undercover narc in Lafayette Park across from the White House. Bush invoked the sale a few days later to justify a national crackdown. Bush informed the American Legion: “Today I want to focus on one of those freedoms: freedom from fear—the fear of war abroad, the fear of drugs and crime at home. To win that freedom, to build a better and safer life, will require the bravery and sacrifice that Americans have shown before and must again.”
Foremost among the sacrifices that Bush demanded was that of traditional liberties. His administration vastly expanded federal power to arbitrarily confiscate Americans’ property and boosted the role of the US military in domestic law enforcement. In a 1992 speech dedicating a new DEA office building, Bush declared, “I am delighted to be here to salute the greatest freedom fighters any nation could have, people who provide freedom from violence and freedom from drugs and freedom from fear.” The DEA’s own crime sprees, corruption, and violence were not permitted to impede Bush’s victory lap.
On May 12, 1994, President Bill Clinton declared: “Freedom from violence and freedom from fear are essential to maintaining not only personal freedom but a sense of community in this country.” Clinton banned so-called assault weapons and sought to ban 35 million semi-automatic firearms. Gun bans in response to high crime rates mean closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. Citizens would presumably have nothing to fear after they were forced to abjectly depend on government officials for their own survival.
In February 1996, Clinton, seeking conservative support for his reelection campaign, endorsed forcing children to wear uniforms at public schools. Clinton justified the fashion dictate: “Every one of us has an obligation to work together, to give our children freedom from fear and the freedom to learn.” But, if mandatory uniforms were the key to ending violence, Postal Service employees would have a lower homicide rate.
George W. Bush, like his father, alternated promising “freedom from fear” with shameless fear-mongering. Prior to Election Day 2004, the Bush administration continually issued terror attack warnings based on flimsy or no evidence. The New York Times derided the Bush administration in late October for having “turned the business of keeping Americans informed about the threat of terrorism into a politically scripted series of color-coded scare sessions.”
Yet each time a terror alert was issued, the president’s approval rating rose temporarily by roughly three percent, according to a Cornell University study. The Cornell study found a “halo effect:” the more terrorists wanted to attack America, the better job Bush was supposedly doing. People who saw terrorism as the biggest issue in the 2004 election voted for Bush by a 6-to-1 margin.
The most memorable Bush campaign ad, released just before the election, opened in a thick forest, with shadows and hazy shots complementing the foreboding music. After vilifying Democratic candidate John Kerry, the ad showed a pack of wolves reclining in a clearing. The voiceover concluded, “And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm” as the wolves began jumping up and running toward the camera. At the end of the ad, the president appeared and announced: “I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.”
One liberal cynic suggested that the ad’s message was that voters would be eaten by wolves if Kerry won. Pat Wendland, the manager of Wolves Offered Life and Friendship, a Colorado wolf refuge in Colorado, complained: “The comparison to terrorists was insulting. We have worked for years, teaching people that Little Red Riding Hood lied.”
Bush’s campaign to terrify voters into granting him four more years to rule America did not deter him from announcing in his 2005 State of the Union address: “We will pass along to our children all the freedoms we enjoy, and chief among them is freedom from fear.”
In the 2020 presidential race, Democratic candidate Joe Biden personally blamed President Donald Trump for every one of the 220,000 Covid deaths in the nation. Biden had a simple promise based on a simple message: “People want to be safe.” And the only way to survive was to put Uncle Joe in the White House and unleash him.
Biden ran one of the most fear-based presidential campaigns in modern history. Biden talked as if every American family had lost a member or two from this pestilence. He routinely exaggerated Covid death tolls a hundredfold or a thousandfold, publicly asserting that millions of Americans had already been killed by Covid-19. Biden was helped mightily by fear-mongering media coverage. CNN ramped up the fear with a Covid Death Counter always on the screen. But the death count was statistical garbage. Individuals who died of gunshot wounds were counted as Covid deaths if a postmortem showed any Covid trace.
A Brookings Institution analysis noted: “Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to overestimate [Covid] harm. Forty-one percent of Democrats…answered that half or more of those infected by COVID-19 need to be hospitalized.” At that time, the rate of hospitalization was between 1% and 5%, but Democratic voters overestimated the risk up to twentyfold. A CNN exit poll found that the “recent rise in coronavirus cases” was the most important factor for 61% of Biden voters. Biden won the presidency as a result of only 43,000 votes in three swing states.
In June 2021, Biden proclaimed that everyone must get a Covid vaccine so that America could have “freedom from fear.” He said that people should “exercise your freedom” to get vaccinated with a drug approved on an emergency basis six months earlier. He declared: “We need everyone across the country to pull together [i.e., submit] to get us over the finish line.” The following month, Biden promised that anyone who got the injection would not get or transmit Covid. After the government coverup of failing vaccine efficacy collapsed, far more people balked at getting the shot. Biden responded by dictating a “get the jab or lose your job” mandate for 100 million American adults. (The Supreme Court later struck down most of that mandate.)
“Freedom from fear” apparently requires maximizing hatred of anyone who fails to submit. In an October 2021 CNN town hall, Biden derided vaccine skeptics as murderers who only wanted “the freedom to kill you” with Covid. Biden continued to proclaim that Covid was an “epidemic of the unvaccinated” long after government data revealed that most individuals who caught Covid were vaccinated. NIH posted a 2022 article that blamed “fearmongering and scare tactics” by anti-vaccine activists for the reported adverse side effects of Covid vaccines.
A 2022 Rasmussen poll found that 59% of Democratic voters favored house arrest for the unvaccinated, and 45% favored locking the unvaxxed into government detention facilities. Almost half of Democrats favored empowering government to “fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing Covid-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.” A massive covert federal censorship regime was also deployed to suppress criticism of Covid policies or even jokes about Covid vaccines.
For his reelection campaign, Biden milked “freedom from fear” in a Pennsylvania speech on what he labeled “the third anniversary of the Insurrection at the United States Capitol.” Biden planned to turn the November 2024 election into a referendum on Adolf Hitler, accusing Donald Trump of “echoing the same exact language used in Nazi Germany.” CNN reported that Biden campaign aides planned to go “full Hitler” on Trump. Biden spent half an hour fear-mongering and then closed by promising “freedom from fear.” This was the famous Biden two-step—demagoguing to his heart’s content and then closing with schmaltzy uplift lines, entitling the media to rechristen him as an idealist.
Biden did not survive the Democrats’ version of the “Night of the Long Knives” and Vice President Kamala Harris was designated the party’s presidential flag-bearer. Harris painted with an even broader brush than Biden. At a Juneteenth Concert this summer, she condemned Republicans for a “a full-on attack” on “the freedom from fear of bigotry and hate.”
Harris implied that politicians could wave a psychological magic wand to banish any bias in perpetuity. How can anyone have “freedom from fear of bigotry” unless politicians perpetually control everyone’s thoughts?
In August, the Democratic National Convention whooped up freedom in ways that would qualify as “authentic frontier gibberish,” as the 1974 movie Blazing Saddles would say. A campaign video promised “freedom from control, freedom from extremism and fear.” So Americans won’t have true freedom until politicians forcibly suppress any idea they label as immoderate? The Democratic Party platform warned: “Reproductive freedom, freedom from hate, freedom from fear, the freedom to control our own destinies and more are all on the line in this election.”
But the whole point of politics nowadays is to preempt individuals from controlling their own destinies. Hillary Clinton told the convention crowd that, thanks to the cracks in the glass ceiling, she could see “freedom from fear and intimidation.” Hillary also boasted of seeing “freedom to make our own decisions about our health”—after everybody shuts up and gets Covid Booster #37, presumably.
“Freedom from fear” is the ultimate political blank check. The more people government frightens, the more legitimate dictatorial policies become. Pledging “freedom from fear” entitles politicians to seize power over anything that frightens anyone. Giving politicians more power based on people’s fears is like giving firemen pay raises based on how many false alarms they report.
Politicians’ promises of “freedom from fear” imply that freedom properly understood is a risk-free, worry-free condition. It is the type of promise that a mother would make to a young child. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham epitomized that mindset when she proclaimed at the Democratic National Convention: “We need a president who can be Consoler-in-Chief. We need a president capable of holding us in a great big hug.” And continuing to hold us until we officially become psychological wards of the State?
“Freedom from fear” offers freedom from everything except the government. Anyone who sounds the alarm about excessive government power will automatically be guilty of subverting freedom from fear. Presumably, the fewer inviolable rights the citizen has, the better government will treat him. But as John Locke warned more than 300 years ago, “I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my Liberty, would not when he had me in his Power, take away everything else.”
Why not simply offer voters “freedom from the Constitution?” “Freedom from fear” means security via mass delusions about the nature of political power. Painting the motto “freedom from fear” on shackles won’t make them easier to bear. Perhaps our ruling class should be honest and replace the Bill of Rights with a new motto: “Political buncombe will make you free.”
An earlier version of this piece was published by the Libertarian Institute.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 21:00 - Two Refineries That Produce 14% Of California's Gasoline Set To Close Due To "Regulatory Pressure"
Two Refineries That Produce 14% Of California’s Gasoline Set To Close Due To “Regulatory Pressure”
Today in how not to get gas prices down on the West Coast news, it was announced that California is on the precipice of losing two more major refineries that produce 14% of the state’s gasoline due to suffocating regulation.
Valero may shut down its two California refineries, according to Just The News.
With existing closures already requiring California to import 8% of its supply, the state could soon face a greater dependence on refined imports, adding to its reliance on Middle Eastern and South American crude.
Valero CEO Lane Riggs explained last week that profit margins are already low from its refinery business and says the company has already “minimized strategic [capital expenditures]”.
He added that “California is increasing its regulatory pressure on the industry, so we’re really considering everything — all options are on the table.”
The Just The News report says that although Riggs did not explicitly confirm plans to shut down refineries representing 14% of California’s capacity, state lawmakers raised alarms, linking potential closures to new regulatory powers granted during a special legislative session.
Phillips 66 recently announced the closure of its Los Angeles refinery, accounting for 8% of the state’s refining capacity, following the passage of the new legislation.
California’s oil production has halved since 2008, dropping from 249 million barrels (38% of state needs) to 124 million barrels in 2023 (23.4% of needs). Imports have surged, with 61% now coming from countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, and Colombia, compared to 48.5% in 2008.
State Assemblymember Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin added on X: “When California Governor Gavin Newsom said in 2021 he didn’t see a future for oil in CA, I didn’t know 2024 would be the year he ended it at lightning speed.”
“Today, another refiner said “all options are on table” with refineries here. We can thank Newsom’s legislation,” he concluded.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 20:25 - The Battle For Space Is On
The Battle For Space Is On
Authored by Autumn Spredemann via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Space has been called the final frontier and experts say governments are becoming more focused on strengthening defense and exploring the military potential of low Earth orbit.
Evan Ellis, an analyst and research professor for the U.S. Army War College, told The Epoch Times that expanding and protecting space infrastructure is becoming increasingly important from a national security perspective.
“It’s a recognition that space is important as a war-fighting domain, but also how you protect and use your assets in times of war,” Ellis said.
As a defense analyst, Ellis has participated in space war game scenarios. He says there are multiple kinds of weapons that can be used in Earth’s orbit. Some are kinetic such as missiles, but non-kinetic weapons such as electromagnetic pulses, micro-waves, and lasers are also possible.
He noted some are more practical in a space-to-space or space-to-Earth combat scenario than others. For example, lasers are less practical to have in a space-based platform since they would have energy supply and stability problems.
“If you want to penetrate someone’s [ground] bunker, then it makes more sense to use kinetic weapons than a laser from space,” Ellis said.
He said that targeting ground objects from space isn’t impossible, but it’s not a likely scenario. Instead, Ellis said it would be more pragmatic to hit other celestial targets.
“It makes sense to have things in space that can take out other things in space.”
National security lawyer and Scarab Rising president, Irina Tsukerman, said weapons don’t need to be put into space to be a threat to orbiting objects.
“Countries like China and Russia have developed various ASAT [anti-satellite weapon] capabilities, including kinetic kill vehicles and electronic warfare systems, aimed at disabling or destroying U.S. satellites,” Tsukerman told The Epoch Times via text.
Earth-based weapons with the ability to cripple or destroy satellites have existed for years. Yet with more countries investing in counter-space assets, worry over the possible use of ASATs as a wartime weapon is growing.
“While destructive ASATs have not yet been deployed in warfare, countries such as Russia, India, China, and the United States have demonstrated their ability to operate such weapons by destroying their own satellites,” a 2024 Atlantic Council analysis states.
“As countries’ reliance on space increases, the ability to hold other countries’ satellites at risk is a significant and concerning capability.”
Investment in space from a national security perspective also grew this year.
The Space Foundation reported that total global military space budgets increased 18 percent, representing 46 percent of total government space spending. The United States represents the majority of this at 80 percent, but countries like Japan and Poland have also drastically increased their space defense spending.
An anti-satellite weapon “Mission Shakti” is displayed during the Republic Day parade in New Delhi, India, on Jan. 26, 2020. Prakash Singh/AFP via Getty Images There’s widespread concern over the weaponization of space, especially given current geopolitical tensions between the United States, Russia, and China.
The United Nations’ Outer Space Treaty is a guardrail that has prohibited nuclear arms or weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in orbit or on celestial bodies such as the moon since 1967. At the time of this report, the treaty has 115 parties and 89 signatories.
However, groups such as the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation say increased militarization efforts in this domain already pose risks to national security.
The center identifies three classifications of space weaponry, including Earth-to-space, space-to-space, and space-to-Earth. Currently, due to restrictions outlined in the Outer Space Treaty, only Earth-to-space weapons have been developed in military arsenals. However, some say growing interest in the latter two categories makes expansion into these areas inevitable.
“Converging trends make the proliferation of space systems likely. The miniaturization of satellites combined with falling launch costs and the commercialization of the space industry means that more players are entering the space game—not all of whom will use space for peaceful purposes,” the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation stated in a 2023 fact sheet.
The organization added that due to a lack of clear regulations and ambitious government regimes, militaries are already pushing the boundaries of acceptable space behavior.
“This could mean greater chances of conflict in the future as outer space is increasingly congested with dangerous capabilities,” the group said.
Within the three categories of space weaponry are four different types. The Center for Strategic and International Studies project Aerospace Security identifies these as kinetic physical, non-kinetic physical, electronic, and cyber.
The 2024 Secure World Foundation report noted, “The growing use of, and reliance on, space for national security has also led more countries to look at developing their own counter-space capabilities that can be used to deceive, disrupt, deny, degrade, or destroy space systems.”
This is underscored by a National Air and Space Intelligence Center report, which states, “Foreign competitors are integrating advanced space and counter-space technologies into warfighting strategies to challenge U.S. superiority and position themselves as space powers.”
Pentagon officials maintain that a competitive edge in space weaponry is necessary for the United States because evidence suggests that Russia is looking to do the same.
Read the rest here…
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 19:50 - Nvidia-Backed Tech Company Looking To Buy Land Near Nuclear Power In Japan
Nvidia-Backed Tech Company Looking To Buy Land Near Nuclear Power In Japan
Another day, another data center cozying up to nuclear power.
This time its an Nvidia-backed company called Ubitus K.K., based in Tokyo. The company is looking to “acquire land in Kyoto, Shimane or a prefecture in Japan’s southern island of Kyushu, primarily because of the availability of nuclear power in the region”, according to a new report from Bloomberg.
Chief Executive Officer Wesley Kuo announced the plans in an interview on Thursday last week. The company already has two data centers used for gaming and is planning a third for AI.
Kuo commented: “Unless we have other, better, efficient and cheap energy, nuclear is still the most competitive option in terms of cost and the scale of supply. For industrial use — especially AI — they need a constant, high-capacity supply.”
The Bloomberg report says that in Japan, nuclear power remains controversial due to the 2011 Fukushima disaster and strict post-disaster regulations, with only 33 reactors available, many still inactive.
Recall, following the news of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant restart near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and the Biden administration supplying a $1.5 billion loan to resurrect Holtec’s Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan, along with Amazon, Microsoft, and Google all jumping on the nuclear trade via the “next AI trade,” the atomic era continued gaining steam last week with news that another dormant nuclear plant, this time in Iowa, is slated for a possible restart.
On a Wednesday earnings call, NextEra Energy CEO John Ketchum told investors that the company may restart the shuttered 600-megawatt Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC), Iowa’s only nuclear power plant. It’s located on the west bank of the Cedar River, about eight miles northwest of Cedar Rapids.
The company said on its earnings call:
“As a top operator of all forms of power generation, we often get asked about nuclear and gas,” Ketchum told investors.
He explained, “Let me start with nuclear. Nuclear will play a role, but there are some practical limitations. Remember, on a national level, we expect we are going to need to add 900 gigawatts of new generation to the grid by 2040,” adding, “There are only a few nuclear plants that can be recommissioned in an economic way. We are currently evaluating the recommissioning of our Duane Arnold nuclear plant in Iowa as one example.”
The latest news from big tech firms diving into nuclear and reviving the industry provides a substantial tailwind for our “Next AI Trade” which we laid out in April as our long-term favorite trade, and where we outlined various investment opportunities for powering up America, playing out.
Here’s our latest coverage of the big atomic revival:
-
Nuclear Names Surge After Three Mile Island Planned Restart To Power Microsoft Data Centers
-
Nuclear Is Back: U.S. Closes On $1.5 Billion Loan To Resurrect Holtec’s Palisades Nuclear Plant
-
Google Agrees To Buy Nuclear Power From Small Modular Reactors To Be Built By Kairos Power
And for a trip down memory lane: take a step back to December 2020, nearly four years ago, when we first introduced the nuclear theme to readers with the headline: “Buy Uranium: Is This The Beginning Of The Next ESG Craze.”
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 19:15 - Appeals Court Says Mississippi Law Allowing Ballots After Election Day Is Illegal
Appeals Court Says Mississippi Law Allowing Ballots After Election Day Is Illegal
Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released an opinion on Oct. 25 stating that federal law requires mail-in ballots be counted no later than election day.
Residents drop mail-in ballots in an official ballot box outside a library in Milwaukee on Oct. 20, 2020. Scott Olson/Getty Images In doing so, it ruled against a Mississippi law allowing ballots to be counted if they arrived no more than five days after the election and if they were postmarked on or before the date of the election.
The opinion, which came less than two weeks before the 2024 elections, redirected the case back to the lower court while refraining from issuing an injunction that would halt Mississippi’s law.
The policy was adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the state kept it after the pandemic ended.
“Because Mississippi’s statute allows ballot receipt up to five days after the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law,” Judge Andrew Oldham, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote in his opinion for the court.
RNC Chairman Michael Whatley called the decision on the social media platform X a “seismic win for fair, accurate, secure, and transparent elections.”
Justifying the decision to throw the decision back to the lower court, rather than block Mississippi’s law, Oldham referenced a Supreme Court precedent that cautions against last-minute changes to election procedures.
“Today’s decision says nothing about remedies,” he said. “We decline to grant plaintiffs’ initial request for a permanent injunction. … Instead, we remand to the district court for further proceedings to fashion appropriate relief, giving due consideration to ’the value of preserving the status quo in a voting case on the eve of an election.’”
He was quoting another fifth circuit case but also referenced the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Purcell v. Gonzalez.
Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson had told the Fifth Circuit that an election was voters’ “conclusive choice of an officeholder,” which took place on election day.
“That is so even if election officials do not receive those ballots until after election day,” his brief to the court read. “An election does not itself require ballot receipt.”
Oldham and two other Trump appointees, Judge James Ho and Judge Kyle Duncan, heard oral arguments over the issue in September. The Republican National Committee (RNC) had appealed the decision of a lower court that ruled in favor of Mississippi.
Oldham reasoned that the Constitution granted Congress authority over elections through two provisions, including one that allows Congress to alter the timing of federal elections hosted by states.
Oldham drew a distinction between the timing of ballot counting and ballot casting.
“Even if the ballots have not been counted, the result is fixed when all of the ballots are received and the proverbial ballot box is closed,” he wrote. “The selections are done and final.”
Mississippi’s “problem,” he said, “is that it thinks a ballot can be ‘cast’ before it is received.” He added that “[a] voter’s selection of a candidate differs from the public’s election of the candidate.”
Mississippi is one of several states with laws allowing mailed ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The list includes swing states such as Nevada and states such as Colorado, Oregon, and Utah that rely heavily on mail voting.
In July, a federal judge dismissed a similar lawsuit in Nevada. The Republican National Committee is asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to revive that case.
The RNC previously told The Epoch Times that it was involved in more than 130 lawsuits across 26 states. States have also pursued their own efforts while coming up against challenges from outside parties, including the Justice Department (DOJ).
Oldham’s opinion came on the same day that a federal judge granted the DOJ’s request to halt Virginia’s program for purging non-citizens from voter rolls.
Federal Judge Patricia Giles held that the program was within a prohibited 90-day timeframe set up by the National Voter Registration Act, a federal law passed by Congress in 1993. Another federal judge in Alabama similarly blocked the state’s program to purge non-citizens from its rolls.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 18:40 - Army Releases Redacted Report On Incident During Trump Visit To Arlington Cemetery
Army Releases Redacted Report On Incident During Trump Visit To Arlington Cemetery
Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The U.S. Army on Friday released a heavily redacted report related to an alleged altercation during former President Donald Trump’s visit to Arlington National Cemetery in August.
According to multiple reports, on Aug. 26 a cemetery staffer attempted to block the Trump campaign from taking photos and videos in Section 60, where soldiers recently killed in Afghanistan and Iraq are buried. A U.S. Army statement at the time said the employee was “abruptly pushed aside.”
Former President Donald Trump lays a wreath alongside Marine Cpl. Kelsee Lainhart (Ret.) and U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Tyler Vargas-Andrews (Ret.), who were injured at the Abbey Gate Bombing in Afghanistan, during a ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington, Va., on Aug. 26. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images Trump was there to mark the anniversary of the Kabul airport attack that killed 13 U.S. service members.
Seven pages of redacted material were released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Washington-based nonprofit group American Oversight as part of an ongoing lawsuit.
The redacted incident report classifies the alleged offense as “simple assault.” It outlines an alleged physical altercation between a cemetery employee and Trump aides.
A brief description says that an individual engaged “with both of [redacted] hands while attempting to move past [redacted] did not require medical attention on scene and later refused when offered. [Redacted] rendered a sworn statement on a DA Form 2823 and stated [redacted] did not want to press charges. Investigation continues by JBMHH PD Investigations Branch.”
The sworn statement of the incident, made at 1:45 p.m. on Aug. 26, is fully redacted.
In response to reports detailing the incident that cited anonymous sources, the Trump campaign issued a statement accusing the cemetery employee of experiencing a “mental health episode” and attempting to “physically block members of President Trump’s team during a very solemn ceremony.”
The Army defended the employee, noting they acted “with professionalism” in enforcing regulations that prohibit political activities on cemetery grounds. Officials stated that while the incident was reported to law enforcement, the employee ultimately chose not to pursue charges.
The Army confirmed that it “considers this matter closed,” concluding that the staff member’s actions were appropriate and consistent with cemetery decorum.
U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia Senior Judge Paul Friedman signed an order on Oct. 22 for the report to be released. In September, American Oversight, arguing that there was a compelling public interest in sharing information with the public as soon as possible, requested that Arlington expedite the processing of its request, noting the presidential election is drawing closer.
American Oversight was founded in 2017 in response to what it says were the “unprecedented challenges that the Trump administration posed to our nation’s democratic ideals and institutions.”
Friedman ruled on Oct. 22 that the Army must release nonexempt portions of records about the requested incident on or before Oct. 25.
“With the election just two weeks away, the American people have a clear and compelling interest in knowing how the government responded to an alleged incident involving a major presidential candidate who has a history of politicizing the military,” Chioma Chukwu, American Oversight’s interim executive director, said in a statement following Friedman’s order.
After the initial incident, an Arlington National Cemetery spokesperson told The Epoch Times that a report had been filed but provided no further details, citing laws against political campaign or election-related activities in military cemeteries.
The Trump campaign disputed reports of a “physical altercation,” asserting they were prepared to release footage to counter any “defamatory claims.” Spokesperson Steven Cheung stated that a private photographer was permitted on the grounds and that an individual, allegedly experiencing a mental health episode, tried to block Trump’s team during the ceremony.
Family members of fallen soldiers in Afghanistan also denied claims of an assault, stating no altercation took place.
The U.S. Army oversees the management of Arlington National Cemetery.
Katabella Roberts contributed to this report.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 17:30 - Russia Reportedly Supplied GEOINT Data For Houthi Assaults On Western Ships In Maritime Chokepoint
Russia Reportedly Supplied GEOINT Data For Houthi Assaults On Western Ships In Maritime Chokepoint
In the Middle East, Russian intelligence officials have allegedly provided Iran-backed Houthi rebels with geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) data for strategic planning and operational decision-making to attack Western vessels in the critical maritime chokepoint of the southern Red Sea.
According to The Wall Street Journal report:
The Houthis, which began their attacks late last year over the Gaza war, eventually began using Russian satellite data as they expanded their strikes, said a person familiar with the matter and two European defense officials. The data was passed through members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who were embedded with the Houthis in Yemen, one of the people said.
There was no mention of specifics about the GEOINT data Russia provided IRGC/Houthis for attack and reconnaissance missions in southern Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. Besides satellite imagery, there was no word if the Russians and/or IRGC used unmanned aerial vehicles to provide Houthis with high-resolution imagery and/or real-time data streams to track commercial vessels or western warships – or use the streams for weapon guidance.
Alleged Russian assistance may explain how the Houthis have expanded their threat coverage of missiles and drone attacks across the southern Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. Since November 2023, Houthis have hit more than 100 ships in the region, sinking two and hijacking another.
Source: WSJ “In the Middle East, the Russian assistance underscores a tectonic shift in its strategy. Putin has strengthened ties with Iran, while turning a cold shoulder to his longstanding relationship with Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,” WSJ noted.
Weak foreign policy emanating from the Biden-Harris administration has left the Middle East in flames. Not being tough on Houthis to ensure freedom of navigation in the critical maritime chokepoint has sparked major supply chain snarls in global shipping, as container ships diverted by the hundreds around the Cape of Good Hope, straining container supplies and thus boosting shipping costs.
It’s interesting seeing Democrats who once warned that former President Trump would bring the world to the brink of nuclear disaster, yet under Biden and Harris, the world is closer than ever to World War III: Wars spiraling out of control in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, while China could take Taiwan at any moment. The US needs a strong leader – not weak – not Marxist woke.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 16:55 - Peter Schiff: Gold Is Exposing The Phony Economy
Peter Schiff: Gold Is Exposing The Phony Economy
On this week’s episode, Peter covered a record setting week for gold and a stellar week for silver. With the metals nearly cresting $2800 and $35, respectively, Peter sees this price action as confirmation that the Fed’s recent rate cuts are a mistake. Politicians may love inflation, and the media is oblivious, but the metals markets know that America’s economic trajectory is unsustainable.
As Peter predicted, long-term interest rates are rising. Even though rate cuts are traditionally considered bearish for gold, gold is consistently reaching new highs and perplexing the media class:
“I said that when the Fed cuts short-term rates, that’s going to be the bottom for long-term rates, and they’re going to go up. And that’s exactly what’s happening. Long-term rates and gold prices are rising in tandem, which is the opposite of what most people think. They believe higher interest rates are bearish for gold, but gold is going up anyway. The mainstream financial media didn’t expect this. They thought when the Fed cut short-term rates, long-term rates would follow instead of going in the opposite direction.”
Why is this? The dollar is condemned to a future of continuous devaluation, and gold is the best hedge against de-dollarization.
“We still have a weak economy. That’s not why rates are rising. Rates are rising for the same reason the gold price is rising. It’s because the Fed’s rate cuts are a mistake. The inflation genie is not back in the bottle. We’re going to have rising inflation. We’re going to have skyrocketing fiscal deficits, so bigger budget deficits. We’re going to have more supply of treasuries hitting the market, which, as I’ve said, are going to be monetized.”
Peter likens gold’s moves to the pre-2008 era, when the media and financial pundits were unaware of future inflation:
“They didn’t care about gold when it was $495 an ounce. And now that it’s $2,750 an ounce, they still don’t care about it because they have no idea what it means, or if they do, they certainly don’t want their audience to figure it out. … But when the Fed showed its hand and announced QE, gold took off. Initially, people— not just me— there was a chorus of people saying, ‘This is terrible, this is going to be massive inflation. You’ve got to buy gold.”
He reminds us that inflation is an intentional policy choice that benefits the political class at the expense of consumers:
“It’s a meltdown that’s being disguised by inflation. Again, that’s one of the reasons politicians like inflation because people feel like they’re richer. Their stock portfolios are going up. They’re getting a raise. And so they think things are good because the numbers are bigger, but it’s all an illusion. They’re actually getting poorer while they think they’re getting richer. That is what the politicians want.”
The problem with inflationary policy is that it can’t last forever, and when it fails, the government will be forced to either default or fire up the money printers. So far, politicians are opting to print away their problems:
“There’s two ways our creditors are going to lose. One is through an honest default where they get fewer dollars. The other is through inflation where they get all their dollars, but they have less purchasing power.”
Turning to the approaching election, Peter is cautiously optimistic about a Trump presidency. At best, Trump will attempt to reign in government spending, and even at his worst, he’ll be better than Kamala Harris:
“We’re going to have a crisis regardless of the outcome of this election. I would just rather have Trump’s team in office when it happens than the Harris team. Not that I’m 100% confident that the Trump team is going to do the right thing; I’m just 100% confident that the Harris team is going to do the wrong thing. So that’s basically where we are, right? And so we have to take the lesser of the evils and hope for the best with Trump.”
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 16:20 - Will Democrats Accept the Results of the 2024 Presidential Election?
Will Democrats Accept the Results of the 2024 Presidential Election?
Authored by Richard Truesdell and Keith Lehmann via American Greatness,
Picture this scenario on November 6: the American presidential election has taken place, and Donald Trump is the winner with well over 300 Electoral College votes, legitimately and decisively beating Kamala Harris. Democrats are in an uproar, making wild claims of election interference from foreign entities like Russia just like in 2016, and threatening to block certification of the election unless their candidate of choice is installed.
By attempting to nullify the votes of over half of the country, Democrats have chosen to wage war against Americans who don’t agree with them. It is their last-ditch effort to cling to power and they don’t care what damage is done to the country in the process. The damage done, in fact, is part of the plan.
An army of lawyers from both sides is being deployed across the nation in anticipation of massive voter fraud, similar to what went on during the 2020 election. While Republicans are out there to identify and prevent the fraud, Democrats are obfuscating and concealing their efforts to count ballots multiple times, stop the rejection of invalid ballots, and keep objective observers from reporting on the mishandling of ballots by those intent on committing election fraud. Democrats are actually working to allow non-citizens to vote.
So-called fact-checkers point out that this only applies to local and state elections, not federal elections. Don’t fall for this misdirection. Why have Democrats, from Joe Biden on down, pushed so hard to allow non-citizens to vote? Once voting by non-citizens in local and state elections is legitimized, America as we have known it for more than 240 years will no longer exist.
All this will be followed by escalating the lawfare against Trump with possible prison sentencing between the election and inauguration in one or more of the criminal cases he faces.
It is especially true with the Jack Smith case in D.C., which is a blatant, partisan case of election interference. We are convinced that all of the cases against Trump will ultimately be dismissed on appeal as they have no legitimate basis; however, the Democrats will push forward anyway as they have no concern over what legal precedence they are setting, nor do they care about the damage they’re doing to the institution of Congress. It’s all about holding power.
Democrats in Congress with stage-four Trump Derangement Syndrome, especially the clown-like Jamie Raskin (D-MD), have already said the quiet part out loud. Raskin says if Trump should win, combining an Electoral College win even with a potential popular vote victory (which current polls are showing), they will immediately challenge the results under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, tying up the election results beyond January 20, 2025. These Democrats will stop at nothing to destroy America by invoking a second Civil War (Raskin’s own words) if necessary.
Can you imagine the chaos and damage a lame-duck Biden-Harris administration can inflict on the United States between Election Day and Trump’s second inauguration on January 20, 2025? With executive orders coming from an increasingly infirm and vengeful Joe Biden (with help from Dr. Jill and his puppet masters like Barack Obama and even Nancy Pelosi, who forced Biden to abandon his reelection bid under threat of invoking the 25th Amendment). These are people who will do anything to retain power, including preventing Trump from taking the oath of office.
Democrats have become everything they have accused Trump of intending to do. In his first term, Trump took no action to lock up Hillary Clinton, who is now out promoting her third memoir, Something Lost, Something Gained (a title that lacks even a basic sense of self-awareness as it heads to the $5.95 remainder racks, hopefully by Christmas). Will she ever stop relitigating the results of the 2016 election?
At some point, the Supreme Court will be forced to step in, possibly on an emergency basis, to save our democracy from Democrats and their Deep State political thugs who will refuse to participate in the peaceful transfer of power. It’s the ultimate example of projection.
It’s a sad state of affairs but one that can be remedied in the future if we reinstate integrity in our election systems. That is, making sure that the people’s votes actually count and are not manipulated by loosening rules to satisfy those who would cheat in order to attain or keep power. Every illegitimate vote cancels out a legitimate vote.
Election integrity starts with requiring photo identification. Thirty-six states require photo ID; 14 states and the District of Columbia don’t.
If we can require photo ID to buy a pack of cigarettes or a beer in a bar, or a driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle, we can require it to exercise our most sacred right to vote. It doesn’t disenfranchise anyone except those not eligible to vote, like immigrants who entered the United States illegally and lack proper identification. Requiring proof of identity does not make it harder to vote; it makes it harder to cheat.
With some degree of integrity restored to America’s election process, the people’s legitimate voices will be heard loud and clear. This will deliver the presidency back to Donald Trump with a clear mandate to “drain the swamp” that is Washington, D.C.
Once Trump returns to the White House in 2025, with no worry about a reelection bid in 2028, he can complete the house cleaning he started when he took office in 2017. It will be the best lame duck presidency in American history.
Trump can remove the unelected political appointees running the alphabet agencies (starting with the FBI, the CIA, and especially the NSA) as well as the leadership class in the military. Today we have 44 four-star generals—there are no current five-star generals or admirals since the passing of Omar Bradley in 1981—commanding 2.86 million members in the military as opposed to during World War Two when 16 million men were under arms being commanded by just four five-star generals and admirals. Including the military, those bureaucracies must be completely dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up by individuals who care about America, not an administrative state that cares only about amassing personal power.
Now is the time to make Election Day a national holiday and to require day-of and in-person voting across the nation with the results known the following day. Reasonable exceptions can be made for members serving in the military and true hardship cases.
Going forward for the next presidential election (it’s too late for this year’s presidential election), to ensure election integrity, absentee ballots will need to be submitted, along with proper identification, no later than November 1, 2028, so they can be counted in advance of Election Day in 2028.
If we can politically pander to a small segment of the population by making Juneteenth a national holiday, we can certainly benefit all citizens by having Election Day nationalized. Our democracy deserves nothing less.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 15:10 - Where's Tony? These Are All The Countries Visited The US Secretary Of State Since 2021
Where’s Tony? These Are All The Countries Visited The US Secretary Of State Since 2021
As the world’s largest economy, military power, and a major cultural force, the U.S. has been the dominant global hegemon since the Berlin Wall fell in 1990.
Its foreign policy plays a key role in shaping geopolitics. Despite the complexity of international relations, we can see where the U.S. prioritizes its influence by analyzing the data.
This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, shows the countries U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has visited most since his term started in January 2021. Data is sourced from the State Department, last updated on September 27th, 2024.
All the Countries Secretary Blinken Has Visited At Least Five Times
Secretary Blinken has visited Israel 18 times during his term—by far the most for any one country.
Ten of those visits have taken place since October 2023, following Hamas attacks which killed nearly 1,000 Israeli civilians.
In the year since the area has devolved into a major conflict zone. Israel has repeatedly bombed the Gaza strip, leading to the death of over 43,000 Palestinians, of which more than one-fourth are children.
Retaliatory rocket launches from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis have, in turn, led to Israeli airstrikes hitting Lebanon and Yemen.
Meanwhile, Secretary Blinken has visited both Qatar and Egypt nine times so far—two other mediators in the war. He’s also been to Saudi Arabia: part of a longer-term plan to normalize relations between the House of Saud and Israel.
Finally, Blinken has visited the West Bank four times—most recently to reiterate U.S. support for a Palestinian state.
These visits to the Middle East stand in sharp contrast to Ukraine, where Secretary Blinken has made just five trips, also in a show of American support as the country battles a Russian invasion.
The Middle East currently has a concentration of multiple rival military powers. Check out the Biggest Armies in the Middle East for a breakdown.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 14:35 - Trump, Former White House Staffers Reject John Kelly's "Fascist" Claims
Trump, Former White House Staffers Reject John Kelly’s “Fascist” Claims
Authored by TJ Muscaro and Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times,
Former President Donald Trump and previous members of his administration say that claims made by former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly are “patently false.”
Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, worked for the Trump administration from 2017 to 2019. He has spoken out multiple times against Trump during the election—most recently in interviews with The New York Times and The Atlantic.
In those interviews, Kelly said Trump fitted the general definition of a fascist and alleged that the former president said he wanted “German generals,” like Nazi leader Adolph Hitler had.
Several members of the Trump administration, including former Vice President Mike Pence’s former chief of staff, Mike Ayers, have sharply disputed the claims.
“I’ve avoided commenting on intra-staff leaks or rumors or even lies as it relates to my time at the White House but General Kelly’s comments regarding President Trump are too egregious to ignore,” Ayers said on X.
“I was with each of them more than most, and his commentary is *patently false.*”
Mark Paoletta, general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), also spoke out against Kelly, writing on X:
“I don’t believe a word he says. He was a terrible chief of staff who dishonestly kept information from the President to pursue his own agenda.”
Trump himself denounced the stories on Oct. 23, saying Kelly “made up a story out of pure Trump Derangement Syndrome Hatred.”
“Even though I shouldn’t be wasting my time with him, I always feel it’s necessary to hit back in pursuit of THE TRUTH,” Trump said on Truth Social and X.
Both of Kelly’s interviews came out less than two weeks before Election Day, at a time when early voting is underway across several states, and Trump is starting to take the lead in battleground state polls.
Vice President Kamala Harris followed Kelly’s two stories by stating at a CNN town hall that she believed Trump to be a fascist.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. responded directly to these comments on X, saying, “This is the kind of inflammatory poison that divides our nation and inspires assassins.”
The Atlantic also claimed Trump made disparaging remarks about a dead military servicemember and balked over her funeral expenses.
At a news conference in Austin, Texas, on Oct. 25, the former president also strongly denied making those claims.
“If they didn’t get the military funding, I was going to fund it myself,” Trump said about the funeral for Vanessa Guillen, 20, who was murdered in 2020 while stationed at an Army base in Texas that was then called Fort Hood.
Guillen’s slaying and dismemberment led to an outcry over sexual harassment at U.S. military bases, resulting in changes to laws and discipline of 21 Army personnel; some were faulted for allowing the prime suspect in her killing to escape and commit suicide.
On Friday, Trump thanked Guillen’s family for publicly denouncing The Atlantic’s allegations. The family came to show support for Trump as he addressed reporters at Million Air Austin, a private airplane service.
“The beautiful thing is that these people [Guillen’s relatives] were willing to come out and say it didn’t happen… they didn’t have to do this,” Trump said.
Guillen’s sister, Maya Guillen, and the family’s attorney, Natalie Khawam, made social media posts and TV appearances asserting that the article contained inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
Trump pointed out that the Atlantic’s article was timed to appear just before the Nov. 5 election, increasing the likelihood that a certain percentage of readers would believe what the magazine reported and hold it against his candidacy.
“So I talk about it because it was a terrible thing,” Trump said about the article after touching on multiple other topics, including illegal immigration and election integrity.
The Epoch Times has sought comment from The Atlantic.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 14:00 - These States Have The Biggest Beer-Drinkers
These States Have The Biggest Beer-Drinkers
From backyard barbecues to Sunday night football, beer is deeply woven in the fabric of American culture. It’s the choice alcoholic beverage for North and South Americans, according to WHO data.
This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, visualizes the annual per capita ethanol consumption of beer in gallons in 2022 by U.S. state. The data comes from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), which measures alcohol consumption in ethanol volume.
For reference, the average six-pack of beer has 0.025 gallons of ethanol.
Consumption figures only include residents age 14 or older, and is based on alcoholic beverage sales data collected by the Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System (AEDS), the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, and from various reports produced by beverage industry sources.
Which States Consume The Most Beer?
Below, we show each state’s annual per capita ethanol consumption of beer in gallons in 2022.
Rank State Per capita ethanol consumption in gallons of beer 1 New Hampshire 1.66 2 Montana 1.58 3 Vermont 1.54 4 North Dakota 1.38 5 Pennsylvania 1.33 6 Nevada 1.30 7 Maine 1.28 8 South Dakota 1.26 9 Louisiana 1.24 10 Hawaii 1.23 11 Oregon 1.21 12 Wyoming 1.2.0 13 Wisconsin 1.19 14 Iowa 1.18 15 New Mexico 1.17 16 Texas 1.15 17 Mississippi 1.14 18 Colorado 1.13 19 District of Columbia 1.13 20 California 1.10 21 West Virginia 1.10 22 Nebraska 1.09 23 Ohio 1.07 24 Kansas 1.06 25 Minnesota 1.06 26 Delaware 1.05 27 Florida 1.04 28 Missouri 1.04 29 Arizona 1.03 30 North Carolina 1.03 31 Tennessee 1.01 32 Illinois 1.00 33 South Carolina 1.00 34 Alaska 0.99 35 Alabama 0.95 36 Indiana 0.95 37 Oklahoma 0.94 38 Michigan 0.93 39 Arkansas 0.92 40 Kentucky 0.92 41 Georgia 0.89 42 Virginia 0.89 43 Washington 0.84 44 New York 0.83 45 Massachusetts 0.80 46 Idaho 0.74 47 New Jersey 0.74 48 Rhode Island 0.74 49 Connecticut 0.72 50 Maryland 0.63 51 Utah 0.50 Northeastern states, particularly New Hampshire (1.66 gallons) and Vermont (1.58 gallons) have some of the highest beer consumption rates in the country.
New Hampshire doesn’t have state sales tax, making alcohol prices considerably lower than neighboring states. This likely drives higher alcohol sales rather than necessarily higher consumption.
More than half of sales at New Hampshire liquor states come from out-of-state customers, according to the New Hampshire Liquor Commission.
Many of its state-owned liquor states are also strategically located near state borders.
When comparing global per capita consumption, European countries far outdrink the U.S. when it comes to beer.
As a whole, the beer industry in America is experiencing a decline. U.S. beer shipments reached their lowest level in 25 years, according to data from the Beer Marketer’s Insights.
The small and independent brewers’ industry in the U.S. is also experiencing a decline, with overall beer production and imports down 5% in 2023, and craft brewer sales down 1%, according to the Brewers Association.
To learn more about beer consumption worldwide, check out this graphic that shows which countries drink the most beer according to Kirin Holdings.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 13:25 - Iran Says Four Soldiers Were Killed In Israeli Attack Involving 100 Warplanes
Iran Says Four Soldiers Were Killed In Israeli Attack Involving 100 Warplanes
Update(1320ET): Iranian sources are confirming some of the first known deaths from the overnight Israeli airstrikes on the Islamic Republic, which focused on missile and military sites, and not nuclear or oil facilities.
Four members of the Iranian army have been reported killed. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has also issued a fresh statement Saturday, warning there are “no limits” when it comes to defending the country. Israel too is warning against a potential Iranian counterstrike, but for now the quite limited Israeli operation is over and the situation looks contained in terms of avoiding bigger regional war.
United Nations chief Antonio Guterres says he’s “deeply alarmed” by the overnight strikes, and is urging “maximum efforts to prevent an all-out regional war and return to the path of diplomacy.” And President Biden has expressed hope that “this is the end” following the Israeli strikes on Iran in a Saturday statement.
Reports emerging that the number of Army Air Defense Force troops killed by the Israeli attack has risen to four (No ranks given so far).
Their names are:
– Mohammad Mehdi Sharokhi
– Hamzeh Jahandideh
– Sajad Mansoori
– Mehdi Naghvi https://t.co/Vs3QU27D0h
— Farzan Sabet (@IranWonk) October 26, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
* * *
The Israeli ‘retaliation’ attack against Iran, which occurred in the overnight and early morning hours, appears to be complete, with Israel’s military (IDF) having declared the response “concluded” after locations in three provinces of the Islamic Republic were hit.
Some 100 Israeli warplanes were sent, primarily across Jordanian airspace, for the unprecedented attack which reportedly included strikes on key missile, drone, and other military sites – including air defense installations. However, Iranians are mocking it as if it didn’t even happen, and there’s an emerging consensus among Western pundits that this was remarkably limited in scale. The attack did not involve Iranian nuclear or oil sites, according to Israeli military officials.
Where are the Israeli strikes? Iranians look over the capital after explosions were heard, via Reuters IDF Spokesman, Daniel Hagari, said overnight – following at least two or three waves of attacks – “I can now confirm that we have concluded the Israeli response to Iran’s attack against Israel. We conducted targeted and precise strikes on military targets in Iran, thwarting immediate threats to the State of Israel.”
And Hagari’s words concluded with the threat of new major escalation if Iran decides to respond militarily, “If the regime in Iran were to make the mistake of beginning a new round of escalation, we will be obligated to respond. All those who threaten the State of Israel and seek to drag the region into wider escalation will pay a heavy price.”
Local reports of explosions near Tehran emerged at around 2:15 local time, with strikes later being reported also in the Karaj, Isfahan and Shiraz areas. Israel’s military said it hit around 20 sites over the several hours across the three provinces.
“If the regime in Iran were to make the mistake of beginning a new round of escalation, we will be obligated to respond,” the Israeli military said.
Israeli media indicated that while the first wave of warplanes took out anti-air defense sites, follow-up waves targeted ballistic missile and drone manufacturing facilities, as well as launch sites. Israeli officials say the operation sought to degrade Iran’s capability to launch another attack such as occurred on April 14 and October 1.
Footage shows Iran’s air defence systems intercepting projectiles in the early hours of Saturday in Tehran.
Israel’s military announced that it had launched an attack on Iranian military targets as explosions were heard in the city. pic.twitter.com/KtUf0vsBZJ
— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) October 26, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The operation was declared complete within a few hours of reports of initial explosions:
The Israeli military said at 6 a.m. that the assault had been completed, with “all goals achieved” and all aircraft returning safely home. It dubbed the campaign “Days of Repentance,” a reference to the recent Yom Kippur holiday. It said dozens of IAF aircraft, including fighter jets, refuelers and spy planes, participated in the “complex” operation some 1,600 kilometers from Israel.
Iran has only confirmed that “limited damage” resulted at some bases and asserted that its air defenses countered many of the attacks, a narrative which has been rejected by Israel.
Israel’s air force touted that it gave it pilots “wider freedom of aerial action in Iran” – and yet still the whole operation looked significantly less intense than Iran’s Oct. 1st attack on Israel.
Handout photo of PM Netanyahu meeting with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and IDF commanders in the bunker below the Kirya military base in Tel Aviv. The reality is that air-to-surface missiles, which Israel focused on in its assault, don’t tend to be as destructive or as large in impact compared to ballistic missiles. It remains that Israel’s surface-to-surface ballistic missile capabilities are not as established as its air-launched capabilities.
There are vague reports out of Syria that some locations inside the country were hit during the broader Iran assault, and possibly including sites in Iraq as well.
Some pro-Iran and pro-Syria accounts mocked the quite limited attack, calling it a “nothingburger” as it unfolded, or else saying the Israelis merely started some brush fires 1,000 miles away in Iran.
Iranian social media accounts are widely mocking the Israeli operation:
Many people mocked Israel’s failed attack on Iran by making videos or memes. You can also make some contents and share them with us in the comments to this post. We will repost 2 of the best. pic.twitter.com/wYcaSMsggE
— Iran Military (@IRIran_Military) October 26, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Iranian state TV reported at one point that “The loud blasts heard around Tehran were related to the activation of the air defense system against the actions of Zionist regime which attacked three locations outside of Tehran city.”
However, an Israeli official told Ynet news that the Iranian claim of interception was “a lie. It was a total failure, [there were] zero interceptions“—as reported in Times of Israel.
While radar shows that airspace was totally cleared over the Islamic Republic, state media still tried to claim that the country’s main international airports, including in Tehran, were operating as normal.
Via Flightradar24 website, early on October 26, 2024, displaying commercial flights around Iran’s airspace during Israeli strikes. AFP The Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi comments as follows…
The Israeli attack is over, but the outcome remains unclear. Tehran is downplaying it – even mocking it – which may be more reflective of their desire to de-escalate than a true assessment of the damage Israel inflicted on Iran. Just as Israel kept the damage of Iran’s Oct 1 strikes secret, Iran will likely not disclose the full picture of Israel’s strike. But if Iran chooses to exercise restraint, as it did after Israel’s limited strikes in April, then this chapter may be closed, yet the conflict will remain very much alive.
A prominent pro-“resistance axis” account on X, Hadi Nasrallah, had this to say: “So, after Iran totally roasted Israel’s military bases and airports putting them on blast in front of the whole world, Israel thought it’d be badass to send some pops to Tehran, like that’s gonna distract us from their their crushing losses in Lebanon a day before.”
On Saturday, Iranian state media is full of headlines outright mocking the somewhat muted Israeli attack…
Indeed, it seems that after taking this long to telegraph its response well over three weeks since Oct.1st, Israel’s attack was more about theater than inflicting real and lasting damage on Iran. This was as many expected by design, appearing to really be all about sending a message while seeking to carefully avoid escalation. There are even reports saying that Israel notified Tehran ahead of time of the impending strikes, saying the Iranians must not hit back. The hawks are surely disappointed.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 13:20 - Have We Ever Seen A Time When 4 Major Global Wars Are All Percolating Simultaneously?
Have We Ever Seen A Time When 4 Major Global Wars Are All Percolating Simultaneously?
Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,
We have reached a moment in history that none of us will forget. We are literally standing on the precipice of the unthinkable, and most people don’t even realize it. Of course horrific wars have a way of erupting when most people are not expecting them. Hardly anyone expected a global war to erupt in 1914, but then tens of millions of precious souls died over the next four years. Hardly anyone expected a global war to erupt in 1939, but then tens of millions of precious souls died over the next six years. This time around, what is happening should be glaringly obvious to everyone. Personally, I have been specifically warning about what is taking place right now for more than a decade. If we do not change course, billions of precious souls could die during the nightmarish global wars that are rapidly approaching.
At this moment, most Americans have no idea that a war between the United States and China is coming.
Just a few days ago, Chinese President Xi Jinping boldly talked about “preparation for war” as he was dressed in military fatigues…
On Thursday Chinese Communist Dictator Xi Jinping commanded troops to strengthen their preparedness for war while visiting his People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force following last week’s drills of surrounding the sovereign country of Taiwan.
“Xi said the military should ‘comprehensively strengthen training and preparation for war, (and) ensure troops have solid combat capabilities,’ CCTV reported,” according to the AFP and reported on Barrons Saturday.
Why would China need to prepare for war?
Needless to say, nobody is planning to attack China.
The truth is that the only reason that China would need to prepare for war is if it was planning to invade Taiwan.
Because the moment that China invades Taiwan, the U.S. and China will be at war.
In recent days, the Chinese have been getting very aggressive with Taiwan…
On Monday, Beijing had deployed fighter jets, drones, warships and coast guard vessels to encircle Taiwan — its fourth round of large-scale war games around the democratic island in just over two years.
China’s communist leaders have insisted they will not rule out using force to bring Taiwan under Beijing’s control.
Meanwhile, western leaders continue to publicly discuss sending NATO troops to Ukraine.
The latest example of this came from the foreign minister of Lithuania…
The Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis said in a statement to Politico on Monday that European Union countries should return to the idea of putting boots-on-the-ground in Ukraine to fight Russia.
The idea comes after French President Emmanuel Macron said in February that sending Western troops to Ukraine is not ‘ruled out’ for the future plans in war against Russia, according to the AP. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz shut down that plan for the time being however.
“If information about Russia’s killing squads being equipped with North Korean ammunition and military personnel is confirmed, we have to get back to ‘boots on the ground’ and other ideas proposed by [French President] Emmanuel Macron,” he said in written comments, Politico reported on Monday.
One of the reasons why this has came up again is because there are reports that soldiers from North Korea are being equipped and sent to fight for Russia on the front lines of eastern Ukraine…
North Korean soldiers have been filmed receiving uniforms and equipment at a training ground in Russia’s far east, appearing to confirm reports from South Korea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) that 1,500 soldiers have been shipped over for military training to be deployed in Ukraine.
The North Korean troops are thought to be receiving training before being sent to the front line in Ukraine, in what is thought to be a clear sign of the ever-warming relations between Moscow and Pyongyang.
Both sides just continue to escalate matters.
It appears to be just a matter of time before we find ourselves in a direct conflict with the Russians, and that is a really, really bad idea.
North Korea has been making all sorts of noise lately. In addition to sending troops to fight in Ukraine, the North Koreans are also threatening to invade South Korea…
North Korea has said it had found the remnants of a South Korean military drone and that any further “violation” of its territory would result in a “declaration of war.”
Tensions between the two sides of the peninsula have escalated since May when the North began flying balloons carrying garbage across the border to the South, prompting Seoul to respond by restarting loudspeaker propaganda broadcasts.
This week, North Korea accused South Korea of flying drones over Pyongyang on three occasions this month and threatened to respond with force if it happened again.
The North Korean military is vastly superior to the South Korean military.
If North Korea invades, the only way that South Korea will survive is if we intervene.
But right now the U.S. military is focused on the Middle East, because that conflict could spiral completely out of control at any moment.
On Sunday night, IDF spokesman Daniel Hagari warned that Israel would soon begin targeting any financial institutions that aid Hezbollah…
“In the past 24 hours, dozens of projectiles have been fired at northern Israel,” he began. “In the next minutes, we will issue an advance evacuation warning to residents of Beirut and other areas in Lebanon to evacuate locations being used to finance Hezbollah’s terror activities. I emphasize here: Anyone located near sites used to fund Hezbollah’s terror activities must move away from these locations immediately.”
“We will strike several targets in the coming hours and additional targets throughout the night.
“In the coming days, we will reveal how Iran funds Hezbollah’s terror activities by using civilian institutions, associations, and NGOs that act as fronts for terrorism.”
And it certainly did not take long for that to start happening.
Last night, branches of Al-Qard Al-Hassan Association Bank were hit by Israeli airstrikes…
Israeli fighter jets struck dozens of targets in Beirut and other areas of southern Lebanon overnight, including branches of a bank accused of holding funds used by Hezbollah.
The military’s Arabic spokesman, Avichay Adraee, had earlier in the night issued several evacuation orders for buildings throughout southern Lebanon he said were in the vicinity of facilities belonging to the U.S.-sanctioned Al-Qard Al-Hassan Association Bank.
Most people in the western world have absolutely no idea how chaotic things have become over there.
It is being reported that there is “widespread panic” in Beirut at this moment…
Jeanine Hennis, the United Nations’ special coordinator for Lebanon, said that after the IDF issued its evacuations, said there was “widespread panic” in Beirut.
“A brief window to escape to safety. Intense blasts reverberate across the night sky. With each day, Lebanon suffers more. But even amid the escalating violence, solutions remain available. If only opportunities would be seized,” she said.
Could the U.S. soon find itself involved in 4 major global wars?
Let’s hope not, because we are not even prepared to fight one…
The US Army’s outgoing top commander in the Pacific region has warned that the US can “ill afford” another war because its military is vastly overstretched.
According to Defense One, Gen. Charles Flynn said that the US’ authoritarian rivals — Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea — had been placing increasing pressure on American military resources.
Speaking at the AUSA conference in Washington DC last week, Flynn described the technology and military alliances between the authoritarian states as a “very dangerous combination.”
The U.S. military is not the overwhelming global force that it once was.
While other major powers have been feverishly preparing to fight World War III, our military has been rapidly becoming a politically correct joke.
Now a day of reckoning is upon us, and we are not ready.
* * *
Michael’s new book entitled “Why” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 12:50 - McDonald's Stock Hammered In Worst Week Since Pandemic Amid E. Coli Outbreak
McDonald’s Stock Hammered In Worst Week Since Pandemic Amid E. Coli Outbreak
McDonald’s announced Friday that it has “indefinitely” halted onion sourcing from Taylor Farms’ Colorado plant as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention investigate a severe E. coli outbreak. The outbreak has already sickened at least 75 people and resulted in one death.
“While McDonald’s removed all slivered onions produced from this facility as of October 22, 2024, due to broad concern and our unwavering commitment to food safety we have made the decision to stop sourcing onions from Taylor Farms’ Colorado Springs facility indefinitely,” MCD wrote in a statement.
A spokesman for MCD told CBS News that about 1 million Quarter Pounders were sold nationwide during the E. coli outbreak. The majority of illnesses occurred in the western half of the country.
Here are states with cases:
- Colorado
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Michigan
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- New Mexico
- Oregon
- Utah
- Washington
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
Bloomberg published a visual showing the outbreak.
Source: Bloomberg MCD spokesman noted that burgers are cooked at 175 degrees – the level needed to kill E. coli bacteria. However, he said the diced onions are raw, adding, “If that is the source, it will be the first time onions have been a carrier for this strain of E. coli.”
In markets, MCD shares in New York slid on the week, down 7.5%, the worst five-day stretch since March 2020.
In addition to MCD, food supplier US Foods issued a recall to thousands of restaurants that it supplied Taylor Farms’ onions. Yum! Brands restaurants—such as Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and KFC—also removed fresh onions from their menus in response to the E. coli outbreak.
No evidence has emerged identifying the source of the E. coli outbreak at Taylor Farms. However, there’s a huge need to scrutinize the influx of unvetted migrant workers employed by mega-farms and the processed foods industrial complex.
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2024 – 12:15
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
