Jan 30

Today’s News 30th January 2025

  • Is Trump Positioning For A "No-Deal" With Russia?
    Is Trump Positioning For A “No-Deal” With Russia?

    Authored by Alastair Crooke,

    Trump’s rhetoric about Russia having lost 1 million men in the Ukraine conflict is not just nonsense (the real number not even reaching 100,000), but his resort to it underlines that the usual meme of Trump being just woefully misinformed is looking less and less plausible.

    After touting the 1 million Russian deaths, Trump then suggests that Putin is destroying Russia by not making a deal. Adding (seemingly as an aside), that Putin may have already made up his mind ‘not to make a deal’.

    Instead, in a curiously disinterested way, Trump remarks that negotiations would depend entirely on whether Putin is interested or not. He further claims that Russia’s economy is in ruins, and most notably says that he would consider sanctioning or tariffing Russia, if Putin does not make a deal. In a subsequent Truth Social post, Trump writes, “I’m going to do Russia, whose Economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big FAVOR”.

    This – plainly said – is a narrative of an entirely different order: No longer is it his Envoy Kellogg or another team member saying it; it is Trump’s own words as President. Trump answers a journalist’s question ‘Would [he] sanction Russia’ should Putin not come to the negotiating table? To which he responds, “that sounds likely”.

    What, we might ask, is Trump’s strategy? It seems more as though it is Trump that is preparing for a ‘no deal’. He must be aware that Putin repeatedly has made plain that he is both interested and open to talks with Trump. There is no doubt about that.

    Yet Trump subsequently contradicts the ‘loser discourse’ in yet another apparent after-thought: “I mean … it’s a big machine so, eventually things will happen …”.

    Here he appears to be saying that the Russian ‘big machine’ ultimately will win. Russia will be a winner – and not a loser.

    Maybe Trump is thinking simply to let the dynamics of the military ‘trial of strength’ play out. (If that is his thinking, he cannot utter such sentiment out loud – explicitly – as the Euro-élites would sink even further into a pathological tailspin).

    Alternatively, were Trump to be seriously seeking productive negotiations with Putin, it is certainly not a good way to start by being deeply disrespectful towards the Russian people – depicting them and President Putin as ‘losers’ who desperately need a deal; whereas the reality was that it was Trump who earlier had touted getting a deal within 24 hours. His disrespect will rankle – not just with Putin – but for most Russians.

    The ‘loser narrative’ simply will stiffen Russian opposition to a Ukraine compromise.

    The backdrop is that Russia in any case collectively eschews the idea of any compromise that “boils down to freezing the conflict along the line of engagement: that will give time to rearm the remnants of the Ukrainian army, and then start a new round of hostilities. So, that we have to fight again, but this time from less advantageous political positions”, as Professor Sergei Karaganov has noted.

    Moreover, “the Trump administration has no reason to negotiate with us on the terms we [Russia] have set. The war is economically beneficial to the U.S. … and [possibly] also to removing Russia as the powerful strategic support of America’s main competitor ? China”.

    Professor Dmitri Trenin similarly predicts that,

    “Trump’s bid to secure a ceasefire along Ukraine’s battle lines will fail. The American plan ignores Russia’s security concerns and disregards the root causes of the conflict. Meanwhile, Moscow’s conditions will remain unacceptable to Washington, as they would effectively mean Kiev’s capitulation and the West’s strategic defeat. In response Trump will impose additional sanctions on Moscow. Despite strong anti-Russian rhetoric, U.S. aid to Ukraine will decrease, shifting much of the burden onto Western European nations”.

    So why cast Russia as contemptible ‘losers’, unless this forms Trump’s strategy for walking away from the Ukraine issue? If a clear-cut U.S. ‘victory narrative’ seems beyond reach, then why not invert the narrative?‘Mission accomplished’ being obstructed solely by Russia’s ‘loser streak’.

    This inevitably leads to the question of what is the meaning – exactly – of the return of America’s “most famous criminal defendant to the White House”, and his promise of a “revolution of common sense”?

    “There is no doubt that it is revolutionary”, Matt Taibbi argues:

    “Trump galvanized [income mal-distribution] resentment, creating a political Sherman’s march that left institutional America smouldering. The corporate press is dead. The Democratic Party is in schism. Academia is about to swallow a giant bottle of bitter pills, and after the executive orders signed Monday: a lot of DEI instructors will have to learn to code” [i.e., will be unemployed].

    Yes, Taibbi observes,

    “it makes me nervous to see a murderer’s row of censorious CEOs (particularly Bezos, Pinchai, and the repulsive Cook) sitting in front of Trump, together with other Wall Street luminaries … nonetheless, if the deal was support for Trump in exchange for platforms going back to being merely self-interested profit-gobblers, I’ll take it over the previous cabal. The Wall Street Journal was probably closest to capturing the essence of that idea of the event with yesterday’s header, “The New Oligarchy is a Vast Improvement on the Old””.

    Yet to many Russians, however, the impression left by Trump’s ‘loser’ discourse is that ‘nothing changes’ – the idea of inflicting ‘strategic defeats’ on Russia has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy for so long a time that it transcends party lines and is implemented regardless of which administration occupies the White House.

    And today, a new impetus is apparent – as Nikolai Patrushev warns, Moscow expects Washington artificially to foment friction between Russia and China.

    Steve Bannon however, in his usual florid language, goes some way to explain the conundrum of a revolutionary Trump and his disappointing ‘loser discourse’.

    Bannon warns that Ukraine risks becoming ‘Trump’s Vietnam’, should Trump fail to make a ‘clean break’, and allow himself to be sucked deeper into the Ukraine war.

    “That’s what happened to Richard Nixon. He ended up owning the war and it went down as his war – not Lyndon Johnson’s”, Bannon noted.

    Bannon “advocates ending America’s all-important military aid to Kyiv, but fears his old boss is going to fall into a trap being set by an unlikely alliance of the U.S. defence industry, the Europeans and even some of Bannon’s own friends, whom he argues are now misguided”.

    Bannon’s underpinning premise was made clear during his Zoom call with Alex Krainer. He confirmed that Trump and his team will go on the offensive from day one in office: “The days of thunder begin on Monday”. Bannon wasn’t talking about Trump going on the offensive against the Chinese, Iranians or the Russians, however. Trump and his team are preparing to take on the “they””.

    “They”, in Bannon’s words, “are the people who control the world’s most powerful empire and, elections or no elections, democracy or no democracy, they will not voluntarily relinquish their privileges and the control: there will be a fight”.

    Yes, the ‘real war’ is the domestic one — not that against Russia, China or Iran, which could become diversions from the main battle.

    For comparative purposes, were Trump’s aim truly to agree a negotiated Ukraine ‘compromise’, we need to contrast his rhetorical blatant ‘loser’ jibe with that of John F. Kennedy’s attempt, 59 years ago, to break the cycle of mutual antipathy that had frozen relations between East and West since 1945. Stung by the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Kennedy wanted to break an ossified paradigm. Kennedy – like Trump – sought to ‘End Wars’; to be recorded in history as a ‘peace-maker’.

    In a speech at the American University in Washington on 10 June, 1963, JFK praised the Russians. He spoke of their achievements in science, the arts and industry; he saluted their sacrifices in the Second World War where they lost 25 million people, one-third of their territory and two-thirds of their economy.

    It was no exercise in empty rhetoric.

    Kennedy proposed the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty – the first of the arms-control agreements of the 1960s and 1970s.

    Well, there may be inklings of a Bannon-inspired tentative ‘clean break’ beginning – as Larry Johnson notes:

    “The Pentagon reportedly has fired or suspended all personnel directly responsible for managing military assistance to Ukraine. They will all face an investigation into the use of U.S. budget money.

    “Laura Cooper, the Pentagon’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, has already resigned, marking the beginning of what some see as a strategic pivot. Cooper was a key figure in overseeing $126 billion in military aid to Ukraine. Her departure, coupled with what appears to be a housecleaning of Pentagon staff tied to Kiev’s war effort, casts doubt on whether Ukraine will continue to enjoy the open spigot of U.S. weapons and funding it received under Biden.

    “The restructuring also casts a shadow over the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which under Lloyd Austin had expanded into a 50-nation coalition supporting Kiev”.

    The U.S. has reportedly withdrawn all applications to contractors for logistics through Rzeszow, Constanta and Varna. At NATO bases in Europe, all shipments to Ukraine have been suspended and closed. This falls under Trump’s Executive Order halting global U.S. assistance for 90 days – pending an audit and cost-benefit analysis.

    Meanwhile, Moscow and China are duly preparing against the prospect of diplomatic re-engagement with the now President Trump. Xi and Putin held a 95 minute video call a few hours after Trump’s impromptu news conference in the Oval Office – Xi gave Putin the details of his conversation with Trump (which was not timed to coincide with Trump’s inauguration, but rather had been scheduled in December).

    Both leaders appear to be sending a common message to Trump — i.e., the alliance between China and Russia is not ephemeral. They are united in common cause to work jointly to assert their respective national interests. They are willing to talk to Trump and engage in serious negotiations. Yet, they refuse to be bullied or threatened.

    Nikolai Patrushev, Adviser to Putin and member of Russia’s Security Council, gave the Russian context to this video call between the two leaders:

    “For the Biden administration, Ukraine was an unconditional priority. It is clear, [Patrushev says], that the relationship between Trump and Biden is antagonistic. Therefore, Ukraine will not be among Trump’s priorities. He cares more about China”.

    Pointedly, Patrushev warned:

    “I think Washington’s disagreements with Beijing will worsen, and the Americans will inflate them, including artificially. For us, China has been and remains the most important partner with whom we are connected by relations of privileged strategic cooperation”.

    “As for the Russian line in relation to Ukraine, it remains unchanged. It is important for us that the tasks of the Special Operation are solved. They are known and have not changed. I believe that negotiations on Ukraine should be conducted between Russia and the United States without the participation of other Western countries”.

    “I want to emphasize once again that the Ukrainian people remain close to us: brotherly and bound by centuries-old ties with Russia, no matter how much Kiev propagandists obsess with ‘Ukrainianness’ claim to the contrary. We care about what is happening in Ukraine. It is especially disturbing [therefore] that violent coercion to neo-Nazi ideology and ardent Russophobia destroy the once prosperous cities of Ukraine, including Kharkiv, Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk”.

    “It is possible that in the coming year Ukraine will cease to exist altogether”.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 23:25

  • These Are The Best US Cities To Flip Houses In 2025
    These Are The Best US Cities To Flip Houses In 2025

    For those looking to flip houses in the upcoming year, a recent ViewHomes Team study analyzed U.S. cities based on prices, demand, market activity, and inventory to guide investors.

    House flipping continues to be a profitable venture, but location remains the key to success. A recent study identified the top U.S. cities for investors looking to maximize returns in 2025, balancing affordability, demand, and market stability.

    New York City takes the top spot despite its high median listing price of $762,375. The city’s relentless demand, with over 35,000 active listings and 408 price increases, ensures a steady stream of buyers eager for renovated homes.

    Similarly, Houston, Texas, offers strong opportunities with over 27,000 active listings and a median price of $369,450. The city’s steady price trends and high pending listings indicate a consistent demand for flipped properties.

    For those seeking a more affordable entry into house flipping, Clarksdale, Mississippi, presents a compelling option, the recent study by ViewHomes Team revealed. With a median listing price of just $149,500, it offers budget-conscious investors a chance to profit from a growing market.

    Meanwhile, Rochester, New York, provides a stable and predictable environment for flippers, boasting a median price of $277,450, over 1,000 active listings, and slight but steady price growth.

    Arlington, Virginia, stands out for its fast turnaround time, with homes spending a median of just 34 days on the market. With a median listing price of $599,781 and over 10,600 active listings, flippers can expect quick sales and solid returns. Atlanta, Georgia, continues to attract investors with its blend of affordability and strong buyer interest. Though the median listing price is $410,000, the city maintains steady demand, as reflected in its 8,626 pending listings.

    Hobbs, New Mexico, is an emerging market with relatively low competition but strong demand. With only 92 active listings and a median price of $281,125, the city’s increasing price per square foot makes it a promising option for flippers looking for a less crowded market.

    Meanwhile, Miami, Florida, remains a competitive but profitable market with over 41,500 active listings and one of the highest price-per-square-foot rates ($370). Despite a slight price decline, its median listing price of $525,000 and continued buyer demand make it a hotspot for investors.

    The study revealed that Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, offers a balanced mix of affordability and opportunity, with a median listing price of $376,500 and over 10,800 active listings. The city’s steady growth and strong pending ratio (0.75%) indicate consistent buyer interest.

    Lastly, Chicago, Illinois, rounds out the top markets with 17,400 active listings and a median price of $369,000. With a stable market and strong buyer engagement, Chicago presents opportunities for investors at all experience levels.

    These cities provide a diverse range of flipping opportunities, from high-end urban markets to affordable, emerging areas. Whether seeking quick turnarounds or long-term stability, house flippers in 2025 have promising options to explore.

    “These findings highlight the crucial role location plays in the success of house flipping. While renovating a property is important, the ultimate profitability hinges on finding the right market, one with strong demand, quick turnover, and a pool of eager buyers,” said Liam Cope, a real estate broker from ViewHomes Team.

    “New York City, with its high demand and strong buyer interest, clearly stands out as a prime location for investors. However, what’s really exciting is the variety of cities that offer great opportunities. From affordable options like Clarksdale, Mississippi, to bustling markets like Miami and Chicago, house flippers now have a wide range of choices depending on their investment strategy and budget,” he continued.

    “Whether you’re looking for a competitive, high-demand market or a smaller, more affordable one with growth potential, these cities provide ample opportunities to maximize your return on investment. It’s clear that the market is evolving, and for investors willing to do their research and think strategically, the rewards are there for the taking.”

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 23:00

  • Lithium-Ion Batteries, Melted EVs Create New Hazards In SoCal Fire Zones
    Lithium-Ion Batteries, Melted EVs Create New Hazards In SoCal Fire Zones

    Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    This month’s deadly and destructive Los Angeles fires that claimed 28 lives burned with such intensity that electric vehicles and lithium-ion batteries melted to the ground, creating hazardous conditions as residents began returning to their communities Jan. 28.

    The devastation of the Palisades Fire is seen at sunset in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles on Jan. 14. Ethan Swope/AP Photo

    Specialists with the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were leading the large-scale cleanup of the batteries Tuesday.

    The Palisades Fire burned more than 36 square miles and tore through neighborhoods full of electric vehicles and solar panels after years of state-sponsored green-energy policies.

    The size of the Palisades fire and number of lithium-ion batteries left behind make it one of the largest hazardous-materials cleanups that local first responders have seen, according to Los Angeles Fire Department spokesman Adam VanGerpen.

    “We’ve never seen it on this scale,” VanGerpen told The Epoch Times. “We are talking a very large scale.”

    Lithium-ion batteries are used in cellphones, tablets, laptops, wireless headphones, electric cars, and solar panel storage.

    Many of the batteries and electric vehicles melted after they were abandoned by fleeing residents starting Jan. 7, VanGerpen said.

    “We have to remove the entire vehicle,” he added.

    Actor and Pacific Palisades homeowner James Woods said in a post on social media platform X Monday that the melted electric cars were “creating a real problem for safe debris removal.”

    “While I am grateful to have President Trump in charge of the federal assistance so desperately needed, we can’t ignore that the electric cars have literally melted into the earth where they stood,” Woods wrote.

    LAFD hazmat crews have surveyed the fire zone, searching through 6,837 destroyed homes and buildings, and 12,317 others that were damaged, according to numbers issued Tuesday by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire).

    The teams used software to locate and flag the zone’s lithium-ion batteries, according to VanGerpen.

    Cars and homes destroyed by the Eaton Fire in Altadena, Calif., on Jan. 9. Zoë Meyers/AFP via Getty Images

    Some batteries appear intact and untouched but could still produce toxic gases, reignite, or explode, making them the first priority for cleanup crews, he said.

    All new homes built in California since Jan. 1, 2020, are required to have solar panels, which also require the installation of lithium-ion batteries.

    Pacific Palisades Charter High School, which was destroyed in the fire, was in the process of adding solar panels to its buildings before the disaster.

    Local officials lifted the last of the evacuation orders Monday, allowing residents back into the Palisades and Eaton fire zones. Most areas are open only for residents, who are allowed to return during non-curfew hours between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. after getting an entry pass.

    On Jan. 12, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order to direct fast debris removal in the fire zones. He reiterated his push to speed up the recovery during a news conference Tuesday.

    California joined with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to send a letter Monday to the EPA telling the agency they needed debris removed within the next 30 days, according to Newsom.

    Nearly 2,000 California National Guard troops were still assigned to the fire zones to help with removing debris. “We will do whatever it takes to provide that support for the EPA,” Newsom said.

    The EPA received Newsom’s letter and started cleaning hazardous debris Monday, according to spokeswoman Anna Drabek.

    The agency has set up a hazardous debris collection site in each of the Palisades and Eaton fire zones.

    “We’ve been preparing [the sites] to start receiving the materials, which started yesterday in both locations,” Drabek told The Epoch Times.

    Many homes have damaged or destroyed lithium-ion batteries, battery energy storage systems, and electric or hybrid vehicles, she said.

    The batteries should be considered “extremely dangerous, even if they look intact,” according the agency’s news release Tuesday.

    The agency can’t tell residents not to return to their property, even if toxic or hazardous debris still exists, but is encouraging residents to be cautious about the danger, she added.

    “We just want folks to be aware of the risks they may be taking,” Drabek said.

    The EPA encouraged residents to exercise extreme caution when returning to their properties and call their hotline at 1-833-798-7372 if they encounter a lithium-ion battery.

    The agency was given $175 million for debris removal and a 60-day timeline to remove toxic and hazardous waste, according to Newsom.

    The EPA plans to create a lithium-ion battery de-energizing and staging area, similar to what was created after the 2023 Maui wildfire.

    A basketball is stuck in the net outside a home destroyed by the Palisades Fire in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles on Jan. 24. Damian Dovarganes/AP Photo

    “As part of the hazardous material removal work, U.S. EPA has also been tasked to safely remove batteries from electric and hybrid vehicles and home backup power supplies,” the agency wrote on a page dedicated to the L.A. fires.

    The EPA is working with California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control to develop a full inventory of properties that need hazardous material removal.

    Other hazardous materials burned in the blaze include paints, cleaners, solvents, oils, herbicides, and pesticides, according to the EPA. Pressurized fuel cylinders, like propane tanks, could also pose a threat and will be removed by cleanup crews, the agency said.

    Once these materials have been cleared on a property, the EPA will place a sign on the site indicating it is safe to enter.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 22:35

  • Watch: Unhinged Liz Warren Badgers RFK Jr. During Wild Confirmation Hearing
    Watch: Unhinged Liz Warren Badgers RFK Jr. During Wild Confirmation Hearing

    Update (1355 ET): Democrats were completely unhinged over the prospect of RFK Jr.’s ascent to the head of HHS during his confirmation hearing today – with Senator Liz Warren (D-MA) throwing tomahawks like a Super Mario Brothers Hammer Bro.

    Warren badgered Kennedy over whether he would commit to not making money as HHS secretary amid ongoing lawsuits against vaccine makers.

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

    “No one should be fooled here. As secretary of HHS, Robert Kennedy will have the power to undercut vaccines and vaccine manufacturing across our country,” Warren concluded, after rattling off a list of ways in which he could influence his own lawsuits as head of HHS. “Kennedy can kill off access to vaccines and make millions of dollars while he does it. Kids might die but Robert Kennedy can keep cashing in,” she continued.

    To which Kennedy replied: “I support vaccines,” and accused her of asking him not to sue drug companies.

    Oh…

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

    Warren asked Kennedy not to take any compensation from lawsuits against drug companies while he’s secretary, and for a period of four years afterward – to which Kennedy agreed. 

    “You’re making me sound like a shill,” Kennedy told warren after she brought up his legal work against drugmakers.

    “You’re asking me to not sue drug companies and I’m not going to agree to that, senator,” Kennedy continued, as supporters in the room cheered.

    Warren replied that he could sue drug companies “as much as he wants.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Watch: 

    Meanwhile…

    Robert F Kennedy Jr., the man who could upend the incestuous relationship between big pharma and big government as head of Donald Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), will appear today at 10AM ET for a confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Finance, which oversees HHS.

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is President Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services. (Jon Cherry/Getty Images)

    Then on Thursday, Jan. 30, Kennedy – a former Democrat and independent presidential candidate – will attend a forum hosted by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

    After he passes through both gauntlets, the Senate Finance Committee will vote on whether to advance him to a full Senate floor vote, where he must get a simple majority to gain confirmation. Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority in the chamber.

    And of course, Wyden starts out by lying:

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

    According to Fox News, Kennedy will emphasize that he’s not “anti-vaccine,” and plans to say in his opening statement:

    “I want to make sure the Committee is clear about a few things. News reports have claimed that I am anti-vaccine or anti-industry. Well, I am neither; I am pro-safety.“

    If confirmed, Kennedy would have control over 18 powerful federal agencies, including the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

    Kennedy is also expected to emphasize that he’s not “the enemy of food producers. American farms are the bedrock of our culture and national security … I want to work with our farmers and food producers to remove burdensome regulations and unleash American ingenuity.”

    Kennedy has served as the chair / chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense – a nonprofit organization he founded that advocates against unsafe vaccinations. Through CHD, Kennedy has sued the federal government numerous times – including a challenge over the authorization to administer the COVID vaccine for children.

    Given the threat RFK Jr. poses to the aforementioned special interests, it’s no surprise they’ve been coming after him tooth and nail.

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

    (Click into the tweet for the rest of the thread)

    “There are a series of industries that actually make money from keeping us sick,” Kennedy told Dr. Phil last year, which the host re-shared this week (per The Federalist). “You would think they want us healthy but they actually make more money if we get sicker. And of course, with the pharmaceutical companies, if you have a chronic illness then you’re a lifetime patient.”

    As The Federalist notes further:

    Kennedy said the diabetes drug Ozempic in particular is being relied on to induce weight loss for a nation where more than two-thirds are overweight and 40 percent are obese. In November, the Biden administration proposed an 11th-hour rule to cover the medication under federal insurance programs. If confirmed as HHS secretary, Kennedy would decide whether to approve the $35 billion handout for drug manufacturers or terminate the proposal. Kennedy, however, has been a consistent critic of the medications now recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for obese children as young as 12.

    “A sick child,” Kennedy said in his August endorsement speech of Trump, “is the best thing for the pharmaceutical industry. When American children or adults are sick with a chronic condition, they’re put on medication for their entire life.”

    Kennedy’s persistent antagonism of the pharmaceutical giants led to a shock in their stocks upon his nomination to lead the nearly $2 trillion agency in charge of regulating the drug industry. HHS holds jurisdiction over the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), making HHS a primary recruitment ground for the industry’s revolving door of influence, which Kennedy has pledged to eliminate.

    The outlet further points out that during today’s hearing, Kennedy will face questions from lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee who have received roughly $7 million from drug companies between 2019 and 2024, according to a Federalist analysis of donations compiled by OpenSecrets.

    Members of the Senate Health Committee, who will question Kennedy Thursday, have received more than $5.6 million in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, or nearly $4.4 million around a similar timespan once excluding Sens. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn, who also serve on the Finance Committee. -The Federalist

    Click here to read more about lawmakers who take money from big pharma…

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

    Even Kennedy’s cousin came out against him, donning those little round rim glasses authoritarians seems to love.

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

    That said, his former running mate, billionaire Nicole Shanahan, has his back – and has vowed to fund primary challenges to 13 US Senators who refuse to support Kennedy’s confirmation.

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

    Stay tuned for updates…

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 22:21

  • Black Hawk Helicopter Collides With Commercial Jet Near Reagan National Airport, Explosion Caught On Camera
    Black Hawk Helicopter Collides With Commercial Jet Near Reagan National Airport, Explosion Caught On Camera

    A mid-air collision between an Army Black Hawk helicopter and a regional jet near Reagan International Airport in DC was caught on camera from the Kennedy Center Wednesday night, prompting a massive response from fire, EMS, and police.

    According to Fox‘s Chad Pergram, the jet was a PSA Airlines Bombadier CRJ700 regional jet which was on approach to runway 33 at Reagan Airport. It was reportedly carrying 64 individuals, including four crew members. There is no information at this time on casualties, however four individuals have reportedly been rescued and have been transported to the North Boathouse Fire Station at the airport.

    That said…

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

    There were three individuals on the Black Hawk which was operating out of Fort Belvoir in Virginia, according to the Army. None of those aboard were senior Army officials, according to the NYT.

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

    According to local police, “DC Fire and EMS, the Metropolitan Police Department and multiple partner agencies are currently coordinating a search and rescue operation in the Potomac River.”

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

    Any survivors in the water could be at risk, according to the NY Times, as temperatures are expected to drop below freezing in the Washington area tonight. According to the National Weather Service, hypothermia can kick in within 20-30 minutes in cold water.

    According to Flightradar24, the Black Hawk helicopter was not broadcasting its ADS-B data at the time of the crash.

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

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News that President Trump is aware of the situation, adding that it “tragically appears a military helicopter collided with a regional jet.”

    “May God Bless their souls,” Trump said in a statement.

    In response to the incident, nearby Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport halted all takeoffs and landings as emergency personnel responded do an “aircraft incident on the airfield.”

    Emergency service vehicles near the site of the crash in the vicinity of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on Wednesday.Credit…Carlos Barria/Reuters

    DC Fire and Emergency Medical Services posted to X shortly after 9 p.m. that a small aircraft was down in the Potomac River near the airport, and that boats managed by the fire department were on the scene.

    According to an account from someone who claims to have listened to air traffic control audio (so very unconfirmed):

    Just listened thru 20 mins of ATC recording Helo called out to ATC that he could see a jet on approach ATC asked for heading and altitude Helo called back with heading and altitude ATC called out >maintain visual separation ATC called out to American Jet and confirmed they were on final American jet said yes on final at xxx altitude xxx knots ATC called out maintain final Helo called out he could see airliner, confirm maintain ATC called out >maintain heading Then literally 5 seconds later ATC calls out >American 472 cancel landing clearance for runway 1c it was at that moment…. ATC realized he fuck’t up the call out “maintain visual separation” basically tells the pilots to watch out for themselves and make sure you dont run into each other, its a way to release liability from the ATC for separation distance. It leaves it up to the pilots. However ATC then told them both to maintain heading

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

    Listen here (starts at 17:30 – 18:04).

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

    In a post to X, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) said he had seen reports of a collision with a DC helicopter and a flight that was inbound from Wichita, Kansas.

    “We are in contact with authorities working to get answers,” Marshall wrote. “We ask you to join us in prayer for every single passenger and their families.”

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

    Developing…

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 22:11

  • "Hope For The Future": Newly Discovered 'Super Earth' Could Reveal Existence Of Extraterrestrials
    “Hope For The Future”: Newly Discovered ‘Super Earth’ Could Reveal Existence Of Extraterrestrials

    Despite over 7,000 exoplanets being discovered, the search for extraterrestrial life continues.

    But now, a nearby “super Earth”, located about 20 light years away could be that home to extraterrestrial beings, according a new report from the NY Post, citing Astronomy & Astrophysics. 

    Dr. Michael Cretignier, scientist with Oxford University, commented: “I’m now very enthusiastic to hear what other scientists can tell us about this newly discovered planet.”

    “Excitingly, its proximity with us – only 20 light-years – means there is hope for future space missions to obtain an image of it,” he continued.

    UK researchers confirmed the “super-Earth” and an international team analyzed two decades of precise data from Chile’s HARPS and ESPRESSO spectrographs, verifying the object as an exoplanet.

    Scientists are intrigued by HD 20794 d – it is six times Earth’s size and it orbits in a habitable zone where liquid water could exist. It circles a sun-like G-star in 647 days, slightly less than Mars’ orbit.

    “It is among the closest Earth analogues we know about and given its peculiar orbit,” Cretignier added. 

    The NY Post report said that HD 20794 d follows an eccentric orbit, drifting in and out of the habitable zone, causing any water to freeze or melt depending on its position. This unique trait helps scientists refine models of planetary habitability.

    At just 19.7 light-years away, its proximity makes it easier to study, with strong light signals ideal for future telescopes analyzing exoplanet atmospheres.

    Despite its location in the habitable zone, whether it can support life remains uncertain. Scientists still need to determine if it has an atmosphere or surface water.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 22:10

  • Stolen Valor Bills Seek Harsher Penalties For Falsified Military Service
    Stolen Valor Bills Seek Harsher Penalties For Falsified Military Service

    Authored by Allan Stein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    PHOENIX—Of all the schemes and scams that U.S. Air Force veteran Bob Dalpe is aware of, stolen valor stands out as one of the most reprehensible.

    Stolen valor is defined as when a person falsely claims to have served in the military, pretends to have made sacrifices in combat, and may even wear a fake uniform adorned with counterfeit medals.

    A Purple Heart medal is displayed during a Purple Heart ceremony at George Washington’s Mount Vernon in Mount Vernon, Va., on June 9, 2015. Alex Wong/Getty Images

    Dalpe said some veterans also misrepresent their rank and service to obtain additional benefits and recognition.

    “It’s very frustrating to deal with them because you know their integrity is in question,” he said. “It hurts everybody around you. It devalues their service.”

    Dalpe and other veterans attended a press conference in Phoenix recently for the official unveiling of a bill that would penalize anyone found guilty of stolen valor in Arizona.

    The bill applies to anyone who uses stolen valor to gain benefits intended for veterans, falsifies related documents, or falsely claims to be a veteran when running for office or in business transactions.

    Arizona’s proposed legislation builds on the federal Stolen Valor Act of 2013, making stealing valor a felony crime while implementing stricter enforcement and penalties, according to Arizona state Rep. Walter Blackman, the bill’s primary sponsor.

    “It embodies the values that we hold dear as veterans. We need to send a strong message to people that want to steal our valor,” Blackman, a Republican, said during the conference.

    Blackman said stolen valor isn’t a new phenomenon, but its impact runs deep and it diminishes the value of military service.

    “We’ve had a number of stolen valor cases in this state that caused Arizona upwards to $40 million … through veterans benefits, contracts, job placement, and so on,” said Blackman.

    “This is a push to hold those people accountable. If they have to go to jail because of it, they will go to jail,” he said.

    Stolen valor is “essentially a lie,” according to the Armed Forces Benefit Association (AFBA).

    While it is not technically illegal to make things up to impress friends at a party, the AFBA clarifies that “stolen valor is more complicated than that, which is why it is considered a crime.”

    Arizona Rep. Walter Blackman addresses the media about the bill he’s sponsoring that would make faking military service for material gain a crime in the state, in Phoenix on Jan. 15, 2025. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

    Military impersonation is a similar offense, committed willfully and wrongfully, with or without the intent to defraud, the organization states on its website.

    Several states already have laws that penalize stolen valor.

    For example, the California Stolen Valor Act makes it a misdemeanor for a person to falsely claim to be a veteran or a former member of any branch of the military.

    It includes anyone who pretends to be a veteran, whether through verbal statements or written claims, as well as those who wear military decorations to deceive others.

    In Florida, soliciting charitable contributions or other benefits while falsely claiming to be a veteran is a felony.

    Under the New Jersey Stolen Valor Act, it is a crime for someone to falsely claim they have received a military decoration or medal.

    In July 2024, Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-Texas) reintroduced the Valor Earned Not Stolen Act, after the original bill failed in 2021.

    The legislation seeks to increase the maximum penalty for stolen valor from one year to three years in prison, aligning it with the penalty for impersonating a public official.

    Additionally, the bill requires a study and report by the U.S. attorney general and the Inspector General of Veterans Affairs.

    This report will identify any financial or government benefits received due to the falsification of military decorations or medals.

    It will also provide recommendations on how to prevent stolen valor in the future.

    “The recognition and honors our veterans have earned are hallowed and, unfortunately, there have been too many instances of stolen valor resulting in stolen government benefits,” Van Duyne said in a statement.

    A military aide holds the Medal of Honor during a presentation ceremony in the East Room of the White House on July 18, 2016. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

    “The government must ensure all taxpayer money allocated to our veterans is going to those veterans who have earned it.

    “Punishments should be stiff for those who defraud the government and disrespect the service of our men and women in uniform.”

    Stricter Penalties

    The proposed Arizona legislation, known as HB2030, establishes strict measures to deter the impersonation of veterans and combat fraudulent activities, as outlined in the law.

    This legislation targets anyone who falsely claims military service or awards to obtain employment, government contracts, or veteran benefits.

    It also addresses individuals who use a false veteran status to gain votes, campaign contributions, or political advantages, as well as those who falsify or alter military documents, combat-related badges, or awards.

    Penalties for these offenses can range from a Class 4 felony to a Class 2 felony, particularly in cases involving high-value benefits. Furthermore, the bill mandates the removal of any public officials convicted under this law.

    Blackman said it is classified as a Class 3 felony if the violation involved a benefit valued between $5,000 and $10,000, and as a Class 2 felony if the benefit was at least $50,000.

    “This legislation sends a clear message that Arizona will not tolerate stolen valor in any form,” Blackman said in a statement.

    “By holding individuals accountable for misrepresenting their military status for personal, political, or financial gain, we uphold the integrity of our veterans’ contributions and the trust of our citizens.”

    The federal Stolen Valor Act of 2005 made it a misdemeanor to falsely claim that one has received any military medal or honor.

    However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, as it infringed upon the First Amendment right to free speech.

    Read the rest here…

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 21:45

  • New White House Press Rules Will Expand Access For 'New Media Voices'
    New White House Press Rules Will Expand Access For ‘New Media Voices’

    Authored by Travis Gillmore via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced on Jan. 28 new guidelines for media access aimed at allowing more independent journalists and content creators into media events.

    White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt takes questions during the daily briefing in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House on Jan. 28, 2025. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    Describing President Donald Trump as the “most accessible” commander-in-chief in the nation’s history, she said the administration is open for communication with all types of news outlets.

    “The Trump White House will speak with all media outlets and personalities, not just the legacy media who are seated in this room,” Leavitt said.

    She made the remarks during her first press conference at the executive mansion in Washington since Trump entered office for his second term.

    The president has repeatedly criticized mainstream media, calling some narratives “fake news” and criticizing what he described as organized partisan attacks coming from certain news outlets.

    Allowing more independent journalists and representatives from smaller organizations is meant to democratize admittance to White House events, according to the press secretary.

    She cited statistics from Gallup that show that the public’s trust in traditional media sources is at record lows, noting that many news consumers are now seeking out podcasts, blogs, and other media.

    “It’s essential to our team that we share President Trump’s message everywhere and adapt this White House to the new media landscape in 2025,” Leavitt said.

    “It is a priority of this White House to honor the First Amendment … and as the youngest press secretary in history thanks to President Trump, I take great pride in opening up this room to new media voices to share the president’s message with as many Americans as possible.”

    A seat previously reserved for the press secretary’s staff will now be used to host a new journalist who may have never been inside the historic James Brady briefing room.

    Constructed between 1969 and 1970, the room is cramped, with about 49 seats and a standing-room-only crowd. Hundreds of journalists from media outlets around the world typically vie for permission to attend media briefings.

    Under the Biden administration, media access was restricted, and approximately 440 journalists had their passes revoked or were denied entrance after regulations were tightened, said Leavitt.

    She said the current administration is in the process of returning access to those affected by this move.

    Leavitt encouraged independent journalists who do not work for an outlet that already has a seat at press briefings, are willing to pay for their own travel, and are producing content related to the administration, to submit their information for consideration.

    The White House has launched a website where those interested in access can apply.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 20:55

  • Trump Plans To Finally Withdraw US Troops From Syria, Israelis Say
    Trump Plans To Finally Withdraw US Troops From Syria, Israelis Say

    Israel and Turkish media reports say that President Donald Trump is planning to finally pull American occupying forces out of Syria. The statements began with a report this week by Israel’s official public broadcasting Kan. However, the Trump White House itself has yet to confirm this, but is likely in talks with regional states, particularly Turkey and close Washington ally Israel, about such a potential move.

    Kan reported Tuesday that “senior White House officials conveyed a message to their Israeli counterparts indicating that President Trump intends to pull thousands of US troops from Syria.”

    AFP/Getty Images

    The Israeli reported added that “the withdrawal of American forces from Syria will raise significant concerns in Tel Aviv.” Israeli leaders see the US presence in northeast Syria as a stabilizing factor. Special forces, among some 2000 total troops have been advising and supporting the Syrian Kurds (SDF/YPG) for several years.

    Just prior to Trump taking office, Biden’s Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin defended the US presence there as part of the ‘counter ISIS’ mission. US defense leaders have constantly argued over the years that the Islamic State could be resurgent if the Pentagon leaves.

    But others would argue that Washington was among the biggest facilitators in the rise of ISIS, given that John Kerry once admitted that the US was trying to ‘manage’ ISIS in order to pressure Assad out.

    Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has said in the wake of Assad’s shock ouster in early December, “We will not allow hostile forces to establish a foothold in the security zone south of Syria, from here to the Sweida-Damascus axis. We will act against any threat.”

    Trump stretching back to his first administration had been more brutally honest about what American forces are really doing there, to the embarrassment of US intelligence and defense leaders, and deep state insiders. For example here’s what Trump told FOX years ago:

    “I left troops [in Syria] to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They’re protecting the oil. I took over the oil“. -Trump on Fox News

    This in turn was used as an economic noose against Assad, but in reality it has been strangling the common populace of Syria, who might see one hour of electricity a day during winter conditions.

    During Trump’s first term he signaled the we wanted the US out of Syria, but many reports said at the time he was stymied by more hawkish officials within his administration.

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

    Time will tell whether he finally pulls American forces, also given the supposed ‘Iran threat’ is no longer a reality in HTS-ruled Syria. Even Russia is fast pulling its forces from military bases on the coast, with much gear being reportedly relocated to eastern Libya.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 20:30

  • L.A. Times Columnist Renews Attacks On 'Lab-Leak Theory' While Dismissing Criticism Of China
    L.A. Times Columnist Renews Attacks On ‘Lab-Leak Theory’ While Dismissing Criticism Of China

    Authored by Jonathan Turley,

    After years of the media demonizing and attacking any scientists supporting the lab theory of COVID-19, agencies like the FBI have concluded that it is the most likely scenario.  Even the Washington Post and other long antagonistic media outlets have come to admit that the theory is credible.  None of that has apparently changed minds over at the Los Angeles Times, which helped lead the media mob against dissenting scientists. That includes the L.A. Times science columnist Michael Hiltzik, who is often cited as an example of the unrelenting and aggressive campaign to cancel those scientists who challenged the natural origins theory. Hiltzik and the L.A. Times just ran a column renewing attacks on those who support this theory, a column that continues to omit key countervailing information from the readers.

    The L.A. Times appears to be the last dog in this fight.

    As discussed in my recent column, media outlets that ridiculed or ravaged scientists over the theory have acknowledged that it is indeed plausible.

    For example, in 2021, New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was still calling on reporters not to mention the “racist” lab theory.

    Likewise, the Washington Post denounced Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark) when he raised the theory for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.”

    After Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned the lab theory, Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler mocked him: “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus to jump from the lab. Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.”

    Then, as more government reports indicated that the theory could be correct, the Post shrugged, and Kessler wrote that the lab theory was “suddenly credible.”

    Most recently, newly-confirmed CIA Director John Ratcliffe released the CIA report, which details how it views the lab theory as the most likely explanation for the virus, though assigning a “low confidence” finding.

    The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and other news outlets reported on the finding that the lab theory was the most likely. The BBC reported that “the CIA on Saturday offered a new assessment on the origin of the Covid outbreak, saying the coronavirus is ‘more likely’ to have leaked from a Chinese lab than to have come from animals. But the intelligence agency cautioned it had ‘low confidence’ in this determination.”

    I noted in the column that the finding does not resolve the debate, which will continue. The point was that there can now be a debate.  The CIA did not reject the lab theory over the natural origins theory despite the overwhelming message that was sent by the L.A. Times in treating the theory as racist or looney.

    Hiltzik discusses my column while objecting that I added a link to the CIA definition of “low confidence” not long after the blog posting (Such additions are common on this blog and other blogs. I often note such changes, but there was no material change in the point of the column which focused on the free speech issue). The point is not that the recommendation was made with low confidence, but that the theory was found to be plausible.

    Hiltzik criticizes my column and others for highlighting the most recent disclosure. However, he omits that this follows even stronger findings from agencies like the FBI and evidence (as discussed in my column) that government scientists found the theory credible.

    He also omits any mention of the fact that he is widely cited as one of the most aggressive voices seeking to cancel scientists who voiced support for the theory. While arguing that scientific journals have not embraced the theory, he leaves out that he targeted schools that sought to allow academic discussions of the theory.

    Hiltzik decried an event associated with Bhattacharya, writing that “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford University allowed dissenting scientists to speak at a scientific forum. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.”

    Instead, Hiltzik defends China in the column against claims that it was not forthcoming in the investigations into the virus:

    “The Chinese government has been accused, mostly by the lab-leak camp, of suppressing evidence of the role of the Wuhan lab out of embarrassment or fear of international repercussions. But that’s highly misleading. The truth is that China is no happier about evidence that the pandemic originated in one of its wildlife markets.”

    News organizations reported how China shut down contacts with scientists and closed off access to the lab, including refusing to give data to WHO.

    Even NBC, which once piled on the attacks on dissenting scientists, has noted that China has steadfastly fought disclosures and only released information that was going to be made public.

    As Hiltzik notes, even the World Health Organization (WHO) denounced China for its lack of transparency. WHO has long been accused of being dominated by China, particularly in its initial investigations into the virus.

    The L.A. Times, however, is still downplaying such complaints and attributing them to fringe writers. Hiltzik portrays the criticism as mostly the ravings of “the lab-leak camp” and says the accusations are “misleading.”

    He also does not discuss the findings of other federal and congressional reports.

    He focuses instead on the lack of “peer-reviewed journals” supporting the theory. It is an ironic point from a writer who attacked Stanford for even allowing scientists to share their work in an academic setting.

    Once again, however, none of these reports are dispositive either way. That is the point. The debate that figures like Hiltzik fought to prevent can finally occur.

    However, the L.A. Times is still trying to chill that debate by portraying anyone supporting the theory as purveyors of “disinformation.” Hiltzik writes:

    “The uncritical retailing of the CIA assessment underscores the perils of scientific misinformation and disinformation for public health. The Trump administration’s evidence-free focus on the Chinese laboratories ranks as anti-science propaganda.”

    Even though agencies like the FBI are giving more credence to the lab theory, the L.A. Times is still portraying the position as dangerous disinformation.

    It takes an element of rage to maintain this dwindling position. Many of the experts who were once ridiculed for questioning the efficacy of masks, the six-foot rule, natural immunities, and school closures have been supported in recent reports. There is growing support for the view, for example, that our closure of schools did not have a meaningful impact on the transmission rate of the virus. Yet, that was another debate that was snuffed out under the attacks over spreading disinformation. (Notably, Hiltzik also supported closing schools and has rejected claims that it was a mistake).

    I value writers like Hiltzik for challenging scientists on issues like the lab theory. For those of us with little scientific knowledge, such debates among knowledgeable people are essential. Most of us are open to either theory. However, figures like Hiltzik actively sought to curtail that debate when it was most needed. He portrayed the very discussion of the theory as a public health danger and now continues to invoke the catch-all “disinformation” label to dismiss countervailing views.

    It is a particularly ironic moment when L.A. Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong is promising to restore objectivity to the newspaper and even posting a “bias meter” for readers to be warned about slanted material.

    The L.A. Times and Hiltzik are obviously and heavily invested in the rejection of the lab theory. However, when you are dismissing Chinese obstruction, the burden on the newspaper is becoming not just crushing but embarrassing. There is an alternative. The L.A. Times could admit that it was wrong in demonizing scientists and that both of these theories are plausible.

    Most importantly, it could embrace the need for an open and civil debate on the question. As the leading newspaper in the state with the greatest concentration of academic and research facilities, the L.A. Times owes it to its readers to be honest and open with both sides of the origins debate.

    *  *  *

    Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 20:05

  • Trump Is "Dangerous" & Racist To Keep Men Out Of Women's Prisons, Professor Says
    Trump Is “Dangerous” & Racist To Keep Men Out Of Women’s Prisons, Professor Says

    Authored by Matt Lamb via The College Fix,

    Trump’s executive order is about keeping women ‘pure,’ professor says…

    President Donald Trump’s executive order to keep men who claim to be women out of female prisons is “dangerous” and hints of racism, according to an anthropologist.

    Kate Clancy, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, analyzed the president’s directive that the federal government define sex on biological terms.

    He also said prisons should not house men who claim to be transgender with women. The administration has also frozen people from requesting an “X” gender marker, for “nonbinary,” on their passports.

    The order is “stupid” and “dangerous,” Clancy told LGBTQ Nation. Clancy disputed the idea that sex is biologically determinable. However, biology experts have affirmed there are only two sexes and it is not possible to change one’s sex.

    “I think Trump, in whatever terrible language is available to him, is trying to control women and control people he perceives to be in the woman category,” Clancy told the news outlet.

    “A lot of this is keeping the category of women pure—and also, obviously, about doing immense harm to trans people.”

    But she also finds a racial element in the executive order.

    She stated:

    There’s also a very racial, white supremacist thing going on here with this “defending women.”

    It’s a very old idea—it appears in travelogs, early writings of Europeans, as well as in the United States when they started encountering North American indigenous folks, and the way that they thought about enslaved peoples.

    There was this belief that in the “lower races,” men and women were less different and that in the “higher races,” there were more differences between women and men.

    This was about saying men and women are differentiated, clear, non-overlapping categories because that makes us a more evolved people.

    Clancy also said “sex is also socially constructed.”

    “We’re seeing it take place right now with these executive orders, where they are trying to impose their own definition—an ahistorical, a-scientific definition of supposedly a scientific phenomenon,” she said.

    She again called it “stupid” when asked about the executive order another time during the interview. The directive has also left the professor in “incredible distress.”

    Trump is “signaling particular things” with his order, the professor said. This includes “protecting the purity of the female category and trying to lay claim to personhood and sex as early in the existence of a human as possible.”

    That really says something about how big a step this executive order is trying to take—they’re trying to make it as all-encompassing and as absolutely draconian as possible,” according to Clancy.

    The anthropologist has previously launched a research project on why women, or as she calls them, “menstruators,” were facing problems following vaccination against COVID-19.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 19:15

  • ETF Expert: Why This SEC Approval Would Be A 'Game Changer' For Bitcoin
    ETF Expert: Why This SEC Approval Would Be A ‘Game Changer’ For Bitcoin

    The way U.S. financial institutions interact with Bitcoin may be on the brink of a major shift, according to a leading ETF expert. Nate Geraci, founder of the ETF Store, shared with The Thinking Crypto podcast host Tony Edward that if the SEC approves BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) proposal for “in-kind” Bitcoin redemptions, it would be a “game changer,” as the move would not only provide much-needed regulatory clarity, but also open the door for financial institutions to confidently hold and transact in Bitcoin, Geraci said. 

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

    TONY EDWARD: Last week, Nate, we saw a flurry of ETF applications on Friday, of all days. But the big one I wanted to get your expertise on is the in-kind creation and redemption for the BlackRock iShares Bitcoin Trust. Can you tell us about this and why you think the timing happened now?

    NATE GERACI: Yeah, so I think this would be a bigger deal optically than it would actually be for the ETFs themselves. What I mean by that, Tony, is that there’s no question in-kind creation and redemption would make the ETFs a little more efficient. The ETFs would probably track Bitcoin’s price more closely, and you’d likely see slightly tighter trading spreads, maybe a little better overall performance. But these ETFs are already operating with very small premiums and discounts. They trade with tight spreads and track Bitcoin’s price extremely well. So, any improvements operationally would be marginal.

    The big story here is that if this is approved, it would essentially be the SEC giving the okay for market makers and authorized participants to hold and transact in Bitcoin. Right now, there’s no regulatory clarity for market makers. If this gets approved, that clarity would likely come along with it. I think that’s the real game changer. And this also ties into the SEC rescinding SAB 121, which will allow financial institutions with market-making businesses to hold Bitcoin. So, I think these two developments are closely tied together.

    TONY EDWARD: That was going to be my next question—Is this because of SAB 121 getting repealed? I’m assuming it is, because now the banks and institutions don’t have to look over their shoulder. They can hold these assets directly on their balance sheet without it being treated as a liability.

    And just for the folks who may not be familiar with this, “in-kind” means they can redeem in actual Bitcoin versus cash, right?

    NATE GERACI: Yeah, but there’s a very important distinction here. So, that’s not at the individual investor level. This is at what’s called the authorized participant level. These are big financial institutions that help keep the share price of an ETF aligned with the price of the underlying asset. And we’re talking about transacting in units of, say, 10,000 shares. Here’s how I like to break this down, Tony, to simplify it. I always describe an ETF as a warehouse—it’s just a vehicle that holds assets, similar to how a warehouse might hold goods. Let’s take gold as an example, even though we’re talking crypto here. I think it’s easier to conceptualize.

    So imagine someone puts gold into a warehouse, and in return, they get a receipt that says they own a certain amount of gold stored there. That person can then trade that receipt back and forth without the gold ever leaving the warehouse. And if they want, they can present the receipt back to the warehouse and get the gold back. That’s basically how an ETF works. For example, with a gold ETF, gold is delivered into a trust, and the ETF shares represent ownership in that trust. Those shares can be traded back and forth.

    What’s happening with spot Bitcoin ETFs right now is that instead of delivering Bitcoin directly into the trust or the warehouse in my example, market makers have to give cash to the warehouse to buy the Bitcoin. It’s just not as efficient. But going back to the authorized participants—hopefully, I’m not losing people here—they’re the party that actually transacts with the warehouse. They facilitate the creation and redemption of those receipts or ETF shares.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 18:50

  • Trump Slams Hawkish Fed For 'Failing To Stop The Problem They Created'
    Trump Slams Hawkish Fed For ‘Failing To Stop The Problem They Created’

    Update (1620ET): Quite frankly we are surprised it took this long for President Trump to respond to The Fed’s inaction today.

    In a statement on his Truth Social account, Trump wrote:

    “Because Jay Powell and the Fed failed to stop the problem they created with Inflation, I will do it by unleashing American Energy production, slashing Regulation, rebalancing International Trade, and reigniting American Manufacturing…

    …but I will do much more than stopping Inflation, I will make our Country financially, and otherwise, powerful again!

    The Fed has done a terrible job on Bank Regulation.

    Treasury is going to lead the effort to cut unnecessary Regulation, and will unleash lending for all American people and businesses.

    If the Fed had spent less time on DEI, gender ideology, “green” energy, and fake climate change. Inflation would never have been a problem.

    Instead, we suffered from the worst Inflation in the History of our Country!”

    And cue the outrage at Trump daring to question the oracles in The Eccles Building.

    *  *  *

    Tl;dr: The Fed removed a portion of the statement that said inflation has made progress toward the central bank’s 2% goal.

    That aligns with the more cautious tone officials have been taking on the inflation outlook.

    Rate-cut expectations for 2025 are sliding lower (hawkish)…

    “The Fed’s statement was somewhat hawkish relative to last month, so it isn’t surprising that the knee-jerk reaction was for some modest bear flattening,” Bloomberg Intelligence US interest rate strategists Ira Jersey and Will Hoffman say.

    “As we also noted, the press conference may cause even more volatility than these modest shifts in the statement.”

    *  *  *

    Since the last FOMC meeting, on December 18th, The White House has changed hands with oil & gold outperforming as bond yields soar (prices drop)…

    Source: Bloomberg

    US macro surprise data is basically unchanged – soft and hard – since the last FOMC, but not before dropping before and recovering after Trump’s inauguration…

    Source: Bloomberg

    But, digging into the details, we see a rather notable rise in growth data surprises and downside inflation surprises…

    Source: Bloomberg

    The market has fully priced-in ZERO rate cuts today so there should be little to no surprise at all, and the market has recently shifted (dovishly) up to match The Fed’s dot-plot expectations of 2 x 25bp cuts this year……

    Source: Bloomberg

    …with the only potential shift being from Powell’s press conference leaving this as we noted previously, the “least anticipated Fed meeting in recent history.”

    The Fed held rates flat (no cut) as expected:

    • *FED HOLDS BENCHMARK RATE IN 4.25%-4.5% TARGET RANGE

    But offered some more hawkish shifts:

    • *FED: UNEMPLOYMENT ‘STABILIZED,’ LABOR MARKET REMAINS ‘SOLID’

    • *FED REMOVES REFERENCE TO INFLATION MAKING PROGRESS TOWARD GOAL

    That last point is by far the most noteworthy from the statement.

    A strong labor market and no progress on inflation is not the recipe for rate-cuts any time soon.

    Now, we all look for any hawkish or dovish tells from Powell during the press conference.

    Read the full redlined statement below:

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 18:35

  • DeepSeek: Is This Jevon's Cope?
    DeepSeek: Is This Jevon’s Cope?

    Authored by Doug O’Laughlan via ‘Fabricated Knowledge’ substack,

    One of my favorite market sayings is that “narrative follows price.” In the case of DeepSeek, this has never been truer. I’ll summarize the high-level points of DeepSeek and, importantly, discuss where we are in the vibes cycle.

    DeepSeek is hilarious to me because of how it contrasts with literally one month ago.

    One month ago, around the time of Neurips, the prevailing narrative was that pretraining scaling laws were slowing.

    Therefore, continued investment in AI infrastructure would slow down as incremental spending on new equipment wouldn’t justify the return.

    SemiAnalysis did a fantastic job explaining why that wouldn’t be the case. Ironically, Reinforcement learning and continued architectural progress were some of the main reasons. Pretraining was slowing down, and thus, GPU demand was “over.”

    Now fast forward to DeepSeek, which released their reasoning model a week ago, on January 20th, 2025, and v3, their much smaller model, on December 26th, 2024. For those closely watching, I believe that X was all over the concept of “intelligence too cheap to meter,” but then the narrative took a turn for the wilder on Friday and into the weekend.

    What is so startling here is how both are perceived as bad for infrastructure spending, yet the latter refutes the former. Now, algorithmic progress is so significant that we will not need to build any new infrastructure. Technology has improved, but demand is impaired. The reality, of course, is somewhere between these two extremes because they both cannot be accurate and are inadequate for GPU demand. You can’t tell me an algorithmic improvement from a Chinese company that the market was begging for last quarter is now doomed.

    The reality is that this market is heated and is looking for a reason to sneeze. I hate to be cliche and call Mr. Market bipolar, but it truly is. This is just the latest wall of worry for AI companies to climb. Let’s discuss the bull and the bear debate, and then I’ll discuss where I think it’s going.

    Jevons Paradox (Bull Case)

    This phrase might be new to you, but I think today is the day it crosses over into the mainstream lexicon. Just look at search interest right now. I believe Cathie of Arkk Invest made it popular, but today, it’s the rallying cry of bulls.

    So what is the Jevons Paradox? It’s pretty much the observation that technology does make a good cheaper; what happens is that the demand for the good paradoxically increases. There are a few notable examples, and my favorite one, of course, is transistors. Transistors got cheaper every year for 50 years, and ironically, instead of needing less every year, we used much more, even accounting for shrink. If the price of a flight dropped from 1000s to 10s of dollars, I would probably fly more.

    Think of it this way: if it’s cheaper, you’d use more of it, which is the definition of elastic demand and a good candidate for the Jevon Paradox.

    Now, let’s use the context of AI. This is WebwalkerQA (this is not even a useful paper), but I was looking at WebWalkerQA, and they gave an example of two agentic AIs that searched websites together to provide better information.

    If the cost of agents was lower, why stop at two? A friend remarked that your intelligent coffee machine could have a million Einsteins working on making the best cup of coffee every day. As intelligence gets cheaper, we will throw more brute-force intelligence at every one of the world’s key problems. In a world with massively lower costs, instead of becoming more efficient, we often throw more resources at the problem.

    This is the thrust of the Jevons Paradox as a bull case and what will almost assuredly happen in the long run. It took ~16,000 transistors to get a rocket on the moon. Now, ~16,000 transistors probably could run any modern application. What becomes cheaper gets used more, and ironically, demand explodes.

    Supply Overshoots Demand and Timeline

    There is one little problem – and one I’ve been writing about in my recent piece on capital cycles. Lead and lagging times can create kinks, producing very drastic scenarios. Maybe the Jevon paradox is correct, but the issue is not if we will use more, but a bit about timing.

    What happens if the deflator of 90% better models massively outweighs the increased usage? There’s a pertinent case study: DWDM (Dense wavelength-division multiplexing) massively increases the fiber supply. And so, while the Jevons paradox case was 100% correct in the long run, 97% of the fiber laid in 2001 was unlit. Most of that fiber is now lit today, but Jevons paradox can be long run right and in the short run the companies are entirely divorced from reality.

    That is an example of a supply-and-demand overshoot that the market is quickly contemplating. The terminal value is acceptable for everyone involved, but the pesky short run escapes us.

    In this case, the bear case is that yes, Jevons happens, but supply overwhelms demand so much in the short term that the rapid addition of supply overwhelms the long-term demand.

    The reality is likely never as bad as feared and never as good as dreamed.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 18:25

  • "Potential For Collapse": MTA Operates On "Rusty, Corroding" Infrastructure, Report Highlights
    “Potential For Collapse”: MTA Operates On “Rusty, Corroding” Infrastructure, Report Highlights

    MTA’s infrastructure is crumbling, despite the agency’s incessant appetite for new cash. 

    The 110-year-old Grand Central train shed, vital for 200,000 daily riders, is in poor condition, with 95% of its support beams deemed “poor or marginal”, according to Gothamist.

    Built to support horse-drawn carts, it now struggles with modern trucks and constant water leaks that corrode its steel columns.

    The Gothamist report said that MTA plans to spend $1.7 billion on its renovation as part of a $65 billion five-year plan, which also includes repairing over 150 subway stations, elevated tracks, and outdated equipment.

    Delaying repairs will worsen conditions and increase costs, warned MTA officials, who are asking state lawmakers for funding. Riders remain skeptical about the agency’s ability to deliver, preferring reliable service over cosmetic improvements. “We want strong service, not pretty stations,” said Malcolm Green, a commuter from the Bronx.

    Talking about the infrastructure near Grand Central Station, MTA construction chief Jamie Torres-Springer said: “The condition of this artery continues to deteriorate in very significant ways. The worst thing that can happen if you don’t deal with that is you have the potential for a collapse.”

    Recall, MTA is once again at the ‘cash grab’ machine, even with NYC’s most recent congestion tolls going into place. 

    The MTA approved a $1.27 billion order for 435 new subway cars, including 80 open-gangway models, and outlined plans to raise subway and bus fares to $3 per ride. Chairman Janno Lieber noted the fare increase, expected by late 2025, requires formal board approval next year.

    Lieber said this week: “This is a good deal. We are way cheaper than other major world cities.” But the Post wrote days ago that critics slammed the fare hikes and new $9 Manhattan congestion toll that started Jan. 5, pointing to high spending.

    The MTA’s plan includes 4% fare increases in 2025 and 2027, potentially raising fares to $3.14, with congestion tolls rising to $15 over time.

    And we wrote just days ago how train delays caused by faulty infrastructure surged 46% last year compared to 2021, and major incidents delaying 50 or more trains hit their highest level since 2018, according to MTA data.

    Another Gothamist investigation revealed the crumbling state of the system through tours of restricted transit facilities and interviews with over 100 riders from nearly every subway line.

    MTA records reveal service breakdowns could surpass those of the 2017 “summer of hell,” when subway reliability hit record lows. Officials blame decades of deferred maintenance, keeping outdated equipment in use. Experts warn similar failures are imminent, risking widespread system disruptions.

    The MTA has long been criticized for underfunding its infrastructure, a problem worsened by reduced maintenance during the 1970s financial crisis and massive debt from state funding cuts in the 1990s.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 18:00

  • Jim Bovard: Trump Freezes Foreign Aid Frauds
    Jim Bovard: Trump Freezes Foreign Aid Frauds

    Authored by Jim Bovard via The Libertarian Institute,

    The Donald Trump administration suspended top officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development earlier this week. The move, labeled a “Monday afternoon massacre,” was spurred by allegations that top USAID officials were circumventing President Trump’s ninety day freeze on foreign aid disbursements. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) howled on Twitter that “Trump decimating USAID’s leadership without cause is all harm & no benefit for our national security.” But the sordid record of failed aid programs doesn’t support his caterwauling.

    Foreign aid has long been the incarnation of American benevolence—at least according to the Washington elite. But presidents have sporadically conceded otherwise for more than sixty years. President John F. Kennedy promised “a dramatic turning point in the troubled history of foreign aid” in 1961. Didn’t happen. Twenty years later, President Ronald Reagan declared, “Unless a nation puts its own financial and economic house in order, no amount of aid will produce progress.” I bashed Reagan’s failed policies in a 1986 New York Times piece that labeled foreign aid “the opiate of the Third World.” In 1989, an USAID report conceded that foreign aid had been a dismal failure and urged a “radical reshaping” of U.S. assistance. No such luck.

    In a 2010 United Nations speech, President Barack Obama promised to “change the way we do business” with foreign aid, pledging to judge aid programs and budgets “based not on dollars spent, but on outcomes achieved.” The Los Angeles Times noted that Obama’s “aides said the United States in the past has often seemed to just throw money at problems.” The following year, USAID ballyhooed a new evaluation policy for a “transformation based on absolute demand for results.”

    But any “absolute demand for results” was obliterated by Obama’s 2008 campaign pledge to double foreign aid. As the The Christian Science Monitor noted, USAID “created an atmosphere of frantic urgency about the ‘burn rate’—a measure of how quickly money is spent. Emphasis gets put on spending fast to make room for the next batch from Congress.” Martine van Bijlert of the nonprofit Afghanistan Analysts Network commented, “As long as you spend money and you can provide a paper trail, that’s a job well done. It’s a perverse system, and there seems to be no intention to change it.” Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) was chagrined in 2011 when he visited Afghanistan and spoke to USAID officials: “When we asked what were your results, the answer was the result was we spent X amount of money. That is all they knew, how much money had actually been spent.”

    One American contractor received $35 million to promote the rule of law in Afghanistan in part by distributing kites and comic books to kids. The New York Times reported that the contractor “arranged an event to hand out kites and comic books to children. The kites were festooned with slogans about gender equality and rule of law that most of the attendees could not read. Police officers guarding the event stole many of the kites, beating some of the children, while fathers snatched kites from their girls to give to the boys.” A 2015 report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) report found that the billion dollars the U.S. government spent on “rule of law” and justice reform programs in Afghanistan had been an utter failure. The “burn rate” fixation produced endless absurdities, including collapsing schools, impassable roads, failed electrification projects, and non-existent phantom health clinics aside from the revival of the Taliban.

    “Fail-and-repeat” was also USAID’s motto in Iraq. After the 2003 invasion, USAID and the Pentagon paired up to spend $60 billion to rebuild Iraq. As long as projects looked vaguely impressive at ribbon-cutting ceremonies, USAID declared victory. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) listed some of the agency’s farcical Iraq success claims at a 2011 hearing: “262,482 individuals reportedly benefited from medical supplies that were purchased to treat only 100 victims of a specific attack; 22 individuals attended a 5-day mental health course, yet 1.5 million were reported as beneficiaries…and 280,000 were reported as benefiting from $14,246 spent to rehabilitate a morgue.” Ali Ghalib Baban, Iraq’s minister of planning, denied in 2009 that U.S. aid for relief and reconstruction had benefited his country: “Maybe they spent it, but Iraq doesn’t feel it.” The Center for Public Integrity reported that, according to top Iraqi officials, the biggest impact of U.S. aid was “more corruption and widespread money-laundering.” Unfortunately, corruption has long plagued foreign aid around the globe.

    Some foreign aid programs are designed almost solely for bragging rights. The United States launched the Food for Peace program during the Dwight Eisenhower administration largely to dispose of embarrassing crop surpluses spurred by lavish subsidies. In the 1950s and 1960s, massive U.S. wheat dumping in India disrupted India’s agricultural market and bankrupted thousands of Indian farmers. In 1984, George Dunlop, chief of staff of the Senate Agriculture Committee, told me that American food aid may have been responsible for the starvation of millions of Indians. The U.S. government was often angry at the Indian government because of its pro-Soviet leanings in the Cold War. In a secret White House tape in 1971, President Richard Nixon declared that “the Indians need—what they really need is a mass famine.”

    After President Bill Clinton sent U.S. troops to re-install Jean-Bertrand Aristide as Haiti’s ruler, Aristide agreed to end Haitian tariffs on rice imports. Heavily subsidized U.S. rice soon flooded the country and bankrupted legions of Haitian farmers. In 2010, Clinton publicly apologized for the devastating impact: “I have to live every day with the consequences of the lost capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people, because of what I did.” After a 2010 earthquake, the United States and other nations deluged the island with free food, profoundly disrupting local farm markets. Two months after the earthquake, Haiti’s President Rene Preval pleaded to the U.S. government to “stop sending food aid, so that our economy can recover and create jobs.” (The U.S. refused to stop.)

    In 2016, the United States dumped more than a million pounds of surplus peanuts on the island, threatening the livelihoods of a 150,000 Haitian peanut farmers. Sixty humanitarian and activist organizations warned that of “a series of devastating consequences,” an Haiti’s largest rural organization denounced the peanut donation as “a plan of death” for the country’s farmers. Raymond Offenheiser, the president of Oxfam America, complained, “USDA has not done any market analysis in Haiti to ensure that this project does not interfere with local markets.” Protests did not deter USDA’s peanut deluge.

    Foreign aid bureaucrats apparently vow to never learn from mistakes. SIGAR “found a USAID lessons-learned report from the 1980s on Afghan reconstruction but nobody at AID had read it” after the 2001 invasion. In 1982, USAID’s incorrigibility spurred a sardonic GAO report title: “Experience—A Potential Tool for Improving U.S. Assistance Abroad.” A 2009 USAID report found that evaluation of U.S. foreign aid programs “rarely assesses impact, lacks sufficient rigor, and does not produce the necessary analysis to inform strategic decision making.” A 2013 Congressional Research Service report lamented that many USAID staffers “are reportedly defensive about evaluation, concerned that evaluations identifying poor program results may have personal career implications, such as loss of control over a project, damage to professional reputation, budget cuts, or other potential career repercussions.” One USAID bureaucrat bluntly admitted, “If you don’t ask [about results], you don’t fail, and your budget isn’t cut.”

    Foreign aid has been incorrigible since long before most of the readers of this article were born. Happily, the Trump administration is not repeating the “free market pipe dreams” used to justify foreign aid handouts in prior Republican administrations. Both the Reagan and the George W. Bush administration pretended that they could bribe foreign governments to reduce their idiotic economic policies. Foreign aid is failing in our times for the same reasons that I laid out almost forty years ago in The New York Times:

    “Every time a third world politician says something nice about free enterprise, it seems to cost American taxpayers another $10 million in foreign aid. We are squandering billions annually, and often do more harm than good to the world’s poorest. Some countries simply refuse to tell us how our foreign aid donations are used—yet keep getting more money or free food year after year. A country virtually has to declare war on America to  be declared ineligible for more aid.

    The vast majority of foreign aid goes to foreign governments. Yet, strong, arbitrary and interventionist governments are the third world’s largest curse. Third world governments could not have become so strong without foreign aid—and could not maintain their stranglehold over the economy without constant injections of further aid.        

    If governments were following sound economic policies, they could readily attract foreign investment and loans. If they are busy scuttling their own economies, no amount of handouts will save the day.”

    Hopefully the Trump administration will extend the ninety day freeze on foreign aid disbursements until the end of his presidency. American taxpayers should no longer be vexed to pay for boondoggles anywhere on earth. Ending foreign aid will also be a huge step to curbing American meddling around the globe.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 17:40

  • Are Sh*tposting Fed Workers With 'TDS' On Reddit In Violation Of Hatch Act?
    Are Sh*tposting Fed Workers With ‘TDS’ On Reddit In Violation Of Hatch Act?

    The Trump administration has just offered millions of unproductive federal workers buyouts through a government-wide “deferred resignation” program to push efficiency and trim costs in a major restructuring effort to paralyze the ‘Deep State’. 

    One pathway the Trump team could take to cut federal workers is this… 

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

    X user Reddit Lies posted what appears to be user data from Reddit’s r/fednews, the largest subreddit for federal workers, showing that thousands—if not more—are spending much of the standard working day shitposting, sharing, and liking one-sided political rhetoric, potentially in violation of the Hatch Act.

    Here are the major findings:

    • r/fednews is the largest subreddit for federal workers

    • Weekends and Government holidays have been excluded from this dataset

    • 74% of activity on r/fednews occurs on workdays.

    • 2 out of every 3 posts on workdays fall between standard Govt workday hours.

    The latest one-sided political rhetoric from the subreddit feed of more than 234k federal employees comes from user u/Odd_Rough_9732: “We are the last line of defense against fascism.” 

    LoL. 

    Recall that Democrats used “fascist” or “Nazi” rhetoric against Trump in the prior election cycle.

    Remember when leftist corporate media called Trump a “Nazi” non-stop right before election day?

    “We just had a meeting about employees posting memos and meeting topics on Reddit and were told to stop “leaking” information. DONT STOP, the people deserve to know the information,” another user said. 

    Fed workers engaging in shitposting, liking, and reposting one-sided political viewpoints—some displaying signs of ‘TDS’—should be investigated for potential Hatch Act violations.

    The federal workers on r/fednews who suffer from TDS are part of the administrative state, and judging by the content of their posts, they’re terrified about “change” after years of being in their cozy ivory tower.

    The data from Reddit Lies also highlights the extent of unproductivity among some federal employees.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 17:20

  • Whistleblower: Multiple FBI Agents Called In Sick With 'Blue Flu' To Avoid Helping ICE Round-Up Criminal Illegals In Chicago
    Whistleblower: Multiple FBI Agents Called In Sick With ‘Blue Flu’ To Avoid Helping ICE Round-Up Criminal Illegals In Chicago

    Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,

    Multiple FBI agents assigned to assist ICE with illegal alien deportations in Chicago last weekend, called in sick with the “Blue Flu,” according to an FBI whistleblower.

    On January 22, Acting Attorney General James McHenry ordered the FBI; U.S. Marshal’s Service; Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF);  and Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to assist ICE with deportations.

    Former FBI Special Agent Steve Friend said Tuesday that multiple agents assigned to assist in the deportation effort in Chicago called in sick to “protest” the mission.

    “I’ve been told that agents are calling in sick—”blue flu” style—to protest the directive,”  Friend posted on X.

    ICE ramped up it’s deportation effort over the weekend, making nearly 1,200 arrests Sunday and nearly 1,000 on Saturday, according to the Wall Street Journal.

    President Trump’s Border Czar Tom Homan was in Chicago on Sunday, along with US Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, to oversee Immigration enforcements in the city, Fox News’ Matt Finn reported.

    A video posted by Finn on X shows Bove saying that the the Department of Homeland Security is running the operation in lockstep with the Department of Justice and urging agents to safely implement Trump policies.

    Friend,  who is now a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America and an “American Radicals” podcaster, told American Greatness that other field offices have been asking for volunteers to help with the deportation effort, but many agents are afraid of retaliation from their superiors. 

    “People know if they step forward, then leadership will identify them as MAGA,” he explained.

    “The executive management at some field offices aren’t sending out any guidance for the ICE directive. Just ignoring,” he added.

    The former G-man said it was important for the Senate to confirm former federal prosecutor Kash Patel, Trump’s nominee to head the FBI, “to root this subterfuge out.”

    “Everyone is scared of retaliation. Always. But people are coming forward with more for me recently because they think Kash [Patel] is getting in,” Friend told American Greatness.

    In September 2022, the special agent/turned whistleblower was stripped of his gun and badge, and escorted out of the FBI field office in Daytona Beach, Florida for refusing to take part in the Bureau’s terroristic SWAT raids at the homes of Jan-6ers.

    Friend said at the time he was punished after he complained to his superiors about having to be involved in J6 investigations that were “violating citizens’ Sixth Amendment rights due to overzealous charging by the DOJ and biased jury pools in Washington, DC.”

    He said it shouldn’t be hard for the Trump administration to quash the insubordination. “Just suspend clearances like they did to me. SCOTUS says that is legal. Fire every probationary employee,” he told American Greatness.

    “I recommend the Trump administration consider an all of the above strategy for handing employees who are unwilling to follow lawful, ethical, and constitutional orders from the chief executive. Suspend security clearances. Terminate probationary employees. End telework. Reassign individuals to work in hardship locations,” Friend advised.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 17:00

  • Meta Settles 'Facebook Ban' Suit With Trump, Offers Weak Guidance As Earnings Hit Late
    Meta Settles ‘Facebook Ban’ Suit With Trump, Offers Weak Guidance As Earnings Hit Late

    While most of the other Mega-Cap tech giants were hit hard this week, META stock was largely unaffected by DeepSeek’s announcement, in part because it offered some validation for the company’s open-source AI strategy.

    In fact the shares reached an all-time high intraday yesterday ahead of tonight’s earnings and right before the earnings were released (later than expected), The Wall Street Journal reports that Meta has settled its lawsuit with President Trump for $25 million.

    President Trump has signed settlement papers that are expected to require Meta Platforms to pay roughly $25 million to resolve a 2021 lawsuit Trump brought after the company suspended his accounts following the attacks on the U.S. Capitol that year, according to people familiar with the agreement.

    Of that, $22 million will go toward a fund for Trump’s presidential library, with the rest going to legal fees and the other plaintiffs who signed onto the case. Meta won’t admit wrongdoing, the people said. Trump signed the settlement agreement Wednesday in the Oval Office.

    The latest Meta (or Facebook) has ever posted earnings before today was 1616ET.

    Today’s print hit at 1640ET and it was a doozy with top- and bottom-line beats:

    • *META 4Q REV. $48.39B, EST. $46.98B

    • *META 4Q EPS $8.02, EST. $6.78

    Daily active people, which you will remember includes the number of users across Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp, was 3.35 billion on average in December. The estimate was 3.28 billion… so another decent beat there…

    BUT… weak guidance and refusal to provide full year 2025 revenue outlook:

    • *META SEES 1Q REV. $39.5B TO $41.8B, EST. $41.67B

    On the positive side, as had already been previewed, Meta raised its CapEx outlook:

    • *META SEES 2025 CAPEX $60B TO $65B, EST. $52.41B

    But sees total expenses considerably higher than expected…

    • *META SEES 2025 TOTAL EXPENSES $114B TO $119B, EST. $108.01B

    While META had missed CapEx forecasts dramatically for the last two quarters, Q4 2024 saw CapEx catching up notably…

    META shares are flying around all the place after the print, unchanged for now (holding on to post-DeepSeek rebound gains)…

    “We continue to make good progress on AI, glasses, and the future of social media,” Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said in a statement.

    A little warning about regulation from Meta’s CFO in the release here:

    “In addition, we continue to monitor an active regulatory landscape, including legal and regulatory headwinds in the EU and the US that could significantly impact our business and our financial results.”

    Reality Labs sales in Q4 were almost the same as they were a year earlier: $1.08 billion in the last quarter of 2024 compared to $1.07 billion in that period of 2023.

    For the full year, Reality Labs revenue was up 13% in 2024.

    But, on the other side of the coin here, Reality Labs losses were also wider in 2024.

    • 2024 Q4 losses: ($4.97 billion)

    • 2024 full year losses: ($17.73 billion)

    So this is a business unit that is still nowhere near break-even at the moment.

    Will that CapEx hike really stick after the DeepSeek headlines?

    credittrader
    Wed, 01/29/2025 – 16:52

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Leave a Reply

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