Month: November 2024

The world’s second-largest economy sometimes suffers from its own success: it’s hard to comprehend how big it really is.

To help put things in perspective, this map, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, compares China’s economy with East, Southeast, South, and Central Asia: a combined entity of 30 other countries labeled as “Rest of Asia”.

Data is sourced from the UN and the IMF as of 2024. Countries from Western Asia (i.e. the Middle East) and Russia (which spans Europe and Asian continents) haven’t been included, and data was unavailable for North Korea.

How China Stacks Up vs. Asian Economies

With an $18 trillion economic output in 2024, China’s GDP is nearly $2 trillion larger than 30 economies combined: $16.5 trillion.

That list of 30 countries includes other Asian heavyweights like: Japan ($4.1 trillion), India ($3.9 trillion), and South Korea ($1.87 trillion), the world’s 4th, 5th, and 12th largest economies.

More than 2.9 billion people inhabit this bloc of countries, compared to China’s 1.4 billion residents. The per capita GDP reveals the imbalance in productivity: $12,870 for China versus $5,583 for the rest of Asia.

Why the Chinese Economy Slowdown Matters

Now that comprehending the size of China’s economy is somewhat more feasible, it makes more sense why the post-pandemic slowdown has rung alarm bells for economists around the world.

It’s easier to think of it less as one country in an economic slump, and more as, say, 30 countries in a bit of a bother.

Since 2010, China’s economy has added roughly $1 trillion—the size of Saudi Arabia—every single year. From 2012–2021, China contributed nearly 39% to global growth by itself, more than the G7 countries combined.

It’s not an exaggeration to say the world economy would look very different without China—especially for the manufacturing and industrial sectors, where it commands a dominant market position.

Falling Chinese demand hurts all the countries who export to China—and this includes large parts of Asia and Africa.

Meanwhile, in an effort to sell elsewhere, Chinese businesses have shifted focus to international markets, already putting them in confrontational crosshairs with the U.S. and EU over unfair trade practices. More tariffs could raise the cost of goods and services to consumers around the world.

This map is part of a series where we visualize how different countries around the world stack up against their neighbors. Check out how Germany Compares to Half of Europe, or How Africa Can Be Divided into Two Halves for more interesting conversation starters.

Russian crude oil shipments dropped to a two-month low as loadings from Russia’s Western ports slumped, tanker-tracking data monitored by Bloomberg showed on Tuesday.

In the four weeks to November 17, Russian crude oil exports by sea dipped to 3.28 million barrels per day (bpd), down by 150,000 bpd compared to the previous four-week average to November 10, according to the data reported by Bloomberg’s Julian Lee. The decline in exports was the biggest since the end of July.  Daily crude flows in the week to Nov. 17 slumped by about 740,000 barrels to 2.83 million, dropping to their lowest since the first seven days of July.

The decline was driven by lower flows from the country’s Baltic, Black Sea and Arctic ports, while shipments from the Pacific remained unchanged.

A total of 26 tankers loaded 19.8 million barrels of Russian crude in the week to Nov. 17, vessel-tracking data and port-agent reports show. The volume was down sharply from a revised 24.98 million barrels on 32 ships the previous week.

The weekly decline was mostly the result of a 30% slump in shipments from Russia’s export terminals on the Baltic and Black Seas. It could have been the result of increased refining rates in the second week of November, which left lower volumes of crude available for exports, according to Bloomberg.

In October, as available refinery capacity in Russia dipped, crude oil shipments hit a four-month high, as heavy domestic refinery maintenance left more crude available for export.

Russia exported on average 3.47 million bpd of crude in the four weeks to October 20, up by 140,000 bpd compared to the four-week average to October 13, Bloomberg data showed at the time.

That was a consequence of refining rates at Russian crude processing facilities dropping to their lowest level for more than two years, since May 2022.

Crude exports from Russia could soon rise again, as some refineries are struggling with losses amid the gasoline export ban, currently in place until December 31, 2024.

Russia’s refineries have reportedly started to reduce run rates and some are considering shutting in operations, as the facilities are struggling with hefty losses amid export restrictions, rising oil prices, sanctions, and Ukrainian drone attacks.

Authored by Forrest Marrion via RealClearPolitics,

In the mid-1990s, Brig. Gen. Terryl J. Schwalier “was a rising star in the Air Force,” as Dr. Rebecca Grant wrote in 2006. A decade earlier, in June 1996 he was finishing his one-year tour as a provisional wing commander in Saudi Arabia and was slated for promotion to major general. Then disaster struck. On June 25, 1996, a terrorist truck-bomb – “unprecedentedly large” – exploded outside the building in which his airmen were billeted. Nineteen died. Two hundred forty were wounded. Khobar Towers was among the worst losses of U.S. Air Force life at a deployed location in a single hostile incident in memory. In the investigation that followed, defense secretary William Cohen faced political pressure to assign blame. He buckled, going against his military advisors’ counsel, and, instead, denying Schwalier his second star. The scapegoated general retired.

The decision was unjust in the eyes of many in the know. For starters, Schwalier had not been lax in terms of “force protection (FP).” In fact, he had implemented some one hundred thirty separate FP measures during his deployment and made nearly all the changes recommended by a vulnerability assessment. As the writer recalls, Schwalier’s story and the tragedy of Khobar Towers was part of the assigned readings at the Air Force’s Air Command and Staff College the following year. Furthermore, a key part of the Pentagon’s “outside probe” headed by a retired four-star was badly flawed on the size of the bomb used. The actual bomb – containing “at least 20,000 pounds of TNT” according to the Defense Special Weapons Agency – was at least four times larger than stated in the report, skewing further the judgment against Schwalier. In the years after Schwalier’s retirement, several attempts to overturn the denial of his promotion fell short.

In July 1997, days prior to the announcement of Cohen’s decision to deny Schwalier his promotion, Air Force chief of staff General Ron Fogleman resigned. He did so based on principle, stating to Aerospace Power Journal, “I just could not begin to imagine facing the Air Force after Secretary Cohen made the decision to cancel General Schwalier’s promotion.” In another forum, the chief stated, “I simply lost respect and confidence in the leadership that I was supposed to be following.”

For the record, I have zero relationship with the brigadier general. About ten years ago I was privileged to meet General Fogleman – though unplanned – at the top of the escalator outside the Pentagon, as each of us waited to meet someone. We had three minutes together. Even those who have never met General Fogleman hold him in highest regard. He is universally respected and admired. As far as I know, he was the last four-star to resign on principle.

We need more like him. In the last several years, as more and more are realizing – or at least are finding the courage to speak up – the Air Force has lost its way. Despite the Service infamously prioritizing its pilots’ pigmentation over their proficiency – claiming “too many white pilots” – based on leadership’s commitment to a racist ideology (DEI), how many senior officers have resigned as General Fogleman did?

Meanwhile, following President Trump’s reelection, some, like retired one-star and former defense policy senior official Anthony Tata, are reporting, “The Pentagon is hyper politicized and needs a thorough vetting to include senior active duty military personnel” who are participating in discussions on how to undermine the new administration. National security reporter Haley Britzky, warns, “Pentagon officials are having informal conversations about how the [defense department] would respond if Donald Trump issues orders to deploy active-duty troops domestically [or] fire large swaths of apolitical staffers.” This is not news, but common knowledge.

Precedent exists for holding special administrative boards to determine who stays and who goes among Air Force (and all Services’) senior leaders once the new Trump administration takes over. Recently I wrote about General George C. Marshall’s “plucking board” at the outset of World War Two (RealClearDefense, Sep. 26, 2024). As the U.S. Army chief of staff, Marshall was finally in a position to address the seniority system both he and the Army had long suffered under. As the army expanded in 1940 and ‘41 Marshall built a command system “to be able to put my finger on the man I wanted” for particular leadership posts. Marshall biographer Forrest Pogue wrote, “. . . he was preparing an army for war and felt that the selection of those who could lead in battle was a duty he owed the state.”

To ensure impartiality in the process of eliminating unfit senior officers from consideration for higher-level and combat commands, Marshall appointed six retired officers, headed by his predecessor, General Malin Craig. Marshall’s plucking board was “empowered to remove from line promotion any officer for reasons deemed good and sufficient.” Those removed were given one year to retire. As Marshall told the board, “Critical times are upon us.”

We’re in the same boat today. Except that today’s threats come not only from overseas: since the Obama administration, our once-professional military has been politicized, thanks to neo-Marxist ideology, personal enmity, or misguided judgment.

As the above warnings from knowledgeable Pentagon observers indicate, the second Trump administration will need to conduct a thorough house-cleaning of the military officer corps, many of whom wear stars. This is where Brig. Gen. Terry Schwalier comes in. For the Air Force, arguably there are few (if any) retired senior officers as well-suited to join, or lead, a plucking board.

As one lifelong leading aerospace historian and scholar writes:

You want people who can think beyond their service, who don’t have a grudge and “score-settling” attitude . . . who are in their late 60s and 70s to give them detachment, who are recognized stand-outs, and preferably 3 or 4-star so they have “big picture” experience. Finally, and most importantly, all should be combat veterans AND combat commanders.

He adds: Schwalier “meets the criteria.” Should the President decide on that course of action and bring Schwalier back on active duty, promotion to 3-stars is most appropriate.

As in 1940, the United States faces rogue actors abroad, this time led by China and several lesser would-be aggressors. As countless military historians and others observe, leadership remains the key to authentic deterrence based on strength, and, should deterrence fail, to military success. Having decided to prioritize wasteful, degrading, and morale-killing pursuits such as diversity-equity, searching for imagined extremists in the ranks, and identity politics instead of merit-based combat readiness and unit cohesion, the current Air Force and Pentagon senior leadership must be vetted, corrected, or sent into retirement following a professional, impartial, timely evaluation. The clock is ticking before a real fight reveals very quickly that every DEI program and billet was terribly misguided and a waste of money that was needed for combat readiness.

To borrow the term of Marshall’s day, the senior officers complicit in such priorities and activities, are unfit. Whether it’s by a Schwalier-led plucking board or otherwise, they need to go.

Forrest L. Marion is a retired Department of the Air Force military historian. His most recent work is Standing Up Space Force: The Road to the Nation’s Sixth Armed Service (Naval Institute Press, 2023).

There are just two months before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, and Ukraine hawks are feeling the pressure. For them, apparently it’s time to flood Zelensky’s coffers with as much money as possible ahead of the possibility that Trump may cut off the tap, after having on the campaign trail called Zelensky “the greatest salesman on earth”.

“The Pentagon will send Ukraine at least $275 million in new weapons, US officials said Tuesday, as the Biden administration rushes to do as much as it can to help Kyiv fight back against Russia in the remaining two months before President-elect Donald Trump takes office,” The Associated Press reports Tuesday afternoon.

And alarmingly, the same report observes that “In rapid succession this week, President Joe Biden gave Ukraine the authority to fire longer-range missiles deeper into Russia and then Russian President Vladimir Putin formally lowered the threshold for using nuclear weapons.”

Contents or details of the new aid package have yet been made public, but there could be more missiles and equipment supporting the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), which was used by the Ukrainians Tuesday against Russian territory, marking a new escalation.

The geopolitical analysis blog Moon of Alabama has zeroed in on why US authorization for ATACMS attacks on Russian soil is such a big deal:

We do not know yet if the new authorized use for ATACMS munition on targets within Russia is only relevant for the cluster ammunition missile type or for high explosive ATACMS missiles with a reach of 300 kilometer.

However, the Russian President Vladimir Putin has correctly pointed out that ANY use of ATACMS requires the involvement of NATO (U.S/UK) assets for acquiring the targeting data and for planning and programming the missile’s mission.

Any use of ATACMS onto Russian proper is thus an act of war by NATO against the Russian Federation. The Russian response to such will be appropriate but may well surface in a theater far from Ukraine.

Indeed President Putin and Kremlin officials have echoed precisely this point of view of late, which is also why Putin signed into effect a new expansion of Russia’s nuclear doctrine.

According to the newly expanded doctrine, in the event Western powers assist another nation in a major attack on Russian soil, those same Western powers will also be held responsible. This can trigger Russian nuclear launch. But so far Russian officials have made it clear that they do not anticipate nuclear war.

Clearly the Kremlin is awaiting patiently the return of Donald Trump to the White House, hoping this will stop NATO’s steady escalation of involvement in the war on Ukraine’s behalf.

Meanwhile, with all that money for Ukraine floating around, and constant transfers of arms, this exchange is important to recall…

Stewart uses some bad language here, but consider for a moment her attitude. This is what elitism looks like. This is what people on on the left and right are upset about. Elites who laugh at millions of dollars being wasted, precisely because they can’t be found… pic.twitter.com/GnBeONkXDC

— Fr. George (@FrGeorgedeIdaho) November 19, 2024

Authored by Eric Lendrum via American Greatness,

An election judge in Minnesota is now facing serious criminal charges after he allowed multiple unregistered residents to cast votes anyway in the recent election.

As reported by Breitbart, Judge Timothy Michael Scouton was responsible for overseeing the election process in Badoura Township, a small town with a population of roughly 100 people.

Hubbard County Auditor Kay Rave filed a complaint after she determined that she could not find completed registration forms among the ballots she received from Scouton’s jurisdiction.

This complaint led to an investigation by the Hubbard County Sheriff’s Office.

Eventually, another judge who worked with Scouton on election night came forward and told police that Scouton explicitly ordered voters to not fill out the Minnesota Voter Registration Application.

A third judge said that Scouton simply told new voters to sign the back of a book rather than fill out any official forms.

At least 11 people voted illegally as a result of Scouton’s actions.

He was arrested last week and faces two felony charges: One count of accepting the vote of an unregistered vote, and one count of neglect of duty by an election official.

In a statement following the arrest, the Minnesota Secretary of State’s office issued a statement.

“These allegations are extremely serious and must be fully and thoroughly investigated,” the statement read.

“Election judges take an oath to administer elections in accordance with the law, a deliberate failure to do so is unlawful and a betrayal of the public trust.”

“Minnesota’s elections rely on the dedication and public service of 30,000 people and they are required to conduct their work fairly, impartially, and within the letter of the law,” the statement added.

“The Hubbard County Auditor took prompt and correct action in notifying local authorities of the uncovered discrepancies so they could investigate.”

Scouton had finished his basic election judge training in July of this year.

Adding to the complications of the case, it was revealed that Scouton’s son worked as an election judge on Election Night as well, and was responsible for registering applications.

No sooner did President Trump win the election in a landslide than national average gasoline prices are set to fall below the $3 per gallon mark heading into the holiday season in the U.S.

In fact, national average fuel prices have dropped to their lowest since January, nearing 2021 levels, with further declines likely as West Texas Intermediate crude hovers near its lowest since September, according to Yahoo Finance/Bloomberg.

The Yahoo Finance/Bloomberg article states that AAA predicts 71.7 million people will travel by car for Thanksgiving, the highest since before the pandemic. Gas prices, averaging $3.08 last week, could drop below $3 nationally, with drivers in some states east of the Rockies paying as little as $2.25 to $2.50 per gallon.

Patrick DeHaan, head of petroleum analysis at fuel tracker GasBuddy, told Yahoo/Bloomberg: “Things at the pump are starting to feel normal for most Americans.”

He added: “In some parts of the deep South, where gasoline taxes are low, we’re seeing gas prices that would be more equivalent of the nostalgia everyone has for the good times.”

“Refineries are struggling under weak crack spreads already, meaning that gasoline demand is anemic, and they’re having a hard time finding a home for all the gasoline they’re producing,” DeHaan concluded. 

Meanwhile Yahoo/Bloomberg notes gasoline demand rebounded above last year’s levels, with nationwide inventories dropping and U.S. refiners producing record amounts to counter a decline in imports. However, the brief Thanksgiving travel surge is unlikely to significantly boost refiners’ margins. 

Traffic congestion, unlike gas prices, will soar, with cities like Boston, New York, and Los Angeles experiencing more than double their usual traffic, according to INRIX.

And international travel is booming, with flight bookings up 23% and cruise bookings rising 20% compared to last year. Air travelers are also benefiting from lower costs, with international flight prices down 5%, according to AAA.

While the decline hasn’t been attributable to President Trump’s re-election just yet, Zero Hedge contributor Quoth the Raven predicted in a note on Monday morning column that Trump in office likely means less geopolitical volatility, and eventually, a continued tailwind for lower gas prices. 

Authored by Christopher Roach via American Greatness,

Though it has only been two weeks, it feels like a long time since Trump won the election, not least because of his rapid-fire release of cabinet nominations. The cabinet is important and demonstrates presidential priorities, as well as his judgment.

Trump’s cabinet so far matches the themes he expressed during the campaign. He is prioritizing immigration, dismantling the Deep State, and uprooting the “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)” racket. There is also a “national unity” aspect to his picks because of the inclusion of prominent former Democrat supporters like RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard.

So far, things are also running noticeably smoother than they did in 2016. There was a lot of preliminary planning and organization, and it shows.

The Outsider Cabinet

The biggest sign of significant change is the presence of outsiders. His first cabinet included many Bush-administration retreads, military men whom Trump overestimated, and business associates who had no apparent convictions. There was a lot of disloyalty, which magnified the endemic disloyalty of career civil servants.

Looking over Trump’s picks to date, Pete Hegseth seems tasked with prosecuting Trump’s war on “wokeism” within the military, but I am concerned about his lack of experience in managing large organizations. Affirmative action is a major problem in the military, but so too is the bloated procurement system. It needs to be fixed.

Hegseth seems to be a pure gut pick: Trump thought he sounded sharp on Fox News and was impressed with his military record, so now he wants to put him in charge. I hope he’ll rise to the occasion.

Matt Gaetz at the DOJ and Gabbard as the Director of National Intelligence head are there to wage war on the Deep State. Both have been personally affected. Gabbard will be good, as she’s obviously bright, has military experience, good foreign policy instincts, and is skeptical of the incumbent organizations.

As an intelligent critic of our interventionist foreign policy, the lying media naturally defames her as a Russian agent. But, after the false Russian collusion allegations against Trump, no one is really listening to this kind of nonsense anymore.

Gaetz has been a hardcore Trump supporter from the beginning, and he will be a major change agent if he can make it through the nomination process. Many at the DOJ are saying they’ll resign if he is appointed; this kind of internal “self-deportation” is a feature and not a bug of Trump’s election. It means Trump gets to hire more people, deal with fewer fifth columnists, and make more of a mark on these run-amok federal agencies.

RFK Jr. at Health and Human Services is the counterweight to the regulatory capture of the FDA and totalitarian instincts of the public health establishment. RFK Jr. has some peculiar and out-of-mainstream ideas. Alternative medicine is, in fact, full of false and dangerous fads, whether it is colloidal silver or using radio waves to diminish autism.

But these ideas are not much crazier than the mandatory masking, social distance rules, and experimental vaccine mandates during COVID. Most important, he appears to respect patient autonomy and recognizes the primary root of health lies not in medicine, but in a healthier lifestyle.

Even though South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem has been nominated to lead the Department of Homeland Security, long-time advisor Steven Miller and proposed immigration Tsar, Tom Homan, are the real capos for the deportation agenda. This seems to be a high priority for the administration.

These are tough, smart, and clear-eyed men who understand the issues well. They inspire confidence.

A Rejection of Managerialism

Each of these nominees is a living refutation of the dominant practices of managerial credentialism. For most of Washington, D.C., a very narrow sense of who is qualified for senior roles ends up doing a lot of work to affect substantive outcomes. This gatekeeping practice looks to credentials and conformity as keys to the realm. Who can forget chubby Alexander Vindman and his praise of the sacred “interagency process?”

Washington’s credentialism is more than a matter of having elite degrees. Critics have mocked Hegseth, even though he is a Princeton and Harvard graduate, reached the rank of major in the National Guard, and is a double Bronze Star winner and combat veteran. But he didn’t follow the usual path and is an unapologetic right-winger, so he is suspect.

Credentialism means one works through the ranks in the same way as everyone currently in authority so that the organization is always replicating itself. An aspirant must be part of the “blob,” wait his turn, learn the acceptable ways to think and talk, and quickly adopt new fads, such as listing pronouns in a LinkedIn bio.

This process yields conformist mediocrities and moral cowards. This includes everyone from the four-star generals who boldly retconned the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan into a success to the current heads of the State Department, CIA, FBI, and DOD. It would be very damaging to this system if outsiders figured out the jobs quickly and were able to achieve better results.

Above all, managerialism is an ideology that empowers credentialed technocrats. It has a strong aversion to anything natural, organic, or unregulated. This is at least one of the roots of the recent obsession with misinformation and disinformation. A raucous, sometimes-wrong, and completely unregulated “marketplace of ideas” is simply too threatening to the managerial class.

Such a freewheeling system risks exposing official lies, such as the outsider-led discovery that COVID was almost certainly a lab leak, which was covered up by lifelong bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci.

New Standards

If the legacy ruling class treated Trump’s first term as an aberration, they seem to understand that 2024 is different. While they seethe, they must also admit that the American people have rejected the left’s extreme social agenda. In response, some good election post-mortems have been written, and it looks like the more extreme manifestations of wokeism are already in retreat from corporate America and the universities.

Under Biden, the Democrats tried to mimic the right’s patriotism with their J6 narrative and defamatory lies about Russian collusion, but their love of country has always been ideological and conditional. This performative patriotism cannot be reconciled with their sustained criticism of America as “systemically racist.” This is why the mask slips so often, and they say things like Trump supporters are “garbage.”

The old system is exemplified by Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris: power-hungry people with only modest talents who worked their way up the ranks but proved incapable of improving anything of importance when given responsibility. They are a reminder that real talent doesn’t always climb through the ranks; it often skips over them or ignores them, sometimes creating whole new organizations.

Under Trump, instead of the “organization kid,” bold and revolutionary outsiders like Elon Musk are providing an alternate model for executive leadership.

Trump was supposed to hire a bunch of outsiders during his first term, and he even created a website to gather resumes from ordinary Americans out in flyover country. But the database and its thousands of resumes were lost, likely sabotaged. He ended up hiring insiders and opportunists provided to him by the RNC.

So far, it appears he has learned from this mistake.

Beauty, Standards, and Excellence

The Democratic Party is lately about ugliness and weirdness. It celebrates the deviant and normalizes it. This makes sense, as beauty, standards, and excellence are all related.

Trump’s team is healthy and attractive. Trump picked those whom he thinks are best for the job, often with diverse views and unorthodox paths to success. So far there is none of the “tokenism” that usually surrounds both Democratic and Republican administrations. He seems indifferent about whether his team “looks like America,” but—like his winning coalition—it will be more representative of the country as a whole than the multi-hued, ideological clones of the Biden administration.

Combined with Trump’s majority, the bold cabinet picks signal a real “vibe shift.” The moment has a revolutionary feel, much more than I expected. It is analogous to the French or, more recently, Reagan revolutions, where styles rapidly changed, along with policies and elites. Short hair and business suits were back in style during the 1980s, after a slacker, self-indulgent decade following the disorders of the 1960s.

If Trump’s support comes from those who are resentful of being ruled over by their inferiors, the left’s core consists of those who are absolutely loyal to this system that artificially elevates them to positions of power and prestige. They are loyal because they know, deep down, in any fair competition, they would lose. This is what is meant by the useful concept of “bioleninism.”

Thus, the Trump revolution is not merely a political one but a cultural and aesthetic one. Things are changing rapidly because the left has lost confidence. They can no longer claim to represent the majority or console themselves that the arc of history is bending toward their eventual triumph.

Long on nostalgia, the Make America Great Again concept is also forward-looking. This is because the greatness of America resides in its optimism, creativity, embrace of technological progress, and because the country has always welcomed and rewarded people of talent, regardless of their pedigree or background.

Even before he has taken the oath for a second time, Trump is exemplifying the MAGA spirit with his extraordinary cabinet of outsiders.

According to Gallup’s latest polling, support for a handgun ban has fallen to just 20 percent and support for an “assault weapons” ban has cratered to just 52 percent.

Gun bans were a constant call from both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris over the last four years.

President Biden often combined the call with dubious factual, legal, and historical arguments.

Jonathan Turley previously wrote about the failure of politicians to acknowledge the limits posed by the Second Amendment and controlling case law. While there are good-faith objections to how the Second Amendment has been interpreted, the current case law makes such bans very difficult to defend.

In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms.

Yet, the 2024 campaign showed a belated recognition that the Administration has failed to galvanize public opinion in support of gun limits and bans.

Harris came under fire during the campaign when she suddenly seemed to embrace one of the very guns that she previously vilified as it became clear that she was too far left from much of the country.

Years ago, Turley wrote that the rise in gun ownership in the United States, including among minority gun owners, was strikingly out of sync with the Democratic talking point.

In 2019, support for an assault weapons ban stood at 61%. It is now barely at a majority.

The drop in support for a handgun ban is notable in that only 33 percent of Democrats support such a ban.

The rise in gun ownership and the drop in polling raise another issue where Democratic candidates seem to be speaking to an increasingly empty room. The gun ownership rates are a problem for the party because most political issues do not involve a large personal investment by citizens. When someone becomes a gun owner, they spend hundreds of dollars on the weapon, ammunition, and other costs. The ban campaigns become more of a personal and financial issue for them.

Harris’s attempt to appeal to gun owners fell flat after years of calling for limits and bans.

The question is whether the party is ready to pivot on this and other issues — and whether it can given its political base.

That 33 percent is the core voting block in primaries even as the rest of the country moves toward the center of the political spectrum.

Authored by Kyle Anzalone via The Libertarian Institute,

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un delivered a fiery speech where he stressed the importance of accelerating the country’s nuclear weapons program in response to Western threats.  

In the address to the North Korean Army issued days ago, Kim said, “The United States has already converted its alliance with the [South Korea] into a nuclear-based one and created an ‘Asian NATO’ in haste by cementing its military ties with Japan and South Korea.”

The North Korean leader stressed that US nuclear deployments to the region, joint war games with South Korea and Japan, and building military blocs aimed at Pyongyang are all intolerable to North Korea. 

Kim stressed the increasing threat from Washington justified accelerating Pyongyang’s nuclear program. “Long ago, the line of building up our nuclear forces became an irreversible policy, so what remains to be done now is for these forces to get more fully ready for action so that they can carry out the mission of deterring war and the second mission at any moment.”

He continued, “We will build up our nation’s self-defense forces, the pivot of which is its nuclear capability, limitlessly and endlessly without satisfaction.”

In addition to discussing North Korea’s military tensions with the US, Kim also discussed Pyongyang’s position in what he has previously described as a “new Cold War.”

“As the US and other Western countries are using Ukraine as a shock force in the war against Russia, we should view it as a maneuver to enrich their real-war experience and expand the scope of military intervention all over the world.”

He added, “By sustaining their military assistance to Ukraine and Israel…This aggravates the international security situation, stoking fears of a third world war.”

The relationship between Washington and Pyongyang has soured during the Joe Biden administration. At the end of Donald Trump’s first term, North Korea and the US were engaged in some diplomacy, and Pyongyang was largely respecting its self-imposed missile test moratorium. 

Upon resuming the presidency in 2025, Donald Trump will face an emboldened leader in North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, who has not only expanded the country’s missile arsenal but also enjoys a much closer relationship with Russia https://t.co/CQypdjSqU6 pic.twitter.com/HMMWKbdT6u

— Reuters (@Reuters) November 7, 2024

However, Biden refused to engage with Kim while increasing the presence of the American military in South Korea. Combined with the administration’s efforts to bring South Korea and Japan into a military pact, Pyongyang views the Biden policy as highly aggressive. 

Kim responded by ramping up the missile tests, conducting war games near the DMZ, and strengthening Pyongyang’s ties with Moscow. 

On Tuesday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a rare surprise visit to the Gaza Strip, specifically to the area of the Netzarim Corridor, which runs through the center of the strip.

He was there to deliver a message, showing that Hamas does not and will not rule Gaza. He also issued a warning to those terrorists that are holding Israelis hostage, vowing that they’ll pay a heavy price.

He proclaimed that Israel Defense Forces troops in Gaza have “achieved excellent results toward our important goal — that Hamas will not rule in Gaza. We are destroying its military capabilities in a very impressive manner, and we are moving on to its ruling capabilities… Hamas will not be in Gaza.”

Israeli authorities have in recent months said that over 60 living hostages remain somewhere in Gaza, of the about 100 who were never returned.

Of these, Netanyahu said “we are not letting up” and that Israel “will continue to do so until we reach everyone — both the living and the dead.” He also at one point addressed “those who are holding our hostages,” saying that “whoever dares to harm our hostages — will bear the responsibility. We will pursue you and we will get you.”

He offered a reward of NIS 5 million (or just over $1.3 million) to anyone in Gaza who turns an Israeli captive over the Israel. It’s not the first time a monetary reward has been offered, but the money has been greatly increased with this announcement.

“I gave an order to increase the reward for those who bring information about the hostage – NIS 5 million for each hostage instead of NIS 1 million and safe passage for the informant and his family,” Netanyahu said.

The Jerusalem Post writes that “In his public comments, he stressed that Israel is willing to do small deals, by which captors would be given monetary rewards and free passage out of Gaza in exchange for releasing the hostages in their custody.”

The hope is that which such a large sum, families of Hamas members tasked with hosting and guarding hostages might come forward and free the hostages. Or else, individual Palestinians who might know where hostages are being kept might step forward with the information. It could also entice Hamas members to turn on their leadership.

Defense Minister Israel Katz, IDF chief Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi and Shin Bet head Ronen Bar, accompanied him during the brief tour of the central Gaza area.

“The choice is in your hands, but the result will be the same. We will bring everyone home,” Netanyahu said. During a Monday debate in the Knesset, he addressed the outrage by victims’ families over his handling of the hostage crisis. 

IDF forces fight in Notzirath, Gaza Strip pic.twitter.com/CD7WEKQEvy

— POV combat footage (@Zoma3mk) November 17, 2024

“Demonstrations by hostage families and civilian protesters inside and outside the Knesset during the debate underscored the turbulence surrounding the several dozen Israelis believed to still be alive in Gaza,” one report observed. “Multiple individuals were escorted out of the meeting due to outbursts and disruption.”