The EU has threatened to ban Twitter in Europe unless new owner Elon Musk adheres to its strict rules on content moderation.

The threat was made by Thierry Breton, the EU’s commissioner in charge of implementing the bloc’s digital rules, who said during a video meeting with Musk on Wednesday that Twitter must follow a checklist of rules, including ditching his "arbitrary" approach to reinstating banned users, the Financial Times reports, citing people with knowledge of the conversation.

Musk was warned that unless he stuck to those rules Twitter risked infringing the EU’s new Digital Services Act, a landmark law that sets the global standard for how Big Tech must police content on the internet. Breton reiterated that the law meant, if in breach, Twitter could face a Europe-wide ban or fines of up to 6 per cent of global turnover.

Twitter’s owner said repeatedly that he thought that the DSA was “very sensible”, according to people briefed on the conversation, adding that he had read the legislation and thought it should be applied everywhere in the world. -FT

The warning appears to be a direct response to Musk's approach to content moderation, in which he said he would allow all speech on the platform as long as it was legal, though "negative/hate speech" will be "deboosted," FT notes.

The EU's demands also include a requirement that Musk provide clear rules on which users are at risk of being banned. Users such as Kanye West and Andrew Tate, who were unbanned from Twitter - yet remain banned on rival platforms Facebook and Instagram, might be of concern to the EU.

Briton also said Musk should apply strict rules when it comes to advertising, such as those which target children or appear alongside unbanned users who were originally banished for religious or political beliefs.

Further, the EU wants Twitter to commit to an audit by summer 2023, when the company must hand over data on various metrics such as the number of active users and banned accounts.

Authored by Matt Kennard via Consortium News/Declassified UK,

The British government assigned at least 15 people to the secret operation to seize Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, new information shows. The WikiLeaks founder was given political asylum by Ecuador in 2012, but was never allowed safe passage out of Britain to avoid persecution by the U.S. government. 

The Australian journalist has been in Belmarsh maximum-security prison for the past three and a half years and faces a potential 175-year sentence after the High Court of England and Wales green-lighted his extradition to the U.S. in December 2021. "Pelican" was the secret Metropolitan Police operation to seize Assange from his asylum, which eventually occurred in April 2019. Asylum is a right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

The operation’s existence was only revealed in the memoirs of former Foreign Minister Sir Alan Duncan which were published last year. The U.K. government routinely blocks, or obfuscates its answers to information requests about the Assange case. 

But the Cabinet Office recently told Parliament it had seven officials working on Operation Pelican. The department’s role is to "support the Prime Minister and ensure the effective running of government," but it also has national security and intelligence functions. 

It is not immediately clear why the Cabinet Office would have so many personnel working on a police operation of this kind. Asked about their role, the Cabinet Office said these seven officials "liaised" with the Metropolitan Police on the operation. 

The Home Office, meanwhile, told Parliament it had eight officials working on Pelican. The Home Office oversees MI5 and the head of the department has to sign off extraditions to most foreign countries. The then home secretary, Priti Patel, ordered Assange’s extradition to the U.S. in June. 

‘Disproportionate Cost’

Other government ministries refused to say if they had staff working on Pelican, including the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). The MoJ is in charge of courts in England and Wales, where Assange’s extradition case is currently deciding whether to hear an appeal. It is also in control of its prisons, including Belmarsh maximum security jail where Assange is incarcerated.

When asked if any of its staff were assigned to Pelican, the MoJ claimed: "The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost." It is unclear why the Home Office, a bigger department with more staff, could answer such a question, but the MoJ could not. There is no obvious reason why the MoJ would have staff assigned to Pelican, so revelations that it did would cause embarrassment for the government. 

Meanwhile, the Foreign Office told Parliament it had no staff "directly assigned" to Pelican, but refused to say if people working on the operation were located on its premises. 

‘Julian Assange’s Special Brexit Team’

Sir Alan Duncan, foreign minister for the Americas from 2016-19, was the key U.K. official in the diplomatic negotiations between the U.K. and Ecuador to get Assange out of the embassy. In his memoirs he wrote that he watched a live-feed of Assange’s arrest from the Operations Room at the top of the Foreign Office alongside Pelican personnel. 

OUTRAGEOUS‼
In his book "In the Thick of It -
The Private Diaries of a Minister" fmr #UK Foreign Affairs Minister Alan Duncan #shamelessly provides #proof of his #corruption & brags about his months of #negotiations w/ #Ecuador in OPERATION PELICAN to illegally evict #Assange 😡 pic.twitter.com/a5XdTbqFBP

— Dr Lilliana Corredor (@Dr_LCorredor) April 13, 2021

After Assange had been imprisoned in Belmarsh, Duncan had a drinks party at his office for the Pelican team.

"I gave them each a signed photo which we took in the Ops Room on the day, with a caption saying ‘Julian Assange’s Special Brexit Team 11th April 2019,’" he wrote. 

Ecuador’s president from 2007-17, Rafael Correa, recently told Declassified he granted Assange asylum because the Australian journalist "didn’t have any possibility of a fair legal process in the United States." He added that the U.K. government "tried to deal with us like a subordinate country."

In September 2021, 30 former U.S. officials went on the record to reveal a CIA plot to "kill or kidnap" Assange in London. In case of Assange leaving the embassy, the article noted, "US officials asked their British counterparts to do the shooting if gunfire was required, and the British agreed, according to a former senior administration official." These assurances most likely came from the Home Office. 

Temperatures across Northwest Europe are set to dive well below average for the first half of December as an Arctic blast will be the first real test for the energy-stricken continent's power systems. 

Bloomberg data shows average temperatures will begin sliding Wednesday under a 30-year trendline of about 40 degrees Fahrenheit to 27 degrees by the midpoint of December. This means that temperatures will be 10 degrees below the historical average, a sure sign that heating demand will rapidly increase.

Heating demand is set to explode.

Meteorologists at Klart.se in Sweden explained the Arctic chill is due to "a so-called Greenland blocking" event. The weather phenomenon "is starting to take shape in the middle or end of next week, which will send cold Arctic air in over Europe," they continued and described the blocking pattern as a high-pressure zone over Greenland that restricts weather systems from running into it and pushes the jet stream south.

Evening, a very nice ECMWF model mean this evening, looking very poised looking at this, nice block of high pressure up to Greenland, certainly very poised for from a cold potential perspective for #Europe and the #US! #winteriscoming 1/2 pic.twitter.com/OkdjVHVMFZ

— WEATHER/ METEO WORLD (@StormchaserUKEU) November 27, 2022

Temperatures across the largest European economy are expected to crater in the next two weeks to an average of 20 degrees. 

France will hover below freezing. 

The good news for Europe is that warmer-than-average autumn allowed natural gas reserves to fill up about 95%. Now comes the drawing period as heating demand is set to surge. 

Dutch NatGas benchmark TTF prices have already started to reverse on the prospects of colder weather.

Power prices are moving higher. The Nordic daily rate for Wednesday jumped 8.2% to 373.23 euros ($387) per megawatt- hour. 

German, French, and UK power prices are also increasing. 

And it begins: All that matters for Europe now are just how severe winter will be and the rate at which it draws NatGas from storage. 

Authored by Will Porter via The Libertarian Institute, 

The US government has authorized a flurry of arms sales to European allies in recent weeks, including more than $850 million in advanced missiles and rockets to Finland, which is currently seeking to join the NATO military alliance.

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) outlined the latest sale to Finland on Monday, noting that the State Department has approved a deal for 40 AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles and related guidance units, as well as 48 AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapons, for an estimated $323.3 million.

"This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a trusted partner, which is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe," the DSCA said, stressing that the deal would "not alter the basic military balance in the region."

The Sidewinder is a versatile short-range air-to-air munition compatible with a variety of different launchers, first developed by the United States in 1956 and later adopted by dozens of American allies. The AGM-154 medium-range glide bomb is of much newer design, in service in the US since the late 1990s, and is capable of carrying various warheads. Both weapons are produced by Raytheon, and have been used by Finnish forces for several years.

The State Department gave the green light for an even larger arms transfer to Finland earlier this month, approving a $535 million sale for hundreds of Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS), which can be fired from two US-made multi-launch rocket platforms: the M270A1 MLRS and the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS). 

The latter weapon has made an appearance on the Ukrainian battlefield, as the Joe Biden administration has provided at least 38 HIMARS launchers to Kiev, one of the heaviest and longest-range weapons shipped to the country since Russia’s invasion kicked off last winter.

Despite reports that Washington and its NATO allies have severely depleted their weapons and ammunition stocks after countless arms transfers to Ukraine – with some officials suggesting it will take years to replenish certain systems – the State Department has approved several other large military sales to European partners this month.

As of November 8, Belgium is set to receive $380 million in AIM-120 air-to-air missiles and related gear, which the DSCA said would help to keep Brussels’ F-16 and F-35 fleets in “combat-ready status.”

Lithuania, meanwhile, is looking to procure eight HIMARS launchers and various munitions to the tune of $495 million, a deal that would require US personnel to visit the country twice each year for "program management reviews" and other support services. The State Department authorized that sale on November 9, though all of the above deals still must receive final approval by Congress.

Switzerland also got in on this month’s European spending spree, outdoing its neighbors by nearly twofold with a $700 million purchase for 72 PAC-3 Segment Enhanced missiles for its US-made Patriot batteries. Despite the country’s nominal non-aligned status, the DSCA said the sale would help improve “interoperability with US and NATO forces,” underscoring Switzerland’s close military ties with the North Atlantic bloc.

As the world’s largest arms exporter, such deals are not uncommon for the United States, though the pace of recent sales to European allies could highlight growing anxieties in the wake of Russia’s attack on Ukraine. 

The offensive also prompted both Finland and Sweden to apply to join NATO back in May, breaking with years of neutrality. While all but two member states have since ratified their admission, the Nordic countries are set to remain close partners to the alliance regardless of their formal membership status. Both conduct regular joint military drills with NATO allies, while Stockholm became the first non-NATO member authorized to purchase and deploy its own Patriot missile battery last year, indicating its tight relations with Washington.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

What is the root of all evil?  Money?  No, not really.  Money is just a tool, like a hammer, a wrench or even a gun.  When I think of evil I don't envision a handgun or a rifle or a big pile of hundred dollar bills.  Instead, I see nightly news talking heads spreading disinformation and fear.  I see mobs of over-emotional and ignorant activists setting fire to buildings, tearing things down because they don't know how to build anything useful and new.  And above it all, I see a small group of elites hovering, licking their chops as they fantasize about the potential power that can be gained from exploiting the chaos.

The willingness to destroy and cause suffering for personal benefit is evil.  The willingness to feed off the tragedies of others is evil.  And these are the cold characteristics that currently define the political left.

There have been multiple criminal events and national emergencies over the past few years that leftists have been very quick to hijack or scapegoat onto conservatives, often with embarrassing results for themselves.  The most recent being the Colorado “Club Q” shooting in which 5 people died and at least 19 were injured.  Here was the mainstream media's reaction to the event, with little to no facts on hand to back their claims:

Leftists use a very predictable strategy when it comes to these kinds of high profile criminal acts – Immediately blame all conservatives and conservative principles for the crimes of one man.  Even if the event had nothing to do with conservatives, let the public think it did.  If a gun is involved, blame the legality of guns in general as if the weapon is the problem rather than the mental illness or psychopathy of the perpetrator.

As it turns out, the Club Q shooter suspect, Anderson Aldrich, is actually a member of the LGBT community and identifies as non-binary with They/Them pronouns.  Watch this CNN anchor's response as she is forced to admit on air that the suspect does not fit CNN's original narrative:

She is clearly upset and bewildered at the revelation, and the guests even start making excuses, suggesting that perhaps the suspect is lying about his gender identity (which is rather ironic). But why did they react this way?  Aren't they supposed to be objective journalists merely reporting the facts as they become available?  Yes, I realize the very idea is ridiculous, but it shouldn't be.  The mainstream is a hostile force seeking to demonize around half the population of America and we have grown used to it.  

With this latest information on the Club Q shooting the story has all but disappeared from the news feeds as if it never happened.  Just like the Waukesha Massacre perpetrated by a BLM supporter, or the the alleged attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi, and dozens of other recent crimes in which the facts do not serve the establishment narrative.  

What can we learn about leftists from the Club Q scenario in particular?  

First, they are robotic in their responses rather than empathetic.  They never pause to consider the complexities of the situation or wait to find out the truth.  They jump to the conclusions they WISH were true, rather than seeking to learn more.  Much like children.  

Second, though the vast majority of crime in the US is committed within Democrat controlled cities and states, the left only wants to highlight a certain type of crime – mass shootings by straight white males.  These events serve their political interests while the others do not.  You will not hear Democrats mention the high murder rate or black-on-black crime in anti-gun cities like Chicago, for instance.  They don't care, because there's no benefits or power to be squeezed from that ongoing tragedy.

Third, leftists are not interested in justice, they are interested in control.  Justice is about punishing the people that actually committed the crime; but for them punishment of a suspect is secondary to the control that might be derived from the fear and panic the crime caused.  Leftists will use any and every crisis or tragedy to demonize their political opponents.  

It's very difficult for the media to attach conservatives and the concept of hate crimes to a shooting enacted by a member of the gay community.  Just as it was very difficult for them to attach white conservatives to hate crimes against Asians last year when most of the attacks were committed in heavily leftist cities by mostly black assailants.  

Fourth, leftists will happily stand on the bodies of victims to undermine rational conservative positions.  In the aftermath of Club Q, there was a mass campaign to attack the conservative stance against the grooming of children in public schools and “all ages” drag shows.  Leftists have decided for some reason that the sexualization of children is a hill they are willing to die on, and they will stop at nothing to justify drag dances and gender identity propaganda targeting kids.

We can speculate on why Democrats are so obsessed with getting kids in front of dancing drag queens flashing their crotches, or forcing kids to use made-up identity pronouns while questioning their biology, but the simplest explanation is that they want to groom impressionable children into the leftist fold so that they can be controlled for the rest of their lives.  

It's not the LGBT part that we have a big problem with, it's the propaganda and targeting of children we have a problem with.  Even if the Club Q shooter turned out to be a hardcore conservative instead of a trans person, that still wouldn't change the underlying situation.  Two things can be true at the same time – Mass murder is wrong, and targeting children with political ideology and gender cultism is also wrong.  

Fifth, leftists often claim they have no interest in taking away American gun rights while at the same time demanding our guns be taken.  It seems schizophrenic if you don't understand the concept of gaslighting, but narcissistic people often learn that saying one thing and doing the opposite is an excellent way to confuse their victims.   

As mentioned, they don't care about most crime in the US; they even try to deny rising crime statistics.  However, they LOVE a mass shooting, especially the tiny percentage that involve military-style rifles, because they think it will give them the political capital needed to get a majority of people to support further gun restrictions or outright gun confiscation.

It is a fact:  Leftists want to end gun rights in the US regardless of the constitution.  And, they are willing to punish ALL gun owners for the crimes of a handful of people.  Again, this is not about justice, this is about control.  Why do they want to take away gun rights if they don't actually care about the deaths of the people involved in crime?  We can only conclude that a well armed population is a considerable obstacle to their agenda.

The media will now have to play a game of spin as the Colorado shooting case unfolds.  They are already claiming that the suspect is not actually trans, as if the suspect is faking as a means to avoid hate crime charges.  If this is true, it would be a meaningless gesture as hate crime charges make no difference in the overall prosecution of multiple murders.  Also, generally speaking, people who commit hate crimes would be loathe to identify as the thing they are supposed to hate.  

The fact remains that you cannot separate the political left from the tragedy-whoring and crisis opportunism they employ.  Without constant calamity leftists serve no purpose and have no platform.  They need disaster to remain relevant, and they need panic as a tool for centralizing power.  They need the populace to be constantly afraid, mostly of threats that do not exist and suspicions that are misplaced.  

They will attempt to gaslight and claim that conservatives are somehow the same – But we are not.  We are not afraid of what we think they might do, we stand in opposition to what they are ALREADY doing.  We aren't concerned about phantom enemies and imagined crises, we are concerned about the very real antagonists on our doorstep.  

This is one of the many differences between leftists and conservatives:  We're not going to attack fellow Americans for things they have not done nor suspect people without evidence, we are only interested in stopping the trespasses that are happening right in front of our eyes.  We aren't going to be victimized while our attackers pretend to be victims and we aren't going to pretend we don't see agendas that are obvious.  Most of all, to the best of our ability we rely on the truth to make our case while leftists rely on deceit and spin.  

The fact is, there is a divide now between leftists and conservatives that can never be mended.  We are so different in our goals and our principles it is as if we are two different species, and for now only one side has acted consistently to destroy the other.    

Among all those suffering from the chaos in crypto...we can't forget about Miami nightclubs.

Yes, apparently the South Beach hotspots are starting to miss the business young awkward crypto millionaires and billionaires, according to a new report from FT. The clubs had formerly been "inundated with phone calls from cryptocurrency entrepreneurs that no one had heard of," the report says.

Those days are long gone.

When bitcoin was at $60,000, however, there seemed to be an endless supply of crypto geniuses who were eager to "reserve lots of tables — or rent an entire venue for a whole evening at a cost of half a million dollars or more," the report says. 

Andrea Vimercati, director of food and beverage at Moxy Hotel group, told the Financial Times: “Out of the blue, all these kids from crypto started coming down and spending a lot of money — like, an insane amount of money.” 

“They were booking tables for $50,000, and it was like, who the hell are these people,” he continued, stating they were “95 per cent men, young . . . with a kind of nerdy style. You couldn’t tell they had a lot of money if they were just walking around.”

He continued, talking about the excess which has now been washed back out to sea: “They wanted to show that they didn’t have any limits. They were ordering 12 or 24 bottles of the most expensive champagne and just showering themselves without even drinking.”

One group, who claimed to have sold their crypto company, even paid a more than million dollar tab at a 50 Cent show in crypto, Gino LoPinto, operating partner at the club, recalled. His club transacted more than $6 million in crypto in the last year, he said. 

“They had bathtubs of champagne brought out, and gave 50 Cent a bunch of cash to throw," she said. “You wouldn’t normally show your bank account, but people do show their crypto wallets/ I’ve seen more crypto wallets in a year than I’ve seen bank accounts in a lifetime.”

Now, the crypto club-goers have “completely disappeared”, Vimercati says. LoPinto noted that his club has only processed $10,000 in crypto transactions in the last 3 months. 

Alan Roth, owner of Rosa Sky rooftop lounge, added: “On the bigger crypto weekends, the groups coming in for private buyouts were these young tech guys. A buyout costs anywhere from 20 per cent to 50 per cent more than we would make on a normal night.”

Brett Harris executive director of luxury sales at real estate firm Douglas Elliman characterized the boom: “It was revenge of the nerds.”

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Cradle,

Challenging the western monetary system, the Eurasia Economic Union is leading the Global South toward a new common payment system to bypass the US Dollar...

The Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) is speeding up its design of a common payment system, which has been closely discussed for nearly a year with the Chinese under the stewardship of Sergei Glazyev, the EAEU’s minister in charge of Integration and Macro-economy.

Through its regulatory body, the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC), the EAEU has just extended a very serious proposal to the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) which, crucially, are already on the way to turning into BRICS+: a sort of G20 of the Global South.

The system will include a single payment card – in direct competition with Visa and Mastercard – merging the already existing Russian MIR, China’s UnionPay, India’s RuPay, Brazil’s Elo, and others.

That will represent a direct challenge to the western-designed (and enforced) monetary system, head on. And it comes on the heels of BRICS members already transacting their bilateral trade in local currencies, and bypassing the US dollar.

This EAEU-BRICS union was long in the making – and will now also move toward prefiguring a further geoeconomic merger with the member nations of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

The EAEU was established in 2015 as a customs union of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus, joined a year later by Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Vietnam is already an EAEU free trade partner, and recently enshrined SCO member Iran is also clinching a deal.

The EAEU is designed to implement free movement of goods, services, capital, and workers between member countries. Ukraine would have been an EAEU member if not for the Maidan coup in 2014 masterminded by the Barack Obama administration.

Vladimir Kovalyov, adviser to the chairman of the EEC, summed it all up to Russian newspaper Izvestia. The focus is to establish a joint financial market, and the priority is to develop a common “exchange space:” “We’ve made substantial progress and now the work is focused on such sectors as banking, insurance, and the stock market.”

A new regulatory body for the proposed joint EEU-BRICS financial system will soon be established.

Meanwhile, trade and economic cooperation between the EAEU and BRICS have increased 1.5 times in the first half of 2022 alone.

The BRICS share in the total external trade turnover of the EAEU has reached 30 percent, Kovalyov revealed at the BRICS International Business Forum this past Monday in Moscow:

“It is advisable to combine the potentials of the BRICS and EAEU macro-financial development institutions, in particular the BRICS New Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), as well as national development institutions. This will make it possible to achieve a synergistic effect and ensure synchronous investments in sustainable infrastructure, innovative production, and renewable energy sources.”

Here we once again see the advancing convergence of not only BRICS and EAEU but also the financial institutions deeply involved in projects under the China-led New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Halting the Age of Plunder

As if all that was not game-changing enough, Russian President Vladimir Putin is raising the stakes by calling for a new international payment system based on blockchain and digital currencies.

The project for such a system was recently presented at the 1st Eurasian Economic Forum in Bishkek.

At the forum, the EAEU approved a draft agreement on cross-border placement and circulation of securities in member states, and amended technical regulations.

The next big step is to organize the agenda of a crucial meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council on 14 December in Moscow. Putin will be there – in person. And there’s nothing he would love more than to make a game-changing announcement.

All of these moves acquire even more importance as they connect to fast increasing, interlocking trade between Russia, China, India, and Iran: from Russia’s drive to build new pipelines serving its Chinese market – to Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan discussing a gas union for both domestic supplies and exports, especially to main client China.

Slowly but surely, what is emerging is the Big Picture of an irretrievably fractured world featuring a dual trade/circulation system: one will be revolving around the remnants of the dollar system, the other is being built centered on the association of BRICS, EAEU, and SCO.

Pushing further on down the road, the recent pathetic metaphor coined by a tawdry Eurocrat boss: the “jungle” is breaking away from the “garden” with a vengeance. May the fracture persist, as a new international payment system – and then a new currency – will aim to halt for good the western-centric Age of Plunder.

A new study published in the American Journal of Public Health revealed the number of law-abiding Americans carrying a loaded handgun daily nearly doubled between 2015-19. 

The study titled "Trend in Loaded Handgun Carrying Among Adult Handgun Owners in the United States, 2015‒2019" found the number of law-abiding US adults carrying handguns nearly doubled from 9 million in 2015 to 16 million in 2019.

"Proportionally fewer handgun owners carried handguns in states where issuing authorities had substantial discretion in granting permits," the study's authors said. 

The authors claimed that very "little was known about the frequency and features of firearm carrying among adult handgun owners in the United States before this study. In fact, over the past 30 years, only a few peer-reviewed national surveys, conducted in 1994,1995, 1996, and 2015, have provided even the most basic information about firearm carrying frequency."

Research firm Ipsos conducted the national survey between July 2019 and August 2019. Respondents were from firearm-owning households drawn from Ipsos's Knowledge Panel, an online sampling pool of approximately 55,000 adults. 

There was no explanation by the study's authors for the rapid increase in daily handgun-carrying adults. But during the period, social unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore City, Maryland, as well as surging violent crime across certain metro areas, could be the reason behind the trend. 

After all, an overwhelming number of respondents said they were carrying handguns for "personal protection." 

"And all of these increases happened before the Covid lockdowns and the "Summer of Love" where many US cities experienced massive rioting, violence and staggering increases in crime," firearms blog Bearing Arms said. Much of this unleashed a tidal wave of law-abiding citizens panic buying guns, even to this day, for personal protection. 

And then there's this summer's US Supreme Court's NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling affirmed the right-to-carry applies outside the home, which forces states to stop arbitrarily denying carry permits to applicants who didn't meet specific requirements. This ruling has allowed millions of gun owners to conceal carry if they take a two-day class and pass a background check.  

Suppose the authors were to update the study for the pandemic years and the Bruen ruling. In that case, we believe the number of Americans packing heat has dramatically increased as the country is plagued with violent crime in progressively run cities.

Data shows that not only are more gun owners carrying firearms for self-defense, but more law-abiding gun owners are carrying DAILY.

This is what happens when violent crime is on the rise across the country and #SecondAmendment rights are being attacked from every angle.

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) November 29, 2022

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

At least 42 Biden administration officials were sent letters by Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee this month requesting testimony from a variety of White House officials.

Those letters primarily dealt with the suspected politicization of the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ), investigations into U.S. border security, and President Joe Biden’s son Hunter.

A recent letter (pdf) led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) to White House chief of staff Ron Klain requested testimony from Biden administration staffers relating to alleged “misuse of federal criminal and counterterrorism resources to target concerned parents at school board meetings.” Interviews from four White House officials were requested.

Around the same time, another letter (pdf) from Jordan was sent to the Department of Education requesting testimony from three officials, and another letter to the Department of Homeland Security requests interviews from around a dozen administration officials. That includes embattled Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement chief Tae Johnson.

Even more DOJ and FBI officials were asked to testify during the next Congress, according to two separate letters (pdf, pdf) sent by Jordan and others last week. They’re seeking testimony from Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and dozens of other DOJ and FBI officials, according to a Washington Examiner analysis of the GOP-backed letters.

It’s likely that Republicans will seek to investigate how the FBI and DOJ handled investigations into former President Donald Trump and the raid that targeted Mar-a-Lago in August. Republicans and Trump have long said the two agencies have exhibited a politically motivated animus toward the former president, coming after Garland announced he had appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to investigate him.

More than a week ago, Garland appointed Smith as special counsel to “oversee two ongoing criminal investigations” into Trump, namely events surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach and the Mar-a-Lago raid, according to a DOJ statement. Just days before, Trump announced he would be embarking on a third presidential bid in 2024.

Other Investigations

House Majority Leader-elect Steve Scalise (R-La.) revealed that some of the GOP’s priorities for the incoming Congress are probing the origins of COVID-19, the widely criticized U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and allegations surrounding Hunter Biden.

The House Oversight Committee, under its top Republican and likely next chairman, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), is “ready to go start looking into a lot of the questions that people have had,” Scalise told Breitbart this weekend.

“Whether it’s Hunter Biden’s dealings with all kinds of foreign countries [or] the laptop scandal, which the liberal media tried to dismiss when it came out in 2020,” he added. “It’s been verified.

“It turns out there’s a lot of information on that laptop that raises serious questions, and James Comer’s committee’s going to be asking those.

Read more here...

A team of researchers from the University of Alberta discovered at least two new minerals never before seen on Earth in a 15-ton meteorite that landed in east Africa.

Unearthed in Somalia in 2020, the meteorite is the ninth largest ever found. When researchers sliced off a two-ounce section of the space rock, they found two new minerals named "elaliite" and "elkinstantonite." Details about the minerals remain limited. 

"Whenever you find a new mineral, it means that the actual geological conditions, the chemistry of the rock, was different than what's been found before.

"That's what makes this exciting: In this particular meteorite you have two officially described minerals that are new to science," Chris Herd, a professor in the Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences and curator of the University of Alberta's Meteorite Collection, said in a press release. 

Western researchers called the space rock "El Ali" because it was discovered near the town of El Ali, in the Hiiraan region of Somalia. 

Herd said the two new minerals were discovered on the first day the sample was analyzed. He said, "most of the time, it takes a lot more work than that to say there's a new mineral." 

Similar minerals had been synthetically created in a lab by French researchers in the 1980s but never found in nature. 

Herd also said these new mineral discoveries could one day benefit humanity: 

"Whenever there's a new material that's known, material scientists are interested too because of the potential uses in a wide range of things in society."

Reports show the space rock has been shipped to China as meteorites are often bought and sold on international markets. 

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The Pentagon this week issued its annual report on China’s military power that claimed Beijing could nearly quadruple its nuclear stockpile by 2035, bringing it to 1,500 warheads.

Current estimates put China’s nuclear stockpile at about 350, although the Pentagon claims the number has surpassed 400. Beijing has signaled it plans to increase its nuclear deterrence, but it’s not clear if they will build new warheads at the rate the Pentagon estimates.

I don’t know the speed at which China’s nuclear bombs are increasing.But my judgment is:China will not rashly turn to reunification by force until it has 1,000 nuclear warheads,enough to curb the US’s impulse to go to war with China.And once that war starts,it means China’s ready pic.twitter.com/obG8SjDj0m

— Hu Xijin 胡锡进 (@HuXijin_GT) November 30, 2022

China’s arsenal is vastly smaller than the US and Russia’s and, unlike Washington and Moscow, has a no-first-use policy. Including retired warheads that are expected to be dismantled, the US is estimated to possess 5,500 warheads, and Russia is said to have 6,250.

The US has called on China to engage in trilateral arms control talks, but the only way that would happen is if the US and Russia work together to significantly reduce their stockpiles, and the prospects of any new arms control agreements between Washington and Moscow are bleak.

The Pentagon’s report echoed its recently released National Defense Strategy, which identified China as its top priority. The military power report calls Beijing the "most consequential and systemic challenge to our national security and to a free and open international system."

The report said that China is keeping up "persistent" military operations around Taiwan, which is a response to increasing US support for Taipei.

In August, China launched its largest-ever military exercises around Taiwan in response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visiting the island. Beijing has kept up the military pressure since then by regularly flying planes across the median line, an informal barrier that separates the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.

Before Pelosi’s visit, China made clear it would respond to the provocation, and analysts rightly predicted that flights across the median line would become a regular operation if she went through with the trip.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a video address on Tuesday estimated it will cost more than $1 trillion to rebuild his country following the Russian assault, now over nine months in. If this number sounds absolutely shocking and unrealistic... it is, given this would be five times Ukraine's entire GDP.

"The reconstruction of our country will become the most momentous economic, technological, and humanitarian project of our time. Even now, we engage dozens of our partner countries to rebuild Ukraine," Zelensky said during his nightly video address Tuesday, translated by Newsweek. "The total volume of work amounts to over a trillion dollars."

He slipped this one trillion dollar figure in while saying he hopes his country can show the world its resilience by hosting the World's Fair in 2030. 

Further, the Latvia-based English language news outlet Meduza described that the Ukrainian leader floated an unusual plan for meeting his astronomical reconstruction price tag. National governments or even large companies could become permanent sponsors of specific regions, cities, or economic sectors: 

According to Zelensky, Ukraine is developing a system that will allow partner countries to become "patrons" of Ukrainian regions, cities, or businesses. "We’re already seeing interest [in the program] from France, Great Britain, The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Turkey, Poland, Portugal, Czechia, Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia, Switzerland, Slovakia, Austria, Greece, Canada, the U.S., Japan, and Australia. And that’s not an exhaustive list," he said.

This actually isn't the first time that a stunning $1+ trillion figure has been proposed. 

The first time Zelensky so publicly floated one trillion seems to have been in September, when he was invited to "ring" the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange on the 6th of that month (via video feed of course).

He said at the time during comments which included an appeal for $400 billion in foreign investment: "The general project of Ukrainian reconstruction will be the largest economic project in Europe of our time. The largest for several generations. Its volume is already estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars."

Zelensky then emphasized, "And with the necessary modernization of the Ukrainian infrastructure, taking into account security needs, it is more than a trillion dollars and in a fairly short term - less than ten years."

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Ukraine was worth 200.09 billion US dollars in 2021, according to official data from the World Bank...

Meanwhile, at least one well-known Washington-based think tank has gotten behind this, arguing that it would provide "strategic benefits" to the United States. A report in Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) issued days ago and entitled, United States Aid to Ukraine: An Investment Whose Benefits Greatly Exceed its Cost, had this to say...

"In practice, Ukraine cannot continue to fight and to recover without continuing aid from the U.S. and other powers. Moreover, if the war drags on as it well may do, the total costs of both the war and recovery states could easily rise well over $500 billion. A truly long war could put the total cost of the war and recovery to a trillion dollars or more."

It noted, "So far, there has been only limited domestic political resistance in the United States to continuing civil and military aid to Ukraine" - suggesting that US officials should push for more and more foreign aid for Kiev amid the general lack of pushback and apathy.

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A Texas mother, frustrated by her school board’s reluctance to remove books with graphic sexual content from school libraries, found an embarrassing technique for getting board members and the public to pay attention.

Her unusual method may have hastened the removal of one objectionable book from shelves and brought the issue of sexual content in school libraries to the attention of social media viewers worldwide.

At last count, the number of views of her most-recent appearance at a school board meeting had reached nearly 372,000 on Twitter after being shared by Libs of TikTok.

UNREAL. Parent in @friscoisd reads from a pornographic book available to kids. A board member stops her and says “there’s a child in our board room.”

They acknowledge it’s inappropriate to read in front of children but these books can be in the school library. Make it make sense pic.twitter.com/VwpUBWOYnb

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) November 17, 2022

The video shows Shannon Ayres reading from the book, “The Perks of Being a Wallflower,” at a board meeting of the Frisco Independent School District on Nov. 16.

Ayres, the mother of grown children who attended school in the district, now serves on the board of the local chapter of the watchdog group County Citizens Defending Freedom.

In the clip, Ayres takes her spot at the podium during public comment and begins reading a passage from the book found in the library of at least one district high school. The excerpt graphically describes a young girl protesting and crying as a boy forces her to perform oral sex.

“I ask you why this book has survived two attempts…” Ayres tries to ask board members.

Off-camera, a school board trustee can be heard talking over her as Ayres’ microphone is turned off at the end of her comment period.

“Thank you. Your time is up. Thank you so much. There’s a child in our boardroom, so I’d like for you to please stop reading that,” board president Rene Archambault interrupts, drawing loud complaints from the audience.

Ayres told The Epoch Times she decided to begin reading excerpts from books that remained in libraries after making it through at least one review process. Though distasteful, she felt reading passages would focus attention on the remaining books.

“Identical,” which has a scene where a father rapes his daughter, was already under a second review but removed within 48 hours after she read from it at a previous school board meeting.

So Ayres signed up to speak again during the meeting set aside for public comment. And that’s what drew her public scolding now circulating around the world.

“My heart was beating so hard I felt like they could see it beating through my shirt. It was scary. I had to say a little prayer to get the words out. It’s just vile,” she said.

The irony of Archambault’s comment seems to amaze viewers—that a school library book is too graphic to be presented in front of children.

“The hypocrisy was so blatant,” Ayres said.

Archambault’s comments later in the meeting indicated that the child in the audience was of elementary-school age. She said it was vastly different for a child to be “forced” to listen to the material read during a board meeting versus checking out a book from the library.

She apologized that the child’s mother had to cover her ears while the book passage was read and asked people to email concerns about books in the future so children wouldn’t be exposed to the content during board meetings.

At that point, trustee Marvin Lowe, one of two conservative board members, spoke up.

“I understand what you’re saying for a kid to hear what was in that book, but do we need to apologize to the community that those books are in our library, to begin with?” Lowe said, prompting applause from the audience.

Ayres said she did not realize a child was at the meeting.

“And I was upset when I realized afterward there was a child in the room because obviously that’s what I’m trying to avoid is children having to be exposed to that,” she said.

The frustrating part is that she said some objectionable books have been on shelves for a year after being challenged.

Besides the “Wallflower” book, six other titles remain on the shelves: “Check, Please! Book 1:#1 Hockey,” “Chicken Girl,” “Glass,” “Glass Castle,” “The Perks of Being a Wildflower,” “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian,” and “The Exact Opposite of Okay.”

Frisco ISD’s website says parents and community members may object to titles that don’t follow district policy. But it also noted that the district must protect students’ First Amendment rights.

Ayres said board members shouldn’t hide behind claims that removing inappropriate books would violate students’ rights.

Ayres said minors aren’t allowed to carry guns, which isn’t an infringement on their Second Amendment rights. Likewise, she added, taking books with sexual content out of libraries doesn’t infringe upon their First Amendment rights.

Even with the intervention of state Rep. Jared Patterson, a Frisco Republican, the seven books remain on school library shelves after two appeals.

Patterson told The Epoch Times he was sorry the child in the audience heard the book’s content.

“I’m sorry that any child has to see that in their school,” he said.

Patterson started objecting to books last November, he said. But when school started in August 2022, there were still 28 books with sexual or inappropriate content in Frisco ISD libraries.

Read more here...

Readers have been well-informed about the slide in wholesale used-vehicle prices. A combination of increasing new car and truck supply, soaring interest rates, and economic uncertainty have been drivers of slowing consumer demand. But let's concentrate on the luxury side of the used car market, where storm clouds quickly gather. 

Twitter user CarDealershipGuy pointed out that a 2021 G-Wagon with only 3,330 miles just sold at auction for around $187,000. He said the latest auction figures were a 30% plunge from the nearly $300,000 price the luxury SUV commanded earlier this year. 

Exotic car market is getting decimated right now.

2021 Mercedes G-Wagon with 3,378 miles just sold for $187K at auction.

that’s nearly an $80K (or 30%) drop in under 12 months.

— CarDealershipGuy (@GuyDealership) November 22, 2022

CarDealershipGuy explained, "exotic car market is getting decimated right," even though the overall decline in the average wholesale used car prices is only "-13.7% y/y (according to Manheim)." He attributed the turmoil in the luxury space to "crypto bros" panic dumping high-end vehicles. 

Reminder that wholesale used cars are only down 13.7% y/y (according to Manheim)

so yes, crypto bros are hurting.

oh and incase you wanted more proof: pic.twitter.com/moYa9h1AZ4

— CarDealershipGuy (@GuyDealership) November 22, 2022

NYPost said, "an uptick in like-new models of sought-after luxury cars has hit resale sites such as AutoTrader in recent weeks." 

CarDealershipGuy told The Post the crypto winter has forced "crypto bros" to dump luxury vehicles at auctions or list them on online marketplaces. 

"It's clear that in the last couple of months the decline in prices for exotic vehicles has accelerated and that correlates very, very well with the meltdown in the crypto markets where we know that some of the biggest customers of exotic vehicles were crypto millionaires," he said.

Here's the crash in bitcoin.

Software engineer Brianna Wu also noticed an uptick, though she said McLaren listings on AutoTempest were "exploding." 

The crypto crash is real.

Right now, @AutoTempest is EXPLODING with McLarens - the flashy and extremely unreliable car of Cryptobros who couldn’t change a tire if their lives depended on it. pic.twitter.com/L8Swam8Qmm

— Brianna Wu (@BriannaWu) November 16, 2022

If "crypto bros" are offloading vehicles, perhaps it's only a matter of time before they unload other assets, such as Rolex, yachts, and mansions, as the winter in the digital asset space could worsen in the months ahead. 

Authored by Dan M. Berger via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Early voting in Georgia’s Senate runoff between incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock and Republican Herschel Walker is setting records, as it did before the November general election.

More than half a million of the state’s 7 million active voters had already voted as the polls opened on Nov. 29.

“Just … Wow!” Georgia’s Deputy Secretary of State Gabriel Sterling posted on Twitter late on Nov. 28.

“Georgia voters, facilitated through the hard work of county election and poll workers, have shattered the old early vote turnout, with 300,438 Georgians casting their votes today. They blew up the old record of 233,000 votes in a day. Way to go voters and election workers.”

At the North Fulton County Annex in the Atlanta suburb of Sandy Springs, a line of waiting voters stretched out the front door, down the steps, and onto the sidewalk during four different visits by The Epoch Times to the building on Nov. 28 and Nov. 29.

A man who had just voted on Nov. 29 checked his watch and told The Epoch Times he’d waited about 45 minutes.

Early voting continues through Dec. 2. The runoff Election Day is next Tuesday, Dec. 6.

The closely watched, closely matched race will determine whether the Democrats get a 51-49 majority in the U.S. Senate or whether the chamber splits once more 50-50 between the two parties, with Vice President Kamala Harris as the tie-breaking vote.

In the previous Congress, Senate party leaders Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) negotiated a power-sharing agreement in which the parties had equal representation on committees, but Democrats held the gavels.

Polls show the race is close. A Fabrizio/Anzalone poll of 500 likely voters from Nov. 11–17  had Warnock up by four points, still within the margin of error.

Another released on Nov. 28, done by FrederickPolls, Complete Digital, and AMMPolitical of 939 likely voters surveyed from Nov. 23–26, had the two tied at 50 percent each.

Georgia AARP said in a press release that Walker runs nine points ahead among voters aged 50 or older, who make up 62 percent of likely runoff voters. But other demographics showing strongly in early voting include female and black voters, who tend to favor Warnock.

The runoff was forced because while Warnock led in the general election, he failed to reach the 50 percent of the ballots required by Georgia law. He had 49.4 percent, Walker had 48.5, and Libertarian Chase Oliver had 2.1 percent.

There are clues to be taken out of the general election results.

Around one in 10 Republicans voted for Republican Brian Kemp for governor but crossed over to vote for Warnock or not vote in the Senate race at all.

Warnock was the Democrats’ leading vote-getter, well ahead of their gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. Will those ticket-splitters come back for the runoff or just stay home? Will Oliver’s Libertarian voters come back? If so, who will they vote for?

Walker constitutes a wild card: a celebrity athlete who has never run for office, with huge name recognition in Georgia, but whom Warnock says is unprepared to represent the state.

Warnock has poured more than $100 million into ads attacking Walker over a number scandals—such as allegations of domestic violence, revelations about previously unacknowledged children born out of wedlock, and allegations about abortions the pro-life candidate allegedly paid for or solicited.

Warnock has aired ads featuring Republicans who say they can’t vote for Walker. Those who voted for Kemp and other Republicans running for statewide office—but for Warnock and not Walker—show there is a significant number.

But despite all this, poll numbers in Georgia have hardly moved since the summer. Warnock led narrowly during the summer and Walker in the fall, but always within the margin of error.

Democrats are pressing hard to lock in their base by getting them to vote early.

The party sued and won to get an extra day of early voting on Saturday, Nov. 26, after Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who had first said it would be allowed, then changed course and barred it, citing a passage in state election law.

Once permitted, it took place on a county-by-county basis. DeKalb was the only county in the state to start early voting before that, with one day on  Nov. 23, the day before Thanksgiving. Some counties also opened the polls on Nov. 27.

After Nov. 28’s turnout, almost 504,000 Georgians had voted, either through early voting or returned absentee ballots, slightly more than 7 percent of the state’s approximately 7 million registered and active voters. About 468,000 used early voting, while around 36,000 absentee ballots had been returned.

In 11 counties—including DeKalb, the Atlanta metro area county that is the second largest in the state, more than 10 percent of voters had already voted.

Of early voters, about 244,000 were white and 193,000 black, with about 48,000 whose ethnicity was classified “other or unknown,” around 10,000 Hispanics, 8,000 Asian or Pacific Islanders, and a little more than 1,000 classified American Indian or Alaskan Native.

The state is about 57 percent white and 32 percent black, but blacks, who vote heavily Democrat, comprised 41 percent of those voting early.

The news surrounding Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter and the political firestorm it has caused probably hasn't escaped most people.  The platform which once represented the very root of leftist cancel culture and activist organization for attack mobs has suddenly been turned upside down.  Musk's position appears to be a simple one:  Free speech within the bounds of the law.  He has so far made good on that promise, and the leftists are losing their collective hive mind because of it.

In the process of coping with the loss of their prize, leftist activists and establishment elitists in Big Tech and government have been searching for a way to undermine or sabotage Twitter.  The bottom line?  If they can't have it, they will try to burn it all down so that no one can have it.

This mentality has led to a rather predictable outcome, which is for corporations and Big Tech companies to exert economic leverage against Musk.  Why?  On the face of it the explanation is simple:  They hate free speech.  Specifically, though, they hate conservative and liberty minded speech.  

The average leftist on Twitter will never challenge the establishment narrative.  They are absolutely controlled and commonly regurgitate whatever claims the mainstream media makes on a daily basis without researching validity.  Some conservatives do this as well, but then there is the rogue element, the large percentage of conservatives/libertarians that question the narrative and are willing to make a stand based on principles rather than pure emotions and fear.  The idea that such people might have access to an open forum as vast as Twitter terrifies the powers that be.     

The fascinating thing about the Twitter situation is that it reveals a much bigger underlying danger beyond the zealotry of the political left; massive collusion has been revealed between elements of government, corporations and the ideological mob.  

It is hard to say how organized this collusion really is.  The average woke activist is a useful idiot more so than a competent agent of destruction.  But the system is clearly acting to protect itself from the thing it fears most – Fair debate and a level playing field.  In response, they are willing to expose their existing monopoly to stop the shift.

This monopoly is partially economic, with only a small handful of companies in control of a large portion of the overall tech pie, but it is important to understand that it is more dangerous than other historic examples because this monopoly is an ideological monopoly.

In the past companies were primarily motivated by profit and would not sacrifice profit by alienating consumers and users with political zealotry.  These day, however, all that has changed.  Now companies fully discriminate according to political beliefs and are willing to lose untold billions in profits if it means doing damage to people they disagree with.

 

Leftists argue that this is an example of the “free market” at work, but that is a lie.  It is in fact the the basis of control used within Marxist inspired societies – Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao all advocated for the use of denial of access to the economy and to society as a first line measure to control dissent.  Their reasoning?  If a person is in opposition to the foundations of the collective, then he is dangerous to the collective and therefore the collective must shun him to prevent him from causing harm.  And of course, the elites get to decide what is in the best interests of the collective.  

In fact, Marxists/socialists tend to treat ideological dissent as far worse that any typical crime such as theft or murder, because political dissent “hurts all of society” rather than one person or a handful of people.   

This is the core rationale for the reactions on display against conservatives in our era, and denial of access is a weapon they have now deemed acceptable.  They pretend as if it is nothing more than private businesses making independent decisions to not associate with certain types of people, but in truth it is a coordinated effort between ideological partners  and often governments.

We saw this with the organized attack on the Parler social media platform and the use of Big Tech collusion as a means to remove them from app stores and from their own server.  Now, leftists are demanding that the tactics used against Parler also be used against Twitter, with companies like Apple threatening Twitter's availability (according to Elon Musk) for download at their App Store.

Apple and Google control almost all major internet access for online companies via their app stores.  Without download availability, social media companies stand to lose significant traffic and may even be put out of business over time.    

In a move that was once unthinkable only a few years ago, Big Tech corporations are acting on partisan motives to subdue and destroy any social media outlet that presents a legitimate threat to the ideological monopoly.  And it won't stop there – It is likely we will see the targeting of other websites and individuals in due course.  

Internet server providers, search engines and even banks may act to completely cut off businesses run by conservatives.  We have seen some examples of this (gun manufacturers come to mind), but as the establishment becomes threatened by a balancing of political engagement we are liable to see far more discrimination.     

Monopolies are illegal and they are anti-free market, but the definition of monopoly is too limited.  Economic monopolies are not the only threat to our freedom, now we must also worry about ideological monopolies within the corporate world and their power to limit free speech by extorting media sites and businesses into self censorship. 

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via DailyReckoning.com,

The midterm elections are over (no Red Wave), but nothing has changed. In fact, the Biden regime will probably become even more emboldened to pursue destructive economic policies because it will interpret the lack of a Red Wave as some kind of mandate.

Every day seems to be a day of spin, with every regime apologist assuring the public that inflation is getting better. Just look at the wonderful trend line! They point to the latest inflation numbers, which were down a bit from the month prior.

The regime insists that yes, inflation will vex us for a bit more time but will settle down in a few months. Plus, the president is working to fix this! And we know the American people are on board with him since no Red Wave materialized.

But in the footnotes, you’ll find the truth: it was a tiny drop and mostly for technical reasons and the main reason for the drop has already disappeared from the price trends.

Has any political propaganda on this topic ever been this ineffective? It’s truly a joke.

Where’s the Relief Coming From?

The producer price index that came out recently paints a clearer picture. It’s grim. It reveals no softening at all. In fact, it shows that there are plenty of coming price increases. Here is the index by commodities from 2013 to the present.

Remember how last year many people finally came to the conclusion that we had to learn to live with COVID? That was a smart choice because there was no way that the China-style suppression method could work.

Well, here we are now with a preventable inflation pandemic and the realization that we have to learn to live with inflation. Soon we’ll realize that we have to live with recession at the same time.

But what does this mean?

The impact will be felt not just in terms of economics but in culture. Inflation causes a society-wide shortening of time horizons.

True Prosperity

Let’s review some basics. All societies are born desperately poor, fated to live off foraging and just getting by. Prosperity is built through the construction of capital, which is the institution that embodies forward thinking.

To make capital requires the deferral of consumption: you have to give up some today in order to make tools that enable more consumption tomorrow. This means discipline and a future orientation. And it means, above all, savings that can be invested in productive projects. Only through that path can societies grow rich.

A key component of this concerns the stability of the medium of exchange. And not just stability: a currency that rises in value over time incentivizes saving and thus investing for the long term.

The late 19th century provided a good example of this. Under the gold standard, money grew more valuable over time, thus rewarding long-term thinking and instilling that outlook in the culture at large.

Live for Today

Inflation has the opposite effect. It punishes saving. It forces a penalty on economic behavior that is future-oriented. That means also discouraging investment in long-term projects, which is the whole key to building a complex division of labor and causing wealth to emerge from the muck of the state of nature. Every bit of inflation trims back that future orientation.

Hyperinflation utterly wrecks it.

Living for the day becomes the theme. Taking what you can get now is the method and the theme. Grasping and spending. You might as well because the money is only going down in value and goods are in ever shorter supply.

Better to live hard and short and forget the future. Go into debt if possible. Let the devaluation itself pay the price.

The Seeds of Destruction

Once this attitude becomes instilled in a prosperous society, what we call civilization gradually devolves. If inflation persists, this kind of short-term thinking can wreck everything.

This is why inflation is not just about rising prices. It’s about declining prosperity, the punishing of thrift, the discouragement of financial responsibility, and a culture that gradually falls apart.

Another factor in reducing time horizons is legal instability. This was my first concern when the lockdowns began. Why would anyone start a business if governments can just shut it down on a whim? Why plan for the future when that future can be wrecked by the stroke of a pen?

Many people had assumed that this new path would be short-lived. Surely the politicians would wise up and stop the madness. Surely! Tragically, it got worse and worse. The spending and printing began and ramped up over time. It was a perfect storm of sheer madness, and now we are paying the highest possible price.

The Hinge of History

We need to speak frankly about what’s happening to the global economy. It’s not just about supply chain breakages. Those can be repaired. It’s not just about inflation affecting every country. We are living amidst a fundamental upheaval in the whole world.

The most significant single danger to global prosperity now comes in the form of a devastating and deeply tragic wreckage of the country that was set to lead the world in finance and technology: China.

The WSJ summarizes the current pain:

China in 2021 accounted for 18.1% of global gross domestic product, according to International Monetary Fund data, behind the U.S. at 23.9% but ahead of the 27 members of the European Union at 17.8%. It accounts for almost a third of global manufacturing output, according to United Nations data from 2020. China’s economy expanded modestly at the beginning of the year but data for March and April point to a sharp slowdown.

The trouble there traces to the top. When Xi Jinping locked down Wuhan, the world celebrated him for achieving what no other leader in history had achieved: the eradication of a virus in one country. Even now, he gets accolades for this.

The rest of the world followed, and elites in all countries said that this path was the future.

Going Backwards

Now the virus is on the loose all over the country, and the eradication methods are intensifying. This is crushing economic growth and now threatening genuine economic depression in the country that only a few years ago was seen as the greatest economic engine of the world.

It’s truly the case that Xi Jinping has put his personal pride above the well-being of all people in China. The scientists in the country know that he is wrong about this but no one is in a position to tell him.

We cannot really trust the data coming out of China but officially the rate of infection in that country is one of the lowest in the world. Billions more people need to get the bug and recover in order to have anything close to herd immunity. This means that lockdowns are the way for years to come so long as the present regime remains in power.

American prosperity for decades has relied on: relatively low inflation, fairly stable rules of the game, and widening trade with the world and China in particular. All three are at an end. Yes, it is heartbreaking to watch it all unfold.

I’m not defending China’s human rights abuses. Far from it. But the best way to end these abuses is through engagement, not estrangement.

We all need hope right now but it’s very difficult to find, since we are on a course that is not likely to be fixed for a very long time.

During an interview on the far-left Stephen Colbert show, CNN's Don Lemon claimed that he doesn't think the network which has viciously attacked conservatives for the past several years "ever was liberal."  Colbert reacts with understandable surprise and a hint of disbelief at the notion. 

 

While it's true that the term "liberal" in the traditional sense has barely applied to the political left in the US for decades, it's doubtful that Don Lemon is playing word games or semantics.  When he uses the descriptive he is referring to progressive ideology, and to claim CNN was never a progressive echo chamber and propaganda machine is truly jumping the shark. 

This is the same network that consistently pushed the debunked Russiagate narrative, claimed that the Barack Obama wire tapping scandal at Trump Tower was a "flat out lie" (it was absolutely true), asserted that the BLM protests were "fiery but mostly peaceful", spent a considerable amount of energy attempting to demonize Kyle Rittenhouse's act of self defense for political reasons and was a primary attack dog against American citizens that stood against the covid lockdown and mandates.  There is nothing centrist about CNN.     

Lemon's attempt to shift the narrative, though absurd and a form of gaslighting, is more confirmation that the new CNN leadership and new ownership is indeed seeking to clean up the failing news outlet's image as a partisan spin machine and at least give the appearance of objectivity. Lemon is merely trying to keep his job.

CNN has recently suffered one of the worst declines in viewership numbers and profits in the company's history, along with the cancellation of it's CNN+ streaming service after only a few weeks due to lack of public interest.  Lemon was recently booted from his prime time show 'Don Lemon Tonight' and was moved to the 'New Day' morning show with two other co-anchors; a change which he called "a promotion." 

Authored by Randolph May via RealClearMarfkets.com,

The Babylon Bee, the satirical website that takes aim – all too effectively in the minds of some – at over-the-top wokeness, has been reinstated on Twitter. A blaring headline from a recent Bee story: "'Twitter Is Dead,' 300 Million People Post on Twitter." A satirical zinger, indeed!

And Donald Trump's Twitter account has been reinstated too – supposedly based on the results of a poll on . . . you guessed it, Twitter.

Amidst the turmoil and tumult of Elon Musk's Twitter take-over, predicting what Twitter will be next week, much less next year, is a fool's game. Count me out. After all, Mr. Musk reportedly has warned the staff: "Bankruptcy isn't out of the question.”

Assuming for present purposes that Twitter can ensure the security and stability of the platform going forward, I know what I want the platform to be. Throughout this now fifteen part "Thinking Clearly About Speaking Freely" series, I've argued that Twitter, along with other major social media platforms, have been far too censorious in restricting content that should remain subject to public debate. And throughout, I've cited examples of overly censorious actions, such as restricting posts relating to the origin of COVID-19, the effectiveness of various treatment options, and the educational and economic costs of school and business lockdowns.

I've never contended there shouldn't be any content moderation at all, but rather that Twitter should operate much more like the digital town square that Elon Musk, as a self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist," long has said he wanted.

In other words, censorship should be considerably more limited, say, to posts demonstrably facilitating terrorism or sex trafficking, or inciting violence.

Perhaps it should not be surprising that amidst all the present chaos, including the substantial downsizing of staff, including those on the "Trust and Safety Team," that there are more strident calls for the government to exert greater control over Twitter. By way of example, I want to focus on a November 16 letter from the left-leaning Open Markets Institute ("OMI") to the heads of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. Along with asking these government officials to investigate Mr. Musk's take-over, OMI proposes to subject Twitter to stringent government control.

Claiming that Twitter is an "essential communications platform," OMI says that "Twitter long ago proved it serves a unique and irreplaceable role in enabling citizens to communicate and debate key issues of the day." It contends Twitter's status as a "utility" is clear.

With Twitter denominated a public utility, it's not a far leap for OMI to beseech government officials to protect "all communications and political debates" on Twitter from interference by Twitter's executives, Board members, or employees. And according to OMI, Twitter should be required to enforce its terms of service "without prejudice or discrimination, in a completely transparent manner.” 

If taken literally, OMI is asking that Twitter be regulated in the same "common carrier-like" way that the conservative Texas legislature required when it enacted a law mandating that Twitter and other social media platforms not discriminate in their content moderation practices on the basis of "viewpoint." And that Justice Clarence Thomas suggested might be appropriate two years ago in his concurring opinion in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute of Columbia University. There, Justice Thomas took note of what he characterized as the dominant market positions of Twitter, Facebook, and Google, along with the fact that the latter two essentially are controlled by one or two persons. Of course, that's now true of Twitter too, and it is this concentration of control in one person upon which OMI primarily bases its case for government regulation.

As I pointed out in Part 2 of this series, in his Knight First Amendment Institute opinion, Justice Thomas declared there is a "fair argument" that Twitter, Google, and Facebook could be deemed common carriers, including by laws enacted in the states, so that they would be prohibited from excluding lawful speech from their platforms. And he speculated that the Supreme Court soon would have "no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.”

If enough of his fellow justices agree, as widely suspected, to review the Fifth Circuit's NetChoice, L.L.C. v. Paxton decision upholding the Texas law mandating that Twitter and other major social media platforms operate like common carriers, then Justice Thomas's predilection for imposing common carriage obligations on the major platforms might prevail.

Given the excessive censorship in which Twitter and the other dominant social media platforms have engaged, I have considerable sympathy for the impulse motivating calls for common carrier-like regulation of the platforms. But as I said in Part 2, and elsewhere in this series, I have serious concerns about this supposed remedy.

Here's the nub of the matter as I explained in Part 3:

"As traditionally applied, the core elements of common carriage – rate regulation and nondiscrimination mandates – stifle investment and innovation. And, in any event, the traditional criteria used to assess whether an entity is a common carrier don't neatly fit the web platforms, or at least not all of them.”

So, rather than embracing the call by the Open Markets Institute, and presumably Justice Thomas too, for imposing common carrier-like control over the platforms' censorship practices, I continue to prefer offering free market solutions to address my concerns. Previously, I've advocated that Twitter and other platforms incorporate explicit presumptions favoring free speech in their terms of service. This presumptive "free speech default" would provide that content will not be removed absent clear and convincing evidence that the speech violates some specific, clearly delineated content prohibition. Such a presumption may be embedded in Mr. Musk's mind, but it also should be embedded in the terms of service so that it more readily becomes part of the corporate culture.

I've also urged Twitter and other sites to adopt additional consumer empowerment approaches that put tools in the hands of platform users to determine the parameters of the content they wish to access. If consumers are allowed to avail themselves of such "personalization" tools, they would be able to assume, to a much greater extent than at present, the content moderation function now performed by the platforms.

Rather than looking first to imposing common carrier-like or other government controls, it is preferable to look to free market approaches to address the problem of excessive censorship.

I wouldn't necessarily bet my house on it, but Elon Musk, with his entrepreneurial bent, may just be able to succeed at making Twitter much more free speech-friendly, while at the same time avoiding what he has described as the "hellscape.”

Following a steady stream of vicious attacks perpetrated by New York City's homeless, Mayor Eric Adams on Tuesday announced a new program that will involuntarily hospitalize people deemed a danger to themselves -- regardless of whether they've demonstrated a risk to others.  

A statement from the mayor's office said the policy targets an "ongoing crisis of individuals experiencing severe mental illnesses left untreated and unsheltered in New York City’s streets and subways." At least 26 people have been shoved from NYC subway platforms this year alone -- though not all the attacks were perpetrated by homeless people. 

“The very nature of their illnesses keeps them from realizing they need intervention and support," said Adams at a City Hall press conference. "Without that intervention, they remain lost and isolated from society, tormented by delusions and disordered thinking. They cycle in and out of hospitals and jails.”

Of course, there's more to New York's crime crisis than "mental health" issues. An overly-forgiving judicial system that returns violent criminals to the streets after a scolding is also to blame -- but rounding up some of the bona fide lunatics for treatment could be a good thing for all concerned.  

According to the mayor's office statement, Adams' directive "seeks to dispel a persistent myth that the legal standard for involuntary intervention requires an 'overt act' demonstrating that the person is violent, suicidal, or engaging in outrageously dangerous behavior likely to result in imminent harm."

Omg. Watch as the woman’s hair he is pulling mouths the words, “please help me..”
I can’t imagine the terror she was feeling as that maniac grabbed her hair. #subway #NYC
Please @NYCMayor build more mental hospitals and get these people off our streets! @77WABCradio pic.twitter.com/ZEbBRODKgB

— Lidia Curanaj (@LidiaNews) May 26, 2022

“The common misunderstanding persists that we cannot provide involuntary assistance unless the person is violent,” said Adams. The new program empowers both cops and medical workers to assess people in public spaces and authorize involuntary hospitalizations.

Hospital capacities have been cited as a limiting factor, but, pointing to a commitment by Governor Kathy Hochul to add 50 new psychiatric beds, Adams said, "We are going to find a bed for everyone." Maybe, but, in a city of 8.5 million people, 50 beds doesn't exactly sound like a game-changer.  

The new program is certain to invite legal challenges. Indeed, even the mayor's policy directive to city agencies acknowledges that “case law does not provide extensive guidance regarding removals for mental health evaluations based on short interactions in the field.” 

It points, however, to a few key indicators that police and other first responders might use to involuntarily take homeless people into custody and into care: "serious untreated physical injury, unawareness or delusional misapprehension of surroundings, or unawareness or delusional misapprehension of physical condition or health." 

The New York Civil Liberties Union's Donna Lieberman was among the first to criticize the plan: “The Mayor is playing fast and loose with the legal rights of New Yorkers...The federal and state constitutions impose strict limits on the government’s ability to detain people experiencing mental illness — limits that the Mayor’s proposed expansion is likely to violate." 

In his Tuesday remarks, Adams assured reporters that people wouldn't be committed merely "because someone's sitting on the train talking to themselves." Rather, an "accumulation of factors" would be used by a "trained professional determine that this person is a danger to themselves because they can't take care of their basic needs."  

Next, Mayor Adams needs a plan to address scenarios where serial killers transfer their souls into dolls so they can attack unsuspecting people on the subway:  

NYC Subway - Chucky Attack pic.twitter.com/2iA0Z8sfC0

— Michael Von Irvin MBA BSN RN (@MichaelVonIrvin) July 1, 2022

asdf