Month: March 2024

The Great Replacement Loophole: Illegal Immigrants Score 5-Year Work Benefit While “Waiting” For Deporation, Asylum

The Great Replacement Loophole: Illegal Immigrants Score 5-Year Work Benefit While “Waiting” For Deporation, Asylum

Over the past several months we’ve pointed out that there has  been zero job creation for native-born workers since the summer of 2018…

… and that since Joe Biden was sworn into office, most of the post-pandemic job gains the administration continuously brags about have gone foreign-born (read immigrants, mostly illegal ones) workers.

And while the left might find this data almost as verboten as FBI crime statistics – as it directly supports the so-called “great replacement theory” we’re not supposed to discuss – it also coincides with record numbers of illegal crossings into the United States under Biden.

In short, the Biden administration opened the floodgates, 10 million illegal immigrants poured into the country, and most of the post-pandemic “jobs recovery” went to foreign-born workers, of which illegal immigrants represent the largest chunk.

Asylum seekers from Venezuela await work permits on June 28, 2023 (via the Chicago Tribune)

‘But Tyler, illegal immigrants can’t possibly work in the United States whilst awaiting their asylum hearings,’ one might hear from the peanut gallery. On the contrary: ever since Biden reversed a key aspect of Trump’s labor policies, all illegal immigrants – even those awaiting deportation proceedings – have been given carte blanche to work while awaiting said proceedings for up to five years…

… something which even Elon Musk was shocked to learn.

Which leads us to another question: recall that the primary concern for the Biden admin for much of 2022 and 2023 was soaring prices, i.e., relentless inflation in general, and rising wages in particular, which in turn prompted even Goldman to admit two years ago that the diabolical wage-price spiral had been unleashed in the US (diabolical, because nothing absent a major economic shock, read recession or depression, can short-circuit it once it is in place).

Well, there is one other thing that can break the wage-price spiral loop: a flood of ultra-cheap illegal immigrant workers. But don’t take our word for it: here is Fed Chair Jerome Powell himself during his February 60 Minutes interview:

PELLEY: Why was immigration important?

POWELL: Because, you know, immigrants come in, and they tend to work at a rate that is at or above that for non-immigrants. Immigrants who come to the country tend to be in the workforce at a slightly higher level than native Americans do. But that’s largely because of the age difference. They tend to skew younger.

PELLEY: Why is immigration so important to the economy?

POWELL: Well, first of all, immigration policy is not the Fed’s job. The immigration policy of the United States is really important and really much under discussion right now, and that’s none of our business. We don’t set immigration policy. We don’t comment on it.

I will say, over time, though, the U.S. economy has benefited from immigration. And, frankly, just in the last, year a big part of the story of the labor market coming back into better balance is immigration returning to levels that were more typical of the pre-pandemic era.

PELLEY: The country needed the workers.

POWELL: It did. And so, that’s what’s been happening.

Translation: Immigrants work hard, and Americans are lazy. But much more importantly, since illegal immigrants will work for any pay, and since Biden’s Department of Homeland Security, via its Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency, has made it so illegal immigrants can work in the US perfectly legally for up to 5 years (if not more), one can argue that the flood of illegals through the southern border has been the primary reason why inflation – or rather mostly wage inflation, that all too critical component of the wage-price spiral  – has moderated in in the past year, when the US labor market suddenly found itself flooded with millions of perfectly eligible workers, who just also happen to be illegal immigrants and thus have zero wage bargaining options.

None of this is to suggest that the relentless flood of immigrants into the US is not also driven by voting and census concerns – something Elon Musk has been pounding the table on in recent weeks, and has gone so far to call it “the biggest corruption of American democracy in the 21st century“, but in retrospect, one can also argue that the only modest success the Biden admin has had in the past year – namely bringing inflation down from a torrid 9% annual rate to “only” 3% – has also been due to the millions of illegals he’s imported into the country.

We would be remiss if we didn’t also note that this so often carries catastrophic short-term consequences for the social fabric of the country (the Laken Riley fiasco being only the latest example), not to mention the far more dire long-term consequences for the future of the US – chief among them the trillions of dollars in debt the US will need to incur to pay for all those new illegal immigrants Democrat voters and low-paid workers. This is on top of the labor revolution that will kick in once AI leads to mass layoffs among high-paying, white-collar jobs, after which all those newly laid off native-born workers hoping to trade down to lower paying (if available) jobs will discover that hardened criminals from Honduras or Guatemala have already taken them, all thanks to Joe Biden.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/10/2024 – 19:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/RG4wsf6 Tyler Durden

“Sleazy” Liz Cheney Loses It After Bombshell Report Claims She “Suppressed Exonerating Evidence” With J6 Committee

“Sleazy” Liz Cheney Loses It After Bombshell Report Claims She “Suppressed Exonerating Evidence” With J6 Committee

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (of the revolving door Haliburton –> White House –> war profiteer dynasty) came unglued this weekend following a report by The Federalist‘s Mollie Hemingway, which accuses Cheney and the January 6 committee of suppressing exonerating evidence of then-President Trump’s push for 10,000 national guard troops to protect the nation’s capital on the day of the Capitol riot.

To summarize The Federalist;

  • Cheney and the J6 committee “falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops.”
  • In truth, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee “included precisely that evidence from a key source.”
  • That key source, Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato, said he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows push DC Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as needed to protect DC on Jan. 6.
  • Ornato also testified that Trump suggested 10,000 troops to keep the peace at public rallies and protests scheduled for Jan. 6, 2021 – and that the White House was frustrated with Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller’s slow deployment of assistance on the day of the riot.
  • Ornato’s testimony was corroborated by Kash Patel, the former chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense.
  • According to The Federalist, this information was suppressed.

Hemingway writes that the committee not only mischaracterized the interview, they also suppressed the transcript from public review. 

On top of that, committee allies began publishing critical stories and even conspiracy theories about Ornato ahead of follow-up interviews with him. Ornato was a career Secret Service official who had been detailed to the security position in the White House.

Cheney frequently points skeptics of her investigation to the Government Publishing Office website that posted, she said, “transcripts, documents, exhibits & our meticulously sourced 800+ page final report.” That website provides “supporting documents” to the claims made by Cheney and fellow anti-Trump enthusiasts.

However, transcripts of fewer than half of the 1,000 interviews the committee claims it conducted are posted on that site. It is unclear how many of the hidden transcripts include exonerating information suppressed by the committee. -The Federalist

Click here to read the entire report, which includes Ornato’s full answers to the committee.

“The former J6 Select Committee apparently withheld Mr. Ornato’s critical witness testimony from the American people because it contradicted their pre-determined narrative. Mr. Ornato’s testimony proves what Mr. Meadows has said all along: President Trump did in fact offer 10,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S. Capitol, which was turned down,” said Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA). Loudermilk’s subcommittee is reviewing the work of the Jan. 6 committee following accusations of unethical behavior at the expense of accuracy, along with collusion with other Democrat efforts at political persecution.

Liz Loses it

On Saturday, conservative commentator Mark Levin called Cheney out, posting on X: “Sleazy Liz Cheney needs to receive some of the Stalinist medicine she introduced into the body politick against scores of patriotic Americans — that is, she needs to be compelled to testify under oath about, among other things, what knowledge she may have about: possible witness tampering, censorship of exculpatory information and testimony, the destruction of committee evidence and data, etc.”

Cheney responded, calling Mollie Hemingway a “bozo” – and directing people to various sections of the Jan. 6 report in which Secretary of Defense Miller (the guy who was ‘slow to deploy’ assistance) said Trump never ordered 10,000 troops, and that Kash Patel is “not a credible witness” (as determined by a judge with a conflict noted below).

Note that Cheney never addresses the suppression of information.

Cheney was dismantled in the replies:

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/10/2024 – 18:05

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

“Made By China” Is Possibly The Biggest Risk To The Economy, And It Is Staring Us Right In The Face

“Made By China” Is Possibly The Biggest Risk To The Economy, And It Is Staring Us Right In The Face

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

The Threat of “Made by China 2025”

I cannot remember the first time that we discussed the transition from “Made in China” to “Made by China.” I do know that back in April 2023 we Locked in Some Themes, one of which was the Made by China theme. We also framed the discussion around the dollar, the yuan, and “reserve currency” status using the “Dark Web” as a useful way to think about it. Some reports age better than others, and that report seems to have aged particularly well.

“Made by China” has been a theme that we have been using more and more. We are also starting to see it referenced more frequently. Not usually in those exact words (which we are trying to coin for ourselves) but the concept is the same – stiffer competition from Chinese goods makers.

While in Chicago this week, we were able to discuss this in more detail on the Schwab Network in a segment they titled “Potential China Strategic Shifts.” It also came up in a Yahoo Finance interview that focused more on my bearish outlook for U.S. equities, but it did get incorporated. It may also have come up during a discussion with Rick Santelli at CNBC on Friday afternoon, but there isn’t a link available, and the interview and prep was such a blur that I cannot remember what was said on versus off-air. Well, I know a few things that were definitely not said on air, but that’s another story! In any case, I should have brought more than one tie to Chicago.

Marching in Plain Sight

General (ret.) Spider Marks, who spent much of his career in Asia as a senior intelligence officer, often discusses how China does things “in plain sight.” They tell us what they are going to do, and then they do it, and somehow we often seem surprised. I won’t harp on this theme, but it will permeate the report.

I’m seeing references to China’s “Minsky Moment” on social media. The concept that China is somehow going to lay down and die, give up decades of growth, and succumb to an aging population and a falling real estate market seems almost ludicrous. Yet, that view seems to be far closer to the consensus than Made by China, despite lots of evidence that communist leaders rarely go down without leaving it all on the field.

To ensure that I wasn’t completely off base, I spent a couple of minutes searching for China 2025. All sorts of references to Made in China 2025 popped up. Article after article, all done back in 2015! General (ret.) Walsh and I discussed this Thursday in preparation for today’s report. General Walsh played a key role in the national defense policies elevating China to a “Strategic Competitor.” He was also instrumental in our 2019 report – A D.I.M.E Framework for China, Trade & Strategic Competition.

The main gist of our conversation was that China never stopped with the China 2025 initiative. They just publicized it less because it was attracting “the wrong sort of attention” in D.C. (at least from the perspective of China). They backed off discussing it because it made people concerned that China was going to change their relationship with us to a more competitive one on the goods side of things. That concern may have led to policies to thwart their efforts, so they backed off (at least publicly). Maybe this section should have been titled “out of sight, out of mind?”

Back in 2015, China told us what they wanted to look like by 2025. Yet, here we are, in 2024 with lots of evidence pointing in the direction that they are continuing down that path with at least a modicum of success. I would argue more than a modicum, but let’s not go overboard, at least not yet.

Fighting the Last War

Another topic that comes up at Academy as we discuss geopolitical threats and the military is the risk that generals are “fighting the last war.” While I have no military experience, I know regulators are often viewed as fighting the last crisis, and I’d have to agree that there seems to be some truth to that assessment.

We’ve often discussed that many of the views expressed by politicians seem to be based on China circa 2005, i.e., cheap manufacturing with limited IP. The reality is that just isn’t at all correct. Chinese manufacturing has grown increasingly sophisticated (as the U.S. and Europe largely ceded manufacturing to China). For some reason solar panels jump to the top of my list here, but the point is that China has developed very good (and not just cheap) manufacturing capabilities.

On the IP side, maybe it was like a seesaw (or a teeter totter) with an adult on one side and a toddler on the other (i.e. very unbalanced). But as the adult has aged and the toddler has grown up, it is much more balanced. There are some areas where China has developed much of its own IP. Think back to the China 2025 initiative and their focus on machine learning, cryptography, etc. Again – marching in plain sight.

So, I am worried that we shape policy based on an outdated view of China’s capabilities.

Which brings me to TikTok. We did include it in We Didn’t Start the Fire and it has come up periodically as an issue due to all the information that is being collected.

In theory, I should be paying more attention to the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. But I struggle to get too excited about it. First, talk about “shutting the gate after the horse has left the barn!” Yes, I’m full of colloquialisms and folksy sayings today.

TikTok in some ways seems all pervasive! It seems to be everywhere. I believe that even while D.C. has some restrictions already for certain government employees regarding their ability to have TikTok on their devices, many politicians are turning to TikTok as a part of their campaign efforts. Color me “cynical,” but I’m not optimistic that much will be done or accomplished in this day and age and who knows how much damage has already been done. Maybe not quite fighting the last war (as this war is still raging), but we certainly got off to a late start.

Made By China 2025

Please keep in the back of your mind the concepts that:

  • China “marches in plain sight” and has outlined what they want to accomplish.
  • We have to think about where China is going (not where they’ve been) if we are going to get this right (possibly the closest I’ve come to quoting Wayne Gretzky).

We tried to detail our thoughts in the piece titled Chess, Checkers, or Go – What is China’s Next Move? The simple version of this report is:

  • Yes, the Chinese economy faces many problems. We completely agree with consensus here.
  • No, China won’t just curl up and fizzle out, they will do something. As we saw during COVID, to maintain the power of the Chinese Communist Party, they will do things to appease the middle class (a few protests caused a complete reversal in their COVID policy). So, assuming Xi wants to stay in power (no indication that he/the party wants to relinquish power), he needs a strategy.
    • Increased domestic consumption isn’t a great option. The Chinese consumer has not demonstrated a willingness to spend like the U.S. consumer, and with real estate down and the stock market weak, there isn’t the money to spend, even if they had a propensity to spend it.
    • Increasing manufacturing for U.S. and European companies isn’t an option. More companies are extricating themselves from being reliant on China as their main production hub. Costs have been hidden, but COVID (amongst other things) exposed a lot of “hidden” costs, or costs not thought of – like complete shutdowns and the inability to access your facilities. Add in some IP protection risks and setting up new business in China isn’t top of mind. Finally, after years (and maybe even decades) of hoping to be able to compete openly and fairly in China with domestic companies, many doubt that we will. So, there is a long list of reasons why China is unlikely to think that they can increase their manufacturing of foreign products.
  • So, if two obvious things don’t work, what do you do? Remember the concept of “mirroring” that we discussed in The Game of Chicken in Today’s World? Don’t think about China and brands as we see them, think about China and brands as they see them.

China has an economic problem, but there is one path that might work and it is a path that they have told us they intend to pursue (and have been pursuing).

Let’s just pause for a moment. Re-read the last sentence/rant. Maybe it sounds too simple? Maybe we don’t think of it that way, but that might be the biggest mistake that we are making.

I hear a lot of talk about “black swan” events or “grey swan” risks. Both in our geopolitical and macro conversations. I’m increasingly concerned that we are so busy looking for swans of different colors, we are ignoring the hammer hitting us in the head over and over! Is our thought process to think, “Yeah, that hammering kind of hurts, but I should ignore it and look for where the ‘real’ problems lurk?”

How it Works – Domestic Consumption

If you noticed, earlier in the piece I said that “increased” domestic consumption isn’t likely to work!

So, like any practical businessperson, if you cannot increase the size of the pie, your best bet is to increase your share of the pie. When corporate strategists sit down at the table trying to figure out how to grow market share, they can only wish they had some of the tools that China has available.

  • Taxes, tariffs, content rules, etc. Companies have to lobby for these, but the Chinese government creates them. They have created them and will likely continue to use them to make “foreign” products (even those manufactured in China) less competitive.
  • Outright bans. Who can use what app or what hardware? Again, corporations can put their best foot forward, but China can do (to a large degree) as they please. If you were trying to suppress domestic demand, say, for a certain type of phone, maybe you would ban government employees from using it? And over time, extend that ban to more and more agencies and levels of government.

China can make it so that foreign brands are less competitive domestically. I think there is clear evidence that is happening.

By suppressing demand for “foreign” brands to benefit Chinese brands, they can improve the “domestic” economy even if the “pie” is stagnant (or shrinking) by taking greater market share.

Let’s not forget that at the moment, certainly for the chip industry, the U.S. is doing a lot to enhance the ability to develop foundries domestically and manufacture more/higher quality chips. All countries can do things to help their domestic brands, especially domestically, but I just suspect that China will be more aggressive about it.

I’m also worried that as we restrict things for China, it will just make them better at it. I think that we’ve asked before how China is making so many phones with 7 nanometer chips, when there have been restrictions in place on chips thinner than 10 nanometers. Underestimating China can be a real risk.

Yes, some of the Geopolitical Intelligence Group members discuss the risk of “making your enemies 10 feet tall” and overestimating their capabilities, which can also lead to flawed policy. In hindsight, any assessment of Russia’s military was far too generous, which affected our behavior before and in the immediate aftermath of the invasion (the first offers were to evacuate Zelensky as Kiev was theoretically going to be overrun in a matter of days).

China has flaws and may not be able to execute on their strategies, but I suspect that we are stuck underestimating their capabilities rather than overestimating them. I must admit that I’m curious to check out what a BYD EV is like in person – at the very least to better understand the “competition”.

How it Works – Foreign Consumption

The domestic advantages seem easy enough to implement. In some industries this has been going on for years, but I would expect more rather than less of it.

The trickier issue will be how to grow foreign consumption of your brands. As with any strategy session, you look to your strengths and try to use those to leverage your position. Again, just like with their domestic efforts, the government has options not available to corporate strategists.

  • Compete on price. That seems like the obvious starting point. Offer a price to quality that can compete with foreign brands.
    • If you are competing on price, go to where price might be most important. I would target countries with large populations of people with some, but not a lot of money to spend. Where price will be paramount. Countries whose citizens are looking for the best quality or the cachet of owning a certain brand would not be my first choice. This leads me towards some emerging market countries – especially those that are resource rich.
  • Offer trade incentives. Corporations can hope to get governments to support them in trade (export-import banks still exist across the globe, etc.), but China is the government. Interestingly, I think China has trade deficits with some countries who might have the sort of consumer China is looking for. Countries that China is buying a lot of commodities from would seem like ideal potential customers, where China can offset some of their trade deficit by getting them to buy their brands.
  • Shipping. First, China has spent a lot of time, effort, and money to have access to (and in some cases control of) ports. Can they use that to their advantage? Why the heck not? The network of ports that China has built up could be used to their advantage. Could they prioritize their shipments into ports that they control? Again, maybe “we” wouldn’t even if we could (though we probably would when push comes to shove), but China operates under a different set of rules (or guidelines) than we do. So, it would not surprise me to see them leverage this network to improve distribution of their brands, potentially at the expense of others (which reminds me, I need to reach out to my shipping contacts to see if any of this is already occurring). Finally, and this might be weird, but if I’m a pirate or someone targeting shipping, attacking a Chinese ship would be low on my list, purely out of fear of retribution. Immediate, direct, and harsh retribution. Not proportionate to what was done, and they will send a message to never, ever, do it again.
  • Never underestimate the willingness of the American consumer to buy anything. While the American consumer wouldn’t be my first choice, why not try? I had never heard of Temu before the Super Bowl. I just hadn’t. To be honest, I’m a little nervous even going on the site (I assume that they, like TikTok, will use my information). I did a search for golf range finders (if China needs Temu to figure out that I’m a golf addict, their AI is way worse than I thought). I couldn’t find one listed for more than $100, which seems pretty cheap. On Golf Galaxy, there was one for $150, a couple for $200, and several that were much more costly. Though I recognized most of the brands at Golf Galaxy, I cannot say that I recognized any of the brands on Temu (and I was nervous to click on more than one – maybe I’m just paranoid). But if Temu isn’t an attempt to sell Chinese brands into America based on price, then what is it? Super Bowl commercials have ranged from iconic (Apple’s 1984 is still one of my favorites), to a staple (Budweiser horses), to things that have fizzled (too many to count), and to things that surprised some with their staying power (E-Trade babies are back!). When I mention Temu, I mostly get sideways glances, if not outright smirks, but why? Why dismiss something so easily that fits with what I would do if I was a strategist for China Inc.?

Selling brands to different countries will be more difficult than increasing their domestic market share. But, as the CEO of Mercedes reminded viewers on Bloomberg TV a few months ago, at one time, Mercedes too was a “domestic” brand.

The development of brands, first domestically and then in foreign markets, is a standard practice – why wouldn’t it be for China?

Implications for Investors and Companies

There are a few things that seem obvious and may already be playing out on a limited scale. Some might be further down the road if I’m correct, but that just means there is time to develop effective strategies to combat the risk.

  • Relying on sales into China. I would expect it to get more difficult to sell into China than easier. Forecasts for sales into China need to be checked and double checked. One also needs to play “devil’s advocate” for what potentially could be done to either thwart your sales, or to enhance the sales of domestic brands.
  • Selling into the most price-sensitive economies. Where price is extremely high on the purchase decision-making tree, what risk is there of competition from a Chinese brand? The initial reaction might be to be “dismissive.” Their brand can’t do what ours does. Probably true. Our brand has IP, and we would sue them (possibly true, but is it winnable especially if the Chinese government is supporting sales of the brand into that country?). Maybe after a thorough analysis, there is no risk, but I would think long and hard about that. Assume an uneven playing field. Assume you are up against a leadership that does not want to lose control and has tools at their disposal beyond what leaders in the Western world have. If the assessment is still good even after thinking of “worst case” possibilities as the “base case,” then all is fine. But I think it is too easy to be dismissive, and that is a risk for investors and corporations.
  • Chinese suppliers and shipping. This is probably “next level” stuff, but if there was an effort to thwart brands and products, shipping and suppliers might be used in that battle. It is probably next level but cannot be dismissed out of hand. One obvious risk already is in the chip industry. There is agreement here that the “highest level technology” needs to be protected but defining that in a way that works could prove tricky over time.
  • Bad inflation. As supply chains shift and shipping gets more complicated, we could see inflation rise. The cost of goods for domestic companies could increase, passing inflation to buyers in many regions.
  • Bad deflation. If China competes on price, then its competitors will likely have to compete on price, which will be a direct hit to profit margins.

Bottom Line

I can think of no greater or more obvious risk to our economy and stock market valuations than the rise of Chinese brands globally. Not tomorrow’s risk or even next year’s risk, but it is the sort of risk where in 5 years, we will look back and wonder how we got it so wrong – especially since it has been in plain sight!

The good news is that there is time to plan, prepare, and win.

  • Without a doubt, many companies are already ahead in this battle and doing what it takes to be successful under a variety of competitive circumstances.
  • China, assuming they are pursuing this strategy, has to get a lot of things right. They need a lot of things to work in their favor. They may not get what they need or may not execute, but I wouldn’t rely on that as being my strategy.

We can get back to living in markets that rise and fall 1% in a day (sometimes more), but I really wanted to make sure this message on “Made by China” is heard loud and clear as I think it is vital to understand and prepare for.

And yes, currently I’m long FXI (I think that Chinese stocks are un-investible, but are tradeable) and short QQQ (lots of things pointing me to the risk/reward being skewed to more downside risk than upside risk in the near-term). For the “normal” macro stuff see:

Good luck today, tomorrow, and beyond. I’m actually optimistic on the “beyond” front, but I’d be more comfortable if I felt more people, at all levels, were taking the Made by China theory more seriously.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/10/2024 – 17:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/T9d6Lj2 Tyler Durden

David Sacks: “Biden’s Big Backfire” Is Ukraine, Warns Of “Woke War III”

David Sacks: “Biden’s Big Backfire” Is Ukraine, Warns Of “Woke War III”

Venture capitalist David Sacks, who also hosts the All-In Podcast, sat down with Saagar Enjeti, a political commentator and podcaster from Breaking Points, to explore President Biden’s failures in Ukraine and Gaza. 

Sacks has been a vocal critic of Western propaganda on Ukraine, advocating for a more nuanced understanding of the conflict and opposing NATO expansion to prevent further escalation. 

“I was a little bit familiar with the conflict and with the idea that NATO expansion was something that the Russians really didn’t like. And so I started advocating on the All-In Podcast that we should take NATO expansion off the table; it’s clearly a huge irritant here in the situation,” Sacks told Enjeti. 

Sacks continued, “I realized that this was the result of a deliberate US policy, kind of a neocon policy that either wanted this war or certainly wasn’t willing to avoid it. They weren’t willing to take NATO expansion off the table to avoid the war, so um, so yeah, I just started speaking out about it, I guess, using my channels.” 

Enjeti asked Sacks what sources he reads to gather intel on the Ukraine situation. He blasted corporate media for “shading the truth or not telling us what was really happening in the war,” adding that independent media outlets and certain X users were giving the most accurate information about the conflict. 

Sacks then criticized US foreign policy and neoconservatives for making “horrible policy decisions” on Ukraine in what could be the biggest blunder since the Iraq War. 

Cough, cough, Victoria Nuland… 

“The whole mainstream media stampeding us into this policy – and um the sort of the taboo they’re trying to create around it – where you know, it’s a lot like the Iraq War where anyone who opposed it was considered unpatriotic or sort of treasonous.” 

Sacks pointed out, “I guess I wouldn’t speak out as much about it if I thought that the issue was being covered accurately – and it is such an important issue. This could lead to World War III or what I call Woke War III if we’re not careful.” 

He also spoke about the “fusion of the woke left and the neocon right” in supporting the war in Ukraine, expressing concern over their views of not finding a peaceful resolution and only escalating the war closer to World War III. 

Jumping to the halfway point of the interview, Sacks said:

“I call this Biden’s big backfire. If you look at all of his claims at the beginning of the war, they’ve all come true in reverse. He said that we would weaken Russia in order to prevent them from waging uh this type of War again. In fact, we’ve made the Russian military stronger – it’s larger than it was before. It’s produced, uh, far more weapons the industrial base is ramped up, plus it’s now a battle-tested battle-harden, especially against Western weapons. It’s a much more formidable military Biden has created on the part of the Russians than when we started.

“Meanwhile, it’s the United States that has seen its stockpiles depleted and hollowed out. Then you look at the economic claims that Biden made, he said that sanctions would crush the Russian economy. In fact, the Russian economy is growing faster than any of the G7 economies.” 

Enjeti then asked Sacks: “How would you rate President Biden’s handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict so far?”

Sacks responded: 

“In the wake of October 7th, the first thing I said this was a little bit of reminiscent of 9/11. And the purpose of an outrageous terrorist attack is usually provoking overreaction, yes, and I hope that the Israelis would react wisely and not in the 911 manner as the United States did. It’s safe to say now that the Israeli reaction is exactly what Hamas wanted. 

“They’ve created this humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and it’s basically turned the whole Middle East and most of the world against Israel. I’m shocked by some of the arguments I’m seeing now that this sort of decolonization narrative that used to really be in academic circles has now kind of gone mainstream. 

“I think Biden made a huge mistake of basically going to the Middle East initially and hugging Netanyahu and giving him carte blanch … Israeli indiscriminately bombing a civilian population in Gaza is going to backfire horribly.” 

Watch Sacks’ full interview below:

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/10/2024 – 16:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/G2YSeJL Tyler Durden

Trump Eviscerates Biden Over ‘Apology Tour’ After Calling Illegal Alien Murderer An “Illegal”

Trump Eviscerates Biden Over ‘Apology Tour’ After Calling Illegal Alien Murderer An “Illegal”

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Joe Biden is now seemingly on an apology tour after accurately describing the illegal immigrant who killed Laken Riley as an “illegal” in his State of the Union speech.

The 22-year-old nursing student at Augusta University was kidnapped and killed by an illegal immigrant from Venezuela when she was jogging at the University of Georgia last month.

Biden accurately described her murderer as an “illegal” during his address to the nation, but only after being pressured into doing so by Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Leftists who didn’t care at all about the murder are still mad at Biden for using the word “illegal,” and he’s now on an apology tour to try to make up for it.

During your response to her heckling you, you used the word ‘illegal’, when talking about the man who allegedly killed Laken Riley,” an MSNBC host chastised Biden.

“An undocumented person,” he responded, “I shouldn’t have used illegal, it’s undocumented,” before Biden attacked Trump for the way he talks about illegal immigrants.

“I’m not gonna treat any of these people with disrespect. Look, they built the country,” the president added.

Apparently, illegal alien murderers built America.

Respondents on X slammed Biden and the leftist media.

As we previously highlighted, both Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Chuy García were also incensed that Biden used the word “illegal”.

Respondents on X pointed out that Garcia had never even previously expressed any outrage about the murder itself.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump spent time with Laken Riley’s family prior to a rally in Georgia, and then slammed Joe Biden for apologising over calling the girl’s killer an “illegal” immigrant.

During the Rally that followed, Trump spoke at length about Riley, noting “She was the brightest light in every room,” and vowed to her family to pursue “Justice for Laken.”

He added “Laken Riley would be alive today if Joe Biden had not willfully and maliciously eviscerated the borders of the United States and set loose thousands and thousands of dangerous criminals into our country.”

Trump also blasted Biden, saying the president “went on television and apologised for calling Laken’s murderer an illegal he didn’t want to call him an illegal. He said he should have called him an undocumented not an illegal and he wanted to apologise.”

Trump referred to the alleged killer, Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang member Jose Ibarra, urging “He was an illegal alien, he was an illegal immigrant,” adding “he shouldn’t have been in our country and he never would have been under the Trump policy.”

“Biden should be apologising for apologising to this killer,” Trump boomed as thousands in attendance roared their approval.

Powerful stuff.

As we also highlighted yesterday, the left is still pushing a narrative that conservatives are using the murder of Laken Riley by an illegal immigrant as a political point scoring stunt, despite the fact that the girl’s own family has slammed Joe Biden as “pathetic”.

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/10/2024 – 16:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/cIOyX6b Tyler Durden

US Reinforces Haiti Embassy, Evacuates Some Staff In Overnight Airlift Mission

US Reinforces Haiti Embassy, Evacuates Some Staff In Overnight Airlift Mission

America could be on the verge of losing another embassy on President Biden’s watch.

Haiti is quickly accelerating into greater chaos and violence by the day. The US military was forced this weekend to fly in reinforcements to the US embassy in the country’s capital, Port-au-Prince, where the area outside the embassy has been transformed into a warzone. 

The late-night operation also included emergency evacuations for non-essential embassy personnel:

“The airlift of personnel into and out of the embassy is consistent with our standard practice for embassy security augmentation worldwide, and no Haitians were on board the military aircraft,” US Southern Command wrote in a statement, as quoted by the newspaper Miami Herald. 

Earlier this month, more than 4,500 inmates escaped from the Caribbean nation’s two largest prisons. Armed gangs who orchestrated the twin jailbreaks have demanded the resignation of Prime Minister Ariel Henry. 

“In the past week, the political crisis in Haiti, combined with escalating violence and civil unrest, has created an untenable situation which threatens the country’s citizens and security,” US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told Newsweek on Friday.  

Haitian authorities began a state of emergency last Sunday and extended it on Thursday as fierce battles continue across Port-au-Prince. 

The US embassy wrote on X that it will “remain open” despite “heightened gang violence in the neighborhood near US embassy compounds and near the airport.” 

Haiti is “on the cusp of even greater chaos and violence,” campaign group Human Rights Watch said last week, adding the political and economic crisis is driving a major humanitarian emergency. 

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/10/2024 – 15:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/4lnm1bu Tyler Durden

What is ‘The Halving’? Explaining The Most Important Event In Bitcoin’s History

What is ‘The Halving’? Explaining The Most Important Event In Bitcoin’s History

Authored by Brian Nibley via Finance Magnates.com,

  • The April 2024 halving, deemed the most significant to date, will reduce the block reward from 6.25 bitcoins to 3.125.

  • The emergence of spot Bitcoin ETFs and the enhancement in regulatory clarity are distinctive features unique to the current event.

With spot Bitcoin ETFs having been approved the same year that the halving is set to take place, many newcomers to the space may be wondering: what is the Bitcoin halving? This is a common question among those wanting to learn more about the Bitcoin protocol. Expected to be the most important event in Bitcoin’s history, the 2024 halving is expected to occur sometime on or around April 13.

Here we will cover the basics of how the Bitcoin halving works, what the Bitcoin halving is, why it happens, and what it may mean for markets this year and beyond.

Understanding the Bitcoin Halving

Before looking at the potential impacts of the 2024 halving, let’s discuss how the Bitcoin halving works.

Bitcoin operates on a deflationary model, where the reward for mining new blocks is halved every 210,000 blocks, or approximately every four years, a process known as the “halving.” This event is significant because it reduces the rate at which new bitcoin are generated, thereby limiting supply. Bitcoin is the only asset in human history to have a fixed supply that never increases, making it the hardest currency ever known.

This aspect of the protocol cannot be changed due to the decentralized distribution of nodes. For the supply limit of Bitcoin to be increased, the majority of nodes would have to agree to such a change. While this might be possibly in theory, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where it becomes reality. Thousands of independent node operators around the world would have to agree to making themselves poorer and reducing the value of Bitcoin as a whole.

The 2024 halving will slash the block reward from 6.25 bitcoin to 3.125 bitcoin. Historically, each halving event has been followed by a notable increase in bitcoin’s price, although past performance is no guarantee of future results. However, the anticipation alone can lead to increased trading volume and price volatility, as we’ve seen in recent weeks.

Contrary to what some market commentators may say, the halving can never be truly priced in before it happens. That’s because much of the selling pressure in the market comes from miners, who must sell coins to cover their operating expenses. After the halving, this selling pressure gets reduced by 50%, as the miner revenue declines by the same amount.

What Happens to Miners after the Bitcoin Halving?

Miners can struggle after the halving, as they see a significant reduction in revenue. Larger, public mining companies can have a lifeline by accessing capital markets for further investment. In the absence of a swift increase in the Bitcoin price, some smaller miners may be forced to shut down.

As a result, the network’s hash rate tends to come down for a time after the halving. This then leads to a difficulty adjustment downwards, which can eventually make it possible for more miners to come back online.

The Impact of the Bitcoin Halving

This year’s halving may be the most important halving event in Bitcoin’s history. There are several converging factors that haven’t been present during previous halving cycles. Some of these include:

  • The emergence of spot Bitcoin ETFs;

  • increased regulatory clarity surrounding Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, and exchanges;

  • a washout of many bad actors from the previous cycle (think FTX, Celsius, Voyager, etc.);

  • potential nation-state adoption of bitcoin (El Salvador and rumors of other, larger countries);

  • and, corporate adoption of bitcoin (Microstrategy, other public Bitcoin companies).

In the past, the halving has been a significant event for both Bitcoin’s price and the industry as a whole, even in the absence of the above variables. It stands to reason that this time around could be astronomical given the compounding effect of these new developments.

In addition, because retail investors can now gain exposure to bitcoin through ETFs, there could be ripple effects throughout the entire financial system. How this might take shape is anyone’s guess.

A few of the more certain impacts of the halving and associated bull market include:

  • an increase in crypto transactions. Merchants who accept cryptocurrency as payment tend to see a rise in purchases, as holders look for ways to take profits;

  • increased trading volume. This can be so extreme that exchanges encounter difficulties. For example, Coinbase suffered an outage on February 28 that led to users seeing a “0” balance in their accounts for a time, as the Bitcoin price rapidly shot up to $64,000;

  • renewed investment and hiring in the crypto space. Bitcoin and blockchain-related companies tend to do a lot of hiring during this time, and investors look to fund more startups;

  • and, speculation and market sentiment. Not surprisingly, market sentiment tends to get euphoric, and speculation in Bitcoin and altcoins can reach extreme levels. The legendary volatility of the asset class shows its full potential during this time.

And most entertaining of all, the creation of new Bitcoin-related memes tends to skyrocket during this period.

Stay tuned to social media for more on the subject.

Bitcoin Halving Conclusion

The Bitcoin halving is a pivotal event, occurring approximately every four years and reducing the rate at which new bitcoin comes online. As we approach the 2024 halving, there’s a lot of anticipation for its potential impact on Bitcoin’s price and the broader industry.

With the emergence of spot Bitcoin ETFs, increased regulatory clarity, and growing adoption by both nations and corporations, this halving could be more significant than ever before. While the exact outcomes remain uncertain, past halving events have historically led to increased trading volume, market volatility, and renewed investment in the crypto space. 

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/10/2024 – 15:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/sC5tbeM Tyler Durden

Britt Busted For Misleading Sex-Trafficking Story In Bizarre SOTU Response

Britt Busted For Misleading Sex-Trafficking Story In Bizarre SOTU Response

Already the subject of bipartisan ridicule for the jaw-droppingly strange persona she displayed in her Republican response to the State of the Union address, Alabama Sen. Katie Britt is now taking more serious fire — for having deceptively framed a 16-year-old anecdote about sex trafficking to mislead the audience about when and where the crime happened and how she learned about it. 

Observers of all political stripes winced as soon as first-termer Britt started speaking, sounding every bit like she was delivering an absurdly melodramatic audition for a B-movie part. This video nicely captures the difference between Normal Britt and Thursday night’s godawful Middle-School-Theater Britt: 

As she proceeded through her bizarre delivery, Britt eventually came to the subject of border security. Within that passage, she shared an anecdote about a victim of sex trafficking, and did so in a way that misled the audience in three dimensions, making it sound like: 

  • Britt happened to encounter a woman who shared her story in a one-on-one conversation 
  • The sex trafficking happened recently — and during Biden’s term
  • The sex trafficking occurred in the United States

None of that is true. 

Here’s what Britt said: 

When I took office [in 2023], I took a different approach. I traveled to the Del Rio sector of Texas. That’s where I spoke to a woman who shared her story with me. She had been sex trafficked by the cartels starting at the age of 12. She told me not just that she was raped every day, but how many times a day she was raped.The cartels put her on a mattress in a shoebox of a room, and they sent men through that door over and over again for hours and hours on end.

We wouldn’t be ok with this happening in a third world country. This is the United States of America, and it is past time, in my opinion, that we start acting like it. President Biden’s border policies are a disgrace.

On Friday, independent journalist Jonathan Katz posted a video in which he revealed that the unnamed woman Britt described is a Mexican citizen and prominent public advocate against human trafficking named Karla Jacinto Romero who testified before Congress in 2015.

Britt’s framing — “I spoke to a woman” in the Del Rio sector “who shared her story with me” — made it sound like she came across a little-known person, living in America, who decided to open up to Britt in an intimate conversation. In fact, Britt heard Romero’s account when Britt, Romero, and Sen. Marsha Blackburn participated in a public, roundtable discussion.

Britt (second from left) heard Romero’s account of being abused inside Mexico from 2004 to 2008 during this round-table discussion (Sen. Marsha Blackburn/Twitter)

At the event, 31-year-old Romero gave her frequently-shared and reported account of having been sex-trafficked between the ages of 12 and 16 — in other words, way back during the George W. Bush administration. 

Beyond serving as an indicator of how long ago Romero’s abuse occurred, the question of who was US president at the time is utterly irrelevant, because Romero wasn’t even trafficked in the United States or anywhere near it. It all took place inside Mexico and, from reporting on her story, it appears most or all of her forced-prostitution happened in the vicinity of Mexico City — nearly 1,000 miles from the American border.

In her speech, Britt melodramatically proclaimed, “We wouldn’t be ok with this happening in a Third World country. This is the United States of America.” And now we find the whole thing did happen in a Third World country. 

Romero doesn’t even live in the United States, making Britt’s emphasis on having spoken with her near Del Rio, Texas all the more misleading. Interviewed from Mexico by the New York Times, Romero said when she learned about Britt using her story in the speech, “I thought it was very strange.”

There are enough real horror stories associated with America’s open border to make the case for better security. Britt’s decision to mislead her audience with an anecdote about sex trafficking that happened some 16 years ago far outside America is as baffling as her choice of persona for her first big moment in the spotlight. 

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/10/2024 – 14:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/O7TupXv Tyler Durden

SpaceX-Backed Flying Car Startup Gets FAA Nod

SpaceX-Backed Flying Car Startup Gets FAA Nod

Authored by Felicity Bradstock via OilPrice.com,

  • Alef Aeronautics, based in San Mateo, California, has seen an impressive number of pre-orders for its two-seater eVTOL vehicle, Model A, with plans to develop a four-seater sedan, Model Z, by 2035.

  • The company has received a Special Airworthiness Certificate from the FAA for its Model A, highlighting its innovative design and potential for commercial viability in personal and urban mobility.

  • Competitors like Joby Aviation and Lilium are also advancing in the eVTOL market, focusing on flying taxis and partnerships to facilitate urban air mobility, indicating a growing industry trend towards airborne personal transport.

Pre-orders for a “flying car” have soared in recent months leading industry experts to question how close we are to small passenger vehicle flight. Alef Aeronautics, a company backed by Space-X, specialising in the production of flying cars, has achieved 2,850 pre-orders for its electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) vehicle. The firm is backed by Tesla investor and venture capitalist Tim Draper, which has helped draw attention. Based in San Mateo, California, Alef Aeronautics is allowing customers to pre-order its two-seater flying car, the Alef Model A, online with a $150 deposit. Customers are allowed to withdraw the deposit at any time to cancel the pre-order. 

The car is expected to be priced at around $300,000 when it becomes commercially available, which gives the company an order value of over $850 million to date. Jim Dukhovny, Alef’s CEO, stated: “As of today we have a little bit more than 2,850 pre-orders with deposits down, which makes it the bestselling aircraft in history, more than Boeing, Airbus, Joby Aviation and most of the eVTOLs combined.”

Alef is also developing a four-passenger sedan called the Model Z. It is expected to become commercially available for the much lower price of $35,000, by 2035. It is just one of many start-ups developing flying car technology, but, over the last year, it has been recognised for the significant progress it has made. Alef’s Model A looks like a futuristic car. They use a mesh shell to cover rotors, allowing air to flow through the car. 

The company first unveiled a half-size model of the vehicle at the Mobile World Congress, catching the attention of consumers and automakers worldwide. Dukhovny believes the Model A will be the world’s first flying car, as most other vehicles under development resemble something similar to a jet or a drone, fitted with wings or rotors. The CEO explained, “I know that people have claimed the first flying car… But we always had the idea that it has to be a car, a physical car, a regular car, as you can see it’s an eVTOL, an electric car. a regular car, drive, park, look, everything as a car, and a vertical take-off.” 

The aim is for the car to be capable of being driven on the road, similarly to an electric vehicle (EV), at speeds of between 25 and 35 mph, as well as used to fly in any direction using its eight propellers, where it will reach speeds of up to 110 mph. As it is expected to weigh just 850 pounds, it can be classed as a small EV, making it more likely that the regulatory bodies will approve the car for flight by as early as 2025. 

While Alef gained greater fame following the Mobile World Congress, this is not the first we are hearing of the company. Alef initially started working on its concept car in 2015, producing the first prototype of the Model A in 2019. In July 2023, it was issued with a Special Airworthiness Certificate by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which allowed the company to fly its Model A in limited locations for exhibition, research and development. The vehicle falls under the categorisation of Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), which is used for technology such as air taxis and VTOL aircraft. 

However, several companies are hot on Alef’s tail, hoping to rapidly develop their own flying car technology for commercial release.

The eVTOL producer Joby Aviation is constructing a manufacturing plant at Dayton International Airport in Ohio. The company hopes to begin producing up to 500 aircraft a year at Dayton, starting in 2025. Joby is focused on the flying taxi market, designing the tiltrotor eVTOL to carry a pilot and four passengers at speeds of 200 mph. The company has already announced a partnership with Delta Airlines and expects to launch in cities such as New York and Los Angeles by as early as 2025. 

The German start-up Lilium is developing an eVTOL to serve as an air taxi for up to five people, with a range of around 300 km and a top speed of 300 Kmh. In December, Lilium signed a memorandum of understanding with the air carrier Lufthansa to explore a strategic partnership on eVTOL aircraft operation in Europe. The two companies plan to explore ground and flight operations, future aircraft maintenance, as well as crewing and flight training. 

Klaus Roewe, the CEO of Lilium, stated, “We are delighted that the Lufthansa Group has decided to cooperate with us to jointly advance in the future of flying. The Lufthansa Group has been at the forefront of some of Europe’s most important aviation initiatives, especially in the area of environmental sustainability. We are thrilled to explore opportunities on bringing eVTOL flights to Lufthansa Group customers.”

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/10/2024 – 14:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/A6SoLyk Tyler Durden

Pope Francis Urges Ukraine To Have ‘Courage Of The White Flag’ & Negotiate End To War

Pope Francis Urges Ukraine To Have ‘Courage Of The White Flag’ & Negotiate End To War

Pope Francis has sparked fresh controversy after he said in a new interview published Saturday that Ukraine should have the “courage” to sit at the negotiating table with Russia and end the war through a peace agreement.

In particular his referencing the “white flag” is drawing outrage from European and Ukraine officials. “I think that the strongest one is the one who looks at the situation, thinks about the people and has the courage of the white flag, and negotiates,” Francis told Swiss broadcaster RSI. He said this would happen with the help of outside mediating powers.

Francis continued by explaining that “the word negotiate is a courageous word.” He emphasized, “When you see that you are defeated, that things are not going well, you have to have the courage to negotiate,” and spelled out, “Negotiations are never a surrender.” However, the words surely sting for the Zelensky government given how the Pope highlighted (albeit indirectly) that Ukraine forces are losing on the battlefield.

In April 2022, Pope Francis kissed a Ukrainian flag brought from Bucha. via AP

Francis additionally said that either side should “not be ashamed of negotiating before things get worse,” and he offered that he himself would willingly mediate peace talks, or else several European countries could.

“Today, for example, in the war in Ukraine, there are many who want to mediate,” he said. “Turkey has offered itself for this. And others. Do not be ashamed to negotiate before things get worse.” President Zelensky just returned from a trip where he met with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Almost immediately in the wake of the interview being released, the pope was widely accused of siding with Russia. For example, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski posted on X, “How about, for balance, encouraging Putin to have the courage to withdraw his army from Ukraine? Peace would immediately ensue without the need for negotiations.”

As The Associated Press noted on Sunday, Ukrainian officials agreed with statements comparing to the Pope’s comments to being willing to compromise with Hitler:

In a separate post, Sikorski drew parallels between those calling for negotiations while “denying (Ukraine) the means to defend itself” and European leaders’ “appeasement” of Adolf Hitler just before World War II.

Andrii Yurash, Ukraine’s ambassador to the Holy See, said that it was “necessary to learn lessons” from that conflict. His post on X appeared to compare the pope’s comments to calls for “talking with Hitler” while raising “a white flag to satisfy him.”

Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni has sought to clarify Francis’ remarks but did not back down or retract the pontiff’s ‘controversial’ statement. He said it was the interviewer that introduced the white flag reference to “indicate a cessation of hostilities, a truce reached with the courage of negotiation.”

Bruni emphasized that Francis has “deep affection” for Ukraine and he’s ultimately calling for “conditions for a diplomatic solution in search of a just and lasting peace.”

Francis has been no stranger to controversy throughout the over two-year long war. After the opening few months of the war, in May 2022 he suggested that NATO expansion was a prime catalyst for the tragic conflict, describing that NATO had long been “barking at Russia’s door” with its eastward expansion. That too elicited angry reaction from Ukraine officials and some of the Western allies. But NATO itself seemed to later acknowledge that this is accurate.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/10/2024 – 13:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/DcoJ2vK Tyler Durden