New York Aldi Cashiers Reject Regular Customer's $2 Bills, Claiming They're Fake
New York Aldi Cashiers Reject Regular Customer's $2 Bills, Claiming They're Fake
One step closer to a Central Bank Digital currency, and 1984…
As the younger generations grow up, the norms we once thought were commonplace with money - like sound money backed by gold and silver and denominations like half dollars and $2 bills - are now ancient history.
Case in point, Richard Seeger of Wurtsboro, NY, who was shopping at an Aldi when the cashier refused to take his $2 bills, thinking they were fake, according to a https://nypost.com/2025/02/01/us-news/young-cashiers-at-ny-grocery-store-reject-mans-2-bills-believing-they-were-counterfeit/
“I was in Aldi’s this morning in Monticello… I wanted to pay with some $2 bills… the young guy refused to accept them and insisted they were counterfeit,” Steger wrote on a Facebook group called “Uncensored Sullivan County New York News and Politics.”
?itok=la2Cx78z
Two young cashiers immediately declared the bills counterfeit without even attempting to verify them. Steger urged one to check, only to be met with arrogant dismissal.
The cashier claimed the phrase "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" indicated a fake, a clear misunderstanding of its meaning (debatable, we know).
He then handed the bills to a female coworker. The woman asked if the young man had checked the bills with a counterfeit marker.
Steger wrote: “He whispered ‘no, they’re fake.’ So, without even checking them, she rudely and arrogantly told me, ‘We’re not accepting them!’”
“Then she gave me the ‘ef you have a nice day smile to leave… if you know what I mean,” he continued. “Absolutely disgusting and unprofessional treatment to a regular customer!"
Aldi did not respond to https://nypost.com/2025/02/01/us-news/young-cashiers-at-ny-grocery-store-reject-mans-2-bills-believing-they-were-counterfeit/
request for comment.The $2 bill, featuring Thomas Jefferson and Trumbull’s Declaration of Independence, has been in its current design since 1976. Once tied to gambling and fraud, 1.2 billion are in circulation today.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Tue, 02/04/2025 - 23:25
The Most Important Trade Chart In The World
The Most Important Trade Chart In The World
Markets this year - and newsflow in general - seem to be rolling from one mega theme to another at breakneck speed. As DB's Jim Reid described it, by mid-January, the UK was in the crosshairs of investors as global yields spiked. A week later, Deep Seek created temporary panic in the tech sector. Then yesterday saw another huge market swing, especially in Mexican and Canadian assets, as the “shock” weekend tariffs were delayed by a month.
Sure, trade will remain the short-term focus, but don’t forget about tech. Alphabet reported tonight and tumbled more than 8% after it missed on revenue and cloud, with Amazon now on deck for Thursday. Note that yesterday Nvidia fell below last Monday’s levels when they fell -16.97% in a day, thus wiping out the subsequent bounce. It’s now down -22% from its all-time high in early January and at levels it first hit in June last year, pointing to a loss of momentum. So keep an eye on tech as the trade war heats up.
That said, the trade topic continues to be front and center and US tariffs of 10% on all Chinese goods went into effect this morning, which were met in turn with retaliation from China. They imposed 10-15% tariffs on a combination of energy, agricultural goods, and auto vehicles from the US, a response which was largely viewed by the market as tame even if this is just the first exchange in the latest trade war.
Indeed, while markets may be inclined to read across from negotiating successes the US had with Mexico and Canada, a lot is different in the US-China trade relationship according to Reid, where a much more existential imbalance lies behind US trade angst with China, which the Trump administration now seems keen to correct.
In a report published this morning by Deutsche Bank's Thematic Research team (available to https://www.zerohedge.com/signup/professional-membership-year
), the authors look at the heart of the imbalance that’s motivating the US-China trade war and explains why this will be a fundamentally different fight.
While the US accounts for 29% of global consumption, it produces only 15% of the world's goods. Meanwhile, China accounts for 32% of global manufacturing but just 12% of consumption. Simplifying it, this imbalance shows up in a USD1 trillion Chinese trade surplus and a nearly equivalent US deficit.
?itok=BX5Jzrwh
China's economic development in recent years, instead of moving it towards a consumer-oriented economy, has moved in the direction of a more advanced manufacturing economy. This is now causing consternation in the West, with China making strides in many high-value added capital goods. While the US is still the second-largest goods producer, it has less than half of China's global share, with many US allies also seeing significant drops in their manufacturing share over the past 30 years. This may now have gone too far. Access to cheaper goods is no longer a good “trade” for the US given the loss of economic security over production supply chains and technologies to a competing power.
Trump's exhortations to "MAKE YOUR PRODUCT IN THE USA AND THERE ARE NO TARIFFS" suggests that bringing production back to the US is a key goal of trade policy.
As Reid concludes, the US-China trade war is likely to be fundamentally more enduring than the US’s disputes with its neighbors, something which the market is clearly not ready for...
Much more in the https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/h71s9lm16pikwnjrp6cla/DB-Five-long-term-signals-on-trade-not-to-miss.pdf?rlkey=1m4tid3986rv5ixwlxp4tsail&dl=0
available to pro subscribers.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Tue, 02/04/2025 - 22:57
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/most-important-trade-chart-world
Anonymous FBI Agents Sue To Prevent Trump from Knowing Their Roles In J6, Mar-a-Lago Raid
Anonymous FBI Agents Sue To Prevent Trump from Knowing Their Roles In J6, Mar-a-Lago Raid
,
Nine anonymous FBI agents filed a lawsuit Tuesday to prevent the Trump administration from learning their roles in the bureau’s Jan. 6 cases, as well as their involvement in the August 2022 raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach.
?itok=18JeVn2X
The FBI agents filed their lawsuit on the heels of Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordering FBI Acting Director Brian Driscoll to review thousands of agents and other bureau employees for potential termination.
The nine anonymous FBI agents said they were sent a survey on Sunday, asking them to explain their roles in the Jan. 6 cases and the Mar-a-Lago raid.
NEW: Read the survey sent to FBI agents about their involvement in hunting down Jan. 6 protestors. https://t.co/mNw77UpW3g
— Headline USA (@HeadlineUSA) https://twitter.com/HeadlineUSA/status/1886860938260709503?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
“Some Plaintiffs were required to fill out the survey themselves, others were told that their supervisors would be filling out the form. Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated information is going to be forwarded to upper management,” the FBI agents said in https://www.scribd.com/document/823977473/FBI-Anonymous-Lawsuit
.
“Plaintiffs reasonably fear that all or parts of this list might be published by allies of President Trump, thus placing themselves and their families in immediate danger of retribution by the now pardoned and at-large Jan. 6 convicted felons,” they said, arguing: “Defendant’s gathering, retention, and disclosure of Plaintiffs’ activities related the acts of former President Trump is a violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendments to the Constitution.”
https://www.scribd.com/document/823977473/FBI-Anonymous-Lawsuit#from_embed
The FBI agents asked a federal judge to “enjoin the aggregation, storage, reporting, publication or dissemination of any list or compilation of information that would identify FBI agents and other personnel, and tie them directly to Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago case activities.”
Along with airing their grievances, the FBI agents retreaded disinformation about the Jan. 6 case that was spread by the Biden administration.
For example, they said J6ers acted violently at the urging of Donald Trump, when Trump specifically told them to remain peaceful.
The agents also falsely said rioters “caused” the fatality of a law enforcement officer, and that five police officers have died “as a result of what transpired during the Jan. 6 attack.” As has been widely documented, no police officers were killed by protestors. Officer Brian Sicknick was assaulted during the event, but he walked away from the protest and died the next day of natural causes.
9 libtarded FBI agents recycle the same played-out lies.
They also said their info has already been leaked on the "dark web" by "Jan. 6 convicted felons." Big if true! https://t.co/LJeVuQojPV
— Ken Silva (@JD_Cashless) https://twitter.com/JD_Cashless/status/1886875950501011547?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Additionally, the lawsuit claimed that “Jan. 6 convicted felons” have leaked their personal info on the “dark web.” Although it’s possible this is true, the agents didn’t provide any evidence.
Ken Silva is a staff writer at Headline USA. Follow him at https://x.com/jd_cashless
.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Tue, 02/04/2025 - 18:50
20,000 Government Workers Take Trump Buyout Offer As Mass Layoffs Loom
20,000 Government Workers Take Trump Buyout Offer As Mass Layoffs Loom
Approximately 20,000 federal workers, or around 1% of the federal workforce, have accepted the Trump administration's https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-offer-buyouts-unacceptable-work-home-feds
reports, citing a senior administration official.
?itok=T6iGxnIu
The offer allows federal employees to stop working immediately and continue to be paid through Sept. 30. And with the door open for another 48 hours, the White House expects more to take the offer.
"We expect more to come. If you see what's happening at USAID, it's just one piece of the puzzle," said the official, referring to the federal agency which oversees foreign aid programs full of https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rank-insubordination-rubio-says-usaid-full-rogue-employees
that were funding all sorts of woke, anti-American projects around the world.
The buyout offer has faced heavy opposition from unions and other organizations, which argue that the offer is illegal, there's no guarantee people will actually get paid (lol), and it's something that Congress would need to authorize. The Trump admin rejects those assertions, and says it's following through on its promise to restructure the federal government.
Last week, the administration sent out a memo offering to pay all federal workers an 8-month severance through Sept. 30.
The official further stated that the administration is still trying to implement a hiring freeze, which has proven more difficult than expected as some agencies continue to hire new workers.
According to the report, the normal attrition rate within the federal workforce is around 6% per year, suggesting that some of those who have taken the buyout offer were planning to leave government service anyway.
Layoffs Likely
According to the https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/04/federal-government-layoffs-likely-memo/
, the assistant commissioner of a division of the General Services Administration told staff early this week that mass layoffs across the federal government are "likely" after the 'buyout' offer expires Thursday.
"Please know that I empathize with the tough decisions you each are having to make," wrote Erv Koehler, assistant commissioner of general supplies and services at GSA, in an email obtained by the Post. "Please focus on making the best decision for you and your particular situation."
According to Koehler's email, GSA's Federal Acquisition Service "is being asked" to cut its program by 50%, which reflects the agency's goal to half the size of its staff.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Tue, 02/04/2025 - 13:40
US Senator Hints Trump's Latest EO Could Mean The US Buying Bitcoin
US Senator Hints Trump's Latest EO Could Mean The US Buying Bitcoin
https://cointelegraph.com/news/donald-trump-executive-order-usa-buying-bitcoin
US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order directing the government to create a sovereign wealth fund, with industry advocates and at least one lawmaker suggesting the action could lead to the government acquiring Bitcoin.
?itok=L50Lqeml
Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hgWLHGDnVs
the executive order (EO) in a Feb. 3 press event in the Oval Office, directing Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick to “begin a process that will hopefully result in the creation of an American sovereign wealth fund.” According to Bessent, the EO would be enacted “within the next 12 months” and “monetize the asset side of the US balance sheet.”
?itok=hsLTXnA3
From left to right: US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, President Donald Trump, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Feb. 3. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hgWLHGDnVs
Trump, Bessent and Lutnick did not specifically say whether the fund, if established, would invest in cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, but they suggested the government could purchase TikTok. The video-sharing app is still subject to a law requiring its parent company, ByteDance, to divest its US business or face a potential ban.
Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis https://x.com/senlummis/status/1886503370254426323
to X after the EO signing to hint that the sovereign wealth fund could be used to buy BTC.
This is a ₿ig deal. https://t.co/ZShfQcEGwc
— Senator Cynthia Lummis (@SenLummis) https://twitter.com/SenLummis/status/1886503370254426323?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Bitcoin advocate Wayne Vaughan, who has also https://cointelegraph.com/news/ripple-xrp-obstacle-bitcoin-reserve-pierre-rochard
Bessent and Lutnick “both like Bitcoin” and could set up the wealth fund to invest in crypto.
Not everyone is on board with Trump EOs
Since taking office on Jan. 20, Trump has signed several executive orders that faced immediate lawsuits from organizations and authorities questioning the president’s power to enact laws through executive actions. For example, a federal judge blocked an EO attempting to revoke birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, calling the action “blatantly unconstitutional.”
Among Trump’s campaign promises to the crypto industry were pardoning Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, establishing a Bitcoin stockpile, having all BTC mined in the United States, and halting the development of a potential US central bank digital currency (CBDC).
On Jan. 23, he signed a separate EO https://cointelegraph.com/news/trump-signs-executive-order-working-group-crypto
and prohibiting a CBDC, but it’s unclear whether the order could also face legal challenges.
Bitcoin’s price dropped under $100,000 over the weekend amid news Trump https://cointelegraph.com/news/trump-tariffs-mass-bitcoin-crypto-liquidations
on imports from Canada, China and Mexico.
Following coverage of the sovereign wealth fund EO, the price had returned to around $100,000 at the time of publication.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Tue, 02/04/2025 - 13:20
https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/us-senator-hints-trumps-latest-eo-could-mean-us-buying-bitcoin
Ukraine Open To Trump Demand To Exchange Rare Earth Elements For Arms
Ukraine Open To Trump Demand To Exchange Rare Earth Elements For Arms
Apparently President Donald Trump's 'Victory Plan' for Ukraine will involve the war-ravaged country agreeing to grant the US unprecedented access to its rare earth elements in a more 'equitable' quid pro quo.
He told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday that "We’re handing them money hand over fist. We’re giving them equipment" - in reference to the Zelensky government, strongly suggesting they need to give something more in return. "We’re looking to do a deal with Ukraine, where they’re going to secure what we’re giving them with their rare earth and other things," he told reporters in the Oval Office.
?itok=UCSK_cxC
"I want to have security of rare earth," he added in reference rare earth elements, which has also been hotly sought after by other great industrial technology powers like China and Russia.
They are found in small deposits but have a huge variety of applications. These rare elements are useful in everything from electronics to defense systems to health care to batteries to clean energy. China has long had unrivaled dominance in the rare earth market, but others are catching up, and it appears Trump has set this as a priority of sorts.
of Trump's comments, however, that "It’s not clear whether Trump’s desired deal would refer only to the elements that are considered rare earths, or if he is also interested in minerals like lithium and titanium, of which Ukraine has a significant supply."
The Zelensky government may actually be considering it, per https://www.ft.com/content/94efcd8a-93ce-4ca6-bd07-061bfed1fdbf?sharetype=blocked
:
A person close to Zelenskyy told the Financial Times that Trump’s remarks “seem to align with the ‘victory plan’ presented to him in the fall”. The person said Ukraine had offered Trump “special terms” for co-operation on key resources, stressing the need to protect them from Russia and Iran. “Of course, we are ready to work with America,” the person added.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called Trump’s rare earth metals demand to Ukraine "an offer to purchase aid."
"Well, probably, if we call a spade a spade, this is an offer to buy aid, that is, not to continue to provide it on a gratuitous or other basis, but to provide it on a commercial basis," he https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/kremlin-calls-trump-s-ukraine-minerals-for-aid-plan-a-commercial-proposal-/3471201
reporters in Moscow on Tuesday. "It is better, of course, not to provide assistance at all and thereby contribute to the end of the conflict."
The only problem for Kiev and Washington is that the bulk of Ukraine’s main rare earth deposits are currently under Russian occupation in the territories annexed by Moscow...
Ukraine has lost the rare earth metal reserves promised to Trump by Zelensky
Ukrainian media points out this after the US President said he wanted to receive guarantees for rare earth metals from Ukraine.
According to data for April 2023, the value of Ukraine's mineral… https://t.co/oXdgi0R8Ed
— Dagny Taggart (@DagnyTaggart963) https://twitter.com/DagnyTaggart963/status/1886713094379860331?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
This is not the first time such a controversial plan has been floated. Late last year US Senator Lindsey Graham kept repeating the demand to gain access to Ukraine's resources in media appearances.
Lavrov had blasted the plan at the time, and said it shows what Washington is really after: "It is no coincidence that US Senator Lindsey Graham said outright (he is not a diplomat and does not hide his thoughts), that the US needs to ensure that Russia suffer a defeat in Ukraine, because there are many rare-earth metals, including lithium," the top Russian diplomat https://tass.com/politics/1877305
in November. "He said so to Vladimir Zelensky when he visited him recently. He said that the US needs these riches. And he added that they would help Ukraine and in return they would take all this from it as payback," Lavrov added.
As of Tuesday morning, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/02/04/ukraine-trump-rare-earth-minerals/
writes that Ukraine welcomes Trump offer for its minerals in trade for military support, citing Ukrainian officials who say Kiev is ready to work with Trump's business-like approach.
of the world’s rare earth mine-to-metal refining. What’s more, Chinese refineries supply 68 percent of the world’s cobalt, 65 percent of nickel, and 60 percent of EV-battery-grade lithium. As a result, a whopping 75 percent of all EV batteries are made in China.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Tue, 02/04/2025 - 13:00
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraine-open-trump-demand-exchange-rare-earth-elements-arms
Two-Tiered Justice: Disparities In Biden And Trump Pardons
Two-Tiered Justice: Disparities In Biden And Trump Pardons
,
President Biden’s and President Trump’s pardons have generated a lot of controversy. But there are considerable differences between the two sets of pardons, with a two-tiered system of justice unfairly biased against Jan. 6 defendants.
?itok=GXZE9XZs
Last month, Biden pardoned his son, Hunter. And then, on his last day in office, Biden pardoned https://archive.is/Jug5E#selection-4699.19-4699.207
. That same day, Trump pardoned 1,500 people who were convicted or facing trial for the Jan. 6 riot.
The media’s coverage of these pardons has been dramatically different. Take the New York Times, which https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/20/us/politics/biden-pardons-fauci-milley-cheney-jan-6.html
Biden’s preemptive pardons as a way to “guard” from a “promised campaign of ‘retribution’ by his incoming successor, Donald J. Trump.”
But after the 2020 election, the Times https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/23/us/politics/trump-pardon-manafort-stone.html
President Trump of using his power to “apply his own standard of justice for his allies.” That included Paul Manafort, his 2016 campaign chairman, and Roger J. Stone Jr., his longtime informal adviser and friend. Another beneficiary was a family member, Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/20/us/politics/biden-trump-jan6-pardons.html
this week the older brother of Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died naturally from a stroke the day after Jan. 6. “The message to me is that the United States is no longer a nation under the rule of law and anything goes,” Craig Sicknick was quoted as saying.
News coverage on ABC, CBS, and NBC spent 46 minutes and 32 seconds covering Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons but only three minutes and 32 seconds on Biden pardoning his family.
Overall, Biden has pardoned and commuted sentences for https://www.kttc.com/2025/01/24/digging-deeper-follow-up-presidential-pardons-following-bidens-exit/
on death row. Some of these individuals are mass murderers, child rapists, and torturers who then murdered their victims, and many have never expressed remorse.
While the pardons by both Biden and Trump are controversial, there are big differences between them.
The cases against the Jan. 6 defendants overwhelmingly involved legal system abuses. A politicized Department of Justice brought charges before juries in the District of Columbia that were heavily biased against Republicans and a circuit court that https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit
of the vote in 2020. Prosecutors with infinite budgets prosecuted ordinary people who didn’t have the resources to defend themselves.
The Biden Department of Justice clearly overcharged these defendants. For example, when a case finally got to the U.S. Supreme Court (Fisher v. United States), the court sternly reprimanded the Biden Department of Justice, saying a statute dealing with corporate fraud clearly shouldn’t have been used against https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-rule-for-jan-6-defendant/
. It isn’t a prosecutor’s job to determine what you think might be helpful to defense lawyers.
Trump’s pardons of those who engaged in violence during the riot, particularly those who had hurt police, generated the most controversy. But even here, there was a two-tiered system of justice.
While https://archive.is/faZ9z
. Despite constant claims to the contrary in the Jan. 6 riot, no officers were killed in either riot. But while the J6 defendants spent significant time in prison, none of the Lafayette Square rioters were prosecuted, let alone sentenced.
While the Jan. 6 riot was viewed as an insurrection against our government, people scaled the White House fence during the Lafayette Square riot, and the Secret Service felt the threat was sufficient to move Trump to a https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/contradicting-trump-barr-presidents-time-white-house-bunker/story?id=71152260
.
Unlike Trump, Biden pardoned family members. After the 2020 election, Biden was critical of the idea that Trump might give preemptive pardons to family members and others. He criticized Trump for possibly doing what he ended up doing himself. The pardons of Biden’s family members entailed possible crimes of corruption and money laundering involving tens of millions of dollars.
Who was more transparent with the American people? Multiple times last year, Biden and his administration promised that Biden wouldn’t pardon his son. After the 2020 election, Biden https://x.com/jaketapper/status/1881393712191955252?s=42
that he would never offer preemptive pardons, such as what he ended up giving his family members. Indeed, he condemned the very idea. By contrast, Trump consistently campaigned on pardoning Jan. 6 rioters.
Biden’s pardons of family members were preemptive and covered crimes dating back more than a decade. The Jan. 6 rioters have met a very different fate, having already faced years of punishment.
Thirty-four rioters were convicted of violence, including overrunning a police barricade. The average person was arrested 43 months ago and given a sentence of 107 months. Few were allowed to make bail. One person, Daniel Ball, was still awaiting trial after sitting in custody for 21 months when he was pardoned.
Ten rioters were convicted of assaulting police officers (Julian Khater, Peter Schwartz, Christopher Quaglin, James Tate Grant, Michael Bradley, Robert Scott Palmer, Ryan Samsel, Steven Chase Randolph, Thomas Harlen Smith, and Tyler Bradley Dykes). They faced an average sentence of 90 months (7.5 years) and have been incarcerated for an average of 40 months since their arrests.
Some of the most severe penalties were reserved for two former police officers (Thomas Robertson and Thomas Webster), who fought their way through the police barricades. They were sentenced to 72 and 120 months and were both held for a total of 48 months.
Many of those sentenced to prison were let into the Capitol by police and did not engage in violence, but they still suffered long prison terms. Jacob Chansley, known as the “QAnon Shaman,” was actually brought by police to the Senate floor and appeared to peacefully talk to officers, but he was still sentenced to 41 months in prison.
Prison is only a part of the penalties that the rioters faced. Many were bankrupted by legal costs – something Trump’s pardon will never be able to restore.
The family members and others that Biden preemptively pardoned will never face any criminal penalties. By contrast, the Jan. 6 rioters have already served significant sentences.
John R. Lott Jr. is a contributor to RealClearInvestigations, focusing on voting and gun rights. His articles have appeared in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, USA Today, and Chicago Tribune. Lott is an economist who has held research and/or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Tue, 02/04/2025 - 07:20
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/two-tiered-justice-disparities-biden-and-trump-pardons
Another Polar Vortex May "Penetrate Deep" Into Lower 48 By Mid-Month
Another Polar Vortex May "Penetrate Deep" Into Lower 48 By Mid-Month
Punxsutawney Phil, the world's most famous groundhog, saw his shadow early Sunday morning, signaling six more weeks of winter. But beyond Phil, private weather forecasters warn that another round of extreme cold could pour into parts of the Lower 48 by the middle of February.
"Holding off for now, but we may need to declare a climate emergency for extreme cold and snow during the middle of February," meteorologist Ryan Maue wrote on X. He said, "The Polar Vortex could penetrate deep into the Lower 48 like early last month."
Holding off for now, but we may need to declare a climate emergency for extreme cold and snow during the middle of February.
The Polar Vortex could penetrate deep into the Lower 48 like early last month. https://t.co/Wh9v3cttsM
— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1886118314977472663?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
By mid-Feburary, weather models show that average temperatures across the Lower 48 are set to slide well below the 30-, 10-, and 5-year averages, reaching lows similar to last month's cold blast—one of the coldest January in years for some areas of the US (read https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/doesnt-fit-msm-narrative-parts-us-could-rival-coldest-january-1977?commentId=678be44af862ab001b450cac
).
?itok=DjXER6rT
Private weather forecast BAMWX also confirmed the forecast: "The upcoming pattern lines up rather nicely with years like 93,14 and 2021. The BIG wildcard could be the -NAO that might rival years like 2010 etc. There really isn't a great match overall for the upcoming -EPO/-PNA/-NAO/-AO mid Feb pattern."
The all model NAO forecast is remarkable. There will without a doubt be some big eastern US snow risks. https://t.co/VW3dYkNwsc
— BAM Weather (@bamwxcom) https://twitter.com/bamwxcom/status/1886068265060893055?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
"The potential for a significant deformation of the Polar Vortex and its split through mid-February is increasing," Severe-Weather EU wrote on X.
Are you ready? The potential for a significant deformation of the Polar Vortex and its split through mid-February is increasing.
Stay tuned for an in-depth analysis and forecast soon. https://t.co/HMgHSKFir4
— severe-weather.EU (@severeweatherEU) https://twitter.com/severeweatherEU/status/1885847966520390061?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Potential snow risks ahead for Ohio Valley, Central Appalachians, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast regions.
The latest ensembles show 2 upcoming snowstorm windows in the eastern & central US - the last few runs generally targeted the following highlighted corridors, though as always, forecasts this far out can & will change.
So what's driving each potential & what's the uncertainty? https://t.co/GARntJlihH
— Tomer Burg (@burgwx) https://twitter.com/burgwx/status/1886131788780585451?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
The coldest temperatures of the winter season occurred in mid-January. Temperatures are expected to trend higher later this month.
Global warming alarmists have been awfully quiet this winter as cold weather records were shattered in many parts of the country, including a blizzard in New Orleans.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Tue, 02/04/2025 - 06:55
https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/another-polar-vortex-may-penetrate-deep-lower-48-mid-month
2025: The CCP's 'Year Of Living Dangerously'
2025: The CCP's 'Year Of Living Dangerously'
The 1983 film “The Year of Living Dangerously” tells the story of a journalist who faced intrigue and risk during the collapse of the Sukarno regime in Indonesia. Like this regime, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) faces significant challenges to its legitimacy and the stability of Xi Jinping’s rule in 2025.
At the core of these challenges are the erosion of public trust, deepening economic crises, internal political purges, and rising social discontent. But external factors will also damage the CCP’s credibility, not the least of which is the new Trump administration’s focus on pushing back against Beijing’s trade and foreign policies.
?itok=xMscHFRO
Erosion of Trust
In broad strokes, one of the most profound threats to the CCP’s legitimacy is the erosion of public and political trust. The Chinese people are very aware of the state’s egregious abuses on multiple fronts and are pessimistic about the future. As a result, many Chinese, particularly the younger generation, are feeling alienated. This is partly because the Party has strengthened its control over nearly every aspect of Chinese society, at great expense to public opinion, and partly due to the lack of well-paying jobs.
Beijing’s grand promise of so-called common prosperity, for example, has fallen short and revealed itself to be a wealth and power grab by the CCP. This erosion of trust also extends beyond social grievances and into the investment community. Investors’ loss of confidence in the CCP’s ability to reverse the economic decline and lead the country back to prosperity helps explain record levels of capital flight from China. Even global investment funds are avoiding Chinese bonds.
These financial events indicate serious long-term concerns about the sustainability of China’s financial system.
The erosion of trust is a critical challenge because the CCP’s legitimacy has always rested on its ability to provide economic growth and stability. Fewer Chinese believe that the CCP can do that. Hence, the trend of discontent isn’t new, but it is rising.
A Slew of Economic Crises
China’s deepening economic crises also weaken the CCP’s grip on power. Once lauded for lifting millions out of poverty, Beijing’s policies are the direct cause of China’s ongoing economic collapse. As noted, good jobs for young, educated Chinese are disappearing, and youth unemployment (ages 16–24) is at an all-time high. But that’s just a symptom of a deeper malaise.
The real estate sector, which has accounted for more than 30 percent of GDP, has been imploding for years and continues to do so. This has led to job losses and financial ruin for millions. At the same time, income and wages are down, making housing unaffordable.
What’s more, state-owned enterprises make up an estimated 28 percent of GDP and are mired in inefficiency and corruption. These and other economic obstacles have crushed consumer confidence and spending, causing stagnation and deflation in the domestic economy and slowing growth to its lowest levels in decades.
Compounding these internal crises is the growing capital outflow from China. Billions of dollars are leaving the country each month, driven by both Chinese elites and ordinary citizens seeking safer havens for their wealth. This outflow signals a lack of confidence in the Chinese economy and raises serious concerns about the sustainability of China’s financial system.
A weakening economy undermines the CCP’s core promise of prosperity, further threatening the Party’s credibility at home and abroad.
Political Purges: Strengthening Control at a Cost
Xi has consolidated his power more than any leader, even surpassing Mao Zedong. Like Mao, political purges that include the business, financial, and military spheres have become a hallmark of Xi’s leadership.
However, as I noted in a previous post, they are also a source of fear, friction, and instability among even the highest officials. They are also a sign of Xi’s paranoia and insecurity. While many purged officials are believed to have been genuinely corrupt, others are believed to have represented potential threats to Xi’s power.
The repeating cycle of purges has created uncertainty within the Party itself, making effective governance more difficult.
Distinct but related to the purges is the aforementioned increase in the number of state-owned enterprises. As economic conditions worsened, the CCP resorted to taking over more private companies as a means of perpetuating its control over the economy and the populace. This is only accelerating the downward spiral.
Social Discontent
The social contract that secured the CCP’s legitimacy for decades—economic growth in exchange for political obedience—is unraveling. Despite its unrivaled surveillance state, social discontent is still a potent force. The grievances of the younger generation—which is deeply dissatisfied with life, their prospects, and the Party’s pervasive control—are bubbling to the surface.
Consequently, a rising number of protests have erupted across the country in recent years.
Discontent within the political and military echelons is also rising. The Chinese regime has responded with increasingly harsh crackdowns and constructing hundreds of new detention centers. Doing so, however, may well undercut loyalty to Xi and his ability to govern.
External Headwinds Pose More Challenges
Given the Trump administration’s determination to push back against Beijing in trade, technology, and foreign policy, the rivalry between China and the United States will intensify in 2025. Decoupling from China is a top priority for the United States, and doing so will make economic growth more difficult for the CCP in 2025 and onward. Tariffs reaching 60 percent are on the table, as well as other trade policy options.
But it isn’t just the United States that wants to decouple from China. Some countries in the European Union are wary of being reliant on China and seek to limit Beijing’s exports to the EU. Japan and South Korea are also cooperating to blunt Chinese trade and influence in the region and globally. The Taiwan question looms large, as does the Trump administration’s declaration to take back the Panama Canal and reduce Beijing’s influence there.
All of the above are but a few of the many external challenges the CCP faces in 2025, which may indeed be a pivotal year for the CCP, Xi, and the Chinese people.
* * *
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Mon, 02/03/2025 - 23:25
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/2025-ccps-year-living-dangerously
India's Modi Has The Highest Approval Rating Among World Leaders, For Now...
India's Modi Has The Highest Approval Rating Among World Leaders, For Now...
Last year, half the world’s population voted in elections.
Some governments changed.
Others came back.
And still others stayed in power.
Now a month into the new year, how do the people feel about their leadership?
between Jan. 21–27, 2025.
?itok=lFe0a4Gv
Per the source: ratings reflect a trailing seven-day simple moving average of views among adults in each country surveyed.
Some Recently Elected (Or Re-Elected) Leaders Are Popular
India’s Narendra Modi (75% approve) and Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum (66% approve) top this rating sample of world leaders.
Leader
Country
Approve (%)
No Opinion (%)
Disapprove (%)
Narendra Modi
🇮🇳 India
75
6
19
Claudia Sheinbaum
🇲🇽 Mexico
66
7
26
Javier Milei
🇦🇷 Argentina
65
5
30
Karin Keller-Sutter
🇨🇭 Switzerland
56
24
20
Donald Trump
🇺🇸 U.S.
52
10
38
Anthony Albanese
🇦🇺 Australia
46
11
42
Dick Schoof
🇳🇱 Netherlands
42
19
39
Donald Tusk
🇵🇱 Poland
42
11
47
Giorgia Meloni
🇮🇹 Italy
42
7
51
Ulf Kristersson
🇸🇪 Sweden
38
11
51
Cyril Ramaphosa
🇿🇦 South Africa
37
9
54
Alexander De Croo
🇧🇪 Belgium
35
22
43
Recep Tayyip Erdogan
🇹🇷 Türkiye
33
11
56
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva
🇧🇷 Brazil
33
8
59
Pedro Sanchez
🇪🇸 Spain
33
5
62
Jonas Gahr Store
🇳🇴 Norway
30
9
60
Keir Starmer
🇬🇧 UK
27
11
61
Shigeru Ishiba
🇯🇵 Japan
25
21
54
Karl Nehammer
🇦🇹 Austria
24
9
67
Justin Trudeau
🇨🇦 Canada
22
7
71
Olaf Scholz
🇩🇪 Germany
20
6
74
Emmanuel Macron
🇫🇷 France
18
7
75
Yoon Suk-Yeol
🇰🇷 South Korea
17
8
75
Petr Fiala
🇨🇿 Czech Republic
16
7
77
Modi was re-elected for a third term as India’s prime minister last May and Sheinbaum became Mexico’s (and North America’s) first woman president last October.
President Donald Trump, just sworn in for a second term, also makes the top five with a 52% approval rating. Relatedly, people https://www.visualcapitalist.com/polarized-world-other-countries-trump-presidency/
may not be as pleased about a second Trump presidency.
However, the People Are Unhappy
In most of these countries, the majority of people disapprove of their current government leader.
Among the least-liked leaders is Yoon Suk Yeol, the suspended South Korean president who is currently detained on charges of insurrection and abuse of power.
And then there’s France’s Emmanuel Macron, with three quarters of the population disapproving. According to https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/06/28/why-is-emmanuel-macron-so-disliked-by-french-voters
, his ratings plummeted after he called for snap elections in 2024.
Finally, there’s Petr Fiala, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic. Fiala’s government is struggling to handle the country’s economic problems and is deeply unpopular after breaking a promise to not raise taxes.
Are you a political junkie and want more data insights? We’ve got you covered. Check out: https://www.voronoiapp.com/politics/Which-Industry-Spent-The-Most-On-US-Federal-Lobbying-in-2023--1896
for your next conversation starter.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Mon, 02/03/2025 - 23:00
US Readies New $1BN Arms Sale To Israel As Netanyahu Arrives In Washington
US Readies New $1BN Arms Sale To Israel As Netanyahu Arrives In Washington
While the name of the game for Trump has been cut, cut, cut and put a halt to all wasteful and corrupt US foreign aid siphoned abroad, funds sent to Israel have remained untouched.
And now the Trump administration is readying a new $1 billion arms sale to Israel, including 4,700 1,000-pound bombs and armored bulldozers. Trump is requesting fresh Congressional approval for the potential sale.
?itok=-OR3ea_7
The Wall Street Journal, which broke the story Monday, wrote "The planned weapons sales include 4,700 1,000-pound bombs, worth more than $700 million, as well as armored bulldozers built by Caterpillar, worth more than $300 million, the officials said."
"The new arms requests, which would be paid for from the billions of dollars in annual U.S. military aid to Israel, come as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is visiting Washington and set to meet President Trump on Tuesday to discuss the cease-fire in Gaza, a separate truce in Lebanon and tensions in the wider Middle East," the report continued.
This comes amid the backdrop of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's arriving in Washington D.C. on Monday, ahead of his scheduled White House visit with Trump Tuesday.
Crucially, Netanyahu will be the first world leader to meet with Trump since the Jan.20 inauguration. Israel remains America's closest official Mideast ally, and a meeting between a new president and Israel's head of state is typical spanning back multiple administrations.
But these are sensitive times, given the fragile Gaza ceasefire and hostage/prisoner swap deal is still ongoing. Some hardliners close to Netanyahu oppose it, even while families of the hostages have pressed for it to go all the way until all hostages alive and deceased are returned.
The Tuesday meeting in the Oval Office is expected to be dominated by these several issues:
Preserving the Gaza ceasefire
A potential deal to finally achieve Israel-Saudi relations
Moving forward with a total $8 billion in arms transfers
These issues are somewhat interlocking. Trump has stood with Netanyahu on the stance of wanting to see the final military eradication of Hamas, but Trump has also hailed the ceasefire as ultimately the product of his administration entering office.
As for the arms transfers issue, WSJ has detailed the https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-s-readies-new-1-billion-arms-sale-to-israel-6832aa26
:
Netanyahu and other Israeli officials are expected to press Trump to move forward with a separate set of arms transfers that were initially requested by the Biden administration, totaling more than $8 billion in new bombs, missiles and artillery rounds.
The Biden administration https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/u-s-plans-8-billion-sale-of-arms-including-bombs-to-israel-6f184397?mod=article_inline
about that sale in January before it left office. The weapons haven’t yet received full approval because of a hold by some Democratic lawmakers, a congressional official said.
Last week, Trump within released a hold on a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel previously paused by the Biden administration.
And on Monday, the US has moved to cut all funding to the controversial UN aid organization present in Palestinian territories - the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). The US has long sided with Israel regarding the accusation that it is compromised by local Hamas staffers, or Hamas-sympathetic officials.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Mon, 02/03/2025 - 19:40
Fedthink! The Fed Is Incompetent By Design And Can't Be Fixed
Fedthink! The Fed Is Incompetent By Design And Can't Be Fixed
https://mishtalk.com/economics/fedthink-the-fed-is-incompetent-by-design-and-cant-be-fixed/
Is the Fed playing politics? Does the Fed know what it’s doing at all?
?itok=CNFJmDLx
Fedthink!
Today I coined a new word, Fedthink. I hope it catches on.
Here are some reader thoughts and my comments on them from a recent post.
Regarding Fedthink
Reader: Sometimes I wonder if people like Mish really think that the Fed plays it straight in times like this, versus telling us what is ostensibly the straight dope while they are actually playing some complex metagame.
Mish: I have commented on this before. The Fed believes the nonsense they preach on 2% inflation, inflation expectations, the Phillips curve and other economic nonsense that amusingly even the Fed’s own studies prove wrong.
There is no diversity in thought at the Fed. You get in the position of Fed Governor or President by thinking the same way as the rest of the members.
People confuse diversity with race and sex. True diversity is in thought. But there is no diversity of thought at the Fed. They have all been trained to be ignorant. And you do not get into the group unless you believe the same things.
This we call Fedthink.
Regarding Debasement
Mish: [Regarding why gold was $43 per ounce when Nixon killed gold convertibility, and is over $2,800 now.] “What’s changed is persistent Fed and government-sponsored inflation.”
Reader’s Accurate Assessment: Or to put it another way, it’s currency debasement. The dollar is not sound, it is a sliver of a fraction of itself from early last century, but has held its position relative to other currencies.
Regarding Platinum
Reader: Platinum, which is much scarcer than Gold, hasn’t budged in price in 5 years. It remains around $1000 per oz. Based on the gold price it should be something like 30-40K an oz.
Mish: Platinum is nearly 100% an industrial commodity and has to compete with palladium. Also the primary industrial use is in catalytic converters of which there is no need in EVs. Gold’s primary use is as a monetary metal.
Regarding Jewelry
Reader: 50% of gold is used for jewelry.
Mish: Nearly 100% of gold ever mined is still in existence. Yearly production is miniscule. The supply of gold is 100% of gold ever mined minus what is lost at sea, buried and forgotten, on in valuable art pieces in museums. Of the rest nearly all in bars. You confuse the supply of gold with annual production, a major error.
I looked this up and there is more gold in jewelry than I thought but less than my reader thought.
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-much-gold-has-been-found-world
says there are about 244,000 metric tons of gold of which 57,000 metric tons are in underground reserves. 92,000 tons of gold are currently used in jewelry according to the World Gold Conference. That’s about 37.7 percent is in jewelry, much higher than I expected, but still consider a monetary use.
Finally, I have no idea how much of that jewelry is in priceless museum pieces, not for sale, and not really part of overall supply of gold. The same applies to old gold coins that are worth much more than their weight in gold. So 37.7 percent is in practice overstated.
Regarding Bitcoin
The supply of Bitcoin is every Bitcoin ever mined minus lost keys.
Many Bitcoin advocates confuse halving (the rate of increase in supply of Bitcoin) with actual supply. Bitcoin is not getting scarcer over time.
Regarding Short Term Interest Rates
Many readers said the market, not the Fed, sets interest rates.
If that was true, then the Fed would be irrelevant and could not wreak the havoc that it has.
I discussed this paradox at length several times previously. But let’s go back to my original post.
The Fed Uncertainty Principle
Please consider https://mishtalk.com/economics/fed-uncertainty-principle/
written April 3, 2008 before the collapse of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.
Does the Fed Follows the Market?
Most think the Fed follows market expectations.
However, this creates what would appear at first glance to be a major paradox: If the Fed is simply following market expectations, can the Fed be to blame for the consequences? More pointedly, why isn’t the market to blame if the Fed is simply following market expectations?
This is a very interesting theoretical question. While it’s true the Fed typically only does what is expected, those expectations become distorted over time by observations of Fed actions.
If market participants expect the Fed to cut rates when economic stress occurs, they will take positions based on those expectations. These expectation cycles can be self-reinforcing.
The Observer Affects The Observed
The Fed, in conjunction with all the players watching the Fed, distorts the economic picture. I liken this to https://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A408638
where observation of a subatomic particle changes the ability to measure it accurately.
The Fed, by its very existence, alters the economic horizon. Compounding the problem are all the eyes on the Fed attempting to game the system.
A good example of this is the 1% Fed Funds Rate in 2003-2004. It is highly doubtful the market on its own accord would have reduced interest rates to 1% or held them there for long if it did.
What happened in 2002-2004 was an observer/participant feedback loop that continued even after the recession had ended. The Fed held rates rates too low too long. This spawned the biggest housing bubble in history. The Greenspan Fed compounded the problem by endorsing derivatives and ARMs at the worst possible moment.
In a free market it would be highly unlikely to get a yield curve that is as steep as the one in 2003 or as steep as it was just weeks ago when short term treasuries traded down to .21%.
The Fed has so distorted the economic picture by its very existence that it is fatally flawed logic to suggest the Fed is simply following the market therefore the market is to blame. There would not be a Fed in a free market, and by implication there would be no observer/participant feedback loop.
In my post, I provided four key corollaries with discussion. Here is a short synopsis condensed from the full post.
Fed Uncertainty Principle: The fed, by its very existence, has completely distorted the market via self-reinforcing observer/participant feedback loops. Thus, it is fatally flawed logic to suggest the Fed is simply following the market, therefore the market is to blame for the Fed’s actions. There would not be a Fed in a free market, and by implication, there would not be observer/participant feedback loops either.
Corollary Number One: The Fed has no idea where interest rates should be. Only a free market does. The Fed will be disingenuous about what it knows (nothing of use) and doesn’t know (much more than it wants to admit), particularly in times of economic stress.
Corollary Number Two: The government/quasi-government body most responsible for creating this mess (the Fed), will attempt a big power grab, purportedly to fix whatever problems it creates. The bigger the mess it creates, the more power it will attempt to grab. Over time this leads to dangerously concentrated power into the hands of those who have already proven they do not know what they are doing.
Corollary Number Three: Don’t expect the Fed to learn from past mistakes. Instead, expect the Fed to repeat them with bigger and bigger doses of exactly what created the initial problem.
Corollary Number Four: The Fed simply does not care whether its actions are illegal or not. The Fed is operating under the principle that it’s easier to get forgiveness than permission. And forgiveness is just another means to the desired power grab it is seeking.
The Fed Uncertainty Principle is still my all-time favorite post.
Asinine Proposition on Low Inflation
?itok=oQSG4FkR
Please recall this https://x.com/RudyHavenstein/status/1418963935043022849
by Rudy Havenstein: “It would take a decade of above 2.5 percent inflation to make up for 5 years of shortfall“
Former Fed Chair Janet Yellen said her only regret was “low inflation”
As you can see by that excellent composition, Fedthink on too low inflation was widely believed and practiced.
The Fed wanted more inflation, got it in spades, and never apologized for its role.
Fed Studies Debunk the Phillips Curve
https://mishtalk.com/economics/fed-study-shows-phillips-curve-is-useless-admitting-the-obvious-
https://mishtalk.com/economics/yet-another-fed-study-concludes-phillips-curve-is-nonsense
.
Both studies were done by Fed research staffers.
Yet, Fed Chairs Janet Yellen and Jerome Powell did not believe the Fed’s own studies.
in March of 2017, then Fed Chair Janet Yellen commented the “Phillips Curve is Alive“.
A Fed Economist Concludes the Widely Believed Inflations Expectations Theory is Nonsense
On October 21, 2021 I commented https://mishtalk.com/economics/a-fed-economist-concludes-the-widely-believed-inflations-expectations-theory-is-nonsense
.
The research department had these two amusing quotes in its report.
It is far, far better and much safer to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought. John Kenneth Galbraith (1958).
Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. Mark Twain, The Tragedy of Pudd’nhead Wilson (1894)
May 2, 2024: https://mishtalk.com/economics/home-prices-hit-new-record-high-dont-worry-its-not-inflation/
The Case-Shiller national home price index hit a new high in February. That’s the latest data. Economists don’t count this as inflation.
December 24, 2024: https://mishtalk.com/economics/dear-fed-please-shut-up-already-stop-the-forward-guidance/
Danielle DiMartino Booth claims the Fed should be cutting more, not less. I have a different suggestion.
Since the Fed has no idea, it should stop forward guidance that the market front runs thereby amplifying the feedback looks discussed above.
More accurately, there should not be a Fed at all. It’s proven clueless.
May 1, 2023: https://mishtalk.com/economics/the-fed-admits-a-mistake-in-collapse-of-svb-seeks-more-power-anyway/
If I am not mistaken, that is a perfect example of Fed Uncertainty Corollary Number 2, Number 3, and Number 4.
Gold Hits New Record High, Dear Jerome Powell, Is Everything Under Control?
This post was triggered by reader responses to https://mishtalk.com/economics/gold-hits-new-record-high-dear-jerome-powell-is-everything-under-control/
Gold does not believe the Fed has things under control and neither do I.
Today’s Pertinent Conclusion
We are trapped in “Fedthink”, especially the nonsensical proposition that two percent inflation is a good thing despite the fact that the Fed is clueless on how to measure inflation in the first place.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Mon, 02/03/2025 - 13:25
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fedthink-fed-incompetent-design-and-cant-be-fixed
"Great Strategic Importance" - Bitcoin Rallies As Trump Signs 'Sovereign Wealth Fund" Executive Order
"Great Strategic Importance" - Bitcoin Rallies As Trump Signs 'Sovereign Wealth Fund" Executive Order
With Secretary of State Marco Rubio setting in El Salvador, and President Trump's crypto 'tzar' David Sacks' recent comments on the importance of outpacing China on the tech (crypto and AI) front, one could be forgiven for anticipating something large coming very soon with regard the possibility of a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.
?itok=7_AcEcKw
And sure enough, this morning, President Trump signed an executive action he said would direct officials to create a sovereign wealth fund for the US, following through on an idea he floated during the presidential campaign.
“We have tremendous potential,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday as he announced the move.
The president said the action would charge Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick, the nominee for Commerce secretary, with spearheading the effort.
Bessent, who joined Trump at the Oval Office, said the fund would be created in the next 12 months, calling it an issue “of great strategic importance.”
Additionally, Bloomberg reports that the sovereign wealth fund that President Trump is creating could be used for TikTok, according to the officials in the Oval Office, where Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent are speaking.
While few details are known, we do note that bitcoin rallied into this news...
?itok=n3SNIdJV
Will Trump buy Greenland with this fund?
Developing...
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Mon, 02/03/2025 - 13:05
China Reportedly Preparing Trade Talks With Trump After Weekend Tariff Shock
China Reportedly Preparing Trade Talks With Trump After Weekend Tariff Shock
Just two weeks into his second term, President Trump https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/huge-shock-wall-street-after-trumps-trade-war-goldman-says-tariffs-short-lived-while
but apparently captured Beijing's attention.
https://www.wsj.com/world/china/beijing-prepares-its-opening-bid-to-talk-trade-with-trump-ccec3ca4
reports that China is preparing for trade talks with the Trump administration, aiming to restore a trade agreement with the US and reaffirm its pledge not to devalue the yuan for a competitive advantage in global trade. Based on unnamed sources, the report has not yet been officially confirmed.
Here's more from the report:
As part of its effort to prepare for negotiations, according to the people, China's initial proposal will center on restoring a trade agreement Beijing signed in early 2020 with the first Trump administration but didn't implement.
The so-called Phase One deal required China to increase purchases of American goods and services by $200 billion over a two-year period. While Trump himself has described Phase One as the "greatest deal" ever made, many trade experts and business executives called it unrealistic to begin with.
Having failed to deliver on its pledge under the deal to increase US purchases, Beijing now is preparing to talk to the Trump administration about areas where China can buy more from the US, the people said.
Other parts of China's plan, the people said, include an offer to make more investments in the US—in sectors such as batteries for electric cars, a renewed pledge by Beijing not to devalue the yuan to gain competitive advantage, and a commitment to reduce exports of fentanyl precursors.
Beijing views the 10% tariff as Trump's way of bringing all parties to the negotiating table. Trump has threatened to impose maximum-pressure tariffs on China, potentially as high as 60%.
The initial reaction from Beijing has been muted, with the Commerce Ministry expressing strong "dissatisfaction" and vowing "corresponding countermeasures."
Wang, UBS chief China economist, told clients earlier that Beijing would be willing to negotiate because of the negative impact the trade war could have on its economy. The 10% tariff, she said, would reduce the country's GDP by .3 to .4 percentage points.
Goldman's Dan Dooling (EMEA Head of FX HF Sales) provided clients with a great summary of the trade situation unfolding from Saturday:
Weekend Trump tariff announcements a surprise vs Friday's close
US effective tariff rate rises +7% from from Mexico & Canada proposals with a further 1% from China proposals
2.5% GDP hit in Canada, 3.5% in Mexico under full 25% tariff
The 25% Canada and Mexico tariffs imply a 0.7% increase in US core PCE prices and 0.4% hit to GDP (US econ team had 0.3% core pce boost in their baseline)
Canada, Mexico, and China account for about half of all US goods imports.
?itok=Wp1sWCA7
Goldman's Jack McFerran said weekend tariff shock would raise the US effective tariff rate meaningfully: "We had modeled a 7% overall increase from 25% tariffs on Canada/Mexico (though lower tariff on Canadian oil will lower this a bit). China would add another 1%."
More context here:
?itok=Caz-KDTJ
Prediction markets early had a 30% probability of a major tariff increase in the first half of this year. The market-implied probability now - via Polymarket data - has jumped to 65%.
?itok=UGI0xs1A
All in all, Trump's weekend tariff shock announcement is to get major trading partners to the table to solve not just unfair trade - but also - stop fentanyl precursor chemicals from China, flowing into Mexico and Canada, then flowing into the US and killing 100,000 Americans per year.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Mon, 02/03/2025 - 07:20
Meet The Original 'Conspiracy Theorists': Reagan & The 99th Congress Called Vaccines "Unavoidably Unsafe"
Meet The Original 'Conspiracy Theorists': Reagan & The 99th Congress Called Vaccines "Unavoidably Unsafe"
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-99th-congress-that-called-vaccines-unavoidably-unsafe/
Meet the original “Conspiracy Theorists,” Ronald Reagan and the members of the 99th Congress, who, in 1986, passed into law the “medical misinformation” that vaccines were “unavoidably unsafe” and potentially caused autism...
?itok=AHCzi30c
Last week Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sent Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, a scathing letter accusing him of, among other things, “dangerous views on vaccine safety” and “false hysteria that vaccines cause autism.”
The letter included 175 questions that she said he should be prepared to answer at his Senate confirmation hearings.
But in her letter, she exposes her own ignorance of federal vaccine policy and the laws passed by her own legislative branch.
In 1986 the House of Representatives passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) by a voice vote.
Senator Warren should know that her current Senate Minority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was, at the time, a member of the House and should presumably know that the bill that was passed to give vaccine makers liability protection from civil claims when a child was killed or seriously injured by a vaccine, and placed all vaccines administered to children in the legal category of “unavoidably unsafe” medical products, which means a product that cannot be made safe for its intended use.
In 2018, Mary Holland, JD, then the Director of the Graduate Legal studies program at New York University School of Law, and now Chief Executive Officer of Children’s Health Defense, a non-profit organization founded by Kennedy, remarked on the legal standing of the safety of vaccines:
The key language about “unavoidable” side effects comes from the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 USC 300aa-22, re manufacturer responsibility (see bold text below).
That language was based on language from the Second Restatement of Torts (a legal treatise by tort scholars), adopted by most state courts in the mid-1960’s, that considered all vaccines as “unavoidably unsafe” products. The Restatement opined that such products, “properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warnings, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.”
Further the 2011 SCOTUS ruling in the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth case interpreted the highlighted text below from the National Vaccine Injury Act to find that it did not permit design defect litigation – that issue had been unclear since 1986, and different state high courts and federal circuits had decided the issue differently. So, [it] is correct that the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) never decided that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” directly, but it acknowledged that Congress considers them to be so.
Sec. 300aa-22. Standards of responsibility
(a) General rule
Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (e) of this section State law shall apply to a civil action brought for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death.
(b) Unavoidable adverse side effects; warnings
(1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a vaccine shall be presumed to be accompanied by proper directions and warnings if the vaccine manufacturer shows that it complied in all material respects with all requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
What few know, even among their own memberships and supporters, is that the following medical authorities consider vaccines unsafe:
The American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”)
The American Medical Association (“AMA”)
The American Academy of Family Physicians (“AAFP”)
The American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians (“ACOP”)
The American College of Preventive Medicine (“ACPM”)
The American Public Health Association (“APHA”)
The Association of State and Territorial Healthcare Officials (“ASTHO“)
The Center for Vaccine Awareness and Research at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston
Every Child By Two, Carter/Bumpers Champions for Immunization (“ECBT”)
Immunization Action Coalition (“IAC”)
Infectious Diseases Society of America (“IDSA”)
The March of Dimes Foundation
Meningitis Angels
The National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (“NAPNAP”)
The National Foundation for Infectious Diseases
The National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition
The National Meningitis Association, Inc. (“NMA”)
Parents of Kids with Infectious Diseases (“PKIDs”)
The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (“PIDS”)
The Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine (“SAHM”)
The Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (“CHOP”)
When the family of Hannah Bruesewitz, a child injured by Wyeth’s Tri-Immunol DTP vaccine, challenged the 1986 Act in the Supreme Court for the right to sue Wyeth for Hannah’s severely disabling vaccine-adverse event, these organizations filed an https://www.immunize.org/wp-content/uploads/press/AAP_amicus_brief_Bruesewitz_73010.pdf)
in support of Wyeth, asking the court to uphold the law that protects vaccine makers from liability for injury or death arising from any vaccine licensed by the FDA and recommended for children by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (“ACIP”). They even went as far as to argue against the idea that each vaccine should be individually evaluated for the “unavoidably unsafe” status, stating in their brief
Case-by-case consideration of whether vaccines are unavoidably unsafe, on the other hand, would “undoubtedly increase the costs and risks associated with litigation and would undermine a manufacturer’s efforts to estimate and control costs.”(citing Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc., 561 F.3d 233, 249 (3d Cir. 2009).
- https://www.immunize.org/wp-content/uploads/press/AAP_amicus_brief_Bruesewitz_73010.pdf
[Wyeth LLC], at 25.
The organizations’ position that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe taken before the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government has caused consternation in parents and vaccine safety and choice advocates for decades, because many of these same organizations argue the exact opposite – that vaccines are safe – when they appear before state legislatures in support of school vaccine mandates and in opposition to vaccine exemptions.
A lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry may argue over breakfast in Washington, DC that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” and then drive to Annapolis at lunchtime and testify that Maryland should remove religious exemptions to vaccines required for school entry because “vaccines are safe.”
Attempts to have these organizations explain their conflicting positions met with stonewalling.
In 2015, the Maine Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics argued for the removal of and/or restrictions to the religious and conscientious objections to mandated childhood vaccines. The Executive Director of the Maine AAP, Dee Kerry deHaas, testified in writing that this should be done because “vaccines are safe,” but when testifying in person, said that vaccines are “mostly safe.” In my response to her, as the then Director of the Maine Coalition for Vaccine Choice, I asked several https://maineinformedconsent.org/2015/06/04/questions-for-the-maine-chapter-of-the-american-academy-of-pediatrics/)
arising from her testimony, including the following questions:
How can the AAP argue that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” in the Supreme Court in order to convince the federal government to grant you liability protection from vaccine injury, and then argue that, “vaccines are safe,” and “vaccines are mostly safe,” before this committee in order to convince the State of Maine to mandate that families receive counseling/buy vaccines from you?
Are vaccines, “safe,” “mostly safe,” or “unavoidably unsafe?”
How do such widely contradictory statements engender trust in vaccines and in pediatricians?
Her response to my questions:
Ms. Taylor,
On behalf of the Maine AAP, I acknowledge receipt of your email and list of questions. I understand that our organizations have different perspectives in the vaccine debate. Each perspective has been aired in the legislative hearings and sessions with regard to these vaccine bills in the First Regular Session of the 127th Maine Legislature.
I respectfully decline to respond to your list of proposed questions or to continue the debate with you through electronic correspondence or social media.
Dee deHaas
Executive Director
American Academy of Pediatrics, Maine Chapter
Those advocating under this nonsensical construct quip that vaccines are unsafe, but only in DC.
Parent of a vaccine-injured son, Kim Spencer of The Thinking Moms’ Revolution, noted of the vaccine industry, “their claim that vaccines are ‘unavoidably unsafe’ won them liability protection, their claim that ‘vaccines are safe’ won them school and work mandates, but their claim that both are true has won them the distrust and contempt of parents.”
Senator Warren also accuses Mr. Kennedy of having, “spread false hysteria that vaccines cause autism.” But Kennedy has only done what Warren’s Congressional colleagues did 20 years before he began in vaccine safety advocacy; promote research into the vaccine-autism link and any link between vaccines and other childhood disorders.
Congress, while giving liability protection to vaccine makers with the 1986 Act, also ordered HHS to study links between the pertussis vaccine and more than a dozen conditions, including autism:
SEC. 312. RELATED STUDIES.
(a) REVIEW OF PERTUSSIS VACCINES AND RELATED ILLNESSES AND CONDITIONS.—Not later than 3 years after the effective date of this title, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall complete a review of all relevant medical and scientific information (including information obtained from the studies required under subsection (e)) on the nature, circumstances, and extent of the relationship, if any, between vaccines containing pertussis (including whole cell, extracts, and specific antigens) and the following illnesses and conditions:
(1) Hemolytic anemia.
(2) Hypsarrhythmia.
(3) Infantile spasms.
(4) Reye’s syndrome.
(5) Peripheral mononeuropathy.
(6) Deaths classified as sudden infant death syndrome.
(7) Aseptic meningitis.
(8) Juvenile diabetes.
(9) Autism.
(10) Learning disabilities.
(11) Hyperactivity.
(12) Such other illnesses and conditions as the Secretary may choose to review or as the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines established under section 2119 of the Public Health Service Act recommends for inclusion in such review. (Ante, p. 3771).
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220067/
The pertussis vaccine injury inquiry ordered by law in 1986 was undertaken by the National Institutes of Health, carried out by the Institute of Medicine, published by the National Academy of Sciences in 1991, and edited by, among others, none other than https://hsph.harvard.edu/profile/harvey-v-fineberg/
, titled Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella
Vaccines: A Report of the Committee to Review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines:
Parents have come to depend on vaccines to protect their children from a variety of diseases. Some evidence suggests, however, that vaccination against pertussis (whooping cough) and rubella (German measles) is, in a small number of cases, associated with increased risk of serious illness. This book examines the controversy over the evidence and offers a comprehensively documented assessment of the risk of illness following immunization with vaccines against pertussis and rubella. Based on extensive review of the evidence from epidemiologic studies, case histories, studies in animals, and other sources of information, the book examines: The relation of pertussis vaccines to a number of serious adverse events, including encephalopathy and other central nervous system disorders, sudden infant death syndrome, autism, Guillain-Barre syndrome, learning disabilities, and Reye syndrome. The relation of rubella vaccines to arthritis, various neuropathies, and thrombocytopenic purpura. The volume, which includes a description of the committee’s methods for evaluating evidence and directions for future research, will be important reading for public health officials, pediatricians, researchers, and concerned parents.
See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25121241/
(emphasis added).
The report’s cursory summary on autism was this:
No data were identified that address the question of a relation between vaccination with DPT or its pertussis component and autism. There are no experimental data bearing on a possible biologic mechanism. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234363/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK234363.pdf
.)
In other words, we don’t know; no one has ever looked.
But since there was no data to prove a link, because there was no data, they decided to reject the hypothesis and conclude:
There is no evidence to indicate a causal relation between DPT vaccine or the pertussis component of DPT vaccine and autism. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234363/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK234363.pdf
.)
Today there is a great deal more data than there was in 1991. This report was published before the dramatic rise in autism rates in the 1990s following the rapid expansion of the number of vaccines given to children once the industry had liability protection from vaccine-induced injuries.Now, more than 200 papers showing multiple vaccine-autism links exist. You can review those papers at https://howdovaccinescauseautism.org/
.
Senator Warren and all those skeptical of Mr. Kennedy’s vaccine critique must understand that he is more informed on vaccine law than the legislators questioning him. The political talking point that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a “conspiracy theorist” if perpetuated, must now extend to the entire Legislative branch of the US Government starting with Democrats like former Congressman Henry Waxman, who wrote and introduced the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
Senator Warren might also consult with other current members of the US Congress who held seats when the 1986 Act was passed, such as Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Hal Rogers (R-KY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Chris Smith (R-NJ, who also sponsored the Combating Autism Act of 2006), and most notably, her own fellow Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, Ed Markey.
Warren, like most politicians and doctors, does not understand that the presumption at the foundation of American vaccine policy, and the landmark law that has underpinned that policy for 39 years, is that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. does.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Sun, 02/02/2025 - 23:20
Gold Hits New Record High; Dear Jerome Powell, Is Everything Under Control?
Gold Hits New Record High; Dear Jerome Powell, Is Everything Under Control?
Gold does not believe the Fed has things under control and neither do I.
?itok=952SohDT
Image from Trading Economics, Annotations by Mish.
Gold Hits Record High on Safe-Haven Demand Amid Tariff Threats
Reuters reports https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/gold-tight-range-with-focus-trump-policies-inflation-data-2025-01-30/
Gold prices rose to hit a lifetime high on Thursday, sparked by safe-haven demand due to U.S. tariff threats, while the focus was also on a crucial inflation report for clues on the Federal Reserve’s policy path.
“We are seeing keener uncertainty and anxiety about the Trump administration’s new policies on trade and foreign policy … fresh technical buying coming in as prices are trending higher now in both gold and silver,” said Jim Wyckoff, a senior market analyst at Kitco Metals.
Earlier this week, the White House said U.S. President Donald Trump planned to hit Mexico and Canada with steep tariffs on Saturday and was also considering some on China.
The U.S. gold market has been trading at a premium since the recent presidential election, the London Bullion Market Association said on Thursday, adding that the association has been closely liaising with the CME Group and U.S. authorities to monitor this trend.
Gold vs the Dollar
At the beginning of 2021, the US dollar index was 89. The US dollar index is now 108.
The price of gold advanced from $1962 to nearly $2900. It’s now about $2850.
Yet, people still believe moves in the dollar determine moves in the price of gold.
I suggest the price of gold moves in accordance with long-term inflation and faith in the Fed.
From 1980 to 2000 there was inflation every step of the way, but gold fell from $850 to $250. There was inflation from 2011 to 2015 when gold fell from $1923 to $1045.
People thought Greenspan was “The Great Maestro” and Mario Draghi saved the Euro.
Gold tends to do very poorly in such times and in periods of disinflation.
A friend of mine emailed some thoughts on what’s changed.
What’s Changed and What Hasn’t?
In 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window, a 400 oz. bar of gold had a value of approximately $17,260.
Today, in 2025, that same 400 oz. bar has a value of approximately $1,140,000.
Did the gold bar add new and improved features?
Nope.
Did the gold bar become substantially more efficient somehow?
Nope.
Nothing changed whatsoever about the gold bar. It is exactly the same as it was in 1971.
What’s changed is persistent Fed and government-sponsored inflation.
Three Questions of the Day
Is the Fed suddenly going to get things under control?
Will DOGE cut $2 trillion or even $1 trillion in government expenses?
Is Trump going to magically reduce the deficit via tariffs or any other means?
Gold vs Silver
Gold acts like money. And central banks hold gold, not silver.
Silver sometimes acts like a monetary metal and sometimes acts like an industrial commodity.
But gold’s primary use is that of a monetary metal. Only a miniscule amount is used in industrial purposes.
Price Stability
On Wednesday, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said the Fed would not budge from its two percent inflation goal which it ridiculously defines as “price stability”.
Bonus Q: Does the lead chart look like price stability?
A: No, but it does look like periodic misguided faith in central banks.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Sun, 02/02/2025 - 14:00
USAID Website Goes Dark As Trump Reportedly Plans To Shift Agency Under State Department
USAID Website Goes Dark As Trump Reportedly Plans To Shift Agency Under State Department
of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) went offline Saturday evening amid reports that the Trump administration was preparing to curtail USAID's independence by placing it under the direct oversight of the State Department.
An error message on USAID's website read: "This site can't be reached Check if there is a typo in www.usaid.gov. DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN."
?itok=ROLX2a8V
USAID's X account was also taken offline.
?itok=1DeVvKP1
Two sources familiar with the transition told https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-explores-bringing-usaid-under-state-department-sources-say-2025-01-31/
that a major overhaul is expected in how Washington allocates US foreign aid, with USAID losing its independence and most likely coming under the control of the State Department.
By late Saturday, a new 'lite' page for USAID appeared on the State Department's website.
?itok=Xe3FeyOr
"Trump's been purging and intimidating USAID employees. Now there's a rumor he'll dissolve USAID as an independent agency," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote on X on Friday.
Trump's been purging and intimidating USAID employees.
Now there’s a rumor he'll dissolve USAID as an independent agency.
It was created by JFK and established in law to further our national security and spread hope.
This'd be illegal and against our national interests.
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1885485467677704689?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Trump has made it very clear to Democrats and their Deep State counterparts that flooding taxpayer dollars into shady NGOs would be coming to an end under his 'America First' agenda.
Last week...
"Monday Afternoon Massacre": USAID Employees Placed On Leave For Allegedly Circumventing Trump's Orders https://t.co/CfMoclE462
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1884275283429056613?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Last month, the Trump administration froze nearly all foreign aid programs amid efforts to overhaul the distribution of that aid.
A post from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) account on X clarified that USAID went on a woke spending spree in third-world countries...
At this point we need to end ALL foreign aid. Not a single American taxpayer cent should leave the country for a very very long time. It’s all money laundering.
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/status/1879422223985090573?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Musk responded "True" to Robby Starbuck's post about USAID laundering taxpayer funds "for Democrats in DC." And even explained how it worked:
Annnnd the USAid website is now down.
Try it: https://t.co/lvZf3F02sp
— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1885860093951873080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
"Like I said before, USAID is a front for the CIA. And together with NGO's like the Open Society Foundation, they have been using US tax dollars & govt resources as their personal piggy bank. It has been infuriating to watch. Hopefully now the whole truth will come out," journalist Lara Logan wrote on X.
Like I said before, USAID is a front for the CIA. And together with NGO’s like the Open Society Foundation, they have been using US tax dollars & govt resources as their personal piggy bank. It has been infuriating to watch. Hopefully now the whole truth will come out. https://t.co/0eMqwBi3OR
— Lara Logan (@laralogan) https://twitter.com/laralogan/status/1885916834274410884?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller told CNN an uncomfortable truth: "At USAID, 98% donated to Kamala Harris or other left-wing candidates."
STEPHEN MILLER: Overwhelmingly, the career federal service in this country is far-left.
TAPPER: I don't know that's true.
MILLER: At USAID, 98% donated to Kamala Harris or other left-wing candidates.
TAPPER: You're demonizing an entire workforce.https://t.co/IVLH8Qsy88
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1884359209074188421?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Funding will soon dry up for NGOs and other entities that rely on USAID funds—some of which have been linked to furthering left-wing censorship efforts around the world and funding coups.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Sun, 02/02/2025 - 13:25
Biden Must Explain What The Ukraine War Was For
Biden Must Explain What The Ukraine War Was For
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/biden-must-explain-what-the-ukraine-war-was-for/
It is no longer easy to tell what the Ukraine War was for. Very early on, U.S. goals got grafted onto Ukrainian goals, and the hybrid braid became hard to disentangle. “This is a war that is in many ways… bigger than Ukraine,” the State Department https://www.cato.org/commentary/washington-will-fight-russia-last-ukrainian?utm_source=chatgpt.com
in the first weeks of the war. But, whatever those goals, few of them remain: There will be no NATO membership for Ukraine, there will be no recovery of all of its territory, and there will be no weakening of Russia.
?itok=ANeERtWO
Former President Joe Biden has a lot of explaining to do, as does Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Zelensky will need to explain to his exhausted nation why choosing the path of war over the path of diplomacy after the Istanbul talks in March and April of 2022 was worth the cost. At that time, what still seemed to be the Ukrainian goals—continued sovereignty and the withdrawal of Russian troops to pre-war boundaries—might have been met. Zelensky must explain why he succumbed to Western pressure to pursue wider ones.
He is going to have to explain why pursuing those wider goals was worth the loss of so much life, limb and land. And, if he is to survive politically and, perhaps, even physically, he is going to have to find someone to blame.
He already fired Valery Zaluzhny, who served as Ukraine’s military commander-in-chief until last year. Now, Ukraine’s security service has https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/21/world/europe/ukraine-commanders-detained.html
two generals and a colonel on the charge of failing to protect Ukrainian territory from Russian advances.
But blaming the generals won’t be enough to acquit Zelensky. The war went on after Zaluzhny and continued to worsen. And no one will buy the blaming of field commanders. “We were defending a huge swath of the border, we fought to the death in the first hours of the attack,” said soldiers in one brigade after their former commander was arrested. “We were short of people, ammunition and support but we fought, we fought under the leadership of our commander!”
Ukraine no longer has the capacity to field the men nor the weapons to hold off the Russian advance. More land will be lost the longer the war goes on, and more men and weapons are not on their way. “The problem with Ukraine is not that they’re running out of money,” Marco Rubio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB72ZwiROK4
at his confirmation hearing for his nomination as secretary of state, “but that they’re running out of Ukrainians.”
Zelensky will need to blame someone higher up than the field commanders. In recent weeks, he’s laid some of that blame on Biden, https://www.newsweek.com/zelensky-airs-his-grievances-outgoing-biden-administration-2016281
in a podcast interview, “I don’t want the same situation like we had with Biden.”
One day, Zelensky will need to explain to Ukrainians his part in the tragedy. He will have to defend his decision to yield to the West’s pressure not to sign anything with Russia but to “just fight,” as then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson reportedly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lt4E0DiJts
in his first Oval Office interview, "Zelensky... shouldn’t have allowed this to happen either. He’s no angel. Zelensky decided that 'I want to fight.’”
But that does not exonerate the U.S. or mean that Zelensky is unjustified in blaming Biden. Biden, too, is one day going to have to explain what the war in Ukraine was for subsequent to the promising talks in Istanbul.
The Biden administration repeatedly promised Ukraine whatever they needed for as long as it takes. But that promise evolved into whatever we agree to for as long as convenient. And a clear answer to the question “Whatever they need to do what?” was never provided.
According to Biden National Security Council official Eric Green, U.S. support for Ukraine was never intended to push Russia out of its territory, recover its lost land, and reassert its territorial integrity.
“We were deliberately not talking about the territorial parameters,” Green https://time.com/7207661/bidens-ukraine-win-zelensky-loss/
in an interview with Time. “The more important objective,” he explained, “was for Ukraine to survive as a sovereign, democratic country free to pursue integration with the West.”
But reclaiming territory was all that was left for the Ukrainians after the West pressured them to keep fighting rather than abandon aspirations to join NATO. Neutrality for Kiev was “the key point” for Russian negotiators, https://www.yahoo.com/news/head-ukraines-leading-party-claims-205150773.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9vcmlnaW5hbC5hbnRpd2FyLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMgG_qhDYi6Pi9E1mZQj7kXq4qBpNQcgmch1sDQoomR8hCkBja69onSxhnORJH1HxhBe7DI3bHzG6tCJ-1cODhl7W6tHpfmOQxWapcUnuqogOeCv8TnELHq_W3z5HTdvf6OA8wdjfGn1drki_eWuoQ5Vf3OqDo62vZOj4k8hd7fy
to one Ukrainian lawmaker who participated in peace talks. If an agreement had been made, a still-sovereign Ukraine would remain free to pursue economic and cultural—but not military—integration with the West.
Green’s assertion, at first, seems unlikely. The U.S. pushed Ukraine to carry out a counteroffensive in the Donbas and endorsed https://www.reuters.com/world/us-diplomat-says-ukrainian-strikes-military-targets-crimea-are-legitimate-2023-02-17/
on military targets in Crimea.
But that was for public consumption. Privately, they https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9
it was not “a wise move” to recapture Crimea and were not “actively encouraging Ukraine” to do so.
If Biden was not prepared to give Ukraine whatever it needed to reclaim its territory, and if he was not prepared to offer Ukraine NATO membership, then what was American support for the war all about? Was it really just about weakening Russia or asserting NATO’s unchallenged right to expand wherever it wants, including right up to Russia’s borders? If so, then the people of Ukraine have been cruelly used by America.
In the first weeks of the war, there was a plausible hope worth exploring that Ukraine might retain much of its territory while avoiding catastrophic bloodshed and destruction of lives. Washington chose a different path, and it is incumbent on Biden to explain why.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Sun, 02/02/2025 - 08:10
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/biden-must-explain-what-ukraine-war-was
Trump Orders First Airstrikes On Foreign Soil Since Taking Office
Trump Orders First Airstrikes On Foreign Soil Since Taking Office
In apparent continuity with the https://www.georgewbushlibrary.gov/research/topic-guides/global-war-terror
of the prior two decades, the Trump White House has announced the president ordered a wave of airstrikes on Islamic State cells in Somalia on Saturday, in the very first US strikes abroad since Donald Trump entered his second term.
The Pentagon announced that "multiple" terrorists were killed and that it further assessed no civilians were harmed. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said US Africa Command carried out the strikes as directed by Trump as Commander-in-Chief. Trump on social media hailed that the attacks destroyed the "caves" that ISIS terrorists live in.
"The strikes destroyed the caves they live in, and killed many terrorists without, in any way, harming civilians. Our Military has targeted this ISIS Attack Planner for years, but Biden and his cronies wouldn’t act quickly enough to get the job done. I did!" Trump wrote.
?itok=WOUwuqxd
"The message to ISIS and all others who would attack Americans is that “WE WILL FIND YOU, AND WE WILL KILL YOU!" - he added in caps.
But specifics haven't been offered, such as the identities of those targeted and killed, or the precise location. However the government of Somalia confirmed the operation was done with its approval and coordination.
"Our initial assessment is that multiple operatives were killed in the airstrikes and no civilians were harmed," Defense Secretary Hegseth https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/01/us-strikes-isis-militants/78127153007/
. "This action further degrades ISIS’s ability to plot and conduct terrorist attacks threatening U.S. citizens, our partners, and innocent civilians and sends a clear signal that the United States always stands ready to find and eliminate terrorists who threaten the United States and our allies."
The office of Somalia’s president announced that the operation "reinforces the strong security partnership" between the two countries in "combating extremist threats." Somalia "remains resolute in working with its allies to eliminate international terrorism and ensure regional stability," it said on X.
Past presidents have also targeted Somalia with similar such sporadic strikes against Islamist militants. It's part of the dangerous and ongoing post-9/11 trend of ordering acts of war on foreign soil but without any Congressional debate, review, or authorization whatsoever.
Libertarian and former Independent Congressman from Michigan Justin Amash complained about this lack of Congressional https://x.com/justinamash/status/1885762068285977066
:
Congress hasn’t authorized war in Somalia—even against ISIS. The separation of powers exists to protect both the liberty and safety of Americans. Offensive missile strikes are acts of war and can’t be justified without the express approval of Congress for the specific conflict.
...Presidents can’t declare war. No congressional authorization grants the power to target “terrorists” as a general grouping.
Continuing the decades-old tradition of bombing Somalia https://t.co/6YOG1zw0B9
— Dave DeCamp (@DecampDave) https://twitter.com/DecampDave/status/1885750793661210913?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
But hawks will look to the law enacted just days after 9/11, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), as providing legal cover and grounds for the president to do that. It has remained an extremely controversial law and position, granting wide and ambiguous powers to the Executive Branch.
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Sun, 02/02/2025 - 07:35
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-orders-first-airstrikes-foreign-soil-taking-office
Congress Should Focus On 'Reparations' Not Sanctuary Cities; Chicago Mayor
Congress Should Focus On 'Reparations' Not Sanctuary Cities; Chicago Mayor
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has told members of the press that members of Congress should be focusing less on arresting and deporting illegal alien criminals and more on slavery reparations.
?itok=9A3UgR8g
Johnson was asked on Thursday about whether he would he would honor an invitation to appear with a handful of U.S. mayors before the U.S. House Oversight Committee to testify about so-called “sanctuary cities” like Chicago, New York, Denver and Boston.
Rather than answering the question, Johnson chose to play the race card instead and went off on a diatribe about slavery, reparations and how the U.S. today represents “what our country would look like had the confederacy won.”
🚨 CHICAGO MAYOR DEFLECTS FROM ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WITH SLAVERY TALK—BUT IGNORES REAL SLAVERY HAPPENING TODAY
• What Happened:
• Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson tried to dodge the illegal immigration crisis by ranting about colonization and slavery.
• Instead of addressing… https://t.co/YqPj3oJ3PB
— Shred Newz (@Shreddick0) https://twitter.com/Shreddick0/status/1885306782580695265?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
, Johnson insisted that the Oversight Committee should be looking at the White House rather than cities like his which have promised to protect illegal immigrant criminals from federal efforts to arrest and deport them.
Echoing a familiar theme of identity politics, the Chicago mayor told reporters, “If they want to have a real discussion about (illegal aliens) who are criminals, they should look at the very individuals who enslaved my people and colonized this land.”
The Chicago mayor also had strong words about the newly sworn in Trump administration, saying, “That White House is being ran in one of the most raggedy forms of government that I have ever seen,” Johnson added, “I will not be intimidated by some weak individual who won’t stand up who believes he’s a supreme being right now.”
Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Rep. Jim Comer (R-KY) https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Sanctuary-City-Doc-Request-and-Witness-Invite-Chicago.pdf
and told reporters that if Johnson refuses, he may subpoena the mayor to compel him to appear under the threat of being held in contempt of Congress.
In that letter, Comer wrote:
Sanctuary jurisdictions and their misguided and obstructionist policies hinder the ability of federal law enforcement officers to effectuate safe arrests and remove dangerous criminals from American communities, making Americans less safe. Chicago is a sanctuary jurisdiction that refuses to fully cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. To provide much needed oversight of this matter, the Committee requests documents and information related to the sanctuary policies of Chicago.
The mayors of Boston, Denver and New York were also invited to appear before the Oversight Committee to account for the impact of sanctuary jurisdictions and “their impact on public safety and the effectiveness of federal efforts to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.”
https://cms.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
Sun, 02/02/2025 - 07:00