Month: July 2024

Authored by Julie Kelly via RealClearInvestigations,

After the evasive House testimony of now-former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle and FBI Director Christopher Wray’s shortlived suggestion that Donald Trump may not have been hit by a bullet, one man alone may help allay Republican fears that the Biden administration will not conduct a forthright investigation into the attempted assassination of Trump last month: Joseph Cuffari.

The Trump-appointed inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security has already opened two investigations into the U.S. Secret Service, which is under the purview of the DHS, related to the agency’s handling of the July 13 shooting.

But some Republicans are concerned because, they say, Cuffari has been stonewalled by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on other internal examinations – including one that might have revealed Secret Service lapses that might have prevented the attempt on Trump’s life. 

Specifically, congressional sources tell RCI that Cuffari’s report, “USSS Preparation for and Response to the Events of January 6, 2021,” has been on Mayorkas’ desk since at least April.

The report, according to Politico, will “cast light on a series of embarrassing security lapses for the agency.” And given some comparisons between Jan. 6 and July 13, the report might shed light on systemic issues that impacted both events.

For example, unanswered questions remain as to why the Secret Service allowed Trump to take the stage at The Ellipse outside the White House around noon on Jan. 6 amid reports of individuals with weapons in the vicinity – a question many Americans have about the July 13 assassination attempt. Law enforcement and spectators noted the presence of a suspicious individual, later identified as the gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, at least a half hour before Trump took the stage in Butler, Pennsylvania.

In addition, no one has explained how the Secret Service failed to notice an alleged pipe bomb found outside the Democrat National Committee DC office on Jan. 6 – while then Vice President-elect Harris was inside the building. Previous reporting by RCI shows multiple law enforcement officers, including one with a bomb-sniffing dog, walking past the bench where the device was found. 

Rep. Barry Loudermilk, chairman of a House subcommittee tasked with a separate investigation into Jan. 6 as well as the now-defunct J6 committee, recently accused Mayorkas of intentionally holding the release of the report. The Georgia Republican told Mayorkas in a letter that “the failure to provide an in-depth review of the department’s security planning and operational failures related to January 6 not only raises concerns about the department’s botched planning for former president Trump’s rally in Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024, but it is quite possible that such reports could have prevented the security breakdown that resulted in the near assassination of a former president and presidential candidate.”

Top Democrats have long sought to remove Cuffari – a former investigator for the Air Force and Department of Justice whom Trump appointed in 2019 in 2019 – from office. The coordinated effort began when the IG notified Congress that a trove of Secret Service texts from January 5 and 6, 2021 had been deleted in late January 2021 under the Biden administration. The purge occurred weeks after every federal agency received a directive from Congress to preserve all evidence related to January 6. 

Cuffari said messages belonging to at least 24 Secret Service officials including then director James Murray and Cheatle, who was an assistant director of the agency on January 6, were gone. So, too, were the texts of then acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf and acting deputy secretary Ken Cuccinelli, both Trump appointees.

His office subsequently opened a criminal investigation into the matter.

“The USSS erased those text messages after OIG [Office of Inspector General] requested records of electronic communications from the USSS, as part of our evaluation of events at the Capitol on January 6,” the inspector general wrote in a July 2022 letter to chairmen of both the Senate and House Homeland Security committees, including Rep. Bennie Thompson, who also chaired the Jan. 6 committee at the same time. 

Cuffari further flagged the DHS’s lack of cooperation with his inquiry, something he had already pointed out in an earlier report to the committees. “DHS personnel have repeatedly told OIG inspectors that they were not permitted to provide records directly to OIG and that such records had to first undergo review by DHS attorneys,” Cuffari continued in the letter.

Not true, responded Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi. He claimed the texts had been deleted when cell phones were reset to factory settings as part of a device replacement program. “The insinuation that the Secret Service maliciously deleted text messages following a request is false.” (Guglielmi’s truthfulness was brought into question recently when he claimed it was “absolutely false” that the Secret Service rejected the Trump campaign’s multiple requests for additional security prior to the Pennsylvania rally. The Washington Post later confirmed that top Secret Service officials “repeatedly denied” requests for more manpower and equipment to protect the former president at large events.)

And despite initially insisting the texts were not lost, Guglielmi shortly thereafter said the missing Jan. 6-related messages were not recoverable. Cuffari did acquire the cell phones of two dozen Secret Service agents on duty that day, which did not have texts from that day but could have other pertinent information.

But rather than demand that the DHS use its extensive investigative tools to retrieve the texts, Thompson instead turned his fire on Cuffari. Thompson suggested Cuffari’s alleged delay in notifying the committee about the purged texts represented a cover-up and “cost investigators precious time to capture relevant evidence.” Cuffari had, in fact, notified the Homeland Security committee of both the Senate and House, of which Thompson was chairman, at least twice that DHS officials were not cooperating in his J6 probe.

“The Department repeatedly suggested that OIG might not have a right of access to the records sought, but during the months-long period in which access was delayed the Department did not cite any legal authority – that would have justified withholding the information,” Cuffari disclosed in a September 2021 report to Congress.

Despite Cuffari’s warnings related to stonewalling by DHS brass, Thompson accused Cuffari of withholding news of the deleted messages. In a July 2022 letter, just two weeks after Cuffari disclosed the missing texts, Thompson asked him to step aside from the J6 inquiry. Calls for Cuffari’s dismissal have also been driven by the nonprofit “watchdog” group, the Project on Government Oversight. The vice chair of POGO’s board is Debra Katz, a lawyer for Brett Kavanagh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, during his tawdry Supreme Court nomination hearings.   

Critics say Thompson’s demand for Cuffari’s recusal appeared to contradict his stated mission to find the truth about Jan. 6. For example, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, a star witness for the committee, provided a shocking account about how Trump allegedly assaulted one of the Secret Service agents on his detail that afternoon. Wouldn’t Thompson and the other committee members want records to prove her claims, which are now in dispute by several individuals, including the driver she said Trump tried to attack? Why would Thompson want to get rid of the watchdog attempting to locate messages critical to filling an important missing piece of the Jan. 6 puzzle? 

In fact, Thompson told Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky) in February his committee “could have had a better, more thorough report had we had access to all those records.” Thompson further said that the deletions not only violated the Federal Records Act but may have also amounted to obstruction of justice since he had issued a subpoena, the only one his committee sought from an executive office, seeking the records.

Talk but No Action

But neither his committee nor a Democrat-controlled Congress did anything about it. Unlike the committee’s criminal referral to the Department of Justice against Trump for obstructing an official proceeding, Thompson did not pursue criminal charges against any DHS official responsible for erasing the text records.

But Thompson did continue his attacks on Cuffari aided by his House colleagues and DHS IG employees, who wrote a letter accusing Cuffari of “continued mismanagement.” “IG Cuffari has made it clear that he wishes to remain in his position, even in the face of prolonged, deserved criticism in the media, from Congress, from other oversight entities and from his own staff. A true leader would recognize the effect of his actions on his workforce and understand the right thing to do would be to step aside,” anonymous staffers wrote in a September 2022 letter to Joe Biden asking him to fire Cuffari.

The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, or CIGIE, which oversees federal inspector generals, also went after Cuffari by opening a flood of inquiries into the DHS IG’s office. In response, Cuffari filed a lawsuit seeking relief  from “an unjust, Kafkaesque system produced by an unconstitutionally structured entity and abetted by a complete absence of independent oversight, accountability and lawful due process.”  A federal judge dismissed his effort to stop the investigation, ruling that he had not suffered any harm. 

CIGIE is mired in its own scandals; in May, several Republican House members sent a letter to a top CIGIE official demanding answers about the “politicization” of the organization. During a House hearing on July 24, committee members accused CIGIE chairman Mark Greenblatt of a lack of transparency and the “subjective” nature of CIGIE’s work.

House Democrats, including Thompson, continue to seek Cuffari’s resignation more recently for deleting text messages off his government device. Cuffari told Congress he did not consider the texts applicable under the Federal Records Act.

Intriguingly, as Cuffari begins his probe of the attempt on Trump’s life, his Jan. 6 report may shed light on an alleged threat to Vice President Harris.  

More than three-and-a-half years later, investigators still have not arrested anyone for planting pipe bombs outside the headquarters of both the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee on the evening of Jan. 5. The FBI’s investigation reportedly remains open but apparently went cold.

For reasons still unknown, Harris left Capitol Hill around 11:15 a.m. on Jan. 6 following a briefing for the Senate Intelligence Committee. Although an official schedule indicated she planned to go home, she instead arrived at DNC headquarters along with a Secret Service detail at 11:25 a.m.

Video captured by a security camera outside the building showed a bomb-sniffing dog conducting a vehicle search at 9:44 a.m., roughly two hours before Harris’ arrival. The canine did not detect the explosive device sitting just a few feet away near an outdoor bench.

Neither did officers from Capitol Police and D.C. Metropolitan Police, who intermittently arrived at the building throughout the morning and into the early afternoon. Harris’ Secret Service detail did not appear to conduct any meaningful search of the premises before or during her visit.

And when a plainclothes Capitol Police officer discovered the pipe bomb at 1:07 p.m., no officer appeared overly concerned that a device the FBI later said was viable and deadly was within distance of the incoming vice president.

She was evacuated about 10 minutes later.

How did the Secret Service miss the device in plain view? Was anyone fired for failing to properly sweep the area and endangering the life of their protectee? Were new protocols put in place to avoid repeating such a frightening scenario in the future?

Cuffari’s report presumably will finally answer those questions because agency officials have not.

Not only are the FBI and Secret Service tight-lipped about the incident, but Harris herself has yet to discuss it publicly. 

Harris has not explained why she, a sitting U.S. senator at the time, left the Capitol 90 minutes before the beginning of the joint session of Congress to certify her groundbreaking election. She appears to have been the only senator not in attendance as the proceedings commenced. Why did she plan to miss such a historic event? How did she feel when she was told of the alleged bomb?

It would be nearly impossible for the national news media to continue to ignore her ties to the pipe bomb story if Cuffari addressed it in his investigation. 

“Any delay or obstruction by Mayorkas is unacceptable,” Loudermilk said in an email, “especially now that the DHS IG is investigating the serious USSS security failures at the Trump rally in Butler PA.”

Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a new blood test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for adults ages 45 and older who are at average risk for the disease, according to a statement from Guardant Health Inc.

The FDA’s decision follows a strong recommendation for approval from an advisory committee panel in May 2024.

The approval of Guardant Health’s “Shield” test marks the first time that a blood test has been recognized by the FDA as a primary screening option for CRC, offering a noninvasive alternative to traditional methods such as colonoscopies and stool-based tests, according to the statement.

Colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, with the American Cancer Society estimating more than 150,000 new diagnoses and 53,000 deaths in 2024 alone.

Early detection is crucial, as the five-year relative survival rate is 91 percent when CRC is identified early, compared with just 14 percent if the cancer has spread to distant parts of the body, according to the company’s statement.

The screening rate for CRC in the United States stands at about 59 percent, significantly below the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable’s goal of at least 80 percent. Many people avoid traditional screening methods because of their invasive and unpleasant nature, according to the statement.

“The persistent gap in colorectal cancer screening rates shows that the existing screening options do not appeal to millions of people,” Dr. Daniel Chung, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, said in the statement.

“The FDA’s approval of the Shield blood test marks a tremendous leap forward, offering a compelling new solution to close this gap. This decision will help make screening tests more broadly accessible and propel blood-based testing and CRC screening into a new era.

“With increased screening rates and early cancer detection, many more lives can be saved.”

The Shield blood test has been in development for more than a decade, according to the company.

A major clinical trial, the ECLIPSE study, demonstrated that the Shield test has an 83 percent sensitivity for detecting CRC and a 90 percent specificity for advanced neoplasia, according to the company. The results are comparable to those of other noninvasive screening methods currently recommended by guidelines, according to the statement.

“Shield can help improve colorectal cancer screening rates so we can detect more cancers at an early stage, when they are treatable,” Guardant Health Co-CEO AmirAli Talasaz said in the statement.

The advisory committee panel acknowledged the test’s reliability for detecting stages 2, 3, and 4 CRC and emphasized the benefit of having a blood test that can achieve higher adherence rates among patients who avoid colonoscopies or stool-based tests. However, it stressed that Guardant Health must make sure that consumers are aware that the blood test is not equivalent to a colonoscopy in its ability to detect and remove benign polyps before they can become cancerous.

The panel highlighted the importance of clear labeling and patient education to mitigate risks associated with the test’s lower sensitivity for detecting pre-cancerous advanced adenomas, according to the minutes from the panel’s meeting.

The panel noted that patients with pre-cancerous advanced adenomas have a high risk of developing CRC and that Shield’s lower test sensitivity for detecting these adenomas means that there is a risk that patients might receive a negative test result despite having pre-cancerous advanced adenomas, potentially leading to missed opportunities for early intervention.

The panel said it’s crucial that the test’s limitations were clearly communicated for patients to understand that while the Shield test is an effective tool for CRC screening, it “is not a replacement for diagnostic colonoscopy or for surveillance colonoscopy in high-risk individuals.”

Guardant Health’s Shield test will be available by prescription and is expected to be covered by Medicare for eligible beneficiaries. Commercial insurance coverage is also anticipated to expand following future guideline inclusions by the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, according to the statement.

“The test, which has an accuracy rate for colon cancer detection similar to stool tests used for early detection of cancer, could offer an alternative for patients who may otherwise decline current screening options,” said Dr. William M. Grady, a gastroenterologist at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center.

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

Today, I will closely examine the most important proxy wars of World War 3, which I believe will be decisive in determining who wins the overall conflict and gets to shape the new world order.

Proxy wars are a method by which major powers fight their battles indirectly, using smaller nations or groups as stand-ins rather than confronting each other directly.

Major powers support, equip, and finance smaller groups or nations in a proxy war to fight against a common adversary. This support can include military training, weapons, funding, and other resources. The critical point is that the major powers do not engage directly in combat.

There are numerous ongoing proxy wars in World War 3.

However, the ones I believe will prove decisive will be in Taiwan, Ukraine, and the Middle East. The other proxy wars are peripheral in comparison.

Proxy War #1: Taiwan

Recently, China performed a two-day military exercise around Taiwan, named Joint Sharp Sword-2024A, as a response to what it calls Taiwan’s separatist acts.

This drill involved the Chinese air force and navy completely surrounding the island of Taiwan with ships and warplanes. It aimed at testing their combat readiness for a full-scale attack.

Many believe the drills are practice for an invasion.

This show of force comes just after Taiwan’s new President, Lai Ching-te, took office. Lai once expressed support for Taiwan’s independence.

If Taiwan officially declared independence, it would be tantamount to declaring war with China.

The unofficial status quo maintains an ambiguous stance on Taiwan’s sovereignty; they aren’t declaring independence (yet), nor are they committing to reunifying with China.

Lai’s presidency is significant in the context of the already strained China-Taiwan relations. A new president with pro-independence sympathies could be the tipping point that causes China to act.

However, I am skeptical that the US military would directly intervene.

That’s because China (and Russia) are the only countries with sophisticated enough nuclear arsenals to go toe-to-toe with the US up to the top of the military escalation ladder, a concept that describes how the severity of a military conflict can increase.

In other words, the US military can’t attack China with impunity because Beijing can match each move up to all-out nuclear war—the very top of the military escalation ladder.

The operative question is, will the US risk nuclear Armageddon over Taiwan?

I don’t think it will.

Considering everything, China seems to have the advantage and will reunify Taiwan in the not-so-distant future.

I think China—and thus BRICS+—will prevail in this crucial proxy war of World War 3. If that happens, it will likely permanently alter the geopolitical landscape of East Asia.

Proxy War #2: Ukraine

Ukraine has been the arena of choice for NATO & Friends to confront Russia for many years.

To briefly summarize, the US has been spending many billions meddling in Ukraine long before the current conflict broke out in February of 2022.

It has been estimated that the US spent around $5 billion on “democratization” in Ukraine before 2022. What that means is covert mischief executed through nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which are simply fronts for the CIA.

A partial list of the culprits includes USAID, the National Democratic Institute, and the International Republican Institute, as well as nominally nongovernmental organizations like Freedom House, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and the National Endowment for Democracy.

It all culminated in the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s corrupt pro-Russia government in 2014, which a corrupt pro-US government replaced. It sowed the seeds for the current conflict.

As I write this, in mid-2024, the conflict in Ukraine appears to be reaching a tipping point.

Ukraine has suffered serious battlefield setbacks as Russia has steadily gained territory. The Russians now have the momentum and initiative.

US funding is also drying up. American and European voters are increasingly tired of the war as regular people struggle with a sputtering economy and rising inflation.

In short, there’s not much more that NATO & Friends can do to turn things around for Ukraine.

They can’t intervene directly; the Russians have been clear they would view that as a declaration of direct and open war, which could lead to nuclear exchanges.

About all NATO & Friends can do is send more weapons shipments to Kiev.

However, that is unlikely to deliver victory to Ukraine. At best, it will only prolong the conflict without changing the ultimate outcome.

Further, it seems Russian patience is wearing thin on this issue.

In response to NATO & Friends supplying arms to Ukraine, Putin recently announced that Russia will start supplying arms to countries in conflict with the US and other NATO countries.

Dmitry Medvedev is a former Russian president and prime minister. He is now the deputy chairman of the Security Council and recently said this regarding the new policy:

“Now, may the United States and its allies experience firsthand the direct use of Russian weapons by third parties.

These persons or regions have been intentionally left unnamed, but they can include all those who consider Yankeeland & Co. their enemy, regardless of their political outlook and international recognition.

Their enemy is the US, which means they are friends to us.”

There is little doubt that the countries and groups to receive Russian arms that Medvedev was referring to would include those in the Middle East, which is the third key proxy war of World War 3. An influx of Russian arms in the Middle East could tip the balance in this crucial region.

When you consider everything regarding Ukraine, it seems that a negotiated settlement that is mainly favorable to Russia will eventually be reached.

Absent that, I expect the Russians to continue to make steady gains.

Either way, I believe the Russians will win through battlefield gains or a favorable negotiated settlement.

Here’s the bottom line.

All signs point to an eventual Russian victory in Ukraine and another critical World War 3 proxy war that will end in favor of BRICS+. If that happens, it will likely permanently alter the geopolitical landscape of Europe.

Proxy War #3: The Middle East

I think it’s clear the proxy wars in Ukraine and Taiwan are likely to end in favor of BRICS+.

That’s why I expect NATO & Friends will make their last stand to scuttle the emergence of a multipolar world order and preserve the US-led world order in the Middle East.

In my next article, I’ll examine the Middle East in-depth and how I think it will play out.

Here’s the bottom line.

I think the Middle East will be the decisive battleground that determines who wins WW3 and gets to shape the new world order.

The stakes could not be higher.

Countless millions throughout history were wiped out financially—or worse—during the previous world wars because they failed to see the correct Big Picture and take appropriate action.

Fortunately, WW3 doesn’t have to blindside you, your family, or your portfolio.

Quite the contrary.

That’s exactly why I just released an urgent new report with all the details, including what you must do to prepare. Click here to download the PDF now.

‘Hundreds’ of cars are being stolen from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport every year, investigators from KING NBC 5 have found. 

Car thieves frequently target hotel and motel lots offering “park-n-fly” or “stay-n-fly” packages. Data reviewed by KING NBC 5 shows that some of the most well-known lodging names have the highest crime rates, leaving customers liable.

According to public records, the airport Marriott tops the list for crimes at hotel and “park-n-fly” lots. Data from the King County Sheriff’s Office shows 94 car thefts and prowls in 2023, including 27 stolen vehicles. In 2022, there were 74 reported incidents, according to KING NBC 5. 

Carol Olson of Snohomish County commented: “Something needs to be done.”

KING NBC 5 reported that her insurance covered $15,000 in repairs after her truck was stolen and trashed at the Seattle Airport Marriott on South 176th Street in December. She returned from a trip to Disneyland with her grandkids to find her parking spot empty.

Another woman Piper Logg told hotel security her truck was gone and wasn’t happy with the response: “They all made it sound like this is an everyday, normal thing and that nobody was surprised that it happens all the time. It seems like it’s something that happens all the time and they’re choosing to do nothing.”

Logg said the lot’s cameras weren’t recording, and thieves evaded the pay gates. A SeaTac police officer explained that no charge applies if exiting within 15-20 minutes. Thieves often tailgate behind an accomplice or a paying customer, and one report mentioned a thief ramming the gate to escape.

“It’s even more disconcerting because Marriott is a well-known company. You actually think it is going to be safer than the smaller hotels,” another woman said. “It just leaves a bad taste in your mouth.”

Can’t we just go back to the days when things made sense and cars were only being stolen from their owners in designated, marked autonomous zones in the center of the city?

Authored by Tilak Doshi via RealClearEnergy,

Within a day of ex-President Trump’s announcement of “climate denier” Mr. J. D. Vance as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, the climate industrial complex and supportive mainstream media had the knives out. A few headlines of the past 24 hours are an indication.

• The New York Times: “JD Vance Is an Oil Booster and Doubter of Human-Caused Climate Change”

• The Independent: JD Vance: “Climate activists alarmed by Trump’s ‘dangerous’ pick for vice president”

• The Guardian: “Climate advocates fear picking JD Vance for VP is ‘a dangerous step backward’”

The umbrage taken by media commentators is familiar. CNBC laments that “the former venture capitalist though is a known critic of climate change and renewable energy [italics added].” UK’s The Independent newspaper reports that “[c]ampaigners are responding with alarm to the selection of climate denier and Ohio senator JD Vance as Donald Trump’s vice presidential nominee, with activists warning he represents a “dangerous” voice for the US.” Mr. Vance’s “eagerness to please Donald Trump” adds to the image of the vice-presidential nominee as an unprincipled politician seeking office.

Climate advocacy group Fossil Free Media spokesperson Cassidy DiPaola asserted that “This [VP] choice signals that a potential Trump-Vance administration would likely double down on fossil fuel expansion at a time when we desperately need to transition to clean energy.” Communications director Stevie O’Hanlon of Sunrise Movement, a climate activist organization, said that “Like Donald Trump, JD Vance has proven that he will make it a top priority to roll back climate protections while answering to the demands of oil and gas CEOs.”

Does Mr. Vance have a principled stand and is his stance on climate and energy policy worthy of consideration?

Climate Denialism

As the highly polarized debate over climate change over the past few decades has amply demonstrated, the discourse often descends into ad hominem attacks and name calling. “Climate denier” is a charge that is often used by proponents of climate alarm to shut down critical debate and to deplatform climate sceptics. Lena Moffitt, executive director of the environmental advocacy group Evergreen Action, said this of Mr. Vance: “Donald Trump has chosen an avowed climate denier as his running mate who has used his time in Congress to vote against the environment and shill for fossil fuel corporations at every opportunity.”

The “denier” accusation is among the more pernicious if popular epithets used to denigrate sceptics of the so-called “consensus science.” It invokes a comparison to those who engage in Holocaust denial. To be sure, most observers would consider it ludicrous to suggest that questioning the accuracy and predictive power of scientific models is like questioning the historical fact of the genocide of Jews in Europe.

What Is Mr. Vance’s Position on Climate?

Putting aside epithets and journalistic hit-pieces, it seems a fair question to ask just what do politicians skeptical of the climate alarmist narrative believe? And what are their policy positions regarding the Paris Agreement’s “net zero by 2050” target. This policy target is an imperative, at least nominally, for most current governments in North America and Western Europe?

Mr. Vance – lawyer, businessman, former Marine and writer of the bestselling memoir “Hillbilly Elegy”, arisen from the humblest working class background – places himself firmly in the populist right movement. It now looks very likely that Mr. Trump will be the next US president. The assassination attempt Saturday, his miraculous split-second turn of the head which saved him and the iconic picture of his raised fist with the US flag in the background seconds after being injured make him almost irresistible. Thus Mr. Vance will likely join the Donald Trump next year as his VP in an administration that will seek to rapidly unwind the myriad policy and regulatory constraints that the Biden administration has imposed to shackle the US oil and gas industry at every turn.

Vance has also criticized the “green energy fantasy” of the Biden administration, pointing out that “solar panels can’t power a modern manufacturing economy” and “that’s why the Chinese are building coal power plants.” He has similarly called out wind power turbines. At the Turning Point Action conference last year, he said “they’re hideously ugly. They kill all the birds. And they’re mostly made in China.” The Biden administration’s all-out support for EVs comes in for the same critique. In a July 2022 radio interview, he said: “The whole EV thing is a scam. If you plug it into your wall, do these people think there are Keebler elves back there making electricity in the wall? It comes, of course, from fossil fuels.”

Mr. Vance’s climate skepticism goes beyond encouraging US oil and gas dominance in global markets once again – a strong theme of Trump’s first term in office – if the Republicans get elected to office. He has come out fiercely against the ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) movement. In an interview with Breitbart in 2022, he said “ESG is basically a massive racket to enrich Wall Street and enrich the financial sector of the country, at the expense of the industries that actually employ a lot of Ohio’s workers for middle-class jobs.” The push against ESG occurring through the red states in the U.S. and the increasingly evident lack of success of ESG-focused firms and investment advisors suggests that Mr. Vance has probably got a better finger on the pulse than his critics would care to admit.

Who’s More Credible?

As a climate change skeptic, Mr. Vance stands in good company. For instance, the 2022 Nobel Laureate in physics John Clauser exposed in a recent lecture how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models and analyses do not meet basic standards of scientific enquiry.  IPCC models have been used as “proof” of scientific consensus by politicians and activists to support claims of a “climate crisis.” Another example would be Richard Lindzen, an American atmospheric physicist and Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who published an assessment of the global warming narrative in 2022. Prof. Lindzen finds climate alarmism “a quasi-religious movement predicated on an absurd ‘scientific’ narrative. The policies invoked on behalf of this movement have led to the US hobbling its energy system.” Whatever one’s views on climate science, it is apparent that Mr. Vance is not a wild-eyed outlier in his skepticism of the claims of climate policy advocates as asserted by his many critics.

JD Vance’s criticisms of subsidy-supported renewable energy and EV sectors accord with the empirical evidence emerging in the current context of higher inflation, higher interest rates and a deep slump in renewable energy stocks. For instance, an Associated Press report last November described the travails of the Biden administration’s ambitious plans for offshore wind: “The cancellation of two large offshore wind projects in New Jersey is the latest in a series of setbacks for the nascent U.S. offshore wind industry, jeopardizing the Biden administration’s goals of powering 10 million homes from towering ocean-based turbines by 2030 and establishing a carbon-free electric grid five years later.” This news was preceded by earlier reports of developers cancelling three offshore wind power projects in New England. They said their projects were “no longer financially feasible” despite the ample subsidies on offer.

The news on the EV front, called out as a “scam” by Mr. Vance, is just as dire for green technology enthusiasts. As David Blackmon, a keen observer of the renewable energy space, notes: surveys show that the vast majority of US car buyers will not purchase an EV even at “bargain basement” prices (and despite government subsidies); the overall growth in private EV sales in the US has slowed “to a trickle”, just as is happening in the UK and EU; and the market for used EVs is practically non-existent. “Pure play” EV maker Fisker recently declared bankruptcy while Rivian approaches the same fate. Giant US automakers GM and Ford have turned to gasoline-powered vehicles to sustain their profits as the global EV sales slowdown force them to delay investments and cuts costs in their EV production lines.

Partisans may criticize the man all they want, but the realities of thermodynamics and economics support JD Vance. He may prove to be the best Vice President in a Republican administration geared to supporting the country’s oil and gas industries and Making America Great Again.

The commercial real estate downturn is still underway, posing significant risks for investors across financial markets. CRE-linked equities, corporate credit, structured credit, and private markets all feel the impacts of major unwinds as property prices plunge. 

While headwinds from high interest rates may diminish in the coming quarters, with rate traders pricing in the possibility of the first 25bps cut as early as the mid-September FOMC meeting, the critical question is whether these projected rate cuts will be adequate to cushion the landing. 

Office tower valuations remain sloped in a downward trend, plummeting in many cases, as vacancy rates soar as remote work trends keep blue-collar workers out of the office and at home. These imploding values remain a massive threat to regional banks, with the CRE crisis likely to persist through 2025. 

X user Triple Net Investor offers a sobering reality of the CRE space. He closely follows the space and noted dozens of recent valuation declines for malls, towers, and multi-family properties. 

Here are the examples of why the CRE storm is not over:

One of Maryland’s largest malls, called White Marsh Mall, located in a northeast suburb of Baltimore County, had a stunning valuation plunge of $240 million over a little more than a decade. The property was once valued at $320 million in 2013 – it now has a valuation of around $80 million.

One of the largest malls in Baltimore has plunged a shocking $320M in value since 2013

A recent appraisal valued the White Marsh Mall at $80M, down from $300M in 2013

A receiver was appointed to take control of the 1.2M sq ft mall earlier this yr

This is one of many… pic.twitter.com/ajriEkumPo

— Triple Net Investor (@TripleNetInvest) July 29, 2024

“This is a commercial real estate apocalypse,” Triple Net Investor said. 

Wow, this is absolutely crazy…

Brookfield owned Gas Company Tower in Downtown LA has plummeted over $400M in value

The skyscraper was recently valued at $214.5M

It was appraised at $632M just 3 years ago

This is a commercial real estate apocalypse

Source: Commercial… pic.twitter.com/UFZuExcqz7

— Triple Net Investor (@TripleNetInvest) July 26, 2024

He said, “This is absolutely insane.” 

This is absolutely insane…

A Chinese investor is acquiring a skyscraper in Downtown Los Angeles for $120m…

Or a stunning ~$170M LESS than the debt owed

Brookfield recently defaulted on a $319M loan tied to the property – at the time of default ~$290M was outstanding on the… pic.twitter.com/dDxORkTLgi

— Triple Net Investor (@TripleNetInvest) July 25, 2024

He pointed out Trump’s “incredibly well-timed deal” to sell the Trump International Hotel in 2022. 

This is an incredibly well-timed deal pulled off by Donald Trump…

In 2022 he sold The Trump International Hotel in Washington DC for $375M at the absolute top of the market

Fast forward and the buyer recently defaulted on a $285M loan tied to the hotel after rebranding it to… pic.twitter.com/f2mIUDn5fR

— Triple Net Investor (@TripleNetInvest) July 23, 2024

A multi-family complex in foreclosure in Dallas, Texas. 

This trend is very concerning…

518 apartment units faces foreclosure in Dallas, Texas

– Tides at Whispering Hill: 314 units
– Tides at Lawler East: 204 units

The total loan stood at $35M or ~$67K a unit

First office buildings fell off a cliff…

Now… pic.twitter.com/f4F8ZvJyod

— Triple Net Investor (@TripleNetInvest) July 20, 2024

He said, “Blackstone has filed to foreclose on the 33-story McGraw-Hill skyscraper in the Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan.” 

This is absolutely nuts…

Blackstone has filed to foreclose on the 33-story McGraw-Hill skyscraper in the Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan

The debt was originally financed by Signature Bank

Things have gone from bad to worse in NYC and it doesn’t look like things are… pic.twitter.com/jZyYFB1f0q

— Triple Net Investor (@TripleNetInvest) July 19, 2024

And this. 

This is absolutely brutal…

Goldman Sachs and Ballast are set to surrender 82 apartment buildings (~1,200 units) in San Francisco to lender Royal Bank of Canada

They recently defaulted on loans totaling $687.5M

The apartments were purchased between 2017 and 2020 for $704M… pic.twitter.com/5o5HTkEqrs

— Triple Net Investor (@TripleNetInvest) July 18, 2024

More pain. 

BREAKING NEWS:

The owner of San Francisco’s largest apartment community has defauled on ~$1.8B in loans tied to the complex

The 152 acre, 3,200 unit apartment community known as Parkmerced was just appraised at $1.4B, plummeting $700M from 2019 and $400M less than the total… pic.twitter.com/EzBH2nk1fS

— Triple Net Investor (@TripleNetInvest) July 16, 2024

It just gets worse.

BREAKING NEWS:

EJM Equities has defaulted on an office complex in a upscale neighborhood in Los Angeles (Playa Vista), owing $271M in unpaid debt

They defaulted on a $250M loan from Morgan Stanley tied to The Bluffs office complex

EJM Equities bought The Bluffs from JPMorgan… pic.twitter.com/0YONEQA1au

— Triple Net Investor (@TripleNetInvest) July 18, 2024

Oops. 

This is very bad…

The tallest building in Birmingham Alabama faces foreclosure

Shipt Tower has been placed in receivership

Wells Fargo, the previous anchor tenant, relocated in 2019 and overall occupancy has plummeted

This looks to be just the start of the troubles for… pic.twitter.com/eHAfjttnuj

— Triple Net Investor (@TripleNetInvest) July 15, 2024

GnS Economics analysts Mate Suto and Tuomas Malinen recently warned:

“Basically, almost every bank in the US is holding some type of CRE loan on their balance sheets. Therefore, it is no surprise that this is an area warranting close observation, especially because the risks posed by CRE exposure spread quite unevenly between large and small banks.”

Fed Powell has a rolling crisis on his hands. And the goal is to save the fireworks for after the election. 

Authored by Summer Lane via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

California is one of the most expensive places to buy a starter home in the country, as 117 cities in the state have so-called starter homes priced at $1 million or more, according to a real estate analysis from Zillow.

New York was second to California, with $1 million starter homes in 31 different cities.

According to the analysis, such homes are priced among the lowest third of home values in a given region. Nationwide, $1 million starter homes are for sale in 237 cities, up from 84 in 2019.

Across the United States, the average starter home is $196,611. Over the past five years, those home values have increased by about 54 percent, according to Zillow.

The company’s data showed that this rapid rise in prices had slightly increased the median age of a first-time home buyer from 34 in 2019 to 35 in 2023.

The San Francisco metro area had the highest count of $1 million starter homes within its 44 cities, second to the New York City metro—which includes New Jersey and Pennsylvania—with 48 cities.

In California, the Los Angeles metro follows closely behind San Francisco with 35 cities having such priced starter homes, and 15 in the San Jose area.

The Southern California city of Irvine—with a population of over 300,000—is the largest city in the nation with $1 million starter homes, according to the analysis.

According to the National Association of Realtors, first-time homebuyers in America represent 32 percent of the real estate market and their median income is $95,900.

“Home buyers are battling affordability and availability today. So much so that $1 million is the norm for a starter home in hundreds of cities,” said Zillow senior economist Orphe Divounguy in a July statement.

But he also said there would be “good news” ahead for first-time buyers.

“More homes are for sale, price cuts are on the rise, and buyers have a few more days to weigh their options as homes sit on the market,” he said.

Sophie Li contributed to this report.

Pipelines transporting crude from America’s top-producing shale basin to major export hubs in Texas are nearing capacity limits. With US crude production hitting record highs, these pipeline constraints could throttle US oil exports at a time when uncertainty looms in the energy and geopolitical spaces.

Bloomberg cites new data from energy researcher East Daley Analytics, which says major pipelines between the Permian Basin and the Port of Corpus Christi pipeline are currently more than 90% full. That number could easily rise to 94% or 95% by the second half of 2025.

Bloomberg pointed out, “While output is set to keep growing, it will be difficult for that incremental output to reach international buyers without ample pipeline space.” 

Some of this crude will likely be redirected to the Houston area to ease congestion. Specifically, OneOK’s Longhorn and BridgeTex pipelines could serve as alternative routes for transporting crude to the Gulf Coast. 

Meanwhile, Enbridge’s Gray Oak pipeline expansion could help alleviate some of the bottlenecks in the Corpus Christi route.  

“Still, East Daley estimates even the company’s goal of increasing capacity on the line by 120,000 barrels per day won’t bring overall regional utilization below 90%,” Bloomberg said. 

With the US leading the world in crude oil production…

Export limitations on US energy products will spell disaster for the EU and other major trading partners that heavily rely on the US more than ever.

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

A major factor in public ignorance of economics is the manner in which economic forces transcend politics. These days, if something is going on of some major sort that seems either out of the control of politics or involves both major political parties, it is easily disappeared from public life.

That is the very essence of the inflation problem that has so seriously harmed the American standard of living. In the best estimate, the purchasing power of the dollar has fallen some 20 percent over four years. But depending on what you buy, or decline to buy simply because it is too expensive, the dollar could have lost 30 percent or even 50 percent depending on how one measures these things.

How and why did this happen? Economists for many hundreds of years have attempted to point to the real source. Nobel Prizes have been given out for sweeping and deeply empirical studies trying to show this. Reduced to its very essence, the problem of inflation traces to the money stock. If it expands more quickly than economic output, the value of all existing units of money will decline.

This is a law of nature, like gravity. There are complications within the law, of course, such as the precise mechanism by which newly created money lands in people’s bank accounts and is spent. There are other ways the scenario could unfold. Banks could hold the new money and not lend it out (2008 and following) or people could stuff new money in their mattress (1932 and following) thereby reducing money velocity.

Still, by and large, and over the long term, the price level reflects the money stock. The last four years have provided a near-perfect demonstration of that fact. We can see it by overlaying M2 (the most accurate measure of the stock of money we have) with the price of commodities purchased by producers (which are unchanged in quality and not subjected to crazy adjustment schemes). The result shows the direct relationship: prices respond to the expanded money stock with a time lag.

(Data: Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), St. Louis Fed; Chart: Jeffrey A. Tucker)

To be sure, there are other moving pieces. Deficit spending by Congress is what prompts the Treasury Department to issue the debt that the central bank (Federal Reserve) buys with computer entries (money printing). Without that step, the Fed would likely be called upon to intervene. But when the debt explodes, it cries out for a market of buyers. The Fed is there to pick up the tab. The result is an expansion of the money stock.

Simple, right? I think so. One might suppose that this would be common knowledge. It is not. This is because we have propagandized for many decades that the central bank is the solution and not the cause of inflation. Yes, it is frustrating. But such is the nature of the world around us. Truth usually takes a back seat to political opportunism and institutional protection.

Based on what I’m able to discern from existing data, it appears to be that the inflation problem (for now) has largely stopped getting worse at a fast rate. Writing in the summer of 2024, it does appear that annualized inflation is running at a rate consistent with the pre-lockdown past, at or below 2 percent. That does not mean that money is growing more valuable. It means that it is losing value at a rate far more slowly than in the most recent history.

That said, we all need to disabuse ourselves of the possibility that prices will go back to 2019 levels. The damage is done. The standard of living has been deeply harmed. It is what it is and nothing will change that. To be sure, there are ways to drag the price level back but that would require a dramatic deflation. That would simply never happen, not under present conditions. All we can really do is accept this sad reality and move on with our lives.

People are only now fully realizing what this inflation, even if it is stopped now, has done to their bank balances. The pain arrives every time you go to the store. If you have to replace some household appliance or a car, there is nothing but shock. Things are simply not adding up. A middle class income is now not enough. It’s a shocking reality and just now fully dawning on people. The media has been trumpeting a mythical recovery that does not exist.

That’s not to say that there are no answers to improving our future. In some ways, the Trump team is correct to put the focus on one answer: a freed-up energy sector that enables more drilling and refining. There are oceans of wealth under our feet. Its extraction has been seriously throttled by the Biden administration in the name of climate control, if you can believe it. Reversing those policies will indeed drive down the price of oil and gas and make transportation more affordable.

That will put downward pressure on prices. That would be much welcome. That said, a lower price for oil also reduces profitability and calls forth a reduction in drilling. It’s supply and demand. The only way to overcome this is dramatic deregulation that has some permanence to it, which is to say, a big regime change that becomes the new normal and cannot be reversed in four years by a new administration. That’s not easy.

The only great challenge is the fiscal problem. The reason the Fed swung into action is entirely traceable to Congress and the wild spending that took place from 2020 and following. The resulting debt has to be dealt with somehow.

I’m not among those who say that it can never be paid. Even awful fiscal problems are fixable with the right steps. The problem is that the steps absolutely must include dramatic spending cuts, meaning 1 to 2 percent of GDP for starters or about $280–500 billion, which is not even on the table.

It could happen just like what happened in Argentina. The new president elected only last year slashed the budget and incredibly fixed the fiscal problem almost immediately. If you have high economic growth and a dramatically shrinking federal budget, plus mass deregulation, you inspire investors, lenders, consumers, and everyone. Even seemingly intractable problems can be made to evaporate rather quickly.

The trouble is that there is very little political will in this country right now to cut the budget. And by cut, again, I don’t mean cuts in the rate of increase, like Washington language always says. I mean real cuts with whole agencies being made to disappear, dozens of them instantly. Doing this is entirely possible with political will. But I’ve yet to see any evidence that such will exists in the United States today.

Argentina had to reach the point of full collapse before the population was ready to try radical solutions. But those solutions have so far worked. It would be wise and smart to pursue the solution before the emergency hits.

For now, it seems like the inflation problem is not going to get dramatically worse. The damage is done and you feel it every time you go out shopping. This is our new reality. The money supply is relatively flat to gently rising so we can expect continued low rates of inflation using the existing price structures as the benchmark.

That said, everyone should be worried about this idea of September rate cuts. Yes, everyone would welcome lower rates on mortgages and credit cards. But with that comes a loosening of money aggregates and a genuine risk of restarting the inflationary fires. The Fed still sits on a massively ballooned balance sheet with a monetary base in the range of $6 trillion. This has some serious inflationary potential.

Remember what happened in the 1970s. There were fully three waves before the final horror hit in 1979-80. Is this our future? It does not have to be.

Authored by Jana J. Pruet via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Meta Platforms has agreed to pay $1.4 billion to settle a lawsuit brought by the state of Texas over its unauthorized capture and use of the personal biometric data of Facebook users, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office announced Tuesday.

In a 2022 lawsuit, Mr. Paxton accused Facebook’s parent company of using facial recognition technology to collect biometric data of more than 20 million Texans without their permission. The information was captured in photos and videos uploaded to the social media platform, according to the 29-page lawsuit.

The settlement is the largest obtained in a lawsuit brought by a single state, according to Mr. Paxton’s office.

“After vigorously pursuing justice for our citizens whose privacy rights were violated by Meta’s use of facial recognition software, I’m proud to announce that we have reached the largest settlement ever obtained from an action brought by a single State,” Mr. Paxton said. “Any abuse of Texans’ sensitive data will be met with the full force of the law.”

A Meta spokesperson told The Epoch Times that the company was glad to resolve the issue with the state of Texas.

“We are pleased to resolve this matter and look forward to exploring future opportunities to deepen our business investment in Texas, including potentially developing data centers,” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

The spokesperson noted that the agreement was not an admission of any wrongdoing.

The Texas lawsuit was the first major case brought and settled under the state’s 2009 Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act, making it unlawful to use facial recognition software to capture and store data without lawful consent. The law provides damages of up to $25,000 for each violation.

According to the court documents, Facebook captured the biometric data through a feature known as “tag suggestions,” which was first rolled out in 2011.

For nearly a decade, the company claimed the tag suggestions tool was implemented to make tagging photos easier for Facebook users. The feature was discontinued in September 2019.

“Facebook was disclosing users’ personal information to other entities who further exploited it,” the lawsuit states. “Moreover, Facebook often failed to destroy biometric identifiers within a reasonable time, exposing Texans to ever-increasing risks to their well-being, safety, and security.”

Meta will pay the state of Texas over five years, with the first installment due within 30 days of the executed date of the agreement.