The Failure Of Western Feminism When It’s Most Needed

The Failure Of Western Feminism When It’s Most Needed

Authored by Phyllis Chesler via RealClear Wire,

On Nov. 25, the United Nations initiated its annual Sixteen Days of Global Activism Against Gender-Based Violence against women and girls. This will continue until Dec. 10, which is Human Rights Day.

My people are the feminists at the UN. They also head NGOs, occupy chairs at foundations, human rights organizations, national women’s organizations, and Women’s Studies/Gender Studies departments, and are prominent Talking Heads in the media. For eight whole weeks, they have remained silent about the genocidal rapes of Israeli women on Oct. 7.

Some of these women once waged brave and determined battles against rape, incest, and domestic violence; supported the #MeToo Movement; and at least issued statements condemning the rapes of women in Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan, and the Yazidi women who were kidnapped by ISIS.

They also supported the idea that rape is a war crime, at least in a battle zone.

However, these once visionary feminists have not only betrayed Israeli women – they have also betrayed women of color who live under Sharia law.

Most have remained relatively silent about the normalized mistreatment of Muslim women in Muslim countries and communities. They have not organized campaigns to end forced face veiling, polygamy, child marriage, routine girl- and woman-battering, or honor killing (femicide), either in foreign countries or in the West.

Why? Even though the victims of such injustices are primarily women of color, Western feminists have been very cautious about accusing men of color, especially men whose countries may once have been colonized, of crimes. They fear doing so might be seen as “racist.” Or “Islamophobic.”

Worse, some feminists in the West have actually glorified the forced wearing of the Islamic veil as a form of anti-colonial resistance. During the Women’s March in Washington, some women fashioned hijab out of American flags. Many anti-Israel rallies and marches feature both women and men, leftists and Muslims, sporting Palestinian keffiyehs as a way to signal their support – for the oppression of women.

They do so even as the brave girls and women in Afghanistan and Iran are risking death for the right not to be forced by the state, the mullahs, or their families to wear hijab, niqab, or burqas. These women and their male allies have led demonstrations for which they have been beaten, arrested, raped, and murdered.

I have conducted and published four academic studies about honor killing. Most academic feminists in the West, including our icons, have never acknowledged this work about femicide. I delivered some of my initial findings at a G8 conference in Rome in 2008 and at the New York Supreme Court in 2010. This work also qualified me as an expert witness in cases in which women in flight from the threat of honor killings are applying for political asylum in America.

My strongest supporters, and those who actually read, cite, and use this work are, of course, women and men of color who live in the Arab Middle East and in central Asia (Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan, India, etc.).

I was once held captive in Kabul long ago. I’d gone there willingly but unwisely as a bride, and I found myself trapped in the 10th century without a passport back to the future.

Therefore, when my friend and colleague, Mandy Sanghera – the British-Indian human rights activist –called to ask whether I wanted to co-lead a grassroots team to rescue women from Afghanistan, I said, “I’ve been waiting for this opportunity for decades.”

Together, our team rescued 400 Afghan women in 2021. I’ve taken personal responsibility for a brilliant young Afghan woman who is now flourishing in graduate school in America.

Talk about sisterhood! When Mandy learned that my presentation about my honor killing studies had been canceled by an American law school, she swiftly convened a panel on the subject at University College London so that I could present my findings. At the time, she said that she could “not accept that such important work had been so dishonored.”

The good news: Feminism exists among communities of color, including Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh anti-Islamists both in the West and abroad.

In fact, it is mainly anti-Islamist Muslim feminists, both women and men, who have been raising the alarm on behalf of Muslim women.

Like the Israeli women, they are also frustrated and puzzled by the Western feminist silence about Islamic gender apartheid. I have been privileged to know and work with many of these heroes.

In 2008, in Rome, I presented my preliminary findings at a G8 conference. I had the honor of bonding with a group of Muslim feminists, both religious and secular, over our many shared concerns. They told me that they had felt “abandoned” by Western feminists who refused to take a stand on issues such as honor killing, forced veiling, and the subordination of women – lest they be considered “racists” or “Islamophobes.” Many of these women were wearing hijab (headscarves) and they were all fearless, energized, and fabulously feminist.

That is where I first met Turkish-German feminist lawyer and now imam, Seyran Ates.

Seyran’s work on behalf of Muslim women has earned her the hatred of Muslim male (and female) Islamists. In 1984, she was shot three times for providing legal counsel to abused Muslim girls; her client, a 15-year-old, was murdered. Seyran expressed her dismay that, in addition to being preyed upon by Muslim fundamentalists, Western leftists and feminists had discredited her work. “They call me a racist and an Islamophobe, too,” she said, “and I am a religious Muslim.”

Seyran is not alone. I am also talking about Qanta Ahmed, Dalia Al-Aquidi, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Soraya Deen, Manda Ervin, Yasmine Mohammed, Asra Nomani, and Raheel Raza.

There are also Muslim and ex-Muslim men who are standing for women’s rights in the Muslim world such as Ali Alyami, Bassem Eid, Zhudi Jasser, Khaled Abu Tomeh, and Ibn Warraq.

They all write articles, they publish books, they appear in the media. Please follow them. I am honored to be among them as one of the founding members of the Clarity Coalition – Champions for Liberty Against The Reality of Islamist Tyranny.

This coalition has publicly condemned Jihad as well as Hamas’ terrorist attack against Israel. They are all defending Western civilization and universal, post-Enlightenment values.

I stand with them. These are the feminists whom I recognize as such.

Today’s world needs real feminism as never before. A politically correct, identity-obsessed version of Marxism will not do.

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D., is an emerita professor of psychology at City University of New York. She is a bestselling author, legendary feminist leader, and retired psychotherapist. She has lectured and organized political, legal, religious, and human rights campaigns in the United States, Canada, Europe, Israel, Central Asia, and the Far East.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/03/2023 – 17:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Q6eIdEs Tyler Durden

Jeff Bezos Hires Elon Musk For Rocket Launches 

Jeff Bezos Hires Elon Musk For Rocket Launches 

Jeff Bezos’s space efforts at Amazon and his space company, Blue Origin, have been hit with ‘frustrating delays’ including a rocket engine explosion during a routine test earlier this year. With mounting delays, Amazon was forced to sign a deal with rival Elon Musk’s SpaceX for future rocket launches.

In a press release on Friday, Amazon announced that it had “signed a contract with SpaceX for three Falcon 9 launches to support deployment plans for Project Kuiper, Amazon’s low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite broadband network.” 

Project Kuiper has only a handful of satellites in orbit compared with SpaceX’s Starlink, which has over 4,000 satellites in service. Amazon’s earlier procurement of 77 heavy-lift rockets was from Arianespace, Blue Origin, and United Launch Alliance. However, Blue Origin’s delays forced Amazon to tap SpaceX for more launch capacity. 

“Project Kuiper has contracted three Falcon 9 launches, and these missions are targeted to lift off beginning in mid-2025,” Amazon said. 

This is the first time Bezos has turned to Musk for help in its space endeavors, and a sign that all is not well with Blue Origin. 

In August, Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, or CB&T, sued Amazon’s Board of Directors for breach of duty by not considering SpaceX for Project Kuiper launches. 

“By completely abdicating its fiduciary duties, the Board has already exposed Amazon to substantial harm and placed the Company’s entire Kuiper program at needless risk. And with each passing day, as Amazon’s chosen launch partners (Blue Origin in particular) continue to struggle and SpaceX continues to prove itself, this Board-inflicted harm continues to grow,” CB&T wrote.

CB&T continued, “Bezos, it must be assumed, could not swallow his pride to seek his bitter rival’s help to launch Amazon’s satellites.” 

Bezos has finally done that… Also, maybe the billionaire should not have bought a half-billion dollar yacht that emits 447 times the entire annual carbon footprint of the average US household and spent that money more wisely on progressing rocket engine technology. 

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/03/2023 – 16:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/qQBwjvD Tyler Durden

“No One Cares About Your Dividends”

“No One Cares About Your Dividends”

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

One of my favorite investors that I love reading and following, Harris Kupperman, has offered up his thoughts on dividends versus buybacks this week.

Harris is the founder of Praetorian Capital, a hedge fund focused on using macro trends to guide stock selection.

Harris is one of my favorite follows and I find his opinions – especially on macro and commodities – to be extremely resourceful. I’m certain my readers will find the same. I was excited when he offered up his latest thoughts, published below. Content has been edited slightly for grammar.

Please be sure to read both my and Harris’ disclaimers, located at the bottom of this post.


Just Smash the Buybacks

Great! Another E&P that raised the quarterly dividend by two cents. Who F*cking Cares!?

The debate about buybacks vs. dividends has been going on for over a century. I’m not here to try and change your mind. I can see the relative merits of both, especially as many buybacks have been undertaken at insane valuations, leading to value-destruction.

However, I’m going to make a special point when it comes to my “basket of deplorables,” or those companies that trade at mind-numbingly cheap valuations as they don’t quite check the ESG box. Look, I think if you trade at less than five times full-cycle cash flow, you should first make sure that you’re de-levered, with a rainy-day fund as well—trust me, no one is coming to save you when things go bad.

After that, you should probably plow every last cent into buybacks. M&A and growth initiatives always sound sexy, but they are never as sexy as buybacks. Buybacks are the value creator. For that matter, while I’m sympathetic to trying to time the buyback to coincide with pullbacks in the equity price, most management teams are terrible at trading their shares. Besides, the consistency of the buying is what creates the value. Just turn on the VWAP machine and forget about it. Every quarter, tell the world that you bought back a few percent of the shares outstanding. Give all the value investors hope that when they need to sell, there’s going to be a bid in there, because we know that no one else will be deploying capital into the “deplorables.”

Here we are, a few years into this ESG cycle, and the outcomes delivered by various capital allocation strategies cannot be starker. Some companies “rewarded” shareholders with dividends and their shares have gone nowhere. Arguably, their performance has been made worse as value funds sold at a loss, following the underperformance caused by these companies’ shares not appreciating, and the redemptions that they engendered. Other companies have been multi-baggers as they consistently applied almost all the cash flow to buybacks.


💥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: For those that aren’t paid subscribers yet, you can take 50% off an annual plan, for life: Get 50% off forever


Just think about how accretive it is to buy back your shares at a low-single-digit multiple of cash flow and a fraction of replacement cost of your assets. Especially as there are now constraints on ever adding more capacity in many of these industries. The accretion is just insane, and shareholders are starting to wake up to this fact when they decide which “deplorable” to invest in. It makes me wonder why anyone would ever issue a dividend, yet these management teams keep doing it.

Look, no one cares about your dividends, and no one cares when you increase the dividend as no one ever believes that the dividend is sustainable. You aren’t a REIT that’s supposed to grow the dividend each quarter, you’re a cyclical business with volatile quarterly earnings. You’re a clunky business that even your shareholders probably wish they weren’t invested in. They only own you because you’re too cheap to ignore. Their biggest worry is that the shares stay cheap indefinitely and their clients yank their money to buy MAG7, since that actually goes up.

Dividends won’t fix this. There are already hundreds of companies with low-teen yield that everyone has forgotten about. Yield investors won’t be attracted as they know you’ll cut the dividend during the down-cycle, generalist investors still cannot own you, and that yield isn’t enough to overcome the undertow of value investors getting redeemed for underperformance. Besides, it’s not even tax efficient to pay dividends.

It’s time that we hold these management teams accountable and tell them to just smash the buyback button. If someone will sell the shares cheap, then take advantage of those idiots. Look at some of the coal companies that have bought back huge percentages of the shares outstanding over the past few years. Despite that, they still trade at between two and four times cash flow! Imagine how much worse the share-price performance would have been without the buybacks?

Guys aren’t selling these coal companies because they’re no longer cheap—they’re the same cash flow multiples that they were a few years ago. Rather, guys are selling because they have redemptions. Just keep taking advantage of this fact, until the situation changes. Smash the buyback button…

QTR’s Disclaimer: I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. These positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Harris’ Disclosure: Funds that I control are long companies with dividends instead of buybacks. (I intend to have words with these management teams). More: FULL DISCLAIMER

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/03/2023 – 16:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/BIdPYOj Tyler Durden

Chief Justice Roberts’ Chance to Redeem Himself!

In 2012, Chief Justice Roberts disappointed conservative and libertarian Supreme Court watchers by upholding the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that everyone buy health insurance as a direct tax.  The Chief Justice wrote an excellent opinion—one of his best—on why the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses do not allow Congress to mandate that private citizens enter the health career market and buy unwanted health insurance.  But, he held correctly that the health insurance mandate could be view as a direct tax, and he upheld the constitutionality of the mandate on that ground.

It turns out that Chief Justice Roberts was right that the health insurance mandate was a direct tax because it was owed if one had income of $43,000 a year or more.  In short, it was. an income tax, which does not require apportionment according to the census of enumeration because the Sixteenth Amendment excepts income taxes from the rule of apportionment. It turns out that Chief Justice Roberts was the only one of the nine justices to get NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012)completely right!

There is, however, dicta in his opinion saying that the only direct taxes for which apportionment is required are capitations and land taxes.  That is wrong for the reasons I spelled out in my post on the Volokh Conspiracy last night responding to Professors Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar.  But, it is is harmless error in dicta because the Sixteenth Amendment itself authorizes the insurance mandate tax!

Chief Justice Roberts has a chance to redeem himself with right of center legal pundits in Moore v. United States by holding that a wealth tax or a tax on unrealized capital gains is a direct tax, which requires apportionment unlike the health care mandate, which is directly authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment!

The post Chief Justice Roberts' Chance to Redeem Himself! appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/78ApZ2a
via IFTTT

Leftist Hatred Of Kyle Rittenhouse Is Boundless As He Announces New Book

Leftist Hatred Of Kyle Rittenhouse Is Boundless As He Announces New Book

There is a long list of evils that are associated with the concept of “cancel culture,” but perhaps the worst is the reality that cancel culture mobs never admit they are wrong. They cannot be wrong, for if they admit that cancel culture makes mistakes then they must also admit that the mob is not qualified to arbitrate what is correct for society. Cancel culture is about power – the power to influence public perception, but also the power to influence politics and even legal outcomes.  It’s the power to influence judges, lawyers and juries.  It’s the power to destroy people, even if they are innocent.

The political left and the media lied incessantly about Kyle Rittenhouse and his encounter with violent rioters in Kenosha, Wisconsin on August 25, 2020. They called him a racist, a white supremacist, they claimed he broke federal and state gun laws and that he came to Kenosha with plans to murder people. They claimed that he attacked first and that he invoked a reaction from protesters.  They lied about the criminal status of the people Rittenhouse shot, lied about them being unarmed and even lied about them being black.  

They were wrong about everything, and yet, many activists to this day still believe all of the above is true. Either they are ignorant of the facts, or, they don’t want to hear the facts. Why do they hate Rittenhouse so much?  Because for them, Rittenhouse became a symbol of conservative rebellion against the mob. He faced down the full might of cancel culture  and he survived. The problem is, the pettiness of cancel culture never really dies.  

Leftists are determined to make Rittenhouse pay.  He shot three criminals in self defense, including a convicted pedophile, but those criminals were in Kenosha representing woke interests and that is all that matters to the left.  In cancel culture you aren’t even guilty until proven innocent, you are just guilty, forever.  

This helps explain the online rage on display after it was announced the Rittenhouse will be releasing a book about his experiences in Kenosha, the facts behind what happened, the trial and his life since being acquitted. The book, titled ‘Acquitted’, (digital download here, pre-order soft cover here, and signed pre-order here), and in reaction to the promotional campaign, woke activists have renewed their efforts to smear the 20-year-old with the same false claims made during his trial.

They have also latched onto a statement by his lawyer, Mark Richards, in a discussion with Court TV in which he debunked the notion that Rittenhouse became wealthy during the trial.  In fact, Rittenhouse’s legal funds have dried up and he supports himself with a regular job, the lawyer noted.  Leftist spin doctors conflated the statement to mean that Rittenhouse is “broke” and some claimed he could not hold down a job.  Activists cheered the false news on social media and declared it to be karmic punishment for Kyle’s “misdeeds.” 

Rittenhouse is not broke, he’s just not wealthy or sitting on a vast legal fund.  And like most 20-year-olds, he’s working to make ends meet.  But the joy leftists displayed when they thought he was broke reveals a lot.  

It shows them to be dangerously obsessive.  The young man was judged and a jury found him to be innocent, but leftists still want him to pay for what they perceive to be crimes against their cult.  The American legal system means nothing to them unless it happens to decide in their favor.  When it doesn’t they think they should have the final say.

Rittenhouse told Piers Morgan this week: “Well I’m not writing the book to make money, I’m writing the book to tell the story of what happened,” adding “I’m trying to change the narrative that media keeps putting out there that I’m some type of white [supremacist], racist person when that’s just not true. I’m a 20-year-old kid who was put in a situation to where I was forced to defend myself, and I wrote a story and put that in a book so I could share that with everybody so they can understand what I went through, how my childhood was growing up, and the difficulties I deal with today.”

Rittenhouse has stated in interviews that he deals with PTSD from the day of the shooting and that he regularly receives death threats.  And perhaps this is the ultimate purpose of cancel culture – To make people not want to stand up, not want to defend themselves.  If the price is a life of perpetual threats and targeted harassment, some might be convinced to think that it’s better to keep their head down, stay quiet, and never oppose the woke in any capacity.  The goal is to make examples out of the brave, and make everyone else fearfully complacent.   

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/03/2023 – 15:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/iON0TyK Tyler Durden

The Dublin Riots & BLM – A Comparison Of Reactions

The Dublin Riots & BLM – A Comparison Of Reactions

Authored by Gavin O’Reilly via The Ron Paul Institute,

Last Thursday afternoon, news would spread throughout Ireland of a horrific knife attack on three young schoolchildren and their teacher outside a Gaelscoil (Irish-language school) in Dublin city center. At the time of writing, the youngest of the victims, a five year old girl, remains gravely ill in hospital.

With it soon emerging that the suspect was an immigrant who had previously been served a deportation order in 2003, tensions that had been building across the country over the past year in response to the immigration policy of Leinster House, which has seen large amounts of male migrants placed into wildly unsuitable locations such as an inner city office block and a children’s school, would come to a head. Calls for a protest in Dublin later that night would rapidly spread throughout social media.

Such protests have become a mainstay across Ireland over the past year, with the government of WEF ‘Young Global Leader’ Leo Varadkar labelling protesters as ‘’far-right’’ and carrying out surveillance of organizers in response, a strategy that has served only to exacerbate tensions even further.

Last year in Canada, under the rule of fellow WEF ‘Young Global Leader’ Justin Trudeau, a similar response would take place to the Freedom Convoy, a protest movement launched by Canadian truckers following the decision to mandate jab passports for drivers returning from the US, the largest land-border in the world and a key component of the Canadian economy.

Just as open borders policies serve the interests of the global elites that the WEF represents, via the undermining of national sovereignty and the devaluing of labor, jab passports served their interests by acting as conditioning for the introduction of an eventual mandatory digital ID, which in line with the Great Reset initiative would allow the government-corporate alliance to have an unprecedented level of control over its citizens’ finances in a cashless society.

The fraught tensions that had spurred on Thursday’s planned protest however, would seemingly attract an opportunistic element, one that had engaged in looting and the burning of vehicles in Dublin on the night. Unsavory scenes, though it cannot be understated that, in terms of magnitude, they are a universe apart from the stabbing of children.

The establishment media however, did not hold the same view; with the unrest that swept Dublin dominating newspaper headlines alongside accusations that it had been ‘’organized by the far-right’’, the brutal attack on the children and their teacher being consigned to a mere afterthought.

Security Minister for the southern Irish state, Helen McEntee announced that legislation would be fast tracked to introduce Facial Recognition Technology – another key component of the Great Reset – in response to the riots, and it was announced that MMA star Conor McGregor was being investigated for ‘’inciting hate’’ over a post on X that he had sent the night BEFORE the stabbings.

A lockstep response of condemnation, though one that lies in stark contrast to the response towards the riots that swept the United States following the death of George Floyd in May 2020, for which a minutes silence was held in the southern Irish Parliament, something that has so far not occurred for the victims of last Thursday’s mass-stabbing.

To understand why, one must look at the wider political context at the time of George Floyd’s death.

Four days prior to the footage of Minnesota police officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck going viral, Joe Biden, the then-Democrat candidate for that years US Presidential election, infamously declared that whoever voted for the incumbent Donald Trump over him ‘’Ain’t black’’ in an attempt to garner support amongst the black community of the United States for his Presidential campaign. A PR disaster, and one that confirmed he was in need of the black vote in order to guarantee an electoral victory.

Thus, the death of George Floyd was weaponized to guarantee such a result, with violent riots sweeping the United States in the aftermath. In contrast to the one night of looting and arson that took place in Dublin however, the mainstream media would provide cover for the months-long unrest in the US, with corporate outlet CNN notoriously describing it as ‘’fiery but mostly peaceful’’ at one stage.

Key to this was the involvement of George Soros, a significant donor to both the Democrat Party and the Black Lives Matter organization via his Open Society Foundations, a globalist support-network that has sponsored color revolutions from as far afield as Ukraine and China.

It is also why last week’s night of unrest in Dublin, carried out amidst a wider political context of opposition to globalist policies in Ireland, came in for far more media condemnation than the months of BLM-led riots that took place in the United States in 2020.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/03/2023 – 15:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/rzVHcha Tyler Durden

Trump Vows To Cancel Biden’s Executive Order ‘Weaponizing Artificial Intelligence’

Trump Vows To Cancel Biden’s Executive Order ‘Weaponizing Artificial Intelligence’

Former President Donald Trump vowed to reverse President Biden’s recent executive order which regulates Artificial Intelligence.

While the order contains provisions to protect Americans’ privacy and civil rights, many have criticized it as yet another example of government overreach, which will stifle innovation and control the free flow of information.

“Just this week, Biden’s homeland security secretary even admitted that they are weaponizing artificial intelligence to target American citizens for political speech. Did you hear that? He admitted it!,” Trump said, speaking at a Saturday political rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

“Well, at lease he was honest,” Trump continued.

When I’m re-elected I will cancel Biden’s artificial intelligence executive order and ban the use of AI to censor the speech of American citizens, on day one,” he then proclaimed.

Watch:

We assume Trump was talking about recent comments by DHS Secretary Mayorkas that the government was going to ‘defend against the adverse use of AI,’ which includes ‘disinformation.’

As Fedscoop.com notes, Biden’s EO has been largely well received by AI experts and government leaders, however several tech industry associations have pushed back, arguing that it could stifle innovation and is too confusing.

NetChoice, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Software & Information Industry Association — which represent some of the largest AI and tech companies in the world — expressed several concerns about the long-awaited 111-page executive order, which marks the most aggressive step by the government to rein in the technology to date.

The wide-ranging executive order, which aims to tackle everything from AI privacy risks to federal procurement, calls on several agencies to take on new responsibilities related to artificial intelligence. The order also addresses new strategies for federal agency use of the technology, including issuing guidance for agency deployment, helping agencies access AI systems through more efficient and less expensive contracting, and hiring more AI professionals within the government. 

“Broad regulatory measures in Biden’s AI red tape wishlist will result in stifling new companies and competitors from entering the marketplace and significantly expanding the power of the federal government over American innovation,” said Carl Szabo, VP and general counsel at NetChoice. “This order puts any investment in AI at risk of being shut down at the whims of government bureaucrats.

“That is dangerous for our global standing as the leading technological innovators, and this is the wrong approach to govern AI.”

Tom Quaadman, executive vice president of the Chamber’s Technology Engagement Center, said that the EO shows promise, but also raises concerns.

“Substantive and process problems still exist,” he said, adding “Short, overlapping timelines for agency-required action endangers necessary stakeholder input, thereby creating conditions for ill-informed rulemaking and degrading intra-government cooperation.”

Advancing Equity and Civil Rights?

As Jon Schweppe, Policy Director of American Principles Project told The Federalist in early November, “Stifling ‘innovation’ shouldn’t be the main concern,” adding “We should want tech companies to be very cautious in how they approach AI development. But is empowering government bureaucrats — who have their own political agenda — really the best approach? Especially when censorship of ‘bad ideas’ is viewed by so many progressives as the highest good?”

And so of course…

Most notable, however, is the administration’s explicit call for the integration of AI with corrosive leftist ideologies that have taken over every major institution and pit Americans against one another. In the section titled “Advancing Equity and Civil Rights,” the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division is directed to “prevent and address discrimination in the use of automated systems, including algorithmic discrimination” and “improve external stakeholder engagement to promote public awareness of potential discriminatory uses and effects of AI,” among other things. 

What this means, of course, is the federal government will strong-arm AI companies into making toxic, anti-American concepts such as critical race theory foundational components of their models. At the outset of the order, Biden states, “AI reflects the principles of the people who build it, the people who use it, and the data upon which it is built.” His administration is keenly aware that AI models are reliant upon the external worldviews of their programmers. Considering that our civilization is expected to become fully integrated and reliant upon artificial intelligence, it is no surprise the left seeks to further American institutional dependence on its perverse preferences. -The Federalist

Read more about the EO here…

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/03/2023 – 14:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/FUQV9ai Tyler Durden

Recent Homeowners Lose Over $200 Per Day In Property Value Each Day

Recent Homeowners Lose Over $200 Per Day In Property Value Each Day

By Sam Bourgi of CreditNews,

In the first couple of pandemic years, buyers swarmed the housing market to seize record-low mortgage rates with little regard to home prices. Many of them are now realizing that they may have bought a pig in a poke.

According to a recent report from Point2 Homes, many recently bought homes, particularly in the hottest regions, are deep in the red. On average, single-family homeowners have been shedding $223 in property value every day since they bought their homes last year.

Condo owners are faring even worse, losing up to $336 a day in San Francisco, or a stunning $122,500 a year.

“This double-blow market means that the most newly minted owners were first hit by the highest home prices in history, only to be cut off from building wealth by the current falling prices,” analysts wrote.

Some major markets are seeing massive net losses

Single-family homes in 16 cities examined in the analysis have faced price declines of over $10,000 over the past year.

Memphis saw the most significant single-family price plunge, as well as the second-largest decline in condo prices, which analysts say could be due to rising inventory in the city.

Condo prices in 37 cities are also weakening, including in New York and Oakland.

So, what does this mean for homeowners? Folks who shelled out plenty of cash last year to secure their deals are now grappling with depreciating property values, which means it’s harder to build equity.

And if they want to sell in today’s market, they risk reaping less for their homes than what they paid for them. Zillow reports new buyers won’t sell at a profit until they’ve spent over a decade in their homes.

In another report from Redfin, analysts estimated that more than 3% of homes sold at a loss between August to October this year. The median amount was recorded at around $40,000, although some properties lost up to six figures on the sale.

Again, San Francisco sellers reported the biggest losses, with 1 in 7 homeowners losing money on their sales.

There are a couple of factors that could be contributing to the Golden City’s housing woes, including the rise of remote work coupled with tech layoffs pushing residents to relocate to other areas.

“There are buyers out there, but they’re a lot more cautious and picky than they were when mortgage rates were low,” Redfin Premier real estate agent Andrea Chopp said in September.

“The Bay Area housing market was unsustainable before, so this correction is probably healthy, but the unfortunate thing is prices remain unaffordable for a lot of people—especially with rates now above 7%,” she said.

97% of sellers are in the money, though

It’s not all doom and gloom for sellers—at least not for those who’ve been residing in their homes for a long time and bought when prices were much lower than they are today.

In many markets, sellers have been reluctant to let go of their low mortgage rates and apply for a home loan at a much higher rate, and that’s keeping inventory tight and prices high.

In the three months ending July 31, 97% of sellers across the country sold for a profit, with the typical home selling 78.4%, or $203,232, more than the seller bought it for, says Redfin.

And while San Francisco has been reporting more losses than usual, the median homeowner is still reaping $625,500 more on their home sale compared to the original purchase price.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/03/2023 – 14:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/fnOAgGh Tyler Durden

Judge Slams SEC For “Materially False” Deception In Crypto Case, Threatens To Sanction Agency

Judge Slams SEC For “Materially False” Deception In Crypto Case, Threatens To Sanction Agency

Back in April 2021, when Joe Biden appointed former Goldman Sachs reject Gary Gensler as head of the SEC, some hoped that the former US commodities chief and MIT professor would usher in a golden age for the US crypto sector and enable the US to pull away from the rest of the world in this all-important sector which will be so very critical when (not if) the dollar loses its reserve currency status. Little did they know, that besides encouraging unprecedented cronyism that enabled such criminals as Sam Bankman-Fried to oversee the biggest financial fraud in Wall Street history, one which was only possible thanks to SBF’s generous donations to Democrats (and because of SBF’s father years of assistance and donations to Gary Gensler’s patron, Elizabeth Warren) which prompted them to ignore the historic crimes committed by SBF’s group of “effective altruists”, Gensler would be the arguably the worst thing that ever happened to crypto.

And yet, if Gensler’s relentless attempts to destroy the US crypto industry were the product of his ideology, however twisted and wrong it may be, they would have been perhaps excusable if not understandable. However, the fact that Gensler has – as the top US securities regulator – been abusing his power in order to facilitate what is clearly a crusade to crush crypto at the behest of a few powerful democrats (who clearly are unable to grasp how much more wealth would be unleashed – and taxed – if the US were to return to its position as the world’s most advanced crypto market) is not only inexcusable, it should be ground for immediate termination.

A federal judge rebuked the Securities and Exchange Commission, and its boss Gary Gensler, over its treatment of a crypto firm, expressing concern the agency had made “materially false and misleading representations” in order to freeze millions of dollars in assets belonging to the project, Fortune reported.

The case, filed in Utah federal court, concerns a firm called Digital Licensing Inc., or DEBT Box. In its complaint, filed this summer, the SEC alleged the project had defrauded investors out of nearly $50 million by selling unregistered securities called “node licenses.”

As part of the initial process, the SEC successfully obtained a temporary restraining order and asset seizure through a so-called ex parte application—meaning the crypto firm was not informed of the proceedings and was not able to challenge them in court at the time.

These types of one-sided proceedings are uncommon and typically take place when a government agency fears that notifying the defendant will result in their destroying evidence or whisking assets overseas. Meanwhile, a temporary restraining order requires a party to show a high likelihood of “irreparable harm”—a high bar to clear.

In his Thursday order, District Judge Robert Shelby explained he had agreed to grant the SEC’s request because the agency’s lawyer, Michael Welsh, had said the crypto company was actively closing bank accounts—including 33 in the last 48 hours—as part of a bid to move the firm to Abu Dhabi and beyond the reach of U.S. regulators.

However, this turned out to be untrue. In his order, Shelby argued that some of the SEC’s arguments were “entirely without merit and misstate the record.” He wrote that subsequent legal proceedings revealed that no bank accounts had been closed during the 48-hour window and that the company had already transferred much of its operations months before. He also found that it was banks, not the company, that had closed certain accounts and that one alleged overseas transfer of $720,000 the SEC had used to justify the ex parte seizure had actually been a domestic transfer.

Shelby wrote that he was “troubled” by the SEC attorney’s misrepresentation of the account closures because there was another attorney on-screen, as well as two investigative staffers off-screen, who did not clarify or correct the attorney’s statement, nor was it addressed in later filings.

The judge also argued that the SEC has accused the crypto company of blocking investigators from viewing its social media sites, saying the agency had not shown any evidence to suggest the firm had even known about any investigation.

Given all this, Shelby concluded that the SEC had possibly deceived the court in its description of the facts used to justify the earlier orders, all of which have been prompted by the agency’s relentless – and now apparently illegal – pursuit of anyone acting in the crypto space not as a means of enforcing the law, far from it, but as a personal vendetta by Gensler against a corner of the financial world which his Democratic handlers detest.

“The court is concerned the Commission made materially false and misleading representations that violated Rule 11(b) and undermined the integrity of the proceedings,” wrote Shelby, citing a federal court rule that says written facts submitted to a judge must be supported by evidence.

The document issued by Shelby came in the form of a “show cause order”—a request that in this case demands the SEC provide reasons why the Utah court should not punish the agency for its behavior. While such orders are not uncommon, they are typically directed at private parties and rarely at government agencies.

The order on Thursday concludes with a list of questions asking the SEC to respond to specific examples of apparent falsehoods, including the agency’s claims made about the closed bank accounts and the social media blocking.

While the tone of Shelby’s order is restrained, the judge appears to have been angered by the fact that the SEC submitted the apparent misstatements in an ex parte context and for a temporary restraining order—legal processes that courts are mostly reluctant to grant as they deprive defendants of due process. In his filing, the judge states that he is “concerned” the SEC “undermined the integrity of the proceedings.” As he should: in recent years the SEC has done everything in its power to deflect attention from its catastrophic handling of the SBF fraud which cost people their life savings – just because the perpetrator was a Democrats’ golden boy…

… and to direct anger at the entire industry, in the process steamrolling over virtually everyone and setting back US crypto by years while such markets as the UAE and Singapore grow by leaps and bounds.

The federal rule cited by Shelby doesn’t provide specific sanctions for given violations but rather proposes a range of measures from a financial penalty to a directive that “suffices to deter repetition of the conduct.”

Meanwhile, an August report from blockchain analytics firm TRM Labs supports the SEC’s core claims that DEBT Box misled investors about mining tokens. A lawyer representing the defendants declined to comment.

More importantly, the order to show cause comes at a time when the SEC is already embroiled in a number of high-profile lawsuits against prominent crypto companies, including Coinbase and Ripple. The embattled industry is sure to seize on Shelby’s order to reiterate long-standing complaints that the agency under Chairman Gary Gensler has pursued a vendetta against it.

In response to a request for comment, an SEC spokesperson said, “We are in receipt of the order to show cause and will respond to the court as directed.” The agency has two weeks to respond to Shelby’s order. It also has about a month left before ruling on whether it will approve the first ever bitcoin spot ETF.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/03/2023 – 13:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/43yqafu Tyler Durden

It Seems Like Silly Season Is Here For Markets, But Things Are Likely To Get Even Sillier

It Seems Like Silly Season Is Here For Markets, But Things Are Likely To Get Even Sillier

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

It’s 4:20. Do You Know Where Your Yields Are?

It isn’t quite as haunting as “It’s 10pm. Do You Know Where Your Children Are?” but it’s a pretty important question for market participants!

For most of Friday morning, it looked like we were going to be able to discuss the 10-year closing the week at 4.3% (in line with our target) and where we started to get nervous that lower yields would weigh on risk assets. By the end of the day, the 10-year finished at 4.2% and stocks seemed to love it!

One of our clients pointed out that municipal bonds had one of their best years ever, in November! The beginning of December hasn’t been too shabby for them either.

Corporate bond spreads did well, especially considering the violent move lower in all-in yields. While supply should pick up, CDX IG could break into the 50s and the Bloomberg Corporate OAS could dip into double digits (given potential supply, all-in yields, etc. I think that CDX has a better chance than actual bond spreads).

But one of the big stories remains the outperformance of the indices (and sectors) that were left behind.

On Bloomberg TV on Monday (1 hour 49 minute mark) we got to discuss several topics, but most importantly:

  • The market leadership had already changed. We’ve been arguing for a few weeks that despite all the “Magnificent 7” chatter, leadership had already shifted. The market performance post-NVDA earnings solidified that view. See Rally on Garth! and Didn’t Learn Much.
  • While 4.3% seemed like a bold call when the yield was at 5%, it was easy to see why equities would do well if that occurred. It is less clear why stocks should continue to do well as Treasuries head lower on fears of an economic slowdown. Having said that, the Nasdaq 100 is actually lower today than where it closed on November 22nd! The chart above is really important!

A Special Shout-Out to Small and Regional Banks!

Small and regional banks have done very well in the past few weeks. The reason for the “shout-out” is that the indices do not do justice to their strength. Most of the regional banks that I track are trading near or above their highest levels since March. The KBW index does not do justice to this performance, as it is still below the levels seen in July/August. My belief, and I haven’t fully verified it, is that the index is suffering from the fact that some very large holdings that contributed to the fall (Silicon Valley Bank, First Republic Bank) are not around to participate in the upswing. So, as much as I love indices (as a macro person), I think that the full picture behind the scenes is even better!

If It Wasn’t December…

Well, I’ve been waiting to drag Beavis and Butt-Head into the mix. It is one of the few things that I can think of that is more juvenile than Wayne’s World, but here we are.

  • Beavis: Heh heh, heh.
  • Butt-Head: Heh heh, you really going to short the market in December?
  • Beavis: Heh heh, yeah!
  • Butt-Head: Beavis, you’re stupid!
  • Beavis: Heh heh, yeah!

I don’t think that is an actual scene, but it is the image that is playing in my head.

I hate the fact that “seasonality” seems to be a major factor driving markets. In an era of AI, it seems bizarre that something as “trite” as the Santa rally can be real, but it is tough to fight!

Though, as a warning, August traditionally is a “trend” month (it follows the trend leading into August) and this year August was a reversal month!

Could we get another “head-fake” on seasonality?

Yes, but could that turn into something as simple as the “market weighted indices” and “megacaps” continuing to be weak relative to the laggards? That does seem to be a potential “pain” trade for a lot of quant/algo driven funds.

Treasury Yields Are Lower for Many Reasons

More specifically, Treasury yields are lower for many of the wrong reasons.

  • Fast money was too short at higher yields (good reason).
  • People got too scared about supply too quickly (good reason), but supply and the deficit are not being fixed or addressed (bad reason).
  • Signs that the economy is weakening, and the job market is cooling off (bad reason).

While some of the reduction in yields is for “good” reasons, I’m getting nervous about the upcoming economic data. We get job reports this week, which I expect to disappoint considering already mediocre expectations. Holiday sales (Black Friday and Cyber Monday) started strong, but how much was due to what seemed like aggressive discounting and how much just pulled shopping forward remains to be seen (that is the story that I expect).

Can Risk Assets Keep Rallying on Lower Treasury Yields?

Let’s not dismiss the possibility that yields could stabilize or even drift higher while stocks continue their upward pattern, led by the laggards (that is in the running for my base case).

Can risk assets keep rallying if the economy is slowing enough to drive bond yields lower? Normally, I would say no, but here are three reasons why we could see that occur for a bit longer.

  1. No one wants to say that the consumer is done consuming. Whether it’s wage growth, inflation, jobs, credit card debt, interest payments, the end of student loan moratoriums, etc., it doesn’t matter. There has been no “rational” reason for a dramatic slowdown in consumer spending. Analysts will NOT want to talk aggressively about consumption slowing until it is already obvious because it has been a call that has been wrong over and over again. So, if the consumer is slowing (my base case), the evidence will be fought for longer than normal.
  2. Few want to say that the recession is here or near. Much like the “death of consumption,” calling for a recession has been dangerous this year. However, there is some chatter about it again, as we’ve discussed and continue to believe. But analysts are facing “The Economist who Cried Recession” syndrome, which doesn’t make for great year-end discussions (whether with clients, or those paying your bonus), so recession fears will be downplayed. This means that markets can ignore signs more than they would have at this time last year.
  3. Pain. Pain will always play a role, and it often seems to play an outsized role in December. If this current relative value trade continues, it will continue for a couple of main reasons:
    1. Quant/Algo driven funds will continue to close out positions as stops are triggered.
    2. Managers who had thoughtfully positioned their portfolios to tell a great year-end story (how they were massively long the winners and underweight the losers) start to decide that story doesn’t sound as compelling as it did just a month or two ago and start rebalancing their portfolios so their year-end statements can capture this narrative.
  4. Seasonality. Okay, I said three reasons, but I can barely consider seasonality as a reason (though, it cannot be ignored). So, call it reason 3.5 (I’d insert a shoulder shrug emoji here if I knew how to do it).

While risk as a whole may stall, the relative outperformance trade should continue to work.

Bottom Line

Neutral to bearish on rates. Maybe the grind to lower yields continues. However, the market now seems long and has discounted supply (corporate and Treasury), thereby it is poised for a bit of a fade. Could we hit 4% before 4.5%? Sure, but I like 4.35% by the middle of next week ahead of the jobs data.

Neutral to mildly bullish on credit. Unlike rates, I think that the market still has some shorts positioned against it, and that some of the money allocated to distressed might have to “redefine” distressed so that they can enter the market. However, the “easy” money in credit is over. So on credit, maybe be long the “wings” barbelling your portfolio with some very high quality names (A+ and above) and some stressed names (B- and below) skewed to the leveraged loan side of things.

Slightly bullish on equities, but very bullish on the laggards! Our target for the S&P 500 got bumped to 4,650 from 4,600 (a good thing, as we are there), but I cannot justify raising it further with everything going on. On the other hand, I could see the Russell 2000 popping another 5% to 8% in the coming weeks (that would take it to a 12% to 15% return on the year, which doesn’t seem unreasonable given where the other indices are). On the sector side of things, biotech, regional banks, and even “disruptive” tech seem appealing for a trade.

A wildcard that I think could occur (and would really let the “everything” rally continue robustly) would be some sort of a “deal” with China. It could be something as simple as a path to lower tariffs (many of the economists who seem to advise Biden were originally very negative on tariffs), a clarification on what tech is allowed or not (I assume that there is some strong lobbying going on here), or using our advantage in food production to generate something interesting. We should probably expect “promises” more than anything tangible from China (i.e., I think that it will be a one-sided “deal”), but it should be “deflationary” and “growth-oriented” at the same time and something that markets should love!

A second wildcard is that the potential for escalation in the Middle East has increased as Israel has renewed its attacks on Hamas. While escalation is not our current base case, it is a threat that wasn’t as much of a threat last week.

The final wildcard is AI, but that seems like a late Q1, or even Q2 type of event (see Didn’t Learn).

It seems like the “silly” season is here, but things are likely to get sillier! However, I suspect that we will have an opportunity to short these markets before year-end, just not yet (except for maybe Treasuries, which can be shorted already).

Tyler Durden
Sun, 12/03/2023 – 13:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/loQrNJ5 Tyler Durden