Author: admin

Authored by Gordon Chang via The Gatestone Institute,

“China and the United States can together solve all of the problems of the world, if you think about it,” President-Elect Donald Trump said on December 16, at a Mar-a-Lago press conference.

He also called China’s President Xi Jinping “amazing” and confirmed he had invited the Chinese leader to his inauguration.

Earlier in the month, Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Paris and stated this in connection with efforts to end the war in Eastern Europe: “China can help.”

The victorious Trump of December was noticeably more friendly to China than the Trump of the long, grueling campaign. During the campaign, the Republican candidate was often in trade-war mode, promising to impose an additional across-the-board tariff of more than 60% on all Chinese goods.

“Trump wants to keep them all guessing,” Gregory Copley, president of the International Strategic Studies Association, told Gatestone after the Mar-a-Lago press event.

So which Trump will we see starting at noon on January 20, 2025?

Only one individual truly knows, and Trump himself is not showing his hand. In any event, trying to reach a grand bargain with China — what he was hinting at — would be exactly the wrong approach at this or any other moment.

Trump, of course, likes to make deals — famously he is the co-author of Trump: The Art of the Deal — and he could very well be looking to strike one with the Chinese regime. As Michael Schuman, writing in The Atlantic, pointed out, “a ‘grand bargain’ with Beijing has obvious appeal.”

Solving all the world’s problems, something Trump believes Xi and he can do, would ideally be one of them.

There are, however, problems confronting the next American president as he looks to strike a deal with Beijing.

As an initial matter, Trump has already tried to reach an accommodation with China: his Phase One Trade pact of January 2020.

He calls it “the best trade deal” ever, but it is now widely viewed as a bust. The Chinese, during an election year in America, never honored its terms. It is unlikely that Trump can do better this time with a Xi Jinping who is even far more arrogant than he was four years ago.

Second, Trump, despite what he says, does not have a good relationship with Xi.

“What Mr. Trump does not recognize is that the Chinese cultural concept of ‘friendship’ is a transactional relationship,” Charles Burton of the Sinopsis think tank told Gatestone. “Xi will never be his buddy because he sees himself as making his mark in Chinese history by becoming the global hegemonic successor to emperors of China’s self-defined glory days and to whom all must abase themselves in affirmation.”

As Burton, who once served as a Canadian diplomat in Beijing, notes, “Xi wants to manipulate the U.S. president into becoming aligned with the Chinese Communist Party’s worldview and ambitions and fecklessly abandon U.S. global leadership.”

Burton has it right. For decades, American presidents believed they could cooperate with Chinese communists, and State Department diplomats thought they could make China a “responsible stakeholder” in the international system. Yet whenever American leaders after the Cold War worked with Beijing on the issues of the day, their diplomacy produced horrible results, something particularly evident during the Global War on Terrorism, the Six-Party Talks to “denuclearize” North Korea, and the war in Ukraine.

American hopes of cooperation with China were always unrealistic. As Burton suggests, the Chinese regime has from the beginning dreamed of replacing the Westphalian international order of sovereign states with the Chinese imperial-era system in which emperors believed they not only had the Mandate of Heaven to rule tianxia — “All Under Heaven” — but they also were compelled by Heaven to do so.

Worse, Xi apparently believes that the United States, because of its inspirational impact on the Chinese people, poses an existential threat to his Communist Party rule. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman can argue that China should “let in more Taylor Swifts,” but that is exactly what Xi Jinping, who has been relentlessly attacking foreign culture, does not want to do.

Third, Trump faces an additional hurdle in his hoped-for dealings with the Chinese leader: Xi probably no longer has the clout in Beijing he once possessed.

The new American president can make a deal with Xi, but the arrangement may not stick because of discord inside China’s increasingly turbulent ruling group.

“Trump knows that Xi Jinping has been brought back under control by the Communist Party of China and by his loss of a power base within the People’s Liberation Army,” Copley, also editor-in-chief of Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy, pointed out. The issue is whether the Chinese leader still has the power to act. Xi is embattled: There are signs and hints of instability across his regime.

Moreover, thanks to Xi, only the most hostile answers are considered politically acceptable in Beijing, so it would be hard for him to compromise and, more important, to honor promises. Xi has based his policies during the last decade on the premise that China is ascendant. His signature line, from a speech in December 2020, is “the East is rising and the West is declining.”

An arrogant Xi Jinping is clearly in no mood to come to terms with Trump — or anyone else for that matter.

Xi’s hostile conduct is not something he is prepared to bargain away. On the contrary, his actions are the inevitable result of China’s communist political system, which idealizes violence, struggle and domination. This system means there can be no accommodation with the Communist Party.

The Chinese regime believes the world is its enemy. No enduring understanding, pact, deal or agreement is possible.

Roughly one in five adults in the United States say they plan to go to church on Christmas Day this year.

Some people, however, intend to worship at a very different altar come December 25; according to a survey by Statista Consumer Insights, six percent of U.S. adults will be heading to the pub.

As Statista’s Martin Armstrong shows in the following infographic, the battle between church and pub is also won by the more holy side in Germany.

You will find more infographics at Statista

While a lower share of people (12 percent) say they will attend church to celebrate the birth of Christ, only four percent admit to eyeing a trip to the pub.

Meanwhile in the UK, a solid 11 percent there said they plan to go to the pub, while 16 percent opted for the church.

Of course, with the survey allowing for multiple responses regarding their plans for the festive period, it is also possible that those choosing to go to their local drinking establishment also plan to go to church – the order of events could prove important, though.

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

Communities throughout the United States are debating the pros and cons of fluoridated water.

It’s a bit of a shock because the issue has been present in the underground of American political life for many decades. Community water fluoridation was an early example of using public services for the purpose of mass medicalization. The science was never there, however, and there is a growing awareness that the critics were always correct.

If you want fluoride, you can get your own, without mass dosing of the population without consent.

It’s the strangest thing. This issue has suddenly become a hot topic, even though it has been debated since the 1950s. One could say it is an issue whose time has come.

And not only this one.

There is new skepticism in the public mind about a huge range of things, the critics of which were only recently considered crazy cranks. The frenzy over the capacity of government to control the climate is meeting with new resistance. Governments and companies that imposed vaccine mandates are facing serious fines at the hands of court judgments. Legions of regime scientists are under fire for blessing pandemic-era lockdowns despite how much they harmed the population.

Only two years ago, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., founder of Children’s Health Defense, was written off as a conspiracy theorist. There’s only one problem: His theories not only came true, but his explanations (contained in two books) are enormously compelling, so much so that his following has grown to a real turning point. People ask if he can be confirmed as the new secretary of health and human services. My own sense is that there is no doubt.

The new head of the National Institutes of Health is Jay Bhattacharya, who dissented from lockdowns since their earliest days, tirelessly writing and speaking against the misuse of science in the name of controlling infectious disease. Once, during the darkest times, he and I spoke on the phone. He said to me with genuine conviction that we had the moral obligation to speak out because so many people were suffering. He had the genuine sense that this craziness had to end, or else society itself would be irreparably damaged.

Nearly five years later, his outlook has become an emergent orthodoxy. It’s but another symbol of dramatically changed times. We find daily articles in the mainstream press sounding alarms that there is a new populist movement that distrusts all the claims of science. It’s a wild exaggeration, consistent with censorship and the dogma of supposed experts. Good science is characterized by doubts and demands for evidence.

Conventional historiography divides the past millennium and a half into two great epochs: the age of faith and the age of science. This division was always overwrought. It imagines the culture from 500 A.D. to 1500 A.D. as mostly enraptured with mystical religious dogma and lorded over by popes and priests. Then the Enlightenment dawned, with its focus on evidence and the scientific method, and thus did we experience the dawn of technology and better lives.

There are some obvious correctives to make to this simple outlook. The “age of faith” was the very one that gave birth to scientific concerns, driven as they were in the Middle Ages by a confidence that the universe as created by God could be discovered and understood with fearless investigation. This was the essence of the scholasticism that emerged in the 12th century, which combined Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and classical wisdom with a drive to find the final truth in God himself.

Meanwhile, the birth of widespread secularism led to excesses in the name of science, such as terrifying eugenics (the belief that the human population should be bred with attention to quality, as in animal husbandry) and totalitarianism (the belief that the whole of society should be treated as a laboratory for experiments). The No. 1 mystical belief of the age of science was that the methods of the natural sciences can and should pertain to social sciences.

This key error wrecked so many different fields, from politics and economics to psychology and sociology. The attempt to take methods for studying stable things and use them to study rational and volatile things never worked. To make it plausible required building fallacies into the model. We see this everywhere now. Look up common fallacies to see the very core of the junk science that overwhelms us today.

I’ve written about many fallacies—not only post hoc ergo propter hoc but also the subject bias. Then you have the absolute junk science of modeling: Assume pigs can fly and that you can prove it.

Looking back, the most powerful and prescient critique of this outlook was F.A. Hayek’s amazing “Counterrevolution of Science,” a book I revisited in the depths of lockdown to find insight into what had gone wrong.

This is the 50th anniversary of Hayek’s Nobel Prize speech of 1974. He had received the prize for his work on business cycles. He could have delivered a technical and relatively noncontroversial talk. Instead, he used the occasion to send out a grave warning not only to all economists but also to everyone in academia and the intellectual world. Provocatively, he called his paper “The Pretense of Knowledge.” Consider the following passage:

“What I mainly wanted to bring out by the topical illustration is that certainly in my field, but I believe also generally in the sciences of man, what looks superficially like the most scientific procedure is often the most unscientific, and, beyond this, that in these fields there are definite limits to what we can expect science to achieve. This means that to entrust to science—or to deliberate control according to scientific principles—more than scientific method can achieve may have deplorable effects.

“The progress of the natural sciences in modern times has of course so much exceeded all expectations that any suggestion that there may be some limits to it is bound to arouse suspicion. Especially all those will resist such an insight who have hoped that our increasing power of prediction and control, generally regarded as the characteristic result of scientific advance, applied to the processes of society, would soon enable us to mould society entirely to our liking.

“It is indeed true that, in contrast to the exhilaration which the discoveries of the physical sciences tend to produce, the insights which we gain from the study of society more often have a dampening effect on our aspirations; and it is perhaps not surprising that the more impetuous younger members of our profession are not always prepared to accept this.

“Yet the confidence in the unlimited power of science is only too often based on a false belief that the scientific method consists in the application of a ready-made technique, or in imitating the form rather than the substance of scientific procedure, as if one needed only to follow some cooking recipes to solve all social problems [my emphasis]. It sometimes almost seems as if the techniques of science were more easily learnt than the thinking that shows us what the problems are and how to approach them.

“The conflict between what in its present mood the public expects science to achieve in satisfaction of popular hopes and what is really in its power is a serious matter because, even if the true scientists should all recognize the limitations of what they can do in the field of human affairs, so long as the public expects more there will always be some who will pretend, and perhaps honestly believe, that they can do more to meet popular demands than is really in their power.

“It is often difficult enough for the expert, and certainly in many instances impossible for the layman, to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate claims advanced in the name of science.”

He concluded his talk as follows:

“If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible [my emphasis]. He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants.

“There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try, ‘dizzy with success,’ to use a characteristic phrase of early communism, to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will.

“The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society—a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.”

There we go, words spoken half a century ago never more applicable than in our time. We seem to be learning. We seem to be applying the lesson. The only way to save science from itself is to apply it in proper ways while recognizing the limits of the ability to construct the world according to the imaginings of a handful of intellectuals. It’s tragic that we had to come to the point of nearly destroying the globe to discover this, but here we are. Let the rebuilding begin.

Keep the real science, but throw out the scientism.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

While it may not seem like the most romantic option, the useful gift of money is the most desired Christmas present in the United States this year.

As Statista’s Anna Fleck reports, according to the latest data from Statista’s Consumer Insights, when asked which gifts U.S. adults would personally most like to receive, 45 percent of women and 34 percent of men said cash or bank transfers. For both groups, clothing, textiles or shoes came in second position, followed by vouchers in third. Respondents could choose multiple options in the poll.

You will find more infographics at Statista

While there is a fair bit of overlap when looking at a breakdown of the data for men and women, some slight differences do emerge.

For example, cosmetics, perfume and body care ranked as the fourth most popular option among women (27 percent), while it came in 13th place out of the possible 20 options for men (12 percent).

Rounding off the top ten for men were board games/toys/dolls (15 percent) as well as event tickets (14 percent) and for women computers/computer accessories (17 percent) followed by board games/toys/dolls (15 percent).

Out of the polled options, “decoration articles” were among the lowest scoring gifts, only desired by 10 percent of female respondents and 6 percent of men.

Authored by Ted Snider via AntiWar.com,

On December 11, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban said that, as one of the last things he would do at the end of his term as the European Union’s rotating president, he proposed a Christmas truce between Ukraine and Russia. “At the end of the Hungarian EU presidency, we made new efforts for peace. We proposed a Christmas ceasefire and a large-scale prisoner exchange,” he said. Sadly, he said, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “clearly rejected and ruled out” the idea.

There is a history of the Christmas truce, and there is a history of civilian and military leaders rejecting it.

On Christmas morning of 1914, a truce spread across multiple regions along the hundreds of miles western front. The truce broke out spontaneously and was not officially sanctioned. Pope Benedict XV had proposed a Christmas truce, pleading “that the guns may fall silent at least upon the night the angels sang.” But officials on both sides rejected his plea.

But individual soldiers did not, and an unofficial, spontaneous truce broke out in different ways in different places. In some, British soldiers could see lanterns on small Christmas trees along the German trench and could hear German soldiers singing “Stille Nacht, heilige Nacht.” Amazed British soldiers applauded the carol singing and responded with their own chorus of “The First Noel.”

In other places along the front, British soldiers heard German soldiers inviting them to cross the no man’s land and “Come over here.” British soldiers answered, “You come half-way. I come half-way.” Sometimes the call included the invitation to bring a bottle and meet half way.

In yet another account, British soldiers decided to take advantage of the thick fog that blanketed the field that morning to repair their trenches. As the fog suddenly lifted, they saw German soldiers doing the same thing. The two sides were close enough to shout greetings back and forth. Some German soldiers said they wanted a truce for that day, and the British soldiers approached, meeting them in no man’s land where the enemies shook hands and exchanged cigarettes. They spoke, and for one brief moment, the war came to a stop.

There are remarkable reports in diaries of the effect the Christmas truce had. One British soldier recorded that “There was not an atom of hate on either side.” Another wrote in his diary, “Here we were laughing and chatting to men whom only a few hours before we were trying to kill!” British soldiers report Germans telling them in accented English that “they rather dislike[d]… the whole war in fact. They weren’t aggressive at all.” There are accounts of soldiers helping enemy soldiers collect their dead. There are even accounts of a soccer game breaking out. The Germans won 3-2.

Officials were not at all pleased by the peaceful actions of their armed forces. Military leaders feared that the camaraderie and conversation would allow the men to get to know each other and undermine their willingness to kill each other. Orders were given on both sides to cease all “fraternization with the enemy.” Officers were ordered to fire on enemy soldiers who approached across no man’s land. Soldiers who violated the order face court martials.

That would be the first and last Christmas truce in World War I. After that magical Christmas, High Command on both sides prevented it from ever happening again.

In December 2022, faith leaders’ call for a Christmas truce in the Russia-Ukraine war “in the spirit of the truce that occurred in 1914 during the First World War” was drowned out by the continued sound of artillery.

And, now three years into the war, Orban has repeated that call. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó says that Zelensky “forcefully but politely” refused a call from Orban to discuss a Christmas truce. Despite that initial rejection, Hungary is still pushing for the truce. Orban says that Moscow responded positively to the idea of a Christmas truce and prisoner exchange and that, though Kiev has so far rejected the idea, hope still remains. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also claims that “Putin has supported” the effort of Orban and that “Russian President Vladimir Putin backs Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s efforts to achieve a Christmas ceasefire in Ukraine.”

Asked about the Christmas truce proposal that “Orban seems to floating,” Mike Waltz, Trump’s pick for national security advisor, answered that “if that is some type of ceasefire as a first step, again, we’ll – we’ll take a hard look at what that means.”

Russia and Ukraine have agreed on nothing during this war. There has even been a cultural battle in Ukraine between Russian and Ukrainian linked Orthodox churches. But, perhaps, the two churches can agree that Jesus’ message was not one of war.

It is unlikely that the two sides will officially agree to a Christmas truce. It is, perhaps, even unlikely that small, spontaneous truces will pop up along the Donbas front. But, perhaps, in some small pocket of the front, a small number of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers will approach each other half way across the field that separates them and shake hands and exchange Christmas greetings and remind their leaders that the people who are suffering and dying are not just enemy soldiers but, more essentially, humans and brothers who just want to go home and stop this dreadful war.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

President-elect Donald Trump said on Dec. 24 that he plans to direct the Department of Justice (DOJ) to pursue the death penalty against the worst violent offenders.

His remarks came a day after outgoing President Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 37 death row prisoners to life in prison, including several mass murderers and child killers.

Trump first criticized Biden’s decision to grant the commutations—in all cases to murder convicts—writing in a post on Truth Social that relatives and friends of the victims are “further devastated” by the move. The president-elect then declared in a separate post his intention to prioritize justice for victims of violent crime and broaden the use of capital punishment.

“As soon as I am inaugurated, I will direct the Justice Department to vigorously pursue the death penalty to protect American families and children from violent rapists, murderers, and monsters,” Trump wrote in the post.

“We will be a Nation of Law and Order again!”

Besides generally signaling a tough-on-crime approach for his administration, Trump’s message suggests he intends to pursue legal reform that would restore the use of the death penalty as a punishment in cases of rape.

A 1977 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia, however, rendered the death penalty for rape unconstitutional in cases where adult victims survived the assault, further narrowed to include surviving child victims by a ruling in Kennedy v. Louisiana in 2008.

This is not the first time Trump has signaled his intention to expand the use of capital punishment and reverse the moratorium on federal executions imposed by Biden. Throughout his presidential campaign, Trump signaled he would undo the moratorium and make more categories of criminals eligible for capital punishment, including child rapists and drug and human traffickers.

During Trump’s first term in office, the federal government carried out 13 executions after resuming federal executions in 2020, following a 17-year hiatus. This marked the highest number of federal executions carried out under a single president since the 1950s and reflected Trump’s long-standing pledge to get tough on crime.

The Biden administration, by contrast, has prioritized a shift away from the death penalty in favor of life sentences without parole for nearly all crimes.

Biden, in a Monday statement explaining his actions, said his commutation decision was driven by a commitment to ending the federal death penalty, which he believes is inconsistent with a just and effective legal system.

“These commutations are consistent with the moratorium my Administration has imposed on federal executions, in cases other than terrorism and hate-motivated mass murder,” Biden said.

“Make no mistake: I condemn these murderers, grieve for the victims of their despicable acts, and ache for all the families who have suffered unimaginable and irreparable loss. But guided by my conscience and my experience as a public defender, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vice President, and now President, I am more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level.

“In good conscience, I cannot stand back and let a new administration resume executions that I halted.”

Biden’s decision to commute the sentences of convicted killers sparked outrage among many conservatives, while the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) celebrated the move, pointing out that it aligned with calls from more than 130 civil and human rights organizations, faith leaders, exonerees, victims’ family members, and law enforcement officials urging Biden to act on federal death row cases.

“President Biden has reaffirmed the power of redemption over retribution and reminds us that state-sanctioned killing does not make us safer,“ Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said in a statement.

”The ACLU has long advocated against the death penalty and shed light on its fundamental flaws: it is error prone, racially biased, and a drain on public resources.”

Critics of the death penalty, including the ACLU, argue that the punishment does not serve as a significant deterrent to violent crime and that the high costs associated with capital trials and prolonged appeals could be better spent on crime prevention and victim support.

Supporters of capital punishment argue that it serves as ultimate justice for heinous crimes, provides closure to victims’ families, and that the financial burden of executions is a necessary cost to uphold justice and deter would-be offenders.

In his Dec. 23 decision, Biden commuted the sentences of 37 out of 40 death row inmates. The three federal inmates who continue to face execution are 2013 Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev; Dylann Roof, who fatally shot nine people at a church in South Carolina in 2015; and Robert Bowers, who fatally shot 11 congregants at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life Synagogue in 2018.

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

Four thousand years ago, the rulers of ancient Babylon discovered a technique to stave off violent revolts.

In ancient times, people often became hopelessly indebted to their creditors. As debts mounted, social unrest would boil over, threatening the stability of the entire ruling system.

The rulers of the ancient world understood this dangerous dynamic.

Their solution was radical yet effective: enact widespread debt cancellation—a debt jubilee.

Debt jubilees acted as societal pressure release valves when no other options remained.

The practice spread throughout the ancient world and became codified in various civilizations.

For instance, the Book of Leviticus formalizes debt jubilees as the conclusion of a 49-year biblical cycle—seven cycles of seven years.

I believe this ancient practice is poised for a major comeback as government, corporate, and personal debt levels today have reached unsustainable heights.

The social, political, and investment implications will be profound.

Debt Jubilees: Redistribution, Not Wealth Creation

It’s important to note that debt jubilees do not create new wealth—they simply redistribute it.

Debt jubilees are government decrees that trigger massive wealth transfers, creating big winners and losers.

President Biden’s plan for student loan forgiveness marks the beginning of modern debt jubilees.

His student loan forgiveness plan is unprecedented. Unilateral executive action of this scale has never occurred during peacetime. Moreover, Congress, not the president, is supposed to make spending decisions of this magnitude.

Even Obama’s former chief economic advisor, Jason Furman, criticized Biden’s move, calling it:

“Pouring roughly half a trillion dollars of gasoline on the inflationary fire that is already burning—reckless.”

Beyond the inflationary impact—which I’ll address shortly—Biden’s student loan jubilee will set a precedent that will be hard to undo.

Consider how those who acted prudently feel.

Many avoided student debt by choosing less expensive career paths, cutting back on spending to pay for college without borrowing, or paying off their student loans entirely.

These people are probably feeling like suckers now.

Not only do they receive no relief, but they also face the burden of footing the bill for those whose loans will be forgiven.

I imagine these people will be angry and probably have considerable car, mortgage, and credit card debt, as many Americans do. So they will want debt relief, too… and I bet they will get it.

Amid rising prices, consumer debt is skyrocketing. It is at an all-time high of nearly $18 trillion, as seen in the chart below.

With interest rates rising recently, the cost of servicing this record debt is becoming unbearable for many.

As Americans hit their financial breaking points, I believe debt forgiveness demands will only grow louder—extending far beyond student loans.

All it takes is a President’s pen stroke to wipe out hundreds of billions in debt.

The student loan jubilee will set a powerful precedent.

I don’t think it will be long before we see a credit card jubilee, a car loan jubilee, or even a mortgage jubilee.

How will the government pay for all these jubilees?

Raising taxes enough to cover them seems improbable.

Issuing more debt to cancel other debts would be contradictory.

That leaves money printing as the only viable option.

This is why future debt jubilees will pour “gasoline on the inflationary fire that is already burning.”

But it’s not just consumer debt that’s unsustainable. The biggest problem is the US government’s federal debt—a much larger issue looming on the horizon.

The Federal Debt Endgame: A Coming Crisis

The US federal government has the largest debt in the history of the world—and it’s growing at a rapid, unstoppable pace.

In short, the US government is fast approaching its financial endgame.

Here’s why…

Today, the US federal debt has gone parabolic, amounting to over $36 trillion.

To put it in perspective, if you earned $1 per second 24/7/365—about $31 million per year—it would take over 1,148,531 years to pay off the US federal debt.

And that assumes the debt stops growing, which it won’t.

The growth rate is not even going to slow down. It’s going to increase exponentially.

The truth is, the debt will keep piling up unless Congress makes some politically impossible decisions to cut spending.

For example, tens of millions of Baby Boomers—about 22% of the population—will enter retirement in the coming years. Cutting Social Security and Medicare is a sure way to lose an election.

With the most precarious geopolitical situation since World War 2, defense spending is unlikely to be cut. Instead, defense spending is all but certain to increase.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently said: “Barely staying even with inflation or worse is wholly inadequate. Significant additional resources for defense are necessary and urgent.”

In short, efforts to reduce expenditures will be meaningless unless it becomes politically acceptable to make chainsaw-like cuts to entitlements, national defense, and welfare while reducing the national debt to lower the interest cost.

In other words, the US would need a leader who—at a minimum—returns the federal government to a limited Constitutional Republic, closes the 128 military bases abroad, ends entitlements, kills the welfare state, and repays a large portion of the national debt.

However, that’s a completely unrealistic fantasy. It would be foolish to bet on that happening.

In short, the US government is trapped. It’s game over.

They have no choice but to “reset” the system—that’s what governments do when they are trapped.

How Will the US Reset the System?

Nobody knows for sure. But I’d bet a debt jubilee of biblical proportions will be a major part of it.

So then, how will the US government repudiate its impossible federal debt burden?

My guess is that they won’t be explicit. That would look too much like a default. It would destroy the role of the US as the center of the world’s financial system.

Given a choice, I don’t think the US government would choose immediate self-destruction. Since power does not relinquish itself voluntarily, we should presume they’ll decide to stealthily implement their federal debt jubilee through inflation.

Inflation benefits debtors, allowing them to borrow in dollars and repay in dimes.

And since the US government is the biggest debtor in the history of the world, it stands to gain the most from inflation.

Inflation: The Ultimate Debt Jubilee

That’s why I believe the federal debt jubilee will come in the form of a massive wave of inflation.

The coming debt jubilees could wipe out trillions in liabilities while unleashing previously unimaginable inflation.

That could trigger the largest wealth transfer in history.

Remember, debt doesn’t exist within a vacuum. It’s a liability for the borrower and an asset for the lender.

Those storing wealth in government currencies, bonds, and other paper assets will be the biggest losers.

Debtors and owners of scarce, unencumbered, hard assets will be the big winners.

It’s certainly not a just outcome.

Prudent savers shouldn’t have to pay for the excesses of debtors.

But notions of what is just or not didn’t stop Biden’s student loan jubilee—and they won’t stop the coming jubilees.

Prepare Now for the Coming Reset

Although it will be an unfortunate outcome for many people, there is simply nothing anyone can do now.

The debt levels have already reached a critical point, and the government may soon see jubilees as a politically expedient option.

That’s why it’s crucial to recognize the reality of this Big Picture and position yourself accordingly.

That means owning scarce and valuable assets that are not simultaneously someone else’s liability.

Crucially, this excludes fiat currency in bank accounts.

Remember, fiat currency is the unbacked liability of a bankrupt government.

Further, once you deposit currency into a bank, it is no longer yours. Technically and legally, it is the bank’s property, and what you own instead is an unsecured liability of the bank.

In an era of jubilees in which debts are wiped clean, you won’t want to be on the other end of unsecured liabilities or IOUs of any kind.

I believe this “reset” could happen soon—and it won’t be pretty for many.

Most people have no idea how bad things could get—or how to prepare.

That’s why I’ve published a detailed guide called The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years: The Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now. Click here to download the free PDF.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

From looking forward to harassment at restaurants to the purchase of Antifa-themed Christmas gifts, some appear to be planning for a hate-fest in the New Year…

“May Trump supporters and Trump voters and Trump himself never know peace.”

Those words, from Disney’s new Snow White actress Rachel Zegler, came shortly after half of the country, roughly 77 million Americans, voted for Donald Trump.

Only a few weeks ago, Kamala Harris and her supporters were rallying the country to choose “love over hate.” Now, the “joy” is gone. Tis the season of the liberal hate-fest.

As Washington prepares for the inauguration, we are seeing a return to rage.

During the first Trump administration, liberal servers and restaurant owners pledged not to serve Trump officials.

Now, the Washingtonian is reporting on the planned resumption of the harassment of those serving in the Trump administration.

Zac Hoffman, manager at the National Democratic Club and “D.C. restaurant veteran,” told the magazine that abusing conservatives was only natural and understandable:

“You expect the masses to just ignore RFK eating at Le Diplomate on a Sunday morning after a few mimosas and not to throw a drink in his face?”

One bartender stated that:

Trump people may “theoretically [have] the power to take away your rights, but I have the power to make you wait 20 minutes to get your entrée.”

Suzannah Van Rooy, a server and manager at Beuchert’s Saloon on Capitol Hill, declared that she would not serve some Trump officials.

“It’s not, ‘Oh, we hate Republicans,’” she said. “It’s that this person has moral convictions that are strongly opposed to mine, and I don’t feel comfortable serving them.”

Beuchert’s later fired Van Rooy.

This campaign of hate is all too familiar to conservatives. Many remember when White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family were kicked out of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. As others were denied service or chased from restaurants, Democratic members like Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA, supported such harassment.

For those restaurants not willing to follow the Red Hen model, the response was equally unhinged. Mariya Rusciano runs a D.C. pizza restaurant. She posted congratulations to Trump on X after the election to encourage everyone to come together as a nation. The response from Democrats was furious, filled with pledges to boycott the restaurant and force it out of business.

It is not just service and civility that are scarce in Washington. Even while accusing Trump of putting his political and personal interests ahead of the nation, Biden is now reportedly moving to veto a bipartisan bill to relieve pressure on our overwhelmed court system.

The Judges Act, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, would add 66 new judgeships to an over-worked court system. The White House supported the bill right up until Trump won the election. While some Democrats are still trying to get the White House to change its mind, liberal groups are applauding the expected veto “to prevent President Trump from having more vacancies.”

If Biden carries out his threat, it will be not only gratuitous but illogical. The bill deliberately staggers the addition of judges over the next decade so that presidents of both parties will presumably be able to appoint them. Moreover, the Senate is still closely divided, and “blue-slipping” (whereby senators can hold up some nominations) remains in effect.

More importantly, the reason for this bipartisan effort is due to a dire need for our courts. Judges are drowning in dockets with rising caseloads. In 2004, the number of cases in district court pending for more than three years was 18,280. This year, there are 81,617.

If justice delayed is justice denied, our court system is becoming a tar pit of injustice, with litigants left without verdicts or relief for years.

The word of the intended veto stripped away any pretense of the White House putting the public interest before politics. A veto would put rage before reason.

In my recent book, I discussed how addictive rage is. People do not like to admit it, but they like being angry. Sometimes, people can choose madness as a release from reality. It offers a righteous license to slip from the bounds of civility and decency. It allows people to harass Republicans in restaurants or to scream profanities outside of their homes.

It allows a president to say that he might block judgeships for a struggling court system, just because he does not want his successor to make any of the appointments.

It is the reason 41 percent of adults under 30 believe that killing others, like healthcare executives, is justified, according to an Emerson College poll.

We cannot seem to shake this rage addiction even after an election or during a holiday committed to peace and understanding. One liberal site, Crooked Media, is actually selling holiday items featuring the violent extremist group Antifa — one of the most anti-free speech groups in history, which routinely attacks journalists, speakers, and conservative demonstrators.

Created by former Obama staffers Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, and Tommy Vietor, the Crooked Media site is selling a line of Antifa items for liberals, including Antifa onesies for infants and “Antifa Dad” shirts to seemingly celebrate political violence.

It seems the joy, bipartisanship, and civility have all expired like last year’s eggnog.  Even Disney’s new Snow White seems to have taken the cue from the Evil Queen and treated this election as “a blast of wind to fan my hate.”

And we are not even at the inauguration yet.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Dave Portnoy of Barstool Sports delivered a Christmas miracle for a veteran-owned, mom-and-pop pizza shop in Baltimore City that was on the verge of closing its doors on Christmas Day. 

During the “Barstool Pizza Review,” Portnoy visited TinyBrickOven in Federal Hill, located in the Inner Harbor area of Baltimore City—just down the street from M&T Bank Stadium.

Portnoy stepped into the tiny pizza shop, where the super-energetic owner greeted him. After a minute of talking, the owner revealed that the pizza shop was closing on Christmas Day because of financial hardships. 

“This is a re-heat – thin New York kind of style …. I really like it,” Portnoy said in the review of the pizza.

After the review, Portnoy said, “There is no way this place should be going out of business.” 

He then asked the owner: “Can I ask you something … How much money do you need to stay open?”

The owner responded: “I’m not sure.” 

Portnoy said: “Well if there is somebody super-rich right in front of your face who is in the pizza business – then what do you need to stay open for a year?”

The owner said that figure would be around $60,000. Portnoy responded: “Done.” 

Barstool Pizza Review – TinyBrickOven (Baltimore, MD) pic.twitter.com/hDqhclD45D

— Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) December 23, 2024

TinyBrickOven’s website provides an overview of its financial hardships:

But now, that home is in danger of disappearing. This isn’t by choice; it’s because Senator Bill Ferguson and Delegate Luke Clippinger refuse to approve our liquor license—while businesses just a few blocks away are granted theirs. Though we’ve done everything we can, their refusal may mean the end for us, despite the law allowing them the power to help.

“Looks like the owner is truly as kind and genuine as he came off,” one X user said. 

Looks like the owner is truly as kind and genuine as he came off

Goes back to 2020 https://t.co/ee3cXvevUa

— Teddy (@TeddyRoosevalt) December 24, 2024

Portnoy has a soft spot for mom-and-pop pizza shops. During Covid, he raised more than $25 million to support small businesses impacted by the government-forced shutdown of the economy. 

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Proposition 36, which increases punishments for some retail theft and drug possession offenses, overwhelmingly passed in California despite the opposition of Gov. Gavin Newsom and most Democrats. 

Newsom denounced the measure as something that “takes us back to the 1980s, mass incarceration.”

Despite discussing her tough-on-crime record in the election, Vice President Kamala Harris refused to support the measure or even state if she voted for it.

Now, however, two shoplifters may have given the law the greatest endorsement.

The Seal Beach Police Department in California released a video of three alleged shoplifters who seemed shocked to learn that the state was now cracking down on the rampant shoplifting in the state.

The video from the store shows the three casually stealing from an Ulta Beauty store with what police said was nearly $650 worth of stolen merchandise.

The police then released what is described as “… a friendly reminder that Proposition 36, which increases punishments for some retail theft and drug possession offenses, went into effect Wednesday morning in California.”

One alleged shoplifter was shocked to find out some shoplifting offenses are now considered a felony in California.

“It’s a felony?” one of the women asks the other in the back of the patrol car.

“B—h new laws,” the woman responds. “Stealing is a felony and this Orange County b—h. They don’t play.”

That could well be the next slogan for tough-on-crime measures in the state.

I have previously written about the lack of deterrence for shoplifting in cities like San Francisco and New York.

The fact is that most criminals are rational actors who make a calculus of risk in the commission of offenses. The mobs hitting stores like Bloomingdales are organized gangs. Even shoplifters stealing from stores like Costco and Target are known to quickly sell the goods on the internet through fences.

In 1968, University of Chicago economist Gary Becker wrote his famous article, “Crime and Punishment,” in which he argued that criminals make calculations based on the certainty and the severity of punishment. If you increase the certainty or likelihood of punishment, you can achieve deterrence with lower levels of punishment. Conversely, if there is a low detection rate for crime, you can deter some crimes with higher levels of punishment.

This shoplifter seems to be working out that calculus of risk belatedly in the back of a patrol car.