Today’s News 6th January 2024

• Sachs: US Foreign Policy Is A Scam Built On Corruption
  Sachs: US Foreign Policy Is A Scam Built On Corruption

  Authored by Jeffrey Sachs via CommonDreams.org,

  On the surface, US foreign policy seems to be utterly irrational. The US gets into one disastrous war after another — Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and Gaza. In recent days, the US stands globally isolated in its support of Israel’s genocidal actions against the Palestinians, voting against a UN General Assembly resolution for a Gaza ceasefire backed by 153 countries with 89% of the world population, and opposed by just the US and 9 small countries with less than 1% of the world population.

  In the past 20 years, every major US foreign policy objective has failed. The Taliban returned to power after 20 years of US occupation of Afghanistan. Post-Saddam Iraq became dependent on Iran. Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad stayed in power despite a CIA effort to overthrow him. Libya fell into a protracted civil war after a US-led NATO mission overthrew Muammar Gaddafi. Ukraine was bludgeoned on the battlefield by Russia in 2023 after the US secretly scuttled a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine in 2022.

  To understand the foreign-policy scam, think of today’s federal government as a multi-division racket controlled by the highest bidders.

  

  Despite these remarkable and costly debacles, one following the other, the same cast of characters has remained at the helm of US foreign policy for decades, including Joe Biden, Victoria Nuland, Jake Sullivan, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, and Hillary Clinton.

  What gives?

  The puzzle is solved by recognizing that American foreign policy is not at all about the interests of the American people. It is about the interests of the Washington insiders, as they chase campaign contributions and lucrative jobs for themselves, staff, and family members. In short, US foreign policy has been hacked by big money.

  As a result, the American people are losing big. The failed wars since 2000 have cost them around $5 trillion in direct outlays, or around $40,000 per household. Another $2 trillion or so will be spent in the coming decades on veterans’ care. Beyond the costs directly incurred by Americans, we should also recognize the horrendously high costs suffered abroad, in millions of lives lost and trillions of dollars of destruction to property and nature in the war zones.

  The costs continue to mount. US Military-linked outlays in 2024 will come to around $1.5 trillion, or roughly $12,000 per household, if we add the direct Pentagon spending, the budgets of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, the budget of the Veteran’s Administration, the Department of Energy nuclear weapons program, the State Department’s military-linked “foreign aid” (such as to Israel), and other security-related budget lines. Hundreds of billions of dollars are money down the drain, squandered in useless wars, overseas military bases, and a wholly unnecessary arms build-up that brings the world closer to WWIII.

  Yet to describe these gargantuan costs is also to explain the twisted “rationality” of US foreign policy. The $1.5 trillion in military outlays is the scam that keeps on giving—to the military-industrial complex and the Washington insiders—even as it impoverishes and endangers America and the world.

  To understand the foreign-policy scam, think of today’s federal government as a multi-division racket controlled by the highest bidders. The Wall Street division is run out of the Treasury. The Health Industry division is run out of the Department of Health and Human Services. The Big Oil and Coal division is run out of the Departments of Energy and Interior. And the Foreign Policy division is run out of the White House, Pentagon and CIA.

  Each division uses public power for private gain through insider dealing, greased by corporate campaign contributions and lobbying outlays. Interestingly, the Health Industry division rivals the Foreign Policy division as a remarkable financial scam. America’s health outlays totaled an astounding $4.5 trillion in 2022, or roughly $36,000 per household, by far the highest health costs in the world, while America ranked roughly 40th in the world among nations in life expectancy. A failed health policy translates into very big bucks for the health industry, just as a failed foreign policy translates into mega-revenues of the military-industrial complex.

  The more wars, of course, the more business.

  The Foreign Policy division is run by a small, secretive and tight-knit coterie, including the top brass of the White House, the CIA, the State Department, the Pentagon, the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate, and the major military firms including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon. There are perhaps a thousand key individuals involved in setting policy. The public interest plays little role.

  The key foreign policy makers run the operations of 800 US overseas military bases, hundreds of billions of dollars of military contracts, and the war operations where the equipment is deployed. The more wars, of course, the more business. The privatization of foreign policy has been greatly amplified by the privatization of the war business itself, as more and more “core” military functions are handed out to the arms manufacturers and to contractors such as Haliburton, Booz Allen Hamilton, and CACI.

  In addition to the hundreds of billions of dollars of military contracts, there are important business spillovers from the military and CIA operations. With military bases in 80 countries around the world, and CIA operations in many more, the US plays a large, though mostly covert role, in determining who rules in those countries, and thereby on policies that shape lucrative deals involving minerals, hydrocarbons, pipelines, and farm and forest land. The US has aimed to overthrow at least 80 governments since 1947, typically led by the CIA through the instigation of coups, assassinations, insurrections, civil unrest, election tampering, economic sanctions, and overt wars. (For a superb study of US regime-change operations from 1947 to 1989, see Lindsey O’Rourke’s Covert Regime Change, 2018).

  In addition to business interests, there are of course ideologues who truly believe in America’s right to rule the world. The ever-warmongering Kagan family is the most famous case, though their financial interests are also deeply intertwined with the war industry. The point about ideology is this. The ideologists have been wrong on nearly every occasion and long ago would have lost their bully pulpits in Washington but for their usefulness as warmongers. Wittingly or not, they serve as paid performers for the military-industrial complex.

  There is one persistent inconvenience for this ongoing business scam.

  In theory, foreign policy is carried out in the interest of the American people, though the opposite is the truth. (A similar contradiction of course applies to overpriced healthcare, government bailouts of Wall Street, oil-industry perks, and other scams). The American people rarely support the machinations of US foreign policy when they occasionally hear the truth. America’s wars are not waged by popular demand but by decisions from on high.

  Special measures are needed to keep the people away from decision making.

  The first such measure is unrelenting propaganda. George Orwell nailed it in 1984 when “the Party” suddenly switched the foreign enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia without a word of explanation. The US essentially does the same. Who is the US gravest enemy? Take your pick, according to the season. Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Hugo Chavez, Bashar al-Assad, ISIS, al-Qaeda, Gaddafi, Vladimir Putin, Hamas, have all played the role of “Hitler” in US propaganda. White House spokesman John Kirby delivers the propaganda with a smirk on his face, signaling that he too knows that what he is saying is ludicrous, albeit mildly entertaining.

  The propaganda is amplified by the Washington think tanks that live off of donations by military contractors and occasionally foreign governments that are part of the US scam operations. Think of the Atlantic Council, CSIS, and of course the ever-popular Institute for the Study of War, brought to you by the major military contractors.

  The second is to hide the costs of the foreign policy operations. In the 1960s, the US Government made the mistake of forcing the American people to bear the costs of the military-industrial complex by drafting young people to fight in Vietnam and by raising taxes to pay for the war. The public erupted in opposition.

  From the 1970s onward the government has been far more clever. The government ended the draft, and made military service a job for hire rather than a public service, backed by Pentagon outlays to recruit soldiers from lower economic strata. It also abandoned the quaint idea that government outlays should be funded by taxes, and instead shifted the military budget to deficit spending which protects it from popular opposition that would be triggered if it were tax-funded.

  It has also suckered client states such as Ukraine to fight America’s wars on the ground, so that no American body bags would spoil the US propaganda machine. Needless to say, US masters of war such as Sullivan, Blinken, Nuland, Schumer, and McConnell remain thousands of miles away from the frontlines. The dying is reserved for Ukrainians. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) defended American military aid to Ukraine as money well spent because it is “without a single American service woman or man injured or lost,” somehow not dawning on the good Senator to spare the lives of Ukrainians, who have died by the hundreds of thousands in a US-provoked war over NATO enlargement.

  This system is underpinned by the complete subordination of the U.S. Congress to the war business, to avoid any questioning of the over-the-top Pentagon budgets and the wars instigated by the Executive Branch. The subordination of Congress works as follows. First, the Congressional oversight of war and peace is largely assigned to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, which largely frame the overall Congressional policy (and the Pentagon budget). Second, the military industry (Boeing, Raytheon, and the rest) funds the campaigns of the Armed Services Committee members of both parties. The military industries also spend vast sums on lobbying in order to provide lucrative salaries to retiring members of Congress, their staffs, and families, either directly in military businesses or in Washington lobbying firms.

  The hacking of Congressional foreign policy is not only by the US military-industrial complex. The Israel lobby long ago mastered the art of buying the Congress. America’s complicity in Israel’s apartheid state and war crimes in Gaza makes no sense for US national security and diplomacy, not to speak of human decency. They are the fruits of Israel lobby investments that reached $30 million in campaign contributions in 2022, and that will vastly top that in 2024.

  When Congress reassembles in January, Biden, Kirby, Sullivan, Blinken, Nuland, Schumer, McConnell, Blumenthal and their ilk will tell us that we absolutely must fund the losing, cruel, and deceitful war in Ukraine and the ongoing massacre and ethnic cleansing in Gaza, lest we and Europe and the free world, and perhaps the solar system itself, succumb to the Russian bear, the Iranian mullahs, and the Chinese Communist Party. The purveyors of foreign policy disasters are not being irrational in this fear-mongering. They are being deceitful and extraordinarily greedy, pursuing narrow interests over those of the American people.

  It is the urgent task of the American people to overhaul a foreign policy that is so broken, corrupted, and deceitful that it is burying the government in debt while pushing the world closer to nuclear Armageddon. This overhaul should start in 2024 by rejecting any more funding for the disastrous Ukraine War and Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. Peacemaking, and diplomacy, not military spending, is the path to a US foreign policy in the public interest.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 23:40

• These Are The Institutions Americans Trust Most (And Least)
  These Are The Institutions Americans Trust Most (And Least)

  In just a couple of days it will be three years since the January 6 United States Capitol attack.

  Ahead of our ‘Jan 6’ debate on Saturday, it feels apt to take a step back to try and capture an overview of the state of trust in institutions in the United States.

  

  As Statista’s Anna Fleck detail below, based on data collected by Gallup in June 2023, of the institutions selected, only the military and small businesses saw a great deal or a fair amount of trust in them from a majority of U.S. respondents.

  This is at odds with Congress, which saw only 8 percent of people say they had trust in the political institution.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  Gallup has been asking this question on trust since 1973.

  Over the past 50 years, there have been significant fluctuations in responses.

  

  For instance, the police saw an all-time low level of trust in 2023, with just 43 percent of respondents saying they had a great deal/quite a lot of trust in them.

  But three other institutions hit their lowest levels of trust last year too, including public schools with 26 percent (on par with 2014), large tech companies with 26 percent (on par with 2022) and big business with 14 percent (on par with 2022).

  In 2022, public confidence declined in 11 out of the 16 institutions tracked by Gallup, with trust in the Supreme Court falling by 11 percentage points to 25 percent, and in the presidency by 15 percentage points to 23 percent. These hardly improved in 2023, rising to just 27 percent and 26 percent, respectively.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 23:20

• "It's One Of The Great Mysteries," Why COVID Spares Children
  “It’s One Of The Great Mysteries,” Why COVID Spares Children

  Authored by Marina Zhang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Bali Pulendran, a professor of microbiology, immunology, and pathology at Stanford University, has researched a mystery unique to COVID-19 for two years.

  “For almost every infectious disease, the most vulnerable populations are at the extremes of age—the very young and the very old,” he once said. “But with COVID-19, the young are spared.”

  The picture surrounding this enigma is still incomplete, but answers are forthcoming.

  

  Children Are Different

  Children are not mini-adults. Depending on their age, they can have similar or very different responses to infectious diseases.

  In the case of COVID-19, children generally experience a milder form of the disease.

  “It’s an interesting question that no one has fully answered,” said Dr. Cody Meissner, a professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth College’s Geisel School of Medicine, in an interview with The Epoch Times. “Several theories have been put forward to try and explain this.”

  The primary reason is that children have a faster innate immune system, often referred to as the first line of defense, compared to adults. This enables them to mount a robust defense against respiratory infections more quickly.

  Another explanation is that children are more susceptible to respiratory infections, and some of these prior infections may provide them with a degree of immune protection against COVID-19.

  Anatomically speaking, children not fully grown are at a disadvantage when exposed to respiratory diseases. They have smaller airway diameters, meaning more severe symptoms when the airways get inflamed or have mucus build up.

  They also have a smaller lung capacity, making them more prone to hypoxia with respiratory infection, professor of immunology Kenneth Rosenthal, PhD, told The Epoch Times.

  However, compared to adults, children have been found to have higher levels of innate immune cells in the nose, which can help eliminate viruses early on.

  

  “SARS-CoV-2 targets ACE-2 and TMPRSS, and these are expressed more in older adults,” Dr. Lael Yonker, pediatric pulmonologist and the co-director of Massachusetts General Hospital’s pulmonary genetics clinic, told The Epoch Times. Children, in comparison, have fewer of both receptors, which may reduce the number of viral invasions.

  Strong Innate Immunity

  While children tend to have a fast and robust innate immune response, studies have found that most adults who experience severe COVID-19 tend to have an impaired innate immune response.

  The innate immune response is the immune system we inherit when born.

  “[The immune response is] always there and ready to respond to microbes and triggers on the fly,” Mr. Rosenthal explained. In contrast, the adaptive immune system, which is more developed in adults, can generate more memorized, targeted immunity. However, it is slower to respond and can take days to activate.

  This is not to say that children do not have an adaptive immune response. But since this type of immunity is built up by experiences with viruses and other pathogens, children tend to have accumulated less immunological memory than adults.

  

  Vaccination is primarily used to bolster adaptive immunity while children are young.

  The most common innate protection impairment researchers saw in adults with severe COVID-19 was a deficit in types 1 and 3 interferons. Studies have shown that children mount the strongest types 1 and 3 interferon responses to COVID-19, and this response diminishes as people age.

  “A large proportion of adult men prone to more serious COVID have antibodies to interferon,” Mr. Rosenthal said. Consequently, they cannot mount the initial innate response, though scientists do not know why some adults form these antibodies.

  The infection progresses unhindered while the immune system attempts to restrain the extensive infection, which could “lead to problematic outcomes,” he added.

  This can cause full-blown inflammatory responses.

  Natural killer cells, innate immune cells responsible for killing cancer and infected cells, are also more active in children, particularly pre-pubescent children. The cell “dissipates in teen years,” Mr. Rosenthal said.

  Less Prone to Inflammatory Storm

  A significant risk factor for severe COVID-19 is the inflammatory cytokine storm caused by excessive levels of cytokines in the body.

  During an infection, immune cells release cytokines to help activate and coordinate other immune cells. There is always some presence of them in the body.

  When the immune system fails to control the infection, and viruses replicate, immune cells dispatch more cytokines as a warning. These cytokines then activate more immune cells, causing intense inflammation, which can lead to tissue damage, organ failure, and eventually death.

  

  Adults are more prone to cytokine storms because they tend to have more cytokines in the blood, meant to protect their bodies against daily assaults. These include smoke, toxic particles, toxic foods, and certain bacteria that live in our gut, on our skin, or elsewhere, Mr. Rosenthal said. The necessary protective responses produce inflammatory cytokines “on an everyday, routine basis.”

  Children, however, have lower baseline cytokine levels due to fewer exposures to environmental and pathogenic assaults. Plus, they generally have healthier constitutions with fewer chronic diseases and unhealthy habits.

  Even in the rare case of children developing severe COVID-19, which often presents as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), most children quickly recover without any persistent symptoms.

  “[Children] were easier to treat than adults. I did not lose a single [pediatric] case, whereas adults, we were losing quite a bit of them,” critical care pulmonologist Dr. Joseph Varon, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Houston, told The Epoch Times.

  The Enigma of Mild COVID in Infants

  While mild COVID-19 in children and adolescents can be explained away by their fast innate immune systems and generally healthier constitutions, this explanation fails concerning infants and toddlers.

  “It’s one of the great mysteries of human immunology,” Mr. Pulendran told The Epoch Times.

  Infants are typically born with immature innate and adaptive immune systems with weaker constitutions, making them more susceptible to infections. Premature infants are even more vulnerable.

  Children under the age of 2 have a much higher chance of dying from respiratory diseases like respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza than older children and adults under age 50.

  In general, infants “do not have any prior immune history and, therefore, no antibodies or T-cell memory to rapidly respond to the challenge,” Mr. Rosenthal said. They also have very few innate immune cells at birth. By the second month of life, they should accumulate enough innate immune cells to overcome this vulnerability.

  Full maturation of the immune system occurs in the first seven to eight years of life.

  Dehydration is also a deadly factor in infected children and infants due to their higher metabolic rates and reduced water reserves compared to adults.

  Yet to researchers’ amazement, infants were largely left unscathed during the COVID pandemic.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 23:00

• Big Gov't Raids Small Amish Farmer Who Refuses To Participate In The Industrial Meat/Milk Complex
  Big Gov’t Raids Small Amish Farmer Who Refuses To Participate In The Industrial Meat/Milk Complex

  Local media, The Lancaster Patriot, reports that the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture served an all-natural Amish farm in southeastern Pennsylvania with a search warrant on Thursday afternoon. 

  BREAKING: State Troopers conducting search on Amos Miller’s farm in Lancaster County, PA. pic.twitter.com/4ibZPxfI0U

  — The Lancaster Patriot (@TheLanPatriot) January 4, 2024

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

  The farmer, Amos Miller, has been in the crosshairs with the US Department of Agriculture because of his repeated failures to comply with federal farming regulations. 

  Exclusive footage of state agents leaving Amos Miller’s organic farm store, carrying off some of his products. pic.twitter.com/yVAHSmr1WH

  — The Lancaster Patriot (@TheLanPatriot) January 4, 2024

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

  The USDA has tried to bring Miller’s farm into compliance with federal regulations, but Amos has yet to cooperate with the Feds and faces fines and jail time. 

  A Pennsylvania State Police spokesperson said:

   “The PA Department of Agriculture is conducting a search warrant on this property. Troopers from PSP Lancaster are just assisting with scene security. You will have to reach out to the DOA for information on their investigation.”

  Footage of the search being conducted inside Amos Miller’s organic farm store in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. pic.twitter.com/iKUDbo9CcR

  — The Lancaster Patriot (@TheLanPatriot) January 4, 2024

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

  According to LancasterOnline, Miller and the Feds have been locked “in a standoff over his compliance with federal food safety rules and failure to pay assessed fines.” 

  With his sovereign citizen defense, Miller has tried to thwart the Fed’s overreach to get him to comply with food safety rules. He sells all sorts of food to more than 4,000 buyers, such as organic eggs, raw milk, grass-fed beef and cheese, and fresh produce. He doesn’t use electricity, chemical fertilizers, vaccines, or petroleum products in farming. 

  Commenting on the raid, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said, “Looks like Amos Miller’s farm is being raided. With all of the problems in society today, this is what the government wants to focus on?” 

  Massie continued, “A man growing food for informed customers, without participating in the industrial meat/milk complex? It’s shameful that it’s come to this. “

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 22:40

• Green Energy Waste Overlooked In Climate Agenda
  Green Energy Waste Overlooked In Climate Agenda

  Authored by Autumn Spredemann via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The amount of waste piling up from solar panels and wind turbine blades can be measured in tons. And the industry is just getting started.

  

  Almost all spent solar panels in the United States end up in landfills, and many first- and second-generation panels are already tapping out, well ahead of their anticipated 30-year lifespan.

  Added to that will be an estimated 9.8 million metric tons of dead panels to deal with between 2030 and 2060, according to a study published in Science Direct.

  Tossing a solar panel into a U.S. landfill currently costs about $1, maybe $2. To recycle that same panel, the cost balloons to $20 to $30, according to an estimate reported by PV Magazine.

  Wind turbine parts present a similar challenge, with thousands of blades having already found their way into dumps and fields in Texas, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Iowa.

  It’s no small feat to dump a blade. The length of a single wind turbine blade can be more than 200 feet or longer than the wingspan of a Boeing 747, according to the Department of Energy. Offshore wind rigs are even larger.

  Currently, about 7,000 blades are scrapped per year in the United States, according to David Morgan, chief strategy officer for Carbon Rivers, a Tennessee-based recycling center for advanced materials.

  Of all the glass fiber waste that Carbon Rivers receives, wind turbine blades are the most challenging, Mr. Morgan said.

  “They’re a very hardy, robust material. They’re large and cumbersome to deal with,” he told The Epoch Times.

  “Large wind turbine blades, travel trailers, boat hulls, and other waste streams can be converted into clean, high-quality glass fiber that can be economically reincorporated into your next car, boat, or turbine blade,” the Carbon Rivers website states.

  As wind turbine graveyards have turned into viral video content, the wind industry has become more “conversational” about end-of-life solutions, Mr. Morgan said, but it’s not set up for a “composite circular economy.”

  

  When it comes to truly “green” solutions, a “circular economy” is vital, Mr. Morgan said. It’s basically a business model that prioritizes the reuse, repair, or regeneration of materials to continue production in as sustainable a way as possible.

  He said renewable waste isn’t just an infrastructure problem, there are also legislation gaps.

  “Right now, you can largely landfill wind blades. It varies state by state.”

  Some companies backing wind energy—particularly those tied to fossil fuel giants such as Shell Global and General Electric—have left critics dubious about whether true sustainability is part of the existing plan.

  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under former President Donald Trump, identified the looming problems with increasing renewable energy waste.

  “Without a strategy for their end-of-life management, so-called green technologies like solar panels, electric vehicle batteries, and windmills will ultimately place the same unintended burdens on our planet and economy as traditional commodities,” former EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler said.

  Expanding Industry

  As the so-called renewable energy industry expands—largely because of massive subsidies from the Biden administration—so does the waste on the back end.

  Solar generation capacity is forecast to increase by more than 38 percent in 2024, according to a Dec. 12 report by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a U.S. government agency. Wind energy capacity is forecast to increase by 4.4 percent.

  

  Despite this notable surge in deployment of renewable energy systems, America’s electric generation in 2022 was primarily (about 60 percent) from fossil fuels—coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases, according to the EIA.

  Renewable energy sources accounted for about 21 percent and 18 percent was from nuclear energy. An additional fraction was from small-scale solar systems.

  Solar panels have a life span of up to 30 years. Understandably, some environmental organizations are raising the alarm.

  “If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa,” California-based Environmental Progress states.

  “The solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests.”

  The number of retired wind turbine blades is expected to reach 9,000 per year over the next five years, according to a 2022 analysis published by Chemical and Engineering News.

  Mr. Morgan said he’s keeping pace with the inbound waste for now and the company is scaling up operations, including construction of a large-scale facility in Texas. Carbon Rivers has also broadened its scope into anything “composite-based,” including glass fiber and even aerospace parts.

  E-Waste

  Another area of waste—electronic waste, commonly known as e-waste—is growing at an exponential rate. It’s the fastest-growing solid waste stream in the world and includes renewable items such as solar panels and electric vehicle (EV) batteries.

  Only a small portion is being recycled.

  One analysis from 2019 released this year showed that of the 53.6 million tons of e-waste produced globally, barely 17 percent was recycled.

  “People think plastic is the waste boogeyman … but e-waste is still growing,” Paul Williams, vice president of communications for recycling company ERI, told The Epoch Times.

  Focused on breaking down and recycling all kinds of e-waste, Mr. Williams said ERI maintains a “military grade” level of data destruction when it comes to electronics.

  Privacy protection is a huge concern with e-waste.

  

  “It becomes not just an environmental issue, not just a human rights issue, it’s also a cyber security issue. A lot of technology today contains private data,” he said.

  In the early days of e-waste disposal, negligent companies handled e-waste in a way that left the door wide open to data theft.

  “What we found were these unscrupulous types were just shipping this stuff to developing nations … and it was a huge privacy challenge because of the data,” Mr. Williams said.

  Data security preparations must also be made for EVs, and not just their potentially volatile batteries, but also for the onboard computers in EVs when they reach the end of their life.

  “Cars are particularly scary because the type of data that is captured is very personal. It knows your routes, the weight, and sizes of the people sitting in the seats of the car,” he said. “It’s kind of scary to think about.”

  While ERI isn’t seeing a lot of solar panels or EV-related battery waste just yet, Mr. Williams said they’re ready for it.

  “They will ultimately come to our door. We don’t turn any e-waste away.”

  He said great strides have been made in the past two decades regarding the public’s disposal of e-waste.

  In the early 2000s, when ERI was first getting started, Mr. Williams says everyone had “old TVs in their garage or attic. People didn’t know what to do with them.”

  The same goes for the younger generations with retired cellphones. But he says attitudes have changed over the past 10 to 15 years, and much of that has to do with the data security challenges involved with e-waste.

  

  Mr. Williams isn’t daunted by the coming influx of solar panels and EV components.

  “Even with lithium-ion batteries and solar panels, they aren’t the last mile. We know there will be something new at some point.”

  He said transparency has been an issue with companies claiming to recycle e-waste in years past, with some advertising eco-friendly solutions while secretly dumping their e-waste in landfills.

  “The most important thing, really, is transparency. When ERI started, we were literally mounting cameras on our ceilings. Nothing goes to landfill when we work on it,” Mr. Williams said.

  Domino Effect

  Recycling dead solar panels, EV batteries, and wind turbine parts are major components of the waste problem, but supportive infrastructure is also impacted as alternative energy production ramps up.

  Chief among this infrastructure are electrical transformers, which industry insiders say there’s a skyrocketing demand for both new and reconditioned units.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 22:20

• Activism Uncensored: California Sex Workers Fight For Labor Rights
  Activism Uncensored: California Sex Workers Fight For Labor Rights

  In the heart of Los Angeles County, a labor movement unlike any other is unfolding. Sex workers, often relegated to the shadows of the labor discourse, are stepping into the limelight, demanding rights equivalent to mainstream entertainment industry workers. This burgeoning movement, spearheaded by the dancers at the Star Garden topless bar, is not just a fight for fair wages and safer work environments; it’s a challenge to longstanding stigmas associated with sex work.

  

  In May 2022, Star Garden dancers declared their intent to unionize, setting in motion a series of events that have since captured national attention. This move toward unionization was more than a demand for better working conditions; it was a direct challenge to longstanding, industry-wide discriminatory hiring practices and wage theft.

  “They don’t pay us, they take half of our lap dance money and that is wage theft, illegal wage theft and we need to correct that,” said one dancer.

  The movement has quickly gained momentum, drawing support from the Actors Equity Association. The sex workers’ movement has even celebrity endorsements and media attention.

  Yet despite their progress, the dancers at Star Garden continue to face challenges. Allegations of unfair labor practices and retaliation for union activities underscore the ongoing battle these workers face. The club management’s actions – from charging for lap dances to imposing a cover fee – are at the heart of this dispute. The dancers’ fight for just treatment and fair payment is not just about them; it’s a fight for the dignity and rights of all sex workers.

  This movement extends far beyond the walls of the Star Garden. It’s a rallying cry for sex workers across the spectrum, from escorts to street workers. They are challenging not only city and federal laws but societal perceptions. With the 2028 Olympics on the horizon, these workers are advocating for their safety, the decriminalization of their work, and a clear distinction between sex work and human trafficking.

  Watch:

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 22:00

• Scientists Detect Spike Protein From COVID Vaccination In Long COVID Patients
  Scientists Detect Spike Protein From COVID Vaccination In Long COVID Patients

  Authored by Megan Redshaw via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Scientists in a new paper detected spike protein in the bloodstream of people with long COVID two months after infection and COVID-19 vaccination, suggesting that spike protein may persist in the body much longer than previously predicted and does not remain at the injection site.

  

  The study, published Dec. 27 in the European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, found vaccine spike protein in two patients at least two months after receiving their second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and viral spike protein in one subject who previously recovered from infection in a cohort of 81 patients with long COVID syndrome. Samples gathered from the unvaccinated control group were negative for spike protein.

  “This study, in agreement with other published investigations, demonstrates that both natural and vaccine spike protein may still be present in long-COVID patients, thus supporting the existence of a possible mechanism that causes the persistence of spike protein in the human body for much longer than predicted by early studies,” the authors wrote.

  Although U.S. regulatory agencies claim vaccinating against COVID-19 can reduce the risk of developing long COVID, some research suggests the condition may be caused by an immune overreaction to the spike protein in COVID-19 vaccines used to induce antibodies.

  In a February 2023 study published in the Journal of Medical Virology, researchers examined the levels of spike protein and viral RNA circulating in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with and without long COVID. They found that spike protein and viral RNA were more likely to be present in patients with long COVID. In patients with long COVID, 30 percent were positive for both spike protein and viral RNA, whereas none of the individuals without long COVID were positive for both.

  CDC Claimed Spike Protein Was ‘Harmless’ and Quickly Breaks Down

  When COVID-19 vaccines were first authorized, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said the spike protein produced by the body after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine is a “harmless piece of spike protein.” Furthermore, the agency stated that spike protein didn’t “last long in the body” and breaks down within a few weeks like other proteins. The Infectious Diseases Society of America, a resource center funded partly through a cooperative agreement with the CDC, estimated that the spike proteins generated by COVID-19 vaccines only last up to a few weeks in the body.

  An early Pfizer biodistribution study showed that the COVID-19 spike protein gets into the blood after vaccination, where it circulates for several days before accumulating in organs and tissues, including the spleen, bone marrow, the liver, adrenal glands, and in high concentrations in the ovaries. In this study, researchers found vaccine mRNA was present from the day of vaccination and persisted in the bloodstream for weeks after vaccination.

  In an August 2023 paper published in Biomedicines, researchers found the design of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines allows uncontrolled biodistribution, durability, and persistent bioavailability of the spike protein inside the body after vaccination—which could potentially damage tissues and cause disease.

  The study group included 20 subjects who received two doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, 20 who were unvaccinated and tested negative for COVID-19 or antibodies indicating they had previously been infected, and a control group of 20 unvaccinated participants who tested positive for COVID-19. Researchers detected specific fragments of spike protein in about 50 percent of subjects who received mRNA vaccines 69 to 187 days following vaccination. All samples from the unvaccinated control group were negative, including the 20 individuals who had tested positive after contracting COVID-19.

  In a January 2023 study published in the Journal of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, researchers found full-length or traces of SARS-CoV-2 spike mRNA in some patient samples up to 28 days after COVID-19 vaccination, indicating prolonged spike protein production and the potential for a “continuous immune response in some persons.”

  A study published in March 2022 in Cell found vaccine mRNA in lymph nodes on days 7, 16, and 37 following vaccination. Immunohistochemical staining for spike antigen in mRNA-vaccinated patient lipid nanoparticles in some individuals showed spike protein antigen was still present as late as 60 days following the second vaccine dose.

  A November 2021 study in The Journal of Immunology found exosomes expressing spike protein 14 days after vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Levels of spike protein increased following booster doses, suggesting the amount of spike protein in the body increases with subsequent vaccination.

  A 2021 study in Clinical Infectious Diseases led by researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Harvard Medical School found circulating SARS-CoV-2 proteins in the plasma of participants vaccinated with Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. Spike protein was detected in blood plasma as early as one day following the first vaccine dose.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 21:40

• SpaceX Sues Federal Agency Over 'Unconstitutional' Structure
  SpaceX Sues Federal Agency Over ‘Unconstitutional’ Structure

  Elon Musk’s SpaceX has filed a lawsuit against a federal agency alleging that it’s out of control in violation of the constitution.

  

  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has a panel of judges which hear cases brought against companies over workers’ rights. One such complaint lodged in December against SpaceX is being sent there for adjudication – however SpaceX argues that they’re essentially a rogue agency.

  The U.S. Constitution requires the president to have “sufficient control” over the judges, and an appeals court concluded in 2022 that administrative law judges (ALJs) in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are unconstitutionally shielded from presidential oversight.

  “The same reasoning applies to the ALJs of the NLRB, including the ALJ assigned to preside over the pending NLRB proceedings against SpaceX,” SpaceX said in the Jan. 4 suit.

  The company is asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to rule that the current makeup of the NLRB is unconstitutional. –The Epoch Times

  “To prevent SpaceX from undergoing protracted administrative proceedings before an unconstitutionally structured agency—after which SpaceX is unlikely to have a chance to secure meaningful retrospective relief—the court should stay or enjoin the current agency proceedings, declare that the NLRB’s structure violates the separation of powers under Article II of the Constitution, and permanently enjoin the NLRB and its general counsel from pursuing unfair labor practice charges against SpaceX before agency officials that are unconstitutionally insulated from presidential oversight, ” reads the filing, which also claims that the NLRB’s five-member board is structured improperly, and is the “very definition of tyranny.” 

  US District Judge Rolando Olvera, an Obama appointee, was assigned to the case after the NLRB accused SpaceX of violating federal law by firing workers who spoke out against the company’s practices.

  In a 2022 open letter to management, workers complained about Musk’s posts on Twitter, calling them “a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment for us,” and complained that it should be made clear that “his messaging does not reflect our work, our mission, or our values.”

  According to NLRB officials, SpaceX, in a “wave of wrongful retaliatory terminations,” fired workers who signed the open letter, and others involved in activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act.

  More via the Epoch Times;

  Deborah Lawrence, one of the workers whom SpaceX fired, told news outlets in a statement through her lawyers that the company has a “toxic culture.”

  “We wrote the open letter to leadership not out of malice, but because we cared about the mission and the people around us,” she said.

  As of now, a hearing in the matter is scheduled to take place on March 5 in Los Angeles, California, before an administrative law judge.

  

  Campaign Against Musk

  The NLRB is one of several government agencies that have brought actions against Mr. Musk after he became a critic of President Joe Biden and the federal government.

  The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in August 2023 sued SpaceX, saying the company illegally only hired U.S. citizens and permanent residents. A countersuit in the same federal court in which the new suit was brought said the company was complying with federal law that governs companies involved with sensitive technology.

  Judge Olvera ruled in favor of SpaceX and paused the case, finding that the way the DOJ’s administrative law judges act does not adhere to the Constitution.

  The proceedings before the judges “are unconstitutional because the attorney general is not allowed to review” their decisions, he said.

  The Constitution says presidents must appoint federal “principal officers,” although Congress can authorize the head of departments to appoint “inferior officers.” Those inferior officers, though, must be “directed and supervised” by a principal officer. The judges are not inferior officers because they’re not supervised, according to the ruling.

  If the proceedings were not paused, SpaceX “will likely suffer irreparable injury,” Judge Olvera added.

  He also addressed how the judges cannot be directly removed by a president. Judges can only be removed by board members, who themselves can be removed by a president. That structure may be unconstitutional but the removal restrictions are severable by the courts, he said.

  The appeals court in the SEC case, which is set to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, found that because presidents cannot directly remove the administrative law judges, they are unconstitutionally insulated from the chief executive.

  A judge who dissented disagreed, creating a split decision that the nation’s top court will resolve.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 21:20

• Judge Confirms Opinion: Oregon's Measure 114 Gun Law Violates State Constitution
  Judge Confirms Opinion: Oregon’s Measure 114 Gun Law Violates State Constitution

  Authored by Scottie Barnes via The Epoch Times,

  A state court’s preliminary ruling against Oregon’s Measure 114 gun control policy will stand after a hearing in which Harney County Circuit Court Judge Robert Raschio considered additional arguments against his original case findings.

  

  Judge Raschio rejected every objection that defense attorneys for the Oregon Department of Justice raised to his opinion about the case. That opinion found the measure violates the state’s constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

  Measure 114 was initially set to take effect on Dec. 8, 2022. It has been on hold since Judge Raschio issued a preliminary injunction allowing parties to argue its legality in federal and state courts.

  The measure has already been argued in a federal court, where U.S. District Court Judge Karen Immergut ruled in July 2023 that the law does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

  The plaintiffs in the federal case have filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This could move the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

  Parties in the state case argued before Judge Raschio for six days in September 2023. He issued an opinion on Nov. 21. The defense immediately requested that the judge hear additional arguments. He granted that request and set a hearing for Jan. 2, issuing his decision the same day.

  With that decision, the court made the earlier injunction permanent.

  “This marks another victory for Oregon firearm owners against the most extreme gun ban in the United States,” Tony Aiello, Jr. attorney for plaintiffs told The Epoch Times.

  “The state defendants did nothing more than waste the court’s and parties’ time and resources with their motion. It is unfortunate that they do so with bottomless resources supplied by Oregon taxpayers.”

  The decision is likely to be appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.

  Narrowly approved by voters in November 2022, Measure 114 requires Oregonians to undergo an FBI background check and take a police-sponsored firearms class, which does not yet exist, to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm.

  Police would be required to create and operate an application process and maintain databases of applicant information.

  The measure also bans magazines that are “capable of holding or being modified to hold” more than 10 rounds.

  Proponents contend that the “Reduction in Gun Violence Act” will save lives.

  Gun rights advocates have called it one of the most extreme gun laws in the country, claiming that it will strip law-abiding citizens of their constitutional right to bear arms in the state.

  They argue that legal gun sales would end in Oregon should Ballot Measure 114 survive court challenges.

  Hearing Objections

  In this week’s hearing, defense attorneys for the state argued that virtually every conclusion the judge reached following the September trial was wrong.

  State defendants objected to the court’s finding that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) would be unable to conduct background checks as required by the measure.

  The FBI had previously informed the state that it would not conduct the background checks required by the new law, explaining in a legal guidance that doing so would be a crime because the measure “does not meet the requirements of Pub. L. 92-544.”

  But shortly after Judge Raschio issued his Nov. 21 opinion, the FBI changed its position, stating that it would grant Oregon a “grace period.”

  This allowed the defendants to claim that this objection no longer applied.

  Judge Raschio disagreed based on the factual record.

  The state objected to the court’s finding that the parties had “agreed” that Measure 114 “delays the purchase of firearms for a minimum of 30 days.”

  It also objected to the court’s findings that mass shootings are sensationalized by the media, that the measure’s backers failed to present evidence of enhanced public safety, that a “magazine is a necessary component of a firearm,” and that “almost all emigrants to the Oregon Territory had firearms.”

  The judge rejected each of these arguments.

  Opponents of the measure took issue with the state’s defense of the law.

  “The state is spending millions to end firearm ownership in Oregon and prosecute Oregonians who exercise their rights under the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions,” Keven Starrett of Oregon Firearms Foundation, one of the plaintiffs in the federal case, told The Epoch Times.

  “The next step in Oregon’s endless war against its most law-abiding citizens will no doubt be an appeal of the judge’s injunction to a higher court, paid for by taxpayers,” he said.

  Mr. Aiello agreed.

  “Normally, I would anticipate that the parties will agree to language to be included in the General Judgment this week, the General Judgment would be signed, and then Defendants will file an appeal,” he said.

  “However, this case has been unpredictable.”

  For Measure 114 to survive, the state defendants must win in both the federal and state courts. Plaintiffs only have to prevail in one of these cases for the measure to be struck down.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 21:00

• Huawei's Newest Laptop Teardown Reveals Chips Made In Taiwan, Not Mainland China
  Huawei’s Newest Laptop Teardown Reveals Chips Made In Taiwan, Not Mainland China

  The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

  Despite claims of a Chinese technological breakthrough in chipmaking, a teardown of Huawei’s newest laptop reveals a chip made in Taiwan – not China – by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, according to a new Bloomberg report.

  The teardown stands at odds with the claim that Huawei’s chipmaking partner, SMIC, based on the Chinese mainland, had achieved potential advancements in fabrication technique. 

  According to Bloomberg, the world noticed when in August Huawei’s launch of a smartphone featuring a 7nm processor from Shanghai’s SMIC made headlines in the US and China.

  Analysis by a Canadian research group for Bloomberg News revealed that the chip was hot on the trail of the current industry standard, insinuating that US trade restrictions may not be worker. The advancement was heralded in China’s tech community.

  

  But the recent teardown of Huawei’s Qingyun L540 notebook revealed a 5nm chip – a Kirin 9006C processor fabricated via TSMC’s 5nm method – not an SMIC chip.

  In 2023, Huawei’s Mate 60 smartphone, featuring advanced technology, solidified its role as a leader in China’s push for tech independence. This led to significant sales, helping Huawei surpass $100 billion in revenue and challenging Apple’s market dominance.

  The Shenzhen-based company, previously relying on TSMC for advanced 5nm chips, has since focused on developing and hoarding semiconductors, especially after heightened US trade restrictions and being listed on Washington’s Entity List since 2019.

  Bloomberg reported that Huawei has invested heavily in chip research and built a domestic supply network, partly government-supported. Its latest product, the L540 laptop, aligns with Beijing’s directive to replace foreign tech in critical areas, emphasizing data security and meeting China’s stringent requirements.

  This move is also part of Huawei’s broader strategy to expand into mobile and computing devices since 2016, the report says. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 20:40

• How Pervasive Is Academic Corruption?
  How Pervasive Is Academic Corruption?

  Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

  Whew, what a week it’s been for higher ed!

  

  The Claudine Gay debacle at Harvard has raised some fundamental questions about academia in general. She was president of the university, traditionally seen as the pinnacle of American academia.

  But a careful look at her extremely thin academic publishing record was packed with unattributed borrowings from other authors in her own field.

  Once all of this became public, and in light of her Congressional testimony in which she found a new love for the free speech that has been heretofore nearly banned at Harvard, it became impossible for her to continue as president and so she resigned.

  That’s the headline story but there is surely more going on. The press ran examples of her plagiarism. It was obvious to any graduate student that it qualified as such. It would result in removal from the class and likely the whole program.

  And yet the president of Harvard got away with it for many years.

  There had already been investigations ongoing but they seemed more performative than prosecutorial, which is a scandal of its own. Once it all came out into the open, thanks to independent reporters and media, there was no other way this could end.

  And yet, how long had people known? When she was hired in the first place, why was this never checked? How about when she was appointed Dean? How about when she was at Stanford? How about when she was awarded a prestigious prize for her Harvard dissertation that we now know is compromised? Maybe they knew but pushed her up the ranks anyway.

  None of this speaks well of Harvard or academia in general, much less the vaunted “peer review” process.

  Stranger still for people on the outside was reading the side-by-side comparisons of her prose and that from which she borrowed. None of it seemed to make much sense or be otherwise meaningful. It is all written in a highly stylized way that only people in academia could possibly understand and probably they cannot understand it either. It has the feel of high-level scholarship without the substance.

  One gathers that the thesis of her writing is always the same: racism is all-pervasive. Everything else is just filler. In defense of herself, writing in the New York Times, she essentially blames racism and also distrust of public health and media for forcing her to step down.

  “This was merely a single skirmish in a broader war to unravel public faith in pillars of American society …. Trusted institutions of all types—from public health agencies to news organizations—will continue to fall victim to coordinated attempts to undermine their legitimacy and ruin their leaders’ credibility.”

  That’s some amazing rhetoric right there, effectively arguing that she must remain president of Harvard despite 50-plus instances of plagiarism in her work, otherwise American society will fall! And by America, remember what she means: the rarefied and highly privileged Ivy elite that went to the “best” schools, bring down million dollar salaries, and believe they have every right to rule the rest of us for our own good.

  The actual subtext of her piece was apparent to a sympathetic reader in the comments:

  “Welcome to the America of TRUMP & his allies & followers. We have entered dangerous times that are very similar to pre-war Nazi Germany. Trump & his movement must be countered strongly and stopped.”

  Truly, this is how these people think. Criticize the CDC and the NYT—or hold the president of Harvard to normal standards of scholarship—and you are aligned with Donald Trump and Hitler.

  This problem of fake scholarship in elite academia goes back many decades, and has been proven repeatedly.

  In 1996, physicist Alan Sokal sent an article to a mainline liberal-arts journal called “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.”

  It argued that “an external world whose properties are independent of any individual human being” was “dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook.”

  As a replacement, we need “emancipatory mathematics” and “liberatory science” to reject “the elite caste canon of ‘high science’” that believes in myths like “physical reality.”

  You get the drift. It was approved and published. Then the author revealed that he was just making it all up, writing the most preposterous gibberish he could dream up.

  That was 30 years ago, and the hoax has been repeated again recently.

  The Substack account called “A Midwestern Doctor” recently wrote:

  “One of the saddest discoveries genuine intellectuals make once they enter academia (which is supposed to be their ‘home’) is that much of the ‘prestigious knowledge’ their institutions produce is actually just simple or nonsensical concepts cloaked in elaborate rhetoric [language] that makes their points appear to be something much more impressive.”

  “For example, the ‘postmodernist’ discourse is pervasive throughout academia and frequently the standard you are expected to measure up to. Yet, in 1996, a programmer from Monash University realized that if he used an existing engine designed to generate random text from recursive grammars, he could generate postmodern essays which appeared to be authentic.

  In essence, this meant that complete nonsense (as the text was random) could be passed off as authoritative and credible simply because it matched the expected appearance of this hard to understand writing.”

  He concludes:

  “If we want to reclaim our Democracy, it is critical we allow open and honest debate to occur. As the last few years have shown, we cannot have the ‘expert’s’ narrative be shielded from all scrutiny, and as the internet has shown, the monopoly they used to hold over the truth is rapidly fading away. Conversely, I believe if the experts wish to regain the credibility they have lost, they must earn it by publicly defending the merits of their positions, and I believe as time moves forward, the expert class will soon realize this too.”

  This isn’t just a problem in liberal arts. Science itself has been seriously compromised throughout the COVID years, when people from statistical and medical departments grabbed hold of the chance to crank out an amazing number of papers on COVID (I’ve seen numbers in the six figures). It was all for purposes of resume padding and career advancement.

  For two years now, many of these papers on government controls, masks, and the supposed effectiveness of masks, even those cited and celebrated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have been proven to be deeply compromised and even fraudulent. Hardly a day goes by without a new discovery of bad or faked data or poor study structure. Some have been retracted but most survived.

  It’s really too easy to chalk up the Claudine Gay situation to DEI, or what we used to call affirmative action, though that clearly plays a role here. The problem is actually more pervasive and affects the whole of elite intellectual circles. Many in these realms have institutionalized what a regular person would call corruption: a wink and a nod toward academic fakery simply because the practice is so pervasive and deeply baked into the process of career advancement.

  One reason that DEI recently took hold of academia so ferociously is that intellectual standards had long ago slipped to nothing, and corruption had already taken the place of the sincere search for and teaching of truth. Once that was gone, whole institutions came around to embracing fakery, fraud, plagiarism, political favoritism, and outright and brazen hoaxes as just the way business is done.

  Indeed, in deeply corrupt institutions, there is simply no way to make it to the top without participating in the corruption. This was how it worked in the Soviet Union. Because the moral compromise is so pervasive, the only way you could be trusted with real power is if others in power have something on you. That’s when corruption becomes thoroughly endemic. Corruption becomes the currency of institutional advancement. Staying clean and doing good work causes you to sink further and further: loser!

  This is where we are today with elite academia. It’s not just Claudine Gay, who, incidentally, has already returned to her position on the faculty to take in $900K per year. It’s everywhere in the leadership at all levels. This is why revelations of her plagiarism were a shock to no one. Now we are in a situation where thousands of administrators and faculty are sitting ducks, just awaiting the dreaded moment in which some intrepid researcher compares one published work with another.

  In the meantime, they will all keep covering up for each other and trying to keep the racket going on for as long as possible. The difference now is that the public has caught on. Harvard’s applications are in freefall. This extends to the whole of elite academia too. Once their credibility with the public is gone, there is no turning back. Somehow it all seems fitting for an age when the loss of trust is bringing absolutely every feature of elite presence in our lives into question.

  In college and having finished a class paper much earlier than everyone else, the professor assigned me the task of finding plagiarism in other student papers. I spent several days at the library. I easily discovered that about 40 percent of the papers were compromised. This was long before the internet, so I can imagine the situation is much worse now. These students weren’t reporting what they knew; they were merely faking it. What the students did back then is what faculty do now.

  Faking it: that’s a good description of a problem that is pervasive in elite intellectual circles today. This affects media, corporate empires, academia, and government. It’s so accepted that one is considered meritorious for doing a better job of faking than anyone else. That’s a chilling reality but one that anyone and everyone with experience in these realms knows to be true.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 20:20

• Watch: Indian Navy Boards Merchant Ship Ambushed By Pirates Off Somalia
  Watch: Indian Navy Boards Merchant Ship Ambushed By Pirates Off Somalia

  The tanker hijack situation in the Arabian Sea which was first reported Thursday involving a distressed Liberian-flagged merchant vessel off the coast of Somalia has come to an end after Indian Navy intervention.

  The warship INS Chennai was already patrolling regional waters and was dispatched to assist the vessel, ending in the successful rescue of all 21 crew members, including 15 Indians aboard the MV Lila Norfolk. Pirates had ambushed the vessel, in waters frequently targeted by Somali militants.

  

  The crew is said to be unharmed, as the Indian Navy carries out “sanitization” operations on the ship after boarding it, and without a firefight.

  “The attempt of hijacking by the pirates was probably abandoned with the forceful warning by the Indian Navy, marine patrol aircraft, of interception by an Indian Naval warship,” a New Delhi-based maritime think tank, the Maritime Policy Initiative at the Observer Research Foundation, told Reuters.

  India’s Navy said it “remains committed to ensuring [the] safety of merchant shipping in the region along with international partners and friendly foreign countries.”

  According to further details in a Gulf-based publication:

  The INS Chennai, a guided missile destroyer and part of India’s maritime force helping to protect shipping in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean, was sent to the scene of the hijacking attempt, along with maritime patrol aircraft, the navy said on Friday.

  It said its aircraft had been monitoring the ship’s movements while the INS Chennai sailed towards it to offer assistance.

  “The aircraft overflew the vessel on early morning of January 5, 2024, and established contact with the vessel, ascertaining the safety of the crew,” the navy said.

  The Indian Navy has released several videos showing commandos aiding and boarding the vessel…

  Somali militants have long threatened these waters, but given that the bulk of diverted Red Sea traffic must now travel via the Cape of Good Hope around Africa due to Houthi attacks related to the Gaza war, the fear is that the resulting increased traffic will push more vessels toward the Somali coast, leading to more ‘opportunity’ and ample potential targets for further piracy.

  * * *

  Map showing extent of Somali piracy in prior years, which greatly expanded in range from 2005 to 2010…

  

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 20:00

• 'To Make A Snowflake'
  ‘To Make A Snowflake’

  Authored by J.A.Frascino via AmericanThinker.com,

  A snowflake forms when cold water droplets freeze onto a nidus of dust or pollen in the atmosphere, creating an ice crystal.  

  Additional droplets are added in an infinitely variable pattern, forming a unique structure.  

  The product of a perfectly natural process taking about 30 minutes, a snowflake is a fragile entity, blown by the wind and threatened by warming, salt, shovels, and plows.

  There is nothing natural about the formation of a human snowflake.  

  

  The nidus is a normal child seeking identity in a complex society.  

  The first step is to disconnect him from traditional social foundations, viewed by the left as oppressive, while offering it nothing of substance to replace them.  

  Teach the child that his nation was built on slavery and is systemically racist, that religion is dictatorial and science-denying, that the traditional family is patriarchal, that gender designation is repressive, and that first names are too restraining.

  Having transformed the child into an isolated, self-immersed entity without an anchor, it is next necessary to weaken his resolve.  

  Teach the child that speech and events that may make him uncomfortable are an existential threat to his safety and well-being.  Teach him to be alert to microaggressions and to bullying.  Tell him that global warming will destroy the planet.  Allow him to skip classes and attend bereavement counseling when the Orange Man is elected.  Provide him with safe spaces.  Reward him not for accomplishment, but for participation.  Coddle and indulge him.  Capitalize upon his exalted status as the object of permissive parenting.  Discipline might be hurtful, especially for someone showing signs of emotional stress.  Allow him to find identity, escape, and safety in the alternate universe of social media.

  The snowflake is now fully formed — emotionally fragile, sheltered, socially withdrawn, and vulnerable to meltdown.  

  Just as physical stress builds strong bodies, dealing with emotional stress builds strong psyches.  Creating a stressful culture, and then taking every possible step to shelter the disenfranchised from having to deal with the stress so created, is how to make a snowflake.

  Snowflake creation is but one adverse outcome of leftist “change America” activism — activism that seeks immediate gratification through vengeful attack on the “oppressors,” with apparent disregard for the outcome of its actions.  Save the planet — ban fossil fuels!  Replace nationalistic xenophobia with open borders.  End racism by replacing merit with diversity.  Reduce crime by not prosecuting it.  Support the economy with fiscal stimulus.  Eliminate misogyny by prioritizing career over family.  What could go wrong?

  If the chaos arising from “changing America” creates snowflakes, they must simply be protected and coddled; excused from social interaction and having to go to school; and given drugs for their increased rates of anxiety, depression, drug addiction, and suicide.  But not to worry — they will grow up to be part of the Democrat party base, left with no alternative but to seek solace in the embrace of a nurturing government.  (As in Obama’s “The Life of Julia.”)

  Turning to the government, led by the Democrat party, to resolve the chaos created by the intentional churning of discontent in matters of race, sex, and class is the ultimate overriding goal of the left.  The creation of snowflakes is an integral part of that process.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 19:40

• Millions Brace For Northeast's Biggest Snowstorm In Years
  Millions Brace For Northeast’s Biggest Snowstorm In Years

  Millions of Americans from the Carolinas to Maine are under winter weather alerts ahead of what could be the biggest snowstorm to hit the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast in at least a year.  

  

  The storm is developing on Friday along the Gulf Coast. According to computer forecast models, major cities along the Northeast’s I-95 corridor will likely escape the brunt of the snowstorm (not what snow lovers want to hear). However, regions in the Interior Northeast could see upwards of 12 inches of snow. 

  The system will traverse the Southeast and into the mid-Atlantic Friday into Saturday. Snow, sleet, and rain are expected across the Atlantic region on Saturday, quickly changing to rain from DC to Baltimore to Philadelphia to New York City. Some metro areas along the I-95 might record an inch of snow.  

  The good news is that a multi-year snow drought could end across some of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast metro areas. 

  Areas north and west of the DC to Baltimore to Philadelphia to NYC could record 4 to 8 inches of snow, with isolated amounts over a foot. 

  The first in a series of 7 winter storms that is predicted to occur by https://t.co/YxtQAImEWH. The first storm will bring heavy snow to PA into New England. The pattern will get busy through March and in that pattern, a storm of Big Daddy potential may occur. pic.twitter.com/Vrdygetb1d

  — Weather Madness (@HenryMargusity) January 5, 2024

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

  Rob Carolan, owner of Hometown Forecast Services, told Bloomberg that rain is expected to start in New York City late Saturday, with the storm strengthening overnight. He said northern New Jersey, the Hudson Valley, and parts of Connecticut might see 2 to 6 inches of snow, adding Upstate New York and interior New England could see upwards of 10 inches. 

  

  Carolan said, “It is the best snowfall we have seen in over a year in many of these locations.” 

  We noted on Monday, “First Time In Nearly 2 Years”: Snow Drought In Major US Northeast Cities May End Soon, and published a note this morning about an incoming cold blast for the Lower 48 later this month. 

  Is there another storm forecasted for next week? 

  Power outages could be a big story by midweek next week. Back to back systems… with rains… snow… melt… more rains… then huge winds. Gust maps continue to show widespread 50mph+ across the eastern US. Some even higher along the coast! Early Wednesday AM here shows the… pic.twitter.com/zeVT1TWTWJ

  — Mike’s Weather Page (@tropicalupdate) January 5, 2024

  Thank you, El Nino.  

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

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 19:20

• Politicized, Progressive Big Philanthropy
  Politicized, Progressive Big Philanthropy

  Authored by Michael E. Hartmann via RealClear Wire,

  Steve Miller’s December 12 RealClearInvestigations article, “How Tax-Exempt Nonprofits Skirt U.S. Law to Turn Out the Democrat Base in Elections,” is both jarring and informative and helps frame many important questions facing philanthropy, conservatism, and conservative philanthropy.

  

  Miller describes the general size and scope of activities being conducted a progressive nonprofit infrastructure that has “taken on an outsized part of the Democratic Party’s election strategy” and, specifically, how they “work around legal restrictions on nonprofits that accept tax-deductible donations by selectively engaging in nonpartisan efforts including boosting voter education and participation.”

  The infrastructure also includes nonprofit grantmaking institutions, which are also tax-advantaged and also evade restrictions on partisan political activity.

  As Institute for Free Speech chair Bradley Smith tells Miller, that progressive grant-recipient groups outnumber, outraise, and outspend conservative entities. Contemporary, politicized Big Philanthropy — as my Giving Review co-editor Bill Schambra has noted — is “an oppressively arid, progressive monoculture” and “[c]onservatives need to face this truth.”

  On the day Miller’s article appeared, the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing on the how the growth of the tax-exempt sector is changing the U.S. political landscape. During the generally non-contentious proceeding, members and witnesses floated or endorsed several potential discrete changes to law and regulations on tax-exemption, foreign funding of exempt nonprofits, and the degree to which those groups and their also-exempt funders can engage in voter registration.

  The proposed reforms included, among others, the following: (1) banning foreign contributions to tax-exempt nonprofits; (2) curbing contributions to political super PACs from social-welfare nonprofits that accept foreign contributions; (3) barring private foundations and public charities from funding and engaging in voter-registration projects; (4) banning private contributions to state- and local-government election administration; and (5) redesigning Internal Revenue Service Forms 990, including to request and then provide to the public more information about “fiscally sponsored” projects, and 990-PF.

  Two days after Miller’s article and the oversight subcommittee hearing—at the other end of the U.S. Capitol, Sen. J. D. Vance, Republican of Ohio, introduced the College Endowment Accountability Act, which would increase the excise tax on endowment net investment income from 1.4 percent to 35% for secular, private, nonprofit colleges and universities with at least $10 billion in assets under management.

  Big Philanthropy is big mostly because of its similarly large nonprofit endowments. Vance’s bold bill would be a decidedly non-incremental policy step, and could serve as an opening bargaining position for future discussions about all such endowments’ tax treatment.

  Rates and Rises

  The current 1.4-percent tax rate on the endowments of colleges (whose student bodies are majority U.S. citizens, where more than 500 students are tuition-paying, and where total assets exceed $500,000 per student) was set by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

  “While it is a relatively small tax, this new law is a first step towards the exploration of taxing non-profit entities on the vast sums of wealth they hold in their endowments,” University of Kentucky law professor Jennifer Bird-Pollan wrote in a Pepperdine Law Review article about the tax and its wider implications.

  “If we believe the rationale for imposing the excise tax stems from a distaste for excessive accumulation on the part of these wealthy universities, perhaps we should take the rationale even further,” she observed. “Why are we focused only on universities? … Seeing the 2017 tax bill’s university endowment excise tax as opening the door to imposing tax as an incentive tool to stop the excessive accumulation of wealth by non-profit entities lets us imagine what else we might see ….”

  In fact, in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, Congress set the excise tax on the income of private-foundation endowments at a flat 1.39%. Prior to the simplifying change, the rate was 2% percent, but could decrease to one percent if a foundation increased its charitable grant distributions.

  Rationales for Reform

  If one believes there’s a good rationale for proposing an increase of the tax in the higher-education context, it seems the same rationale would apply to private foundations. Here’s how Vance’s explained his reasoning for a higher-ed endowment tax increase on the Senate floor: “How is it,” he asked, that universities, which “should be responsive to the public will, responsive to their donors and alumni, responsive to their students, how is it that they can go so far so fast without any pushback?”

  The answer, he continued, “is university endowments, which have grown incredibly large on the backs of subsidies from the taxpayers, and they have made these universities completely independent of any political, financial, or other pressure ….”

  In 2021, prior to formally declaring his Senate candidacy, Vance floated a reform idea that treated the tax status of all nonprofits, including foundations, the same. “[W]e should eliminate all special privileges that exist for our nonprofit and foundation class,” he told a Claremont Institute audience.

  Why is it that if you’re spending all your money to teach literal racism to our children in their schools, why do we give you special tax breaks instead of taxing you more? …

  The decision to give those foundations and those organizations special privileges is a decision made by public policy. It was made by man, and we can undo it.

  Three months later, Vance then specifically applied this equivalence. “Any charitable organization with an endowment over $100 million must spend 20% of its endowment each year, or else it loses its 501c3 status and the preferential treatment of its income,” he proposed. Echoing his made-by-man-and-can-be-unmade thinking, Vance notes, “The Ford Foundation and the Harvard endowment don’t have a constitutional right to tax advantages that are unavailable to the vast majority of American citizens.”

  Questions

  Along with the similar work of others — including at the Capital Research Center, where I’m a senior fellow — Miller’s article, the Ways and Means oversight-subcommittee hearing, and Vance’s bill raise even more fundamental questions. These are especially relevant to conservatism, and conservative philanthropy.

  Of philanthropy: What’s it for? If it’s for charity, but it being used for partisan electoral politics, what’s to be done?

  Of conservatism: Where on the spectrum of proposed policy reforms, between the carefully tailored oversight subcommittee options and Vance  more-existential “threat” to large nonprofit endowments, should principle nudge us? Slight alterations or frontal assaults, or a mixture of both?

  Finally, regarding conservative philanthropy: Can it face the truth of how radically progressive, policy-oriented, and partisan most Big Philanthropy has become? Are conservatives bound by principle to defend such a regime? Is the traditional understanding of charity worth somehow trying to preserve despite how the system has been abused by partisan politicization?

  Or should the conservative side of philanthropy aggressively “fight fire with fire” and engage in the same kind of politicization itself, if only to try neutralizing the other effort? And if the other side’s fire so often includes successfully influencing the formulation, passage, and implementation of government policy — shouldn’t its fire too?

  Michael E. Hartmann is a co-editor of The Giving Review and a senior fellow at the Capital Research Center.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 19:00

• Defense Minister Says Israel Won't Assert Civil Control Over Gaza Post-War, In Bow To US Pressure
  Defense Minister Says Israel Won’t Assert Civil Control Over Gaza Post-War, In Bow To US Pressure

  Israel’s defense minister Yoav Gallant on Friday published and circulated a document laying out the military’s “vision for Phase 3” of the Gaza war, which ostensibly lays out a new scaled-down, more targeted approach for operations in the Gaza Strip. 

  However, Gallant made clear the contents of the plan are not yet official Israeli policy, only that these are his ideas. “In the northern region of the Gaza strip, we will transition to a new combat approach in accordance with military achievements on the ground,” Gallant’s office said of the policy proposal.

  Operations will continue to focus on raids, demolishing tunnels, air and ground strikes, as well special forces operations in the north – even including all of these tactics apparently also continuing in the south, which will go on “for as long as is deemed necessary” until Hamas is eradicated and the hostages are freed.

  

  Israel has recently announced a drawdown of reserve forces active in the Gaza Strip, and repositioning of troops, with an eye toward more targeted operations, which has been widely seen as a nod to US pressure for the campaign to deescalate. Gaza’s Health Ministry has cited a Palestinian death toll of over 22,400 – which it says are mostly women and children.

  Defense chief Gallant’s plan is most interesting when it comes to the Hamas ‘day after’ – given this has been a point of contention between the Netanyahu and Biden governments. The White House has floated a plan that would eventually give control over to the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA).

  But Netanyahu has consistently rejected this, calling the PA terror supporters and sympathizers. But the Gallant plan is seeking to strike a compromise, it appears: 

  “Gaza residents are Palestinian, therefore Palestinian bodies will be in charge, with the condition that there will be no hostile actions or threats against the State of Israel,” Gallant’s office said in a statement on Thursday.

  Al Jazeera’s Sara Khairat, reporting from Tel Aviv, said Gallant made it clear that Israeli officials want a “Palestinian entity” to be in charge of running civilian affairs in the Gaza Strip, but with “very specific conditions”.

  “Those conditions are that they won’t act hostile towards Israel, and they won’t act against it in any way, shape, or form.”

  It’s unclear who this “Palestinian entity” would be if the PA is not considered among the options. But the importance in this lies in that it’s another significant concession to Washington’s will… an affirmation that Israel won’t assert civilian control over Gaza in a post-war scenario.

  However, the reality is that we could be years from seeing any such ‘day after’ plan materialize, given that Hamas is still intact, after having lost likely thousands of fighters. And the sad question must be asked: will there be any Palestinian civilians remaining in the Strip to speak of?

  Hamas will meanwhile continue to employ guerrilla tactics utilizing small teams which attack from the vast network of tunnels, which means they do not suffer large-scale losses in any single assault operation.

  * * * 

  Below: Hamas has been publishing footage of its close-quarter ambushes in Gaza almost on a daily basis…

  ⚡️Hamas publishes footage of their fighters targeting zionist vehicles in Gaza city axis pic.twitter.com/O616d8oZs9

  — War Monitor (@WarMonitors) January 4, 2024

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

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 18:40

• Supreme Court Takes Up Trump Ballot Disqualification Case
  Supreme Court Takes Up Trump Ballot Disqualification Case

  Authored by Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court accepted a petition for immediate review regarding a Colorado Supreme Court decision to strike former President Donald Trump from the 2024A presidential ballot.

  “The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted,” reads the procedural order.

  Oral arguments are scheduled for Feb. 8.

  Petitioners’ and amicus briefs are due by Jan. 18, and respondents’ and amicus briefs are due by Jan. 31, with any reply briefs due by Feb. 5.

  The Colorado Supreme Court had disqualified President Trump as a candidate on Dec. 19 in an order that left little chance for the actual removal of his name from the ballot.

  On Dec. 27, the Colorado GOP filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking three separate questions regarding the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and political parties’ First Amendment rights to primary their candidate of choice.

  On Jan. 3, President Trump filed a separate petition with a simpler question: Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in its ruling?

  The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up President Trump’s petition, and has yet to accept to reject the Colorado GOP’s petition.

  ‘Chaos’

  Colorado was the first state to disqualify President Trump, and the first state to hold hearings regarding the merits of a Section 3 challenge at all.

  The legal theory that President Trump can be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment rests on the premise that the events of Jan. 6, 2021, constituted an insurrection, and that President Trump actively participated in or instigated it. It also assumes that individual state courts at various levels have the authority to adjudicate the eligibility of a presidential candidate under Section 3.

  There have been at least 60 of these challenges across the country in recent months, according to President Trump’s attorneys.

  However, the majority of these challenges have been dismissed for a wide range of reasons, with several courts citing lack of jurisdiction.

  Officials and some judges have argued that if individual state courts were meant to be able to rule if a presidential candidate engaged in insurrection and whether that affected his eligibility, it could result in “chaos,” with upwards of 50 different rulings.

  In several amicus briefs filed with both the Colorado GOP and Trump petitions, experts and concerned voters argued much the same.

  The Colorado decision has already created a ripple effect, with legislators in other states calling for disqualifications of President Trump as a candidate on their own ballots, as well as other states calling for the disqualification of President Joe Biden from state primaries in retaliation.

  Soon after the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows similarly disqualified President Trump as a candidate in a decision phrased as having little chance of actually removing him from the ballot. That decision is being appealed in state court, and marks the third jurisdiction that has found that President Trump engaged in an insurrection—without him, or any Jan. 6 defendant, having been charged with such.

  The lawsuits and wide range of rulings have raised a host of legal questions: Does the Constitution allow states to define “insurrection” individually? Does Congress hold sole authority over disqualifying candidates under Section 3? Does the disqualification from holding office allow states to prohibit candidates from running in primary elections, or can a candidate be disqualified or exempted via a vote by Congress as late as Inauguration Day?

  As such, several amicus brief authors have requested the U.S. Supreme Court adjudicate more than what the appellants have asked, including to hold a full hearing on the merits of the case.

  A group of 45 Colorado voters had filed an amicus brief on the Colorado GOP petition, urging the Supreme Court to do more than merely reverse the Colorado Supreme Court ruling.

  Such a ruling “would solve nothing and actually makes matters worse,” they wrote. “The Colorado court has unleashed harms which will creep beyond Colorado’s borders.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 18:19

• NRA Head LaPierre Steps Down Over "Health Reasons"
  NRA Head LaPierre Steps Down Over “Health Reasons”

  Ahead of a civil corruption trial in Manhattan, embattled longtime leader of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, announced to board members that he would step down on Friday.

  “With pride in all that we have accomplished, I am announcing my resignation from the NRA,” LaPierre wrote in a statement published on social media platform X.

  

  He said, “I’ve been a card-carrying member of this organization for most of my adult life, and I will never stop supporting the NRA and its fight to defend Second Amendment freedom. My passion for our cause burns as deeply as ever.”

  NRA EVP Wayne LaPierre Announces Resignation from NRA

  The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) announced today that Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre announced he is stepping down from his position as chief executive of the organization, effective January 31.… pic.twitter.com/GbGBWktu7C

  — NRA (@NRA) January 5, 2024

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

  The resignation, effective at the end of this month, is not part of a deal with New York’s attorney general, Letitia James. “Longtime NRA executive and Head of General Operations Andrew Arulanandam will become the interim CEO & EVP of the NRA,” the NRA said. 

  LaPierre submitted his resignation at a board meeting in Irving, Texas, citing “health reasons” as a significant driver in his decision. 

  This new turn of events is set to change the dynamics of the Manhattan trial, as James sought to remove LaPierre from his head role, which he has held since 1991. 

  Under LaPierre’s leadership, the NRA became a powerful lobbying group for the Second Amendment. However, its various compromises on 2A issues has allowed Gun Owners of America (GOA), a ‘no compromise’ gun lobby group, to flourish in the shadows with a surge in new members and plowing millions of dollars into lobbying.

  The NRA’s most recent compromise was the Trump bump stock ban.

  

  Law-abiding Americans are gravitating towards GOA, which will likely displace the NRA as the nation’s premier gun rights group in the next several years in terms of spending on Capitol Hill and members. 

  GOA had our BEST YEAR YET in 2023 and we are incredibly thankful to our staff, members, and supporters across the country who fought for the Second Amendment. 🥳

  Scroll through the 🧵⤵️ to see GOA’s 2023 victories!

  What is your favorite GOA win?! pic.twitter.com/oViSyqaas6

  — Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) January 2, 2024

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

  The era of no compromise is only beginning. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 18:00

• 3 Years Ago His Wife Was Killed On Jan. 6, Now Aaron Babbitt's Mission Is Clear
  3 Years Ago His Wife Was Killed On Jan. 6, Now Aaron Babbitt’s Mission Is Clear

  Authored by Joseph Hanneman via The Epoch Times,

  January 6 has become Aaron Babbitt’s hill to die on.

  

  Over the three years since Ashli Babbitt was shot and killed outside the House Speaker’s Lobby at the U.S. Capitol, her husband has made it his mission to investigate her death and seek justice.

  “It’s not really possible to put it into words,” Mr. Babbitt told The Epoch Times in an extended series of interviews.

  “I wouldn’t wish it on anybody. But like I’ve said before, I mean, we’re all born with a purpose. You never know what that purpose is until it kicks you right between the legs.”

  For Mr. Babbitt, the jolt came in the early afternoon Pacific time on Jan. 6, 2021, when he received urgent phone calls to turn on the television. Someone had been shot at the protests at the U.S. Capitol. He remembers seeing Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer declare that the woman shot near the House of Representatives had died.

  Then everything went black.

  

  Aaron Babbitt ponders his journey since his wife was killed on Jan. 6, 2021, as he looks out over North San Diego Bay. (Joseph M. Hanneman/The Epoch Times)

  “That kick between the legs for me was watching my wife die on TV,” he said. “So my purpose now is just to fight for Ashli until I can’t fight anymore. I don’t even know what that means. But I’ll continue doing it until I can’t.”

  During the first 18 months, Mr. Babbitt was prominent in news media, defending his wife from an onslaught of hate for being an alleged insurrectionist, a rioter, a vandal, and someone who attacked the Capitol. Well before many facts came out, he knew in his heart that his wife was none of the things of which she was being accused.

  “Ashli’s name is going to be written history books at some point,” he said.

  “And I want it to be written correctly.”

  Mr. Babbitt recently sat down to reflect on nearly 36 months of suffering, investigating, and preparing for justice.

  Sitting on a park bench along the shore of North San Diego Bay, Mr. Babbitt watched the tour boats, catamarans, speed boats, and the occasional U.S. Navy warship sail past. On this fall afternoon, the USS Boxer headed out to sea while the USS Spruance made her way into port.

  Just beyond the opposite shore, a steady stream of aircraft took off from the sprawling Naval Station North Island, including helicopters similar to ones that Mr. Babbitt worked on for years as a U.S. Marine Corps mechanic.

  ‘It Was Awful’

  The first three months after his wife was gunned down by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd, Mr. Babbitt struggled with the shock and what seemed like a never-ending line of haters who harassed him at his family pool-cleaning business in San Diego. He needed to decide what his life would become after being widowed at age 39.

  “From the start, I wouldn’t even look at the browser on my phone,“ he said.

  ”I wouldn’t turn my TV on for like a month because I was so traumatized by what I‘d seen. Anytime I’d log on and see pictures of Ashli dead, I’d get terrified and then shut it off. It was awful.”

  

  Aaron and Ashli Babbitt on an outing. ‘She just loved life,’ Babbitt said. (Photo Courtesy Aaron Babbitt)

  Mr. Babbitt made a gut-wrenching decision that rather than withdraw into his grief, he would launch a nonstop investigation of the shooting. That meant tirelessly searching for clues while wading through a sea of online disinformation and unbridled hatred.

  “I got to the point where I realized I need to be the foremost expert on what happened to my wife,” he said. “And in being that, I need to watch every single second of footage of what happened to her.

  “So I just turned it into a daily routine,” Mr. Babbitt said.

  “I‘d wake up and search Ashli’s name on Twitter. I’d read all the bad stuff. I‘d look at all the pictures. I’d see all the videos.

  “It didn’t come very quickly. But it got to a point where I have now seen everything,” he said. “More than all of you hateful people have seen. Everything. You can’t shock me anymore.”

  ‘Hill to Die On’

  Mr. Babbitt’s visibility in the first year after the shooting came at a price. The pool-cleaning business he ran with his wife came under attack. The business voicemail was a nonstop wave of hate-filled messages, such as, “Can Ashli come out and clean my pool?”

  “We lost, like, 30 percent of our customers just based on name recognition. They didn’t want to be associated with us. And then I couldn’t take new customers on because I was getting death threats.”

  Mr. Babbitt decided to sell the business and focus full-time on investigating his wife’s death. He has not looked back.

  “I ended up having to sell that business for pennies on the dollar. It hasn’t been easy,“ he said.

  ”I’ve sacrificed a lot. But I’m willing to do that for her. This is my hill to die on.”

  

  Aaron Babbitt with his wife, Ashli, who was killed at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Aaron Babbitt)

  Mr. Babbitt recalled seeing his wife reading her Twitter feed one day and laughing at how angry many people became after she shared her views on politics or current events.

  “There were a lot of tears, there was a lot of anger, there’s a lot of rage,” he recalled. “But I got to the point after I’d seen this for so long, this one night it just clicked in my head.”

  “‘Wow, these people are really mad at me. They really hate me,’” he recalled her saying. “She’s laughing at the same time. So that moment came when I was reading all this bad [expletive]. And then I remembered that moment with Ashli. I just started laughing out loud. She had to have been there in that moment to remind me of that.”

  Mr. Babbitt made the decision to forge ahead, to resist thoughts of revenge and focus instead on justice. It was a battle inside himself.

  “I had three options. I mean, I could turtle up and go into my shell and go away forever,” he said.

  “I could do something brazen, you know, and try and exact revenge for my wife, and then just be dead or incarcerated, the husband of a dead ‘domestic terrorist,’ as they like they label her.

  “Or I could go about it the smart, calculated way and bring these people to justice,“ Mr. Babbitt said.

  ”Do what’s right for Ashli in the long run of history.”

  The beginning of that journey saw some “very dark days,” he said.

  “It’s hard to put into words, but I believe—and I will continue to believe—that I chose the right path,” Mr. Babbitt said. “Because it’s not about me. It’s really not about me. It’s about Ashli.

  “Ashi’s voice was taken that day. And now I speak for her,” he said. “And if I did anything stupid, then that voice would be lost.”

  Secret Tour of Capitol

  Part of that investigative journey led Mr. Babbitt and his attorney to Washington to retrace the steps Ashli took on Jan. 6.

  In 2022, Mr. Babbitt was given a secret tour of the U.S. Capitol, arranged by U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). Mr. Babbitt and his attorney were instructed to be at a certain location near the Capitol late on a weeknight.

  

  A view of the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 19, 2022. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

  A black SUV with dark windows pulled up at the specified location at the appointed hour. The pair got in. Mr. Babbitt looked and realized Mr. Gohmert was driving. The now-retired congressman dropped the men off at a discreet entrance to the Capitol, and they went inside.

  Mr. Babbitt was given a private moment on the spot outside the Speaker’s Lobby where his wife was fatally shot by Lt. Byrd. He was then given a tour of the Capitol by Mr. Gohmert and other supportive lawmakers.

  Not long after that tour, Mr. Babbitt and his attorney went to the O’Neill House Office Building to view U.S. Capitol Police security video. The invitation for that visit came from then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

  Mr. McCarthy and staff from the Committee on House Administration promised Mr. Babbitt he could obtain any videos he needed for his investigation, he said. More than 10 months later, however, Mr. Babbitt is still waiting. Despite submitting a detailed request, no videos have been turned over by the House.

  Police ‘Breakdown’

  When he went through all of the cell-phone videos taken in the hallway outside the Speaker’s Lobby, Mr. Babbitt saw his wife’s years of training as a military police officer and the tours she spent in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. She looked at what unfolded around her not only as a witness but as someone who served in the U.S. Air Force and Army National Guard.

  “She saw a breakdown of the police. Three police officers were not acting correctly in front of that door,” Mr. Babbitt said. “They weren’t acting like they were there to defend that door.”

  Officers Kyle Yetter and Christopher Lanciano and Sgt. Timothy Lively faced an angry group of protesters demanding to go into the House Chamber and make their voices heard. The officers had no pepper spray or batons but were armed with service pistols.

  

  Moments before being fatally shot, Ashli Babbitt confronts three police offers for not stopping the vandalism outside the U.S. House. (Video Still/Tayler Hansen)

  The situation went off the rails when Zachary Alam vented his rage by punching the glass in the doors, including one strike that went right between Sgt. Lively and Officer Lanciano’s heads. Mr. Alam seemed emboldened by their inaction. He eventually used a black riot helmet like a cudgel to smash the glass.

  “They were just standing there, letting people punch around their heads, not doing anything to quell the violence or stop the violence and the people who were creating violence and havoc that day,” Mr. Babbitt said. “They weren’t stopping them. And then Ashli yelled at them to ‘call [expletive] help.’”

  Ms. Babbitt tried to intervene with Mr. Alam at one point, but he brushed her aside. She retreated to the north wall, where videos show she shouted against the violence.

  “Once they start going full force on those doors, that’s when you hear Ashli screaming at them to stop,“ Mr. Babbitt said. ”‘Stop! No, don’t! Stop! Wait!’ And that was when it had to have been—just knowing Ash, it had to have been that moment. She’s like, ‘What the [expletive] is going on? What is happening right now?’”

  Memories of Iraq

  Perhaps at those very moments, Ms. Babbitt recalled the worst of her military deployments. Camp Bucca, Iraq, was a brutal duty assignment. She had to guard jihadis who would have gladly cut her throat if they escaped their confines.

  

  Ashli Babbitt was a military police officer in the U.S. Air Force and Army National Guard. (Courtesy of Micki Witthoeft)

  “It was just all detainees that they would bring in. There was CIA coming in all the time,” Mr. Babbitt said. “Blackhawks coming in, dropping people off, taking people out.

  “Lines of SUVs coming in, taking people out, bringing people in,” he said. “Riots—they kill each other. They threatened to kill our forces.”

  One day, Ms. Babbitt had to run from the shower in just a towel and take cover in a foxhole because the base was being shelled, he said. On another occasion, Ms. Babbitt and another female MP came across three prisoners who had tunneled out of their cells.

  “They got into a hand-to-hand fistfight with three of them before the guys in the tower could run down and help them,” he said. “So it’s two females fighting three grown men.”

  Ms. Babbitt enlisted at age 17 and had to get her mother’s permission to sign up before age 18. During four deployments from her Texas base, Mr. Babbitt said, she guarded an airfield for a visit of President George W. Bush and served as security for then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

  

  U.S. Marine veteran Aaron Babbitt says the Capitol Police lieutenant who killed his wife Ashli violated protocol for use of deadly force. (CapitolPunishmentTheMovie.com/Bark at the Hole Productions)

  ‘I Have My Purpose’

  Looking back on it all, Mr. Babbitt said there’s no way he could have known how big—and tragic—Jan. 6 would turn out to be for him and his wife.

  When he kissed her goodbye at home on Jan. 5, he recalled, she sensed his unease about the trip.

  “The last words to my face that she spoke to me were, ‘You’re worried about me, aren’t you?‘ I’m always worried. I’m always worried about you,” Mr. Babbitt said.

  “And she said, ‘I’ll be fine. Everything’s gonna be alright.’”

  Mr. Babbitt reflected on how far he has come since hearing the fateful news broadcast the afternoon of Jan. 6.

  “I was not in a good place. It was a very deep dark place,“ he recalled. ”But I pulled out of it. Knowing that I have my purpose. And my purpose is for Ashli.

  “And as sad as it is to say, maybe it was Ashli’s purpose at that point in time to be wrongfully shot. And to be that person in history to shine a light on what was really wrong that day and during those times.”

  

  Massive crowds gather as President Donald Trump speaks to supporters from The Ellipse near the White House on January 6, 2021. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

  While Jan. 6 is obviously a difficult day every year, Jan. 8 also brings memories and sadness. He was supposed to grab her a takeout meal from Roberto’s, one of their favorite haunts.

  “I was supposed to pick her up at 5:30 on Friday, and she said, maybe with a California burrito,” Mr. Babbitt said. “People don’t know what a Cali burrito is. But it’s got french fries on it. She wanted me to pick her up on Friday at 5:30 at San Diego International with a California burrito.”

  He planned to order the Cali just as she liked it: carne asada, fries, cheese, sour cream, guacamole, and pico de gallo.

  “Want to talk about hard,“ he said. ”Five-thirty hit here on Friday and I was like, ‘I’m supposed to be picking her up right now.’”

  But now, the grief takes a back seat. Mr. Babbitt knows it is a time for action—and justice.

  “I know she’s always with me,” he said. “But it took a while. It did. It took a little while, but I just knew that I had to bury my grief and bury any bad thoughts that I had in my head.

  “Because if I am nothing but 100 percent focused on my fight for Ashli and what we’re doing, then I’m no good to her.”

  Aaron Babbitt fully believes that justice is coming in his wife’s case.

  “Yeah, I’m confident we’re gonna get there,” he said quietly. “Yeah, I will. I will. I’ll go down trying.”

  *  *  *

  The Epoch Times original documentary “The Real Story of January 6 Part 2: The Long Road Home” will be available to full subscribers starting Saturday, Jan. 6, at 8:30 p.m. ET on EpochTV.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 01/05/2024 – 17:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest