Month: February 2024

Authored by Newt Gingrich via RealClear Wire,

Scott Rasmussen has done America an enormous service. He and his team have identified the driving forces behind the destructive radicalism which is pushing us into a cultural civil war.

While doing their two weekly national surveys, Rasmussen and his team noticed an anomaly. Out of every 1,000 or so respondents, there would always be three or four who were far more radical than everyone else. After several months of finding these unusual responses, Rasmussen realized they all shared three characteristics.

The radical responses came from people who had graduate degrees (not just graduate studies), family incomes above $150,000 a year, and lived in large cities (more than 10,000 people per zip code).

When Rasmussen aggregated the responses from more than 20 surveys, he realized these people made up a unique elite 1 percent.

He then did a national survey of only people with these characteristics – and found some astonishing results. He briefed me and our team on the findings – and joined me on Newt’s World to talk about it further.

When all other voters gave President Joe Biden a 41 percent job approval, the elite 1 percent rated him at 82 percent approval.

The elite 1 percent are surprisingly young. Sixty-seven percent are between 35 and 54 years old. They are 86 percent white. Almost half of them (47 percent) favor “Sanders-like policies.” They are overwhelmingly Democrats (73 percent).

The gap between the elite 1 percent and the rest of America is startling. While 57 percent of all voters say there is not enough individual freedom in America, 47 percent of the elite 1 percent say there is too much freedom. If you ask the section of the group that is politically obsessed (people who talk politics every day), 69 percent say there is too much individual freedom in America.

Given this, it’s not surprising that the elite 1 percent have great faith in government. Some 70 percent trust government to do the right thing most of the time.

Rasmussen said that this project has revealed the scariest single polling number he has seen in nearly 35 years of studying popular opinion. According to his data, 35 percent of the elite 1 percent (and 69 percent of the politically obsessed elite 1 percent) said they would rather cheat than lose a close election. Among average Americans, 93 percent reject cheating and accept defeat in an honest election. Only 7 percent reported they would cheat.

While only 6 percent of most voters have a very favorable opinion of members of Congress, 69 percent of the elite 1 percent have a very favorable view (this is almost unimaginable). While 10 percent of all voters have a favorable view of journalists, the elite 1 percent really like them (71 percent favorable). While 17 percent of all voters have a favorable view of college professors, the elite 1 percent just love them (76 percent). This tracks, because many of the elite 1 percent may be college professors.

To illustrate the scale of the gap between the elite 1 percent and the rest of the country, consider the elite 1 percent’s views on climate issues (and understand that these ideas are opposed by 63 percent to 83 percent of most Americans).

• 77 percent of the elite 1 percent would like to impose strict restrictions and rationing on the private use of gas, meat, and electricity.
• 72 percent of the elite 1 percent favor banning gas powered vehicles.
• 69 percent of the elite 1 percent favor banning gas stoves.
• 58 percent of the elite 1 percent favor of banning sport utility vehicles.
• 55 percent of the elite 1 percent favor banning non-essential air travel.
• 53 percent of the elite 1 percent favor banning private air conditioning.

As Rasmussen noted, the degree to which the elite 1 percent think their views represent those of the average American is astonishing.

According to Rasmussen, the most radical of the elite 1 percent were educated at what he calls the “dirty dozen:” Harvard, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, Northwestern, John’s Hopkins, Columbia, Stanford, Berkeley, Princeton, Cornell, MIT, and the University of Chicago.

The elite 1 percent who graduated from these schools deeply believe in government. Fifty-five percent believe there is too much individual freedom in America and that Americans should obey government and follow government leadership.

Rasmussen’s identification of the elite 1 percent begins to explain the depth of the tension between most Americans and the tiny group of elitists who control what Vladimir Lenin called “the commanding heights,” the elements of power which control the rest.

It is the elite 1 percent who dominate the universities, news media, judiciary, intelligence agencies, giant foundations, and most major corporations. Although they are relatively few, they marry each other, their children go to the same schools, and they hire and promote each other.

Charles Murray in his classic work, “Coming Apart,” analyzed zip codes and proved that graduates from “dirty dozen” universities that Rasmussen described live, work and play in the same zip codes. They are an isolated set and create a “power aristocracy” that has no knowledge of the rest of us – and contempt for most of us. This perfectly explains Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” line.

Scott Rasmussen has done pioneering work. Every American should read “The Elite 1% and the Battle for America’s Soul” to understand what we are fighting to change.

For more commentary from Newt Gingrich, visit Gingrich360.com. Also, subscribe to the Newt’s World podcast.

Transparency International has released its 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index which gauges levels of perceived public sector corruption in 180 countries and territories around the world. The index scores them on a scale of zero (highly corrupt) to 100 (clean) with the average score just 43 out of 100.

As Statista’s Martin Armstrong reports, more than two thirds of countries scored lower than 50, as the majority of countries have made “no progress or declined in the last decade.”

You will find more infographics at Statista

In 2023, the countries with the lowest perceived level of public sector corruption were Denmark, Finland and New Zealand, followed by Norway, Singapore and Sweden.

The opposite end of the index saw Somalia scoring just 11, making it the world’s most corruption-stricken country.

Syria, Venezuela and South Sudan were close behind with a score of 13.

The United States only came in 24th with a score of 69 – a slight increase on 2021’s score which was the country’s lowest since 2012 – and remains the same as that given in 2022.

Transparency International cites “weak ethics rules for the US Supreme Court” which have “raised serious questions of judicial integrity” in the country. It notes however that despite this, U.S. federal and state judiciaries “largely” continue to have sufficient independence.

Authored by Jennifer Kabbany via The College Fix,

A biological male who now identifies as female recently set two new track-and-field records for the Rochester Institute of Technology, prompting concern and anger among advocates who say it’s unfair to women competitors.

“Sadie Schreiner set the 200-meter record and qualified for the Atlantic Region Championship with a time of 25.27 seconds at the RIT January Friday Meet. The runner also broke the 300-meter record with a 40.78-second finish,” the National Desk reported Tuesday.

The Post Millennial pointed out that:

“For comparison, Schreiner’s times would have placed the athlete in 18th place in the men’s 200-meter race, and in 10th place in the men’s 300-meter race.”

This is not the first time Schreiner has made headlines.

Last month the athlete drew attention after a meet Dec. 8 at Nazareth University in New York at which the runner set a new record in the 300 meter with a time of 41.80 seconds, the Daily Mail reported.

Schreiner, who used to go by the name Camden Schreiner, “competed at the same meet a year ago in the men’s category of the 100m, where she came home in 19th place,” the Mail reported.

Schreiner’s accomplishments have caught the ire of women’s rights advocates, including Riley Gaines, who posted on X on Monday: “The thing that never happens happened again. Male, Sadie (Camden) Schreiner, broke two more women’s collegiate records at @RITtigers. Women’s records mean nothing if they’re set by men.”

The thing that never happens happened again

Male, Sadie (Camden) Schreiner, broke two more women’s collegiate records at @RITtigers

Women’s records mean nothing if they’re set by men pic.twitter.com/wtveNpPqsn

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) January 29, 2024

The Independent Council on Women’s Sports also posted on X: “Another male NCAA women’s record breaker… Women’s records are for WOMEN!”

Another male NCAA women’s record breaker…

Women’s records are for WOMEN! https://t.co/MevyHOn2WS

— ICONS (@icons_women) January 30, 2024

Schreiner’s wins come as more states pass laws banning biological males competing against women in collegiate sports. Ohio approved such as law last week, for example.

Last June, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law that prohibits biological men from competing in women’s collegiate sports. Last March, Arkansas also passed a law banning biological men from women’s sports.

In 2021, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis did the same.

Authored by Ayla Roberts via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

While a positive mindset is often associated with success, a new study suggests that optimism often leads to poor decision-making, especially when it comes to finances.

The study, conducted by the University of Bath in the UK and published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, sought to determine if people with an optimistic mindset had poorer decision-making cognition than people who were not optimistic. The researchers found that people with lower cognitive function tended to be more optimistic, which led them to make poor financial decisions.

Study Findings Explained

The study examined more than 36,000 individuals and found that people with realistic expectations and planning processes tend to make wiser decisions than people with a more optimistic mindset do.

Researchers discovered that people with the highest cognitive ability were 22 percent more likely to be realists (or pessimists) when it came to financial planning. They also had a 34.8 percent decrease in optimistic tendencies compared to people with lower cognitive ability. Cognitive ability was measured based on various cognitive skills, including verbal fluency, numerical reasoning, and memory. The results suggest that optimism bias causes people to expect unrealistically positive outcomes in life decisions, especially in regard to their finances.

“Optimism bias can lead to people not thinking about the consequences of their financial decisions when they think that everything will have a positive outcome or the outcome they expect,” Aura De Los Santos, a clinical psychologist, told The Epoch Times in an email. “High cognitive ability is associated with a higher level of realism because people understand that making deliberate decisions and thinking that there will be only one outcome is not very likely.”

What Is Optimism Bias?

Optimism bias is the difference between a person’s expectation and the resulting outcome. Around 80 percent of people have an optimism bias—so it appears to be an integral part of human nature.

Optimism bias can have both positive and negative effects. First, optimism may be beneficial for physical health as one study reported that optimists are 14 percent less likely to die before age 65 and 30 percent less likely to die from cardiac arrest. Optimism also reduces stress and anxiety, which can have positive long-term effects on one’s health.

“Positivism is also a reflection of having a healthy or positive outlook that can lift the mood when people are going through difficult situations, where they are able to see the other side of the coin,” Ms. De Los Santos explained.

On the other hand, excessive optimism can lead people to make decisions that may cause harm in the future, including risky financial decisions, unprotected sex, substance use, etc. The backlash of the subsequent consequences can come at a significant personal cost.

“People with an optimism bias may be very confident in their abilities, specifically in the financial decisions they make, not recognizing that they may have weaknesses in not knowing the moves they are making,” Ms. De Los Santos confirmed. “Overconfidence is beneficial for self-esteem, but it can also lead to failure.”

How Does Excessive Optimism Lead to Low Cognition?

Optimism innately causes people to take risks without properly considering the consequences. Excessive optimists may also believe that everything will turn out well in the end, even though they do not do what is required to achieve that outcome.

People with a more realistic or pessimistic mindset tend to make wiser decisions and display better judgment compared to optimists, suggesting that low cognitive ability is an underlying cause of an excessively optimistic mindset.

“An overly positive mindset can negatively affect human beings because they may not be prepared to deal with outcomes different from what they expect. Their capacity to adapt would be lower because they have not contemplated other scenarios,” Ms. De Los Santos explained. “Low cognitive ability can be related to the inability of people to realize that they are not making good decisions. It is likely that there is a close relationship between extreme positivity and incompetence.”

Is Realism the Best Way To Go?

Focusing on realistic thinking means you are prioritizing reality and therefore, the most realistic outcomes. Some research suggests that people with more realistic expectations (neither excessively positive nor excessively negative) tend to have better overall well-being. In general, decisions that are based on inaccurate, overly dramatic beliefs are far more likely to deliver worse outcomes compared with rational expectations.

“In my experience as a psychologist, I have seen how high cognition is related to the ability to think through different scenarios, to consider financial gains and losses, where the human being understands their capabilities and how far they go,” Ms. De Los Santos explained. “An overestimation of their abilities can be a way to reinforce their self-esteem, but at the same time it can harm the financial aspect because decisions are made without taking into account the impact they can have.”

Despite Powell’s pushback on expectations for a March rate cut, signaling that the US economy is hotter than the market – which until recently was pricing in 6 cuts for 2024 – expects, today DoubleLine’s Jeff Gundlach doubled down on his bearish outlook and told CNBC that a recession is still likely to occur in 2024 along with a higher unemployment rate.

“We know that inflation was going to come down,” Gundlach said. “For now, we think there will be a stall in the inflation rate coming down. This means the market is not going to get the Goldilocks picture that it was euphoric about a couple of weeks ago.”

Gundlach also criticized the Fed’s ‘higher-for-longer’ strategy, saying it posed a negative risk to future growth.

“The longer the Fed stays at what is going to be about a 200 or 300 basis points real interest rate on Fed funds, there is risk to economic growth as we move into this year,” he told CNBC.

Gundlach said higher rates continue to pose a major threat to the banking system but saw Wednesday jitters over New York Community Bancorp, as an isolated case. Nonetheless, there is still plenty of anecdotal evidence to give credence to the belief the urban and commercial real estate market is in a “debacle,” he added.

And while the bond king was sweating the coming shakeout (and ostensibly buying bonds which tends to surge during recessions), one former uber bear was “blissfully” complacent about the coming meltdown.

Steve Eisman, best known for being the other “Big Short”, for his highly profitable bet against subprime mortgages, said he’s now “more long-oriented” on the US market despite others’ deep concerns about ballooning federal deficits and crowding in stocks.

According to Bloomberg, the Neuberger Berman Group portfolio manager said there’s no real sign that the soaring US debt poses a problem for markets or the US government. He’s equally sanguine on equities, despite the parallels that some perceive between today’s market and the dot-com bubble era.

“I’m very blissful,” Eisman said Tuesday at the iConnections Global Alts conference in Miami Beach, referring to his broad market outlook. “I’m a happy-go-lucky kind of guy. It’s unbelievable.”

“This argument about the deficit has been going on for forty years,” Eisman said, adding there are few reasons to worry “until I see real signs there’s a problem.” It wasn’t clear what signs he is referring to, but one can be absolutely certain they will appear… whatever they are because the trajectory from here on out is clear.

The topic of crowding also came up: earlier this week we noted that according to JPMorgan, today’s Market Is “Far More Similar Than One May Think” To The Dotcom Bubble Peak.” That’s because the share of the top 10 stocks in the MSCI USA Index, including the Magnificent Seven, has climbed to 29.3% as of the end of December, just shy of the 33.2% peak seen in June 2000, sparking comparisons to the last days of the tech bubble.

And while many have (repeatedly) warned there won’t be a happy ending, Eisman expressed no concerns when asked about crowding issues. As for his view on the broader market, he said “it’s a lot more relaxing being more long-oriented,” Eisman said. “The futures are up. A feeling of bliss.”

While Eisman’s complacency is rather understandable – after all he has made his money and is now much more interested in a perpetuation of the status quo instead of profiting from its overhaul – his comments came after Black Swan author Nassim Nicholas Taleb warned earlier in Miami that the world’s biggest economy faces a “death spiral” of swelling debt, adding to recent alarms sounded by former US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin earlier this month.

President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that a Russian investigation into the shoot down of an Il-76 military transport plane which crashed close to the Ukrainian border last week has been concluded. 

He pointed the finger at Washington and its supplying advanced weapons to Kiev in the remarks by saying it was a US Patriot missile that downed the flight. “It’s been definitively established that the plane was shot down by an American Patriot air defense system,” Putin said during a campaign event for his reelection.

And after Moscow has raised the issue before the United Nations Security Council, Putin said that Moscow “insists” there be an international investigation into the incident.

Shortly after it happened, merely within hours of the large transport airplane downing, the Kremlin had claimed 65 Ukrainian prisoners of war had been aboard. Thus it accused Kiev forces of killing their own. In total 74 people including crew were reported killed.

Ukrainian officials strongly hinted their forces were behind it, but stopped short of outright taking responsibility. 

The Kharkiv and Belgorod regions in particular have for months witnessed a huge uptick in aggressive Ukrainian military cross-border action, which has included use of missiles, mortars, and drones.

Earlier this month, Ukraine and Russia exchanged nearly 500 prisoners, marking largest single swap since the early days of the war. This has driven speculation that the 65 POWs being transported on the downed Il-76 were possibly being prepared for another impending prisoner swap.

There have also recently been reports Western allies have secretly met with Ukraine on a peace plan with Russia as the US presidential election cycle gears up.

The Russian Investigative Committee released footage of Ukrainian prisoners of war boarding an Il-76 plane that crashed in the Belgorod region as a result of a terrorist attack. pic.twitter.com/YJx0WxZp8V

— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) January 26, 2024

A number of recent major mainstream US press reports have said Putin is more “open” than ever to the prospect of winding down the war, and reaching a peaceful settlement. But this would require Ukraine to cede territory, which so far Zelensky has been steadfast in refusing to do. 

Meanwhile this latest major incident shows the great powers continue inching toward direct clash, after the Ukraine conflict has already long been acknowledged as a proxy war. If it is true that a Patriot missile was used to shoot down the Russian plane, it violates Putin’s previously stated ‘red line’ on foreign-supplied weaponry.

Authored by Sam Dorman and Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A former contractor for the IRS was sentenced to five years in prison on Jan. 29 for leaking tax information associated with thousands of individuals, including former President Donald Trump.

Charles Littlejohn, 38, pleaded guilty in October 2023 to one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax returns and return information. He leaked President Trump’s information to The New York Times in 2019 and shared data on some of the wealthiest Americans with ProPublica in 2020. His crime, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said, was the “biggest heist” in IRS history. His sentence included $5,000 in fines and community service.

“It cannot be open season on our elected officials,” Judge Reyes said before adding that judges had a duty to make that clear. She later noted that Mr. Littlejohn purposefully sought his job at least in part to leak tax information.

Judge Reyes began the hearing in Washington by lending her “sympathy” for Mr. Littlejohn while accusing him of perpetrating an “attack” on the nation’s constitutional democracy.

“He targeted the sitting president of the United States of America and that is exceptional by any measure,” she told Mr. Littlejohn’s attorney. She added that in targeting President Trump, Mr. Littlejohn targeted the office of president.

Judge Reyes said she would go beyond sentencing guidelines, adding that his offense covered the personal information and tax information of a substantial number of individuals, as well as risking nonmonetary harm. She also scrutinized the plea deal, stating she had “no words” for the fact that he only faced one count.

House Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee had sent Judge Reyes a letter on Jan. 23, requesting the maximum sentence, while criticizing the Justice Department (DOJ) for not charging Mr. Littlejohn with additional counts.

The letter cited Mr. Littlejohn’s plea deal, in which he acknowledged that he “willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the investigation of his offenses.” It also noted that he engaged in “two separate acts related to misappropriation of taxpayer information.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) was among those whose tax returns were leaked. He offered a victim statement in which he criticized Mr. Littlejohn’s conduct and suggested he got the “plea deal of the century.”

President Trump’s attorney previously offered a statement on his behalf. According to CNN, she suggested that Mr. Littlejohn’s actions may have led to President Trump losing votes in the 2020 presidential election.

Mr. Littlejohn offered a statement in which he apologized to the court, the government, Mr. Scott, and others hurt by his actions.

“I alone am responsible for this crime,” he said in the courtroom.

Mr. Littlejohn added that he acted out of a “sincere and misguided belief” that he was serving the “public interest,” but “systematically [violated]” the privacy of thousands.

‘Misguided Idealism’

In a 15-page filing, prosecutors pushed for the maximum statutory sentence of five years in prison, arguing that Mr. Littlejohn’s betrayal of the public trust “merits significant punishment.”

Mr. Littlejohn’s attorney, Lisa Manning, requested a lighter sentence than the DOJ sought, noting that he had no criminal history and believed he was “[serving] the public interest.”

“Mr. Littlejohn is 38 years old, a first-time offender with a commendable past who committed this offense not for personal gain, not out of personal malice, but out of a belief that his violation of law would serve the public interest,” his sentencing memo read.

His attorney attempted to portray him as someone well-respected by friends, but engaged in conduct that was “the product not only of his misguided idealism but of life experience that led him to treat each day as if it were his last.”

When Ms. Manning argued that her client’s conduct wasn’t done out of political animus, Judge Reyes interjected, “Of course he did.”

According to Mr. Littlejohn’s sentencing memo, he “made up his mind” about leaking to the NY Times after an unexpected diagnosis for his father and a NY Times opinion piece titled, “Everyone’s Income Taxes Should Be Public.”  Similarly, Mr. Littlejohn’s attorney said he was concerned about “systemic inequality” and influenced by Emmanuel Saez’s book “Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay.”

“It had a profound impact on Mr. Littlejohn’s worldview,” his sentencing memo reads. “While the book suggested solutions to this inequality, Mr. Littlejohn feared that none would be achieved without robust public engagement with the topic.”

‘Above the Law’

The DOJ in its sentencing memo argued that Mr. Littlejohn “weaponized” his access to taxpayer data to “further his own personal, political agenda, believing that he was above the law.”

“A free press and public engagement with the media are critical to any healthy democracy, but stealing and leaking private, personal tax information strips individuals of the legal protection of their most sensitive data. … Defendant’s betrayal of the public trust merits significant punishment,” it reads.

Mr. Littlejohn’s attorney argued that the DOJ didn’t have a basis for “requesting punishment six times greater than the maximum Guideline sentence for this offense.”

The DOJ said Mr. Littlejohn “developed a sophisticated, detailed plan” for downloading tax returns and used more general search parameters to avoid triggering “scrutiny or detection of his scheme.” A plea document shows Mr. Littlejohn acknowledging that he “abused a position of trust and employed highly specialized technical skills in furthering his criminal activity.”

Mr. Littlejohn had access to “vast amounts of unmasked taxpayer data” when he worked for consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting firm that served public and private clients mostly on IRS contracts between 2008 and 2013.

After President Trump took office in 2017, Mr. Littlejohn sought to return to work for Booz Allen “with the intention of accessing and disclosing” the tax returns of the president, whom he viewed as “dangerous and a threat to democracy,” according to prosecutors.

Booz Allen’s spokesperson told Fox News that the firm fully supports the investigation into Mr. Littlejohn’s actions.

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms the actions of this individual, who was active with the company years ago,“ the spokesperson said. ”We have zero tolerance for violations of the law and operate under the highest ethical and professional guidelines. We fully supported the U.S. government in its investigation into this matter.”